The URL can be used to link to this page

City of Ridgfield Comprehensive Plan 2016 DraftTABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 1.1 CITY OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 VISION............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 PLAN OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................................................................2 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 LOCAL AND STATE PLANS AND LAWS.................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE............................................................................................................................ 3 2. LAND USE......................................................................................................................................9 2.1 RIDGEFIELD'S LAND USE........................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.1 A Balanced Community....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Ridgefield Urban Growth Area (RUGA)......................................................................................................11 2.2.3 Community Design........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.2.4 Land Use Designations.................................................................................................................................. 14 SpecialOverlay Districts......................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 LAND USE POLICIES................................................................................................................................................. 15 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION...........................................................................................................21 3.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................21 3.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................22 3.3 POLICIES....................................................................................................................................................................23 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................27 4.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................27 4.1.1 Regional Conditions....................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.2 Local Conditions..............................................................................................................................................28 4.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................30 4.2.1 Employment Capacity...................................................................................................................................31 4.2.2 Balanced Job Growth.................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2.3 Healthy Downtown........................................................................................................................................31 4.2.4 Regional Employment Center..................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.5 Partnerships.....................................................................................................................................................32 4.2.6 Complementary Subarea Development..................................................................................................32 4.3 POLICIES..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 5. HOUSING.....................................................................................................................................37 5.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................37 5.1.1 Population & Housing Growth.....................................................................................................................37 5.1.2 Household Characteristics............................................................................................................................37 5.1.3 Housing Stock..................................................................................................................................................37 5.1.4 Housing Affordability.....................................................................................................................................38 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate i 5.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................39 5.3 HOUSING POLICIES..................................................................................................................................................40 6. ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................45 6.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................45 6.1.1 The Land...........................................................................................................................................................45 6.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat...............................................................................................................................45 6.1.3 Water Quality....................................................................................................................................................46 6.1.4 Air Quality..........................................................................................................................................................46 6.1.5 Hazard Areas.....................................................................................................................................................47 6.1.6 Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge...........................................................................................................47 6.1.7 State and Federal Environmental Regulations.......................................................................................47 6.1.8 Local Environmental Regulations...............................................................................................................48 6.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................48 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES......................................................................................................................53 7.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................ 53 7.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................53 7.3 POLICIES......................................................................................................................................................................54 7.4 WATER RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................................55 7.4.1 Current Conditions.......................................................................................................................................... 55 7.4.2 Fire Flows...........................................................................................................................................................56 7.4.3 Direction for the Future................................................................................................................................ 56 7.4.4 Policies...............................................................................................................................................................58 7.5 SANITARY SEWER...................................................................................................................................................... 59 7.5.1 Current Conditions..........................................................................................................................................59 7.5.2 Direction for the Future............................................................................................................................... 59 7.5.3 Policies...............................................................................................................................................................60 7.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................................................60 7.6.1 Current Conditions..........................................................................................................................................60 7.6.2 Direction for the Future................................................................................................................................62 7.6.3 Policies...............................................................................................................................................................62 7.7 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES..........................................................................................................................63 7.7.1 Current Conditions..........................................................................................................................................63 7.7.2 Direction for the Future.................................................................................................................................63 7.7.3 Policies................................................................................................................................................................63 7.8 LAW ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................................................................63 7.8.1 Current Conditions..........................................................................................................................................63 7.8.2 Direction for the Future................................................................................................................................64 7.8.3 Policy..................................................................................................................................................................64 7.9 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND SERVICES............................................................................................................64 7.9.1 Current Conditions..........................................................................................................................................64 ii City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 7.9.2 Direction for the Future.................................................................................................................................65 7.9.3 Policy..................................................................................................................................................................65 7.10 EDUCATION..............................................................................................................................................................66 7.10.1 Current Conditions........................................................................................................................................66 7.10.2 Direction for the Future...............................................................................................................................66 76 7.10.3 Policies............................................................................................................................................................. 67 7.11 LIBRARY SERVICES...................................................................................................................................................68 76 7.11.1 Current Conditions........................................................................................................................................68 7.11.2 Direction for the Future...............................................................................................................................68 7.11.3 Policy.................................................................................................................................................................68 7.12 PRIVATE UTILITIES...................................................................................................................................................68 7.12.1 Electricity........................................................................................................................................................68 7.12.2 Natural Gas.....................................................................................................................................................69 7.12.3 Telecommunications...................................................................................................................................69 7.12.4 Policy.................................................................................................................................................................69 7.13 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES..............................................................................................................................69 7.13.1 Current Conditions........................................................................................................................................69 7.13.2 Direction for the Future............................................................................................................................... 70 7.13.3 Policies....................................................................................................................................................................70 8. TRANSPORTATION...................................................................................................................... 73 8.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................73 8.1.1 Roadway Functional Classification.............................................................................................................73 8.1.2 Roadway Inventory......................................................................................................................................... 76 8.1.3 Traffic Capacity................................................................................................................................................ 76 8.1.4 Level of Service Standards............................................................................................................................ 76 8.1.5 Collision History...............................................................................................................................................76 8.1.6 Transit.................................................................................................................................................................78 8.1.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................................78 8.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................80 8.2.1 Land Use/Transportation Linkage.............................................................................................................80 8.2.2 Required Transportation Facilities.............................................................................................................82 8.2.3 Commute Trip Reduction............................................................................................................................82 8.2.4 Capital Cost and Projected Revenue.........................................................................................................83 8.2.5 Complete Streets............................................................................................................................................83 8.3 KEY CHANGES FROM THE 2010 TRANSPORTATION PLAN.............................................................................83 8.4 POLICIES......................................................................................................................................................................85 9. PARKS AND RECREATION...........................................................................................................91 9.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................91 9.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................................................ 91 9.3 POLICIES......................................................................................................................................................................91 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate iii 10. ANNEXATION...............................................................................................................................99 10.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................99 10.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE..............................................................................................................................99 10.3 ANNEXATION POLICIES........................................................................................................................................99 11. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.............................................................................................................103 11.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................................103 11.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE............................................................................................................................103 11.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICIES......................................................................................................................104 KEYTERMS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................................105 w iv City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate LIST OF FIGURES Figure1-1. Vicinity Map............................................................................... 15 Figure 2-1. Historical and projected population growth ..................................... 21 Figure 2-2. Comprehensive Plan Map............................................................. 22 Figure2-2. Zoning Map............................................................................... 23 Figure 4-1. Inflow and Outflow of Workers in Clark County and Ridgefield ........... 37 Figure 4-2. Ridgefield Jobs by Sector............................................................. 39 Figure 4-3. Employment Sectors for Ridgefield Residents ................................. 39 Figure 7-1. Proposed Water Distribution System .............................................. 67 Figure 7-2. Proposed Wastewater Collection System ........................................ 71 Figure 8-1. Existing Functional Classifications................................................. 85 Figure 8-2. Existing Roadway Characteristics.................................................. 87 Figure 8-3. Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit System ............................. 89 Figure 8-4. Proposed Roadway Functional Classifications .................................. 91 Figure 8-5. Planned Transportation Projects ................................................... 94 Figure 9-1. Ridgefield Existing Parks and Trails ..............................................103 Figure 9-2. Ridgefield Proposed Park System Plan Map ................................... 104 Figure 9-3. Ridgefield Proposed Trail System Plan Map ....................................105 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Ridgefield Urban Growth Area Development Capacity ........................ 10 Table 2-2. Ridgefield Urban Growth Area Land Consumption by Use, 2016........... 11 Table 3-1. Designated & Potential Historic Resources ....................................... 22 Table 4-1. Primary employment sectors and leading employers in Clark County ... 27 Table 4-2. Place of home and work for Ridgefield residents and employees.......... 28 Table 4-3. Top Employers in Ridgefield........................................................... 28 Table 4-4. Distribution of earnings for workers, based on job location ................ 30 Table 4-5. Distribution of earnings for workers living in Ridgefield ...................... 30 Table 4-6. Land Capacity for Employment Growth ........................................... 30 Table 4-7. Existing and Projected Jobs to Household Ratios ............................... 30 Table 4-8. Employer Recruitment Relative to Current Ridgefield Presence ........... 31 Table 5-1. Annual Population Growth & Building Permit Issuance ........................ 37 Table 5-2. Ridgefield Household Characteristics .............................................. 38 Table 5-3. Housing Stock in Ridgefield, 1990 to present ................................... 38 Table 5-4. Median Home Prices in Clark County ............................................... 39 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate v Table 5-5. Monthly housing costs as percentage of household income ................. 39 Table 5-6. UGA Residential Capacity.............................................................. 40 Table 6-1. Selected Federal and State Species of Concern ................................ 47 Table 7-1. Ridgefield Facilities/Service Providers ............................................. 54 Table 7-2. Existing Water System Facilities (2015) ........................................... 56 Table 7-3. Summary of Ridgefield Water Service Capital Facilities Plans for2016 - 2020................................................................................... 58 Table 7-4. Ridgefield School District Instructional Facilities ............................... 67 Table 7-5. Support Facilities......................................................................... 67 Table 8-1. Arterial and Collector Roadways ..................................................... 74 Table 8-2. Level -of -service (LOS) Categories .................................................. 78 Table 8-3. Selected Intersection LOS Summary (PM Peak) ................................ 78 Table 8-4. Collision Summary....................................................................... 78 Table 8-5. Growth Forecasts for Year 2024 and Year 2035 ................................. 82 Table 9-1. Ridgefield Existing Parks, Trails and Open Space ............................... 92 6 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 CITY OVERVIEW Ridgefield's origins can be traced back more than 1,000 years to early Native American settlements that prospered in the area now designated as the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. The area had important ties to the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804-1806. After the Civil War, this area was known as Union Ridge and grew rapidly through the second half of the nineteenth century as a trading center. The town of Ridgefield was incorporated in 1909. The area was historically known for its agricultural heritage, reflected today in the Ridgefield High School's spudder mascot. Located 10 miles north of Vancouver, Washington and 20 miles north of Portland, Oregon, Ridgefield has easy access to metropolitan amenities yet enough distance to maintain a small-town atmosphere (Figure 1-1). A direct connection to Interstate 5 provides the city the opportunity to grow. The adjacent Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, Lake River along the City's western boundary, numerous creeks throughout the city, and pastoral, rolling hills create a distinct natural character. The city historically grew around Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, today's downtown on the western edge of the city. Growth in the past 20 years has radiated outwards from downtown, spreading south along Hillhurst Road, north of Abrams Park, east along Pioneer Street centered at 45th Avenue, and an industrial and commercial node at Pioneer Street and Interstate 5. The city has grown from 0.65 square miles in 1979 to 7.18 square miles today in 2016. Ridgefield is the fastest growing city per capita in the state of Washington, with a 2015 population of 6,400 relative to 1,297 residents in 1990. 1.2 VISION The Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2016-2035 (RUACP) is guided by a vision for how Ridgefield and the surrounding area will grow and develop during the next 20 years. This vision is best described by five principles: Regional Employment Center The first principle of the RUACP is that Ridgefield will become a regional employment center for Clark County and Southwest Washington. Rather than become a "bedroom community," Ridgefield will continue to build a robust economy that provides a wealth of living -wage employment opportunities for residents. Development of the Pioneer Street subarea around Interstate 5 will play an important role in achieving this goal, attracting employers who provide additional high- qualityjobs. The Discovery Corridor (see the Economic Development section) will also play an important role in developing Ridgefield as a regional employment center. The City's Capital Facilities Plans for sanitary sewer, water and transportation reflect the community's desire to provide urban services to support economic development and long-term stability. Quality Neighborhoods The second principle of the RUACP is maintenance of Ridgefield's quality residential neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods which reflect these qualities. Desirable pedestrian environments and connectivity, access to schools and parks, and high- quality design are neighborhood characteristics that the City seeks to enhance. The City's Development Code will require adherence to performance standards while allowing the design flexibility necessary for a variety of high-quality neighborhoods; cul-de-sacs, gated communities, homogenous subdivision layout, and repetitive home designs will be discouraged and avoided. The RUACP recognizes that Ridgefield has an obligation to provide housing opportunities for all its citizens, by promoting well-designed multifamily development along transit corridors, in the downtown area and throughout the city. Complete Community The third principle of the RUACP is provision for distinct commercial and mixed-use nodes that provide complementary services for residents to live, work, shop and play in a complete community. Ridgefield's downtown will remain the traditional town center providing a vibrant mix of retail and service opportunities in a historic setting and bolstered by community events. The Port of Ridgefield's waterfront development will bring employment and commercial uses to a unique, environmentally City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 1 reclaimed site along Lake River. The 45th & Pioneer and Junction subareas will further develop as nodes for commercial and employment uses to serve surrounding neighborhoods. High-quality design and thoughtful mix of uses that create a sense of place will be required by the City's Development Code. Each node will develop its own character to complement other nodes rather than compete. A multimodal transportation system, including a trail network, will provide circulation within subareas and connections to adjacent neighborhoods. Protection of Critical Areas The fourth principle of the RUACP is the protection of critical environmental resource areas as the city develops. The diverse topography and abundance of natural amenities are important aspects of Ridgefield's community identity and play an important role in attracting economic growth. The RUACP recognizes the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge as both an economic and an aesthetic asset, which is directly affected by development along Ridgefield's streams and canyons. Conscientious promotion and management of these assets will help Ridgefield maintain its character. Managed Growth The fifth principle of the RUACP is careful management of growth. This principle recognizes that the City is the logical provider of key urban services, and that development shall assist in the necessary plan review and infrastructure development costs. Ridgefield has adopted a "pay as you go" philosophy to ensure that urban -level services are provided concurrently with new development. Ridgefield is committed to providing sewer, water, transportation and storm drainage services throughout its urban area. As annexation occurs and existing development is brought into the City, services must be provided in a timely manner. Annexation to the City must be assured as a condition of connecting to City services. The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) includes detailed programs explaining how growth is supported and paid for. 2 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 1.3 PLAN OVERVIEW This document, the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2016-2035 (RUACP), outlines the City's vision for accommodating expected growth through 2035. The 2016 RUACP builds upon the City's previous Comprehensive Plan approved on December 16, 2004 and August 14, 2008, with subsequent minor updates through 2014. This update provides for an urban growth area sized to accommodate a projected population of 26,356 residents by 2035, with adequate residential and employment land. The plan also adopts capital facilities plan elements to provide infrastructure to support planned growth. A significant addition to the 2016 plan is development of two subarea plans for the 45th & Pioneer subarea and the 1-5 Junction subarea. The jurisdiction of the RUACP includes the land within Ridgefield's city limits as well as unincorporated areas within the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area (RUGA). These unincorporated areas are anticipated to be annexed by the City during the 20 -year planning period and will be subject to the Comprehensive Plan if and when this annexation occurs. This plan is intended to enhance community livability, coordinate development, and to smooth the transition of services between the incorporated and unincorporated urban areas as annexation occurs. 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The RUACP was developed with extensive help from the public and can only be implemented with continued support from the community. The City will continue to work with citizens, stakeholder groups and other government agencies to ensure this plan represents the community's priorities and vision. Six open houses were held during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan development process to provide an opportunity for City staff to discuss the RUACP with the public, including three specific to the proposed subarea plans. Staff provided an overview of proposed City vision, population projections, proposed land use maps, subarea plans, and capital facilities plans. In turn, interested citizens provided valuable opinions and advice that were incorporated into the RUACP. The Ridgefield Planning Commission conducted 12 public hearings from summer 2015 to winter 2016. In addition, the Ridgefield City Council held multiple work sessions and six public hearings prior to adoption of the 2016 plan. Public testimony on individual plan elements during early public hearings was recorded and incorporated into development of the draft plan. Public input during the adoption process was considered as the Council deliberated and voted to adopt the RUACP. 1.5 LOCAL AND STATE PLANS AND LAWS Growth Management Act (GMA) The Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the requirements of the GMA, adopted in 1990 and since amended. The GMA requires counties and cities meeting certain population and growth criteria to adopt and maintain Comprehensive Plans. Among other requirements, plans must ensure that projected growth in urban areas be accommodated through a range of urban densities, that capital facilities keep pace with the growth, and that critical environmental areas be protected. Community Framework Plan The Community Framework Plan, adopted by Clark County and its cities in 1993, updated in 2000 and 2001, and readopted in 2004 and 2007 provides guidance to local jurisdictions on regional land use and service issues. The Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the concepts put forward in the Community Framework Plan: that development will occur at varying densities throughout the region, and that more intensive development will occur at various centers or nodes. Ridgefield Development Code Under state law, the direction set by Ridgefield's Comprehensive Plan must be implemented in related City standards contained in the Ridgefield Municipal Code. Title 18 of the Ridgefield Municipal Code contains the Ridgefield Development Code, and is periodically amended to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.6 PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE The following plans are adopted with this Comprehensive Plan, by reference: Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plan, including specific plans for - transportation, including supporting elements for o Multimodal Plan o Downtown Circulation Plan - sewer service - water provision - parks and recreation - general facilities • Ridgefield Pioneer & 45th Subarea Plan Ridgefield Junction Subarea Plan • Stormwater Management Comprehensive Plan • Ridgefield Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan • Clark County Community Framework Plan • Fort Vancouver Regional Library System Plan • Fire District 12 Capital Facilities Plan • Metropolitan Transportation Plan • Port of Ridgefield Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements • Ridgefield School District Capital Facilities Plan • Clark Regional Wastewater District General Sewer Plan City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT (ompre hens ive Plan Upate 3 CL R 3C c z; LL' o U C tt O E n` 1 m _- B U a m a $ Q� 3 f 1 W w w E w 1 I o N C _ - n 1 _ 1 f 1�- 1 ------ as 1-' 1 / 1 LAND USE I 2. LAND USE 2.1 RIDGEFIELD'S LAND USE Ridgefield is a rapidly growing city in north Clark County, with a long history that exemplifies the historical development pattern for many small communities in the Pacific Northwest. Early settlers built a vibrant agricultural and forestry -based economy, followed by growth in the industrial and shipping sectors with the creation of the Interstate 5 junction and the expansion of the Port of Ridgefield. Ridgefield has also been discovered as a desirable residential community for families who participate in the broader regional economy. Historically and currently, State Route 501, also known as Pioneer Street, has acted as the primary transportation corridor connecting downtown and the Interstate 5 junction. Land uses that have developed along the corridor reflect the developing local economy: Pioneer Street is anchored on the western end by its historic downtown, and on the eastern end by a growing industrial park and other employment uses. The downtown includes a mix of residential, commercial and public uses such as City Hall, the library and schools. Waterfront industrial uses along Lake River adjacent to downtown have been discontinued, and the brownfield sites are poised for redevelopment. The area near the Interstate 5/Pioneer Street junction, known as the Ridgefield Junction, has experienced and is planned for significant commercial and industrial development. Current land uses are predominately industrial, with a focus on warehousing and distribution centers that were drawn by Ridgefield's connections to Interstate 5 and trade networks up and down the West Coast. The Ridgefield Junction also includes supporting commercial uses. Residential land use is clustered along Pioneer Street between downtown and the Junction, along 45th Avenue running north -south, and along Hillhurst Road south of downtown. The oldest neighborhoods are located in downtown, extending north along Main Avenue. There is a unique community of approximately 50 floating homes along Lake River. The majority of residential development, has been focused in subdivisions built since 2000 to the east and south of downtown, primarily along Pioneer Street and Hillhurst Road. Residential development slowed briefly during the Great Recession beginning in 2008, but development has since picked up and is expanding outward from existing development, particularly with new homes north of Pioneer Street on N. 45th Avenue. Almost all residential development has been single-family detached or attached development at 4 to 8 units per net acre. Environmental features have also shaped the development patterns in Ridgefield. Lake River limits expansion to the west. Abrams Park, to the north and east of downtown, has historically contained development, with subsequent development leapfrogging over the park and Gee Creek, which bisects the park. Gee Creek runs diagonally across the city, from the northwest quadrant in a southeasterly development. Development along Hillhurst Road has expanded eastward to the creek, but there has been little development to date on the east side of the creek. The Ridgefield Urban Growth Area includes significant undeveloped or underdeveloped acreage at present. The land is expected to develop during the 20 -year planning horizon to accommodate the projected 2035 population of 26,356 persons and 8,708 jobs, as shown in Table 2-1. Land use by designation is sufficient to accommodate the projected development, as shown in Table 2-1. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 9 so 2.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE Ridgefield is planning for residential and employment growth over the 20 -year planning period to create a complete community. Ridgefield's population is anticipated to grow from approximately 6,937 people in 2016 to over 26,356 people in 2035, with a full range of commercial, employment, and public services to serve the population. Ridgefield has been the fastest growing community per capita in Washington for the past several years, and this rate of growth is anticipated to continue over the planning period. 2.2.1 A Balanced Community The City of Ridgefield will guide development within the UGA to improve the balance of residential, commercial, employment, and public land uses. As Ridgefield is transformed from a small city to a mid-sized city, a complete community will begin Residential Urban Low Density Residential Urban Medium/ High Density Residential Mixed Use to take shape that affords a diversity of residential and non-residential options strategically located throughout the community, with centralized nodes of activity. The Land Use element provides for adequate residential and employment land to accomplish this strategy in tandem with the policies identified in the Housing and Economic Development elements. This development strategy will result in a strengthened community identity, a greater "sense of place," improved economic opportunities, increased park and school options, an expanded tax base, and opportunities to reduce the per capita demand for automobile travel. Ridgefield will also pursue development of a mix of housing products, including multifamily and single-family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map shows the locations and intensities of planned land uses within the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-3). The City of Ridgefield provides flexible zoning Table 2-1. Ridgefield Urban Growth Area Development Capacity 2035 Target' UGA Capacity, Development UGA Capacity, Deficit/ Surplus Net AcreS2 Potential, Housing Housing Units/Jobs Units/Jobs' 7,300.4 net 7,526.4 housing +226 housing housing units units units 878.6 6 units/net acre 5,271.6 178.0 12 units/net acre 2,136.0 13.6 8 units/acre 108.8 Employment 8,708 10,419.2 jobs +1,711.2 jobs netjobs Commercial 300.4 20 jobs/net acre 6,008.0 Industrial/Office 470.1 9 jobs net/acre 4,231.2 Mixed Use 9.0 20 jobs/net acre 180.0 ' Net housing units calculated at 2.66 persons per household for net population of 19,419 residents, derived from 26,356 total residents projected by Clark County Community Planning less Office of Financial Management April 1, 2015 population estimate of 6,400 less new residents April 1 to December 31, 2015, estimated at 2.66 persons per new building permit issued for the period. Employment projection from Clark County Community Planning. ' From Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model, including capacity at Port of Ridgefield lands. ' Residential densities based on average of minimum and maximum density allowed in applicable Ridgefield zones. Employment density based on Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model. Source: Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model, Clark County Issue Paper 4.2 10 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate Figure 2-1. Historical and projected population growth 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2025 2035 regulations for a range of quality development. The Comprehensive Plan designations dictate the basic land uses and intensities. The zoning districts, which typically provide very specific regulations to regulate development, will also consider the impacts and forms of development. This will allow for individual neighborhoods to develop a unique sense of place. Commercial development will be differentiated in downtown compared to the waterfront, compared to the Ridgefield Junction. The adopted subarea plans for downtown, 45th & Pioneer, and the Junction will guide development of these distinct nodes. Likewise residential development will be differentiated to provide a Table 2-2. RI range of products at densities Land use and styles that meet the needs of each neighborhood. Rid 2.2.2 Ridgefield Urban Growth Area (RUGA) One of the main tools for managing growth under Washington's Growth Management Act is establishing an Urban Growth Area. Land outside Ridgefield's UGA is rural or resource land. Land inside the RUGA is reserved for urban uses, based on the need for housing, employment, public facilities and open space over a twenty (20-) year period. Ridgefield's intent is to provide urban services and annex land within the UGA in concert with its ability to provide these services. Table 2-2 shows the acreage dedicated to different land uses in the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area. This data is based on Comprehensive Plan designations. The actual development pattern will differ. For example, neighborhood commercial uses are allowed under certain circumstance in residential areas. Urban Growth Area Land Consumption by Use, 2016 Total Acres Acres vacant and designated (gross) underutilized (gross) Urban Low Density Residential Urban Medium/High Density Residential Commercial Mixed Use Office/Industrial Parks/Open Space Public Facilities Water Total 545.5 365.9 559.4 448.5 75.3 36.1 1360.1 887.8 376.9 n/a 164.1 n/a 124.9 n/a 6268.8 3,861.2 Source: Clark County GIS (for mixed Urban Downs proposal, including Port properties) City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 11 N M N d Y _m LL V 2.2.3 Community Design Good community design is an important element in creating high quality and livable neighborhoods. Most homebuyers are attracted not only to their personal dwelling, but to the character of the street, neighborhood, and community in which it is located. The main ingredients of good design include development that is acceptable to public perception and comprehension in terms of the size, height, bulk, and/or massing of buildings or other features of the built environment. Further, new subdivisions will be designed to provide attractive areas for pedestrians. Design elements that contribute to a sense of place include structures which are built nearer to the street, front porches, landscaping, convenient walkways, narrower streets, and parking on the street and behind the structures. The City of Ridgefield will continue to explore opportunities for improving and enhancing community design through development regulations and encouraging site master planning that incorporates the design elements identified above. Ridgefield will work to maintain and improve the quality of existing residential neighborhoods, while encouraging the development of new residential neighborhoods that have distinctive and individual character. The RUACP acknowledges that walkability is a vital component of livable neighborhoods. As such, amenities such as connectivity, sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities that provide convenient access to schools, grocery stores and parks are encouraged. Flexible development regulations will allow developers to integrate these features into new and existing neighborhoods. Allowing construction of the "corner market" within neighborhoods will foster healthy, connected communities and decrease reliance land use impacts, not the uses themselves. Form - based zoning, like the principles outlined in the 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield" developed by UrbsWorks Inc., is closely related to performance zoning but focuses primarily on design and physical form. The zoning regulations will guide the development of the built environment in Ridgefield, so that new development helps to frame public spaces, fit into the existing communities, and form distinct neighborhoods. 2.2.4 Land Use Designations Within the UGA, land will be classified according to the following land use designations and overlays, to implement the RUACP planning priorities and provide adequate land for projected residential and employment growth. See Figure 2.2 for the Comprehensive Plan Map. The plan designations will be implemented by the corresponding zones listed in Table 2.3 and mapped in Figure 2.3, Zoning Map. The designations and overlays are intended to achieve the following objectives: Urban Low Density Residential Provide predominately single family, detached residential opportunities at densities between 4 and 8 units per net acre. Urban Medium Density Residential Provide for a mix of residential opportunities at higher densities, including a variety of housing types. City Center (C) Protect and enhance the small-scale, compact and mixed character of the City's older central core. General Commercial (GC) on motorized transportation to access commercial services. Increasing connectivity and allowing Provide for business and commercial activities alternative modes of transportation should be viewed to meet local and regional demand. as both a transportation issue and an important Neighborhood Commercial (NC) factor for positive community development. Create opportunities for low -intensity Shopping and employment centers in Ridgefield will be developed under an hybrid zoning code that incorporates elements of form -based and performance-based zoning. Performance-based zoning sets standards for impacts of land uses such as noise, vibration, air pollution, post -development stormwater runoff, and solar access. It focuses on 14 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate business and service uses to serve proximate residential neighborhoods. Mixed Use Facilitate a mix of residential and commercial uses to create compact development patterns. Employment (EP) Provide for industrial and and office uses serving regional market areas that create significant regional employment opportunities Public Facilities (PF) Provide for essential public uses such as education, medical and infrastructure facilities necessary to serve City or regional residents. Park/Open Space(P/OS) Preserve open land for recreational use and environmental protection. Special Overlay Districts Lake River View Protection (LRVP) Preserve and capitalize upon the views from the downtown heights over the waterfront area and onto the wildlife refuge. Urban Holding (UH -10) Limit development until the area can be adequately served by public infrastructure. Employment Mixed Use Overlay (EMUO) Provide for a mix of compatible light industrial, service, office, retail and residential uses. Pioneer Mixed Use Overlay (PMUO) Provide for an interconnected mix of residential, commercial, and office uses to implement the 45th and Pioneer Subarea Plan. 2.3 LAND USE POLICIES LU -1 Citywide land supplies Establish land supplies and density allowances that are sufficient but not excessive to accommodate adopted long-term City of Ridgefield population, public facilities and employment forecast allocations. LU -2 Efficient development patterns Encourage efficient development throughout Ridgefield. Encourage higher density and more intense development in areas that are more extensively served by facilities, particularly by public schools, transportation and transit services. LU -3 Infill and redevelopment Where compatible with surrounding uses, efficiently use urban land by facilitating infill of smaller undeveloped properties, and redevelopment of existing developed properties. Allow for conversion of existing structures to more intensive uses when appropriate in the zoning district and where designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. LU -4 Compatible uses Facilitate development that minimizes adverse impacts to adjacent areas. LU -S Complementary uses Locate complementary land uses near to one another to maximize opportunities for people to work or shop or play nearer to where they live. LU -6 Mixed-use development Facilitate development that combines multiple uses in single buildings or integrated sites. Target areas for mixed use development include the Lake River waterfront and the central city core. LU -7 Neighborhood livability Maintain and facilitate development of stable, multi -use neighborhoods that contain a compatible mix of housing, jobs, stores, public schools and open and public spaces in a well- planned, safe pedestrian environment. LU -8 Subdivision design Facilitate development and implement design standards to address the following in new residential developments: • Increased visual interest, architectural differentiation, orientation towards street, and integration with adjacent buildings. • Improved pedestrian connections and proximity of uses within developments. • Enhanced sense of identity in neighborhoods. • Integration of parks, trails and open spaces within developments. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 15 LU -9 Human scale and accessible development Require commercial development that is human scale and encourages interaction. Elements of human scale include pedestrian access, street front commercial activity, low to mid-range building elevation, and architectural variety at the street level LU -10 Commercial development Provide incentives and establish regulations that facilitate a range of commercial uses in downtown, the Lake River waterfront, along the Pioneer Street corridor, at the Interstate S interchange, and in limited neighborhood settings. Encourage a range of commercial services that meet the needs of residents in the city and across the region. Regulate development to ensure the appropriate mix of uses and scale of development in each distinct commercial area based on surrounding land uses, development potential, and existing scale of development. of the Interstate S interchange. Regulate industrial development to maximize job creation potential while minimizing impacts on adjacent land users. LU -12 Site planning and design Facilitate commercial and industrial development by implementing the following design standards for new and redeveloped sites: • Increase architectural interest and variety while providing a unified treatment of the site. • Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and bus access, amenities, and connections within the site. • Minimize visual and functional dominance of vehicle uses. • Incorporate landscaping, LID techniques, and green building practices to minimize environmental impacts. LU -11 Industrial development • Provide master planning process for large Promote light industrial development in the vicinity developments to promote unified development. Table 2-3. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zones Plan Designation Urban Low Density Residential (UL) Urban Medium Density Residential (UM) City Center (C) General Commercial (GC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Mixed Use (MU) Employment (EM) Public Facilities (PF) Park/Open Space (P/OS) Special Overlay Districts Lake River View Protection (LRVP) Zoning Residential Low Density (RLD-4, RLD-6, RLD-8) Residential Medium Density (RMD-16) Central Mixed Use (CMU) Community Business (CCB) Regional Business (CRB) Junction Mixed Use (JMU) Neighborhood Business (CNB) Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) Waterfront Low Scale (WLS) Office (OFF) Industrial (IND) Industrial Mixed (IM) Employment (EMP) Public Facilities (PF) Public Park/Open Space (P/OS) same Urban Holding (UH -10) same Employment Mixed Use Overlay (EMUO) same Pioneer Mixed Use Overlay (PMUO) same 16 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate LU -73 Downtown design Ensure that the existing strengths of Downtown Ridgefield are maintained by: • Maintaining the comfortable, "Main Street" feeling which includes pedestrian scale, ground floor commercial uses, a flexible approach towards intermingling of residential and small scale commercial and office uses • Promoting special events, public spaces and a mix of uses downtown that increase utilization • Supporting environmental remediation of brownfield sites to expand land supply • Encourage pedestrian, bicycle and bus access throughout the downtown and waterfront areas LU -14 Waterfront development Develop a vibrant waterfront district along Lake River that maximizes opportunity of a former brownfield site by: • Promoting mix of uses including commercial, office, recreational, and residential. • Orientating buildings toward the Lake River shoreline. • Requiring high quality architectural and site design. • Encourage pedestrian, bicycle and bus access throughout the downtown and waterfront areas. LU -75 Downtown transition Permit limited commercial activity in a transition zone surrounding the existing downtown core to take advantage of central location. Facilitate future expansion of downtown into the transition zone and expansion of the transition zone as warranted. LU -76 Districts Form neighborhood districts to help guide development of unique and distinctive neighborhoods. Development in districts would reflect their topographic, historical, economic, and natural features. Districts may be formed to relate to key amenities, such as parks, natural resources, schools, or commercial activities. LU -17 Development code Adopt clear and objective zoning, environmental and land division standards and regulations that ensure development consistent with the goals and policies of this plan. City, County and special district regulations shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the provisions of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive land use designations and implementing zoning districts are listed in Table 2-3. Amend development code on a regular basis to ensure it reflects evolving city priorities and development trends. LU -78 Land use reassessment Assure consistency of overall land use and capital facilities plans by reevaluating Ridgefield's land use plan when necessary to ensure adequate funding to provide necessary public facilities and services to implement the plan. LU -79 Property rights Ensure that property owners within the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area (RUGA) enjoy the right to use their property in ways consistent with public policy. City land use decisions shall not deny an owner of all reasonable investment backed expectations in their property resulting in an unconstitutional 'taking' of private property for public use. Critical areas regulations shall ensure an owner of a reasonable use of their property. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 17 + ",.-`�•'.`� , •• ,tom" - - It .. �- - .;�'•. - �.- a !'.�� , �_. i:`•`t s-,� lie / it _ # { ' `^ _� _ �• '�, f,� r w * a y _ tom_. "E• . , I � �.. Ajf. _ - 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION 3.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Historic and cultural resources in Ridgefield are rooted in a rich and colorful history that dates back thousands of years. The historical record of the county includes the formation of the region's unique landscape, settlement of the region by Native American groups, exploration by European nations, location as headquarters for the Hudson's Bay Company Columbia District trade networks, destination for thousands who took the Oregon Trail, and location as an industrial center (first for pulp and paper, then aluminum and shipbuilding, and now high-tech industries). Inhabited by native peoples for centuries, the Ridgefield area was settled by Euroamerican families in the middle 1800s. After the Civil War, the area built up rapidly, and became known as Union Ridge. The post office was established in September of 1865 in the home and small trading post of the first postmaster, Asa Richardson. Commerce became more established in 1882 when Stephen Shobert and J.J. Thompson opened the first store. Following the 1890 name change to "Ridgefield," people decided to incorporate as the City of Ridgefield in a 1909 special election. Ridgefield is a community whose heritage is deeply connected to the water and the land. As the gateway to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge and a key entry point to the Columbia River, Ridgefield offers unparalleled access to prime examples of the Pacific Northwest way of life. Knowledge of Ridgefield's history can provide a context in which to understand current growth and development trends, and to affirm a sense of continuity and community. Historic Preservation Ridgefield participates in national, state and local historic preservation efforts. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the creation of the National Register of Historic Places as a means of recognizing sites and structures associated with significant people or events in our nation's history. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) manages the Washington heritage Register and the Heritage Barn Register. Ridgefield also participates in the Clark County Historic Preservation program and, with it, the Clark County Heritage Register. The national, state and the local historic registers provide protections for historic properties and valuable assistance for their rehabilitation. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) perform the functions of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) which were established by the National Historic Preservation Act. DAHP maintains records of all historic resource inventories and sites and acts as liaison between local agencies and the federal government. DAHP is also responsible for reviewing proposed federal projects for their potential impact on historic and archaeological resource. The City completed an inventory of historic resources in downtown Ridgefield in 2010. The study concluded that while there are many buildings within downtown which contribute to understanding the history of Ridgefield, there are no sufficient numbers with a high enough level of architectural integrity close enough together to form an historic district. Typical I !._ - wiiiiiiiiiiiiiii , M City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 21 character changing alternations include window and storefront replacements and application of siding over historic material. In addition to the listed historic resources, the study identified several properties that are likely eligible for the local or national registers included in Table 3-1. The study also found that residential areas near downtown have strong potential for historic district eligibility. Archaeology The region has a pattern of settlement during both prehistoric and historic periods. Previous investigations have uncovered artifacts from early pioneer settlers as well as prehistoric artifacts like Native American tools. DAHP has developed a statewide predictive model of archaeological resources, which shows a high to moderate -high likelihood of archaeological resources throughout most of the RUGA, particularly centered in the downtown and Interstate 5junction areas. The City works with DAHP to protect archaeological resources during site development. The most significant known archaeological resources in Ridgefield are associated with the Cathlapotle site. When the Corps of Discovery stopped in Ridgefield in November of 1805, they found a prosperous village called by fur traders "Cathlapotle." The village consisted of what is now the Ridgefield National Wildlife Reserve. "I counted 14 houses," Clark wrote in his diary. There were nearly 1,000 Native Americans living in the village, with nearly twenty thousand people in southwest Washington. Lewis and Clark returned to the village in March 1806. Cathlapotle is one of the few archaeological sites on the Lower Columbia River that has withstood the ravages of flooding, looting, and development. A decade of archaeological research—the result of a partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Chinook Tribe, and Portland State University— has produced a wealth of information about the Chinookan people who lived on the river long before Lewis and Clark first observed Cathlapotle in 1805. Research has culminated in construction of the full-scale restoration Cathlapotle Plankhouse on the site. The Chinookan Plankhouse on the Refuge serves as an outdoor classroom for interpreting the rich natural and cultural heritage preserved on the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge at the Cathlapotle site. The Plankhouse is a significant attraction for residents and tourists alike that contributes to understanding of the area's archaeological heritage. 3.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE Ridgefield has unequalled assets in its downtown. No other place in north Clark County has such a diverse array of historic buildings. Additionally, the community character of the downtown has been very well preserved. It is vitally important to the future of Ridgefield that the downtown maintains its historic sense of place. This can be achieved by appropriate rehabilitation of the vintage buildings and by mindful development of vacant sites. The report, 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield, will be studied and applied during the development review of new construction, street design, etc. Table 3-1. Designated & Potential Historic Resources William Henry Shobert House Listed on National, Washington Register Kapus Farm Jefferson Davis Highway Marker Listed on County Register Listed on County Register Dr. Ralph and Florence Stryker House Listed on County Register 104 N Main Avenue, used as Ridgefield Hardware Store Potential resource 304 Pioneer Street, used as RSD maintenance shop Potential resource 113 S Main Street, historic Union Ridge Church Potential resource 230 Pioneer Street, historic use as Ridgefield Potential resource State Bank and current use as City Hall 22 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate Ridgefield has joined with Clark County and the State of Washington to administer a historic preservation program. This program can provide design assistance to property owners, as well as an understanding of the significant tax benefits of historic preservation. Ridgefield has the opportunity to leverage County and State resources to its own benefit. 3.3 POLICIES HP -1 Partnerships for historic preservation Partner with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and Clark County to provide a strong historic and archeological preservation program. HP -2 Identify and protect resources Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. Incorporate review of potential historical or archaeological significance into land development process. Provide information to owners of historic properties on how to apply for designation on the Clark County Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Register, or the National Register of Historic Places and encourage owners to participate. HP -3 Education and information programs Raise public awareness of cultural resources by creating educational and interpretive projects that highlight sites included or eligible for inclusion on the Clark County Heritage Register, Washington Heritage Register, or the National Register of Historic Places. Interpretive elements could include: • Guided and self -guided tours which highlight cultural and historic resources in Ridgefield. • Historic plaques or other signage. • Events with a historical component. HP -4 Rehabilitate historic structures Promote preservation of historic structures through rehabilitation and adaptive reuse and discourage demolition of historic structures, particularly in the downtown area. Provide assistance to developers, landowners, and the construction trade regarding appropriate re -use and rehabilitation of identified historic sites and buildings. Assist property owners with obtaining grants and receiving available tax incentives for re -use and rehabilitation of identified historic sites and buildings. HP -S Downtown historic resources Explore options to commemorate the core historic area and individual historic resources in downtown. Partner with downtown organizations, business owners and property owners to develop strategies to preserve and promote downtown's historical resources. Incorporate historic resources into downtown identity, planning and redevelopment efforts. Consider regulatory approaches such as a historic preservation overlay zone to protect resources, as well as design standards for new and rehabilitated buildings in downtown to ensure compatibility with the existing historic character. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 23 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development is essential to Ridgefield's ability to sustain itself. Economic development helps to establish a balance of residential and employment opportunities, the basic elements of a complete community. A strong and diverse economy provides employment and a tax base that supports public services and a livable community. A diverse economic base also provides a variety of retail and service opportunities allowing residents to meet their needs locally. The City also recognizes that the provision of a quality public education enhances economic development. Although most economic activity is in the private sector, the City of Ridgefield's role is to establish parameters that help private markets flourish, provide support, and encourage beneficial economic development projects. 4.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 4.1.1 Regional Conditions The City of Ridgefield's economic vitality is coupled with the broader regional economy for Clark County and the Portland metropolitan area. Some of the original industries in the region were agriculture and timber, with cheap power from damming the Columbia River spurring industrialization in the late 1930s. By the 1970s, the County began to attract investment in electronics, which remains one of the most important industries today. Other major industrial sectors in Clark County include healthcare and social assistance, professional and Figure 4-1. Inflow and Outflow of Workers — Clark County M 36,347 - Employed in Clark County, Live Outside M 88,152 - Live in Clark County, Employed Outside M 86,753 - Employed and Clark County Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD — Ridgefield = 1,683 - Employed in Ridgefield, Live Outside M 1,591 - Live in Ridgefield, Employed Outside = 103 - Employed and Live in Ridgefield Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD Table 4-1. Primary employment sectors and leading employers in Clark County Employment sector Number of Leading employers Number of employees employees Government and education 24,000 Bonneville Power Administration 2,723 Healthcare and 23,600 PeaceHealth Southwest 2,500 social assistance Washington Medical Center Professional and 18,100 Evergreen Public Schools 2,473 business services Retail trade 17,200 Vancouver Public Schools 2,341 Leisure and hospitality 14,000 Clark County, Washington 1,650 Manufacturing 13,100 Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. 1,601 Source: 2016 Washington State Employment Security Department City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 27 Table 4-2. Place of home and work for Ridgefield residents and employees Ridgefield Residents Ridgefield Employees Work location Percent Home location Percent Vancouver, WA 24.3% Vancouver, WA 19.7% Portland, OR 19.6% Ridgefield, WA 5.8% Ridgefield, WA 6.1% Battleground, WA 4.1% Seattle, WA 3.0% Hazel Dell, WA 3.8% Salmon Creek, WA 2.5% Mount Vista, WA 3.3% Mount Vista, WA 2.4% Orchards, WA 3.1% Hazel Dell, WA 2.1% Portland, OR 4.0% All others 40.0% All others 57.4% Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD Table 4-3. Top Employers in Ridgefield Employer Employees Ridgefield School District 360 Allied Industrial Group 242 Pacific Power Products 231 UNFI 210 Corwin Beverage 125 Source: City of Ridgefield Finance Department business services, retail trade, leisure and hospitality, manufacturing, and government and education. The County economy has generally recovered from the recession, but wages remain below state averages. The 2015 unemployment rate was 6.5%, according to the Washington State Employment Security Department, similar to the state average. Nonfarm employment growth has outpaced the state and the nation over the past 20 years, excepting a dip during the recession. However, median hourly wage for jobs in Clark County is 2014 was $20.32, about 10% below the state median. Median wages have grown only 1.3% since 2002, whereas average wage for the top 10% of jobs has risen by 17% in the same time period. The 2014 average annual wage of $46,330 is also below the state and national averages. As part of the Portland Metropolitan Area, there is significant movement of workers between jurisdictions. One-third of the County's labor force, over 50,000 workers, commutes to Portland on 28 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate a daily basis, while only 11,000 commute in the opposite direction. There are significantly more workers in Clark County than available jobs, with 174,905 residents and 123,100 total jobs, resulting in net outward migration. Within the County, approximately half of the residents work in one of the County's jurisdictions but there is significant movement between jurisdictions. Ridgefield workers exemplify this pattern, with approximately half of all residents employed within Clark County but only 6.1% employed in Ridgefield itself. Ridgefield has a more balanced inflow and outflow of workers, with 1,786 jobs in the city and 1,694 employed residents. 4.1.2 Local Conditions Ridgefield has developed a growing job base built primarily in the manufacturing, wholesale trade, and transportation and distribution sectors. There were a total of 1,768 jobs reported in Ridgefield in 2013. Ridgefield has been underrepresented in professional service, health care and retail -related employment. The top employers in the area are industrial firms and public sector jobs, led by the Ridgefield School District. (See Table 4-3.) Almost half of jobs in Ridgefield provide mid-level wages, and there are fewer low-wage and high - wage jobs in the city relative to Clark County as a whole. (See Table 4-x.) Middle-income wages reflect the relatively high percentage of industrial jobs, which tend to report close to median wages. The lower prevalence of low-income jobs is likely related to low retail employment in Ridgefield. Figure 4-2. Ridgefield Jobs by Sector Public Administration ( Other Services (excluding Pi Administration) (38) 2.1 % Accommodation and Food Services (78) 4 .� Health Care and Social Assistance (49) 2.7% Educational Services (183) 10.2% -- Administration & Support Waste Management and Remediation (75) 4.2% Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD Other (67) 3.8% Transportation and \ Retail Trade (61) 3.4% Warehousing (221) 12.4% Figure 4-3. Employment Sectors for Ridgefield Residents Other 9.5% ufacturing (548) 30.7% Health Care and Social Assistance 13.2% Manufacturing 9.8% Trade (317) 17.7% I Trade 9.3% —EAirntinnni Carvirac R Q Finance and Insurance 3.0%— Other Services (excluding Public - Administration) 4.5% Transportation and Wholesale Trade 7.4% Warehousing 4.8% Administration & Support/ Waste Management and Construction 6.7% Remediation 4.9% Professional, Scientific, Public Administration 6.6% and Technical Services 5.4% Accommodation and Food Services 5.8% Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 29 Ridgefield has pursued family -wage jobs, defined as jobs with wages 125% of the County median annual wage and a comprehensive benefits package. As of 2014, a family -wage job would provide a $57,912 annual salary or $4,826 monthly salary plus benefits. Based on limited wage data available, a portion of the 36.2% of workers who earn more than $3,333 per month are earning a family wage. Ridgefield residents, 94% of whom work outside of the city, generally report higher wages and are concentrated in different fields than employees working in Ridgefield but living outside of the city or relative to Clark County. Primary employment sectors for Ridgefield residents are health care and social assistance, manufacturing, and retail trade, but there is significant diversity in employment sectors with no predominate concentrations. Nearly double the number of employees who live in Ridgefield Table 4-4. Distribution of earnings for workers, based on job location Ridgefield Clark County $1,250 per 15.0% 19.5% month or less $1,251 to $3,333 48.8% 37.2% per month More than $3,333 36.2% 43.3% per month Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD report monthly earnings above $3,333 relative to employees who work in Ridgefield, suggesting Ridgefield workers must travel outside of the community to secure higher paying jobs. Median earnings for workers living in Ridgefield were $47,393 in 2014 according to the U.S. Census, compared to $32,671 for workers living in Clark County generally. 4.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE This plan is intended to increase jobs, particularly family -wage jobs that provide an adequate income to live decently and raise families in Ridgefield. This requires a wage and benefits package that takes into account the area -specific cost of living, as well as the basic expenses involved in supporting a family. The Economic Development Element is also intended to reduce the number of residents who commute long distances to work. A sound economy will also provide revenues for the City to support facilities and services desired by residents Table 4-5. Distribution of earnings for workers living in Ridgefield $1,250 per month or less 17.1% $1,251 to $3,333 per month 25.4% More than $3,333 per month 57.4% Median worker earnings $47,393 Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEND, 2014 U.S. Census American Community Survey Table 4-6. Land Capacity for Employment Growth UGA Capacity, Gross Acres' Commercial 448.6 Industrial/Office 887.8 Mixed Use 14.4 Development Potential, Jobs' UGA Capacity, Jobs 20 jobs/net acre 6,008.0 9jobs net/acre 4,231.2 20 jobs/net acre 180.0 Total 1,350.8 acres 10,419 jobs 'From Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model, including capacity at Port of Ridgefield lands. ' Employment density based on Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model. Table 4-7. Existing and Projected Jobs to Household Ratios Year Households Jobs Jobs per Household Ratio 2014 2,001' 1,7863 0.89:1 2035 9,5292 10,494^ 1.10:1 ' Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 'Source: 2014 housing units plus 228 building permits issued in 2015 plus 7,300 new housing units projected by 2035 per Clark County Issue Paper 4.2 'Source: 2013 LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics Source: 2013 jobs plus 8,708 newjobs forecast by 2035 per Clark County Issue Paper 4.2 30 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate (parks, trails, police protection, fire protection, public schools, etc.) A diverse economy will provide a range of retail and service opportunities in Ridgefield that allow residents to meet their needs locally. 4.2.1 Employment Capacity Ridgefield has sizable acreage reserved for future economic growth in the UGA, with capacity to accommodate jobs in excess of the 2035 employment projection. In total, employment acreage is projected to accommodate 10,419 jobs, in excess of the 8,708 jobs projected by 2035. Designated employment acreage is generally located in the eastern half of the city, with the largest concentration on either side of 1-5 at the Ridgefield Junction, to take advantage of transportation access. (See Figure 2-1, Comprehensive Plan Map.) Acreage is split approximately two-thirds industrial/office lands and one-third for commercial development, projected jobs are projected at 60% commercial and 40% industrial/ office because of the differing jobs per acre projections for each type of development. 4.2.2 Balanced Job Growth The City is adopting the Clark County goal of providing one local job per household. Providing land and public services that are adequate forjob growth are important parts of this strategy. The City must be a good steward of land designated forjob growth, which includes using the land efficiently and limiting conversion to non -employment uses. The City must also ensure the timely permitting of businesses that support family -wage jobs and other priority economic development projects. Further, special attention will be paid to attracting and retaining small -to mid-sized businesses with high growth potential. 4.2.3 Healthy Downtown 4.2.3 Job Recruitment Ridgefield will work to attract more employers in high -paying sectors to provide family -wage jobs and jobs in fields where Ridgefield residents are already employed, in an effort to increase the number of employees who both live and work in Ridgefield. Table 4-x below shows employment sectors with average wages higherthan the County overall average wage of $46,330. Ridgefield has succeeded in attracting industrial jobs in sectors like manufacturing, wholesale trade, and transportation and warehousing, and will continue to target these types of businesses to build off the existing industrial hub exemplified by employers such as UNFI and Dollar Tree. Ridgefield will also work to diversify its employment base to include more white-collar sectors, including finance and insurance, professional and technical services, and management. There are relative few of these types of firms in Ridgefield at present, but there are a number of Ridgefield workers engaged in these sectors. For example, the recent Table 4-8. Sectors for Employer Recruitment Relative to Current Ridgefield Presence Employment Sector Median Wage Current percentage of Ridgefield Current percentage of Ridgefield residents employed in sector workers employed in sector Construction $50,729 6.7% 6.3% Manufacturing $55,481 9.8% 30.7% Wholesale Trade $72,913 7.4% 17.7% Transportation & $49,062 4.8% 12.4% Warehousing Information $55,972 1.9% 0.2% Finance & Insurance $74,072 3.0% 0.6% Professional & $72,725 5.4% 1.1% Technical Services Management $94,318 1.7% 0.0% Public Administration $51,498 6.6% 2.0% Source: 2013 U.S. Census LEHD, 2014 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 31 announcement by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife to relocate approximately 100 workers to a new Port of Ridgefield facility will help to add well -paying public administration jobs. 4.2.4 Regional Employment Center Ridgefield will participate in the creation of a regional employment center at the Pioneer St. and Interstate 5 interchange as part of the Discovery Corridor. The Discovery Corridor is an economic development initiative that the Port of Ridgefield has developed and that the Port and the City of Ridgefield have advanced in partnership with other Clark County agencies and organizations. It is envisioned that the Discovery Corridor will be developed to establish a vibrant industrial base in central Clark County. 4.2.5 Partnerships Ridgefield's contribution to economic development extends beyond the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The City has staff and elected officials dedicated to economic development. The City works with groups such as the Ridgefield Business Association, the Ridgefield Junction Neighborhood Association, Ridgefield Main Street, and the Port of Ridgefield. 4.2.6 Complementary Subarea Development The City will pursue development of three distinct subareas throughout the city, each with a complementary vision and development focus. Downtown/Waterfront: A healthy downtown that provides a setting for mutually supportive businesses and community events is essential to a livable community. Ridgefield will also partner with the Port of Ridgefield to spur development at the newly restored Lake River waterfront, which provides a unique opportunity for waterfront mixed- use development. Ridgefield will support existing businesses and encourage them to expand by providing information resources and completing economic development -oriented public projects 45th & Pioneer: The 730 -acre node at 45th & Pioneer will focus around commercial and mixed-use development to serve residential neighborhoods with complementary employment development at the perimeter. The guiding principles for 32 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate the area are to create appropriately scaled and attractive development within a walkable community with multimodal connections, and provide flexibility to adapt to changing economic development opportunities overtime. Ridgefield Junction: The vision for the Junction area, over 1,000 acres centered around the junction of Interstate 5 and Pioneer Street, is for a mixed-use destination that provides an attractive, distinctive gateway to Ridgefield and serves as an important employment and commerce center for the city and region. Key institutions and industrial anchors will be the foundation for the Junction's vitality, and new development will reinforce Ridgefield's aesthetic appeal and capitalize on its scenic setting. 4.3 POLICIES EC -1: Discovery Corridor Implement the Discovery Corridor concept along both sides of Interstate 5. • Coordinate with project partners including Port of Ridgefield and Columbia River Economic Development Commission. • Recruit information technology companies. • Plan for and construct needed infrastructure. • Assist businesses in the development review process to obtain needed permits fairly and efficiently. EC -2: Local job creation Support businesses to create jobs at a ratio of one job per household ratio by providing adequate land capacity and developing an efficient regulatory environment, including development review. Prioritize creation of family wage jobs, including employment in employment sectors with higher then average median wages. Pursue employers in sectors that employ many Ridgefield residents in order to increase the number of people who both live and work in Ridgefield. EC -3: Downtown Support continued renaissance of Ridgefield's downtown by: • Sponsoring community events in downtown. • Partnering with business and community groups, providing organizational support to help develop such groups. • Developing a long-term parking plan. • Inventorying existing infrastructure and identifying improvement plans for downtown infrastructure. EC -4: Community retail Promote development of service-oriented businesses to serve residents and reduce the needs to travel out of the community. EC -5: Public revenue enhancement Promote development that encourages revenue generation for public services. EC -6: Employment capacity Restrict zone changes or legislative approvals which lessen long-term capacity for high -wage employment unless accompanied by other changes within the same annual review cycle which would compensate for the lost capacity, or unless the proposed change would promote the long-term economic health of the city. EC -7: Support emerging businesses Attract and retain small -to mid-sized businesses with high growth potential. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 33 HOUSING T7 • 5. HOUSING Adequate, safe, affordable and diverse housing options for all residents are essential to the health of a community. This element presents an evaluation of the current housing needs for Ridgefield and an estimate of what will be needed over the next 20 years, based on projected growth. 5.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 5.1.1 Population & Housing Growth Ridgefield's estimated 2016 population is 6,937. Ridgefield population has grown steadily since 2000, more than doubling between 2000 and 2010 with notable growth spikes between 2004 and 2008. Annual growth from 2013 to present has averaged between 6 and 8 percent, making Ridgefield the fastest growing city in Washington per capita. The City has seen significant new construction of homes in the past 10 years to keep up with growing Table 5-1. Annual Population Growth & Building Permit Issuance Source: US Census and Washington State Office of Financial Management and City of Ridgefield population. Because of historically low vacancy rates, reported at 4.0% for homeowners and 0% for rentals in 2014 U.S. Census data, new construction has been needed to provide housing for the majority of new residents. New residential building permitting history supports this finding, as shown in Table 5-1. 5.1.2 Household Characteristics A household is defined as the person or group of persons who live in one housing unit, whether related or not, headed by a householder. A single person living in an apartment and a family living in a house are both considered households. Ridgefield households tend to be families with children headed by middle-aged householders with relatively high incomes who own their own homes, as shown in Table 5-2. Ridgefield has fewer households headed by persons 65 years or older, fewer renters, and fewer individuals living alone compared to Clark County. Average household size in Ridgefield is 2.96 persons, compared to 2.71 persons across the County, which reflects the greater percentage of families in Ridgefield' Ridgefield homeowners are relatively new to their homes, with over 80% having moved to their homes since 2000, but those rates are similar to the County as a whole. 5.1.3 Housing Stock It is important to provide a variety of housing types to accommodate the community's diverse needs. Younger people often rent apartments, families generally desire homes, and retirees increasingly prefer to move into condominiums or apartments. As the "Baby Boom" generation ages during the next 20 years, there is likely to be a greater need and demand for smaller units, retirement homes, and assisted living. The predominant type of housing in Ridgefield is single-family detached dwellings. A total of 92.7% of homes in Ridgefield in 2014 are single-family detached homes, and that percentage has steadily increased from 79.8% since 1990 even as the absolute number of multifamily homes, including single-family attached housing like townhomes, has slightly increased. ' This plan uses 2.66 persons per household to calculate future occupancy based on the adopted Clark County planning assumption. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 37 Population Annual Building Growth Rate Permits Issued 2000 2147 4.89% — 2001 2183 1.68% — 2002 2190 0.32% — 2003 2243 2.42% — 2004 2280 1.65% — 2005 2735 19.96% — 2006 3392 24.02% — 2007 3837 13.12% 71 2008 4232 10.29% 34 2009 4552 7.56% 27 2010 4763 8.29% 79 2011 4975 4.45% 65 2012 5210 4.72% 122 2013 5545 6.43% 165 2014 6035 8.84% 104 2015 6400 6.05% 228 2016 6937 8.39% — Source: US Census and Washington State Office of Financial Management and City of Ridgefield population. Because of historically low vacancy rates, reported at 4.0% for homeowners and 0% for rentals in 2014 U.S. Census data, new construction has been needed to provide housing for the majority of new residents. New residential building permitting history supports this finding, as shown in Table 5-1. 5.1.2 Household Characteristics A household is defined as the person or group of persons who live in one housing unit, whether related or not, headed by a householder. A single person living in an apartment and a family living in a house are both considered households. Ridgefield households tend to be families with children headed by middle-aged householders with relatively high incomes who own their own homes, as shown in Table 5-2. Ridgefield has fewer households headed by persons 65 years or older, fewer renters, and fewer individuals living alone compared to Clark County. Average household size in Ridgefield is 2.96 persons, compared to 2.71 persons across the County, which reflects the greater percentage of families in Ridgefield' Ridgefield homeowners are relatively new to their homes, with over 80% having moved to their homes since 2000, but those rates are similar to the County as a whole. 5.1.3 Housing Stock It is important to provide a variety of housing types to accommodate the community's diverse needs. Younger people often rent apartments, families generally desire homes, and retirees increasingly prefer to move into condominiums or apartments. As the "Baby Boom" generation ages during the next 20 years, there is likely to be a greater need and demand for smaller units, retirement homes, and assisted living. The predominant type of housing in Ridgefield is single-family detached dwellings. A total of 92.7% of homes in Ridgefield in 2014 are single-family detached homes, and that percentage has steadily increased from 79.8% since 1990 even as the absolute number of multifamily homes, including single-family attached housing like townhomes, has slightly increased. ' This plan uses 2.66 persons per household to calculate future occupancy based on the adopted Clark County planning assumption. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 37 • • Homes in Ridgefield are some of the most expensive in Clark County, attracting homeowners with median incomes well above the County average. As shown in Table 5-4, median monthly housing costs, whether mortgage payment or rent, are some of the highest in the County. Rents in Ridgefield are the highest in the County, likely due to the prevalence of single-family detached housing stock as the only available rentals with relatively high costs. 5.1.4 Housing Affordability Homes in Ridgefield are generally affordable for the current residents, however, this may reflect some self-selection bias as households with higher incomes choose to live in Ridgefield and households with lower incomes are unable to find suitable housing in the city. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established a general guideline that housing costs, whether mortgage or rent, should not exceed more than 30% of the household income. As shown in Table 5-5, a total of 19.9% of households in Ridgefield pay more than 30% of their household income towards housing costs. Homeowners with a mortgage are the most likely to be burdened by higher monthly housing costs, with nearly one in four households paying more than 30% of their income for housing and only one in ten renters and homeowners without a mortgage paying more than 30% of their monthly income towards housing. High median household incomes of $91,205 (2014) likely explain the relatively low prevalence of housing -cost -burdened households in Ridgefield, despite the high housing costs and home values compared to Clark County as a whole. Table 5-2. Ridgefield Household Characteristics Clark County (entire) 18.1% headed by person 15-34 years old 60.4% headed by person 35-64 years old 21.4% headed by person 65 years or older $59,551 median household income 2.71 average persons per household 35.0% households with children 40.9% multiple person households with no children 24.1% households living alone 64.9% owner -occupied 35.1% renter -occupied 26.5% moved in 2010 or later 46.1% moved in 2000 to 2009 27.4% moved before 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates Ridgefield Ages 7.5% headed by person 15-34 years old Table 5-3. Housing Stock in Ridgefield, 1990 to present 83.1% headed by person 35-64 years old Type 9.6% headed by person 65 years or older Incomes $91,205 median household income Size 2.96 average persons per household Family composition 47.7% households with children Multi -family 36.7% multiple person 72 households with no children Mobile -home 15.6% households living alone Ownership 78.9% owner -occupied Total 21.1% renter -occupied Tenancy 34.8% moved in 2010 or later 46.1% moved in 2000 to 2009 19.1% moved before 2000 Clark County (entire) 18.1% headed by person 15-34 years old 60.4% headed by person 35-64 years old 21.4% headed by person 65 years or older $59,551 median household income 2.71 average persons per household 35.0% households with children 40.9% multiple person households with no children 24.1% households living alone 64.9% owner -occupied 35.1% renter -occupied 26.5% moved in 2010 or later 46.1% moved in 2000 to 2009 27.4% moved before 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates Table 5-3. Housing Stock in Ridgefield, 1990 to present Type 1990 2000 2010 2014 Single-family 363 79.8% 676 85.1% 1408 92.0% 1855 92.7% Multi -family 54 83 72 112 Mobile -home 38 35 51 34 Total 455 794 1531 2001 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 38 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate However, high housing costs in Ridgefield likely exclude many people who work in Ridgefield from obtaining housing in the city, because average wages among workers cannot cover average housing costs. To afford the median monthly housing costs of $1,724 for homes with a mortgage, households would have to earn $5,747 monthly, or earn $4,513 monthly to afford the median rent of $1,354. However, 63.8% of workers in Ridgefield make less than $3,333 per month, as reported in the 2013 LODES data, meaning most housing in Ridgefield is out of reach for those workers. There is a relative shortage of less expensive housing that would be affordable to Ridgefield workers, with only 18.4% of housing units in Ridgefield reported in the 2014 US Census that are affordable for those workers, limiting housing costs to 30% of total income. 5.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE Consistent with adopted Clark County policy, the City shall ensure through its comprehensive plan designations and development regulations that no more than 75% of all housing units shall be of a single type, e.g. single-family detached housing Some vacant land zoned residential will be zoned for medium density residential development, including apartments, plexes and townhouses. Additional products such as cottage housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will be allowed in the residential zones to provide greater variety, as well as alternatives to stick -built housing including manufactured homes and floating homes. Past growth in Ridgefield has been primarily driven by new single-family homes. While it is anticipated that single-family dwellings will continue to constitute the majority of new construction, the City will encourage construction of multifamily dwellings both to accommodate the anticipated population growth at higher densities, thereby discouraging sprawl, and to provide greater variety of housing types at a variety of price points. The City will also pursue opportunities for mixed-use development in central nodes like downtown, 45th and Pioneer, and the Ridgefield Junction to provide greater variety of housing products. The UGA includes 2,510.5 gross acres of residential land with capacity for 7,526 new residences, which is sufficient to house the forecasted 2035 population of 26,356. (See Table 2-1 and Table 5-6 below.) There are distinct areas designated for low-density residential, medium/high-density residential, and mixed use Table 5-4. Median Home Prices in Clark County Ridgefield Battle Camas La Center Vancouver Washougal Clark County Ground (entire) Median House $283,200 $162,600 $294,600 $243,700 $196,700 $218,300 $228,400 Value Median Monthly $1,724 $1,093 $2,064 $1,697 $1,532 $1,680 $1,667 Mortgage Median $1,354 $626 $1,058 $1,335 $923 $1,035 $963 Monthly Rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey S -Year Estimates Table 5-5. Monthly housing costs as percentage of household income Monthly housing costs Homeowners with a Homeowners without a Renters mortgage mortgage (19.4% of households) (70.2% of households) (10.4% of households) Less than 20% 31.6% 84.3% 32.1% 20 to 29.9% 34.7% 6.5% 56.0% 30% or more 23.7% 9.2% 11.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey S -Year Estimates City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 39 residential. Together the designated residential acres provide capacity for 70% of new homes in the low-density residential areas, assumed to be primarily single-family homes at 4 to 8 units per acre, 28.4% of new homes in medium/ high-density residential areas, assumed to be built out as multifamily housing at 8 to 16 units per acre, and 1.6% of new units to be built in mixed-use areas as apartments at 0 to 16 units per acre, which will allow the City to exceed its targeted 75/25 split. (Footnote: The County's Vacant and Buildable Lands Model identifies only 21.7% acres of mixed-use residential land, however, additional mixed- use residential development is anticipated through optional overlay zones and master plans that is not captured in the County's model.) 5.3 HOUSING POLICIES HO -1: Accommodate growth Table 5-6. UGA Residential Capacity Source: Clark County GIS 2016 VBLM Provide a continuous and adequate supply of residential land to meet long-range multifamily and single-family housing needs for the City's anticipated population growth. The City shall adopt policies and regulations to meet the following objectives: • New overall density target of six units per net acre. • No more than 75% of new houses shall be of a single housing type. • A minimum density of four units per net acre (10,890 sq. ft. average lot size) for single-family dwellings in any single development. HO -2: Residential development density Encourage a mix of single family and multifamily housing that achieves an overall goal of 6 units per net acre. 6 units per acre is approximately 6000 square foot lots. However, the goal is to have a variety of housing options so that more dense development of townhomes and apartments balances with some large -lot, single-family residences. HO -3: Multifamily development Provide a variety of multifamily residential development opportunities using multiple strategies: • Designate medium density areas sufficient to provide a minimum of 25% of new housing units. 40 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate Locate primary medium density areas within one-half mile of commercial or employment centers, and along existing or planned transit corridors. Monitor development of single and multifamily housing for progress towards the 75/25 split for new development. Restrict zone changes or legislative approvals which lessen long-term capacity for multifamily residential development unless accompanied by other changes within the same annual review cycle which would compensate for the lost capacity, or unless the proposed change would provide equivalent housing opportunities. Provide additional opportunities to integrate medium density housing in low-density residential areas through Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), density bonuses, and other tools to create neighborhoods that attract residents with a variety of income levels. HO -4: Affordability Encourage innovative housing policies, regulations and practices to provide affordable housing. Provide secure funding mechanisms and programs for housing targeted at households below the median area income. UGA Capacity, UGA Capacity, Percentage Gross Acres Housing Units of Capacity Low Density 2,122.9 5,271.6 70.0% Residential Medium/ 365.9 2,136.0 28.4% High Density Residential Mixed Use 21.7 108.8 1.6% Total 2,510.5 7,526 Source: Clark County GIS 2016 VBLM Provide a continuous and adequate supply of residential land to meet long-range multifamily and single-family housing needs for the City's anticipated population growth. The City shall adopt policies and regulations to meet the following objectives: • New overall density target of six units per net acre. • No more than 75% of new houses shall be of a single housing type. • A minimum density of four units per net acre (10,890 sq. ft. average lot size) for single-family dwellings in any single development. HO -2: Residential development density Encourage a mix of single family and multifamily housing that achieves an overall goal of 6 units per net acre. 6 units per acre is approximately 6000 square foot lots. However, the goal is to have a variety of housing options so that more dense development of townhomes and apartments balances with some large -lot, single-family residences. HO -3: Multifamily development Provide a variety of multifamily residential development opportunities using multiple strategies: • Designate medium density areas sufficient to provide a minimum of 25% of new housing units. 40 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate Locate primary medium density areas within one-half mile of commercial or employment centers, and along existing or planned transit corridors. Monitor development of single and multifamily housing for progress towards the 75/25 split for new development. Restrict zone changes or legislative approvals which lessen long-term capacity for multifamily residential development unless accompanied by other changes within the same annual review cycle which would compensate for the lost capacity, or unless the proposed change would provide equivalent housing opportunities. Provide additional opportunities to integrate medium density housing in low-density residential areas through Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), density bonuses, and other tools to create neighborhoods that attract residents with a variety of income levels. HO -4: Affordability Encourage innovative housing policies, regulations and practices to provide affordable housing. Provide secure funding mechanisms and programs for housing targeted at households below the median area income. HO -5: Housing/employment balance Encourage development of housing at pricing levels affordable for workers in a variety of sectors in Ridgefield, to increase the percentage of people who work in Ridgefield that can also find suitable housing in Ridgefield. Work with employers to promote residential options in Ridgefield to their employees, and to understand the housing needs of their employees. HO -6: Housing variety Allow a variety of housing types to meet needs of households of varying sizes, income levels and preferences. Create regulations that allow alternatives to single-family detached housing such as attached housing, townhomes, cottage or cluster housing, accessory dwelling units, manufactured housing, floating homes, housing in multiuse projects, and other innovative housing types. Regulate manufactured housing in the same HO -8: Housing for special needs Encourage self-determination and independence among individuals with special needs. City development regulations shall treat households with special needs equivalent to the general population and shall not discriminate against these households. Land use regulations shall address only land use impacts (traffic, noise, appearance, etc.) of housing for people with special needs, without consideration for the special circumstances of special needs households. HO -9: Infill Actively support residential rehabilitation and infill. Incentives such as reduction of System Development Charges (SDC) and traffic impact fees for infill projects can ease the financial burden of such developments enough to make these profitable and attractive for developers. The City can also actively seek grants and funding from State and Federal sources to partially subsidize development or redevelopment of infill lots. manner as traditional stick -built housing and allow HO -10: Residential design in all zones where single-family detached housing is allowed. • Allow accessory dwelling units in Low Density Residential (LDR) areas. • Develop and enforce regulations for floating homes to ensure that unique waterfront residential option is maintained and minimizes environmental impacts. HO -7: Housing options for older adults Provide for a variety of residential options for older adults in the community including aging in place, assisted living facilities, age -restricted senior communities. Strategies include: Promote Universal Design and visitability standards to create new housing stock that allows aging in place. • Review development regulations to address types of housing options allowed and permitting requirements for new construction and accessibility modifications to existing development. • Recruit developers and offer incentives for creation of new senior -oriented residential options. Require high quality design and architectural differentiation for residential development to create desirable and unique neighborhoods. Develop regulations that address new construction and infill development. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 41 ENVIRONMENT 6. ENVIRONMENT People have long been attracted to the Ridgefield area because of its high quality natural environment. The City of Ridgefield recognizes the importance of the natural environment in contributing to economic development, community livability, and quality of life. This element describes many of the functions and values of Ridgefield's natural environment. Most importantly, it establishes policies that protect and enhance the environment for present and future generations while supporting economic development The natural environment consists of many interrelated components: • geological resources (earth, soil, minerals, etc.) • biological (living things, plants, animals, microorganisms, people, etc) • hydrological resources (groundwater, surface water, streams, etc.) • atmospheric resources (air) The quality of the environment is determined by the individual integrity of these components and how well they interact with each other. In turn, the quality of life that Ridgefield offers is affected greatly by the health of its natural environment. Human activities are the primary cause of environmental degradation to environmental resources, which contributes to serious long-term economic and social problems. The City of Ridgefield is committed to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating harmful environmental impacts to the greatest practicable extent while supporting the City's land use and economic development policies. 6.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 6.1.1 The Land Ridgefield enjoys gently rolling topography, shaped by water erosion associated with numerous creeks in the area that created a series of canyons and ridges. The Columbia River has sculpted much of Ridgefield's western topography by depositing clay, silt, sand, and gravel onto its banks over tens of thousands of years, creating a series of rolling alluvial terraces rising step-like from the banks of the river. The Columbia has also sculpted the lakes, sloughs, and islands that currently make up the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, including Lake River along the City's western border. Some steep slopes are found along the banks of Lake River and along the creek canyons. 6.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Although it is a thriving small city, Ridgefield has a variety of riparian and terrestrial habitats providing protection for native species. The city is located along the Pacific Flyway and attracts hundreds of thousands of migrating birds including geese, swans, and sandhill cranes. The Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, created in 1965, encompasses over 5,000 acres of habitat area on the city's western boundary originally designated for wintering habitat for migratory birds. The city celebrates its wildlife connection at the annual Bird Fest, which draws visitors from many states and foreign countries during the height of fall bird migration. The Columbia River, Lake River, and smaller creeks are home to salmon and trout. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has classified certain important fish and wildlife habitats and species as "priority habitats" and "priority species" to ensure they are considered in land use planning and management. Many of the priority habitats in the Ridgefield area are wetlands and riparian areas (areas adjacent to streams, rivers and lakes). There are many threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Clark County. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains an updated list of these species. See Table 6-1 for a list of selected species. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits harming threatened and endangered species or their habitats. The threatened and endangered salmon species that occur in the Columbia Basin above migrate along Ridgefield's shore, up the Columbia River as adults, and down the river as juveniles. Trees contribute to air and water quality, conserve energy by providing shade, contribute to the aesthetic environment, and provide habitat for many species. Ridgefield's landscape is a reflection of the City's effort to preserve existing trees and other vegetation and to add new vegetation. The UGA contains oak woodlands which are designated as priority habitats by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which contain City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 45 stands of Oregon White Oak, the only oak native to the area. There is also bountiful Douglas Fir forestland, which is not designated as priority habitat but does support sensitive native species. Protection of these native landscapes is important 6.1.3 Water Quality Portions of the urban growth area fall within two watersheds, West Slope and the East Fork Lewis River watersheds. Subwatersheds from west to east include Flume Creek, Gee Creek, Allen Canyon Creek, and McCormick Creek. See Figure 6-1. The Gee Creek subwatershed is the largest within the city, encompassing over 3,000 acres within the RUGA and a total of 12,000 acres. Gee Creek is a 4th -order tributary of the Columbia River over 11.5 miles long, flowing roughly southeast to northwest across the RUGA. An inevitable part of urbanization is the replacement of some portions of the forests, grasslands and wetlands with impervious surfaces (roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and roofs). Increasing the amount of impervious surface increases potential flooding and impacts groundwater recharge. Urban stormwater also carries toxic substances and bacteria, which can damage groundwater, lakes, rivers, and streams 46 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate if not properly managed. Soil from erosion and fertilizers contribute phosphorus and nitrogen, both of which cause excess growth of plants and microscopic animals. The organisms use oxygen from the water, reducing the amount available for salmon and other native animals. Toxic metals from street runoff cling to soil particles that can be carried into the water bodies. Other pollutants, such as motor oil, are undoubtedly transported by stormwater. Stream health in Ridgefield's watersheds has been poor in recent years. The 2010 Clark County Stream Health Report rated the Gee Creek and McCormick Creek subwatersheds as poor based on water quality, biological health, and flow metrics. Ongoing efforts to improve water quality across the County include the Watersheds Steward program administered by Washington State University Vancouver, which sponsors group projects such as habitat restoration plantings, and individual efforts like rain gardens. The City of Ridgefield works to limit adverse impacts caused by urban stormwater runoff. The City has adopted engineering standards that are consistent with the 1992 Puget Sound Water Quality Manual and implements industry standards relying on the authority of engineering best management practices. 6.1.4 Air Quality An airshed is defined as "a body of air bounded by topographical and/or meteorological features in which a contaminant, once emitted, is contained." Ridgefield is within the airshed bounded on the south by Eugene, Oregon, on the north by Chehalis, Washington, on the west by the Coast Range, and on the east by the Cascade Mountains. Air quality in the airshed is generally good and has improved since the late 1990s when the area was under heightened federal management to reduce ozone and carbon monoxide. Today air pollution related to carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone, sulfur oxides and particulate matter that generally contribute to "smog" have generally declined under state and federal regulations. However, air toxics have been less monitored and less regulated, according to a 2013 City Club of Portland report, resulting in greater concentrations and health impacts. Motor vehicles are the largest producer of air pollution, but other combustion engines, such as lawn mowers and those associated with industry, all contribute. Additional sources include residential wood stoves and outdoor burning. The Regional Transportation Plan (2014) includes a variety of strategies to reduce mobile source emissions associated with motor vehicles, including increasing alternative transportation modes, travel demand management, and transportation systems management programs. The Southwest Washington Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) monitors air quality for ozone, carbon monoxide and fine particulates that contribute to smog and enforces regulations requiring industries to reduce emissions. The region has an excellent record of compliance with SWCAA for air pollution, but little monitoring has been done on air toxics. 6.1.5 Hazard Areas Hazard areas in Ridgefield that have the potential to threaten public health and safety are floodplains, steep and unstable slopes, and unconsolidated soils (topsoil and other loose material). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the floodplains for the Columbia River, and provides guidelines to ensure that development in or near these areas does not pose a risk to upstream or downstream neighbors or to important natural functions. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has mapped areas with steep and unstable slopes, which pose potential landslide hazards, and areas with potential for earthquakes. Steep slopes occur along parts of the Columbia River, Gee Creek, Lake River, and other creek basins. Areas with unconsolidated soils, the most likely to be damaged by earthquakes, are found in the floodplains and in lowlands. 6.1.6 Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge The Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is comprised of five management units that total 5,148 acres of pristine marshes, grasslands and wildlife habitat. Preservation of the natural Columbia River floodplain is a management objective of the Carty, Roth and Ridgeport Dairy units. The River "S" and Bachelor Island units are managed to maximize habitat for waterfowl and other wetland wildlife. Dusky Canada geese, sandhill cranes, shorebirds and a wide variety of songbirds stop on the refuge during spring and fall migrations. Visitors to this area have numerous opportunities for wildlife observation. 6.1.7 State and Federal Environmental Regulations Many of Ridgefield's environmental decisions are influenced by state and federal regulations, including the State of Washington's Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA), the state Shoreline Management Act (1971), the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) and the state Water Pollution Control Act (1973), the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the federal (1990) and state (1991) Clean Air Acts (CAA). The City has adopted State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) rules that are implemented through the City's Development code. ESA prohibits harm, including habitat degradation, to Table 6-1. Selected Federal and State Species of Concern Water howellia Federal threated species Columbian white-tailed deer Federal endangered species Sandhill crane State endangered species Purple martin State candidate species Western pond turtle State endangered species Coastal cutthroat trout Federal species of concern Rainbowtrout Federal threatened species Coho salmon Federal threatened species Steelhead salmon Federal threatened species Chinook salmon Federal threatened species Chum salmon Federal threatened species threatened and endangered species. The Clean Air Acts (CAA) regulate air quality at the regional level. The GMA requires the City to designate and protect critical areas such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, aquifers (groundwater), and geologically hazardous areas such as steep slopes and areas that flood frequently. The GMA also requires the City to protect the functions of these areas that are beneficial to the environment and to public health and safety. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 47 local governments to protect shoreline functions, including environmental functions such as fish and wildlife habitat, by adoption of a Shoreline Management Program. The City adopted the 2012 Ridgefield Shoreline Master Program designating shorelands, regulating uses within shorelands, and establishing procedures for reviewing shorelines proposals. The CWA requires that pollution of lakes, streams and rivers be controlled so these bodies of water are safe for swimming and fishing. 6.1.8 Local Environmental Regulations In addition to the protection provided by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance, consistent with Best Available Science, to protect wetlands and shorelines, water bodies, groundwater and surface water, fish and wildlife habitats, and trees and other vegetation. The regulations include a requirement that floodplains and steep terrain be evaluated for potential hazards. Implementation of the regulations includes development review, inspection, enforcement and education. Critical area regulations require that development avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to sensitive environmental areas, in that order, and at times prohibits development unless projects can be designed to result in "no net loss" of critical area functions and values. 6.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE By integrating the natural and built environments, Ridgefield will create a sustainable urban environment with clean air and water, habitat for fish and wildlife, and comfortable and secure places for people to live and work. Ridgefield is committed to protecting and enhancing the environment as the City meets its other community, economic development, and housing and infrastructure goals. Ridgefield will seek to balance various goals, not just make tradeoffs, and identify ways to meet multiple objectives. The goals are to preserve healthy ecological communities with rich biodiversity and to protect public health and safety. The following discussion sets the framework for the policies at the end of the element. 48 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT (omprehensive Plan Upate Wildlife Habitats Ridgefield will protect priority habitats, locally important habitats, and priority species. Ridgefield will work with others in the region to develop and implement recovery plans for threatened salmon species. Endangered Species Ridgefield will avoid harming ESA listed species and their habitats. The City will work with local, county, state and federal jurisdictions to plan and implement region -wide actions. Stream Health Ridgefield will work to monitor, manage and improve the health of streams in its watersheds to improve water quality, biological health, and stream flow. The City will work with partners at Clark County Environmental Services and the local Watershed Stewards program. Shoreline Management Ridgefield will continue to implement and periodically update its Shoreline Management Program to protect shoreline resources, the environment, water -dependent and water -related economic development, and public access and recreation. Public Health and Safety Ridgefield will help protect public health and safety from flooding, landslides, and earthquakes. Maintaining clean groundwater and improving the quality of surface water will also protect public health and safety. Managing development in geologically hazardous areas and floodplains will protect public health and safety. Ridgefield will work with state and federal regulatory agencies to achieve compliance in a way that is resource -wise, both in terms of financial and environmental resources. Sustainability Ridgefield will provide for the needs of its residents without sacrificing the needs of future generations. The City will consider economics and the environment as it manages water, energy, land and natural resources. Ridgefield will promote sustainable public and private development practices and patterns, building design, water -use reduction, and waste reduction. The City will incorporate green building (environmentally friendly) principles and practices into the design, construction, and operation of City facilities, City -funded projects, and infrastructure to the fullest extent possible, consistent with wise management of scarce public financial resources. Coordination Other agencies, the private sector, and citizens, and each City department will coordinate with one another and with others to be efficient and consistent. Implementation Environmental protection and enhancement, based on the "Best Available Science" (as defined in the GMA), will be important factors in Ridgefield's land use planning, zoning and development regulations. Development that cannot reasonably avoid critical areas will include mitigation of potential impacts to prevent material loss of environmental function. The GMA requires critical area regulations to be updated as necessary to maintain consistency with state law. As part of that review, the City will strive to make environmental regulations clear and understandable to provide consistent environmental protection and to streamline the development review process. Incentives, education, acquisition, and restoration are also important tools in achieving environmental quality. Ridgefield will seek ways to provide incentives for protecting and enhancing the environment. The City will continue to protect and restore sensitive areas. The City's own operations will reflect environmental stewardship. Protecting air and water quality and vegetation will help protect habitats for fish, wildlife, and people. Transportation choices will help protect air quality. Source control (keeping pollutants out of the environment) and water treatment (removing pollutants from the water) will protect groundwater and surface water quality. Water conservation and innovative substitutions for impervious surfaces will protect the quantity of groundwater. Surface water management will help reduce the impacts of development on surface water quality and quantity. Preserving and planting native plants and removing invasive plant species will help protect and enhance vegetation. 6.3 POLICIES EN -1 Environmental protection Protect, sustain, and provide for healthy and diverse ecosystems. EN -2 Stewardship Demonstrate and promote environmental stewardship and education. EN -3 Restoration and enhancement Promote and facilitate ecosystem restoration and enhancement. EN -4 Environmental coordination Coordinate environmental policies and programs. Explore opportunities to consolidate environmental regulations. Partner with other environmental agencies include Clark County Department of Environmental Services, Washington State Department City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 49 of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. EN -S Habitat Protect riparian areas, wetlands, and other fish and wildlife habitat. Link fish and wildlife habitat areas to form contiguous networks. Support sustainable fish and wildlife populations. EN -6 Endangered species Protect habitat for listed species and facilitate recovery. Encourage and support actions that protect other species from becoming listed. EN -7 Water quality and quantity Protect and enhance surface, stormwater, and groundwater quality. Ensure adequate water supplies and promote wise use and conservation of water resources. EN -8 Flooding Maintain consistency with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines when adopting or implementing policies or regulations that relate to flooding, groundwater recharge, wetlands, waters of the state or waters of the US. EN -9 Shorelines Protect shorelines of the state by implementing the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). EN -10 Trees and other vegetation Conserve tree and plant cover, particularly native species, throughout Ridgefield. Require street tree plantings and minimum landscaping standards for new development. Promote planting using native vegetation. EN -11 Air quality Protect and enhance air quality, in coordination with local and regional agencies and organizations. EN -12 Hazard areas Manage development in geologically hazardous areas and floodplains to protect public health and safety. EN -13 Density transfers Encourage the use of density transfers in 50 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate residential zones from protected critical areas and designated open space to buildable areas. Ensure properties receiving density are developed at an appropriate scale and maintain compatibility with surrounding development. EN -14 Sustainability Facilitate use of water, energy, land, and natural resources to provide for current needs without sacrificing the needs of future generations. Incorporate green building principles and practices into the design construction, and operation of all City facilities, City -funded projects, and infrastructure to the fullest extent possible, consistent with wise management of scarce public financial resources, using a building life -cycle cost approach. Consider implementation of an sustainability initiative to review City's operations with a focus on purchasing, energy efficiency, recycling, and other practices. EN -15 Building Practices Encourage the use of green building principles and practices for private development. Promote sustainable public and private development practices and patterns, building design, water - use reduction, and waste reduction. Develop a system of regulatory approaches and incentives to encourage green building, including reduced fees, streamlined permitting, and more. Engage green building experts, builders, and members of the development community in program development. Provide educational and informational materials for the public on the green building program. Provide additional staff training and resources as needed to implement the program. EN -16 Environmental -focused economic development Emphasize environmental assets as part of economic development initiatives, including developing businesses, services and events that cater to visitors accessing the National Wildlife Refuge and Lake River. Work with developers to protect and create environmental amenities in residential developments that increase desirability of neighborhoods. PUBLIC FACILITIES 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES 7.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Urban communities must be supported by a range of public services and facilities, including transportation, water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, parks, fire and emergency, police, solid waste, schools, libraries, electricity, and telecommunications. This element describes the current status of Ridgefield's public facilities and services and how they will be expanded to accommodate growth that is projected to occur over the next 20 years. The information in this element is closely linked to the Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plans, a separately bound and frequently updated list of capital facilities projects that will be needed in the next six years. The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires growth to occur first in developed areas already served by public services and utilities, and second in undeveloped areas needing new services. Public services must be provided in a timely and efficient manner to support planned growth and existing users. Extension of urban services must be coordinated with adopted land use and growth plans, and capital facility investments should be targeted and cost-effective. This element focuses on infrastructure provision within city limits and areas in the unincorporated RUGA planned for services by City providers, such as sewer, water, and fire services. As required by GMA, this element includes a policy requiring that land use plans be revisited if probable funding falls short of meeting those needs. The analyses in this element focus on the first six years of the planning period. Infrastructure and service needs for the 20 - year planning period are more speculative, so the review is more generalized. The review is limited to capital facilities and major physical infrastructure related to growth, not all government services. The information in this element is drawn from specific service area plans, such as the service provider capital plans and budgets. For more detail, please consult these plans and the Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plan. Services are provided by the City of Ridgefield, Clark Regional Wastewater District, Clark County, and private utilities or service districts. Some providers serve areas within the city limits, while others have larger, regional service areas. The City coordinates with providers and considers how service area boundaries may change (for example, through annexation). Local capital facilities projects are financed and constructed through a variety of local, state and, in some cases, federal sources. The following services will be reviewed in detail herein. • Water • Sewer • Stormwater • Parks • Fire and emergency services • Law enforcement • Solid waste • Education • Libraries • General government and police • Siting of Essential Public Facilities For more detail, please refer to the Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plan which is adopted by reference. The CFPs for individual services will include a full list of existing facilities, their locations, and all other data that meets the requirements of the County -Wide Planning Policies, RCW 36.70A.070(3), and WAC 365- 195-315. Additionally, some services are planned by other agencies, including the Ridgefield School District, Clark County Fire & Rescue, etc. Each of their respective plans is also adopted by reference. 7.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE Providing adequate services to accommodate increasing service demands with limited funding sources is one of the central challenges facing the City as it implements the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The City and all of its partners are committed to providing robust services to Ridgefield's residents and businesses. This will help to ensure a high quality of life and sustainable growth. Refer to the specific sections of this Public Facilities Element for visions and policies associated with each service. The GMA requires that communities "ensure that facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 53 Table 7-1. Ridgefield Facilities/Service Providers Facility/Service Provider(s) Transportation City of Ridgefield (incorporated areas) Clark County (unincorporated area) Washington Department of Transportation Burlington Northern Railroad Water City of Ridgefield (incorporated areas) Clark Public Utilities (unincorporated areas)) Sanitary Sewer Clark Regional Wastewater District Stormwater Management City of Ridgefield Parks and Recreation City of Ridgefield Clark County Washington State U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Various wireless and fiber optic providers development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established standards" (RCW 36.70A.020.12). This concept is identified as "concurrency" and requires local governments to adopt level -of -service (LOS) standards and to test individual land use proposals to ensure they will not exceed those standards. Proposed developments that would cause these standards to be exceeded cannot be approved unless necessary mitigation is provided. For example, the established level -of - service standard for water production is 225 gpd for residential units, with adequate transmission and storage capacity. If this water capacity is not available 54 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate or cannot be transmitted to a proposed development, additional capacity, transmission or storage facilities will be required prior to any development. 7.3 POLICIES The City of Ridgefield adopts the following overarching public facilities policies in order to provide adequate transportation, sewer, water, and other capital facilities, parks, public schools and public facilities in a cost-effective manner. These policies are consistent with and implement policy sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 of the Community Framework Plan, adopted by Clark County and local jurisdictions, Ridgefield School District Emergency Services City of Ridgefield Police Department Clark County Sheriff Washington State Highway Patrol Clark County Fire & Rescue Private ambulance services Solid Waste Waste Connections, Inc. Columbia Resource Company Education Ridgefield School District Library Fort Vancouver Regional Library System Natural Gas Northwest Natural Electrical Power Clark Public Utilities Telecommunications Frontier Communications CenturyLink Various wireless and fiber optic providers development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established standards" (RCW 36.70A.020.12). This concept is identified as "concurrency" and requires local governments to adopt level -of -service (LOS) standards and to test individual land use proposals to ensure they will not exceed those standards. Proposed developments that would cause these standards to be exceeded cannot be approved unless necessary mitigation is provided. For example, the established level -of - service standard for water production is 225 gpd for residential units, with adequate transmission and storage capacity. If this water capacity is not available 54 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate or cannot be transmitted to a proposed development, additional capacity, transmission or storage facilities will be required prior to any development. 7.3 POLICIES The City of Ridgefield adopts the following overarching public facilities policies in order to provide adequate transportation, sewer, water, and other capital facilities, parks, public schools and public facilities in a cost-effective manner. These policies are consistent with and implement policy sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 of the Community Framework Plan, adopted by Clark County and local jurisdictions, and planning policies 36.70.A.020(3),(9), and (12) of the Washington Growth Management Act. Refer to the specific sections of this Public Facilities Chapter for visions and policies regarding each service. PF -1 Provide service Consider water, sewer, police, transportation, fire, schools, stormwater management, parks and trails as necessary public facilities and services. Ensure that facilities are sufficient to support planned development. PF -2 Service standards Establish service standards or planning assumptions for estimating needed public facilities, based on service capabilities, local land use designations and nationally recognized standards. PF -3 Impact fees and system development charges. Maintain and amend as necessary traffic, park, and school impact fees and water system development charges, to ensure that new development pays a reasonable, proportionate share of the new public infrastructure costs. Work with Clark Regional Waste Water to maintain and amend sewer system development charges. PF -4 Budget conformity The City shall ensure that all budget decisions relating to public facilities are made in conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. PF -5 Reassessment of assumptions In the event that budget projections for capital expenditures fail to meet the forecasted demand the City shall demonstrate compliance with Policy PF- EPF-1 by reassessing the land use element of the plan, the population and employment projections, the CFP level -of -service standards, or a combination thereof. 7.4 WATER RESOURCES because of state limitations on new water rights and requirements to maintain sufficient groundwater supply. Washington state law requires all water service providers to work with the Department of Ecology before constructing a well or withdrawing any groundwater from a well and to obtain a water rights permit. Unfortunately, the issuance of new water rights permits has been extremely limited since 1991. Water service purveyors have undertaken extensive planning efforts to ensure that groundwater use is consistent with region -wide watershed management programs and salmon recovery efforts while providing adequate water supply to meet the county's projected growth. It is hoped that through sharing of groundwater resources, a sufficient groundwater supply can be sustained for the expected growth in demand while continuing to reduce impacts to watersheds considered essential to endangered salmon species. The City of Ridgefield has four active wells with a total pumping capacity of 1,165 gallons per minute (gpm) plus an intertie agreement with Clark Public Utilities. The intertie provides additional water resources from outside of the area, during times of peak demand. In 2012, the City was issued a new water right for 400 gpm instantaneous and 483 acre- feet of annual withdrawal from the City's existing Junction Well. In September of 2015, construction began on the Junction Well Improvement and 1.0 MG Reservoir Project to expand the existing Junction Well. Upon completion of this project, the City's source capacity will increase by 400 gpm, increasing total pumping capacity to 1,565 gpm. In total, the City currently has water rights for 2,275 gpm of instantaneous withdrawal and 1,445 acre-feet of annual withdrawal which will allow future development of additional sources. There are three water reservoirs in Ridgefield with a total storage capacity of 1.1 million gallons. The Junction Well Improvement and 1.0 MG Reservoir Project will construct a 1.0 million 7.4.1 Current Conditions gallon reservoir. Upon completion of this project, total storage capacity will increase to 2.0 million Ridgefield, and the rest of Clark County, relies gallons. Water is brought from source facilities almost entirely on groundwater aquifers for public and reservoirs to residences and businesses via and private water use. In the past, the location and approximately 214,450 feet of water mains. development of productive groundwater sources has been a significant problem for county water purveyors City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 55 7.4.2 Fire Flows A water system is required to have a supply, storage, and distribution system grid with sufficient capacity to provide firefighting needs while maintaining maximum daily flows to residential and commercial customers. Because firefighting requires a large amount of water in a short time, fire flow requirements typically determine the minimum size of water lines needed to serve an area, as well as the amount of storage needed. The City of Ridgefield's water delivery system provides fire hydrants and water distribution mains in neighborhoods and business areas throughout the water service area. Development approval requires new water mains and hydrants to serve new buildings, per the latest adopted version of the International Fire Code and the Ridgefield Municipal Code. The City has adopted fire flow standards in accordance with the Clark County Coordinated Water System Plan. In addition, to promote development in the Junction area, the City has a long-term planning Table 7-2. Existing Water System Facilities (2015) Type Facility Capacity/Size Source Well 7 (Abrams Park) 300 gpm Well 8 (Abrams Park) 300 gpm Well 9 (Abrams Park) 300 gpm Well 10 (Abrams Park) 165 gpm Junction Well 400 gpm (online 2016) Source Total 1,565 gpm Treatment Sodium Hypochlorite Injection System (Abrams Park) Iron and Manganese Treatment System (Junction) Storage Cemetery Reservoir 400,000 gal High School Reservoir 600,000 gal Junction Reservoir 1,000,000 gal (online 2016) Storage Total 2,000,000 gal Distribution Steel, PVC, and Ductile 214,450 ft Iron Water Mains, 2 inch to 16 inch 56 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate objective of providing a fire flow of 3,000 gpm for 180 minutes in industrially zoned areas. Construction of the 1.0 MG Junction Reservoir will satisfy the duration requirement associated with this objective. 7.4.3 Direction for the Future The City of Ridgefield and Clark Public Utilities will continue to participate in a water resource management program designed to sustainably meet water needs. The program goal is to ensure that municipal water purveyors such as Ridgefield have access to water resources to meet projected water needs of a growing population and pursue economic development opportunities consistent with adopted land use plans, while maintaining in -stream flows to protect fish habitat. Ridgefield is part of the water resource management program for the Lewis River, Salmon Creek, and Washougal Rive (Water Resource Inventory Areas 27 and 28) subject to the planning and management requirements of WAC 173-527 and 173-528. The City of Ridgefield and Clark Public Utilities have completed a 20 -year Water System Plan which identifies existing inventory, forecasts future water supply needs, and provides revenue sources to fund capital improvements to meet the requirements of the GMA RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) (b). These Water System Plans outline the strategy for serving anticipated population growth with a clean, reliable, and adequate water supply. Clark County has established a Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) as a standing committee made up of representatives from each water purveyor, fire protection agencies, and the Department of Health (DOH). The WUCC updates water utility design standards, establishes procedures for resolving conflicts between water purveyors and updates the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP). The City of Ridgefield and Clark Public Utilities will continue to collaborate with other regional water providers to ensure that service plans and use of scarce water resources are coordinated. The CWSP fulfills the regulatory requirements as prescribed in WAC 248-56, Public Water System Coordination Act. The CWSP serves as the Regional Supplement for State -approved Clark County water 0 N J W W a W W Wro, 0 J d = � L LLLL o a p aLLj H N Ix U F U � r i purveyors' individual water system plans, which are on file at WDOE, and together with the petition for Reservation of Public Waters, fulfill the requirements under WAC 173-590 relating to the reservation of water for future public water supply. The City of Ridgefield and Clark Public Utilities will implement the CWSP through their Water System Plans. The City of Ridgefield's 2013 Water System Plan Update evaluated the City's projected future water demands based on projected growth in population and employment. The Plan evaluated the City's existing water system facilities and identified needed improvements to provide water service to the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area for the six-year and 20 -year planning horizons. Proposed improvements include source improvements (new wells, water rights and treatment systems), improvements to existing booster stations, new water storage facilities, and pipeline extensions and upgrades. Continued growth in the water system will require the City of Ridgefield to develop additional water resources or work with Clark Public Utilities on the development of regional water resources (Figure 7- 1). There are also jurisdictional issues which need to be addressed as Ridgefield annexes into areas currently served by Clark Public Facilities. The City has developed water infrastructure improvement plans, revenue estimates, and costs estimates for a six-year and a 20 -year planning horizon. A detailed description of planned capital improvement projects is provided in the updated Water Chapter of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan. Table 7-3 summarizes the estimated cost of planned projects and projected revenues during the next six years needed to maintain or improve the level -of -service for Ridgefield water customers. 7.4.4 Policies PF -W-1 Provide water Provide safe, clean, quality drinking water to every Ridgefield home, business, public facility and industry. Provide water pressures and volumes necessary to support fire suppression hydrants and sprinkler systems. Ensure that the infrastructure to support water service is in place prior to new development. Encourage existing development using private wells to connect to public water as soon as available. PF -W-2 Water service area Provide water service within the RUGA and restrict provision of urban services outside the RUGA. PF -W-3 Responsibility for system Maintain sole responsibility for provision of water within the RUGA. PF -W-4 Private systems Work with Clark County to eliminate private water systems within the RUGA over time. The city will additionally coordinate with Clark County and the Washington State Department of Health to ensure that existing wells are properly decommissioned when they are taken out of service. Table 7-3. Summary of Ridgefield Water Service Capital Facilities Plans for 2016 — 2020 Capital Facility Project Type Cost (Millions, in Number of Projects 2010 dollars) Revenue Sources Reservoirs and 2 $2.13 DWSRF Loan Booster Stations Distribution and 6 $2.33 Rates and Fees Transmission Source of Supply 5 $8.23 DWSRF Loan, Rates and Fees System Upkeep 2 $0.37 Rates and Fees TOTAL 15 $12.17 58 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate PF -W-5 Integrate systems Design all water facilities within the RUGA to City standards, and make provisions for the eventual integration of facilities into City systems. The City will work with property owners to annex properties requiring City services in the near term (i.e. within 6 years), in accordance with the City's Capital Facilities Plan. PF -W-6 Water connection required Connect all new construction within the RUGA to the City's water system concurrent or subsequent to annexation, except for single-family residences on lots existing at the time of adoption of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan that cannot reasonably hook up to the City water system. PF -W-7 Protect groundwater Coordinate with Clark County to develop groundwater protection mechanisms which protect well heads, reduce the risk of accidental groundwater contamination and encourage the conservation of groundwater. 7.5 SANITARY SEWER 7.5.1 Current Conditions Sanitary sewer systems consist of neighborhood sewer lines that take waste from pipes serving individual properties, trunk lines that collect waste from these lines within individual drainage basins, and interceptors that receive flow from several drainage basins and route it to treatment facilities. Pump stations and force mains augment the system. In 2014 the Clark Regional Wastewater District (Clark Regional) took over ownership and operation of the City's sanitary sewer service. Clark Regional now maintains approximately 230,000 linear feet of existing sewer collection system including gravity sewers and force mains. Clark Regional also owns and maintains 12 sewer lift stations. The existing sewer system meets all federal and state standards and has adequate capacity for existing demand. The sanitary sewer system is monitored by instrumentation, computer modeling, and tracking development trends so that sewer projects can be implemented before the mains reach capacity. Preventive maintenance keeps problem areas clean to minimize blockages. Wastewater is currently treated at the Ridgefield Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP provides physical and biological treatment of wastewater prior to discharge to an outfall in Lake River. Biosolids generated from the wastewater treatment process are hauled to the Salmon Creek Treatment Plant for further treatment and disposal. The City's existing WWTP has a permitted capacity of 0.7 million gallons per day (MGD), and the current average daily flow of 0.546 MGD (as of 2015) is approaching the capacity limits. The District recently completed the Discovery Corridor Wastewater Transmission System Project to increase overall capacity for the Ridgefield area to serve future development and relieve pressure on the WWTP. The project included upgrades to an existing pump station to reroute wastewater from the WWTP to the Salmon Creek Treatment Plant via a new wastewater conveyance pipeline. There are numerous onsite sewage treatment or septic systems in the Ridgefield area. Because many of the systems are more than 20 years old and reaching the end of their expected life spans, failures are increasing. Septic system failures may go undetected, allowing contamination of nearby streams, lakes, or shallow drinking water wells. Septic systems can also cause an increase in nitrates in groundwater. The City of Ridgefield supports elimination of septic tanks in the RUGA, and seeks to help homeowners eliminate unreliable septic systems. 7.5.2 Direction for the Future Planning for adequate sewage treatment capacity is very important to Ridgefield. It is critical to water quality as well as economic development. While new construction will always provide its own service lines, and sometimes provides pump stations, it is the responsibility of the City to plan trunk lines and adequate treatment plant capacity. The City also seeks to coordinate sewer projects with other projects so that, for example, utilities in new roadways are placed during construction. The Ridgefield General Sewer Plan was adopted in 2013. This Plan was developed to ensure that the City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 59 network of pipes, manholes, pumps, and other physical facilities are adequate to service the 20 years of growth in the RUGA. The City has developed infrastructure improvement plans, revenue estimates, and costs for the six-year and 20 -year planning horizons (Figure 7-2). Clark Regional is currently developing an updated General Sewer Plan that outlines plans to serve the entire RUGA, building on the City's previous sewer plan. The City will continue to work with Clark Regional to implement a regional sewer framework to provide a governance and financial structure for a regional sewer utility, to plan for a regional sewer system, and to construct necessary infrastructure to serve development. 7.5.3 Policies PF -S -T Provide sewer service Provide sewers and sewer service to every Ridgefield home, business, public facility and industry. Encourage existing development using septic systems to connect to public sewer as soon as available. Ensure that the infrastructure to support sewer service is in place prior to new development PF -S-2 Sewer service area Provide sewer service within the RUGA and restrict provision of urban services outside the RUGA. Require all utilities within the RUGA to be designed to District standards. PF -S-3 Responsibility for system Clark Regional shall maintain sole responsibility for provision of sanitary sewer service within the RUGA. PF -S-4 Private systems Discourage construction of new private sewer systems and work with Clark County to eliminate existing private sewer systems within the RUGA to minimize environmental contamination and health risks. PF -S -S Requirement for sewer connection All new construction within the RUGA shall be required to connect to the Clark Regional sanitary sewer system, except for single-family residences on lots existing at the time of adoption of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan that cannot reasonably hook up to the regional sewer system. 60 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate PF -S-6 Efficiency To control power and maintenance costs, Clark Regional is committed to minimizing the number of pump stations and force mains in the collection system. To that end, Clark Regional is committed to developing a more efficient gravity flow sewer system in the long-term to serve the entire Urban Growth Area. Therefore, lift stations, force mains or individual home pumps will only be allowed within the RUGA where topography makes the use of gravity sewer systems impractical. PF -S-7 Protect groundwater Clark Regional will coordinate with Clark County and the Washington State Department of Health to ensure that existing septic systems do not contaminate ground or surface water. 7.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 7.6.1 Current Conditions Mismanaged stormwater runoff from streets and buildings can pollute lakes, streams, rivers and groundwater and may cause erosion, flooding and other safety hazards. Because it picks up nutrients, metals, oil and grease and other forms of pollution, untreated stormwater can threaten drinking water, plants and animals that live in surface waters, and water -related recreation. The City of Ridgefield's goal is to maintain or improve surface and groundwater quality by managing stormwater. Increased urbanization can make this goal difficult to meet. An increase in the amount of impervious surfaces (roadways, parking lots, driveways, and sidewalks) increases the amount of runoff, and the potential for it to carry pollutants from erosion or chemical contamination to surface waters. Before it was fully understood how rainfall can replenish the supply of groundwater, stormwater runoff in most cities was collected in storm drainage pipes and sent to sewage treatment plants or large water bodies. Most of the older neighborhoods in Ridgefield dispose of stormwater this way. Ridgefield's current approach to stormwater management is to require property owners to retain stormwater on site and treat it, usually by running 0 LL ( G\< / q §2 § / ƒ( { § 2 - B ) S2 qi;§y Er f § « fCf § § z S m;LQ §!§y! (( ��° }(\/\ $,§ § C11�f$/kk! }\ \(k��r®!!! UJ 6a l3- <Z< ° }\ >— 5#8,-- a)0 §=§{alry�7&�&J;,o��,e� °~!f`»«Ekl;�==rzl;,�*«ztr�:Sw>:»; rrrlwC3 oz =Z z<��!!3k7f; lE3l O > §/!! () [E§/2«§#/)/A:))%)§§§§ LL � GS�2< LS2U � $ ! G\< / ) E E2 LLI ) § 0LLI c ,sLU .. /(}§§ }\ ƒ� \ !� O > LL % \------ it through vegetated areas where plants filter out and absorb pollutants prior to its release into the ground or nearby surface water. This approach also reduces the risk of flooding along streams by regulating flow into streams during storms. Federal and state regulations govern stormwater management under the federal Clean Water Act of 1972, administered in Washington by the Department of Ecology. Ecology issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits to municipal stormwater systems, industrial users, and construction sites. All construction sites over one acre in the city must obtain a construction NPDES permit. The City does not currently require an NPDES permit for its stormwater system because the population is less than 10,000. Local stormwater regulations require compliance with the 1992 Puget Sound Manual for stormwater management and require participation in a monthly stormwater utility. 7.6.2 Direction for the Future Ridgefield's stormwater management goal is to safely pass floodwaters and drainage in a manner that improves the community and the environment. The objectives of the program and associated regulations are to: Protect surface and groundwater from contamination • Protect people and property from flood damage • Protect aquatic life • Provide recreation opportunities, community aesthetics, and good neighbor facilities • Protect and enhance riparian and habitat areas Ridgefield will work with private property owners to enhance the functioning offloodplains and riparian areas throughout the City and RUGA. Increased planting of native vegetation and removal of impervious surfaces will also enhance stormwater management. Ridgefield will encourage the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to manage stormwater. As the City grows and surpasses the 10,000 population mark, the City will be required to come 62 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate into compliance with the NPDES Phase II permitting requirements. The City aims to achieve a smooth transition by updating local stormwater regulations, evaluating adequacy of existing facilities and funding sources, and educating developers about how the new regulations will influence development. 7.6.3 Policies PF -ST -7 Stormwater management Manage storm water to safely collect, treat, and discharge run-off, maintain and improve water quality of receiving streams, lakes, and wetlands, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, promote recreational opportunities, and enhance community aesthetics. PF -ST -2 New construction All new development shall be designed consistent with the City's long-range stormwater management plans and programs, and shall only be permitted consistent with the following provisions: • Control off-site water quality and quantity impacts through appropriate design. • Require the use of source control and treatment best management practices. • Prioritize the use of infiltration, with appropriate water quality precautions. • Protect stream channels and wetlands. • Require erosion and sediment controls for excavation, new development and redevelopment projects. • Encourage use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. PF -ST -3 Regional consistency Implement the provisions of the policy above (PF - ST -2) in accordance with the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, the Clark County Stormwater Manual, or equally effective standards approved by the City Engineer. PF -ST -4 State permitting transition Prepare for a smooth transition to NPDES Phase II permitting for the municipal stormwater system by updating local stormwater regulations, evaluating adequacy of existing facilities and funding sources, and educating the development community about the benefits and requirements of the new regulations. PF -ST -5 Groundwater protection Develop groundwater protection mechanisms which protect well heads, reduce the risk of accidental groundwater contamination and encourage the conservation of groundwater. 7.7 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 7.7.1 Current Conditions Clark County Fire & Rescue (CCF&R) provides fire protection and emergency services within the city limits and the unincorporated area within the Ridgefield UGA. CCF&R is a combination district serving 155 square miles in northern Clark County including the cities of Ridgefield, La Center, Woodland, and unincorporated areas. The district responded to over 5,000 calls across its service area in 2014, the last year data were available. Approximately 6% of calls, over 300 per year on average, are for service within Ridgefield. Clark County Fire & Rescue provides emergency medical services, fire suppression, limited technical rescue, hazardous materials response at the operational level and marine -based firefighting and water rescue. There are three fire stations in Ridgefield: staffed Station 24 in downtown Ridgefield, Station 21 in the Ridgefield Junction area east of Interstate 5 covered by volunteer staffing that also includes the district headquarters, and the unmanned Boathouse 24 on Lake River with the district's fire boat. Clark County Fire & Rescue is regularly assessed by the Washington Surveying and Ratings Bureau (WSRB). WSRB evaluates all Washington communities for their fire protection/suppression capability using a schedule approved by the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner. WSRB assigns each community a Protection Class of 1 through 10, where 1 indicates exemplary fire protection capabilities, and 10 indicates the capabilities, if any, are insufficient for insurance credit. As of 2015, Ridgefield and the surrounding areas scored a 4. The benefits of these ratings are passed down to residents by having low insurance premiums and quality emergency services. 7.7.2 Direction for the Future CCF&R has identified priorities for future equipment and staffing to maintain emergency response times as the city grows. The downtown Ridgefield Station 24 is aging and is in need or rehab or replacement. Ongoing replacement of fire apparatus and equipment will be needed, including replacement of ladder trucks with higher ladders to fight fires at larger commercial construction anticipated in the future. CCF&R has also prioritized increasing staffing levels to three-person companies for each apparatus. As the city grows, the number and type of calls will be influenced by several factors: increases in population and density, number of aging structures that have not had ongoing maintenance, lower income levels that restrict the ability of residents and owners to maintain and repair their homes and businesses, number of senior, nursing and skilled care facilities, and increasing age of the baby boomer generation. The need for additional response units (engines, trucks, etc.) is based on the many of these factors and on the number of emergency calls per response. 7.7.3 Policies PF -F-1 Fire protection Coordinate with Clark County Fire & Rescue to provide for a high quality fire and emergency services, including locating facilities, establishing emergency routes, and maintain adequate water supplies for fire flows. PF -F-2 Fire prevention Coordinate with Clark County Fire & Rescue as part of long-range planning and development review to minimize fire risk to new development, including site planning and building design. 7.8 LAW ENFORCEMENT 7.8.1 Current Conditions The Ridgefield Police Department (RPD) provides police protection and other law enforcement services within Ridgefield's city limits. The RPD operates out of the police station located downtown and provides a range of services including: City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 63 • Emergency response • 24-hour patrol • Traffic enforcement Criminal investigations including arson • Forensics • Traffic collision investigations • Special response units such as the new canine officers In cooperation with other local agencies, RPD also provides police services related to child abuse, domestic violence, and drug enforcement and investigation. The City's current goal is to provide municipal police officers at a 1.2 to 1000 ratio. The current staffing levels exceed this goal. RPD works with a number of partners in the County to provide services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Clark Regional Emergency Services Agency (CRESA) processes 911 calls, radio dispatch, and County jail and criminal records. CRESA also coordinates emergency management, provides oversight of ambulance contracts, and operates and maintains regional radio services. Through interlocal agreements, all jurisdictions in Clark County provide backup to each other in emergencies. The Washington State Patrol has police jurisdiction on state routes in the county, is largely responsible for state facilities, and provides backup for the Clark County Sheriff's Department and local jurisdictions. The city contracts for jail services with the Clark County Sheriff's Office and for municipal court services through an inter -local agreement with the Battle Ground Municipal Court. RPD also works regionally with the Clark -Vancouver Regional Drug Task Force and Clark County Child Abuse Center. 7.8.2 Direction for the Future Law-enforcement staffing is usually based on population and average response time to emergency calls. Ridgefield's population has increased rapidly in the past 20 years, and is expected to continue in the coming years. Responsibility for law enforcement in the RUGA will transfer from the Clark County Sheriff's Department to the RPD as the city continues to grow. Service standards demand for law-enforcement 64 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate services are related directly to population and employment. Crime rates are also closely related to population, age distribution, and economic conditions. Additional staffing, equipment, and facilities are needed as the population continues to grow and land is annexed. Plans are based on current activity statistics, census demographic data, and other information. The RPD will need to expand staffing in current years to continue meeting staffing ratios, and is planning a new facility for police services. 7.8.3 Policy PF -LE -1 Police protection Provide for police protection that creates a safe environment to residents and visitors through budget support for expanded facilities, staffing and other operational expenses. 7.9 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES AND SERVICES 7.9.1 Current Conditions All cities and towns in Clark County have delegated responsibility for solid waste transfer and disposal planning to the County through 2021, including Ridgefield. The adopted Clark County Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) of 2015 is updated regularly and reviewed by the County Solid Waste Advisory Commission. Agreements between Clark County and its cities commit each to the plan and to the plan's waste disposal system. Counties and cities in the State of Washington are required by RCW 70.95 to: • Prepare and maintain coordinated comprehensive solid waste management plans • Determine the nature and extent of various solid waste streams (for example, from households, industries, offices, etc.) • Establish management strategies for the handling, utilization, and disposal of solid waste • Identify waste reduction, source -separated recycling, and waste separation programs as priority management tools Waste Connections of Washington is responsible for managing collection services within the Ridgefield boundaries for both garbage and recyclable materials. The City has established universal compulsory solid waste collection, requiring all residents and business to maintain solid waste service. There are no permanent solid waste facilities within the City of Ridgefield; facilities are located throughout the County. Clark County and the City of Ridgefield entered into a 10 -year contract with Columbia Resource Company (CRC), owned by Waste Connections of Washington, in 2010 to recycle solid -waste materials collected and delivered to transfer and recycling stations, with the remaining non -recycled wastes transported for final disposal to CRC's Finley Buttes Landfill. Waste is compacted into intermodal containers and transported upriver by private barge, then trucked to the landfill. Over half of the waste generated in the County is recycled or recovered, with the remainder disposed of in landfills. In 2012, the total waste stream for the County was 665,766 tons, of which 359,169 tons were recycled, or 53.9%. Since 2003, pounds per person per day landfilled has declined from 3.40 to 2.94 pounds, similar to the national rate of 2.90 pounds per capita landfill disposal. However, even as the percentage of waste that is recycled has increased, the total waste per capita—recyclable and non- recyclable—has also increased, requiring additional resources to collect, sort, transfer, and convert to a recycled product or landfill. Although the percentage of waste recycled in Clark County has increased from 36% to 54% between 2003 and 2012, total waste generated per person per day has increased from 6.55 pounds to 8.46 pounds over the same period. Ridgefield has a low residential recycling rate relative to the rest of the County. In 2013, 33 pounds were recycled per single-family household per month in Ridgefield, down from a high of 66 pounds per month in 2006 and below the 50-58 pounds per month per household collected elsewhere in the county. 7.9.2 Direction for the Future Total waste generation is expected to continue to increase in Ridgefield and across the county as the population grows. The County has projected a 1.3% increase in total waste per year, including a 1.6% increase in landfill tonnage and a 2% increase in residential recycling tonnage. At these rates, the County projects an increase from 665,766 tons total waste countywide in 2012 to 789,819 tons in 2034. Ridgefield's total waste generation can be expected to increase at a higher rate due to the higher population growth rate forecasted for the city relative to the county. The County has evaluated the capacity of its transfer stations and landfills and concluded that they can accommodate the projected waste increase through 2034. The CSWMP establishes several overall goals for waste management over the 2015-2020 timeframe including: • Increase recycling rate to 55% and the total diversion rate to 70%. • Reduce per person per day landfilled volumes by 5%. Reduce total amount of waste generated per person per day by 5%. Ridgefield will work with the County towards these goals by implementing the specific objectives of the CSWMP. 7.9.3 Policy PF -SW -1 Solid waste service Provide for solid waste service throughout the city by contracting with private waste management companies to provide a variety of solid waste and recycling options, and continue a system of universal compulsory solid waste collection. PF -SW -2 Waste management Implement the Clark County Solid Waste Management Plan. Reduce the total production of waste, increase recycling rate of waste that is produced, and properly manage and dispose of waste that is not recycled. Provide education and outreach to businesses and the public on benefits and opportunities for waste reduction and recycling. Focus on residential recycling rates to improve participation rates similar to the rest of the County. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 65 7.10 EDUCATION 7.10.1 Current Conditions Schools Elementary and Secondary Schools The Ridgefield School District (RSD) serves the City of Ridgefield and a large portion of the unincorporated area of Clark County. It spans 1-5 and extends from the northern edge of Vancouver to the Lewis River. Population within the RSD service area has been increasing rapidly, and is projected to continue growing. With a 2015 enrollment of 2,458 students, the district is serving nearly 300 students in excess of their 2,159 student capacity. Recent construction at RSD facilities in 2014 financed by a $49 -million bond has expanded capacity, the first major upgrade in 20 years. Table 7-4 inventories the existing instructional facilities in the Ridgefield School District; Table 7-5 inventories the non -instructional facilities. In addition to the four permanent schools, the District also uses a fluctuating number of portable classrooms to accommodate enrollment in excess of capacity. In addition to developed facilities, the department has secured the following sites for future school construction: • 49.84 -acre site at 23800 NW Hillhurst Road • 23 -acre site at NE 10th Avenue and 239th Street for development as a future elementary school • 2,178 sq. ft. piece at 45th Avenue and Pioneer Street Post -Secondary Education Clark College is a community college providing a variety of associate degrees, general adult education and preparation for four-year university degrees, with programs in nursing, dental hygiene and industrial arts such as welding and auto maintenance. Founded in 1933, Clark College received its first accreditation in 1936-37 and has been accredited since 1948. The main campus is located on a 101 -acre campus in Vancouver's historic Central Park, just east of the 1-5 freeway and north of Fort Vancouver Historic Reserve. Classes are also offered at the Washington State University Vancouver 66 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate branch campus in Salmon Creek and the Columbia Tech Center satellite campus in east Vancouver. Clark serves approximately 16,000 students per quarter and enrollment is expected to continue to grow. Clark also runs the Running Start program providing college courses for approximately 1,800 high school students. It is the largest college in the Washington State system of community and technical colleges. Clark College has acquired land to develop a new satellite campus in Ridgefield. The 69 -acre site, located northeast of the Ridgefield 1-5 Junction on N 65th Avenue, will be known as Clark College at Boschma Farms. The satellite campus is expected to provide programs in the health care fields, general education, and Running Start. Washington State University (WSU) Vancouver is a four-year research university. It began offering courses in southwest Washington in 1983 as part of the Southwest Washington Joint Center for Education. In 1989, the University formally established Washington State University Vancouver as a branch campus of the state's land-grant institution. The 351 -acre Salmon Creek campus opened in 1996. WSU Vancouver offers bachelor and graduate degrees in nearly 50 fields of study. Students may pursue one of WSU Vancouver's 20 bachelors' and 25 masters' degrees. Enrollment in 2015 was 3,305 students, with more than 190 doctorate faculty. Additional technical institutes and degree programs in the area include Everest College, Charter College, International Air and Hospitality Academy including the Northwest Renewable Energy Institute, and a branch of Warner Pacific College. 7.10.2 Direction for the Future The Ridgefield School District expects to continue to grow and will therefore need to add new facilities. RSD is Clark County's fastest-growing school district over the past two years and is projected to more than triple in enrollment by 2035 in line with overall projected population increases. The CFP projects a 59% increase in enrollment by 2021, requiring expanded capacity to serve an additional 603 K -6th grade students, 339 7th and 8th grade students, and 532 high school students. RSD is considering a combination of reorganizing and expanding existing facilities and constructing new facilities to accommodate the increased enrollment. To cover the local share of the new facilities, the district imposes school impact fees, as allowed under the GMA and local implementing ordinances. The maximum allowable impact fee is calculated according to an adopted formula. As more development takes place in the RUGA, large parcels of land available for schools will become increasingly scarce. The RSD has secured several parcels for future school expansion, and may need to acquire additional land depending on the future facility configuration. Clark College has announced plans to develop the Boschma Farms campus. The campus will start with one building, housing up to 1,000 students as early as 2020, and grow to include four to six buildings and associated facilities. The Washington State Legislature has committed funds that will be used for campus construction. 7.10.3 Policies PF -ED -1 Provide quality education and adequate facilities Work with the School District to develop and implement policies and regulations that support the School District's mission of providing a quality public education. Provide an adequate supply of kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) public schools and facilities that keep pace with population growth to avoid overcrowding and to enhance the educational opportunities for our children. PF -ED -2 Coordination Coordinate with the Ridgefield School District on capital facilities planning efforts and facilities plans. The City will also notify and coordinate with the Ridgefield School District in the review of plan amendments or developments involving five (5) acres or more of residential land or twenty-five (25) or more residential units. Table 7-4. Ridgefield School District Instructional Facilities School Type Location Campus Acres Building Sq. Ft. Capacity South Ridge Elementary 502 NW 199th St 40 59,687 525 School Union Ridge Elementary 330 N 5th St 11.8 81,533 700 School View Ridge Middle School 510 Pioneer St 9.0 44,079 297 Ridgefield High School 2630S 60 137,395 637 High School Hillhurst Rd Total 120.8 322,694 2,159 Table 7-5. Support Facilities Type Description Location Administrative Offices Portable at High School 2724 S Hillhurst Rd campus with 1,848 sq. ft. Maintenance Department 10,000 sq. ft. 304 Pioneer St SW Washington Child Care Consortium 2 -classroom portable at 509 NW 199th St South Ridge campus Paradise Point Transportation Bus barn for 40+ school buses Paradise Point Rd Center (co-owner as part of KWRL Transportation Cooperative) City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 67 PF -ED -3 Site selection Assist the Ridgefield School District in selecting appropriate sites for new school facilities, in locations that enhance neighborhoods and urban districts. PF -ED -4 Double use of facilities Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the Ridgefield School District to formally allow Ridgefield citizens access to School District recreational and educational facilities. PF -ED -S Post -secondary education Facilitate development of post -secondary education facilities within the City as part of providing quality public education to the community, developing partnerships with major employers seeking trained employees, and providing employment opportunities. 7.11 LIBRARY SERVICES 7.11.1 Current Conditions FVRL has also identified a broad range of projects to expand library programs and services across the district. Potential projects fall into three categories: enhancing existing facilities, expanding services to underserved areas, and rethinking how library services are delivered, including access to new technology. 7.11.3 Policy PF -L-1 High quality libraries The City of Ridgefield will continue to partner with the Fort Vancouver Regional Library District to provide high quality library services to residents of the city and surrounding areas. PF -L-2 Site selection and development Assist the Fort Vancouver Regional Library District in selecting appropriate site(s) for new or expanded library facilities, in locations that enhance neighborhoods and urban districts, and developing new facilities. Explore partnering with FVRLD to develop joint city -library facilities. Ridgefield is part of the Fort Vancouver Regional Library District (FVRL or District) provides library 7.12 PRIVATE UTILITIES services in four counties in southwestern Washington (Clark, Skamania, Klickitat, Cowlitz). FVRL serves a total population of 464,240 and an area of 4,200 square miles, with a collection of 751,470 volumes. FVRUs service area includes the RUGA. The District has 15 libraries across four counties, anchored by the 83,000 -square -foot Vancouver Community Library recently completed in 2011. The Ridgefield Community Library is located in the heart of downtown Ridgefield, and is an integral part of the community. The Ridgefield Library, originally an independent entity before merging with FVRL, has served the community since 1914. The current library is located in the Ridgefield Community Center, covers 2,055 square feet and has a circulation of 63,234 volumes and 62,010 library visits as of 2013. 7.11.2 Direction for the Future As Ridgefield continues to grow, a larger library facility will be needed to fulfill community needs for materials and facilities. FVRL identified Ridgefield as a priority for development of a new and/or expanded library facility, and is working to complete design and secure funding for facility development. 68 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 7.12.1 Electricity Electric service throughout Clark County is provided by Clark Public Utilities (CPU), a customer -owned public utility district. About half of the power the utility sells its customers is purchased from the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency that markets power generated at federal dams in the Pacific Northwest. Additional power is generated at the River Road Generating Plant, a combined - cycle combustion turbine that uses natural gas to produce electricity, and obtained from a small hydroelectric facility and wind generation facility. The CPU system consists of more than 100 miles of high-voltage transmission lines (69,000 and 115,000 volts), 54 substations/switching stations, about 6,500 miles of overhead and underground distribution lines, and 59,352 utility poles. The facilities serve about 192,000 customers. CPU routinely reviews the county's growth plans and coordinates the construction of new electrical facilities with those plans. Major electrical facilities are in place to serve existing utility customers; however, additional substations, transmission lines and distribution facilities will be required to meet the needs of new customers. It should be noted that state law requires utilities to provide electricity to all who request it. The utility believes it has adequate supplies of electricity to meet anticipated customer demands. Utility officials routinely prepare projections of future demand for electricity and review available supplies. When projections show that demand for electricity will exceed the available supply, the utility will conduct extensive evaluations of the available options The major options are to build additional electrical generating capacity, purchase additional supplies of electricity, or expand electricity conservation programs to reduce demand for power. Any one or a combination of the options could be selected. 7.12.2 Natural Gas Granted its service territory by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, NW Natural Gas is the sole purveyor of natural gas in Clark County. The company serves over 50,000 residential, commercial and industrial gas customers in the county. Its customer base has grown rapidly over the past 10 years, reflecting a strong preference by builders for natural gas heating in new homes as the county's residential population increases. Despite historic fluctuations in energy prices, as the local distribution company of natural gas, NW Natural anticipates continued strong growth in customer additions in Clark County and is planning for future infrastructure construction and maintenance to serve the expected need. Additional distribution lines will be constructed on an as -needed basis in accordance with local, state and federal regulations and codes covering land use and safety issues. Public safety has been the number one consideration in the siting and construction of new pipelines, as reflected by natural gas's superior safety record in the pipeline industry. The growth of new development and housing subdivisions in the county to be served by natural gas will only increase the need for stringent adherence to safety and maintenance standards for the building and operation of transmission and distribution lines. 7.12.3 Telecommunications The telecommunications industry is currently in the midst of tremendous advances in technology. Cellular and optical fiber technologies are transforming the way service is delivered. In addition, the physical barriers that separate data, video, and voice technologies are rapidly disappearing. Since the breakup of AT&T in 1984, new technology and new providers have entered the market at a rapid pace and have fostered a competitive industry. Many telecommunication companies provide landline and cellular service to Ridgefield residents. These include Centuryl-ink, Frontier Communications, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon. Comcast provides cable television and internet access. Because of the rapid change in this industry, there may be service providers not mentioned herein that provide service in the Ridgefield area. 7.12.4 Policy PF-PU-1 Quality Service Assist in providing quality and reliable private utilities and service options to the Ridgefield residents and business operators, through partnering, licensing, and negotiations with utility companies. 7.13 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES 7.13.1 Current Conditions RCW 36.7OA.2OO states that essential public facilities (EPFs) are facilities that are typically difficult to site but that provide a broader state or local benefit. Essential public facilities (EPF) can be government owned and operated facilities, or privately owned facilities that are regulated by public entities. Types of EPFs includes: • airports • state education facilities • state or regional transportation facilities • state and local correctional facilities • solid waste handling facilities regional parks/trails • in-patient facilities, including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 69 transportation facilities of state-wide significance defined according to RCW 47.06.140 • secure community transition facilities • hospitals and medical clinics These facilities are typically difficult to locate because of perceived or real environmental, economic, or social costs. Facility size, location and adverse impacts such as noise, odor, pollution generation, traffic impacts, aesthetics, and health and safety concerns are examples of some of the characteristics that make essential public facilities difficult to site. Experience shows that there is often public opposition when jurisdictions or service providers consider new locations for essential public facilities. However, RCW 36.70A.200(2)(5) states that "No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities." The only EPFs currently in Ridgefield are state highways, including Interstate 5. Refer to the transportation section for further discussion of these facilities. 7.13.2 Direction for the Future The process for siting essential public facilities (EPFs) depends on whether the facility is a state-wide EPF (like a university or prison), a local, or a regional EPF. The state-wide process will be managed by a board or council comprised of representatives from state and local agencies. Local or regional facilities would be sited by local governments using the existing GMA process. A public facility siting negotiation process may be recommended if the GMA process does not provide a definite result. The negotiation process would include representatives from jurisdictions where the facility may be located 70 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate or wherein the impacts of the facility would be manifest. The facility siting committee would seek to negotiate a resolution to the siting issue(s) with assistance from the State Office of Dispute Resolution, if it is available. If an agreement is reached, each legislative body represented on the committee would have to ratify the agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached, the State oversight body would be presented with the proposals from each party. The oversight body would select the proposal it determines is most consistent with state policy. 7.13.3 Policies PF-EPF-I Essential public facilities Ridgefield will adopt policies and regulations, to identify future needs for regional and statewide facilities, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities. No other Comprehensive Plan policy may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. PF-EPF-2 Identify future needs Coordinate with Clark County, the state, and special districts to identify future needs for regional and statewide facilities. __ �• .tom . � A � .�� r * j11� _ .r�t_ • '� s 8. TRANSPORTATION The transportation system is part of everyday life. The entire community relies on the system to get people where they want to go, to bring goods to and from the community, and to connect people to the services they need. Ridgefield's transportation system has a variety of components, including state highways (managed by Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOTA local streets, sidewalks, bike facilities, transit (C-TRAN) and pedestrian trails. Regional coordination and consistency are integral to Ridgefield's transportation program. Regional partnerships are maintained with Clark County, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC), C TRAN (regional transit agency), WSDOT, the Port of Ridgefield, and other cities in Clark County. These relationships are formalized through active participation in the RTC, which serves as the area's federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and state -designated Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO). The RTC maintains and runs the traffic modeling for all jurisdictions in Clark County, based on a common land use geographic information system. This ensures consistency in land use and transportation planning among neighboring jurisdictions. RTC, as the regional RTPO, certifies Ridgefield's transportation element for consistency with the regional plan and with the plan of each jurisdiction responsible for transportation planning within Clark County. 8.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Before a local government can adequately plan for its future, it must assess the capability of its existing transportation system to serve current demand. It is therefore necessary to determine existing levels of service and to identify existing deficiencies of the transportation system. 8.1.1 Roadway Functional Classification The functional classification of a roadway (shown in Figure 8-1) determines the level of mobility for all travel modes for anticipated level of access and usage. The functional classification system recognizes that individual streets do not act independently of one another, but instead form a network that serves travel needs on a local and regional level. From highest to lowest intended usage, the functional classifications are: principal arterial, minor arterial, collector, and local streets. Roadways with higher intended usage generally limit access to adjacent property in favor of more efficient motor vehicle traffic movement (i.e., mobility). Local roadways with lower intended usage have more driveway access and intersections, and generally accommodate shorter trips to nearby destinations. Ridgefield's roadways are classified as several types of arterials, collectors and local streets. Designated principal arterials, such as Pioneer Street/SR 501, serve regional trips and provide the main routes of access into and out of the city. Minor arterials such as N Main Avenue and 45th Avenue serve trips within the region and connect to the principal arterial system. See Table 8-1 for a full breakdown of road segments by classification. The collector roadways have been grouped in the following three subcategories: standard collector, scenic collector, and commercial/industrial collector. • Standard collectors are designed to provide primary access to commercial and residential areas. • Commercial/industrial collectors will primarily serve employment and retail areas, and will be designed to accommodate truck movements. • There is only one scenic collector, Reiman Road. Although classified as a collector, the roadside environment and topography constrain the ability to widen Reiman Road. Maintaining a narrower roadway width will help preserve the rural and scenic nature of the roadway. As other roadways are improved or constructed, it is expected that through traffic will be directed to the north via 35th and 45th Avenues, instead of Reiman Road. All remaining roadways in the UGA are classified as local streets. Several roadways noted in Figure 8-1 are not under Ridgefield's jurisdiction at this time. These roadways are nevertheless considered important to transportation access to and circulation within the City. The City supports efforts to include the City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 73 N 20th Street/NW 289th Street minor arterial These functional classification designations and crossing over 1-5, the NW 219th Street extension corresponding design standards are compatible from the Interstate 5/SR-502 interchange west between the City and County to allow the to NW 31st Avenue/Hillhurst Road, and the S facilities to blend and function well (i.e., the 51st Avenue extension to the NW 219th Street sidewalks align, lanes are of similar width and extension (which is in the County's Arterial Atlas). configuration, etc.). Design standards for these Table 8-1. Arterial and Collector Roadways Classification Road Segment Principal Arterials Pioneer Street/SR 501 All Union Ridge Parkway All S Hillhurst Road South of Sevier Road Minor Arterials S Hillhurst Road North of Sevier Road N Main Avenue Pioneer Street/SR 501 to NW 291st Street Royle Road —45th Avenue S Hillhurst Road to N 10th Street N 20th Street/NW 289th Street N 65th Avenue to Interstate 5 N 65th Avenue Pioneer Street/SR 501 to N 20th 74 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate Street/NW 289th Street S 10th Street Union Ridge Parkway to the existing terminus (east of Dolan Road) S 11th Street Timm Road to the existing terminus (east of 45th Avenue) NW Carty Road Hillhurst Road to Interstate 5 NE 10th Avenue/85th N 10th Street/NW 279th Street Avenue from to NE 253rd Street Standard Collectors Heron Drive All 35th Place — 35th Avenue North terminus (north of Pioneer Canyon Drive) to S 5th Way NW 51st Avenue Heron Drive to NW 280th Street Division Street N Main Avenue to Abrams Park Road NW 51st Avenue — NW S 4th Way to S 45th Avenue 259th Street — NW 41st Avenue — S 15th Street N 10th Street/NW 279th Street Interstate 5 to NE 19th Avenue S 65th Avenue — Dolan Road Pioneer Street/SR 501 to NW 253rd Street S 5th Street S 65th Avenue to NE 10th Avenue/85th Avenue NE 259th Street NE 10th Avenue/85th Avenue to NE 20th Avenue Commercial/Industrial N 10th Street 45th Avenue to Interstate 5 Collectors S 56th Place — S 6th Pioneer Street/SR 501 to the existing Way—Timm Road terminus (east of NW 24th Avenue) NW 24th Avenue NW Carty Road to the existing terminus (west of Timm Road). Scenic Collector Reiman Road Pioneer Street/SR-501 to Heron Drive 74 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate U ;v 0 U I c , - • � � j C F- � V � - i V � k i o S v V facilities are illustrated in the City of Ridgefield Engineering Standards, Chapter 2 — Streets. 8.1.2 Roadway Inventory An inventory of the existing arterial and collector street system was prepared using information obtained from the City, Clark County and field investigations. The existing traffic control, lane configurations, and traffic volumes at study intersections are shown in Figure 8-2. The existing street network is made up entirely of two-lane roadways, with the exception of the four - lane roadway segments of Pioneer Street/SR 501 east of S 56th Place, and Union Ridge Parkway between S 5th Street and S 10th Street. Traffic control is presently provided by posted stop sign control at the minor street approach to most intersections. Traffic signals exist at the northbound and southbound Interstate 5 ramp terminal intersections along Pioneer Street/SR 501. Roundabouts have been installed at primary intersections along Pioneer Street/SR 501, at 45th Avenue, 56th Place, and 65th Avenue. The highest traffic volumes occur along Pioneer Street/ SR 501, between 45th Avenue and Interstate 5. 8.1.3 Traffic Capacity Intersection capacity analyses was reviewed for the evening peak hour at study intersections using a Synchro traffic analysis model. The capacity analyses was conducted using the methodology of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM contains guidelines and computational procedures for computing the capacity and quality of service for various highway facilities, including freeways, signalized and unsignalized intersections, and rural highways. Synchro is a software package that employs the HCM guidelines and is used to assess roadway capacity. The use of Synchro allowed assessment of the existing transportation infrastructure and identification of potential future improvement needs. 8.1.4 Level of Service Standards Mobility targets for streets and intersections in Ridgefield provide a metric to assess the impacts of new development on the existing transportation system. They are the basis for requiring improvements needed to sustain the transportation 76 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate system as growth and development occur. Both Ridgefield and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) use level of service (LOS) as the method to gauge intersection operations. LOS is a "report card" rating (A through F) based on the average delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic moves without significant delays over periods of peak hour travel demand. LOS D and E are progressively worse operating conditions. LOS F represents conditions where average vehicle delay is excessive and demand exceeds capacity, typically resulting in long queues and delays. The LOS standard used for the Capital Facilities Plan is "D", except at unsignalized intersections that do not meet signal warrants or where a signal is not desired, where the LOS standard is "E". This is consistent with the City's adopted concurrency policy. WSDOT requires a level of service "E" or better for Regionally Significant State Highways (non -HSS) in urban areas', including Pioneer Street/SR 501. The Volume/Capacity (WC) ratio ranges in Table 8-2 were developed based on HCM methodology in determining mid -block roadway LOS performance. The WC ratio represents the actual volume of traffic traveling on the roadway divided by the volume capacity of that roadway. Capacity is defined as the maximum rate of flow that can be accommodated on a particular roadway segment. Table 8-3 summarizes the LOS for existing conditions (2015). All of the intersections operate at LOS C or better. 8.1.5 Collision History The most recent five years (2010 — 2014) of available collision data for Pioneer Street/SR 501 was obtained from WSDOT and used to evaluate the collision history2. As indicated in Table 8-4, the segments of Pioneer Street between 9th Avenue and Reiman Road, Reiman Road and 35th Avenue, 45th Avenue and 56th Place, and 56th Place and 65th Avenue experienced the most collisions (between 11 and 14 collisions ' Level of Service Standards for Washington State Highways, WSDOT, January 1, 2010. 3 WSDOT reported collisions for January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014. V Sc O /h/�� V oo � y Ii C ®��ONO B Oh!TB 00 S8 �•''f�� V AV H101 3N AV H101 3N O = ,u4e 06 \ B e 5'g O V .. V i ■�® ®B ♦iQ � .'G• SS 9l B 8®8 Cn LO Li a %n •� h W Q V O� ® 99 CQ AV H1S9 H BBB OEIBM ®� Mot •'_" h *to Ol N +1+ ® 91 1� 99 � Be ai 911 OZB ��_� R 51 �O o V 'Vol a 17`f S'199 d• C1 01 c Sb y 991!Id H1SY Ne%o000 tv E O _N EF E W N1 p m m F- = E F- _ Q a E � 0 0 8901 .�u 098£ �+---------------o!B H SB ®B o H = qj 0 m m a � U 3 UE C � H J � r tin Ott 8rr�� ` O 9118 O c rn m Y %n9Oi� ®® O! B o h G �+ O® 1C.�f3 ®' W o C Bin AV NIVW_N d 0 d 7 08 Bi no w G a a . 00 V along each of these segments). The intersection of SR 501 and the 1-5 Southbound ramps experienced six accidents, while five accidents were recorded at the intersection of Pioneer Street and 56th Place. 8.1.6 Transit Transit service for Ridgefield is provided by C-TRAN's "Connector" service (see Figure 8-3). The Connector serves Ridgefield with fully accessible dial -a -ride (reservation based service) and scheduled stop service (no reservation required) at designated stops. Fixed route service is provided from Ridgefield City Center to the 99th Street Transit Center in Vancouver. Buses leave Ridgefield City Center twice during weekday mornings for the 99th Street Transit Center, and return three times during weekday evenings. Midday service is also provided, with one bus arriving, and one leaving for the 99th Street Transit Center during weekday afternoons. The Connector bus service is not available on weekends. A park-and-ride facility is located near the N 65th Avenue/N 1st Circle intersection. 8.1.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian and bicycle facilities were inventoried S. 5th Street/NE 10th Avenue/264th St. B 11.5 Note: Estimated traffic from recently -approved, but not yet constructed, development proposals will result in lowered LOS. Table 8-4. Collision Summary Segment Number of Accidents Pioneer Street Between Main Avenue and 5th Avenue (Downtown) 7 Pioneer Street Between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue 7 Pioneer Street Between 9th Avenue and Reiman Road 13 Pioneer Street Between Reiman Road and 35th Avenue 12 Pioneer Street Between 35th Avenue and 45th Avenue 6 Pioneer Street Between 45th Avenue and 56th Place 11 Pioneer Street/SR 501 Between 56th Place and 65th Avenue 14 65th Avenue Between N 10th Street and S 10th Street 7 78 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate along arterial and collector roadways in the City, Table 8-2. Level -of -service (LOS) Categories and shown in Figure 8-3. The City of Ridgefield Engineering Standards identify the requirements for LOS Volume/Capacity Ratio non -motorized uses on streets, such as sidewalks, A Less than or equal to 0.3 trails, and bikeways. Five miles of off-street trails B Less than or equal to 0.5 have been built throughout the city, including loops through new residential developments and several C Less than or equal to 0.75 sections along Gee Creek and in Abrams Park. Bike D Less than or equal to 0.90 lanes are present along portions of Heron Drive, E Less than or equal to 1.0 Reiman Road, S 5th Street, Union Ridge Parkway, S. F Greater than 1.0 11th Street, and N. 85th Avenue. A combination of bike Table 8-3. Selected Intersection LOS Summary (PM Peak) Intersection LOS Delay (sedvehicle) Pioneer Street/Main Street A 7.9 Pioneer Avenue/9th Avenue C 20.7 Pioneer Street/Reiman Road B 13.7 SR 501/45th Avenue (roundabout) C v/c = 0.45 SR 501/56th Place (roundabout) A v/c = 0.47 SR 501/1-5 Southbound Ramp (signalized) B 12.4 SR 501/1-5 Northbound Ramp (signalized) B 15.6 Pioneer Street/65th Avenue (roundabout) A v/c = 0.38 65th Avenue/S. 5th Street B 10.3 S. 5th Street/NE 10th Avenue/264th St. B 11.5 Note: Estimated traffic from recently -approved, but not yet constructed, development proposals will result in lowered LOS. Table 8-4. Collision Summary Segment Number of Accidents Pioneer Street Between Main Avenue and 5th Avenue (Downtown) 7 Pioneer Street Between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue 7 Pioneer Street Between 9th Avenue and Reiman Road 13 Pioneer Street Between Reiman Road and 35th Avenue 12 Pioneer Street Between 35th Avenue and 45th Avenue 6 Pioneer Street Between 45th Avenue and 56th Place 11 Pioneer Street/SR 501 Between 56th Place and 65th Avenue 14 65th Avenue Between N 10th Street and S 10th Street 7 78 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate s � rJ h J w -, WIN rn 3 I• I LEP �I n rAW H i s v h w -, WIN v 3 I• I LEP n 1 3 i I � Z u I I v lanes and striped shoulders exist along sections of Pioneer Street/SR 501; the shoulders provide refuge for bicyclists and pedestrians although not officially designated bike lanes because of their narrow width. On other roadways within the city, bicycle users currently share the roadway with motorized traffic. Sidewalks are primarily located in downtown and in newly developed areas. There are sidewalk segments along portions of Pioneer Street/SR 501, Main Avenue, Hillhurst Road, Heron Drive, Reiman Road, 35th Avenue, 45th Avenue, S 56th Place, S 6th Way, Timm Road, Union Ridge Parkway, and S 5th Street. Sidewalks are generally required for all new developments, allowing build -out of the sidewalk network over time. 8.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE Basic transportation access to obtain goods and services and engage in social activities is an essential need that must be met. Motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders should all be able to use the transportation system in a safe, efficient, and uniform way. Through coordination with Clark County, C IRAN, and RTC, Ridgefield will develop a multimodal transportation system that safely, attractively and efficiently serves planned land uses within the UGA. Most people who live in Ridgefield view the community's streets as more than simply concrete and asphalt. Streets affect the way people live, work, and play. Streets should be viewed as part of a dynamic, integrated land use and transportation system. Street treatments—paving type, sidewalks, lighting, street trees, signs, and furniture such as benches and trash cans—should address the needs of regular users and the surrounding area. Connected, continuous street systems make 80 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate daily activities easier to accomplish. Ridgefield's early development was based on a grid street system. As development moved out, a grid based on major corridors was established, but many of the connections have not been completed. In many areas, connectivity for auto travel, pedestrians, and bicyclists needs improvement. The City's roadway system will be improved to serve development within these new urban areas and infill development. The Proposed Roadway Functional Classification map illustrates how the transportation system will be improved to serve new development (Figure 8-4). 8.2.1 Land Use/Transportation Linkage The regional transportation planning model (EMME/2, conversion to VISUM underway) developed and maintained by the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) was used to analyze the City of Ridgefield transportation network. RTC provided a special sensitivity model run of the Ridgefield area which included the proposed land use assumptions provided by the City of Ridgefield. After initial calibration of the existing conditions, future travel demand was generated through the standard trip distribution and traffic assignment process. The year 2035 is the planning horizon year for this modeling. The transportation planning model links the demand for travel generated by land use to the transportation system performance (i.e., level of service). An important function of the model is its ability to analyze future development scenarios in terms of traffic impacts. This capability requires a model structure that incorporates trip generation based on land use characteristics, allowing the impact of different levels of development and different distributions of development to be tested. The orientation of the model is strategic, not operational. Information from the demand model was input to the Synch ro/Si mTraffic operational model, which was used to address detailed operational issues such as intersection geometrics or traffic control such as roundabouts or traffic signals. The model is designed to provide peak period roadway traffic volumes given specific land use scenarios. The land use data used as a basis for estimating future traffic volumes was developed in consultation with City, County and RTC planning staff. This data is consistent with local land development expectations and County population control totals. As mentioned earlier, RTC provided a special sensitivity model run of the Ridgefield area which included the proposed land use assumptions for the Ridgefield area as shown in Table 8-5. The prior 2010 Comprehensive Plan was based on Year 2024 traffic modeling using traffic analysis and travel demand modeling provided by the RTC. For the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, the population and land use forecasts previously analyzed for Year 2024 were compared to the current Year 2035 model data to determine anticipated changes in growth and potential revisions to the transportation system needs. The growth forecast for each planning horizon year within the Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan study area are summarized in Table 8-5. As shown, both residential and employment growth forecasts for Year 2035 are approximately 35 to 40 percent lower than previous Year 2024 forecasts. The traffic analysis and identified deficiencies from the 2010 Comprehensive Plan are sufficient to evaluate future roadway and intersection capacity needs. 8.2.2 Required Transportation Facilities With the existing transportation system, deficiencies appeared along Pioneer Street/SR-501 between 35th Avenue and 65th Avenue, and at the Pioneer Street/ SR 501 and Interstate 5 interchange. Additionally, several intersection deficiencies were identified along several of the UGA's arterial and collector facilities. To maintain the current plan's level -of -service minimum standard, the City needs to construct new roads and intersection improvements as shown in Figure 8-5. Planning -level cost estimates were developed for the new facilities based on the improvement needed. The new roads and improvements are estimated to cost approximately $xxx million. To balance the cost of roadway improvements with the affordability of the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) rate per trip, a modified TIF program is recommended. Roadways that are classified as minor arterials, principal arterials, as well as Pioneer Street/SR 501 would be eligible 82 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate Table 8-5. Growth Forecasts for Year 2024 and Year 2035 Segment Year2024 Year2035 Future 12,301 7,539 Households Future 20,474 13,840 Employees to be included on the program. Certain collector facilities which serve to transport trips sub -regionally between areas of the City are also included. These are roads that carry regional trips and will serve the majority of trips to and from Ridgefield — they are the gateways to and major traffic carriers within the city. 8.2.3 Commute Trip Reduction Rather than provide new roadway capacity to mitigate the impacts of urban growth, there are also strategies for reducing the number of new trips that are generated. The Washington State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law in 1991, incorporating it into the Washington Clean Air Act. The goals of the program are to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and petroleum consumption through employer -based programs that decrease the number of commute trips. By encouraging people to ride the bus, vanpool, carpool, walk, bike, work from home, or compress their workweek, the CTR Program removes nearly 14,500 vehicles from roadways statewide every morning. Statewide the program reduces greenhouse gas emissions (by about 14,700 tons each year) and from gasoline consumption (by 1.6 million gallons a year). The CTR Program can be implemented in the Ridgefield area as major employers are established. Employers must participate in CTR if they have 100 or more full-time employees at a single worksite who begin their scheduled workday between 6:00-9:00 a.m. (Most construction and seasonal agricultural workers are exempted.) Results will be achieved through collaboration between Ridgefield, the regional Clark County Commute Trip Reduction Office, other Clark County cities, employers, and WSDOT. Established programs, incentive options, and promotional campaigns make collaboration an efficient method of administrating this program on a county -wide basis. Future direction for the program may expand trip reduction to non -commute trips as well. Ridgefield can be better positioned to reduce all types of vehicle trips by investing in and building multimodal transportation options. 8.2.4 Capital Cost and Projected Revenue The Capital Facilities Plan summarizes the total estimated capital cost to provide roadway improvements for the UGA. Construction costs from the 2010 update have been adjusted based on the construction cost index to account for increases in construction costs due to changes in material and labor costs. The revised CFP also ties the TIF rate to the consumer cost index for the Portland Metropolitan Region and updates the 2010 TIF rate of $259 per daily trip based on this index to account for inflation. If adopted, the City's TIF rate would increase to $xxx per daily trip under the new TIF program. The private/public funding split from the previous plan remains at 58%/42%. Based on this analysis, it appears that the City will have adequate financial resources to serve the proposed UGA. Because facilities must be constructed prior to the City collecting the TIF revenue, some of these improvements may need to be financed with loans or bonds. 8.2.5 Complete Streets Ridgefield envisions a transportation system that encourages healthy, active living, promotes transportation options and independent mobility, increases community safety, reduces environmental impact, and supports greater social interaction and community identity. The system will provide safe and convenient travel along and across streets through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation riders. The City is planning for a multimodal transportation system as an integral part of the transportation network. The City adopted the 2015 Multimodal Transportation Plan as an element of the Transportation CFP. The Multimodal Plan outlines plans for future pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart infrastructure. The Multimodal Plan also incorporates the Trail System Plan adopted as part of the Ridgefield Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, designating a hierarchy of potential trail corridors in the Ridgefield area, including regional multimodal trails and local pedestrian trails. Planned on -street facilities include sidewalks and on -street bike facilities along primary routes such as Pioneer Street/SR 501, S Hillhurst Road, and 45th Avenue, and off-street trails following natural topography such as the Gee Creek, Allen Canyon Creek and McCormick Creek Trails. Clark County in September 2010 adopted a countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan' that identified priority pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, both on -road and off-road. The on -road portion identified NE 10th Avenue (85th Avenue) as a priority north -south on -road corridor. It also recognized a few of Ridgefield's local off-road trails, including Gee Creek and Pioneer Canyon, as recreational trail priorities. 8.3 KEY CHANGES FROM THE 2010 TRANSPORTATION PLAN There are several noticeable changes that have occurred in the Ridgefield 2015 Transportation Plan update as compared to the 2010 Plan. These include: • Inclusion of the completed improvements at the SR 501 / Interstate 5 interchange, and construction of roundabouts at the SR 501/56th Place and Pioneer Street/65th Avenue intersections. Inclusion of the street system recommendations from the recently completed 45th and Pioneer, and Ridgefield Junction subarea plans. This includes updated alignments for proposed streets, and a proposed extension of S 15th Street between S 45th Avenue and S 11th Street (Project N24). • Downgrading Bertsinger Road, S 21st Place and S 4th Way from collector to local streets. • Inclusion of the street system recommendations from the recently completed Downtown Circulation Plan. This includes upgrading Division Street between N Main Avenue and Abrams Park Road from a local street to a collector and adding a project (project N25) that would extend Division Street between Pioneer Street/SR 501 and Abrams Park Road. 3 http://www.co.clark.wa.us/Planning/bikeandped/ documents/10-09_BPMP-withoutAppendices.pdf City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 83 I 9 � F y T — G U � _ � M poli ■ Ep Er c a t W - 3 5 3 01• = u' lam Y � Of �1 I • ltT I I 3At'µ15t .� z yy R t � � C i Itr.s\N V5 c i i f e i I i QA, - -13At'HS.013N 3At" H101 31 V —'1 1 FLt"59 c i oa lelC[L I 9 � F y T — G U � _ � M poli ■ Ep Er c a t W - 3 5 3 01• = u' lam Y � Of �1 I • ltT I I 3At'µ15t .� z yy R t I 9 - y 1 1 1 - lam Of �1 3At'µ15t .� � 1 3,1t"FiL�ic ` f i Itr.s\N V5 c i i f e i I i QA, I 9 1 1 1 i' 1 I 1 1 1 8.4 POLICIES TR -1 Transportation options Develop and maintain an interconnected and overlapping multimodal transportation system with excellent roadways for automobiles and freight, pedestrian walkways, bicycle facilities, and transit service. Include support programs such as traffic operations, transportation demand management, neighborhood traffic management, and the regional trails program. Work toward completing and sustaining individual components and programs to ensure success of the entire system. TR -2 Transportation safety Ensure high safety standards for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists through the development and capital improvement processes. Allocate City capital resources to high risk and collision locations for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. TR -3 Land use and transportation integration Develop and implement innovative transportation investment, design, and program incentives to achieve the urban environment envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. This includes ensuring that land use patterns and decisions encourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation use, and make these transportation options a safe and convenient choice. TR -4 Transportation finance Develop recurring and dedicated funding for a complete transportation program, including capital improvements, system operation and maintenance. Leverage local funding with innovative and aggressive finance strategies including partnerships, grant development, efficient debt, fee-based funding sources, impact fees, and assistance from state and federal government as appropriate. Identify additional funding streams for Complete Streets funding (e.g. Washington State Complete Streets Grant Program) and implementation strategies to retrofit existing streets to include Complete Streets infrastructure. TR -5 System balance Allocate resources using a cost -benefit approach to improve the transportation system. Benefits considered should include safety improvements that benefit all modes, and provide street design features that promote safe and comfortable travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation riders. TR -6 Transportation system efficiency Invest in and improve efficiency of the transportation system with multimodal design, advanced traffic management and operations technologies, demand management strategies and transit service. TR -7 Service standards Maintain LOS "D", except at unsignalized intersections that do not meet the requirements for use of signals or where a signal is not desired, where the planned LOS is "E". For Pioneer Street/SR 501, maintain LOS D or a mutually -agreed-upon LOS between the City of Ridgefield and WSDOT. Consider establishing transit, bicycle and pedestrian levels of service standards. TR -8 Transportation circulation and system connectivity Develop a transportation grid based on reasonable block lengths that provides good connections to surrounding land uses and activity centers and allows for multiple circulation routes to and from each location, to facilitate emergency vehicle access, avoid overloading arterial streets, and reduce "out -of - direction" travel. In cases where vehicle connectivity is not provided, prioritize pedestrian connectivity. Close gaps and complete system connections through the development and capital improvement processes. TR -9 Livable streets Design streets to manage vehicular traffic, and to provide safe and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation, encourage livability, increase use of alternate modes of transportation, enable convenient and active travel as part of daily activities, reduce pollution, and meet the needs of all users. TR -10 Neighborhood streets Develop neighborhood street patterns and facility designs during development of new neighborhoods that promote connectivity and safety. Protect and enhance existing neighborhoods with an active program that focuses on safety, safe routes to City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 85 school, traffic calming devices, education, and law enforcement. Work with and educate residents on neighborhood traffic management options to develop consensus around new initiatives. TR -11 Design innovation Encourage the use of innovative traffic management strategies such as roundabouts, road diets, center turn lanes, raised medians, physical separations between vehicular traffic and other users, or other strategies where prudent, feasible, and cost-effective. TR -12 Vehicle miles traveled reduction When economically feasible, given the population density, use transportation and land use measures to maintain or reduce single occupant motor vehicle miles traveled per capita to increase system efficiency and lower overall environmental impacts. Such measures include: Encourage mixed land uses within easy walking distance of transit stops Provide higher density residential development near employment centers and major transportation routes Provide a range of multimodal alternatives including pedestrian and bicycle routes and transit. Work with major employers, Clark County, C-TRAN and other jurisdictions to establish traffic demand reduction management programs to reduce number and length of single -occupant motor vehicle commute trips. Tools include including the Commute Trip Reduction Program, and park and rides with connections to transit, carpooling or ridesharing. Pursue innovative alternative transportation options such as low -speed electric vehicles. TR -13 Transportation to serve economic development In order to support the continued economic vitality of Ridgefield, major transportation system investments should facilitate freight mobility, job creation, regional competitive position, and revenue growth. Coordinate with the Port of Ridgefield, the affected rail companies and the county to ensure adequate 86 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate rail, port and freight transportation facilities are available regionally. Ensure freight transportation facilities are well managed near the downtown core and the Pioneer Street and Interstate 5 interchange. TR -14 Downtown transportation Downtown is a high need area for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Promote the pedestrian -oriented character of Downtown Ridgefield as follows: • Implement coordinated urban design for new and remodeled development which encourages and supports alternative means of travel • Construct sidewalks to fill in missing gaps within downtown and to link downtown to residential neighborhoods. • Develop attractive streetscapes in downtown by adding street furniture, planning street trees where adequate right-of-way exists, and requiring building fa4ade design that interacts with the street. • Develop bicycle facilities including shared streets, off-street bicycle paths in open space corridors, and on -street bicycle lanes within downtown to link downtown to residential neighborhoods. Provide for bicycle parking conveniently located in downtown. • Provide attractive and functional bus stops. • Develop district parking strategies, such as establishing a downtown parking district to provide attractive and functional public parking, revising off-street parking requirements for individual businesses, and managing on -street parking. • Encourage residential urban infill near downtown to increase population served by downtown transportation amenities. TR -15 Transit service Coordinate with C-TRAN to provide expanded transit service as the city develops. Develop a transit master plan that anticipates long-term transit routes and required transit support facilities such as bus stops and turnout lanes. Integrate design of future transit facilities into roadway and site design requirements, and develop site design and parking standards for major developments that encourage use of transit. TR -16 Pedestrian facilities Plan and build pedestrian facilities that serve dual purpose for transportation and recreation through the following: • Provide sidewalks on both sides for all arterial, collector and local streets, in accordance with City standards. Require sidewalks for all new and infill development unless the benefits of providing sidewalks are significantly outweighed by the burden the sidewalk may place upon critical areas. • Inventory missing gaps in existing sidewalk network, and develop schedule for improvements to complete sidewalk network. TR -17 Bicycle facilities Plan and build bicycle facilities that serve dual purpose for transportation and recreation through the following: • Identify a priority bicycle network throughout the city, inventory missing gaps for bicycle facilities along those routes, and develop a schedule for improvements to complete the bicycle network. • Provide bicycle lanes along arterial and collector streets, to reduce hazards to bicyclists and other TR -19 Access management Maximize distance between and minimize the number of curb cuts to increase traffic safety and visibility, and to minimize congestion. Minimize new direct (driveway) access to arterial streets and encourage access to local streets wherever possible, except where consistent with City engineering standards regarding street and intersection spacing. Develop an access management plan for primary arterials such as Pioneer Street/SR 501, Union Ridge Parkway, Hillhurst Road, 65th Avenue, and 45th Avenue. Additional access management techniques will be identified. TR -20 Parking standards Adopt coordinated parking standards for on - street and off-street parking which maintain neighborhood integrity, promote efficient utilization of limited land, and support desired economic development and growth. TR -21 Transportation regional and metropolitan coordination Coordinate Ridgefield's transportation plans, policies, and programs with those of other jurisdictions serving the Clark County area to ensure a seamless transportation system. Focus particularly on cooperation with the Southwest Washington Regional road users. Require construction of bicycle lanes on Transportation Council, Washington State Department new street sections, and identify opportunities to retrofit existing streets where possible. • Explore innovative bicycle infrastructure treatments such as sharrows, neighborhood greenways, buffered bike lanes, and protected bike lanes. TR -18 Trail systems Develop recreational trails as an off-street transportation alternative for pedestrian and bicycle use that connect neighborhoods and provide public access to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, the Gee Creek, and the Allen Creek Basins. Coordinate with Clark County in developing and implementing regional bicycle and recreational trail plans and systems, through public acquisition, dedication, transferable development rights, development exactions and other appropriate means. of Transportation, Clark County and C-TRAN. TR -22 Urban to rural connections Coordinate with Clark County in developing a collector street master plan, which identifies the general location of planned minor collector streets for the urban growth area and the urban reserve area. Compliance with this plan shall be required for development approval for both urban and rural developments. In rural areas within Ridgefield's urban reserve (outside the RUGA), and in unincorporated areas within the RUGA, new residential development shall not cause LOS C to be exceeded for any County collector street or arterial street. TR -23 Support Safe Routes to Schools Programs Work with Ridgefield School District and advocates to obtain Safe Routes to School funding to City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 87 implement educational programs, and capital improvements. Encourage educational programs that teach students safe walking and bicycling behaviors, and educate parents and drivers in the community about the importance of safe driving. TR -24 ADA accessibility Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, public transportation stops and facilities, and other aspects of the transportation right of way are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and meet the needs of people with different types of disabilities. 88 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate ��►+Y ; `4-� r. r 4 � r : ,�, ..kms' r' r f,� , � �,r �` ;s } �G -lif: •J� hi."`'r r i.:i fib, �, - J =� 4 {i�~4.F'. tr ff }J y�y . � #*�} ��x� tS f•:, i?� ,,fir' �f« i Y.ir l ..adJl! _-, " (Pill Ilk 3, 1 i .rs^ _ �'�, `� -'✓.. •+,• �;J+ u►�.�.� .-.-. .-�-.ti%,''i-+. ism, e �+.=--`=. �' _'S'.t. �'%++YK t .. t . C - ✓�f .:U ~• L _ _ s 9. PARKS AND RECREATION 9.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS The City of Ridgefield is responsible for managing all parks, trails, greenways, and other park and recreation facilities in the City of Ridgefield. The City also manages a Park Impact Fee program. Regional parks are provided by a host of other agencies including the State, Clark County Parks and Recreation, and others. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, which is an important local resource. The City adopted the most recent version of the Ridgefield Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan in 2014, to guide development of parks and trails across the RUGA. 9.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE The City of Ridgefield prides itself on its great parks. The City is fully committed to providing recreational and natural spaces to its growing population. Park acquisition and development will be City priorities for the future. Many new parks will be sited in currently undeveloped areas planned for future residential development. The City will also work to develop new parks in currently underserved neighborhoods. Planned park and trail facilities are discussed in full in the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Capital Facilities Plan, adopted by reference. The documents include projected needs for additional parks, and a discussion of the types of recreational opportunities that these should include. There is also an established level -of -service for parks, cost estimates, and revenue projections. In addition to City -owned parks, the City will continue partnerships with Clark County, the State, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to develop regional resources. 9.3 POLICIES P-1 Provide parks Ensure that park land is acquired, developed, and maintained in an economically efficient way to meet the needs of existing and future residents. P-2 Local trail system Plan for and develop a city-wide interconnected system of trails that link schools, parks, and other public facilities with residential and mixed-use areas. P-3 Regional trail system Coordinate with Clark County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other applicable jurisdictions to provide regional trail access and to provide regional trail access and encourage the continuity of trail corridors within and outside the UGA. P-4 Parks service standards Provide adequate acreage of parkland to meet existing and future park and open space needs. The forthcoming Parks and Recreation Master Plan will develop appropriate levels of service and standards. P -S Facility siting Prioritize acquisition of land for identified parks and trails during coming period of urban growth to ensure facilities are secured within developing areas. Site park and trail facilities within developing neighborhoods through the land development process to ensure future residents have access to recreation facilities. P-6 Parks funding Develop dedicated funding for a complete park system that includes acquisition, development, maintenance and operation of parks, trails, open space, and recreation programs to serve City residents. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 91 P-7 Community involvement & information Encourage and support public involvement in park and recreation issues by providing information about the park system and education. on the uses and benefits of parks, open spaces, habitat protection, and recreational services. P-8 Parks Plan implementation Implement the identified goals and policies of the 2014 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and subsequent updates, including facility siting, design, maintenance and operations, programming, partnerships, and administration and management. Table 9-1. Ridgefield Existing Parks, Trails and Open Space Facility Size (acres) Notes Community Parks 40.97 acres total Abrams Park 40.97 Softball and soccer fields, group picnic shelter, covered bandstand, stream, trails, and restrooms Neighborhood Parks 24.19 acres total Canterbury Trails 1.00 Undeveloped Davis Park 0.48 Picnic tables, playground equipment, and open space Hayden Park 1.36 Playground equipment, basketball, picnic tables, and open space NP -6 20.26 Undeveloped Rose Homestead Park 1.09 Basketball, picnic tables, and open space Special Facilities 1.53 acres total Community Park 0.37 Basketball, benches, gazebo, and skate park Overlook Park 1.16 Stage, restrooms, public art, and open space Pocket Parks (various 4.50 acres total properties) Greenways (various 72.66 acres total properties) Trails (various properties) 5.01 miles total Regional Resources within or bordering Ridgefield Ridgefield Cemetery 9.8 Owned by City of Ridgefield Ridgefield National 5,150 Owned by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Refuge Carty Unit: Trails, fishing, Cathlapotle Plankhouse, historic site, restrooms, outdoor education, and interpretive unit River S Unit: Driving route, walking trail, waterfowl hunting, visitor contact, restrooms, fishing Boat Launch 0.2 Owned by Port of Ridgefield Kayak Launch 0.1 Owned by Port of Ridgefield Flume Creek 160 Owned by Clark County Conservation Area Tri -Mountain 132 Owned by Clark County Golf Course Lewis River to 32 miles Paddling route in Clark County that includes Vancouver Lake approximately 3 miles along Lake River Water Trail on the City's western boundary 92 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate g 17 1 1 I Fl - "6 r _.. W, I - Y 1 � j I 1 1 1 1 N 1 E j j 1 � E EtAunLIJ5 _�PC a j �`._ Ilk o s O 91111 N j O j lox o �■ l' o D o m E E E s° 2 0` a` LL U t o c- vV a U E O U_ K 5 .......... I 1 nrr -� ■ '�� r � pp� ......... loin 1 1 1 1 _�PC a j �`._ Ilk o s O n i' 4 � N i G to N j E � Y i N O v O \� a i- 91111 N j O j lox o �■ l' n i' 4 � N i G to N j E � Y i N O v O \� a i- �� , � � �. .. ° .. .°,� ., .i pk.. , ry � .e r.� � � 10. ANNEXATION 10.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Annexation may occur through various means under state statute and local regulations. The State of Washington's Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires counties to establish 20 -year Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries to accommodate for projected growth, and encourages cities to annex lands within the UGA and provide urban - level services to these areas. Lands outside the UGA cannot be annexed. The Community Framework Plan adopted by Clark County, Ridgefield, and other local cities also encourages annexation of lands in the UGA. The Community Framework Plan establishes County support for such annexations. Annexations can be initiated by property owners or cities. When an annexation is initiated by a city, local support is required through an election or petitions. The most common method of annexing unincorporated territory both in Ridgefield and in cities across the state is the 60 percent petition method, consistent with RCW 35A.14.120. Such an annexation is initiated by petition of the owners of at least 60 percent of the property value in the proposed annexation area, computed according to the assessed valuation of the property for general taxation purposes. The petition then comes to City Council for review and approval. The election method requires approval of the majority of voters in the annexation area, or 60 percent, if the proposal includes the assumption of indebtedness. Other methods for municipal annexation are available for specific circumstances but are rarely applicable. 10.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE The City of Ridgefield supports annexation to provide a full range of urban services and efficiencies to developing and developed urban areas. The City will work closely with the community, Clark County, and service providers to determine annexation issues that exist in specific areas, and to develop and implement annexation plans. Larger annexations will be generally preferable because of service efficiencies, and to keep neighborhoods and communities intact. Because Ridgefield has established a UGA to identify future annexation territory, the annexation issue will not be so much whether to annex as when to annex. Ultimately, the City will annex to the limits of the UGA. The timing of that expansion will depend on a number of factors, including property owners' interest to become part of the city, population growth within the UGA, and the City's ability to provide urban -level services in that area. 10.3 ANNEXATION POLICIES The City of Ridgefield adopts the following policies to ensure orderly urban transition and efficient delivery of urban services. These policies are consistent with and implement Policy Section 11.0 of the Community Framework Plan, adopted by Clark County and local jurisdictions, and planning goals 36.70A.020(1), (2), (11) and (12) of the Washington Growth Management Act A-1 Coordination with Clark County Work with Clark County to facilitate future annexation of lands within the unincorporated RUGA, to facilitate infrastructure maintenance prior to annexation, and to manage development to be compatible with future urban -level development prior to annexation. A-2 Annexation before service extensions To receive City -provided urban services, developing or developed unincorporated areas should annex or commit to annexation. A-3 Responsive annexation timelines Annexation timelines should be responsive to the interests of citizens and Ridgefield's ability to provide services. A-4 Large annexations encouraged Annexation of large areas, preferably master -planned, are encouraged, although individual property owners should not be prevented from pursuing annexation. Annexations should include both sides of streets and roads, including rights of -way. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 99 A-5 Service transition Explore creative ways to facilitate the transition of government services, particularly public safety, transportation, parks, utilities, and land use review. A-6 Coordination with schools The City will coordinate with the Ridgefield School District on annexation requests so that the School District can continue to meet its service standards. 100 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate i 1� 11. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 11.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Public participation was vital to shape this plan, but will be even more important to implement the plan. That's why the plan concludes with this chapter outlining strategies to continue engaging the community as the city grows, develops, and manages growth. Successful communities face their challenges collectively and harness the energy of different stakeholders. Without diverse participation in community decision-making, it is all too easy to descend into political gridlock over difficult problems. Commission or Parks Board. These volunteer citizen advisory boards study critical issues and provide careful advice to the City Council. • Attend Council or advisory board meetings, testify at a public hearing, share your opinion in a letter, or participate in a community workshop or meeting. The City keeps a calendar on their website of such events. • Partner with the City to help implement the Comprehensive Plan. The City looks for partners from all sectors of the community to be involved in implementation. • Review and comment on pending land -use development projects that may affect you or your neighborhood. The voices of citizens, local business owners and • Volunteer in one of many City programs aimed at organizations provide the perspective and information that are absolutely essential to effective planning and decision-making regarding issues that will shape our community for generations to come. For this reason, the City has a strong, ongoing program to reach out and partner with all sectors of the community. The City has found cooperative relationships between members of the community and policy- makers that will continue to be essential if we are to achieve the collective vision and goals described in this Plan. It understands and makes use of effective and tested methods for encouraging citizens to engage at multiple levels as we continue to look for creative solutions to the challenges we all share. Active participation in civic affairs is an important part of life in Ridgefield, and the City has a long history of providing a forum for citizens to get involved. Our open government policies are essential to ensure residents, business owners, employees and other community members are able to effectively participate in any number of issues. There are several ways to participate in local government planning and decision-making in Ridgefield: • Run for City Council or vote in the election. • Serve on an advisory board such as Planning improving the community. Public outreach is essential, but also challenging. Some key challenges include: • Our population is more diverse than ever, but our outreach resources are limited. • Our desire to be responsive to citizen concerns must be balanced with very real legal and fiscal constraints, finite resources, and with our responsibility to make decisions for the overall public good, rather than for the benefit of individuals. • Citizens, business owners, and local organizations need to understand the land -use development process so they can be involved in a meaningful way. 11.2 DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE To address these challenges, the City is always looking for new and creative ways to engage the community, including using new technologies, such as social media, online discussion portals and high-quality visual maps. The City strives to create clear, concise and jargon -free information so that people from all walks of life can easily and quickly understand the issues and provide input. The City aims to engage citizens in the planning City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 103 process early. Many individuals and neighborhood groups first get involved in response to a development proposal such as a new subdivision or commercial building. The experience can be frustrating because citizen influence over decisions at this stage is somewhat limited. By participating in comprehensive planning, subarea planning, and development code updates, citizens can help shape the plans and regulations that will apply to future development projects. Participating "upstream" of individual development projects allows for much greater input into the community character and vision. The City will seek to engage the community in various planning initiatives throughout the 2016-2035 planning horizon. Projects include periodic updates to the comprehensive plan, subarea planning for specific neighborhoods, updates to the development code to create new zones and regulations, specialty regulations such as green building standards, and specialty plans such as parks plans. 11.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICIES PI -1 Early and continuous public involvement Ensure early and continuous public involvement in the development and amendments of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, including plans adopted by reference such as subarea plans, and development regulations in the Ridgefield Development Code to implement the Plan. PI -2 Public participation plans Develop public participation plans for major projects or decision processes. In addition to public hearings and other formal opportunities for oral and written public comment, use various outreach techniques such as opinion surveys, speakers programs, forums, workshops, open houses, hands-on events, and task forces. 104 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate PI -3 Communication Use City publications, mailings, broadcast and print media, social media, City webpage, and other opportunities to inform affected parties about current or proposed City programs or decisions that may affect them; and opportunities for them to participate in the City decision process. Keep pace with evolving technologies and nontraditional means of communication to expand the reach of notifications. PI -4 Facilitate participation City shall design public involvement processes and events to ensure maximum participation by widest range of community members by minimizing obstacles to participation. The City shall: • Provide multiple avenues for community members to participate in planning initiatives. • Create a welcoming environment at public events to ensure all members of the community feel comfortable to participate. • Make materials and events accessible to anyone with disabilities or other reasonable requests. PI -5 Community organizations Encourage and support the creation of neighborhood organizations, business groups, and other groups throughout the Ridgefield Urban Growth Area in order to help citizens effectively participate in City decision-making processes, and to improve communication between the City and affected groups. KEY TERMS AND ACRONYMS Acre A measure of land area containing 43,560 square feet Acre, net An acre of land calculated excluding all unusable spaces (e.g., roads, infrastructure, environmentally sensitive areas) Affordable housing Housing is considered affordable for a household if it costs no more than 30 percent of the gross monthly income for rent or mortgage payments or up to three times annual income for purchasing a home. This is the standard used by the federal and state governments, and the majority of lending institutions. Arterial A major street carrying the traffic of local and collector streets to and from freeways and other major streets. Arterials generally have traffic signals at intersection, and may have limits on driveway spacing and street intersection spacing. BCTI Business Computer Training Institute BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BAS Best Available Science Information that is based on existing professional peer-reviewed scientific research and applicable to local conditions. See WAS 365-195-90off. CAA Clean Air Acts Capital Facilities Permanent physical infrastructure, such as roads, sewer and water lines, police and fire stations, schools, parks and government buildings. CFP Capital Facilities Program Collector A street for traffic moving between major or arterial streets and local streets. Collectors generally provide direct access to properties, although they may have limitations on driveway spacing. CPU Clark Public Utilities CRC Columbia Resource Company CRESA Clark Regional Emergency Services Agency Critical Areas Defined by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.030[51 to include wetlands, sensitive fish and wildlife habitat areas, critical recharge areas for groundwater aquifers, and geologically hazardous areas (such as landslide areas, earthquake fault zones, and steep slopes) and floodplains. CSWMP Clark County Solid Waste Management Plan (2000) CTR Commute Trip Reduction Law (1991) C TRAN Regional transit agency CWA Federal Clean Water Act CWSP Coordinated Water System Plan Density For residential development, density means the number of housing units per acre. For population, density means the number of people per acre or square mile. City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 105 Discovery Corridor The Discovery Corridor is an economic development initiative that the City of Ridgefield has advanced in partnership with other Clark County agencies and organizations to establish a vibrant industrial base in central Clark County. DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources DOH Department of Health EPF Essential Public Facilities ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act Floodplain Lowland or relatively flat areas adjoining inland or coastal MSA waters that is subject to a one percent chance of flooding in MGD any given year. Also known as the 100 -year floodplain. FVRLD Fort Vancouver Regional Library District GMA State of Washington Growth Management Act of 1990 Groundwater Water that exists beneath a land surface or beneath the bed of any stream, NWR lake reservoir or other body of surface waters. It is water in a geological OAHP formation or structure that stands, flows, percolates or otherwise moves. HCM Highway Capacity Manual (2000) Household All persons living in a dwelling unit, whether or not they are related. Both a single person living in an apartment and a family in a house are considered a "household." HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development Impact Fee Fee levied on the developer of a project by a city, county or special district as compensation for the expected effects of that development. The Growth Management Act authorizes imposition of traffic, school, and park impact fees on new development, and sets the conditions under which they may be imposed. LDR Low Density Residential, LOS Level of service is an estimate of the quality and performance efficiency of transportation facilities in a community. MDR Medium Density Residential MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MGD Millions of Gallons per Day MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MVMT Million vehicle miles traveled Non -motorized travel Pedestrian or bicycle modes of transportation NWR Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge OAHP Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 106 City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate OS Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water that is Vehicle miles traveled essentially unimproved, and provides passive recreational opportunities compatible with resource protection. RCW Revised Code of Washington RPD Ridgefield Police Department RTC Washington Regional Transportation Council RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization RUACP Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2004-2005 SDC System Development Charges SEPA State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 41.23C, as amended) SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMA Shoreline Management Act Stormwater Any flow occurring during or following any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation, including snowmelt. SWCAA SW Washington Clean Air Agency TIF Traffic Impact Fee Urban Growth Areas (UGA) Areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36.70A where urban growth will be encouraged VBLM Clark County Vacant and Buildable Lands Model WC Volume/Capacity Ratio Vehicle miles traveled Average number of miles traveled by a vehicle in a given area. This is both a measure of trip length, and of dependency on private vehicles. WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WUCC Water Utility Coordinating Committee WWTP City of Ridgefield's Wastewater Treatment Plant WSD Washington State School for the Deaf WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WSSB Washington State School for the Blind City of Ridgefield 2016 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Upate 107 i \ 0 G 2 9 2» e /� %/ \ - A \ \2 \ z-`2, c��/\(2� `=o0u W \/F} \»//3{\/\ _u c m/gs ®3 �4ce2#90 g : ®/ {O §zzc#[5/ \2° £tt` Sm 2umo E°¢ 0> \f�\/E\\ /°/ »2£ 2 LU f\\/ �\/ \\/\/\ate e m\o '-0-0 meg_>� e c »o®�, « _.00 %_- 2 �\/[/ /\f .0),z a) f2\\\\ .ecco- {zzza c±o =q e/,_®°_/% -C V) _a\eI=c =2=co �iis�t \t>§ §2< �0°&222 §{-\2 pro -c a) �2 (%5v //\\f \\0 §ƒ\{m 75 z --0/G 66°°° ^%s c�2 \\/E_¥ Q /\\/} \:} LL 3: .0/k ...... M Z Z V) O O oo wp N Q a O w z W �, J LL V) LL Jo LL Z Q W U W LL W 0 po _ Z i Q U o Do in O Q w D U 3 Q ff o J LLI I m z z z z0�w3vQW0 3 3 (N F- L r O OHO OZwpOZl7U' (D 0 z zo z^ z< Lo z- z z ,z� z M awz�wzzQo3,. Vo 0000pz'00000°woo 0 Q� LnD Vv) Cp WZ ILO V' Z ••0 �v Zxoxv)xwx<x xUxxx�xN W 0� 0 F- 0 J 0 W -.3: 0- 0 0 D O o -J d. Z" zw Zw Zw Zo ZZ Z Z ZZ ZY Wz WY Wp LU Ln W Wz W W W- WV d Q Q_jQaDa"aQaazzaaQ 0.0 ix N a CL aZ a�aQaa aU Z v � � a LnO o Z Z �w I -Z ro o N O v a ~Z OUM "' }O } . O Z� ZJ �' JU Q D v, W ^o �F-z ��z O� Oaw� Lij cU�M Q� 5o �� - ao Z Q v, Q pl- �{-Zo Q UZ no Zacv Z 14 z .. W `U) w X d .. Z .. Z J w N o `n .. w 0 Q o W o U) �� Z U w LL NO N MOw oM Q z d'� w �� u Q Ln W> o Q �Z w o o zz 0 �� N �� aZ M o w �� o QZ -i v, F' z Q WO O a° U �Z LUQ WWF �� M O WUM a �W a O w WU �"UiiUw F-�Z f-� w0 H f- zwF- � V�LL a ►-:Zo_� aw o.wUzo�nu� a��nza�nu- o z a z V) i— � � �> � w Z r� O D w Z O W O Q w Z z 3 w Q Q �W o z (D T O < �W a z o X W to Z W J J~ Q z OW Q 0 W = w Q 0W Q 0 (3 V W w L VQ a Vii V3: U J U o Val U U J U Q Y � C @ C ++ O T 00 a ro i+cNN3� i CLCV�O mO .vON LNa m :3O0 � r Wa) 'ra E 0C 7 O U° 3 = m C O Q72' N ) O - > E T c a) U a p a) 0U N„ o 0 °L >mo0 rnE C: w-0 OO O 0 ro_N c O rL a- 0 � ro i m.,d a PN�v 3 O N O ro OOL c u U �'Vo U°oamf > i E (6 Q•— w cv o ++ . _ 0 a o Lw c O ^0 0 >, ° corn 3 U > O '•' O Q U cw 3 oO a) ro c 3 oc O U 3 L co •cC i°ao mm 3+ +U�) �OO �p 7ro0 -0Q�a N ZZ mQ N �o rorn"�p�-0 �N °N0c.- aa) a) o Q m > p O ix Z p 3 omC> O Z 0 Ja E L� ° c c ro 60 ro � w a o N ro 0 _2 o r0 o r6 N to i C O +J c U O 3 I- O c a i E� Q C N Q +� >.E V 3tn 0�'� >Q> Q O -a !2 EU > E yC C C-0� 3m 0> c L O c c 0 U t Q m Q c O_ a) ro U ro r6 -0 -0 U Q 7 ro p a c c ° o r6 :3 = w c F 0- a° N 0 c V Z -p -� N O 2 a) ++ C N ro Q +•' td -Q +' > Q +, N N N °(a N a) o a)>-0 m 0 O ro •� D) o (0, c U O@ v M Q U u o c LL Z y r6 aT+ Q i "p a0.+ N i C d .0 O N° V 3 C to i L a) ro '�' w O i r0 J C O 0 i O O N+ v> :� d U N 7 0 +' O O V ! N O C d j 0 V 0) M 'p ro C ro N Z y U M Q Z pcEEca�°or°o3°Q°° °M`°o� ��ov ^coo-po 3a)icwc 3O w s o 3 .0 U ON N a rp i ro .a) O .V i d o .O 3 c >, :3a) vi w a)y D ro Q C O 3 Q u� 'Q3a;ao��o�Qn� C: Z0c.a�3 3c'Ln ro �u D- 3: o�coQ� m >, a°cc'�a)cro _0 °} c �Zw a.� °+' mc7 ��c Q� °� > a°, o o a�0 °.°� a>i f0 ao o ° a>iL� 3� rno ��-Q �c 3 �+ m ° 0)a) 0)Q3 c a) N U tea; c� �s U Cl O ��a>io��'•CO��°c`�c�o��'�c �a>i'J'y�'`-N°3� yrco��r�o ja -0o drn�� a m o a, o o ro m cam} oa c i N N ;�- C C •� � -6 u-- L C +.+ E 'i -C 3 a) 7 d U 0 Z O• c d O N, i c 0 ro c 0 0 ra O Q- p E ro c c C p c J 0 yr -O , 2� d 0 Q+ o C ro N T N v O- > N E V) ro o C C N W F ro c ii M-0 > a) C .� a) w C ++ i_ C O C a) }' H O -6 a) ++ U E a rp i rp LL Q N � -0 'E N O C C O 3 N C Q N 7 ra C U V to Q W Z .N N `� i to M d C V~ i ra C o1 }'z; OL ro C w U a) rp w ro o a) 3 d ro C7 V r�o d ° N ra ro N vi N Q �_ c' V CE Y al •- �..+ p> �+ N p r -o @- d 0-C W a) '_ U �--� L L Q (Q 1-+ > U C c Q fl. Q +� 0 ° 3 d o- ro O Q r`o H ac) o -Qp H °U w H t L O i) .n Q C d - cn a w Q 4 U a Z H iia a0 fm �ww U aQzLU Z LUN Q0wu pLLLi>J Qaom (� a 0 U) a)C i N c > , O 41 � � �_ O E�-c a 0 0 N 0 � - a 00 j a En "3 o 2 O -T oa0 �a'�3 O E i U H L O al C O a) +� a C C Ea3c3o';ow ° E ca o V�3 c 3:*z ro O .° O c -0 �� TO'C V 0 >,EH m c Q0 u U aQ a3 0cl a E 1: �oo� oco F- �Ndd o+�. (L c U)c c CD -O U c O C N E c,3 Q U p c W 0 '> c H m> :0 a c 10a)�.�m>Q° c E� �� C) ru C)> ro m m&: U> a> a, cz 0.0 .E ru Na•U°�� rod>f -Ca)cE��c a �c a �' a� U � 0- :03 o c�-t ° o + c ul o a c s V O 0)C) ° c .a c E :3y a) 4 0 c m •c c 0> � O C) 0E0Ec c g o c u o m oc a 0 (>n > mo Z Z.6MOO " In J O r r w J w Q w Oa Q � a Q r (X LLJr owZ "'Cra LU 7Q Oww XYw wwI�- �F u o_p wma Q) LDZ QO aZzY z—a Q u Oma a rmw w0 ow c z0- z �Na w - O n U <d ZZ 0E - LL Oz H O 3..z Q~O0 �NixzLL ' Q F CK F o H LU 0 0 I z p Qto uj N W ca LL 3 0 z muiz a J J M mWU �Z U' a tt z 0or Q 0 z O nLL • U - F Owl 0wws iLLi ott O= v7 > Q a DJwwaw O� r > r z Ow> w� Lu >F -0z ¢_ >a -D Of =pew 3F r>Qr zf m U)t=-w QZ°UO ly w0 O J zw CL 0 3W U J m inW` W / Wa 0 O1 UIx oa W ~ aIxo =v a O NO 0 W W Z>cr Qoa F- C) MZ , dj N w u u Q Z Q N Z O F- u u w Z Z O u Z LU i a O W w Q u_ i Z O u LU in Z Q } H Z D O u L 0 c C C C C T3 y ° ro @ L @ N i 8 ro 0c d U C ^ C 0 c N c @_ > N y @ O '�' .� N N 4J @ O Y O c c V 7 "O O N o rroo o w m _ - c c 04 .@ O N a� rn° o Cl m 3 a)a c 3 0 0 >-C E a d @ 0 Y @ @ C E Y 0 c Y Y Y _ t O O EO > C O Y Oa > ro C V 6 > 30 U C Q _ •� L w V i > L 0) @ 'N U-0 C •N 0 C C C � o � X Y C 7n 0 O @ L rUo E° L 3 p Y E o c c N rn 7 c V 47 '� -J a C i @ V L Y @ J O C Y C O U C _ N N O N V o @ C -C @ @ O ro i _m ro V) w N U 0 p Ln L @ 3 N N N N °N' `� 3 �� @ @ O c ° ,0, ro u C +•, U @ L c @ @ > .0 Y a� N rn " a� 3 @ > ° C: N v �, N @ arc a`° w ° w0 U0 3c 0 3 c -0o Y a� �� a) N c p d O i YO L c O 3 aT o i° N@ �, o C@ +a L a L i Y C Q N w N O - O N a @ N Y C O .� a ,� @ c C p- O O O a@ U '+' �, O L a N 3 C N N _O C 7 y X@ T@ O N O c "0 aNi @ c o U � T -0 c .� N •0 _a ru 0 o S a c V V 3 a @ >O L - - Y •:. -o -° -0 .- N •� @ ro y E C i c L O } a� VO @ C -O i L Y ao E 'x W a) u 0 U (D L U o° L E .@ U M M O O N o E c a _U 3 ° a w C.2 Z 01 +� rnY C T C o @ O> L' 0 � E N V 3 aN c -0 N O ° p Q c N N C p C rroo OU Q V V > '� O U� a V N N OU N @ -0-0 N C N 0 ° a 3 `° f6 0 C °� 3 c D-0 O a� @ c �O 0 C V a@ L 3 V O 0 3 V a=.+ N L @ O L O L O @ N a; O +� 'N -0 V +L-+ i• N c C 3 -_ .c '^ a� C }' c .0 c i i V O V U Y O V U -0 @ M •c N m (7 C t c N c .c 3 0 N O N V a1 3 C L@ @ L @ 3 > O •}, O 0-0 -0 V@ 3 @— "o U � ro Z d� O U + p— c Y @ V E E a o �, U V Cl a> > 0-a) 2•c c a 0 a._ m 3 > c � c N p c E-0 U 3 � u L@ m m 0 0 U i U 0) p o E i° V) cn a a rco a c'n .� N w rco w a^ O ro w �° LL 0 a a w c L 0 y N L 7C ° •� @ N ro Y i N N 0 U N C� N N ..0 p 6 d Y Y N O w C@ ro c 3 V N U N U U N N _N v rL° °� T; °+' @cn o '�� u ro CA c m c U •� C C V -0 C C L C co 3 a > t OL U U U E E p V O @ Y 7 N O vVi U U a E C •- N N a L N +� C E �, C C C C p U C t "0 @ T 0- C 3 o a u ID c° _O o a V � c� c C � � @ rLo p i rD > �>- V -0 C i @ c O w C N 3 O p C C U . 3 @ N C O @ 0 Q a � Y ami c C U > 3 E @ d -0 -0 0 U p @ N N c U)i v c 3 o` d V 0) N Y 0 v @ V o C > O E 7 V +�_-' C U YO @ ,= V "O V O O '^ V d r}o N L o 3 O Y V Y C Y ,� V O n V U E N p_ @ U O C + 4 QJ a QI ° 4J L T Y Q% a� O @ C C ° @ C V N O> p L a ro @ E U Y c �' N V V N Y N @ p +-' O Y C a J, L 7 N > C V@ _T 'a L > N -O C Y Y C E C@ C 0 3 o+ N >�� Y a 0^ C �� 70 ° c U .- 3 N N�� vi ro O v 7_ -0 ro W° C C @ O C .0 N w T p L > -p Q @ N E c. ° O d D C d O N o a, O c N C p Y 3 , = Y C Y Y i� N c _Cra ID T t C Y > O L O C LO C O E L p > @3° a V t 3�.o N o U y ra V _0 3O ON -p U V @ a� V 0 @ 50 Ln O Ca C C O O c C> aNN OO 0 N N m @ N C +�.+ o +�.+ 0 V L> fo > V c O @E @ a N j=., .� N rL0 C r`r-6 @ @ @ O N j 00 =0 oc Q V ro m 3 o V �_0 � V T Qoo N Y y 03c 3 o,o YFu C U o@ U Uro @ c 0 o .� rao N V a@ •@ V U O v w rn v a -o Ln a v Z w m-0 L°.Q w ° E w� w a w-0 Q Q . _j . m U a) C } O ro z 0 U W '^ O m m y O U 0) 0 a n = CA W tn 41 o Z.. s O LL O W N n U m a a� to W U u n 3 3 W Z WQ a o o O O W z 0 30 C) m O Za O O UQ o o E � a) = N � v O Q Y w a a W 4; ro IA n 6 U Ntn a ro 0 > U Z U v „ o L _ > w > W Q W ~ J N E l� U 3u Owo Octi. vo 03 rn WJ — a) y LL d w a U) Z Q' m a J w m 0 C C C: W U)E— W vWi� °' 3 o c m 0- O Q = Z U/ Q W 0 0 +' w 11 fou ~ O x ~ w °zo E 3 i u U W a,c �Q UO J a' In r E U + F— O.E C {+ p1 E w �� Z o > O E d C ul o c F— z o w V) ^ o- LJ.. U Y Y m f0 i a) U W Q c' O `° o `� c 3 20 a� W J a U a = �; a) -2 o v _U Q v d Z m W a 41 C 6 d ra U CL O y 3 O Q(LO W I i I U E Ln LIJ w a a, i m a WLo p 3 Vra ~ O LL w ~ Z U o L d p LL S 'o I=— i— = ++ C > ++ C C d r m d u U ro E D 0 O a O o� U% Z z 0 O U C W m E E a — W O Q W �- W i .,� i N U O' ` i cCL C w O O O > > } f a) + 5 a7 i t O •y E m a) > C d a) > m p a m 3 �� ua` O o u w J o u cpm' a' m It- 5 J ) - p al a) rp N C V -C +.+ Q (6 rn U ro -C -C a c p 3 >E~� E >C o� c-0 0 caw 3 i V) -0 a oc �� O- a) p a) a) C 3�Q�0C 3c �� cCcz E E crowE ro p C -O C E i T V 3� +� m° a) 0 U� p C p C •'n o a)> U � C o.�o„>�°�'°'Qrn-0 c w U +� C O p 7 �� tea) C> f6 a� r6 pd C �E m o c a ro C > L� C ro a) 0� a3 _ E - > a) �� N N ro -O a ac:) .0 O_ O i @ i � N C L E C N i p C O O p) p C n Q E � _ C w o .— ro T E v) r' a - U O E a) p a U 3 C a) ro 3 a) c O d a o rp 0)� 3 0 U p� a) ro E s y c c ro S O N V o c E O a, °' ro 7 C 0-0 c a) -p a)c fl a) a) c T F— O +� ' Oma, �� „3 w— ��ro O a> E Ca)a)a) C -roE ca) > L rp ro C C C al � ,^_, +.' 30 ro —_ C a +� � C o` p E p .� p a) C 0 7 +p-+ '� ro O rn -0 >O Q) i 7 a 0 0 moa,' )T .,�.� E O M �M z 7 N E3� a,-0 cl a,Ca) Y ro 3 7 C d U a) c C1 a N T j N O 3 p E p 0 C U ro C U Q O (14 O O d C a) C C �� -p rn ,�-+ •" a .Q T ;C 'j 3 p �>-, O N O N C U O E E E: rp O 0) +' .X p p ro N +� Oru C) C E N U 'a ON i -p > ro 6^ .� +' E O a .0 ro O Q -O O w `� E U N r6 U •i V a w r6 N O N r6 a) :t+ r0 C O o .� +. .� * c3��)�ro O �.�o�'�'< C:a)roa). au°' c n d p +� C >'w c =.>E oE 'c oC O U 7 o ro ) U 00aa)E>a a�) -NCOo)CUaE()p>O O -p a) C m O p� o ~ 0)p UaO O C =oi C > o i cro a) V _T y a) O X w 3 0) C : rn C W iN en yr 3 ro m CO C 'M Cril p T r6 + N Q N c ro C O p ate-+ 3 U '6 � Q U V yj w o -o a) :E >_ O W p d 0ppCO 0� O 1p~ N > O U 0- 0 ry .O Q CO' o c -O n E2 O 'O r)C a 0m n E pN p}+r C a�@2O O w �O > M C a) N i C '+' r6 a) 7 W C C d 0 .� va) > '� C O d tn E a of > c ; m u3a)p a)� orau,�p o °v�'ooaE3Uaro>3p LL O L 3 Y -O O C+, r0 C N U c E N O_ 7 N U N J O - C � d p) O E u .E U C +O O N +' 0 c n U a) N � Y °s a AYE 0 U _0 a+ c c ro N N rn w E o u O c i C) Q Q � LI; U)u ro 3 r co 3o a� o� 0 > c �r0�o,c �� U t O C y +, E + a+ 3 c �ru u o ro c w E E o C: ro Ln ro . O� i.0 C } Y C U ro 0w r6 f0 O O p O c U O �c Y Y m � c O (0 Q.0 00 Y o) E .� m00>s C U O Y O C (n C o L •C U 7 ro i } E cn a, L C c cw c o c a u0c-0o o O a 3: n 3 U 0 E t O Q ro z W U) �U Op LL Ll- Lu LW rn C7 -r Z z O z ~ Q z a � N Co W Z O LL U a� a w c m — �C) a00 c m O o 3 0)N U C v Y C: C 3 rco oa p C a � _M M No N— Q 0 U W7 Y C O ° - d 3 ":Si� E 0 06 :3d N U c a E°� O c c m U O O Q C O N N c 3 3 p 300 O C +• O c 3 3 O pip 6 z� O IX Z LL Q � J W 0. az 32 Z U 3U O Z O� oa oz JO W_ LL W 0 W r C N L N 7 _ C� rp C O o 0 �� c O Q (f} Q T S W n� _ u > 3 °-=OEEro300 Cf)w�• ao _ W c � 0° Z c cN o ami @ c Q Z '-' 0 L Q U +p.+ C •� O `� > 0) .0 z ro dQa) I oa,°-� -r- ucu C w d.� O QS an O N c+� t Q >O ro > U i C a) r6 b4 Q> >' w C U +a) C> ° U i O W -0 r0 a) _° C O +N F, O LL �, a)o o J Z� U c a) Z U f0 c �w� 0) _r_ 0) w r0 Z a) o iLn i •� U +� a) . Q 0, y Vl .> ° mUa0�y c 0 � w � U r0 J E a; N 0 J E m O J a 0) 0 F- c ria a) Z 0 W TCS; W a� Q W U� rco�LwL rn+f6 Q LL =" a o c W Z >= W Z o t i Q �_ L o pU W Ea a)u 0(3 8 a � vz �E'c `�° oU>,0m O Q Y E� c o O n J a) a) °w) rna m-03-° 3='0 N UO ° a N ��y ° o L�� rco °mow rco tea) E a O _ a) = rod .0 fu ro ami W c� c) (13 c E Q) _= ate)=oaC)au> o_ ° - aU) ~ Q foto aa)) 0 m ro •`° /n m3m a� cnO V3-Ca,-�ac Z c°� ° z o.cc0ro ro0)D3c0 p a n 3 c-0 O W C y p N w E= o CL Q a) ~ `° •� -° U OU d a) > a) o r01 N Z W Y w .0 T O a) i �' W E n > r0 = LL U a-° ��-0 c 0 Uma° °- 3 OU = n Q> m c J Qw� o� 11 [if -ro ° 0 C•u D m-0 `° o o E c Q W 3 -Cr0E W +� mo0cc cQ- ro � �� c- a) -YO iw� C U� W ra CU U °� Z c c ? 0) 00 O.� �-C a) ° = d-0 0�-o . u) w ~ +' a) rp C Q fFT U a, T p a) y _ a) v o a) i r6 z E a) ro m 0 � -0 Q' °' W M ra Z T a) 3 i zWaa)UEco �s=0-a) CvOO�po � � � c� LL 0-- 0- Z O 0) C ° CL v O .0 L � O= C U a) E_ — Q a) ra O U (6 w� _� or E o@ Z— C E =w 0 �/n�0-5c3-Co 2: 0) o w a a)a)V O Z V N C (0 i—= O w , Z ro ro i -a C O a) -0 i U) i C N W Q c o - U� 0 O c � c c 0 m— �wr=d0E d�Qo.�rodro N_ U�roU°�.E= U t N �� E0 �-0 } 41) O C 0-0 Q Q N ? c T vi C U ro �O C O O Z o o m c= _O r° _c 3-0 U Z aUi o> r? 0 Cl Q , } w ro i (>p N L i@ 0) C (n v) w r6 n--0cNp a)@ Z °U>E 0cQT D Ia ° m ro -0 a) 0> U W O ° cry 0 a) m= L L E °- Orn V V c d U Q r N , H O1 N C Q w r6 Y 0 C 01 Z -0 � ro Q •� W w o 3 `0 U ro t p c v w u�0 (a-Y�o�� J� C: c-0 ro moo+ QE m> C Q� Q a) p c c = 0 6 r6 _° -0 Q Q v d rru — V Q T a) E 3 C f— a) p_ U 0) oU -0 N r6 ° LZ U L_tjZ Q m O° N N L _ r :�% rC6 T N c U p •U 0 r6 Z W O a) i Q .�T' N O r*'0 E 3-� 0 0w— LL m 0 c �- ZW °� a)o�E,NQo'O,� Oz �U.-�_EE) wV °'a)�a _ °' w y c N N E �.� C c LA _O W E c.- c a) ro U U a) . a) cu o 0 a' � rn w ro V 0-0 U •i W a) 0 a T5UoE 01>uQo,= a+) i�>i+ U �N O� rco o m °U ° 3° E w- w Q? rco Q as°O acia° a rn V y 0 N o c Z V)Z a) 0 zD0fo u O �O 'V a) C O y= �v 0 o a)�� D E Q:u: o3 C ro Q�� N n C -O Of—NpC U Q - 0 } 0 C r0 E a) Qo E Z� udo MOz-0 E Qa Q+ (_U ly(n c 0 p C T 0 o c o ND�GUQroo O L c w c Q) mn 7 L O m L n O � 0 �' �~ m C C " _ ccs Q=_ p ouv C O 6 O > W �y m O NC t C i O V) N Q w O° Q O Q 0 m rp o> rnC�_ p 3 �.o W m3 0� F -U C d N (� O@ _ C m m 0 ZL a)y Q Os c 3+ �N W E > U) o pa° Cl 3 W� 0 fo aQ W �� pa rnac z a)ru a� � u c ro O a) 3.N Z-0 � c a W �" U °� m u m a) V) LL r6 E o u Q-0 (D a, W °' m Hwy d� d v � O F- c v 3 U.� o O ao Lo ° °-0 o ru cm C zm ZQ> LLJ C = Eoc� Q o 0)2 c cn o uZ o g) 'F,, LLJao Q•- Q a c �W o f p 0> c J I 11 p ON 00 a m w°°N N o- U�aN d U�a O � 00 a) �c U u cL o o Z C O) O~ C � -0 m Y c O a) ; o +� 41 i m Z m N p > Z o m m w C v c; - �� E p U) QQ7 L rnu•o 3 z w L U)p i O Li 0) m E d C a fu i Q J C al O Ou ° Qui +`+ `c c 2' a) O ,FU) =_> - m� -c 0 ++ O L m m LLJ C>, Q ''•' c a W ry H4 N O 'o 7 I— Y o �� m E �-o o a a �� C y y a 0 y QOmo0-0 � W DoE _ Xmo omo-aD rn•- u O Qa -a� EE v�+� a) W i a) +' C 07 0 y J X 0 0 4 d 0) 0.- O O c Z U -C aci �� v, E Q U m ��Y o d� c c , iL - W vC: -mc �U>70oQLu1 °v°°•~° O m a'+' c mL o a� y� 3 ci-'c u y u O o�m�3��> pzm- c'�o-o oo Io O z cV_'� E 3 '� r�o O z o N E �'� E a E rO Q O N O c> i U Q a4-1 L Q O �' ° "O +m+ 0,0 m W 4-1 J L 7 C C 0 O m ,� L m Nt�4U3: uoa°c (f) U-0)muwu cE•Soo c m m w m m Cc 3 rca zcrn6%mE o c c> ° Cl y> g c c E y o °QO-°4 "Qo O.2� m Q� pc-Qr�oaci ��mu�m> W° E� a 3: co- U C). m Q -� L U N c O *= O w d �j d f- L to > o m� 0S c �+� : c J v� c a d ++ L C w 7 m cui r>o m m U M c u� ,a„ U Z �u - 3�L � 0-C w T o=o c c Z O,c :1 0)- oma' W c m 0 aEi QE p U`"= 0 m > C: 'n o,,m WdS°mQam - a° ZWa�3'nac 41 U cnDat�',cco�-o+ W +nor-� '° a� _v Zudrna) E Q HU -j M -a - Q" o a, a 3 c/) Q'o d �oL Wm In 0(D a0)N� �Ia�EOyu Z c N c a' d J U c 1 U L a� 00 � ._ � � > c E O � > ul � � ° � i O)o ,n .r a) m O c-0 c� &3 u S W o 0 Q O W O rro � m d O 0 m �- ~ V)� O p N�Umoo)mQa mmm)-0 (nzmFj u.'—nm W W a 0.Z J a c��U)0 U 0 C s y a) .— a) c i C C E N 0)-z- 7 C i a v) c a o O � `~ W o <o a ro >, 3 0) >, a� c r6 V ra d a) L N C O c L 0) > V L (0 'i Q 3 _ C +L- N C p Q N> a) M a; o > ro U7 C) C - Q_> ro 3 0 C roc c E C o°roo0ca�o U c rco 0) Q ro U� ro m° L _ � o c a �w y ra In ° > a) V .. Q a) V N � U > y a"i �O U O 0 .N a) Q U + V)O :3Q c Q C =_ z L C:}J Q C,? .- +� E -p Q i+ (� ro c O m c O L- 3 •N c o Ua a0 (AQ0— C+J (1) E ro Q O -E �O d O ro > N ro C +-' ro N U C 7 U3E ro U) N O'-' Qom, v> O "O Q c--6a°'i(a N0E m o> o ro �o�c0Q) r) a) a) C U U Q ro Q ro a) a) }, () � a) (1) .r) U 1 O r0 Q Q v=i c O C d CL O N0 0 + 0) V) U . V fu w +� cl a) -O •p — O c n C a) — O ra C V C: m o U :3 —0 (D o v c 3 U o ai 3omnaf6iaciErnc�_cE3oa�0UQE o C� ryo o E c ro O U+�.0 �+� N c ro c Z o Y rn ro p o 3 3 8 ro C- U O •`° p a) Q p 'N O> ro c� p U U cwc �+ 3 o' c -o Fu -0 0) a) O i rp p O_0 U> a) c ,ti, - c w Q :Ll (0 3 >, z ro C:i .0) a) a) .p °c3 croQuroa ro+� oTE - O -0a)dO0)NQ a) " ra -0 aF- c=;_Oa) <nQ`°O ao Eou a VT o U �o�Cl c; .T 0 3� 0 c 3 o� ro° 3 Q 'cc-+, a c 3a° c aci c v E a) W -Cr_`o o_0 °o E �'� o- 0t o a) H ro Q M V ro ro + � V rn 0 -0 v -C :3 C a - C Q .F J-+ N Q ro tz OU E ^°> U �a)cQ� -a O C O U ro .N 3 C a) 0- �—_ C � c -o n f6 V) a) 0) gro a) i v Qa)HC)— a)+ �a c a) ° c c s a) O i O p N Y 7 2O •i -p a) 0 ro U — >, o�roa)cc°)Ez°cc a c u E c; Ua a) r0 N a)ru .> i Q C+�ta)E: v+ a)a)°� >@ C .0 O N p— F— o C U _C o- > rn c _c c E d T Cl) -r- U ro N O •O Z O -C — 7 ra ��,•�..O V, CZ a) c �- m p c 42)0 co a) t E >,U 0 °U O O m Q c �- ° o (00) -C 3 .O U Q+ ,nu,��,a,c C C i +, �•i an d m E t -C y C O N m +; (n O a1 a 7 ++ y 7 i d WE m O o y-0 E o E W "5amm�EEm'v 0 ° ° c:' o �' E ut-aa w rn U +' a, 0 I,� m 3� c O+l a m 0 C u, c m+' m d� m a, m �� m fn >- E m+� a v O i '� . C 0 Z 30 > 0 C d 'Q p (Oi, Z0, 3: uo,n m O a 0 a E a N C Z 3wm mCO° � d O m a1 `6w C -0 Q O 3'E C U-0 wig d � a an c c.EU 3 m W i N N 4) a) C .a N t6 a, -C C a1 ,O C E O + ++ Z N N wa) 0)-C~ a'' i m C U i 3= C 7A U N .1 d O — O) C 'a O E O N t w 3 +m+ > a1 vi Z j, O- �O y> C -O W o o -a C C m m. Q 41 W m a) m � mm G, O a1 w V N w C a m C m ++ w C i t T u m U m i U a� in (0 0 ,� m c 41 (A UIn :3 41 a) O Q 2 u 041 � �y m o° u � v, C m C7 u 1p m m _Z Q �a c 0 3 u a� ao o f EU c ��dm c a- LL 0 N C 'C a, o C N Q- ° m In E u a, a1 a1 m 0 U)C a ta1mQ°'oo�1 oc,�o+�°cwo-o �� C-£-0 N 0 3 U m a u o z° Q T "a 41 :Ll C C uJ aT+ N ,N+ i U m � w N O 7 C a) E O V m N �0)ccc+' -L- 000 "-00 O d 0 v° a, m 41 Z Q 3 E aE ay1 u M o m,0. o� X41 C a C m +' U T N o O 0E- @cOCE3c0-0in fu M -01w O _ a7 'p_ Z U c 3 a) n U> f 0 0 rOi, ,F, m c y m N a) Q Q a) ° N "X W a1 a0 a� U fop — _a U t e m c -a a,Zc Ews °'U O +' > 3 o 0 u w > ZZ_ OL-ao E m c m Qv}°_1. uw m °� N o� m 0 o+� a, a,t 0z c E m o F- �, d c"- �+�� +� dW C C c o a l- 0"O - V � O a1 ++ C C ai _° :0 y o� N~ a r 0).- o@ a c W EO M" c O. O; m Q v C u N- L +1 O �� a.- aY-3Cc• W -a, ro a d m c c m? ,0 + U C O O L C74 C°��mi-�'thau mEa-0, rn -0-0 E t" c o m _Z LU 'o n .Tm (D �rnrn :F Et '� -a _aouo d cZC °"T _V -a �Oa. C: Cn�coa)-Q mo4,Ea,ac m NU c"n m o cpm E� ��Q �c� d E w � 0.> c >Z o m o n o ro m� �;°� °-t c E o� u o y aa, V p)3s� E U S a1 m o E W m" .� w Qa a1(�C�o� E c-C� 0)E o E E c m Z� �� c 3 4, m +' C u O Z (, -O a1 m Q. C = a) :C (6 U C U y1 "� - j a1 N d C 'O i _ Z C y —C: , E O -- E y "- 'U C °U � a) a1 0 -0 H• a a, a, C (o C• v, 3 1 0 0 0 7 '- a u V i m N f mtQ�Q �3 ps vO t 3 �cw c +� F o o aci a~ C 3o aEi `,�° o (uo�cao CL 0) E w �p Q� m O0 E C W a'+_- o m E� °1 a W 0 OZ (A o,� O i N L t E -0 -a T ++ C a1 — m V LLQ m -C n mn"> 3.EN cq 3m 0) a,�1000Q rn�,n o .E T 'O a1 r �' - M c m o c C C a1 3 0 m a +-' C C -O O E -aHU m aXi E °'c a)o-0Uw c c E o °, o a, ZZ �� 0 aVi 4-1 acit y to � 0 3�a, 3 c a,ac70ma t 3 3 m m a1+� 3 a; d+ �N �o �', to 0-0 a) E Cl 3s o o �x U0 � 0— :) 0 a1 E E o,,;+ w w N O N i O 0 a, a O v, � 3 O CAL O� Y OD Qa-Cwco.a,�yv-�� UZZ °yv�V-cmN075 c��Ec w O c�'cocom0cc>,�tEa) o N Q •C .0 a) -0 m m L o C m E H+O+ i }cn~ co-Ca)�>>>m�foEo-O>DOo Z -100 Z �� Cl ct 0 cma) mo� c a� o-0 Zwp _C o 2::6 m c� 0 , , Cd c� p m c QZU E-- c u a3 O� m+ na 0 mN.-:_ 0 3> m a x 1 s 1i ii - t ui J; •ra t!!l v Al i' `0 it €r' jz GU - .i rr `,• -` _ 1 •- .rte`+-<. � �h 4�� - • t. -- 6 a � 1: M t ,. ` p .i tN � -gam• 0.2 r • ,�� +�` r C U) >= ) L C C Vf O) +aa' U U D O ' .0 o U a) E 3 C 7 C -0 o d "O O d c 4_ O c t m + a) c N D 0 L c0 m 3 � m m >� a) C i C 3 m m c 3 +, c_ O U a °U�a a) C C m +� N Q m c >, d O E m a' Z 0 0 O 0 o c O O O C 3C Ln Q O 0 0 0 0 �OE�0) a) 0 0 a) Q O C v� a"' d O p c Q� O d m a cl E c ° o m s m m 0) 'i O d O t, c C d > H C C i z a.a +' O) O m M j 'd E C a) C a C O >+ t O d O) C i C)0E aJU�°4-Ucam, C c U r- 3 O in O ro m F- m 0 In -0 Q m a i C In O C U O U c U O -r- N C rnm c N Q 0 m O m N m w -C v) 3 0 a) c E a) a) 0 O O �' �^ c_ V Q C O C a) N U > j a) N O O c v) +-c E w 0� 4 C > a) o C y -C a U i a N tlro O m o +=a a) m O O d O O 3 E a� 'V N Q C vI - .0 v- C C ,� N X O@ �- m 0 ro Ln O m 4= Z E F- a o NQUC vmm NOOC f m-0 c o U O C O �. W C i Q— a--+ c +� UO�U'mEc0+;mcca)c Z C m vl ° U m - O E +� 3 w O w C N C i a) c -> ow0ca�=rnvv°Qm M� L 7 m c C O O C Q. -H-0 3y mF- U� U.- U7 0 O O m 0 I Z J Q H z w 0 w C "O O O c C U N d .Q m m U �; C— c 4i N L O U 0' >, m m O �O 7 m N O.- i 4 ° s C N > C C C m m O w a) > 3 In y m O T Q O C -O a) 0.- x •- d c O o i 0 n O:E O= O �; m c� E a. y a) r a) � ai ° Q F= m t o M �-C �' o� o @ o aQ In c c a) m m m 3 �m 0).2 ai o > Q U p d 7 ca �„ m o 0 Uv o o m a Q� cc> > a) 3�� C Q ° a) ,n a) O ° In C O N C �, >_ O 'V) U U m 5Nc- m C>,m a) N N ,C C 1U m Q .`1 O) a) 7 O) C y m C •S E U C U C >+L N O O D U C C ��- O O� y j Q mmm In o U U Q34_ 5 a) c cm yL., Y _:E c -a N Ecy a0cO°2''0 O c m E +N O Q a) C� O m 3 m n m a) Q EF a_ t N CL ro C E S — N U >i N m N C O 041 C T }, t d E a) C m N C v) 3 0 a) O O O) U In m •U c O .0 +' m C m N C C ''' t a) d m m a) -0-0 3: �:; a) 0 c C: U 6:3 m O o 1 C v1 7 w '''' U i V) m 7 Q r_ od O a� O y 0 U Z E ,nt �_ i V) 3 C o d O° E U o O N C a.+ 7 7 Mw 3 0• ins O QOO U 'Q U OO E a) N U V i 4_ O a) 3 m m O 0> c O) (n ate.•+ m d > Q •- .0 •E _ O O M :3 :3 m +�+ c fC6 m y `-- O O C O I c a>) al -C -C y 0— a) O �� 3 0 -0 c �.� V) v C v C j a) C Q d N >+ p OU O 0 E O OL Eo °00 c am c O Qa) > >+m�� QO �� O rnOcm-0-0 O 0. V) C w. m m 00 d O c N O In >-0 U 0 0 In L a) U � , -0 c U E _; vY O-Ot N Q i �� a) Q`—° c;� �, Q o ccQ NUa�3m�c�� O+ 0 n. C 0J- 0) :3 v W a>) Qc a) O J c E O a m c t o c O) d" c, O O o m E C O) a) r w�, 3� O us v 041 O w O 0 C >+ 'n a) !n c m "a Y '•� i _C ° Y d C 7 N 0 C W a) L a -C -� @ O j w O w .N 3 "� i Y M O c o j) 0 0 J tn Y Q O N? c N a0 C a> "° O C �w u c 0 > C D C m N C --a O ,r — Q O a0+ 3� y ,� " C a) d t Na) oO p N +M+ C 0 U� L� c O d N oO .3 .� � N� cmc>"oo5 0.'n0)>a�`-ycv3�g Z ' 1 co 4 Ei M M Qv 3�r �' o o Qo ° ° o� a O o2 E0 a� 0 m 0 w ° 3 c 0 �� me E cn a� c �, F- �nN�,�>j�a�°p�oE(A OLY 'nL�nsc Q E o�;�,,�oo��Wc3C��, C arc?: Z ° cu o m E c o� `c° °a 30Y V)° ° ° o c u E 0 i+ >— in �>'+> UL y U L v�-0 C O C a)L C -Q m O —� O N in +�+ x .� '\ N +� O N vl p 7 c •— p c ns 3 (0 U W YZ a) c p -c a) m m ac E� E> o c c- 0)M �w a)�� E 0Y o f0 me �,~ w >,'�, EL C: o'er- c ° c �Y (� N Q O v� N O �O N O +L E O U O rp y Q U O 00- -0 Q LL o �E.� 3 aha'X.N m� o c°)�-° �' a"'' ° c �' wu .a O c t O d d C U O +' Ou o CO U s a 0) w > a Q WUw-0 >,uL,>'a f0 a.E °w C U ° Q.4 7n aU.E o c „ C c (D4-o(noE 0 0= u o d O E Y w �c to cm-�Q° In o EQ��, N O awCO�rC O o°V 0Cw0 V)>�c o c3 a) (n _ C Cl L i -a U 3 Q Q. y N a) — U c d 3 L 3 a)ro a) ., L in E C L 'n i a) C C 3 C C p fo Y -a y t L N a) i S 07 s p C 0 r— 0 0 W C 3+ 0 �, 3 C a) .s �' o m a C or EL j °�N V) -F- E Q3 ° oma; d �Y 0'n m a p 3�o O °>) 0)y o c� o p Qo Q�Co ro 0 y d Y -0 Y 3 E F- N L tp fa N N +' i m F' U O Z Y a) ccco Eros ��V) c3�:30 0 Y C Q C i 'Q O U us 2 c 3 al o 0 O C udi OL C E I> 0 3 aa' C O i O> i C L O to E "0 . L N C O d> a" a) � O a) a) O m Y p m a) i O U w a) �a m oy o aL� N3 ac)E 3 H u��0SU N N N m d yi L _c m a) U "a O Li cl U C a) 0 @CCO yN O -C p C C C 0w aO4r0 +iO -C O .• V Cl Y p -a Q O y 0 0 to u c U 0 in p• Q Q L 0 W. Y +' L L Q E a) — Y N p Q 0 'XL .3 C41 3 U) R C E m C *O'' 0 C O >' E i > U) O a v i C a) O_ C O a) p •— y i E a) Q N +O+ V L O 0 �>+, Q Q y a) 0> u 0 YO ro ro v Y_ E ns a) O. CL, - 0 .c c u U C 7 E> C U O Q O L 00 of O O 'i U o n� E L O ° N 0-0 w p° >, i Q a) i T H 0 c> 0 a) m a) •— > Q w ro O a C O> vi -0 c>, +,w v�C c to 0 y U d .1.+ C• a Y 0 'O Y o N j Y 3 0 0� C Y m L i i -o c ,� Z fn c 0 n) c c Q U d Q It in a) a) > E Oy �n - O } O Y O O i N +' Y O a a) O O Maui ra. O �� 0 suc(o CL�� >,c0I(n3a OL °)O ,,,Ca)30mo 0 LL � Y i+ Y y a Y p Y ., �o E o o a o — cc coC C cj3:Lj� �Eo� FW- Qoo�'vo tn v�oi°E 'Fn 0>-0-03�3� (D in Ea'OL O0E v,a(D cit' f° X33.5 03 H°3o�°v H0WE�rCo° c��o0 + ++ U C .S -)'a C m Q C p O m m •p S O L +.+ 7 �_ m C > O L C a) C m O _._ L Q U C QO a) +L-+ N Q W X 0 +' c N p 3 a C cL �c3Lo c a0i N Q i c 0 0 p c Q 3 3 m 0 c L d rn0 a) 0 c > L 3 �-0 Q-3 , m o� C D 0 � C N� 7 O m m m aQ ( O ' VQ 0 L_ O cCULoNQ-)vi3 r+W Ln 3 N zt: C N V) , Oi a0 0 •C C L 0 Q u•) 0 3 E L 7 7 . L L O O 0L_ �LL � O U u 4 N N �•c3a, L d N p O Q >, C i -0 t L C, N O N M -0 L a) N N 0 L a) O N coo L (1) C C C W U C_� c a) w U c c d 41 7 T-0 O C CL d v L C :3 a) > @ V) 4t >i c m 1 o� m�3u c c N m N rUp t c003mpN O Q mu m > C i Q '� U C uj p � Q C Q O i o Q C Q - U4) > Q 7 Q_0 Q m o i�Cl —E mW O N O N O U C O L +J C L d— (CO N 3 0 3 C m+ > a) N m a)o � :3 E� o c o= �' ° c o m 0m m m c U 3 o}' x m U cp+ c m mdLm-�^-Lcc>, C C m L w c c 4 3 C N O (c6 0 (n mmm �o -L'��3 (N6 me m o E W c m m c +� L C i 0-0 0 3 U m m L O. U L N 7CL tn 0 C C Tt Q- i OL i) N c W p) O N O+ . y O= p) = 0)c aa� E ~a_ E O C Echo d� o� > U` = i yy L 3 Z E wO O h O Q y w 0 0 U N C w U O (' = I- "�a�mami'E�`6m cn s = m xai � wmo mum 3� ++ m N m L"Nca'mm > (No N p 4,4 O Q E N a) N ++ m a) C> C T r -al 0 0 C 3 O c dC ° o @ 4' uNi N 0 +' - N U m i Qm 3 -r- C: 0-0 m c O 3 N o m w O N > ate° or Up0-cm>+, m Quo ryp o L E-0 U C C N 0 U 0 o m M iZ o •U E = m c 7 E O O E >, N C N OU -O 'L InC N "O 0 a) a) r� m L C -r a) d tli Z a U m c L w 0 o m u O d N L E O c 3 Lm� a03m y U E m L d C N m M,— + L EQ a> -i E -CCp. m(D pC v UNC Q-o'.� p C N d>+ in CL cid Ea)c•mUE c 41 } V Q i CL m (C6(U C O yuu:) �3'3>, tn i a) jL d E (nO0m 00 3= C_ O p Y o 0 Co m 41 0 3= 0 N w p., 3 c O a) O 0-0 N i E _0 T L m m U c -C m w O N y L a) � ° L a) '�' U L _Q Um C c L 3� o a 0oo�marEom0 (nL c- 3 0 U N 3, T -C Q c ++ O O T 3 L 3m� m c� :3L ° a;= O L:3 C p m c 0 N o 0 ai d o m o o U c� p ,r N E'> E m y Eo a'v E U N N -C o> c N o o (n (0 d c N U U-0 T L 0 m o (D C ,� � o m �0) C Q � .Q cr U c 0 0a) N L U �• Oc1EawOr 3 Q +J m L -0 0 Z o— C 3o4� U:3 L C U C C L E } o mac �0 °w-2� E -0 O. m vmi mW U OU ui Vem � — C p p Zmmo D 41 a) 0 5C m y (D _ — 3 U Za� oo a� Z o m `-' N E Q L m N N m- -0 ~ CL rn> 0o cQ J Z CQ m a -•- o a) �- W 3 c o e m o u C m Z Ot C+ LL c m 3 N -0.- m cn c 0 v4) -mow 111 °aa aNi d� o2 L CL 3— O T-0 N Z W Q .,.,� E � m C'v p W Z "•� E� U m O m m L Q c O s 3> U V) 41 0 -0 Cmm— 'C C � � (U 'mp W �•NN mo EO m 3 oo3W ��: D) Q S - 4-co Nmm"� ++ m N m L"Nca'mm > (No N p 4,4 O Q E N a) N ++ m a) C> C T r -al 0 0 C 3 O c dC ° o @ 4' uNi N 0 +' - N U m i Qm 3 -r- C: 0-0 m c O 3 N o m w O N > ate° or Up0-cm>+, m Quo ryp o L E-0 U C C N 0 U 0 o m M iZ o •U E = m c 7 E O O E >, N C N OU -O 'L InC N "O 0 a) a) r� m L C -r a) d tli Z a U m c L w 0 o m u O d N L E O c 3 Lm� a03m y U E m L d C N m M,— + L EQ a> -i E -CCp. m(D pC v UNC Q-o'.� p C N d>+ in CL cid Ea)c•mUE c 41 } V Q i CL m (C6(U C O yuu:) �3'3>, tn i a) jL d E (nO0m 00 3= C_ O p Y o 0 Co m 41 0 3= 0 N w p., 3 c O a) O 0-0 N i E _0 T L m m U c -C m w O N y L a) � ° L a) '�' U L _Q Um C c L 3� o a 0oo�marEom0 (nL c- 3 0 U N 3, T -C Q c ++ O O T 3 L 3m� m c� :3L ° a;= O L:3 C p m c 0 N o 0 ai d o m o o U c� p ,r N E'> E m y Eo a'v E U N N -C o> c N o o (n (0 d c N U U-0 T L 0 m o (D C ,� � o m �0) C Q � .Q cr U c 0 0a) N L U �• Oc1EawOr 3 Q +J m L -0 0 Z o— C 3o4� U:3 L C U C C L E } o mac �0 °w-2� E -0 O. m vmi mW U OU to H w Ln to Q z w ix D U z O z_ p _J m ai c d 41 m 3 y c0 a)c c -o c c d 0 w N u c ++ p 'i 0 +' M 0 C c�U -0-0 °0330�03 0)rcao 0 mo -YaT�Y ow>o0 �— ° ia> ° ac-0OQm c �0�>-0� a,o c fo > N N m> U ate+ M L w V C a) C° 0 T N C C m Q p a+ Q c N 3 H a) 3> M L C N 0 a+ C O a) vi In C' p +�+ 'U a) -o N 30 30 C N N " 41U N c p al �, C N a) O E m Q 0 U 3 �, +� o c y'� 0 3 3 -0 O v E C i aL., d a) m N d r6 N L N +� C N a) O- O O C -o L N +, +� c C a) m m i L U N +, (p U y) O y U V m 3 p L� LF, O d O y y u ° V3f L E ,+�—+ -c C U a) N C N L .O y m rip > '0 o r+-+0 a) N E U y° N c c N -0 -c ,= U� c I N M i s =_ C O i 1 O O U m N 3 3 N "O v) C _ .c �-0uFFa�c>ic+c cc Q.�Liu c'>j0xa��d u+„� a� > Q MZ O M.S 0.M u mix of E 3M � � •� c C: a) N V a) a) 3 y° to a) vi " U m c C °y m in c Q O > 41 U i d Q N C i O) w Q •> m 0 d C U m N U d y u) w a> y.. C O Q L c> N ..O V U U m i E N N N (gyp CO i m> c� _I > C i-+ C m N M i Q i 4- i m L N a) y N m >` >, 41 4-(D iDLNO aim -00m 00m, o W c a 0 41 o.N o� 3tW °' C a1� C�-0 ac) ° u m E 0—>,y 0V) U+, U O -_ m m C 0 N m� cc m0 a) m c c c °� o rpm m Y� N 0+1 a,+� a, ,' 0Y V) 3Nwu° oL$d°'m oo�C�m�u u U w y�c>,t�n o,�w0� ECpO'OoQvmiacirn3 U c 3m °� c,; E c c EL = 3-Y 3 d— N—'c c o U +,00-0m0c m�41 N Q wacm3Udami a�N 3�a a� DY OL d z 3 d E Ny-°-N-Nm a�� 3a, 3U O c°Oo�o' Lica c°OE°�d�c�o'� Z oornm��Q3�Q° ° >a��E>3: c>a Do U 3 aLU Cci �� y °) c c.0 m c_ aciOU 42) �� ai C+LL u U O x d m v (Dr ->>O=" m> >, c O_ Z= moo O Q p a)Y E rpm mQQ c N N E: m 0)3 0 mz ,+ > 0 c' 0) N 0 3 L i U .0 p m a) i O 41 a) O ° N 0 m c L W C �wcE �Qa) d�=0aw'c°a;rncc � rEp�3aci Qo3ao c a) c o N 3 E o S o d c 3'a ro�� 3 .0 �0 ai a0 v �p 0 Qo o -0 ro c� v °N' °0 0 3 Qo� > �� c o ° > 3 °' � Y > 0 c `2 o � axi 0'> a' (-% N N E m N C i .,r C -O a) 3 c 1 -0 J_— 3 m aN�`"�Q•c�0m�rp�� OoEOmt E� Q �a)cupo� �'3�� Q j LL E C N Q 0 C O 3 y N O p O U N m (n E >, Q 6 U m O C 0 0 c i o a �m 0) °N a) x.'^ O N c E+'� Q U A Q-� o m N N c > u a1 ° m a)'> N N c moo E c'�� > c o oL� "' O C 0 E o E m'Qm w u 3 >o O 3 C m E a� 3 3 "O C d= 3 0 d o U i t!1 `�' m vi Q V N •i rp O 3 c c N 3_ 0i° x� o m° c E a� y �N� o �•> >1 00-0 c m N '- m c 3 T a) L rp o +' 3 c N U c C C > a 3 "' �' U E m c m 3 3cu3ca, 0 N00 a)�cc�+ UC3:m3 p M4 -U "CL a)UN� c a) _ N m O C C a) C u N E `' 3-0 o' m >� Z i i., N �.+ i E N N 3 N o) Q Ol a) 3 r6 3 C L m Q 0 +� i L 0 i a) Q 0 0> i 7 i i m N r a) N O .� ,1 � i i 0 a) O aL-+ C N C -C w a) c 0* f/1 � Z a) a) m z 0 m O) O U a) U L N 3 O C .f.+ O 3 rp N 3' nw i N@ C N a) N 3 +L+ 3 (.x w N 0 m o o Li 3 N> C N 0 Y p N M° i O Z i+ 0 a) L 3 > 0 0 N 0 3 a) w O m L u O U c N 'j `n p i.- —_ p !^ C W m° N U ` E a) O m L m O i O 3 01 a) + cn c L > a) >, a) D i� L i N L a+ N >, vi —O _0 N a) 3 : _U Y C C> in 0 'D i 70 0 3 V� E Vl Z 3 N o +3+ w N m O 3 m��ONE�Nym O O�_'�°_'°�aci�Q w �OCamtOU ��y41 i .V .@ _� C C C O m U 3 Ol O C O N O vi (6 m N w C U N m p N 0 rap C Q c a) w -0 - U O �[ n E> O N t `p 0 + w a) c" o U�0�a) ouoa>iaUi�oo Occ oNL-xom O mma)+' L0 cmQL=m-C y N T ro Y O ro N .V) :3 } c 3 0 O U N rLn N T rho a>i LL c -0 70O C d Ti m w O Co i C: U) 3 C Q ro U U U O 0 C ,C o N c 0?� Q Q N + O" O i Q U N N C "O _Q O O O a)� O �_ U0) O N °- -0 o L i c >3 a�L E o N ro ++ OQ�3��°nc3 w 0 m o ° L ro a) N > -oo-C�3c >2 -0-0 O Y y 0 L O O> C O o C o�,o,�,o,33Q3 Q o ro - M N -0 ,O 0-0 O l7 O LL N w cD w Q T Nn O CO > O N U E in -z>; C N }, N NN OO U L° 7 0 3 c� L c .0 c c C° N N i 0) U C° c_ AW N ro 7 O m U row In L � r O C C -0 0 6 N 3 M N w O d= 0 0 E U) N 'L C .LS) N 0) i r0 0 a-+ N d N oUE L N+ N C O N Q i �U O 0) 3 '> 0— y°aE°Y �'`r—°c3 E>°c�°�jO�o 0 "0 0 c O C 3 ro C T N 3.� " 3 @ E 0 0 T U � O ,U Lc ro a 3 0 U 3 0-0 Oo N ro ro O O O In U �O-0LL 3 30-02.0 L C Y i vi ° a)ro N � 3 0 c y c L Q _ N C Q N c c d N> N y, `1 m 3 ro Q ° 0 0o u .� -C O C V ate+ 1 C -0 C N N N N > O— rp d> d L O N u ro ro 3 ro d CU (D Q E ro — roo ff+ E 3� ��Y 0 �c °' os N m N r6 0 c CL -0 — U —L a� 0 o� a) d° E a c Q � a,a u� �; a N ° m o a��y ° 3~ 3 C C N N N—= Q- E N 7 w' °" O -a L a)o0�o�ru InaLm°'u°Eca 1 ° O O N 3 O U -0 rp ,� > E O v'� `6 O N S ° O rcM E M W ° a w C 4) C O C o C C N -0 O C) 0 T 3 c °' Y 3 c E o C) :3 3 c N E N N O °i d0 O ° C 00 Q C �} + c C N° z U C — o�o�UQQa>>E�EaO)i�oQo°o°c Q N° U M° O-0 +- °° L w 7 0 Q d 7 N N 0 c .3 O N N d C T C `u N (p m °�c ..0 0) ro o ro -03- N i i M OQ O N° d- c E v - O° c a> 3 0 o� > Q o QN T� U O i N N Qc•E � OLc L O C °�."O u'A o Q ro 0) M .— `� U "a M ro U 0 o c c L O .N C: ro 0 .c � c O — -° C N O° 3 >- ru O > U N :3 0r L p Zwro � L c Cru ro +�O o 3 oU °CN, 3 N C C O a .0 -0 NO N Q E C d O C +� C Y 3�ro3.-Oar p 3c DEN�cooE ; Q c a c 0ON iom 3 -0 O 0 o OO > E O C N O °O= Qm Oa)jC0 xl ai 3 0)0 0 NO' 0 N OU d.sy CL % Q E>,roENN°'O 0) O N r0 O U N O 3 �.+ r6 a) Q 0 M 3 0 3 c o� � a°LU > c 3 0 0 + r0 r0 N L y N T ro Y O ro N .V) :3 } c 3 0 O U N rLn N T rho a>i LL c -0 70O C d Ti m w O Co i C: U) 3 C Q ro U U U O 0 C ,C o N c 0?� Q Q N + O" O i Q U N N C "O _Q O O O a)� O �_ U0) O N °- -0 o L i c >3 a�L E o N ro ++ OQ�3��°nc3 w 0 m o ° L ro a) N > -oo-C�3c >2 -0-0 O Y y 0 L O O> C O o C o�,o,�,o,33Q3 Q o ro - M N -0 ,O 0-0 O l7 O LL N w cD w Q T Nn O CO > O N U E in -z>; C N }, N NN OO U L° 7 0 3 c� L c .0 c c C° N N i 0) U C° c_ AW N ro 7 O m U row In L � r O C C -0 0 6 N 3 M N w O d= 0 0 E U) N 'L C .LS) N 0) i r0 0 a-+ N d N oUE L N+ N C O N Q i �U O 0) 3 '> 0— y°aE°Y �'`r—°c3 E>°c�°�jO�o 0 "0 0 c O C 3 ro C T N 3.� " 3 @ E 0 0 T U � O ,U Lc ro a 3 0 U 3 0-0 Oo N ro ro O O O In U �O-0LL 3 30-02.0 L C Y i vi ° a)ro N � 3 0 c y c L Q _ N C Q N c c d N> N y, `1 m 3 ro Q ° 0 0o u .� -C O C V ate+ 1 C -0 C N N N N > O— rp d> d L O N u ro ro 3 ro d CU (D Q E ro — roo ff+ E 3� ��Y 0 �c °' os N m N r6 0 c CL -0 — U —L a� 0 o� a) d° E a c Q � a,a u� �; a N ° m o a��y ° 3~ 3 C C N N N—= Q- E N 7 w' °" O -a L a)o0�o�ru InaLm°'u°Eca 1 ° O O N 3 O U -0 rp ,� > E O v'� `6 O N S ° O rcM E M W ° a w C 4) C O C o C C N -0 O C) 0 T 3 c °' Y 3 c E o C) :3 3 c N E N N O °i d0 O ° C 00 Q C �} + c C N° z U C — o�o�UQQa>>E�EaO)i�oQo°o°c Q N° U M° O-0 +- °° L w 7 0 Q d 7 N N M N w c o 1 L .2N C U 0O c O O_ N N N 3 �� p U O N +, -0 N C 'E o ro - N O-0 0) fu z O N N ro Q .y ,� O •� Vi ro -p O_ N r0 U ro C N U C [p rooi>No3.I-n DNo)2 N .L N -C tn N C L c -0 ro " o.0 O + >-0 C p N E i a ro C i 0 W C N Otn 0C) 0 E yaror O rno> o _ c �Nc� 0)O C N M;° m a� c N L o 0 oNC0E�'Y'"N c N o+, c o} CL pooa)-0+,a)O3 c E U V) L N O 3 in N C- 0> O- 0 N N `� C o .L N c-0 a'> c o E� da0-0. —0 ,n- EN m-0 m ua--c.L C: -C o o rte° rco N t 0 O y N U 3 Zi N 'z ro -0 N U p m L N 3 c N I - O C i O }U C U 0O L E: a) o0 o ro c V) u 3 0 - N Q a) C: r6 ra r0 r C o = .� c c—,_, T o aU'i o a)0a) a - u n �o m c i D N -0 o o L c c a� a� � ,� �o c U) MQ) o 0 ro -O N 7 L ,,_, N i T m L O T .0 U) +� >y N N Ln O 'n J a) y i— ` w U 7 N c N O c ro E �O U C -a w- > N '+_+ ,L•, +' 3 N 0 N L N N U C i i '- � 1> N ro - O C 0 a) N C N C ,.+ N = N a� N ra ro ro } 0 O V to T >, 'p _0 'a 3 c C o 0 > p- c N ,L, " +, C w C a) -0 L 7 01 _ p) ,'' O C 7 N U •— U O ++ C 0 3 C p ro w N Vi rp N ,� O1 w C p O 0> yi. O� C r6 +� ,N p Z Of O) p to i N O U N N o> -.-Q. w Q .0 () C) :E N- U O pl .> 0 O i O T c Z M N 0) W - V) C ._ V) Q L c _ iL N j O+� � N+T+ p -p_ 7 W C_O y0 QQ++ >,-+ 7 Q Cd U -0 QL o a o L O T m N- m N n OO - L c H N p 3 N X ro O y pN Q ro C O N>~ h p O O O N-0 Q C Q a) 0 N N 0 - .0 ra ro @ L O C Q` C a) C -0 3 X O N N 3w T._ p oLa� C N N u 3 U � 06 UU) �' d a _ ro s ruo ro .� o >- ro a o O ,� a) (D O a0 n °) �' °��' u -2 C: mro> cO)oQU? 3 w a)aai -0ay`i 3 aa) E 3 N _ _ _ _ O- p i N L p W V) L N ro ro ,-� to z E U .c i p> C� O. C L a) O L c U .N rO N > C Q y O ,-+ Z N C 0 C 0 J ,�, V O 7 'p +.� '� a) rp �U C '� r`o VN) 7 ro a) CN E 0 0 N a) � ,� ° > OL 0 d c O .� O a) O 3 Q. - O +� E y} p +� C ra L in ro '-' L 0 c m m-0 E rco N w w 0)> 'd^ N U � .t0 C c rCo U N 0 0 ,+.+., i d 0 U ,N� �+ 3_ o E C N a> a) O a C ro• N ro ro L v L L ro c p T +� - O E C � L ro +' �� N L ro 0N U c i Q 'c O i U L E m N +� •�+ 4- -ororaa� Z ro��s�0a�a�T+,c � � n cua)>uOLc�orn cfl�c-0 NE E�� roco-0 �ro -C a)cc°a)Q) za)2ra 3c w 0-0 .-) � Q o o o Q ) > N r6 Q m NO -0 .o M C w c C> o E- ro U NO O> m- , O U o L u 3 oU ,L, ro b4 ._^ O U D �i > tUo .� OV v� vN pU "o OU U U 0 O O Q Q. Q' LL h ++ c w a) T C N_ Z , w O i N '^ O ro N v) rn L O Q T V N � L to T LJ I N o c N N U L .= L L E L N w N i p ,, w p fo o a) i .� O-0 N ,L > p L O H w N T v U C+ L c U } C N-0 w L i p— a) p (/) y 4-- ,� ,-� i H o w r0 --0'X d ,T+ y a i L 3 i 0> �, E ro )n E— o a 7 v) .T N p 0 U c Q ro* _ T ,C U 7 C N > O _0 ~ U_ a} 0) a) L C U Z p 0 0 ro U- C W ,-+ L a s, •i N E N ro U L U E N N> L +a) C N N N C 'Q U .� C c p a., i o Q Na) �' +J > `° 0 W > EO �� TE � Z o� Qr�o u ^ a)s� E�_ Qw>o Q)-' 0'c rca 0 � E Q u i p Q N O fl Q o U W C N_r ru D N p �L v C y 0 O 0 T� o Q -0-0 NE-0>c)c >N:Lro i EOroN -N�,a) ccc rna oro @ OL C: -0L NN'i>uuEa)a) a co ,_'�L.� a>i�Qra 'n> �°'� C p°,)No_�nN _Z `a N o aroi ro a, E a0 c c E E O Nu O•C E v N�-0 0 oL i i E� Q� E N u v T 7 — N N r6 w 7 X O E J "o C N i C ate) N i N ro C N O> N `� va)i < Q i U L__ V) O -6 ro L o W a; ro OU ro _ O 'in a v C �' •v -0 p O Q C N O U '— ,-+ L ro N C Y Q N W N r6 N 7 o L to t a) Q o +' Q C 3 n ra OL c W O� w V Cp S-0 ,L., v U 0 +� .� o N Q c .M V '— Oa 0 T N,, Nin t> r,Jo c p E O o C- ro C— () c _n _T o pl U T +> i w i 3 L N N C— i r6 N W i s T •— N +' i ro i C i Z O N N a a in ro C N S O� O C �� -o +_' — o v) C� E C� �- N N CU N-0 a) E N pU O- �' w �' ro rn +, L N L ra C 7 .� N N E i) C ro V Q .0 '� ,� cn O C N 3 ra r6 C Q o Q Q> O c i ro — r0 Z ro ' O E 7 c N w > p N N N p N p+ �' Q' ro 3- 3 O Q a c u Y Q L o a d ,� N E C '� -0 0) U V 'p -o L O_ N ti` rp LL N c C ro O C 01 > N fl_ C ra O ---a � .N L Q C ,L.+ E T Q ro i .`n C w +� In N- � 3 N > C N i O p o O N 4l LL + Q 0 3 N N c OU L N T c E o 0 a C ro > ro W r6 0 0 w U U o c i 0- i ro O rp W O - In o E 0 N a i r6 i n N i O N c -T N W H 3 c� rn c� m �' (D C: u o� a c� m ( 1) a, C N �; 0 0 0 a� N N i _X , a� N 3 L U o +-+ L Q N r6 �, +� N ++ = N ro �' N ,-+ Q E 7 Q r^ �-00MOfa`-uaoo-aao3azmE� 3 �u3.EV)m�c°MJQarnao=.0 ��,nQ30S:'n >> c 0) m C c- v1 Q V U C O yj O N aL+ N O .� O O rte+ O C fp fU N i i(n i (0 . CE a) N w i CLL Q i> (0 f0 Q- N 0 "O o O (�0 O C C ,OQ O f0 in d tn 0 Q- C U i t0 f0 c +' Q N (n O y (n d 3 +Q) 3 ��' (CO Q t N +(D 3 V c O Q p 0 0 0 @ �0 O O �— 6 d 1 U N C T O. N m' N C 0 N .O+ C C i T > N p N (n rp O N U c c a O) V i L N t6 3 •+� C M Z N — C i Q d w Q N (i0 7 (6 .V) O ��O�>�o(o>3�vONc m c E u+� �, a c 0 0 m 3 ms o o a cU mu m V)°o o 4" o c U 0 m C O p� U �� L3c Q— N i. " O (n 0 to i O C i F Q C N c E O Q c f6 3 Q i- O O U p O_ 3 0 M N j2 0 i i i U "� v( 7 N o0)U N 3 > N V Q. 7 j V> C >, W d N L U Q Q> r H f6 ..0 N 3 L H f6 (D — y LQ) 41 3 > w y�� O O tea° �� co -0 3 o O O) Q C d; C C N y, -p U c�0 (M0 1 w m 0) c O y 3 °Z 3 rco�� m'�� o Q 0c0 -a -0QQ 0)Vicc of c 3 L -Y 0 . +' Z; N f0 O Q c 0) 11) +� c u�� u a3i o� fo i upi c - + (D ° C + — fc0 - 3 � O p N y-0 :, ,i 70 O j i to C C (� a+ (NO N (6 C C d Z U u i" n c- OV 7 -O 4O L T 7 O(0 vi N to +' C C N (0 3 OC++++++ -0 N -c OL Nf0 N >Q�MLmpro CUNU~-0+_CE G� O c -a tn r U M O N C O— vi O L 3 _d f0 i (n C7 Q (n [0 m +T+ N U m 7 i 0 d "0 L fyp c 0_ i 4� N U M u L i 3 V d i m ++ N p a) U) C N U(D O+ i ZD cam' >� c— 7-C+.%N C �Uvl E� V+7.+ U O. w O7 t6 C- "O O U rn c I� in 0 (n N N d 0 c 'J c6 i .0 }; 'a f0 7 rn L L d E N 0� Q N N t/1 > N d p 0 > 0 Cl N 0 L 0 N (i0 w 3 > ++ � > N 0 d w L O Q. (0 (0 N y Q T N .� C F- E U (n i V) Q t6 a M Q L Q O N 0-0 Q 3 ._ Y T Oc fn i L O Q L , x p c +O.+ E 01 > N N .0 N f6 w y i 0 `� (0 N Cl C a1 Z C L U •C J— i O O f6 i.+' 3 0 N z C C f0 ++ O i C41 O O i" o> c c> 0 L,•, > N (6 O ` a atn + O p m O C i a C Q Z vl � d N 3 C c d O a f0 C O=+ Q S 3 O L N .d 0 3 i c w 3 0 � In O Q ti V .c > Z p Q 0 a' N O 0 3 y a C N (n 0 Q p 0 C N i C> �� o� �w N @ �� o a'a°' 3 m Z~ 3c U Q)c o xQo)3 °' o c>,p w° o Z m m p fn QNi.ii > > 0, 3 c 0) 3: U 7O L C t 1 -0 c L m o p Mo O m ~� � o fQo .2 J-- — 0)0 ~ c �m d 0� QLL J E'O iL 1--`+- �"'L O+T+ m CLQ 0).0 U Q c o m +; c c~ a c -a c~ o c +' CSW U OmQ�d 0(a ai +�� m= 0; 0-5 HQ } m 3 o'n� �aci :3 o Z�= 0co>a�Ep�'0 4--'D� d H L fa + (0 u � f6 U ++ Q Q! (0 o L o m 01 C N N J O -C cO) c N O c U O C 6 c -0 Cl O O-0 L� O O O N L w i p c +-' 0-0 0 CN CD N U L > N -O V (0 > ` O d C_ V) L c0) QL 3: - t0 i- C 7"O +' W 0),U*)c N d 01 N wO i C L O ,> 0 ++ 3 "0 o c U N O N d 0 O C c UJ c i i� �O .N Q 00 = 00 (o +r i p p W ro N N U O .— -O p— L ,Z Q O •N E U c"O (0 d aO+ N (0• @w"O� N> O Q m 303 -Cc +, p>00 3p E 0-C Q 0 0 � ;, 41 O L d Q- C = 0 w+ Qp" Cl d d ,n C O U c�oMm0>&, Q� �o � 0 N + i Z c o o t 0 � W c 0 m Q @ 3-0 i t m -o N C i ate+ E O Z + f6 O N 0.O c C i (n fA (n Q_ i U tli ,_ V) d 3 c c O O> 2) y'in > (n 'O W L C O N m i t ._ .- O N +_ N d N C 0 f0 0 U U 0. 0. of (n L L (n "O -a "O m rr (D M Q I W 0 N 3 0 C 5' CD O rr (D N < N rt v rt (D3 n Q_ 3 (n• m 3 m 0 3 m v 3 m 3 O rnr ,< m 3 m O m O �_ (n rt -• 3 CD (n L,* 3 C 3 (D Vii 3 m 0) N rt m v 3' O 3 Ln 6 Ln M Nv 01 N �• rt m m (D `G Q ID CD :1rt 0-- to m Q O_ (Q O (D 3 rmrtr (D 0-(D 0 Or (D N nw o rr 3 m �-v �p � m u rt v 0-m r3 -r D 3 -rti� "• 3'3 v O rt 3 mO Q '* O N rt 0_O'° 0 0 0 _0- -a O 7 c 3 m 3` _ (n _ rt - - 0 3 3 3 0) o-0 CL O' ° (D m 0) O (D 0 p rD O (n 3 (D (Q O (n (D < 3 O J Q m m Q ry (D (n � (D 3 (D N p w, N '*r*nD n 3-,Y 3v� rt� 3n 6Q-- S N° (ma m W -0 N O Q °°° N 3 D�j Dl n 0 � (n m o -O E D, 3 3 o 3 3 0 rt n 3 o n(a v CL N'�� 3 CD 3 m =;: ��,Q3 r3D �((DD `Y O -• n (D N O N d N N o Q- -p En 3 O Q N N 3 �-rt 7 (�D N n. 3 C rt 0 0 rt < D. O D) (D 3 in 3 .-r ° m N Q :3 K 30 ((DD :3 G. vCi : N 0< S Q 01 7 70 v v rt O_ 0 v -* Q (D m (Q lD rt 3 n (D Dl 3 3 Q O lD (D (D N 3 rt N ,rt O_ -D 3 0 `< (Q C n 0 N rt m O' 3 r•r 3' < O 3' 07 DJ rt S m m ry N N r�-r O O 3 (D N� ry N S 3 (D rt m - :7 rhe• '00 O_ `< - rt _ rr (D m N (D N N �� o a ( D Q3 m v ° o m n3� �� rtrtQ 'm N 3 C (�D O A. O 07' -O 3 (� rt 0) rt `G v (D 01 (D - N 0- a m m m 3 3a 3 (D `�° ° *m B.- c?- �Q3,c (* (D 3 m Q_ (n p (D (D 3 rt a) `< (n C N m(n X N O rt? CD rt 70 3 m N rt `< - �, (n `< O Q (n M. m (D - N - (_n. N 3 (`DD (D j � � � l< � rt m O (n '� O' � O N n3< m v 3 3' 0--.-. 3(D (D m -0La En (D N. m n cD(D m o o 0 0 o D, O rt 0 w Q j n o 3 33,,-- (D O 0�. 3 (mi( O' -0 3 (n �• D, n � � m Z E !, 7 3 O N. 3, Ort O 3 0. 3� rt� tn• o S (nDO n (D � (D m 3 c* (7(s0 0 3 (D 0° N Q- (Ci( Q Zr (D �, t � rt 0 n o 0 N N- (D m D< n r� (D rt rt -'r :3 O m- N (n• Ln O (rtD 3' (n 3 D� (3! 0 3 m y= N v (n Q) (D 6 0 D-*,- o nu � �33(D0- 'ntcn O 3 m- 0 d a- O. 7 O0 n 0 n 3 O -1 - S 0 ° 3" OL -0 0 3 N 3 (D * Zr N n (D m y, to 3 rt m (mn rt �Z m m O D' 3 0 4 3< N -0 O(A N O j' 3 DO(Q 3 m N m n m rt (n 3 -6 (D Z) :E ,� 3' -O S ID o (D 3" v Ln m rr' N w - n 3 =3 (D O- O- m m 00 0-0 'D� 01 (A 3 3 j. N 0 3 rt 3 N • - rt (Q (mi O rt to rt Ort fr 2 3 O O j rt �6 3 (D n D� `G (D n rt m (n rt 3 3 (n 3 (D :T (n 3' 3 O_ (D 0) N n3. 0 0 o— O vm ° m m m 3 rftCT f+ -0 ° 3 mmv�� 0 3 7 7 Dl D) < : (D D m 3 z < rt m N N D� (D N (a Y d Q O 3 O n O n a O p N v O N (n (D X m rt p y cfl cnD (Art°� o (D ° v =N(D-0 m i O N m 0 nr 0 S� 3 3 3 Q� 0 :T 3 K N 3 7 n 3 :< rt(D 3 (D (n (Q :E m 0 3' = N N 01 -0 zr CD rr 0 n t3ii m rt (D ,nt �' m 3• g X• (D Z m 3 -6 (Q 7 (Q mm 3 N rt w m �' N Q w M O rt (n (D rt Q (Q O 3 3 rr O m (n K 3 (D X w O_ (D 0J pmQn rtmm N _g CD N (n C O rt O. O m (D m Q 3- - (D _ O, � Q f -r 0/ (D rt r3 -r Q_ - -0 cn (D N � (Q C O O D� O 3' N O m m m Q, 3 (D <- 3. c 0J 00 O N N m (Q n 3 3r rr n m S m`< S 3 �` �' rt m O Q _� O O (D ''' r�r v (ND (D -6 (D 3 w (D 0 Qj (D N 3 O_ r D z 0 C N m O r n �O 3 03 M 0O N(Q 0E C o n aso-M0) 3 D 0 0 0 (D Q • O_ O m. m< (D (D rt M N (D _3 3 (D 3 O_ C C n O X 0 ,3r Q Q_ O _O Q (p (D 3 O -O (D Q N o rr v Ol 3 Q_ S < 01 0 O rt L j 3 rt j (� m m ' 3 (n �. (n (3Q O W N (n fD n' rt Z1 O N Di 0 0 0 3 0 0 rt< m n' r 07 ;* 0 0_ (D w w rt -a 3 C O a rt 01 (D 3 m -• N rt (Q fll 3 (D O O N I m Q r -r (D 0! v 3 3 0 < (D (D < O_ m O Q 0 0 (D I -t (n (D Q r S Q (D N 3 2 C 3- A. o =ri m<< 0 Ort C C m (D (D (D(D rt ,3-r Q m X m 0) (D T7�7m 00 O D 3 (D U)-0 <,3 QO_ c (D 3 < 3 v 3 0 3� 3 0� n m O D1 rt N X' rt (D c< v( O) 3 3 3 fL v O_ (Q �` O S O n n rt Q�0 m rt C 3� (n (D O O 3 -" 0O rr 3 � (D rt rt (D n (D m S 3 (D (D n 0 (A E r0 O m O N C O p t t C O C '�' a) C i .ro C O 3 0 O° rn io O v p O c O j U V _ .O , a. - V C a) i yr V -0 N �' a-+ C a) +' +� >' r0 ro a) 3 Z V C >, --0 U w a)ro O C > ra d _� O C Y ' C r0 C C C N N C rp p !_ E O '� O a) f .0 -)-b C p i O E O >> L U O O a) vi 'p C 7 Ln Lo Q i d O >+ -6 to > }' V to a) i O c E a) >, +� "iS 0-! a) rp C U O C +-' C N r0 p d ra (0 C U U E N r6 Q O ro +, O 3 ��Va) �0) pro y°�;oo°' a Vooc> a� 0 � O � � � � � ,� � y ro ro � � � d t o p O � -p c p _� � o .� O i �n r0 r6 4) _ ++ W v� �; C U i V., — 3 a) .� O +� 7 1 E a) O- }, .C_ Z Q C m .. C rp >' >, .N ++ O_ � a) 4 a) Q U +� > r0 O_ y = a) U o 3 " o > C � ate, +� N L U a) C U „- � �n _C O U z- r0 N -O EO 3 '_' N r0 vii N r0 `' �0 m p Ln 3 a) c a) o c C c C o . ,� ,, O U ii E V — ate+ w J a) (0 a) i O N i U ro Q) a) •� a) Q- N +J r0 > r0 ro N C N a) Q -O U N O *' ad- '� � E 'N C rp O Q) Q, O_ C +' A U C U C O r6 z> N r0 •i 0 Q E Q C> a) - C U 1 +3 N i a) - C p= C� C r0 Q O. � O +� 3 _� U O O O .- L— N 3 C .w. B E a) i Ui -6 C a) t6 }' H r6 i -O F 0- a C "O C ~ U (0 O C c E p y H O c t z .0 3 E c c Q +� r0 W O O a) > '- +- C rr, o o z U z c O a) Z) u- z y J i - °' E� '> 3 3 a) u Q t d t+ ro c a s > W+ p a �_ c O O + c > O 3 O O T E W C Q' - t v F L ._ y c 3 a) - f al 7 C E ��o �3�o m_3�o =3powoa W`°cvNi� O3 �� oo0-c �� c7 I ro u > I rn H I v ow o I Y rowU I c o roy .% ` ,� O C -O d V w -Q C/) V) OO rB N O i O Q) rn rr a C V U u= +� Q� U a_ QJ a �" � Crr, a O- G v; Q) OU O C s o O c. I--3 v> • v v w N C o o Q� Q� y O> ro c 3 r- . i 0) U O� rC - 0) Q) UC) . Lo rTj > E E a, U rr3 U -4- — rZu c o o Q) O Q t� •� .j r,3N 0 .0 o_ Ln N Q o v ° > o a� rrt B v ro ro O N vi C vi N N(1) p N � , 0) > c.� � 4�4,Z U - c a) a, �II o `0 Q > aci 0; U Q O EVE �'mE�m5-c-m ) C U >+ + — I C 0 U O N O {�, Q N N p C �' ,, M N C >> E +�•' ° Y U a) C N E v) > m Q N E C 3> C> O W ��'c Q -°p m ayi c'>� °�= o N Z w@ U -0 y > o(D O O"a mQp N Q Q w'jQ U> OJ c c van) C y � OO >—Q V) �osi �v0.- -o _ -oV S EOa) OO Qy0OO N +Q)7+ Ni a) C c 0O 0 ®O N V 3 Q d vi O C C O. n d 4i `% �_ O � V i -0-0 V (Up Q Q '� 30 i0 E N V' W � �� o.E °� �o ro m Q OQ w a �' ° m a; U) m E 7 N C N y C > a)° m o N m ria a) O O ° 7 a..0 i c In N V1 d N> E d y O7 m a) .�0c ° d 0 0 E C �� Q°C: U w 3� OL ra O d Q — — O — N` E t N oma; E> r N° O w �' " O y ru C C i C •� aU+ y 0) C1 a) u -O — .O O n7 a) 3 > C y a, ( Q) r6 C V C+ C= N O> WZ y m ��c ma aUi-C rca � ° 0 3 °� i U y> (O C C i 3-OM O L ! Z °n' O O 3 m ° N N O C m N ,� a) C fl• o a) Q V N �, -O N d ® N N m 3 M C -a > i Z O -O N N- y V— Y Y -0 .O a) a) O a) > 3 O vi N a) C ---- -- N N 7 p YO O C a) C> E m m a) J O C N O w J c o) 4� C Q O O N w Vl .O y@ c C d p O C Q O vl O E U Q O C� ro i >• .— > O O i - d m a) 0. CL vmoa)@En ��Ot°tmca)wa) a� VQ aaciv o� ° E MF- m o.'.°t vLnl 3 o a) N c N s a) 3° Kc°o V .O0) 0) W� °° �> >r0C° c u -0 Z) `° ac) c a)� o N 3 3 °Y3 �o o o+� `0__ c`°) +� •i O a) N -O a) i— N 0) O E O O .c ZO a) 7 U-0 c r t a) (0 d '� Q> V C L N =L jE O .— i a) a) Q N i C 0) i C i c>—�°)��NN�d^Q o W °�>Q°o�QQmcov°iyNoCai ` C _ A U 7 _-O N c j j 7 N a) W m c� V 'u N> t-0 c d >, -C `° m p C� v) Q O O 7 a) ro J N a) a) N 0) m 4' +' N a) _ 0) y C .Q >+ a) m E d d E U E> �+ a c a)I- Q� C N a)-0 D °-o;° c" > E Qp E a,,, 8 c �, 3 u� ° m a Nw a _ i a) ' V U >+ i N C> 0 0 p C N a) C a) -0 d C O 7 M +� O a) �p a) Q O — a) a) C .0 Q 6 O Q c (0-0 U-0 > -a E Q .-0- Q U)i Q tp n7 U y 0 0 C - V x. . 'v�: d a) X Ol 4) a) i C Q' 'z � O C a) , Q - V M N ,> i. d d C a) N C .Q +U+ U +-� O r7 -p y E +� N "� C. -p N E i 0 O 0 O +� y ns N> N M >, > L° O .N = w U a Q '� N+ Cl 3 c a) a) n~ a) O N C"-0 Z vNi a) a C � �", ° w a) > C i N 'a) C �-.,` �y C >i a) y ° vyi a) +•+ i N p m .0 -O fp > Q O r --p a) a - C) 00 ; ;: ,3' W O 0-� c.0 a) +�— +� 7 �' c C t rn c c c c c E - Q m a) ° c 6 m- 3 N otn E N o �w 3' N s o �s a) E - u > a) 3 u a:� �; E Q� E� c'x C C o E t j41 O UO a) t vyi N Q F'tl F" z: a 0 O .� L -O O - 'D O i 0 7 0 0 0 d E- � N U Q a I- ra � ro � N Q -dA , . _., u. V t- ° � (CO ro v E o ° a -0 co F - Z W C6 5- (D z ZQ C7 H W O J �w�vJ W m W > Q<2:a Z) Lo � OwU QQOm a V) w Q 0 Z Q W J a u z n z 0 M W ix LL W J CO W QQ ar Z It N t n 0p0 LLits= Q Z 'o crZZZF- LL 3. . z W J a Z LL �aW3W Q �_ i- O > F- cr Z p Q NWIx adLL3 W W J W > Q U Nva LLJ F- vi Z X Y w Wtya Q0 CL �U') w LLJ Lf)LU Lu Z N Q U m W ff W J (n - W �QU Z Z ry00 } F W - Z 0 of w Qtn 0<< Cf OwZ LLI�N a� �cn 00Lvuw Z) Q U Z 'o crZZZF- LL 3. . z W J a Z LL �aW3W Q �_ i- O > F- cr Z p Q NWIx adLL3 W W J W > Q U Nva LLJ F- vi Z X Y w Wtya Q0 CL �U') w LLJ Lf)LU Lu Z N Q U m W ff W J (n - W �QU F N -j W w Q - > F 0Z } F W - Z 0 of w LW n LU > Q H Q� Z mH °�cn �L w0 Q) LL -' Zia w Z0 0 Z IX �W 3r.� W � � OPV U J m W a Q _> V� w� t!1 Q � 0 L Q Z= _ a V 0 z} O a �w0 > Z O Of X Lr) 0 06 F- V) Uw LL U = Q ~ a� o z m N z a a a a m z z 0 cc Q 3 z 3 0 1 3 0 0 ° O Q N C N a 0 Q U H d' O a W a N N N — O O O r6 C T3++ 7 Q ro Z C 3 C •V U C -0 a) i d c E 0 c 7-p— U ate+ U O Q O N C C E c ro O N a) 0 (D uE-°cQ z Cp� 0 m 0 E 0°QQ-�Ca)O o a) - u U �L E C L E L O O +� C) Y + N .0 ro ro— c O Q a +� OQ+L.+Q °U C.- m-0 ti N -0 C C N � E E N 3 o 7 a) N C N N (n U) N ui N '— � o E a) O a� O U C C r0 d a z C — Q O C •C N > 'ro CE O°°�' 7 O N o m 3 N � a c ro w p O a) w a)+L-U Q f6 _IQNcE; aEa c0.N O L U C 0- o UQ.ct c rho O 0 LJ Q Z w O • • • a -Y c �; +-'ro>co� +,QL V E3�N0 C (v L) Q ° -0NN 0) rca 0 d.c ° c c'L 3.- u v N N i N ra N N -O Q O a) U C O C � T L ° Q O N 7' L r6 U O- y., C C N '� •N Z _ 0 W C - Q a) U-0 r0 Q �"'^ C: O C 0 Q rp 3-C U) O U C) '� i C) C -° O C U U5 N c `0 ro rQ c —' c° Q a) -0w t0 '� i.� m C) N U 0'N ro p E Q E 0 a' O V) p C -0-2� m-0 a W r6 m U 'J C al U m w T W E 3 E a) ro O u U 0-3 N 0 Q c ra •u ro c r+Ja Z -L a) + — Z U c N w e a) -p Q 0 Z > ro .� O w C > a) p ro + ° �' �~ aa) c N u a) ' C C) Q~ Z Q t Q ° �w `�° 3 as a) o, Q a-' C a) to V N ro > 3 N a) . ro . c 3 a) o i W z N a) C N O 0 O ro O L N rp O O N c 0 u O Cl M L p° > o Q i Era � O+ U° yL rho d d° W !— m � N it �' N p Q N d E N Z a O u E C-0 O c ro N (n U C _c 0 •C d .� - c w > T C N a N C_ .0 •Q) r6 O O W Z M N L +' O M rp T 0- ro C) > F p v Q E a .N N CO O C N L p t L11 Z (D N ° — .- 0 Oa O a) a) c 0 0 ro o O W Q O W ° 00 0. V) c �6 -0 _� Ll U 6) rip c Q .c aL U .c U J U 0 Q O U O O V Q a 3 Z O j QN o H Z w Cr C o� oO y ch u 3 a O 0 = O Y u f0 w =;r mf Z X u XLU c to O Ir Z y Z w w e w 0 LL a — O_ +' Ix am' a3 N a Ix utlloo t Ir O n LU -a c oc o 0) Q c ° o a, n -0 o E uo Z > i u N (n C v> U) C t0 C w E 0— w ou m Y r OL -a a -0 u u v_ O u rNo up c — p +� N p E d OC C > V) _0 a V p V) -C o a C am > u N V) rQ N O Ou a) u N w Z n 0 O C M O Q r6 dro LU u O c �a :3 c ro cn Q p.2 3 c c c 0 O 0)0 } N O > r0 u o c o p 3 JQ 0 u N N N Q a v w- vu Era C O 0 c0 N O " �o Qa X O Z m w a u Q u LU LU J a O u W O a ►A O z O z W f u O 0 W u z W m W LL LU m N F - Q H N Q u F O a w a W Z J w 0 0 u J O a rn rn c c -E -E O O CL CL �X �X O W M O W r r NaN NaN C7Q � C7Q H X -a c Xa c Ei c O _ c O mZ mZ Z—_m Z,�m ui a.� ar 3 ao (D ao d Q�� Q�� O O - c +� a > 0 cV) c C mom, 3c O O 3 .E pp a O a) O + 3 O C O a) a ro — a) >, = cn c � C E @ @ cc: O 0 i v 3 C O +: U > CL a) Q E� m OO LO Z +-'-0 c a) j C W V U m a c O U N U 0 U 7 i a) N T a C > O ^ Q Qm E� QQ C 3 O O p) C > 3 a) N O p -0 7 i rn N O v O W 3 LL ro ti c0 m y c a o n o n O O.2 U) 01 +, +, 01 N 01 N C� C m C Com+ QQ cr1 Op 3> ° a a Ln N N c, O d O O LL U O O LL U Z 01 _ 0) X o X X C X � LLI 0 O d r D O O O H Y Z a Z w .. Z N Z N O Z W j W 0) 0W W++ ZD a a d a 01r a'0 0 a� a `�° a� a '�° • Qix Qo CN Q� Q� • • lk, ti D w F LU J a O U c a) m Ln O O a) > m a a) 0-0 0 c0 U +J 0 0)d C +U.+ U m Q t O as a U tea) 3 C U y m C C a) m L [6 m C Q N N N rp 0) •NC p O w C m> -C -C O 0) 7 0) —O C7 Z c v vi - O m1E5 a cE O U u w C a d aU m C O m a) r a Z c 01 a) C O > E Q� Ln w O U ? OC - O C •X y j vi E a) m m c C 'N C �p O a U f -C6 C 30 C ) 01 E U p0 C m� U3 a O C a) m Cp a) T p t m C1 Q c U > X > N O i C ra T ria C 7t p V) Q• U C C c >O 5 i (� C 7 E w O Z aE E 0 m° a o d C O O mro C7 N O E C O m (0 0) O � 6) N T Z w p � U C 7 OU 7�7 p U a) > a C 0 C UO C w U C> +� U m W W ra W 0 Q `� Z O a Z z Q a O a w Q O w a 3 3 0 Z 3 O C H t ♦i Q Z3.. c c c c 3:— 3:— 3:— W 0l0 Y r Oto Y r OW Y r Oto Y r 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 N v v v O v O w Qa Qa Qa Qa u X c X c X c X c Z O O O O W 0 i+ � 0 a 0 a+ Ix Z m Z m Z m Z m W W 3. W 5 W 3 W j LL a ua u a. u a u LU a ."0. h a .!= 0. h: Q u Q u Q u Q u N Q H N Ix • tl :x Ix O a W Ix _ v O o Ou � c 3 C � c � o +' c _ > r6 N o 0 V Q i r6 c y � � Y a) � > O E O i .( c t O T r6 O Y -Y u E + O rp f6 N +' O a) m a d In -p i U C a) � c� Q r�6 O E ate.+ 7 i O rup cl 4 - YO O c c p c rn c o to Q- i O v V) 0 O aD Q. c ?� W CO V) V rp CO c O o E 0 0 Z m v 33 +� oc C+ W Q- u a) m 3Q 0o Q O o E c Q Y a� E� O O " 0 0 c c c+ Cu a) c t Y a' au, ° U) i Q i 3 m O 2 0 O ro 0 0 — m U)a) v o O-0 -O uL a) a) m 3 J Q- Q- > > c a) Q c Z m a cn rna a U3 as �rn O I ti 0 U) Lu w _Q Q ZZ w0 } Z H Y OZ Z D 0 LU W J a O u R N N W C7 O a Z z Q a O a w Q a w a 3 3 0 Z 3 O C O Z O t ♦i W W Z —i W D_ � � Z � � W a z o m x-0 2 1 o�2I m E § 32 \ � \z Z.- &\ E:0 K E e 2�#q o� c§ 0O to 0 0 �§ o2 _# e z= 2 Q ��© w0W� 3. »3 F_ �� ■� �> F� << 0 o��== o0 0 o— o© o� 0 £\ 2 7°§\x3 22 c� NN a§ c$ Nq Z w wkk«c= O� LL z$ 2 w f *_( X§ X( >- i ■ 2cwcao o� os e= o o� o= e& 22 zT z$� z2 oz LU LL LLJW a c w@ 0. S w%N a& a u a= 9 a& z s ■ N o% a, .. _ a u a 00. m a s a o a m ® ■ «�=Iec «« «�5 «� <u «tea < | � � Ixk u< ® e 2 e e i 2 / ul D- IX \ u 0 e� / \ \ 0 \ / / \ �\f / o \/ k 0 k = c ° \ \ \ \ 0 / a 3: % 0 o E _°{ _ 5 7 / ° / / \u— \ j /\ ® ® 2 c 7 -C 5-0 e # / e= $ ® = gII fs o g t of e 7� o u§ ° a=° = x { o /{ \2 t t u c a=E 3/ \ \ / % k \ E\0 ®_ ±\ } 2 £ C? \ / / 1// uu/ / 77 \} m /k @ o_ / g 2 / § % G ® -C _ > \ \ 2= > a /\ {ƒ ( } \ \a= t\[ \ { fu c_\ �m c o �0 'o � � \ ° ro § §2 ( > �o 0 LU d{ 20 )E z ° -0 _a E2 aE� �_ eg 9£ o £ z M a. �2 u ) , ]0 a� G �0 o= / ° _) 5$ UG \ / o- 7 m Rt \2 2 E0 \\ �% \\ e G= m e2 . {/ 55 _« G opo u= =� = C \\ _= m t z \f �/ \; 2 /k \/ % § «\ \\ 5 /§/ 0 2 = % }/ g E_ £ _ — u £ G — c o � � 2 C: • _— ro n % 3 =0 > 0 z �/ /( \® \ §ƒ\ \/ 00 0 \\ �\ { { 2 i$ 3 E 3\ = 2 \ / m f i% // __ ti 0 � _�0E•� c u — c w 3a)T�3�v�� O N c is Y C i O ('o3�E o3O 0 o a) O> a C U ° L C p cm p c —C: E E c0.� o m > m�- O u = E: a p} M U Q p r0 p 0 aw E "� > EoY-°`°6E�i ^a, C - ro ' O C O -0 -0 f0 •- + ^ U O 0- T T-0 •N +� Ecc> (oma E U) E U Ln i V ro ro p C v> > a) w Y O V o°'�uc°'V c�c3U3 +� Y w u oLn O 3 r6 O a) E T� O > 7 „- a) L 3 -O i Y i ro }' E p ° E a) o .- Y O C C ro d p ro O 0' i 'c H U H (6 Y L a) E V a> U tn _:-03� Y 00 .0) n U V 3 O p d dl > w E w Q C °m -O tn .+ a) M3E _ O) o o a) -r- Oa O Co 0 Oc A v V�c> O p OrO, O c u c 3 d U> JE T C 0 OL (D c E °} ro aO a'a 3 E� V C o_ O ,N E Q Ur o c E Y rn= c 0E 0 o�rn_Um Eao-ro u ° u c _ d ra o�Q E ro cc u c rco ° a T O a=. C: U) +} m V) p ro a QO 0—o 5U aE ��a+ �vizE0)xa,�cc p 0 '> 0 U c� _Y Y 0 0 e) _0-0 a) a) 0)n c U E (6 a) O41 - 0 "° YO d V MY r0 L ai- 4- c U 3 rn Ln �� o ro Q i 3 �-' Y ro C C L N •i C � O Y p Z, O N 0) -Ca) a 3 U C w ro O p N +3 a H c C Q Cp 3 Y w p > p c Y> ro r0 T i Y O C a ro C7 U C 'C T .0 •N — .0 r0 E" a) c ra L •- ro o a) w 3 ~ E O m a �+. i U) �, a Y ro rn p u Y c L C a) ro 'C Z O O c V m C E O ro 3 C > ro ro Y � O Y ro C W O-0 F. U C D J -0 W m y O E H U� (o -a U a w C 0 ro w ,c .0 C i C d ) 'a ro a w CA - 0 ro ° O ,O LL > ro ru al 'o 3 d O) C: f c 0 ro o H tYn L Z W c^ Z O a Q a J C ,� CO a) v u W V V) Y Z d> u° Q) 3 3 a W N U) J C a c •— N C Q to �n a 0 W d w m Y O a) o U) — u a) Y E ++ In Z ra c a) Q In ro 3 s y c-0 0 L W 3 m O U V U Z +_T LL (n C W Z CL U� a a) t V != O — C >, U O_ F C r6 C N C Y E C >, > ,a- c 0 3 O CO _ Y W p Y O ~ N p g W 0 U 0 0 N u° i a) _ F F- W i (0 W N .� a W F Q C p N +O t/f U v 3 U i U ro N W 3 Q a Q F=- H ro +� - W W d r`6 o I 3 Q I °v a V 3 I rco a I o .N 3 0 P I° o o U 0 � _�0E•� c u — c w 3a)T�3�v�� O N c is Y C i O ('o3�E o3O 0 o a) O> a C U ° L C p cm p c —C: E E c0.� o m > m�- O u = E: a p} M U Q p r0 p 0 aw E "� > EoY-°`°6E�i ^a, C - ro ' O C O -0 -0 f0 •- + ^ U O 0- T T-0 •N +� Ecc> (oma E U) E U Ln i V ro ro p C v> > a) w Y O V o°'�uc°'V c�c3U3 +� Y w u oLn O 3 r6 O a) E T� O > 7 „- a) L 3 -O i Y i ro }' E p ° E a) o .- Y O C C ro d p ro O 0' i 'c H U H (6 Y L a) E V a> U tn _:-03� Y 00 .0) n U V 3 O p d dl > w E w Q C °m -O tn .+ a) M3E _ O) o o a) -r- Oa O Co 0 Oc A v V�c> O p OrO, O c u c 3 d U> JE T C 0 OL (D c E °} ro aO a'a 3 E� V C o_ O ,N E Q Ur o c E Y rn= c 0E 0 o�rn_Um Eao-ro u ° u c _ d ra o�Q E ro cc u c rco ° a T O a=. C: U) +} m V) p ro a QO 0—o 5U aE ��a+ �vizE0)xa,�cc p 0 '> 0 U c� _Y Y 0 0 e) _0-0 a) a) 0)n c U E (6 a) O41 - 0 "° YO d V MY r0 L ai- 4- c U 3 rn Ln �� o ro Q i 3 p rotes °' Q O ro -0 U O— O -00 � a) E � r 0 d � C a) T)E5— 1.0 o � , t O V rn o Ol H C •N CC Ci 0 0 C O+, O a J j�j C Q fp N `O U a EFu -C (D 0 m O > c a� T 0 -0 v a) O � T C � � a O 7'O ° cNo 0 Ln > } ro i N C ro c :ac `° D Ea) 2UN E �, EUm� ac'o m�v aE U L V) ra U U— )n .O 41 > °a a ro N O � + ° C >,� C O T i r0 a) uo Y Oi-,��, ; roEO ra i r�0 U z (V U roU U) ro T i O N O O U i 0 C ro a) z N O d C W U L a 07 ro C O Q F- a ro -) C: (1) v) 0 3 -C m i+ (2) +C + Z � r6 w N 7 0+ r6 O p i ~ i C 'i 0f6E�� T- cc:)E O U y a S 'O :N C CO O c a) O Z,}, E ' r6 ac'Em�Q)Ca ;F U -O N V) 0 O m o C O 0 �� O O 3: j O .N i 0 Q U -L' U � N On O O � rp ° i 3 roc O - a alu ci U u 3 T c V) 0 :3 3 +-(6 Q +� ra O O U O '� EV r0 C a) t O O d 'O U 3 0 w U° 0 p 0 a 0 U ro E aw 0 ~ • • • tj • • O ` " `j `j Q Q H N Z Z O 0 O }O Z d a) a) F Y z I E E i � E a.+ E E c a) °' 1 • ° ° U _0 m • • aa) N c o E J a'a) E J 0 O O E 1L > 7 O w °' O 0 L O C O F- U E i '� tLn i -i � Z z i L n Q) + C U rQ o U v -0 of U I� LLJr 7 . r�o w 0) o° a - w U c 0)a) ch F Cf O .9 m m -0 c 0 u OQ a) a) a V) Lf) ° a-0 3:cr > ro d)TN _0 -@ -0 -i T Q T� .0 OV C N LLC: O 0 � -0 y m + w ° N Q Ln n ° O O i _ 'O -a a a -0 _0 "O -a O a) U a)V a) N •U 4- i C a) w Za) w a) w UO Z o� > a) rn N a) a) a) m - a) a) LLI � tn 0) MN a) rn— 0) 0) 0) Q iE in E E u LL m 0 0 =0 C O yO p 0 O O w O O w O a Q Z w i i 'V T .N T C :T a 7 T T T T Z 3 J d a a LL Um U c»U U U U U O o J w al C a) > m Y V O rp ro Uc i i W Z '� d y E Q J Q O o m o'a C d fl m w a c aci m U o �, 3 0 �+ a o w c E3 E v d z o Qm a) C C o m ate. > M U > O o w O +� C C Z i ULn ,� . �. 0a) O� >-Q Z c o c c wm > ID °' m E E CL ao J Fes- w wmw cw w d� E c Cl s cn> Q a, z C ' a) a) d C V a) C o y C O O Q O d' i o Y v O i u �' O O '� o 7 7 E c OR > O 0 n. Q > a) m a xti V(n 0- v 3m m3 cpm a vrn o- o u w M O O o Q w� Q F- H N z Z Z a a� H �3 Q W a } z a Q � Y m E � m o � a� z D z LL • 0 W E 0) • LL f O O O c O m F J U cn cn J O z O. O_ c � E E p O m r. ci U U (n 3 N � O � LL a) w � O N c � O w N w a) w C: -O 3 c 4- O o O N c U LL U ,� U .1 U N N O � � U .� > > N w N � O 0 O N Zi O i �, N N N +' O a O o N Q N N O N Q N ++ Q U- v +- Z rn rn a� ai N cn W a� m cu w Ln O p O- O O O w O Q a- >>:2 > T i 2 z u 3 U U a O U) Z N V) (A Wc a O m w U m c m m U a N a U1 J Q' > O m o F— w Z _ +. A V w v o N d N z W Z M O c E �+ a0i v1 U m p O c a L7 N O c Z E 3 c� OO +. v d. O1 U 0 c o c c 0 3 N Ov 0 > d C y (n 0. a c 3 a LL m �Q t/! W o +O+ C u f6 c Q� U j m 3 o c F—� LU z 0 Ep p +' v a -i U ° 3 0 UN a' M O O o Q w� Q F- H N z Z Z a �3 Q w O W } z a � Y m E Oz N a� z D z • 0 0) • LL O c O • w m m J 3 O z O. O_ E E p O Z ci U U (n 3 O 0 � O c � w w a) w o c U 0.0) ,� U .1 U y LL O � � U .� > > N N N w N N O N Q N ++ Q O m a� ai N cn a� m cu w Ln O Ir O w O w O ww O_ a- >+ > 2 z a U _T U _T U O U) N V) (A Wc a w U m c m U a N a d p > O m o Z _ +. WU_ z Z O a0i v1 U m p c c a L7 N O c Z w Z i m OO +. m O1 Z = 3 3 Ov ti 0. a o I- 5 { _Lo ° } \ \ \ E \ ro c E 7 \ { _ ƒ % \ & E / / u / \ 2 / \ E » \ g 'c � eg \ $ E § 2/ (A Z { CDu ƒ t $ CL \ 0 - 2 \ � f f } u z me ± ` 0 22 ƒ E k / \ } : E « o = S ° 2 � ° uE e t2 "E .g ; §2 eo w 0-> /0 \ \ §\\ j\ } \\ }\ a e £ § & tt=� /}f£ \2°\\ �e°�xcE c k/E\E§ƒ/\ 2 %0 CL fu > a) « �»S£2-G«�=> a t=om»E§>\�§° /�}[>E 0222-0 $ o a)LnC00 2=�®m _ ww 27»i-uu0-0 R UW-C-U0\//E\\ ®��]&§t ate 2a/o\ao0 ro0$ —0Q 00 ew=®a5E===t§ - E t; 0 > E 0// t E U. Wc \ E \ \ -0 Cl t m e % _ EW @-V)> {§/m\ ®O© \\\\\u /(C w \ i\//L s \ a /_ 0 0- \0- \\ / OL 0 = > o ® z 2 s G\ S/ e\ § m\ >_ m) §=o / °»\ sc ' �3 0{ \ \ ® & / \ \ J e , E / ® 0 2 e = / e \® o c E E c G \) fa =2* \/ { 2 \ \ ±% c)== so = % ro /) »kks/® S©\£fu %o e z = 3\7 \� ƒ«_ /2 & y° \3® >® =oma o = -1} g \ cE/ a{ 222 c c %± § \m »6\ 2! 7}§ 9t / $_ , - e-� E /e ƒEu j/ �4\ \ e %/ 222 =6°® Cl c: 2 -6 23 z //§ Ik d- /{ 7 in 0 V F - z Z 0 W Z Z O 5 U 0W D > u Q In 70 _0 o C) c d U C ra N O V ro +� �� U N u �— =� +; 'n� Yac rn c � Y N N a) Y " O p E a) L N ro a) c C O Q 5O i 0 -0 m Cm O T U U Q) : +� r-+ `- O c > ) QQ a)Y O ) N L N ro rco 6 0) O Y o ro o 3 NroO Q Q C �, 3 Y L Q N a) -p Q W w ro o V t Nu C) a, Q u a) a) N -� Q) LLn ul Z� 'v � v� i s V) � •� Y o F °Qo ��r�°'� °CQu °o ro`° F� Ln a N M 0) cnn O E N >, N Q> z c a) Y a s p N rn c N o Ern 4- p W c m -0 c z O> L p m a, .c w O W O 7 O 0 C N tYL6 N .o J u 00 = a Y 0) ._ 9 U Y L a) c — N� D Q a cl i ri gyri c a)�� U) row c >c V)�> r c a c v° d a, c +6 c a, o C � Y p r0 E v) o c� rD -o a) N � a) U o tm a� mo� ° o ->a 0 Qc Q 3 0 E >,=Y O d E 0)(o ro a 30 O a) a) C) c> rLo > Ew��~��EO me cN�ca -0 wu��U�o (juNi Q�p)EN� o OE cYnEoa'm��v 03 n'�� Z W O -o >� > L a) E Y E z, o o L Y � Y Y u _Q Q Q N> Q C u NrU O O> O +�+ _ Q 13 -0 O a) p c a) N��"O m C O Z o J c u Y E u ro N 'O N c Q N u� ro � `L o L >` O w Eo`0� Qo=00 o-0 N `6 a, N E a °_)oNQ-0 �� a) �' a ° oa i �.. cQroo�E�Y�`L°c a)CN.V�!Yo,o uc `L°Q-0a)a)a)-0 mea row a3��, ro�N-0-003 cc o Z tYif .� r6 > r6 OL -0 � •— , .N - YO N -0 o C w Q _ E Q c W Z U `° v '-' > 3 rho > *' � o m o ro N N Z c c Z ° - L 0) F- W u U Y C t a) a) c o _O o' U ro a) o -o rroo a) t L(a j :� O o 'ro aa) m N •� d a) Z N E C >, U w C N O E N Y _Q +� N -O + N N OWE O� oiEz c�� (D 0-0�� 0 c w cN a) u� c N N o.� ro a 3 u o ra o_ o �' >> o V Q o p ro j O U p C O E i Q) i L6 m a' U C Z U (0 m Q E O Q W --y m O o E O 6 O o p a) 'U3 � p 0 c O U�� Q y-0 QQ u a). m 3w Q aY-0-a ro u ro U O1 c i rYo O ro ro Nro 6 N O O O C W u o C u o ra m � +� a) c ry V Y +� F. ro Y a) c :t :3 c E � ,� c N' m Y w N E 7 d w V p N a) a) L E Y L r6 c C !6 Z Y C w O Y O L O a _u O a) u clE W ro �_ C O "p - O rp a) p L ) i N y E Y u N O U O> O •L L a) C U -O U a) +� N ro ro ,C d -0 a) N t L d J 3 i �' O a p a) f0 t 3 ro +' c 6 + — t c ro 'E Y Q > Q (D N a) 41 C �, N C a) a,.i Y O Y @ w C) O C +, Y dT+ r6 V fp a) i a) a, c m o Y L v 3 0 N o L a N L a ro 01m o c Z -0 p> Y O N O i a) Y O a) O 3 Q r0 +�.+ O L N ,O i W~ m v m a) � y t L- o a) Y L -O ru O L Q c m O c Z C Z Y `L° °; u �; a c a o m E T C .aN, rCo U Cl cn N Lo L p Q d d L O ..6 .O ) C C N d V O "O > U L N N -C ro roL -O a _0 Q p Q Otmi a)>uC:.5,0c Qro 3 _Noa) W Y rao E a `6 aYc, 0 0 > ui °'> �i c� > 3 c~n �'� �� Q Q� o O c U O YO ro u -0� ro 3 +� to � v Y cn O p Z ro >, a) -0 O N m 0) >W �3EZ) NC�U c`- Z >UC: DE> Ero Hca) u,� c F- N p ro N y C O __ u 0 O O Y O L _ O c L ro > c C Z Q o of c c N L > F U O 'Ul - C N O- ro F- ra ro ra N p p a) W3 a)c>��03 �uY Niro Q�a) 0) Q m> Qct uE 0 F _ E Y 3 � C +� V O +�.� ru a, L a) `� r0 ra '^ .(6 V F— `� C) -.-o Q Q " W L O '~ ro ro O s N _ U_ w Q N C W Q �_ 3 O � 0 7 to O +' L a) a) E E N C E N > Q >> i F- O o 12 cc))to L a) w 'C V i .0 r6 v O N O C O L O W o a) o a) a) .7 W Z C N n m +�, � ro Q a)- . E C Z U ro a Q C J U w 0 ._ N a U crO 0'>a)3rNo_QorNorco�°.�,�°�>,w U O C ra *' af60 0)� C:of O a) i C N C E ro C i � +' w e ''� _0 U_ ru m O i s 'C t U C Q' C ra O N V O > C C C > i `� O i E T +� 10 V N N 3 O C C O LL _0 +� W 30 2 0�, N 0-0 0 0)3 a)�� H+ .� � Q U N C O 3 0) O U i N i Z c a•- ^ CL 0)u 0 C� _ 0 `6+ v W 3�U� CY) nra n ca) -C i c �3f-rod U -aU roUn)�'-� �m ru �- >N�Cw O � 3 .L ro _0 Q O X U) U -C -0 U) U . n V @ o 0) O i n-0 CL. w O M O C N U U U� T a) Q N N ra C i U Z) U X M •C c O T C C O +' in rCp V1 UO •N ro +.+ C- a) Q rn _0 rn (0 N V) C U 0) ro Q — + Q > U o c Z r0o a) Q ZO o f C , v, ami C a) W C w��_0 O o m o F o o° c� fo'o OO O ,O m 3 Q c O U N_ F- 7 d 0 30 E c Q Z o CL m m 10 Ln W ;' c� � �� W am u `° � c c E d T W cu 0 _ roZ>E" O f0 o3 Z 0. Q3mrraQ— o3O m u�i 0) cT ca )> a`03 Z c 0 ro 0)C 'i O C O O ro Q Ln° 3a)�m°ro o v3c 0) C7 c-0 o EQ 0.0 �'^ a �-° o > (n 3 : c C Z d m Q o a) +) _0 E ra 0 o o� E w rom 13 @ Z 3 E ro Nom_ a)� w E �� c E c 0 -C C n rn i E �'' C a) Ln 0) C +' O rn 0) .D) V) 0 C fa Q O C N O 0 c 0)- i C> O C .�tA C C 3 i + m , Z +, U O 'N a) aJ r6 ++ 7 to 0 O 0 " '.' co X LL s i D C C O r6 0U r0 U M a-+ (� a) r6 i r >�,a)�.-o:-; 0)�'�ro CM c NvZ o N ro fA p fo d O d o C E C N V t- '- . Ln N a �O C c c WQ� �� 0 °' � C� rn�� c N m Cl -0 CO p a tO a � O Q 0-Z 00�mo�'�°'7c �c (DOQ0 W o a) o C > ix Q C 'J T ro 0 f6 j Q V.- ro r .o +� "O � O ,n `.' N m r+o EE3m �ca)�a'rn�0)co� `n 3ou> �C°�cca Z o ru ZQ r�o`°°�'C) cl0� cC:'- p oma' °' o°oa O T `-' E Wa.� 0)sC��0)m��0).°)�a�)ma) p , �c c -f- < W Q O a) +� ,� Q > > 01 w. -0 Q C a) c a) 0 a) O E'" _T ra w rcp c0 ra ra Y c U c W ru c ro Q+� 5 W ++ N U c ,? 'T a) ' 0 0 v� a) T O Q c _ C -O C V d Q ra O 0 0)- Z c E X "6 V ,� N O N fo C N �� c'6 O d+, O� Z Uprn N r6�U a N C O L o c VcnQ o.E�3 3aY �'> °m U C E/; i cN iCo a, �0) 0 O �m tea) 3 m ro N v> a) 0 3 O C a) c aCi a E m o c 0) > Y rCa a -C (n c c ro o a) 0 LL E n 0+ 3 r6 i c d () i V) N> a o o p V+ rn o 0 3 m > L E a) y s 0 -0 m O � d m ra C Q d 0)a)- d 3 O ro O 3 n rp n i: 0 d �_ a) i E v) :3 c +� A L ro U c N ro > c 4' O N c U rn QQ� o w C: 0) ° c� �� C a� O o Co��oOa�� Tc 0)�+ ��3 N > N roo��F� a, > aU>a�> V�p�a>irco c �'o� a) x c } rCa> oTi�c T c -0 a-' -O c Q E 0 3 0) � a) .i r6 V ra 30 0. +� @ C C a) tn > 30 C W V o a) Q" o c C N ro c �O p W a) .o + c a) i ro 0)._ ' > O O ra c N LL 3 p !- 0 N m 01 w (n E � o °) T � > 3 cn a) o m � Z Q ai u ro T In _0 0 °) c a) o Z (A U 3 (o W} a' v -C c Q Y a) Qo E ra a, -a - o Q- 0) 0 > o _O -0 c a)+� OQ W a) a) aVi N E rroo d Q O r° U -O ro a' F- U) °) Q N > O ro a) a o c��Lo Q ,cQ c� E Qc tQ- oQ c n C) E Q-0 >, W �pra0)cv C�+�� a 3 row 0oE Z C �m�o o ro �C mEa� no W 0)a) �U� O W c �C v C) U _°'ern>.>_E>� a)� p c� o >8N c t o'N3 >�• m cro rroo 'c C) a � m Cl Z IL rro U� aa)) 0 ria u w U � U m >��0 fA 0)) O a d W = LL -0 ra ra a .�' -0 .E Q U c�i vi v a; 0) v c 0 c 0 E c d ro 0 c W � O ro in 0 0 o x �� o Qa) o� 0 `-° D Q O Q 0) ro c D c> p J , 7 p c a- fu O. ->, 0 ro n> U 0 Q U n ro 0 70 ++ _C 7 n_C •C D Z - ra D) ra V T C rn 0 c_ O- ra O C 0 7 0 i 0 0 > O_ C U O N+ m r6 o L i E t O c i) C C U 70 0) ra vi N 0 M Q 0 0 X ro 0 C i V> OU > C 0 E _ n C i Q X@ c r6 i 0_ j rca f6 C L f0 C yQ., 0 0 1-0 O. E a..� U Z; 0 V ro -ro O C Z ro c 0- a) m : � 0 O T T .o w 3 -W C pOYo�, 0) 0 V0 ro ro 'o O 0 L 0 O ro O E o a) Q 075 ra d U� .o N O C Q w d 0 -O O 'O y' 7 W n. V aCj i 0 .O' c N 0 o Q' M m N 0J a)� 0 p CL 70 O c ;� Qma OJ Y . 0- � > w) a) E E °) N .c o -m d -F, :3 o ra 0 � c u .m ro c x Q Cl p 'C O c "- O 0 W a a E� u mu o ro -0 O_ -Q ax) ma .- o 0 uLn 3-V) i 0 C ro >-(a > QU U D O 0 7 T CO +�V+ T -C V Q - U U U ro 0 (3)+.+ r6 c o a) +� �a �_ pro Qu0 n-� �, �m J C p C 0 N 2-0 O'- > L C 0 V E 0 OU ro ~ M a c N �O �N O rn -C - r6 i C 0 Q W a) Q y a, 0 t a) � w a) a� Z C= C V c T C 0 0 o a 0 Q+' + 0 O - o aci-� ao� E m 0 cu u aa, :3 ~ > rUa i Q ra N N m L p� OU : C -Q O .N Z ro T +� -_ W rQ6 O( N U a) 0 N n ro ro 7 rUa f a)>Q�0ro��-E°�>E�30Q •c N L 0 c - 0 a) y in 0- T E V) aJ E j _ c QC Il (01 U nZ 'n-0 U 0 O> J ._ C U' Q 00) D C m0 7 0 0 3- W v_ EDooE�'oo`u°Da a c cQ _ O W E' n O Q E ro o U r�6 Y 0 ro auQEaa))oU--QQ"-E°'rca�3�3 u u c J C C 3 0 c w a) 3 _> 0 0 a) v O D y o E - 0 co E 0 LL 0 E v Y +� Q > C c 0 ra Q O V Z croc0 3;.,Yro3� u 3 7 � > p o o r6 -0 0 0- 0- 0 V). E 0 u 0 y, U 3 U 0 ami m 0> O E QQoio-0.c .�-°C-0>rco >� `° m o.- d m `s -.- rco-0w o m E>� c Z U ti rn ate+ �n i ra rn -O C U i) i O C �j W -O 7 a1 C C ra a) rCp V p `C > D D o 0 0 ro E c `6 0 a)-0 u ZO � -6 Y •C 0 a) ,� Q Q aJ 0 Q .0 ro -0 ro 3 ro o Y o = o o m ro � CO: E 0-0 U c O c 3 O' fl u o w a E c. o 0 0� 3 a �- �; °' > 3> o a �w p TLn 3 rcoa -- -C o o m °' � c, m a, L u � +� to O ^ i 0 O O i'' Q. ra 0 ra rp c d U vOi ''' U m ^ a) N -C a� rroo i = L_ •) 0 Q 0_ a) a) D a)�3ox�ra�rn3�y°��O V)Lf) OL �E Z 3 N Q It 10 "O Z v a) C � 0 7-O ;� O a) O Lu L ra i .2 W-0 �' 0 0 Q Q i .0 0 V 3 0 0) y 0 J— C Ew Q0. _0 o� �.x o o v� �� U N ra O o a to ro > ro V ._ rn E u�O v c � 0 + a>i C c V O 0 d 0 V C O C D - t i ra ra E c p v) •in Z Q w p ra s :� o QE u4� ra i a, a) c N O ra -Q 3 a) C O_ C rn Q 0 0 ra 0 3 0 Z N p +-' r- Y C Q -0 i C a -p •N ro O_ w Qarco�0_0 u m c a) a) :3 00 c L 0 In +o a C In C N r6 OC 0-0 ro O 0 0> 4 O �r�Eor`a3°'oYc�c O �� > �� J y�a� c ro U Q Y 0 rip 0 C T U Q c m D i w > w o Q 0� ro 3 o Q o_o per, U ro E-0 O. cu O-- W Cl c a) > O , , ro Q 0> c mc W Q H Y a) .E c c O •c vi a0 N O U) O ww a>O �' �� O 0 ra 0 0 0 +� O c ro O- aa) U 0 C ''' N a'' 'N -O C E-• +' Q p C a w •� N U T C ra a +) C 0 cn> O E a)E o ac a'•`-' �,f6�,� C: 0- w a Qa) E3 c 0 �Q Z o�._E3c- O U C E� p p 0 U N 0 0 r6 O W a d 0 7 a) V 0 c p >�a)C)-- oro Z U-0 m o O- 0 0 n- �M° rca a o �' m p v u c J C C 3 0 c w a) 3 _> 0 0 a) v O D y o E - 0 co E 0 LL 0 E v Y +� Q > C c 0 ra Q O V Z croc0 3;.,Yro3� u 3 7 � > p o o r6 -0 0 0- 0- 0 V). E 0 u 0 y, U 3 U 0 ami m 0> O E QQoio-0.c .�-°C-0>rco >� `° m o.- d m `s -.- rco-0w o m E>� c Z U ti rn ate+ �n i ra rn -O C U i) i O C �j W -O 7 a1 C C ra a) rCp V p `C > D D o 0 0 ro E c `6 0 a)-0 u ZO � -6 Y •C 0 a) ,� Q Q aJ 0 Q .0 ro -0 ro 3 ro o Y o = o o m ro � CO: E 0-0 U c O c 3 O' fl u o w a E c. o 0 0� 3 a �- �; °' > 3> o a �w p TLn 3 rcoa -- -C o o m °' � c, m a, L u � +� to O ^ i 0 O O i'' Q. ra 0 ra rp c d U vOi ''' U m ^ a) N -C a� rroo i = L_ •) 0 Q 0_ a) a) D a)�3ox�ra�rn3�y°��O V)Lf) OL �E Z 3 N Q It 10 "O Z v a) C � 0 7-O ;� O a) O Lu L ra i .2 W-0 �' 0 0 Q Q i .0 0 V 3 0 0) y 0 J— C Ew Q0. _0 o� �.x o o v� �� U N ra O o a to ro > ro V ._ rn E u�O v C m c ra i r>a i C 0 a O 'o a mow 0 0 Z OC 0-0 00 E -0Q' ra u a E a a U 0 c UUP `o Y w ro o _0 o a N c a)��a W 0 O -C U u {- U ff E w+ C E �u a�Ea) °ro°Q 0 C w a E � a) E 0) a u U a U E U o a � • �- N M N c � -C U _ Wa) 3 >, c ro V ro y0 -O O +, 7 C J a) 3� E c �� N O N a E a) ro 3 C N a) w 3:o E ro a) > > ° N C a) C = V V r6 a) a) roma) E0 -o30+ �a (� w -0 O a) a) . m o 0 N O + O s > > O ro C CNH 11w O C -C O7- 0 f E U '� N O � -� � ro _0 0) � arc -0' O.—°)uc'Ni to Q 0� 3 �.S Na u o m c W ;° a) ~ o C7 o� c r�o > Q N C U) Q .0 N M a.' a) Z N ro O C N V) u C O V Z C: .,--� C-0 C L O O c O U ro 0 O '� r6 roi u yL C) (L •7 CS a c u ro E o uj _� rni me 3 ao p W C 0 U ._ `�. C C ro > a) a�'+O zoa Z ro N > O Dau rnE E aE a°o U N ro E raL W ro O 0 '� a) Q 7 Q a y `� "O N 3 L Q 3 OZ N a c a) 7 v .4� U Q y JQ. w 'i V) L H Z O W� °roalloE 3p�No f0 a'oO+ubN.uroc�° �. F— a- O-0 C) N -a v N O a rao O-1 3: zZ rn ac)E X00c(E -ac aoxmcro N )OO _0� E E N N� o °' C WQH o a > oCV)C �-0 o +-3/\vUi QQ'Z > N O C E 3_ O a) N LuO0 •5)�>a)3:C O0 Cr>oa�) LL 'EU a)� a).Ca)-la 3: -C LL O N -0 c N fu O N m J H S � °) > 0a 3 0 0 c Q �QH 0o ate~ rn�LLJ a N Oaa cN E'o cz>, 1-0 3 UQ� V).c OV .c aN1>li M CU cn t W N 0 �a C: a) N m O (3) O 3 u c c O3 a fuN m 0 O 0 c _0 i T c U 0 C a) U oC ,n c :E0'N� 3c-0 c a) C u a) Ln Oro ca }0 C V v) .� 0-0 3a)r�°� oa, C ._ 3.E�uro 0 N O O+ N fo a a)Eo�o 'D T N 0) H u In O o a) Z C ro E 0 3a ro 3 c o 0� > ro c a) o oa) c E.rn c c-0 O .N N i>+ o 7 E C N C) m ro + E -6 a) i 0 ro m c 5) N roc a70 u+ me O rp C . ro0 r0 _O j U U _ CD w a Ou uro 0--o Q 7 > (7 a) u 0-0 a) a 0— C a) O L C i Q O1 i N a-+ M ro H N 0 a N ro E raL W ro O 0 '� a) Q 7 Q a y `� "O N 3 L Q 3 OZ N a c a) 7 v .4� U Q y JQ. w 'i V) L H Z O W� °roalloE 3p�No f0 a'oO+ubN.uroc�° �. F— a- O-0 C) N -a v N O a rao O-1 3: zZ rn ac)E X00c(E -ac aoxmcro N )OO _0� E E N N� o °' C WQH o a > oCV)C �-0 o +-3/\vUi QQ'Z > N O C E 3_ O a) N LuO0 •5)�>a)3:C O0 Cr>oa�) LL 'EU a)� a).Ca)-la 3: -C LL O N -0 c N fu O N m J H S � °) > 0a 3 0 0 c Q �QH 0o ate~ rn�LLJ a N Oaa cN E'o cz>, 1-0 3 UQ� V).c OV .c aN1>li M CU 2 CO) 3AV H1S S It 3AV H1L S a cn W N 0 �a N N m O (3) o c J � � 0 c c �3 O N� C u a) v C 0 v) .� C 3 c a o c O W O w .O w H u In O Z C ro E 0 3a ro 3 c o 0� w E-0 D 00c 0 a Ol r6 0) T >O C + O T � c 2: > a O _t O O Q Qr Q a N M 2 CO) 3AV H1S S It 3AV H1L S a cn W N a Z a 0 o � � J � � 0 DAV NlVh N 3AV1Sl N a N }Z UO J � d J W D U)0 :3 W a Zin J Q D �o C'•® 3AV H19 S N c o /Illi ■ r', N Q C C L Ln ° a) r0 co N ° Ln w w p m V)C:E3ro c '-� °�'° 0 0 a-+ V O- C O x ++) = 0 N a) T Q- L L : x V F- mro o o ..I ��- @w E r6� N N= a E E c E+ a) m o '> V Q O o c O V O C •L a L } v .c a T m° 0 c >.- _ E o ra _0 ro ro J p co ) -0 a) i C (0 r0 j 'U 7 � a) 0) N ° r0 U1 3 V vi j p' V O ro cc N 0 OV >= C a c tn O �O Q d O j 'J o y }= O+ V 3 'L t�1 W E O E V_ Q Q ro c ro -o E w 3 �, r6 d N V OL LL U L N r6 L J C a) O C E W rn C a o i N m O U d O r6 = O 0) O-0 r0 N N r0 (6 N Q r}0 0 > •� `� a C U a) V V E N u �� o�� Z �� 0� a ° ZO °; ° N L C ro O c s ro o ra = C m Q ° d N p .c -0 C �.V r0 F- •N a) y 00 C .+_T' O Q E w C 0� >-o+ -0 ro o E'@:_ E 0 Q ro c 3 �� o — C c +' rp -0 L 7 � p �, N p-0 o a) U �+ L Z 0 N N O U r6 O j C°_> E° E -O = U Q uj +� �+ L E C O L N W -0 •c 'N N L J T i m •V U VO i _� NO r60 E f0 N r0 C f C L > _ C O L = c a > 0 r6 Q m° o x � +� ro C) -Ln 5 N U -Q w w ii ro o Q OV J U E v, 0 r=o �— Q+--�Q a)10 �+�.. N-0 V C Z t 0. co a o ro O 'x 0-C °- O -Q T N T °0N E 0)� c y p m N Z• Ln E rL° c> : L 0 c No +,N cop -0 a) 0) co a) E o3 N } c o 0)c E o 0 0� a o '7 E 0 +' 0 L = L c W L rn N L L E L •c Y 0 OV 0) 'L 30 —O a) N rp w rp o_ O a V al p �. a v> = ro °- a) C a = r0 ? V C _^ L a O U= U> rn 0 , 3 O �' a' rp O C y O Q 0 N rU6 a O > rL0 0 OL N_ C +' N 0 N > E -0 m a� � E i a) ro u C i o i� a y •N Q c _ O -0pTO°rot -0�'Qa'o>c m e a o TE ° �' 0 0� U o p c o c r=o a''' Q��w o rnro m Q o 3 rn -0 ap' �`ro `6 vy 0)c o U} 30 V E T-0 ; .F T C '^ N N W w° +' `° 30 .c w = 3 C c cOi� Q °) `° U O OV fo O U `� ° U-0 N a) O o a E U r6 L ro c '- Yv N t = r° a) N a) a) to C r0 C C N p y 0) •_ O ro +, V) rp 3 M a o O N N -O � N ra N Z M T U= ,r� Q O = U~ > N M ro ro a Z N=_ c +' O a) �a T 0)m 3 w-0 m C 3 a) C 'L C c V rp ,V _°- a) ,� C 7 a=i N r�0 v� = O a) ° in p ° 'O ° a i E r0 O. � N N -C '� L 0 � E � Q w U �� a E� �O a) � 6 L +� � ro a C = 3 E a c 0• L a m +, a E ��ca) a °>ro Eaa) H- CL :3 c mro a) N o3 o p 3 L+ d+ a w > L C a N = N 0 03Q ��ca w c0. u °a°,T w Z0 6y — �ro za �E> — C: �0 3 `0•N Ero 0'o+ ° > aci Cl > E o— u) _ E.c'> 0 °- 3 ca a' °';o o ac) Z a °� m o �-a E o E 3 Q U °) v Fn ram ° �' o° E3LU ro�0)•�Q a 0OcL>ao O U 0 ro :3 `° L 0 a U O O L N T C �' ax �+ N � E M u E u.; N ° c a) U 0^ o N ' Q� L o c ro +, d+ w ro N a) 0 0— m C •p rLo Il N N a ro N C 0° p r6 N o cif V U i O ° o n N"� °� - C 0 0� u� E Q o a u o �' 0 -0 m o � 5 f6 N 0 V U 6 o = rLo a r0 L `° C a L � .N -C n a '- ° Q ro 0 0 V a) m �,= ro c�+� x a� o 0� 0 ra 0 c L T3 0� Q 0aa)a)o��Qo cC:CD0Ma,ccw >c"1 ��-�c��E o ao d —Z ro o > O ro s O = C '� Q V O rn c 0 - U •- C O Q -o V T a al N c .� ' C V +� i T (� O "° a) •C a L O N a) E ° 'N V w V-0 L a V o w L 0 i C rn a) a) }' C ro Q W :C C N -p O al '� N +.+ }' a) _ '_ N -O Q. O T y = Y .- N m C Q r0 7 O + v o - N ro i s +° m v) T f6 v ro > m M Ln 0-0) .- c v 0 3° Z O O E m t -C a 3 O N o ro ro c a U ro O U V 3 N 0 Cl °= c 'n ~= c a N O E n L a) N a o O V cn V O r0 d a -C m V_ `J d a U Q O N c •O r0 a +-' r6 ro N OV ° L= N Z x� E Nw C.- a ro O p Q 'o >�O> a°, �c 3 N �= o c� o.c °. y rLo 0� Q a) a o '0 0)V c Z a r0 N a' N `� O ) LL i +�-' rp a) m -C a) a V U 0 E >, r0 c> L a) �L c = 0) a= r0 C j° a) E a N a E o a C= a a L U p v- a) •i 7 U ,., C .- v rn Fu 0 3 d ~ a) (. V U a V ,� ° 0 L O o a 0- 0 0 0 .O Q O ro p `� E U L a) +' i aN-+ N a) (n E E� .� +.' O V U C OM > c .� 0 C °) a>i 0 p O v_ z a O U .U- � o> = t ^ a) U ,c c y V a0 c a V C 3� CO a) ro 'p E Q t �� O O .Q ro a) -C a) w o w N N U C a) -C a) _ -0 a) J N a N i- �O .c C O— U 7 C t 7 a) a p Q- Lr) _ ro C a) =� L O Q a N a) a :w. �• M ro — r0 M ,� a 3 E ro - a �- O U) a) a) > p1 : a) al rn O O C O a a.+ >, 0 ra 0) U >1 .— a�.J N V fn U) L Z C N •O en o (0 u .Q C t m m u C Q U rn .0) C U a) a) +, d m N C 3 N U O ro O c C 4 c y '0 >* a) C -0>+ @ V Q- d 0 - c i O ate+ U a) > N a) (o rn C a) O +- W rp N Ea U >+i O i 0 4) Q -Q d p C 2 E -O Q Q (p Q Q t) C 70 N C L `� vi V a) L O ra - C -a U U E*, i m a) � a) V +' 4- N � i ++ C u Q. C ro 0 Y ro++ 0 O U (n U N i o O C _ w i— O d a) t0 rUn N V U U 0 U O 3 +� `W OLC ` 3 a U ��rw W 0 c� � � 3 �4�Uw m O O a) O ro +� m L t a) � O N aa°,- a a3i 3� `—° `� �; ,,,_ O ,� os�x C m f6 Q° g a�N c> c o �cn+�a m E o ct m O o_ O) N c rn C ,� "0 `—�° d `° � p V O > 3 t vi Z V U U o W ra 3 a) nca�3�rUOCa�iv�a�da0. oo��Q oQ�w p > -0 > (on C 3 0 0 c W' o m m Cl C � C y -0 ro - ,a x C N O rn 0)3.0 Q U �; o �0 0 Q� m OL w 0 a� w� Z 0> - �O (n O U +�+ 7 6 0 -O N m 0 N O p Z E� C +� N 3W 3 a° 3w o� (�° c M > > M v >a °�� in -00-0 V)Q Q��ocl �°vic�° in�Q�C7rnrCo i U 0 dU tea) 3 tn 0 a) a) O yr U rn ro � L(j 7 O N Z c a) +� i, `� y us L U Q O U a) 0 a) c 0 i i 7 0) m O to off+ N m O mwa �o CN ay ,,� >,� r—:3 d� m �0 u rn y rmn O O'-00 C M @ m � c Q�� o -r- CL u �C3) 0C �3� W -0 N u Cc,n°Cm�� O. N 4 � -E N t O �., r0 V) � o a)• —C14 fu +� O� � m� �a ani o E > 0)�-0 10 > c o�y O C°-0 V >+ >, 0 ru u 0 U d> -c .rn L C C O Y J vii N w y— u N -C> W Q m O O m _d Q m ru rn m m c+ Q m O a +� N Q 0. V 3'v,�,; y c a >,0 m o w n > F- .� N C m m C U L V O Cate-)-) 5 c y C> a0) rp N N m O � O Q m = W�' fn V)j a) i p1 a) —O ro rn U O = a) V > C C U Q ` o a� CL m d o a3 o a o� �3 oa 3.3 c> H C d r- ++ d 0 E O a L o mmC>; QCn ro�'�3n-c ,n C+ v, 0 c ��rn�m'>Zn a) C (n,; m m v 0 CD C i O^ rn Q •� C ate. O L t "O m 0 Z O C Y m Q C o m 0� O c Q -O 0 t Cl C ro W (n W a) O 0 Q i m 0>} D j N a O d+ U+ O c Z N _ :3 N c a) w a) .� .0 w 0 r��n -0 0 U 0 d w M a) � V ru ro CO N 0 c C O N> U ro rp n. Q �(n ° .10 baa= wU �.-cy ° �ol�- V)-0 0 Z Q N Z O UN W N ZW Z OU UQ c c L ai cc o ro� o y�-0 Z a o ` Ln M —C o u _0 7L, Q Cl O cp c C +p 3 .0 p N al m- c c� 3 p o a a C) 3 c ° a n° 3'xt�--�� o c a o N o p Z Ln >a22 —�� Ln ra a '+, 0 0 rco O V O E '— Y D a > c _0 H �O O d w a) O N i E +-� i i C o i @ o E o 3 .� o o �, a i a) E vi N o c 3 ro p) >°�� cya)Eoa)t�uu��,E �0ac C) ro c J QO Q o ro O d c m row a) f0 C) o ro C: N 3 a m c c ° C c E N U c c a) N c ' p . .gym oE0000c C a) i p i 7 c o��oc03��Oa�� 0 3 +� �- -O m •— ° U rya U C) i �' O U C n N — a) }, Y i C i� a) a' ro a N 3 o N C r6 N o max 0 °� 3 E ro p z 3 c •Y N c am' 3 U `0 > ro >, m a) d 0 O t L 0 -0z o 3 E 0) Ln o ° oiC °) a 3 � ai CL ro u c � Q a a) °' Z a O u vi N a a 3 ° - - -o c coag C Ln 7 Q V)c ra 3 3 O °) ro > Q ra a) -> N o� m N o m o c o N �� o ^; c > u W cn a N ,� 3 ro u U c -0 ra -a .L ro -- a ro N ro � u Ln (na)Z - o> ° U cE c �� > ra _0c °o p .c — c o 3 N O N— j ° 3 p O '� a) O c ar0i _ ° M _r �a)��c3��a)-a°i� N� E D�� a`)) o > ° E Q a) m 3 7 u V a) .c V OV O �-C a O.� O >-0 � u a) +�+ N N } N T °� rc6 N V 3 c N Q y O a >M�+ �coa'awv' °u > - N E a) c 3 X N O c W c ° V a. O j +� _ >> p M U N w o a) u p V N W p + o M N >; v) Um Z E�cra >a c ccc �aa)�O Z O u : Q p .N N, o .V Z o a) + c�Oi .M C> V 0 Q ro Q a 0)�a)w aN) a `c 3: (L)- v v) 0> u c Z >UZ0 u D CE >o :3 0Cl )> O 6 O C c— Nui �o>-Cc' O a i� � M� W aoo °o C c 0 Om Z v a a u u� ) 0) -0 � @-0 p C a) o a) C O a'n F- F- SD o ro Q 3 a ro U C` ri IT ui c c L ai cc o ro� o y�-0 Z a o ` Ln M —C o u _0 7L, Q Cl O cp c C +p 3 .0 p N al m- c c� 3 p o a a C) 3 c ° a n° 3'xt�--�� o c a o N o p Z M >� o3:(3) 0 o�vU))��oEa°)a>i C: N3 Ln ra a '+, 0 0 rco O V O E '— Y D a > c _0 H �O O d w a) O N i E +-� i i C o i @ o E o 3 .� o Q a a i a) E vi N o c 3 ro p) >°�� cya)Eoa)t�uu��,E �0ac C) ro c J QO Q o ro O d c m row a) f0 C) o ro C: N 3 a m c c ° C c E N U c c a) N c ' p . .gym oE0000c C a) i p i 7 c o��oc03��Oa�� 0 3 +� �- -O m •— ° U rya U C) i �' O U C n N — a) }, Y i C i� a) a' ro a N 3 o N C r6 N o max 0 °� 3 E ro p z 3 v nc m c 3 o c o V) C: C: i N C C 3—° c a) N a) i+ O o Q O t L 0 -0z o 3 E 0) Ln o ° oiC °) a 3 � ai CL ro u c � Q F- o a c o o a c o c c Cl.— c '� w a p w Z Cc) ac) Q�Oa)W3 o` v0)U0 O - -o c coag C Ln Q V)c ra 3 3 O °) ro > Q ra a) -> N o� m N o m o c o N �� o ^; c Z O `-° a BOE W cn a N ,� 3 ro u U c -0 ra -a .L ro -- a ro N ro � u c o i cY o C 3 N o p +� C: N3 > c N A Mc a.+ Q V a) C MQ. �0ac C) ro c O cmc ° E N y E C .0 p Q C a) i p i 7 c - ° Cl o '� 'N p O E .E rn ro c t L 0 �_ Y a 'o M a c > u W u > °� c a��i o0 c 3 �� u o o E �-j— Q, �Eu 3� o o uN c c p�roo `-° a BOE Z.Z cp Ln (na)Z - o> ° U cE 0 E ° ro Q c C> �� > ra _0c °o p .c — c o 3 N O N— j ° p O '� a) O c ar0i .c _r E> E D�� a`)) o a) o �.� ° E Q a) m 3 7 u V Z U c> .c V OV O � u f- a r h lV N N M - m - M A • � 0 = 0 � • = • � 0 • - . w • y O N - �- U p N a o o E 2 o c z� rnu c '4 fl- d � C. o_i '0 c '° Ocayyoo °c ° Q'y L4L' '- ac0.0-0 N 'O U Nc r0 o o m e ° u° ° y c => ° u c c a— O •- S. 5 ¢c rn �iik cc3 oo cw 3 OEC c 3 a�E rn �r.z c oe �O ay'o E U'J a 's o `'� o - 3 a �3 s y c Nc % Q c rn a` o m° O a Qy o p $u = �� oa 0 0 a f LL �� y a) V o -,o: �o oa Ctc �� c n 4 �� u j C: 1y c ac o a m a'c o0%F ou O �Q� 1 sops o�c`_ QE Bid N a o,g' =° oo ya a �m 3 �a c� �°�° his v�y �g o.s o EZ°r 5° 0,:- E a > 3•aa p c.oa cc o V [- O U O r •� i N NCO y ,, + o ar _ .N •N Q - 'c O •° N c �. i� c .O 9 = Ln v� x d O a' a a0 .�;a N= a.� 23F waaic 4r: ra O raai c; aci mo��o Ed rEau '00 o ° Q ��a �, u o. v y o - u E a o'a gs,- o O rn 3o a S gip, c� oa uau �� Do • o� c s as a y �s 6, Word y a o° i yat E- ro D a, a ar c o c ° 3�,r Cr 'O �� W° N d O E 'pr p Q U O t� a oc.ti °c aay c�.ii 0p a a`c ° a c arU7 U a a: - y 3 O Qi E C O Ll ° i N C 2 O E o '� p 0 c Q Q Or 4 N t^ {) O D Q O c •� J r6 t ao c o eta om a c aco c c og ou° � �ifi o o o '= aEi dtAro oyc� U U ❑ � u� ❑a o� vvL o a ° 17oii �� C � c $ g S _ o = ro o >�� w c7 ? �� -0 ig.w 3 Z O Q Z w Z N U H H W z C V Qi o p o �z >a� Z � =p"' z E< o6 w wqa� [)� zz� = Q n U rc Q wwnc 0 S wZw SCI mw ❑ 10 �� YI ^ [6. u��]j U.Z� ��O a < Z� ��O Uw C7 a0QQ O aw <u �w< O�� :.dZ Oa `� vV,,a > a Z Za ma Q E Z 3g �U3 U a o<(D U U �? Z O rroo z a a a w a CD z z w w H 3 z z 3 0 z 3 0 0 e \ / c 7 » a \ ( = t \ \ \ k \ ) 2 7 - \ ƒ - ` \ 1 ) ` \ ) E f \ @ 2 § « »L _ \ \- 2 - ' { !E ` Z {@ : 2 7 - k « 2 / \$ \ f_ \ $ / +E \� uu ) \ f2 \\ \ § \) { J & |f7 =E e� ) \» }f r-,2 §* t2 [ ) u }� E£ / | » c \ (/ \k� Cc, \\ *d \ !\ { _Q 0 /t §\�)c C3 �z E -= r® / A? ee c -2 \ \ §/ \ //\i\) £* f 2} E i z & c -- ® « (j ui .\ / - \ &3 k \}J\/ /\ [�\\ \ OU,2 < (y �° \ } ��' \ 2 § / } - ( �� x < » ® 9 M $ = _ z C4 04 .. a e e e - - ® . � kz $ ao I ƒ u u- -i \ / \ - '17K { W ID } \/ 0 . � ) & ) $ © :) & \ { { { \ ) §/ a ° ° k / ) \ ( \ ■ f { ? © = k { 2 J -_ E\k o @ \ \ 2 \ f \ 6 �{ƒ \ r { a) m & > { \ ) \ [ _ g \ e 0 4% t) ) % E $ 2 Z t ƒ .2 & ° | E e& /{ \ E § \±G 73 22 3 \ ) I j o n 0 ®z - u %(6 �7 ? $(z2 ! z2 k\ \/�/} �/ ) \ CL �§/IL z� } \\ �0 s6! #g }» § :n r± 4 (± y§ 2 z w )�°0 3 )°�� § 2�\\ � b .. _ ±<W: e ® e :e - ® e ® - @ O O - ® - ��» c \\ 71 O k) r ° 2 § E` \ t/ k\ /®} ƒ2 (U ( k ® v % { 2 i§ i -0a $ )\ mm 03 § 1 a 0, / } \\ �� \ � | \ (7 E $ ®£ ~ \\ f C £_ §{ -0. $ f{ §2 c £ \// \\ } \ 0 ` k . \k \ k \3: �@ .ii k tf a f : # G\ c ; )E�¢ktt2J) k0 ¥ f ${{a 02 22= ƒk £$} 2 /� 66 /\ \�}� 7 §\ j( pr- »`E�E{�b 2=£ 8 k \\ & \\ $ ¥)/ /k ) { C: 2 0 7 3 k k —6 ) C-, K \§/ $ k 0= /\\ �f ) d{\$ \}k�}f\\(\ 3 § k /2 zz 93 (/ 6§ { z u ai m ) f [ ° 5/mo > § < / / }/ z (k k k $ _ _\ : \ c \\ 71 • CSN N N N h h � N N `' N • O p ai ° •o a d CL 0)0)o u c E m e E °- D I� U O C C) N > C O p O .°p U O O U ; COU Y U C o 'm o 0 w N e (� d % 5 c0. °Ea) °c rn o o rn a° °= m o c g? ffi u V 1 p a a•a a� o E � Z5 X32 °a ° V c 0 0 0 o 0 D o �Y E u a ° cC. °03 ° °0, °UCpC O y O V d 9 cN E 7 C` C a, yon oo c � o �.c �a� 0 3 a c m° o o v u a o u L D ° O L N ^ '� �u° a a a'b o° o x o:�� NO = s v� 0�.10 3 u'i w� Ua�E v°c33 uoUm u Y � r Y�✓' W �''�✓� cc tom'^., yNj < Z Z W Z K Z K Z Q O Q< W < G =l• • Z Y Q a a< ~ C w C H w =< p < Ci Z >� U�Z O tJJz U z <0 pZ >? 500 > ce U ; z^ �� o� �v zz �Q o -� oa ..z Qo �� _Q o� z� W U a� a- Q� CITY OF RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN' CIRCULATION PLAN December 2015 DRAFT J,v ZAKITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G N E E R I N G i F L A N N I N G M VINGFORWARDTHINKINGTM � C M TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME 1) ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................. 1 Vision, Goals, and Objectives.............................................................................................. 3 Background and Related Documents................................................................................. 6 Plan Development Process................................................................................................. 8 Existing Conditions and Future No-Build.......................................................................... 11 Alternatives Development and Evaluation....................................................................... 18 Near -Term Plan Elements................................................................................................. 22 Long-term Plan Elements.................................................................................................. 31 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in downtown Ridgefield... 12 Figure 2: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress............................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Overall Occupancy Rates in Downtown Ridgefield Parking Study Area............ 14 Figure 4: Freight and delivery routes................................................................................ 14 Figure 5: Existing Vehicular Level of Service..................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Future No Build Vehicular Level of Service........................................................ 16 Figure 7: Five-year crash history (2010-2014).................................................................. 17 Figure 8: Near-term Plan Elements................................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Pioneer Street Signalization............................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Roundabouts have fewer conflict points than signalized intersections.......... 34 Figure 11: Draft roundabout layout for Pioneer Street Signalization concept ................. 35 Figure 12: Division Street Connection.............................................................................. 36 Figure 13: Draft roundabout layout for Division Street Connection concept .................. 39 Figure 14: New Alignment Cross Section Options............................................................ 40 APPENDICES (VOLUME 11) Appendix A Main Street Meeting Handout Appendix B Existing Conditions Memorandum Appendix C Future Conditions Memorandum Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 1, Executive Summary Executive Summary The Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan was developed through a collaborative process with the public, stakeholders, and City staff. The overall study of the downtown area was performed in conjunction with several other local planning efforts including the Citywide Transportation Plan, the Multimodal Plan, 45th & Pioneer Subarea Plan, and the Junction Subarea Plan. To plan and prepare for these citywide changes in the future, the City of Ridgefield studied circulation in the downtown with the goal of developing a safe and multimodal transportation system in the downtown area that builds on Ridgefield's existing systems and plans. The Downtown Circulation Plan will be an element of the City's Transportation Plan adopted by the 2016 update to the Comprehensive plan and provides further details on the overall transportation network within the downtown area and opportunities for future improvement. The Downtown Circulation Plan is intended to guide investment in multimodal improvements in the future and outline near and long-term priorities for the City. It includes the following sections: ■ Vision, Goals, and Objectives: highlights the purpose of the plan and overarching goals. The plan metrics were developed at the onset of the project to guide the development of the Downtown Circulation Plan. ■ Background and Related Documents: provides a summary of related planning documents and their relationship to the Downtown Circulation Plan. ■ Plan Development Process: gives an overview of the overall framework used to complete the Downtown Circulation Plan, including a summary of the public involvement process. • Existing Conditions and Future No -Build: provides an assessment of the existing transportation network, noting key opportunities and constraints throughout the downtown study area for all modes of travel. ■ Alternatives Development and Evaluation: outlines the process used to develop and prioritize both near and long-term improvements that were ultimately selected for inclusion in the Downtown Circulation Plan. ■ Near -Term Plan Elements: provides a summary of near-term projects that typically include lower cost multimodal improvements to help address existing issues for all modes of travel. ■ Long -Term Plan Elements: presents potential longer term improvements for managing multimodal circulation in the future as development occurs and traffic demand increases for all modes. The long-term concepts include both transportation network options and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2 Section 2 Downtown Circulation Plan Goals and Objectives Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Vision, Goals, and Objectives The Downtown Circulation Plan (DCP) was developed in alignment with the City of Ridgefield's Citywide Transportation Plan and Multimodal Plan. While these plans articulate the vision for city-wide networks for all modes, the DCP is more specifically focused on circulation and access in Ridgefield's downtown. The DCP is necessary to enable Ridgefield to plan for future potential growth in the waterfront area as well as to ensure comprehensive networks for a variety of travel modes. The DCP shares a transportation system vision and goals with the Multimodal Transportation Plan, and also includes downtown -specific objectives aimed towards achieving those goals. Vision A comprehensive and interconnected transportation system that allows safe, convenient, and accessible travel by all roadway users, regardless of age, physical ability, or travel mode, and that strengthens Ridgefield's role as a regional economic center, reinforces the quality and character of Ridgefield's neighborhoods and the downtown area, protects its critical environmental resources, and that is aligned with the growth management efforts of the City and region. Goals and Downtown -Specific Objectives Goals provide direction for where the City would like to be in the future. A goal is met when outcomes can be cited for that goal. Objectives provide a more detailed breakdown of goals with more specific outcomes the City desires to achieve. The goals and objectives for the project are detailed below. Goal 1: Connectivity Provide transportation infrastructure and services that create safe and convenient connections between everyday destinations, which will ensure the reliable movement of people and goods throughout the city. Objectives: • Create welcoming pedestrian connections to businesses, services, parks, and schools in downtown. • Maintain and enhance the pedestrian environment on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street in the downtown area to promote pedestrian access and augment a sense of place. • Provide low -stress bicycle connections to and through downtown Ridgefield from the system of trails, greenways, and local streets in surrounding areas. • Design and designate clear routes with sufficient capacity for vehicles, heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists to and from the waterfront area. • Enhance the intersection of Pioneer Street and Main Avenue as a focal point of downtown and the connection between downtown and the waterfront. • Create a gateway entrance to the downtown and waterfront areas. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 4 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan ............. Goal 2: Safety Improve the comfort and safety of the multimodal transportation system. Objectives: • Minimize crashes in the downtown area for all road users. • Provide comfort and safety for walking and biking in downtown. • Improve multimodal operations at the intersection of Pioneer Street and Hillhurst Road. • Provide safe access to schools. Goal 3: Equity Provide multimodal transportation for all residents and visitors. Objectives: • Plan and design downtown facilities that are accessible to all travelers, regardless of age, physical ability, or travel mode. • Ensure a public engagement process to collect input and allow for involvement from all community members. • Balance impacts to existing properties with benefits to the greater community. Goal 4: Economic Prosperity Provide an efficient and interconnected multimodal transportation system that supports mobility and competitiveness as a regional economic center. Objectives: • Maintain freight access, parking, and loading areas in the downtown area. • Enhance multimodal access and leverage transportation investments in the downtown area to attract future residents and visitors, and encourage commercial activity, tourism, and real estate development. • Encourage speeds for vehicles on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue that align with the "main street" vision and feel. • Maximize opportunities for people to "stop and shop". • Use resources efficiently and invest in infrastructure that will serve the City for years to come. Goal 5: Environmental Stewardship Protect the environmental resources in the area, including open spaces and waterways, which are critical to the quality of life in Ridgefield. Objectives: • Provide multi -modal connections from downtown to natural resources areas, including the waterfront, the Wildlife Refuge, Abrams Park, and trails. • Improve access and circulation for all modes that reduces auto travel and greenhouse gas emissions. • Minimize impacts to existing environmental assets. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 5 Section 3 Background and Related Documents Kittelson & Associates, Inc. City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Background and Related Documents The Downtown Circulation Plan has been developed to build on previous and ongoing planning efforts and adopted plans related to transportation and the downtown study area. Adopted Plans Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2013): The Comprehensive Plan is the foundational planning document for the City of Ridgefield and includes sections on land use, transportation, historical preservation, and economic development. The City will be updating the Comprehensive Plan in 2016, and the Downtown Circulation Plan will be part of the update. 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield (2004): This plan provides design guidance for the downtown area, developed to preserve and enhance Ridgefield's character and historic feel. The plan includes design guidance on urban form and on building structure and fagade, including the relationship between streets and buildings, the importance of corners, alleys, and the pedestrian realm. The Downtown Circulation Plan projects are in alignment with the 14 Essential Guidelines and it is recommended that these guidelines are consulted during future project development. Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Project Action Plan (2011): This plan outlines policies and strategies to strengthen both Ridgefield's Downtown and the Waterfront area as the Waterfront develops. The plan includes strategies on leveraging natural assets, creating a live -work -play community, and encouraging a regional innovation economy. Some of the catalyst projects and actions in the plan have been or are being implemented: the Pioneer Street Overpass is funded through construction and this Downtown Circulation Plan has been developed to address the need for a Pioneer Street Corridor Plan. Downtown Ridgefield Preservation Plan (2010): This plan outlines preservation planning goals for the downtown area and identifies key buildings on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street that may be eligible for historic registers. These buildings are not impacted by any of the proposed projects in the Downtown Circulation Plan, however, streetscape and pedestrian -related projects on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue may enhance access and aesthetics of the streets where these buildings are located. Miller's Landing Transportation Impact Analysi! (2013): The Miller's Landing Transportation Impar Analysis assessed the transportation impacts of a potential development in Miller's Landing, though it did not assume the construction of the Pioneer Street Overpass. Sorrie of the assumptions about trip generation from this study were used to help develop future traffic volumes for this Downtown Circulation Plan. Plans Under Concurrent Development In addition to the Downtown Circulation Plan, the City of Ridgefield has been working on other planning efforts concurrently. Each of these efforts will inform the overall comprehensive plan update in 2016. These other planning efforts include the Ridgefield Multimodal Pl2n, the Citywide Transportation Plan, the 45th and Pioneer Subarea Plan, and the Ridgefield Junction Plan. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 4 Plan Development Process City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Plan Development Process The plan development process occurred in the second half of 2015, in tandem with other planning efforts in the City of Ridgefield. Each of these coordinated what does the -:-_.omrTlunity efforts followed similar processes, DEVELOP GOALS. n alua it) downtown OBJECTIVES Pi(.-Im kAd and how do we including engagement with project our canals? stakeholders and members of the public at regular intervals. The Downtown Circulation Plan was developed following the framework shown to the.6,hat ire kG left. BACKGROUND & EXISTING transportationrelat�ci CONDITIONS is,Ues. c��pEart�_Initio=--.. an�_i Each step of the framework included constraints it) til- `_vst(✓rn today? input from members of the community, stakeholders, City Planning Commission, City Council, and/or technical experts on what ''^:'o It be like 2 the City staff or consultant team. These FUTURE vear�, frrlc>'ti.r it we f�mn) meetings allowed the project team to NO -BUILD CONDITIONS mar_i-;, no inve:stin-;ant• i hear about current and future the transportation community priorities and understand existing challenges with the downtown transportation system. Project -related what are some ways that outreach occurred as follows: SOLUTION we Can address CurrGllt ALTERNATIVES issues and plan for future • September Public Open House and DEVELOPMENT growth and chanc_ie in our Online Survey: The project team Conlr-r1Uriit+,r ' solicited general input from members of the community, both in person and via an online survey, to which solutions, are best EVALUATION & alignpd with our help inform the goals and objectives PRIORITIZATION downtown goals and of the plan, inform the existing objcCti-ves? which ones conditions, and collect ideas for Shc-u Id we Invest in first' solutions. • October Main Street Meeting: The project team met with members of what ))tions did we the Main Street group in their PLAN DOCUMENTATION con is ?i, and hc-,.& did we nlake decisions? monthly meeting, open to the public. The group discussed the existing challenges to circulation Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 9 downtown and the project team presented some initial ideas for solutions. The handout from the meeting is provided in Appendix A. • November Stakeholder Meeting / City Council Session: The project team presented a summary of the existing conditions in the downtown area and possible solution alternatives designed to meet the short- and long-term circulation and access needs in the downtown area. The full Existing Conditions Report and Future Alternatives Report are available in Appendix 8 and Appendix C, respectively. • December Public Open House: City staff gathered input during the December Public Open House on some of the proposed near and long-term solutions for circulation in the downtown area. The public input was used in the refinement of the solutions and projects contained in this plan. • January Planning Commission / City Council Session: In January, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and discussed the plan. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 5 Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 11 Existing Conditions and Future No -Build This section provides an overview of existing conditions and transportation facilities in the City of Ridgefield, as well as a "no build" analysis — how the system would perform in the future with no transportation investments beyond the Pioneer Street overpass (but including anticipated development). The full existing conditions documentation is provided in the Existing Conditions Report, Appendix e, and future no build analysis is detailed in the Future Conditions Report, Appendix C. The existing conditions analysis evaluated how well the existing transportation network within the study area meets the current needs of users. This evaluation included provision of multimodal transportation facilities and services, on -street vehicle parking supply and utilization, delivery patterns and needs, and multimodal level of service and operations. Existing Multimodal Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian facilities vary through the downtown area. Bicyclists primarily share the roadway with motorized vehicle traffic, and there are no additional markings or facilities such as bike lanes or shared lane markings. The exception is the initial phase of the Pioneer Street overpass which includes striped bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. Continuous sidewalks are present along Pioneer Street and Main Avenue and intermittently along other streets. In some cases significant gaps exist or current sidewalks are not functional due to poor conditions or overgrowth of vegetation. There is one transit stop in downtown Ridgefield, which is served by the C -Tran Connector four times per day — twice in the morning and twice in the evening. Figure 1 displays the existing transportation facilities in downtown Ridgefield. Figure 1: Existing roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in downtown Ridgefield Division St I Ash St Z W z d o n Mill St C-TRAN Lonne[[or 5� p ns St Kittelson & Associates, Inc. St Z u, z z S 40 > s mDc Di— or Cf fD EA V S _ m r Principal arterial Minor arterial Local street Alley Sidewalk Bike lane Multi -use trail 12 To evaluate how well the downtown street network is serving bicyclists, the analysis relied on a "level of traffic stress" (LTS) methodology. The bicycle level of traffic stress is a measure initially developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute and refined in the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Analysis Procedures Manual, and estimates the level of comfort a bicyclist will feel traveling on a particular facility, based on a 1 to 4 scale. Generally, LTS 1 is suitable for children; LTS 2 is comfortable for most adults, but not younger children; LTS 3 serves some adult cyclists; while LTS 4 is a level of traffic stress tolerated by only a fraction of adults. Evaluation of bicyclist level of traffic stress indicates that the highest level of discomfort for cyclists in the downtown area is along Pioneer Street east of 5th Avenue and on Hillhurst Road. The rest of the roadway network has lower levels of traffic stress and are likely more comfortable facilities for a wide variety of cyclists to ride on. However, since Pioneer Street and Hillhurst Road are the main routes into and out of downtown, the higher levels of traffic Figure 2: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 71, A stress on the above mentioned segments may present barriers to interested users from accessing downtown by bicycle. Figure 2 displays the bicycle level of traffic stress results. Existing Vehicle Parking Free on -street parking is provided along most streets within the study area. Along Pioneer Street and Main Avenue parking stalls are delineated with striping while in the rest of the area parking is not striped. The City of Ridgefield documented the number and location of vehicles using on -street parking on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in early October 2015, starting at 10:30am, 11:30am, 12:30pm, 2:30pm, 3:30prn, and 4:30pm. The number and location of vehicles parked on each block were documented. Using this data, parking utilization was calculated and the results are shown in Figure 3. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 13 Figure 3: Overall Occupancy Rates in Downtown Ridgefield Parking Study Area 100% -r 80% ' __ — -- _ — -- — ------ 60% ' 40% — — ----- — -- 20% — — 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:30pm ■ Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Overall occupancy during the observed times was found to be approximately 30% for the downtown area. Occupancy rates were higher along Pioneer Street and Main Avenue where there is a concentration of businesses and municipal services. -Along these segments utilization reached as high as 65%. Results for all three days are shown in Figure 3. The utilization threshold at which parking is Figure 4: Freight and delivery routes Division St Ash St Z Z o i Mill St D CD Simons St Z z z z Q it D S S E Sargent St determined to be efficiently used while still allowing most users to find available parking is 85%. Compared to industry standards, parking in the downtown area during the observed times appears to meet the existing needs of roadway users and has the ability to accommodate additional demand. Existing Delivery Patterns and Needs The existing designated freight route through downtown uses Pioneer Street, 3rd Avenue, and Division Street to access the Port of Ridgefield. With the future completion of the Pioneer Street Overpass and possible closure of the Division Street at grade rail crossing, it is anticipated that this route may change in the future. In addition to freight access to the Port, local deliveries are made to and from businesses within downtown. A survey was conducted by the City of Ridgefield to better understand the delivery patterns and needs of these businesses. Responses indicate that existing on -street parking is sufficient for the delivery needs for all but one business. These deliveries are made by vehicles that range in size from a van to 53 foot long semi - truck, and drivers typically park in front of the businesses they are serving p, or on nearby side streets. Delivery patterns and the existing designated freight route are displayed in Figure 4. Z z co �.o 3 S rD _ Designated Freight 5 Route rD C Other delivery routes (from survey) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 14 Existing Vehicle Operations The existing roadway network was assessed to determine how it currently performs for motorized vehicles. Analysis was based on vehicle count, speed, and class data collected along Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, morning and afternoon peak hour intersection turning movement counts, and historic crash data obtained from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Vehicle Volumes, Speed, and Classification Average daily vehicle volumes on Main Avenue were observed to be 2,700 vehicles per day. This increased to 4,100 vehicles a day on Pioneer Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues, and 5,700 vehicles on Pioneer Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. Volumes on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street west of 4th Avenue increase throughout the day and display a peak from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and again from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. On Pioneer Street east of 5th Avenue, the morning peak occurs at over the same time period, however, there are two afternoon peaks. These occur from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. The additional peak in the afternoon is likely associated with the end of school of day activity for View Ridge Middle School and Union Ridge Elementary School. Travel speeds along Pioneer Street and Main Avenue range between 22 and 29 mph, with slower speeds observed on Main Avenue. Table 1 displays the 85th percentile speeds measures in the project area. Table 1: Observed 85th Percentile Speeds By Direction Main Avenue (between 22 20 Pioneer and Simons ) Pioneer Street (east of 3,d) 24 23 Pioneer Street (west of 8`') 28 29 Heavy vehicles were found to account for between 8.8% and 10.2'/o of traffic along Pioneer Street and 7.3% of traffic on Main Avenue. The majority of these vehicles were classified as two axel vehicles with six tires. Intersection Vehicle Operations A set of study intersections were assessed to determine how they currently operate for motorized vehicle users. Irtersections included were: ■ Division Street/Main Avenue ■ Division Street/3rd Avenue ■ Mill Street/Main Avenue ■ Mill Street/3rd Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/Main Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/3rd Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/5th Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/8th Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road All of the study intersections currently operate under two-way or ak-way stop control. Analyses were performed for the morning and afternoon peak hours using the procedures stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual using Synchro7 traffic analysis software. The results were compared to City of Ridgefield mobility standards for unsignalized intersections as outlined in its Comprehensive Plan. This states that: The level -of -service used for the Capital Facilities Plan is "D'; except G,t unsignalized intersections that do not meet signal warrants or where a signal is not desired, where the planned LOS is "E". Results indicate that the Pioneer Street/5th Avenue and Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road intersections do not meet existing mobility standards during the morning peak hour. Level of service results for all o` the study intersections are shown in Figure 5. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 15 The operational analysis also looked at vehicular level of service in the future "no -build" condition. This assessment was made assuming no changes to the transportation network over the next 20 year period outside of any programmed improvements. The Figure 5: Existing Vehicular Level of Service - Division St Ash St z d z o a CL - Mill St < rD Simons St z z z z w A u' v a -3- D D D DfD ° `D Pioneer St D € Sargent St Figure 6: Future No Build Vehicular Level of Service assessment does include the Pioneer Street overpass and closure of the existing at -grade rail crossings at Division Street and Mill Street that currently allow users to access the waterfront area west of downtown. The future no build analysis used 2035 forecast traffic volumes based on the full build -out of Miller's Landing as documented in the Miller's Landing Transportation Impact Study. In 2035, without changes to the transportation system, all Pioneer Street intersections are forecast to operate with substantial delays, 0 exceeding the City of Ridgefield's standards, as � D� shown in Figure 6. Further = detail on vehicle operations can be found in Appendix C Q the Future Conditions Memorandum. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. W1 Division St Ash St z a z o r-r1 MillSt m Simons St Vehicular Level of Service z z z z- z z00 LD - - LOS A D(D < < LOS B AM PM Pioneer St M rD peak peak i, LOS C LOS D s EF D `" LOS E • Sargent St r(o CL LOS F • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. W1 Review of the crash data obtained from WSDOT for the five year period from January 2010 to December 2014 did not reveal any crash patterns indicating a safety issue at a specific location within the downtown area. Over the five years mentioned, there were a total of 25 crashes, of which 10 resulted Figure 7: Five-year crash history (2010-2014) Division St Ash St z + i w � C S � z fD Pedestrian involved crash Ln d z o CL < Mill St# D A 0 Simons St z z z LU I A N CL D 3 D m M ro` 8 it Sargent St resulted in a fatality. Seven of the crashes involved pedestrians, but no pattern was found to indicate a specific location where pedestrian related crashes were a safety concern. A map of the crash locations and severity is shown below in Figure 7. z z + i w � C S � Pioneer St fD Pedestrian involved crash Ln D z LO S N rl' 71 a. i Property damage only crash + i Possible injury crash Evident injury crash Serious injury crash Pedestrian involved crash Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 17 Section 6 Alternatives Evaluation Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 18 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Alternatives Development and Evaluation Due to the uncertainty of timing and character of future development in the Waterfront area, the planning process focused on developing both near- term and long-term solutions to ensure safe multimodal circulation in Downtown Ridgefield. The development of potential solutions for both the near term and long term relied on: 0 Previously Identified Projects: these projects were identified based on a variety of documents, including the City's Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Action Plan. Stakeholder and Public Suggested Projects: these projects were developed based on input received from the general public and stakeholders, including two public meetings in fall 2015, an online public survey, the October 2015 Main Street meeting, a meeting with key stakeholders from the school district and Port of Ridgefield, and a meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. Public input was also gathered via a parking and delivery survey conducted by the City in September 2015. New Identified Projects: these projects are needed to address gaps or deficiencies in the existing transportation system that were not addressed in either of the project lists described above. These projects are based on an assessment of the existing conditions and future "no -build" conditions in the downtown study area. The project team developed the near- and long-term project options to meet the project objectives, with a focus on creating safe and comfortable circulation for walking, bicycling, transit, golf carts, freight, and motor vehicles. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Near -Term Solutions The project team developed a set of near-term projects designed to be included in the City's near- term capital improvement program. The near-term projects include lower cost multimodal improvements and were developed to address existing issues and take advantage of opportunities in the downtown Ridgefield area. The project tearn then evaluated each project based on whether or rot it supports the identified goals and objectives of the Plan. Each goal (livability, safety and health, accessibility, financial responsibility and economic vitality) is supported with a set of objectives, which provide a more detailed breakdown of the goals with down -town specific outcomes. Overall, the assessment of each potential projec* relies heavily on the data generated and reviewed a! part of the existing and future conditions analyses, and through the stakeholder engagement process. The project team then used the following evaluation criteria to assess whether a proposed project will help make progress towards the established objectives. The evaluation criteria are listed below as questions posed of each project: 19 • Increase the presence of sidewalks? • Reduce barriers to pedestrian access? • Improve the directness of non -motorized route to schools (and/or waterfront and/or other critical destinations) from neighborhoods on all sides? • Provide the presence of bicycle LTS 2 routes through downtown and/or the presence of LTS 1 routes to and from schools? • Provide specified routes and wayfinding signage? • Provide redundancy of access/routes? Kittelson & Associates, Inc. t... • Minimize conflicts between heavy vehicles and bicyclists/pedestrians? • Provide safe pedestrian crossing opportunities? • Promote vehicle speeds of 25 mph or less? • Provide acceptable multimodal operations? • Provide clear pedestrian routes to schools, including quality crossings of Pioneer at 5th, 8th, and Hillhurst? Equity: Does the project... • Implement ADA accessible crossings and curb ramps? • Provide full access to destinations for golf carts, pedestrians, and bicyclists? • Take into consideration public input/feedback? • Require ROW acquisition from developed residential land? • Require ROW acquisition from commercial land? Economic Prosperity: Does the project... • Maintain or improve the existing levels of freight access and deliveries? • Maintain parking utilization rate of up to an average of 85% across the downtown on -street system during normal peaks? • Preserve opportunities for a transit hub? • Align with adopted Downtown design guidance? • Require a high level of public funding? (in ROW acquisition or construction costs) • If so, is the benefit commensurate with the level of investment? • Present the opportunity to leverage private funding or other public funding sources? Environmental Stewardship: Does the project... • Provide accessible connections and wayfinding signage to green spaces? • Complete sidewalk and bicycle networks, particularly accessing downtown from other locations? City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan • Require ROW acquisition from a park or other significant natural resource area? • Encounter regulatory barriers or zoning restrictions? The evaluation resulted in a project list containing projects in alignment with the stated objectives of the Plan. The near-term project list was then prioritized to identify high, medium, and lower levels of priority for projects, using the following prioritization criteria: • Benefits multiple travel modes (pedestrian, bike, freight, and/or auto) • Completes a critical network (pedestrian, bike, and/or freight) • Is an immediate identified need • Improves safety • Is low cost / high constructability Long -Term Solution Alternatives The project team next developed long-term alternatives, assuming the full build out of the Miller's Landing development and the future traffic conditions expected to occur. The long-term alternatives were designed to represent a range of options for managing multimodal circulation in the future as development occurs, traffic increases, and demand for walking, bicycling, and transit grows. The long-term alternatives are designed to serve growth in the community; therefore the pace and character of growth will determine when the long-term solutions will need to be implemented and what the best long-term solution will be. The long-term alternatives were developed as high level concepts and will require further evaluation to assess the impact on multimodal travel patterns, private property, public green space, and the topographic and environmental constraints. Appendix C, the Future Conditions Memorandum, contains documentation of each of the long-term alternatives that were considered; those that were carrieu forward to for further evaluation; and the results of the evaluation. The evaluation of the long-term alternatives followed the same framework as the near-term projects, in alignment with the project goals and objectives. Because the long-term projects are proposed as future solutions, needed primarily due to anticipated growth, they were not prioritized separately. However, further evaluation and implementation of the long-term projects should occur in conjunction with future growth to meet the multimodal circulation needs of current and future residents, employees, and visitors to the downtown and waterfront area. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 21 Section 7 Near -Term Plan Elements Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 22 Near -Term Plan Elements The near-term projects (shown in Figure 8) include lower cost multimodal improvements and were developed to address existing issues and take advantage of opportunities in the downtown Ridgefield area. These near-term projects focus on: • Designating and creating complete and comfortable systems for pedestrian and bicycle travel for people of all ages and abilities. • Leveraging streetscape investments to further enhance pedestrian environment on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, increasing vibrancy and sense of place. • Promoting vehicle speeds below 25mph in downtown. • Improving crossing opportunities for pedestrians on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue. • Filling in pedestrian facility gaps in other parts of downtown as redevelopment occurs. • Adding connectivity to the bicycle and pedestrian network through strategic non - motorized connections. • Communicating designated transportation networks for freight, bicycles, and on -street parking opportunities. • Addressing areas of potential conflicts. The near-term plan projects are listed in Table 2: Near -Term Downtown Circulation Plan Elements, along with a brief description and priority level. Some key projects and treatment types are highlighted in more detail following the table, including: • Bicycle boulevard treatments • Intersection enhancement treatments • Wayfinding options • Conversion to one-way with parking Kittelson & Associates, Inc. v � < > o > a o � Q E v Nu .tw C ru O N C N N @ E 4J C n tw dA ca C C O @— J a0 u O cu c 3 c o 'm O Hillhurst Rd N M M M N 9th Ave N ]I N 8 Ave co • I N a . ' � 1 1 7th Ave � n r. ry c N 5th Ave •N 2 Y 0 C N _ O � 1 W ut Y I ' � N 4th Ave m N tllll I , ,n O m • a� , V 3rd Ave ., � _ _-__. IIIII I N r FJN�� N ry N N s N Main Ave ` c 11 lop J 4 Ln N J -i ti N 1st Ave N Railroad Ave N tY m ems. C y& 0 O �7 • # . ; E � ' Table 2: Near -Term Downtown Circulation Plan Elements Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25 7,77T M � s Division Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply 1 Division Street bicycle route Low "bicycle boulevard" treatments. 3rd Avenue north of Pioneer Street is a priority link in the all ages bike 2 3`d Avenue bicycle route Medium network. Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Simons Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply 3 Simons Street bicycle route Medium "bicycle boulevard" treatments. 4.a. Convert 5th Avenue to one-way northbound for this block. Med 4.b. Stripe angled parking on the west side of the street (if space is Low available). 5th Avenue (from Pioneer Street 4 4.c. Allow for pick-up and drop-off on the east side of the block, and to Simons Street) High allow on -street parking outside of school start and end times. 4.d. 5`d Avenue (from Sargent Street to Simons Street) is a priority link High in the all ages bike network. Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Stripe buffered bicycle lanes east of 5th Avenue, and do not permit on- s Pioneer Street bicycle lanes High street parking in these blocks. 8th Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply "bicycle 6 8th Avenue bicycle route Medium boulevard" treatments. Enhance the existing multi -use path through the park as a pedestrian 7 Abrams Park multi -use path Low and bicycle route with signage and (optional) pavement. 8 Mill Street sidewalk infill Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on both siders of Mill Street. High Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on areas of Simon Street missing 9 Simons Street sidewalk infill Medium sidewalks. Main Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply 10 Main Avenue bicycle route Medium "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Sargent Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply 11 Sargent Street bicycle route Medium "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 3`d Avenue missing 12 3`d Avenue sidewalk infill High sidewalks. 13 4th Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on 4th Avenue on one or both sides. High 14 1st Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on 1St Avenue on one or both sides. High Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on Maple Street on one or both 15 Maple Street sidewalk infill High sides. Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 5`h Avenue south of 16 5th Avenue sidewalk infill High Pioneer that are missing sidewalks. 6' sidewalks (minimum) on 7th Avenue south of Pioneer on L177 th Avenue sidewalk infill 7th Avenue sidewalk infill Low one or both sides. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 25 ID Name Description Priority Main Avenue/Mill Street Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised 18 Low intersection intersection. Main Avenue/Simons Street Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised 19 Low intersection intersection. 3`d Avenue/Division Street Reduce southwest corner radius and convert to standard 2 -way stop - 20 intersection �d controlled intersection (3 Avenue stops). High 3`d Avenue/Mill Street Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised 21 Low intersection intersection. 3`d Avenue/Pioneer Street 22 Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Medium intersection 4`d Avenue/Pioneer Street 23 Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Low intersection S`d Avenue/Pioneer Street 24 Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. High intersection 8`d Avenue/Pioneer Street Monitor crossing activity to determine potential enhanced crossing, 25 Medium intersection such as crossing guard or rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). Hillhurst Road/ Pioneer Street Consider traffic patrol during morning peak period. Install radar 26 intersection activated speed limit sign for westbound traffic. High Revise signage to direct freight and boat trailers to use the Pioneer 27 Pioneer Street freight route Street overpass to the waterfront area (after closure of Division Street Medium crossing). ,d Stripe on -street parking on 3`d Street between Pioneer Street and Mill 28 3 Avenue on -street parking Medium Street. Consider time limits in the future. Downtown loading zone / Evaluate the need to designate a loading zone / delivery area in the 29 delivery area downtown core after the overpass is opened. Low Identify opportunities to provide bicycle parking on Pioneer Street, Bike parking and streetscape Main Avenue, and at key destinations. Identify opportunities for 30 High improvements streetscape improvements, such as lighting and sidewalk furniture, in the course of project development in the downtown area. Monitor on -street parking utilization every 2 to 3 years and consider 31 On -street parking management management strategies to meet parking availability goals (e.g. time Low limits, restrictions, or meters). Install wayfinding signage to alert people to preferred bicycle routes 32 Wayfinding signage High and the designated freight route. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. a Key Projects and Treatment Types This section includes more detailed descriptions of some of the key projects and treatment types in the near-term project list. The NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide also provides guidance for designing streets that "foster business activity, serve as a front yard for residents, and provide a safe place for people to get around, whether on foot, bicycle, car, or transit." Available at http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design- uide much of this guidance is applicable to the downtown Ridgefield context. The following projects are detailed below: • Bicycle boulevard treatments • Intersection treatments: Pioneer Street and 3rd Avenue example • Wayfinding examples • 5th Street treatment example Kittelson & Associates, Inc. cl771c F, 27 Project • 6, 10, andBoulevard A bicycle boulevard is a street that has been designed to operate safely and comfortably for both bicyclists and drivers, and to serve as a preferred route for bicyclists. They are typically located on streets that already had low speed limits and low traffic volumes, prior to being designated as a bicycle boulevard. A "family" of complimentary roadway treatments are applied strategically along the length of the bicycle boulevard in order to achieve these safe and comfortable conditions. Signs and pavement markings alert potential users to the bicycle boulevard, causing it to become the preferred route for bicyclists in the area, and this makes the facility even safer, due to the well-documented "safety in numbers" effect — the more bicyclists there are on a route, the safer it is for those bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards are best applied on streets without a centerline. What makes a good Bicycle Boulevard? The most crucial aspects to creating a safe and useful bike boulevard can be summed up with three phrases: Clear Communication A high quality bicycle boulevard communicates clear messages to motor vehicle drivers to "expect bicyclists on this route." It communicates to bicyclists "this is the preferred bicycle route in this area." Shared lane markings (sharrows), branded street signs, and wayfinding signs help achieve this communication. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Low Motor Vehicle Speeds Traffic calming treatments can help keep motor vehicles speeds low enough to safely share the street with bicyclists. Treatments most appropriate for bicycle boulevards include bicycle -friendly speed humps, curb extensions, mini traffic circles, and other methods of narrowing the street or deflecting the vehicle path. X$ k f Low Motor Vehicle Volumes Bicycle boulevards with low vehicle volumes are most easily achieved on streets that already have low volumes, or where parallel routes are more attractive for drivers. In some cases, motor vehicle diversion may be appropriate to re -direct drivers to other parallel streets. Depending, � motor vehicle votur mc�, u Bicyclist will be passed by a car going the same direction this many times during a 10 minute trip: 1000 ADT 3000 ADT N — 400% increa inpassingov tnnn enT PASSING EVENTS: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Source: NACTO Urban Bikewav Desian Guide 28 FA Intersection treatments such as curb extensions and striped crosswalks are two near-term improvements that can enhance the pedestrian environment, particularly within a downtown area. As shown in the adjacent graphic and proposed along Pioneer Street at the intersections of 3`d, 4th, and 5th avenues, curb extensions (i.e. bulb -outs) can provide the following benefits: • Creates shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. • Increases the visibility between motorists and pedestrians. • Reduces motorist turning speeds. • Provides potential space for landscape planting and/or an area for water runoff treatment. In addition, striped crosswalks that are located where motorists should expect pedestrian crossings, and have sufficient sight distance and reaction time, can provide the following benefits: • Designates a preferred crossing location for pedestrians. • Warns motorists of the potential for pedestrians. Striped crosswalks can be more effective with other physical treatments (such as bulb outs) that help to reinforce crosswalks and support reduced vehicle speeds. Near -Term Project # 32: Wayfinding Signage Wayfinding signs can provide useful information to visitors and users of the transportation system in downtown Ridgefield, while also enhancing the downtown "brand." Signage can be used to direct bicyclists, pedestrians, and other system users towards key destinations or designated routes, and can include distance to destinations and/or average travel times. Larger location maps of the downtown and/or waterfront area can brand the area while also helping visitors easily locate key destinations. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 29 Based on stakeholder and community feedback, several near-term opportunities were identified for 5th Avenue (between Pioneer Street and Simons Street) to improve operations and safety for all travel modes. The series of improvements for 5th Avenue (Pioneer to Simons) were proposed by stakeholders, residents, and City staff to enhance student drop-off/pick-up operations; provide additional on -street parking within the downtown area; promote a greater all -ages bike network; and improve intersection operations at 5th Avenue/Pioneer Street to restrict the existing southbound left -turn movement that can be difficult to make during peak time periods. The N 5th Avenue (Pioneer to Simons) concept includes: • Allowing for pick-up and drop-off on the east side of 5th Avenue. • Providing on -street parking on the east side of 5th Avenue outside of student drop-off/pick-up times. • Applying "shared street" treatments and designating 5th Avenue as a priority link in the all -ages bike network. • Converting 5th Avenue to one-way northbound between Pioneer Street and Simons Street and adding striped angled parking on the west side of the street (if space is available). -A similar type of treatment was implemented within the downtown area -bf Forest Grove, OR. As shown in the aerial image to the right, College Way is a single lane, one-way street with parallel and angled on -street parking on opposite sides. College Way is located one block off the City's Main Street and adjacent to Pacific University. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 8 Long-term Plan Elements Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 31 Long-term Plan Elements The purpose of the long-term concepts is to present potential future improvements that the City can pursue to improve the network for all users, continue to provide mobility as demand on the downtown transportation network increases, and help maintain the character of Downtown Ridgefield as the city grows. In the long term, Ridgefield's focus will be on: • Preserving and enhancing the historic, walkable, and inviting feel of its downtown while serving the circulation needs of a growing number of people as development occurs. • Integrating and creating connections between the waterfront and downtown areas. • Promoting the use of walking, bicycling, transit, and other non -single -occupant vehicles to minimize emissions and provide alternates to congestion. • Making investments that can be leveraged to support economic activity and achieve other community goals. Instead of a set of focused projects, the long-term plan includes a more general long-term vision for the alignment of the transportation facilities and the direction of programming. The long-term plan includes the following elements: Transportation Network Options: Two potential long-term transportation network alternatives, selected from the multiple alternatives developed throughout the course of this project. Transportation Demand Management Strategies: A set of potential programming and service investments that promote the use of non -SOV modes for travel to, from, and between the downtown and waterfront areas as development occurs. Transportation Network Options The transportation network options focus on providing access and circulation between downtown, the waterfront, and destinations to the east of Hillhurst Road, in addition to Pioneer Street. This plan includes two primary transportation network concepts; each one will need further study and refinement as growth patterns emerge and the after the type and extent of development at Miller's Landing is determined. The two concepts — Pioneer Street Signalization (Figure 9) and Division Street Connection (Figure 12) — emerged from a broader set of alternatives considered during the project. Further documentation of this process is included in Appendix C. the Future Conditions Memorandum. This plan does not present a single preferred concept for the future, but instead provides flexibility with options to serve new growth. Therefore, the Transportation Network Options section is organized as follows: • Descriptions of each concept, including elements that could vary; • Evaluation of the two concepts in alignment with the study objectives; and, • A discussion of key factors that could influence future decision-making. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 32 LLJ Q J � O O Q Q Q z z ~ L a.... Hillhurst Rd _ N 9th Ave, a z a O J z w N 8th Ave W J g z LA 5 7th Ave - y ic r o r c N 5th Ave .2 > y -� o I t N 4th Ave a in z H E e • pr = _ IA 3rd Ave F 7. 41 P .. _ • 1 N Main Ave �G N1 • • • MEN N 1st Ave ��j • W J �' • r• m z N Railroad Ave Z Zn Q G 0 Z✓lU ,y4. W W oc ~O a WO ,•� �✓` • d Pioneer Street Signalization The Pioneer Street Signalization Concept, shown in Figure 9, represents a future condition without an alternate vehicular route constructed. In this concept, new signals are installed when warranted at Pioneer Street/Main Avenue and Pioneer Street/5t" Avenue, with a signal or roundabout included at Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road. This long-term alternative includes a multi -use path connection between Stn Avenue and Division Street behind the school that connects to a walking and bicycling route connection (at -grade or grade -separated across the railroad) to the waterfront at or near Division Street. Motorized traffic would remain on Pioneer Street in this concept, and the Division Street railroad crossing would be closed to vehicular traffic. As discussed in more detail in the Future Conditions Memorandum, motorists using Pioneer Street would experience substantial queues in some locations during the peak periods of the day, if development occurs at Miller's Landing at the level currently envisioned in the master plan. Based on an initial assessment, the Pioneer Street Signalization concept could be implemented with either a roundabout or a signal at the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road Intersection. Prior to selecting the preferred intersection control, however, the City of Ridgefield will need to perform a more detailed evaluation of the two intersection control methods, including operations, safety, and lifecycle costs. Some elements to consider in selecting the appropriate intersection treatment include: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • Safety: Roundabouts are designed to slow vehicle speeds to 20 to 30 mph or less before they enter the intersection. As shown in Figure 10, roundabouts have fewer conflict points and have been shown to reduce the severity of crashes, as compared to signalized intersections. Signalized intersections can improve safety in locations where signal warrants are met; however, they may result in an increase in rear -end crashes, compared to other control types. • Construction costs: Roundabouts can be more costly to design and install when compared to signalized intersections. The location of Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road may have high construction costs due to the sloping topography of the intersection. • Operating Costs: Roundabouts have a lower operating and maintenance cost than traffic signals, which must continuously draw from a power source and must be periodically retimed. • Property Impacts: A roundabout at the intersection of Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road will require more space than a signal, and will therefore have significant impacts to adjacent properties, as shown in the draft layout in Figure 11. Figure 10: Roundabouts have fewer conflict points than signalized intersections. =a Figure 11: Draft roundabout layout for Pioneer Street Signalization concept N A CD Tr D D < < m # m m_= C Pioneer Street — — — -�—�b T�`�,� 4r ' — Old Pioneer Way Potential New 5i Right -0i -Way \\ t\A ni Aii L t , r � IT X Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 35 Z cW C Q r. �a F O i J m aQ F o LU a� J F- a W1E z Z O LU n0_QO m Hillhurst Rd th A 8 Ave = Q S 7th Ave c C cc a IA k.2 N 5th Ave N N tl0 N 4th Ave : N c in o • i, dP p E ■ 3rd Ave i • • N Main Ave 4- • ' r• • V) 143• - • ONE N 1st Ave g. • • CL N Railroad Ave O� x {i tyr` Division Street Connection Alignment A Summary Assessment The Division Street Connection concept, shown in Figure 12, includes the construction of a new multimodal street connection between Pioneer Street and Division Street on the east side of the school, following the existing Division Street along the north side of downtown, and connecting to the waterfront via an at -grade or a grade -separated crossing. This concept includes: • Constructing a new multimodal connection north from the Pioneer Street to Division Street with the potential of being designated as a freight route. • Creating a gateway to downtown with a roundabout or signalized intersection on Pioneer Street. • Providing a new all -ages bike route between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenues by improving the exiting pedestrian path between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue. • Connecting the above new all ages bike route between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue north to the new east -west multimodal connection and west between 8th and 4th Avenues. The Division Street Connection concept has several components with various options described below, including: • The alignment between Pioneer Street and Division Street; • The intersection treatment at Pioneer Street; and • The cross section of the new alignment • The type of railroad crossing Pioneer Division Connection Alignment Selection of a preferred alignment will require additional cost estimating and engineering feasibility study; however, the project team developed an initial list of characteristics for each alignment: Alignment A makes a connection between Division Street and the north end of Stn Avenue, follows Stn Avenue south to Simons Street, extends east/west on Simons Street for a block and then connects south to Pioneer Street across from the existing Hillhurst Rood location. Property impacts • Potential impacts to at least four private residential properties, including multifamily housing structures. Other properties may be impacted as well, depending on roadway design. • Brings additional traffic adjacent to schools and homes on existing N 8th Avenue alignment, currently a very low traffic street. Pioneer Street intersection location • Creates four -leg intersection at Hillhurst Road/Pioneer Street; a good location for a gateway treatment to downtown. This intersection already operates with substantial delays, particularly in the a.m. peak hour, so it would benefit from a roundabout or signalization. Leverages existing infrastructure • Uses the existing alignment and right-of-way of Simons Street and 8th Avenue. Quality of connection • Introduces two tight corners into the route which promotes slower vehicle speeds, but may reduce attractiveness of the route for freight. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 37 Alignment B Summary Assessment along the top of the ridge before turning south to make the across from the existing Hillhurst Roadlocation. Property impacts • Potential impacts to at least five private residential properties, including multifamily housing structures. Other properties may be impacted as well, depending on roadway design • Draws traffic away from schools. pioneer Street intersection location Creates four -leg intersection at Hillhurst Road/Pioneer Street, a good location for a gateway treatment to downtown. This intersection already operates with substantial delays, particularly in the a.m. peak hour, so it would benefit from a roundabout or signalization. Leverages existing infrastructure • Would require all new alignments. Quality of connection • Provides straightforward, user-friendly route for all modes that is mostly closely aligned with completing the grid system. Alignment C Summary Assessment �ID&I11)7 Alignment C connects from Division Street along the top of the ridge, crosses the existing field to the east of the residential neighborhood, and then connects to Pioneer Street to the east of the existing barn on the north Side of Pioneer Street (east of the Old Pioneer Street intersection). Property impacts • Potential minor impacts to two private parcels, but no impacts to existing structures. Other properties may be impacted, depending on roadway design. Pioneer Street intersection location • Creates three -leg intersection east of Hillhurst Road, a location that may be too far to feel like a "gateway" to downtown Ridgefield. This new intersection would not address existing identified issues at Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road, which will likely require traffic control investments in the future. Leverages existing infrastructure • Would require all new alignments. Quality of connection • Provides direct connection to Division for all modes. Based on the high level assessment of the three alignment options, Alignment B has the potential to provide the most benefits in the long term, because it avoids long-term traffic impacts to existing land uses and creates one four -leg intersection with Pioneer Street, improving operations and creating a gateway to downtown. However, a -nore comprehensive cost/benefit analysis and engineering feasibility study would ultimately drive a selection of a preferred alignment. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 38 Pioneer Street Intersection Treatment As in the Pioneer Street Signalization concept, there are options for the intersection treatment at Pioneer Street. If Alignment C is selected, it would create a new three -leg intersection with Pioneer Street, in addition to the existing three -leg intersection at Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road. Treatment for these intersections would need to be evaluated further if Alignment C emerges as the preferred alignment. Both Alignment A and B, however, create a four -leg intersection at Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road. This intersection could be controlled with a traffic signal or roundabout. Prior to selecting the preferred intersection control, the City of Ridgefield will need to perform a more detailed evaluation of the two intersection control methods, including operations, safety, and lifecycle costs. A preliminary sketch level planning analysis, based on the forecast traffic volumes, suggests that a single -lane roundabout with a separate right turn lane for west -bound vehicleE would operate well at this location. Figure 13 provides a sketch -level concept of this roundabout. If signalization is selected as the preferred intersection control, Ridgefield could install ornamental signal treatments to contribute to the "gateway intersection" aesthetic. Figure 13: Draft roundabout layout for Division Street Connection concept CO *,. tr .I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 9 City of Ridgefield a Downtown Circulation Plan Cross Section of New Connection Figure 14: New Alignment Cross Section Options The new connection between Division Street and Pioneer Street will need to be designed to balance the need to provide safe and comfortable facilities for all modes with the need to minimize impacts to existing properties and the surrounding environment. There are several potential cross section options, shown in Figure 14. The City's existing "scenic collector" cross section has two travel lanes and Scenic Collector a sidewalk on one side of the road. While this cross section is the narrowest option, it does not provide a comfortable facility for bicyclists, given the vehicle volumes that are anticipated. Two other options providing facilities for all modes are a cross section with bicycle lanes and a sidewalk on one side; and a cross section with a multi - E.- pri,c!aic Bike lane use path on one side. Bicycle lanes and sidewalk on one side Each of these options can be considered for future implementation. Multi -use path on one side 'imoges produced in Streetmix, licensed under Creotive Commons Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 40 Railroad Crossing Finally, the Division Street Connection concept could be implemented with either an at -grade or grade - separated crossing of Division Street. Prior to selecting the preferred crossing, a more detailed evaluation would be needed to determine the feasibility and cost of each option. Some elements to consider in selecting the crossing options include: Cost: The cost of constructing an overcrossing similar to the upcoming Pioneer Street overcrossing would be much higher than maintaining an at -grade crossing. Safety: While there is not a documented crash history at the existing railroad crossings in Ridgefield, at grade crossings do create the potential for conflict to occur if drivers disregard the train approaching signals or pedestrians attempt to pass through a stopped or slow- moving train (on foot). An at - grade crossing also creates the possibility of a vehicle stalling on the railroad tracks. Property Impacts: The construction of an overpass could have impacts on existing parcels to the west of the railroad, due to the elevated overcrossing sloping toward the ground. Additional engineering feasibility analysis would need to occur to determine a feasible alignment for the overcrossing, and assess potential impacts to properties to the east and west of the railroad. • Noise Impacts: The construction of the overpass eliminates the need for trains to use horns to signal their;approach. It is possible, but unknown, whether a quiet zone could be implemented if an at -grade crossing were maintained. • Stakeholder Interests: The BNSF Railway, Port of Ridgefield, and any future private sector development partner will likely have interests in determining the future configuration of any railroad crossing between downtown and the waterfront. An actionable solution will likely result only from collaboration between these stakeholders and the City of Ridgefield. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 41 1toncepts Evaluation The two overarching alternatives (Division Street Connection and Pioneer Street Signalization) were further evaluated against each other and against the goals and objectives of the Downtown Circulation Plan, as described in Table 3: Concepts Evaluation. Table 3: Concents Evaluation Rather than result in a preferred alternative, the evaluation is designed to identify key characteristics of each concept. The following section outlines key factors that would influence decision-making in selecting a variation of one concept over the other. Plan .. Objectives • Provides an additional route for all Connectivity Provides another route for walking and • Redundant routes for modes to the waterfront. bicycling to the waterfront. (Providing all modes • Provides the opportunity for a low this connection may be more or less stress bicycle route and complete difficult than providing a full Division • Complete pedestrian pedestrian facilities along the new Street connection, depending on funding facilities and crossings connection. sources and availability.) • Low stress bicycle • Provides redundancy only for walking routes and bicycling, not freight or vehicular movement. • Reduces vehicular mobility during peak periods, with no viable alternate routes. Sco re High Low Safety • A new connection for all modes • Signals on Pioneer Street improve • Safe access to schools would not provide an exclusive crossing opportunities for pedestrians • Reduce crashes for all pedestrian/bicycle path; however, and bicyclists. modes there may be an opportunity for a • High levels of vehicle delay and traffic on pedestrian bicycle path adjacent to Pioneer Street could result in more • Complete networks for the new connection. aggressive driving, with drivers accepting pedestrians and smaller gaps. bicyclists 0 A northern route separated from vehicle traffic would provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists. Score Medium Medium Equity • Public input received has expressed • Some public input has been against the • Inclusive process and the need for more circulating routes installation of traffic signals on Pioneer; responsive to public in the downtown area —there has however, public input also reflects input been some support for a "couplet". support for improved crossing • Requires right-of-way acquisition opportunities. • Minimize impacts on from school property and from 1 to • Would require an easement or right -of - property owners 10 other residential land -owners way acquisition from the school property depending on alignment. to construct multi -use path. May require • Additional public input and support property acquisition from residential could increase the equity score. land owners if roundabout at Hillhurst/Pioneer is selected. Score Medium High Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 42 Plan Goal Objectives Division Economic Vitality • Improves circulation and freight • As traffic volumes increase, freight will • Leverage public access. encounter additional delays. • Provides opportunity for transit • Signals at downtown intersections slow investments to circulation "loop". If transit service traffic and can provide an opportunity encourage economic becomes more frequent in the for people to "stop and shop'. development in future, could have two lines serving • Provides opportunity for bidirectional downtown — one in each direction. transit travel on Pioneer Street. Bus • Efficient investments in • Represents a substantial public blockage could add to delay given lack of infrastructure to serve investment, potentially at or space for pull-outs. long-term needs beyond the Pioneer Street overpass • Signalization typically costs between level of investment. However, the $250,000 and $350,000 per intersection, introduction of another route a relatively low cost compared to the connecting eastern parts of construction of a new road. However, Ridgefield with Downtown and the the construction of a non-motorized Waterfront creates the opportunity connection across Division Street has the for additional economic potential to represent a significant cost, development in the downtown and depending on whether it is grade waterfront areas, adjacent to the separated or not. A non-motorized new connection. connection is less likely to spur economic development. Score High Medium Environmental Stewardship • The connection from Pioneer Street • The non-motorized connection across • Improve connections to Division Street would result in Division Street would improve access to the loss of part of an existing the waterfront, a public natural to natural areas natural area above Gee Creek; resource. Impacts to existing natural • Minimize impacts to however, it would avoid major areas would be minimal. existing environmental impacts to Abrams Park. The new assets connection at Division, however, would improve access to the waterfront, another public natural resource. Score Medium Medium Key Factors Influencing Future Decisions Ridgefield is a community experiencing rapid growth and change, and as such, it is beneficial to remain flexible and responsive to change. There are some key elements that could influence decision-making about the transportation network in the downtown and waterfront area in the future. • Type, mix, and amount of development in the waterfront area: This plan has been developed assuming a build -out of Miller's Landing with 820,000 square feet of building space for retail, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. office, educational, and civic uses, as outlined in the master plan and analyzed in the Miller's Landing traffic impact study. However, a change in the type, rnix, and amount of development could change the traffic impacts and transportation infrastructure needs to serve the area. For example, the introduction of a residential component to the development could allow for a "live -work" community, potentially reducing peak hour commute trips in and out of the area. A change in the level of parking supply could also have an impact in the number of 43 vehicle trips going to and from the waterfront. The types of future tenants and total square footage, if changed, will also impact trip generation. Depending on the degree of change in vehicle trips, future transportation concepts needed to serve the demand may also change. Type, mix, and amount of redevelopment in downtown Ridgefield: The type, mix, and amount of redevelopment that occurs in downtown Ridgefield is much less in question than the waterfront. However, the location and type of redevelopment could have an impact on traffic circulation patterns as well as the level of pedestrian and bicycle activity in downtown Ridgefield. Overall growth of the city and region: The regional model does not forecast substantial growth in traffic in downtown Ridgefield without the development of Miller's Landing. However, levels of regional and citywide growth over the next 20 years has the potential to change the amount of traffic circulating in the downtown/waterfront area. Mode choice and trip -making characteristics of current and future Ridgefield residents, workers, and visitors: Currently, driving alone is the primary mode of transportation for Ridgefield residents. Over 93 percent of Ridgefield workers normally drive to work (about 86 percent drove alone and about 8 percent carpooled), according to the US Census, and just over 1 percent use a different mode of travel (walking, biking, transit, taxi, motorcycle, or other). The remainder (5.5 percent) work from home. In the future, as Ridgefield grows and invests in multimodal transportation infrastructure, these mode choices could shift. Other parts of the country have seen decreases in driving in the "millennial" generation (people born in 1982 or later) and in senior citizens. If mode choices began to shift as Ridgefield grows, vehicular traffic may increase less than forecast. • Cost and feasibility of the Division Street Connection concept: This plan did not fully assess the feasibility or cost of constructing the Division Street Connection concept. A future feasibility study and cost estimate may result in findings that make the Division Street Concept infeasible or result in a higher cost than the anticipated benefit. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 44 City of Ridgefield_.QW owntown Circulation Plan - Transportation Demand Management Strategies Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a term used to describe a set of strategies that address the demand on the transportation system: the number of vehicles traveling on the roadways each day. TDM measures include any method intended to shift travel demand from single occupant vehicles to non -auto modes or carpooling and/or to shift travel to non -peak times of the day. This section provides a set of strategies that may be applicable to reducing peak hour vehicle travel demand in and around downtown Ridgefield. Improved multimodal systems Safe and comfortable transportation systems for modes other than motor vehicles are a critical element of TDM. Downtown Ridgefield is already fairly walkable, due to the small -block grid system of the street, buildings and businesses fronting the street, and relatively low vehicle volumes and speeds. Increasing the intensity of destinations, filling in missing pedestrian connections, and providing safe crossings will improve walking conditions in and around downtown. While the current levels of bicycling are not high, Downtown Ridgefield has the potential to attract people traveling by bicycle, as the City constructs their system of trails and bicycle facilities connecting to downtown. To attract people of all ages and abilities, these facilities must feel safe and comfortable — separating bicyclists from high- speed, high-volume motor vehicle traffic. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Including bicycle parking with new development and streetsc:ape investments will also improve access by bicycle. • While public transit service is currently minimal (one fixed route stop with once -per -day service and service on -demand in other locations), enhanced transit service may be possible as growth occurs and if land use densities rise to transit -supportive levels. Programming and Education Going beyond information, programming and education can provide people with encouragement to try a new travel mode. For example, Ridgefield residents seeking to try bicycling for the first time may be encouraged by the opportunity to take a class on safe bicycling techniques and equipment or by a city-wide "bike to work day". These strategies are likely to be effective once the appropriate infrastructure is in place for non -single occupant vehicle modes. In some areas, transportation management ac;sociations (TMAs) have been formed to help with TDM efforts, including regular programming and education. 45 Collaborative Marketing / Information Marketing and information can also impact people's behavior. ClarkCommute.org provides information to Clark County residents about non -SOV travel modes. Ridgefield could collaborate with Clark County, 4CTRAN, local employers, and developers to get the -word out about transportation options that provide an alternative to single -occupancy vehicles. Targeted Shuttle Service Shuttle service is an option that may help reduce vehicle travel demand in and around the waterfront and downtown area of Ridgefield, as development occurs at the waterfront. Initially, shuttle service could be implemented during high - activity events, such as weekend activities in the downtown area. Providing shuttles to circulate between parking areas, the downtown, and the waterfront could allow people to park further away than they may normally, helping reduce vehicle traffic in the heart of downtown. In the future, as travel Kittelson & Associates, Inc. activity increases, Ridgefield can monitor the potential for more regular shuttle service between downtown, the waterfront, and other key locations. Other Mobility Options Ridgefield is already planning for use of golf carts and other mobility options by its community members. Ridgefield can continue to encourage these options by providing facilities to accommodate them and engaging with residents to understand their travel needs. As the city grows, it is possible that other emerging mobility options, such as ride -hailing companies (Lyft / Uber), will become available to Ridgefield residents, workers, and visitors. Maximize School Bus Effectiveness Two of Ridgefield's schools are located adjacent to downtown, and a third is located on Hlllhurst Road, south of downtown. All three schools are served by school bus service. However, a substantial number of parents drop off their kids at the schools. Performing an assessment of the school bus service and evaluating ways to increase its reach to students not yet riding the bus has the potential to significantly reduce morning peak hour vehicle demand. or downtown areas. Ridgefield should continue td monitor public parking supply and utilization to inform future parking strategy. In employment districts, designated convenient carpool parking can help encourage employees to carpool. Limited or Flexible Parking Requirements Cities set policies related to parking requirements for new developments. To allow developments that encourage multimodal transportation, Ridgefield can consider adopting parking maximums, low minimums and/or allow for shared parking between different uses. Ridgefield can also consider providing developers the option to pay in -lieu fees instead of constructing additional on-site parking. This option provides flexibility to developers that can increase the likelihood of development, especially! on smaller lots where surface parking would cover a high portion of the total property. Finally, Ridgefield can continue to encourage off-street parking to be constructed to the rear of buildings, and minimize the presence of parking fronting main commercial streets. In -lieu parking fees support this type of development for parcels that do not have rear- or side -access points. Parking Management Parking plays a large role in transportation demand management, and effective management of parking resources can encourage use of non -single occupancy vehicle modes. As it grows, Ridgefield can tailor policies to include time limits or charges for on -street parking in business districts either in the waterfront Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 47 CITY OF RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN January 2016 VOLUME II: APPENDICES %-- - NWV r0 '01 TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME 1) ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................. 1 Vision, Goals, and Objectives.............................................................................................. 3 Background and Related Documents................................................................................. 6 PlanDevelopment Process................................................................................................. 8 Existing Conditions and Future No-Build.......................................................................... 11 Alternatives Development and Evaluation....................................................................... 18 Near -Term Plan Elements................................................................................................. 22 Long-term Plan Elements.................................................................................................. 31 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in downtown Ridgefield... 12 Figure 2: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress............................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Overall Occupancy Rates in Downtown Ridgefield Parking Study Area............ 14 Figure 4: Freight and delivery routes................................................................................ 14 Figure 5: Existing Vehicular Level of Service...................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Future No Build Vehicular Level of Service........................................................ 16 Figure 7: Five-year crash history (2010-2014)................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Near-term Plan Elements................................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Pioneer Street Signalization............................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Roundabouts have fewer conflict points than signalized intersections.......... 34 Figure 11: Draft roundabout layout for Pioneer Street Signalization concept ................. 35 Figure 12: Division Street Connection.............................................................................. 36 Figure 13: Draft roundabout layout for Division Street Connection concept .................. 39 Figure 14: New Alignment Cross Section Options............................................................ 40 APPENDICES (VOLUME 11) Appendix A Main Street Meeting Handout Appendix B Existing Conditions Memorandum Appendix C Future Conditions Memorandum CITY OF RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN January 2016 4" 1 04 4, WAKITTELSON & As CIATES, INC. T R A W r P 0 n T A T I I N ENGIN E R I N G I I IA NN ING M VINGFORWARDTHINKING TM City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Ridgefield, Washington Prepared For: City of Ridgefield 230 Pioneer Street PO Box 608 Ridgefield, WA 98642 (360)887-3557 Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 228-5230 Karla Kingsley Anthony Yi, P.E. Stefan Bussey Project No. 18853 January 2016 W-'0&- -KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G /P L A N N I N G The City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan has been created through a collaboration of local residents; other organization stakeholders from business, the school district, and the Port of Ridgefield; City staff,• and the Kittelson & Associates consultant team. City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Appendix A Main Street Meeting Handout f Downtown r ti 1. Circulation Study x_DC F1ELD The City of Ridgefield is conducting a Downtown Circulation Study to un- derstand and plan for future needs r in downtown Ridgefield as our city grows and evolves. The study will - - — consider the circulation and access needs of people living, working, and G� visiting downtown, whether they are 1 i---=� ;, walking, bicycling, riding transit, or _ driving. In addition, the study will examine parking, freight access, and loading areas. z. Study Area r � Division St Ash St I z *, a I Mill St z Sim ns St z z z z w 0 Lj < c D < `D Pion er St m N V S rr D r(o D Sargent St rD Study Process We are currently in the process of collecting data on traffic, parking, existing pedestrian & bicycle facilities, and loading & deliveries. Existing Facilities and Potential Alternatives Principal arterial Sidewalk Minor arterial Bike lane Local street Multi -use trail Alley Possible connection (non -motorized or vehicle) Potential intersection or • crossing improvement Future Pioneer Street overpass Potential Future closure � 4& Possible Solutions and Treatments DowntownCirculation Study 11MMI Street furniture I Pedestrian scale lighting (From Downtown Accessory Guidelines) 1 > Non -motorized Connections Wayfinding Potential Intersection Treatments 1 9_ .r 1 IN ROUNDABOUT J► Potential Crossing Treatments 4l. . CONTIIJEIVTAL STRIPES 1 AND CURB EXTENSIONS ,y', + 1; "! 'ENT IRE Historic "Old Town" Feel City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Appendix B Existing Conditions Memorandum IFKITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERING / PLAN N I N G 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.81 69 DRAFT MEMORANDUM November 3, 2015 Project#: 18853 T o: Tim Shell City of Ridgefield From: Karla Kingsley, Stefan Bussey, and Anthony Yi, PE Project: Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Subject: Existing Conditions Memorandum INTRODUCTION The City of Ridgefield is gaining population rapidly and has been reported as one of the fastest-growing communities in Washington. The downtown study area and its transportation system is already considered in a number of different city plans, including the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Downtown/Waterfront Plan, and Transportation component of the Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan. The downtown study area will also soon be connected more directly to the waterfront via the Pioneer Street Overpass, with construction anticipated in the next two years. Future development of the waterfront area and redevelopment of parts of downtown has the potential to bring more jobs, retail, and residents to and through Ridgefield's downtown. To plan and prepare for these changes in the future, the City of Ridgefield is currently conducting a downtown circulation study with the goal of developing a safe and multimodal transportation system in the downtown area that builds on Ridgefield's existing systems and plans. This memorandum documents the existing conditions of the transportation system in the downtown study area (shown in Figure 1) and identifies key opportunities and constraints. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Figure 1: Downtown Ridgefield Study Area Project #: 18853 Page 2 1 Division St 1 1 � 1 Ash St 1 1 z �' z �► 1F' r i v < Mill St 1 rD r r Simons St r Z z z z z z r N W Q ZT > 00 S l0 1 > > D D � D D 1 D 'D rD Pioneer St `D `D 1 � 1 s 1 D Ln 1 Sargent St 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of Ridgefield's downtown, originally settled in 1800s, is comprised of primarily one to two story buildings that are used for a mix of business and residential uses. On the east side of downtown is the View Ridge Middle School and the Union Ridge Elementary School. Immediately to the west of downtown is the Union Pacific rail line, with the Port of Ridgefield and the waterfront beyond that. Immediately north and south of downtown are residential neighborhoods. The section that follows documents the following elements of the downtown transportation system: • Existing multimodal transportation facilities and services • Existing on -street vehicle parking supply and utilization • Existing delivery patterns and needs • Multi -modal level of service and operations Existing Multimodal Transportation Facilities Ridgefield's downtown is built on a grid system between Division Street, Main Avenue, Pioneer Street and 5th Avenue. The grid system is slightly irregular and block size varies. Alleys bisect many of the blocks in the north -south direction. Outside the core of downtown, the grid lacks some connections. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project#." 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 3 Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, perpendicular to each other, both provide connections to areas outside of downtown while also providing access to storefronts of most downtown businesses. Both streets are two lane, bidirectional streets with on -street parking and sidewalks. Division Street and Mill Street, running east -west, provide railroad crossings and connections to the Port of Ridgefield. Currently 3rd Avenue is the designated freight route, connecting to Division Street and Pioneer Street, while 5th Avenue provides access for parents picking up and dropping off students at the elementary and middle schools. The majority of other local streets in the downtown area allow bidirectional traffic, with the exception of S Main Avenue south of Pioneer Street, which is one-way southbound. All streets in downtown Ridgefield have speed limits of 25 mph. Streets in the school zone are 20 mph during school hours. Figure 2 shows the system of existing collectors, local streets, alleys, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. With the exception of Main Avenue and Pioneer Street, which have continuous sidewalks throughout the study area, other streets generally are lacking continuous, passable sidewalks along both sides of the street. Some areas lacking sidewalks do have a curb, while others simply have a gravel shoulder. Bicycle access is provided primarily on shared lane facilities, in which bicyclists are permitted to use vehicular travel lanes. The future Pioneer Street overpass will include separate bicycle lanes, and these lanes have already been constructed in Phase I and Phase II of the overpass project — the west leg of the Pioneer/Main Avenue intersection, and the new north -south connection between Division Street and Mill Street. Daily transit service is provided between downtown Ridgefield and the 99th Street Transit Center in Vancouver, with two morning and two evening stop times. Transit is also provided "on demand" — rides to and from the downtown area can be requested from the C-TRAN Connector service Monday through Friday. A bicyclist uses the shared travel lane on Pioneer Street. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Initial phase of Pioneer Street Overpass Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Figure 2: Existing roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in downtown Ridgefield Division St .Ash St z �o z d o a I Mill St b C -IRAN Connector St p $Im ns $t Z Z LU chi a. D fD \ \\ SarRi t St 7- ;... Principal arterial — Sidewalk Minor arterial Bike lane Local street Multi -use trail Alley Existing Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Project #. 18853 Page 4 The City of Ridgefield currently allows on -street parking in most areas throughout the downtown study area. In some areas, along Pioneer Street, Main Avenue, and 5th Avenue,, parking spaces are striped and designated. Along other streets, there is no striping, and in some cases, on -street parking is provided on a gravel shoulder. Figure 3 shows the locations of existing striped parking spaces and permitted on - street parking. Ridgefield currently has 15 -minute time limits on eight spaces; other marked spaces along Main Avenue and Pioneer Street have 24 hour time limits; and other on -street parking areas do not have time limits. All on -street parking is currently provided free of charge to the user. Downtown Ridgefield has limited designated bicycle parking on the street level. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 5 Figure 3: Existing on -street parking and areas where on -street parking is prohibited. On street parking (occupacy data collected) On street parking (no data collected) 15 minute limit space Accessible parking .......... On -street parking prohibited Parking Utilization Study Methodology To understand the parking patterns during a typical weekday, the City of Ridgefield conducted observations of on -street parking in early October 2015 at six different times over the course of three weekdays (18 total data collection time periods), collecting data starting at 10:30am, 11:30am, 12:30pm, 2:30pm, 3:30pm, and 4:30pm. A City of Ridgefield staff person walked throughout the downtown study area over the course of a one-hour time period, counting the number of vehicles parked on each block and marking their location on a data collection sheet. The data collection sheets are included in Appendix 1. Figure 3 shows the locations where parking occupancy data was collected — areas highlighted in pink, the 15 minute time limited spaces, and the accessible spaces. This information was used to calculate the parking occupancy rate of each individual block face, as follows: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 6 • For areas with marked parking spaces, the occupancy rate is equal to the number of occupied spaces divided by the total number of spaces • For areas with unmarked on -street parking, the occupancy rate is based on an estimated total number of spaces assuming a parking space length of 20 feet. Appendix 2 summarizes the average parking occupancy of each block for each hour of data collected across the three days. There are approximately 523 total parking spaces in the parking occupancy study area. Figure 4 shows the overall utilization rate by time of day for each of the three days studied. Overall, the occupancy rate across the study area at the time periods studied is fairly consistent, at about 30 percent, with slightly higher rates mid-day between 12:30pm and 1:30pm. igure 4: Overall Occ 100% 90% 80% — 70% — 60% 50% -- — - 40% I Rates in Downtown Ridgefield Parking Study Area 30% 20% 10% 0% 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2:30pn 3:30pm 4:30pm ■ Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, showed some of the highest occupancy rates over the time periods studied — on average, both streets were nearly 50 percent occupied. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show occupancy rate patterns specifically on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue. Kittelson & Associates, Inc- Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Figure 5: Main Street Parking Occupancy (Between Mill and Pioneer) 100% i 9000/0 - 80% i 70% � - 60% - 20% -- 10% - -- nv_ 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:30pm Figure 6: Pioneer Street Parking Occupancy (between Main and 5th) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2-30pm 3:30pm 4 30pm — ■ Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Project #. 18853 Page 7 While utilization on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street are somewhat higher than the study area as a whole, their overall occupancy rates are still considered relatively low, compared to industry standards. In general, 85 percent occupancy is considered a level at which parking is being efficiently used, yet is still a level at which customers are assured that they will be able to find a space to park. This occupancy rate, and a variety of management strategies, are described in Parking Made Easy: A Guide to Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ■ Tuesday 500/0 40% — — - -- a Wednesday Thursday 20% -- 10% - -- nv_ 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:30pm Figure 6: Pioneer Street Parking Occupancy (between Main and 5th) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2-30pm 3:30pm 4 30pm — ■ Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Project #. 18853 Page 7 While utilization on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street are somewhat higher than the study area as a whole, their overall occupancy rates are still considered relatively low, compared to industry standards. In general, 85 percent occupancy is considered a level at which parking is being efficiently used, yet is still a level at which customers are assured that they will be able to find a space to park. This occupancy rate, and a variety of management strategies, are described in Parking Made Easy: A Guide to Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Project #: 18853 Page 8 Managing Parking in Your Community, a publication of the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program.' Some of the individual block faces in downtown Ridgefield exceeded 85 percent utilized during certain study periods; however, neither the system as a whole, nor the three downtown blocks of Main Avenue or Pioneer Street, ever reached 85 percent occupancy. Existing Delivery Patterns and Needs Ridgefield does have a designated freight route for heavy vehicles passing through downtown on their way to or from the Port of Ridgefield, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: Freight and Delivery Routes �- Designated Freight Route Other delivery routes (from survey) 1 Available at: http•//www.oregon.gov/lcd/tgm/docs/parkingprimerfinal71213.pdf Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 9 Downtown businesses not located on this route also have regular deliveries. In October 2015, the City of Ridgefield distributed a survey to businesses in the downtown study area to better understand their existing delivery patterns and needs. Ten businesses responded to the survey and their individual responses are included in Appendix 3. Findings from the survey indicate that existing on -street parking meets the delivery needs of all but one respondent who did not specify how his or her needs are not met. Delivery vehicles most often park in front of the business they are serving or on an adjacent side street and range in size from a van to 53 foot long semi -truck. Respondents identified two primary delivery circulation routes 1) Pioneer Street — 3`d Avenue — Simons Street — Main Avenue and 2) Pioneer Street — Main Avenue — Sargent Street — 3rd Avenue. Additional comments expressed the desire for a surface lot for employee and customer parking, and the need for additional ADA parking stalls. Nine of the ten businesses surveyed responded that employees park within one block of their business. Multimodal Level of Service and Operations To better understand how the existing transportation facilities in Downtown Ridgefield are serving the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and other users, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. performed the following analyses: • Assessment of existing pedestrian level of service and sidewalk coverage • Assessment of bicycle "level of traffic stress" on downtown streets • Assessment of vehicle "level of service" at nine key intersections in the downtown core • Review of the five-year crash history in the downtown area Pedestrian Level of Service and Street Network Coverage In a small downtown environment, pedestrians generally rely on sidewalks and roadway crossings for a complete network. Additionally, a "shared streeti2 environment can be appropriate for pedestrians in low vehicle traffic contexts. The City of Ridgefield has construction standards specifying sidewalks must be at least five feet wide, and sidewalks are being constructed on streets as new neighborhoods develop. In downtown Ridgefield, both Pioneer Street and Main Avenue have complete sidewalks in the study area. Main Avenue between Pioneer Street and Mill Street has 11 -foot sidewalks on both sides of the z One example of a shared street is a "woonerf' — a street with traffic calming treatments that prioritizes the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 10 street, as does Pioneer Street between Main Avenue and 4th Avenue on the north side and Main Avenue and 3rd Avenue on the south side. Other sidewalks along Main Avenue and Pioneer Street are generally at least 6 feet wide and have a landscape buffer in some areas. The pedestrian level of service along Pioneer Street and Main Avenue is "A," indicating a comfortable pedestrian environment. The coverage of sidewalks in other parts of the downtown grid system varies, with many streets lacking sidewalks on one or both sides. The sidewalks and sidewalk gaps are shown in Figure 8. In some areas, the sidewalks do not meet City of Ridgefield minimum width standards or are obstructed by vegetation, also noted in Figure 8. Figure 8: Existing Sidewalks and Sidewalk Gaps Ash St g z 1 � v 0 D Division St overgrow vegetation pp # t z { < Mill St CD...�....._...o..s, .........�.,�. Simns St �# Ln D D <D <(T)? kr Piol CIDS� Narrov,, it sidewalk widths a ar I Existing Sidewalk No sidewalk In locations lacking a sidewalk, or where the sidewalk does not meet minimum standards, pedestrians generally travel on the roadway surface or along the gravel shoulder. Because of the low vehicle volumes in many of these locations, pedestrian travel can still be relatively comfortable; however, they may not be fully accessible and may not be comfortable in areas with higher vehicle volumes and/or speeds. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. <7:3- < c In locations lacking a sidewalk, or where the sidewalk does not meet minimum standards, pedestrians generally travel on the roadway surface or along the gravel shoulder. Because of the low vehicle volumes in many of these locations, pedestrian travel can still be relatively comfortable; however, they may not be fully accessible and may not be comfortable in areas with higher vehicle volumes and/or speeds. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project t1: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 11 Pedestrian crossings are also important to enable a complete and accessible pedestrian network. Under Washington State law, pedestrians crossing the road at intersections have the right-of-way, and vehicles must stop, regardless of whether crossings are marked or unmarked. However, crosswalk markings and other crossing treatments can improve vehicle yielding behavior and encourage safe crossing. Downtown Ridgefield has marked crossings at Pioneer Street/Main Avenue (all four legs), a marked crossing of Pioneer Street on the east leg of the Pioneer Street/51h Avenue intersection, and on the west leg of the Pioneer Street/8`h Avenue intersection. There are additional crossings of 5th Avenue and 8 1 Avenues, in the vicinity of the schools. During school hours, a crossing guard assists with people crossing at the intersection of Pioneer Street and 5th Avenue. A crossing guard assists with pedestrian crossings of Pioneer Street at 5th Avenue. The sidewalk on Division Street west of Main Avenue is narrow, in poor condition, and blocked by vegetation. Pedestrian access to the waterfront from downtown is currently limited and not universally accessible. Pedestrians can cross the railroad tracks at either Division Street or Mill Street, but neither location has sidewalks or a pedestrian specific crossing. Pedestrians must share the roadway with vehicles in these locations, as there is no roadway shoulder either. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 a A Project#. 18853 Page 12 The Division Street railroad crossing currently lacks pedestrian facilities. Bicycle level of Traffic Stress To evaluate how well the downtown street network is serving bicyclists, the analysis relied on a "level of traffic stress" methodology. The bicycle level of traffic stress is a measure initially developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute and refined in the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Analysis Procedures Manual, and estimates the level of comfort a bicyclist will feel traveling on a particular facility, based on a 1 to 4 scale. The descriptions of each rating are shown in Table 1. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 13 Table 1: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Descriptions. Source: Mineta Transportation Institute Presenting little traffic stress and demanding little attention from cyclists, and attractive enough for a relaxing bike ride. Suitable for almost all cyclists, including children trained to safely cross intersections. On links. cyclists are either physically separated from traffic or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to L.TS 1 a slow traffic stream with no more than one lane per direction. or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where cyclists ride alongside a parking lane. they have ample operating space outside the zone into which car doors are opened. Intersections are easy to approach and cross. Presenting little traffic stress and therefore suitable to most adult cyclists but demanding more attention than might be expected from children. On links, cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to a well -confined traffic stream with adequate clearance from a park- LTS 2 ing lane, or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where a bike lane lies between a through lane and a right - turn lane. it is configured to give cyclists unambiguous priority where cars cross the bike lane and to keep car speed in the right -turn lane comparable to bicycling speeds. Crossings are not difficult for most adults. More traffic stress than LTS 2, yet markedly less than the stress of integrating with multilane traffic, and therefore welcome to many people currently riding bikes in American cities. Offering cyclists either an LTS 3 exclusive riding zone (lane) next to moderate -speed traffic or shared lanes on streets that are not multilane and have moderately low speed. Crossings may be longer or across higher -speed roads than allowed by LTS 2, but are still considered acceptably safe to most adult pedestrians. LTS 4 A level of stress beyond LTS3. Generally, LTS 1 is suitable for children; LTS 2 is comfortable for most adults, but not younger children; LTS 3 serves some adult cyclists; while LTS 4 is a level of traffic stress tolerated by only a fraction of adults. The level of traffic stress methodology in ODOT's Analysis Procedures Manual for roadway segments takes into account number of vehicle travel lanes, prevailing vehicle speeds, the presence and type of bicycle facility, and general average daily traffic (ADT) range, presence of a marked centerline and the presence of parked cars. Error! Reference source not found. shows the level of traffic stress on downtown Ridgefield roadways. In general, most downtown Ridgefield facilities are either level 1 or 2, offering a connected low stress network through shared neighborhood streets with low vehicle volumes and speeds. However, on Pioneer Avenue east of 5th Avenue, the level of traffic stress for bicyclists rises as vehicle speeds rise. Measured 85th percentile speeds on Pioneer Street just west of 8th Avenue were above 25 mph, a threshold which causes the level of traffic stress to rise. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #.- 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 14 Figure 9: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS3 s� LTS 4 While tube count data was collected to determine vehicle speeds and generalized volumes on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street, other downtown streets were analyzed assuming vehicle speeds of 25 mph or less. Streets with a marked centerline generally are LTS 2, while those without a marked centerline, and with low speeds and volumes, are LTS 1. The Pioneer Street overpass will have bicycle lanes in the future, and if vehicle speeds remain at or below 25 mph, the level of traffic stress for bicycles on this new facility will also be I. Vehicle Operations Existing motor vehicle operational performance was also analyzed. Vehicle count, speed, and classification data was collected over a several day period at three locations in downtown: on North Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 15 Main Avenue between Simons Street and Pioneer Street; on Pioneer Street just east of 3rd Avenue; and on Pioneer Street just west of 8th Avenue. Vehicle Volume An average of 2,700 vehicles per day was recorded during weekday observations along Main Avenue. The daily volume on Pioneer Street between 3 d and 4th Avenues was approximately 4,100 vehicles and was roughly 5,700 vehicles on Pioneer Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. Volumes increase steadily throughout the day at all three locations with a distinct morning peak between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Afternoon peaks were observed between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues, and from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Pioneer Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. The distinct peaks recorded on Pioneer Street west of 8th Avenue coincide with the beginning and end of the school day for View Ridge Middle School and Union Ridge Elementary School. Volume profiles of weekday average daily traffic recorded at all three locations are displayed in Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12. The traffic volume data can be found in Appendix 4. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Project A 18853 Page 16 Figure 10: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Main Avenue between Pioneer Street and Simons Street 600 - - -- - - - 500 -- - -- - - - 400 H a L j 300 - - --- 1 ~ 200 - - - 100 0 -� ■ _ pQ pQ pQ pQ pQ pQ pQ pQ R) 1Z pQ pQ §1 pQ pQ pQ pQ i�Q pQ pQ pQ pQ pQ .O O O O O .O .O O .O O .O 0 0 0 0 0FI R 5 to -0of yO y', �L ', ti '"i D 5 O '\ 'b of yO yy ■Southbound Northbound Figure 11: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Pioneer Street between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue 600 .- - - - 500 400 a u t j 300 M 0 0 200 100 0 OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP 0 OP OP (:p P 0 OP .OO OQ OQ OQ .O OQ OQ qQ OQ OQ OQ OQ OQ OQ 0 0.O ■ Eastbound Westbound Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Project #: 18853 Page 17 Figure 12: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Pioneer Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue 600 — 500 400 j300 R 200 100 ��Isp �qqqPPPPPPPPPPPPR R R qQ R q QR 00 .00 00 .00 0000 00 00 .00 61 00 61 00 .00 .00 00 00 Q0 00 00 00 61 00 .00 �. �. �•. �. �. moo. �ti. y�;. �. �. �. h. �. � . �. �. ■ Eastbound Westbound Heavy Vehicle Percentages Heavy vehicle traffic ranged from 8.8% to 10.2% along Pioneer Street and was observed to make up 7.3% of traffic on Main Avenue. The majority of heavy vehicles classified at all three locations were 2 axel vehicles with six tires (i.e. delivery truck). The vehicle classification data can be found in Appendix 5. Motor Vehicle Speeds Travel speeds were also collected at all three locations over multiple days. As shown in Table 2, 85th percentile speeds on Pioneer Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues and on Main Avenue north of Pioneer Street are below 25 mph for both directions of travel. These locations coincide with the core of the downtown business district. Observed 85th percentile speeds along Pioneer Street to the east of the core business district increased to 28 mph and 29 mph for eastbound and westbound vehicles respectively. The vehicle speed data is provided in Appendix 6. Table 2: Observed 85th Percentile Speeds By Direction Main Avenue between Pioneer Street and Simons Street 1 22 1 20 Pioneer Street East of 3rtl Avenue I 24 I 23 Pioneer Street West of 8`h Avenue 28 29 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 18 Intersection Vehicle Operations Intersection turning movement counts were also collected at nine intersections within the downtown core and operations were analyzed to determine how the current roadway network performs for motor vehicle users. The intersection operational analyses presented in this report were performed following the procedures stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual using Synchro7 traffic analysis software. Performance measures reported include level of service (LOS), volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c), and delay. Level of service analyses for two-way stop -controlled intersections is based on the intersection's ability to accommodate the most difficult movement, or "critical movement," as overall intersection level of service is not defined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology, the operational analysis represents conditions during the peak 15 minute period of the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Currently, the City of Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan defines the City's LOS standard for unsignalized intersections as follows: The level -of -service used for the Capital Facilities Plan is "D", except at unsignalized intersections that do not meet signal warrants or where a signal is not desired, where the planned LOS is "E" Study intersections were chosen based on input from City staff and the adjacent land uses. The following intersections were included in the analysis: ■ Division Street/N Main Avenue ■ Division Street/N 3'd Avenue ■ Mill Street/N Main Avenue ■ Mill Street/N 3 d Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N Main Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N 3rd Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N 5th Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N 8th Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/S 9th Avenue A map of the study intersections, lane configurations, and traffic control devices can be found in Appendix 7. Weekday Peal: Hour Intersection Volumes Manual turning counts were conducted at the study intersections during a mid -week day during the weekday morning (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. Count data were used from historical December 2012 counts and more recent counts conducted in September and October 2015. Table 3 summarizes the turning movement count source for each intersection included in this study. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 19 Table 3: Intersection Turn Count Data Source Intersection Division Street/N Main Avenue Turning Movement Count Source and Date Miller's Landing Subdivision TIA — December 2012 Division Street/N 3rtl Avenue Miller's Landing Subdivision TIA— December 2012 Mill Street/N Main Avenue Miller's Landing Subdivision TIA— December 2012 Mill Street/N 3rd Avenue Miller's Landing Subdivision TIA — December 2012 Pioneer Street/N Main Avenue Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study - October 2015 Pioneer Street/N 3`d Avenue Miller's Landing Subdivision TIA— December 2012 Pioneer Street/N 5d' Avenue Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study - October 2015 Pioneer Street/N 8`h Avenue Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study - September 2015 Pioneer Street/S 9`h Avenue Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study - October 2015 Turning movement counts from 2012 were adjusted by adding a portion of in -process development traffic based on guidance provided by City of Ridgefield staff. Data from 2012 and 2015 showed slightly different peak hours during the a.m. and p.m. time periods. In 2012, the a.m. peak was from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; in 2015, it was 7:05 a.m. to 8:05 a.m. One contributor to the difference in the morning peak hours may have been that it was a "late start" school day when counts were collected in 2012, with school starting around 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. The evening peak hour was 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in 2012 and 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in 2015. Existing a.m. and p.m. intersection count data can be found in Appendix 4 and in the Miller's Landing Subdivision TIA. Figure 13 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis. The Pioneer Street/51h Avenue and Pioneer Street/9th Avenue intersections do not meet City of Ridgefield standards during the weekday a.m. peak hour. The critical movements for these intersections are southbound on 5th Avenue and northbound on 9th Avenue, indicating that these movements are experiencing more delay than other movements (41 seconds for southbound vehicles on 5th Avenue and 49 seconds for northbound vehicles on 9th Avenue). This delay is due to turning vehicles from these approaches conflicting with the eastbound and westbound traffic along Pioneer Street. These intersections have peak hour factors3 of 0.55 and 0.61 with count data showing the 15 minute peak occurring from 7:40 a.m. to 7:55 a.m. These low peak hour factors indicate a strong 15 -minute peak within the peak hour; therefore, vehicles traveling outside of the peak 15 minutes likely experience less delay. All other intersections meet standards during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix 8 contains the existing conditions intersection operations summary and analysis worksheets. 3 A peak hour factor is the hourly flow rate divided by the peak 15 minute flow rate, used to measure the volume fluctuations within the peak hour. A peak hour factor of 1.0 indicates a relatively uniform traffic flow pattern; lower peak hour factors indicate a sharp peak within the hour. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Figure 13: Intersection vehicular level of service 1 Division St Sargent St Vehicular Level of service G CD 0Ln N AM PM peak peak 0 r -F C)LOS D °' Q D - --.- Mill St < (D (D - - -J Simons St z � z w z � D D D r<o ll CJ ro Sargent St Vehicular Level of service LOS A CD LOS B AM PM peak peak C') LOS C C)LOS D 40 LOS E is LOS F z Lrl S a m Pioneer St Project #. 18853 Page 20 T rD M D Traffic Safety Crash history for the study area was reviewed in an effort to identify existing safety issues. Crash records were obtained from WSDOT for a five-year period from January 2010 to December 2014. Over this time period 25 crashes were reported within the study area. Of these, none resulted in a fatality, 10 resulted in injury, and 15 in property damage only. The crash data did not exhibit any patterns indicating a safety issue at any specific location. Seven of the 25 crashed involved pedestrians, but also did not indicate a geographic pattern. A map of the crashes and injury severity is displayed in Figure 14. All crash data are provided in Appendix 9 of this report. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown circulation Study November 3, 2015 Figure 14: Five-year crash history (2009-2013) Division St Ash St z 7o z v N o < Mill Sty D ro # I Simons St z z z D D < (D m rD r' } Sargent St Property damage only crash Possible injury crash Evident injury crash Serious injury crash Pedestrian involved crash OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Project #: 18853 Page 21 z Ln z z 00 LD D < < < Pioneer St cD (D V) =_ D m :;0 0 - Based Based on the existing conditions in the study area and the objectives of the downtown circulation study, the project team identified some key opportunities and constraints. The following opportunities and constraints will be considered in the development of potential future transportation alternatives for the downtown study area. Opportunities • Leverage streetscape investments to further enhance pedestrian environment on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, increasing vibrancy and sense of place. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study November 3, 2015 Project #: 18853 Page 22 • Promote vehicle speeds below 25mph in downtown and improve crossing opportunities. • Fill in pedestrian facility gaps in other parts of downtown as redevelopment occurs. • Add connectivity to the bicycle and pedestrian network through strategic non -motorized connections. • Consider new multimodal connections on the east side of downtown. • Provide safe, aesthetic, multimodal connections to the waterfront. • Leverage local knowledge and input to develop solutions. Appendix 10 provides a summary of input received at the public open house, as well as a summary of online survey responses. Constraints • Need to accommodate freight movement through downtown to and from the Port of Ridgefield. • Railroad to the west of downtown limits connections to waterfront. • Topography at the east side of downtown limits the locations of some possible connections. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 1 Parking Utilization Data Collection Worksheets Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 5♦, S C a' Ir R • � jl { � i rl,', AL �, e��t e; �aj€ 4 y(i f'•f(+� �,,1 f ` 4 1 d� ,�.,�� ' a ' LL All, d �o U y N 2 .GIS 1 1 cL � aJ o nE_ Ft=i 1 �7 ! QI w= m m o vi o _O E �1. V ypI �y N g T y 0 ai E Epp�.dl E al al pl dfl E " � _�-. U 16 . iW��iAll I t I I r.� b' 4Ww1 PVT WN f• ' 4 yt - 11 4aC t k 1 L I 1 1y, , yyf€€f }y p ( � 1 2a N LO r O ILL N N O- c0 t y I 1 I I t om£ N w E78 0 1� CI C o s os N UQ_Q1i (JIGI JI N C d d y C «N• I I I! 1 �� I I I d ` Q N£ CE --�3 _ p `- y,,, N O O o m ti y _I I I I �I I �I•-I I�y1 I�I�I of ` O S t'n = w a E E LL E p Cis yI ioo 66ivJim JI(JI IiC>al' IO:I pjI�I Ivd+anl M N M w n J R d-0% 4aC t k 1 L I 1 1y, , yyf€€f }y p ( � 1 N Y E U Y Ql 8 t N N D D S] y n L LL N d U I� c o 3 A L n E a£Ni 1 I Q W Oy y t0 it 1 ;I IIj I I t6 O N F O E D m 0 c. w v _ E 42 5 rf N A t X11 u S:a Vi I g H -Ar Yah - { f r, r }�.� al, � • r� s f ��'Yy, . i. - } '� f I ' ,4 r 1. ' - r- moi• _�� 1 ' F S ( " f-� _ S Y E _ LLD �, • r :: I I 2' s ��U o M49 j -. y f] S y a LL E i° UCnI}si a I 1 N 0� r f 1 JT � •-., 5 r .,� ��+, {� � 4 .�� . �'��j + `�;� �',r�•�. _tic-� " 3 S:a Vi I g H -Ar Yah - { f r, r }�.� al, � • r� � 1 � t 1. L i I ( i• Y E _ LLD 2' s ��U o M49 j E f] S y a LL E i° UCnI}si a I 1 N 0� r S:a Vi I g H -Ar t �'1'. n� F •� i e t � I- VFW LL 0. Ac f y rfl$ c ' � -x. .trr �• t, 1 li. . , •'1 {{ f1 p fa 4 1. all r a n 1 !oil1 N� U C 5 ( I I I n V C U I _ OLo N O N 5 I N I�iSI d _xQ Ned` � j• i � !' I � �o � �� in E d" TY« L cCo d o u5 c o — o m Tm Aa aA o'er aiD pEE •�I��di A O S In ~ in v a '� E .t�. Ui3C: �l1 ico 1 i i i i I i A N RI P � 1. p! eE� I -tLLI Lk !i I{ i I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I I I I >I la 1 I I I• 1 I t�l�� ! 1 ipill �� ji I �j•tl �ij uI�t 991 1�� 1 I'Q'l4l U��I•�1 I �Ql yo ISI e� I�i`aGLII JI�II YI I#�I I'y; 1 p e 1 11 131 �i 31 1 S I� �1 J14I al �.1I� 0 tai `7 � y �I >I I I I� I $I•. � el � I I 1 (�O��II14�111 ®'m'd iial��LI {p' m � n 0 E � d N 0 6ijl p V L O Y c t tat,o' �t fns x d E 5 o to., GI ? Vi L-• Y O lC0 O 172tn =~inv E LL E42:E I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I I I I >I la 1 I I I• 1 I t�l�� ! 1 ipill �� ji I �j•tl �ij uI�t 991 1�� 1 I'Q'l4l U��I•�1 I �Ql yo ISI e� I�i`aGLII JI�II YI I#�I I'y; 1 p e 1 11 131 �i 31 1 S I� �1 J14I al �.1I� 0 tai `7 � y �I >I I I I� I $I•. � el � I I 1 (�O��II14�111 ®'m'd iial��LI {p' � d N I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I I I I >I la 1 I I I• 1 I t�l�� ! 1 ipill �� ji I �j•tl �ij uI�t 991 1�� 1 I'Q'l4l U��I•�1 I �Ql yo ISI e� I�i`aGLII JI�II YI I#�I I'y; 1 p e 1 11 131 �i 31 1 S I� �1 J14I al �.1I� 0 tai `7 � y �I >I I I I� I $I•. � el � I I 1 (�O��II14�111 ®'m'd iial��LI {p' o a 23 Ze I �pp tpp �.4 _ I {j{1 I I�I y G N p 3 V I �I yl l yl I 1 I d G� S P� r� L m I IAl �c 1, , I j i °' n � n li I I LEE L .Y3 N , v 1 81 .2 aw� d io o f i i �i�l o U-) �.�{ 1 c N - d N 0 O yl rjl III 1 I i I E¢ Y 5> E in ` _ I I 0 = iq -9 ~ in a E ", E w :E C-)ED�OiBJI®I©I ®sW i�iOO: I I I j ti N Mty J �� Ol o N Ia g E Ip w � N QI L L I JqI 1 w B E m �I II� pp O O = t �C� ... N w Ea t Uglmlco l®Im1��I '4 N en P 'a S r- CP e V • !I � re I � , � t � �t m O LLJ O o :2 a. me JI - ° � 13{ � } � i � �4,�k '�.+ _ � "- • 1 h - �{ '.Irl � 4 {C,.-'. I Ff ;.. �+' 1? - _ _ J' Y. __._ -2` �• l .: V ( � _,fr - �^ it ./ + 11 $ i � r. �: � „ 6 � F,' ` y 1 m i r k - ,m,t.�" i',; �a r 1•, �. I QI N N 3 N L d� d I i '•1.� >i i +��.{ ..`.,x N � V gq �I�I OI N_ 3 N QI N c 1 b s~I�IvI x A! v 2 I -01 N > h .52 PsIi li e11 ? o ui C- `e tqi �.�- t¢y'�S 'fir'^,.{ �•' tl- �j{ r�-,; i y a �� i y LL N E. J O= N 1= w v C E ms_ 14 m O N n O o :2 a. me p I I rd O .Y t N m I •' I QI N N 3 N L d� d I i If0 N � V gq �I�I OI N_ 3 N QI N c 1 b s~I�IvI x A! v 2 I -01 N > h .52 PsIi li e11 ? o ui o tc o o E i9 O y LL N E. J O= N 1= w v C E ms_ UtFIi �I��;tiHl � Nth d t/t •l "' P , ( � � * ,t� �t1.,V�� - III � IY f_T Iti 1_ / ,- �P�.•{t • y�'�ldg t":# t .i• �:7tL:.. t: 1 n t f '" Ak "SRI %Py J,�,, '� ~ _ afn• k�.]*'y 1 l^ Fa- b•f yY�.� k r{ 1" }i. ( cs * u IL N U Y � N d� s n '"• to CL �I�I .L- = •C pOj yNy O L� D O•Ulpl i ie' I lA N N o L C N Y`p .� % 3 U V lO O O CaiP�i �IIfl�l% a e I'1yrJ'l'�!'!a�a�m' 1�71fa 19iL0�J t, �, 4" ff �k r �'� � �-r {�l .I s �F _ F � �� V � _�.I ^ � 11� � ��..� .,,E kl� �r";• cj to LIN -2 1S, al .1 ;:4F Z5 t 0 cn M. �_72�� I E ll►il II I 1 I c t E I I IQ�4 �� o t� H L :-o � RE I m I I• y, I I 1 I I ( I I � m �' fo rn m Q m _m m e m dl t Y ;c d z_ �I I jI I GI I I ! I m m I E Q •� v� p w m cg' H �� dl uI ! 1 fI I in E i a E o LI I�1 I i Yo �mo T m ? m m O M m a 3I 1 t3 Id� i.j Q i I 1 I I I f1 I ! i o= u+ - 4 w E " E w£ 8 mirmilailallal I I I i i . I .i N d1 I!- N �i { rn C` S a t9 i 1( }I 1 6 `� : � r��' ��' � •�#�`wt; � a�1 as-; Aft T C I LI I I I I N� n a (gip 1 1 id I c o12m O L O _5 'N ;,`o u o Iri L• •`O L 1 1 > >' O •.c :S I'VI4 p1-� CI I�i l m ai a E plI'jl�i�.pii.xl I i m o o H p rl w` o= u) E 2 s cgmlmmaelta ®moil I m4 N d7- I J 01 CP E'= H rn� tCi6 c t H Y o_ y i'4• o 0 o t c oiti h�r I f 1 loci a t L .o N ;vl yI 1 tfl�6.i c '—" 3 m Q y i Ilii u iy� I R1�,sLyl y y y N x � � x m u Z*~ ��+ � ' �; •OI I � II CO U r C d LI'Sil I� I QQI Ie'QI >I p�Yl �IS d 2>.� 3 m a> o''` aid E ml�Ifl•diliji�i�i m o f=• o f ca al o I I I E w U�11 imiCM m;ml®i cn+; � I } . 41 d CO I Im H �� I I I ��= •.- N If 4r rc h > N j IdI w u - W EVE- a � ¢I 71 $ -25E z5 .bIO-I p � N a= E D LU Qr L d 60 F7 -Int ,1 ;,, ;, 4W � E a \ \ | Appendix 2 Parking Utilization Maps Kittelson & Associates, Inc. A I I . "`111111 �. •.. e o e o e o o •n o ca o a m o H x t • U is ��••• ' ; `ki �, 9 [ 7 � _ bra I •- a ' "rJ e o e o e o o •n o ca o a m o • U ■ s fh a N u C _ 10 a 'o T. u c 7 i y - "Irk � 1�1 '`�� If' � .�} �! 1� P �� .l•1 �e' d co r r� wry .: . -. •;_i A 1 , �•� 13 iP� i� J � ' � r ''�t `� _ � � G � � • t ` i' �' is + .fit � .�•,-,.�i 1 s p '"fit 40 E 49W t ` `1. om y('1j� . C i IIF _ •1 _ 111 {{�MF��. yy3 O C "�6 `, �`)C�{p`�� •�) '. eF� < , +e��'a I ''/It` 'Ir �(CT LO °ids 1[Ap. "•'[ �"..� � ''1�i •+• i... t[ t w � as^'o O O h O � T w• QY C 0 0 o e N U: ' 0 N O N: N r OmD a 0t C V ¢: I > -5 e 1 U 2. � L y U Q tll Y: slwixll wrm 11 /m�[vY�-bwuryiis6„yy uuln�auwvl:uop q.[.r.-[Seall.e,bMx 4loUNll lW Iv�11 -6Rbuµ -Gn✓4✓nroN�luW G a O M N O W• t Y : 14,, 0; e o e O o T N O u•, O t0 t� a0 O J \ \ o � � I O G a 0 M 114,O >1 C as LL, U w U O a) Cn 2 C Er cc a. co c Q Appendix 3 City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey Responses Kittelson & Associates, Inc. I�(�EhI �.I_I> City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? os p i'c+ S + 2. What type of business do you have? o Retail o Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: �Z t 3. If your employees drive to work, where do they park? o In front of your store o Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business o Within 1 block of your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? lo Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? Daily o Once a week o Two times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? Q Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck c FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ c Other, please specify type/size Ea Downtown Circulation Study September 1015 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveries? 9. If applicable, approximately what time(s) of day do you receive deliveries? 7 10. If applicable, approximately how long does it take to unload the delivery? 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? o In front of your business in on - street parking on Main or Pioneer o On a nearby side street r n,tv' ; , o In an alleyway near your business c Double parked on Main or Pioneer o in a parking lot (please specify where) o Other—, Vi 5? 01� K..<��i (f;��{C✓S�) 12. If applicable, does the street parking b,? lPea.% area or alley meet your current delivery needs? o Yes o No 13. If no, how could it be improved? ( A;-��j1 PUVd�✓ i I N,c i Gt 15d — 14 yh f C'k /1'eed5 i` fLAIti VL) -T4 triv&rb c>f?cor(A-e-)-,r.<S tlo �'l N;9IJ46✓S (over) 1 K If Ls0'. e Av ci, -r, inc. R5 Downtown Circulation Study September 1015 14. if applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? Y, e-- -�r6 3v T- e) ou<r o�*- Qr.'-trk- J'S o z N rt y n Z MarA' SI WN. 4t A•a':ir Lt tA;g* SI F Z Z '• n N Ur. plan °t ° t;iY•�Idt yl U•:Ison',I UM.—IST L'vu10151 LV^Atxl'A z > r Z o T 3 T$ T z p -t' nI AW, 6; 0 w _ 2 3 rt Z , o ;tnx'Y .irtlp }Im.� �n •r!atl J� z J ry i - � Z - J • Ma RWQ-%,w rws• Of w n 4 ? ry h �. xftxl: �•.1'V"� � txrn'yl:"al `�tTJll' �I �I .i'b't tl !..y:• xrI c V—X.!' I• f. Z 2 c 1C: 166*0'... I:, Ka = C ttl Erwin D filegE+r Memnnal rl":v r�rst^ct St hlt M:wM': X Milt �XtOTYIM rv! •1'. VI; Y. -'r.. 'C' s P 7 j ry T Cd� Ai P 3 r h 2 K17TELSON S ASSOCIATES. INC. I l�EFI ELT1 City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? 2. What type of business do you have? o Retail o Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. if your employees drive to work, where do they park? o In front of your store o Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business Il�tyy�� o Within 1 block of your business blocks o Within 2-3 of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? o Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? o Daily o Once a week /\ o Two times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for our deliveries? v y o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck /—o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 1n ` feet in length) \VU o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ o Other, please specify -'`type/size v Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveries? �- 9. If applicable, approximately what time(s) of day do you receive deliveries? 10. If applicable, approximately how long does it take to Unload the delivery? 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? o In front of your business in on- %- stree't parking on Main or Pionee / o On a nearby side street o In an alleyway near your business o Double parked on Main or Pioneer o In a parking lot (please specify where) o Other 12. If applicable, does the street parking area or alley meet your current delivery. needs? J'C'r1fC'� o Yes o No 13. If no, hove could it be improved?� T (over) 1 KiTTC L50N P. A540CIATf` If.: f Downtown Circulotion Study September 2015 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? d 8 rt z D zM•xJrta AbidrSI D kaca-tea WV1,-st e T P�iP v h'Ihi Stet �'1 T It'v2•n�.I U»!e`n it ItwtSxYi il ilivr. p^y,t Cw ::moi L�1 ih�, P¢ z - p Z !yam r , `�I Al,. v Y ➢ Z � 7 ^ < 3 = 7 L - � � A :• � ceg � i 4 � � r birl It a M.' gt. Mf131 ►MU jr 0" a rtvlq �r�1 Ilrro.d= y a 7 L sk xwrtwe . os• a'.r , '� J s• h �II1)I15 Sr 1•�• {^S C• SdiKMt! `.il !� M�;.jt VI'•^' !) Z tt-w Hay ? � IMtiN• a `A-4 T S MdI~V `rYa•rr j b• – S` I,, J.- t'-1 .'. int ErtVlll O rtlPt)r'1 fitlfor Hl rhvY ;,ionr-K'1 St .x'r+r •.twi a4 Pt^grMq'^r • NM f P = 2 KITTELSON S ASSOCIATES. INC. �� IXEFIELT} City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? 2. What type of business do you have? o. Retail c Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where do they park? o In front of your store o -'Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business d`Within 1 block of your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? In' Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? o Daily dyOnce a week"' C,% s o Two times a week I' o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) ,6—'Tractor-semi trailer, length:_ o Other, please specify type/size W] Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveeriees-?� 9. If applicable, approxi11 mately what time(s) of day do you receive deliveries? v eL -i cs 10. If applicable, approximately how long does it take to unload the delivery? A) 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? d In front of your business in on - street parking on Main or Pioneer o On a nearby side street o In an alleyway near your business o Double parked on Main or Pioneer o In a parking lot (please specify where) o Other 12. If applicable, does the street parking area or alley meet your current delivery needs? o Yes 0 Kio i-4 b� 13. If no, how could it be improved? (over) hi ELSoh t, Asso-Arrs Itic ' Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 -G 11F 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? a Z Mri' St Aiap. 1 v A'.i,Nr t MSP St a z < z z G r ;• P > •T rt nC �P N Lke•srtn �t 7 Utvatcxt St (��r+s'+Vn St Vm>nat St twt•: C' St Lh,••ala• `.1 nlvlrHy, P,l. Z Si T 3 ro e z 7 2 ,Man ttdpc Z — v = t: a z a y.Md r.wya► Moi' 2 5Hyl -t m -,I zt z nu a ,t nf•u sl Ndlrlydd E Oily! rt 4+meas St _ � e;v ct SalKtlts St �nwn; St �rm'S'a .- el •.*-.Y• Vri- Z _ - vrw t•K'7 .c u (' 11 0 Nv� •-•teal � g fMd ,rorty Ilww � � /! r•k ��< o-•¢. . [� -• �� L i .• 4 lF+' � . ♦r �. / Imo— _ �.i.avin 0 lite a 9 Pr Me+tilat Nwv •'rzxtoel SY Lr •..,•.•VHt ..w Fdv.INi (a i-:cn ftr+�+atArnnnnr -t Mw-rt•v 1 J D 3 ` l+ .� :*111 �+ . -'�lill'� • r' y, KITTLLSON $ ASSOCIATES. INC. D u City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? /CIS IV, mC*10. 2. What type of business do you have? lac Retail o Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where do they park? o In front of your store o Within 1 block of your store yg Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business o Within 1 block of your business &( Within 2-3 blocks of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? 5e Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? o Daily Once a week o Two times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) ,.% Tractor -semi trailer, length _tr 4$ o Other, please specify type/size Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 8. if applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveries? 9. If applicable, approximately what time(s) of day do you receive deliveries? ,L /Ir az 10. If applicable, approximately how long does it take to unload the delivery? 30 ;.� , 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? In front of your business in on - street parking on Main or Pioneer o On a nearby side street o In an alleyway near your business o Double parked on Main or Pioneer o In a parking lot (please specify where) o Other 12. If applicable, does the street parking area or alley meet your current delivery needs? J< Yes o No 13. If no, how could it be improved? F.L F( "y sus (over) Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 14. if applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? � rt sk Z MvI• SI Ma Me SI D 1,W1I, A Ma{• F SI D = r z ' 1 v 0'P t P('1 - N ln.••�I'•rt a M: bl7n :1 D•etsa LrvISIG+1 SI 1llve..4^ 51 [)Ir:A1M1 .1 [^o�c ,, z � n Z r `m x _ b J @ IN'llvl rN111Y 1 FW..wn:a•f SrM+J r o 79 s a z f.4.1I it N� M.F St Z M.1 SI FI 11';I h000"drl:d qf.e G ' /Y,(fl[Uli� 4••\N::". �• �i1N1113 rJ•F yv' Z Mtlol+• .coal MAIM tyrMrnn 3 r ,`, Cr. Fnvin C, fiteq' W.— 'al Hwy r�rw•ifwl. lW 14ICge1nY1 -.1.-1h f11,DS:U,f•RM -e IN Y ? } T �P ti NO J „ D j • Q .. •.M11 `•1^111 `„ m 2 KITTELSON S ASSOCIATES. INC. I City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey I. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? 2. What type of business do you have? o Retail o Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) 9' Other: _C.t�Y�S�Uh 3. If your employees drive to work, where de they park? o In front of your store Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business Within 1 block of your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? a Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? o Daily ® Once a week PV—Jwo times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ o Other, please specify type/size Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveries? 'yYL, P 9. If applicable, approximately what time(s) Df day do you receive deliveries? fv--' 10. If applicable, approximately how long does it take to unload the delivery? S •yu.o, kj� 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? �In front of your business in on- s >t parking on Main or Pioneer n a nearby side street l In an alleyway near your business o Double parked on Main or Pioneer o In a parking lot (please specify where) o Other 12. If applicable, does the street parking area or alley meet your current delivery needs? Yes o No 13. If no, how could it be improved? (over) K,T ILLFC- 6 4Sy OC[41r5 INC Downtown orculotiGoStudy September 2015 l4.|fapplicable and ifyou know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries indowntown Ridgefield onthe map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. � t)u Poo 1S.Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like toshare related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? � ^ r � - � � e � > *°`=.,4 olmymu L~;), S, � - � � � p z ~ � z ~*u * �J, 4-dQ.~° � e o � p MA ^�,�nor ~ ~ � =^W~*—A / 8 ��' ~ �rwmonenwwn°.nHwy .' ^ ^ ' - - . � 2 w"=`°°°uASSOCIATES INC- ' V j�ti��Er1E1_n Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week business (include Suite Nos.)? do you receive deliveries? �0 1N 2. What type of business do you have? 9. If applicable, approximately what j Retail time(s) of day do you receive o Restaurant deliveries? o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where 10. If applicable, approximately how long do they park? does it take to unload the delivery? Q_ In front of your store�.J S -� y�, ! J J -{ / 1� o Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store 11. Where does the vehicle stop for o Do not know unloading? 4. If you drive to your business, where do o In front of your business in on - you park? street parking on Main or Pioneer o In front of your business o On a nearby side street o Within 1 block of your business o In an alleyway near your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your o Double parked on Main or Pioneer business o In a parking lot (please specify o Other where) 1+,��- 5. Do you receive any deliveries? o Other - © Yes 12. If applicable, does the street parking o No area or alley meet your current delivery 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive needs? deliveries? a Yes 6 Daily o No o Once a week 13. If no, how could it be improved? c Two times a week c More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck Q FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ (over) o Other, please specify type/size 1 Kii I EISON K ftiSOCIAIES INC I Downtown Circufotion Study September 2015 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. '�U 6dblo 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? no 2 Y rx Yq7. �' u�-4a. •r.anl r_ fninerl NppS 4r•M.1:�++ ,i h vu�r•�,• IM 7 C > _ CPP 'xf'9 h Z rt `YiiJrll it ;r =-s 2 Z m � 3 P S n m KITTELSON R ASSOCIAYES. INC lJ V r z r ^ y R 7 Mirk �,I tAar-J•• 41 D Mazar ]I M,{.M ;1 Z r LLF n i L• rt iYr 1%IV.51?rl �I 2 1� -iYr�.t ,rA9a?^SI Umsaxr 5•i LFVmIO^51 L:I,.b.W SI J Z a Z D • O z A a, sl (s:, u 3 - L :S e[ Z •< r o = y Z IAdI �t d I.Ig.:.i Mdl �I f.' II SI Y.�S St ,.hMY K.}M tl.nan. D Z CL P Nldn.lrlp (wa' Wta vry '� s m ' —MIS 1 G:• y1. CI :,tPV114 Jt H va^ h. IM• Z s .T 2 Y rx Yq7. �' u�-4a. •r.anl r_ fninerl NppS 4r•M.1:�++ ,i h vu�r•�,• IM 7 C > _ CPP 'xf'9 h Z rt `YiiJrll it ;r =-s 2 Z m � 3 P S n m KITTELSON R ASSOCIAYES. INC lJ V Q Downtown Circulation Study September2015 DEF City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week business (include Suite Nos.)? do you receive deliveries? k-tz to v `� 4v,-- ti,- 2. 2. What type of business do you have? 9. If applicable, approximately what o Retail time(s) of day do you receive Vii: Restaurant deliveries? o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where 10. If applicable, approximately how long do they par*? tr does it take to unload the delivery? In #rent of your store o Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store 11. Where does the vehicle stop for o Do not know unloading? 4. If you drive to your business, where do o In front of your business in on - you park? street parking on Main or Pioneer o In front of your business o On a nearby side street o Within 1 block of your business ;-K In an alleyway near your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your o Double parked on Main or Pioneer business \�c o In a parking lot (please specify a_- Other where) 5. Do you receive any deliveries? Other Yes 12. If applicable, does the street parking o No area or alley meet your current delivery 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive needs? deliveries? >b' Yes o Daily o No o Once a week 13. If no, home could it be improved? y T-.,ic times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) ,o; Tractor -semi trailer, length:- ` i ' ;v (over) o Other, please specify type/size 1 N i1FLcoN e. Atisoc$A`ES INC Downtown Circulation Study September 2015 (R-1 2-M f, f =11- I - 1 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? C 'A. LD Q� lx --:,m, I St L4,-bov Sl z z z ?L-1— Aviv -1 Y Fl•n lm Mq S1 MIJ131 7- holi-twW -W Oil - z 2Its- ';S -r 0wo-tv I -- A 94 flnivin 0 rswnw Mt'-K�rlfll HA'y Ornrtn Sl a flial,-frM f""'C!h PAV In M 2 KITTELSON S ASSOCIATES. INC.Ulf Aw-(- NAM I AT=MLLA771 City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? 2. What type of business do you have? X Retail o Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where do they park? o In front of your store Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business Within 1 block of your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? ;ems Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? o Daily \ ^�C Once a week dC' �J o Two times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? ,p,' Cargo Vans USPS postal truck o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ o Other, please specify type/size rLo Downtown Circulotion Study September 2015 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveries? �_Kn%r\oWn 9. If applicable, approximately what time(s) of day do you receive deliveries? a -C -cr nUDn 10. If applicable, approximately how long does it take to unload the delivery? 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? o In front of your business in on - street parking on Main or Pioneer .0" On a nearby side street o In an alleyway near your business o Double parked on Main or Pioneer o In a parking lot (please specify where) o Other 12. If applicable, does the street parking area or alley meet your current delivery needs? Yes o No 13. If no, how could it be improved? P'1y 0Ce r-\ p6AS i n �rlt ')� "�re- �0 c6r )od bLx:�- {(IEUCr (over) 1A Vi /() PA `k y-\ LAC-0� Ki -it ison $ Assoein�i. 0 Downtown Circulotion Study September 2015 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. k /1 -VII r� 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or ff constraints you would like to share Mnrl' "t related to transportation or circulation D in Downtown Ridgefield? Mnrl' "t Ma,*r 14 D VaL* St Mirk St > z z 1) T:'x. St (j.t-vn-- St %I PPS Z zZ z z Mil st ir M lzof M'11 SI �A z vw+ K" W krwin 0 riWqP' h4l."WIRI "1W oton-ev St 4M 2 KIITELSOT.' iL ASSOCIATES. INC City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week busissMw�t lude Suite Nos.)? do you receive deliveries? Lrjq Tio::(V- a 2. 0 9. If applicable, approximately what Downtown Circulation Study i � , If'- I�l� f:FrFI_n September 2015 City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week busissMw�t lude Suite Nos.)? do you receive deliveries? Lrjq Tio::(V- a 2. What type of business do you have? 9. If applicable, approximately what o Retail time(s) of day do you receive o Restaurant deliveries? * Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where 10. If applicable, approximately how long do they park? does it take to unload the delivery? o In front of your store (' Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store 11. Where does the vehicle stop for o Do not know unloading? 4. If you drive to your business, where do o In front of your business in on - you park? street parking on Main or Pioneer o In front of your business o On a nearby side street yWithin 1 block of your business o In an alleyway near your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your o Double parked on Main or Pioneer business o In a parking lot (please specify o Other where) 5. Do you receive any deliveries? o Other o Yes 12. If applicable, does the street parking No area or alley meet your current delivery 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive needs? deliveries? o Yes o Daily o No o Once a week 13. If no, hove could it be improved? o Two times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? o Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ (over) o Other, please specify type/size 1 Koir LSON e. ASSOC 1070 INC Downtown Circulation Study September 1015 ID IF IE1_T) C! - 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? r 2 a i a 1 7 Na• -h 5t 1,A,1r1IP A ? A'a,.+1!�.il M.•t{�fr 51 C^ Y C � n N Le -au x+ cl rX. "'. 'J G•A$><n yt GMSINr St Cwn,.9^ St Lt"" AKA' .:1 S z -�o s r Z^F Z A ..., ..1 et'; S' li AM10- p L F _ lkwi Z ] j � }tMw: MS Sr1100t 3 0 _ L c %e Z II+A St d t,6t 1, M::I SI 1,, 01;1 i _ = 1.4.N r.h PM M• n v _ ff 4g0rl►1d P -w Off— K b i C. Yt^Ps••. •Y'r• M1 I t titr�1:57 Sin.it^<.'.• a..•rr� it °et,.m-qt ,^r-sst N • An M .N.•_ 2 Z N 2 • YI• 1-G7e 31 •n _ 941, v+•q :'x+rvr ri o S - D p P17.•BE SI M I`.I frMltt (t lilegar A4L•'IICrIAl 1"IVYV IlIOf1M15( 4rc:IrpLl ' ::.•r.• _ t10DS tV•O•ry1rIM , • rl', rlA •e1.M � v. •A q .2 a ' m 2 KITTELSON d ASSOCIATES. INC �rti�n 11D (If IFT-D City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey 1. What is the physical address of your business (include Suite Nos.)? ►le) N NVA� Y% KVO 2. What type of business do you have? ra Retail / C�1� SSP o Restaurant o Service (dentist, yoga, etc) o Other: 3. If your employees drive to work, where do they park? o In front of your store ® Within 1 block of your store o Within 2-3 blocks of your store o Do not know 4. If you drive to your business, where do you park? o In front of your business Within 1 block of your business o Within 2-3 blocks of your business o Other 5. Do you receive any deliveries? o Yes o No 6. If yes, how frequently do you receive deliveries? o Daily ® Once a week o Two times a week o More than 2 times a week o Other, please specify 7. If applicable, what type and size of vehicle is used for your deliveries? ® Cargo Vans o USPS postal truck o FedEx/UPS Vans (usually 18-22 feet in length) o Tractor -semi trailer, length:_ o Other, please specify type/size Downtown Circulation Study September M15 8. If applicable, which day(s) of the week do you receive deliveries? 9. If applicable, approximately what time(s) of day do you receive deliveries? be k _ _ 'erj +Z._ a "u C3 10. If applic,3ble, approximately how long does it take to unload the delivery? 11. Where does the vehicle stop for unloading? % In front of your business in on - street parking on ain r Pioneer o On a nearby side street o In art alleyway near your business o Double parked on Main or Pioneer o In a marking lot (please specify where) o Other 12. If applicable, does the street parking area or alley meet your current delivery needs? m Yes o No 13. If no, how could it be improved? (over) KF71ELSON 8 AS�OC.ATES. INC Downtown Orculotion Study September 2015 14. If applicable and if you know, trace the route that your delivery trucks use while making deliveries in downtown Ridgefield on the map below, and indicate the location where they stop to unload. 15. Are there other issues, opportunities or constraints you would like to share related to transportation or circulation in Downtown Ridgefield? 0 U rt . Z Kn,:1r SI Mahe ` � � Kdde �I M�.Ir Ci a z � � z n N tht•sIm SI [JN tl(ln `I tr mew rt DMSLII RI QNIsrO^:1 (pb•,arpp y t5r�., �,� s� s• � Z � �iA, Y Z z 7S d 3 1 � y �ikilM Mdp L 7 .Y `� Z � tlmrwdn SrnoW s `s F z a MAI �it t: d _: Mol SI P, II SI RIMt r.a)M 11e1Vd1f D Y 7 C x rC. T 1e J VI - SnikNls JI .'d.14:'rc ZA '•NIFJr IS Sl rt r'l qtr`•:•' :' Ct t a Mr'.blr 4•t Ml � � •MJ ttMtyTM,r'•• „s 4 � v .} S P creel =' r. Frmn 0 Rleq- Wncglal Hwy YI Y1CCI St � r 1 err<II 44 - • � rN W»I••r b _ _ q 2 KIITELSON B ASSOCIATES. INC. 0 U Appendix 4 Traffic Volumes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. C)M-= 04 C w Z d M Y r U Z O ami 0 1 mH l A opo W N C'1 0 > Oa "1aa71J�_ W F- Y _V LG d H N W LO O 00 00 I- N O N M N r r O Cl) (D N Il- M O f- 00 Q O) O a- Ln r r Op O M P I-- m m W M O O O O (D LO M r N (D r- O r p 0 N L d 0 r r r r r r r r Cl) N O p V a Il- to R LO [f O m (D W I- V CD M m W (D V VNr r v N r \ Q D_ O N r N N (D m v N w Ln M N m N N (D V M NIT M V 00 CO O r r r r r r r r r N 0 00 r LO 00 m M N N m N r m N M w m m O Ln N r m m 0 0 r M r 00 Q M D_ (D N V r r r N O m O O m CD m to (D (D Cl) Cl) Cl) r N r N N r r r r r r M L+) r 0 0 00 N 00 ON pN A Y ' o Q '14' M 'IT r I� O OD r (D (n tD N 00 I� OD N I- � O M I� r N I-- M r �' 00 O m O O N M v m r I-- r M r O 0 O to O 00 � N V r 0- p p N � N > C a O N LO N (D 00 00 O 00 (D M C1 00 'q O O M O O LO r 00 (D 00 Cl) N Q m a o C,5 (n FL O m w O N co w O N CO m v N r r r N r r r N N N N N r co r M Cf) (D O p Ln N (n i N N (D N O N C O N O r O r r O r E (D (n O r aS d V (D M M N� Lo m I- co m 0 m o (n O (D co (D N N t? 00 O� N (D M O Lo (D r- m \ Q d C t � r r r r N N N N N r r w� r r r r CND N O r M OON O �LO N I` O O� 3 Ln m m.. o d m � C � � O C Q N _C j d > Z C -O m Z 3 20 0) C O VF_2 Z V w W ¢¢¢a¢¢¢a¢¢¢Qn.aaa.aadaaan.a- 0'O0 YN N N m N O ~ LL QUA ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m aim o E U 000a00000000 r >> =3 :3 Lu O d~ w M O r N M N <O 1- o0 m O r r 0 > 2; g 0 E 0) L) U) \> o Q o Q Q d Cj E C O U m r 0 m O N H Lo COCD a) N� ON w OL En- oz°)d M U Y i I t I OUo W N L �U�rn Q W C Y U_ d u � L � Q cc G a) ~ O O Lf) (O O M r- Lo O (0 r M r V (O (D O) N (N (f) O Lf) O CD 00 d O V co r.- N N N 00 (O (O O O) O O fl- r r r r r r r N N r U)O � OC:) N R L a O O > _ Q 3 N r.+ fo N � U � a) d.2 Q ~ O M Lf) W W M t` Lf) (A O r Mr- V (o (0 M N .- N T � a) ()) O () O O r r- LO O O p CO a- O M f` N N N O (0 (O r r r r r r N N O 0 � N 0 rn O QC: E rn � LL c O � (n O t � � H 3 ami � o d � � a) 3 Q> N c � � d ~ > Z C � @ Z a) LO N I 0O O O LO CO O C70 In O O r M V CO CO N N V' U) O Lf) \ o Q_ f1 M N N N O (0 (0 O m O Iq O r �- r r r r r N N O aLr)0 00 O 00 "Zr-6 N O N N L6O o O V Z 0)c) — O iu U oJa aacaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaae_d o_0 Y°� m ai va a� 1- LL~ QUA H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000 ►- (oo aa)) m 43 �- m E a a� E CL c U W N r N M L!) 1p ti 00 CA O r N r N M to (C 00 CJ1 O r r 0> > o Q O O O a. a+ r r r r e- o Q Q> d> U -ifnU fn 0 Co N w, N m (NOZ%Y r O O O m�(n Opo rna n W (V L. ❑ U O d Q i L _ L LLU V Q Cl X t Qi L c G c G d N r N M O) r I-- U-) O w (O V r V VW Cn M N M O r- O— O C O 3 O r r --— r r e- O N O N Q U f- Ln 'IT M V' (O O (O W A V CO M M M (O It V' r V t- V N V N r N N O O v N 00 Cn M N 0 N N (O M N r N o Q 0- M N O i r .- r r r I� r-0 V 0 � - CO r M O N L Co O) M N N'T m N r M N M w M O O m N `- O O O O r CO 0 0) O r c0 \ Q VN (q0 V O O) CO O (O (O (O Cl) Cl) M r N N N r r r �- r M M r- 0 0 O O N V ON ON � O N C O E FO N V1 C O N E N - c (n O as (L a� c a� o� c � Q a> c N � <z c v cu a� _O Z U W o �( _ ,aaaaaa.a.aaaaaO'0 ) O OOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O co 0) N 3 O E m N E ;~ Q) Ci W a- 7 CL _3 Oa.J M N r N M v O W ti 00 O) O r N r N M v Ln to r� 00 CD O r r r r > > O 0 E � V (n r r r❑ Q o Q ¢> a> U o 42 w C 7 O U Ci r - C) C) 4- 0 CO" 0 LU c,4 Lo W Ld F- L) < 4) iE cl 4) R < 4) m 'T m M LO 0 'IT 11 m 0 0 w (D r-- m U-) M r- N r- C,4 Nr W N " U) M (D U) (1) Il oo 0 CN o- 0-) M L. LO M M " C) LO �; (1) C14 (N m m m It m co m (D M 0 0 W 0 > a m M 0 M 0 C) "', (D LO — W M " CD N W N r- CD CD LO N o< a. LO (14 N — — V Lf) O V O M M W M C) M 00 N M r- (D N N N (N N (N — C14 q 00 C\j 00 C) CD C,) CD CD (y) C) (\I LO LO (o (z) oo (z) (,) c,4 O (D Lo ce) o r- Lf) r-- oo (c) ,r (C cl) aD r- Q- -I < CL m N (N CN LO 00 M rl- MM IT � W"1' 00 " V r- LO 0) 00 U') LO C.) (1) Cl) N CN — (N cn C) oo C/) 0 N CN (1) CD �T CD CO C7) R u m CO co " N 0 LO M " m 0 w w m O 0 r- 0 CD CO 'T W LO W m Cl) r- r- of Iq C) O 00 CN (1) Cl) QD V N cn C, <N (Z) 00 a- 00 C:) 'li- d) W . . . M M M W q LO Lr) CO N— N CD Lf) CD Lf) tm 0 LO r- Nm LO LO (.0 M Co ��l W 00 W 00 Cl) N C-4 C) LO (.0 O0) CO M QD 'q < Lr) LL 0 LO 'q CD LO V �; N 'q 04 ;T 0) Lr) C4 CD N C14 co CO LO r - Cl) r- (D Lf (6 LO O N N CD 0 'N Lf) (D 'q N (0 LO W ;t r- w " (o (o Nr- m — OM �; 'q c) a) q Lo m co (.o.0 'ITN lzl- 00 t M < 00 QLf) CO 00 (Y) fl- f- LO Cq ( Lf) M m m M LO -IT Lr) M (14 (C) Lr) CD Lr) Ln CD Lo m a (Z) C\l O (3) co > < o < . 2 a - D 0 CP . 0 < 0 L) O oda cL iL m a. cL a. iL cL a. o- cl a- -o a) a) a) 'Ca a) a o o C) o CD CD C> o o o o o cl CD o c, CD o o CD E Q-) UJ tz m N NM LO to 1- 00 0) C, C4 C4 m q W> w P� co 0) CD - - > > < o < <> a> C) O a. U) 0 U) -i rmLO m O O N ,~ N CO L- a. coW � Y ZO m ik _O Lo OUo 7WN Urn f�C �o o 1��1, W Y u ❑ d � 4)~ CO N O O r r N O) M N M LO O O N co 00 r- r- 0) O) r- r- a1 � Q O a N ` r- V 00 r N r- M O le 00 V CO r- , M r` V' L(1 N N N M M M N7 Co V V M CV M O 00 O LO O V O LO L d O LO r N > _ Q C 7 N cn to v Y d � j o CO CO 6) 6) 1- I- N Ql CO N CO U) O O N CO CO I- r- O M I- f� 6) f� O Q O N L r- '7 00 r- N r- M O le 00 V W r- M r- '7 .--O In N N N M M M Lo CO 14, Cl) N M Op CO 0Lr) O V (D Lr) O LO — r N �z Q LL Q F- L O (D a a� Q 3 o U) a) a> 0 CO Z Q) LLO 0) C O C " M 00 m O r- r- N O 00 N M LO O m N M M r- r- O O r- r` O r- V 00n r- N r- O le 00 V CO r•- CO r` V r- o o o o Q O a (V -O o Q 0 N N LN M M N COCO V Cl) m N M O LOOLO a U rn r ci Ow ova E LL F `QQaaQQaaaaQaaaaaaaa.n.ELaaa o _0 (1) Ya) (az) a� H' N Q r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Y (gyp 4) O E E (� U -t O O O O O O O O O O p 0 i> O,, 7 %� W Oa N r N M� Ln CO r• 00 T O N r N M t7 N Ct r• oo T O �� m > j OI, O -i U) .,.- fn �.-o o Q o ¢ Q>a>c� C: 0 U T 0 rm�n s.k 0 o ! N�� Lu Z 0 k a 4t O p C Owo { n mCN . Cion W � 2i 2i O) LD I- In 00 (D M D7 to O M O M d7 CO r l() OJ (O OC.') M O N a m O M d L M O(D M M M M O r �r CO N M M M M M N N N N — V (D CD M O M C1 M N i O Q C i O7 O O O O O V (D M— O M N O N W N f- (D C) LD N o Q a V N N — •-- V U) O LO O M M W M O M M N M r (D It V O M 00 M N O r- N N N N N N— N00 N N 00 N N 00 r N (n (D O W O M N C:) (D CO Lf) M O 1� f--00 O V (D M(9) I- V o Q M a r NO N N N N S 00 M I-- M 00 V 00 N V f- Lr)M M LD LO N N� V MM M M M N N N Ln 0 d' r N O O N Q y 0 Q 3 c o m 3 c>Q N CL C/) Z .2) �5 O a� H s� CL 0 ui Z J H rL rL rL rL :G �L Ova EaQ< <<<<<< <a.aaaaaaaa.a-K .�.. oma, ca tea, Y c� Y cu ~ LL Q H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 a 0 o 0 o a 0~ O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 CR 0 0 0 CR 0 Y m Q7 O N E d 7 0) E a N V m N N M (A (0 ti 00 0) O T N N M le W W h W M O ` t>> >N Q \ Q Q i 0 O O d~ JCnU � r o o U c vi C U T a r U J J N 0 O T 0 iii U Of D O C0 00 cli N n 0 m (Dw a r OM O � I Lo O U o I N U a' _ � Cion IC d �a I II i I o-,�-,nn� L I - w o d 4)~ V O r 0 M 00 O N I- tt N In LO M 1l- O N M 00 1- O N LO M 00 Q N 0 d 00 N CA N 00 I� 00 1- M 00 "T S O W' N N N N N N •- M U-) CD N 0 m N i O Cl) O > _ Q C 4. Ln r- W r- 00 M I- M N D Ln n r N N M M O M N� Cn CO a7 0 � Q d UN 3 0 M V O) M (D h w N O (D 00 (D co O Ln V N - N N -- T c- T- M Cl) o CO r- 0 r 0� i N I� 0 - O N 00 (O 7 N LO < (p U �- _ (n CO 00 CO N Cl) W MM I- (D N N Ln N •- t0 OJ t` 4f (n t` M D) (n O co V LO W CC) 00 Q r M O N N N N N N N N N r- .- M N 00 N A V Y O N O N V O O O N 'IT (D (O M (D O LO N O 00 0 00(D O NC) (") i O Lo Q U LO (D ti M O M 00 O W N r M M LO V M co LO m 00 M M Nr O N r- 00 I- m 00 O O H 1� ti N 0 O M 0 M o c Q d M LL O - N N N N N M M M M M .- _M (D N O 6) N 0 I- C) CO I 0 O 0 V U I- (D V M LO r- C-4 O_ le 0) _� N LA CO W I-- 1-- O O r - O L17 h r Ll7 IA N 0 0 \ \ Q V > Q H O .�-- CD (O O M r N N N N Cl) M M Cl) M M N O M �- W O N (D 00 M (p v (n rn Lo M O > N Q 0) d '0 N M N (n OCD (D C Q N d a �Z m `m O a c oQ� a0 w OUa Lr r m Y Y LL aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.aaaaa -oQ)Y� (0 N O N .� Z ~ Q H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C� O 00 C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1" Y N (0 a) m z V } t+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 C: O O O O O >0) > 0) d a O a~ N N M (p t0 ao CA O N M N «� ti o0 W O> •- ■-� > O Q> O a>U i N U co �G Q o Q o L 0 U W U x D O U) Q> E 0 0 U a� 7 F ODM 07 O N�oN N m 04 (.0 LU `O M r U Y � ik 0 . m OU m W N W � Y V LG Q y~ (D aD O O N r- O M M IT O N N CO w (D W N_ Ln Cl O (O N W LO LO O 00 N LO 0 LO Cl) r v O N CDLO 61 O N L — — —— N N N N N N M M N— L0 Cl) N O Cl) O = Q C 7 A N m U Y d d ~ N N (D 00 (D O) N_ LO O O tO N Iq o O Q N O) (D 00 O O Nr-- O M M�q (D .- 0 00 1l- Lr) Lf) O 00 N LO (D LO LM — 0 N 0) O � N O M L. — —— .- N N N (V N N M M N � � LO M p N � O Q N � Q H v Cl) O 'G > N Q N G� ?J 'd N M N O (n � � d U C Q a _ U) Z N Ln N 0 � moi, U (o 0o N I-- M c,) O N N N (o oo (o m L0 O O Co N O O r t7 O O M M f- N t0 LO O M N Ln CO LO M �' 0) o o LO Q O N 64 C -- N M 06 O NOrO p M a V F CL O r 00 o v I LU O_a QQQQQaQQQQaQaaaaaaaaaan�a o ao) moo, m m c QVC O o O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O o O O co O C� CD 000000000000000000000000 N 0) (Q �� a� 0) a moo_ 41 � 0 � U W N r N M Iq W W h W M CD N r N M e N w f-- 00 O O Q >\> o Q Q Q i O JOU fA o U N c O cc D r U J J N c 0 0 U j a W U O U) 00co LO r C,j CO LLJ (D � "- 1 *0 . (D O O U r C)d 7 WC14i ¢ O w� Q C U Y d 2 ~ N V N t- M O m 00 00 f- N m c0 M m Cl) O 6) I- m r- V co N M (D O Q N O m O dL- r r r N W'IT V O M O 00 N I- LO Cl) N r r N N N N N N N N -- r 00 N 0. N (D O N O a _ :J LO M I- M m I- M N V n n r N N M m m C)N V m (D m N r M V m M (D h N N m (0 00 co a) O In R N 0 M Q r d O r r N N r r r r r co N 00r- N O O N C2 00 r N U O- co N V M m !o (D M M I-- 0) N CN LO N r LO r N V f- V 'fit l0 00 r Q1 (!') r M m (f') O O V V 00 OJ c Q o M Vi O r N N N N N N N N N �- r r (V M CD O O 0 N O m O N N N Q M O > Q N "2 N M N O (n N C, (6 N C Q O 7(5d U) Z a� (L) _O oQ� 01. W O U Q2r 2 L r2 cL r2 2r �; r2 2 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q w ca Y s ~ LL �. Q Q Q Q Q a. 0L d a. d a. a. a. a. a. 0- IL 0 -O O Y O N N _= N Q V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C� O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y N (m6 a) O E N E N L) 0 0 0 0 0 o c: 0 0 0 0 0 N a a _� g - LuO a. ~ CLU r N M N fD h o0 01 O r r N M t7 u) (C� h oo O O r r r Q>> < O a- O i J (n r r o Q Q i Q U c 0 U d Tvoe of oeak hour beino reoorted: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: S Main Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #: 13622201 CITY/STATE: Ridgefield, WA DATE: Thu Oct 15 2015 84 64 i t L 1 s 77 Peak -Hour: 7:25 AM -- 8:25 AM Peak 15 -Min: 7:35 AM -- 7:50 AM 3.6 4.7 i t 0.0 16.7 2.6 i 0. 4-1 L 4.1 0 63 79 ~ _j J i %. 0.0 « 0.0 j t 4.8 4. 3.8 1 0.69 0 0.0 « 0.0 z r 1 0 .� t �. 16 770.0 ° �� Q4 uality C©ants * 0.0 � .� t rr o.o'� 2.6 __1 � 22 0 . t .5 °.° Lp �.:� 14) 3 � � � 18 1 0 ♦ t.7rCJ � 0 7 0 0 O F A N L NA L NA ~ NA IL NA •• « NA • � s •► NA F � r NA 5 -Min Count Period S Main Ave (Northbound) S Main Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Be innin At Left Thru Ri h Left Thru Right U L Thr Ri ht U Left Thru Ri ht 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 7:00 AM 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 10 7:10 AM 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 11 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 11 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 19 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 17 7:50 AM 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 7 0 14 17 155 8:00 AM 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 11 11 158 159 8:10 AM 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 6 8 161 158 8:25 AM 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 4 0 10 9 161 159 8:35 AM 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 5 0 4 12 144 139 8:45 AM 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 3 0 12 10 128 124 8:55 AM 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 112 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Ri h Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 76 0 0 0 236 4 Pedestrians Bicycles 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 28 0 Railroad IStopped Buses Comments - Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC. (http://www.quaiitycounts.net) 1-6t t-otsu-zz iz Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Enterina Volume LOCATION: S Main Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #: 13622202 CITY/STATE: Ridgefield, WA DATE: Thu Oct 15 2015 127 125 a* L 0 10 117 1.0 Peak -Hour: 4:10 PM -- 5:10 PM Peak 15 -Min: 4:10 PM -- 4:25 PM 1.6 3.2 104'0 0.0 1.7 i 4 «0 t 125~152 ~ r a1 0.0 ~0.0 t 3.2~ 3.3 1 0.90 1 1 0 26 119 0.0 � � ~ 0.0 #1 * r 0 0 0 uality a:Q Counts0.0 0.0 * 0.0 7 * �.0 3.8 ~ 1.7 0.0 0.0 �a a * 35 0 ♦I 2.9 0.0 L L J ♦■y .+ a o. 0 1 L 0 19 42 0 ~ 0 28 F 0 0 0 NA L NA �.+ 4. NA « NA `Y'i► a �L NA ~ • « NA NA NA F 5 -Min Count Period S Main Ave (Northbound) S Main Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Be innin At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 11 0 0 8 0 22 22 4:10 PM 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 71 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 13 0 0 10 0 32 22 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 26 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 25 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 23 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 24 4:45 PM 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 10 0 0 6 0 18 13 4:55 PM 5:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 11 0 0 14 0 18 27 269 274 1 5:10 PM 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 0 0 12 0 20 23 268 269 5:20 PM 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 12 0 0 16 0 23 27 268 269 5:30 PM 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 9 0 0 8 0 21 14 265 256 5:40 PM 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 9 0 0 9 0 16 23 248 253 5:50 PM 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 2 10 0 17 22 1 257 261 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 36 4 0 128 0 0 8 312 12 Pedestrians Bicycles 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 60 0 0 124 0 Railroad IStopped Buses Comment_: Keport generated on 1U/21/ZU15 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Twe of peak hour beinq reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N 5th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #: 13622203 CITY/STATE: Ridgefield, WA DATE: Thu Oct 15 2015 91 181 a t s o ss Peak -Hour: 7:05 AM -- 8:05 AM Peak 15 -Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 1.1 1.1 t 0.0 0.0 1.1 J i �. 102 4.8 L 172 4.292 -1a .t i 4 ty 8.8 12.5 0.6 3.4 179 0.55 ~ 99 6.1 * ~ 9.1 187 ~ 0 : *1 t �S 21 ~ 287 0 1 20 a:Quality Counts 6.4 ~ 0.0 7 01 t �r 0.0 * 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 + t 21 21 + 0.0 0.0 ♦� L� I .+ a 9.L of o zs 1 � � I z '� � ~ 1 + � 7 P 0 h t P 0 0 0 0 NA NA L NA ~ NA NA •• ~ NA -0 r NA F s NA 5 -Min Count Period N 5th Ave (Northbound) N 5th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Be innin At Left Thru Right U Left Thrg Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Ri h U 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 6 2 0 20 7:05 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 5 2 0 16 7:10 AM 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 9 7 0 12 25 7:20 AM 7:25 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 0 0 16 0 0 0 1 3 6 0 6 10 0 21 36 7:30 AM 7:35 AM 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 13 0 0 3 6 8 12 0 12 17 0 44 57 7:40 AM 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 12 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 26 0 0 31 0 0 4 5 12 25 0 15 26 0 82 92 7:55 AM 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 11 21 0 73 571 8:05 AM 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 4 0 0 14 8 589 585 8:15 AM 8:20 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 11 1 0 17 21 577 577 8:25 AM 8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 7 0 0 16 18 557 531 8:35 AM 8:40 AM 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 12 3 0 22 27 496 441 8:45 AM 8:50 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 17 15 366 288 8:55 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 3 1 0 14 229 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Ri ht U Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 0 328 0 0 8 0 40 0 144 360 0 4 0 1068 12 Pedestrians Bicycles 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 92 0 Railroad IStopped Buses ConnmenLs: Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-bt 1-00w-zriz Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determinino peak hour: Total Enterina Volume LOCATION: N 5th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #: 13622204 CITY/STATE: Ridgefield, WA DATE: Thu Oct 15 2015 61 38 i * z ss o L0.0 Peak -Hour: 4:05 PM -- 5:05 PM Peak 15 -Min: 4:05 PM -- 4:20 PM 2.6 a * J4 V 0.0 0.0 L 210 ~1 1 t 35~246 J i %. 1.4 «0.0 j t 2.9~ 1.6 193 .0 0.82 ~ 204 5.2 * � ~ 1.5 194 • 0 : 41 * e i 7~ 261 4 2 9 y 7 �- y 5.2 0.0 � * r 0.0 3.8 i *�UBLIt�/ Counts� 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 7 15 * 0.0 0.0 L L J .i i t. �, �► v —� o 0 o I NA NA 4L JJ i 4L NA ~ NA NA • « NA c NA �a * * F s �h t f'F NA 5 -Min Count Period N 5th Ave (Northbound) N 5th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Be innin At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 140 0 1 18 8 0 47 4:05 PM 0 0 2 0 23 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 1 10 2 0 55 4:10 PM 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 16 3 0 46 4:20 PM 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 18 3 0 36 39 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 2 0 16 4 0 16 0 0 44 39 4:40 PM 4:45 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 17 6 0 38 42 4:50 PM 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 11 0 0 2 1 12 3 0 23 4 0 25 45 512 5:05 PM 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 1 4 18 1 0 21 2 0 36 45 497 496 5:15 PM 5:20 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 16 0 0 1 2 20 1 0 19 9 0 43 46 483 493 5:25 PM 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 0 19 0 0 1 0 21 5 0 17 6 0 46 47 500 503 5:35 PM 5:40 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 20 5 0 13 3 0 37 34 501 497 5:45 PM 5:50 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 12 4 0 25 4 0 35 45 490 510 5:55 PM 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 18 2 0 42 1 507 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 8 8 12 0 128 0 4 0 4 240 0 0 4 188 32 0 628 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 12 Pedestrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 20 1 Railroad IStopped Buses C��n?menL'- Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak LOCATION: N 8th Ave -- Pioneer St CITY/STATE: Ridqefield, WA 5 1 0 �a 54 t 4 L J i 4 317 ~ 8 t 45 ~ 368 330 0.69 ~ 315 338 ~ 0 Ob t 11 : 8 ~ 360 26 a t 8 28 • t NA L NA 4. NA 7 4 �► t r a NA *F Period 0 0 (Northbound) Left Thru Right U Beginning At 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 7:10 AM 0 0 1 0 7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 7:25 AM 1 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 1 4 0 7:35 AM 0 0 4 0 7:40 AM 0 0 3 0 7:45 AM 0 0 3 0 7:55 AM 0 0 1 0 8:00 AM 8:0, 0 0 2 0 8:10 AM 1 0 1 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8:20 AM 0 0 2 0 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 8:35 AM 0 0 1 0 8:40 AM 1 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Left Thru Right U Flowrates All Vehicles 0 0 48 0 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 Pedestrians 12 Bicycles 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses CommentF. Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Peak -Hour: 7:10 AM -- 8:10 AM Peak 15 -Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM (iQuatity Counts N 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QC JOB #: 13599401 DATE: Thu, Sep 24 2( 0 1 t r ° 0 0 0 NA NA -6 •• ~ NA � s NA F inneer St I Pioneer St I Total 0 10 0.0 40.7 • t L 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 16 .J i %. 2.5 ~75.0.t t 35.6~ 7.1 8.2 ~ 2.5 9.8 �0.0'h t rs25.0� 7.5 0.00.0 0.0 0 0 a t 2 38 25.0 0.0 0 0 0 J i t. 0 t 0 1 • * % r 2 0 1 t r ° 0 0 0 NA NA -6 •• ~ NA � s NA F inneer St I Pioneer St I Total 0 10 0 0 1 16 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 21 0 0 2 27 0 0 2 38 0 0 1 36 42 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 0 0 0 43 0 0 2 31 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 15 0 0 1 11 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 12 0 0 1 18 1 0 0 16 0 0 16 464 0 16 48 0 20 0 0 0 1 11 1 0 23 0 15 2 0 35 0 10 2 0 32 0 10 3 0 28 0 13 3 0 26 4 23 11 0 55 0 25 7 0 59 0 33 8 0 75 1 39 7 0 91 1 44 1 0 86 1 46 2 0 85 0 23 1 0 69 7 0 6 0 0 21 0 6 0 0 13 1 9 0 0 31 0 16 0 0 28 0 11 0 0 29 0 8 0 0 20 0 9 1 0 24 1 9 1 0 31 0 10 1 0 28 1 6 1 0 17 4 8 16 92 0 32 0 1 0 1 Totals I 687 733 728 713 718 691 661 606 539 484 420 Report generated on 9/28/2015 1:28 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-a1l-0UU-ZZ1Z I ype of peak hour being reported: Intersection Heak LOCATION: N 8th Ave -- Pioneer St CITY/STATE: Ridgefield. WA 17 i 9 31 ♦ 7 L 1 30 (Southbound) 358 ~ 11 J 20 ~ 385 282 0.91 « 343 301 ~ 8 h 60 * & i 22 ~ 303 14 i * 31 20 i * NA L � i 4 4. NA ~ NA �i NA * Min Count N 8th Ave Period (Northbound) innin At Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 4:10 PM 0 0 2 0 4:15 PM 1 0 1 0 4:20 PM 0 0 1 0 4:25 PM 0 0 2 0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 4:35 PM 1 0 0 0 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 4:50 PM 2 0 2 0 4:55 PM 0 0 3 0 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 5:05 PM 1 0 1 0 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 5:25 PM 1 0 1 0 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 5:35 PM 0 0 2 0 5-40 PM 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 5:50 PM 0 0 1 0 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 Pedestrians 28 Bicycles 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Continents: Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume QC JOB #: 13599405 DATE: Wed Sep 23 2015 Peak -Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM 5.9 0.0 Peak 15 -Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM__ja * 0.0 0.0 14.3 [_ d i k. 2.0 ~ 0.0 j t 0.0 ~ 1.8 2.1 . ~ 2.0 2.0 ~ 0.0 * �. 4r 0.0 2.6 (IQuality Counts __1f 0.0 7.1 F 0.0 5.0 0 23 N 8th Ave 1 30 (Southbound) eft Thru Right U 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Southbound eft Thru Right U 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 30 0 0 1 32 1 0 0 20 0 0 1 16 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 28 2 0 0 24 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 32 2 0 0 26 2 0 1 22 1 0 1 20 0 0 2 32 1 0 0 23 1 17 0 0 0 2 25 0 0 0 2 25 1 0 1 24 0 19 0 0 0 9 1 0 1 0 1 23 2 0 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 0__1 0 0 *p a %. 0 j �t 0 0 » « 1 Ir -1 0 0 0 NA NA ~ ~ NA i 4r '1 t f* F NA 0 18 1 0 1 19 1 0 2 20 0 0 0 31 1 0 1 25 0 0 0 31 2 0 0 20 2 0 2 25 3 0 2 26 1 0 1 32 2 0 0 21 2 0 2 24 3 0 2 31 4 0 1 33 2 0 1 35 4 0 0 41 1 29 0 0 2 0 0 28 3 0 3 20 5 23 1 0 1 34 0 0 3 0 6 28 0 0 5 15 0 0 24 436 8 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 53 59 47 52 45 65 49 47 51 75 55 55 60 71 62 fd 65 63 51 m 50 62 28 32 0 Totals 643 653 660 672 687 m 720 718 720 m 722 709 Keport generated on 9/28/2015 1:28 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: N 9th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #: 13622205 CITY/STATE: Ridgefield, WA DATE: Thu Oct 15 2015 9 2 a L 1 z 6 Peak -Hour: 7:05 AM -- 8:05 AM Peak 15 -Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM .o 0.0 a * � a v 0 .o 0.0 0.0 L 4.j t r 345 0 2 277 8.1 ~ 0.0 J t 0.0 « 7.2 229 0.61 ~ 243 6.1 * 40 ~ 7.0 332 -0 10332 32 ~ 282 101 0 47 F (UB��ry Counts 7 i 9 4 7.8 11.7 � � � 5.3 - 10.9 0.0 2. 1F a • 137 148 0. ? 10.9 8.1 L 9 2 0 o to 1 � � • 1 g ®� : i 1 0 '1 * P 0 0 O F LNA L .► i �. .+ i . NA « NA NA 4.5NA ► i : �► NA F NA 5 -Min Count Period N 9th Ave (Northbound) N 9th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 2 7 0 0 24 7:05 AM 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 12 2 0 3 10 0 0 34 7:10 AM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 5 0 0 17 7:15 AM 7:20 AM 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 10 2 0 3 2 17 0 0 17 0 0 36 32 7:25 AM 7:30 AM 6 0 6 0 7 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 20 3 0 2 4 19 0 0 29 0 0 52 67 7:35 AM 20 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 13 11 0 2 24 2 0 82 7:40 AM 14 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 26 20 0 1 35 0 0 103 7:45 AM 7-50 AM 90 5 0 19 07:55 1 0 0 0 0 35 22 0 4 34 0 0 110 AM 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 13 0 2 18 0 0 82 738 8:05 AM 8:10 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 7 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 8 0 0 21 21 753 757 8:15 AM 8:20 AM 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 8 1 0 3 3 5 0 0 5 0 0 20 27 741 736 8:25 AM 8:30 AM 4 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 11 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 10 0 0 24 29 708 670 8:35 AM 8:40 AM 2 0 3 0 6 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 13 3 0 3 4 10 0 0 10 0 0 28 48 616 561 8:45 AM 8:50 AM 3 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 7 4 0 5 4 4 0 0 5 0 0 31 23 482 406 8:55 AM 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 1 9 0 0 26 1 350 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Total All Vehicles 168 0 60 0 12 0 0 0 0 380 200 0 36 392 0 0 1248 Heavy Trucks Pedestrians 16 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 20 0 0 8 0 0 52 16 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad IStopped Buses Comments_ Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determininq peak hour: Total Enterinq Volume LOCATION: N 9th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #: 13622206 CITY/STATE: Ridgefield, WA DATE: Thu Oct 15 2015 3 15 i t 1 Peak -Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM Peak 15 -Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM1 0.0 0.0 i t r i VL o.o 0.0 o.o 302 ~2 j IL 8~273 r i t. 2.0 ~0.0 1 t 0.0~ 2.2 154 -0 0.87 ~ 190 5.2 � � « 2.6 250 * 94 : *1t i 75 ~ 219 -1 111 5 64 Quality a: Counts 4.0 X2.1 �01 t r.r 1.3* 3.7 —1 0.0 00F i , 170 180 4 + 1.8 0.6 o L L 0 0 0 2 0 ♦ l'JYCJ ♦ 0 �► � -4 t o 710 F 1 0 0 NA L NA L J i 4 J i b NA ~ NA NA i •• « NA y 1 4r N%� —1i t 7 i NA t�F 5 -Min Count Period N 9th Ave (Northbound) N 9th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Be innin At Left Thru Right Left—ThruRi ht U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 0 3 23 1 0 57 4:05 PM 4:10 PM 4 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12 0 20 6 0 11 2 10 0 0 16 0 0 74 59 4:15PM 3 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 14 0 4 19 0 0 61 4:20 PM 4:25 PM 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 0 10 7 0 3 7 13 0 0 19 1 0 39 53 4:30 PM 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 5 0 2 19 2 0 61 4:35 PM 4:40 PM 1 0 2 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 19 7 0 8 5 14 0 0 13 1 0 45 56 4:45 PM 4:50 PM 7 0 2 0 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 6 6 0 6 6 18 0 0 14 1 0 52 50 4:55 PM 5:00 PM 11 0 6 0 9 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 8 0 11 9 0 7 5 16 0 0 21 0 0 60 62 667 672 5:05 PM 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 11 9 0 0 56 654 5:10 PM 13 0 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 12 9 0 4 15 1 0 66 661 5:15 PM 11 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 8 16 1 0 71 671 5:30 PM 5:35 PM 8 0 3 0 11 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 13 3 0 6 5 15 0 0 17 0 0 52 53 697 705 5:40 PM 5:45 PM 6 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 9 9 0 6 5 11 1 0 20 0 0 47 53 696 697 5:50 PM 5:55 PM 6 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 14 8 0 6 6 22 0 0 19 00 52 51 1 699 690 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Ri ht U Left Thru Ri ht U Total All Vehicles Heavy Trucks 156 8 92 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 120 0 8 4 72 0 196 12 0 8 0 816 20 Pedestrians Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Corwnerrrr Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Appendix 5 Vehicle Classification Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc. p M NU) LO > N- O C14 SOZ N co LO M 4� ° ~ (O M M N'IT LO O r- (O M O M O LO O 00 M (O (`J 04 'IT 00 O - N O M O M (O h 0 N M M M 1- r' 00 V- .'- N N N N N r Iq N (O N Q M 0 O r d 0 00 Cl) v r r d 0 \ 0 #J 0�0 = .-00000�vL°��L(�rnvornLnLnaoNo� Lf)U) Q a Oce Z �' o- oN 7 ui V o) U � Q Cl00 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 7 0 I m 2 o Kd - �+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Cl I (0 d Q7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0to 2 O I d d x 75 O O o O o O O o O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O o O Q C O I A0 x� o00000000000t-00000000000 �o Q 7 0 0 0 La 0 N 22 Q7 O O O O O N V O O N (" ) O N O Cl 0 0 0 o o I- (O Q 2 O O I 00 O M Ln O o V r�,: N d d o .22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <.s O I � � N N C gj� a OOOOOOOa--OOO-OOOOM-OooOO (-M< d U) Q C p I 0 .- C) r) Cl) 0 ca N r LO C N d 41 c 0 K O O O O V N r- co m O 00 00 o O Lo 00 LO R O Q 0- _ C Q �Ln M N (n O N LO FL O C N N c < O O O O 0 0 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 N Cl O I- M Q 0_ 7 O 00 - 0o N C N m O m 0 Cn � N C � O o Q d N x C N O O N LO O O O (O M 1- M O M O V O O) Ln N M 'Lt O O Q Q O N N M N M N V M M .- V 0 0 0 0 in N C N J o o &i 0) C N¢ d) V �- M (O tt LO O O N N M a1 O O M O N (O N M Q N a p > ` Ln 00 (D 0 O M M Llj �' r- � 00 L() M LO o N 00 'O Q Z LO V ~ c- --o r O C a r v Z N �0(L) -(n o Q g s O d o o 0 C) 0 0 0 O� � M0 1h CO LO r- 0 0 o LO P- 0- .CH:2 Q 0 t0 O T �� 0� 0 0 0- O v o 0 Z O W ZVH O_� dm2L22�rL�rL��m�..� �QQQQQQQQQQaQaaaaaaan.aaaa.r° Y Y H tea) amu, _ ;� QVC O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° o000000000000000000c)0000 0� d �a rz 0 W Oa_ w� N N M Ln (O (- CO to O r N r N M V O lO r o 0 0 d Q N g 0 0 o -ico0 Cl) 0a Q>a> U M, 0 N N 0 C 0 a N CD 0) r 0 CL aD x 0 M N N (() N m O O Z N CO to (C +' N (n N M 00 00 O w (D mm 00 IV O O M MCO Lo- 00 0 00 M N I- M- M O o O 00 O N M to O N o o lq N N (D N Q O 00 O C140 a 0 OO N r Z Ud o 2 :k O_ 0 ++ O O O O O o t (() q O 00 (n I- OO to V (n M (n O M (M O I- Q mH 0 O N Z y r M2 o� 0 C (p o o� LLI o M U � Q C'1 0 0 m o X o 0 0 0 o 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 o 0 Q 3 O to A d o j0 3 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Q O I t0 d o K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � O I V 22 o 10.E 000000000000000000000000 00 Q m O I (A° 0 X M O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 N d Q O 00 0 ui X 000000-4M 0'!0 LO Cl) NON c -O-00 000 Q 0_ Q 3 N I O d' O in O O VQ (O N 222 X rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — o 0- C, C) oo - N 0 OQ d d o E OOOOo00 O 00N 00•--00000 MM Q a- C/) c 05 I 00 - O N _ 06 M U) I� N N (n C ao O N E! O O O O O (A M Il_ 00 (n O (D O) ' T O O (D O N O M N N (D 0_ Qr N N 00 O 0 O (n O N (D V 0(9 n- (/� N M o W N 000000 N ON O 0 N 0000N0 (D0 QN d o I O IN 0) 7 O Q m O O O N N L N N M g r- r- M W (D r o r- M O I co 0_ a Q J M N M IA N '7 R V M �- N LO O Fo O0 N cV � m c O� y O w r Q d 'C N N P- m cn (f) (n N 0 00 O O I- 00 N O O t t- I- N ( Ln O I- 00 M In t0 N 00 C (D M 00 00 p O(O r >Q QZ7 pr' a U ~ _ Lo QN N ` N o L.cr O w O 00 0 0 0 N O M N It M N T N M h N O0 o M� o M p l- t..'' Q O 0 T O 0 Z� vj O o_Q EQQQQQQQaaQQQaaaaaaaaaaaaoc m mac F- LL O O o 0 o o o 0 o O o O o co O o 0 o O O o 0 0 0 V 0 CM a 7 d 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti Q E A 4N � N M IT b W !� 00 C) 0 C r N M LO CO n CO Q> O Q a N Q; p M N LO N m O (NOZN M 1: m ++ O F- w 0 m N N Iq LO N Il- M N m W m M O to N: 0 0 0 0 N M 0 0 0 0 0 (O O (O CD T O MMM T T N N N .-- T T T T •-- Co MM M N Q Oo N o d 00 O ZU D o �to. 2 E 0000000—t-Loco MTOowr-- V raaN ttNN r T OO Q d m1-- O U 4 H OO 00O L O W P (Q V o M UIQ C'! 0 a m K O O O O O o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 3 O I d �+o x_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O I iD d Q 7 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 2 O I W 22 o X m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C O I � 0 d d o K M O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C 0 I N 0 d o QM T C--- U) O N- O O O O O - O O O O N V N O o o MOD Q d O O I C) N OO V V N 22 C X 8) 0O0000O0O0O0000000000000 00 I m cm m EK rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O N T o o T T o T o 0 0 o O v a a in Q _C TO I ON O� C�5 02 M ui W O C d d o O 0 0 0- .- - .-- d �L6 00 OM (n O NO o o� ces a CO 05 o ami H o 0 0 0 0 0 o T o 0 0 0 0 0 o T o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N Q a on o ( CD 00 - m O � r c FL a) 0 m o o < Q N K C _ _ O O O O .- N I� CO d' b N 00 N O O M T c0 Ln N V �Q M N M M '- IT 00 Q Q O V' N o O N J O N C .0 N N c Q °tf y '� M 00 O N OD O O N� N N O O N CD O T Lfl O f- O N M T o O O Q d �� T O O M M V N O 0' N N N T T T T'- T T N LO F� o g O� o-g Or QZ U o ii C .a Z ) O i W 0 \ Q 02 O O O O o 0 0 O V - -- N N M N 0 0 N 0 d N o m M 0 �� o O w r Z U 0_Q �LL� F000000000000000 QQQQQQQQQQQQa.aaaaaaaaaaa�a 0 a( c CD, 00000000 m o a) E aD E ai LU oaf ��TNM�tq tOhooO�T�TNM ��tO hao OfT� Qa QN Qi m 0 O J U wl - - U 7 0 M ri LO 0 N N 0 0 a m au c w O> C O Q Y OOM N (n LO N— O O Z N CO 00 m w Il- Lo 17(n V 00 w wI-vOMO 00(O V tt V r-,q.N V N N N (0 O V N 00 M M N M N N (0 'q CO CV T - T - - - - - - I` N i� Qv o O O 0_M O N p - N ZU R O w t N �- O O O O M M M' O (- � r- (O O (O T (n O V OR Q CL _O O LU U o0 UIQ Ci o 0 m o X. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ¢ � O I (O 2'.3 .' Q 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O tD 61 0 K= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 3 O I tV0 22 o K.0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O I O ACD Q d d o K .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 3 O I O 22 o g OOOOOOMM-00�–((>M0-0---0000 N� QOM Q.0 0 L o V 0 y d o x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ C O I N et N N �d OO x O O O O O O T 0 0 0 0 O O T O O- 0 0 0 O O O M N Q a- Cl)M06 Q C p I p� O p� o � cn OC N N 0 0 0 0 �-- Cl N I- (D N M (O O 00 t` 0) (O I- O O O O 0 N M Q Il C T o pO p (n O N CO N ca IZ C (n N y N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T O 0 0 0 0 a_0) 3 O I o 0.0 m p C d o d 0) K C O N N O N N I- r 0 N N O O M 00 N- M M ([) 00 (n Q O p Q Q 0 N M N (O F � N p M (1) C N j m 7 N¢ oto �• d O M M Lo N co (n V 00 M T O O LO M (i) N 00 M 00 M O O M'T o OC, Qd ` •- N .- (O T O N O O) O 00 OD M I�co O- p0� O Q0 S Z la N� vv caZ N O y o cr O d 1* 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O � O N � O N M N � � 0 0 0 0 W C> Q v IL M V O T O o Z V V W Ova �¢QQ¢QQQ¢QQQQaaaaaaaaaaaa0 �� ►= LL (j H o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' O ti a`))EmE a a 0 0 0 QT 2> UOWa� Y��i�iiyv(riior�oovioe�ie�iv(niot�ooc)o� Qa Qj o U J (q U Vn O N C) C O CD OS N c CD C) O a a) w C)0) m S (,4 N 0 N M CD Z N M CA M a+ O 0 (D O m O r- 0 O CD r M I- V O CD O) N N V 'T 0 m .-- M I- N N N 00 0 CD O O O et O r -p V- - - - -- N N In O U)c N Q_ d o OON v ZU D o it O .+= 00000000MM0)00 'T 'IT rOD V 04000 VN Q a- _O m Z U) T OV 0C:) n W P V O N 0 25 Q vpp d o Q 3 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o C o o 0 0 o o t^D O I OJ o X= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q � O I CD d Q 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ci I c 22 X mo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q c 0 I n p d m o X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q c 0 Ln p d m o g x <O 0000C) N-0MNOO—N-0000000 "T (D Q d —6 O co CD O N V p o M d d a x 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Q C O I � � N N O d d o g j� a 0000000000 0000000 0000 M� Q d Cl) Q° o o� o� M fA c � ex y O _ OOOON qU.)�� to a* V —O co O 00 CA MOOD 00 Q 0- E QF �-�- r� o 2 0 Cn O N0 co a N 65 C V7 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0--N O O - ON OONOOO OO -V Q 0_ 3 O I N N C N m O O .0-0 66 co d N C C N a) d X C _ _ _ r O N N N CA LO O r- CT M CA N N IT 00 M 00 CD M o 00 O Q 0_ Q J N N M M M M b M Cn N N .- V Oj CD M `n 04 o o N CN __ a)g 7 N -C Q 'a N M CD N V C() - O CA O r I- O OO I- V co N I- OO I- 00 (n O c O O Q 0_ (0 � L R N LO 00 r- m N O C) N N V CO M N ti� Cl)I� O ry (p QZ�ea� V ~ �.- 0(0 o,- o g - c ° v �p��m o Cy O d M O .- O O O O N Cif O O � M M � N O I' O O O CO r d B'O ¢ O T N� O V o� zvwm Ow co ov~ H LL H ¢¢¢QQ¢¢¢QQ¢¢aaaaaaaa,aan.a Q ( y Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N H Ln p� N E d E V} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QN a a Oaw� +p� c�ie�iviriioi-ooaioT��e�ie�v�iiioi�eooi�� Qa Q> a> o -1 co 0 U U vi c 7 O U T co Q a r U J J N C 7 O U 7 0 W U D O co C:) 2 0) %z3 �S �� 20\ k0 mm2' "Tr oo§;z n LU � Q - Ya a 2x■o& CCD 0 | c■ kA �\$0 | � | to x o | o f0 ( ©� ¢2<\ «;co | LC) 0 2ƒ-\ ( $ �a § 22 ® E <r\j ( «f (/ \ 2f /� ��k� 06 CL &� ■ 2\ | §/ 2 Eq §\ r�� 7< No�° RF N §/ a Et<��p[�, /�\�° � ��§�o\ 0 0 � 2o�� ©� z�§ 0C)< E�I § < �� _ �a) E 0� uLU mac© . «Q [ IL qco G � § ) V- 0 ƒ p CO N LD N m 0 0 L1J N M Lo M ++ O O"To MW 0 00 N W ON I- O T" O M r NO LOW"T r r r O M W V N M Iq M I- A O V N T W V N r IA N M N M M M W� Lo O M N r 'T O 0 a w O� I� tl O LO N r r Zv d _O O w t O O O O O r O W) O N N O h 0 N Il- O CO) 0 Ch r CV O O Cl) L0 Q1 a tl m H O y r r r co (V p p p M o OWLliZ P U � c�i UIQ �0= 000000 o0000000rO00000000 r0 IZ cc O 0 A N d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 I 0) X& O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Oco O I .22 8 K m ¢ 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 `A 0 I 0 X.0 OOOOOOOo0000rr 0000000000 NO a- < C O C O to (3 N K J2 ¢ 3 O O O O O N Cl) r- Cl) 00 r r 00 r MLC) Lr) N to N O O N O T 00 N a 0_ 0 r 00 :: CO 00 V a N 41 d o X 0) 0 0 0 (DO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q C O I le U) O) ID o K 0 0 0 0 O O O g r r O O N N V- O r 0 C, O O O O Om Q c - Q C r0 C:) IT OV M O 1� O N 0 K O O r r 0 Ln 0 00 � OD O V T O "T Co M 0) Lr) t- N O 00 Q p. Q M r N r M N N M M M N r OD M CD co co 00 V N CO N t` Q L N d O O O O O O r M M M O r M r IA r N r 0 0 0 0 0 o O 01 a a CZ r r vo ppm ppm O N N Q d 3 O) L K C _ _ N N O r 0 Lo O W 0 r M V Lo M W M O W q Lo 00 0 w O a N 00 J r N LO t` CD o 0 M T M O M 0 M N r N O O N r N N� N 3 c ca w r- Q d Q tl) L CM c,)N Ln M O ,rn OD 0 N Lo M M N co00 0 o LIJ f- n o r- (=, N > N O>R !6 r'V O C4 Lr) 0 0) N 0 LO V) O CD Lf)M 0 r O N r r M r N r N N N M M M M N r r O 000 p N p (p 0) d U pM CO U) Z 0) V= N O 0 d 0 o 0 0 0 V 0 r 0 W O N r N [h O r 0 W tt O r r 0 0 MN o V r r r 0 o c0 0� � V W r h 02 :° ~< �LLN H Q¢ Q¢ a Q Q¢¢¢¢¢ a a a a a a a a a a. a s o c mm (D Q OOOOOOOOOOOOo0000000 00 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E N E U 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 d a 3 0 Lu Ma~ N N M tly !D 1l CO D7 0 T r N M W) CD h 00 w O d ¢ h 2 O O JUJU U) rr rr0a Q> a> o U O t(') N C N (D W N M (p r O ~ M �- m M � N 00 M w M M _N N O O O O O M O (D r Cn � O Cn N CO N V- CD O N N I� r- In r (D N N M M M M W� V Co �' N �- r `ct I- LO Q o p 0 o o r 0_ Lo p N o N r 0 \ Oom _ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N CO 1- N Cl) Nh (D I- (o M CO O N O f� aO CL m H 0 O W Z .- r r r r r C') N O n O WH U r UIQ Cl a 0 m o K= O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Q 3 p I tD o Qd 0c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O I (O d o K= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 Q 3 p I CO V d d o K:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O A Q o .22 x J2 O O O O O O r N- 0 0 0 N a 0 0 O r O O O O O 00 Q Q. ¢ 0 oo N O N L Q 00 X M 0 0 0 0 0— Cp V O M— I- V I- 00 00 M (O — O r N 0 CO r Q IL Q 3 (D o p p CO p o 0 V G to M x 0) 000000O0r 00 -Or 0000000000 M Q a. Q _C p 0 - Q 0_ X'& 0000C)0(D 0 V Cl) MOOrr OOOOO OM Nci o a CD M U) N d` � O O O O O CO N qq N OO 0 ( 0 (D (o o O N g O 0 Lf)� 00 � Q 0_ QM M N N N M N M N M N M r •- C) r O co p °- N tD O t` O V 0) J Q N o L N OOOOOOr CON V'NN M CO Nr 000OOO MO Q dM 00 3 O p CD pm p p m r N N in Q (D d X c �Orq'�YNNN000cMqT(oOON(oNO'd'MOr CON QN 2 dV -C Q O N V (o M r CO n O O M r 0 O M M V � � r r r N(V F p V O r p� O N J n V O N N 3 C Q � L y d to O N r W m M m O� m N co M I- V' r- O N M O W N O O M G Q rn G n- o .- M M CA r CO I� (D 00 N M d' N 6 I- co Cl) po o M O LO o M (� i[i u) Z _ O N Cy N O) O O O O O O O r N N CO N OO Co V LO r N 0 0 0 r o 0 CA LO F_"a3 0L)CXa (� ON 07 a0 co LLI _ U o_Q �¢¢Q¢¢QQQ¢QQQaaaaaaaaaaaa•-c (6 �+ O m� (oma c LL N _ H O o o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d F r N ¢o 0 UWP �NrNM� W Wr- MCD NM V Cf Wr-M01O� r r r r CEa 2i Q 2 d O 0 a. U U c O CL) m N c CD rn r O CL cu w >No (n m� 0 LU 04 M � t0 ++N— O Lo Co O co O M N O (o to (n M O T• Lf) r- O (o d- O M (o r N NN(n OO CO t - M —Oo v 00 C14 V t,- tl)o)00(n(n NNeT V MMMMMNN• -� VQ N V O p,a 2i tlr pp00 � T Z v ! BOO.+ = O 000000 OLf) 00MCD000NNCe) 0000 r — c- 0) C) OO Q d m OU N Z Ci p C7 p� O CO o �W� `—° o Ci O O to aE o o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o m� 0 I d o x O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢� o I to a K= ¢ = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o co o I d m X m ¢ 3 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 I A O cc Km 0o000000C) X0000000000 000 NO Q ¢ C 6 00 to 0 Q3 O o 0 0 N Iq M r-- M CO N (n IT h cM V' (o — 0 0— 0— r- (Co Q d 0 O r O O r O V r N 22 o x 2 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 CDC) ¢ C O I �H to to X'S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O .- N M O tV O 0 0— O N 0 0 0 0 o N � Q g o_ ¢ = C) ON M fn o d y X O N O N (o M N N N N N MN M o (T 0 < Q tl ¢ r r N In O 00 N rn 00 N N W Q o I_- d N 0000000— ONNOOOOOOOOOOOOO (n- Q 00 p 00 N � m O > to Q3 L jt CNt M O In to (o M 00 n V N O Oo 0 M Cn M0 On to M Q tl ¢ O coo OMOr �0W(n �M —.--- �6 F poO po oro N J N _ o N O N N 3 C Q d �1 '� _ CO f� Lf) - Cl) M CO CO N Cl) (n 14� t� Co 'T OO to M M o Lo Q r CZ t- o > is R .� N �- M 00 M '[t f` OO 00 CO n Ma0 (o M O 00 V' V' V'cy) N N N N N N (n O p r O a> V h- N — —— O M Cl) O N O 0('i N -CL) Z - -- -. 4(1) (D N O d 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) C) le 'T M M N N le ;T O O O t- Q (1 o¢ U O >. M O I 00 V p V U M v o oll OLL< E¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢aaaaaaCLMa.0 oc �� m _ I- N H O O o O o O o O O O o OZ O o o O O o Cl Cl o O O o � � C) W N N M r OJ M V N CO n 00 O1 O N N M r Lo W r- co cn Qa aQ;> cgU Nr O U _n r N C) m C'4 N m 0 M LLJ N Cl) 00 t0 0+-� O O O 0 O O C 0 (n � b O N O N O N r co O to N N r r U) 0 0 0 M W O M O M M N M f-- O V r r r N N N N N N N r N r N V N Q �;.� O N d LO 0 0 Cl N tV r Z r d o O O +.+ ."_' O O O O O O O O N O Cl n Cl) LO r r O 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r M Q n- O 0 0 y Z U) r O r q O o WLLj R C1 0 0 to o X= o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ¢ 3 p to _ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� I tD d o X O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q 7 O I (02 2.2 o K fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 I CO o A 0 xJ2 000000000000 �C 000 00000, Mr o ¢ 0 oo to 0 N III Q7 0 0 0 0 0— 00 1- r O N 'f t- L r (V O CO r r O r 0 0 V V) O 00 O N in O V o o 0 N d d o K O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 ¢ C O I X'5 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 N r r O 0 0 0 0 LO N 0_ C O I o N y N O O O O r N V V N N t0 M N N [O O 00 O r N 0 0 o 00 Q 00 d CO Qr r N r r r r r r (O L6 00 N t0 c�i m L G) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r O N r O r 0 0 0 0 0 M la - 7 V) p 00 N 0 m M Q a) 3 d 0 Q_ 0- L K C CO CO O O r N (0 O V 00 r M M W W N In 0 O (0 0 I- M N r r M cM W V M M V Cl) M r r (n V � r; O� O N N ¢ O N J O N O � 3 C Q y d �' w O O 00 0 LO M M 0 O O w M (O V m O� N r M r o M m Z Nr r NNOOOLnrmOl—�toM(OO(n(OMr r r r r ON o� Corn N A V H r r r r r N r _ cV :q U) - 0) N o N y w v Oo 00000NM Cr Cq 00N 0 0 0 0 MV L 0 No O� LO C�Cr � 0U.- C, a0 a v O__a EQQQQQQQQ¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaan.aaa oc ca a) cu c ~ LL N H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O0 N N Z Z,7 m CL Q V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T co Q U W N r N M Ln tD 1� O to O N r N M Ln t0 1� O t7) O d N 20 0 o� r Q C) U C .N+ C 0 O U zzJ� 7 25zO' 5 o. s U J J y C 7 O U Z, ca 0 C) N CC Nmo (OWN M (3) �� I- f- _O m 1- I- O e- r- V W Il- N I- M O V W IT 0 r- M f- �- �NNNNMCMMtff(Mvv(MN� I- M Q 0) CD00ooLO r d N i� Z at 26.!L- V 000ooMNMt-rl-L)cMMLO00I-TNo000I-O to N r Lf) QD_ In j-- O N Z H r M 00 LO 00 N O W V r- N UIQ Cl00 m o 1(. OOOOOOOor C> 0 a 0000000000 M Q 0_ po w CP A W N d o K O O O O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q o I (O d Co Q 7 O O O O O O O O O O0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tv0 O I .22 x.0 ¢ o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o o O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 O I A 0 .2 -.0 .2 K.0 0 0 0 0 O O O r 0 0 0 0 0- O N - O O 0 0 0 0 (D Q a Q C O C) •- 00 N O r V a1 d 2i mi X M O O o r'q M LO N (n 'IT 'q O CO M M N r r O r N o 0 O) '�t0 to O 0� 00 V 0 00 N a) al K & 000OOo00.-040r 000r 00oOo0o0 o (f) 2 Q p, Q C O 00 N 0- 0 0 Cl) d m Q a X'& X 0 0 0 0 O O O N O �� M N � N � N .- r N 0 0 0 0 N V Q C N O � a Q N M N O N d K O O .-- O N O CO r O (n O (o O O N (O a0 0 0 O Q d ¢ M r r N N N M N M N M M N r f� r M O M N O c7 N t0 O O r iii Q o L d U) O O O O O O .- r M r r O N N M M N N O N o 0 0 0 0 F- Q d 3 r M O O O O 0 m O O a) (D r N � Q 3 d L x C _ M r- N M V M (D r O M N O N t0 N M R N 1- V M M (P) r N (n O r O a0 a0 M 0014, M_ Q D_ co 00 a) ¢ O r O N 0- 0 L7 ..- NJ N Cl (D Q Q).� a0 (D 't7 (o r M Oo to (n O N co oto t0 f- o) ao I- O N V CO r Q Ln d cc O E m _Mn �'" LO O) t0 00 Ln 00 O O tC) m U) 'T O) to V- M- - r N N N CO N M N N r O L6 O 0 O a> Za) a) O a) U) o a) p:w O .- O O O O t0 N W O N r r N CM 0 0 0 0 _ CD Q a � v d O W N N Z U f=LLN F-0o0o0000CDaC ° Q 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m f -A a) E a) E a) () LLJ t+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0~` O M ¢� a 7 d 7 oa� ��rNM�1At0haooO��rNM�h(O�aoO)O� Rd 2� 2� O JNU U) 0 Q a U c O 0 m R CD C a) m C 0 0- a) Y C) \/\ ® .. « 2 �\ = _ meq\ f n { mLf) P: 2■ Z U) ~ : 0 nwc § 25 0 C $ o §^ A§o\ � x ( co v < m C) ( $Cl \�&j | ©o dl mn\ | © 0 v� x «F ( \c77 X 04 «gym° Civ < . ; \ 2 | 0 §) _ \ \{ J�oCi \� F \ 7 �. ..� Go��■a , 0. co $ 0 0 C14 0 | /�LLI ■� § » o_§« E2r ? «■ [ ® a■ 3 q$u co 0(L p m N z to N C Nm O (O W N M (n ar O r O Y9 ti M Qa M tB (O M (O M .-- N N N N rO ("> M M M M N �- r- O O M p V O N O Cl) O it r � 0w d = OOOOOONNtOO(O'IT Iqtn1- OCl) NOO 0 \ 0 00N Q 0- U 0 N O O � LU V of v U Q Ci 00 to is = o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 ¢ o I d o w, X- O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 ¢� o I (O m Q 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 0 I .2 .2 c K.0 ¢ O 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O O I 0 d o X ,G O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O- O d O I to 0 K M ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M N-4 N IT CO O M (O N- M- O O O o O O O co o V CD 0 v pj N d lU o x a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Q s O I le to 0 jt x 0 0 0 0 O O O N- 0 0- -- W O N O O O O O O O (M M Q d Q E - p I p N C:, Lr) (� N o 0 r N tV d X= _ O O .-- � O 6) O O r ti r V 00 O (O (O (0 c0 N Mf0 c0 - o (O O) Q a_ d ¢ N N M N N M N N N N U)o M � (� O p o N O O N N Q U) 0 d 2 d O O O O O O - V O N O O N N N O O 0 0 0 0 (O V -Q M 3 `-O C:) 'It pON O m O r N N Q N K C N N O M M W I- M N O M (.O f� (O O m'T N V (A (O (D m (!) 1- OD I- ti r M N N DO n Q N a. t0 M N N J cO N 0 (O 0 00 O (n rn (vF- (DQ C Q My d '(p to M M N V (- N O) M M (- (.O (O M (- O (n O O (p �,.� )> i N (O M N W I- M O O M r M V N N O O O O > R m U H N N N N N 0 p r o N N � N O O N - O d O O O O O O o 0 0 N O N - q7 W (() N 0 0 0 0 O lh � Q d O Q'� O T N O N p m a U v O o 0 W Z J 02 < rL ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ +° w I-LL� I-0 a a a a a a a a a a a a O a, mm m Q 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d HN 0 N E (D E Q) U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ es a s 0 CM C4- i o Q Qjj aa o J((AU Nw U CL tsL 00 p NCG m (D W N Cl) co 0 to O 6 R� m O 17B m [B m a0 �D M e`7 a0 Kx Im N m 6L m M e9 V O ht I- w 0 w= 8 v h Re N (O O Cl) (D M r N r r N N N N M M M M M r r r M rpt Q O N a- 00 Cr') V r Z U d ! O O O o 0 0 r r N (M N r W O (O (O LO (n V N O O O O O N O Q a _O O U Z o -� W U U Q X= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ 5 O I d o X 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q I co d x o 0 o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o ¢ � O I t d d o X m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ¢ C O I (O 0 x M O o 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 Cl) Q 0- 0 O U)o O O 22 0 X M O O o 0 0 0 Cl) le N N r -q (n r I- V O O r r O r r 0 r- r Q a 0 ¢ 3 r r �� p O O O O V 0 d d K& O O O O O O O O0 O O r r r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M < Q a- a Q C_ O I O O e} U) N K O O O o 0 0 0 0 r N r r r M of r r M O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O Q a Q c N O Op N pp M fn c6 d O O O r O r- r V' W 0 N M (D 'a' O O to � M 0 M M M r N O Q CC) d Q r N N r N N N N N r M M M r M dj O O p (moi N CO 00 O 66 N J Q N o ` 2 -p do) 0 0 0 0 O O r M O N N O N V W V M 0 0 0 0 O O' O I r Q a Cl) Mp OV CD LO O m I r r > N Q N d o Q 'O 2 r o �- V M� O N M ti� M r- N M I-- � w (D r- N (O N (O V V W (O t-- I- r- O I- r- P- N N M r O O � Ci 00 (D a- O co N M d w ¢ O N J N o CD O (n co a) c Q N r (O r V (O r O N N N W V' N (O 0 N O M O (O N N O c M O Q o a M d .0 d` a0 r tD 00 (O (D I- O N M O N O D7 V' N w r r r r r r r N N N r r CO N� O o p M p N WE DUH --- -- a) N O d L h O d O O O O O O r O r O r O M W r M r O N 0 0 0 0 O o OO V< r0 cG a Cp oQ--� t+ V O•- O� FLO v io O v Q Q¢¢¢ Q¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a m c Q U H o 0 0 0 0 0o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O M a)a. j a) j Q) On y��(�irivuiWr-WM0=N�i�iirivW Wi,wMCp� Qa r Q� Q> a> o c c 0 U Z, Q CL t a 0 M Cl) t2 0 N O c 0 C a� rn r O ani Cc p m N N m 0 (O W N M (` IC +•+ OB O m O m M 8 lW (cq N 6] OR lg O 00 ® I� of CA CV ltl! to m N t` V q-7 W 00 It- M tam I-- M M LO O (fl 'tt - r N N N N N N N N N r r 00 00 M Q p r ON d M p N N r r Q0..,!t 00000rrrrOCl) V 00Cl) (0(0LONNOOrrO (nV Q IZ o0 Z � ov C)00 i W U N U�Q C'!0❑ m K= Q � o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o C> 0 0 0 o 0 o m� o I d o j0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q � O I d X. ¢ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O o O o O O O m � O I m m x 75 o 0 o o o o o o 0 o o o o O o o 0 o o C o o o O o o oCO ¢ 0 0 I A Q X o o O o O o o o o o o 0 o O o o o o O o o o 0 0 0 o ¢ 0 0 I 10 a _ d o K.0 ¢ 0 O O O O N N N M O N N o N Cl) 00 o M N- 0 0- 0 .- 'cT o Q a M O M O O CO O V Q I� N 0) d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 o O 0 0 O 0 0 Q c o I leU) K 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N r 0 0 r O 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- Q d Q C o I pN oN M N O O c0 ici L 02 2i x 11 LO 00 0 00 M M In O O O .- N M S (O N 00 N O (1) N r o QM d ¢ r r r r N N 00 N Lo O N N 1D 0) Q 'a to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N r o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I- N Q d M 7 O O N N v- O m O 0) N N > Q K C 0 1n O (O r 11) N 01 O M (O IO O O N S In O M V a a ¢ Cl) '7 10 00 (O to to LD In M N �- LO O O O 00 M N J I- N p L! 7 O N N o O (n O C QN (O O V' 0 O 00 00 (O N t` V O M o v (O M o M w O (f) I- 0 LO M < � a O> 2 O7 N O M (O f- (O (O 00 (O 00 M O (O �t N N_ r r .- O r CD 00 N _ U H N N ZN N o O N O d O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o r M .- 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 M Q O V 0 V p I M O M a C O W 0 v¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ Q `�-° LL H a a a a a a a a a a a a c O a� m(1) Q (� O O O O O 4D.0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d H co N E N E z } CiW� t+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~` coo a 7 d 7 E oa MNrCMM V 10 Or- 000OrNrNMle 10(Dt-00 W O r r r M ¢M O 2 O E .+r rn r r r oa Q> �> p -i U (D C C 0 O T 3 a n r N C 3 O W 3 0 W U w D O (n Nm In N m Or (O LLJ N M OD A 4a 0 m t9 oD !9 m m P9 (N fKl ltl! l� f� b lCl N f9 M ® M OV �7 ®f m 6f N r M V O M (O 1- Ln RI O (O co (� CO O LO �1' N r r r N N r r r r r r O Mr Cl) Q r O c- o - O Lo O N N r Z t R o c < ik O_ o —!t O N O O o 0 0 N o M r O M M O It O N N O O r O o Cl) 0 in 1-- O U O N Z U) Nr cCM 0 Ott 0 n LLI A (1 6 m Ufa C'1 0 0 m o x o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a � O (O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I (O N o X o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a � o I m � 2.2 o X � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ac 0 I (^0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N r ! a a O oo o 0 I N 0 0 0 0 0 CO N r O N N V Cl) O (t1 0 N N r 0 0 0 0 p Q 7 0 (V C (o O v. O O V a O N d 0 x K LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C O v N d d o Q k OOOOOOOOOOO�ONOOOr000000 �'NO 00 aN Q C I a M d1 o Q 0_ i N O O O O r M g V� r l�D M 0 M LO r O V O V V O r M '7 OD OO QC:) N N (p ct1 N Q y o 'p d OOOOOOOOONO0000000�00000 Mr Q 0_ M O I ON O O O 0 O m O j N a N d 0 o Q o_ a Q C _ M r O g M M O M T T T (D M q 0 r (D M LO r r O p O O O M N N J N cV o N CQ N 4f O N r� Lo r M N Lo M w m r N O r N OD P- M 00 r Ln I- 'q Q M 0_ rn > 2> ` lC r r r N (O f� r 0 `c1' M r N r N f� M N r r r r r r r r r 6 Ln CD O oo V N L: L"' O .- N _ �_ u N _ N O O O O O O O O r O 0 0 N r O r r O O r O 0 0 r c M M Q r O N O a f O T O OO oN d V v 06 LU _ Ova EQQQQQQQQQQQaaaaaaaaaaaaa oC mCIS � (ate c QU(j H00000CD0o0o00000000000040 O O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 prpi dna: O O T` M a N ~ N r' N M V W (O N W M O T N N M-0 (O W h M M Cl T Q a Q a > O O LL v JNU fn a N N (U m C) O CL aD Of 000 "y 2 N m r0 M LU CNO �CflmBfm ++r m[9 (AOm�_m Ncc mem OlJlB to rfl W m®m —IST 0 CfM � �et� W) 0 go Ned M O r to M r r r r r N N N N N N M M N r r v 0 M Q ON O N �O p cli r o t20• Mr 0000 N tp N to N(M('M M M le r CO N O N 000 VN Q a- m mH OUujZ O N �r 0 �n 0 0 v 0 n w U ri UIQ Ci 0 a y o X O O O O O O O O r O r O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M r Q a to O 0� o{ A oo N d O X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q � O I t0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 3 O I 22 x m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q C O I A 0 y o X M O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Co r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O r 0 d Q C O I o0 Ln 0 N XM ¢ 3 OOOOOrO NNrM V MOMr00rr0000 N(D Q d O N ci 00 V 00 M W) O N d d o Xt s 000000000000000000000000 00 Q =_ O I d d c Q Ka O O O O O O O O O O M N r O N O r O r O 0 0 0 0 0 CO d Q C r 0 I 00 c o N M to O O fV X N r (N O CO 0) 1;T V In N r tD M m O M (o r (D IT O N r O 0 N 0 Q d Q r N r N N tV N r N N N V) r r r N Oj Cl) o N O O ch N 40 O 0 N 0 'D d O O O O O O r M r r N O M M V ITr O O O O O O O M O Q d Cl) N p I p c") p V — O m O r O N N > cu Q N d 0 c Q "a X C r N to N (O M N (o (D O r (0 M N M U) I- O O to m Cl) V r N M� M (o W (D 0 M W 0 f- (D M N r Cl) (0 O - d N 0 N ¢ O N 00N OO CD 00 M NJ O U) _ N a) N (DQ 'a � H! 00 to M I� N M 07 0 O u'� N O O 00 O Q d LO O> i m lE N (0 O M M V to (D (0 1- r 00 m O r M r r r r r r r N r r r O) o O O CL aU� (`�(D �- N v _ U) Z _ �� cy N� U) d O Or O 0000000rONN 0 tDOr00000 -e Cl)V' Q d oFL U 0 v r o t o C) 0 O W N v Ov¢ �¢¢¢¢¢¢¢Q¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaaaaaa`Y°c H O w cc F-LLtj Q 0(D0000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Hq 0) N E CD E a U U W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ N V N W M O 0 0 Q a a: O E OJU r N M h W r N r N M 1p �O n OD 01 O r rrr l9 d M 02 U lnr rr Da Q> a> U c C: 7 U Z, cc Q L N C O U cc 7 a 7 C O U tNA m U N U C 0 0 U CD 0 H r 0 n 2 6 (L) a F mLO N m C\l (O W Cl) � U O H vii (D z 02 o �*0 ., _ NN m P- 2 O y O N 0 uLU e—yp N UwLn U ao� d o ox o< o i co W Q df a+ a� O p i _d o xC) Q � o i cvo 2 d d o xaoo Q O C A d o 2 Q 3 O W) C3 O m m o t O Q 3 O W,O O m m o x c o i Iq W X 0) Q C L O i M U1 K 0 M N Q to o -2 d p-) un O i Cl) 7 O m NN Q N d tm a x c Q o c)coN M N N Cl) O(n a)� O >Q > N (0 a c� CO cD F�- d d U ~ O Z m0 Ha �-a_ w w o Lo o 0 v i E V 0 LU d 2J H 0 U Q E O C N U W} -O w c d O tD Q M E a. E U -iu U U)0 a Appendix 6 Traffic Speed Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc. c c O cc m a a U J J N C 0 O U T cu m 0 2 n- 0 0 M M Ln N N O C CD CD m c N CT r Ca CD m p �- r- N O n O(0 M O _ O o (O (O OO N N N M� OO to N _ N m O E a 0 M V M M CO to M (O CO V N I- M Z itO OOOOLoLn00Ln00 CV CV MNMNM N N N N N r N N N0 m H O W- O.� - - - - - r - - - - - - - - -Ln (C0.0to0m(o----(o6CN66'I(DO CD U � Q Cion (0 N N N O m N O� N O N P rY r r Lo V O LO 0 V m Q � �+ CV LO CO (O CO OD C1 M O O � O I- AT N M o m a O � o N o 2A 07 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl_ !gyp O O o� o LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I h C; o W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 C)O I n o rLp 000000000000000000000000 00 m m 6 tOn too 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lt C; D 1 r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IOCD LO p O 1! o o 0 0000 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I U)p C v Ld O 0 U) o � r.LO 000000000000000000000000 0o (nU) C: O E 0 (pp O O O Or 00000000 O O o 00 o 00000 Q (n p M O o ob a v NO r N O O o 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 (N N Q d. M M O o o CfU LO � 0.0 0 C� (pp OO ONcM N O O OON000000 (DO CU N M CN N o oN 3 Q m c o ' L 'FUr p O o N 00 CM CA O V V O V O d' 00 CA O OO O r (O O N N O jNN NM- - - r - N- V00 r 0 9 o0 C L Q Q Z (o p O o O V 0 r Iq n Ln r N O O OO (O r (O (A (V) N m O Q r n - C -a r N r M N� 'c7 C M N Ln Cl) R N M to Qj g v oo 'm Z N M o n 20 N o— G -0 O- 0 0 0 O O COM N ti r- (O (n 00 r r- LO 'q C) ';t M N O �- ti F a O Q �' r r N N N M M tO CO Ln L!) lU')M M N in o Cr'> oocc Z U � — - - 0 .. O_Q �¢¢¢¢¢Q¢¢¢¢Q¢ao.aaa.aaan.aaa �c m0 m0 c I-- F O O D 000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V �N a j a j O O O m0 M ¢r mCM, NM V LOWr-000AO�C4rNM-* WWPn00MCl- a. Qi ai O Oa~ U -i fn c c O cc m a a U J J N C 0 O U T cu m 0 2 n- 0 0 M M Ln N N O C CD CD m c N CT r Ca CD 0 M fM U) O N O C O D Q) c6 CD c m rn C O CL CD Y d p o _ _ O N N N f� OO M O N LO M `7 o M M (n N LO � N E a. 3 = (D 0 M (D r (D (O to (o (D (D M N r m co Z M co � Z � t Q O 61 d O 0 to to 0 0 to 0 to O O o O O O O Ln In 117 In O In m H Rd N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M r' � � � ; N Q. a (n (O t0 (O (D (O CO (O (O (O N - CO (O (O (O (O O W r .- r r r r r r .-- r � r � �-- �- e- r r r N r U125¢ Cloo _ (0 r N N N I-- N O M w M w r V M O r co M -1;r O O O Q d +-' O N IT O (o f- O r' O O O Orr 0 (D N M N r O (per 0 00000000000000000000000 Oo I (7) O 0 0000000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �ti o I �� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rIf> 00 0000000000000000000000 0 0 mw 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W)m o I r M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n '0 0 I � CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 C a U p I 0 E o r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (n C O a) Ea) (D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 O ( > ? 0 I d C N N c o a) rLo oOO000OoOOOOoOOOOooOOOOO OO N M M O I dO ? c < CL C NM OOOOOt} MOO MOOOOr— —. -OrMN N(p o� CL oM N o > Q 6 _o CD c ONON��NeYNON-oN--O�r�'-Tt000M c g aon g ao0 ?2 NN r r r r r N� o o > O QZ o Q coo _ OONOMITt[)NN V NMNOONO((7ao V (nlnN (n' n O N r N •- M M'T � N9 (M CO M'q V (p V N .- o� Z (LOO Cl) _... u0i Lr- Q N 0 0 0Cl)Cl)0 0 ( (!1 O N (n V O 00 (o M to OD (n co 8-1 M N -) Q d C) 0 V V V' to W LO V m m V N U 6j o V o M o Q 111 02< H ¢aaan.aaa.a.aaaa.o c oar oar c — N ¢ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' a) E a) E a V Lu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 1n !� ¢ d a 3 E Q d r r M to 00 07 O r N ("7 Ln to � 00 CD O r N d r O O J (A U U) r r Qa. Q> �> O U 0 M fM U) O N O C O D Q) c6 CD c m rn C O CL CD Y c 0 0) N c a� m r CLC, CD Ir L d O O Q R _ O M O (O O H O t` O 'ct V M M O r O M 00 O (0 LO N L E N M m O '7 M V N r W _ N m O d = MCN Z C itO�d d 00 Lo U,(n(o(O(000MO (n (n (nln�� N N N LO V d m N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0W C a N (O w O (O 0 (D CO 0 0 0 111 r r r UIQ l0 f� O I- 0 O 0 w r I- M r (O O O'T r N 0 O 00 Co a d r O N o (00) 000000000000000000000000 00 n� o I r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C) nn o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (po 1 O rU) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I (o m o o W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 I (oo 0 rW) 00000000000000000000000000 W) N o o (p0 000000000000000000000000 00 I V W) o 0 U) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N (n C a) O c E C (pp 000000000000000000000000 00 I (n O M le O 06 0_ C °)M C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i C� t0p .- OrOO- -rM NNr r -NON -0000- NO aoc+, aoN N N M o 0 f�,SQ K M O I- M M I- Lf)a o (6 7 r 1N N N M M O O (O M I` Cl) to (N m 00 0) (0 00 N--- r r r N r r r r N N � N rn o N c t a) � Q o Q Z (p p N O M O N N O M O IA O (o CO 00 O (O M N r (0 M r 00 O o L o C O r N r N N U) "'t V V' M N M N M r r LO 06 V M o �f7 o 0"r ZZ �0wN U. O O V I� O M 0-1 O C5 1� ¢o d Q r b x 0 0 0 0 O r f� O 00 00 00 N M W N � N M N V (f1 to M V V N N r f� C5M w o Lo Lo oo � O ZU� O r o lL Z -i d rL w Ova E¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢a¢aaaaaa.o.aaaaaa o� a E mE H000000o0o0o00000000o0000 �0 �o o 0 QUA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L �n r Q 00_ L) LuO m N r N M V 1n to 1- 00 0) O N r N M V N (o n 00 C) o r r r r Q a r Q> CL> O d= U JrnU fn c 0 0) N c a� m r CLC, CD Ir m 76M N N a c 3 0 N 0 0 Q. O N G H N C 3 O U T 3 W U Of D O U) L. m p f- m N M M O) O N CO h O I- CA O O O O r OD VCb r O N r N d 3 M V' LO LO LO V (M LM LO LO M OD Z co co r � Z 4t O p a) y LO LO Lo LO Lo LD o LO LO LO LO LO o o LO o u) Ln o o o LO LO O LO m H N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N 0 (D (D (D (O (O (D (D (O (D (O (D (O (D (D (O CD (0 (O CO - CO (D CO W LL D. `Q N d A Cb N M M M M O M LO N w 0 M m 0 N LO LO LO OO - M < � O O r- O r- 0 LO (O 0 (D N LOp M p N F co o0 O oM N \ LpO � � OOOOOOO00000OOOOOOOOOOOO 00 I O V- W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� o I �W) 000000000000000000000000 00 to o I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to t o Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'e Ln o � \ W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N o I 0 E N o 00000000000000000000000000 o c O a) m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 <E o M I 06 a - C O a) r Cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O� OC) OOO M� a M M O I o � O � 7 c � � N M O o 0 o N- N Cl) N V' N ('V M N N 0 0 0 0 0 0) -,Zr N Q a' po (D j M o� 3¢ (L).5 Fu � Ln N - M N OD LO 00 O tT OO (D o Lo O L` cD O O N (o O a co LO Q d 0 a) N N - N- - - - -- N N po N o N c ¢ > O 3� ¢ Z (p O LO O N O N LO LO Q) 1- O M (f)-ItO) (M O O N N a cM (D Q 0) D p CD.�Z C N N M M V M N N M M coMN or) OV � o 0 (D -- CY -p LA I- co o 0 0 0 0 N 0 (M N N O f- I- LO M O O O O N c,4 o < ZU�r� a--NNMNr�--N�N Nr F- p¢ N oN 0 pM O LU N O r N 02��QQQQQQQQQ¢QQaao.a0-aaaaaaawc ~LLN C ma)m0c Q H O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0OOOOOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y H �"'M a) E a) E Q) 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O L Lo 0--2 d 3 o LLJ d r N M v Ln (D !- 00 Q) O r N M v Lp (O 00 01 O r 0 d Q O E J to U cn Q; O U N C 3 O U T 3 W U Of D O U) d Ma. _ _ _ _ M M (O M N r- O N MIT" Ll) N Il- O Cl) (O V N N LO C N 'qt w 0 v m to tt V 1l- 0 Il- In IT M N CN co C%j In N C Z co m N 4k O 0 d v In O M O Lo M Il) M Lo O m O m m to O M MLO Ln Lo o m N N M N M N N N N N N N N NCV (V N N N N N N N N m N IM H R y OWllld LnCON(DN(D(O(D(D(D�(D�(O(D(O�(DCO(DCO(O(D(D (� voo _ (C N U7 — In W CO O O W M W N O O W 'q r-- V M O (O 'IT O Q a in O N LO O f` r- m M m m O OO (O LO M— N rn o N o o V o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o IOn� � IA O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O I I� I� O o WC) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O0 O O O O I O � O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I to to O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. O O co O .-0 � p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Og 00 I Ili LO O Nto O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Olin o - c p Ip C=; I o `' o O D (no Oy r IT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I (n �� O c O O) c E c Ip p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I fn O M O od d cc OO c 2 O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N Q N M M O o C N O o � � 7 (p p O O- O N M l- M (M O (M O- O- -- b N N O O t` CO r O O N M M N o o o 0 j o 0) c '(p O O N O CN -,T I- N t0 LO 'IT N (O f- N OO (f) Cl) (V M 00 0) v o ('M Q (o a N 7 N N CO -q N N r N M N g v oo cv N cs O O Q Q Z Ip p O N V f� O N DD r W 1� O W N O O) OO V N M O M o 0) ao Oj o c'� o f6 Z c� M v wpm o2m Q b N O N O O Cl) Lo 00 M Ip 0 (O I- ti OO l- O V N In 0 0 (D CO O Q. - N Iq M L(5 V Cl) M to M N - M Z OCD Lli Z co OVQ ¢Q¢¢¢Q¢¢¢¢¢¢an.aaaan.aao.CL0- l0 r+ Y m Y ma) c 000000000000000000000000 d ~` Hp N : N � N ¢� [L 7 n- O E A e� N M le N CO t, CO M O� N CM IN(O ti 000)CD Qa Qi d> O Oui a. U J N U U) a1 Lo `) o—.0 U a, d ddd N N Ea G CN m 0) M C M N - -- ( U) M Z z c `a o 0H� A CL cfl a Q �Woa. �- r U Lo &n m C! D 00 N O o O W cfl I-- 0 0 a o to p r o 0 o 0 0 i) Oo o ti ►� 0 0 0 00 o {p p o 0 I �o n o 0 0 o, � LO 0 0 w 0 0 0 00 o {O O O o I M O O O O 00 0 � 0 0 0 �in 0 0 0 U) o o V) too o 0 I '� �% O O 0 0 E N 00 0 (A°� N �a o o 0 cnU) 00 C: - o a) E Q) o o <n o 0 00 ca d (D r o 0 W) M Cl) 7 0 o 0 I C a) 0 C C t0 0 N M M N 00 j N O Q C Cn r O o o (D 7 NN ACV CD rn C L Q > o� Q Z vo m C O co o r N N M co � L o 0 U N M co Z 0 Z L pUQ E o�w-. = c QUt�n �N U Wc o d E m Q U N U U) L) CL r N c 0 0 U cc Cl w C 0 O ca 7 Q Q t O a w N N C d m 0 O n a) w m � N E d r- MM " N M M M 0 LO 0 In t` O M R M N (cli 0 04 C zco LO �t O Q d y t.() � t() O V' to to to U) O 00 0 0 0 0 (n 0 (n U) to LO U') N N N N (V (V O m H 0y N N N N N N N (V (u N N cV cV N N N N N SZ (O Lf) (0 Lf) (D (D (0 (0 — N )w (n ---—r----—��r��.—�� Ufa cavo _ t0 N N O N 0 0 M IT O M r m 00 W M (o r 00 M O M Co to Q � ac0 +-' 004 r V'7r 000rONr 0OtoN r O o00 oN � o tp O n C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) 0 O 0 c) 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 .9- I O r 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00. t00 ti O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I t0 tD O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W) ( 00 O r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1p N O (n o CO p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Ole N O r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I flJCc! �� O N (n O N o E c W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Fn O M O Ca ts c N � o to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O I M M O C d O L a o� < 3 C tp p — — r 0 0 0 0 O O O M O O � � O � �- O � � N N � t` M Q O C N M o 0 > a m N cM 0 0 0— (n t.f) 00 CO O 00 O (D 00 00 Nt ti O N O) t` IT N to Lf) o o a m N� NN r r r r r r �Moo� r o C L W > p o Q <Z tp p O O N 00 O N r- NLf) N (0 0) r- to N (o O Cl) N r O V d � C a r N Cl) N N M M 'V' O V M r Qj o oo f6 Z (D Cl) M O Z o Q r O O N N O r tf) O V O M O M N aO N O O M Q tl O r r N M M 'cI to to tD to In to N r � o V oo cO Z 0 o r W_ Z J a) 2 2 2 m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2* 2 2 2 2 2 Ova ¢¢¢¢¢¢Q¢¢¢¢QaaaaaasLaaaaa to .. oc Y cc a) Y m� c I- LLtj F 000000 O O O O OO O O 0000000000 V ~a)) LO 0): N ¢ () O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ` O N Qr d 3 11 mNrNMIqtntor-000)O�NrNMVtator-00OO� r r Qa Qi �i O O Oa~ r r U w C 0 O ca 7 Q Q t O a w N N C d m 0 O n a) w z C C 3 O cc a a - CL L N C 7 O U m a c O D 0) R c m m C O n m Y m NCN _ _ -MOM r (f) (n r 0 CO O O O O N f- M V M I� O r 0 Z N d r M ('M ('M LO (n 0 V' (n I- r- r- M M cM V N r LO Z M CO r r 2 N COQ d 000Lo0Lo 0000000W Lo M0 N (V N (V N N N N (V N (V O N m IS 0 y N N r N N N N N N N N N (V D 6 - (O r (D (D (D r - " N r r (D CO (D W �r oL - r rrrrrrr UIQ aoo (p r M O"zr r (p ((') M O r I- O r- r- M N N O V' 0 I- CO M Q '4 +r O N V' V' CO O 00 M CO M N N M O (O 'IT O N r LOC o o M r r r r M 0 (OO n 000000000000000000000000 OO I O Rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P- n O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O I � (n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I \ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W) O O I �U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N b O I � (pp OOO000O00000000000000000 00 c O 0 I O E o (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ir N C c O EC: (O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl (n O ( O I c a r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O r N M M O oo C 0) o_ .2-0 d (D o 3O N M O Cl C) r r o 0 0 0 r N 0 0 r r N O 0 0 r O O r 00 a d r 0 o� o(v > M N (6 r N r N O r O O r- 00 O O) V' O 6) O O O (O V' O CO V V V' 6) Q a 0) 2 � N N r N o^ o - o o N r m > Oa Q Z CO p O r O N r ((y 6) O N O rn co (C) 0) O CO Cl) N M (O i- o (n O > Q 0 C Z N N N N N co co CN N V' V' 1f) M N N M In LO oo V o Lo �0 t~ CF ,g O 0 0 0 0 0 0 V' 00 00 (- h (n (O Cl) M 00 f- V' M N O O) (O N N N Q G-00 Z V iD D CO o VV O o (OQO W V o LL aaaaaaan.an.a.cL—r cm mai ~ Q H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O d M d E d E V O O O O O O O O O O O O~` M d d 7 E Oa~ ��N(h�1pt01roo01O��rNM V N(OhaoO)O� Qa ¢r ai O J(AU fn Qi U z C C 3 O cc a a - CL L N C 7 O U m a c O D 0) R c m m C O n m Y a L N C 0 O U T m C7 W U 7 0 M r c6 CD rn 0 0 CL m w L d 4) p .0 0 _ _ _ V M V M LO (0 O 'V Lf) I- O M M I` 0 M (0 r- M V 'V M N E r .- M M LO LO LO (0 LO V IT 'V CO r r r � LO a C (.oZNZ M 1- ik Qq Lo Lo Lo In LO N N N L7 0�0�r0rrO� OO N mF- N N N N N NNN N (V N N N N N N N N N N �0 Rd O �0r(DL(O0 (O DD-te.-r<°;;-cQiaN- r Wt —- a aoo (0 I- It 0 M 0 (D 'IT O V (0 N W O M (o M LO O V I- M O N K Q a- LO LO M M M O M O 0) OD 00 (0 Cl) N N N (0 0 Lo a CD o rn o rn L0 r N o to O) OO000000000000oo00000000 0o I h In O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, O O IrLr) \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I (co r- O r N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I to to O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I W) t0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl. 0 0 I W) N O \ DO O O O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O I o et N O o r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O Ln C O N o E c (0 0 O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Oa a N c - r < ¢ r N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 r I o 3 ... M M Ooo C N O � a7 WG -0- OOO-ON o.--oor-o0o00000 o 0)00 ¢oN CL ao O C N M O o 0 a)> Q W N M 'Fu r� M O N N V' N N I` Ln LO I- Q) 0) N M W) L() Il- o co Co Cl) Cl) (o O N0 0 n- N m N N r O o M % 0 O O ¢ Q Z to p N Cl) N r r 7 O OD M aD C0 V LO to tt M OD r M 0 O I- O 01 Cl) V dCD Qj �6 M o o V M Z (D r- 2 Q N e g ¢o Q '6_O O O o N LO V M h LO LO M V 00 I` M N M I-- I- W S M N r O r-Oj r 7 a OD oa Lo O r r N N 1 V V V TM o O Z Q N W Z J F 41 rL rL rL r2 'L r2 rL OVa �a¢¢aa¢aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa R a+ oc �C (ate Y CDS c H o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 o 0 o o o o o 0 o o o m F- N E d 7 m E 4 7 a v(j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~� ar 0 OLLJ + Cynic 14 Witot-00M0 C4� Mvliiwr-wm0 Qa Q j 2 o U JNU a L N C 0 O U T m C7 W U 7 0 M r c6 CD rn 0 0 CL m w O f6 N N a C 0 O 0) a 7 H 0 O CL CD 0 CL H L. d m CD 0 LO cr N N O 61 to O r M (D to tD CO C f� In 00 M r- N E d04 C14co Z O Z M 00 � Z � �t 2o 4) y 0 LO 0 0 0 O LO T M LO LO LO U) O V 0 0 LO LCA Lo O O Ln N N N LO m H ,, d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N OWllldN CD(D(D(D(fl�COLD(DCOCO(DN(D�Ln(D(D(D(D0 0(D 0 V ¢ O � � A N I- N N- N W M LO f- r M M00 m m N O 'tt M V < Q a +•+ N CO W LO m 00 00 I- � LO 0 M V N- 1- 00 o o a� `O r Lo O N co e' �0) 000000000000000000000000 00 o I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ago 0 0 0 0 0 �� o I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o mm 0 I CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o I ,t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �W) o � (pp 000000000000000000000000 00 I C 'Q to O O E °w �Lo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cc 00000 OOO 00 fn 'a O O N N ECO t0 p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cc, iZ O M '� O I � d C c �w �Lo O�ooOooOooOOooO000OooOOO.-� o� M M O I o C N aO o < c c0 Nm 0 0 0 O O N O O O O O N O O 14 N Cl O N O lO r --C a o N oo V Q � v N C (6 —LO V M— — — O V 'T Lf) 00 'TOO CD MSO (DN o V(D Q g 0_ 7 NN r r r r e- LOQ o� or o (D cC - >Q O > <z o Q d c : (p p (V O— O N (D 00 _ N N— V Cl) M CO Cl) N N — V V o N o 7 O �0 �: N �N-0000 VON le� V N00 �(M� OMO ON Q D_ ZU��-�NNMMtf oN 0v O W _5 -¢ a.a.aaaaaaaaaa�c C m� m� c p o O p p 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m � v E w E a or-MM0��i�irivwwt—wmCi ¢°D Owa� ��i�iM.1W �a g� g 0 o J(n0 N Q a U .O N N Q. U) 0 O C) a 7 H 0 0 a O m CL F C C 7 0 T 7 a CL L O Cl) M t[) N N O C O w m `m C: c 0 0 0 - CD 0Y L. m m 0 w M Mr00-"O 000 O M O O O M OONO t4 N O Z E d Z C r r N V M M t0 O (D N N M w r M CN d �t20 d �OOO O O O O O r N O O O O O O O O O O O O N M CV N N N N N N N N N fV N N N N N N N N N N O N m H d 7 O W 6.I d 0D (O N Cfl C4 (O (O (O N M (O CO CO (O (D (O (D (0 (O (O co �� r ULUa Ono _ A w r r N 00 (f) M w t-- M (O N V 00 q 00 00 O (f) (O Q � +r C r r M O W 00 t` O M O N r O O O N p uo 00 o N e- - r �- o O p r V o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E- O I r to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ti O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co �0 o r (p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� w o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N tOD O rLf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N LO O N \ 0 Ip O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O 14 N O V) r to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I C O 0) c E C 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO M -4 O 0d d C OO o O O O O O O O O r O O O O O O O O O O r r O �- M Q a M M O o o C 0) 0' CO O � CL c < C toO rO-OO OONOOrON�-- OrN OrNOO O(O oN aoLO 0) C N M o 0 j 6 '(p r M r N O O CO (O N O O r O M 00 t` (f) 00 `7 00 t- N (0 t` N, N CO a N Mol 0)2 �f� NN rr.-� rrr��rrr Nr por oo� V a o < j 0 O o //�� Q <Z WO r- O r O O Cl) O CO (D CA a* M 00 O CO CM O M N O 1--p 0) a m N W q M N M M N M M (f) (C) 1if V N r CV (nom o c) oo Lo CoZA) N M Q N o Q a. O a r r O O O O N M 00 (O t` M 00 r 0 r- N M 00 00 CO 0 0 0 r M M V to Cl) Cl) (f) t7 Cl) r (O 00 Li) r o o M oo O Z 0 col -- ------ o W ova E Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q¢¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a w c co co w E=LL~ H0O00000OOOO00000O00000OO m H �tO a� E � Q V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T ` o N ar a O 0- 7 O E L) UJ ANrNMI(otot`0CAo r NrNMv Wtot`000)Or rrr rr 4) O Q> d> rZ 0ILU �r oa U L C C 7 0 T 7 a CL L O Cl) M t[) N N O C O w m `m C: c 0 0 0 - CD 0Y r 0 rL (D `0 W CD ` a' � _ I-- _ NCC N ON CQ. N M O M NCO In cNOZo M Z_ d @ G> U - - 6 O O1 m V d d M ¢ W o d a � n (n L U Ln CY ❑ — N U O0 f; O C O d W H Q O o 0 cp O n O 0 O 0 0 00 0 Lf) 0 0 0 00 0 co 0 0 0 o ►� 0 0 0 00 0 LO 0 0 ca co 0 0 0 00 0 ca 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 �W)o o Lr) Lr) 0 0 I 0 c 0 fD O O O C V% O O O O E O o 0 o r In er O O O In O C � O O E O O c C (� O wO M O O O O I d O N r 117 f J M O O O I N C N O O c o t C C COO rN O O N N Cl) Qj I O 3 Q' c v 0 0 � (6 N r In N N � N I� 7 2 V 06 C L t! Q � a) Z(C)LO 0 0 ..-.-... .: C N N O V o0 t6 Z N V 0 a> o 0 0 0 Z V 0 LLJ z f- pUQ E_Ocw c c ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ O Q) -j (n 0 N (D L) U N C: 0 U T 7 CJ A 0 0) CL M C 3 O U N 7 H 0 0 CL d O 0) a F CL L N C 0 O U 2-1 ui U D O cn a 0 M LO N N O 0 N N c CD m V- 0 CL CD w L4) p d U N N CO CO 00 M O M O CO N IT 00 (- N O) O(0 M O O N N LO Cl) 00 (O O N V V V NON 00 Cl) 00 CO N O N a r e r r r •- N � N � r O C iDWLOZ itOQd y V (n00(n (o00(n000000(nOOOOOOOO M M M M M O M m H R N M M M M M M N M M M M M M N M M M M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i OW a N N N N W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U 2 Q C'J ❑ D _ l� N M M q"t M "T t0 00 00 00 Lo 00 O O M O� O M� N r M� � Q c0 � d 0 ++ LD O O M W [h 1- M M r N I- r W O (O M N M N N N �- p- N LO r N o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I in o rLf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I r- r- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 I ((D0 o rW) 000000000000000000000000100 I (o m 0 0 `W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I (00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I LI) � o o ori 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v ( o o � r b O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Q �T O oN v o � � (0O OOOo00r000-00-0C) ANO — ONO OM Q ate, M r 0 0 o Q 0 d L r N O O O N M r I- � M� 00 00 (O (f) N I-- 00 (`M LO (O Cl N (M O M (o'M Q cn 00 MM n v F 0 O Q O) O — — r 0000 CONNf-Mr- r r-0000O(nN V r- o (D 'q F- ao0) 2P ac, N M — In N M 07 W r (f) N LO N0 Lf) IT Cl) r h O Cl) o Ln o L .. 80- 0) o Q O (n r N N N r r O— N 07 W f- V Mr- q O g W N 0 IT r- M o a 04 Oo N y N N N Cl) 00 (O 00 (O 07 W (- N O O O M V N r r r Ci 00) 3 04 N c O o < N a W p O 0 0 0 M N 00 M M M N r- 0 Ln Q a_ _- r N r r 0 0 mO m o OOOOOr0�00)N 00 I- ��00 OOD (O V N� OO NO Qr d� OQ�r� r `- N I� 0 0 d 0 r N W Z J F _ U o_ Q E¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ n. a a a a a a a a a a a w c Y m a) YQ). m( c LL H H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d H` � : � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coh Q a 7 a 6 M r N M It LO (O h 00 W Cl N r N M le In CO (- CO 0) O Q a N Q> a> O O a~ r U J (n U (n CL L N C 0 O U 2-1 ui U D O cn a 0 M LO N N O 0 N N c CD m V- 0 CL CD w L. 4) r p CD m 0 t- CM N I- O TOM (D ON r CO IT M Co I- M Imo- O W M N O N �d M00I-��MMIqMN(Dh000(ovN- 0 C\lco N r r r r r r N 3 0 LUM Z . O �tO U O d y (o000N OO Co OG 0000(n000000000 O mF M ' MN MN (NM OWHdO. D - M 0----�o N NM U 5 Q Cioo A M N CO O N O m M r- r- O M O 00 Lo N w (O I- (o (o m r QCn 2P D- O r� M M 0 N(n(D r- 0 N ON N N N 00 Lo M r r - - CD o M o N o N r o ^ n tD� CD OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGO000 00 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 n ti O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 coll- O I o r N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O I CO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 � O O I r CA O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O O I c rLt) O O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q d I 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 .-- 0 r r O CO N d C.) � oo� a) N 1 Q 0 a a L r0 O0Gr(0() 0(D M Nr 0 04 Lf) r I-- CO N sf C14 C) (nI- M oo� MeV) r r r r O(,.j C) O O N > N COO O It (O 00 (o N 00 (n CA N M ;TO rD N M O C,) N I- O O N Q d Q N M - M LOMWMM-;t N (D W (fl r CO N N- (D 7- 00 o � N O (n in r CA N N C) N M Cl) CD O O (O Cn r- CD 00 N 67 (A Cn N N Cn O CD 00 (O r M (D to f- 0 0 0 N V M N r (o N M Q O CL N .r-- a� o < N 'a t0 O 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 01 O f- 0 M Nt CO (O 0 0 Cl) Co Co N r 0 r N CD N M ® oo (D oo cn U) C') N n N W _O CY c C~ ;2 r N O O O r O O p N Cn r (0 00 I-- M 00 r- � N N N 0 0 0 (D Q� (1-10 .0 e r n M r r 00 6 �� '•� N ~ Z OW � �Q¢QQQaaQaQQaaaaan.aaaaaaa C L L L L L L L L L L C C L G G G L L C L L L C C � O -a j H C cu co Q U r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m E m E D_ O W o N r N M V W CD h 00 M O r N r N C'9 V w CD � 00 0) O r r r CT0 d Q N O O -i U) N r r r r Da Q> a> O) Ln Ln (O O O Ln O 0 O) O L() O (() O O N C r N M (D - 0 O— M L() M M M M M V r 0 I� M M N r G G d C — i rc-r rr� 000 (OW(VZ M 1� .. r d ik O d U O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M m M M M M M M M M m co M co M c cM M M cM M 0 M m H 4) M co co M OW H d (, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q' d O O !� _ _ N 000 ON :0) IT OOOr Mm w 000 00 OO V 00 O Qco 2i a 00 M M N r O O (O o M M W LO ,.t N— N N N N W o N N LO r N O o N (pO 000000000000000000000000 OO P � O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i r- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I CLOD ti o ran 000000000000000000000000 00 I m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO to o 0 rLn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c:) Ln Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I � Lpn o r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a 0- av o 0 oa 20 Wp O 000 •-N OOOr0000 00 Nlf) oN a N o_ o� o � iE L_ rLn x'-0000 cM N'7 MOW 00 N O� V O 1 -M 0r N(O a Cj 00 M M r r r r N o oo O 0 N Q0) (O O (O M N Ln 1- 1- Ln 1- 'IT r M Cl) O) "T O N 1- N (O 00 LO 1. 00) 0 co 3 N M — r M L() M W O In r M (O C M N N r o o L M O N O ¢0 ao O N r Ln M M r O O Ln M Ln V P. 00 M (O (O O 1- Cl) Ln O LA 1- LO Ln 1` 00 N N N N CO 6) a) 00 1-- 00 P- 00 1` (O V N N r 0 0) 0 00 Q O D_ 0— 000 O O •-- eM (V N M (V CO N _ Ln IT 0) LO (O M r oo co N a CD N CN N r 00 oo Z w O N 0 0) COQ-rp OOOo000 M Ln OOOr Ln MO0 MM -00 �M C Q 0- r `� M (` op o a 0. - LU _ L) O_¢ aaaaaaaaaaaa w .. c O Lu (D m m c H LL~ H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 d H 00 N N Q) Ln �00 ¢N �NrNMst LOW hOMONr NM -4N LO t- CO CI O �� ca. Qi a> O Od� CJ J (n U (n 20 ccN N n C 0 O O H r CL d 0 C FT O M M N N N O C: 0 �o m m CD C 0) m 0 0 CL a� L d d mu O r- M 'V (0 f0 M to M M M 00 M to O O t7 11) N LO cc �- N� t0 O 1- O O O 1- 0 v N N V WN G a Z r r co co ikO v d y 0-0-00000000000000000000 LU a fn N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U W Q coy 23 (6 _ M O M (o 1- Low O t` N N N M (0 f� a0 N M O ao O W- O - N (0 M N M W (M O O) 0 to M M T T T � T T N o M o L p � p N (p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O T o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 r - o I W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 Ln (oo 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDC) W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 vLa o I T o T o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 r a vv o o� N O X000000 -ON-O-C4 CD 000NO0- MO Q d M po N o N 0 N > of Q o Q L , O N O O O O O N (o � 1P o (o (0 00 (0 00 N CO M �t �O (M N (0 P- O(6 ooh d OD MM T o� 0 0 O o N N o Q > 0) Q 3 N M q Cl) N M Iq O N OO i- (O 0) 1- V' 00 M 00 (o (o N r r N 11 (`M M W LO M (o ('M M (n oo V a N m� LO o M o a) O (n I ao ao T (A -T (o - 'T V- - (0 N 00 0 00 -0 1,- IT (O (n Cl) 00 (o O O (0 M O) W 7 r !A (D N N - N�� N r- (n VM � M (o N O N c:> 'n p I - 3 � N >Q Q7 > Na (pO X00000000) 0000 Mt0 V O COON000— r -O W 1 -CO < Q 0_ 'OTN r N N .- r M O) Fo0 p N oM p N ZN V= C�"a OU U) O O O O O O O O O o� M M N N WN�� 0000 ODI- Q a MN W O_Q¢¢¢Q¢Q¢¢¢¢QQaaaaaaaaaaaa ave H 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C14 a s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nii•iviriicr-oocioT��iqeViauiicr�cocio� QT Oaw� a� Qa Q> a> o J N U U O M M N N N O C: 0 �o m m CD C 0) m 0 0 CL a� co C 0 Q d t N C 7 O U T m 7 0 a 0 M co LO N N O c CD 2 CD c a) m C) O CL a) m m _ _ _ _ M N O tb M N}' M N V M 00 O0 a0 O r r O N 1D Ea 0 M `-vOONOONM�OO Ln��MOLnN� N �� 00 co N C N cocli co Z O # 2 O V N M M M M M M M M co OM M M N OM OCM M M M M M M a CV COM MO 10 N N OW (0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N FW - Q' (0 Lo CO LO I- Lo CO 00 r OD LO LO N LO N00 N ON r O N M < _ Q � a ++ O LO CA Cl LO N -q-Ln t� Ln CO CO00 r OD (O M N LO M - - - - -- N - N N N I� om o M - oM o N N I� N 0 00 �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i �� o o 0 0 Cl0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� o o �,o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to () o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) w (:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ww o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La (5 o �,oo 0 o 0 O � o O O o 0 O o o 0 0 0 O o o O O o o- o a o Cl top OOOOOCD C, C) 00 000 00 MM Q ao� M IT O o o N N L , p O N N N N f� to to 00 N lf) I- In f� (O I� O d' V M N N M Q In CL r� O > O) CO p O N N CO O It V Ln � M r` Ln Ln M 00 LO O> (A '7 V CA (fl o V M 2b 2 Q 3 N M N (O M Cl) Cl) Iq (D Ln M LO � 00 11") M N 00 O M o(C) o a0 L n v _ � N � LA N N CO f� O LO CO M co N M 0 Lf)M NOM o O N Q� N N N � N � 00 In � OO I— CD O fA 01 M OD O M � � M M W � (h oo � 0 M oo p� a N d Co p r O 0 0 N r CO N LO V N V (D r OD CO N 00 Ln N O O 1- 0) -tz-p - CV CM V .d: o o rn Vi Zl� NOcr, c o Q� a 'a u) N O O O O O �� N N 1- IT M CO 40 f- O� (O M 0 0 0 C) IT � 0 r 1� o 0 Q -Q r N W Oce¢ E¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaaaaaa=°c G o� a� c H ~ r O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 o O CU ~ M ¢ V N o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o ti 7 G. H N M le W W 1- O M 0 r N M W W 1- 00 M O Q d Q N Q d> U O rte+ J to U N co C 0 Q d t N C 7 O U T m 7 0 a 0 M co LO N N O c CD 2 CD c a) m C) O CL a) r O CL 2 `o d a H o iA(v L. OC) aaa N NE d N m O) 7= co co N N co cnN N N (0 W M Z d d d U Z O c ` 'o O ak0 . 4)y 0F.iO A a a Q nUJCN N U Lo d 00— c N U O r CO C 10 0 N W � Q cc m 0 0 o o 0 cn 0 0 I O O o c � 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 00 0 c0 O o 0 0 1-- 0 0 O 00 o � 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 I 0 oa o 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 C. -I-0 � {n O O I O O O o O O o o t0 O O O I O o o r 1O •- O I O 0) e o I NO Q Lt pp" r O M L � 4 m O > N Q 3 N M - N Lo N 0 O) L �o M 0) O � O No C)W 0 U)10 in N r NN UM V N N 3 c t0 a)o o � a eo O � c0 c0 O U) Z N N r 00 r N O a Lo o 0 m Ur a 101 1 l O J W Z F- OVQ E Orw= c t' C d d Ci LU Oaf�a E a QN E o a N N CZ U) C 0 0 a 0 0 CL O N CL F O Cl) M N N O 0 0 2 N m 0 O (1 a� Of L. m N (0 (fl r r N M C0 N M r r CO O N CO M M M CO M" O in N Q, _ r co O OD M M M 00 (A C1t d' O CO V N r r r r r r r N N r r N CV N m O M�CNZ C N r _O V O d d M N M M O M 0 in 0 0 0 0 O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M f- a � � � � C? � M � CM M M M � M � M M CM M CM CM M � M 0 W W a� N N r r N N N r N N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N U W Q dO� _ !0 000 C0 r r M M N N OO M r CA CAr O W M00 CO r -V r QN a CO +� 0 r r- O M CO CO O W (0 N V 00 r` r (b Cn N r N N N N N N r r 70 o r- o�N r r r r r N o N r o � o 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I r,n 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I r- r, o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mti o U)o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I CO CO o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I uoi eov o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 I to W) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I IT U) o o � 000000.-00000000000000000 ro a It IV o o� o 2 O O O O r r O O— r r O O N r r r N 0 0 0 0 r r Cn Q a N M r 0 0 o (U o � < ao L r Cn N O O O O M 00 M CO ti V O LO 14" r N r M m r M N N 0 O d 4;5 M M r r r N r' r N M N r r N 6 e o o o M u O > N �YMOOrO �'N(0Q>NOgMMM(OMr-qMM o �C0 < a 00 a� Q COO N M N M CO r- M f` 00 O V' n V 10 r- (0 M M r V o F oo - O3 oCO 2< vM N N N NrM N N CV CO CD N N M O N O aN oo ;Tj, r IT (O M M W CD M O Cl) Cl) — .q: 00 00 N pN o < 0- O a t0 O r 0 0 0 O O 00 CO M O N— N M M N CO r N N O N 6 0 o� N r r r N 00 Z (U N a� O m o U. OQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mt 7(0 N O M CO 00 Iq M(0 OONOO `- MO 00 M QM d00 o a O r r o r N W _ OVQ EQ¢¢Q¢¢¢QQ¢¢¢aaaaaaaaan.a cow m� c F p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d H r °' Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co Q a� 0 a E LUeq~ j N Cl) .9tO C t W) to !- 00 (D r N M -e Ln CO r- CO 0) O a O N Q a i O O a .i r U J in U c O Cl) M N N O 0 0 2 N m 0 O (1 a� Of 0 CL d) 0 m CL F n t N C 7 O U T cc 7 0 W U Of D O U) Cl) N N O O S f6 a� W rn 0 0 CL CD L C) N M OO N O M r O V O O O O O N CD �j� r E d M r N 0 0 N M M O N N N O O Co O M N �� r M N (No>NZ = M CD r r 0 OCOCo 000000000(o00000O000 O m H a M N M M (h M M M M M M M M M M C? C? (? � M C? 0 W a N r N N— N N N N N N— N N N N N N N N N N U � Q Cion i Co CD r CO N O M h to CD M N CD r- r- M M 0 00 CO O' t Q r 2P Ci r` 4� 0 r Co O O Co (O r` r V V 00 Co O O 0 r V M M — — — — — —NNNN r r` 00 0o o00 N o (M r o N V \ (p0) r 000000000000000000000000 00 O I pOj \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n� o I \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD� o I r (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 to to p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O I \ r(L1 000000000000000000000000 00 O O O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � O I c r (A O O O O r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O Q I o v Q t0 O 00000-0-0 N NpOOCl) Or OOOr VCoo a th le N p M 0 Q o Q L r (A 0 0 N0 O o0 O N V' O V et r- V r- r- Co N (o V (n co O O o 0 d r N r .- N .- �- r- Cn o N o N > a) Q 3 tpO NMrOOMM V OONOMMOMC100(D NO Co t- M U) V V r 00 00 O N O� Q a- CF) N N M r (D V r- CD V� N r� o o 00 � U) � r to NN N M O N CD r M N Co 00 to (o CO CD V O (n V t` 0) N C!) LO LO (n (o 00 N 0 0 W M— M r� r r O O C:5 Q o N a co o N r r < CL d. tp O 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo DD Cl) V Cl) M n V M N (D Cl) M N r Lr) V' Co Qm Ci a Z D r N 00 r r tt) .- r V c N 0 co r Uo Lr) N CY O 0 d c ;ON OU 0 Co 0 0 O O O Cl V M g O M V r r O M— N 0 0o V' ( Q p err CL r r r C'4 ooh oo.- W r N Z O C G L L L L C L G f-�y Q H 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) G a) E a-: a) E CL a) V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢N E 0CL +��t�i(�iv�iiicr�000ior��e�ie�ivuiio�cooio� Qa Q 0 a 0 o -iNU N () n t N C 7 O U T cc 7 0 W U Of D O U) Cl) N N O O S f6 a� W rn 0 0 CL CD C; w C: 7 U 6 a U J J N C 7 O U Ci W U D O U) p m .O _ O) N ti N r CO — d7 0 to Of- O N O N M to t) N — -- T M (C) M " 0 M M N (O O 00 to M N N m> (0 C14 EC14 d = ------- r co t` Ud d ik O 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (f) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O M m R d N O N N W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U � Q aoo 1p M OD N OD N M CO O (O 00 O N N ao m N Lo O (O M N O Lo Q co d On •+ — r r N 0 �' M M r- r- r M 0"T N O (O g M M M om o CO a (O O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P CK O I Lr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co. I n o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w r o �W) 00000000000000000000000000 to m 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO CO 0 ff o in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i to N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OC) I V N O o > > Lr) O O O O 0 0 T- 0 0 0 O O — N O— 0 0 0— O O O O O Cl) Q a N O (Op 000000-0 V st tO 0-0-----ONO0N IT— N o� aN e7 — o 0 0) o Q o L r to — N — N O r t* CO 0 I -T to (p LO t() 0 N N O O 00 00 to 00 'IT CO Op M M N— N N— N N— N— —— N N r o N of o N O ` > c a-0 0) (p p O0 qT M 0 (0 00 CY) to N N M OO M (V 00 0 0 0 — LO 'Ir — 00 — 00 00 O Q 3 N M — N 00 O 0 aD 00 aO 0 M IT M N— N r O) O o ... O o i3 .. N N c O M ao a N r to 'tt M M r O M OO N Lo Cl) t,- O 0 r- LO W N N (O (O r N r ' F7 OD (o N N N — M M to N (n IT to �t (0 LO CO V r r— O o L o (o 3 (D p c Q iE N a CO p O O O O O— 0 O r- M V 00 r 00 r r- M 0 r (n -�r N— O OO Ln0 rM n. .tz"aN r r �� o� U) Z (y N m0 OO Q-0 N O O O O O O r r m 0 CO LO (O N V M— N N Cl) O O O r LO to � a oo (oa N r LO CV o a U O o W OVQ aaaaaaaaan.aa.-c m4) m42) c HLL�j 1- 00 000oop0000400000000 000aa) E (D E Q) Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ N Q a s = 75 E N N M tp t0 I- 00 T O= N r N M t(> Wf� O Q1 O r r Q a N Q i a> O O a +�+ r U J to U N C; w C: 7 U 6 a U J J N C 7 O U Ci W U D O U) L � d M M CO O Cb V (D 0 In 't O LO ;T � (V E C14 N d Z C M CO MOM MNOOO�N,�OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM O m H R O i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i WW d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U � Q Cines A CD N (D (D N O LO CO Iq CT CO O M O O M 0 0 0 (M IT (D O P- M Q a M ++ N N S CO CO O 14 CO N O r 0 I-- IT CO N m o v LO o CpO n O 000000000000000000000000 00 I 07 O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- C5 I \ 0 0 0 Cl0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO r- O I �LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 (O p I \ CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O I \ �Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA p I � CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � O I Q -00 C4 LO 'q �-00 04 V'0 (Dao a M��0000�-0�- N� oo� ooLO (li N N Q O ¢_ L, (p M— N— O O M O V CO Il- O n r CA O tl- N O CA Cl) O r- (D h a 00 M C.) .- r .- (D o o 0 O o > N 0 Q a Q� (0 p CO (P O M 0 0 CO O Of O N O (D CO N N O O Cl) M M � N� M M CO h O CO � r N M O �� N N � CA DjF O oo oo 00 D Cn 0 Q — C[1 Cl)CV O N O CO Cl)O W COt` (D � 0 00 Cl)N (A O N CV a 00 in N N M Cl) N V' N M M N 04 CA o M oo � N 3 cQ , 2b (L) (C O_ CO p .- O O N O O O N � N '7 � O r-, r O CO I- N � O N O � f� �� Q o� a W Z N N o c 00 o N i) a) 0 C)Cy o Q� ao� OCQa O OOOOOOONCD -e le V OM �OOOC)C)Cl ITS UQ'�� a C'4 0 0 W O_ ¢ « _ E ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a Cu a) a) F- LL Q H O O O o O O O O O O o O o O O O O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d H M a) E N E U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 := M et iO 1, 00 Cn o � r M iv ¢ 0- :3 CL D aw s o� N La le (ii r, co ai o Cq Q a � Q�� o J CO U N U 0 d L C) m _ f� N N N 00 O CD I� O M 'V' CO O N r O O n LO N LOQ C14cli Ea �M000�� M N M(O LnrnN(D 000MN .- 0 > N Z .� N M O r r y !20 O LO LO Ln O 000 LO 0 o 00 o 0 U) O O 0 0 0 a 00 LO M M M M M M M M M M M M M I? C? O M m H R a�� C? C? � C? C? � OW a (/) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d � 0 A C14 'IT N N Iq 00 O r- M M O V O LO CD P- LO N O LO (D OO 'IT Q 00 CL O C N� N N 0) Cl) CD LO LO N O N N O) O r- V N 0 N I, o N I� O N N \ COCA 000000000000000000000000.00 � � O I �)n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I � � O o CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I CO r O \ � LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I tD CO O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N CO O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O — O Q L9) in o o N O CD 00 OO o 0000000000000000000 —0 Q Lo 0 0 N \ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 I vv o C 2P W0 0000T- 000—OO—N— ---M--00000 MLO Q � M M-4 O o o T Q o � � L N 0 (D 0 M LO 00 r-- CO) O CA (D LO N M O 00 (D M N CV00 O o c� o N M M .r- N r O m v o zi ;E > d CO p Ln .-- — — 00 OJ LO M O CP V LO LA N CO 'IT LO 'q LO O Cl) o a N Q 3 N M N LO LO M CO CO (D t` (D N N CO V Cl) N .- r r O 6j o O oo M o _ N OU) o Qt` m _ C) 00 A CDNOLOr- t*- Ln LD ALO 1-v OO r- (DN N N O tO V LO 1- LD CO O (O I.- O OIT N r O O O r co �D 3 0< Nd CDp 000OOOCpMLO�N V OD r- NM00 Q d r . e -N ^ CO N NCi or o0 :n , * (L) Z __. _- (Ii {� a) O m o 0 Q- Lf) N O O O 0 0 0 N N MV CD r- N N V 0 LO N O O O O O (O Q v d co � 7 0 0 0 r N W O V Q ¢ Q¢¢¢¢¢ Q¢¢¢¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a •- m ma) c ~ N H o 0 o o o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o0 o m F CD C N :3 d m E Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ ¢N UOui>- �N�L�iehV WWr-MMCi rNvwwr�aom Qa a> 275 7 U J (n U N d L In L C: U NN ma. 2 222 ,(NO s V NN N N M Z . N � 'OC � Z p c0 c m V O M m H LO O d a a N d Q a W N N w U N m cl ClD� co w O RM 0 Cl) C A m ~ W r Q O o c 0 0 I os 0 C) 0 n 0 0 0 0C o to 0 0 0 �O P C=; I 0 00 o �0 0 O I 0 00 o CD 0 0 0 I �+ 0 0 0 o o � W) 00 �Lf) 0 0 I 0 o o t0 O O O 0 LO O O I O OC) o o .e le O O I O to O o ao o rn > o ai N O Q t pp r IA MM OD o — u7 O� N w O C � LO N w 0 000(j) 0 N N; N M� � r � cCD 2 osr ma�cC cl r a� O 0<. V � U Ci M O ui Z J F - p tU QE o 2 ~LLQQc N C Q U W% a. ddo CL IL N L. m 00 O m M A _ N N- N r- O M 00 Oq Ln O m m OO O O n Ln O� t-- I- N d r Ln M InM� O0 O�- - -MNr V- M CNOWN_ Z . M ik O -6 d d Ln M O O Ln O O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LO Ln LO Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O Ln N M Ln m H m d N N M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O U a O CD (O (O CO (O (O (fl CO (t) CO CO CO (O N (O N (t) W (n N N N 10NNNMN00wIT N(DMOLn0wwwr-LOLnco O QN 4-O O t` � N O m M M O Lt) hq o O Ln N � r Ln o M o ;a O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I I(D 000000000000000000000000 00 ImLO a W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ti o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I to (0 C) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I W) too 0 1 r. Ln 000000000000000000000000 00 N Ln O it 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C) Lon o o � r Ln O O O O r O O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0(D 0 O 0 o - Q v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I M O Q 'Q a -p 0000M MONO OOO NOOO NO 0 (N�- M MM Nom- 0 N 0 M _ 0 > W O O O r- N Lt) O h O OO 00 00 00 � M LO CO le 00 d7 CD N O O Ln O F Q r d Q N N M N CDS oN oo- P ao O (n W) N N O O N CD O t` M 00 V O V 'V M O O 0) `7 Ln Ln V 00 (0 0o d M N N N N D N -e V M M V W� N- N OC) M o V o oo Lo (6 c p c Q W O O o- 0 .-00 0) M 00 Ln O O P 'V 00 N a1 CV V N M O M � o LO d r M V N Ln M LO W r- Ln 0 Ln N (V M aj o Ln 0 00 U) Z N r tr) N m O a� o ¢o o DO Q "0 LA Cl O O O Ln O O) CD v M N Ln O (D V O) O Ln O Ln �- N W M V' M CM N Ln o N r) o CO V LD M (A N d r W 1 °1222 2 2rL�� _ w OQ m« Y mE Y mE c ~ LL Q `�_¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaaaan.IL O O o 0 0 0 o 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O co O O O C d F- H O ¢ V- r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� ¢� d 3 a 3 O d Fes_ tai i•i v Lii io i� oo Ln c := iii <h ip io r� co ci o 0a Q> > JNU rn r 0 0. 0 N CL H 04 m m V N to I� N r- O M 'Ir0 00 O" W M M W f- CO O Cy Ln Ea M 0 Ck AMOCO I�O(P OO - ONN- Lt)MN� � .- - - .-- - - CNOWNZ,C tD _M O 0 y O O W Lo LO m Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Ln to In 0 - Lo m H R4) N M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M m N O. a0 M cD CO (0 c0 CO CO CO CO (D CO CD CO (0 CO (O N CO W H a N N N N N N - - - - - - - - - - - - r- - - N N U � Q C'J0o _ CC N N - M co i-- N N S N co S Lo v W V V V r (D o m Lo Q Ln mb aq +r N (D M m 0 M N N 'IT Lo M CO CD Lo W Nr V M N M O CO Or c- e-- - -- [- r \ Cp0 000000000000000000000000 00 I pOj O \ Ln 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C> 0 0 Cl 0 0 Cl ti ti O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t00 � p I \ �Lf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � O I (00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G O 0 0 0 00 Ln O O I �� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lr) Lr) O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ N O I �Lp OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOe-O �� a O o o_ o � � O O O O O N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO M Q a M -4 O I o N O 00 � � N Q O -p N O O O O N N 0 0 0 O O O O O O M O Q a M M M c- 0 0o N oO cM 0 N a)rn O < cG > f0 (p O O .-- N M t� 00 I� (A W O O M Lo N O f� W N W CD W M LO Q W a Q N NM r - r r r co (,i a M N 0 (n � O 0 0 0 0 M N O) O � O W W M W d' N O O V' o O (� Q a N N N N M L!') N IT M W N N .- W) 0 0 N CD M C QQ N >a Q d a) 'O WcO O _ O � O � v f� O N M CD M f-- M cv)1- TMMN CO CO. O N oo v- 0 LO M Cl) LO W LO I- P- (D f- 00 (D M N N N L o 00 f n Z � W 0 4= N O N cr a C 'a LC) N O O O .- Cl) W P W Cl) Cl) V M [r O W co R N Lo O- Lo Q a M N N M N OL6 o N o C) o ll l _ OOQaaaaQ¢aQQaaaaaaCaaaaaaaaaaaa+='� C a)' E-jL Q 000000000000000000000000 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y f" F -LO m E a� aa) E a a V U W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N M V W) v V Q 0 _3 0 E Oa .,� W� 00 a) O N N m LA (D h W a) O �� la d � 2 J U) ��- pa Q> a> o CO)U () C C O U T C6 Q I o. L_ U J J N C 7 O U CJ O co M 07 N N O 0 a d W N rn r O ani L d 00 U _ _ _ to MN m 1- 0 N M O O r- r O 0(DN 0 0DovW Nd r M 0 0) O O O O O M to (o M r C'4 C14 to LU Z M_ f� ii O 0 a> d V to (o (o O 0 O 0 (o (o (o (o Lo (o (o Lo 0 Lo 0 (o (n (o (D (n O M M M N M M N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i i i iN ONri Ni D D 6 O (D (6 D O O co (D (O 0 WD "LO N 0 W N rW 2i Q N > a r N 0 r M CN V N M N N r M 0 LO N r r M (o o� o� `O r r r r O N o CA � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r(p000000000000000000000000 00 f o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f wF o r 1f10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f LaW 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f In o W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 toi o U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o < W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O r 0 0 0 0 O O Co O x 0 00 N r o � a M� O a) Q o <D- O -O rN Nor O O Or O N N�� O Mr•—OM000��N N(o oN o a l) 0 M M M N > N W O M N o �f M V O) (O OO r 00 to q I- 00 LO CO (D I- (D I- M �- Q (O a O Q N N M r r f oo oo -O m o co N g g ao O (n r b N O r M M (D 0) N O) Nt Q1 r M O N 00 00 N 00 (N o - N N N M� v w m M Mqm ('M N N N M o V o v (6 N O Q >> o Q N (p O O r N Cl) r 1� r M M O O V N (o O O Or X17 00 Cl) n. O -OrN �loN V (()CV P(n (o 11)MN�� co co tn o oor U) .. N N a� O a d C ;d r 0 O O O Cl Cl Cl) O Cl) (o M N CD N O N N N N LO O (0 00 N O N r r N (O o Cl) CJ 0U� E r +N V' .. O o N 0 W _ O_ aa(.aaaaaaaaa• -c ma ma) H o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O M aE a 3 Q U(j R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o L Qr rz Oaf ��e�iriviciioi�000io��i�i(�iv�iiior�6o8io� Qa Qj 2 o 0 CJ J CO) U U) O co M 07 N N O 0 a d W N rn r O ani c 3 O U W F- F r O CL a) O O) n H O CD R CD c N O r O n w Nm .0 A O� V'MtoNr00MI-rNr 00N00(O(D0—TO�Or V M � _ N m 0 CNZco �a 7 C —(O 00(O CO(n(-(n(n C) -- M V Co co M LJ itt 10Q d y 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n (n (A (n (n O o o o (n 00 O (n O O ((> m I-- y M m M m m M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Co N M M N O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O o oW W a (� N N N N N N r-N N N U ¢ ano (6 V 00"1' M(o(o NW MW etNN M 11 O Nt'-T LO N O O Co o Q a O orn o,- L0 !� N (p cm t` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 I tiff o to o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ►- o �U) 000000000000000000000000 00 (o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� o �U.) 00000000000000000000000000 �19) o I Cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N p o � 00000000-OOOOOOOooOOo oo0 .- Q I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 N N a M O oo CD Q c < M M 0 0 0 O O O O N M N O N O N N Cl) Cl) N O O I� V Q oo M a oo M C N N 0) V1 o r Q > (6 (p p N N N N CO M (O '7 -- O Cl) d7 O Cl) CO t- O (O N� M 00� Q N N M � � — — r — .-- (( 'O N o _ M N O (n , O (O N M— CO N (O [f — O (D Q) � (O — Nt 'c* (f) Cl) o (O M (O N Qd 6) N N NM Cl) M 14 Cl) M NM N CO O o c") oo V Cl) C Q Q �i a a)[1 (p p O O M O) (O I- 00 O) N N T Cl) (O (0 M fl- Cl) (O O 00 O� o m o N ��N (N C4 of MMM(M NNS (ON oN o� Z M M a� O ty r cO Q 0 N N O O o O N 00 (- I- 0 O) 0) IT (O IT O (O O N 00— o¢ U R' a0 o W J LL O Os H _fry QU� H O o o O o O 0 o O o 0 o o O o 0 0o 0 o o 0o 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOp0000O000000 0o CL 7 �, N T` ¢ 711 O a~ M V (A W 1- CO C1 0 c N M -e Lo (O 1, 0 O O Q a Q i d O JUU fn U O CD R CD c N O r O n w O M Cl) Lo N N O C O m N c N m r- 0 CL m L. d p m mC CO Mr 0� 00 N O O 00 O 00(n M O 00 O N O O O(O (() (y G d N LO M O M 00 00 OO 00 O O O f- O M r r rr N CND WNZ C M_ rn im O U N N N Lf) N LO m N M N M OM OM N LO N N N OM OM N LO N N N N N O cb CO (O (O (O (O (O (O CO (O () (6 (D (O N (O W 0 Wa� N N N N N rrrrrrrrrrrrr NN UIQ Ci a 0 (0 (D u) ;r r` O M 00 n (O V O r (n co co v o) (o g r r 00 (o N Q � a co +-� r () r N O O O r (V r 14 CO Cl) M O 00 (n r r r r r r r r r r Cl) oo N oo LO r r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nM o I 00000000000000000000000000 I nn o 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I co P- o r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D to o o in oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t O 0 rW) 000000000000000000000(D00 00 W) N O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �0 O o � O O O O O � O O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(D 0 0 0 0 N Q r M le O o Q Q a -p r0 0000r e' Mr Nrr O r 000 O Or 00 O M r O LOM oc) M M M r 0 0 N 0 m W 0 > m W O O N r CO '4' Cl) 0) � V 00 M (D t- (n � (D r-- r N O� V O C O H F < Q O a N Q N N M r N r r r r r 00 C:; o Nl o - '2 � c 0 (n rLC) r O r U) r o M O O 00 (D O N (D N M (n (n (O (O (0 (n V Q c) a N N N N r M V M M Cl) N M M M U) V Cl) Mr l� N M o V r oo LO CD V N Q c �a (pp NNrNO(n (nM COOT V OMao N(O (n�vN�r (n QC) o_th 'O .. -6 r N r (p M N (ff V O v n (O � (n M N N O O (0 oo � o r U) NO N O Q N O N r 0 0 M (O 0) N N N O) 00 O (D Cl) 'q LO O M N M O o O) Q N 0' 00 r r N r N N r M N N N �- r r o N oo M a O .. N r W Z J ~ 41 rL rL rL rL rL rL rL rL r2 U O__¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaaaaaa�-c lE w Y m�m�c Y F -u'~ p o 0 0 0o000o000000000000000 0 y �N N E N E 0� ¢r Owa� m�r(�ii�iv(iiWI-WM10 N i�iM—e WWr-MMCi � Qa Qj N O N a) CL C O U W r 0 m 0 m CL H oo Lo `V m T- x22 o iL �� N Nd o N m 0 3= LO 00 N --- m co (O W M Z d �Z� C N'O A O xt 0 a> d L v Q) 2 m H Lf) owNacn Co a Q = d d � C] CO h O(n to m OD 2 W Q O o o (p � 0 0 0 0 I p, 0 00 � W)I 0 0 ti A o 0 0 0 0 0 to O o 0 CD ^ o 0 0 Oo a I (o to 0 0 0 00 o m 0 0 0 I to 0 0 00 0 �- Lc) 0 0 N W) 0 0 0 00 o m 0 0 0 a o 0 0 I 0 CO o e r IA O O I 0 o o I m It o 0 0 a N ory o M w M M m O O N V e e > N Q a) w O N Cl) OC) a0O 00o 00 v rn M `1 O �N LO N o o ao N N N 10� N N n �� C13 M()0 c:> o ma O (p0 r N N 05 M �- (n Z N M M � a) O N < a0 Lf) co L O Q a0 J W Z H R 0UQ E O Uwe"� cm E d Q� Oaf Z a a o J cA U N C9 U U n t N C O U a m CD C 0 O W c a fA C 0 O U T CC 7 0 W U w Z) O U) 07 O N N 0 C: 0 a) m a� a rn r O Q. CD L.m 4) 00 O _ __ IT M O M 00 M O V (O O M g O O1- (O N LO CA I-- UO N CN >m > N c G G m a. Z (O t` O r- O 00 N N N M LO N I- LO M rl! M LO Op d y 0MLOaLOU.)00LOU.)LOunOu)LoU-) mU)LotoOuOO N un m H O M N N r N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M C', O ,6(DOWd O N r - Cioo A o m N O M N f� M O m N M 00 M O M 00 O O V V Cr co Q N as cm ++ Oo0 r N O M N O V M n r O O O co O r V N M CV o N \ 00000000000000000000000 O Itp01 0 r(e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o too 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ( ti o r(o 000000000000000000000000 00 I CD m 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I W) (o0 0 r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C) I to o 0 o CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I N O r. (n 000000000000000000000000 00 I � � O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I ctq V O 0) Q c < a 'a r 0 O O O O O O O N ON O r 0 0 0 0 C) �- O O o 0') 'IT Q N 0- Cl) M M O o 0 N 0 > ((0 to O N O O O o N O V O v r- M g o N�r o 0r-- N O M co N o o (O S o_ c+) Q N NM C) o- -p o 0 M N c g 2P O (n r N N N r O N V �"" LO o (O (O O I- 00 M N (O W) N N N N �' (o M OCD CD CL LO N N N r Cl) N Cl) M le N LO V Nt (O N (O 'IT cM (N 00 M (d � C Q 0) O Q N a W O r Cl O � 'It LO (O M 0) O O M r 00 r N CO CA V O CA 00 N V N o 0 a n 'O (A r N Cl) M V' tO CO O r 00 I-- I` to Cl) N O r o O oo co ZN v= Cl) N 0 Q a OQ r O _ _ O O r O O N O M O '7 M 00 ti O r- (O (O o N 0 N M O1 V Ln LO M� Cl) r 00 00 N O V o co (n r N r tP LO N o CL U O ttJ Ov¢ co(L)m4 c `�_¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ao.aaaa.aaaaaa:°c M � = E Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G r ¢ a n 7 w N r N M of Ln CO 1- CO W O= N r N V) -e o to f- CO (D O c, r r r Q ) CL N Q d> O O a~ U J to U rn CD C 0 O W c a fA C 0 O U T CC 7 0 W U w Z) O U) 07 O N N 0 C: 0 a) m a� a rn r O Q. CD m CL) CDc L1 c 0 O CD m H r 0 CL 0 N CL c .N. C 0 O T D a a U J J C 0 O U m 3 a ui U D O U) a� OD to O O O V N N N 1- (0 n M O CO N to N D O N r- ( r r r (D 0 (D N (0 M (0 N N Cm O IN a Z = r r r r r r MO r Z r ii O 0 0 0 V O O LOIn O to N O M O O O (n w LOM M M uI)O (n LO (D W m� Ry NM�NN hNNNNNNNCV NCV NoNoN.NCMNNN N a��(offl•�(flcD($(ocococfl(o(o(b(((u��mcflcD (o n W a rn r N r r N r r r r N 0wa v00 M O V r M (D M O) t- O W) O CO (0 M O M (D N N V (D Q a- r O V d7 1- O V W (n V (!') O O O I� M LO O Cl)M N r r .- r r N N N r O o O o 0 � N o V m n� 000000000000000000000000 00 0 I rW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 r• ►� o I (DO 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o rLt) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 om 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 c> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LOW o I o rye 0O000C)00000O00r000000000 1n Vn C) oo N CD M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 000000000000000000000000 00 Ir1A 0 0 0 O C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I0 Q e "O r In 0 0 0 r 0 0 r N O O O O — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O N 00 V Q d M M M O O N o o N O n V/ < > > N OOOM011- V t�COCl) CD V (DOOM V O V M(Or (O a00 Q a,,� a 4) NM r r C-4NL6 � Dorn a_ a M N O N r N O N O N CO LO M 00 (D N (A O (D O) CD 0) O V O V N N r o I- O Q d N I- N N M .- V N V V Cl) V (n to (17 V V N '7 r Ln COD M __ oLo a) > o Q N O_ 'O co 0 _ _ O O r o OO CO u7 N 1- Nr- 00 1'- OO 00 N (n N O CY) O r N M M M CO r 1` O O O O t- — .- N r M M oo r o 0 Cn Z r r r O � � o N a) O a) NCyo Q a "O r O O O O Cl) Cl) V O O O OO Cl) O N O In N (D O aU�rr �rN�N� MMN V V V M �Oj oV oV 0 W o ZOJ1-- 00< 4��L�Lr��r2�� E¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢Q¢a.aaaaaaaaaaa:°� ° tea) o( QUHo0000000o000oo0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Ho 000 (1) E a a) E a:3 E } o o 0 0 0 o 00 o 0 o o T (iW� OJd �NrNM�vn(Ohoo0lOrNrNMvO(O�aoQ1Or rrr rr d a QN O O U fAr oCIS a> a> c .N. C 0 O T D a a U J J C 0 O U m 3 a ui U D O U) CL r N C 0 O U m 0 O (h M ((7 N N O 0 O CD R N CD rn r O CL aD w L. m m 0 m (D CD I- N 00 O� M M m (o r- (n M Cn N m w N In � r- co 00 (Na. 004 4 C r r M (D f- M 0 M O r r r r M (� 0 U 4) Co LO OM LO LO in LO N M N N N N N N Wt6 M N N N N N N N N N N (V N N 00 I� N N (O (fl N (O (O 6 CD 6 6 CD CO t0 (O (O CD (O (D (O (O N (fl a r r-rrrrrrr rrrrrr UIQ Ci O C 1p r r r M 00 M M O N O O N N (o N O O N (D i Q aID �+ r r r N V 00 O r v V (O (n M (n r r 00 CD M C N to p LO r o - N (p � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I 0 La O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 ti0 O rLo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I tD (o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I (tnn m o � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In In 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v (on o 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M � O "O �Cn r O r 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 r O r O O N O r O0 r 0 (D Q pN a pn.. M M M r 0 0 ao 0 <n O > (o p N O M N O O Cn M N C` (D (D r- m 0 (D M 00 Q' 00 N O r- o Cn (o < Q N Mi 0' Q a M N c g O( CO 00 O (OICnr (() O(00()O oo VV �( N N N M qT n ' r r r MO oo (6 N >Q N (O O m r 0 0 00 O (O M N M r r M 0 00 M (n In r r LO N F7 p MLO Cn (A (.C) M ti CC) (o V cl)q r M V to (D 00 00 O O o (o p n Z N M - N N 0 N Q a' 0¢ ;6 o r N _ x 0 0 0 O M M O In Cb (n n m 00 CD M r (f) (O In �' In M r r N N M M M N V N r 00 I� M p r o N cl) � U �' r - O_ a a a a a a a a a a a a c (v (D m a) c 1= LL(j H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0 00 0 0 ^ a a ¢ U. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ CL r N C 0 O U m 0 O (h M ((7 N N O 0 O CD R N CD rn r O CL aD w CD c c 0 0 T W Q O_ t_ U J J N C 0 O U T cc 7 Q W U O U) L d p d (O mm N M O O O (D O V Ln 00 O Ln O 00 mo �" M I� CV Lo .- N CK) Co V N N r M (D f� I� N M> r M > E d Z C O oONp ii O O d N O O tO Lf7 Lf) In LO LO LO to Ln LO u7 CA O O O Lo M 1- R y M N N N CV N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N (M M N OWllldN co N(O(D�t0(DCO(flCDCO(D(O(OCO(OCD(OCflCOCOt0�NN r -- r .- r r r-- r---- .- r r V w Q O O 0 CO O V V N -t U.) U.) O O M M m O V m M Lf) O� N M (o M � o ao r r M m r N CO 0� N tD O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� o I W Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t o rin 000000000000000000000000 00 om 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 0 I CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC) W) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �W 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M C7 I Q A O O O O O O 0 N r O O M o C QO do M 0 c> o O � N > CO O V N O r O r Cl) N V M 'a V O LO r 00 O O CD i- (D O V N V Q a) NM rrr� r V o o -2 a) M a) D N �- Ln Cl) CN O N r CA Co Lf) 10 O V (M 00 Co V t, - V in LO N f- r co � ao aoCU N N N M M Co N V V V V M M N .- .- p o M V o In q` VF O N C _ a)a- CO p M V N M O N Co V Ln Ln Ln V r CO Cl) In M V 00 O .-- O O 0D Q d Z r r- r r N tD V M N M M V r- N N oo - mO m p CY N - c-- 0 0 0 M M LO (D 00 Ln V CO N N V O M (0 O LO r O o N O ao L a� ui oN Zo~ -QQQQQQQQQQQQaaaaaaaaaaaa E E 2 2 2 E E 2 2 2 2 E 2 * E 2 `.�° p c c m a) fY6 N ave F- CD000000000p00000OOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O y H Hr a) E a) E a O O O O O O O O O O O O i D N Q O_ 7 d 7 O G. a r Q i a> O J to U fn U CD c c 0 0 T W Q O_ t_ U J J N C 0 O U T cc 7 Q W U O U) p d (D .- N N O r- r- F- M O M O N (A W V O O M m V V W NQ. N N V O (O W O w m O O V V r- V N M C14m m z r .. #t2� 0 d (o f--oa000(o(o(ooL000Lo nomo�cfl0 N M Lo m H y N 7 CV (M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 d CO M (o N I- CD CO W W W W W W W c0 0 0 W 1- (0 N W W W 111 M r — — — — — — d P- M o N 0- M r O N M O N Q a- o O M W M V N V r V (0 10 0 W (C) LO t0 �� CD 00 0� o� � o v o O O o O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O I i O La 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i o o ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 I (`Dc o 0 �(a00000000000000000000000000 I m (0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nm o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I nw o o W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I lois o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vv o o � O O � O O o 0 0 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q M O o N Q O O Or 00000000000 C)C X000 C � Lf) CO Q tl M M('M7 O o� C, o� v w O N inr > (p (p O N �-- 0 0 W (O V M O LO V M M M I'- to O O r CA V O c VCO S o_ Q N N M o o o -O u eo C') o Q O (n N O O O O N V (O LO (n O M O OO ti (f> N m () O O M (o M F— o p N N N N N M N M N M (O CO (0 M o 7 0 c0 N N C < O o Q tL N (p O V O N N o CV O V CN V O (O O M OO � (A O M •-I'. M 7 o 000 -O N N V LO W (O (O ti (O co r- I- M Oo M c�0 N Z V v N O N o> ao -0 O O Cl) N O O O V V M N c0 (A O (A O t0 CD O V V' �"' M M N M M O F (0 c� dLn Q N M M V M C:5 o o d O N N Z U O.Q �_ QQQQQQQQQQQQ l o a d a. m IZ a. m d IL 11 C m N m (U z ~ LL N p O O o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o d ~ N NE a:3 N: a:3 O E a� Q o o CiW� �N NMvinOtim07ON�NMvlptDf`0001Or d 0c°nc� v�� Tr ��pa Q>a>v vi O T m Q n r T m 7 L y V 2 2 2 2 0 M d d d d C\jo m E o � ' N p (D N r-- co 00 CO M .-- Z O e- 61 d Ln Z O ?k N m H Nd N ¢ n W d O cfl a C"jo t d U (n O❑� ia °D <n O _ @ w F- O o o (p O O O � 0 0 o 00 r N O O n r O O O O a o t0 O O O n o 0 0 o< o r N o 0 CD o 0 I 0 0 C 0 LO o 0 0 N to 0 0 0 0 N N o 0 0 00 o cc o 0 0 1* N o 0 I 0 00 r- N o CD 0 N o o tD O O O I O O Q N L a a r N "T O M M f) O O O I O n N o 0 (0 ¢ N c0 O N M O t0 O a 2 t O �. ch N O(n —N OM 0)N - N N M M M N O f( m O O C Q M o 0 - d tD O N Ln co (0 co M In N O N °O 00 of 00 w d U Ow O U ¢ E O " H LL F- ~ d 2 d H N N Uw>- It C d d Q0 E Oaf ° "d E =d o JOU N O U (-) vi O T m Q n r T m 7 Appendix 7 Study Intersections' Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Devices Kittelson & Associates, Inc. R ABMOAIJ(] any qjq O 4- 4 4- z Appendix 8 Existing Operations Analysis Results and Worksheets Kittelson & Associates, Inc. g z-.4 AL'MOnud any ul8 u 1 c c c t any 416 Jit� J11. �1 u $ !z qtr qtr 4 O ON 1tr 1tr O ON qtr �w•�cc�-s�or'm.w 6rovrtawacm�uM1nb s s E` �.35�"o�so33 FQ�< z( « ma II(] .. . . � 8AV 418 « CD 0 FIM anV qq ... : «" : � : � •�« r% 47. as 5!� ! D O O m < k ƒ / � 2 � F- :3 k a. 2 IL � D LU $. 2 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + + •i+ 41 Volume (veh/h) 0 7 4 5 1 24 4 48 3 23 78 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 13 7 9 2 44 7 87 5 42 142 0 Pedestrians 5 3 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 380 341 150 350 338 93 147 96 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 380 341 150 350 338 93 147 96 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 99 98 100 95 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 535 509 896 572 559 967 1441 1507 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 55 100 184 Volume Left 0 9 7 42 Volume Right 7 44 5 0 cSH 604 849 1441 1507 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 5 0 2 Control Delay (s) 11.2 9.5 0.6 1.9 Lane LOS B A A A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 9.5 0.6 1.9 Approach LOS B A MEN9 orrlmary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 22 14 24 28 1 5 11 2 0 8 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 44 28 48 56 2 10 22 4 0 16 2 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 72 106 36 18 Volume Left (vph) 0 48 10 0 Volume Right (vph) 28 2 4 2 Hadj (s) 0.00 0.30 0.09 -0.07 Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 851 803 775 802 Control Delay (s) 7.5 8.1 7.6 7.4 Approach Delay (s) 7.5 8.1 7.6 7.4 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Con ditions\Synchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 -# t t ti l 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 *4 41� + Volume (veh/h) 5 5 12 4 0 1 4 50 1 9 87 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 8 18 6 0 2 6 76 2 14 132 0 Pedestrians 1 5 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 254 254 133 275 254 86 133 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 254 254 133 275 254 86 133 82 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 99 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 690 618 921 650 641 972 1463 1521 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 S61 Volume Total 33 8 83 145 Volume Left 8 6 6 14 Volume Right 18 2 2 0 cSH 775 696 1463 1521 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 9.9 10.2 0.6 0.8 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 10.2 0.6 0.8 Approach LOS A B hon Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 ,A -. � 'r t 4\ t It. l r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL W_ BT WBR NBL NBT ` NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4# 4 4, Volume (veh/h) 1 12 1 0 3 0 2 19 1 1 43 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 20 2 0 5 0 3 32 2 2 73 2 Pedestrians 3 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 124 121 77 129 121 35 78 34 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 124 121 77 129 121 35 78 34 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 100 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 843 769 987 827 769 1042 1530 1591 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 24 5 37 76 Volume Left 2 0 3 2 Volume Right 2 0 2 2 cSH 786 769 1530 1591 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.7 9.7 0.7 0.2 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.7 9.7 0.7 0.2 Approach LOS A A MINT -Won Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projf11618853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro1�8853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 41 11� 4, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 1 0 13 2 58 0 0 0 81 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 0 19 3 87 0 0 0 121 4 0 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 1 109 0 125 Volume Left (vph) 0 19 0 121 Volume Right (vph) 0 87 0 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.21 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 3.8 4.3 4.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.15 Capacity (veh/h) 803 905 823 809 Control Delay (s) 7.3 7.4 7.3 8.1 Approach Delay (s) 7.3 7.4 0.0 8.1 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summa Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 'A 4'- ♦- t 4,\ t `► l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #T* 4+ 4+ 4, Volume (veh/h) 2 83 2 3 74 39 0 3 8 43 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 117 3 4 104 55 0 4 11 61 0 3 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 162 124 277 299 123 281 272 141 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 162 124 277 299 123 281 272 141 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 99 91 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1425 1471 666 582 929 655 572 906 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 123 163 15 63 Volume Left 3 4 0 61 Volume Right 3 55 11 3 cSH 1425 1471 799 664 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 8 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.2 9.6 11.0 Lane LOS A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.2 9.6 11.0 Approach LOS A B 9111-M-11-1110 Average Delay 0 2.5 0 - Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 11/3/2015 � f, t 4\ t t l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 4* + Volume (veh/h) 8 179 0 21 99 172 0 1 20 88 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 325 0 38 180 313 0 2 36 160 0 5 Pedestrians 1 29 11 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 497 336 785 939 365 838 782 341 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 497 336 785 939 365 838 782 341 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 100 99 95 36 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1014 1223 294 251 662 251 309 703 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 340 531 38 165 Volume Left 15 38 0 160 Volume Right 0 313 36 5 cSH 1014 1223 614 256 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.65 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 5 101 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.9 11.3 41.4 Lane LOS A A B E Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.9 11.3 41.4 Approach LOS B E Average Delay 7.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 11/3/2015 ' -'* 'r k 4N t r �► 1 Movement. EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 41� 4 41 Volume (veh/h) 7 315 0 8 323 47 1 1 25 5 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Hourly flow rate (vph) 10 463 0 12 475 69 1 1 37 7 0 1 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 551 470 1039 1065 470 1061 1031 531 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 551 470 1039 1065 470 1061 1031 531 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 99 94 96 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 701 976 200 216 594 183 226 543 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 N131 SIB 1 Volume Total 474 556 40 9 Volume Left 10 12 1 7 Volume Right 0 69 37 1 cSH 701 976 522 206 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 6 3 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.3 12.5 23.3 Lane LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.3 12.5 23.3 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projf11618853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4► + r 4# Volume (veh/h) 0 229 103 32 243 0 101 0 47 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 375 169 52 398 0 166 0 77 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 407 553 974 981 469 1011 1066 409 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 407 553 974 981 469 1011 1066 409 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 95 21 100 87 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1154 975 209 234 590 180 209 641 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 544 451 243 0 Volume Left 0 52 166 0 Volume Right 169 0 77 0 cSH 1154 975 306 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.79 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 159 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 49.4 0.0 Lane LOS A E A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 49.4 0.0 Approach LOS E A Inter -'Summary Average Delay 10.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro118853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 'A i 4- '- t4% T �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR, NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4, ., 4, Volume (veh/h) 3 3 13 3 0 9 2 83 1 5 75 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 4 18 4 0 13 3 117 1 7 106 0 Pedestrians 3 7 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 259 254 111 272 253 125 109 125 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 259 254 111 272 253 125 109 125 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 99 100 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 679 644 944 655 644 926 1491 1465 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 17 121 113 Volume Left 4 4 3 7 Volume Right 18 13 1 0 cSH 832 839 1491 1465 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.4 0.2 0.5 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 9.4 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS A A Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 -'* %'r '- k- -N t /P� ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, + + 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 3 6 0 5 1 6 15 3 0 11 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 5 10 0 9 2 10 26 5 0 19 3 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 16 10 41 22 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 10 0 VOILme Right (vph) 10 2 5 3 Hadj (s) -0.40 -0.10 -0.02 -0.09 Departure Headway (s) 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 964 892 893 911 Control Delay (s) 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 Approach Delay (s) 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.0 HCIVI Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR_ WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4# 4, 4* 4, Volume (veh/h) 1 0 7 2 2 0 4 90 8 5 87 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 8 2 2 0 5 106 9 6 102 1 Pedestrians 1 7 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 237 247 107 253 243 118 105 122 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 237 247 107 253 243 118 105 122 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 712 649 949 685 653 934 1498 1469 Direction, Lane # BB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 9 5 120 109 Volume Left 1 2 5 6 Volume Right 8 0 9 1 cSH 911 669 1498 1469 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.0 10.4 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.0 10.4 0.3 0.4 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118E353_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 - --!� 4-- MOVE:nlent EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *14 *T+ 41 + Volume (veh/h) 3 4 5 0 1 0 1 21 0 1 17 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak: Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 5 6 0 1 0 1 27 0 1 22 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 56 55 23 64 56 27 23 27 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 56 55 23 64 56 27 23 27 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.8 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.2 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 944 839 1060 923 792 1054 1605 1600 Direction. Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 1 29 25 Volume Left 4 0 1 1 Volume Right 6 0 0 1 cSH 948 792 1605 1600 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:'iprojf11618853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kit:telson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T► 4+ 1a 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 1 0 23 1 136 0 0 0 98 10 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 0 26 1 151 0 0 0 109 11 0 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 1 178 0 120 Volume Left (vph) 0 26 0 109 Volume Right (vph) 0 151 0 0 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.45 0.00 0.20 Departure Headway (s) 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.15 Capacity (veh/h) 791 935 789 769 Control Delay (s) 7.4 7.6 7.4 8.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.4 7.6 0.0 8.2 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 'A -,* #- k 4s' t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4P 44� 44, 4* Volume (veh/h) 7 123 0 1 153 15 3 4 6 43 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 138 0 1 172 17 3 4 7 48 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 191 139 342 348 139 348 340 183 vC'I, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 191 139 342 348 139 348 340 183 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 99 99 92 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1393 1455 607 574 914 598 570 862 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 146 190 15 53 Volume Left 8 1 3 48 Volume Right 0 17 7 3 cSlH 1393 1455 703 609 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 7 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.1 10.2 11.5 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.1 10.2 11.5 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 11/3/2015 '# N jr f- 4,- h t �► l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41► 4� 4� 4� Volume (veh/h) 0 174 2 15 226 38 2 0 9 32 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 187 2 16 243 41 2 0 10 34 0 2 Pedestrians 3 10 5 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 289 199 496 519 201 502 500 268 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 289 199 496 519 201 502 500 268 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 100 99 93 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1279 1374 473 453 836 466 464 772 Direction, Lane # E61 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 189 300 12 37 Volume Left 0 16 2 34 Volume Right 2 41 10 2 cSH 1279 1374 733 477 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 10.0 13.2 Lane LOS A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 10.0 13.2 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4+ 4# 4 - Volume (veh/h) 8 283 8 16 348 23 6 0 11 7 1 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peal; 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) 9 311 9 18 382 25 7 0 12 8 1 10 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 415 333 793 796 328 782 788 408 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 415 333 793 796 328 782 788 408 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 100 98 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1148 1225 290 310 690 282 313 641 Direction, lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 329 425 19 19 Volume Left 9 18 7 8 Volume Right 9 25 12 10 cSH 1148 1225 464 404 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 3 4 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.5 13.1 14.3 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.5 13.1 14.3 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 K: profiile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 11/3/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR - NBL - NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 4* 1 r 4* Volume (veh/h) 0 154 94 75 190 0 111 0 64 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 177 108 86 218 0 128 0 74 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 218 295 632 632 243 661 686 218 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 218 295 632 632 243 661 686 218 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 93 65 100 91 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1363 1262 368 370 793 323 344 826 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1` Volume Total 285 305 201 0 Volume Left 0 86 128 0 Volume Right 108 0 74 0 cSH 1363 1262 581 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.07 0.35 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 38 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.7 16.3 0.0 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.7 16.3 0.0 Approach LOS C A Intersection Summar Average Delay 5.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTask 3 Existing ConditionslSynchro118853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 Appendix 9 Crash Data Kittelson & Associates, Inc. F d 3 5 g2 5&t� &3 Appendix 10 Input from Open House and Survey Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ift Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 M m "iIELD CITY OF RIDGEFIELD OPEN HOUSE Input on Downtown Circulation Study On September 23`d, 2015 the City of Ridgefield held a public open house to gather feedback on ongoing efforts related to the City's update of its comprehensive plan. As part of that effort, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. attended to gain insight on transportation -related issues and opportunities in the downtown area. Through our discussions with attendees, some common transportation -related themes became evident. These include an interest in better connectivity and routes for non -motorized travel between the downtown area and neighborhoods to the east; maintaining a pedestrian friendly environment in the downtown area; concerns about heavy vehicles and vehicles with boat trailers moving through Pioneer/Main; a need for better pedestrian crossings of Pioneer; and improvements to street lighting. In addition, attendees expressed a preference for eliminating or reducing noise associated with freight trains using the rail lines to the west of downtown. Some attendees also provided comments on related themes, such as land use and development in downtown and the waterfront area, and transportation issues in areas of Ridgefield outside downtown. Below is a full list of comments recorded during the evening, organized by theme: Pedestrian Environment in Downtown: ■ Improve crossing area on Pioneer, especially near the school, maybe raised cross walks ■ Need to fill in sidewalks and repave streets ■ Like that Ridgefield is making things walkable - trail, sidewalks ■ Keep downtown walkable ■ Encourage walking with lighting (e.g. soft lights on trees) ■ Maintain pedestrian friendly downtown ■ Maintain sidewalks, street streets and buffer between sidewalks and parking ■ Pioneer / 9th pedestrians crossings ■ Clear color -coded lighting or way -finding for pedestrian paths or routes. ■ Need more lighting, especially pedestrian scale Vehicle Movement in Downtown: ■ Roundabouts are fine, but different lane configurations can be confusing ■ Southbound left turn from 5th onto Pioneer is difficult ■ Need some treatment on Hillhurst/Pioneer — Left turns are difficult (roundabout would be good) ■ Difficult to turn left onto Pioneer from 3`d, 4 t and 5th due to parked cars blocking view ■ Direct cars pulling boat to use the truck route. It's hard for them to navigate Pioneer/Main intersection ■ Downtown feels congested now ■ Concerned that freight will be re-routed down Pioneer instead of the freight route. ■ People speeding on 3`d (too many trucks) need to slow down 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Downtown Circulation Study PN 1118853 October 2015 ■ Sometimes it takes 25 minutes to pick up kids at school due to traffic; drop off in the morning is better because it's spread out. ■ Consider one-way streets to help with circulation (from firetruck operator perspective) ■ Keep Pioneer traffic slow enough that people stop, shop, and see what is there. Connections to and from Downtown: ■ Need for walking/biking connections to/from Junction Area and Downtown (not safe to use Pioneer now) ■ Lots of deer crossing east of downtown- people need to go slower. ■ More lighting between downtown and 1-5 on Pioneer ■ From downtown to 45th — need trail, bike lanes, or sidewalk connection ■ Consider shuttle connecting Pioneer/Main/Hillhurst to areas further out on Pioneer ■ Need bike lane on 259th so that non -drivers can travel to downtown ■ Desire bus service too ■ Need network for golf carts, bikes, sidewalks even Segway! Ways for retirees to get around without driving ■ Need ways for people with disabilities to get around — more transit service ■ Need better pedestrian connectivity between the downtown area and residential neighborhoods to the east of S 91h Street Access to Waterfront: ■ Have a view to watch the trains, maybe on the overpass ■ When Pioneer overpass is constructed, maintain an access on Division ■ Also mitigate train noise — needed for new development ■ If possible, maintain pedestrian access to port area from Division — but if the tradeoff is to have access vs less train noise — less train noise. Development in Downtown and Waterfront: ■ Add restaurants/entertainment/destinations/ e.g. ice cream ■ Places that you can walk to that are open late ■ Outdoor spaces for dining ■ First Saturdays are working + music is working ■ Locate library downtown ■ Preserve historic houses, redevelop other properties while maintaining downtown flavor ■ Locate new large buildings with large parking lots outside of downtown ■ Preserve old houses in downtown area ■ Consider locating the library near the high school ■ Potential for mixed use neighborhood with retiree housing and amenities at waterfront ■ Would like a new City Hall that includes Port/School/city services/one stop shop downtown public services with accessible parking for events. ■ Need retirement community (& housing options) in Ridgefield 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 ■ Downtown is pretty good Parking PN # 18853 ■ Parking for cars with boat trailers in the port area ■ Parking in downtown is difficult along Main and Pioneer, in both the mornings and evenings ■ Easy to park at Post Office and then walk to downtown destinations. ■ Shared parking arrangements could make sense. ■ Consider removing parking on at least one side of Pioneer, because it's difficult for firetrucks on Pioneer (especially when they encounter an oncoming heavy vehicle). ■ Library and other destinations need to have parking Kittelson & Associates, Inc. City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey How would you describe your vision of the desired character of Ridgefield Junction as it develops over the next 10-20 years? (check your top three choices) Answered: 143 Skipped:6 Offering diverse hous... Affordable . Convenient to places to sh... High quality of development V Walkable Readily accessible t... Fits with small... Neighborly 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses Offering diverse housing choices 4.20% Affordable 10.49% Convenient to places to shop and work 56.64% High quality of development 53.15% Walkable 35.66% Readily accessible to open space and trail amenities 40.56% Fits with small town/rural Ridgefield character 62.24% Neig,iborly 21.68% Total Respondents: 143 # Other (please specify) Date -I save rural land, keep farms, stop the subdivisions 10/12/2015 6:52 PM 2 Education/Employment Center 10/8/2015 2:17 PM 3 Make sure you attract a Trader Joe's 1 10/6/2015 7:59 AM 1/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 4 I Grocery store, Quality affordable restaurant Academic community -- 10/5/2015 9:34 PM 10/5/2015 8:36 PM 5 6 ` unique character, not big box, consistent with heritage of Ridgefield I 10/5/2015 7:39 PM 7 i keep the small town feel, no more growth please 10/5/2015 7:09 PM 8 I Large open spaces remaining — 10/5/2015 5:08 PM 9 Sports Complex, Baseball, Scoccer, Basketball. Just want to stress the need for a grocery store like F. Meyer 1 10/5/2015 11:47 AM 10/5/2015 10:51 AM 10 11 12 1 don't see any greenblet areas on the map. ' The continued building is a huge concern to me. Ridgefield is losing the small town feeling already and it has hada hugeand I believe negative impact on our schools. 10/5/2015 10:39 AM 10/5/2015 10:2-8-AM---- 0:28AM—huge 13 ' Grocery store is all I would like to see come in. ; 10/5/2015 10:26 AM 14 ATV road legal to be able to drive in city limits 10/5/2015 10:18 AM 2/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey What are the most important planning objectives for this sub -area that should be addressed as part of the 2016 update to Ridgefield's Comprehensive Plan? (please rank all items numerically with 1 representing your highest priority) Answered: 127 Skipped: l6 Clear separation a... Mixed use neighborhood... Opportunities for... Opportunities for industri... Primary reliance on... Opportunities for non -auto... Protection of existing... Master planning tha... Single large park area Smaller parks clustered ne... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SurveyMonkey Clear separation and 20.83% 11.46% 15.63% 12.50% 7.29% 7.29% 7.29% 5.21% 2.08% 10.42% buffering between residential and commercial developments Mixed use 5.38% 15.05% 5.38% 9.68% 10.75% 8.60% 11.83% 9.68% 11.83% 11.83% neighborhoods with some medium density residential located side- by-side with neighborhood retail services 3/22 Total Score City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey v % _.r f Opportunities g T--- 20.62 /C 7.22 10.31 % 8.25°/ 8 25% I 4.12% I i.v____ 6.19°/ ; 7.22% 11.34% ! 16.49°/ scale retail development P � 7° 10 i I I 4 6� 7 11 i6 97 S.E.7 Opportunities for j 9.00% 4.00% 10.00% 9.00% j 6.00% 13.00% ! 7.00% 12.00% ' 12.00% 18.00% 11 industrial and business ° 4 10 i 9 6 15 I 7 12 12 IF 1 100 4.7 - park development that i f complements existing I i uses 9.90% j 10.89% ' 6.93% i 11.88% 16.83% i 14.85% i Primary reliance on auto 0.99% ( 8.91% 4.95% 13.86% circulation within the ° 5 j 10 11 i 7 12 ! 17 15 14 101 4.41 subarea and to the rest of ' Ridgefield Opportunities for non- 10.00% 18.00% + 16.00% 11.00% I 7.00% 13.00% i 11.00% '; 6.00% I 5.00% 3.00 auto circulation as with 10 1b 16 11 j 7 13 i 11 6 5 3 100 6.49 walking and bike trails I I 15.84% Protection of existing 20.79% 9.90% 1 9.90% 10.89% 9.90% 8.91% 1.98% 4.95% 6.93 wetlands and other 2 i 1610 10 11 10 g 2 5 7 101 6.72 critical areas from development I Master planning that both 1 17.76% i 16.82% 9.35% 9.35% 19.63% 7.48 % i 4.67% f 7.48% 3.74% 3.74% protects and 19 1 b 10 10 21 ; & ( 5 J 4 4 107 6.77 complements wetland/critical areas as an amenity for high quality development I 7.48% ° 1 9.35 / ! 10 -, i .28% 1 15.89%° 1 12.15% Single large park area I 8.41% o I 3.74% o 11.21 / 1 12.15% 9.35% 0 4 ! 12 i b f 10 I 11 17 13 13 10 107 5.01 - -11.61% -- -5.36% Smaller parks clustered 3.57% 10.71%1 16.96% l 10.71% 12.50°/ 10.71% i 8.04% 9.82% near residential and 4 12 19 12 14 12 S I 13 11 E 112 5.6 existing natural areas I I 4/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey How would you describe your vision of the desired character of the approximately 730 -acre Pioneer and 45th neighborhood as it develops over the next 10-20 years? (check your top three choices) Answered 126 Skipped: l7 Offering Responses diverse hous... Offering diverse housing choices Affordable ■ Convenient to 7.94% places to sh... Convenient to places to shop and work High quality 51 of development 55.56% Walkable Readily accessible t... Fits with small... Neighborly 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses Offering diverse housing choices 11.11% 14 Affordable 7.94% 10 Convenient to places to shop and work 40.48% 51 High quality of development 55.56% 70 Walkable 42.06% 53 Readily accessible to open space and trail amenities 49.21% 62 Fits with small town/rural Ridgefield character 66.67% 84 Neighborly 30.16% M Total Respondents: 126 44 Other (please specify) -1 leave it how it is... farm land.. 5/22 Date 10/12/2015 7:00 PM City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 2 6/22 less densely built than the current newly developed neighborhoods where the streets are too small and traffic j promises to be very difficult if this density continues. 10/9/2015 12:32 PM 3 I The current vision is flawed and will ruin the small town 10/6/2015 1:19 PM 4 Left farm land I 10/5/2015 10:36 PM 5 I�More park/green space than is shown 10/5/2015 8:25 PM 6 --^v s— -- _ —_— I tl oo much growth, moved out here to be quite and no garbage and tagging from dumb people, wanting to wreck our area 10/5/2015 7:12 PM 7 Large open green spaces 10/5/2015 5:11 PM 8 Sports complex Baseball, scoccer, basketball. 10/5/2015 11:53 AM 9 I Fred Meyer —^—�� 10/5/2015 10:58 AM 10 greenbelt along S 45th Ave going into Ridgefield, not just parking lots along the road. —�— 10/5/2015 10:47 AM 11 Adopt New Urbanism standards and incremental development methods M 10/5/2015 10:33 AM - 6/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey Q4 The Pioneer and 45th sub -area is situated between downtown Ridgefield and the Junction and is currently largely undeveloped but zoned for a mix of low /medium density residential, commercial and office employment activities. What are the most important planning objectives for this sub -area that should be addressed as part of the 2016 update to Ridgefield's Comprehensive Plan? (please rank all items numerically with 1 representing your highest priority) .Answered: 96 Skipped:4, Clear separation a... Mixed use neighborhood... Opportunities for... Opportunities for industri... Primary reliance on... Opportunities for non -auto... Protection of existing... Master planning tha... Single large rig e park area Smaller parks® clustered ne... 0 1 2 3 4 E 6 7 8 9 10 SurveyMonkey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Score 7/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 8/22 ! ! Clear separation and 1 26.03% 12.33% ? 9.59% 6.85% 5.48% 10.96% 9.59% 8.22% 4.11% i 6.85% buffering between ° 9 ! 5 4 8 residential and commercial j developments j Mixed use I 19.23% 1 10.26% 6.41% I 8.97% ! 8.97% 5.13%14.10% ! 10.26% 8.97% 1 7.69% neighborhoods with some 5 8 i 5 7 7 4 1'I ( 8 I I 7 6 78 5.91 medium density residential located side- ` I by -side with j I neighborhood retail ( j services C ' , ----5.19% i -11.69% ....2.60% Opportunities for larger- ' 10.39/ i7.79% 1 5.19% ' 9.09% 18.18% 22.08% scale retail development 8 I7.79% 6( 6 4 1 8 4 7 14 17 77 4.65 - for 3.75% 2.50% 11.25% 5.00% I 5.00% 8.75% 1 5.0/ 17.50% 21Opportunities .25% industrial and business3 2 9 i 4+ 4 7 4 16 14 17 80 i 3.9r park development that j I complements existing i uses Primary reliance on auto 2.82% j 1.41% 12.68% 1 9.86% 9.86% 9.86% 12.68% 22.54% 1 9.86% 8.45% i circulation within the 2 1 9 I 7 7 9 16 7 6 1 71 ( 4.66 subarea and to the rest of I I Ridgefield j 20.51% 1.28% 3.85% 1.28% Opportunities for non- j 6.41% 14.10% 17.95% y 15.38% 15.38% 3.85% auto circulation as with 5 16 ! 11 14 12 12 11 3 3 78 6.79 walking and bike trails 1 i -� ( 1 Protection of existing 17.81% 1 12.33% 10.96% 1 12.33% j 12.33% i 10.96% I 8.22% 1 4.11% 4.11% 6.85% wetlands and other 13 ( 9 E 1 9 1 9 1 8 6 1 3 3 73 6.5 critical areas from development i Master planning that both i 18.75% 13.75% i 18.75% i 12.50% 8.75% i 5.00% 10.00% i 5.00% 5.00% 2.50% protects and 15 11 15 10 7 1 4 I 8 4 4 2 80 I 6.94 complements wetland/critical areas as i ! an amenity for high i quality development Single large park area 6.41% 8.97% 8.97% 10.26% 1 7.69% 12.82% 19.23% 6.41% 8.97% 10.26% 5 7( 7 8 6 10 15 5 7 78 5.23 - Smaller parks clustered-{ 9.64% 1 16.87% 10.84°/ �- 12.05% 13.25% ! 9.64% I 8.43% i 6.02°/ 7.23%-I ---8 6.02% near residential and 8 14 i 10 11 S 7 5 6 5 83 6.19 natural areas �Iexisting 8/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey Q5 Other (please specify) Answered: 12 Skipped: 131 # Responses Date 1 keep it how it is ... this is what people like... open space ..filling it with homes just makes it another Salmon Creek.. 10/12/2015 7:14 PM work with the County and decrease the amount of people moving in..keep tough growth management laws..stay rural.. 2 Ease of access into and through the area by car is necessary. At current development densities, these roads will not 10/9/2015 12:42 PM be sufficient (45th, Pioneer and Hillhurst) to move between city areas. Natural areas need corridors between protected areas so animals can move safely between these areas. A walking path would not be sufficient. I want to see the continuation of larger farms in the area. It is what makes Ridgefield so pleasant and area to live in. Also, parks are recreational areas, not necessarily natural areas. An example is the placement of the frisbee golf course in Abrams park rendering the treed area no longer a "natural" area due to the disturbances caused by this activity. 3 We have enough small parks. Neighbors are not neighborly when you try to use them. We don't need anymore of that. 10/8/2015 10:23 PM 4 Wish we had a contemporary theme. Streets very green with lots of landscape. Art in the streets. Pearl district is a 10/6/2015 7:37 PM good example. 5 Movie theatre 10/5/2015 9:45 PM 6 Please stop destroying one of the last few small towns west of the cascades 10/5/2015 5:26 PM 7 Do not over -develop. Drive around Mill Plain to see what NOT to do to our town. We are not a California suburb. 10/5/2015 5:12 PM 8 This page only allows one answer. Same with second question. 10/5/2015 12:03 PM 9 My concern is the traffic that is going to increase, how is the city preparing for that. 10/5/2015 11:12 AM 10 leave green areas along highways for pleasant visual impact. 10/5/2015 10:49 AM 1 Change the design guidelines to reflect the principles of the master plan of green, innovative, technology. Move away 10/5/2015 10:33 AM Ifrom old west theme 12 Do not destroy our downtown area. Let's focus on improving downtown rather than letting it die. 10/5/2015 10:32 AM 9/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey This Plan will look at ways for people to move around this city by walking and bicycling. What are some of the most important destinations in your community? Answered: 103 Skipped: 40 Parks Top Priority Schools Low Priority Downtown '- businesses 37.04% Junction area �3 businesses 52.31% Wildlife Refuge 6.15% Waterfront Your neighborhood 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10/22 SurveyMonkey Top Priority Moderate Priority Low Priority N/A Parks 37.04% 37.04% 24.07% 1.85% 1 Schools 52.31% 30.77% 6.15% 10.77% Downtown businesses 24.62% 41.54% 26.15% 7.69% Junction area businesses 25.53% 29.79% 34.04% 10.64% Wildlife Refuge 27.27% 13.64°/ 40.91% 18.18% Waterfront 17.02% 40.43% 25.53% 17.02% Your neighborhood 53.49% 25.58% 13.95% 6.98% 10/22 SurveyMonkey City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -26 -27 Which of these locations currently have poor access and/or are challenging to get to and why? Answered: 61 Skipped: 82 Responses There is no way to walk or bike from the 45th ave area to downtown. There are no sidewalks. We would walk downtown often if we could. No continuous walking path/sidewalks from 45th ave to downtown. Water Front, confusing and limited. Junction area businesses - need sidewalk along Pioneer Street to get people safely from freeway to Pioneer Canyon development additional sidewalk are great anywhere.. put them along pioneer or adjacent to pioneer somehow on a paralell street. Pioneer and pedestrians are a accident just waiting to happen.. Downtown from neighborhoods -bike lane Don't like the round -abouts - people don't know how to use them. Hillhurst is getting more and more traffic. It needs sidewalks or walking paths to make it safe. I would love to see Gee Creek pathways done or walking paths along 45th/Royal. It would help to have some pull outs along the farm roads so people can park and walk or observe nature. Dangerous along Pioneer. Waterfront doesn't feel safe due to so many non locals being brought in More sidewalks, connectivity are needed from downtown to the high school for safety and promotion of walking/biking. Downtown is walkable from this area, but very dangerous between Smythe Rd and Riemer Rd because there is very little shoulder area. Same for walking to the Junction. Sidewalks would be great. None, love it the way it is It is dangerous and difficult to get Downtown on bike or foot from neighborhoods closer to 1-5. This is because there is very little shoulder room and no sidewalk on Pioneer between 32nd Place and Downtown. Shoulders aren't big enough and no sidewalks to walk/bike from junction to downtown. Pioneer St between 45th and Downtown Downtown Ridgefield from Cedar Ridge via walking or biking. the downtown area has narrow streets and very hard to park on weekends and during events. Schools are maxed yet the town continues to build houses ......... idiotic Downtown businesses need walking/biking paths from my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods near 45th St Downtown business parking for events Abrams Park. The parking when busy is awful. No bike lanes on our roads! Waterfront... unsafe access. Needs revitalization and would like to see opportunity for businesses and development and make that area a destination. Getting over Gee Creek is challenging because the single method is SR 503 and it is narrow. Exits from Pioneer Canyon is difficult because there are not enough exit roads and their turns are restricted. can't bike out of downtown due to narrow roads, is it possible to plan a separate bike/walking path toward the junction? you are not allowing people to answer they way we want you are loading the answers. that BS The Hillhurst corridor attracts many bikers and runners. This area needs more trails and parks for people outdoors. 11/22 SurveyMonkey Date 10/15/2015 8:40 AM 10/14/2015 9:11 PM 10/14/2015 12:18 PM 10/14/2015 10:06 AM 10/12/2015 7:21 PM 10/10/2015 9:26 PM 10/9/2015 9:45 PM 10/9/2015 12:48 PM 10/8/2015 10:26 PM 10/8/2015 2:25 PM 10/7/2015 9:41 AM 10/6/2015 9:33 PM 10/6/2015 6:22 PM 10/6/2015 6:17 PM 10/6/2015 4:37 PM 10/6/2015 4:12 PM 10/6/2015 2:58 PM 10/6/2015 1:24 PM 10/6/2015 11:13 AM 10/6/2015 2:52 AM 10/5/2015 9:37 PM 10/5/2015 9:09 PM 10/5/2015 8:57 PM 10/5/2015 8:46 PM 10/5/2015 7:53 PM 10/5/2015 7:13 PM 10/5/2015 6:14 PM City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 12/22 28 Downtown - no safe way to get to downtown area other than via car 10/5/2015 5:29 PM 29 Pioneer Street leading into town from Pioneer Canyon into downtown is horrible. It scares me to see the kids walking 10/5/2015 5:14 PM on the curvy hill with no sidewalk. 30 Downtown businesses because there is no safe bicycle lane on Pioneer from 45th. _ 10/5/2015 5:07 PM 31 Most all of these destinations have to be driven to. Not walkable. I 10/5/2015 4:42 PM 32 i Waterfront doesn't seem as accessible as it could be due to the railroad tracks and it's unclear to me where there are 10/5/2015 4:21 PM trails -no signage. 33 Downtown - no bike paths or trails - 10/5/2015 4:00 PM - 34 Parks, because you have to drive to them. Unless you're lucky to have one in your neighborhood. 10/5/2015 3:41 PM 35 Downtown/waterfront area. A walking route from the neighborhoods down would be very helpful. Walking down 10/5/2015 3:33 PM windey Pioneer is dangerous. 36 waterfront -will improve with railroad access. River S unit of refuge needs major road improvement and a new bridge. ------------------ ------------------- 10/5/2015 3:32 PM -------- 37 -------i No safe way to walk/bike downtown from the newer developments on Pioneer. ' 10/5/2015 3:11 PM 38 Waterfront us the worse. We need two bridges and no more at track level crossings. i 10/5/2015 2:55 PM 39 ' From town to junction requires driving too dangerous to walk or bike. Would love to see it safe to walk and bike. 10/5/2015 2:20 PM 40 — 1 cannot get to green gables neighborhood from downtown going east w/o taking the symthe road which is very narrow 10/5/2015 1:58 PM & the 45th street on pioneer canyon can only be turned into neighborhood from the east not from the west. Also there's not enough parking in downtown areas during big events such as July 4th w/o having to walk far to destinations 41 i ` Wildlife refuge - limited shoulder for biking, walking from other locations. 10/5/2015 1:53 PM 42 Myfamily would love to be able to walk or bike to downtown from the 45th/Pioneer Street area. A sidewalk or trail 10/5/2015 1:24 PM system to downtown would make many residence very happy. - — - -- -- --_- — —_� 43 — — ` Schools: Lack of sidewalk space/bike lanes on Hillhurst, lack of same on Pioneer and N. 5th. Unsafe for children to 10/5/2015 1:22 PM bike in rural area around South Ridge. Improved bike access to View Ridge and Union Ridge also improves bike access to Downtown businesses, which are currently a challenge for bikers and difficult for drivers to maneuver around bikers on Pioneer and Main. _ 44 Walking to school is hazardous. ( 10/5/2015 1:09 PM 45 Waterfront. We need a larger boat ramp with paved areas. It would be great to have cement down by the kayak ramp. 10/5/2015 12:58 PM 46 Access from East pioneer into the downtown core. Everything east of g creek along pioneer is s death trap waiting to 10/5/2015 12:23 PM happen. 47 This page will not allow answering all questions ( 10/5/2015 12:05 PM 48 Downtown to 45th on Pioneer is dangerous for walkers and bikers, especially east of Reiman. Walking and biking trails 10/5/2015 11:59 AM are desperately needed before someone gets hurt. — 49 J Waterfront -poor signage and unclear what is down there 10/5/2015 11:34 AM 50 #/6 won't let you pick more than one location as top priority. Waterfront will need a safe access when the new over 10/5/2015 11:24 AM pass is built. 51 Water front, if possible to have a trail from overlook park to the water front. It's not that difficult to get there using the i 10/5/2015 11:20 AM sidewalk but would be nice to connect the park 52 Schools. No way to get to any of them without a vehicle unless you live right downtown — 10/5/2015 11:18 AM - - — 53 Most have poor access as there are no bike/pedestrian lanes to get into the city. '�— - 10/5/2015 10:50 AM 54 ' Downtown business has limited access to parking. 10/5/2015 10:48 AM - -- 55— — Down town businesses because there is no foot/bike path to down town from the pioneer street subdivisions. 10/5/2015 10:40 AM 56 ( Wildlife refuge, you have to drive to it. Junction area, you have to walk/ride on busy road -- 10/5/2015 10:39 AM 57 The waterfront isn't that easy to get to now. I can't imagine what it will be like in a few years when the population is 10/5/2015 10:35 AM much larger. 58 ( Downtown, Port of Ridgefield area and waterfront 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 12/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 59 Need trail access to Pioneer Canyon. Pioneer rd is too dangerous 1 10/5/2015 10:33 AM e0 i Easier to get to if road legal AN allowed in city limits j 10/5/2015 10:27 AM e1+ Lack of dedicated biking lanes. j 10/5!2015 10:27 AM 13/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey If you had to choose a single bicycle and/or pedestrian -oriented improvement in the city what would it be? Answered: 71 Skipped: 72 # Responses Date 1 Getting to downtown from the Pioneer Canyon development. 10/15/2015 8:40 AM 2 Need an alternative walking trail for the main road (Pioneer). Do not want to see any change to the original road, 10/14/2015 12:18 PM because it is one of the reasons we moved here. Country feel in small town. But we need walking off (near road) this road because of safety issues. There are so many people walking from the freeway all the way into town. I fear that because there is no path for walking or bikes, someone is going to be hurt. In the section between town and up hill past Rieman Rd, Maybe some kind of bridge path could be created. Just an idea. This could allcw for nature to stay intact as well. 3 Connect parks with walking trail throughout city including developments 10/14/2015 10:06 AM 4 sidewalks.. pedestrian... 10/12/2015 7:21 PM 5 Parks/waterfront 10/10/2015 9:26 PM 6 Sidewalks that stretch all the way from the freeway to downtown Ridgefield on both sides of Pioneer Street. 10/9/2015 9:45 PM 7 Gee Creek walking path only and no dogs. 10/9/2015 12:48 PM 8 trail system that connects. Check out trail system in Jackson WY area. You can get from one end of the valley to the 10/8/2015 10:26 PM other by bike safely if you want to. Make biking more accessible and safer. 9 complete sidewalks to the high school from downtown. 10/8/2015 2:25 PM 10 A sidewalk all the way from 1-5 to downtown. 10/7/2015 9:58 PM 11 Sidewalk in addition to bike lane between 35th Ave and Riemer Rd. 10/7/2015 9:41 AM 12 How do I get from my neighborhood (Pioneer Canyon) to downtown safely? ie not on Pioneer 10/6/2015 9:33 PM 13 Pedestrian 10/6/2015 7:41 PM 14 Please see above answer. 10/6/2015 6:22 PM 15 Wide bike lanes 10/6/2015 6:17 PM 16 Waterfront area for better access 10/6/2015 4:43 PM 17 Gee Creek Trail 10/6/2015 4:37 PM 18 Walking biking paths to downtown Ridgefield from Cedar Ridge. 10/6/2015 4:12 PM 19 1 love the golf cart ordinance and plan to get one soon. I think it's very important to have walking trails and paved 10/6/2015 2:58 PM sidewalks. 20 from 45th to downtown 10/6/2015 11:13 AM 21 Pedestrian -oriented. 10/6/2015 9:24 AM 22 Good bike and walking lanes from high school to downtown. 10/6/2015 2:52 AM 23 Pedestrian 10/5/2015 9:50 PM 24 Pedestrian access on Pioneer 10/5/2015 9:32 PM 25 Widen roads for bike lanes 10/5/2015 9:09 PM 26 Hillhurst/ RHS area to downtown. 10/5/2015 8:57 PM 27 Walk or bike to downtown from neighborhoods. 10/5/2015 8:46 PM 28 Waterfront walk/running path 10/5/2015 8:26 PM 29 down to waterfront 10/5/2015 7:53 PM 14/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 30 Make more areas for biking around ridgefield. 10/5/2015 6:52 PM �1 From the High school to downtown with multiple point of entry. 10/5/2015 6:18 PM �2 This needs to be along Hillhurst avenue most definitely. It is a very hazardous road for pedestrians and bikers considering how many runners and bikers there are on it. 10/5/2015 6:14 PM 33 Bike lanes on Pioneer 10/5/2015 5:29 PM 34 Sidewalks on Pioneer Street on the dip leading into town. 10/5/2015 5:14 PM 35 Make it easier to get downtown by bicycle_ 10/5/2015 5:07 PM 36 — — walking paths 10/5/2015 4:42 PM 37 Safe trail system as depicted in the multi modal plan map j 10/5/2015 4:21 PM 38— From Pioneer Canyon to downtown — I 10/5/2015 4:00 PM 39 More areas to walk or bike near the waterfront. ; 10/5/2015 3:41 PM 40 41 home developments connected with downtown area via pedestrian path — Connect newer developments on Pioneer with downtown. By sidewalk or trails. 10/5/2015 3:33 PM 10/5/2015 3:11 PM 42 --y 43 44 Pedestrian — A walking/biking path between the junction and downtown. j Better separation of traffic from pedestrian/bikes along pioneer k 10/5/2015 2:55 PM 10/5/2015 2:38 PM 10/5/2015 2:20 PM 45 Have bike racks to park & lock bikes in downtown and any future bike trails 10/5/2015 1:58 PM 46 --I I Mixed use development that allows for shops, homes, and parks to be located near one another, thus reducing the i need for cars. — 10/5/2015 1:53 PM 47 u — I Trails or walkway connecting 45th/Pioneer Street to downtown. i 10/5/2015 1:24 PM 48 — Large scale bike trail offering great, safe biking throughout Abrams and connecting to Union RidgeNiew Ridge campuses to Heron Ridge neighborhood, and to Pioneer opposite Gee Creek Estates. Walking anywhere in ridgefield is problematic because of the incontinuity of the sidewalks. You walk down a street, i half way down it, the sidewalk ends so you end up having to walk in the road. Or the sidewalks are so uneven, they're a tripping hazard. Trying to cross pioneer or Main Street, at any given point is a nightmare because of parked cars blocking the view of both driver and pedestrian. 10/5/2015 1:22 PM 10/5/2015 1:09 PM 50 bike paths on the refuge. 10/5/2015 12:58 PM 51 —52 Pioneer street east of G creek I 10/5/2015 12:23 PM Pioneer, dangerous for walkers & bikers ! 10/5/2015 12:17 PM 53 —� No opinion I 10/5/2015 12:05 PM 54 See above. As development moves east, people, especially kids are using Pioneer as their trail. i 10/5/2015 11:59 AM 55 Sidewalks all along pioneer 10/5/2015 11:34 AM 56 Wider bike lanes 10/5/2015 11:34 AM 57 More bike/walking lanes to the junction and the wildlife refuge locations. The roads do not have enough room to be j safe so trail system around or beside the road would be good. 10/5/2015 11:24 AM 58 Fix the sidewalks in the downtown area 10/5/2015 11:20 AM 59 Routes into downtown from housing developments off pioneer st and hillhurst 10/5/2015 11:18 AM 60 shoulders along the major roads going into Ridgefield. 10/5/2015 10:51 AM 61 — —1 A walking/biking trail or road either down 199th St or 179th St. It is very dangerous to walk or bike down those streets i j and many others. --_ --- 10/5/2015 10:50 AM 62 -- — Repair to sidewalks 10/5/2015 10:48 AM 3 Safe bike path to downtown area from pioneer street subdivisions. 1 10/5/2015 10:40 AM .4— — Path to high school j — 10/5/2015 10:39 AM 65 We should have stairs on the path from Hillhurst to S 8th Court 10/5/2015 10:35 AM 15/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey 66 i Maintain existing paths. 67 1 Connection from Pioneer Canyon to Abrams Park 68 Connect Reiman rd trail to Smythe Rd to Pioneer Canyon 69 ! Allow road legal AN in city limits 70 1 downtown 71 I Sidewalks on hilliest 16/22 SurveyMonkey 10/5/2015 10:35 AM 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 10/5/2015 10:27 AM 10/5/2015 10:27 AM 10/5/2015 10:23 AM City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey For what purpose do you most often come to downtown Ridgefield? vnswereo:103 Skipped: 4u Shopping Responses Work . School 5.83% (including p... 31.07% Special Events . Library . Post Office 43.69% Dining ■ Going to the waterfront I live downtown 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Shopping 46.60% Work 5.83% School (including pick up/drop off) 31.07% Special Events 42.72% Library 33.01% Post Office 43.69% Dining 47.57% Going to the waterfront 23.30% 1 live downtown 11.65% Total Respondents: 103 Other (please specify) 7 To visit friends 17/22 SurveyMonkey Date 10/14/2015 12:19 PM .44 34 45 49 24 12 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 2 Sports - Abrams ( 10/14/2015 10:06 AM 3 4— so quaint I love to take visitors there.. — �— 10/12/2015 7:22 PM I The park._—___.�_.—_._._ 10/7/2015 9:59 PM 5 i Park ------ ^-- 10/6/2015 4:13 PM 6 � Abrams park _._ _"---------- ---- ---Y- i 10/5/2015 9:38 PM� 7 Parks i 10/5/2015 9.36 PM ---- 8 —_� I i don't want growth to take away from our small town lives I 10/5/2015 7:14 PM 9 10 Special events i Manicures ?? a — --- -- 10/5/2015 5:29 PM 10/5/2015 3:43 PM 11 Parks i10/5/2015 3:12 PM 12 Exercise class ( 10/5/2015 2:21 PM 13 grocery stores because there is no full service grocery stores other than salmon creek/woodland ` 10/5/2015 1:59 PM 14 I music lessons, walking dog 10/5/2015 10:53 AM 15 Would love to shop in the grocery store downtown but prices are very high, I don't mind limited selection and would pay more than Fred Meyer prices but can't justify prices that are double. i 10/5/2015 10:43 AM I 16 1 would like to move my office downtown but I'm afraid that downtown might be dead in a few years. j 10/5/2015 10:36 AM 17 Suggest moving Post Office to the Junction area i 10/5/2015 10:34 AM 18/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey What are your top priorities for transportation in downtown Ridgefield? Answered: 103 Skipped: 4G Safety Complete Top Priority Moderate Priority Low Priority N/A Total sidewalks Easy, convenient... Complete sidewalks 42.31% 42.31% 15.38% 0.00% Parking Bike lanes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SurveyMonkey 19/22 Top Priority Moderate Priority Low Priority N/A Total Weighted Average Safety 72.86% 22.86% 4.29%, 0.00% Complete sidewalks 42.31% 42.31% 15.38% 0.00% ,. 1.7 - Easy, Easy, convenient crossings 20.37% 31.48% 44.44% 3.70% Parking 28.13% 29.69% 32.81% 9.38% Bike lanes 19.30% 26.32% 29.82% 24.56% 2.14 # Other (please specify) Date 1 Bike lanes in downtown could be made as a route, taking less used roads. Unless this could be done without making 10/14/2015 12:33 PM changes to the main streets. Important to keep downtown the small town we all moved her for. History (please so on- line and look at a city called Jacksonville in Oregon). 2 How about a trolley or bikes for rent for visitors.. 10/12/2015 7:24 PM 3 1 fear for my children who cross at 8th and Pioneer for school. I have witnessed many scary incidents yet the school 10/8/2015 10:31 PM and city don't care. 4 Better C -Tran service to Vancouver/Portland 10/7/2015 9:43 AM 5 Safety, complete sidewalks, and convenient crossings are all top priorities 10/6/2015 4:15 PM 6 safety should be expected, not given as a choice 10/5/2015 7:58 PM ____7 Construction at night only so people can get in and out of town. 10/5/2015 5:15 PM (I don't think this survey is working as expected. I can not make more than one item a top, moderate, or low priority, so 10/5/2015 1:55 PM can't rank every feature) 19/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey All of these are high priority. SurveyMonkey 10/5/2015 1:13 PM 10 i Again, page won't allow me to answer each inquiry I 10/5/2015 12:07 PM 11 Allow road legal ATV in city limits safer more parking spots 10/5/2015 10:29 AM 20/22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 21 /22 Is there a particular area or segment you'd most like to see improved in downtown Ridgefield? Please describe: Answered: 38 Skipped: 105 # Responses Date 1 No. Just getting there. 10/15/2015 8:43 AM 2 Water front access. Re -paving, or paving of the older roads. They are getting very run down. This would bring the 10/14/2015 12:33 PM value of the older homes up. May help residents to take pride in where they live and take better care of their homes. What ever is done (anywhere), please keep things green. It is possible to have progress and not cause them to become have that cold feel. Also, just a thought, I really would like to see Ridgefield remain focused on downtown. The farther away Big Retail or Industry is from town, the better. Meaning that If we could have all of the large stores close to the freeway, we would bring in other local traffic, but it would not have a negative effect on housing areas. Another idea, signs off freeway and any retail business area (not in town), promoting Downtown "...Check out Old Town Ridgefield...). Something like that. 3 Abrams pedestrian bridge over creek 10/14/2015 10:07 AM 4 1 think the downtown is easy to navigate, park and walk in now. However, if there are more visitors or residents, that 10/9/2015 12:52 PM could change. If bikes are going to be part of the scene, then the roads need to be configured for them. I don't bike but I find it challenging to drive these roads if there are bicyclists on them. 5 Stop the sprawl. PLEASE. We want small town. I fear it's too late. 10/8/2015 10:31 PM 6 More incentives for office/retail activity/construction 10/8/2015 2:27 PM 7 Stay on track for putting sidewalk in between downtown and the Carty Unit on the Refuge 10/7/2015 9:43 AM 3 Mill Street Sidewalks 10/6/2015 4:38 PM �J Parks and dining. 10/6/2015 4:15 PM 10 The old buildings need updated. Let's tear down the old bus barn and put up some new retail space. Same goes with 10/6/2015 3:00 PM the post office space. Move them and put some office / condo buildings. 11 The new waterfront area for unique, boutique shops that aren't franchised. 10/6/2015 11:15 AM 12 Complete sidewalks and cross walks on both sides of the street by unionridge and view ridge -Improved cross walk at 10/5/2015 9:37 PM the back corner if the middle school and the turn into the parking lot for union ridge - very hard to see kids crossing if there are cars 13 Waterfront 10/5/2015 8:58 PM 14 The city should mitigate the lots that are contaminated so that development can begin. Changes would then work as a 10/5/2015 8:48 PM domino effect. 15 clean up next to police station, where dry cleaner used to be..... 10/5/2015 7:58 PM 16 none 10/5/2015 7:14 PM 17 Safety near railroad crossings 10/5/2015 6:16 PM 18 Repave Main street 10/5/2015 5:30 PM 19 Sidewalks on all streets 10/5/2015 4:44 PM 20 Easier access to waterfront 10/5/2015 4:22 PM 21 Having good sidewalks. Keeping the area downtown looking clean and improved waterfront access. 10/5/2015 3:46 PM 22 Traffic @5th Ave during school drop off and pickup. Shops and food at the waterfront. Major shopping at the junction. 10/5/2015 2:58 PM 23 1 would like to see some of the run-down housing renovated or rebuilt. 10/5/2015 2:41 PM �4 Due to street parking on pioneer, you can't see when you pull out from intersections (check out 4th street coming from 10/5/2015 2:23 PM north) 21 /22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey _---------- -- 25 - ---.---------------------l'---,------------.---- With the population growth - pioneer canyon is not wide enough for traffic & need traffic light on pioneer canyon & s 10/5/2015 2:06 PM I 2nd place or something 3rd Ave intersections becuz of cars parked on street it's hard to see incoming traffic when trying to turn on pioneer canyon from those street when we are leaving downtown area 26 — I Parking around Union Ridge and View Ridge insufficient and unsafe for pedestrians at drop off and pick up times and 10/5/2015 1:25 PM during special events, whether school or community events. I, 27 Cming out of the post office parking lot, across from the library, is like taking your life into your own hands whether it 10/5/2015 1:13 PM be trying to cross the street or pull out in a car. There is always cars parked in either side, creating blind spots. 28 I Eliminate parking on one side of the road to improve traffic passing each other. Or change some roads into one way 10/5/2015 12:26 PM ( roads and make parking nose in like S. Main street 29 The property beside the police station and beside the theater. ` 10/5/2015 12:01 PM 30 j Businesses along pioneer -buildings look old and are not visually appealing 10/5/2015 11:36 AM I 31 The sidewalks are getting out of repair. There should be at least one good sidewalk on each main Street. 10/5/2015 11:27 AM — —32 Sidewalks — 10/5/2015 11:21 AM 33 lodging for out of town guests 10/5/2015 10:54 AM 34 Main street to be a little bit wider. 10/5/2015 10:51 AM _-- — 35 Opportunities for local shopping food and boutique clothing shops p 10/5/2015 10:45 AM 36 Square up the downtown park and build taller, more significant buildings around the park to establish a strong city ! 10/5/2015 10:37 AM center. Build up to 34 story buildings in downtown t 37 Make 5th ave a one way heading North. Too many people during school rush trying to turn left onto pioneer. — i 10/5/2015 10:35 AM — —10/5/2015 38 — ( I'd like the waterfront do offer more and old like more beautification in the downtown area. We also should be 10:25 AM investing in businesses and eateries downtown while protecting great places lien the hardware store. (FYI a Freddy's ( kills the hardware store, flower shop and markets) 22/22 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Appendix C Future Conditions Memorandum KITTELSON He ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING / PLANNING 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.8169 DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2015 Project #: 18853 10: Bryan Kast, City of Ridgefield From: Karla Kingsley, Stefan Bussey, and Anthony Yi, PE Project: Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Subject: Future Conditions Memorandum INTRODUCTION As one of the fastest growing cities in Washington, the City of Ridgefield is expected to see use of its transportation network increase over the next 20 years. In the downtown area, the majority of this new demand will be generated by the planned Miller's Landing development to the west of downtown. This memorandum, building on the Existing Conditions Memorandum, discusses the impact that this future growth may have on the existing transportation network and presents potential improvements to help maintain the character of the downtown area while meeting the transportation needs of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and other users. FUTURE NO -BUILD CONDITIONS The existing transportation infrastructure was evaluated to determine how it may serve all users as the City of Ridgefield changes. This assessment was made assuming no changes to the transportation network over the next 20 year period outside of any programmed improvements. The assessment does include the Pioneer Street overpass and closure of the existing at -grade rail crossings at Division Street and Mill Street that currently allow users to access the waterfront area west of downtown. Year 2035 Traffic Volumes As documented in the Existing Conditions Memorandum dated November 3rd, 2015, manual turning counts were conducted at the study intersections during a mid -week d'ay during the weekday morning (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.) peak hours. These counts were adjusted to estimate year 2035 traffic volumes using the following process: FILENAME. H.• I PROJFILEI18853 - RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN CIRCULA77-ON PLANI TASK 5 ALTE:RNA77VES DEVELOPMEN7118853 FUTURE CONDITIONS DRAFT MEMO._2015-12-22 VIDOCX.DOCX Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 2 ■ In -process trips documented in the Miller's Landing Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) were added to existing study intersection volumes. ■ New trips generated by the full build out of the Miller's Landing development were added to study intersections. ■ Trips associated with the Miller's Landing development originally documented in the TIA to access the development via the Division Street rail crossing were redistributed to reflect its future closure. The above process did not employ model runs to predict growth rates. While model run data was obtained from the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC), the models did not include land use assumptions for the Miller's Landing development, the Pioneer Street overpass, or closure of the Division Street at grade rail crossing. As such, it was determined that the above process more accurately predicts future traffic patterns in the study area. Estimated year 2035 vehicle volumes are expected to increase roughly threefold along Pioneer Street and double on Main Avenue. The majority of this growth is expected to be from vehicles passing through downtown on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, to and from the Miller's Landing development, with small increases in vehicle volumes on the minor streets within the downtown area. Figure 1 illustrates the existing average weekday traffic volume profile on Pioneer Street (between 3rd and 4th avenues) and the forecast peak hour trips under 2035 conditions assuming full build -out of Miller's Landing and the closure of Division Street at the existing rail crossing. Figure 1: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Pioneer Street between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue 1400 1200 1000 a u 800 M FO 600 400 200 0 61 �O e DO �O �O �O �O 1� ti� ,L tO gyp. ■ 2015 Eastbound 2015 Westbound K 2035 Additional Traffic Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Project #: 18853 Page 3 With no changes to the existing bicycle network, bicycle level of traffic stress would not change in the future no -build conditions. This assumes that vehicle speeds within the downtown area will remain at year 2015 levels. While traffic volume is not used to assess bicycle level of traffic stress, as motorized vehicle volumes increase on Pioneer Street, cyclists may feel less comfortable using Pioneer Street and Main Avenue and look for alternative routes on lower volume streets. Intersection Operations 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Operations Traffic operational analyses were performed at the following study intersections to determine year 2035 no build traffic conditions. These analyses were performed with no changes to the existing intersection configurations and traffic control. ■ Division Street/N Main Avenue ■ Division Street/N 3`d Avenue ■ Mill Street/N Main Avenue ■ Mill Street/N 3`d Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N Main Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N 3`d Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N 5th Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/N 8th Avenue ■ Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road Currently, the City of Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan defines the City's level of service (LOS) standard for unsignalized intersections as follows: The level -of -service used for the Capital Facilities Plan is 'D'; except at unsignalized intersections that do not meet signal warrants or where a signal is not desired, where the planned LOS is "E". Figure 2 displays level of service results for the study intersections under year 2035 no -build conditions. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 4 Figure 2: Intersection Vehicular Level of Service — Year 2035 Peak Hour Traffic Conditions As shown in Figure 2, the intersections of Pioneer Street/Main Avenue, Pioneer Street/5th Avenue, Pioneer Street/8th Avenue, and Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road are forecast to operate at LOS F under year 2035 traffic conditions during both weekday AM and PM peak hours. In addition, the minor street southbound movement at the Pioneer Street/3rd Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS E and F during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Drivers trying to turn left onto Pioneer Street from any cross street may find it difficult and will likely experience long delays during the peak hours due to the heavy forecast through volumes along Pioneer Street. Traffic volumes along Pioneer Street may also create challenges for pedestrian and bicyclists trying to cross Pioneer Street. Appendix A contains the 2035 no -build conditions operations summary and analysis worksheets. Shoulder Hour Anolyses Traffic analysis was also performed for the shoulder hours of the peaks (i.e. the hour before and after the weekday AM or PM peak hour). The results of the shoulder hour analysis under year 2035 no -build conditions are summarized in Table 1. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Vehicular Level of Service OD Division St LOS A w J LOS B �i AM PM Ash St LOS C peak peak z LOS D � CU z • LOS E o Q D Mill St • LOS F < fD Simons St z z z z z z w s eo =D D D D D D fD (D � Pioneer St AdD to x _. M D Sargent St r`o As shown in Figure 2, the intersections of Pioneer Street/Main Avenue, Pioneer Street/5th Avenue, Pioneer Street/8th Avenue, and Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road are forecast to operate at LOS F under year 2035 traffic conditions during both weekday AM and PM peak hours. In addition, the minor street southbound movement at the Pioneer Street/3rd Avenue is forecast to operate at LOS E and F during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Drivers trying to turn left onto Pioneer Street from any cross street may find it difficult and will likely experience long delays during the peak hours due to the heavy forecast through volumes along Pioneer Street. Traffic volumes along Pioneer Street may also create challenges for pedestrian and bicyclists trying to cross Pioneer Street. Appendix A contains the 2035 no -build conditions operations summary and analysis worksheets. Shoulder Hour Anolyses Traffic analysis was also performed for the shoulder hours of the peaks (i.e. the hour before and after the weekday AM or PM peak hour). The results of the shoulder hour analysis under year 2035 no -build conditions are summarized in Table 1. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 5 Table 1: Year 2035 No -Build Shoulder Hour Analysis Intersection Pioneer Street/Main Avenue LOS I Average Hour Before Peak A 10.0 DelayWeekday AM Peak Hour F >50 HourAfterPeak C 18.4 Hour Be�-re Peak F >50 Weekday PM D. Peak Hour F >50 Hour After Peak F >50 Pioneer Street/3`d Avenue B 12.9 E 41.3 C 18.8 F >50 F >50 E 40.6 Pioneer Street/51h Avenue C 15.8 F >50 D 30.2 F >50 F >50 F >50 Pioneer Street/8`h Avenue C 15.9 F >50 C 24.5 E 49.1 F >50 E 36.2 Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road C 17.8 F >50 F >50 F I >50 F >50 F >50 As shown in the above table, while most unsignalized intersections along Pioneer Street meet City operating standards outside of the morning peak hour (with the exception at Pioneer/Hillhurst), long side street delays are anticipated at most intersections along Pioneer Street before, during, and after the weekday p.m. peak hour. Appendix B contains the 2035 shoulder hour analysis operations summary and analysis worksheets. PROJECTS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR EVALUATION This section provides a preliminary list of potential near-term projects and long-term alternatives for inclusion in the Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study. The list was developed based on the following: ■ Previously Identified Projects: these projects were identified based on a variety of documents, including the City's Transportation System Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Action Plan. ■ Stakeholder and Public Suggested Projects: these projects. were developed based on input received from the general public and stakeholders, including two public meetings in fall 2015, an online public survey, the October 2015 Main Street meeting, a meeting with key stakeholders from the school district and Port of Ridgefield, and a meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. Public input was also gathered via a parking and delivery survey conducted by the City in September 2015. ■ New Identified Projects: these projects are needed to address gaps or deficiencies in the existing transportation system that were not addressed in either of the project lists described above. The project team developed both near and long term projects based on the assessment of the transportation system under existing and future year conditions, while being guided by the vision, transportation goals, and downtown -specific objectives developed as part of this project and the concurrent citywide Multimodal Transportation Plan (see Appendix C). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study— Future Conditions —DRAFT Project #. 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 6 Preliminary Near -Term Projects and Long -Term Alternatives As indicated above, a variety of near-term projects and long-term alternatives were developed to address deficiencies or provide enhancements to the existing transportation system. The purpose of these concepts is to present potential future improvements that the City can pursue to improve the network for all users, continue to provide mobility as demand on the downtown transportation network increases, and help maintain the character of Downtown Ridgefield as the City continues to grow. The preliminary projects and alternatives presented in this memorandum have been developed based on the vision, goals and objectives developed as part of this project. Each project has been evaluated based on whether or not it supports the previously identified goals and objectives. Each goal (connectivity, safety, equity, economic prosperity, and environmental stewardship) is supported with multiple objectives. The objectives provide a more detailed breakdown of goals with more specific ends the City desires to achieve. Overall, the assessment of each potential project relies heavily on the data generated and reviewed as part of the existing and future conditions analyses, and through the stakeholder engagement process. Near Term Projects The near term projects include lower cost multimodal improvements and were developed taking into consideration the following opportunities. • Leverage streetscape investments to further enhance pedestrian environment on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue, increasing vibrancy and sense of place. • Promote vehicle speeds below 25mph in downtown and improve crossing opportunities. • Fill in pedestrian facility gaps in other parts of downtown as redevelopment occurs. • Add connectivity to the bicycle and pedestrian network through strategic non -motorized connections. • Consider new multimodal connections on the east side of downtown. • Provide safe, aesthetic, multimodal connections to the waterfront. • Leverage local knowledge and input to develop solutions. Figure 3 illustrates a wide range of preliminary near-term projects. A brief description of each project, along with a high-level qualitative assessment and prioritization is summarized in Table 2. The high- level prioritization was performed using the following criteria: • Benefits multiple travel modes (pedestrian, bike, freight, and/or auto) • Completes a critical network (pedestrian, bike, and/or freight) • Is an immediate identified need • Improves safety • Is low cost / high constructability Details of the prioritization of preliminary near-term projects are provided in Appendix D. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Aw I r, 3, Hillhurst Ave tt-- � -S2, '(I"� E N 9th Ave Ln N r N 5th Ave N -99M N r4 0 4� 00 -p!, c U5 ca aj a) e N 4th Ave N 4th AV LA IA C 0 < 0 9 'n > 3 3 Ave rd Ave r'd --- QJ E -- ---------- N ZE- a) 4,J Q) tLO 00 0 mc N Main Ave bLO 41 c bo in t N 1st Ave :F 4e� '40 0 IU C 0 N Railroad Ave P. 00 N r-4 a% r4 r CL 2 �5 > 0 tt-- � -S2, '(I"� E Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study— Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 11, 2015 Table 2: Summary and Prioritization of Preliminary Near -Term Projects Project #. 18853 Page 8 ID Name Description Priority Division Street bicycle Division Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. 1 Low route Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. �d 3rd Avenue north of Pioneer Street is a priority link in the all 2 3 Avenue bicycle route Medium ages bike network. Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Simons Street bicycle Simons Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. 3 Medium route Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. 4.a. Convert 5th Avenue to one-way northbound for this block. Med 4.b. Stripe angled parking on the west side of the street (if space is available). Low 4.c. Allow for pick-up and drop-off on the east side of the :n 5 Avenue (from Pioneer 4 block, and allow on -street parking outside of school start and High Street to Simons Street) end times. 4.d. 5`d Avenue (from Sargent Street to Simons Street) is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply "bicycle High boulevard" treatments. Pioneer Street bicycle Stripe buffered bicycle lanes east of 5th Avenue, and do not 5 lanes permit on -street parking in these blocks. High 8th Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply 6 8th Avenue bicycle route Medium "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Enhance the existing multi -use path through the park as a Abrams Park multi -use 7 pedestrian and bicycle route with signage and (optional) Low path pavement. 8 Mill Street sidewalk infill Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on both sides of Mill Street. High Simons Street sidewalk Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on areas of Simon Street 9 infill missing sidewalks. Medium Main Avenue bicycle Main Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. 10 Medium route Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. Sargent Street bicycle Sargent Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. 11 Medium route Apply "bicycle boulevard" treatments. d Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 3rd Avenue 12 3 Avenue sidewalk infill High missing sidewalks. :h Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on 4th Avenue on one or 13 4 Avenue sidewalk infill High both sides. sc Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on 1st Avenue on one or 14 1. Avenue sidewalk infill High both sides. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Project #: 18853 Page 9 ID Name Description Priority Maple Street sidewalk Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on Maple Street on one or 15 High infill both sides. Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 5th Avenue 16 5th Avenue sidewalk infill High south of Pioneer that are missing sidewalks. Complete 6' sidewalks (minimum) on 7th Avenue south of 17 7th Avenue sidewalk infill Low Pioneer on one or both sides. Main Avenue/Mill Street Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install 18 Low intersection raised intersection. Main Avenue/Simons Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install 19 Low Street intersection raised intersection. 3`d Avenue/Division Street Reduce southwest corner radius and convert to standard 2- 20 intersection way stop -controlled intersection (3'd Avenue stops). High 3`d Avenue/Mill Street Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install 21 Low intersection raised intersection. 3`d Avenue/Pioneer Street 22 Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Medium intersection 4`d Avenue/Pioneer Street 23 Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Low intersection 5`d Avenue/Pioneer Street 24 Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. High intersection Monitor crossing activity to determine potential enhanced 8rd Avenue/Pioneer Street 25 crossing, such as crossing guard or rapid rectangular flashing Medium intersection beacons (RRFB). Hillhurst Road/ Pioneer Consider traffic patrol during morning peak period. Install 26 High Street intersection radar -activated speed limit sign for westbound traffic. Revise signage to direct freight and boat trailers to use the 27 Pioneer Street freight Pioneer Street overpass to the waterfront area (after closure Medium route of Division Street crossing). 3`d Avenue on -street Stripe on -street parking on 3`d Street between Pioneer Street 28 Medium parking and Mill Street. Consider time limits in the future. Downtown loading zone/ Evaluate the need to designate a loading zone / delivery area 29 Low delivery area in the downtown core after the overpass is opened. Identify opportunities to provide bicycle parking on Pioneer Bike parking and Street, Main Avenue, and at key destinations. Identify 30 streetscape opportunities for streetscape improvements, such as lighting High improvements and sidewalk furniture, in the course of project development in the downtown area. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 10 ID Name Description Priority On -street parking Monitor on -street parking utilization every 2 to 3 years and 31 consider management strategies to meet parking availability Low management goals (e.g. time limits, restrictions, or meters). Install wayfinding signage to alert people to preferred bicycle 32 Wayfinding signage High routes and the designated freight route. Long Term Alternatives The long term alternatives were developed assuming the full build out of the Miller's Landing development and the future traffic conditions discussed in the previous section of this report. The long term alternatives are designed to represent a range of options for managing multimodal circulation in the future as development occurs and traffic increases. The alternatives are high level concepts and further evaluation will be needed to assess the impact on multimodal travel patterns, private property, public green space, and the topographic and environmental constraints. This section contains the following: • Descriptions of long term alternatives considered. • Selection of long term alternatives for further evaluation. • Evaluation of selected alternatives. • Identification of recommended long term alternative concepts, based on study goals and objectives. Long Term Alternatives 1 thru 4 — Division Street Connection As previously documented under the Future No -Build Conditions, assuming a single vehicular access to/from the waterfront via the Pioneer Street overpass and full build -out of Miller's Landing, all unsignalized intersections along Pioneer Street will not meet City operating standards during the morning and evening peak hours, with most intersections continuing to exceed standards before, during, and after the weekday p.m. peak hour. As such, Alternatives 1 through 4 primarily focus on providing a secondary travel route to/from the waterfront and east side of town via a connection to Division Street, while providing a secondary route to the downtown. These alternatives also aim to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity through a combination of new multimodal connections and improvements to existing facilities. Alternatives 1 through 4 rely on a new street connection between Pioneer Street and Division Street on the east side of the school and a crossing of the railroad between Division Street and the waterfront area. With these connections, and assuming approximately half of the vehicle trips generated by Miller's Landing use the new Division Street Connection, all of the existing unsignalized intersections along Pioneer Street are forecast to meet City operating standards, with the exception of the Pioneer Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Project #: 18853 Page 11 Street/Hillhurst Road intersection. A change in intersection control (i.e. roundabout or signal) at this intersection will be needed to accommodate forecast traffic volumes. Without access to the waterfront area from Division Street, an estimated 10% of trips generated by Miller's Landing are likely to use the new connection. In this variation, all of the study intersections along Pioneer Street, with the exception of Pioneer Street/3`d Avenue during the morning peak hour, are anticipated to experience high delay and will not meet City operating standards. Appendix E contains the intersection operations summary and analysis worksheets for the Division Street Connection assessment. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 12 Long Term Alternative 1 This alternative, shown in Figure 4, includes the construction of a new leg on the north side of the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road intersection to form a multimodal connection to Division Street and provide an alternative route connection downtown to the waterfront. The concept includes: ■ Constructing a new multimodal connection north from the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road intersection to Division Street. ■ Creating a new gateway at the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road intersection, including a roundabout or traffic signal to improve traffic operations at the intersection. ■ Providing a new all ages bike route between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenues by improving the exiting pedestrian path between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue. ■ Connecting the above new all ages bike route between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue north to the new east -west multimodal connection and west between 8th and 4th Avenues. Figure 4: Long Term Alternative 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 13 Long Term Alternative 2 Like Long Term Alternative 1, this concept (shown in Figure 5) focuses on providing an alternative multimodal east -west route between downtown, the waterfront, and destinations to the east of Hillhurst Road. In this case, the proposed east end of the alignment would form a new intersection on the north side of Pioneer Street approximately 300 feet east of the Pioneer Street/Old Pioneer Street intersection and connect to the west at Division Street. This concept includes: ■ Constructing a new multimodal connection north from the Pioneer Street to Division Street with the potential of being designated as a freight route. ■ Creating a new gateway at the new Pioneer Street intersection including a roundabout or traffic signal to improve traffic operations at the intersection. ■ Providing a new all ages bike route between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenues by improving the exiting pedestrian path between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue. ■ Connecting the above new all ages bike route between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue north to the new east -west multimodal connection and west between 81h and 4th Avenues. Figure 5: Long Term Alternative 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Long Term Alternative 3 Project #: 18853 Page 14 Similarly -to the previous two alternatives, this concept (shown in Figure 6) also focuses on providing an alternative multimodal east -west route between downtown and destinations to the east of Hillhurst Road. However, in this variation, the proposed east end of the alignment would form a new leg on the north side of the Pioneer Street/Gee Creek Loop intersection and connect to the west at Division Street. In addition, an all ages bike route is included adjacent to the new roadway. The new route connects Pioneer Street to Division Street through Abrams Park on the east side of Gee Creek, and would require reconstruction of the bridge across the creek. Figure 6: (Long Term Alternative 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #., 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 15 Long Term Alternative 4 This alternative, in Figure 7, focuses on improving both east -west and north -south connectivity by realigning the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road intersection. This new alignment would create a new connection from Hillhurst Road to 8th Avenue for northbound traffic. To the north of Pioneer Street, 8th Avenue would be extended to meet Division Street. Elements included in this concept are: ■ Constructing a new north -south to east -west multimodal connection between Hillhurst Road and Division Street by connecting Hillhurst Road to 8th Avenue. ■ Including an all ages bike route along the new Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue alignment. ■ Creating a new gateway at the Pioneer Street/8th Avenue intersection including a roundabout or traffic signal to improve traffic operations at the intersection. Figure 7: Long Term Alternative 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project#. 18853 December 12, 2015 Page 16 Long Term Alternative 5 The final long term alternative, shown in Figure 8, represents a future condition without an alternate route constructed. In this alternative, new signals are installed at Pioneer Street/Main Avenue and Pioneer :street/5th Avenue, with a signal or roundabout included at Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road. This long term alternative includes a multi -use path connection between 8th Avenue and Division Street behind the school that connects to a walking and bicycling route across the railroad to the waterfront at Division. Motorized traffic would remain on Pioneer Street in this alternative. Figure 8: Long Term Alternative 5 Alternative 5 - Signal Warrant Analysis The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides guidelines for justifying the installation of traffic signals based on traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, crash experience, and physical characteristics of the location. The MUTCD establishes the following nine traffic signal warrants: • Warrant 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volumes ■ Warrant 2: Four -Hour Vehicular Volumes ■ Warrant 3: Peak Hour ■ Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume ■ Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System ■ Warrant 7: Crash Experience ■ Warrant 8: Roadway Network ■ Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Grade Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 17 ■ Warrant 5: School Crossing Crossing Using year 2035 volumes, Warrants 1-3 were evaluated for the study intersections anticipated to operate with a future level of service F. The results are summarized in Table 3, and the full signal warrant reports are available in Appendix F. Because the volumes for year 2035 were only for the peak hour, Warrants 1 and 2 were evaluated using extrapolated 16 -hour data. Table 3: Signal Warrant Analyses under Year 2035 Traffic Conditions While vehicular volumes signal warrants 1, 2, or 3 are not met at the Pioneer Street/5th Avenue intersection, a traffic signal may be warranted under warrants 4 (pedestrian volumes) and/or 5 (school crossing). Further study is needed to determine where either of these warrants would be met under future conditions. Alternative 5 — Traffic Operations Assuming new signals are installed along Pioneer Street at Main Avenue, 5th Avenue, and Hillhurst Avenue, all three intersections are expected to meet City operating standards for signalized intersections. However, long vehicle queues (up to approximately 400 and 800 feet) are forecast along Pioneer Street due to the heavy through volume demands being generated by Miller's Landing. While intersection operations and vehicle queues will vary depending on the signal timing used at each new signalized intersection, congestion will likely be experienced throughout the study area beyond the peak morning and evening peak hours. As previously identified, an alternative to a traffic signal at the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Avenue intersection is a roundabout. Based on the forecast 2035 traffic volumes and assuming the Pioneer Street overpass and closure of the existing at -grade rail crossing at Division Street, a multilane roundabout would likely be needed at this intersection under Alternative 5. In particular, two westbound through lanes and a separate eastbound right -turn lane should be adequate to accommodate the forecast demands. Appendix G contains the intersection operations summary and analysis worksheets for Alternative 5. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Warrant 1 (Eight- Warrant 2 (Four- Warrant 3 (Peak _ Existing Traffic Hour Veh. Hour Veh. Hour) Met? Intersection Control Volume) Met? Volume) Met? Pioneer Street/Main Avenue AWSC Yes Yes Yes Pioneer Street/3'd Avenue TWSC No I No No Pioneer Street/51h Avenue TWSC No No No Pioneer Street/8`h Avenue TWSC No No No Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road TWSC Yes Yes Yes While vehicular volumes signal warrants 1, 2, or 3 are not met at the Pioneer Street/5th Avenue intersection, a traffic signal may be warranted under warrants 4 (pedestrian volumes) and/or 5 (school crossing). Further study is needed to determine where either of these warrants would be met under future conditions. Alternative 5 — Traffic Operations Assuming new signals are installed along Pioneer Street at Main Avenue, 5th Avenue, and Hillhurst Avenue, all three intersections are expected to meet City operating standards for signalized intersections. However, long vehicle queues (up to approximately 400 and 800 feet) are forecast along Pioneer Street due to the heavy through volume demands being generated by Miller's Landing. While intersection operations and vehicle queues will vary depending on the signal timing used at each new signalized intersection, congestion will likely be experienced throughout the study area beyond the peak morning and evening peak hours. As previously identified, an alternative to a traffic signal at the Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Avenue intersection is a roundabout. Based on the forecast 2035 traffic volumes and assuming the Pioneer Street overpass and closure of the existing at -grade rail crossing at Division Street, a multilane roundabout would likely be needed at this intersection under Alternative 5. In particular, two westbound through lanes and a separate eastbound right -turn lane should be adequate to accommodate the forecast demands. Appendix G contains the intersection operations summary and analysis worksheets for Alternative 5. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Alternatives Selected for Further Consideration Project ti: 18853 Page 18 In an initial high-level evaluation and after discussions with City Staff, the project team removed Long Term Alternatives 3 and 4 from consideration. Long Term Alternative 3 was not moved forward into the evaluation stage for the following reasons: • Key Reason: Alternative 3 would have a significant impact to Abrams Park, a valuable community and environmental resource adjacent to downtown and neighborhoods to the north. • Supporting Reason: Alternative 3 would require a stream crossing (expansion of the existing crossing at the park entrance). • Supporting Reason: The new intersection with Pioneer Street is farther away from downtown and therefore does not provide the opportunity for a "gateway' to downtown. Long Term Alternative 4 was not moved forward into the evaluation stage for the following reasons: • Key Reason: The topography and physical constraints present in the area between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue present significant difficulties in creating a new roadway connection (a bike/ped connection is more possible). • Supporting Reason: The City of Ridgefield may not have sufficient right-of-way (as previously thought) for a diagonal connection between Hillhurst Road and 8th Avenue. The project team determined Alternatives 1 and 2 were similar, differing only slightly in the alignment of the new connection between Pioneer Street and Division Street, while Alternative 5 was substantially different. For the purposes of the evaluation, the project team decided to group Alternatives 1 and 2 into one alternative with alignment options, called "Division Street Connection". Alternative 5, called "Pioneer Signalization" could also include some variation in traffic control strategies at specific intersections, but would generally include at least 1-2 signals. These two alternatives are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon I < 0 0 < M < r) 0 0 :D u < LU 2 z LLJ z 0 S27 Hillhurst Rd ld < 0 th 8 Ave < ■ 5 7th Ave - "Ace, .2 r N 5th Ave IA N 4th Ave E 0 0 3rd Ave c 0 •U 'Ilk 4� :3 0) DR, 0 N Main Ave Ln Qj 76 0 E N 1st Ave -z- 0) C;) (Ij +01 2 < 0 N Railroad Ave t LU • _j 1_3 0 0 < Z L9 0 4A it Hillhurst Rd N 9th Ave, I z _j0 < ;—n - - P: :? z LU z N 8th Ave LU P j ZD z 0 0 K, jK S 7th Ave ■ h�lz r .2 .4 N Sth Ave N 4th Avef tn c Ln 0 3rd Ave - N Main Ave LU N 1st Ave _j co lop, N Railroad Ave z cr LU Ow CL Q_ VERB, Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study— Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Alternatives Evaluation Project #: 18853 Page 21 The two overarching alternatives (Division Street Connection and Pioneer Street Signalization) were further evaluated against each other, as described below. Three potential alignments for the Division Street connection were also evaluated at a qualitative level. A future detailed evaluation, including cost estimating and engineering feasibility will be needed to evaluate the potential alignments for the Division Street Connection. Division Street Connection versus Pioneer Street Signolizotion The two overarching alternatives were each evaluated against the goals and objectives of the Downtown Circulation Plan, as shown in Table 4: Table 4: Evaluation of Long Term Alternatives Plan .. l Division Street Connection Pioneer Street Signalization • Provides another route for Connectivity • Provides an additional route for • Redundant routes for all all modes to the waterfront. walking and bicycling to the modes • Provides the opportunity for a waterfront. (Providing this low stress bicycle route and connection may be more or less • Complete pedestrian complete pedestrian facilities difficult than providing a full facilities and crossings along the new connection. Division Street connection, • Low stress bicycle routes depending on funding sources and availability.) • Provides redundancy only for walking and bicycling, not freight or vehicular movement. • Reduces vehicular mobility during peak periods, with no viable alternate routes. Score High Low Safety • A new connection for all modes • Signals on Pioneer Street • Safe access to schools would not provide an exclusive improve crossing opportunities pedestrian/bicycle path; for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Reduce crashes for all however, there may be an . High levels of vehicle delay and modes opportunity for a pedestrian traffic on Pioneer Street could • Complete networks for bicycle path adjacent to the new result in more aggressive pedestrians and bicyclists connection. driving, with drivers accepting smaller gaps. • A northern route separated from vehicle traffic would provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists. Score Medium Medium Equity Public input received has • Some public input has been • Inclusive process and expressed the need for more against the installation of traffic circulating routes in the signals on Pioneer; however, responsive to public input downtown area — there has public input also reflects • Minimize impacts on been some support for a support for improved crossing Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 40 s Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Project #. 18853 Page 22 property owners "couplet". opportunities. • Requires right-of-way . Would require an easement or acquisition from school property right-of-way acquisition from and from 1 to 10 other the school property to construct residential land -owners multi -use path. May require depending on alignment. property acquisition from • Additional public input and residential land owners if support could increase the roundabout at Hillhurst/Pioneer equity score. is selected. Score Medium High Economic Vitality • Improves circulation and freight • As traffic volumes increase, • Leverage public access. freight will encounter additional investments to encourage • Provides opportunity for transit delays. economic development in circulation "loop". If transit • Signals at downtown service becomes more frequent intersections slow traffic and cowntown in the future, could have two canrovide an opportunity pportunity for • Efficient investments in lines serving — one in each people to "stop and shop". infrastructure to serve long- direction. • Provides opportunity for term needs • Represents a substantial public bidirectional transit travel on investment, potentially at or Pioneer Street. Bus blockage beyond the Pioneer Street could add to delay given lack of overpass level of investment. space for pull-outs. However, the introduction of . Signalization typically costs another route connecting between $200,000 and eastern parts of Ridgefield with $300,000 per intersection, a Downtown and the Waterfront relatively low cost compared to creates the opportunity for the construction of a new road. additional economic However, the construction of a development in the downtown non -motorized connection and waterfront areas, adjacent across Division Street has the to the new connection. potential to represent a significant cost, depending on whether it is grade separated or not. A non -motorized connection is less likely to spur economic development. Score High Medium Environmental Stewardship • The connection from Pioneer • The non -motorized connection • Improve connections to Street to Division Street would across Division Street would natural areas result in the loss of part of an improve access to the existing natural area above Gee waterfront, a public natural • Minimize impacts to Creek; however, it would avoid resource. Impacts to existing existing environmental major impacts to Abrams Park. natural areas would be minimal. assets The new connection at Division, however, would improve access to the waterfront, another public natural resource. Score Medium Medium Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Division Street Connection: Alignments Evaluation Project #: 18853 Page 23 The project team developed a set of three potential alignments for the connection between Pioneer Street and Division Street, as shown in the Division Street Connection figure. Selection of a preferred alignment will require additional cost estimating and engineering feasibility study; however, the project team developed an initial list of characteristics for each alignment. Property impacts Pioneer Street intersection location Leverages existing infrastructure Quality of connection Alignment A makes a connection between Division Street and the north end of 8th Avenue, follows 8th Avenue south to Simons Street, extends east/west on Simons Street for a block and then connects south to Pioneer Street across from the existing Hillhurst Road location. • Potential impacts to at least four private residential properties, including affordable multifamily housing structures. Other properties may be impacted as well, depending on roadway design. • Brings additional traffic adjacent to school on existing 8th Avenue alignment. • Creates four -leg intersection at Hillhurst Road/Pioneer Street, a good location for a gateway treatment to downtown. This intersection already operates with substantial delays, particularly in the a.m. peak hour, so would benefit from a roundabout or signalization. • Uses existing alignment and right-of-way of Simons Street and 8th Avenue. • Introduces two tight corners into the route, which promotes slower vehicle speeds, but may reduce attractiveness of the route for freight. A diagram of potential property impacts is included in Appendix H. • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Alignm nt B Summary Assessment Project #. 18853 Page 24 Alignment B connects from Division Street along the top of the ridge before turning south to make the connection to Pioneer Street across from the existing Hillhurst Avenue location. Property impacts • Potential impacts to at least five private residential properties, including affordable multifamily housing structures. Other properties may be impacted as well, depending on roadway design. • Draws traffic away from school. Pioneer Street intersection location • Creates four -leg intersection at Hillhurst Road/Pioneer Street, a good location for a gateway treatment to downtown. This intersection already operates with substantial delays, particularly in the a.m. peak hour, so would benefit from a roundabout or signalization. Leverages existing infrastructure • Would require all new alignments. Quality of connection • Provides straightforward, user-friendly route for all modes that is mostly closely aligned with completing the grid system. A diagram of potential property impacts is included in Appendix H. Kittelson &A 5sociates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT December 22, 2015 Project #. 18853 Page 25 Alignment C connects from Division Street along the top of the ridge, crosses the existing field to the east of the residential neighborhood, and then connects to Pioneer Street to the east of the existing barn on the north Side of Pioneer Street (east of the Old Pioneer Street intersection). Property impacts • Potential minor impacts to two private parcels, but no impacts to existing structures. Other properties may be impacted, depending on roadway design. Pioneer Street intersection location • Creates three -leg intersection east of Hillhurst Road, a location that may be too far to feel like a "gateway" to downtown Ridgefield. This new intersection would not address existing identified issues at Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road, which will likely require traffic control investments in the future. Leverages existing infrastructure • Would require all new alignments. Quality of connection • Provides direct connection to Division for all modes. A diagram of potential property impacts is included in Appendix H. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study — Future Conditions -- DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 26 Evaluation Summary In summary, both long term alternatives have benefits and impacts: • "rhe Pioneer Street Signalization alternative will result in vehicle delays and queuing during peak periods, which may discourage visitors from coming downtown in the evenings. It also does not provide additional connectivity for vehicles or freight. Many of its benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists are dependent on the construction of a northern Division Street connection for pedestrians and bicyclists. Without this connection, bicyclists and pedestrians are not well - served by this alternative. However, it is lower cost and would be easier to implement, due to its minimal impacts on existing properties. • The Division Street Connection alternative represents a significant investment, including a new road connection and railroad crossing at Division Street. Depending on the selected alignment and intersection design, it could impact to up to 10 property owners. However, this alternative provides enhanced circulation and access for all modes that would serve the growth of Ridgefield's downtown and waterfront area. A more detailed feasibility study of the new alignment and the rail crossing is needed to assess costs and refine concept details. Due in part to the need for additional work to evaluate the feasibility and preferred alignment of the Division Street Connection, it is recommended that both the Division Street Connection and the Pioneer Street Signalization be adopted as potential long-term circulation networks for Ridgefield. It is also recommended that the City of Ridgefield conduct further study and public outreach to determine the preferred alignment of the connection between Pioneer Street and Division Street in the Division Street Connection alternative. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Appendix A 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions No -Build J O N C O Q. qtr 'a d i6 qtr O 2F:M4� soa, u� fig qtr qtr 4 any 435 coc 0 M o 4 - p any PJC any UieW cn C, - g Piot l qtr 'a d i6 qtr O 2F:M4� soa, u� fig qtr qtr 4 54aw }t O � < 0 c 7 / � @ W R \ co� � a. :2 ca k \ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #T* *T* 41 + Volume (vehth) 0 7 4 25 1 24 4 72 3 23 220 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 7 4 26 1 25 4 76 3 24 232 0 Pedestrians 5 3 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 397 375 240 380 374 80 237 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 397 375 240 380 374 80 237 82 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 95 100 97 100 98 cM capacity Iveh/h) 539 493 799 558 541 983 1337 1524 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 53 83 256 Volume Left 0 26 4 24 Volume Right 4 25 3 0 cSH 573 704 1337 1524 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 0 1 Control Delay (s) 11.4 10.5 0.4 0.8 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 10.5 0.4 0.8 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection (:rapacity Utilization 35.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4► + + + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 25 14 24 48 1 5 13 2 0 9 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 29 16 28 56 1 6 15 2 0 11 1 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 46 86 24 12 Volume Left (vph) 0 28 6 0 Volume Right (vph) 16 1 2 1 Hadj (s) 0.02 0.34 0.10 -0.06 Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 863 814 801 834 Control Delay (s) 7.3 7.9 7.4 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.3 7.9 7.4 7.2 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill I & Main Ave 12/22/2015 -'* r k 4N t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *T+ 4+ 41 4, Volume (veh/h) 5 5 12 14 0 1 4 74 2 9 249 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 5 13 15 0 1 4 78 2 9 262 0 Pedestrians 1 5 4 Lane Width (fl:) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 374 375 263 389 374 88 263 85 vC1, stage 1-onf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 374 375 263 389 374 88 263 85 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 97 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 577 529 780 552 552 969 1312 1518 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 23 16 84 272 Volume Left 5 15 4 9 Volume Right 13 1 2 0 cSH 657 568 1312 1518 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01 Queue Lengllh 95th (ft) 3 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.7 11.5 0.4 0.3 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 11.5 0.4 0.3 Approach LOS B B FIRM3urnmary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Perod (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 -A --. ti me t 4r T ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT S,6R Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ + 4+ Volume (veh/h) 1 12 1 0 3 0 2 31 1 1 44 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 14 1 0 4 0 2 36 1 1 52 1 Pedestrians 3 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 872 790 1015 864 790 1037 1558 1586 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 4 40 54 Volume Left 1 0 2 1 Volume Right 1 0 1 1 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS A A Intersecborr`mmary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/22/2015 Intersection Summa Delay 119.6 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations •A + 1� + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 21 125 0 16 821 65 0 0 0 93 3 168 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 132 0 17 864 68 0 0 0 98 3 177 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 154 949 0 278 Volume Left (vph) 22 17 0 98 Volume Right (vph) 0 68 0 177 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.31 Departure Headway (s) 5.7 5.0 6.7 5.8 Degree Utilization, x 0.25 1.32 0.00 0.44 Capacity (veh/h) 600 715 506 607 Control Delay (s) 10.6 168.3 9.7 13.3 Approach Delay (s) 10.6 168.3 0.0 13.3 Approach LOS B F A B Intersection Summa Delay 119.6 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 -'* f- '- t 4% t r' �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ + 4+ 4+ Volume (veh/h) 2 212 2 3 901 44 0 3 8 53 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 223 2 3 948 46 0 3 8 56 0 2 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 998 229 1218 1236 229 1220 1214 981 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 998 229 1218 1236 229 1220 1214 981 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 98 99 63 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 700 1346 155 162 812 153 153 303 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 227 998 12 58 Volume Left 2 3 0 56 Volume Right 2 46 8 2 cSH 700 1346 388 155 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 39 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 14.6 41.3 Lane LOS A A B E Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 14.6 41.3 Approach LOS B E Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #4 4* 41 4* Volume (veh/h) 8 311 0 21 932 178 0 1 20 90 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 327 0 22 981 187 0 1 21 95 0 3 Pedestrians 1 29 11 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1172 338 1478 1572 367 1518 1478 1080 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1172 338 1478 1572 367 1518 1478 1080 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 98 100 99 97 0 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 559 1221 99 106 660 89 121 267 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 336 1191 22 98 Volume Left 8 22 0 95 Volume Right 0 187 21 3 cSH 559 1221 529 90 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.04 1.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 3 164 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.6 12.1 203.7 Lane LOS A A B F Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.6 12.1 203.7 Approach LOS B F Intersection Summary Average Delay 12.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/22/2015 -'* 4- ti t `► l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4+ 4# .+ Volume (veh/h) 7 449 0 8 1142 47 1 1 25 5 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 473 0 8 1202 49 1 1 26 5 0 1 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1259 480 1753 1770 480 1765 1745 1248 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1259 480 1753 1770 480 1765 1745 1248 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 98 99 96 91 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 342 967 64 81 587 60 84 210 Direction, Larne # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 480 1260 28 6 Volume Left 7 8 1 5 Volume Right 0 49 26 1 cSH 342 967 382 68 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 6 7 Control Delay (s) 0.7 0.3 15.2 62.9 Lane LOS A A C F Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.3 15.2 62.9 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + + 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 323 144 46 831 0 352 0 70 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 340 152 48 875 0 371 0 74 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 884 501 1398 1405 425 1433 1481 886 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 884 501 1398 1405 425 1433 1481 886 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 95 0 100 88 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 768 1021 107 132 625 94 119 343 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 492 923 444 0 Volume Left 0 48 371 0 Volume Right 152 0 74 0 cSH 768 1021 124 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 3.59 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 Err 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.3 Err 0.0 Lane LOS A F A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.3 Err 0.0 Approach LOS F A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2390.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 + 4, + Volume (veh/h) 3 3 13 9 0 9 2 238 1 5 121 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 3 14 9 0 9 2 251 1 5 127 0 Pedestrians 3 7 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 406 404 132 417 403 258 130 259 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 406 404 132 417 403 258 130 259 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 98 100 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 545 531 918 529 532 781 1464 1310 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 19 254 133 Volume Left 3 9 2 5 Volume Right 14 9 1 0 cSH 751 631 1464 1310 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.9 10.9 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 10.9 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 ,A -'* ` 4 t `► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL. WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41+ 41 4* 4, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 3 6 0 11 1 6 18 3 0 13 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 4 7 0 13 1 7 21 4 0 15 2 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 11 14 32 18 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 7 0 Volume Right (vph) 7 1 4 2 Hadj (s) -0.40 -0.05 -0.02 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 974 892 894 911 Control Delay (s) 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 Approach Delay (s) 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 -♦ -'* i, ~ t `% T /` ti d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + + 41 41 Volume (veh/h) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 245 9 5 139 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 258 9 5 146 1 Pedestrians 1 7 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 430 441 151 446 437 270 148 274 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 430 441 151 446 437 270 148 274 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 99 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 531 506 898 512 509 769 1444 1293 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 8 7 272 153 Volume Left 1 5 4 5 Volume Right 7 0 9 1 cSH 826 511 1444 1293 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEIL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 41 + 4+ Volume (vehlh) 3 5 5 0 4 0 1 24 0 1 19 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 6 6 0 5 0 1 28 0 1 22 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 58 56 23 65 56 28 24 28 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 58 56 23 65 56 28 24 28 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.8 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.2 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 938 838 1060 923 791 1053 1605 1598 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 15 5 29 25 Volume Left 4 0 1 1 Volume Right 6 0 0 1 cSH 936 791 1605 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Approach LOS A A Inter' - Mimary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/22/2015 'A --. --V j*-- k4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41, 41 1, 41 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 149 841 0 23 228 147 0 0 0 110 10 48 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 157 885 0 24 240 155 0 0 0 116 11 51 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 1042 419 0 177 Volume Left (vph) 157 24 0 116 Volume Right (vph) 0 155 0 51 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.20 0.00 -0.03 Departure Headway (s) 5.1 5.2 7.1 6.5 Degree Utilization, x 1.49 0.61 0.00 0.32 Capacity (veh/h) 690 678 455 528 Control Delay (s) 241.8 16.0 10.1 12.5 Approach Delay (s) 241.8 16.0 0.0 12.5 Approach LOS F C A B Intersection Summa Delay 159.3 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 'A 1 r '~ t t P ti 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ + + 41 Volume (veh)h) 7 976 0 1 391 20 3 4 9 48 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 1027 0 1 412 21 3 4 9 51 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 435 1028 1472 1480 1028 1480 1469 425 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 435 1028 1472 1480 1028 1480 1469 425 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 97 97 97 48 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1134 683 104 125 286 98 124 632 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1035 434 17 55 Volume Left 7 1 3 51 Volume Right 0 21 9 3 cSH 1134 683 174 103 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.53 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 8 61 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 28.0 73.8 Lane LOS A A D F Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 28.0 73.8 Approach LOS D F Inters err rnary Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/22/2015 � 'r t 4� t ♦ -' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 4+ + + Volume (veh/h) 0 1032 2 15 469 44 2 0 9 38 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1086 2 16 494 46 2 0 9 40 0 2 Pedestrians 3 10 5 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 545 1098 1648 1674 1100 1653 1652 522 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 545 1098 1648 1674 1100 1653 1652 522 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 98 97 100 96 46 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1030 638 77 93 258 74 96 556 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1088 556 12 42 Volume Left 0 16 2 40 Volume Right 2 46 9 2 cSH 1030 638 180 77 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 5 59 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 26.3 97.6 Lane LOS A D F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 26.3 97.6 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build! Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 t--. -'* � 4- 4\ t t ti l 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4# + 4+ 4# Volume (veh/h) 8 1146 8 16 598 23 6 0 11 7 1 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 1206 8 17 629 24 6 0 12 7 1 9 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 661 1228 1932 1935 1224 1921 1927 655 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 661 1228 1932 1935 1224 1921 1927 655 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 86 100 94 83 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 932 568 46 63 209 42 64 465 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1223 671 18 18 Volume Left 8 17 6 7 Volume Right 8 24 12 9 cSH 932 568 93 85 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.19 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 17 18 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.8 52.7 58.3 Lane LOS A A F F Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.8 52.7 58.3 Approach LOS F F $ . ' many Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build! Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/22/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL W_ BT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #T+ 4 r 4+ Volume (veh/h) 0 701 411 103 344 0 206 5 79 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 738 433 108 362 0 217 5 83 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 362 1181 1543 1543 966 1579 1759 362 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 362 1181 1543 1543 966 1579 1759 362 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 82 0 94 73 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1208 590 80 94 308 53 69 687 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1171 471 300 0 Volume Left 0 108 217 0 Volume Right 433 0 83 0 cSH 1208 590 101 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.18 2.96 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 17 719 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 974.9 0.0 Lane LOS A F A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 Err 0.0 Approach LOS F A Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 Appendix B 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions No -Build Shoulder Analysis 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 4+ is 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 9 51 0 7 337 27 0 0 0 38 1 69 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 54 0 7 355 28 0 0 0 40 1 73 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 63 391 0 114 Volume Left (vph) 9 7 0 40 Volume Right (vph) 0 28 0 73 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.31 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.2 5.1 4.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.08 0.46 0.00 0.15 Capacity (veh/h) 743 827 644 712 Control Delay (s) 8.0 10.7 8.1 8.4 Approach Delay (s) 8.0 10.7 0.0 8.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary Delay 10.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AMSgOQiZourED_DVCOLOShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, + + 4, Volume (veh/h) 1 87 1 1 369 18 0 1 3 22 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 92 1 1 388 19 0 1 3 23 0 1 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 410 97 505 511 97 502 502 407 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 410 97 505 511 97 502 502 407 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1156 1505 473 441 961 476 420 644 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 94 408 4 24 Volume Left 1 1 0 23 Volume Right 1 19 3 1 cSH 1156 1505 742 482 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 9.9 12.9 Lane LOS A A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 9.9 12.9 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis118853_2035AMSOQ BUrED_f VcOLOSED HBShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 1 -. -'* r t t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 4+ 4, 4+ Volume (veh/h) 3 127 0 9 382 73 0 0 8 37 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 134 0 9 402 77 0 0 8 39 0 1 Pedestrians 1 29 11 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 483 145 613 653 174 641 614 446 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 483 145 613 653 174 641 614 446 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 100 99 89 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1026 1437 396 381 846 368 400 614 Direction, Lane # EB`1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 137 488 8 40 Volume Left 3 9 0 39 Volume Right 0 77 8 1 cSH 1026 1437 846 372 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 9 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.2 9.3 15.8 Lane LOS A A A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.2 9.3 15.8 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projflle\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AMSOeSU LD_BhVc21LOS=Shc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 � 4- ♦- t -\ t r �► l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 4* 4► + Volume (veh/h) 3 184 0 3 468 19 0 0 10 2 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 194 0 3 493 20 0 0 11 2 0 0 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 520 201 730 733 201 726 723 524 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 520 201 730 733 201 726 723 524 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 99 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 723 1238 330 344 840 331 348 548 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 197 516 11 2 Volume Left 3 3 0 2 Volume Right 0 20 11 0 cSH 723 1238 840 331 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.1 9.3 15.9 Lane LOS A A A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.1 9.3 15.9 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuturelShoulder Analysis118853_2035AMS�QIBidfED_I8t#Vc@LOSED HBShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 41� I r 01� Volume (veh/h) 0 132 59 19 341 0 145 0 29 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 139 62 20 359 0 153 0 31 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 368 210 580 587 179 593 618 370 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 368 210 580 587 179 593 618 370 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 98 62 100 96 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1193 1310 399 412 857 393 395 674 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 201 379 183 0 Volume Left 0 20 153 0 Volume Right 62 0 31 0 cSH 1193 1310 479 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.38 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 44 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 17.8 0.0 Lane LOS A C A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 17.8 0.0 Approach LOS C A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuturelShoulder Analysis118853_2035AMSOQIBUI}' D_RJVCdLOShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 '# z t `► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ + 1a 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 14 83 0 11 542 43 0 0 0 61 2 111 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 87 0 12 571 45 0 0 0 64 2 117 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 102 627 0 183 Volume Left (vph) 15 12 0 64 Volume Right (vph) 0 45 0 117 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.31 Departure Headway (s) 5.2 4.5 6.0 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.15 0.79 0.00 0.27 Capacity (veh/h) 641 779 551 620 Control Delay (s) 9.1 22.3 9.0 10.3 Approach Delay (s) 9.1 22.3 0.0 10.3 Approach LOS A C A B Intersection :summary Delay 18.4 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Wprojfi1618853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanMaffic OpslSynchrolFuturelShoulder Analysis118853_2035AMSOQEbirED_uVoOLOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 '# --.* r �- t 4\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 41� 41 44 Volume (veh/h) 1 140 1 2 595 29 0 2 5 35 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 147 1 2 626 31 0 2 5 37 0 1 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 660 152 807 818 153 806 803 651 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 660 152 807 818 153 806 803 651 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 99 88 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 936 1436 297 291 895 296 277 469 Direction, Lane # EBI WB 1 NB 1 SIB1 Volume Total 149 659 7 38 Volume Left 1 2 0 37 Volume Right 1 31 5 1 cSH 936 1436 561 299 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 11 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 11.5 18.8 Lane LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 11.5 18.8 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AMSOQebrED_RWVC>'1LOS he Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 -A -. "t 'r *-- t N Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ 41 Volume (vehlh) 5 205 0 14 615 118 0 1 13 60 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 216 0 15 647 124 0 1 14 63 0 2 Pedestrians 1 29 11 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 776 227 979 1042 256 1012 980 714 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 776 227 979 1042 256 1012 980 714 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 100 98 69 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 795 1341 223 225 762 203 244 433 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 221 786 15 65 Volume Left 5 15 0 63 Volume Right 0 124 14 2 cSH 795 1341 651 207 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2 32 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.3 10.7 30.2 Lane LOS A A B D Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.3 10.7 30.2 Approach LOS B D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AMSOQMbfLD_ffbpcidLOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 416 4# *T+ Volume (veh/h) 5 296 0 5 754 31 1 1 17 3 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 312 0 5 794 33 1 1 18 3 0 1 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 833 319 1165 1173 319 1168 1157 831 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 833 319 1165 1173 319 1168 1157 831 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 99 98 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 528 1116 166 189 722 163 193 366 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 317 832 20 4 Volume Left 5 5 1 3 Volume Right 0 33 18 1 cSH 528 1116 545 189 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 3 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 11.9 24.5 Lane LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.1 11.9 24.5 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AMSOQ eb rED_BJVCOLOSt he Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #T► 4# 1 r 44 Volume (veh/h) 0 213 95 30 548 0 233 0 46 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 224 100 32 577 0 245 0 48 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 586 333 925 932 283 947 982 588 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 586 333 925 932 283 947 982 588 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 0 100 94 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 991 1179 231 257 750 218 241 508 Direction, Lane #f EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 324 608 294 0 Volume Left 0 32 245 0 Volume Right 100 0 48 0 cSH 991 1179 269 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 1.09 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 303 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 122.5 0.0 Lane LOS A F A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 122.5 0.0 Approach LOS F A Intersection Summary Average Delay 29.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\FuturelShoulder Analysis118853_2035AMSOQ@brLD_RwVcdLOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 ,A z 'r 4N t r �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� *11� f► 4* Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 142 799 0 22 217 140 0 0 0 104 10 46 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 149 841 0 23 228 147 0 0 0 109 11 48 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 991 399 0 168 Volume Left (vph) 149 23 0 109 Volume Right (vph) 0 147 0 48 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.20 0.00 -0.03 Departure Headway (s) 5.1 5.2 7.1 6.4 Degree Utilization, x 1.39 0.57 0.00 0.30 Capacity (veh/h) 706 683 465 531 Control Delay (s) 201.6 14.9 10.1 12.2 Approach Delay (s) 201.6 14.9 0.0 12.2 Approach LOS F B A B Intersection Summa Delay 133.3 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSWQ@brED_fDiVCOLOShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 --V t 4- t*\ t �► l r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SQR Lane Configurations 4# 4* + 4, Volume (veh/h) 7 927 0 1 371 19 3 4 9 46 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 976 0 1 391 20 3 4 9 48 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 413 977 1399 1406 977 1407 1396 404 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 413 977 1399 1406 977 1407 1396 404 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 97 97 97 56 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1155 714 117 139 307 110 137 650 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 983 412 17 53 Volume Left 7 1 3 48 Volume Right 0 20 9 3 cSH 1155 714 191 117 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 7 49 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 25.7 59.0 Lane LOS A A D F Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 25.7 59.0 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSOQIBUfLD_EJVCdLOSED HBShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 -A � 4- k -N t r 1 Movement- EBL EBT EBR WBILM BL a Lane Configurations +4 4* 4* 4, Volume (veh/h) 0 980 2 14 445 42 2 0 9 36 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1032 2 15 468 44 2 0 9 38 0 2 Pedestrians 3 10 5 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 518 1044 1565 1590 1046 1570 1569 496 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 518 1044 1565 1590 1046 1570 1569 496 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 98 98 100 97 55 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1054 669 88 105 277 85 108 576 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1034 527 12 40 Volume Left 0 15 2 38 Volume Right 2 44 9 2 cSH 1054 669 199 89 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 5 47 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 24.2 75.3 Lane LOS A C F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 24.2 75.3 Approach LOS C F Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSoQal urLD_iBt#pddLOShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4► + + 4+ Volume (veh/h) 8 1089 8 15 568 22 6 0 10 7 1 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 1146 8 16 598 23 6 0 11 7 1 9 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 628 1168 1837 1840 1164 1826 1833 622 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 628 1168 1837 1840 1164 1826 1833 622 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 88 100 95 85 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 958 599 54 72 227 50 73 485 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1163 637 17 18 Volume Left 8 16 6 7 Volume Right 8 23 11 9 cSH 958 599 103 99 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 14 16 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.7 46.6 49.1 Lane LOS A A E E Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.7 46.6 49.1 Approach LOS E E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprcjfile118853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSodIBtbl D_i JVCOLOSED HBShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 --V f- t T r �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 1 r 4* Volume (veh/h) 0 666 391 98 327 0 196 5 75 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 701 412 103 344 0 206 5 79 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 344 1123 1467 1467 919 1501 1673 344 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 344 1123 1467 1467 919 1501 1673 344 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 83 0 95 76 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1226 621 91 107 328 64 80 703 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1113 447 285 0 Volume Left 0 103 206 0 Volume Right 412 0 79 0 cSH 1226 621 116 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.17 2.46 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 15 635 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.7 743.8 0.0 Lane LOS A F A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.7 Err 0.0 Approach LOS F A Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSOQgU LD_fi VCOLOShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *4 41 t* 44 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 128 723 0 20 196 126 0 0 0 94 9 41 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 135 761 0 21 206 133 0 0 0 99 9 43 Direction;- EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 896 360 0 152 Volume Left (vph) 135 21 0 99 Volume Right (vph) 0 133 0 43 Hadj (s) 0.03 -0.20 0.00 -0.03 Departure Headway (s) 4.9 5.1 6.9 6.4 Degree Utilization, x 1.23 0.51 0.00 0.27 Capacity (veh/h) 724 692 482 538 Control Delay (s) 132.0 13.3 9.9 11.7 Approach Delay (s) 132.0 13.3 0.0 11.7 Approach LOS F B A B Intersection Summa Delay 88.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSWBUrDD_RbVCOLOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 -'V r 4- -N t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *4 4+ 41 #4 Volume (veh/h) 6 839 0 1 336 17 3 3 8 41 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 883 0 1 354 18 3 3 8 43 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 374 884 1266 1272 884 1273 1264 366 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 374 884 1266 1272 884 1273 1264 366 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 98 98 98 69 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1194 773 145 167 347 139 165 682 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 889 373 15 47 Volume Left 6 1 3 43 Volume Right 0 18 8 3 cSH 1194 773 227 147 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5 32 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 22.0 40.6 Lane LOS A A C E Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 22.0 40.6 Approach LOS C E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMStoembILD_04Wc&OS 3hc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMS0Q0d LD_BJVCELOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 -. --v 4r- '- t 4\ t r �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 + 41 + Volume (vehlh) 0 887 2 13 403 38 2 0 8 32 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 934 2 14 424 40 2 0 8 34 0 2 Pedestrians 3 10 5 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 469 946 1418 1441 948 1423 1422 449 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 469 946 1418 1441 948 1423 1422 449 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 98 98 100 97 69 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1098 728 112 130 316 108 133 611 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 936 478 11 36 Volume Left 0 14 2 34 Volume Right 2 40 8 2 cSH 1098 728 231 114 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 4 31 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 21.3 50.5 Lane LOS A C F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 21.3 50.5 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMS0Q0d LD_BJVCELOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� *T* + + Volume (veh/h) 7 986 7 14 514 20 5 0 9 6 1 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 1038 7 15 541 21 5 0 9 6 1 8 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 569 1058 1665 1668 1055 1654 1661 565 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 569 1058 1665 1668 1055 1654 1661 565 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 93 100 96 91 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1007 659 72 93 263 68 94 523 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1053 577 15 16 Volume Left 7 15 5 6 Volume Right 7 21 9 8 cSH 1007 659 135 131 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 9 10 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.6 34.9 36.2 Lane LOS A A D E Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.6 34.9 36.2 Approach LOS D E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSOQaIBUrLD_fiD#VCCLOShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSW@bfED_iH VCOLOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 '# -♦ -'* 'r t 4\ t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4# 41 1 r 4 Volume (veh,lh) 0 603 354 89 296 0 177 4 68 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 635 373 94 312 0 186 4 72 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 312 1017 1330 1330 833 1360 1516 312 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 312 1017 1330 1330 833 1360 1516 312 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 86 0 97 81 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1260 680 117 133 368 89 103 733 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1007 405 258 0 Volume Left 0 94 186 0 Volume Right 373 0 72 0 cSH 1260 680 148 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.14 1.74 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 12 471 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.0 411.2 0.0 Lane LOS A F A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.0 Err 0.0 Approach LOS F A Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 H:\projfile\18853 -Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PMSW@bfED_iH VCOLOSED HFShc Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 I T?VEFI�LT? VISION Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 A comprehensive and interconnected transportation system that allows safe, convenient, and accessible travel by all roadway users, regardless of age, physical ability, or travel mode, and that strengthens Ridgefield's role as a regional economic center, reinforces the quality and character of Ridgefield's neighborhoods and the downtown area, protects its critical environmental resources, and that is aligned with the growth management efforts of the City and region. TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND DOWNTOWN -SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Connectivity 1. Create welcoming pedestrian connections to businesses, services, parks, and schools in downtown. 2. Maintain and enhance the pedestrian environment on Main Avenue and Pioneer Street in the downtown area to promote pedestrian access and augment a sense of place. 3. Provide low -stress bicycle connections to and through downtown Ridgefield from the system of trails, greenways, and local streets in surrounding areas. 4. Design and designate clear routes with sufficient capacity for vehicles, heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists to and from the Waterfront area. 5. Enhance the intersection of Pioneer and Main as a focal point of downtown and the connection between downtown and the waterfront. 6. Create a gateway entrance to the downtown and waterfront areas. Safety 1. Minimize crashes in the downtown area for all road users. 2. Provide comfort and safety for walking and biking in downtown. 3. Improve multimodal operations at the intersection of Pioneer Street and Hillhurst Road. 4. Provide safe access to the schools. Equity 1. Plan and design downtown facilities that are accessible to all travelers, regardless of age, physical ability, or travel mode. 2. Ensure a public engagement process to collect input and allow for involvement from all community members. 3. Balances impacts to existing properties with benefits to the greater community. Economic Prosperity 1. Maintain freight access, parking, and loading areas in the downtown area. 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 PN # 18853 2. Enhance multimodal access and leverage transportation investments in the downtown area to attract future residents and visitors and encourage commercial activity, tourism, and real estate development. 3. Encourage speeds for vehicles on Pioneer Street and Main Avenue that align with the "main street" vision and feel. 4. Maximize opportunities for people to "stop and shop". 5. Use resources efficiently and invest in infrastructure that will serve the City for years to come. Environmental Stewardship 1. Provide multi -modal connections from downtown to natural resources areas, including the waterfront, the Wildlife Refuge, Abrams Park, and trails. 2. Improve access and circulation for all modes that reduces auto travel and greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Minimize impacts to existing environmental assets. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. N m m m 0 M m N W N N 10 N 07 m n M O rl Q7 W n to N m u a .n 4 V m N N N n In n Ln ID t0 O to 01 Ln to Ln N a Ln N N N r, 0) tG tD ID 0) m w W n n tD tD O - N t d d w O 3 v C v o E � — � — - c v a v v E y °'151E c rY my p .p .ti D O v m N n In n Ln ID t0 O to 01 Ln to Ln N a Ln N N N r, 0) tG tD ID 0) m w W n n tD tD O - N t Appendix E 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions Division Street Connection Alternatives E m 2 z.4t qtr Jl� Jj1. qtr �t�r 0 q< o C C � o t: �U rn c`a ►— W � c 0. 2 n Y ,> (0 0 N d Q LO Cl) N =�oQ< sow"s 3 H_ X52 ZE- o 04 WoY� c ✓1� i r 1tr any 415 o _ i Mn any Pa E J 1 1 sl mona tsz 0:. �o8i ` l r' qtr any UIL O Piot�.� Jl� wltr �` O qtr Jl� Jj1. qtr �t�r 0 q< o C C � o t: �U rn c`a ►— W � c 0. 2 n Y ,> (0 0 N d Q LO Cl) N =�oQ< sow"s 3 H_ X52 ZE- o 04 WoY� LO s z -OK J31. Jit. Jit. tier qtr qtr J31. SJ wNP��O 88� . CE1 u�� ro qtr Al. 3. tP689ot5 � a¢ C,�Gt qtr vl c Q 0 slugg°G<s��°;3 U 0 m �Ot\ �5 ABM8nIJ4 - • U_ cmOBJ d and 436 Co in � c 0.0 = N_ Y � any u38 o a ` LO M N ma o N EL it eny 435 __ O 05 c o j)AeVq Piot`a� qtr O J31. Jit. Jit. tier qtr qtr J31. SJ wNP��O 88� . CE1 u�� ro qtr Al. 3. tP689ot5 � a¢ qtr qtr slugg°G<s��°;3 z( 9|0,S " a/ ©H7 p O O 26\\� a3g3� O O cn co 0 a) 0 �E& °f = 7a� R/ }Z #\ \0 \( 040 $ §,|-E O !(#!E;| M.M )§ i ( /§ z-4( F - El LZ0 6-88, �-1 qtr p dot eG G° 5� A72M9AUd SAV 436 VJ C p N c l� o �o .ax> V ,rwZ tr _ any 439 p VJ C p eny Pas ® fir any UiUW 3,3 a� emv+rn-esse:.a+u->w�— Q,. J1 y BEJ Hq A� `6 i' c�io�Y ri qtr O Jj1, Jj1, Cl —�� R reZ Zty yCv�gn �t qtr qtr O p 3,3 emv+rn-esse:.a+u->w�— 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/16/2015 ,# --. --V o-~ 4- 'N t t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL ' WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 90 Lane Configurations + 41 4, + Volume (veh/h) 0 69 0 10 344 72 0 7 62 23 102 118 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 73 0 11 362 76 0 7 65 24 107 124 Pedestrians 5 3 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 520 299 177 300 328 43 237 76 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 520 299 177 300 328 43 237 76 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 87 100 98 37 93 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 212 548 865 577 576 1031 1337 1532 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 S81 Volume Total 73 448 73 256 Volume Left 0 11 0 24 Volume Right 0 76 65 124 cSH 548 622 1337 1532 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.72 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 151 0 1 Control Delay (s) 12.6 24.3 0.0 0.8 Lane LOS B C A Approach Delay (s) 12.6 24.3 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 14.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division ExtensiSyr(W116liA tb Mill -adir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 ,A -'* r4--- 4 t ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 44 + + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 87 14 24 378 1 5 13 2 0 9 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 102 16 28 445 1 6 15 2 0 11 1 Di rectiort", TWO EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 119 474 24 12 Volume Left (vph) 0 28 6 0 Volume Right (vph) 16 1 2 1 Hadj (s) 0.24 0.41 0.10 -0.06 Departure Headway (s) 4.7 4.5 5.4 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.60 0.04 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 736 779 594 602 Control Delay (s) 8.6 14.1 8.6 8.4 Approach Delay (s) 8.6 14.1 8.6 8.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary Delay 12.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AltemativeslDivision Extensi8ygfflbF7Acfde;wtb Millers Landir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4+ + + Volume (veh/h) 5 5 12 14 0 1 4 6 2 9 114 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 5 13 15 0 1 4 6 2 9 120 0 Pedestrians 1 5 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 161 162 121 175 161 16 121 13 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 161 162 121 175 161 16 121 13 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 98 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 797 700 935 766 725 1061 1478 1611 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 23 16 13 129 Volume Left 5 15 4 9 Volume Right 13 1 2 0 cSH 838 780 1478 1611 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 9.7 2.5 0.6 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 9.7 2.5 0.6 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AlternativeslDivision ExtensiSy (WffiliAc tb Millb dir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 4# + + Volume (veh/h) 1 12 1 0 3 0 2 31 1 1 44 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 14 1 0 4 0 2 36 1 1 52 1 Pedestrians 3 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 872 790 1015 864 790 1037 1558 1586 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 4 40 54 Volume Left 1 0 2 1 Volume Right 1 0 1 1 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi8yr(Wl"6F7AdReFwtb Millers Landir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBE' Lane Configurations 4* 4+ 4 4* Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 58 0 16 486 14 0 0 0 93 3 30 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 61 0 17 512 15 0 0 0 98 3 32 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 . Volume Total (vph) 65 543 0 133 Volume Left (vph) 4 17 0 98 Volume Right (vph) 0 15 0 32 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 4.9 4.4 5.5 5.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.09 0.66 0.00 0.20 Capacity (veh/h) 696 808 576 613 Control Delay (s) 8.4 15.3 8.5 9.6 Approach Delay (s) 8.4 15.3 0.0 9.6 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summa Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Altematives\Division Extensi8ggWl"6FTAoRepotb Mill Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 -'V i t t 1 *4' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4► + + + Volume (veh/h) 2 148 2 3 532 44 0 3 8 53 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 156 2 3 560 46 0 3 8 56 0 2 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 609 162 763 781 162 765 759 592 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 609 162 763 781 162 765 759 592 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 99 82 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 977 1424 317 305 885 314 294 506 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 160 609 12 58 Volume Left 2 3 0 56 Volume Right 2 46 8 2 cSH 977 1424 583 318 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 16 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 11.3 18.8 Lane LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 11.3 18.8 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AlternativeslDivision Extensi6yr(WI`T5FTAdRe;&tb Millers Landir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #11 4+ 41 41� Volume (veh/h) 8 246 0 21 562 178 0 1 20 90 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 259 0 22 592 187 0 1 21 95 0 3 Pedestrians 1 29 11 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 783 270 1020 1114 299 1060 1020 690 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 783 270 1020 1114 299 1060 1020 690 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 100 99 97 49 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 790 1293 207 202 721 185 229 447 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 267 801 22 98 Volume Left 8 22 0 95 Volume Right 0 187 21 3 cSH 790 1293 642 189 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.52 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 3 66 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.5 10.8 43.0 Lane LOS A A B E Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.5 10.8 43.0 Approach LOS B E Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AltemativeslDivision Extensi8gr(Wf ffA tb Mil --)dir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 7 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/16/2015 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic OpslSynchro\Future12035_Altematives\Division Extensi6yrW[T)FTAcRepotb Millers Landir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4* 4+ 4+ Volume (veh/h) 7 385 0 8 773 47 1 1 25 5 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 405 0 8 814 49 1 1 26 5 0 1 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 870 412 1297 1314 412 1309 1289 859 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 870 412 1297 1314 412 1309 1289 859 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 99 96 96 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 509 1027 134 154 640 127 160 353 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 413 872 28 6 Volume Left 7 8 1 5 Volume Right 0 49 26 1 cSH 509 1027 509 142 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 4 3 Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.2 12.5 31.5 Lane LOS A A B D Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.2 12.5 31.5 Approach LOS B D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic OpslSynchro\Future12035_Altematives\Division Extensi6yrW[T)FTAcRepotb Millers Landir Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 8 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/1612015 'A -. 7 4e4--- 4-*.� T l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 41 ? Volume (veh/h) 0 260 143 46 476 0 352 0 70 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 274 151 48 501 0 371 0 74 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 0.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 510 433 958 965 358 993 1040 512 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 510 433 958 965 358 993 1040 512 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 96 0 100 89 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1065 1082 217 244 681 194 220 565 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 424 549 444 Volume Left 0 48 371 Volume Right 151 0 74 cSH 1065 1082 247 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 1.80 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 755 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.2 409.7 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.2 409.7 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 128.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AlternativeslDivision Extensi89r(WI`T5F7AcRe;wtb Mill Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/16/2015 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 .,A --. -'* f- 4--- t N t r . ♦ -V Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4� 4, 4, Volume (veh/h) 122 471 0 3 89 92 0 27 0 5 88 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 128 496 0 3 94 97 0 28 0 5 93 35 Pedestrians 3 7 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 296 159 115 406 176 35 130 35 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 296 159 115 406 176 35 130 35 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 76 32 100 99 87 91 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 533 728 939 248 712 1037 1464 1579 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 624 194 28 133 Volume Left 128 3 0 5 Volume Right 0 97 0 35 cSH 677 815 1464 1579 Volume to Capacity 0.92 0.24 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 309 23 0 0 Control Delay (s) 42.9 10.8 0.0 0.3 Lane LOS E B A Approach Delay (s) 42.9 10.8 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS E B Intersection Summary Average Delay 29.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 Lane Configurations 41� 4, 41) 4* Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 477 0 0 164 1 6 18 3 0 13 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 561 0 0 193 1 7 21 4 0 15 2 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 561 194 32 18 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 7 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 1 4 2 Hadj (s) 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.6 5.6 5.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.66 0.25 0.05 0.03 Capacity (veh/h) 561 755 556 570 Control Delay (s) 15.2 9.1 8.9 8.7 Approach Delay (s) 15.2 9.1 8.9 8.7 Approach LOS C A A A Intersection Summary Delay 13.4 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/16/2015 'A � f '- t4\ t t ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +i+ 4+ 4► 41 Volume (veh/h) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 31 9 5 87 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 33 9 5 92 1 Pedestrians 1 7 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 150 161 96 166 157 44 94 49 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 150 161 96 166 157 44 94 49 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 99 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 811 725 963 783 729 1025 1512 1562 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 8 7 46 98 Volume Left 1 5 4 5 Volume Right 7 0 9 1 cSH 941 767 1512 1562 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.7 0.7 0.4 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.7 0.7 0.4 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� + 4, + Volume (veh/h) 3 5 5 0 4 0 1 24 0 1 13 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 6 6 0 5 0 1 28 0 1 15 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 51 49 16 58 49 28 16 28 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 51 49 16 58 49 28 16 28 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.8 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.2 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 948 845 1069 933 798 1053 1614 1598 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 S131 Volume Total 15 5 29 18 Volume Left 4 0 1 1 Volume Right 6 0 0 1 cSH 945 798 1614 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.5 0.3 0.5 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.5 0.3 0.5 Approach LOS A A Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/16/2015 l � 1 4- Z 1 i l �► j r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 + 4 41 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 30 387 0 23 143 61 0 0 0 97 10 9 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 32 407 0 24 151 64 0 0 0 102 11 9 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 439 239 0 122 Volume Left (vph) 32 24 0 102 Volume Right (vph) 0 64 0 9 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.13 0.00 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.6 5.7 5.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.56 0.31 0.00 0.19 Capacity (veh/h) 763 742 543 579 Control Delay (s) 13.1 9.7 8.7 9.9 Approach Delay (s) 13.1 9.7 0.0 9.9 Approach LOS B A A A Intersection Summary Delay 11.6 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Pernod (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 + 4# 4# Volume (veh/h) 7 509 0 1 224 20 3 4 9 42 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 536 0 1 236 21 3 4 9 44 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 259 537 805 812 537 813 802 249 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 259 537 805 812 537 813 802 249 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 99 98 85 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1315 1041 299 312 548 289 310 792 pirection, Lane # , EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 543 258 17 48 Volume Left 7 1 3 44 Volume Right 0 21 9 3 cSH 1315 1041 407 302 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 14 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 14.2 19.2 Lane LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 14.2 19.2 Approach LOS B C Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 41� 4+ + Volume (veh/h) 0 558 2 15 302 44 2 0 9 38 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 587 2 16 318 46 2 0 9 40 0 2 Pedestrians 3 10 5 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 369 599 973 999 601 979 977 346 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 369 599 973 999 601 979 977 346 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 98 99 100 98 82 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1195 979 226 238 498 221 246 699 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 589 380 12 42 Volume Left 0 16 2 40 Volume Right 2 46 9 2 cSH 1195 979 409 228 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2 16 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 14.1 24.3 Lane LOS A B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 14.1 24.3 Approach LOS B C POWion Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 41� 4* 4* Volume (veh/h) 8 673 8 16 431 23 6 0 11 7 1 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 708 8 17 454 24 6 0 12 7 1 9 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 485 730 1258 1261 726 1248 1253 479 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 485 730 1258 1261 726 1248 1253 479 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 95 100 97 94 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1082 874 139 164 409 133 166 584 Direction, Lane # EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 725 495 18 18 Volume Left 8 17 6 7 Volume Right 8 24 12 9 cSH 1082 874 243 229 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 6 6 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.6 21.0 22.0 Lane LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.6 21.0 22.0 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/16/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4+ 'i r Volume (veh/h) 0 253 386 103 182 0 201 5 79 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 266 406 108 192 0 212 5 83 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 192 683 888 888 481 924 1091 192 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 192 683 888 888 481 924 1091 192 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 88 11 98 86 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1394 907 238 249 583 192 189 855 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 673 300 295 Volume Left 0 108 212 Volume Right 406 0 83 cSH 1394 907 323 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.12 0.91 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 10 222 Control Delay (s) 0.0 4.3 66.6 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.3 Err Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 i � { .� k ',� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 4+ 4* 4, Volume (veh/h) 0 11 0 87 5 72 0 24 12 23 220 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 12 0 92 5 76 0 25 13 24 232 0 Pedestrians 5 3 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 395 326 240 323 320 35 237 41 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 395 326 240 323 320 35 237 41 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 85 99 93 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 513 529 799 609 582 1042 1337 1578 Direction-, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 173 38 256 Volume Left 0 92 0 24 Volume Right 0 76 13 0 cSH 529 744 1337 1578 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 22 0 1 Control Delay (s) 12.0 11.3 0.0 0.8 Lane LOS B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.0 11.3 0.0 0.8 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Altematives\Division Extensi6gr( eeRooftAiller-------ig) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 Intersection Summa Delay 8.7 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi8FgN(rDAbaeR e0odVliIle rs Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 ,A -• -;V '- 4\ t t l 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4:14 4� 4* 4* Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 41 14 24 165 1 5 13 2 0 9 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 48 16 28 194 1 6 15 2 0 11 1 Direction, La EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 65 224 24 12 Volume Left (vph) 0 28 6 0 Volume Right (vph) 16 1 2 1 Hadj (s) 0.13 0.39 0.10 -0.06 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.08 0.28 0.03 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 809 800 717 732 Control Delay (s) 7.7 9.1 7.8 7.6 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 9.1 7.8 7.6 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summa Delay 8.7 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi8FgN(rDAbaeR e0odVliIle rs Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� *4 41 41 Volume (veh/h) 5 5 12 14 0 1 4 35 2 9 302 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 5 13 15 0 1 4 37 2 9 318 0 Pedestrians 1 5 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 389 390 319 403 389 47 319 44 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 389 390 319 403 389 47 319 44 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 97 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 564 519 726 539 541 1020 1251 1571 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 23 16 43 327 Volume Left 5 15 4 9 Volume Right 13 1 2 0 cSH 628 556 1251 1571 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.0 11.7 0.8 0.3 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 11.0 11.7 0.8 0.3 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi8yr(0ftAb6eRe(mdGliller ng) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 � � t 4\ t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4► + 4+ + Volume (veh/h) 1 12 1 0 3 0 2 31 1 1 44 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 14 1 0 4 0 2 36 1 1 52 1 Pedestrians 3 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 872 790 1015 864 790 1037 1558 1586 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 4 40 54 Volume Left 1 0 2 1 Volume Right 1 0 1 1 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS A A IntemVWturnmary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AltemativeslDivision Extensi8yr(L22Cee1R80dlillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 'A -. -,* 4.- 4- 4, t �► 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 44 + 41 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 33 113 0 16 764 14 0 0 0 89 3 225 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 119 0 17 804 15 0 0 0 94 3 237 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 154 836 0 334 Volume Left (vph) 35 17 0 94 Volume Right (vph) 0 15 0 237 Hadj (s) 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.36 Departure Headway (s) 6.0 5.2 6.9 5.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.25 1.21 0.00 0.53 Capacity (veh/h) 577 683 490 613 Control Delay (s) 11.0 126.1 9.9 15.0 Approach Delay (s) 11.0 126.1 0.0 15.0 Approach LOS B F A B Intersection Summary Delay 84.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extensi8Vgbt r,,RbeeR90 hiller -ung) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 'A--. N r t*\ t t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *T► 4� + 41 Volume (veh/h) 2 196 2 3 793 44 0 3 8 53 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 206 2 3 835 46 0 3 8 56 0 2 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 884 212 1088 1106 212 1090 1084 867 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 884 212 1088 1106 212 1090 1084 867 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 98 99 70 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 772 1365 191 195 829 188 185 353 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 211 884 12 58 Volume Left 2 3 0 56 Volume Right 2 46 8 2 cSH 772 1365 439 191 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.30 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 30 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 13.4 31.8 Lane LOS A A B D Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 13.4 31.8 Approach LOS B D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprcjfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AltemativeslDivision Extensi6yr( eeRe0nftAillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 -. -'* 'r z 4,� t 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT" SBR Lane Configurations 41 .1 41 41� Volume (veh/h) 8 294 0 21 823 178 0 1 20 90 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 309 0 22 866 187 0 1 21 95 0 3 Pedestrians 1 29 11 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 2 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1058 320 1346 1439 349 1385 1346 965 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1058 320 1346 1439 349 1385 1346 965 tC, single (s) 4.2 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 100 99 97 14 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 620 1239 123 128 675 110 146 311 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 318 1076 22 98 Volume Left 8 22 0 95 Volume Right 0 187 21 3 cSH 620 1239 561 112 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.87 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 3 131 Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.5 11.7 124.4 Lane LOS A A B F Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.5 11.7 124.4 Approach LOS B F Intersection Summary Average Delay 8.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AlternativeslDivision ExteniIle r. _ung) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 7 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 .,# 'r '- 4- t r 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 411� 41 #11� Volume (veh/h) 7 433 0 8 1034 47 1 1 25 5 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 456 0 8 1088 49 1 1 26 5 0 1 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX. platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1145 463 1623 1639 463 1634 1615 1134 vC1, stage 1 .-onfvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1145 463 1623 1639 463 1634 1615 1134 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 99 96 93 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 384 982 79 97 600 75 101 244 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB, 1 Volume Total 463 1146 28 6 Volume Left 7 8 1 5 Volume Right 0 49 26 1 cSH 384 982 418 85 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 5 6 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.3 14.2 51.0 Lane LOS A A B F Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.3 14.2 51.0 Approach LOS B F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Altematives\Division Extensi4 (N2bAbceRe0ndMillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 8 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 41 Vi r Volume (veh/h) 0 306 144 46 698 0 352 0 70 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 322 152 48 735 0 371 0 74 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 0.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 744 483 1240 1247 407 1275 1323 746 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 744 483 1240 1247 407 1275 1323 746 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.2 7.2 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 95 0 100 88 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 873 1037 138 165 639 123 149 416 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 474 783 444 Volume Left 0 48 371 Volume Right 152 0 74 cSH 873 1037 159 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 2.79 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 995 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.2 866.0 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.2 866.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 226.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfiI018853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Altematives\Division ExtensiSVq eebs fmfGlillen-�+g) Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 9 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 'A -. 1 r z 1 T l `► l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 41 41 01� Volume (veh/h) 3 16 0 23 2 92 0 155 84 5 121 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 17 0 24 2 97 0 163 88 5 127 0 Pedestrians 3 7 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fUs) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 446 399 132 363 355 214 130 259 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 446 399 132 363 355 214 130 259 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 97 100 96 100 88 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 457 535 918 573 566 826 1464 1310 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 S81 Volume Total 20 123 252 133 Volume Left 3 24 0 5 Volume Right 0 97 88 0 cSH 521 754 1464 1310 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 15 0 0 Control Delay (s) 12.2 10.7 0.0 0.3 Lane LOS B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.2 10.7 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic OpslSynchr6Future12035_Alternatives\Division Exten si8yr(N2,,tqceRe0D1Miliers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 ,# -. z j, '~ �� t t l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Nbr-OwW,R Lane Configurations 4� 44 41, 41 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 106 0 0 111 1 6 18 3 0 13 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 125 0 0 131 1 7 21 4 0 15 2 Direction Lane # EB 1 - Volume Total (vph) 125 132 32 18 Volume Left (vph) 0 0 7 0 Volume Right (vph) 0 1 4 2 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.08 Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.15 0.04 0.02 Capacity (veh/h) 850 854 757 756 Control Delay (s) 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.5 Approach Delay (s) 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.5 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summa Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi6yr(et(rbcelss oftliller- ng) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 .A -.,v 'r 4--- t� t ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *► 14 41 41 Volume (veh/h) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 243 9 5 140 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 256 9 5 147 1 Pedestrians 1 7 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 429 440 152 445 436 268 149 272 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 429 440 152 445 436 268 149 272 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 99 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 532 507 897 513 510 771 1443 1295 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 8 7 269 154 Volume Left 1 5 4 5 Volume Right 7 0 9 1 cSH 826 512 1443 1295 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS A B hffrs'� ry Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprcjfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic OpslSynchr6Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi6yr(02bAbeeRepni fillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 --V 4,4-- z� t ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4> + + + Volume (veh/h) 3 5 5 0 4 0 1 24 0 1 13 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 6 6 0 5 0 1 28 0 1 15 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 51 49 16 58 49 28 16 28 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 51 49 16 58 49 28 16 28 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.8 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.2 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 948 845 1069 933 798 1053 1614 1598 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 15 5 29 18 Volume Left 4 0 1 1 Volume Right 6 0 0 1 cSH 945 798 1614 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.5 0.3 0.5 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.5 0.3 0.5 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AltemativeslDivision ExtensiSVgOftRceeRslbililler------ -ig) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 Intersection Summa Delay 155.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_Altematives\Division Extensi8yr(N2ageeRe0ftAillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + 4, ? 4► Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 233 757 0 23 214 61 0 0 0 97 10 62 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 245 797 0 24 225 64 0 0 0 102 11 65 -, EB1 WB1 NB SBI Volume Total (vph) 1042 314 0 178 Volume Left (vph) 245 24 0 102 Volume Right (vph) 0 64 0 65 Hadj (s) 0.05 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 Departure Headway (s) 5.0 5.3 6.9 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 1.44 0.46 0.00 0.31 Capacity (veh/h) 709 665 484 552 Control Delay (s) 223.3 12.8 9.9 12.0 Approach Delay (s) 223.3 12.8 0.0 12.0 Approach LOS F B A B Intersection Summa Delay 155.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanJraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_Altematives\Division Extensi8yr(N2ageeRe0ftAillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 ,# -'* r 4- t4,\ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .T► *T► 44� 4' Volume (veh/h) 7 879 0 1 291 20 3 4 9 42 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 925 0 1 306 21 3 4 9 44 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 329 926 1265 1272 926 1273 1262 320 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 329 926 1265 1272 926 1273 1262 320 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 98 97 97 68 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1239 746 145 167 328 138 165 724 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 933 328 17 48 Volume Left 7 1 3 44 Volume Right 0 21 9 3 cSH 1239 746 222 146 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 34 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 22.5 41.5 Lane LOS A A C E Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 22.5 41.5 Approach LOS C E MMM - Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_AltemativeslDivision Extensi8yr(0@akceft0iMiller Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + + 44 Volume (veh/h) 0 928 2 15 369 44 2 0 9 38 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 977 2 16 388 46 2 0 9 40 0 2 Pedestrians 3 10 5 Lane Width (ft.) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 440 989 1433 1459 991 1439 1437 417 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 440 989 1433 1459 991 1439 1437 417 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 98 98 100 97 62 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1126 701 109 126 298 105 130 638 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 979 451 12 42 Volume Left 0 16 2 40 Volume Right 2 46 9 2 cSH 1126 701 226 109 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 4 40 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 21.8 57.2 Lane LOS A C F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 21.8 57.2 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFutureQ035_AlternativeslDivision Extensi6yr 0@,RbeeR90dblillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 .A -. z j 4- 4-4� t �1*. l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #T# 4, 4* #T* Volume (veh/h) 8 1043 8 16 497 23 6 0 11 7 1 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 1098 8 17 523 24 6 0 12 7 1 9 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 554 1119 1717 1720 1115 1706 1712 548 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 554 1119 1717 1720 1115 1706 1712 548 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 97 90 100 95 88 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1020 625 66 86 242 61 87 534 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1115 564 18 18 Volume Left 8 17 6 7 Volume Right 8 24 12 9 cSH 1020 625 125 119 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 12 13 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.7 38.7 40.5 Lane LOS A A E E Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.7 38.7 40.5 Approach LOS E E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 H:Iprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future12035_Alternatives\Division Extensi8pr(NQAbceRe0iMiller- ng) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12115/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .T► 41► 1 IN Volume (veh/h) 0 598 411 103 244 0 206 5 79 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 629 433 108 257 0 217 5 83 0 0 0 Pedestrians 2 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 Right turn flare (veh) 5 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 257 1072 1329 1329 858 1366 1546 257 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 257 1072 1329 1329 858 1366 1546 257 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 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 83 0 96 77 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1320 649 114 129 356 81 95 787 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 1062 365 300 Volume Left 0 108 217 Volume Right 433 0 83 cSH 1320 649 143 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.17 2.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 15 606 Control Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 568.1 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 Err Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay Err Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 H:lprojfile118853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation PlanlTraffic OpslSynchrolFuture12035_Altematives0ivision Extensi89r( eeR90ftlillers Landing) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 Appendix F 2035 Future Year Signal Warrant Analysis Warrant Summary Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? #1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. f _-7 SW Alder, Suite 700 Vf 1610 Portland, Oregon 97205 i .... I`. - (503)228-5230 -. - Fax: (503) 273-8169 Project #: 18853 Project Name: Ridgefield DCS Analyst: SWB Date: 12/22/2015 File: KbmN.Vm3, xareneb oo.mw.uwmien vwV.+xr onV..Ms4W w.mm.wWaVusLruA nvvrn_sy..i Intersection: Pionner St/Main Ave Scenario: 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build Warrant Summary Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? #1 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Yes Yes #2 Four -Hour Vehicular volume Yes Yes #3 Peak Hour Yes Yes #4 Pedestrian Volume No - #5 School Crossing No - #6 Coordinated Signal System No - #7 Crash Experience No - #8 Roadway Network No - 4th Input Parameters 863 Begin Hour End Analysis Traffic Major Street EB Volumes WB NB Minor Street SB 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 990 398 0 168 2nd Highest Hour 948 381 0 161 3rd Highest Hour 905 364 0 154 4th Highest Hour 863 347 0 146 5th Highest Hour 820 330 0 139 6th Highest Hour 778 313 0 132 7th Highest Hour 735 296 0 125 8th Highest Hour 693 279 0 118 9th Highest Hour 634 255 0 108 loth Highest Hour 545 219 0 92 11th Highest Hour 446 179 0 76 12th Highest Hour 426 171 0 72 13th Highest Hour 386 155 0 66 14th Highest Hour 356 143 0 60 15th Highest Hour 356 143 0 60 16th Highest Hour 347 139 0 59 17th Highest Hour 198 80 0 34 18th Highest Hour 109 44 0 18 19th Highest Hour 99 40 0 17 20th Highest Hour 40 16 0 7 21st Highest Hour 30 12 0 5 22nd Highest Hour 30 12 0 5 23rd Highest Hour 20 8 0 3 24th Highest Hour 20 8 0 3 Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0 Warrant #1 - Eight Hour North-South Approach = Minor * * X East-West roach= PP Major Warrant Condition Major Street Minor Street HoursTha[ Condition for Signal Warrant • K � Factor X X Requirement Requirement Condition Is Met Warrant Factor Met? Major Street Thru Lanes = 1 Met. Minor Street Thru Lanes = 1 A Soo 150 3 No Speed >40 mph? No 100% B 750 75 30 Yes Yes Population < 10,000? No A 400 120 7 No Warrant Factor 100% 80% B 600 60 11 Yes Yes Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour A 350 105 9 Yes 70% Yes B 525 53 13 Yes Major Street. 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Major Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% Minor Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Minor Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% — 2 Major / 2 Minor Warrant #2 - Four -Hour —2 Major/ 1 Minor —1 Major / 2 Minor 100% Warrant Factor —1 Major / i Minor x Traffic Volumes 600 -- Soo ti 400 O d 300 _m x 200 100 700 600 500 d 0 400 w 300 x 200 100 0 Warrant #3 - Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor — 2 Major / 2 Minor —2 Major / 1 Minor —1 Major / 2 Minor —1 Major/ 1 Minor X Traffic Volumes * * X • K � X X 700 600 500 d 0 400 w 300 x 200 100 0 Warrant #3 - Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor — 2 Major / 2 Minor —2 Major / 1 Minor —1 Major / 2 Minor —1 Major/ 1 Minor X Traffic Volumes 20D 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 167] 0 5001000 lsoo 2000 Combined Major Street Combined Major Street * * X 20D 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 167] 0 5001000 lsoo 2000 Combined Major Street Combined Major Street KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. / 1610 SW Alder, Suite 700 4 Portland, Oregon 97205 t (503)228-5230 Fax: (503)273-8169 Project #: 18853 Project Name: Ridgefield DCS Analyst: SWB Date: 12/22/2015 File::m.�m..u.a,.,„„�o,,,,a,,k�,a..n.,w.v.mw�w...,,.�.m+w..:,_w��,..._ww #4 Intersection: Pionner5t/3rd Ave Scenario: 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build No - Warrant Summary Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? #1 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 42 Four -Hour Vehicular volume Yes No #3 Peak Hour Yes No #4 Pedestrian Volume No - #5 School Crossing No - #6 Coordinated Signal System No - 47 Crash Experience No - #8 Roadway Network No - Highest Hour 941 394 15 Input Parameters 3rd Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0 North-South Approach = Minor East-West Approach = Major Major Street Thru Lanes = 1 Minor Street Thru Lanes = 1 Speed > 40 mph? No Population < 10,000? No Warrant Factor 100% Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour Warrant #1 - Eight Hour Warrant Major Street Minor Street Hours That Condition forSignal Warrant Condition Warrant Factor Factor Requirement Requirement Condition Is Met Met? Met? A Analysis Traffic Volumes 150 0 No Hour Major Street Minor Street - 2 Major / 2 Minor Begin End EB WB NB SB 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 983 412 16 52 2nd Highest Hour 941 394 15 50 3rd Highest Hour 899 377 15 48 4th Highest Hour 857 359 14 45 5th Highest Hour 814 341 13 43 6th Highest Hour 772 324 13 41 7th Highest Hour 730 306 12 39 8th Highest Hour 688 288 11 36 9th Highest Hour 629 264 10 33 10th Highest Hour 541 227 9 29 11th Highest Hour 442 185 7 23 12th Highest Hour 423 177 7 22 13th Highest Hour 383 161 6 20 14th Highest Hour 354 148 6 19 15th Highest Hour 354 148 6 19 16th Highest Hour 344 144 6 18 17th Highest Hour 197 82 3 10 18th Highest Hour 108 45 2 6 19th Highest Hour 98 41 2 5 20th Highest Hour 39 16 1 2 21st Highest Hour 29 12 0 2 22nd Highest Hour 29 12 0 2 23rd Highest Hour 20 8 0 1 24th Highest Hour 20 8 0 1 Warrant #1 - Eight Hour Warrant Major Street Minor Street Hours That Condition forSignal Warrant Condition Warrant Factor Factor Requirement Requirement Condition Is Met Met? Met? Major Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour A 500 150 0 No Minor Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 100% - 2 Major / 2 Minor No Warrant #2 - Four -Hour B 750 75 0 No x Traffic Volumes A 400 120 0 No 80% No B 600 60 0 No A 35o 105 0 No 70% No B 525 53 0 No Major Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Major Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% Minor Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Minor Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% - 2 Major / 2 Minor �2 Major/ 1 Minor Warrant #2 - Four -Hour -1 Major / 2 Minor 100% Warrant Factor - I Major / 1 Minor x Traffic Volumes 600 500 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Combined Major Street, 700 600 Soo e 0 400 c_ f `i 300 L S 200 100 0 0 Warrant #3 - Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor - 2 Major/ 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor -1 Major / 2 Minor -1 Major / 1 Minor x Traffic Volumes � S000 1000 1500 2000 Combined Major Street KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503)203)2 30 Fax: (503)273-8169 Project #: 18853 Project Name: Ridgefield DCS Analyst: SWB Date: 12/22/2015 File: Intersection: Pionner St/5th Ave Scenario: 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build Warrant WarrantSummary Name Analyzed? Met? #1 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No #2 Four -Hour Vehicular volume Yes No #3 Peak Hour Yes No #4 Pedestrian Volume No - #5 School Crossing No - #6 Coordinated Signal System No - #7 Crash Experience No - #8 Roadway Network No - Highest Hour Input Parameters 415 9 Volume Adjustment Factor= 1.0 North-South Approach = Minor East-West Approach = Major Major Street Thru Lanes = 1 Minor Street Thru lanes = 1 Speed > 40 mph? No Population < 10,000? No Warrant Factor 100% Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour Begin Hour End Analysis Traffic Volumes Major Street EB WB Minor Street NB SB 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1162 528 11 40 2nd Highest Hour 1112 505 11 38 3rd Highest Hour 1062 483 10 37 4th Highest Hour 1013 460 30 35 5th Highest Hour 963 437 9 33 6th Highest Hour 913 415 9 31 7th Highest Hour 863 392 8 30 8th Highest Hour 813 370 8 28 9th Highest Hour 744 338 7 26 10th Highest Hour 639 290 6 22 lith Highest Hour 523 238 5 18 12th Highest Hour Soo 227 5 17 13th Highest Hour 453 206 4 16 14th Highest Hour 418 190 4 14 15th Highest Hour 418 190 4 14 16th Highest Hour 407 185 4 14 17th Highest Hour 232 106 2 8 18th Highest Hour 128 58 1 4 19th Highest Hour 116 53 1 4 20th Highest Hour 46 21 0 2 21st Highest Hour 35 16 0 1 22nd Highest Hour 35 16 0 1 23rd Highest Hour 23 11 0 1 24th Highest Hour 23 11 0 1 Warrant #1 - Eight Hour Warrant Major Street Minor Street Hours That Condition for Signal Warrant Condition Factor Requirement Requirement Condition Is Met Warrant FactorMet? Met? Major Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour A 500 150 0 No Minor Street: 8th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour 100 % 2 Major / 2 Minor Warrant: #2 - Four -Hour �2 Major/ i Minor 100% Warrant Factor No B 750 75 0 No A 400 120 0 No 80% No B 600 60 0 No A 350 105 0 No 70% No B 525 53 0 No Major Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Major Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% Minor Street: 4th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour 87% Minor Street: 8th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour 70% 2 Major / 2 Minor Warrant: #2 - Four -Hour �2 Major/ i Minor 100% Warrant Factor -1Major/2Minor -1 Major/1 Minor x Traffic Volumes 600 500 400 300 v x 200 100 0 XXK X X XXXXXIXXX 0 Soo 1000 1500 Combined Major Street 700 600 500 v 0 400 300 200 100 - 0 2000 0 Warrant #3 - Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor - 2 Major/ 2 Minor -2 Major / 1 Minor -1 Major/2 Minor - 1 Major/ 1 Minor X Traffic Volumes 2KXXK X X XXXX)KI '..XXX Soo 1000 1500 2000 Combined Major Street #1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Yes No 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Four -Hour Vehicular volume Portland, Oregon 97205 #3 (503)228-5230 Yes No Fax: (503) 273-8169 Project #: 18853 Project Name: Ridgefield DCS Analyst: SWB Date: 12/22/2015 File: »e,<ir4vars3-wbnMu oo,.�m.,o,�miea.,�.,�ira.�.,,awww w....,,.ww.�nw3am.go.n,y.w Intersection: Pionner St/8th Ave Scenario: 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build Highest Hour Warrant Summary Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? #1 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No #2 Four -Hour Vehicular volume Yes No #3 Peak Hour Yes No #4 Pedestrian Volume No - #5 School Crossing No - #6 Coordinated Signal System No - #7 Crash Experience No - #8 Roadway Network No - Highest Hour 1112 534 16 Input Parameters 3rd Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0 Warrant #1- Eight Hour North-South Approach = Minor Analysis Traffic Volumes Hour Major Street Minor Street Begin End EB WB NB SB 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1162 558 17 17 2nd Highest Hour 1112 534 16 16 3rd Highest Hour 1062 510 16 16 4th Highest Hour 1013 486 15 15 5th Highest Hour 963 462 14 14 6th Highest Hour 913 438 13 13 7th Highest Hour 863 415 13 13 8th Highest Hour 813 391 12 12 9th Highest Hour 744 357 11 11 10th Highest Hour 639 307 9 9 11th Highest Hour 523 251 8 8 12th Highest Hour 500 240 7 7 13th Highest Hour 453 218 7 7 14th Highest Hour 418 201 6 6 15th Highest Hour 418 201 6 6 16th Highest Hour 407 195 6 6 17th Highest Hour 232 112 3 3 18th Highest Hour 128 61 2 2 19th Highest Hour 116 56 2 2 20th Highest Hour 46 22 1 1 21st Highest Hour 35 17 1 1 22nd Highest Hour 35 17 1 1 23rd Highest Hour 23 11 0 0 24th Highest Hour 23 11 0 0 Warrant #1- Eight Hour North-South Approach = Minor Condition for Warrant Major Street Minor Street Hours That Signal Warrant East-West Approach = pP Maj Major Factor Condition Requirement Requirement Condition Is Met Warrant Factor Met? Met? Major Street Thru Lanes = 1 _ Minor Street Thru Lanes= 1 100% A 500 150 0 No No Speed >40 mph? No B 750 75 0 No Population < 10,000? No 80% A 400 120 0 No No Warrant Factor 100% B 600 60 0 No Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour 70% A 350 105 0 No No B 525 53 0 No Major Street: 4th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour 87% Major Street: 8th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour 70% Minor Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Minor Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% -2Major/2Minor I r-2Major/2Min or -2 Major / 1 Minor =2 Major / 1 Minor Warrant #2 - Four -Hour Warrant #3 - Peal( Hour -1Major/2Minor -1 Major/2Minor 100% Warrant factor - 1 Major / 1 Minor 100% Warrant Factor - 1 Major / 1 Minor X Traffic Volumes x Traffic Volumes 600 500 v v N 400 O 300 `w x 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Combined Major Street 700 600 Soo 0 u O 400 300 _m x 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 Combined Major Street 2000 KIITELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 FA Portland, Oregon 97205 (503)203)2 30 Fax: (503)273-8169 Project #: 18853 Project Name: Ridgefield DC5 Analyst: SWB Date: 12/22/2015 File: m.ww3 www. Intersection: Pionner St/Hillhurst Ave Scenario: 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build Warrant Summary Warrant Name Analyzed? Met? 01 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Yes Yes #2 Four -Hour Vehicular volume Yes Yes #3 Peak Hour Yes Yes #4 Pedestrian Volume No - #5 School Crossing No - #6 Coordinated Signal System No - #7 Crash Experience No - #8 Roadway Network No - 5th Highest Hour 921 370 Input Parameters 0 Analysis Traffic Volumes Hour Major Street Minor Street Begin End EB WB NB SB 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1112 447 285 0 2nd Highest Hour 1064 428 273 0 3rd Highest Hour 1017 409 261 0 4th Highest Hour 969 390 248 0 5th Highest Hour 921 370 236 0 6th Highest Hour 874 351 224 0 7th Highest Hour 826 332 212 0 8th Highest Hour 778 313 200 0 9th Highest Hour 712 286 182 0 10th Highest Hour 612 246 157 0 11th Highest Hour 500 201 128 0 12th Highest Hour 478 192 123 0 13th Highest Hour 434 174 111 0 14th Highest Hour 400 161 103 0 15th Highest Hour 400 161 103 0 16th Highest Hour 389 156 100 0 17th Highest Hour 222 89 57 0 18th Highest Hour 122 49 31 0 19th Highest Hour 111 45 29 0 20th Highest Hour 44 18 it 0 21st Highest Hour 33 13 9 0 22nd Highest Hour 33 13 9 0 23rd Highest Hour 22 9 6 0 24th Highest Hour 22 9 6 0 Volume Adjustment Factor = 1.0 Major Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% Minor Street: 4th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour Warrant #1- Eight Hour Minor Street: Sth-Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% North-South Approach = Minor - 2 Major / 2M_ Warrant 42 - Four -Hour -2 Major/ 1 Minor Condition for 100% Warrant Factor East-West Approach = Major Warrant Condition Major Street Minor Street Hours That Warrant Factor Signal Warrant Factor Requirement Requirement Condition Is Met Met? Major Street Thru Lanes = 1 Met? Minor Street Thru Lanes= 1 A 500 150 10 Yes 100% Yes Speed > 40 mph? No B 750 75 10 Yes Population < S0,0D0? No A 400 120 12 Yes 80% Yes Warrant Factor 100% B 600 60 13 Yes Peak Hour or Daily Count? Peak Hour A 350 105 13 Yes 70% Yes B 525 53 16 Yes Major Street: 4th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 87% Major Street: 8th -Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% Minor Street: 4th -Highest Hour / Peak Hour 87% Minor Street: Sth-Highest Hour/ Peak Hour 70% - 2 Major / 2M_ Warrant 42 - Four -Hour -2 Major/ 1 Minor -1 Major/2 Minor 100% Warrant Factor * XX -1 Major / 1 Minor x Traffic Volumes 600 500 Z 400 300 `w t 200 100 0 0 S00 1000 1500 2000 LCombined Major Street 700 600 v Soo v N 0 400 `w 300 m x 200 100 0 Warrant #3 - Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor X X )WX ) - 2 Major / 2 Minor -2 Major/ 1 Minor -1 Major / 2 Minor -1 Major / 1 Minor X Traffic Volumes X 'L 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Combined Major Street * XX X OK X 0 S00 1000 1500 2000 LCombined Major Street 700 600 v Soo v N 0 400 `w 300 m x 200 100 0 Warrant #3 - Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor X X )WX ) - 2 Major / 2 Minor -2 Major/ 1 Minor -1 Major / 2 Minor -1 Major / 1 Minor X Traffic Volumes X 'L 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Combined Major Street Appendix G 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions Alternative 5 z� C: 0 Mn2 0 4 717. .::�Tl $ �' qtr tilt O O ✓j�, ,/jt Jif �o F� Eo�� <�f oiil �li s+z-�• m�a tit �J �p�piO!GRE CME Er J2 6350p 1tr 1tr 1tl E`�� © © MZ m 0 2 Y any 438 a in Q Cl) O N no ( L 8Y �25E � to eAV 435 Co © a JA C P-10VI ,t' qtr 717. .::�Tl $ �' qtr tilt O O ✓j�, ,/jt Jif �o F� Eo�� <�f oiil �li s+z-�• m�a tit �J �p�piO!GRE CME Er J2 6350p 1tr 1tr 1tl E`�� © © MZ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 r -► --v f-*-- t *, t l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 41 41 Volume (veh/h) 0 7 4 25 1 24 4 72 3 23 220 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 7 4 26 1 25 4 76 3 24 232 0 Pedestrians 5 3 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1283 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 397 375 240 380 374 80 237 82 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 397 375 240 380 374 80 237 82 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 95 100 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 539 493 799 558 541 983 1337 1524 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 53 83 256 Volume Left 0 26 4 24 Volume Right 4 25 3 0 cSH 573 704 1337 1524 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 0 1 Control Delay (s) 11.4 10.5 0.4 0.8 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 10.5 0.4 0.8 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synch ro, 7 - Report SWB Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 i� 'r~ k h Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 41 41 + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 0 25 14 24 48 1 5 13 2 0 9 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 29 16 28 56 1 6 15 2 0 11 1 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 46 86 24 12 Volume Left (vph) 0 28 6 0 Volume Right (vph) 16 1 2 1 Hadj (s) 0.02 0.34 0.10 -0.06 Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 863 814 801 834 Control Delay (s) 7.3 7.9 7.4 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.3 7.9 7.4 7.2 Approach LOS A A A A Intersecfion Summary Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 41 41 + Volume (veh/h) 5 5 12 14 0 1 4 74 2 9 249 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 5 13 15 0 1 4 78 2 9 262 0 Pedestrians 1 5 4 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 644 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 374 375 263 389 374 88 263 85 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 374 375 263 389 374 88 263 85 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.6 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 98 97 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 577 529 780 552 552 969 1312 1518 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 23 16 84 272 Volume Left 5 15 4 9 Volume Right 13 1 2 0 cSH 657 568 1312 1518 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.7 11.5 0.4 0.3 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 11.5 0.4 0.3 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4 4,, + Volume (veh/h) 1 12 1 0 3 0 2 31 1 1 44 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 14 1 0 4 0 2 36 1 1 52 1 Pedestrians 3 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 100 55 105 100 39 56 38 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 872 790 1015 864 790 1037 1558 1586 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 16 4 40 54 Volume Left 1 0 2 1 Volume Right 1 0 1 1 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44� + 41. Volume (vph) 21 125 0 16 821 65 0 0 0 93 3 168 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Fri: 1.00 0.99 0.91 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1887 1870 1637 Fit Permitted 0.86 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 1862 1637 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 132 0 17 864 68 0 0 0 98 3 177 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 154 0 0 946 0 0 0 0 0 208 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 13 3 20 20 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 62.0 62.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 62.0 62.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0,22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1130 1283 364 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.51 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.74 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 8.9 31.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.56 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 2.9 6.4 Delay (s) 5.1 7.8 37.6 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s) 5.1 7.8 0.0 37.6 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 'A -'* f- ♦- t4\ t t `► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT" NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ + + 4* Volume (veh/h) 2 212 2 3 901 44 0 3 8 53 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 223 2 3 948 46 0 3 8 56 0 2 Pedestrians 6 1 4 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 277 597 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 998 229 1218 1236 229 1220 1214 981 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 809 229 1112 1137 229 1115 1107 785 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.9 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.5 4.3 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 98 99 57 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 598 1346 133 135 812 130 130 285 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 227 998 12 58 Volume Left 2 3 0 56 Volume Right 2 46 8 2 cSH 598 1346 343 133 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 48 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 15.8 51.5 Lane LOS A A C F Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 15.8 51.5 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 '# -• --* le*-- 4� 4'� t /$. ti 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #T# 4# 41 4, Volume (vph) 8 311 0 21 932 178 0 1 20 90 0 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.87 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1788 1718 1497 1649 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.72 Satd. Flow (perm) 1746 1705 1497 1239 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 327 0 22 981 187 0 1 21 95 0 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 335 0 0 1183 0 0 3 0 0 97 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 11 11 4 1 29 29 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 12% 6% 0% 0% 9% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 74.0 74.0 8.0 8.0 Effective Green, g (s) 74.0 74.0 8.0 8.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1436 1402 133 110 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.69 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.84 0.02 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 1.8 4.6 37.4 40.5 Progression Factor 0.84 0.63 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 4.2 0.3 58.4 Delay (s) 1.9 7.1 37.7 99.0 Level of Service A A D F Approach Delay (s) 1.9 7.1 37.7 99.0 Approach LOS A A D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/21/2015 --. 7 j 4,� ti t �► l -� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *4 4+ + 4, Volume (veh/h) 7 449 0 8 1142 47 1 1 25 5 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 473 0 8 1202 49 1 1 26 5 0 1 Pedestrians 14 7 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 692 368 pX, platoon unblocked 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 vC, conflicting volume 1259 480 1753 1770 480 1765 1745 1248 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 890 480 2139 2181 480 2169 2119 863 tC, single (s) 5.0 4.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.0 2.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 99 92 94 96 55 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 197 967 13 17 587 12 19 139 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 480 1260 28 6 Volume Left 7 8 1 5 Volume Right 0 49 26 1 cSH 197 967 154 14 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.01 0.18 0.46 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 1 16 28 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.3 33.6 403.3 Lane LOS A A D F Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.3 33.6 403.3 Approach LOS D F Intersec . -mart' Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10126/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay -0- 'It, %Ir ~ 4% l Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, ? I r Volume (vph) 323 144 46 831 352 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1640 1776 1617 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 716 1776 1617 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 340 152 48 875 371 74 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 0 0 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 476 0 48 875 371 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 9 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 12% 9% 7% 11% 2% Turn Type Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.6 57.6 57.6 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 57.6 57.6 57.6 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1066 458 1137 438 429 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.49 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.23 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.10 0.77 0.85 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 8.2 6.3 11.5 31.0 24.2 Progression Factor 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.5 5.0 14.1 0.0 Delay (s) 8.3 6.7 16.5 45.1 24.3 Level of Service A A B D C Approach Delay (s) 8.3 16.0 41.6 Approach LOS A B D Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 20.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 Queues 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave Lane Group EBT WBT l SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 949 278 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.74 0.64 Control Delay 5.2 8.1 28.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 5.2 8.1 28.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 150 96 Queue Length 95th (ft) 46 m283 182 Internal Link Dist (ft) 222 197 289 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1131 1285 434 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.74 0.64 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Queues 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 1 1 Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 335 1190 22 98 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.84 0.14 0.88 Control Delay 1.9 8.0 19.2 101.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 1.9 8.0 19.2 101.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 241 1 56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 76 23 #151 Internal Link Dist (ft) 239 612 496 281 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1435 1409 152 111 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.84 0.14 0.88 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 Queues 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 492 48 875 371 74 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.77 0.85 0.15 Control Delay 8.5 8.2 18.7 48.8 7.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.5 8.2 18.7 48.8 7.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 109 10 336 194 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) m161 27 555 #303 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 1992 1588 Turn Bay Length (ft) 130 Base Capacity (vph) 1080 458 1136 503 542 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.77 0.74 0.14 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12121/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4* 41 Volume (veh/h) 3 3 13 9 0 9 2 238 1 5 121 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 3 14 9 0 9 2 251 1 5 127 0 Pedestrians 3 7 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1283 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 406 404 132 417 403 258 130 259 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 406 404 132 417 403 258 130 259 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 98 100 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 545 531 918 529 532 781 1464 1310 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 19 254 133 Volume Left 3 9 2 5 Volume Right 14 9 1 0 cSH 751 631 1464 1310 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.9 10.9 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 10.9 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations -0.05 4+ -0.08 3.6 4+ 3.9 4+ 0.01 0.02 + 0.02 Sign Control 892 Stop 911 6.7 Stop 7.1 Stop 6.7 7.0 Stop 7.0 Volume (vph) 0 3 6 0 11 1 6 18 3 0 13 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 4 7 0 13 1 7 21 4 0 15 2 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 11 14 32 18 0 0 7 0 7 1 4 2 -0.40 -0.05 -0.02 -0.08 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 974 892 894 911 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 A A A A 7.0 A 17.1% ICU Level of Service 15 A 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 01► 4+ 4+ 4+ Volume (veh/h) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 245 9 5 139 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 7 5 2 0 4 258 9 5 146 1 Pedestrians 1 7 3 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 1 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 644 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 430 441 151 446 437 270 148 274 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 430 441 151 446 437 270 148 274 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 99 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 531 506 898 512 509 769 1444 1293 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 8 7 272 153 Volume Left 1 5 4 5 Volume Right 7 0 9 1 cSH 826 511 1444 1293 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS A B A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 t--,, z r 4,.4.� t `► 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations #4 4+ 41 4+ Volume (veh/h) 3 5 5 0 4 0 1 24 0 1 19 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 6 6 0 5 0 1 28 0 1 22 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 58 56 23 65 56 28 24 28 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 58 56 23 65 56 28 24 28 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.8 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.2 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 99 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 938 838 1060 923 791 1053 1605 1598 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 15 5 29 25 Volume Left 4 0 1 1 Volume Right 6 0 0 1 cSH 936 791 1605 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 86: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 'A -'* je t 1 t ti l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 01► #T# 41 Volume (vph) 149 841 0 23 228 147 0 0 0 110 10 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.93 Frt 1.00 0.95 0.96 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1884 1763 1601 Flt Permitted 0.87 0.93 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 1643 1637 1601 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 157 885 0 24 240 155 0 0 0 116 11 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1042 0 0 396 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 24 24 5 19 38 38 19 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1 % 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 66.0 66.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 66.0 66.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1205 1200 285 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.63 0.24 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.33 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 8.7 4.2 33.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.05 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.4 0.7 7.9 Delay (s) 17.1 5.1 41.8 Level of Service B A D Approach Delay (s) 17.1 5.1 0.0 41.8 Approach LOS B A A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL N13T BR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *4 41 4* 4* Volume (veh/h) 7 976 0 1 391 20 3 4 9 48 1 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 1027 0 1 412 21 3 4 9 51 1 3 Pedestrians 1 1 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 277 597 pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.95 vC, conflicting volume 435 1028 1472 1480 1028 1480 1469 425 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 381 764 1297 1309 764 1309 1293 371 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.1 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 100 97 96 96 40 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1130 549 91 106 261 85 105 645 Direction, Lane # BB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1035 434 17 55 Volume Left 7 1 3 51 Volume Right 0 21 9 3 cSH 1130 549 152 89 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.61 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 9 71 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.1 31.6 94.6 Lane LOS A A D F Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.1 31.6 94.6 Approach LOS D F Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 4# 4, + Volume (vph) 0 1032 2 15 469 44 2 0 9 38 0 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb. ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 1.00 0.99 0.89 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1809 1834 1636 1788 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.96 0.97 0.78 Satd. Flow(perm) 1809 1770 1606 1452 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1086 2 16 494 46 2 0 9 40 0 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1088 0 0 552 0 0 4 0 0 40 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 10 10 5 3 3 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 66.0 66.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 66.0 66.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C; Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1327 1298 286 258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.60 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.00 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.43 0.01 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 4.7 30.5 31.3 Progression Factor 0.48 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 1.0 0.1 1.3 Delay (s) 7.6 4.1 30.6 32.6 Level of Service A A C C Approach Delay (s) 7.6 4.1 30.6 32.6 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/21/2015 -'* 4- 4% t `► l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR. NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4► + + + Volume (veh/h) 8 1146 8 16 598 23 6 0 11 7 1 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 1206 8 17 629 24 6 0 12 7 1 9 Pedestrians 6 13 7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 692 368 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.32 0.40 0.40 0.32 0.40 0.40 0.84 vC, conflicting volume 661 1228 1932 1935 1224 1921 1927 655 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 503 659 1686 1694 646 1660 1674 495 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.3 7.2 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 94 76 100 92 71 97 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 897 301 27 35 147 25 36 481 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1223 671 18 18 Volume Left 8 17 6 7 Volume Right 8 24 12 9 cSH 897 301 57 52 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.06 0.31 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 4 28 30 Control Delay (s) 0.4 2.0 94.8 106.3 Lane LOS A A F F Approach Delay (s) 0.4 2.0 94.8 106.3 Approach LOS F F Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations A I # 'i If Volume (vph) 701 411 103 344 206 79 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1707 1787 1845 1787 1574 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1707 167 1845 1787 1574 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 738 433 108 362 217 83 RTOR Reduction (vph) 23 0 0 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1148 0 108 362 217 16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 2% 1% 3% 1% 0% Turn Type Perm custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 65.0 65.0 65.0 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 65.0 65.0 65.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1233 121 1333 338 297 v/s Ratio Prot c0.67 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.65 c0.12 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.89 0.27 0.64 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 10.6 9.8 4.3 33.7 29.9 Progression Factor 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.0 56.8 0.5 9.0 0.3 Delay (s) 13.6 66.6 4.8 42.7 30.2 Level of Service B E A D C Approach Delay (s) 13.6 19.0 39.3 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 Queues 86: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 Lane Grou Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 EBT WBT SBT 1042 419 178 0.86 0.34 0.59 18.6 4.2 39.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 18.8 4.2 39.1 357 91 83 #762 99 151 222 197 289 1206 1224 301 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0.87 0.34 0.59 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 Queues 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 —10. 4— t Lane Group EBT WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 1088 556 11 42 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.43 0.04 0.16 Control Delay 8.2 4.1 19.4 32.1 Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.3 4.1 19.4 32.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 91 58 1 19 Queue Length 95th (ft) m213 106 15 49 Internal Link Dist (ft) 517 612 496 281 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1327 1302 293 260 Starvation Cap Reductn 14 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.43 0.04 0.16 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Queues 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 —► r h t Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 1171 108 362 217 83 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.89 0.27 0.64 0.23 Control Delay 15.4 75.8 4.9 43.5 9.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.4 75.8 4.9 43.5 9.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 41 60 115 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #871 #91 92 190 38 Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 394 472 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 130 Base Capacity (vph) 1256 121 1333 338 365 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.89 0.27 0.64 0.23 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 ;SITE LAYOUT 7 Site: Pioneer SUHillhurst Ave 2035 AM Peak New Site Roundabout .IN s— — —— — — — � I V 60 Hillhurst Ave SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd i sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC i Created: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:38:40 AM Project: K\projfale\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 • a c 0 a LANE SUMMARY V Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 AM Peak New Site Roundabout Lane 1d 444 9.5 727 0.611 100 15.5 LOS C 3.7 98.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 444 9.5 0.611 15.5 LOS C 3.7 98.8 East: Pioneer St Lane 1 461 7.2 697 0.661 100 17.9 LOS C 4.4 116.4 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2d 462 7.0 699 0.661 100 17.9 LOS C 4.4 116.6 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 923 7.1 0.661 17.9 LOS C 4.4 116.6 West: Pioneer St Lane 1d 329 6.0 1011 0.326 100 6.9 LOS 1.5 38.2 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 152 12.0 957 0.158 100 5.3 LOS A 0.5 15.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 481 7.9 0.326 6.4 LOS A 1.5 38.2 Intersection 1848 7.9 0.661 14.3 LOS B 4.4 116.6 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. LOS F will result if v/c > irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as :specified in HCM 2010). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC I Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:36:41 PM Project: H:\projfile\18853- Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 r MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 AM Peak New Site Roundabout South: Hillhurst Ave 3 L2 371 11.0 0.611 15.5 LOS C 3.7 98.8 0.64 0.67 27.9 18 R2 74 2.0 0.611 15.5 LOS C 3.7 98.8 0.64 0.67 27.7 Approach 444 9.5 0.611 15.5 LOS C 3.7 98.8 0.64 0.67 27.9 East: Pioneer St 1 L2 48 9.0 0.661 17.9 LOS C 4.4 116.4 0.71 0.79 28.1 6 T1 875 7.0 0.661 17.9 LOS C 4.4 116.6 0.71 0.79 28.4 Approach 923 7.1 0.661 17.9 LOS C 4.4 116.6 0.71 0.79 28.4 West: Pioneer St 2 T1 329 6.0 0.326 6.9 LOS A 1.5 38.2 0.19 0.09 33.1 12 R2 152 12.0 0.158 5.3 LOS A 0.5 15.0 0.16 0.07 32.7 Approach 481 7.9 0.326 6.4 LOS A 1.5 38.2 0.18 0.08 33.0 All Vehicles 1848 7.9 0.661 14.3 LOS B 4.4 116.6 0.56 0.58 29.3 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 i Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC I Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:28:47 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 i► SITE LAYOUT V Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 PM Peak New Site Roundabout 11 -- - - - - Ln — — 60 V 60 ~t `w v c 0 a Hillhurst Ave SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 1 Copyright© 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC I Created: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:44:06 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 00 LANE SUMMARY Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 PM Peak New Site Roundabout Lane 1d 300 0.7 516 0.581 100 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 300 0.7 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 East: Pioneer St Lane 1" 236 2.1 887 0.266 100 6.9 LOS 1.1 27.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 234 3.0 879 0.266 100 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.7 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 471 2.5 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 West: Pioneer St Lane 16 738 5.0 965 0.765 100 18.6 LOS C 7.2 186.4 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 433 2.0 993 0.436 100 8.6 LOS A 2.3 58.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 1171 3.9 0.765 14.9 LOS B 7.2 186.4 Intersection 1941 3.1 0.765 13.6 LOS B 7.2 186.4 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. LOS F will result if v/c > irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC I Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:36:40 PM Project: H:\projfile\18853- Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 1: 7 MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 PM Peak New Site Roundabout South: Hillhurst Ave 3 L2 217 1.0 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 0.75 0.84 18 R2 83 0.0 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 0.75 0.84 Approach 300 0.7 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 0.75 0.84 East: Pioneer St 1 L2 108 1.0 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 0.39 0.29 6 T1 362 3.0 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 0.39 0.29 Approach 471 2.5 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 0.39 0.29 West: Pioneer St 2 T1 738 5.0 0.765 18.6 LOS C 7.2 186.4 0.60 0.39 12 R2 433 2.0 0.436 8.6 LOS A 2.3 58.8 0.34 0.21 Approach 1171 3.9 0.765 14.9 LOS B 7.2 186.4 0.51 0.32 All Vehicles 1941 3.1 0.765 13.6 LOS B 7.2 186.4 0.52 0.40 Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 2010). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 2010). Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 2010. HCM Delay Formula option is used. Control Delay does not include Geometric Delay since Exclude Geometric Delay option applies. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1. HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 1 Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC I Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:44:13 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout. sip6 27.1 26.7 27.0 32.2 32.8 32.7 28.3 31.5 29.4 29.7 • of" 1 6 N W WW O r �3 � W w �z G a Q 3 W W w r � w a O w �+ d � 6 N r Q W W Z o a � e r N N r 2 N N � W V W N N y Z T G G d' Q s G z m z a r � N W Q Q Q Q W Z 2 S S W z z z P N r W r w w -N. > > > N wr H M N r d w °i gg E c 0 r N LU W W G n 0 N w 1 Q OW OU r L- L- C) C) 0- 0 O L Q Qi CU bz O I A IMP El G V1 G 4-J U i C'6 v Q Q E O _ L 4- L a� Qi Q t� O Uo Q 4-J l— ^� O W Q0- OV ^ Q - w d O CL z �. -�(A(n 5Z�n-- O� J� O No LaL r tz z (f, �Llj �>>QLf) z Q0u z� O r Q �- Q(24U>. (J) ..©Z m W 0�- 5- aV)u _ �LLJ (n W0� 0 wxz Z Q aQW W (.5� 0 d O wW d. z (D< Q O -z,0 Z LL uQz3: (D°fl W v)wH < 0 ui � u <v W 0 ((-4 j C 1 rol W W 0 Ly NNW 3RD AVE cn W w o AIN AV' T C: ? L4-1 r� Q � Q � T � Q Lo -O a 0 d T U O U tai N NNW 3RD AVE cn W w o AIN AV' T C: ? L4-1 r� w Q) W m r� --------------------------• cn C% U) N a C vi ; O c k— O +- O O O _ 4, , � O U O a QQ Y Q O O U 0a a a Q U_ Z N 4-d Q) 4-j � p a Q Q Z> O j �- Z ; E ; O ; 0 U V- --------------------------- 0 N U' .� M ' cn C% U) N , C vi ; O c k— O +- O O � v � O Q a U CY - Q u S. - U c --� Lf)-.� O LU =Q O N X mu a-- O Q ' N O (a) MI) c-6 — r6 (Ti- � 0 0 0 W > U a --J 5 W .� cn C% -4— , C O S k— O +- (70 O- CL mu Q ' N MI) a --J 5 U) E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC A Economic and Development Services MEMORANDUM To: Seth Otto — Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. (MFA) From: Eric Hovee Subject: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Date: April 14, 2015 On behalf of MFA and the City of Ridgefield, this memorandum provides a general market study associated with existing and potential businesses and residents in downtown Ridgefield. This assessment is being conducted as part of the City of Ridgefield Downtown Brownfields Integrated Planning Grant (IPG). Purposes of this market reconnaissance have been to: • Assess local and regional trends in land value, rents, commercial sales and vacancy rates • Provide economic data commonly requested by site selectors and developers in assessing potential real estate projects • Support the City in targeting potential businesses and developers for recruitment efforts Data generated from a September 2014 draft of this first phase market assessment has served as background information for a strategic planning workshop conducted with community stakeholders in February of this year. Based on comments received, this general market study has been refined to include neighborhood areas adjoining the downtown / waterfront area and also incorporate more recent 2015 demographic data as readily available. A separate more detailed second phase feasibility and economic impact analysis report will address alternative development concepts, financial feasibility and potential economic returns with targeted project opportunities —with three sites as identified through the IPG process. The second phase analysis builds from result of this first phase market overview report. The next page of this Phase 1 report provides a one-page summary of market study findings. This is followed by detailed analysis for topics including a study area profile, trade area demographics and employment, and then assessments for residential, recreation/hospitality, office space and industrial/flex opportunities. The report ends with a summary evaluation of downtown and waterfront strategic market options. 2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WP, 98666 (360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 • Fax (360) 696-8453 E-mail: edhovee@edhovee.com "A " DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD MARKET STUDY SUMMARY Preliminary findings and observations from this market study are summarized as follows. Downtown / Waterfront Property Profile. The Downtown Ridgefield study area covers nearly 406 acres with 872 tax parcels — including 71 acres in the core area, 63 acres with the adjoining waterfront, and 271 acres immediately north and south of the downtown core. With 40+ primarily core area businesses plus homes, half of study area property is highly improved. Current assessed value is close to $152 million. Vacant and potential redevelopment land includes nine acres downtown, 40+ waterfront acres, and 70 acres in adjoining neighborhoods. Market Area. With 6,000+ in -town residents, downtown/waterfront businesses also serve a larger Ridgefield/1-5 trade area population of over 16,800. The pace of residential growth is now picking up with sustained economic recovery and is expected to continue to outpace countywide and metro region rates of population increase for the foreseeable future. Trade Area Demographics & Employment. By comparison with the rest of Clark County and the metro region, trade area residents tend to be well educated, homeowners with families and with relatively high median incomes. Over 4,400 jobs are located in the Ridgefield/1-5 corridor area — with a strong manufacturing and distribution base. However, the community is under -represented in professional service, health care and retail -related employment. " Residential Market. A pivotal question for this market analysis is whether and under what circumstances the largely single-family residential market diversifies to include more urban in - town housing options — including smaller apartments as well as owner -occupied attached housing such as townhomes. Demographic trends suggest opportunities to also serve young creatives and empty nesters/seniors in a community offering high quality of life. Recreation & Hospitality. A boutique hotel or more expansive lodging and recreation destination attraction might be considered in conjunction with the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. Skamania Lodge offers perhaps the best example to date of this concept regionally. Office Space. Best bets are smaller offices downtown to serve local professional and creative firms with corporate office/flex recruitment to Miller's Landing waterfront development. Industrial & Flex Space. The Ridgefield/1-5 Junction is now a significant regional player for industrial development; high amenity flex space might fit well with waterfront development. Market Hybrids. Consistent with recent plans, mixed use residential and commercial development is also consistent with realistic market opportunities. Mixed use can be either vertical (as with placing residential above retail) or horizontal (located side by side). Downtown & Waterfront Strategic Options. Concepts suggested by this market analysis include added neighborhood single family development coupled with urban village residential, independent boutique retail, destination wildlife reserve attractors, professional and creative services, corporate campus, and live -work mixed use. Implementation will be dependent on " supportive zoning, infrastructure investment, and marketing as with Ridgefield Main Street. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 2 DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD PROFILE This general market study begins by briefly profiling the Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area (shortened to Downtown Ridgefield study area throughout this report). The profile covers study area definitions, a review of pertinent zoning, property ownerships, valuation, neighboring uses, transportation and utility infrastructure, and environmental considerations. Data for this analysis is drawn from a wide range of published and proprietary sources, cited as may be applicable to each pertinent section of this report document.' Background & Study Area Definition. As illustrated by the map to the right, the Ridgefield Downtown study area for this market report comprises: • The Waterfront area Ridgefield Downtown Study Area extending from the railroad tracks west toward Lake River and the boundaries of the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. • The downtown Core Area immediately east of the waterfront area, further bounded by Division Street on the north, Sargent Street to the south, and extending to east of Union Ridge Elementary School and to the east of 9th Avenue south of Pioneer Street. Adjoining Residential neighborhoods west of Gee Creek situated both north and south of the Core Area. Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., Clark County GIS. • Go t Information for this Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Market Study has been obtained from sources generally deemed to be reliable. However, the accuracy of information obtained from third party sources is not guaranteed and is subject to change without notice. The observations and findings contained in this report are those of the author. They should not be construed as representing the opinion of any other party prior to their express approval, whether in whole or part. 0 E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 3 • • Comprehensive Planning & Zoning. Land use for the Ridgefield's downtown and waterfront areas is governed by the City's Comprehensive Plan and associated Development Code. The City of Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan was developed in 2007 and most recently updated in 2013. The next update process is anticipated to be completed by mid -2016. The current plan anticipates that Ridgefield's population could increase to 24,706 by 2024. As stated by the City's web site, the 2016 update is planned to involve a review of "growth over the last 10 years, during which time the City's population has doubled and reassess our future development scenarios."2 As shown by the map to the right, the Downtown Ridgefield area covers several distinct plan and associated zoning designations: Downtown Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan Designations Legend OStudy Area JE Tar Low "I", Ridgefield oa 71 Ham- Deaianation - {JL W9 Ev _ A1:Pli Aa[4n o C s NG Mu PF P R - P= u= - T Y c«,r,cy rwn trc 131 kEr Dcsianation r'VatBf N •yam at 1 ��--_ fins r Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., Clark County GIS. • City Center (C) — with Central Mixed Use (CMU) zoning designation — aimed to "protect and enhance the small-scale, compact and mixed character of the City's older central core." Permitted uses include retail, service, dining, gasoline stations, daycare, office, community recreation, indoor entertainment, education and (non -hospital) healthcare uses. Permitted on a limited basis with the City Center designation are single-family attached and multifamily housing and community residential facilities. Conditional and conditional -limited uses include hotels/motels, light manufacturing/R&D, and hospitals. Not permitted are uses such as single-family/duplex housing, RV parks, motor -vehicle • Z Per www.ci.ridgefield.wa.us, as of August 2014. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 4 related uses, funeral homes, gambling, warehousing and wholesale retail, and utility yards. • Mixed Use (MU) — with Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) zoning — applied to the waterfront area west of the railroad to "facilitate a mix of residential and commercial uses to create compact development patterns." Permitted uses are generally similar to the C zone with key differences including added outright permitted use for hotel/motel use, research and development, and marina, boating and floating home moorage uses; general retail/service is permitted in this district on a limited basis. As with City Center (CMU) zoning, single-family and multifamily residential is permitted on a limited basis. • Public Facility (PF) — with similar Public Facilities (PF) zoning — allocated for "essential public facilities" including education, medical and infrastructure facilities. Permitted uses include office, community recreation, emergency facility, utility yard, and park and ride lots. Education and a range of other public use activities may be considered permitted on a limited and/or conditional basis. • Urban Medium Residential (UM) —with Residential Medium Density (RMD16) zoning of, duplex and multi -family residential at densities of 8-16 units per acre. Single family including attached and duplex development may be allowed on a limited basis. • • Urban Low Residential (UL) — with Residential Low Density zoning designations of RLD-6 and RLD-8 — for predominantly single-family, detached residential at densities of 4-6 and 6-8 units per net acre, respectively. Single-family and duplex uses are permitted; attached housing, accessory dwelling units and home occupations are examples of uses • permitted on a limited basis. Some uses such as bed and breakfast, community residential facility, and community recreation facilities may be approved on a conditional -limited basis. Most commercial uses are not permitted. Portions of the core area are zoned UL; this is the predominant zoning for residential neighborhoods in the study area both north and south of downtown. Downtown Ridgefield Guidelines. Zoning for commercial uses has been developed under a hybrid zoning code that includes elements of form -based and performance-based zoning. Consistent with an expressed aim for flexible development regulations, the Comprehensive Plan also includes 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield, related to: Urban-rial, Detail & Color • The pedestrian level • Ridgefield's buildings at night • Street to building relationship • The importance of corners • Ridgefield's alleys • The facade as wall, streets as rooms • Building programmability & adaptability • Building orientation • Background buildings & "civic" buildings • The base, body & cornice • The color of downtown Ridgefield • Building materials • The doors and windows of Ridgefield • The storefronts of Ridgefield • E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 5 The Downtown Ridgefield Guidelines distinguish between an entry district (from east of 5th Avenue), the downtown district (from 5th to Lake River Street), and the Port District (for the Lake River Waterfront). Described as focused on a voluntary and incentive -based approach, project -specific recommendations for approval can be "in concept," "with conditions," or "requires further review." Port of Ridgefield Waterfront Redevelopment. with environmental remediation and cleanup of a former lumber treating plant now completed, the Port of Ridgefield is now in a better position to actively market a 40+ acre site for mixed use redevelopment. As described in the 2011 downtown/waterfront action plan, redevelopment of the Miller's Landing property has been planned to occur in up to 7 phases over 20-30 years. • The first phase would call for an estimated 130,000 square feet of new office, retail and hotel building space and 344 parking spaces. • Full build -out could involve up to 820,000 square feet ' of office, retail and hotel space. • Development is also planned to include waterfront trails and connections to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. Site destination activities identified include walking/hiking, birding, kayaking and paddling, boating, fishing, and biking. In addition to creating the potential for full reuse of a former brownfield property adjacent to a wildlife refuge, other key site attributes identified by the Port include no wetlands, no areas within the 100 -year floodplain, shoreline permit vesting, and an already completed traffic impact analysis.3 With the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge transitioning from a rural to urban designation, opportunities for collaborative planning and development may also emerge. Areas of opportunity may include environmental education, outdoor recreation, and related use as a portal community. 3 Information on this planned development opportunity is per the Port of • Ridgefield web site, www.portridgefield.org, as of August 2014. This iconic barn marks the eastern entry (coming from 1-5) along Pioneer Street into downtown Ridgefield. McCuddy's Ridgefield Marina anchors the western end of the downtown waterfront — directly adjoining Ridgefield's National Wildlife Refuge. A throwback to slower days, a one - lane entry into the southern portion of the wildlife refuge. From downtown Ridgefield, a great orientation to an unsurpassed natural environment just beyond. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 6 Downtown Core / Waterfront Business & Institutional Inventory. As depicted by the chart below and the map on the following page, there are 44 identified businesses and related institutional uses at 40 distinct locations in the core / waterfront area. These businesses occupy approximately 295,000 square feet of commercial and institutional building space. Downtown Core / Waterfront Business & Institutional Characteristics (2014) BusinessTypie Businesses Businesses B4ding SF Building SIF Tax exempt 8 18% 203,068 69% Office 9 20% 9,845 3% Services 8 18% 22,881 8% Retail 8 18% 22,940 8% Dining 7 16% 25,418 9% Hospitality 4 9% 10,457 4% Tota 1 44 100% 294,609 100% Note: The business inventory was derived from a field inventory while square footage information comes from Clark County parcel -based GIS records, meaning that the two data sets may not be fully consistent. Not included are tabulations from the Neighborhood areas immediately adjoining the downtown Core and Waterfront districts. Tax exempt uses include government and churches. Office covers businesses which function primarily in a profession office environment. Services are defined as professional and personal services provided in a non -office environment. Retail includes businesses selling products. Dining covers food and beverage service businesses, including tasting rooms. Hospitality is defined as lodging, entertainment venues, and community centers. ' Sources: Clark County GIS and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Key observations as noted from this chart include the following: • Tax exempt entities represent less than 20% of the uses but nearly 70% of the commercial or employment -oriented building square footage in the downtown/waterfront area. The Ridgefield School District represents the single largest building footprint with an elementary and middle school plus a maintenance shop and warehouse facility on Pioneer Street. • Dining (including restaurants, bars and wine tasting) accounts for the largest taxable building footprint (at over 25,000 square feet) with eight identified businesses. • Office uses represent the greatest number of businesses, but only comprise an estimated 3% of building area. Office -related firms tend to be relatively small. Only one obviously multi -tenant building was identified (based on building signage) with the field survey—the Pioneer Building on Pioneer Street. There may be other small offices located in core/waterfront area commercial or residential structures that are not obvious due to inconspicuous locations or lack of signage. • Taken together, retail oriented uses — including retail stores, dining and hospitality functions — represent 19 businesses (or 43% of the total number of businesses). These businesses occupy over 58,800 square feet of space (or 20% of the total downtown commercial and institutional building inventory). • E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 7 • • v 0 N i 41 E v Y a v 0 0 ro U J J C CQ G 0 U co N O W N v U 7 O N The commercial district of downtown can be characterized as L-shaped. The long side of the "L" • consists of the three -block long Pioneer Street corridor (an ideal length for a compact, walkable downtown shopping district). The small side of the "L" is Main Avenue, with businesses extending approximately two blocks north of Pioneer. Pioneer and Main might, therefore, be considered as the "100% corner." Anchoring two of the corners (on the east side of Main) are key community convenience stores of Ridgefield Hardware and the Ridgefield Pioneer Marketplace. However, from a retail perspective a weakness of this location as the 100% corner is that the retail on Main is only single rather than double loaded. The west side is not occupied with business but includes a public plaza (south side of Pioneer) and vacant lot (north side). There are other notable fingers of activity extending out from this dominant concentration of L - configured commercial. South of Pioneer on Main is a restaurant and events facility (currently on the market). Another notable activity side street is 3rd Avenue on the north side of Pioneer, which includes a Mexican restaurant and wine tasting cellar. Whether in small towns or major cities, these side streets often offer great finds for the adventurous shopper or visitor. Property Characteristics. In addition to the business and institution profile, it is also possible to characterize property ownerships using data from the Clark County Assessor's Office. As depicted by the following chart, the 406 acre study area is is comprised of 684 separate identifiable property ownerships and 872 tax parcels. Downtown Ridgefield Study Area Property Characteristics (2014) Land Area (acres) 71.19 63.10 271.32 405.61 Number of Parcels 280 71 521 872 Number of Property Owners 205 54 425 684 Total Building Square Footage 559,044 56,615 793,440 1,409,099 Floor Area Ratios (FARs) All Study Area Properties 0.18 0.02 0.07 0.08 Developed Sites Only 0.25 0.03 0.10 0.12 Land Value $16,598,074 $3,149,047 $29,963,456 $49,710,577 Building Value $37,152,928 $2,752,816 $62,257,685 $102,163,429 Total Value $53,751,002 $5,901,863 $92,221,141 $151,874,006 Land Value per SF of Land Area $5.35 $1.15 $2.53 $2.81 Ratio Building to Land Values 2.24 0.87 2.08 2.06 Sources: Clark County GIS, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Of nearly 406 acre study area total, approximately 71 acres are in the core area with another 63 waterfront acres. The majority of the study area comprises 271 acres of residential neighborhood area situated both north and south of the downtown core. Other observations of note include the following: • E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 9 • • Average parcel size throughout the whole study area is relatively small at approximately 0.47 acres, reflecting the large number of single-family residential lots. Five property owners have parcels of 10+ acres, three of which are public agencies. There are no single tax lot parcels of this size in the core area. • As detailed in the Appendix to this report, the largest property owners in each of the study area districts are public agencies — notably the Ridgefield School District in the core, Port of Ridgefield in the Waterfront, and City of Ridgefield in the surrounding neighborhood area. There are three private owners with multi -parcel holdings of 10+ acres — all in the neighborhood areas. • Buildings in the study area total 1.4 million square feet of space, the majority of which consists of residential structures. Over 615,000 square feet of commercial and residential building area is encompassed by structures in the core and waterfront areas — with 90% in the downtown core and 10% in the waterfront area. • Intensity of existing development is relatively low. For • all developed plus vacant sites within the downtown core, the average floor area ratio (FAR) for the downtown area is 0.18. FAR is defined as building square footage divided by site area (in square feet). FAR of the waterfront area is much lower at 0.02 — but will change substantially in years to come as Miller's Landing development comes on line. FAR of developed neighborhood properties is at 0.08 —a figure that may increase somewhat with infill development assuming similar densities as for sites with existing residences. • Total assessed valuation of study area property is close to $152 million. Approximately 61% of assessed valuation is associated with neighborhoods together with 35% for the core and 4% in the waterfront area. Most downtowns have their 100% corner, and Ridgefield's appears to be at the corner of Pioneer Street and Main Avenue. Directly opposite is one of two downtown neighborhood groceries. This former church just south of Pioneer on Main has been used as an events center, directly overlooking the wildlife refuge. • Assessed land values average $5.35 per square foot in the downtown core as compared with $2.53 for the residential and $1.15 in the waterfront area. While considerably higher than values in the largely undeveloped waterfront area, assessed core area land values currently are well below those of other commercial and downtown districts in more urbanized portions of Clark County. Vacant & Underimproved Land. For this analysis, properties have been categorized based on whether the site is vacant (with no assigned building value) or developed (with building • valuation). Vacant sites are distinguished between private and tax exempt ownerships. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 10 Developed sites are classified in terms of improvements to land (11) valuation — with two categories for sites with I:L ratios of less than versus more than 0.5. As depicted by the map to the right, about 67 acres in the study area are noted as vacant with tax exempt ownership; another 59 acres are vacant and taxable. Of developed sites, 52 acres comprise lesser valued structures with I:L ratios of below 0.5 (or improvements value less than 50% of land value). The remaining 228 acres (or 56% of the study area) consists of land with a relatively high level of improvements value (of at least 0.5 or better). With the exception of the waterfront area, Vacant & Improved Downtown Study Area Parcels (2014) Notes: Data is through August 2014. Properties with I:L ratios of < 0.5 and > 0.5 include both taxable and tax-exempt ownerships. Sources: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, Clark County GIS, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. most all of the higher valued properties come in at I:L ratios of 1.0 or better. Looking to the future, the best prospects for substantial new development and redevelopment can be expected to comprise potentially 120+/- acres including: • Vacant taxable downtown core area properties totaling more than six acres. • Additional core area land of about 3 acres that that appears to be minimally improved (with I:L ratios below 0.5) which may offer longer term redevelopment potential — especially after initial phase development of primarily vacant sites. • An added 40+ acres of vacant and minimally improved land targeted for the Miller's Landing redevelopment by the Port of Ridgefield in the waterfront area. • Vacant taxable and lesser valued neighborhood properties totaling just over 70 acres — particularly with larger parcels situated south of the downtown core area. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 11 • • r � Vacant & Buildable Lands. Results of the initial September 2014 analysis can be compared with the now completed Clark County Vacant Buildable Lands Model (VBLM). As indicated by the map and associated chart below, VBLM results depict a somewhat more conservative view of redevelopment opportunities in the greater downtown waterfront integration area. VBLM data identifies a total of less than 41 acres of vacant and underutilized in the full Downtown Ridgefield study area. This is less than one-half of the approximately 120 +/- acres noted as potentially vacant and redevelopable with the valuation -driven assessment data base as earlier described. Significant differences between the two methods are noted as follows: e Core area land with the VBLM is 4%: acres, about half the 9 acre potential noted with a value driven assessment. • No waterfront area is indicated with VBLM as buildable for the waterfront, though 40+ acres are planned for Miller's Landing. * 36 acres of neighborhood VBLM, about half the 70 acres of taxable vacant and lesser improved land based on valuation. Parcel -by -parcel reconciliation of these differences is suggested with subarea plan completion. Study Area Vacant Buildable Lands Mapping Vacant Buildable Lands Model (VBLM) Acreage Vacant Land Underutilized Total 3.62 0.00 13.07 0.95 0.00 23.24 16.69 24.19 4.57 0.00 36.31 40.88 • Sources: Clark County Vacant Buildable Lands Model, October 2014. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 12 �e; tX L {, 91 ..msµ. • � � �� A +� � � t .� X r ` Pt Vacant Buildable Lands Model (VBLM) Acreage Vacant Land Underutilized Total 3.62 0.00 13.07 0.95 0.00 23.24 16.69 24.19 4.57 0.00 36.31 40.88 • Sources: Clark County Vacant Buildable Lands Model, October 2014. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 12 Adjoining Neighborhood & City -Wide Linkages. Due to continuing development, the downtown and waterfront areas today are situated at the far western end of the City of Ridgefield adjoining Columbia River waterways and National Wildlife Refuge lowlands: • To the south are existing residential neighborhoods together with continuing new residential development served primarily by Hillhurst Road (much of which is included in the expanded Downtown Ridgefield area). • To the north, the primary arterial is Main Avenue, transitioning in less than one mile from downtown to unincorporated Clark County rural residential lands at Gee Creek and in proximity to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge office (also now within the study area). • The junction with the Interstate 5 freeway is 2 % miles to the east of downtown. Driving east, one passes through existing and newly developing residential areas centered at Pioneer and 45th, and then to industrial property in closest proximity to the freeway. Transportation Access. The principal arterial (and state highway) providing east -west access through Ridgefield and to 1-5 is Pioneer Street/SR 501. North -south access is along the primary and minor arterials of Main Avenue and Hillhurst Road. While downtown is located at the western edge of the city, historic travel patterns persist with all three roadways converging on the downtown/waterfront study area. Existing (two-way) traffic volumes range from about 4-5,000 cars per day on Pioneer Street in downtown, increasing to about 12,000 just west of the 1-5 interchange. Afternoon peak level of service (LOS) ranges from A (with minimal delays) in downtown to B -C ratings from 9th Avenue east to 1-5. Pioneer Street traffic volumes have been forecast to increase Like many small towns, Ridgefield has restored and repurposed its downtown theater — still a community gathering place. With adjoining open space, downtown neighborhoods also offer parks catering to those of all ages. asw As the town's population becomes more diverse, so too do its businesses. EI Rancho Viejo is located on N 3rd Avenue just north of Pioneer Street and the Ridgefield '.school District's current Maintenance Shop and Warehouse. substantially (more than doubling) on SR 501 close to the freeway, with more modest increases anticipated for the downtown area. While level of service capability appears favorable for downtown, this could change depending on the scale and timing of development that occurs with the Port's waterfront development plan. a The downtown/waterfront action plan indicates that waterfront redevelopment could generate up to 1,200 pm peak hour trips through downtown. Also note is that the National Wildlife Refuge draws approximately 90,000 visitors per year, a figure projected to grow. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 13 Phase 1 improvement of the Ridgefield 1-5 interchange at Pioneer/SR 501 with a new overpass is now complete. Funding for added roadway and intersection improvements on SR 501 extending toward downtown is still pending. An estimated $3 million of the $10 million cost of the planned Phase III extension of Pioneer Street from its current termination at Main Avenue across the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) main line in downtown west to the Port of Ridgefield has now been funded. First and second phase road and sewer improvements to the bridge structure are also now in place. Completion of the rail overpass is pivotal not only to redevelopment of the Port's waterfront property, but also to more directly connect downtown with the waterfront district. This will allow closure of two at -grade rail crossings, including the Mill Street crossing ranked as the 5th most dangerous crossing in Washington State. Improved access to the Carty and River "S" units of the wildlife refuge will also be possible. Over a longer time frame, other major transportation improvements are expected to include widening Pioneer Street to four lanes and adding roundabouts (east of 35th Avenue), coupled with City support for establishing a new southern extension from Hillhurst Road back to the 219th Street/Battle Ground interchange with 1-5. Sidewalks are generally present in the commercial portions of the downtown study area, but not in all adjoining older residential areas. C-TRAN "Connector" transit service is currently available to the cities of Ridgefield, La Center and Camas, with both regular stop and dial -a -ride arrangements. As part of its Comprehensive Plan, the City has adopted transportation policies ranging from "livable streets" to improved multi -modal transport efficiency and support for regionally competitive economic development. Adopted policy is aimed to "recognize and accommodate the pedestrian -oriented nature of Downtown Ridgefield" through measures including coordinated urban design, sidewalk construction and street -tree planting where possible, creation of off-street bicycle paths and on -street bicycle lanes, creating a downtown parking district, and encouraging residential urban infill. Public Infrastructure. Within its incorporated limits, the City of Ridgefield has primary responsibility for local streets, water, storm sewer, police services, and public parks. The Clark Regional Wastewater District is the sanitary sewer provider; fire service is provided by Clark County Fire and Rescue. Continued population growth will require the City to develop added water resources or work with Clark Public Utilities in the development of regional water resources. Between 2010-16, over $10 million of capital facility improvements are identified for reservoirs related to water supply, distribution and transmission. The current Comprehensive Plan indicates that the City has adequate sanitary sewer capacity for existing and future demand. Close to $37 million in capital facility improvements related to E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 14 wastewater treatment, sewer trunk mains, and lift stations/force mains are identified to occur • over the 2010-16 time period. While most previously developed areas dispose of stormwater through piping, the City's current approach to stormwater management is to retain and treat stormwater on-site. Clark Public Utilities (CPU) anticipates having adequate supplies of electricity to meet future customer demand. Both CPU and Northwest Natural Gas generally plan to expand distribution capabilities on an as -needed basis. Telecommunications have and likely will continue to remain the focus of major technological change between providers of wired and wireless service. Assuring reliable, hi -speed broadband Internet service will be of importance to attracting and retaining businesses and residents within the Downtown Ridgefield study area. With three neighborhood and community parks coupled with National Wildlife Refuge proximity, Ridgefield offers recreation and open space access that is unsurpassed in Clark County. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes development of a citywide interconnected system of trails to "link schools, parks, and other public facilities with residential and mixed use areas." Also encouraged is the continuity of trail and bike corridors extending to outside the UGA. Recognizing that previously invested infrastructure is already in place to serve downtown area uses, the 2011 IPG Action Plan recommended amendment of the City's Capital Facility Plan and Impact Fee code to allow for impact fee reductions in the downtown ("Old Town") study area. Also suggested are impact fee credits for physical improvements made to public streets and rights-of-way in the downtown. Environmental. Environmental protection is of increasing interest to communities nationally and regionally —for values of improved habitat, livability and economic development. This is certainly the case for the City of Ridgefield and particularly the Downtown Ridgefield study area. While situated outside the immediate City limits, the 5,148 acres of the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge are important to meet local and national environmental objectives. Preservation of the natural floodplain of the Columbia River is a management objective of the Carty, Roth and Ridgeport Dairy Units. Habitat for waterfowl and other wetland wildlife represents a key management objective for the River "S" and Bachelor Island units. Within the City of Ridgefield, the Port of Ridgefield has undertaken a major $80 million cleanup of a former wood treating facility to redevelop 40 -acres of a community asset that will provide substantial economic, environmental and community benefits. Cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield properties is also been identified by the downtown/waterfront action plan as important to "create economic critical mass." The Integrated Planning Grant (IPG) awarded by the State of Washington Department of Ecology followed the identification of potential environmental concerns (including underground storage E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 15 tanks and prior automotive use) that could affect redevelopment of several downtown properties. While this initial market assessment is not limited to redevelopment of these sites, the completion of added environmental due diligence and market feasibility assessment will be important to downtown -wide as well as property -specific improvements. If these properties prove infeasible to redevelop, their continuing vacancy could dampen the interest in reinvesting in other nearby non -contaminated sites as well. Summary Notes. The realization of market opportunities can be facilitated, impeded or re- shaped by public service, investment and regulatory practices. From this initial overview, the following items are identified as being of likely significance to realization of downtown/waterfront economic development potentials: • Downtown comprehensive plan and zoning designations have been assumed as "givens" for this analysis. If particular issues are identified, they may be most appropriately discussed in the context of the upcoming 2016 comprehensive plan update. • The realization of transportation investments planned with continued improvement to the SR 501 corridor, completion of the Pioneer Street rail overcrossing, and future extension of Hillhurst to a second Ridgefield 1-5 interchange at SR 502 can be expected to affect market opportunities and the timing by which they are realized. • Public service and utilities generally appear to be adequate to support downtown reinvestment. Reduction of impact fees recognizing the pre-existing infrastructure investment could serve as an incentive for private development. For some properties, it is possible that utility upgrades may be warranted, especially if the intensity of development on the site increases. Generally, the impact will be moderated if development happens consistent with the 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield —aimed to reinforce the scale of the built environment already in place. • Assuring competitive, robust telecommunications capabilities will be of continuing importance to realizing the full economic potential of the downtown and waterfront areas over the next 10-30 years. More so than for most communities, environmental responsibility can serve as a calling card offering marketplace benefits. These benefits may be realized with the extraordinary natural amenity value of the adjoining wildlife refuge and the commitment to brownfield remediation as experienced with Port property and as may occur with remaining sites that involve potential contamination in the downtown core area. With this planning overview in hand, this analysis now proceeds to consider the market context for potential downtown/waterfront retail, office/employment, and residential opportunities in more detail. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 16 MARKET AREA GEOGRAPHIES For this analysis, four geographic market areas are identified to evaluate potential market opportunities for Downtown Ridgefield residential, retail, office, and business park/flex uses: • Downtown Ridgefield —comprising the core, waterfront and adjoining neighborhoods. • Ridgefield / 1-5 Corridor— shown by the map below as extending west to the Columbia River, north to La Center, east to NE 67th Avenue (about half -way to Battle Ground and just west of Dollars Corner), and south to 189th Street. • Clark County— encompassing the Ridgefield/1-5 trade area together with the other incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of Clark Country. • Metro Region — defined for this market analysis as an eight county region including Clark, Skamania and Cowlitz Counties (in Washington State) together with Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Columbia and Yamhill Counties (in Oregon). Ridgefield / 1-5 Corridor Market Geography Downtown/ Waterfront Integration Area s am a� N .�I 141'1{Ifi S• 3 t Ridgefield 11-5 Corridor Market Area Source: ESRI and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC:. E.D. Hovee & Company, uc for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 17 The Portland -Vancouver metro geography provides the most encompassing perspective useful to profile the economic activity and trends affecting the workings of this integrated and increasingly urbanized regional economy. Metro demographics and real estate conditions may be of particular importance to the extent that niche -oriented development projects are aimed to serve a regional specialty destination, as well as local, market audience. Specifically noted is that Cowlitz County is not included in the Portland -Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as currently defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, Cowlitz County is included with a broader view of the metro region in this analysis due to its proximity to Ridgefield and economic relationships as with workforce commuting and potentially for helping to define future residential and commercial opportunities. Due to a state boundary and limited river crossings between the two states of Washington and Oregon, it is useful to describe distinct characteristics of the Clark County portion of the full metro economy. Some destination activities may be more likely to draw from a countywide market area rather than from the full metro region. Primary attention in this report is given to the more localized Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor submarket, which is the primary area from which downtown Ridgefield might expect to draw customers for retail and service businesses that serve a community -wide market geography. This is also the geography for which it is useful to understand the characteristics of comparable and/or competing residential, retail/service, office and business park/flex uses. For convenience oriented businesses that serve only the immediate neighborhood, the trade area may be reduced in size to the City of Ridgefield or even the immediate Downtown Ridgefield community. It is possible that major commercial development near the 1-5 interchange with Pioneer/269th Street may include larger retailers that extend their reach further— as to Battle Ground, Woodland and/or south to the Salmon Creek area. This would be the case for business types not currently located in these nearby community commercial areas. TRADE AREA DEMOGRAPHICS & EMPLOYMENT This discussion begins with an overview of population and related growth trends for the City of Ridgefield as compared with the larger Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor, Clark County and Metro region market areas. This overview is followed by more detailed focus on market demographic and employment characteristics. Population. As a starting point for discussion, it is useful to compare populations and growth rates for the City of Ridgefield plus the three market geographies considered with this market study: • The City of Ridgefield has an estimated 6,035 residents as of 2014. Per state Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates, Ridgefield is currently the 5th most populated incorporated city in Clark County, accounting for only 1.4% of population countywide. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 18 However, with in -city population increasing at a rate of more than 6% annually since 2010, Ridgefield has been growing at rates far above all other cities or the unincorporated areas of Clark County .5 • The larger Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor trade area has a 2014 population estimated at just over 16,500 (increased to 18,800+ as of 2015). Population has increased at less than 1.5% per year since 2010, meaning that much of the residential growth of this trade area currently appears to be taking place within the incorporated limits of Ridgefield. • With over 440,000 residents, Clark County has experienced population growth averaging only 1.0% per year since 2010. Due in large part to the aftermath of the Great Recession, this is well below the 2% or better growth rates experienced in prior decades. With continued economic recovery including a rebound in housing development, the pace of population growth countywide rrlay pick-up in the years ahead, though not likely reaching back to the rates previously experienced. • The eight -county metro region has a population estimated at over 2.4 million. Rates of population growth experienced since 2000 and forecast in the years ahead are below those of Clark County (despite near parity from 2010-14). Comparative Average Annual Population Growtlh Rates (2010-14) 1.44% 1.01% 1.0276 City of Ridgefield Ridgefield/1-5 Clark County Metro Region Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Claritas and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. • While growing rapidly, the relatively small current population of the City of Ridgefield and even the larger Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor trade area means that residential and commercial growth may need to rely on sources of demand external to, as well as within, the immediate community for significant downtown reinvestment and new development to occur. 5 Per OFM data, the next most fastest growing city in Clark County (after Ridgefield) is La Center, at a 2.2% average annual growth rate from 2010-14. Other incorporated cities are experiencing population growth rates generally in the range of just under 1% to 2% per year. The population for all of unincorporated Clark County is increasing at only 0.8% per year. 2105 OFM estimates are not available as of the date of this update report. • E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 19 Trade Area Demographics. Demographic data as of 2015 is provided with the Appendix to this report. For the characteristics highlighted (by the graphs to the right), comparison is made between the Downtown study area, Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor, Clark County and metro region: • Median age of Downtown area residents is below that of the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor, county and region (at over 34 versus 38-41 years). The Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 areas have the highest proportions of youth age 10-20. • With relatively large average household size, over 80% of households in the Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 areas consist of families versus 70% or less county and region -wide. • Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 area residents are relatively well educated, with 42-43% of adults having an associate degree or better. However, the proportion of college graduates in each of the two areas is slightly below metro wide averages. • At $77,650, Downtown area median household incomes are 3% higher than comparable medians for the Ridgefield/1-5 area and about one-third (32-34%) above the metro region and Clark County, respectively. • Rates of vehicle ownership are relatively high in the Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 areas, as are average commute times to work and relatively low portions of the population patronizing transit. Above average proportions of the workforce are employed in building grounds maintenance, business/financial operations, community and social services, education/training, farming/forestry, health practitioner, legal, management protective service and transportation/moving occupations than is the case countywide or regionally. Together, these occupations make up over half (53%) of the local work force. As detailed in the Residential Market section of this report, trade area residents also are likely to be homeowners with higher home values compared to all of Clark County. Median Age of Population Downtuwn Ridgeliea11.5 Oak County Metro Regan Area Family Households 1 1 Downtown Ridgefietdl1-5 Clods County Metro Region Area Associate Degree+ Downtown Ridgefield4•5 Clak County Metro Region Area Median Household Income Downtown RidgefieW11.5 Clods County Metro Region Area Households With 2+ Vehicles Downtown Ridgefieldl1-5 Clads County Metro Region Area E.D. Hovee & Company. LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 20 In summary, strong population growth combined with relatively high incomes and education levels can be expected to support opportunities for added higher value residential and commercial development. Looking forward, a pivotal question is whether ant to what degree to these greater trade area market drivers will also serve to generate added economic activity for Downtown Ridgefield. Changing Age Demographics. Over the next 20 years, the dominant demographic driving local and national markets will be the changing age demographics of the population. The aging of the population will affect every facet: of the economy — ranging from workforce availability to residential choices and retail shopping. Implications of these shifts are most dramatically illustrated not Simply by the raw numbers of persons in various age cohorts. Rather the action will be most evident by the change in population by age group. These changes are illustrated in some detail by the following graph. Change in Number of Persons by Age Group in Clark County (As a % of Total Population Change in 5 -Year Increments to 2035) 35.44 45.54 55 - Age Cohort In Years Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFNI). Depicted by the graph is the state OFM medium forecast of population growth in 5 -year time increments from 2015-3S. Total Clark County population is forecast to increase by 30-31,000 people in each of the next two time 5 -year time periods, tapering back to just over 25,000 added residents in the more distant 2030-35 time period. Of added note is that: E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 21 • Over the full time spectrum of the next 20 years, the most rapidly growing segment of Clark County's population will consist of persons 65 and over. From 2015-20, adults age 65-74 will constitute 30% of the net growth in countywide population. • In the succeeding time periods of 2020-25 and 2025-30, the age cohort with the most rapid population increase will shift to persons age 75-84. And in the five years from 2030-36, the action is projected to focus on persons age 85+, • In the 2015-20 time period, the second most rapidly growing age cohort will consist of young adults age 25-34. From 2020-25 and 2025-30, the action shifts to adults age 35- 44, and then in the 2035-40 period to persons 45-54. • This mini -boom of Millennial (or Generation Y) adults will create its own secondary wave of children, representing 11% of net population growth from 2015-20 and increasing to 21% of net growth from 2025-30. To summarize, for at least the next 15-16 years to 2030, the dominant growth in the Clark County market will consist of adults 65 and over followed by younger adults age 25-44. While very diverse in terms of lifestyle and consumer choices, both young and senior adults can be expected to be oriented to smaller households making choices to live closer to shopping and community services than has been the case over the last several decades. Not every community in Clark County will follow this pattern in the same way. Emerging communities can be expected to have greater proportions of families in their 40s and 50s with children. However, the sheer size of the millennial and empty nester/retired populations can be expected to dramatically affect residential and consumer choices locally, as well. Employment. As of 2013 (the most recent year for which complete data is available), the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor accounted for just over 4,400 jobs. This represents just over 3% of covered employment in Clark County. By comparison, the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor accounts for closer to 4% of population countywide. As shown by the chart on the following page, job sectors which have relatively high rates of representation in the Ridgefield area when compared countywide include arts/entertainment/recreation, ag/forestry/fishing, and transportation and warehousing. The most under -represented sectors include the health care, information, finance and insurance service sectors followed by real estate, accommodation and food services, and retail trade. In terms of number of jobs, manufacturing is the second largest source of trade area employment. Downtown/waterfront area manufacturing employment was dramatically affected by the loss of about 200 jobs with the 1993 bankruptcy and closing of Pacific Wood Treating followed by subsequent environmental clean-up coordinated through the Port of Ridgefield. In recent years, the Port has also been responsible for development of manufacturing and related industries employing about 800 at the 1-5 Junction. Other base employment in the Ridgefield/1-5 area could prove instrumental to support downtown and waterfront development. An example is provided by the acquisition of a 75 -acre E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 22 property east of the 1-5 Junction interchange by SW Washington Health System. Planned for a ' combination of medical facilities and retail/service businesses, development has been delayed due to the recession and acquisition of SW Washington by Peace Health. With continued economic recovery, moving forward with this type of opportunity will prove instrumental, as described by the 2011 Downtown/Waterfront Integration Project P,ction Plan to allowing Ridgefield "to continue as a well-balanced, vibrant community." Ridgefield / 1-5 Corridor Employment Profile (2013) Total All Sectors 4,416 133,889 3.3% 11 Ag/Forestry/Fishing 113 512 22.1% 23 Construction 433 8,739 5.0% 31-33 Manufacturing 708 12,579 5.6% 42 Wholesale Trade 399 6,108 6.5% 44 Retail Trade 249 15,573 1.6% 48 Transportation & Warehousing 312 2,922 10.7% 51 Information 17 2,569 0.7% 52 Finance & Insurance 32 3,889 0.8% 53 Real Estate 28 2,162 1.3% 54 Professional/Technical Services 135 6,964 1.9% 56 Adminstrative/Waste Services 216 6,964 3.1% 61 Educational Services 45 885 5.1% 62 Health Care & Social Assistance 105 18,030 0.6% 71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 767 2,347 32.7% 72 Accommodation & Food Services 157 10,625 1.5% 81 Other Services 162 7,649 2.1% 92 Government 538 23,183 2.3% * Note: Data is for the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor encompassing zip codes 98642 + 98629. Source: Washington State Employment Security Department. Because employment in Downtown Ridgefield is intended primarily for commercial (non- industrial) uses, commercial retail, office and institutional space demand will be dependent on growth of retail and service sectors that historically have been represented within the immediate community. The waterfront area will likely be oriented to demand from new commercial retail, office/flex and institutional uses that are attracted into the community. The extent to which this combination of local and externally driven growth occurs will affect the demand that may be realized for the full range of core and waterfront area employment uses. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 23 RESIDENTIAL MARKET This market review now shifts from broad demographic and employment considerations to more focused analysis on specific real estate product types - beginning with residential development. For the downtown core and waterfront areas, these uses may comprise attached single-family (such as townhome) and multifamily (condo and apartment) residential development. Maximum multi -family densities currently allowed in the core area range up to 16 units per acre. As a density consistent with development of 2 -story garden apartments, capacity is below what may eventually be considered as appropriate for an urbanizing core area that also is more supportive of expanded urban retail and services. Project feasibility considerations may also favor increased densities to recover costs. This may especially be the case on smaller downtown infill sites and in cases where the need for elevator -served structures requires a 3-4 story rather than 2 - story building to better cover the added cost. Within the existing building fabric, it can be expected that the market will become increasingly supportive innovative opportunities - ranging from live -work to accessory dwelling units. In some cases, this transition in use may prove pivotal to maintenance of the existing older and smaller housing stock of Ridgefield's downtown core area. For the Waterfront (Miller's Landing) area, mixed use development with a residential as well as commercial office/retail component may prove instrumental to securing the type of development interest needed to reach critical mass -.as a fully new 24/7 community for Ridgefield. Appropriately designed, residential can be expected to command premium pricing - due to proximity to the waterfront and National Wildlife Refuge. For the downtown area neighborhoods immediately north and south of the core area, there also appears to be opportunity for additional single family residential primarily at Urban Low (UL) at densities of 4-8 units per acre -including possible duplex,, attached housing, accessory dwelling units and home occupations on a limited basis. With this background in mind, the analysis to consideration of detailed market demographics and product types. Downtown offers well-maintained, stately homes — as with this residence located on Main, just north of the core area. Infill development is occurring in a way that complements the craftsman character of existing neighborhoods. New residential subdivisions such as Heron Ridge (just northeast of downtown) and pictured Taverner Ridge (south of the downtown area) provide added rooftops and discretionary income to support core area convenience as well as specialty retail and services. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 24 Market Overview. As noted, the Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor markets historically have been largely comprised of single-family homes. While this is expected to remain a predominant use, growth of the market also will create new and more diverse opportunities for attached/multifamily residential product — both for owner -occupants and renters. With nearly 850 Downtown area housing units and 6,200 Ridgefield/1-5 housing units as of 2015: • Only 23% of Downtown area and 18% of Ridgefield/1-5 area occupied units are renter - occupied —well below the countywide proportion of 34%. • Median housing value for owner -occupied units is highest in the Ridgefield/1-5 area at over $351,700 —a figure that is 36% above countywide, 22% above metro region, and just 8% above Downtown area pricing. • About 88-91% of housing in the Ridgefield/1-5 and Downtown areas comprises single-family, detached homes —well above county and metro - wide figures in the range of 62-67%. • However, attached single-family housing constitutes an as yet under -represented market niche of future housing opportunity, especially in proximity to the downtown. Within the Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 areas, 1 -unit attached units (such as townhomes) currently constitute only 1-3% of all housing versus about 5- 6% county and region -wide. • Just over 1% of housing in the Downtown and Ridgefield/1-5 areas is comprised of plex and multifamily residences of 2+ units, with mobile home adding 5% in the Downtown and 8% in the Ridgefield/1-5 area. By comparison, more than 22% of Clark County and 28% of metro region housing consists of plex and multifamily housing. Housing Renter -Occupied Dowrlown Ridgefield19-£ Clark County Mello Region Aria Median Housing Values Downtown Ridgefield/1-5 Clerk Caunfy, Metro Region Area Attached+Multifamily Housing Units 3.130 2.7% ME Downtown Ridgefie104 Clark County Meko Region AICD of Homes Built 1990 or Later ][114. Downtown kidgefieldq-c Clark County Metro ReOon Area Source: Claritas. • Due to consistently high population growth, the Downtown and greater Ridgefield/1-5 areas have experienced relatively high rates of new residential construction activity. The majority (68%) of housing locally was built from 1990 to the present — as compared with 61% in the Ridgefield/1-5 area, 51% countywide and 40% regionally. A greater E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 25 proportion of new housing development is consistent with higher overall housing values supported in this relatively affluent Clark County submarket. Based on demographic considerations, this analysis now turns to more detailed evaluation of components of multifamily/attached housing projects of potential interest to the Downtown Ridgefield site area —including single-family residential, apartments, condominiums, and attached/townhome residential product. Single -Family Residential. Development of new single-family housing point is not anticipated to represent a major focus of residential investment in Ridgefield's downtown core or waterfront areas. However, single-family is the predominant form of existing and new housing throughout the rest of the community including the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the core area. As a result, it is useful to set an overall market contE'xt with a brief overview of the single-family residential housing market. Ridgefield has averaged 123 total residential permits per year since 2004. Most or all of this development has been for single-family units. Over this period, Ridgefield has accounted for just under 6% of all residential building permits issued countywide. As illustrated by the following chart, the pace of residential development has fluctuated considerably in recent years. Development patterns have been greatly affected by broader trends in the regional and national economy — especially with respect tojobs, wages, and interest rates. 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Ridgefield Residential Building Permits (2004-14) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 26 As is further detailed by the Appendix to this report, the peak year of development was 2005 with 313 permits in Ridgefield, dropping to a low of 27 permits in 2009. Since then permitting has built up to 177 issued in 2013. In 2014 construction, appears to have dropped back somewhat to just over 100 new residential units permitted. The combination of continued economic recovery, reasonable interest rates, and a substantial inventory of as -yet undeveloped subdivision lots all point to a substantial increase in residential development ahead. From contacts with parties having active projects, the Clark Regional Wastewater District has identified potential development of 1,455 single family units through 2021— averaging just under 250 units per year. As of year-end 2013, the City of Ridgefield had 905 platted lots in 18 identified subdivisions, of which 165 were developed with 741 remaining. While the lot inventory was reduced by about another 100 units constructed in 2014, new projects are beginning to move through the subdivision planning process. The City of Ridgefield has estimated that 2,000 residential units might be constructed in the next five years — representing average annual development of up to as many as 400 new homes per year — potentially above even the pace at the peak of the pre -recession market. Downtown neighborhoods are not currently identified with any of Ridgefield's active single family subdivisions —though some new subdivisions are situated nearby. With between 36-70 potentially developable acres, Downtown Ridgefield conceivably could accommodate a reasonable share of community -wide residential development in the years ahead — primarily at Urban Low (UL) densities ranging at up to eight units per acre. This would suggest long term potential conceivably for up to as many as 550 added downtown neighborhood area residential units — primarily for single family development. The actual amount of housing produced will depend on more detailed site-specific evaluations. Important considerations may include provision of access and utility infrastructure to some larger sites, slope and environmental constraints, and ultimate net density of resulting development. With few large parcels, small parcel size may limit the scale of development. Within the neighborhoods surrounding the core and waterfront areas, there are only one parcel of over 10 acres and another in the range of 5-10 acres identified with this overview market analysis. Consequently, smaller -scale infill developments can be expected to comprise a substantial portion of the long-term Downtown Ridgefield single-family housing opportunity. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 27 Apartment Market. As a starting point for analysis of multi -family product types pertinent to Ridgefield's downtown and waterfront areas, it is useful to review vacancy and occupancy trends for the Portland -Vancouver apartment market pre- and post -recession. Even during the recession, metro area apartment vacancies reached no higher than 5.9%. As of year-end 2014, vacancies were at only 3.7%. Clark County is currently experiencing strong apartment demand with vacancies below the regional average — averaging about 3.4% as of 2014. However, due to increasing multi -family inventory with new construction, vacancy rates county- and region -wide increased somewhat between 2013-14. As depicted by the chart on the following page, the national real estate data firm CoStar indicates that Clark County accounted for 31% of the net absorption of apartment units regionally in 2013-14. This is well above the county's 18% of total population in the 8 -county metro region. Clark County & Portland Metro Apartment Vacancy (2004-14) ■(- II _WJN11CLM01UJ11V=11 I -I __ 1/[=1I[�11 2004 6.2% 7.7% 2005 6.3% 5.9% 2006 3.4% 3.4% 2007 3.8% 2.9% 2008 4.7% 3.6% 2009 5.3% 5.9% 2010 6.4% 4.0% 2011 4.3% 3.4% 2012 3.5% 3.6% 2013 2.5% 3.1% 2014 3.4% 3.7% Note: Vacancy data is from the Fall reports of each indicated year. Clark County now accounts for the majority Source: Multifamily NW and E. D. Hovee &Company, LLC. of new potential apartment projects currently in the pipeline region -wide. However, to date, the Ridgefield and north Clark County area have not yet experienced this renewed multi -family investment activity. With only five apartment projects totaling 52 units (or only about 10 units per development), the Ridgefield area accounts for a very small 0.2% share of the apartment inventory countywide. No new units have been built in recent years and no projects havd been identified by Costar as proposed (as of late summer 2014). Rental rate data is also not readily available for the relatively small inventory of units currently located in the area. Even if relevant data were more readily available, rental rages for the existing older stock of units could be expected to be un -representative of rents that might be achievable with development of new multifamily residential units. In effect, like some but not all of the smaller cities in Clark County, Ridgefield traditionally has been under -represented with multifamily housing. However, this can be expected to change in the years ahead due to rapidly changing demographics and housing preferences. What remains less clear is the pace at which this might occur. A more balanced mix of housing choices will E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 28 occur based in part on responses to market forces and in part due to responsive public planning policy. Comparative Apartment Market Indicators (,August 2014) Total Inventory (# Units) % Built 2000 - 2014 % Market Rate Average Aski ng Rents (Monthly) Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms Concessions Vacancy Rate 12 Month Absorption (Units) Under Construction (units) Proposed Development #of Projects # of Units Market Averages Units per Apartment Property Bui It 2000 - 2014 Market Rate #of Apartment Properties 26 52 31,003 211,476 0.00% 0.00% 24.20% 17.80% 100.00% 100.00% 86.56% 85.04% $- $- $666 $837 $- $- $791 $906 $ - $ - $930 $998 $ - $ - $1,146 $1,187 No Data No Data 0.70% 1.10% No Data No Data 2.00% 2.80% 0 0 1,330 4,234 0 0 216 6,109 0 0 17 47 0 0 5,264 8,265 13 10 50 38 0 0 7,504 37,642 26 52 26,835 179,841 2 5 621 5,565 Sources: CoStar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. While Costar's database does not lend itself to useful comparisons of per square foot rents, information pertinent to a per square foot analysis is provided by Multifamily NW for Clark County in comparison with the rest of the Portland metro region. Comparative Per Square Foot Rental Rate:. (Fall 2014) Clark County $0.94 $1.58 $1.09 $0.91 $0.93 $0.83 $0.77 $0.92 Portland Metro $1.22 $1.97 $1.39 $1.02 $1.11 $0.97 $0.97 $1.02 CC % of Metro 77% 80% 78% 90% 83% 85% 80% 90% Sources: Multifamily NW, The Apartment Report Fall 2013 and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 29 As depicted by the above chart, rental rates (on a per square foot basis) typically are greatest for smaller units —which have a larger proportion of high cost kitchen and restroom facilities to spread over less living area than is the case for apartment units with more bedrooms. Overall, Clark County rental rates are averaging only 77% of the rates achieved throughout the metro -wide market. The disparity is greatest for 1 bedroom/1 bath units (22% below the metro -wide average), and least for large 3 bedroom/2 bath units and 2 bedroom/1 bath units (10% below). This indicates that countywide demand and pricing power is relatively greater locally for larger rather than smaller apartment units. Because there is so little north county apartment inventory and no new construction noted, it is difficult to forecast precisely what the mix of demand would be if new units were built. As with the rest of the county, it is likely that demand will be more strongly oriented to somewhat larger units for the full Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor area. For the downtown core and waterfront areas, it is possible that there could be demand for smaller units including some mix of studios and 1 -bedroom units. This would especially be the case if units were marketed to single -resident households, as with younger creative service workers and/or for baby -boomers and seniors seeking to downsize. Attached for Sale Residential. In addition to the rental market, there are opportunities to consider with for sale, attached residential development in Downtown Ridgefield. This could involve: • Condominium development — a market hard hit by the recession with current signs of impending recovery, though still lagging the single-family market rebound. • Attached single-family residential —as with townhomes and row houses, where the homeowner may also retain ownership of the underlying land. The following chart offers an early indication of the price recovery of this market with existing units. New development has yet to re-emerge on a significant basis, especially within the Ridgefield area. Noted is that data for the Ridgefield area represents the combination of the zip codes 98642 (Ridgefield) and 98629 (La Center). E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waferfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 30 Ridgefield Attached Housing Development (2012-13) Ridgefield/1-5 Zip Codes 2012 1 2013 7 Clark County (All Zip Codes) 2012 89 2013 127 $170,000 $94 $157,300 $93 17 $192,100 $102 21 $217,900 $109 N/A $112 461 N/A $99 N/A $126 588 N/A $114 Sources: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC from Real Estats.r' Prices for new attached housing in the Ridgefield appear to be coming in at the lower end of transactions countywide, but with few local transactions indicated in the last two years. Turnover of existing units appears more robust with pricing in the range of +/- $200,000, Unit sizes of attached housing for the Ridgefield area are fairly large — averaging about 2,000 square feet for sales of existing units and at about 1,700 square feet for sales of new units. A potential challenge for feasibility of new development is that per square foot pricing in Ridgefield is not yet showing any clear price premium over what can be realized with detached single-family housing units.' However, attached housing development will warrant stronger consideration as a component of the Downtown Ridgefield residential mix — especially if prices continue to firm in the next 2-3 years. Emerging Rental & Ownership Opportunity. A challenge for any market analysis is to assess the opportunity for new or emerging market trends, with signs of market interest underway but before there is clear documentation of a new trend. This topic is of particular interest for residential market areas that are beginning to experience new and more urban forms of development. Urban scale development tends to require higher price points for project feasibility — whether for apartments, condominium units, or townhomes. Market dynamics for urban attached housing products can change quickly. As examples, the emergence of the Pearl and then South Waterfront Districts near Portland's urban center were accompanied by the virtual doubling of rental rates and sales prices within the space of a few years — peaking before the Great Recession of 2007-2009. While sales prices (but not rents) dropped considerably during the recession, they have now recovered to pre -recession levels. e While average sales price estimates are not directly available for all of Clark County, analysis of price distribution for 2013 indicates that 76% of sales of new attached units countywide were in the price range of $150,000- $250,000 and 19% at $250,000-$400,000. The remaining 5% were at prices below $150,000. Per square foot pricing has averaged about ;>127 for new Ridgefield/1-5 detached single-family home sales in 2012. Single-family per square foot prices in 2013 increased to about $136 in the Ridgefield zip code and to $145 per square foot in La Center. Per Real Estats and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 31 A similar phenomenon has been observed in Clark County, but on a smaller and more geographically focused scale to date. Higher end apartment and condo pricing has been observed in places such as downtown Vancouver (near Esther Short Park), on Vancouver's Columbia River waterfront, and in parts of east County at high amenity locations. Similar experience has been observed in other urban village contexts of the Portland metro region — as in Lake Oswego and in portions of Beaverton/Hillsboro. Specifically considered with this analysis are observations as to top -of -market pricing conditions both in Clark County and regionally:$ • For apartments, top of market rents in Clark County for projects on the ground recently have been in the range of $1.50+ per square foot monthly, as in the Vancouver urban core and at Columbia Tech Center —with higher per square foot rents typically indicated for studio units. New projects in the downtown Vancouver area can be expected to break above this level. On the Oregon side of the Columbia River, suburban market rents reach to as much as $1.75-$2.00 (with the top of the market indicated for studio units in Lake Oswego near the lake and downtown). • With respect to condominium units (flats in multi -story developments), re -sale price points for units constructed post -2000 reach from a low of about $225-$250+ per square foot (as at Heritage Place and Vancouvercenter in downtown Vancouver) to as much as $300-$400+ per square foot (along the Columbia River at the Nleriwether and Sahalies at Tidewater Cove). A rebounding market can work to the advantage of high amenity sites such as Downtown Ridgefield with direct waterfront views and access. • Finally, town home/rowhouse units (typically 2+ story) are generally ranging anywhere from about $150-$300 per square foot — though lower sales prices can be found in some older, lower amenity developments. The top end of the market appears to be with the Village at Columbia Shores on the Vancouver waterfront. With an average price of $180 per square foot countywide, units recently sold above this price level also are noted for Lakeshore Hills (an older development overlooking Vancouver Lake), Uptown Village (north side of downtown Vancouver), and at Two Creeks at Camas Meadows.9 For the downtown/waterfront areas of Downtown Ridgefield, the best opportunities in the near to medium term appear to be for apartments and townhome/rowhouse product. 8 This analysis has drawn from information sources including CoStar, web site research of comparable projects, and similar recent research by E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC for other Portland -Vancouver metro clients. Townhome sales include units where the land is owned jointly (as a condominium) and individually (with fee ownership). Recent Portland area sales have ranged up to $400 per square foot (Lake OswegD). In Clark County, townhomes have typically led the market ahead of higher density and higher priced condo development. Townhomes can be owned in fee simple arrangements rather than as condos — a feature that is attractive for many buyers. Fee ownership also reduces the risk of homeowner association lawsuits, which have greatly dampened developer and lender interest for condo development in recent years. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 32 Apartments offer the opportunity to further expand an as -yet emerging market niche for multifamily, rental housing product beyond current highly urbanized markets in Clark County. Smaller and edgier units may be warranted for those who would be interested in living in the downtown (including next to or above storefronts). The larger, amenity -oriented, upper end of the market residential might also be considered for the waterfront area, though this potential is not referenced by the existing waterfront master plan. Of the ownership products, townhome and rowhouse product would appear to provide the better opportunity, with near-term potentials likely focused in the waterfront area, if included with a refined master plan. RETAIL The retail market in the Ridgefield/1-5 area appears to be underserved relative to the available population and disposable spending. A challenge has been that the in -town population and even the larger trade area is not adequate to support the critical mass for some retailers, especially large format stores. This will undoubtedly change with continued residential growth. Future development can be expected to be most oriented at sites in proximity to the changing center of the community's population and/or in proximity to the 1-5 corridor. Retail prospects in Ridgefield's downtown core area likely will be driven more by a combination of residential demand from immediately adjacent neighborhoods coupled with destination activity -as from visitors to the wildlife refuge or otherwise seeking a relaxed small town shopping experience. Regional Retail Market. Information from the national real estate data provider Costar indicates that the 8 -county metro area market has more than 121 million square feet of competitive retail space. After experiencing more than 2.5 million square feet of net absorption in 2007, the retail market cratered with the Great Recession. Low to negative net absorption was experienced the following three years. Regional Retail Absorption & Vacancy (2007-14) 000.o�o , 7% G% sx, 0 47 U 3% u 4 0 2% 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 soo,oX) --- - -- if. -i.vov, 0 -- - _ -- - -- — -- --1 D% Source Absorption —Vacancy Rate - Vacancy rates went from less -- -- - _.—__ --_-- _._-. - Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. than 4.5% to more than 6%. While this was a substantial rise, retail vacancies even at the peak of the recession were well below vacancies that continue to be experienced with office and flex space. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 33 More recently, positive absorption and declining vacancies have been experienced to year end 2014 vacancy of less than 5%, though not yet back to pre -recession levels. Net absorption of retail space (defined as space leased minus new vacancies) has increased each year since 2012. Ridgefield / 1-5 Corridor Retail Submarket. The Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor market area comprises less than 60,000 square feet of Costar identifies as competitive retail space. This represents only 0.3% of the 18.4 million square feet of retail space in Clark County —well below the trade area's close to 4% share of population countywide. Retail uses include largely free-standing, individual store spaces in downtown (Ridgefield and La Center together with more recent multi -tenant retail space constructed in the vicinity of the 1-5 Junction. The largest single retail development currently in this trade area is the 20,500 square foot Tri -Mountain Shopping Center on the east side of the 1-5 interchange at Pioneer/269tH Only 34% of space is located in a multi -tenant retail center, well below what is experienced elsewhere in Clark County or regionally. As of August 2004, Ridgefield/1-5 vacancy rates mirrored those countywide at about 8% — but above the metro -wide vacancy of 5.3%. Reported subarea retail rental rates are relatively high —above market averages both county and region -wide. However, average rents appeared skewed toward properties close to the 1-5 Junction, in part due to lesser reporting for downtown area properties. For what is reported, rents for retail space in the downtown area appear to be lower— in the range of $12 per square foot on an annualized basis. Comparative Retail Market Indicators (August 2014) Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Some demand slippage was observed last year; however, development interest appears to again be on the increase. While there is no new retail construction indicated as being underway at present, there are identified plans for at least an added 68,000 square feet of space — primarily in conjunction with the Pioneer Crossing and Union Ridge Towne Center projects situated near the 1-5/Ridgefield interchange. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 34 Total Inventory (SF) 59,532 18,446,308 121,543,216 • in a Center 34% 65% 47% • Other 66% 35% 53% Vacancy Rate 8.00% 8.10% 5.30% 12 Month Absorption (SF) (1,186) (28,384) 210,928 Planned SF 67,814 1,593,163 3,835,847 Construction SF 0 9,000 765,811 Rental Rates (nnn) Ave rage $21.26 $18.86 $17.34 Range approx. $12 to $27 Up to $35 Up to $40 Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Some demand slippage was observed last year; however, development interest appears to again be on the increase. While there is no new retail construction indicated as being underway at present, there are identified plans for at least an added 68,000 square feet of space — primarily in conjunction with the Pioneer Crossing and Union Ridge Towne Center projects situated near the 1-5/Ridgefield interchange. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 34 Retail Sales & Leakage. The approximately 16,500 residents of the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor trade area generate annual consumer retail expenditure demand estimated at $315 million. As depicted by the following chart, approximately $148 million of this demand (47%) is currently addressed by retailers located directly within the trade area —with resulting sales leakage estimated at $165 million per year (or 53% of local consumer generated demand). This sales leakage occurs when residents of the community travel outside the trade area to purchase goods and services. In some cases, sales actually exceed locally generated demand — indicating a net inflow of dollars as from tourism activity. For the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor, sales leakage is indicated across most retail categories — except gasoline stations (catering to 1-5 pass-thru traffic), building materials and garden supply, some specialty stores, and dining (influenced by restaurants associated with La Center card rooms). Unmet sales demand is currently addressed by other retailers situated outside the trade area — local residents travel to Salmon Creek or other Vancouver area retailers to the south, Battle Ground to the east, or Woodland to the north. Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor Trade Area Retail Demand & Supply (2015) 441 Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 442 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 443 Electronics & Appliance Stores 444 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 445 Grocery (Food & Beverage Stores) 446 Health & Personal Care Stores 447 Gasoline Stations 448 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 451 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores 452 General Merchandise Stores 453 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 454 Nonstore Retailers 722 Dining (Food Services & Drinking Places) 44-45,72 Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink $67,148,200 $1,012,698 $66,135,502 98% $6,018,966 $837,200 $5,181,766 86% $5,562,013 $1,817,797 $3,744,216 67% $33,550,506 $36,395,085 ($2,844,579) -8% $38,764,898 $3,557,616 $35,207,282 91% $15,992,807 $6,057,381 $9,935,426 62% $28,981,735 $30,144,086 ($1,162,351) -4% $13,748,601 $1,861,715 $11,886,886 86% $5,741,923 $5,824,931 ($83,008) -1% $34,867,624 $16,465,882 $18,401,742 53% $8,052,598 $4,291,880 $3,760,718 47% $25,796,474 $1,361,250 $24,435,224 95% $30,141,892 $38,797,154 ($8,655,262) -29% $314,368,236 $148,424,675 $165,943,561 53% Sources: Claritas and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. In terms of the dollar volume of sales leakage, the major categories of sales leakage appear to be with motor vehicle and auto parts dealers, followed by grocery, general merchandise (both department store and discount), and apparel. Each of these categories is indicated as having $10+ million of net sales leakage. The presence of substantial sales leakage (whether in dollar or percentage terms) is no guarantee of local sales recapture opportunity. Two threshold tests have to be met for a community to recapture a portion of dollars currently traveling outside the local trade area: • The dollar volume of leakage must be substantial enough to assure sufficient critical mass to meet minimum store sizes typical for the retail sector being served. For E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 35 example, a substantial portion of the general merchandise retail has shifted to large format stores — both department and discount retailers. The market must be large enough to support the total sales volume expected by these retailers. • The retail location must be suitable to conveniently serve the bulk of residents of the trade area or, alternatively, of visitors to the community. Since Ridgefield's downtown core is situated at the edge of its residential market population, it may not prove as attractive for retailers who want to serve the entire market from one location. The 1-5 Junction or other locations closer to the center of the community's population are more likely to attract larger format store users as the market reaches population thresholds to support this demand. Consequently, the downtown/waterfront area can be expected to play more of a convenience and specialty niche role, catering to residents living in closest proximity to downtown plus visitors to the downtown/waterfront area. Best Retail Bets for the Downtown / Waterfront. Another way to consider retail opportunities is through the alternative lenses of multiple geographic trade areas. As illustrated by the chart below, opportunities (measured in terms of retail sales leakage) are considered for each of four potential trade areas to which Ridgefield businesses might cater: • Residents within the City of Ridgefield (In -Town) • Ridgefield /1-5 corridor trade area —as considered above (R/1-5) • Clark County (CC) • 8 -county Portland metro region (Metro) Downtown / Waterfront Market Opportunities by Trade Area Served Motor'Vehicle & Parts Dealers Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. &Supply Stores Grocery (Food & Beverage Stores) Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores General Merchandise Stores Miscellaneous Store Retailers Nonstore Retailers Dining (Food Services & Drinking Places) Legend: _ Most suitable for 1-5 location Possible specialty approach Possible small store Notlikelyunless boutique use 1-5 orientation unless specialty Small neighborhood orspecialty Most suitable for 1-5 location Possible boutique if clustered Modest potential Most suitable for 1-5 location Limited specialty retail potential Can supplement storefront sales Bestto serve local +CC visitors Trade area sales leakage of 500/.+ Trade area sales leakage < 50% No apparent sales leakage Sources: Claritas and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 36 For some uses, sales leakage is indicated across all four trade area geographies considered. This may be due, at least in part, to residents exhibiting a regional preference to spend less on some categories in favor of others. For example, the Portland -Vancouver metro region appears to under -spend on motor vehicles relative to national norms and spending patterns. Residents of all four market geographies also appear to under -spend on grocery, though this might be offset by more spending than typically occurs elsewhere on dining — consistent with Portland's reputation for "foodie culture." Under -spending is also noted across all geographies considered for furniture/home furnishings, health and personal care. While doing poorly in the Ridgefield area and county -wide, retailers tend to grab more sales than would be expected based on resident incomes metro -wide for categories such as electronics/appliances, and clothing — especially as Clark County shoppers tend to travel -out-of- state to avoid paying sales tax on these big ticket items. Conversely, local area retailers appear to out -perform their regional counterparts in building/garden supplies and for service stations.10 With dining, a somewhat mixed picture is noted. Dining in -town (in Ridgefield) and county -wide tends to underperform, while dining does well for the full Ridgefield/1-5 corridor as well as the metro region. A viable approach for the downtown might be for eating and drinking establishments to improve offerings for the growing in -town popullation as well as attract residents from elsewhere in Clark County for that special night out or in connection with a visit to the wildlife refuge. The restaurants likely to be most successful are those that can market and cater effectively to both the local convenience and countywide destination appeal of the Ridgefield community. In summary, retail store types that would appear to be viable for added activity in the downtown area and/or on the waterfront could include specialty home furnishings, possible boutique apparel and limited miscellaneous specialty retail (especially if developed as a cluster of complementary stores), and dining. Some modest potential may also be possible for added neighborhood/specialty grocery, small local -serving electronics store, and perhaps for some neighborhood -oriented health and personal care (as with pharmacy) retail. As is the case in many smaller, traditional downtowns, rents may riot currently be adequate to support the costs of significant building rehabilitation or new construction. This can be expected to change as demand for added retail supportive of higher rent levels can be demonstrated in the years ahead. io Some changes in the categorization of retail sales leakage versus trade area surplus are also noted between 2014-15, based on Claritas data. Both in -town gasoline service and Ridgefield / 1-5 sales for sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores have gone from a position of sales leakage in 2014 to a position of sales volume that now somewhat exceeds locally generated demand. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/W aferfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 37 RECREATION & HOSPITALITY In addition to pure retail, there are other specialty recreation and hospitality uses that might be considered as an important part of the mix for commercial development. Some specialty service uses are not likely to locate in the downtown or waterfront areas due to distance from the major transportation corridor of 1-5 and reduced accessibility to the larger Ridgefield/1-5 trade area. A multi -screen cinema represents an example of a use that will most likely gravitate to the freeway corridor or to a more central location in Ridgefield when supported by adequate trade area population. With this analysis, three recreation and hospitality options are considered as being of potential applicability to the downtown/waterfront area — health/fitness, lodging, and destination lodging/recreation development. Each of these is considered briefly in turn. Health / Fitness Center. A specialty service use that could effectively complement retail and/or residential development together with other natural recreational amenities of the waterfront area is a health/fitness center. The focus of this discussion is on full service facilities defined —at a minimum — as providing exercise and weightlifting equipment, fitness classes, and a pool on-site. Size of full service health/fitness operations in Clark County typically ranges from about 20-40,000 square feet of building area. There are 12 identified facilities in Clark County that fit this full service definition. 11 As yet, no major health fitness centers are located in the Ridgefield/1-5 corridor area. The closest existing full service facility appears to be Lake Shore Athletic Club located approximately 12 miles to the south. A factor affecting the impacting the continued competitiveness of full service facilities both locally and nationally is the emergence of smaller specialty or boutique fitness operators. Examples in the greater north county area (from about 134`" Street north to Woodland) include Battle Ground Fitness, Crossfit, Curves, Snap, and Training Zone. At present, there is one full service health/fitness center for approximately every 37,000 residents in Clark County. Projected county -wide population growth over five years indicates potential to support another 0.75 facilities. This requires a population base greater than just the Ridgefield/1-5 corridor— likely reaching into Woodland, Battle Ground and south to the 1-5/1-205 interchange. 11 Full service health -fitness clubs in Clark County are Cascade Athletic Club, Clark County Family YMCA, Club Green Meadows, Firstenburg Community Center, LA Fitness Sports Club (two facilities), LaCamas Swim and Sport, Lake Shore Athletic Club, Marshall Community Center and 24 -Hour Fitness (three facilities). Health/fitness facilities that closed with the recession include Bally Total Fitness and Landover and Oxford Athletic Clubs. The Jim Parsley Center (Vancouver School District) no longer offers fitness classes and exercise and weightlifting equipment, therefore, it is no longer considered a full service facility. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 38 While not certain, it is possible that there maybe potential demand to support another full service facility in Clark County without negatively impacting existing facilities. However, this opportunity may be muted if smaller specialty fitness operators continue to take an increasing share of the available market. This opportunity may be better for the Ridgefield area to secure a full service facility than current numbers alone suggest. Factors supportive of a Ridgefield location include to rapid residential population growth, the dearth of any proximate facilities and high resident incomes. However, given the fragmented nature of this larger market area and continued growth of specialty operators, viability of a new full service health/fitness facility is not assured. A full service health/fitness center serving the north county market likely would gravitate to a location more central to the community and/or in proximity to the 1-5 freeway. Potential appeal to an experienced national or regional operator would be enhanced as part of a major multi - tenant commercial development. Reasons to consider a downtown/waterfront location likely would be dependent on: a) interest of the City of Ridgefield; and/or b) ability to expand the concept to include direct linkages with related outdoor recreation facilities — such as biking, kayaking/boating, hiking/exercise trail, and possibly golf. If such interest is not readily forthcoming, the most feasible alternative would be to consider a smaller boutique operator as is happening elsewhere in the north county area (in the range of 5,000 to perhaps 20,000 square feet). Boutique Lodging. With a resurgent lodging market, Clark County is again experiencing new hotel/motel investment. This renewed investment currently is focused in east Clark County in proximity to major employment centers with three new developments totaling nearly 300 added rooms underway this past year. 12 The Ridgefield junction area could prove attractive for a motel catering to I-5 pass-through traffic and employment activity nearby —though increased job headcounts may be required before this occurs. More pertinent to this analysis is the potential for development of a higher end boutique hotel property to serve the discretionary travel market — drawn to Ridgefield by adjacency to the National Wildlife Refuge coupled with close proximity to the urban amenities of the Portland metro area. The geographic market area for this type of urban -edge hotel investment is best described as a four -county area comprised of Clark and Multnomah Counties (urban area) plus Skamania and Hood River Counties (rural amenity counties at the western end of the Columbia River Gorge 12 The three new properties include a 115 -room Towneplace Suites by Marriott, 99 -room Hampton Inn and Suites, and an 83 -room Candlewood Suites Hotel. E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 39 National Scenic Area). As of 2012, this four -county region had over 200 hotel -motel properties with an estimated 18,900 lodging room inventory (averaging 93 rooms per property): 13 Pre -recession occupancies appear to have peaked in 2007 at just under 68%. During the recession, occupancies dropped to less than 59% in 2009 before rebounding back to pre -recession levels as of 2012. Not surprisingly, there is wide variation in lodging occupancies experienced over the course of a year and by day of week. Peak months are July -August (at up to 80%+ occupancy) with the off-season of December -January (often coming in at less than 50%). By day of week, region -wide lodging occupancies tend to be strongest from Thursday - Saturday with Sunday -Monday typically representing the low points. Average daily rate (ADR) for a single room peaked at $105+ in 2008, dropped by nearly $10 per night through the recession, coming back close to the $105 mark by 2012. Average daily revenue per available room (RevPAR) similarly peaked in 2008 at $69, then dropped, but also was back to exceed pre -recession levels by 2012. Clark County has an estimated 2,500+ competitive hotel/motel rooms — representing about 13% of the four -county inventory. By comparison, the more rural environs of Skama nia and Hood River County have a combined 5% of the area's lodging — with Multnomah County comprising the remaining 82% of the metro area -wide room inventory. Most of Clark County's lodging inventory is in the Vancouver/east county area. Properties closest to Ridgefield are in Salmon Creek, Battle Ground and Woodland. The typical Clark County lodging property averages about 88 rooms in size, comparable to the four -county average. The largest hotel is the Hilton Vancouver (owned via a Public Development Authority created by the City of Vancouver). Eleven Clark County properties have 100+ rooms. By comparison, Hood River County in the amenity -oriented Columbia River Gorge tends to have smaller, more boutique -focused hotels — averaging 45 rooms per property. The recession and recovery together with good media exposure are suddenly making Portland a sought-after visitor destination market. No less a publication than the New York Times has designated Portland as "the capital of West Coast urban cool." However, Portland has not yet achieved the international standing of Seattle as a destination market. Hotel occupancies in this market are about 2-3% points less than in Seattle — whether viewed for the Central City or full market area. Lodging rates in this metro region also are 12- 14% less than in the Seattle area — with disparities greater for the suburban portion of the market. 13 Pertinent lodging data has been compiled from the nationally recognized hospitality research firm Smith Travel Research (STR). Information we have reviewed extends back to the pre -recession period of 2006 and forward to more recent actual trends and projected conditions. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 40 Overall, lodging data suggests a regional market that not only has rebounded well from the recession, but is now moving from subpar to a more competitive position relative to the rest of the nation. However, room rates have remained on the low side, requiring continued attention to carefully control development costs with new construction. To summarize, a boutique hotel located in proximity to the Ridgefield wildlife refuge appears to represent a lodging opportunity worth pursuing — most likely in the range of 45-75 rooms together with provision of quality on-site meeting and event capabilities. The market opportunity may not materialize immediately but could garner investor and operator attention as successful momentum is demonstrated with initial phases of Milller's Landing waterfront development and downtown revitalization. Destination Lodging & Recreation. This option would go beyond the boutique lodging concept to create a regionally if not nationally recognized destination attraction. Most likely, project viability would hinge on a public-private partnership involving a recognized developer and operator together with active support from the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, City of Ridgefield and Clark County. The most proximate example of a major destination property — with golf course, hotel, lodging and conference center — is situated at Skamania Lodge in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (at Stevenson), less than 30 miles east of Parkers Landing. Anchored by a 254 -room conference center hotel, Skamania Lodge was constructed in 1993 by the developer of Salishan Lodge and Sunriver. Funding involved private investment together with federal dollars allocated through the National Scenic Area. 14 A major focus of the resort concept was to bring eco -tourism opportunities front and center, including the housing of a U.S. Forest information center for the scenic area on-site. This urban -rural destination interface concept has since been emulated by the wine -themed Allison Inn at another edge of the metro region in Newberg. Most recently, a subsidiary of The Yoshida Group has been exploring redevelopment of 20 acres of public and private land near the confluence of the Sandy and Columbia Rivers in Troutdale. Planned with the Troutdale project is a recreation destination "similar to Hood River in the Gorge" — including an upscale hotel, restaurant, event center and waterfront boardwalk adjacent to an existing outlet mall. However, master planning has been delayed by the need for resolution of environmental contamination issues from prior industrial use of the site. 14 The market study for Skamania Lodge and subsequent proposal for National Scenic Area funding was prepared by E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. The firm also conducted market/feasibility for the now rehabilitated Marcus Whitman Hotel at the center of Walla Walla's internationally recognized wine country and has been involved with initial market analysis for the Yoshida/Eastwinds project in Troutdale. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 41 In the Puget Sound region, the urban edge concept is exemplified by the historic Salish Lodge property located in Snoqualmie at the eastern edge of the metro area. Billed as the "Seattle's premiere luxury hotel resort & spa," the 84 -room hotel features Northwest custom furnishings and cuisine — overlooking Snoqualmie Falls. Salish Lodge is extensively used for major events such as weddings, retreats and corporate meetings. Dating to 1919, In July 1986, the property was extensively remodeled and expanded in 1986 by the real estate subsidiary of Puget Sound Energy (as underlying land owner). A major feasibility caveat is that resort properties throughout the U.S. generally fared worse in the recession and proved slower to recover than non -resort hotel/motel properties. This is attributable to the highly discretionary and cyclical nature of personal and meeting/conference related travel involved. Due to the severity and slow recovery from the Great Recession, properties regionally and nationally experienced major financial distress, including foreclosure. Because of the number of resorts that were overleveraged, foreclosures and restructurings of even internationally recognized trophy properties have not yet fully ended. For example, the 198 -room hotel anchoring 1,100 -acre Semiahmoo Resort in Blaine, Washington (just south of the Canadian border) was closed in late 2012. The hotel then re- opened in August 2013 after $6 million in facility upgrades including transition to new ownership and management arrangements. While undoubtedly daunting, development of a major lodging, recreational and environmentally -focused destination property with an environmental and recreational orientation may be worth pursuing. Opportunities for this type of development improve the longer that current period of somewhat slow but nonetheless continued period of national and regional economic growth continues. Ridgefield is closer to the center of the Portland metro area and airport than Skamania Lodge, with outstanding 1-5 north south interstate access. This type of development would fit the increasing interest and spending being made for vacations and retreats in a natural setting offering multiple passive and active recreation venues. As noted, successful development likely will be dependent on the ability to forge a public- private partnership of benefit to all parties. Public sector involvement will be crucial for defining appropriate levels of access to a protected public wildlife resource. Public investment for required infrastructure and enhanced public use likely would also prove pivotal to underwriting expenses that may not be feasible with private investment alone. Downtown linkages should also be actively facilitated. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 42 OFFICE SPACE With employment growth again taking hold, the metro region's market has been showing signs of renewed, but as yet uneven, office development activity. Clark County and Ridgefield appear poised to capture more of this growth both from existing and new employers in the years ahead. Any substantial increment of office development in Ridgefield will be particularly dependent on attracting new firms into the community. Regional Office Market. Just at the onset of the Great Recession, 2007 was the last year of robust absorption and low vacancies before the recession. The metro area market experienced negative absorption of 1.1 million square feet in 2009 Regional Office Absorption &Vacancy (2007-14) (as lease terminations far 2.500,000 12% outpaced new lease transactions), with vacancy lox peaking in 2010 at 11.4%. s� Since 2010, vacancies have i,�mn•o�n been reduced each year — back to just above 8% in j c 2014 and also now back to a o pre -recession levels. Office 2007 zone 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 space absorption is positive,,o,u;w but not at the exuberant 2%, pace experienced before the recession. In the early years of economic recovery, sub- I Absorptlon —Vacancy Rate par job growth contributed --- - -- - -- - - - to weaker office space Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. demand than has been the case with other forms of investment property. With stronger job growth today, the office space outlook is increasingly positive. Also of note is that more office users are now migrating to other real estate product types — notably business park industrial and flex space. By year-end 2013 and into 2014, relatively low vacancies (of 7% or less) were being reported for the office submarkets of Airport Way, in -city areas of Portland, and Central Vancouver. High vacancy rates (of 15%+) continue for Beaverton/217, Kruse Way, Sherwood and Tualatin (on the Oregon side of the Columbia River), and for Orchards and the Ridgefield/1-5 corridor area (in Clark County). Ridgefield /1-5 Corridor Office Submarket. As of mid -2014, the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor submarket (including Downtown Ridgefield area) comprised just 12 competitive office buildings as identified by Costar with just over 60,000 square feet of office space. This inventory accounts for just 0.6% of the nearly 10.8 million square feet of competitive office space in Clark County. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 43 In Ridgefield, the single largest office building is the approximately 17,500 square foot Heron Gate development located just west of the 1-5 Junction. All other office buildings are reported by CoStar as being under 10,000 square feet in size. Comparative Office Market Indicators (August 2014) Total Inventory (SF) 60,160 10,776,651 99,245,384 % Class A 0% 21% 28% % Class B 44% 54% 45% % Class C 56% 25% 26% Vacancy Rate 16.60% 11.10°/ 8.901Y0 12 Month Absorption (SF) 1,313 189,248 319,506 Planned SF 492,000 2,185,025 6,439,356 Construction SF 0 12,000 417,502 Rental Rates (fsg) Average $15 nnn to $33+ fsg $20.09 $21.37 Note: fsg denotes rents quoted on a full service/gross basis, nnn denotes triple net with tenant paying expenses. Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. None of the Ridgefield area office buildings are considered as Class A structures and vacancies are currently high, at a reported 16.6%. Rental rates vary considerably, but with most properties in the range of $15-$18.50 per square foot annually. While absorption has backed off of the initial rebound regionally, Clark County appears to be taking a bigger share of the space that is being leased. Clark County accounts for just 11% of the metro -wide office inventory, but for a much higher 59% of net space absorption from mid 2013-14 and for 34% of space identified as planned for future development. Ridgefield has no new office space construction reported as underway, but does have close to 500,000 square feet identified as planned — all with the Miller's Landing project at the Port of Ridgefield waterfront property. If realized, this development would result in a nearly 8 -fold increase in Ridgefield/1-5 area office space. Successful build -out also would require the capture of substantial share of Clark County and metro office space demand over a multi-year period. Looking forward, office space development in the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor will be dependent on continued economic recovery in Clark County coupled with substantially increased capture of regional office space demand and attraction of new tenants to Ridgefield and the north county market. The Port of Ridgefield's Miller's Landing property is clearly positioned to attract new corporate office users to the Ridgefield community, but with need for an initial major user. While having no identified development activity to date, downtown Ridgefield could be positioned for lower cost build -to -suit projects for local businesses plus expanded civic uses. Infill multi -tenant new construction or rehab projects oriented to small professional and creative service businesses may also be supported — perhaps with shared services offered. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 44 INDUSTRIAL & FLEX SPACE While traditional industrial space is not expected to be developed either in downtown Ridgefield or at the Port's waterfront site, the Ridgefield junction area has become an increasingly important part of Clark County's industrial inventory. Being marketed as the Discovery Corridor, the area has opportunity to become an even larger part of the region's industrial development activity in the years ahead. What is known as flex space represents a relatively new commercial real estate product type — a hybrid of traditional office and industrial space .15 A flex -space use could involve a technology firm that has some combination of office, R&D, and production or distribution facilities on-site. A more traditional industrial firm that wants a high -image corporate office might also choose to locate in flex space. Consequently, this flex portion of the industrial market also might be considered in conjunction with waterfront and/or downtown development in the years ahead. Regional Market. As of August 2014, there was an estimated 215 million square feet of industrial and flex building space region -wide. As with office space, the region's industrial market was severely affected by the Great Recession, with dramatic increases in building vacancy (and negative absorption) experienced in 2009-10. Since 2010, the region's industrial space market has rebounded, albeit with some softening of demand noted for 2013 but then a renewed bounce back in 2014. Regional Industrial & Flex Absorption & Vacancy (2007-14) 8,000,000 6,000.000 a.u0u.uou —�= 3 2,000.000 � U 4 2.000,0W 4,000,ono -60JO U00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 1014 Absorptlon —Vacancy Rate Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Regionally and in Clark County, higher end flex space now comprises about 10% of the total industrial building inventory. However, flex space has become an even more significant part of the industrial development product mix in some other submarkets, of the region, notably Washington County's Sunset Corridor. is Costar defines flex as a type of building designed to be versatile; at least half of the rentable area of the building must be used as office space. Flex buildings are typically located in areas zoned for light industrial use and have ceiling heights under 18 feet. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 45 Ridgefield / 1-5 Corridor Industrial Submarket. A total of 34 buildings encompassing over 2.4 million square feet of industrial building space were identified by Costar as of August 2014. Ridgefield now accounts for 11% of industrial space countywide — a substantially higher portion than is noted for either retail or office space. As of the past year, Ridgefield accounted for an even higher 26% share of net industrial space absorption countywide. While no new industrial projects are noted as currently under construction, over 600,000 square feet across six buildings have been planned on both sides of the 1-5 Junction area. As of August 2014, Ridgefield industrial projects represented close to 40% of all industrial space identified as planned countywide. Comparative Industrial & Flex Market Indicators (August 2014) Total Inventory (SF) 2,430,161 22,090,054 214,667,808 % Industrial 97.01% 89.47% 91.43% % Flex 2.99% 10.53% 8.57% Vacancy Rate (Industrial) 0.40% 3.80% 5.80% Vacancy Rate (Flex) 25.90% 31.40% 11.70% 12 Month Absorption (SF) 99,100 377,201 2,553,363 Planned SF 612,656 1,578,429 9,500,286 Construction SF 0 98,430 5,170,025 Industrial Rental Rates (nnn) Average $5.95 $6.35 $5.68 Range $5.16-$12.00 $3.12-$16.25 $1.80-$42.60 Flex Rental Rates (nnn) Ave rage $9.36 $8.55 $10.19 Range No Data $7.20-$12.00 $4.20-$23.00 Sources: Costar and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. As depicted by the above chart, other indicators of strong demand for Ridgefield industrial space include extremely low vacancy rates (of less than 1%) coupled with rental rates above the region -wide average. Waterfront / Downtown Flex Opportunity? While accounting for over 109% of the Clark County industrial inventory, flex space currently represents less than 3% of Ridgefield's industrial development. And existing flex space has not been overwhelmingly positively received to date, with vacancies indicated by Costar at nearly 26%. Average flex space rents are above average rates quoted for Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor submarket industrial space. The bulk of net new flex demand currently is being experienced on the Oregon side of the Columbia River, especially in Washington County's Sunset Corridor close to area technology firms. Emerging use of flex (and office) space is also now occurring in Portland's Central Eastside — with creative service firms seeking a less finished or industrial aesthetic. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/W aterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 46 As of August 2014, 3.7 million square feet of flex space was under construction region -wide, representing over 70% of the industrial construction underway. If this pattern continues, demand can be expected to shift increasingly in the direction of flex space product — including for portions of the metro region that do not yet have a substantial track record with flex space. In summary, both Ridgefield's waterfront and downtown core areas as well as the 1-5 Junction could potentially benefit from maturation of the flex space market,, in ways not previously anticipated. For the Port properties, flex could provide a lower cosi: but nonetheless high image real estate product that is a hybrid of traditional industrial and office space. Attracting users interested in flex rather than a more traditional office park produce: could prove instrumental to build -out of the employment portion of the waterfront development. For Downtown Ridgefield, flex may play a lesser but nonetheless useful role — in bringing more competitive and lower cost options than new or rehab office space. This development option also option may prove useful at better fitting the rent profile of existing Ridgefield office space, including desires for lesser levels of finished space build -out based on a design aesthetic that emulates Ridgefield's industrial employment heritage. MARKET HYBRIDS This market overview has involved analysis of residential, commercial retail, office, specialty service, and flex industrial uses, each considered on its own merits. While it is important to understand the market potential and requirements of each individual type of use, this one -at -a - time approach may miss the opportunity for synergies that may occur between different but conceivably complementary uses if developed together. This combination of varied uses is what increasingly is occurring with mixed use development. The mix of uses can be vertical (with one use located on top of another in a multi -story development — as with residential above retail). Vertical stacking generally is associated with higher cost construction and so is typically found in urban areas with relatively high land values. Alternatively, the mix of uses can be horizontal (with different but compatible uses locating side-by-side). Horizontal mixed use is more common in suburban or smaller community environments or in projects for which development of different uses is expected to be phased in over time. Some uses function better when mixed than others. For example, there is now widespread experience with mixed apartment/condo and multi -tenant retail development — in both vertical and horizontal master planned configurations. It typically proves more challenging to integrate industrial with residential development — due to conflicts over issues ranging from noise to traffic management. Traditional industrial use is not being considered with redevelopment of the Ridgefield's downtown core and waterfront areas. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 47 Major destination uses may function well together —as with lodging, conference and theme resort development occurring on a joint master planned basis. It may be difficult to integrate significant residential or non -resort related retail development with a major destination development due to needs for larger acreage sites and potential incompatibility of destination uses with more localized residential or commercial activities. Much as new forms of residential and commercial mixed use have come to reshape downtown and urban neighborhoods in recent years, the opportunity to mix varied forms of commercial and industrial activity is now a clearly emerging trend for urban employment centers. As an example, much of the current job-related buzz in the Portland metro area is currently focused on the Central Eastside Industrial District, situated just east of the Willamette River from downtown Portland. The trend toward adaptive reuse and new construction for creative space in what is often a grittier or less mainstream environment is particularly appealing to firms that draw a large portion of their workforce from a younger demographic — those in their 20s and 30s. This type of space is typically designed with open floor plans and exposed structural/mechanical systems and with on-site amenities ranging from bike racks to spaces for team collaboration. This market analysis addresses — on a preliminary basis — options for mixed USE! development. Options recommended for further consideration are discussed in conjunction with the formulation of potential development scenarios for the Downtown Ridgefield Sites — as now follows. DOWNTOWN & WATERFRONT STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Based on this assessment of market trends and prospects, uses indicated as offering strong market potential for the downtown and/or waterfront areas include: • Single family residential • Village residential • Independent boutique retail • Destination wildlife reserve • Professional & creative services • Corporate campus • Live -work mixed use The chart on the following page provides a summary matrix comparison of the potential suitability of these use concepts —considered in terms of such factors as market trends, site advantages and disadvantages, potential economic returns, key issues to be addressed, and implementation requirements. From this comparative matrix, what then follows is a summary of preliminary findings and recommendations resulting from this Ridgefield Downtown market assessment. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 48 O U • Y N " f° C t . U i 0 OD o uo c O+ L L `" I-- (v —CL W aa) a c •O a w O U a m p a '� •N 3 v a ra ° v ° N oD E .°' w ' v v v aa) ^ 3 c OD `� o 0 a u ai a f0 f0 � OD V p71 >> > f- fD m O N C "p N .4 Y f0 w N Y .0 E a— OA N O N C -O OD ;� yN., +' C 30 m o O fL (LD Y O O • ,� Y c -p •L — +, y ai 0 u a E 0 p • o `o `-' °v Y v v° p °p a a v E v° x fu L ,•,, L O d O N C '= Y y C -p -° �C >, CC c`o v- .` ro > 0 Y aJ •CC > N N O O d' O U _ • Y a °�° ' o N 3 c °' ° bo v X v Y T S +' a1 .a N— c 7 c V L C Co Q 'N y, N a C -0 .L f0 -- O Y `t W OD aJ ° 3 • ° o° ''' CCL -0 -° — 0 3 0° t - ZP N 3 i> c -leL L- fC6 n. v E -0 aj L u m X u q- Y O o° °N • o +; .° 3 °N' v o `0 L C OD m 3 v L L u w y v ^ Y a0+ O O fp C} w o �, -p u v_ -p o � 'O O� 3 ou a) u v O C N 3 a, ro p a! U f0 +_ 'Y > N a 'L O �_ L c 3 a ^ u io u a .`�. N a1 r6 ro X fa 'C L Q m V m a1 u> -a L fa "O D 7 f6 J "p Z C > O a X fa W -0 J C += N N O y a l.L C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • OD OD C s -C _ _ _ = 3 m = _ _ = _ ' C 0 v o ° oD > Y -o o -C N -a 3 a L v t o 00 0 3-0 a .UD • v ,° 2 u C y J= a v a a a a N o� v o, v a a, v a� v of v o� v o, v O O Q �s O ° Q aai ° E— ° o +° is v ° ° :tt t u I— 4t u v a 7x F— • i OD C .O a1 N O Y N 0 O U 4- N i 'p N L Z = a as 0 7 > — m x u CL Ln CO 0 • u vOLo • Q on ) o T -0 "O v c 0C •� a; N C C Y> fo � o M1 p— +' N 'i (a N OD OJ p L C s -O Y +O+ p C .� L p f6 a) N a O OV U — +, N E OD �' N • • '� y, ` N `' ,, y x C O l . .0 E L N 3 O O E O cYo N O ro 0 a 0 M a� 0 0 Vc) u fO fa 'cCL c O v ro y In L U td a .i Q_ LL U J fo Z a 0 LL N Z Y fD f1E N "O > w • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v LO,p L L OD Y m— u >, j y M -O 0 +�+ !9 O O .y, L L Y O C Q E bo N fo u Q L aj M� 0 p "O 0) Y 0 d C� O G Ql V ra 0 ? 0_ ° a V U o w C -C Y .3 C ,` C C T> 0O N N N C +O.' Q N u u +' � 0 C E • • O Y OCL p °� cYo L a C fNo X _' H Y .a0-•+ O CL ° d j on E O • E co aJ t :t+ 7 Y i i to C N VaJ- i aJ N N i N W a1 aJ .a •C f0 O f9 C O Y 3 O f0 `� N N ; to a1 L x O OD V a1 a! w ra fu L L Z a m C E cO O C a7 u N> N N a1 a p L Q fa ° a a1 H- 7 tl' > '— J Vl O O O d L ro 2 a .� • • • • • • • • • • • • s — 06 fu w +� o a) O v' OD V) C + O OD t a1 O V i OD •� C 3 m o E t OD C Y C a% O v -0 um c o Y N 0> °� v Y a1 a' +' `� 0 •X E 3 Q •N +° — v no U 2' 3 N • • N j O aL+ C f�O , 7 O 12 u L o 'a YO .0 C i CU > C C • N -° V v N p C L U O O f0 i ° +'' C a1 t' + N � YO • Y Y Dj ,C N O L a on �° C L C N O > t� = Y m ?� O p • L (O CLm .? �O T �- a! C N m> .� N u > OD +' n +' OV =_ O L L O -C U 'X t6 E Y U C N 0 L �- N 16 7 N N a aJ a1 aJ m N N C fO O > aJ S] <L 3 3 2 Y O y N LL L 0 � C Ea a oy �3Q� • Q, ?2y Q0� 0e MQU=c> oV o o. vy y d= p .Q N N U QLE O XX • y GQC > w a Im oa Od 44 V V � C m m 0 Market Opportunity. As the Ridgefield community grows and diversifies, market opportunities also can be expected to evolve and mature overtime: • In the near-term of the next 1-3 years, best bet opportunities could include encouragement of added downtown area independent neighborhood oriented and specialty retail. Downtown core and neighborhood area residential improvement including core live -work options could also be encouraged. Over the mid-term of 3-10 years, there is increasing opportunity for waterfront residential, initial flex -office and destination lodging potential — but with any significant development likely contingent on successful completion of the Pioneer Street rail overcrossing. Within downtown, village residential and professional plus creative office options also become more achievable depending on initial 1-3 year successes. Over a long-term horizon of 10-20+ years, significant ramp -up of development is pivotally linked to public- private partnerships — especially with respect to eco - based opportunities in conjunction with plans associated with a more urban focus for the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge. Build -out of the Miller's Landing site might be realized as a mixed use/green development. A greater pace of new residential, boutique retail, live -work and mixed use development might also be achievable if supported by appropriate comprehensive plan and zoning revisions. Effective capture of the available market opportunity is strongly dependent on complementary development and reinvestment in the waterfront, downtown and immediately Another community landmark — good for dining and relaxing indoors or out. y n. ALL r The current Cit`f Hall was the birthplace of homegrown First Independent Bank (now part of Sterling Financial Corp.). As with adjoining City Hall renovation, the current Ridgefield School District Maintenance Shop and Warehouse may offer opportunity for future adaptive reuse as part of an enlivened, pedestrian -oriented downtown. adjoining residential neighborhoods. The greatest market synergy will be found in the combination of an essentially new waterfront community combined with the adaptive reuse and infill that respects the existing fabric of the Ridgefield Downtown built environment. Downtown Ridgefield Advantages. For all of the uses considered, there is a clear differentiation between advantages offered by core area versus waterfront and neighborhood locations: • The downtown core offers a more fine-grained environment for smaller scale business and residential development by individual owners and investors — many if not most of whom have long-standing relationships and credibility within the Ridgefield community. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 50 • With environmental remediation complete and infrastructure investment as planned, Ridgefield's waterfront will be a new community —joined at the hip not only to the downtown but also to the sustainability ethic of the wildlife refuge. While some of the investment can and should be local, a significant portion of the development expertise, investment capital and resulting employment can be expected to come from outside of Ridgefield — but prioritized to parties who buy into the Ridgefield ethic. • Neighborhoods immediately north and south are topographically linked and integral to the downtown core and waterfront — with opportunities for added single family and possibly limited attached unit development on remaining vacant and underutilized property. Added options for live -work, home office, and/orbed and breakfast use in close proximity to the core area might also be further encouraged. Pedestrian and bike pathway options should serve to further reinforce these linkage opportunities. For the core, waterfront and adjoining neighborhoods, Ridgefield Downtown's greatest marketplace assets are the combination of small town character and wildlife refuge proximity. Downtown Ridgefield Disadvantages. If not addressed, disadvantages that could impede downtown and waterfront market opportunities include the following: • The most significant perceived disadvantage to downtown, waterfront and associated neighborhood reinvestment may be distance from the 1-5 corridor and potential access limitations. Whether for residential or commercial use, overcoming this perception of inconvenient accessibility requires selling the downtown/waterfront areas not as a pass- through but as a destination worth the trip. • Other weaknesses important to address include planning that separates rather than mixes complementary uses, coupled with the need to attract higher rents and values that will proved instrumental to support building renovation and new construction. Going forward, an outstanding question that could become more pronounced is the lack of clearly defined public-private roles for downtown and waterfront development. Clarifying these roles and responsibilities on a collaborative or partnership basis will be particularly critical for creating synergies that improve habitat and economic values for a broad range of community stakeholders. Economic Returns. With this analysis, economic returns have been considered on a preliminary basis from three perspectives: #of jobs created — which is related to building site coverage and number of workers per square foot of building area. Of the uses considered, office typically yields the highest levels of employment on a square foot or per acre basis — followed by flex, and retail uses. Other than for one-time construction related activity or live -work potential, a considerable portion of residential use will offer little on-going direct employment E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 51 benefit. Job potential with mixed use will be dependent on the proportion of the site developed for each of the uses separately, then added together. Wage rates — typically are relatively high for flex and professional office uses, then lower for retail and hospitality. However, there can be considerable wage rate variation within a particular employment sector. Even within what is perceived as lower wage sector as with retail, including consideration of owner incomes enhances the value of the total economic benefit and small business contribution to community vitality. Retail and hospitality also offer greater flexibility for entry-level and part-time job opportunities. Tax revenues —focused on returns to Clark County and other local jurisdictions including schools. Due to the combination of growing reliance on sales tax and the 1% property tax limitation, tax revenues in Washington tend to be highest for retail related uses (except for grocery and pharmacy items which are tax exempt). Construction activity also represents a strong source of sales tax generation, though of temporary duration when considered on a site-specific basis. From a property tax perspective, residential can offer relatively high tax yields but also is associated with greater on-going public service requirements. More detailed quantitative estimates of economic returns that might be anticipated with illustrative development prototypes will be conducted with a second phase feasibility and economic impact analysis. This will occur in conjunction with site specific development planning based on downtown property owner and developer input in consultation with the City of Ridgefield. Key Issues to Address. Critical issues tend to be specific to each of the uses considered: • Single family development—with need to address critical lands issues as with steep slopes or other environmental constraints as well as comparatively small parcel size of available parcels (and limited street access in some cases). • Village residential — uncertainty over current economic feasibility of substantial renovation or new development. • Independent boutique retail — relative lack of suitable downtown sites for added retail and likely need for a combination of "buy local" and destination visitor marketing. • Destination wildlife reserve —cooperative inter -agency planning and delineation of realistic options for public-private partnership. • Professional & creative services — identification of suitable downtown sites for building rehabilitation and/or new infill construction. • Corporate campus — pre -requisite for railroad overpass construction and modification of development plans for realistic market capture over a supportable build -out time period. • Live -work mixed use — need to demonstrate market and financial feasibility of downtown prototype projects. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 52 Implementation Requirements. As with the description of key issues to address, recommended implementation requirement are highly use -specific, outlined as follows: • Single family residential —added flexibility and/or incentives might be encouraged for small scale master plan and short -plat developments, also possible attached unit, live -work and bed and breakfast activity. • Village residential — key actions suggested to incent added residential include consideration of more flexible Comprehensive Plan and associated zoning provisions (for example with form based zoning). Zoning provisions for residential can be expected to be uniquely tailored to the distinct character of the downtown and waterfront districts. Also of importance will be City assistance with finding and possibly securing suitable sites for new housing construction in the downtown area. • Independent boutique retail —securing entrepreneurs with retail capability coupled with finding and securing suitable added sites for downtown retail are suggested as part of an action plan. Marketing should be differentiated to assure complementary uses between these two distinct but related commercial areas. • Destination wildlife reserve — opportunity is suggested at a minimum for a boutique hotel. Or as a more aggressive move, for a Skamania Lodge type of signature investment that is even more focused on achieving joint environmental and economic benefits. • Professional & creative services — perhaps the best opportunity near-term is to market the downtown office option to current and new Ridgefield residents including self-employed, small business professionals, and telecommuters. This might include development of office space offering shared services as for joint conference space and office equipment use. This former church on S 4th Avenue has been repurposed as the Sanctuary Inn and as a travel service business. Downtown Ridgefield is blessed with a diverse inventory of craftsman and cottage style housing, well suited to changing demographics and, in some cases, for future live -work opportunities. At the end of the day, Ridgefield's one -of -a -kind calling card is its setting next to a National Wildlife Refuge. • Corporate campus —funding commitment to the full overcrossing is identified as a pre- requisite to any successful corporate flex/office space. This should be accompanied by a collaborative marketing effort involving the Port, City and regional organizations such as CREDC. • Live -work mixed use —a re -look at Comprehensive Plan and zoning may be pivotal to facilitating mixed use; a demonstration live -work project is also suggested. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 53 One theme common to all of the uses considered involves the need to update and refine the City's Comprehensive Plan and more specific downtown/waterfront plans to assure capacity and flexibility for accommodating and encouraging a range of mixed use development opportunities. This can be addressed by a combination of specific plans (under Washington statute) combined with updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan (anticipated for 2016). A related theme is represented by both the need and opportunity for a common community identity and branding program. This could occur as a public-private cooperative initiative involving public agencies such as the City of Ridgefield, Port of Ridgefield and Ridgefield School District — together with private business and civic interests including the non-profit Ridgefield Main Street organization. At its best, community branding will reinforce and integrate the attributes of each of Ridgefield's distinctive geographies —the waterfront, downtown, corridor neighborhoods, emerging Pioneer and 45th area, and 1-5 Junction. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 54 APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TABLES On the following pages are provided supplemental data tables IistE-d as follows: • Downtown/Waterfront Property Ownerships by Acreage • Distribution of Downtown/Waterfront Acreage by Vacant Land & Ratio of Building to Land Values • Population Demographics • Household & Income Profile • Employment & Transportation Indicators • Housing Profile • Employment in Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor & Clark County • Residential Unit Building Permits (Single + Multifamily) E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 55 Downtown Study Area Property Ownerships by Acreage (2014) Core Area RIDGEFIELD SCHOOL DIST #122 5 20.05 CITY OF RIDGEFIELD 17 3.03 CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE 1 3.00 Owners of < 3.00 acres 257 45.11 Core Area Subtotal 28o 71.19 Waterfront PORT OF RIDGEFIELD 10 43.82 WASHINGTON STATE 1 11.04 MC MARINE LLC 2 4.80 CITY OF RIDGEFIELD 5 3.44 Owners of < 3.00 acres 53 0.00 Waterfront Subtotal 71. 63.10 Neighborhoods CITY OF RIDGEFIELD 7 31.89 NVR LLC 23) 29.66 STEPHENSON MORRIS L 1 14.03 MOLLE BYRON & MOLLE KATHLEEN 2 10.74 DOUGHERTY JEFFREY & DOUGHERTY JENNIFER TRUSTEES -7 9.80 BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC (NP) 11 7.46 MATRIX SENIOR LIVING WA LLC 2 5.85 CAMPBELL JAMES & CAMPBELL ROZANN :L 5.44 SMART ELLEN S & SMART MOLLIE 3 3.76 HALL DAVEN W 2 3.37 CARLSON CAREN L .3 3.36 FISHER RICHARD J & FISHER SANDRA P 'L 3.13 Owners of < 3.00 acres 463 142.83 Neighborhoods Subtotal 521 271.32 Total Owners 872 405.61 Sources: Clark County GIS, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., and E. D. Hovee 8. Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 56 Distribution of Downtown Study Area Acreage by Vacant Land & Ratio of Building to Land Values (2014) Core Area Vacant Tax Exempt 13.67 19% Vacant Taxable 6.13 9% < 0.5 2.99 4% > 0.5 48.40 68% Subtotal 71.19 100% Waterfront Vacant Tax Exempt 14.55 23% Vacant Taxable 0.00 0% < 0.5 31.12 49% > 0.5 17.43 28% Subtotal 63.10 100% Neighborhoods Vacant Tax Exempt 38.68 14% Vacant Taxable 52.70 19% < 0.5 17.61 6% > 0.5 162.33 60% Subtotal 271.32 100% Total Vacant Tax Exempt 66.90 16% Vacant Taxable 58.83 15% < 0.5 51.72 13% > 0.5 228.16 56% Tota 1 405.61 100% Sources: Clark County GIS, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 57 Population Demographics (Claritas - 2015) Population 2020 Projection 2,690 18,037 476,312 2,570,484 2015 Estimate 2,408 16,834 450,288 2,448,921 2010 Census 2,091 15,590 425,363 2,328,419 2000 Census 1,309 11,628 345,240 2,020,832 • Growth 2015-2020 11.69% 7.15% 5.78% 4.96% %Growth 2010-2015 15.16% 7.98% 5.86% 5.18% • Growth 2000-2010 59.77% 34.08% 23.21% 15.22% 2015 Est. Pop by Single Race Class (%of total) White Alone 91.53% 91.95% 83.87% 80.00% Black or African American Alone 1.04% 0.83% 2.01% 2.77% Amer. Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.66% 0.749/o 0.90% 0.98% Asian Alone 2.37% 2.01% 4.56% 6.06% Native Hawaiian and OtherPac. Isl. Alone 0.17% 0.20% 0.77% 0.52% Some Other Race Alone 1.16% 1.43% 3.36% 5.20% Two or More Races 3.03% 2.84% 4.52% 4.46% 2015 Est. Pop Hisp or Latino by Origin (%) Not Hispanic or Latino 94.73% 94.84% 91.27% 88.48% Hispanic or Latino 5.27% 5.16% 8.73% 11.52% 2015 Est. Population by Age (%) Age 0-4 7.93% 6.05% 6.49% 6.13% Age 5 - 9 8.26% 6.24910 6.80% 6.29% Age 10 - 14 9.34% 7.70% 7.28% 6.42% Age 15 - 17 5.27% 4.849/. 4.41% 3.88% Age 18 - 20 4.49% 4.21% 3.93% 3.78% Age 21- 24 5.44% 5.23% 5.10% 4.92% Age 25 - 34 9.889/o 9.20.9 12.25% 14.21% Age 35 - 44 14.62% 11.96% 13.32% 14.10% Age 45 - 54 13.87% 14.96% 13.78% 13.67% Age 55 - 64 10.80% 14.70% 12.86% 13.00% Age 65 - 74 7.06% 9.97% 8.52% 8.25% Age 75 - 84 2.16% 3.81% 3.689/o 3.62% Age 85 and over 0.96% 1.15% 1.58% 1.75% 2015 Est. Median Age 34.4 40.5 37.8 38.1 2015 Est. Average Age 34.6 39.2 38.1 38.6 2015 Est. Pop Age 15+ by Marital Status (%) Total, Never Married 19.18% 21.05% 27.33% 31.27% Males, Never Married 9.92% 11.96% 14.72% 16.99% Females, Never Married 9.31% 9.09% 12.61% 14.29% Married, Spouse present 62.88% 62.19916 50.82% 46.95% Married, Spouse absent 4.85% 3.869/o 4.14% 4.13% Widowed 4.57% 4.53% 4.69% 4.84% Males Widowed 0.00% 0.28% 0.99% 1.03% Females Widowed 4.57% 4.25% 3.70% 3.81% Divorced 8.47% 8.37% 13.02% 12.81% Males Divorced 4.24% 4.54% 5.78% 5.40% Females Divorced 4.24% 3.83% 7.25% 7.41% 2015 Est. Pop. Age 25+ by Edu. Attainment (%) Less than 9th grade 0.70% 1.779/o 2.581% 3.44% Some High School, no diploma 4.97% 4.03% 5.72% 5.75% High School Graduate (orGED) 21.64% 24.95% 26.27% 22.69% Some College, no degree 30.67% 26.31% 28.38% 25.84% Associate Degree 12.82% 11.39% 10.74% 8.51% Bachelor's Degree 20.31% 20.79% 17.30°/ 21.30% Master's Degree 6.44% 7.449/o 6.57% 8.81% Professional School Degree 1.82% 2.47% 1.53% 2.31% Doctorate Degree 0.70°1 0.85% 0.90% 1.36% E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 58 Household & Income Profile (Claritas - 2015) Households 2020 Projection 2015 Esti mate 2010Census 2000 Census • Growth 2015-2020 • Growth 2010-2015 • Growth 2000-2010 2015 Est. Households by Household Type (%) Family Households Nonfamily Households 2015 Est. HHs by HH Income (%) CY HHs, Inc<$15,000 CY HHs, Inc $15,000- $24,999 CY HHs, Inc $25,000- $34,999 CY HHs, Inc $35,000- $49,999 CY HHs, Inc $50,000- $74,999 CY HHs, Inc $75,000- $99,999 CY HHs, Inc $100,000- $124,999 CY HHs, I nc $125,000 - $149,999 CY HHs, I nc $150,000 - $199,999 CY HHs, Inc $200,000- $249,999 CY HHs, Inc $250,000- $499,999 CY HHs, Inc $500,000+ 2015 Est. Average Household Income 2015 Est. Median Household Income 2015 Est. Family HH Type, Presence Own Children (%) Married -Couple Family, own children Married -Couple Family, no own children Male Householder, own children Male Householder, no own children Female Householder, own children Female Householder, no own children 2015 Est. Households by Household Size (%) 1 -person household 2 -person household 3 -person household 4 -person household 5 -person household 6 -person household 7 or more person household 2015 Est. Average Household Size Family Households 2020 Projection 2015 Esti mate 2010 Census 2000 Census % Growth 2015-2020 % Growth 2010-2015 % Growth 2000-2010 906 6,291 177,764 1,009,167 807 5,876 167,697 958,721 696 5,449 158,099 908,038 451 4,01-4 127,210 781,382 12.26% 7.0790 6.00% 5.26% 16.05% 7.82% 6.07% 5.58% 54.18% 35.77% 24.28% 16.21% 80.79% 80.14% 69.97% 63.55% 19.33% 19.86% 30.03% 36.45% 1.73% 4.20% 9.08% 10.95% 5.33% 5.36% 9.28% 9.32% 12.27% 10.4790 10.27% 9.52% 8.18% 10.2190 14.79% 13.69% 20.57% 19.38% 20.28% 18.94% 17.60% 16.87% 14.09% 13.13% 18.96% 15.47% 8.83% 9.33% 7.31% 7.62% 5.22% 5.54% 4.34% 5.41% 4.56% 5.08% 1.61% 2.04% 1.48% 1.80% 1.86% 2.54% 1.70% 2.08% 0.25% 0.43% 0.41% 0.64% $86,771 $88,527 $73,010 $75,797 $77,649 $75,567 $58,108 $58,618 42.18% 35.1590 33.70% 32.73% 37.27% 48.5990 42.89% 43.33% 4.14% 3.40% 4.03% 3.85% 1.99% 2.53% 3.27% 3.48% 9.82% 5.75% 9.64% 9.75% 4.60% 4.5490 6.48% 6.86% 15.37% 15.5790 23.71% 27.58% 31.10% 36.3390 33.47% 33.71% 18.59% 17.5190 16.70% 15.94% 19.70% 16.97% 14.22% 12.83% 9.79% 8.10% 6.82% 5.83% 3.47% 3.3990 3.01% 2.45% 1.98% 2.1390 2.07% 1.66% 2.98 2.86 2.66 2.51 731 5,042 124,399 640,673 652 4,709 117,338 609,271 561 4,364 110,672 578,249 350 3,235 90,959 510,162 12.20% 7.0790 6.02% 5.15% 16.10% 7.8990 6.02% 5.36% 60.32% 34.90% 21.67% 13.35% E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 59 Employment & Transportation Indicators (Claritas - 2015) 2015 Est. Pop Age 16+ by Employment Status (%) In Armed Forces Civilian - Employed Civilian - Unemployed Not in Labor Force 2015 Est. Civ Employed Pop 16+ by Occupation (%) Architect/Engineer Arts/Entertain/Sports Building Grounds Maint Business/Financial Ops Community/Soc Svcs Computer/Mathematical Construction/Extraction Edu/Training/Library Farm/Fish/Forestry Food Prep/Serving Health Practitioner/Tec Healthcare Support Maintenance Repair Legal Life/Phys/Soc Science Management Office/Admin Support Production Protective Svcs Sales/Related Personal Care/Svc Transportation/Moving 2015 Est. Pop 16+ by Occupation Classification (%) Blue Collar White Collar Service and Farm 2015 Est. Households by Numberof Vehicles (%) No Vehicles 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicles 3 Vehicles 4 Vehicles 5 or more Vehicles 2015 Est. Average N umber of Vehicles 2015 Est. Workers Age 16+, Transp. To Work (%) Drove Alone Car Pooled Public Transportation Walked Bicycle Other Means Worked at Home 2015 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Travel Time to Work (%) Less than 15 Minutes 15- 29 Minutes 30- 44 Minutes 45- 59 Minutes 60 or more Minutes 2015 Est. Avg Travel Time to Work in Minutes 0.00% 0.05% 0.12% 0.07% 61.64% 57.170/. 57.32% 59.35% 6.28% 5.37% 7.06% 6.92% 32.02% 37.41% 35.51% 33.66% 1.55% 2.67% 2.79% 2.97% 0.459/o 1.18% 2.00% 2.68% 2.369/. 3.81% 3.78% 3.39% 4.919/o 4.969/. 4.77% 5.37% 3.365'o 3.06% 1.39% 1.79% 2.82% 1.98% 2.47% 3.15% 4.73% 4.81% 5.02% 4.11% 5.189/6 5.98% 5.10% 5.31% 0.36% 1.011yo 0.32% 0.73% 2. 009/o 2.76% 4.41% 5.89% 7.09'/0 7.09'/o 5.53% 5.25% 2.36% 2.11% 2.78% 2.36% 1.91% 2.79% 3.36% 2.87% 2.36910 1.279,o 0.81% 1.16% 0.45% 0.35% 0.56% 0.79% 12.55% 12.17'/0 9.43% 10.51% 13.00'/0 13.52% 14.32% 13.27% 7.82% 5.43% 5.89% 5.84% 3.91% 2.4691. 2.27% 1.56% 5.36% 8.011yo 9.97% 10.93% 4.189% 2.92% 4.45% 4.03% 11.27% 9.649/o 8.58% 6.04% 25.73% 22.67% 22.85% 18.87% 59.09% 62.24% 59.14% 63.17% 15.18% 15.099% 18.00% 17.96% 2.85% 2.42% 5.07% 8.65% 12.399/o 13.53% 30.30% 32.81% 47.96% 39.99% 38.82% 38.40% 22.189/o 28.209/o 17.44% 13.87% 9.42% 10.42% 5.94% 4.45% 5.20.9 5.45% 2.42% 1.82% 2.44 2.52 1.99 1.80 83.82% 81.93% 78.67% 71.40% 3.55% 5.96% 9.41% 9.73% 0.75% 0.76% 2.62% 5.90% 1.12% 1.47% 1.52% 3.59% 0.19'/0 0.05% 0.41% 2.19% 1.40% 1.4158 1.17% 0.97% 9.26% 8.43% 6.21% 6.21% 11.369'o 16.19% 24.70% 25.59% 37.53% 41.41% 41.31% 38.95% 36.82% 28.90% 21.83% 21.52% 6.399/o 6.96% 6.84% 7.86% 7.91% 6.53% 5.32% 6.08% 32.65 29.93 26.76 27.38 E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 60 Housing Profile (Claritas - 2015) 2015 Est. Tenure of Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied RenterOccupied 2015 Own erOcc. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence 2015 Renter Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence 2015 Est. All Owner -Occupied Housing Values Value Less than $20,000 Value $20,000-$39,999 Value $40,000-$59,999 Value $60,000-$79,999 Value $80,000-$99,999 V a I ue $100,000 - $149,999 Value $150,000-$199,999 Value $200,000-$299,999 Value $300,000-$399,999 Value $400,000-$499,999 V a I ue $500,000 - $749,999 Value $750,000-$999,999 Value $1,000,000 or more 2015 Est. Median All Owner -Occupied Housing Value 2015 Est. Housi ng Units by Units in Structure 1 Unit Attached 1 Unit Detached 2 Units 3 or4 Units 5 to 19 Units 20 to 49 Units 50 or More Units Mobile Home or Trailer Boat, RV, Van, etc. 2015 Est. Housing Units by Year Structure Built Housing Unit Built 2005 or later Housing Unit Built 2000to 2004 Housing Unit Built 1990to 1999 Housing Unit Built 1980to 1989 Housing Unit Built 1970to 1979 Housing Unit Built 1960to 1969 Housing Unit Built 1950to 1959 Housing Unit Built 1940to 1949 Housing Unit Built 1939or Earlier 2015 Est. Median Year Structure Built 77.45% 81.82°5'. 65.67% 61.66% 22.68% 18.1690 34.33% 38.34% 11.4 13.9 14.0 14.8 6.7 7.6 7.1 7.2 0.64% 1.27% 1.89% 2.20% 0.64% 0.56% 1.93% 1.94% 0.32% 0.48% 0.79% 0.92% 0.32% 0.48% 1.02% 0.81% 0.64% 0.77% 0.93% 0.88% 4.64% 3.31% 6.34% 5.50% 7.20% 6.24% 16.75% 11.68% 28.48% 23.81% 34.30% 29.33% 28.00% 25.33% 17.14% 19.31% 12.32% 14.605,.; 9.47% 11.96% 11.04% 15.77% 6.18% 9.71% 3.20% 5.12% 2.12% 3.669,o' 2.72% 2.29% 1.14% 2.11% $325,816 $351,742 $259,340 $288,898 2.49% 1.41% 5.49% 5.01% 91.01% 88.89% 67.08% 62.15% 0.00% 0.74% 3.09% 2.91% 1.30% 0.49% 3.81% 4.49% 0.00% 0.10%; 9.17% 10.41% 0.00% 0.00°14; 2.25% 3.79% 0.00% 0.005"; 4.21% 6.75% 4.26% 8.0191.; 4.69% 4.33% 0.95% 0.3791; 0.20% 0.17% 15.74% 8.599v.; 6.00% 5.47% 36.45% 28.8291.; 20.16% 15.83% 16.21% 23.99% 24.62% 18.38% 4.50% 9.66%; 12.38% 10.74% 11.72% 12.6651.; 17.80% 16.87% 5.56% 5.18% 6.93% 8.71% 1.30% 2.23% 4.50% 7.23% 1.54% 2.90% 3.50% 4.81% 6.75% 6.00%, 4.11% 11.97% 2001 1995 1990 1980 Sources: Claritas (a Nielsen Company), as compiled by E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 61 Employment in Ridgefield / 1-5 Corridor & Clark County (2013) Total All Sectors 618 4,416 $35,819 13,793 133,889 $45,108 11 Ag/Forestry/Fishing 31 113 $25,174 95 512 $34,591 23 Construction 109 433 $36,344 1,300 8,739 $50,649 31-33 Manufacturing 27 708 $35,775 404 12,579 $54,129 42 Wholesale Trade 72 399 $56,182 1,137 6,108 $69,843 44 Retail Trade 40 249 $19,895 804 15,573 $28,264 48 Transportation & Warehousing 29 312 $32,194 253 2,922 $47,471 51 Information 6 17 $60,410 142 2,569 $53,878 52 Finance & Insurance 12 32 $72,347 400 3,889 $72,692 53 Real Estate 11 28 $19,596 353 2,162 $38,963 54 Professional/Technical Services 49 135 $60,494 1,181 6,964 $70,028 56 Adminstrative/Waste Services 40 216 $33,698 684 6,964 $30,069 61 Educational Services 12 45 $18,416 144 885 $23,794 62 Health Care & Social Assistance 23 105 $27,493 857 18,030 $49,689 71 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 12 767 $32,017 115 2,347 $21,104 72 Accommodation & Food Services 18 157 $14,309 580 10,625 $17,662 81 Other Services 116 162 $20,203 5,179 7,649 $23,483 92 Government 11 538 $44,097 110 23,183 $50,093 * Note: Data is for the Ridgefield/1-5 Corridor encompassing zip codes 98642 + 98629. Source: Washington State Employment Security Department and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Residential Unit Building Permit Trends (Single + Multifamily) 2004 204 3,651 3,855 5.3% 2005 313 3,458 3,771 8.3 2006 189 2,790 2,979 6.3 2007 73 2,277 2,350 3.1% 2008 34 1,207 1,241 2.7 2009 27 682 709 3.8 2010 79 991 1,070 7.4% 2011 66 895 961 6.9 2012 122 1,436 1,558 7.8% 2013 177 2,765 2,942 6.0% 2014 104 2,222 2,326 4.5% Total (04-14) 1,388 22,374 23,762 5.8% Average/Yr 126 2,034 2,160 5.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 62 E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC Economic and Development Services MEMORANDUM To: Seth Otto — Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. (MFA) From: Eric Hovee Subject: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Date: June 22, 2015 As part of the City of Ridgefield Downtown Brownfields Integrated Planning Grant (IPG), the economic and development consulting firm E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC completed an initial Phase 1 general market study for Ridgefield's downtown / waterfront area in September of 2014. A primary purpose was to assess local and regional trends in land value, rents, commercial sales and vacancy rates while serving to identify potential business and development opportunities. The Phase 1 study also provided market information used in a Strategic Planning Workshop conducted on January 20, 2015 with Racal and regional stakeholders. The Phase 1 market study has now been refined and finalized as of June 2015. This Phase 2 economic assessment is intended to focus on prospective redevelopment opportunities and issues associated with three environmentally contaminated (or brownfield) properties in downtown Ridgefield. As referenced in the IPG from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), the properties are the former Park Laundry, School Bus Barn and Weeks properties. These three sites all are situated on Pioneer Street or Main Avenue —t:he primary commercial arterials of downtown Ridgefield. Specific purposes of this Phase 2 feasibility and economic impact analysis report are to: • Evaluate two alternative development concepts and financial feasibility for each site • Also assess potential economic impacts in terms of employment and added tax revenue As with the Phase 1 report, this Phase 2 study has been revised to address questions and comments received. The next page of this report provides a one-p2ge summary of Phase 2 analysis findings. This is followed by a summary of pertinent market observations from the Phase 1 report, profile of the three properties considered, planning and zoning considerations, overview of each individual property, financial pro formas, and economic impact analysis. 2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666 (360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 • Fax (360) 696-8453 E-mail: edhovee0a edhovee.com RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN / WATERFRONT FEASIBILITY & IMPACT SUMMARY Preliminary findings and observations from this feasibility and economic impact analysis follow Market Conclusions from Phase 1 Report. The overall market context for this Phase 2 report is based on Phase 1 analysis indicating that Ridgefield is experiencing growth, offers favorable market demographics, and potential for more diverse resident and commercial options. Concepts applicable to the downtown include village residential, independent boutique retail, professional services, and live -work for residents and artisan businesses. Property Profile. The three IPG sites evaluated include the Park Laundry site (vacant with over 11,200 square feet of land area), School Bus Barn (with a nearly 9,600 square foot building on a 14,400 square foot site), and Weeks property (vacant with 4,800 square foot site — potentially doubled in site area if combined with the adjoining vacant Wertz property). Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Considerations. All three sites are zoned as Central Mixed Use (CMU), allowing commercial and limited residential development. Minimum parking for residential use is required at one space per unit, no commercial parking is required. Park Laundry. Two concepts are considered for this site on Main Avenue north of Pioneer: • A four story development with ground level retail and 17 apartments above • Four live/work townhomes with shop space on the Main Street frontage School Bus Barn. A 2010 planning study identified two building reuse concepts: • A multi -tenant ag-production facility (as for micro -brewers) with an event/public area • A more generalized concept for multi -tenant commercial retail and office space Weeks Property. Three development concepts were considered for this Pioneer Street site: • A single -story 2,250 square foot commercial building — for retail or office use • A 2 -story 4,500 square foot building — with 2nd floor office space above storefront retail • A 3 -story 13,500 square foot structure — with two retail floors above ground level retail (dependent on ability to include the adjoining Wertz property for twice the site area) Financial Pro Forma Detail. None of the development concepts evaluated appear to be financially feasible if the costs of environmental remediation are included as part of property redevelopment budgets. If clean-up costs are separately funded, the Weeks/Wertz concepts appear feasible and the Park Laundry concepts close to feasible. Without financial incentives, School Bus Barn reuse remains as not feasible due to the high cost of building rehabilitation. Economic Impact Analysis. All three sites offer opportunity for added jobs and tax base. While relatively modest when considered site -by -site, the cumulative long-term impacts are greater when viewed in terms of the potential that these sites might offer when redeveloped as a catalyst for further downtown area reinvestment. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 2 MARKET CONCLUSIONS FROM PHASE 1 REPORT As noted, a Phase 1 general market study for Ridgefield's downtown / waterfront area was first completed in September 2014. Specific purposes of this initial market reconnaissance were to: • Assess local and regional trends in land value, rents, commercial sales and vacancy rates Provide economic data commonly requested by site selectors and developers in assessing potential real estate projects • Support the City in targeting potential businesses and developers for recruitment efforts Based on comments received from a Strategic Planning Workshop in early 2015, the first phase market study has been refined as part of this second phase — including more detail and financial feasibility evaluations of prototype development concepts. Evaluation of potential economic impacts including prospects for increased employment and tax revenues also are evaluated as may result from redevelopment of targeted brownfield project opportunity sites Market Observations for Phase 2 Development Concept & Feasibility. Key observations from Phase 1 analysis applicable to the three sites being considered are: • The IPG sites totaling less than one acre are strategically located as potential catalysts for other redevelopment on downtown vacant taxable land of about 6+ acres. • Ridgefield is experiencing growth that is outpacing countywide and metro area trends, creating new opportunities for development downtown as well as community -wide. • In addition to strong underlying growth, community demographics are also favorable, as residents tend to be well educated, with high median incomes, and homeowners. • Ridgefield is becoming an increasingly important employment center — especially, at the 1-5 Junction, but is underrepresented with professional service, health care and retail. • While primarily single-family oriented, continued growth can be expected to foster residential diversity, from smaller apartment to owner-occ^,pied attached housing. Strategic Options for Downtown Development. The Phase 1 market study identified a series of development concepts for the downtown / waterfront area —four of which are potentially applicable to downtown's primary commercial streets: • Village residential — for seniors and young eco-creatives above storefront space • Independent boutique retail — dining and specialty retail fer residents and visitors • Professional services — catering especially to those who want to live and work locally • Live -work mixed use — as a more flexible option catering to small & artisan businesses Implementation of these concepts can be expected to require supportive zoning, infrastructure investment, and marketing. With this Phase 2 analysis, these concepts are refined as applicable to redevelopment of each of the three brownfield sites considered. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 3 PROPERTY PROFILE As is depicted by the following chart, the three properties comprise up to eight tax parcels totaling 35,167 square feet of land area (or 0.81 acres). Total assessed valuation as indicated by the Clark County Assessor's Office is just over $489,000. Summary Characteristics of Properties Evaluated (2015) Park Laundry Site 1 71042000 Frankie Faye Rima -Hinrichs 6,098 $31,193 $0 $31,193 Yes 1 71030000 Frankie Faye Rima 2,613 $40,511 $0 $40,511 Yes 1 71040000 Union Ridge Investment Company 2,500 $12,788 $0 $12,788 Yes Subtotal Property #1 11,211 $84,492 $0 $84,492 School Bus Barn 2 70950000 Ridgefield School District #122 4,791 - $55,103 $0 $55,103 No 2 67891000 Ridgefield School District #122 9,583 9,583 $148,540 $176,493 $325,033 No Subtotal Property#2 14,374 9,583 $203,643 $176,493 $380,136 Weeks Property (with possible Wertz add-on) 3 68846000 Robert 0. & Barbara Weeks (Trustees) 4,791 - $24,500 $0 $24,500 Yes 3 68842000 Darren S. Wertz 1,742 $8,900 $0 $8,900 Yes 3 68844000 Darren S. Wertz 3,049 $15,600 $0 $15,600 Yes Subtotal Property #1(w/Weeks & Wertz) 9,582 $49,000 $0 $49,000 Total All Properties 35,167 9,583 $337,135 $176,493 $513,628 $133,492 Source: Clark County Assessment & GIS. These figures reflect the possible inclusion of the Wertz property representing two added parcels. Though not a direct part of the IPG project, their inclusion could represent a larger and more viable site development opportunity on a combined rather than separate basis. The Ridgefield School District owns the largest property and is the only one of the three with an existing building structure. As the school district property is tax exempt, total taxable value of the three sites is close to $133,500 (26% of the total value of the three sites combined). When viewed in terms of per square foot land valuation, there is considerable variation between individual tax lots with these properties. The low end of valuation is at about $5 per square foot for two parcels on Site #1 and for all of Site #3 (both the Weeks and Wertz properties). Conversely, the land under the School District building and a small portion of the Park Laundry site is valued at over $15 per square foot. Whether or to what extent assessed valuation has been influenced by on-site contamination is not determined with this evaluation. Average land value for all parcels combined is not quite $10 per square foot. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 4 With the only building of the three properties, the former school bus barn is currently valued at over $176,000 — equating to $18+ per square foot of building (and site) area, as the building covers one entire tax lot (though not the adjoining District owned tax lot used for parkin;g). For purposes of this evaluation and in the absence of any formal property appraisals, it is assumed that purchase cost would be in the approximate amount of the tax assessed value. Other characteristics of note for these three properties included the following: • All of the properties (including sub -parcels) are relatively small in size — consistent with the relatively fine grained nature of an historic downtown plat with relatively small lots of down to about 2,500 square feet in size. • All three properties have a Comprehensive Plan designation of City Center (C) and a zoning designation for Central Mixed Use (CMU). • Owners are all in the state of Washington — in Pullman, Ridgefield and Vancouver. • In addition to an historic bus barn building, the school district site includes a paved parking lot on the adjoining 4,800 square foot parcel; the other two properties are vacant and unused/underimproved land at the present time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING CONSIDERATIONS All three brownfield properties evaluated are designated by the current adopted Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan as City Center (C). Implementing zoning is with the Central Mixed Use (CMU) designation. As noted in the Phase 1 market study report, the City Center (C) Comprehensive Plan designation with (ventral Mixed Use (CMU) zoning is aimed to "protect and enhance the small-scale, compact and mixed character of the City's older central core." For purposes of this more focused and property -specific Phase 2 evaluation, it is useful to consider pertinent zoning provisions in more detail. This includes a review of permitted, conditional and limited uses, as well as provisions affecting density and character of development. Use Types. Use types identified by the Section 18.205.015 of the Ridgefield Development Code (RDC) are permitted, limited, conditional, prohibited, unlisted and temporary uses. With this analysis, primary consideration is given to the first three categories of uses: • Permitted uses are allowed as primary or accessory uses, subject to site plan review if required by RDC 18.500. • Limited uses are allowed with added limitations as listed by RDC 18.205.030 and other applicable provisions including Type I or II review process and site review (if required). • Conditional uses are allowed if approved through the City's conditional use review process of RDC 18.340 and site plan review. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 5 Use types allowed pursuant to each of the category are as outlined by the chart below. With 'limited uses', Type I reviews involve a ministerial decision made by the City's planning director within 28 days after an application is accepted as technically complete, unless the application is accompanied by a SEPA determination of significance (DS). A Type II administrative decision provides for more extensive review — including notification to owners within 300 feet of the subject site and a written decision made after receipt of comments. CMU Permitted, Limited & Conditional Uses Notes: * Limited uses include uses allowed provided they comply with applicable limitations of RDC 18.500. ** Indicated uses are subject to applicable limitations of RDC 18.205.030 plus conditional use review. Examples of limitations of note for limited use categories include the following: • Ground floor single family residences or residential uses area not allowed, only live/work units when the associated business is allowed as a permitted or limited use are allowed (provided the residence is not on the ground floor). • Duplexes may meet either multifamily or townhouse development standards. Multifamily residential uses are limited to upper stories and to a maximum density of 16 units per acre. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 6 Permitted • Boarding houses • Single-family attached • Hotel and motel • General retail trade/services residential* . Animal kennel and shelter** • Eating and drinking • Multifamily attached residential* . Light manufacturing establishment • Community residential facility* . Research and development • Gasoline service station • Bed and breakfast* • Fleet service • Daycare facility • Recreational vehicle (single)* . Hospital** • Office • Tent city • Indoor entertainment facility • Artisan and specialty good production • Community recreation and • Electric vehicle infrastructure* social facility • Veterinary clinic and hospital • Park or trail • Adult use facility • All education and cultural Utility facility** uses (colleges, K-12 schools, . Wireless communication facility* specialized, conference . Interim recycling facility* center, religious and cultural institutions) • park and ride lot • Medical clinic/laboratory • Nursing and personal care facility • Emergency services • Broadcasting and telecommunications Notes: * Limited uses include uses allowed provided they comply with applicable limitations of RDC 18.500. ** Indicated uses are subject to applicable limitations of RDC 18.205.030 plus conditional use review. Examples of limitations of note for limited use categories include the following: • Ground floor single family residences or residential uses area not allowed, only live/work units when the associated business is allowed as a permitted or limited use are allowed (provided the residence is not on the ground floor). • Duplexes may meet either multifamily or townhouse development standards. Multifamily residential uses are limited to upper stories and to a maximum density of 16 units per acre. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 6 • Artisan and specialty goods production is allowed subject to provision of a public viewing or customer service space. • Home occupations may be conducted as an accessory use within a dwelling unit subject to provisions that include (but are not limited to) occupancy of less than 25% of the residence or subject to a Type 1 review process for other offices, studios and specialized instruction, and provided that no retail or wholesale sales are associated with the use. Parking Requirements. The Ridgefield Development Code (RDC;) prescribes minimum off- street parking requirements as applicable to different residential, commercial and industrial uses. However, within the downtown central mixed use district off-street parking is not required for non-residential uses located on lots of less than 15,000 square feet in land area. Residential parking is still required at a minimum of one space per unit. While all three sites considered are exempt from providing non-residential off-street parking, other general provisions of the code still apply to any off-street parking that is developed. Included are provisions related to location, use, development and maintenance standards. Even though exempted, developers of some uses likely will opt to provide off-street parking as needed for marketability to business tenants or end-users. Variance Provisions. For uses constructed prior to implementation of zoning in Ridgefield, some flexibility for adaptive reuse is possible through a variance (or adjustment) process. Variance provisions are most applicable to the School Bus Barn site —the only non -vacant property which is anticipated to involve adaptive reuse of an existing structure. Adjustment could be required for such items as site screening, changes to the existing parking lot and/or use of the structure. This can involve either a Type II site plan review. Or if changes exceed 20% of any numeric value standard (as with use allocation), a Type III quasi-judicial variance involving a public hearing may be required. Property by Property Analysis. With this review of prior market analysis, property descriptions and applicable planning/zoning framework in place, this analysis now proceeds to outline development concepts considered with each of the three downtown brownfield property sites together with observations related to resulting feasibility and economic impact. Properties are covered in the following order: • Site 1— Park Laundry • Site 2 — School Bus Barn • Site 3 —Weeks Property (with possible Wertz add-on) E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 7 FOCUS PROPERTIES FOR M, A. u L F o S - _ R A. L o N c DOWNTOWN INTEGRATED PLANNING GRANT �T .�j j � #,� 1 a lei (# _ >..� .:h i .i -a_:1 I.en – 'j_—' #-' �w Legend �.L e� Focus Prooercy. Parcel Boundan• U. r< "'A ,# 3+�_ 7 2��► ter. _ Vii`, s =1�,: �x s *`r'il,v, .r •` M1i 1 .:- P I — R`-�' - j]�''�" ��^d'i l Fo mr dry dcu School Evs 133- 3 Farms aelfiCle mamlvlxfn[z !edit} with td d"rouM 4� i3'�S',-4 \ f ;3,� �S•i�' . iM r7'.+s 1 5"Lm1. `�.1. _s � 4 � s, '�' ':�,.�. •�E ' r�s.,� �. ��' U Yrreks Frourrfr f p / •f # + s P -- J tJ Unts-d p1Y.Ir= tan_ I 04i � s r Y ry! I Y r �s .mv � amu• i .Wn r 1 r.a.� E.D. Hovee & Company, uc for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 8 SITE 1 - PARK LAUNDRY The Park Laundry property is situated at the SE corner of North Main Avenue and Simons Street. Due to its size and location at a point of transition between the downtown commercial core and residential area to the north, this analysis considers the potential for mixed use development — with commercial facing Main Avenue at the street level and residential above. Site Characteristics. At 11,211 square feet (or just over % acre in size), the Park Laundry site comprises three tax parcels with what appears to be two separate ownerships. Behind the property is a neighborhood park. On the west side of Main is a restaurant and post office. On the block to the north are a Pizza restaurant, tile business and community center. Further north, the downtown transitions to nearly 100% residential use. Development Concepts. Two potential Sources: Clark County GIS, Esri, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. development concepts are considered with this preliminary feasibility assessment: Concept A involves development of 4,500 square feet of retail ground floor space together with 17 apartment units on three floors above the street level. Area for 19 at -grade parking spaces (1+ per unit) is allocated behind the retail and apartment structure facing the alley and adjoining park. Apartment size is assumed to average 750 square feet per unit, assuming a mix of 1- and 2- bedroom units (and perhaps a couple of studios). Pro forma rents are targeted to $19 per year for retail space and $1.20 per square foot monthly for apartments, averaging $900 per unit. This is above local rents but consistent with rents for comparable developments in Clark County, and below rents for Vancouver urban projects. Total gross building area is 20,000 square feet — with a 5,000 square foot building footprint (including retail and apartment lobby area) at the street. Density of development equates to 65+ units per acre — substantially exceeding the current maximum residential density (a factor described with discussion of overall building feasibility). Concept B is aimed to stay within the current density limit of 16) units per acre. Assumed is the development of four live -work residential townhomes. The first floor of each townhome would include a 500 square foot commercial space on the street front, with 2 -car tandem parking garage behind. Pro forma sales prices for the residential portion are initially targeted at $225 per square foot — above attached unit pricing in the Ridgefield area currently but consistent with the mid-range of urban product pricing in Clark County. The two upper levels are residential -ownership units at 750 square feet per level (or 1,500 square feet per unit). Units are assumed to be sold for home ownership — with the potential for the owner to either utilize or rent out the ground floor commercial space. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 9 The site area includes at -grade parking and yard area as structure covers about 45% of the site area — with added deck area possible above a portion of the parking garage. Residential density is between 15-16 units per acre. Environmental Remediation. The site was previously used as a commercial laundry; the structure associated with the laundry has since been removed. Remediation may involve excavation and off-site disposal together with in-situ groundwater treatment of chlorinated solvents. Cost of environmental remediation is estimated by MFA at $917,000. Development Cost, Valuation & Feasibility. Examples from other communities of projects that might be applicable for Ridgefield are illustrated by the sidebar to the right. For Ridgefield, both project concepts appear to be right on the cusp of project feasibility, considered from a private development perspective: • Concept A with 17 apartments and 4,500 square feet of ground floor retail is estimated at a cost approaching $4.3 million. This is an all -in cost estimate including potential cost of land acquisition, environmental remediation, infrastructure upgrades, site improvement and new building construction, and indirect (or soft) costs. Capitalized rents indicate a potential valuation upon completion and lease -up at about $3.1 million. This indicates a funding gap of nearly $1.1 million — most of which is attributable to the cost of site remediation. Concept B with four townhomes above 2,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space as part of a live -work development is estimated to cost $2.9 million (including anticipated developer profit margin). Net proceeds on sale (including capitalized valuation of the commercial component) are estimated at $1.7 million — leaving a funding gap of about $1.2 million. The cost of environmental remediation accounts for more than three- quarters of this total funding gap. Getting to Yes! Redevelopment of Park Laundry site for multi -family apartments creates value equivalent to about 74% of project cost. The four -unit live -work townhome concept appears to be even more underwater financially — Project Prototypes? Vancouver Lewis a Clark Plaza The 46 apartments (pictured above) feature quality senior housing with a street level interpretive center and art gallery — on a''/< block site. Unit sizes are smaller than suggested for downtown Ridgefield. Vancouver's Uptown Village Townhomes on Main Street offer about 1,250 square feet of live - work space plus full basement tandem parking garage. Spokane Coeur d'Alene Park Townhomes range up to nearly 1,900 square feet on three levels, with two floors at street level.... ... and with rear entry tandem garage on a common drive plaza. E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 10 with valuation upon sale equivalent to only 58% of project cost. While appearing to be challenging, the feasibility of the two concepts would be considerably improved if the cost of environmental clean-up could be covered from source other than the value of the ensuing residential development. If clean-up is not a financial responsibility of the developer (but is funded by WADOE and/or other public sources), the funding gap of the apartment concept is reduced from $1.1 million to $210,000. Similarly, the gap associated with the townhome concept is reduced from $1.2 million to about $290,000. Addressing the financial gap is much more achievable with the transfer of clean-up funding to other parties. Options for addressing the remaining gap (after remediation costs are taken out of the equation) could include any or some combination of the following: Supportable rents or values could be increased to levels above what is projected with the financial pro forma. With the right design and innovative marketing, this may be more readily achievable with the for sale townhome than the apartment rental concept. The apartment project becomes feasible if rents increase from an average of $1.20 to $1.30 per square foot monthly. The townhome project could pencil out if achievable sales pricing could be increased from $225 to about $275 per square foot. Cost of redevelopment might be reduced somewhat with value engineering, though significant cost paring could be expected to affect marketability — especially with the townhome concept. Financing incentives also might be considered as are detailed later in this report. For the rental development, the most significant incentive to consider would be limited property tax abatement as is being used elsewhere in the state of Washington (as in target areas identified by the City of Vancouver). Reduction of impact fee and SDC charges also could make a material difference for either the apartment or townhome concept — especially to the extent that the required infrastructure capacity has already been incurred with prior site and/or vicinity area development. Economic Impacts. This analysis includes evaluation of potential economic impacts — in terms of added employment as well as tax base realized. On-going employment directly on Site 1 is associated solely with the commercial space portion of the development — ranging from 4-9 jobs (with more jobs associated with the larger allocation of ground floor commercial space in the apartment than the townhome concept with ground floor work space). Sales and real estate excise tax (REET) could be collected from property sale and construction. REET would also be collected on sales of the townhomes. One time revenues range from less $125,000 with the townhome concept to over $190,000 with rental apartment development. Subsequent annual property tax plus sales tax from commercial retail uses are estimated to range from $60,000 to over $130,000 per year for the townhome and apartment concepts, respectively. The City of Ridgefield share would be in the range of 12% of both one-time and on-going tax revenues, with the remainder allocated to other direct taxing jurisdictions. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 11 SITE 2 — SCHOOL BUS BARN Ridgefield School District's School Bus Barn is located in the heart of downtown Ridgefield, on the NE corner of Pioneer Street and 3rd Avenue. This is the only one of three IPG sites with an existing building of historic value and recommended for preservation with adaptive reuse. Site Characteristics. Of the IPG properties considered with this analysis, the School Bus Barn site is the largest at 14,374 square feet (or about 1/3 acre in size). Most of the property (10,000 square feet) is occupied by a single - story unreinforced masonry building constructed in the 1930s. On-site parking is provided by a district -owned lot at the back. Development Concepts. In 2010, a Due Diligence Building Review was conducted to sources: Clark County GIS, Esri, identify potential re -use of the building and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. suitable for what is likely to be an increasingly high value location in downtown Ridgefield. Two overall concepts (with two design variations for each concept) were identified for consideration. This feasibility report covers the low cost variation of each concept, as follows: • Concept 1A focused on creating a multi -tenant agricultural production facility (as for micro - brewers) together with an event/public area. As illustrated by the development diagrams on the next page, storefront activated uses would account for about 4,600 square feet of the renovated area, with production spaces taking 4,000 square feet and a common area (including corridors and restrooms) of about 1,400 square feet. Existing parking behind the building would be retained but with improvements for circulation, landscaping, and ADA access • Concept 2B would be aimed to accommodate a more generalized range of multi -tenant commercial retail and office space use. With this concept, approximately 5,680 square feet is allocated as direct storefront space, 1,760 square feet as interior office or production space and a significant component of 2,560 square feet as common area. Environmental Remediation. A complete environmental review was not conducted as part of the scope of 2010 building review. The report noted that, due to the age of the building, "it is possible hazardous building materials exist, specifically with regard to lead paint and asbestos." A hazardous materials survey was recommended as a means to more clearly identify conditions and appropriate remediation. The 2010 analysis did identify an existing underground storage tank at the NW corner of the parking area in use by the Ridgefield School District for fueling of maintenance fleet vehicles. Recommended with property reuse would be the decommissioning of the underground tank. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 12 Updated analysis by MFA indicates that there are other tanks not identified with the 2010 report together with associated contamination — both within the property and in the adjoining street -right of way. Environmental remediation could involve in situ treatment of hydrocarbon contamination of soil and groundwater in place. Current estimated cost of site remediation is $703,000. Development Cost, Valuation & Feasibility. Neither of the development concepts appears to be currently financially feasible if considered from a purely private redevelopment perspective. • Concept 1A involving a multi -tenant agricultural production facility (as for micro -brewers) together with an event/public area is associated with an estimated cost of $3.7 million. This is based on the 2010 analysis, inflated to 2015 dollars, with current estimates of environmental remediation. This equates to an all -in cost of nearly $370 per square foot of building area. Assuming rental rates of $18-$19 per square foot for rehab space, capitalized valuation on completion comes in at about $1.7 million — about $2.0 million below development cost. Cost of remediation accounts for about 35% of this funding gap. In the absence of securing other non -rent based sources of income, redevelopment would not appear to be financially feasible even if no site remediation was required. • Concept 213 aimed to serve a more generalized range of multi -tenant commercial retail and office space use and is associated with a somewhat higher development cost approaching $3.9 million — equating to $385 per Development Concepts for School Bus Barn Site Concept 1 A — Ag -Production Facility I � ��urvei si ismer rA4E WAY I mix; i q�ye bie= - I � ��urvei si ismer ME VW( mix; +t7Fk :.rs :srtc u ,.w.: • W .t h IFro:.r:t r, 4 i Gd.0 ` ♦:':_ to"'YEW MIM Concept 213 — Commercial Retail/Office Source: Group Mackenzie, Due Diligence Building Review, June 16, 2010. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 13 ME VW( mix; tAiA 111 u ,.w.: • W .t h IFro:.r:t r, 4 i Gd.0 fF.VJkrJ hu u•rr�' Source: Group Mackenzie, Due Diligence Building Review, June 16, 2010. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 13 square foot of building area. Capitalized valuation on completion comes in at $1.5 million — resulting in a financial gap of nearly $2.4 million. This project concept is even more challenged than 1A, in part because redevelopment involves less rentable space. With Concept 1A, rentable space comprises 86% of building area. With Concept 213, building efficiency (i.e., rentable space) drops to 74% due to considerably greater allocation of building area to non -income producing common space (including corridors, restrooms and service areas). Getting to Yes! Consistent with design concepts and associated rehabilitation costs as initially outlined in 2010, redevelopment of this site appears to be the most challenging of the IPG properties considered with this evaluation. While environmental remediation costs are significant, the project would not be feasible even if no remediation were required. In effect, renovation costs (even without clean-up costs) as estimated appear to be well above what is supportable by rents achievable in downtown Ridgefield or the north Clark County market area. Getting to a financially feasible project could be expected to involve any or more likely some combination of the following remedies: • Supportable rents would need to essentially double — to office rates similar to Portland's central city area and retail rents equivalent to the metro area's strongest retail centers. • Costs of redevelopment would need to be reduced through value engineering to about half of what was estimated with the 2010 Due Diligence Building Review report — an approach that could prove self-defeating if renovation is under -budgeted and results in lesser quality of redevelopment that is also less appealing to prospective tenants. • Efficiency of space utilization might be increased by reducing common area or explicitly assigning tenants a load factor equivalent to the foregone rent with these portions of the building. Improving building efficiency is particularly important for improving the financial feasibility of Concept 213. • Financial incentives from sources not dependent on loan repayment or equity returns anticipated as a purely private investment also could play a pivotal role in School Bus Barn Iconic Value for Historic Ridgefield As noted by a 2010 Due Diligence Review,"the existing building appears to be in good condition for its current use." Issues noted related to ADA issues, need for masonry repair, energy code improvements, and addressing a below ground storage tank behind the building. E.D. Hovee & Company, «C for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 14 preserving the School Bus Barn as a community asset for years to come. Financial incentives that to dramatically improve prospects for financial feasibility could include some mix of mechanisms that provide non -project capital funding (as through grants or low interest loans), reduce operating costs (as through tax abatement) and/or provide operating funding support (as from public space rentals or income support to public or non-profit building uses). Greater detail as to financial incentives that might be considered is provided with the financial pro forma portion of this report. Economic Impacts. On-going employment directly on Site 2 is associated with an estimated 16-18 permanent jobs — somewhat higher with the commercial retail mix of Concept 2B. Actual on-site employment could vary from this preliminary estimate depending on the mix of office, retail, production and event space in the renovated property. Sales and real estate excise tax (REET) could be collected from property sale and construction. One time revenues range from about $195,000 to close to $205,000 — more for the commercial retail (Concept 2B) due to higher construction cost. Subsequent annual property tax plus sales tax from uses is estimated to range from about $140,000 to $165,000 per year — more with Concept 2B due to greater mix of retail space (albeit with some variation depending on the precise mix of uses subject to retail sales tax). The City of Ridgefield portion would be in the range of 12% of both one-time and on-going tax revenues, with the remainder to other direct taxing jurisdictions. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 15 SITE 3 — WEEKS PROPERTY (WITH POSSIBLE WERTZ ADD-ON) Located at the SE corner of Pioneer Street and 2nd Place, the vacant Weeks property is relatively small at less than 5,000 square feet. While not directly part of the IPG study, combining this site with the immediately adjoining Wertz property (to the east) would double the usable site area and could create greater opportunity for financially viable redevelopment. Site Characteristics. The Weeks site comprises 4,791 square feet of land area — somewhat smaller than what is possible on a 50x100 foot lot. If combined with two adjoining vacant land parcels owned by Darren Wertz, total developable area increases to 9,582 square foot. Development Concepts. Due to the Sources: Clark County GIS, Esri, question of possible combination with the and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. adjoining Wertz property, three alternative development concepts are considered. The first two involve the Weeks property only, the third includes the Wertz site as a joint development. • Concept A involves development of a single -story 2,250 square foot commercial building fronting Pioneer Street — for retail or service use. The back half of the property would allow for provision for about 7 spaces of on-site customer and/or employee parking. • Concept B is indicated for a similar building footprint, but would include one floor of office space above ground floor retail — for total building area of 4,500 square feet. As with Concept A, this alternative would reserve the back half of the site for parking to serve a portion of anticipated customer and/or employee parking needs. • Concept C includes the Wertz site providing for full half -block building frontage. This concept involves testing the potential feasibility of a three story 13,500 square foot building — including 4,500 square feet of ground floor retail space fronting Pioneer Street and two upper floor levels of office with another 9,000 square feet of building area. On-site parking for about 15 cars could be provided behind the retail/office structure. Environmental Remediation. Environmental remediation could involve in situ treatment of hydrocarbon contamination of soil and groundwater in place. MFA has estimated the cost of remediating the Weeks property at $377,000. With this analysis, an estimate for clean-up of the Wertz property (if required, as Concept C) is not included as this property is not directly an IPG site. If Concept C were to be pursued further, additional environmental remediation cost is possible, though by an amount not yet determined. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 16 Development Cost, Valuation & Feasibility. On paper, all three projects would appear to offer some opportunity for feasibility. A major question is whether the smaller size of the Weeks property alone would prove adequate for a cost- effective project also of benefit to the greater downtown area: Concept A with an approximated 2,250 square foot (or 50 x 45 foot) building is estimated to cost less than $773,000. This includes $377,000 for environmental remediation but excludes any significant retail tenant finishes or fixtures. If a retail tenant could be attracted at a rent of about $19 per square foot (triple net- with tenant paying expenses), capitalized valuation would come in at about $490,000 — leaving a funding gap of over $280,000. . Concept B takes the 2,250 square foot footprint and adds a level of office space above the ground floor of retail — requiring a capital investment approaching $1.2 million including the cost of remediation. Office rents are anticipated to be at or below retail rents, resulting in capitalized value upon completion of close to $845,000. Most likely, the upper level space would prove suitable for a single user rather than as multi -tenant space. The resulting funding gap is estimated at over $305,000. Concept C doubles the size of consolidated parcel area for development (by including the Wertz property) and is assumed to involve a 3 -story building of 13,500 square feet — with estimated development cost approaching $2.7 million. With triple -net rents assumed at $18 and $19 per square foot for office and retail use respectively, the project yields an estimated capitalized value at normalized occupancy of $2.5 million —which is between $170- $180,000 less than development cost. This funding gap would increase if the Wertz portion of the site is determined to require environmental remediation. Getting to Yes! The two site concepts considered for the Weeks site and the added concept for a combined Weeks/Wertz assemblage create value upon redevelopment and occupancy equivalent to anywhere from 63% to 94% of all -in development cost — including environmental remediation. However, the outlook for a feasible Project Prototypes? Baffle Ground Village NEW, This new development has created a variety of small shop spaces in a village environment. Some are in multi -tenant configuration ... ... and others (as with the public house and brewery above) involve single tenant buildings. Downtown Vancouver This building offers close to 2,400 square feet of restaurant space at the ground floor with an architectural firm on the 2nd floor. Known as the Source Climbing Center, this high ceiling building sits on about a 50x100 foot footprint, as a recreation -entertainment option. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 17 development project is altered if the costs of remediation can be funded from sources other than project revenues. Excluding remediation costs, all three project concepts potentially yield value in excess of project cost. Concept 3 yields the greatest potential upside, with value upon stabilized occupancy at more than $200,000 above development cost. Of added note is that while the two smaller projects on the Weeks site alone also show a positive return on paper, the margin is less than for the combined Weeks/Wertz concept. With a reduced project site, it also may prove more challenging to control project costs on such a small (less than 5,000 square foot) site. In effect, the risk of cost overruns could substantially impair development feasibility. In short, the single most important step for getting to yes with this site relate to the ability to secure obtain funding for environmental remediation and the Weeks and, as applicable, the adjoining Wertz property. Feasibility of development is also improved if the two properties could be combined as one assemblage for a larger, more cost-effective construction project. Economic Impacts. Economic Impacts. On-going employment directly on Site 3 ranges from 5 employees with the small retail concept on the Weeks parcel to as many as 36 with the 3 -story retail/office concept also involving the Wertz property. As with the other sites, sales and real estate excise tax (REET) could be collected from property sale and construction. One time revenues range from just over $20,000 with the small 2,250 retail project on Weeks property to close to $130,000 with the 13,500 square foot concept also involving the Wertz property. Subsequent annual property tax plus sales tax from uses is estimated to similarly range widely — from over $55,000 per year with the small storefront concept to nearly $140,000 with the three story retail/office concept involving both the Weeks and Wertz properties. As with the other sites, the City of Ridgefield portion would be in the range of 12% of both one-time and on-going tax revenues, with the remainder to other direct taxing jurisdictions. E.D. Hovee & Company, uC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 18 FINANCIAL PRO FORMA DETAIL The previous sections of this report have outlined potential development concepts for each of three downtown IPG sites. This section provides added detail regarding financial pro forma assumptions, results and potential incentives for redevelopment. Pro Forma Assumptions. With this analysis, land acquisition costs are assumed to be at tax assessed valuations. Actual purchase prices may vary with detailed appraisals and negotiations, including consideration of potential value adjustments for environmental remediation. Cost of building rehabilitation is from a 2010 building review by Group Mackenzie, adjusted for inflation. Environmental remediation costs are from MFA — including expense of reporting and negotiating a notice of No Further Action with the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Other pivotal cost, operating and valuation assumptions used with this analysis are as depicted with the following chart. These cost assumptions reflect current Clark County experience together with recognized industry sources. Range of Financial Pro Forma Variables & Assumptions A. Development Costs Site Costs Per square foot of land area Site Preparation $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 Per sf land area New Building Construction Reta i I Office Multi Family Residential Pa rki ng Cost - per SF Indirect/Soft Cost Rate Gross Profit Margin B. Operating Projections $90.00 $110.00 $115.00 $140.00 $120.00 $160.00 $7.50 $70.00 30% 35% 12% 15% Per gsf building area (hard construction cost) $130.00 Cons i stent with rates for stri p shop pi ng s pace $165.00 Secondary low-mid rise office building $200.00 Lowfor apartments, mid for live -work, high for condo $90.00 Lowfor surface lot, mid -high for above grade structure 40% Lowfor single use, low-mid for mixed usew/sales tax 18% Applied to for sale components of project (e.g. condos) Market Rate Rents Per squarefoot of income producing building area Storefront (nnn/yr) $12.00 $19.00 $25.00 Low @ current DT rate, mid CC avg, high @ top of market Production/Office (nnn/yr) $15.00 $18.00 $25.00 Low @ current DT rate, mid CC avg, high @ top of market Apartment Rental (per mo) $0.90 $1.20 $1.50 Low @ CC avg, mid for base case, high @ top of market Parking (per month) $50 $100 No parking revenue assumed with preliminary pro forma Rental Space Vacancy 1 5% 8%1 11% Low for apts, mid Ridgefield retail, high Clark Co office Operating Expense Ratios Retail/Office Space 8% 10% 12% Of gross operating income (nnn) Residential (per sq ft/yr) $4.50 $4.63 $4.75 Low for new CC garden styleapts; high older units Parking (annual per space)$250 E6.00% $500 Low- applied to all sites w/o active management Capitalization Rates 7.25% 8.25%Low - apartments; mid -retail, high - office C. Sales Revenue Unit Sales Price (per SF) $150 $225 $300 Range of Clark County pricing (for townhomes) Sales Expense% 6% 8% 10% Including real estate excise tax Legend:indicates assumptions used with this pro lorma analysis. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 19 Comparative Pro Forma Results. Side-by-side comparative results for the sites and development concepts evaluated are provided by the chart on the following page. Key sections of the analytical framework cover: • Development Program — detailing square footages by building use together with information as to residential units (as applicable), site area, density of development, and on-site parking. • Financial Pro Forma — with separate sections detailing development budget line items, followed by annual income/expense budget for rental portions of the property, sales revenue (applicable to townhome units) and resulting completed valuation as compared with all -in development cost. As detailed by the pro forma summary chart, the development program ranges from a 2,250 square foot retail store (on the Weeks site) to t potential 20,000 square foot multi -family apartment structure on the Park Laundry site. All of the development concepts are relatively modest in scale due to the small size of the sites involved as consistent with the existing fine- grained development pattern of downtown Ridgefield. Similarly, development cost ranges from less than $1 million (with the smallest of the building concepts for the Weeks property) to over $4 million (with apartment development of the Park Laundry site). On a per square foot of building space basis, costs range from just under $200 (with the Weeks/Wertz combined project) to as much as $385 per square foot with School Bus Barn renovation and $344 per square foot with the smallest of the Weeks property development concepts. With the Weeks site in particular, these total per square foot costs are substantially influenced by anticipated costs of environmental remediation. As noted, costs for a combined Weeks/Wertz site could increase above what is indicated depending on whether and to what extent environmental remediation is required for the Wertz property. Operating budget considerations for income properties reflect gross rental income minus a normalized vacancy allowance and operating expenses to arrive at an estimate of net operating income (NOI). Note that rental income is applied only to the ground floor commercial spaces of live -work townhomes, with the rest as sales value attributable to the townhomes above. Sales Revenue is a factor only with the townhomes concept of the Park Laundry site. Anticipated sales price is estimated at $225 per square foot applied only to the livable residential square footage of the townhome units. Capitalized Valuation reflects the translation of NOI into value at completion and normalized occupancy using a capitalization (cap) rate typical for the type of property considered. To this is added any value of for -sale space (applicable only to the Park Laundry townhome concept). As noted, none of the concepts appear to be feasible if environmental clean-up costs are included with development cost. The Weeks/Wertz concepts appear feasible and the Park Laundry concepts come close to feasibility if environmental costs can be funded separately. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 20 Financial Pro Forma Summary by Site & Development Concept Development Program (Square Feet) 11,211 11,211 14,374 14,374 4,791 4,791 Storefront Space (SF) 4,500 2,000 4,600 5,680 2,250 2,250 4,500 Production/Office (SF) 1.41 Structure Footprint (GSF) 4,000 1,760 2,250 9,000 Residential (SF) 12,750 6,000 Residential Density(DU/Acre) 66.1 15.5 Common Area (not rentable SF) 2,750 1,400 2,560 4 3 Subtotal (GSF) 20,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 2,250 4,500 13,500 Ga rage Parking (GSF) 13 3,000 7 7 15 Parking Lot Area -Outdoor (SF) Total Building Area (GSF) 20,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 2,250 4,500 13,500 Residential (Owner units) $46,600 4 $32,800 $32,800 $19,100 $19,100 Residential (Rental units) 17 $311,200 $69,200 $166,700 $158,600 $52,300 Total Site Area (SF) 11,211 11,211 14,374 14,374 4,791 4,791 9,582 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.78 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.47 0.94 1.41 Structure Footprint (GSF) 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 2,250 2,250 4,500 Residential Density(DU/Acre) 66.1 15.5 Building Floors 4 3 1 1 1 2 3 On -Site Parking (Spaces) 19 6 13 13 7 7 15 Parking Lot Area -Outdoor (SF) 6,211 1,950 4,374 4,374 2,541 2,541 5,082 Financial Pro Forma $46,600 $224,600 $32,800 $32,800 $19,100 $19,100 $38,100 Development Budget Property Acquisition $84,500 $84,500 $380,000 $380,000 $24,500 $24,500 $49,000 Environmental Remediation $917,000 $917,000 $703,000 $703,000 $377,000 $377,000 $377,000 Off -Site Infrastructure Site Preparation $44,800 $44,800 $19,200 $19,200 $38,300 Building Rehabilitation $902,686 $969,024 New Building Construction $2,182,500 $900,000 $902,700 $969,000 $202,500 $461,300 $1,440,000 Parking (Surface +Structured) $46,600 $224,600 $32,800 $32,800 $19,100 $19,100 $38,100 Impact Fees/SDCs $311,200 $69,200 $166,700 $158,600 $52,300 $87,200 $243,800 Other Indirect (Soft) Cost $682,200 $380,100 $597,400 $640,500 $78,300 $162,400 $492,800 Total Development Cost $4,268,800 $2,620,200 $3,685,286 $3,852,924 $772,900 $1,150,700 $2,679,000 Cost per GSF $213 $238 $369 $385 $344 $256 $198 Costw/Condo Profit Margin $4,268,800 $2,882,500 $3,685,286 $3,852,924 $772,900 $1,150,700 $2,679,000 Operating Budget (Rental) Annual Gross Income $269,100 $38,000 $159,400 $139,600 $42,800 $83,300 $247,500 less Vacancy $(13,500) $(3,000) $(15,100) $(13,300) $(3,400) $(8,300) $(24,800) Gross Operating Income $255,600 $35,000 $144,300 $126,300 $39,400 $75,000 $222,700 Less Expenses $(67,100) $(3,500) $(14,400) $(12,600) $(3,900) $(7,500) $(22,300) Net Operating Income $188,500 $31,500 $129,900 $113,700 $35,500 $67,500 $200,400 Sales Revenue (Owner) Unit Sales $1,350,000 less Sales Expense $(108,000) Net SaIes Revenue $1,242,000 Completed Valuation Capitalization Rate 6.00% 7.25% 7.75% 7.75% 7.25% 8.00% 8.00% Estimated Value: Rental Income Portion $3,141,700 $434,500 $1,676,100 $1,467,100 $489,700 $843,800 $2,505,000 Rental+Sales Portion $3,141,700 $1,676,500 $1,676,100 $1,467,100 $489,700 $843,800 $2,505,000 Zost%Supported by Value 74% 58% 45% 38% 63% 73% 94% =unding Gap ( ) $ (1,127,100) $ (1,206,000) $ (2,009,186) $ (2,385,824) $ (283,200) $ (306,900) $ (174,000, .Sap w/o Clean-up Cost $(210,100) $(289,000) $(1,306,186) $(1,682,824) $93,800 $70,100 $203,000 Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. Financial pro formas are for illustrative purposes only. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 21 Incentives for Redevelopment. Due to the cost impacts of environmental remediation, none of the development concepts are expected to be financially feasible in the absence of public financial incentives. Even in the absence of environmental contamination, there is no development concept that clearly would be financially feasible in a downtown area that has yet to experience rents at a level high enough to fully support the costs of new construction. The need to also recover the cost of remediation means that development on the Park Laundry and Weeks properties which appears marginally feasible (without remediation responsibility) becomes clearly infeasible when clean-up costs are included. For the School Bus Barn site, the cost of environmental remediation represents a lesser percentage of project costs than for the other two sites; however the cost of building rehabilitation for commercial use appears to make the project infeasible even in the absence of added site clean-up expense. There are a range of financial incentives that might be considered as means to improve the financial feasibility of redevelopment including cost of environmental remediation. Examples of public resource options to consider include the following: • WADOE / federal funding of site clean-up with potential grant funding of 50% or more of environmental clean-up costs may be supportable, particularly if the site is purchased or otherwise transferred to public ownership prior to redevelopment. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding is potentially available on a competitive basis through Clark County for implementation of commercial development projects; funding is limited to projects where the majority of new jobs created will be for persons of low or moderate income. • State Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) funding available for public improvements that create above median wage non -retail jobs (possibly applicable for an ag-processing reuse of the School Bus Barn building). • Residential property tax exemption is as an 8 -year property tax freeze for new multi- family construction or 12 years if 20%+ of units are affordable to low and moderate income households (potentially applicable to the residential concepts associated with the Park Laundry property). • Historic property tax abatement allows for rehabilitation improvements to be not taxed for 10 years provided that the property is listed on a local or national historic register (potentially applicable to the School Bus Barn site). • Port District involvement in commercial projects is possible under state law though this has not been directly contemplated for the downtown area (but conceivably could be considered with the School Bus Barn and Weeks/Wertz properties). • Public Development Authority (PDA) creation as a sub -agency of the City of Ridgefield for possible property acquisition and as a conduit for federal or state grant programs — also allowing for property tax exemption during the period of public ownership (potentially most applicable to the School Bus Barn and/or Weeks/Wertz sites). E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 22 • Other State of Washington tools related to the PDA mechanism include Community Revitalization Financing and Community Renewal, though both are relatively complex and typically intended for a larger geographic area than for a single site specific project. Also noted are Redevelopment Opportunity Zones authorized by the 2013 Washington State Legislature where at least 50% of properties in the area are brownfields. • SDC waiver subject to review and approval by the Clark Regional Wastewater District (CRWWD) based on in-place sewer infrastructure for the properties affected (and making the most significant difference in feasibility for Park Laundry site residential development and/or School Bus Barn reuse for an ag-processing user as with a micro - brewery). • Zoning code revisions as might be needed to accommodatE! the mixed use concepts considered (likely of greatest importance to increase allowed residential density to more than 16 units per acre as might be required for the Park Laundry multi -family concept). • Cooperative public/private marketing of any of the three IPG sites which may prove pivotal to attract investor interest and address questions affecting site reuse viability. While perhaps not as directly affecting the bottom line for financial feasibility, there are other actions that could be taken that would improve the attractiveness of a downtown investor to a prospective developer or investor. Downtown area marketing, prornotion and business assistance through the Ridgefield Main Street organization could be useful for attracting new or expanding businesses and new residents. Traffic planning for the SR 501 street corridor can be expected to be of importance for all three sites, especially the two properties located directly on Pioneer Street. Completion of the overpass to the waterfront will be pivotal to increase connectivity between these two adjoining mixed use districts. As traffic volumes increase with community growth including waterfront development, it will also become important to protect the pedestrian character of Pioneer for local neighborhood and visitor -based retail. Examples of actions that other communities are taking range from creating a free wi-fi zone in the downtown area (useful for young creatives and entrepreneurs) to creating new or building on existing events that bring the community together and invite visitors into the downtown. Downtown signage, banners, streetscape and pocket park areas as well as more active on -/off- street parking management are all added examples of initiatives that will become of increased importance as residential, business and customer activity continuE' to build in the years ahead. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Economic impacts associated with development of any of the site concepts are focused on: • Employment and wage benefits — post -construction with on-going business operations • State and local jurisdiction tax revenues — occurring both one-time with property sale and construction and then on an on-going basis with on-site property utilization. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 23 Employment & Wage Benefits. The project narrative of the earlier site -by -site discussion focused on direct employment that might be associated with business operations for each of the development concepts. The more detailed analysis provided below is expanded to cover: • Employment occurring directly on-site as well as potential indirect and induced (or economic multiplier) impacts that might be experienced elsewhere regionally. • Total payroll associated with each of the sites and development concepts - including information as to anticipated average wage. Employment / Wage Impacts by Site & Development Concept Employment Direct 9 4 16 18 5 12 36 Indirect & Induced 3 1 8 7 2 5 17 Total Economic Impact 12 5 24 25 7 17 53 Economic Multiplier 1.33 1.25 1.50 1.39 1.40 1.42 1.47 Payroll (x $1,000) Direct $252,000 $112,000 $544,000 $612,000 $140,000 $462,000 $1,494,000 Indirect & Induced $123,000 $55,000 $333,000 $292,000 $69,000 $217,000 $695,000 Total Economic Impact $375,000 $167,000 $877,000 $904,000 $209,000 $679,000 $2,189,000 Economic Multiplier 1.49 1.49 1.61 1.48 1.49 1.47 1.47 Average Wage Direct $28,000 $28,000 $34,000 $34,000 $28,000 $38,500 $41,500 Indirect & Induced $41,000 $55,000 $41,630 $41,710 $34,500 $43,400 $40,880 Total Economic Impact $31,250 $33,400 $36,540 $36,160 $29,860 $39,940 $41,300 Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC with economic multipliers based on IMPLAN for Southwest Washington Due to the small size of the sites involved with this analysis, the employment and wage impacts are not as significant as what is often expected from larger scale economic development projects. For a downtown area like Ridgefield, the long-term economic impact is not so much associated with any single project as it will be with the combined sum of redevelopment and use intensification occurring at multiple sites throughout the downtown. If one or more of these more challenging IPG sites can get underway in the near term, redevelopment should help build momentum for other less challenging properties in the years ahead. Two other items are of note with this analysis from the perspective of job and payroll impact: • The sites with primarily retail uses are associated with lower average wages - but are still important for needed community services and as offering part-time and entry-level employment. • Higher wages and greater employment opportunities are associated with the redevelopment of the School Bus Barin site and the potential for a combined Weeks/Wertz site 3 -story retail and office concept. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 24 Tax Revenue Impacts. Tax revenues associated with the development are of two types: • One-time revenues associated with initial development - notably sales tax on construction and real estate excise tax (REET) assuming the property is purchased. • On-going tax revenues subsequent to construction - notably property and sales tax. Tax Revenue Impacts by Site & Development Concept One -Time Tax Revenues (w/Property Sale & Construction in 2014 $)) City of Ridgefield Real Estate Excise (REET) $420 $7,170 $1,900 $1,900 $120 $120 $250 Sales Tax on Construction $22,740 $11,690 $22,180 $23,510 $2,410 $5,000 $15,160 Subtotal City of Ridgefield $23,160 $18,860 $24,080 $25,410 $2,530 $5,120 $15,410 Other Taxing Jurisdictions $244,600 $111,300 $259,800 $306,500 $108,500 $119,800 $262,200 Real Estate Excise (REET) $1,080 $18,360 $4,860 $4,860 $310 $310 $630 Sales Tax on Construction $168,270 $86,540 $164,160 $173,970 $17,820 $36,970 $112,210 Subtotal Other Jurisdictions $169,350 $104,900 $169,020 $178,830 $18,130 $37,280 $112,840 All Taxing Jurisdictions $131,700 $60,236 $139,352 $163,694 $56,330 $62,850 $138,760 Real Estate Excise (REET) $1,500 $25,530 $6,760 $6,760 $430 $430 $880 Sales Tax on Construction $191,010 $98,230 $186,340 $197,480 $20,230 $41,970 $127,370 Total All Jurisdictions $192,510 $123,760 $193,100 $204,240 $20,660 $42,400 $128,250 Ongoing Tax Revenues (Annualized @ Full Build -Out in 2014 $) City of Ridgefield Prope rtyTax $2,600 $1,340 $2,540 $2,690 $280 $570 $1,730 Sales Tax $12,800 $5,690 $13,780 $16,510 $6,400 $6,850 $14,600 Subtotal City of Ridgefield $15,400 $7,030 $16,320 $19,200 $6,680 $7,420 $16,330 Cumulative NPV -20 Years $244,600 $111,300 $259,800 $306,500 $108,500 $119,800 $262,200 Other Taxing Jurisdictions Property Tax $21,580 $11,100 $21,060 $22,320 $2,290 $4,740 $14,390 Sales Tax $94,720 $42,106 $101,972 $122,174 $47,360 $50,690 $108,040 Subtotal Other Jurisdictions $116,300 $53,206 $123,032 $144,494 $49,650 $55,430 $122,430 Cumulative NPV -20 Years $1,842,100 $839,300 $1,953,600 $2,301,100 $805,500 $893,300 $1,962,200 All Taxing Jurisdictions Property Tax $24,180 $12,440 $23,600 $25,010 $2,570 $5,310 $16,120 Sales Tax $107,520 $47,796 $115,752 $138,684 $53,760 $57,540 $122,640 Total All Jurisdictions $131,700 $60,236 $139,352 $163,694 $56,330 $62,850 $138,760 Cumulative NPV -20 Years $2,086,700 $950,600 $2,213,400 $2,607,600 $914,000 $1,013,100 $2,224,400 Annualized Discount Factors (all sites) Discount Rate 5.00% Inflation Rate (Retail) 3.00% Property Appreciation Rate 1.00% Numberof Years 20 Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. All tax effects are limited to direct effects for each subject property. Note that a portion of the retail sales tax to Ridgefield may involve administrative fee to Clark County. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 25 As depicted by the chart on the previous page, one-time tax revenues range from as little as $21,000 with the small storefront concept with the Weeks property to nearly $205,000 with the commercial retail concept associated with School Bus Barn site adaptive reuse. The majority of the tax impact is associated with sales tax on the value of construction. The State of Washington is the primary beneficiary of sales tax revenue; the City of Ridgefield share is about 12% (perhaps less depending on administrative fee for sales tax collection). On-going tax revenues range from $60,000 +/- per year with the townhome concept of the Park Laundry site and the Weeks only development concepts up to nearly $165,000 per year with redevelopment of the School Bus Barn. The bus barn property offers the highest revenue yield due to the combination of the highest construction value, conversion from current tax-exempt to taxable status and opportunity for significant ground -floor retail use that would be subject to sales tax. However, there may be considerable variability of sales tax revenue realized — depending on the extent to which the School Bus Barn is tenanted by retail (including food service) versus office, production and/or event uses. In addition to annualized tax revenues, the chart includes estimates of the net present value (NPV) of revenues over a 20 -year time frame. The NPV calculations assume a 5% discount factor together with 3% annual inflation of retail sales tax and 1% annual increase of property tax revenue (based on the statewide voter -approved property tax limitation). As depicted, the 20 - year NPV of state and local tax revenues ranges from about $900,000 potentially up to a cumulative value of $2.6 million (for the School Bus Barn retail/commercial concept). E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 26 IO ro C O �1E W 4S - /U'� n V / O L 4—) d W E m O� c W 4- U CL - d u c O u 4 Q O L N V) W cc N N� W U 4— Q v O a 4—) C- � W E O W Fo4 �. tit M CEJ 4-1 C N V) V) E 0 ct yo� °' mva 3y co"aghO�mm SO, 3�,coa 2�x cLo c ; c j U N O L_t_ U o Tn N �o ° @ O t; �-� o -2 N 6) ++ N V ru +� n Q 0 UO al V N 6S) N V N E 0 6 i O fu) F�u w EN p C Q -0 0-Y 0- '� ° a 3 c �i a w 1 @ m oaf>QrouQ�o �� cw C 3�a)a). aE >O, EEaNa) moo, Y� c: > In O O ra 0 in ^ to O 0 L � 07 N .n a) o rn N N ro O - N > .Q U ra a) a) O 0 0.- 0— m��E.�@0ou E0EE ° aero-ov�� gra ooL L��.o�.xro Eo m � �roc00 a)c� NQij�� _� �Q > CLQ ro ° Q�3�a,a)a��cc 4- �ccu3 0 ° �o�Oo n �, c - a 3 �2a)��2°�mro @ N 0 r6 3 �/ a) a) a) C Q U m � i i rp ✓ p ou000��v�cc u, - w ro o 5 5 O U ��o2Uo� F- U12 3 0 -0 t3c-3o0�0-0,6 0Z) 0- u m u ro 0 -1 W E E O W �Itlln 4_1 E LO m VIII CJ rY1 -1 W E E O W �Itlln 4_1 E LO m VIII CJ mom Z C. 3RF AVF 0- [ U � Q�.,aOQ`-cv 'oW"'a[mrp�J �?N�m mtivE m ii e, 2z1 gg � ��wr Fwnv ti �� 3i ei I' C M�• a, a era v J" S - -r-- s R --. w Y Qh SLU Q u 1 qyi Q S� y 2: a --j C Q) E LnN N E - I— = w UI ;ii UI j� Li _ � C = U U ti C v L F, U �LL U �! c [ U � Q�.,aOQ`-cv 'oW"'a[mrp�J �?N�m mtivE m ii e, 2z1 gg � ��wr Fwnv ti �� 3i ei I' C M�• a, a era v J" S - -r-- s R --. w Y Qh SLU Q u 1 qyi Q S� y 2: a --j C Q) E LnN N E - I— z^ M O0 I- v z cn W Oz r) I . LU . V — X :D Z wry0 aU) aU) Qw U U Q Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Recommendations to City Council August 8, 2013 Executive Summary The Downtown Accessory Guidelines (DAG) Committee developed a series of streetscape recommendations for downtown. Selection of street furniture was identified as a priority action item in previous downtown planning documents. Based on committee discussions and feedback from the public, the committee developed street furniture recommendations consisting of a series of recommended characteristics and examples. Benches: Select a bench model with the following characteristics: • Antique or historical style to emphasize "Old Town Ridgefield" theme. • A metal frame with recycled plastic slats, rather than wood, to reduce maintenance. • Substantial armrests on the ends. • Metal powder -coated in black, brown, or dark green color. Garbage Cans: Select models with the following characteristics: • Unobtrusive visual design that blends into downtown, does not compete visually with benches or buildings. • Vandalism -resistant materials, such as recycled plastic or metal. • Metal powder -coated in black, brown, or dark green color, similar to benches. • Side -opening entry, to facilitate emptying the cans. • Lids large enough to fit most pieces of waste, but small enough deter pests. Planters: The DAG Committee does not recommend installing new planters at this time, but rather maintaining the existing planters and realigning them along the main streets as needed. For future installations, the committee recommends: • Pre -cast concrete planters that are similar to the existing planters. • Smooth surface rather than exposed aggregate, to minimize moss and dirt build-up. • Square shape to maximize planting area and coordinate with existing planters. The committee recommends working with the Public Works Department to finalize the model recommendations and incorporate the final recommendations into the City Engineering Standards. The committee identified a series of funding and implementation measures, including a pilot installation outside of City Hall in the near term as a "showcase" of the recommendations. s. 1. i= Sample furniture models, from left: Columbia Cascade Craftsmen model, Columbia Cascade Manor model, Dura Art Stone Capstan Square model Introduction Planning Commission charged the Downtown Accessory Guidelines (DAG) Committee with the task of recommending street furniture styles for downtown. Selection of street furniture was identified as a priority action item in previous downtown planning documents. Based on committee discussions and feedback from the public, the committee has developed recommendations on specific models of street furniture, general recommendations about the installation of street furniture, and recommendations for future downtown planning priorities to complement the work on street furniture. Committee Structure The DAG Committee drew together a variety of stakeholders, including downtown business owners, representatives of City boards, representatives of local clubs, citizens and City staff. The committee met four times over the spring on 2013. Members included: Jason Carnell, Planning Commission, Chair Barb Blystone, Downtown business owner Aley Huesgen, Ridgefield High School Scott Hughes, Port of Ridgefield and downtown business owner Terry Hurd, Downtown business owner Don Stose, City Council Kay Stringfellow, Downtown business owner Linda Tracy, Citizen Vernon Veysey, Parks Board Phyllis Vidin, Garden Club Steve Wall, City Engineer and Public Works Director Juanita Wertz, Planning Commission Phil Messina, City Manager, ex officio Ron Onslow, Mayor, ex officio Thank you to everyone who participated and made this planning process a success. Relationship to Previous Downtown Planning Efforts The City has focused previous planning efforts on downtown over the past 10 years, producing a series of planning documents that highlight the need for downtown streetscape improvements guided by streetscape standards. The recommendations developed by the DAG Committee contribute towards downtown development by implementing planning priorities for downtown streetscapes identified in these previous plans. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 1 Recommendations to City Council 2002 Downtown Ridgefield Planning Guidelines The report calls for developing a streetscape standard consisting of lights, benches, trellises, paving bricks, and appropriate trees and vegetation that will enhance the architectural character and small town atmosphere of downtown. One of action items identified was to develop a selection of the types of amenities appropriate in downtown, e.g., benches, streetlights, flower baskets, etc. (Action Item PI -2) 14 Essential Design Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield (2004) Although the report focuses more heavily on architectural design, it also identifies the importance of an animated, inviting sidewalk that includes space for a frontage zone, for cafe seating and outdoor merchandise displays; a through zone for pedestrian movement; and a utility zone for street furniture, utilities, and landscaping. The report recommends including street furniture such as benches, garbage receptacles, newspaper stands, kiosks and street trees within the utility zone. (Section 2.1, The Pedestrian Level) Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Project—Action Plan (2011) The report identifies improvements to downtown streetscapes and use as an Infrastructure Priority Action Item. (Plan, pg 27 and 43) As part of a broader redesign of main streets like Pioneer and Main, local streets, and alleyways, the plan recommends adding buffers between sidewalks and the roadway such as landscaping and benches. The plan promotes an overall "safe, walkable downtown with tree -lined streets" and "a small, hometown feel." (Plan, pg 10) Public Outreach The DAG Committee held a public outreach event in May to solicit broader community feedback on preferred bench styles. The `Battle of the Benches" attracted more than 100 community members to try out actual bench models and share their preferences. The committee used the community feedback to shape their recommendations. More than half of the respondents indicated a preference for the Craftsmen -style bench, pictured on page 3. A full summary of public comments is included in Appendix A. Special thanks to Steve Kirn at Columbia Cascade Company for making benches available for the event. Street Furniture Recommendations The DAG Committee developed a series of recommended characteristics to be used in selecting street furniture for the City. Given the large number of manufacturers and available models, the committee recommends working with the Public Works Department to refine and finalize the model recommendations, rather than making specific product recommendations as part of this report. Final selection should incorporate Public Works' opinions on installation and maintenance issues, such as preferred lids for garbage cans. The Public Works Department may initiate a procurement process for street furniture based on these recommendations, and may ultimately choose models similar to but not identical to examples shown here based on the bids received. In selecting a manufacturer, the committee recommends emphasizing product quality relative to cost, and prioritizing local vendors. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 2 Recommendations to City Council After specific models are identified by the Public Works Department, the furniture models should be incorporated into the City Engineering Standards and formally adopted. Criteria that the committee considered in developing their recommendations included: • Comfort: For benches, how comfortable they are to sit on. • Design: How the furniture looks and functions. • Downtown Integration: How the furniture relates visually to the "Old Town Ridgefield" theme and existing downtown environment. • Durability: How sturdy the furniture is and how well it will hold up over time. • Ease of Maintenance: Ongoing maintenance requirements to keep furniture functional. • Cost: How expensive furniture models are, taking into account expected life cycle costs. Benches The DAG Committee recommends selecting a bench model with the following characteristics: • Antique or historical style to emphasize "Old Town Ridgefield" theme. • A metal frame with recycled plastic slats, rather than wood, to reduce maintenance requirements. • Substantial armrests on the ends. • Metal powder -coated in black, brown, or dark green color. • Seat at a higher level to make it easier for those with disabilities to sit down and stand up. Standard Powder -Coating Colors 4DO066 Regal Blue Evergreen Red Brown Black 040 Chrome Ocean Burgundy Coffee white Yellow Teat Tan The committee recommended selecting black, brown, or evergreen for street furniture, similar to these standard colors available for Columbia Cascade Company's products as shown here. Note that additional custom colors are also available. Several benches that meet the committee's criteria and that were specifically recommended by the committee include the Craftsmen and Restoration models from Columbia Cascade Company', pictured below. Initial quotes from the manufacturer for these bench models, with recycled plastic slats, are $1,490 for the Craftsmen and $1,335 for the Restoration model. ' Note that models from Columbia Cascade Company are referenced as representative samples only, and a future procurement process may be used to select final models. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 3 Recommendations to City Council Two bench model recommendations from the committee include the Craftsmen model, at left, and the Restoration model, at right. There was significant committee discussion about opportunities for creative bench and furniture designs, and concern that a "one size fits all" policy may be too limiting. In addition to recommending a general style for the City to adopt for City -funded installations, the committee recommends encouraging property owners to create and install unique benches that reflect the nature of their business or the city. The City also wishes to accommodate existing benches installed by business owners, such as the bench with an American flag design outside of Bob's Automotive. The committee recommends drafting some basic guidelines for custom benches if they are to be installed in the public right-of-way, such as minimum sidewalk clearances, materials, and maintenance agreements. The committee recommends encouraging benches that incorporate a natural palette of materials, such as wood and stone, or incorporate natural motifs. To ensure benches installed within the right-of-way meet these standards, the committee recommends establishing a review process at the Planning Commission level. Examples of custom-designed benches that incorporate natural materials. and motifs. A salmon design forms the back of a bench in Manzanita, OR (left), and basalt is used to create a unique bench (right). Garbage Cans The DAG Committee recommends trash receptacles with the following characteristics: • Unobtrusive visual design that blends into downtown, does not compete visually with benches or buildings. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 4 Recommendations to City Council • Vandalism -resistant materials, such as recycled plastic or metal. • Metal powder -coated in black, brown, or dark green color, similar to benches. • Side -opening entry, to facilitate emptying the cans. • Lids large enough to fit most pieces of waste, but small enough deter pests. Examples of garbage cans that meet these criteria include: �y S* Examples of garbage cans include the following models, all from Columbia Cascade Company (clockwise from upper left): Renaissance, Madison, Manor and Craftsmen. Additional recommendations for ongoing management of trash receptacles include: • Develop collection system to ensure receptacles are emptied periodically. • Develop system to sort and collect recyclables and install additional recycling receptacles. Planters The DAG Committee does not recommend installing new planters at this time, but rather working with the existing planters. In the future, if additional planters are required, the committee recommends a model with the following characteristics: • Pre -cast concrete planters that are similar to the existing planters. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 5 Recommendations to City Council • Smooth concrete surface rather than exposed aggregate, to minimize moss and dirt build-up. • Square shape to maximize planting area and minimize footprint within narrow ROW, and coordinates with existing square-shaped planters. Examples of planters that could meet these criteria include: Additional recommendations relating to the planters include: Dura Art Stone planter models Capstan square (left) and Spanish square (right) are examples of planters that would meet the committee's recommendations for replacement planters, as needed to supplement existing planters. • Continue to support the Garden Club's efforts to plant, weed, and water the planters. The Garden Club has had some concerns about being able to water the planters on an on-going basis, but they have developed a pilot system that will be tested this year. Depending on the results and the future club capabilities, the City should be prepared to assume daily watering responsibilities if needed to ensure plants continue to thrive. • Redistribute and realign existing planters. Existing planters are concentrated on the north side of Pioneer Street, and some could be relocated to the south side of the street for a more uniform appearance. Several planters need to be realigned relative to the curb and moved back a minimum of 1.5 feet from the curb to prevent conflicts with car doors. Clean the exterior of the planters on a periodic basis to remove dirt and moss; apply concrete sealer to discourage growth between cleanings. Street Furniture Placement Recommendations Recommendations about placement of street furniture are made in the context of the existing 9 to 12 -foot -wide sidewalks. In the course of any future road improvements on Pioneer and Main streets, there will not likely be any opportunity to widen the existing sidewalks due to the limited right-of-way width bounded by existing development on both sides of the road. The DAG Committee made recommendations about the placement of downtown street furniture to maximize use of the limited sidewalk space as currently configured. Recommendations include: • Place street furniture in the utility zone adjacent to the curb. Set furniture 1.5 feet back from the curb to avoid conflicts with car doors. • Alternatively, place street furniture in the frontage zone adjacent to buildings, akin to outdoor seating for cafes or the benches in front of City Hall. • Leave a minimum of 5 feet of clear space for pedestrian movement between the utility zone and the frontage zone. • Cluster benches and planters where space allows to create pocket refuges for pedestrians. Place trash receptacles near by but not close enough to create odor issues; near street corners would provide a sufficient number of receptacles with sufficient spacing in between. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 6 Recommendations to City Council The sidewalk right-of-way along Main and Pioneer streets in downtown Ridgefield needs to accommodate several functions, including room for: a) Frontage zone: canopy and merchandise display, cafe seating b) Through pedestrian zone c) Utility zone: street trees, utilities, and street furniture Funding and Implementation Recommendations The DAG Committee also recognized that funding is the key to implementation of street furniture installation that meets the new design guidelines. In order to maximize the impact of limited City funding for street furniture, the committee recommends that the City: • Initiate a pilot project funded by the City to install two new benches and a garbage can and to realign the existing planters in front of City Hall, to coincide with City Hall remodel in summer 2013. The City Hall installation can serve as an illustrative model of the streetscape recommendations, and will be a tangible accomplishment in downtown that implements, in part, years of planning efforts. • Allocate a portion of the City budget every year for street furniture, possibly as part of the Public Works budget, to gradually upgrade downtown amenities. Identify annual priorities for new or replacement street furniture needs based on the location and condition of existing furniture. - Location: Prioritize installation of benches outside civic locations, such as City Hall and the library, and along Pioneer and Main streets? Review placement of existing furniture to determine which locations merit replacement, as well as consider new locations for benches where furniture is needed. - Condition: Prioritize replacement of the more deteriorated benches based on inventory of existing benches. If locations no longer warrant a bench, remove benches and furniture at the end of their life cycle. • Engage business owners through a matching grant program administered by the City to split costs of furniture installation outside of businesses. Businesses wishing to install street furniture would apply to the City, and the City would pay half the installation costs, which 2 The committee also received recommendations from the public to install additional amenities at downtown parks, which will be forwarded to the Parks Board. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 7 Recommendations to City Council would stretch City funds to cover the installation of double the quantity of street furniture. The City -portion of the funds would be allocated on an annual basis from the general budget; applications would be reviewed based either on a first come, first-served model or scored based on location and condition factors described above. • Create a memorial donation program for community members to dedicate a bench in honor of loved ones, on downtown streets or local parks. Work with the Parks Board to implement and use the program created by the Parks Foundation of Clark County as a model. (http://www.parksfoundation.us/support/sponsor-a-bench) • Partner with local businesses to support benches and trash cans outside of their businesses. Develop info sheets for businesses wanting to install street furniture with guidelines on standard street furniture options and guidelines for custom features. In addition to sponsoring installation of the furniture, develop opportunity for adjacent businesses to support ongoing maintenance for street furniture through financial and in-kind donations. • Pursue additional grant funding for downtown streetscape improvements. Consider applying for CDBG funding through the County. Larger transportation grants can also include a streetscape element, if opportunities arise for projects along Pioneer and Main streets. • Consider the use of a Business Improvement District (BID)' to fund limited but high- priority streetscape improvements. Give the relatively small number of businesses and the scale of downtown businesses, the fund -generation capacity of the district is likely to be limited, but could be leveraged for targeted improvements with strong support from the business community. Additional consideration would need to be given to the administrative overhead for such a district relative to the funds it would raise; BIDS are typically created in larger communities but could be tailored to serve a smaller city with active volunteer and/or City support for administrative functions. Downtown Partners Vital to the success of past and future downtown efforts are local partners, including community groups and business groups. In particular, the continued, unified support of the downtown business owners, whether formally organized as an independent group or through more informal participation in ongoing City -sponsored initiatives, such as the DAG Committee, is key to future improvements. Potential partners for ongoing downtown efforts include: American Legion Post 44, Ridgefield: Veterans -focused group that installed Veteran's Memorial downtown. Fort Vancouver Regional Library District: Operates the Ridgefield Community Library downtown. Friends of Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge: Coordinates Bird Fest and smaller events in downtown throughout the year. Future partnerships could strengthen the connections ' Business Improvement Districts are formally known as parking and business improvement areas (PBIA) in Washington and are authorized under RCW 35.87A. For more information, see http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/econ/ed-bia.aspx. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 8 Recommendations to City Council between the Refuge and downtown through programs such as a wayfinding system, information kiosks, and touring routes, as well as thematic connections such as wildlife - themed art in downtown. • Port of Ridgefield: Partner in previous downtown/waterfront integration planning work and future partner as the waterfront develops and connections linking downtown and the waterfront evolve. • Ridgefield 4`b of July Committee: Coordinates largest annual event in downtown Ridgefield, drawing thousands of visitors to the district. • Ridgefield Art Association: Supports the arts throughout the community, including organizing art exhibits and events downtown. Could be a partner for developing future public art program. • Ridgefield Business Association: Supports business efforts throughout the city; future work could include downtown -specific business initiatives. • Ridgefield Community Center: Hosts range of civic and community events, drawing a significant number of event organizers and visitors to downtown. • Ridgefield Farmers Market: Hosts market every summer Saturday in the downtown parks; soon to relocate to Overlook Park. • Ridgefield Garden Club: Maintains downtown planters and provides holiday decorations; previous projects have included downtown amenities such as the clock and water fountain outside of City Hall and the community garden on Sargent Street. Raises funds through annual plant sale and coordinates volunteer effort • Ridgefield Lions Club: Provides financial support to a range of community initiatives, such as park amenities and school projects; could become a partner in sponsoring street furniture installation. • Ridgefield School District: Supports education, community recreation, and community events at its Union Ridge/View Ridge campus downtown. Consider partnering on future events as well as initiatives that involve students in downtown improvements, such as art installations. The City remains a strong champion for downtown, and will work to coordinate planning efforts, funding, and other support on downtown priorities. Directly, the City has the ability to fund and maintain downtown streetscape improvements. Additional City strengths include addressing downtown issues through governmental bodies such as City Council, Planning Commission and the Parks Board, as well as convening downtown -specific planning efforts between community stakeholders. Future support could also include administrative support for projects such as a Business Improvement District, and increased maintenance responsibility. Future Downtown Streetscape Priorities The committee's top recommendation is to focus next on downtown street lighting, in order to achieve both aesthetic and safety improvements. The committee recommends developing a downtown street lighting district, implementing standards for both auto- and pedestrian -oriented street lighting throughout downtown that fits with the community. Engineering Standards currently require streetlights but do not specify models for downtown. (Vol. 1, Section 2.26) Street lights Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 9 Recommendations to City Council would also need to be dark -skies compliant to comply with RDC 18.715. Related considerations should include banners on the light poles and installing mounting hooks for flower baskets. The DAG Committee's top recommendation for future downtown streetscape improvements is to develop downtown street lighting standards, integrating distinctive light styles, such as streetlights in downtown Troutdale which date back to the original Columbia River Gorge Highway (far left). Streetlights must also be dark - skies compliant to reduce light pollution and impacts to wildlife (see example at left). Additional priorities for future consideration are based on the committee's discussions and action items identified in the 2002 Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield and the Downtownl Waterfront Integration Prgject—Action Plan. In no particular order, ideas include: Review Planting and Maintenance Standards for Street Trees: Current standards identify the Dwarf Capital Pear for planting in downtown, and both the engineering standards and zoning code provide guidelines for tree planting, but do not require it for all downtown locations. Additional standards apply to placement, spacing, and maintenance. Future work could revisit the identified species, planting plans, installation specifics such as size of tree wells and use of tree grates, and ongoing maintenance plans. Revitalize Flower Basket Program: There are mounting hooks for hanging flower baskets installed in some downtown locations and flower baskets have been provided in years past. Develop partnership with the City, Garden Club, and downtown businesses to install and maintain flower baskets during the growing season. Install additional mounting hooks as needed. Flower baskets are a relatively low cost improvement with a significant impact, and should be prioritized. Bicycle Parking and Orientation: Identify bike rack styles for downtown and provide for bicycle parking throughout downtown. Could complement mapping and designation of local bike touring routes. Undergrounding of Overhead Wires: Undergrounding is required by the City Engineering Standards for new development and redevelopment, but there is not likely going to be enough development activity on the main downtown streets to complete the undergrounding through developer -funded site improvements. Securing a combination of public and private development funding will likely be necessary to complete undergrounding downtown. Clark Public Utilities will be an essential partner in this work, and may be able to assist with obtaining grant funding. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 10 Recommendations to City Council General Maintenance: Expand general maintenance plans to ensure downtown looks its best, with an emphasis on clean-ups prior to major community events like the 4`' of July. The City currently contracts for street cleaning on a quarterly basis; look at expanding the frequency of sweeping and eventually purchasing a street cleaner for the City. Organize volunteer work parties to remove weeds and clean sidewalks and curbs on a periodic basis to supplement street cleaning. Public Art Program: Look at ways to incorporate public art into downtown, either in the form of decorative street furniture or stand-alone works of art such as sculptures and murals. Work could include passing a "percentage for art" program to dedicate a percentage of the City's Capital Improvement Project funding to art installations and forming a committee to oversee the selection of artworks.; Holiday Lighting and Decorations: Develop partnership between the City, Garden Club, and downtown businesses to coordinate holiday decorating annually, incorporating plans for use and off-season storage of existing holiday decorations and purchase of new decorations as needed. Consider installing outdoor electrical outlets to support holiday lights. Conclusion The DAG committee's work was a successful process that identified street furniture recommendations for benches, trash receptacles, and planters. Next steps include: • Finalizing street furniture models with input from the Public Works Department. • Incorporating street furniture into the City Engineering Standards. • Initiating a pilot project to install street furniture in front of City Hall. • Developing additional funding options for street furniture installation. • Beginning planning work on a downtown street lighting district and further downtown planning priorities. a See http://-,vw,,v.pps.Org/reference/artfunding/ for more funding options. Note that the federal government requires a percentage of funding for public buildings to be used for public art. The state of Washington has a constitutional prohibition against using transportation funds obtained through the gas tax for public art, though Transportation Enhancement grants from the federal government—administered by the state—can be used for public art projects. Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 11 Recommendations to City Council Appendix A: Public Outreach Results The public outreach event held May 3 to gather community feedback about preferred benches was a success. There were three sample benches available and 116 people participated, providing feedback on bench preferences. The Craftsmen style was the most favorably received, and the comments focused on similar themes such as low -maintenance or comfort. Craftsmen Bench Materials of Sample: \Vooden slats, dark green metal. Votes 154 or 47% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents sel ting this reason Materials 16 30% Comfort 17 31% Design 18 33% "Fits" in Downtown Ridgefield 1 19 35% Other reasons: Prettiest; looks Ridgefield; on a hot day, no metal to sit on—that's good; traditional style; stays cool in sun; more antique -looking, fits into "Old Town" concept; paint it black; needs to appear more historic; best looking; maintenance; great bench design but needs lumbar support; likes the wood ones, with the curve; favorite color; green with recycled wood is nice looking; like the green metal and gold medallion; like the wide arms for coffee or an arm, but the back is uncomfortable, needs more slope; back is too straight though; looks sturdy; is like Bob's Automotive flag bench; seems durable; great support, good combination of wood and metal; fits town but didn't feel comfortable Note: Respondents could choose multiple reasons for selecting agi»en bench, tbus percentages exceed 100% total. Other comments: • Be sure to keep wood nice. • Need wider seat for better comfort. • Care and maintenance might be a problem. • 22 comments to use recycled plastic slats rather than wood. Appendix A Public Outreach Results Page A-1 Broadway Bench Materials of Sample: Recycled plastic slats and red metal Votes 123 or 20% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents sel ting this reason Materials 10 43% Comfort 11 48% Design 8 35% "Fits" in Downtown Ridgefield 4 17% Other reasons: Once in job is done—no, low maintenance; should be easy care; Long lasting materials; need low maintenance; higher than the other two; recycled/low maintenance would be best; easy to clean, made of recycled material; low maintenance; looks easy to maintain; good feel; more comfortable. Other comments: • Wood would be high maintenance, like the composite material. • Too frail looking. e Multiple comments in favor of red color. Staff comments: Strong color preference might have swayed votes in favor in this bench. Ease of maintenance also appears to have been a key consideration. Appendix A Page A-2 Public Outreach Results Renaissance Bench Materials of Sample: Black metal Votes 129 or 25% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents sele ting this reason Materials 11 33% Comfort 10 33% Design 13 41% "Fits" in Downtown Ridgefield 1 7 19% Other reasons: Maintenance; matches light posts; better back; lasts longer; timeless design; it is a classic style and timeless color; upkeep; not mixing metal and wood— feng shui; back slants back a little --great; sturdy, old-fashioned; smash it and it would be perfect; like the looks; easy to maintain; looks good; comfortable to sit on, least maintenance; little or no maintenance with metal -vandalism reduced; design and style fit the early 1900-1940 architecture. Other comments: • Love the bench, most comfortable but may get too hot. • Classic "Ironworks." Staff comments: Bench did feel warm by mid-afternoon on a hot, sunny day, but not unbearable. Appendix A Page A-3 Public Outreach Results Greenway Bench Materials of Sample: Recycled plastic version installed in Davis Park; picture provided at event. Votes 6 or ° n Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents selectin this reason Materials 2 33% Comfort 2 33% Design 4 67% "Fits" in Downtown Ridgefield 1 1 17% Other reasons: No metal to get hot; best material. Other comments: None. Staff comments: Few people made the trek to Davis Park to check out the existing bench, so this bench likely wasn't a serious contender. Appendix A Page A-4 Public Outreach Results Additional Observations General comments from public: • Height makes a difference—makes it better for retired folks. • Place benches with thought and purpose and usefulness. • Please try and find local vendor. • One color throughout the downtown creates a cohesive look. • Install at least 4 or 5 along Pioneer and 1". • Would like to see them installed. • No metal. • We need more benches for our seniors and disabled. • Add picnic tables—at least three—to Davis Park. • Change colors throughout the town. • The more benches around town the better. • Towers to hang full flower baskets. • Thank you. There were an additional 4 (39/6) Undecided/Other responses. Location: On the map of downtown Ridgefield, respondents marked locations primarily along Main and Pioneer streets, and at the parks. Colors: Although respondents were not specifically asked about color preferences, many respondents commented on colors they would like to see: • Red: 13 mentions • Black: 9 mentions • Green: 4 mentions • Purple: 2 mentions • Orange: 1 mention • Blue: 1 mention Appendix A Page A-5 Public Outreach Results C) 10 W p H N W (.D Z C) Q � J n 0 Z W a a Q „, DUf R IELD Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................,........................................1-1 2. BACKGROUND...................................................................,.......................................2-1 2.1 GOAL OF THIS PROJECT.................................................................................................2-1 3. HISTORIC INVENTORY.............................................................................................3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 INITIAL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................3-1 3.3 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................3-3 4. PRESERVATION GOALS.......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 GOALS IN 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.......................................................................4-1 4.2 DOWNTOWN PRESERVATION PLANNING GOALS........................................................4-2 5. FUNDING RESOURCES............................................................................................ 5.1 List of Tables Table 4-1. Preservation Goals and Implementation Steps........................................................4-6 Appendices Appendix A. How -To Documents May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield i 1. INTRODUCTION Inhabited by native peoples for centuries, the Ridgefield area was settled by Euroamerican families in the middle 1800's. After the Civil War, the area built up rapidly, and became known as Union Ridge. The post office was established in September of 1865 in the home and small trading post of the first postmaster, Asa Richardson. Commerce became more established in 1882 when Stephen Shobert and J.J. Thompson opened the first store. The 1890 name change to "Ridgefield" was even more formalized at a special election held in 1909 when the people decided by a vote of 62-12 to incorporate as the City of Ridgefield. Ridgefield is a community whose heritage is deeply connected to the water and the land. As the gateway to the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge and a key entry point to the Columbia River, Ridgefield offers unparalleled access to prime examples of the Pacific Northwest way of life. Knowledge of Ridgefield's history can provide a context in which to understand current growth and development trends, and to affirm a sense of continuity and community. The City of Ridgefield has made considerable efforts to invest in and invigorate its downtown. The design of the downtown has successfully encouraged pedestrian activities, shopping, and tourism. The City participated in the 1999-2000 historic inventory project overseen by Clark County Community Development. Since that time, the City has been closely involved with projects in the downtown, the establishment of Overlook Park, and the creation of the 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield and the Downtown Ridgefield Walking Map. With this Preservation Plan, the City of Ridgefield has completed the planning portion of a project to promote and advance historic preservation in downtown Ridgefield. Funded by a grant through Clark County, the Preserving Downtown Ridgefield Project aimed to energize local business and property owners to preserve the historic heritage and quality of Downtown. As part of this project, a booklet of resources and "How -To" documents was compiled for property owners and staff with information about what it means to list property on the Clark County Heritage Register, the National Register of Historic Places, or both, and how to do it (see Appendix A). A basic reconnaissance -level survey of the downtown core was completed evaluating the potential for a commercial historic district and identifying the properties with immediate potential for listing on historic registers. This Preservation Plan for downtown Ridgefield is built upon the findings of' the reconnaissance survey, the discussion during previous planning projects, a public meeting that was held in 2010, and the context of previous downtown planning efforts. These findings are not intended to stand alone. The recommendations contained herein should be integrated with the concurrent planning effort for the downtown and the waterfront. Historic preservation, and the action steps in this report should be incorporated with new plan and direction for the downtown. May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 1-1 2. BACKGROUND The cultural and historic resources of a community tell the story of its past and make any single community distinct from other places. These resources provide tangible connections to the people and events that have shaped our communities and our collective histories. Historic preservation and landmark designation also generate a wide range of economic benefits, including heritage tourism, tax incentives, and the jobs and businesses associated with the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of vintage buildings. Given the growing recognition of the energy embodied in existing traditional downtowns and older neighborhoods, historic revitalization is today increasingly viewed as synonymous with sustainability. Preserving the physical reminders of our past creates a sense of place and focuses community pride. In Clark County and in Ridgefield, there has been a great deal of discussion about how to create livable and sustainable communities through compact, mixed land use patterns. This discussion includes the concepts of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood design, among others. A consistent theme in these dialogues is the goal of attaining a community core that has a human scale, a pedestrian orientation, and an area of mixed retail, business, residential, and civic uses. This pattern has existed historically in cities of all sizes for hundreds of years, and can be seen today in the core of virtually every community, including downtown Ridgefield. A traditional downtown concentrates people close to many of their daily needs, promotes a mix of transportation modes, and offers alternatives to sprawl. Furthermore, concentrating growth in existing areas conserves resources and maximizes public investment in infrastructure. These goals are supported by the County's Historic Preservation program and by goals adopted as part of the City of Ridgefield Comprehensive Growth Management Flan. The City of Ridgefield is engaged in numerous events and projects in support of the historic downtown. In addition to the heritage events listed below, the City also participates, through interlocal agreement, with the County Historic Preservation program. Preservation -minded organizations in Ridgefield include: The Heritage Committee, Friends of the Ridgefield Library, Friends of the Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge, Ridgefield Art Association, and the Ridgefield Business Association. Events include commemorative Heritage Days, which celebrate the City's history through various activities throughout downtown Ridgefield featuring antique photos, fire engines and farming equipment, genealogical exhibits, and the popular Old Timers Panel. Other events with historic elements are the City's Hometown Celebration, Garden Club Plant Sale, Art: Association Sale, Cruise - In, Fourth of July Parade, National Night Out, Port of Ridgefield Annual Picnic, and Bird Fest. 2.1 GOAL OF THIS PROJECT The goal of this project is to provide a detailed Downtown Preservation Plan. This Plan addresses the importance of the area in the history of Ridgefield, increases the ability of owners to May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 2-1 rehabilitate historic structures, and recommends updates to development standards and review procedures that are applicable to the District's unique character. This project provides: ■ Goals and objectives, ■ Recommended amendments to development review, ■ Identification of eligible structures, and discussion of the potential for historic districts, ■ Information and assistance to owners of historic properties, and ■ Recommendations for funding additional preservation work. Attendees at public meetings about the present and future of Ridgefield's downtown in 2010 commented about how they see the area, identified its strengths and weaknesses, and described the opportunities and threats to preserving its historic character. Historic preservation was frequently suggested as one of the primary principles with which to guide downtown development. The vision of a well-preserved downtown reflects the community's desire to strengthen the character and cohesion of the area, and promote its economic viability with heritage. The goals are focused on property owner and resident education, increasing the number of properties on the historic registers, and improving regulatory protections. For each goal, Table 1 provides a list of implementation steps along with an estimated time frame for when the steps could be completed. 2.2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 3. HISTORIC INVENTORY Properties in downtown Ridgefield were surveyed for their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Determination of eligibility for the National Register is the appropriate methodology for historic surveys and is also used as the preliminary determination of eligibility to the Clark County and the Washington State Heritage registers. Holly Chamberlain and Derek Chisholm surveyed the area in early May, setting study area boundaries. Chamberlain returned to the area and completed a detailed assessment which is summarized below. Derek Chisholm and Holly Chamberlain are local architectural historians and preservation planners. Chisholm has served on the Board of Directors of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, has been a speaker at the National Preservation Conference and teaches a class in Historic Preservation at Washington State University, Vancouver. Chamberlain was appointed to the Governor's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and served as Vice Chair of the Clark County Historic Preservation Commission. Together, they have nearly four decades of experience in preservation planning and historic rehabilitation. 3.1 OVERVIEW The study area for the field survey included the commercial buildings within the downtown area of Ridgefield. Centered on Main and Pioneer, the area also included surrounding blocks, south to Sargent Street, north to Mill Street, and east to 5th Avenue. Presently, there are 142 Ridgefield or Ridgefield "vicinity" properties inventoried. The information is archived at the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and available for viewing on line through DAHP's "WISAARD" tool (http://www.dahp.wa.gov/pages/ wisaardIntro.htm). Of these, 27 are located very close to the commercial study area roughly centered at Pioneer and Main, while 12 are within commercial core. According to Clark County Community Planning's website, the Shobert House at 415 Shobert Street is the only property currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the vicinity of the study area (http://www.clark.wa.govZ long ran eg_plan,/historic/sites.htm1). Project staff reviewed the inventory information on line, visited the inventoried properties in person, and conducted a basic reconnaissance -level assessment of other buildings in the area. 3.2 INITIAL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS While there are many buildings within the study area which contribute to understanding the history of Ridgefield, there are not sufficient numbers with a high enough level of architectural integrity close enough together to form an historic district. Typical character - changing alterations include window and storefront replacements and application of siding over historic material. Some individual properties are likely eligible for the Clark County Heritage Register and/or the National Register of Historic Places. These properties are listed below. M3y 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 3.1 104 N Main Ave. Built: c. 1910 Historic uses: Ridgefield State Bank, Independent Order of Odd Fellows Lodge (fraternal organization), furniture store, hardware and paints store. Current uses: True Value Hardware (retail store), Country Insurance and Financial Services (office). An historic photograph compared with a contemporary view indicates that 104 N. Main Avenue has received few alterations over the years. Located at a prominent intersection, and survivor of a 1916 fire which destroyed much of downtown, this building has played an important historic role as community social and commercial center. 304 Pioneer Built: c. 1918 Historic uses: Greeley's Ford Garage, auto sales showroom and repair, Ridgefield School District bus barn. Current use: Ridgefield School District Maintenance Shop. Built c. 1918 by farmer -turned automobile salesman Charles Henry Greeley (spelled Greely in some sources), this building has had a strong connection with transportation in Ridgefield since its construction. Greeley lived in Clark County from at least 1907, and branched out from farming to selling agricultural implements by 1912. He built another auto sales and repair facility in Vancouver in c. 1920. By 1930, Greeley had left the auto business and had returned to farming. In the 1940s, the building was owned by Harold Patee who operated the Patee Garage. The school district purchased the property in the 1950s. 3.2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 113 S. Main Street Built: 1884 Historic use: Union Ridge Church, The Presbyterian Church of Ridgefield, Community Church of Ridgefield. Current use: Bell Tower Cathedral wedding chapel and special event center. Built by community subscription, this was the first church structure in Ridgefield, and it retains many of the original architectural features included by builders Shobert and Forcia. An important symbol of spiritual life within the community, it has also been used as a community gathering spot. In 1928, students met here for classes after the school building burned down. 230 Pioneer Street Built: c. 1920 Historic Use: Ridgefield State Bank Current Use: Ridgefield City Hall The Ridgefield State Bank is historically important for having been a relatively large bank (in terms of its financial holdings) for a relatively small community. In c. 1930, the bank was purchased by Ed Firstenburg, who converted it into a branch of First Independent Bank. This financial institution -turned city hall is an example of adaptive re -use. 3.3 CONCLUSION While an historic district meeting National Register or Clark County register standards is not likely to be created at this time, there is a core historic area which should be commemorated in other ways. Extant vintage buildings represent the historical development of the town. While these structures may not retain a high enough level of architectural integrity to qualify for a landmark May 201 C Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 3.3 register, they contribute greatly to the small-town streetscape and help communicate the past. Additional research would provide sufficient information to update the existing interesting walking tour brochure and/or create historic plaques or other interpretive elements. The owners of the four properties identified above should be provided with a property owners handbook (Appendix A). Additionally, there are two residential areas near the downtown with a strong potential for historic district eligibility. These areas should be the subject of future studies, as is recommended in the following action items. 3-4 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 4. PRESERVATION GOALS Ridgefield has excellent historic assets in its downtown. The community character of the downtown has been very well preserved. It is vitally important to the future of Ridgefield that the downtown maintain its historic sense of place. This can be achieved by appropriate rehabilitation of the vintage buildings and by mindful development of vacant sites. The 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield report should be studied and applied during the development review of new construction, street design, etc. The City has adopted preservation - related goals as part of previous planning projects. The following goals are adopted as part of the City's 2008 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. These goals were listed under Land Use (LU) and Historic Preservation (HP). 4.1 GOALS IN 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4.1.1 LU -8 Design Guidelines Utilize the report titled 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield, by adopting it and integrating it with development review and strategic planning. 4.1.2 LU -10 Downtown Design Ensure that the existing strengths of Downtown Ridgefield and the Waterfront areas are maintained: ■ Orientation and access to the Lake River shoreline ■ Continued use of Floating Homes along Lake River ■ Comfortable, "Main Street" feeling ■ Pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access 4.1.3 HP -1 Partnerships for Historic Preservation Partner with Clark County to provide a strong historic and archaeological preservation program. 4.1.4 HP -2 Identify and Protect Resources Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that: have historical or archaeological significance. 4.1.5 HP -3 Education Programs Raise public awareness of cultural resources by creating educational and interpretive projects that highlight sites included on the county inventory or those eligible for inclusion in local or state heritage registers, or the National Register of Historic Places. 4.1.6 HP -4 Rehabilitate Historic Structures Provide assistance to developers, landowners, and the construction trade regarding appropriate re -use and rehabilitation of identified historic sites and buildings. Provide assistance to developers, landowners, and others interested in obtaining grants and receiving available tax incentives for re- use and rehabilitation of identified historic sites and buildings. May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 4-1 4.1.7 HP -5 Downtown Historic District Explore the benefits of a downtown historic district. Benefits will include flexible building codes, reduced assessments, and more. 4.1.8 HP -6 History Tours Develop guided and self -guided tours which highlight cultural and historic resources in Ridgefield. Many of these existing goals have been addressed, but require ongoing implementation. These goals are refined in the section below, based on the new survey information, and formatted for incorporation into the current Downtown Planning project. 4.2 DOWNTOWN PRESERVATION PLANNING GOALS The goals listed above have been reviewed. These existing goals, recent public input, and the results of the field survey have been considered in the development of the goals below. Each of the goals in Table 4-1 will provide downtown with continued momentum for improvement and economic stability through maintaining and improving individual buildings and a cohesive neighborhood scale in the downtown. More about each goal is provided below: 1. Provide education and involvement in Downtown Ridgefield history This goal is intended to raise the profile of the historic nature of downtown by reaching out to groups through information and recreation. Making historic details accessible via several avenues will ensure a wide audience is reached. Some implementation steps, such as sign blade toppers are passive and yet provide a hint of information that piques the interest of visitors to the downtown. More intensive methods cater to those already interested but wanting to know more, such as the walking tours and sidewalk installations. Each approach aims at continuing to stimulate interest in downtown history. 2. Provide education about preservation tools and resources Providing education and tools will facilitate getting more properties preserved. There are few implementation steps included herein for this goal because the "How -To Guidebook" has already been created as a great starting place for people needing preservation resources. It would also be beneficial for City of Ridgefield staff, who frequently work with property owners, to attend historic preservation training. The City has adopted the Washington State Historic Building Code (WAC 51-19). This code (or the International Existing Building Code) should be routinely employed to provide flexibility for historic rehabilitations. 3. Increase number of properties listed on the Clark County and National Historic Registers The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the creation of the National Register of Historic Places as a means of recognizing sites and structures associated with significant people or events in our nation's history. Ridgefield also participates in the Clark County Historic Preservation Program and, with it, the Clark County Heritage 4.2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield qday 2010 Register. Both the National and the local historic registers provide some level of protection for historic properties and valuable assistance for their rehabilitation. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) performs the functions of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) which were established by the National Historic Preservation Act. Demolition of historic buildings would detract from the historic character of downtown. In fact, the downtown has so few in -tact historic resources, that the loss of only one of two of them may forever undermine the identity and charm of the downtown. Recognizing properties that are listed on registers with plaques easily readable by the public will further elevate the interest in Ridgefield history and the success of Ridgefield in the future. 4. Establish zoning ordinance protections Another goal that will aid in prevention of demolition and help maintain and potentially improve the historic character in downtown is the establishment of a historic preservation district. As explained above, there is not currently a consistent cluster of eligible buildings, as would be necessary for the formation of a historic district. Overlay zones, however, can define appropriate design, scale, and materials for remodeling and new construction projects, without requiring the establishment of an historic district. Numerous similar issues will be addressed by the Downtown/ Waterfront Integration Planning Project. The City has previously enlisted support in developing downtown design guidelines. However, these guidelines have not been fully implemented as part of a design review program. The Downtown/ Waterfront Project will balance economic development, streamlining and design issues, and develop a recommendation, with accompanying code language, for how to conduct development reviews in the downtown. The code should address preservation of historic structures, and integrating new structures into the historic setting. 5. Encourage appropriate rehabilitation and restoration Goal 5 is intended to work in concert with Goals 1, 2, and 3, but is more focused on getting actual improvement projects underway and completed downtown. The City may want to consider setting a more defined goal with a dollar amount in investment: (i.e., $50,000 private investment: per year in rehabilitation or restoration work) as an annual objective for this goal. Implementation steps include recognizing and thanking property owners for their work, educating staff to facilitate the review processes for historic rehabilitation projects, and potentially retaining services of historic resource experts for review processes or education. 6. Consolidate commercial opportunities It is not the task of the Preservation Planning Project to assess market demand or the adequacy of local zoning. However, a well-preserved downtown is very likely to be an May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 4.3 economically vibrant downtown. In many cities the greatest benefit to the downtown can be had from limiting the amount of commercial development outside of the downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan reports the following total commercial land within the City limits, for the year 2004. There is additional land zoned for eventual commercial development, outside of the City limits. It is clear from the totals below that there is far more commercial property than the mere 21 acres zoned City Center. Commercially- 620 acres (in city limits) zoned property: 391 vacant and underutilized General 246 acres Commercial: Neighborhood 47 acres Commercial: City Center: 21 acres The City's Comprehensive Plan acknowledges two distinct commercial areas: downtown and the I-5 interchange. These two areas can serve distinct purposes and complement one another. However, there should not be so much commercially -zoned land at the interchange that the downtown is unable to attract business, or loses its position as the heart of the City. More importantly, the City should reconsider the provision of commercial land at the 45th Avenue roundabout. Developing this area as a commercial node would further diminish the viability of the downtown area. 7. Establish residential historic district(s) The reconnaissance survey of downtown found the potential for one or two residential historic districts nearby. Implementation steps for Goal 6 pursue this finding with the aim of creating one or more residential historic districts. A formal survey will be needed for this goal, and there is an opportunity if districts are formed to create design goals for the districts, further strengthening and protecting the character of the area. Revenues for the surveys can be won from the DAHP annual CLG grants or from the Clark County Historical Promotions Grant program. The areas include small stretches along North Main and another on Maple Street, are depicted on the map below. 4.4 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 f fi 1 , Ali c �r AV H18 - 3 nV� Hl$---. CD cn d 3 AV HIL. _ tQ` 3 Abd• H l$ CDw f �+ Q w d uj z N Q z3nv Hid N ° a z- J Z Msg 0 � cr N Q 3nb'•�aE '.�v��..�=JJ 777 r • U) �"'�f3A'if,NIVW— LuI and is cn CO) Li a 00 N O) m m O O) m 0) .-- N M V m m m — N cM V LO C C C C C C C M M co M C C C LO (O CO CO CO t0 C C C C C C C C C C C O C N C,4 N_ C N N C C C C C C C _N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U N N U U U U U U U U U N N N N c c_ 30 i C:) O_ .- O O �_ 0 0 0 0 O— O O O O O O O O O O O O —0-0-00 O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (M 14' LO N CO — N M V .-- N M V — N M — N cM V LO M M co M LO (O CO CO CO t0 C .2 O O O a - ccs a ca O ❑ a c c_ 30 C C > a C a) a0 T a) 0'M a) C 0 a w o.0 o) cm o0 C7 ca tfs 0 o ca > c vv m i C, (i a) o o a) :t-- mam E a>i n `a o 0 C U m c Q .o a) o a) 3 n. o" a) O" o E m c in o Q C O a y o .0 m V) a) � Q a) E a a N m o a) fn U) m 2 co (6 w E a) L >` 7 N co O 3 to N 0 C O ) O C U E O` n 3 Na 0 a t M 0 M L (C �' o O � a o " c x 00 U a) a O C '-00 " m cn a 3 U o °) Z U a) o in O m •o a) 4) m 0 N c>o '> c 3 o N s m o `O N "a) C N O .(n _ Y a) 0 U O _ >, m m _� U C O O E C L O O C m C_ N cn 'U p 0 0» y O C O 0 " C. N a) a) O_ `O N a) L YO C c m O a m N U C a L o o aEi 0 :° � `a° a a aa)) > a) o m a in ns > m ami c v a 3 0 2 cu `m 0 ca a a� .m a) ,n aci O O -0 Co CU N m _c > N 00) U) fl. m a) a, a) a a " a T o) m L O — 7 N a) �_ O a) � a) N cu 'c a) � a) y ` a L3 .0 E � 7 o c` c a) m o a) U � fa CD . — o o — c T m a U d a" a m L) a) c m a c � N a U) m 0 c° Q) d o `� o o `m 0 ami (D ��❑�; �¢ aci ¢�Uo a") �wa� ❑U❑U a"i awn_ uNi 0 <❑aUa N M V LO — N M 7 N M V 7 N M V 7 N M 7 N M V to �- c- .- N N N M M M m V V V V In In In w w O w w 7 .fl C M a) C: CO 0- 0 UO 7C - O oir N N � U a N7 2 u) a o. m Cl) a) a 0 U m N�C O O CL N 2-S O_ N aE m QC �_ o a) a) L U ❑ E V c O cc a) O co cn Q oa Q C a) N c 4) O co �° 0 O cu UL cm w U 0 N L m Me 0 N T R X - co v 5. FUNDING RESOURCES There are limited resources available for private property rehabilitations. Public buildings have a few additional options. These are outlined below. There are also resources available to assist the City with continuing the preservation project. 5.1 CLARK COUNTY HISTORIC PROMOTIONS GRANT This Preservation Plan was funded in the 2009 annual cycle of this program. The program has annual funds which can be used for the study of the recommended residential districts, the installation of historic exhibits, and other projects. The deadline for submittals is each September. The City and its partners should track the awards made in 2010, and determine if funds are available in 2011 for activities such as these. The contact is Troy Rayburn in the Clark County Commissioners Office. 5.2 DAHP CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS With passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, Congress provided funding for preservation endeavors, including a program of matching grants to the states. To provide a regular source of revenue, the law established the Historic Preservation Fund in the U.S. Treasury with proceeds derived from the federal leasing of offshore oil drilling sites. These funds are distributed to State Historic Preservation Offices on an annual basis. States use the funds for the historic preservation activities specified in federal laws and regulations. Among these are conducting surveys to identify historically, architecturally, archaeologically, and culturally - significant resources, nominating these to the National Register of Historic Places, and carrying out a program of comprehensive preservation planning. Because these activities are also intended to meet local historic preservation needs, states are authorized to award 10% of their annual grant from the Historic Preservation Fund to grantees interested in participating in the state programs through the Certified Local Government Program. The 10% pass- through grant funds are awarded annually on a competitive basis. The Certified Local Government Program (CLG) helps local governments toward preserving Washington's irreplaceable historic and cultural resources as assets for the future. In Washington, the CLG program is implemented and administered by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). Many local units of government use the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) grants to conduct architectural and historical or archaeological surveys to accumulate data for comprehensive planning. Frequently, their motivation is to identify significant districts and individual properties that are eligible for listing on a local, state or national landmark register. Some municipalities conduct prehistoric or historic surveys and/or sponsor the preparation of National Register historic district nominations in order to enable property owners to take advantage of the federal tax credits and/or state Special Tax Valuation program that can result from May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 5.1 National Register listing. CLGs also use grant funds to develop design guidelines for locally -designated resources and historic districts. HPF grants can also be used for preservation planning activities. Communities typically use the grant funds to educate property owners about historic preservation through brochures, web sites, school curriculum development, and walking tours. The HPF grant amount varies year-to- year based on the dollar amount granted to DAHP. During each of the last five years, the average amount DAHP has been able to grant has been approximately $100,000. The average amount of each individual grant is approximately $9,000. The City of Vancouver pursues these grants annually and uses the funds for historic surveys. The City of Ridgefield should coordinate with Clark County's preservation staff person and the City of Vancouver's Community Planning Department in order to position itself for a grant in 2011. 5.3 M.J. MURDOCK CHARITABLE TRUST In 2006, the Murdock Trust, headquartered in Vancouver, put over $29 million into the economy in the form of grants and enrichment programs. Founder Jack Murdock's desire to "nurture and enrich the educational, spiritual, cultural, and social lives of individuals, families, and communities" continues to be reflected in grants, enrichment programs, and Trust activities to this day. Organizations involved in advancing culture and the arts are welcome to apply for funding each year, as are projects targeted to elevating human services, health, and health care in the region. In most cases, awarded funds are at work for the benefit of the people living and contributing in the Pacific Northwest, just as Jack Murdock did, although some are made beyond the five -state region of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington to foster the commerce of national and international ideas in the Pacific Northwest. Applications for grants are considered from organizations which have been ruled to be tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and which are not private foundations as defined in Section 509(a) of the Code. Charitable organizations applying for support must have in hand such IRS documentation of status. Of major interest are organizations and projects that are not primarily or normally financed by tax funds. 5.4 WASHINGTON TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, VALERIE SIVINSKI "WASHINGTON PRESERVES" GRANTS The Valerie Sivinski Washington Preserves Fund is an annual grant program that provides up to $2,000 to organizations involved in historic preservation around our state. The goal of the fund is to provide small yet meaningful amounts of money to help promote historic preservation where it really happens - at the community level. Awards are given in the name of Valerie Sivinski, a preservationist who died in October 2000 while performing preservation -related work. Examples of eligible projects include purchasing materials or services for "bricks and mortar" projects to 5-2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield hay 2010 preserve a property or producing publications and/or interpretive elements that promote historic preservation of a specific resource. Highest priority will be given to projects that are urgent in nature, contribute significantly to the development of community preservation organizations, and/or are included in the Trust's Most Endangered Historic Properties list. Project work must conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and must comply with local design guidelines when applicable. 5.5 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT A Business Improvement District (BID) assesses businesses or buildings in a specific geographic area to pay for program development or capital improvements such as parking. Property owners or businesses within the BID contribute money based on an assessment to a fund that is normally managed by a non-profit agency. Several cities, including Portland, have formed BIDS to promote downtowns and main street districts. BIDS can be funded through a variety of sources. The most straightforward source is an assessment based on building value or business square footage. Commonly, the City or a non-profit organization can implement property management license fees that are managed. The costs of BIDs vary depending on the reach of the plan and the businesses that join. Typically, commercial BID members pay ten to fifteen cents per square foot. Local Improvement District (LID) is a well-established mechanism whereby benefiting property owners are assessed to pay the cost of a major public improvement (including parking). An LID is a property tax assessment that requires "buy -in" by property owners within a specifically identified boundary. LIDS usually result as a consequence of a petition process requiring a majority of owners to agree to an assessment for a specific purpose. LIDs are a common funding tool used by municipalities. 5.6 OTHER City of Ridgefield General Fund Private donations May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 5-3 APPENDIX A How -To Documents Q Z W U) LU r 7 r -q LJ (!) W Z I w 0 D n Iq 0 O N r) J w H W D ry C m N v 0 � c V j � W o = �'� A � � L �� a g�„ c �, � -s �� 3� Ifl h O.M I[1 h O, M m h P � M 0 h O O O O O N N N N N M M M M M L- N 0 O c O dJ CL O° q f0 Q v � ai E L C C O G Li w E p N c_ L u an 3E n ° di c c c A T 41 f6 q w 0 d r m Q m O. p c O m v df c Ofl c. O N M a L � � Y a m N C m � H L to m m ~ 4 m r N M V Ln 41 a N N N N N fQ t V L- 0 O O dJ f0 C C C lo: = q C 3 N L- •G: o m c c m O A 0 41 f6 `O W E tea, c O u° in v"Oi M o, L L C m � H d7 N M V of 4 m M M M M M ffS L u ga YEr$ u q a $ w w v c 5 S d oat m t c o n n c c o c A v 5 >.o Y v c E S i 4 L 5 r ° o� w _N E 2 O G~ 3 d1 d >. N V a N V L 4 N CLVOT O. E p on OW •up n A W '� � _ � C W N � 3 y V � M u u G 4 L w O C L vVi A 5 0 A oc^n d t'7 n y C M p� Z O C V n« vi d y O u In, C O A 5 c A R W ; o c w o. c .°{ S a 3 c m c mS p« v in 42 n o n 3 "C 3: �_. O � « O C � � •W « O L � L W H .4 N .0 a1 V y a q � y O O E a 'v o'n a v w n w wT r r 3 v o c ` ET CL 1 p°« o Y >. •> >� yAj d a H >. > > j �' •o A v >. C �' W O E a a >. N C N > m y v'+ > 5 n a n 9 y i CI « 'O W iO N N O iL C o N A N « 3 °i A c A w N o A° 5 5 v o o E y>"° _o n v E v v 5 ° N u c ° o v « c N E a a c `n v� m« cL�+ v '^ c n c v 5 q v = L u a v C 5 A y y w« ` c n w v A 5 £OL o m io d Co $u L mic .Q v .� y n u v o m V Cc --8C Wy c=C j yOu v c u ti o ocn d t b' o o_ '^ o v E A t — v d n y: r n,E0„ v ,�u� c E 'c° S o c 4.1�c 5 v c c v F r 4,o< 3 EdE o .. (u on °" v u z c °" m o c c c m o 3o % E y d> c S o u A o c 5 v N% E N v x E? v v A 3 v v o a °vim y A y m o ao a t c 5 Oo 75?.s E42w& H u '" c o u u o R v L ,cu o m A `o wn 1L- - d 5 iL- : A E m 5 m A � a E '._" ' o� 'c o > `-' �« E E S v •o v 5 c = c i E •' �^ y E c °" E E v«° a 4 w vo E-0 vnLEwu LrR3 v yc vo€ auE> ac3 sLq cvc iactl iaM°+ 2`G .rocco, tw 75 " w y Ev E V 0 3 a cmE u=o v n°ACout a s o i oi v on aai o a E a E 4 > L E = v A y C Ey G d u d L E y K p C O OCiL t C L b� v y U A N O C 011 N O V u t al v u L C- H .9 E O w w• rvOi '� d O W N c" 3i c w Y c a Y A 3 0 > A $ m a 3 w o w w E a= n W = U V N v C d b Y ~ C d = d Q V 0 M W ^ y R K C d O V~ L O vi W n N dl O W i H L O J 2 d �`. H p a°. C O C m u t o .L. o o v c _. U E a d E Ir =o v° e E a c c t'° E o> p v '^ y n c Q$ �^ `w u$ d n '° v E A 10 N o S u `itl' '^ v o E u w N E Y r w u a E w: Y = .y $ v o w E v •5 2 ` ai u u a v> o w o c E E R o °1 R E n v= v '� a ° O W L.L.. $ i, o= u u u a E 3 b E n„ E>> °c o=n d ¢ vp 3 t .................................... w 0 a N o o n y E` $ _ 4 O --n c R E w F A S o o v E Q c 0i 0 %n v o E E--- E o v .. v C >O R R v 4Oi c .. .A. N o u N o O W u V t y .y N 0 L .� E C n O L Y n °' =" u d d d OJ1c o O E u o N u c c q? p v N $ m c Z' O 1, A V J 0 C A r O id w U •s ..0. y is G 0 >. j v c w L v i OO L V " O di A c R L '§ c$ u I A w —> € = `^- �a rn v u C a u O as A A v R `o v vc v R N v = o C o A v O y E v 4i O y C 'u° y s u o v �' nc o w C N v 1co v °N = V C ^• `1 c 8c c 'm E A iC L .0 6 O A a R N c v o F° $ C 3 W lib€ O 018 Q.Q E °' B °" E o> 3 n d E c w E C C C C N Q A 10i1 0! A O O '� W = O A L _:..................................: Y n a v .. 0 q H N d i u 41 O y w 3 L N C CL N > C d :::f3 L n$> > C C O U K A C V E o E y R111 °' o a� L V A t Vi vREi a m g v 0 Q1u ON 0ly wd t 0 > N `o u c0.nAN d O NE° , d .0+ i a y a a c3 a; E 8 ,L° `w m `• A L m c w a1 a m a+ c y E a 10 c 1O Z o S o> o c v u w w_ u $ Z n l7 c w u R •OO �^ y A d Y A C 0+1 W +S' N N S d L V N G W y m .o. N n vu, a o E c .= v y C C u .o. m .iu.. w 71 d CI C C, O N E V E W F >. N 'O R A V- 0 E w 011 U O C O N O d C f a R V O W v d1 R V a ``o c E w `u v 1c c u 3 t' N N y n c E& o O Y "' N V a C M O = d w V A N 3 A W w A A d C o � C2^ O d v v C a W Q O C Q = w W Y L pOi1 C C C R N 2 ~ C E o =° n n o X s- w v T E vC c No O '�N ai R vvcuE$ L E�o v Ec o E $ -wpu>O3 c um 0. e% Z$ v Oo $o 22 cauR u nu o E c- a u uO 3 c ........................................................................................................................................................................ 41 uta 02� _ae ��Mgtl u EI & C : " d C utr� a'o °bY Y E".°ter L. :....................................................................................................................................................................... A ........................... H ................................................................................................................................... Ul i42 i o O c F c o t ° O « p yo a O v m ,y p O E_ iJ V� n. L V d 0 3 y 0 E �' c •'^ E O C V d �, E y E t J a E o di G y �M > y V o G L � N O N •� +O' O G S Y L Y ? Y v N E0 OCE o o 41-2 v o CL v a v " ° � t •H > '� c v � i n °^ � 3 a > m = � ° n °c v m a •0> N � v` a E e° m C cV -O C :......................... ....................... .......... ::.......................... ............. .......... ..................................... .......................... .................. : on p Q N y C 21 a all c wN y v v �c N o�_ a c c v O A a Y N E t7 N « c E 3 `o N A E 'o t 0 ° Y c o '^ >« c E o a c v N w= w c V J J m a ui a v a « C L w C E m y �o 3 A m O V n o v a c E v e c C r G ;° v N q Y N a, e - ii w w E N o E 'F c v c EL E .N v 3 o E i o c L E on c o N° co y ,.. .n o .a w i» v> o a N a N� o. u E '° o v ori s m �. w M. E co J L E 3 u v c ? C u Y N N L L N a.• C 3 N L � v L m C N d O p ` U C N O ti in A d o t v a E L N \� \\ C n o v c v 3 L v v E o 3 5 v E v E« E w `o o w K y a m c oo `a > o w 4>1 L Z L c jin jj v O c F c o t ° O « p yo a O � W N p Z N orl � p E v t J a E o vw c w 0 c °^ Y L Y ? Y v N E0 OCE o o 41-2 v o CL v a v an C cV -O C A y L C d � d WA��A DA �•N `w c � i0 � « & 2 � c 4A d to 0 N to 42. LU 41 tr-\� k f \ w� ! 2) \ } / \ / } E c f\)in�( ) / { { § #) } j ° / -01 } \ ƒ k § ( k !a k ) \ { k } § k / i IL \ \ ) 7 { j k k \ | 7 ° 41( AN 1 N .^ 4-J RKM-2ft v o r w 4-j 3 v x £ c c E o° m v v v E o 0 Y 3 o 0 o`c v m i n o v' ° m s m L N 3 c m to v$ a N U C D C N C 7Ey `o -Ey ao f o r O oo v� Y p E R y i` on v c m z a o m ai"6 an C c c v m y y s U C EO J m 3 x p N_ a`i E aL. z E v a c° •� v c .v N A m ° C L a v y o o R C'p 5 E $° O —' w c w m v it m o }+ y o o 2 F c 011 v v A° E i° c v o v a v ,a L ,n m� o °u i SLA, o C +-+ -v y w n w � Z' c w o w a 0 E 5 s o m° a m v o ,.CIE 0 n A v 0 3 E E V a c = v ............................................................. y C C o O v C N K u C y d N v 2 L v -e ......... ........................................... a E o 0 3 tx i s E i r L- 0 L U- a ro L L V � y _ c v o Y E �f u n v o es R J M E x Q o O 3 0 O o E W g W F > O . w t O O v E C v u 'jp O E w t ate+ a W S C c- w v Y o o •� V W C q y d O W p �^ a: :p c= v v A 'c n` c m c ;� a m 5 c v u c z O O N L N C q a.. Y y0 y w W uj u J a v aL+a o O w m `o E c> c w c m r n a A c a q t 3 c w q v u ,t y '^ >. ,. $ y .°.. v` ..- o y E AZ 5 o A a O O O W w O y j C 3 N E iLo N a E v L ? o 'u 'o• A osv, E g C v "' v m m v u g o v y N v a m n y �' a m c ii c '.� O` v '� vii O 'Q v � i[ L F• � f AN a A C L d C i H � d A M t6 � V � N � � � O N M 7 vq m u ° E ° q v F E �a u qt+ �' �' a ._ F o OR = _ .................................................................. • N A � o �, y v o 0 0 •o i0 E � A E cL 5 E v v E E v v $ i IZ C c T Y h n C t jo, N n 41 io � � _ n m cl \ N N U C O A S t5 _N o ° m c4 v M Of W N = m c o t N w ' h 41 o c v =o o ww a v E :....................y... ..................................... E O a) Nw Z a o 0 y c E ` c u_ y `v c ----- v o v c d > ;_, On \ s O .N s V c Y w Q c 3 g o 3 `m o '� Y .� y Y I ♦ I ° o k -- - -- -I c uN � O C L I♦\ I _� r6 a °41 ♦♦ ' m I I v on N ♦ � � R C p i � y O _ t O C � � N y I \♦ I H v u v m ` E •n.-.. a u c v m m m o w I \ I v o y I \ I N C E C G U O Y o 0 E N (C N aJ u on E M on N N O L Q W on y OL }% r OL N v (A c .3 0 L on „ \ a) „ \\\ O I I O O T L Y I ♦ I � C y Y O � \ 3 c o c� c n v mon N v v V ms - ----ti v aA L O O_ V j c, 0 O x O .>' E C L O C O ~ n v o E < E w Nw o o a o 0 y c E v `o c u_ n y c ----- v o \ c 3 g o 3 `m Y .� y E v t L yo I ♦ I ° o k -- - -- -I c uN o a °41 ♦♦ ' m I I v on N Ln H � � � R C p i � y O � � i � O C � � N y I \♦ I H v u v m ` E •n.-.. a u c v m m m o w I \ I v o y I \ I y y c c E c w v 3; v u° E o E \ / k \) \\ \ \ \ / / \ \ \ \ ! 4-J/ 2 . � ( \ COL k ( io (D « y f 2 \ ) ) \ \ \ R { / f ; ƒ { \ ) 2{k7.5 e $ ( } ( lo § .6 c a ! [ $ / & / 0 cc .2}}\ k\ /k/ } \ ' a } } d j L4n � � on � Q k " 7 § / K ) Z5 / \ \ E a uc E 0 16 k \ / } \ D k a k } \ CL & E ] - \ . � c■ \ k$ k k U. Ekk mE- )\ $/\ y 4-J k \ � k / R) { ` § �� \E[t]} ƒ ` (' ' 2 E) § k)) k a 2 G / § _ £ © 4 .� #: #! g r - / « • _ � EES, 2 $ ! (± § .e -o § {)\f ® \ 7 . t cL \ ) )76 \}\�_\�� _.,.�.ee� ,. on N c � C L - E c 3 u c o a y o m a q L � G OJ1 y0 O T N M C v L O N N ` V D E v E C U W ' C c N d d N d O V A N C a+ G G C G Y O N y S w y ., v CAL ai c rn E m v v Y E N 1> m U H C w E R V L W C q V n E , L on C a-v E tu •� L V m I U � A I � 5 A y d E c ` E o E o A m 'C n o E m u q u v Li a i In C z z W E d W 5 J SY '1 9 A o •� N t r q E u CG r N N N NI ? N N N 3 O E W c fu ,c � � � J �.a \�\j\ /\\£ /\ )\f ±al5« $ k} A \; �\ �)\\f* :t!E R+ � i§t�k`$ 0 7f 2 §§k CL ` t & ; / ƒ ( �� ) / f } | ■_` | ] t / \ { 7 f « -a w- 4; \ \ ® \ \ / / } ED r _ (; k § { { @ «&2!2 col § ��■©7f k■(,e((« 3) 9 L 4 §/\ k J§ \ |......| /}\ § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\f \ \ \}\\ § C L O CL E N N :E r t OnEcu-0 C tu Vona ma r�Q 3 w D N v � E o n io 'q � O v v E A p v O O M N O O n o n L O y c r E A i v rn oc L m 'c E Y y u o A v A 0 0 2 Y C V C G � o w V N F--1 F-1 C O tio C N m0 v a a NH N C _ _ C M C v v T y m own Ea a 0. E45 o � , w S c o c. u y v 3 a N FT o v v S & E c E o a m O c c m w a mm y A c c on a /�� v v v E w v c v u w W m E c �za v vo a Cc: o '> o a v w v$ m y' �_ y 'S 7 `o a 3 H d V C O a L N N i C W V1 N 0 w w MRiMM7VMM� W W v W N a u> c v ._° �c v b ro v n w � am �+ on E N v c v c v c v m w o o a R n Y L� {o Jlu{ƒ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ E 2 § ) § ( ) \ \ \ / \ / � { \ ■ ® | | E / [ 2�� /) }{ ��}(�� « �ƒ)/)® ce 4;E 0 w 7` 6 E/ o %/ )\ 79 )o |5)) } k d j \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CL k / J E c a w w n � i o � Y � A c w o c v m E a c � A � Nd, N Z o c A c m n N v � O O P- -% dd "dd N On L tu 4-1 4-1 V ::E OW V 0 � W J � W W LLJ W W 3 `^ 3 c o 3 J i o O g r c _ o a W W W LL O Z uo Jo 4A _ 2 2 2 F- N M In M M M M M � on -C E on Z k v \ � } f / §#�k» k ) k - a E )§ k G a; I r,£ E f■ u£\ % « e 7 ©0- { f § { a f f » ct�a2){17 a■��e7Ef:op ■o d / § \ \ _ f f ] ■ _ ] - E | ° k k k) k®-0 k f k { { ) $ Z ¥ 12 § A 2 m ± {{# } \k{�\)f2) k f r » ! 2 ! $ § \ { 0 lviL .; I L W d O V C N C v cu y w E c? lu 0 V^N OII T' 'p C 01 W E B'- N 41O m L Y! v N E 'O v c d m c 3-5 o N d o a12 € € m .' E m a c c o' u o n a c w .X o o v C d o w 'o c c o u = v o a G7 K aM6i m m y .y c X w v � v � az E .� i � w d N w a x 01 3 NA t6 L> ° N ° v ° o E!E c o is a v aui O r t t '° O o a n n N M v v .n a a i, v ccO 4- 0 C 0 3� Vca`�i C Y N i 45 E= 'O A .c c O A O w U py O c a y C •S C N C ` H N p u A W W V N � t A OV vii J � v •� y N C O C V ] C A v N y L v= E m v Y CQcf c v o 3 y v J$ n v J b v > M 3 U o p N E 2 o v p0 'O O L c y iN C A i L Yvpi O d QF" L vo3V=o w .0 Q� i, v ccO 0 Z5 � � \ / k ) ) ) | t 2 ! [ $ k k { k / �-a § } E { } \ §o iA �\t55 -0 \k a{/\/\\ dj\ \\ \} \/ j\ \} \ | | ! � { � f \- |72� ) _ � \ ^� \\ ! §{ 0 Z5 � � \ / k ) ) ) | t 2 ! [ $ k k { k / �-a § } E { } \ §o iA �\t55 -0 \k a{/\/\\ dj\ \\ \} \/ j\ \} \ | | .......................................... .......................................... Q N � 'S U O N dl A 07 2 i V E W N c E L L o g og v o OR o u w L► c V c `^ u ie 9 n'c E`o„ c o w o c N •= V O S o A d O. C W E •Q .G A A w L d O L V� C K N A y ^ d cL X. L•, U' L E y V d W O A C d O •N L y a`.+ W A �' 'A' N d O •E` d w u g v o c s d °' `E A d ` d C c w C •G _E v A = N T C A mo W . y N E •C y u d h �Q A V w E c C. p d 'O r,- d a G y y y o w m x a o 1O 0° -o A v w e in a v ` y Y a ,y •� o c c N 1A •G i y A a y w E „$ € o d x tf A o S 5 6 w o t :1 O aC N c y w y o o a y pra a' 4� va i== r vs` •� E L d 3 G 0 O 3 d E O c x v o ,Y�u A o T vce w v" a x a n a t o a w A g n t v o :...............................................: � -a•t.+ A A w � a U v a .Or .+ -3 f ) { # / 0£I»73kt§at«#E �$%s�{&f[ ( 7!!§CL ! t \ 2 { ] { a)) f / f 5««!} 0 2 f & E / \ / } k / \ °� / ])) \) • ` ` / 2 k rSik t) a )) § k\ )} J\ j 2\ 3 k r$ 12 / k \ \ k ƒ k \ f ) | 2 / \ { {) / \ \ \ ` 0 k # { ( $ \) ) E { # $ \ { \ \ \ / / k / Z § k ® »_ k » ( r 2 § ( £ | e \ § f ( ƒ / \ ) k f! 5 7 ■ ; 7 k 2[ {/ §` ° ` \ o \ k k #) ! § \ } \ m \ :/ k k © 2 ® \ _ _ _) t = ( 7 f } _ ; , , \ , E , \ k ; [ $ \ \ c \ { / ƒ ) " ® \ E \ } { [ | ! ( ( \ / { { k ) 4J � \ { / � � ) � � ' j \ « k o 2 ! « ! { ƒ { 2 | y \ 7 2 » |k } f f tu { W \ \ 2 k \ f / to k E - \ { \ \o \ } \ ®\ /) \ a k { 75 d % % \\k\ \/ \\ /{ a u/ o 5 = e = e & R £ 2 * R ) f £ + » 0 !fI & }}§ N 1 i N u t!!1 1 1 C r-, C j O Ocfy 1?I7 C .O { �� { "0 ay OG ` N j U C•� a+ N {.0 to c- 13 Q O` '6 O 1 L u O CL dCL 10 1 V no I C d 61 po 7 C N C ( 1 �_ q C '7 N N C N u� in ; dw rt42 Nv� ;711N 1 I V/Vf dQ O 0 O 0 J W H W 0 ry z 0 z 3: 0 0 LL x 0 z w a a Q W z J W 0 z z z Q n T m m m` -0 aci N mv d o > 0 N C m 4O -Zm U 0jr3 0 N O -0 :o O O0 a) m d 0) .0 0f V N3 c O o 0 UO :3 0 m y >. 3 � com 0 °o ° c Mn o° m m 0 3 o ° cm p03 -,Lc o c o o c 0 CO Q° vv ai x 0c y v° o c E a v c y yrom N c A`3 L0 m ymc r oa O 0 C aC m mY W Na) Q m 0 C.LJ. U m m r 'O N C :0 E° N NL P mN N Yy 0 m N O . 01 ° .0 mcm m r c 0 o E Y$cc Y rDQ -N U c N Cl — m L o m c 0 d o 0 m Y 0 vC ° > ECm 0 c E -0 > c E yc c m U cY m E E 00• � O m 0 CL mOc wo N U N '0 ' 0N m 0E m m Nm N ` cm O > as EE Oe ° 'o c N° O E c m m$ m C p EEm rm ) Layc Nmmn E a 0 '°° c vE.0 m E m 0 >y > 'Oam c O °m m> J $ y0LO o > ° a G E c.0 m0 E m L Nr a ca m N .2 CT m -O m N O aa N O C O O Nc O ' L•_mO3 O m E C 2 0 .NpN Ec 0 10 m Z 0 ' m > 0 O Y3 a°GOm E EU m c E n? m o NN E N'0 o 0 o a2O cc L L Lo N m N'0" m 3 cCOL c H E r a C a 3° o d O0 L> m o a c �` CL ° rn U c O -Do � 0 ir io v i c5E -0 o v c m aCm IOQ m o �+ o Dm v 2 Nm m 3mU •- cCm = E m'0. i >Z o-�mcO }C L0 O ° N N CcE= w E 0U0 D1 N3 C Dm '0 •. - r tam Q m =W-0 m7a 'O c .a J c cc ° 0 3 a Ar 6 j U E o 0 o i� 0 Lm. ro Z e s o° m O o a 3 L o 3 O 0 m m Q m a m d Q c F Q C C1 E 3 C O O y r N in y c C y m c v E O c O 8 a o Z ° •` A E 0 3 0 U o Y > o o y m E o, m c y o m m 2 0 E° '9 N m -° c m 0 N 6 WC 0 7 e O 0) 0 F F N U N m O. c C O ii c O ,n ` m m ` OI °Dc e mo °ai 3O mo y U E 3A m o Ev E ai 3 Q w>° E v a c a ao sE `o n 0 0 5 0E U E vo FL- o c c > c m d C, 0 CL 00 CD t N m O LN mcm Ld30c L O c 'O N °OO- 'm ° c 0 m c -o ca O C L cc Omm « m 3 smmmLcwim N - U 'm w > cE y E c 3°yE > ° aL.0QZ U c O Cyo N 0 N v � 0 m � oi Y d a tE Sa E oa o a y a � m 'S o cYI c cU vm1 E 3 a a m E O 'N >3 a 0 ym O c O (D Nm W c crn Mn o c o 0 40)m ° y 3 0 N c I O N 3 o E o rn,N cm A O vO 3ccN : o f J L O c N UQcm o m N m c oo L o0¢ m L � Y 0 C,0 C°N z LL y 00O p y o > •oQ N Q c m C N 7 E m U_ Q rn m vp —O mm E 0 0 ° o a mN � OfL mO m° N 0N vc m �Oc' A5 N EaOL 40) C O o :C cc m N Nm O ' C°m 30 Ld Y'm T +N 0 E > m m > N N N OEO LL E-0 LeOm •.Om- Y U E O Urno Cm0 0 0 0 d E C S Y 0 0 � E a°°¢ o° a 3 m U U E a a m a o N rn ss N m c rn o io c N m a co c � m w o c 'OM D. N 0 N y m O y m O C E .D O U 2 m �• .0 o j A 9 a U N .O o m >, U c CL d o E Z c Q E L-¢ •° a� m m 3 N c m rn- o c ayi o� Y v a o of 0 a c c E-O y o c ~ •0 C m L T O c Mo N U C 4)o 7 N C m T Q d N a 03: m •, •° •O c a p a m vi Y y :O E aC L 7 q A o• �a v o v rn a 0 c o is a m m Y « �. a e «m N o-2 o M m E 0 N o C m c 7 a Q p Q a m 7 °1 o Q i o N r 'c - N� LL E 'o vi U w C ° v Q a m m y m a m m c >t a p• a O L c m = j N ami c m m o D d y 0 d 0 N Y W m « V o A ,= 3 m t E°° E Y rm c O A a 3 O .j 16 C11 C O l77L « > a a NN •m Om ~S W>m>U N v VmU m7N a ZD N -m mm c Q m D° O O Cm L F OIL N C: O N = E E m v aTN¢ :_ i N 9 c y E o N m y Y Y �_ L « p U 3 j C cca T T m 0 J itl W c m a y c o v •� c rn N 7 lU °) c N E 6 0 « o Q m� v 00 o °' m n mo v g a ma Mr- LLQ c 3 ° c U N c °c ° = U m o= a m £ c N W m ¢ o v w o m m 5 a� c `° c L n c « m m c •N CI - Q U t! m $ 0 o m E y N 3 o m 0 m c m m c c Y o E o c o g ax E r ->cc y aD m m O a c m m c c ou 7 o 0, a o o o c m « m A «_ « a U Q -a _� E E N 2 `a = ` a 7 i O E O N 12 N CL O C O N O Q m « Q 7 E m -0 O M m 3 3 O Z Y 7o c 0 E ac a m m :. ami o Q E m m « c m o - w l •N N C C a L d L 0 C,E y c 41 D 3 Z 7 0 o N y d E O V c ca m a d m N t L . l` a O is m m m m a a 0 A E 3 OC L m 3 0 3° p .3 5 m 0 w° v 'o v° M a) O Z ° 3 -6¢ 0 c N 4 n7 m° rn LL d a° 0'o m a E m A m c c a>i F Z C O y m C N O L L O N m C N . 3 o U w m N 0 7 .� E 'o :? L A 3 o E -0 m o> H o N 5 m 'm 0 c U M c o a 7 p 5 a o 3 0 'c v d d _r p a°i ac Q m o 0 3° a 3 j a c m o f o aa, 0 9 c 5 H n 0 c Y r m o a C p U m c ,ca c 3 °.0= T °o N m 3 v o r U a m o. w E 0° o. y m c E c o m ,Ea �; c m o a N E« m v N .° e M r a m i F m ti O r v ° v—> « ° o a `o Q Y m N Uo N @ d E d m N C �-° > J E m -0 m ... N U c r A N d E C °> COL E Of a y o C m c c 0 m 7 c 3 o c m> x o,. E Sc y U m w o N 5 A p c« po 0 C Cl 'C N m N C C m C C .°p m m L m v _ ° 'O y m 3> N O d C o C m rn d 0 'm0 •g A n OC Cl. ro° o Z s m m 7 3 - o t v° 0 m y« y m v° c m m 7 7 i 0 3 m CL E CD Z 21 E C m N 0 C m N ° 70 C > 3 N m C 3 y C O m U m N o Y ayi> 'c Con m 3 « L O N c y .v y N U o c N 7 0 0 c a- E �' > a -0 a m 0 O En E Z o .; o N� o d a) m .0 E o[ 6 o a m w C7 E 0 c m E N c a L 0 E 0 -mo U = m rn .- d .> j r x rn w $ Lx,, m m a0 ID a aci c c °w' ¢ z m E rn c `a v o L E m o c'or Y c y � c N U E � 3 =.0 a 30 m vi a m E « E m o c L N A« 3 v i c m m m m (D =iN c o v w 3 d o 0 .2 M M E N 3> u c a> o a -0 m C O m �7 c c£ A 70 g 3 m m y cc c o m m m o v m�O m N o = 3 m Z >_ ._., m O U Cl.0 c —p �? Z 3 0 m E o H m a o m ro 7 N m y 3 c m(7 > L N E C 3 O U C •N U U C L C) m G N L m C m p U47 m Of E y L m O ` C m v N m 0 m « L 0 'O YO 2 O U > H m m T S Q C 7 E N r U N � r O a° O o a !a N I 0 V 0 w N � � v m c ro N m c m N C d >> C . ro C � O m 2 v ° y E E c ¢ v O c c p 3 y '2 m c ca E o G > o N c c a m (D o (Lvm 2 c o N 3 a) > E Lm m m ro m °•°C Um r N m5 Eo °C c o = m o a 3 d v C C -p O ro R C C R _3 m 3 O -o °' c m mo' 0 0 Y 0 N c 0S>i v o 3 Q 3 o:3 L 3 16 m § c c c U m !> CI. o _ 3 m r E ro 3 c °- E '= .O S a N ° rn m 3 R a 3° o o Mn N x n m II O m -0 C c C O c C ro m - C V N II m w N N m 5 II E U rn m c .O .E 01 C ,3 'a O C '� rn C 0 01 C E .p m Of C Y6 ro c •E rL.. R O C- C 'V - i0 m id '- O jy II l0 c wy .0 'c N d m d d ro N ro m j C O m U Oy d d C Y U d J a U m C F U II d .w.. �.. .Vr ry r C s o N O R ° m N 2 L CO m Mn m N m m U N _ L r° m aci E c cO a m E i0 �' E rn N y o E 'o E U d `o E N t cr m v a°i N ro ai p O U E C U R p 41 y N N N N ro U m E a m II N°° 9 aci N X m a)m `° ° c 'V U o C d xx N ro j N d p N U 7 m R m R O m O 7 O w R p o II `oo y v W Y w ro w 3 coc N 0 - c N °' 0 mo u° m o 6 0- o o a c c� d t5 L R O .L .0 N m .0 -O ` II N N L 7 C N N C O T O j OI _ C `� 'L" ? U N 0 p - •° C1 3 m L N m -aa) 3 m Y m p O .O 7 O V n Z' C M « :O O N O1 R i ►� n A CD m o 5° N n m E o p L N O N E E II o p L N �' c, C -0 d N �' II > U N c C E > o o ;� L ro o E x o A o aj N m Y 9 m U o c ti° O O 'O a o W q ro m -O O � m N a c O R r U E mi c O y m 0 ro x 2 'O N 0Ui R E ai 1° A ° d c o d U ' m '= m •o ti d .m o o E c 3 W o o c v o o N - y m m 3- o E c ca II - °° U - o c m c 3° L a, m: 9 o an d N axi v- N c ai « 3 N E w o c "o, t0 ° 0 s2 oQ am vR cT II 3> > m o o LD cc eN cX d cc LL D 00) o 3cc L c m N ia) CL ) U Cx Nd L w •p LC D. m i m o O O II L O L �' m p __ -3 ro O U m H 3 N w H N d 0) a n N F o 3 U o o G m N o N m o R R is Um m U 'O II C m .m q w N '0 O m E C E o E C `p- L c M II C m l0 p c ro R m c O N OL m ON O U o 0 ro y y W 'ip is Y m d 'O N N x E A m 0 6 ' C m m ;C m m o O. N m" N o v N o° R -0y U R> c 3O o = mro aroi c i� oU m oT o mc II x O1 c m 3 v m 0 RC C 6m cO-?C cm C m C U m 0 tid am o n o IIU c m 'N p 0 7 9 O) m O C a d v v c m 3 l) -sr v° -,60 s v c$ r et ro n x c 3 0 5 .c W N A a L m y E « m 5° o a o n II ro c_ rn 0, R m m Mn r 0 N io 0 0 - 'O Ix E N W II m O- 'O > Y ZII ro N O > N CD ~ o 3 O cmmf O y M "m0 E id 'O C p C O O- N R N •p aL.. O p a- 0 m C N -0 q - V/ .L.. C c p- R 'a « N > N O L x f .� U U N L 3 c y i 3 L o 3°, 3 q m m ro o II « L -00 R E « U id N R N % U O p O) N C N ID CO N .c O N o M d N Ni� .L.. N W m R N mCL m O m U o c m U a 0 m 0 0 c° m E 3° Y "v 2 r °' m cca 3 ~ o E o R r ro w a �—t—I I I I L 3n N3AV 439 'S snN3AV 4.35. 'N � r � O O O m m m d F L 3f1N3.AV 430 'N anN3AV 43d 'S N — O d i Y � 1 W O $- w w �p W W W W a r Y I a N W Om� m m a r m m T.C. j N i J -: r 2 2 t_ e m J y I w i- 1 c — a ¢ cc an N3AV PJ£ 'N W 3nN3AV PSE 'S Q r 3 i c° o c v � a Y y C O 1 � � � � R a 2 0 d n � 1 L anN3AV NIVW 'N anN3AV NIVW 'S R o N C a m d LO id Q Y c L O X H w N Z m � $a - Y � o - — - — - - — - - — - — - — - 1i V i N � \ v a a \ m � V LL H W v a �. p LL Z 30 0 1.-0 3� L Op c C L N co '0 N O T C N L 0 C U N O O c o) c R � 0 r m a > m a ID o w a rn N R N m E ° ° aC > aN a0 N C U > '> .N Inc2 U o N a) lUa C L � O_ > CD r U N Q O) 0 caC 3 (0 N 11cr N t) 0 N C O N U > 0— Q i0 is a - a m m > m - 0 0- j -0 Z Cn m N U O U 0 -0 O U C Y U .0 U C N N w N O d im 'O L E LLY r 3 D U- oc a U d ❑ I I E N U 11 EO � i C � II II II � C II h p) II U a) W N Z' V 1 Q) m G W i� o Y m' cad a d d(a s 3 C E E > 0 rn a) R £ m � o E O c N 00 CL c a 0 y � m c >L > C IE C y CD >1 U > Q C m N R C 0 O Y Q R CD o `o c m o E (D ° a) R E0 N 'C'N c c O O 0) . d NL U N C O YO U C a) y a E O L m EE c o. d o 3 y U O 'O O R C T E O R 0) Eli cc C N L �D L CD NN+T ti R j > 'C N O CL YES0 yc =3 E ° 3 m O 6 O O 0 O OS'v _ N L N _0 N w N d y D N ON N a E T N a N R O O R 7 a) C L N '0 N a) '0 a) U O 7 N Y E m— O 75 O L F =O O L N y d R C CL C U¢ U N E y E a O N .Y o o Y n °� >• E �= ¢ F -i '"--O CU o 0 y IC p L" w q5 d m It. a) a) r U O V5 F C O7 O N �e m m O) c nc U U m m in Ip u V 0 O Y 9 C R R Y <0 a) a 3 Im Y N c N 0 0) = a) 7E R Y E � N C C N 3 O cm O L a) J C c a) CC N a) O' 3 w 0 O N L -a N T N CD C E:2 O L N U R Q a U a) CL I' c c c o N �� t03 c3o m 3 C O C 3 L N O O U 1t N M N a E o 0 ° E c 3 U N N O O a) a R rn a R E N E c m 3 c Lr- 0 N ° a 0 °o N C N a) C L C O -03 cr 0 E _ U 0 a cr 0 R 3 O co 0 .0 N L a 0 CE 15 O a) s R L O ° 0 R N2 Y N a R N N R o0 O ac) Y m C a)E o C 3 N N T L N a) is O E _ R O N a) U � O N (I. 3 N >, 0 E QL L mN C 0O N -NCNO -O E. C -0 - N O C OC N j NaE NN0 LG N O C 'E E ❑ 'E O O > Y N O y C L 3 Y L N U E L N N N N .n L T w C L C N .0 'N OI IR O `=1c.0 al mlco.0 O 'O c O E R O C u N 9 �a R N O O C > U L R ID N O W a m a) E +L.. T CU O3T .: N C O o �. E. a) Y C 0 N y .� .N 0Z y c a E N N N C > U 3 'E > C N L O A N E C o i -0 c E 2 o c x ,0 N 3 UO R N N U C N N 3 N N U R O U V tan) m R O i m O N N C w c a Y E a m R E E n 0 C o R Y > o o y o E o mco) �_ o d N N y E a E a 4 ° 3 °) > c a) N t m N Y c p) M c > E .0 E R N to m rn m 'O N c0 NO N � U U N R C N T C o U 3 a L 3 m L ❑ L "0 ✓) 2E H O N O. h C E E > 0 rn a) R £ m � o E O c N 00 CL c a 0 y � m c >L > C IE C y CD >1 U > Q C m N R C 0 O Y Q R CD o `o c m o E (D ° a) R E0 N 'C'N c c O O 0) . d NL U N C O YO U C a) y a E O L m EE c o. d o 3 y U O 'O O R C T E O R 0) Eli cc C N L �D L CD NN+T ti R j > 'C N O CL YES0 yc =3 E ° 3 m O 6 O O 0 O OS'v _ N L N _0 N w N d y D N ON N a E T N a N R O O R 7 a) C L N '0 N a) '0 a) U O 7 N Y E m— O 75 O L F =O O L N y d R C CL C U¢ U N E y E a O N .Y o o Y n °� >• E �= ¢ F -i '"--O CU o 0 y IC p L" w q5 d m It. a) a) r U O V5 F C O7 O N �e m m O) c nc U U m m in Ip u V 0 O Y 9 C R R Y <0 a) a 3 Im Y N c N 0 0) = a) 7E R Y E � N C C N 3 O cm O L a) J C c a) CC N a) O' 3 w 0 O N L -a N T N CD C E:2 O L N U R Q a U a) CL I' c c c o N �� t03 c3o m 3 C O C 3 L N O O U 1t N M N C O co 0 a c F U O c ¢ N 0 rc 0 roc ❑ ro m N E O o mY t ro d H U 0 n N C rn U N r N C O o U Q cu N m O) C a O m C O E O Y a U d Mnm J O N O O N' N UL > N c N m U M aci O C 0 0 0 j O E o d E g '( 0oa L CL O o E/) U U m W L a U N OC N t m m L o o '%n o r 7 E2 o a) coi Co Y Q Co 0 Lu Co it C roU o L y N '3 - RY E N O O w 3U N C m r O a- :2 a J N 01 N N n o E ami U O) L C � m Y � a N 0 C (N/1 N m r O CL U La M L_ a z c c ro 0 c �j o C O N Ld a� m O 3 o A L � � N N c � a E rois O U yON ESL O n ,3- 0 m m 0 C d W c 3 E o E C O o U 00 U m it N ❑ 76 U ¢ m F. I N �a a N a cuU w 3 3 O 3 0 a 0 m c m ro a) i0 m u CD I P. c N U U a) C N a O Oa) N ay a r c m_ m p N _ p .@ O C C C N C ro a Q o Z ca E E rn n ro t d ° C N C 41 -° a. O O p N L U y m N > na �o E E A rN O 3 a) (p N L75ro 0 Mn n c n N C N O y C U O p E O c N a a c 3 N 'E ai a � c a a a Q � mH E� c o ca y0 clic Ea 0� c °> o c 3 NH op a) a 0 NNm N3 Q 0 -C3 mC O YC O c m° EO ° 3 3 7 z O om L O a 0 U 'p N L O m �p ro E ro N U ❑ c N N 3 ° On m o m cc ° a cL ro 3 L ro U N Y fA - C ❑ ro a) 3L -p c� U p N N N r H o H. U a s O Y N Z' qo L ro U J m mp a U U U C ro Q cc. N C IZ Q m ❑ ¢ � U U m CU `w C � M m Q C U o U in -0 n 0 E c o - 1 O a 6 N N C ,7E C V_1 ro� C m > y >� O V O ma 0T C ro N O .0 C o o m C ca o `m ° ro roa c Y c c mr mY N 3F E c ac v Q Q- E Y s a ro C N V) 0 O rn N d U Q a7 nE -0 a) a 3 ° E m o a d 0 coU °'a a o ro� r Nm c-� E c 00 N O N U o O c p° ro U O) U A N IL s Q d On Uarl m yt - N M Q in N �a a N a cuU w 3 3 O 3 0 a 0 m c m ro a) i0 m u CD I P. w a m U fr ❑ T 16, U Q ❑ m a E 0 U `o E N M a .3 m r C O 00 -C C CL E U o 4 c 'p c C O` m r C (D m m ID 0) N r a a� Cc m N N Nm _ N 40 r 0 Y r 0 a N m 0 .R N N E CLO m _ m o vi c d O N N E Mn C E .N O U _L rn3 C C c o C N `CLm ' d w L a E 0 Q U 2 ❑ U M m m p * N Cl) r CL ro U E 2 r O CL r cr .3 U ❑ a J (U r d U CL La ❑ M E O a co C E U d 'O C N E y co W a I- U CIL E � o' c 3 a N O N d C m NO 0 U n m � U E d m O T D E m O O m LL N m m 3 E c E H N O c. — �wU E O > L c O N `ao 5 n c n E c N d o E = yM E O QsU O� E Qc CA m c O E'aN N 3 E m c m U a o QY ? U N H O d m Om N V) C c 3 15 mO F° 3� o.5 ° c u O rn3N t0 m N `) j m O O L — N' .t-. N m Q L .3 C C C U y C= p m C 3 R m ' 7Q T CNO T O O CL m, W O CL., , _ O a) Ym Q C R l6 m N o f0 0 L y L ccN m°yN3 Na 3� d 3m oai m m c n E y 2 o a U U O N O O m O O U C— Q m 3 c 3 0 CD �_ �-0 E U am C L O w Q U C 7 o C O �' 3 o t 2 o U y. N tb E 2 C C V C N pN RN CO mO L cmO C .N OU tm O c N OO O . OO NO p0U ° m N— c o m -p w Q'mO E c am E m CO E`!75'° E E°� o Edd pO O O m is O C O Y C C N U N O N m y cd U 'O iO C U YO c R c D1 l0 OQ) 3.cmO Y mE 0 E C O Oc mm E °N.,m0> EL -0QO�m m a OC« c o 0 2 co C HOUECL N N m c .N 4] U IU IU U I(U IU Ln M IM I In 1Ln 0 3 U U N V) C c 3 15 mO F° 3� o.5 ° c u O rn3N t0 m N `) j m O O L — N' .t-. N m Q L .3 C C C U y C= p m C 3 R m ' 7Q T CNO T O O CL m, W O CL., , _ O a) Ym Q C R l6 m N o f0 0 L y L ccN m°yN3 Na 3� d 3m oai m m c n E y 2 o a U U O N O O m O O U C— Q m 3 c 3 0 CD �_ �-0 E U am C L O w Q U C 7 o C O �' 3 o t 2 o U y. N tb E 2 C C V C N pN RN CO mO L cmO C .N OU tm O c N OO O . OO NO p0U ° m N— c o m -p w Q'mO E c am E m CO E`!75'° E E°� o Edd pO O O m is O C O Y C C N U N O N m y cd U 'O iO C U YO c R c D1 l0 OQ) 3.cmO Y mE 0 E C O Oc mm E °N.,m0> EL -0QO�m m a OC« c o 0 2 co C HOUECL N N m c .N 4] U IU IU U I(U IU Ln M IM I In 1Ln 0 3 y , c C T C p ca Co -mp o 3 m a o ami N C O L m O c N L C p 0 OU 00 c C .40) Q N c L CQ 0 .N O m m N C L N Q lV m N O o N E C m C m' m m :� C N E R O 2.02 w in O U� a0 o E C=L�o ¢> oQ m 0 N ca N coN V O N d N N C � L U C m M -0V L m m m L L m m m l!i > l0 m m 'C.. N 7 o E O Q N Z C O 'y7 0 d a) m O L c N Y O O O m O O N V 0 C E Y C m U N >D R�2)0 m 9 �E� OE �o �c9w w a ¢U a[Qn` M V IO 40 H OD co y F `W ,J / ' C H 2 W 0 c z 0 0Z F F 0W Q W m G 00 IL A Iw Y1 m Z ' 0a Hp L 0.4 N c O II C L � U o O C � m N a N a o ¢-2: o a m d m '- m ym E II N m N .p E N §cr O w U p c -p 'N nJ Z o o 0 > II � a m 'c o N .0 c o m c[ o > m d .5; _ o > U ma II Zro i U pmaOU Nmmc "O c o N = B O )E ca E-6.0 cb ° >¢a II p L> r 3 )i ¢ m y u v a° o° a Ii v II u 3 i e Z II n a m W 71! Y v a m o m Y m' v s' o W S ¢ 3 > N M O O > N N N N c O. >. M 0 Y c NO p N Y O) X 0 C X N C j � mU Q) N °- c N E a "T' UmUU o r X c .L.. m a) a) (a L L c_ E °U O U Y L LL O N N II M EOO. N 7 U c 3 O N E UN ° m ca o n > Y L a L N a O O) T N .O w II II o J II p U II CL U U o" o v ° o L ji C Lo U v n E a o .(6 Z d d O` = d Z Q C m N 3 J d 3 y oo n $ L � ai0i L 3 O Z t a4) N n u u n c_ E L H II N — M Ln 01 LL M O f� L .O Q) `• C O N a� E U a 3 E c 3 m N > L C Y N E N N ° a) 3 T aL-� E N E o m c x °ax) o ° a do° a) � E r C = y N L d o o E o E t ac N 3 o N L 0 3 0 E O o 0 3 LL c > N - O o E a) :o c E o� � r a c a) o a o c N F- O O Y t n7 U L o Y O Ol Q J N a) C C O N N a a1 c o II l0 o =vJ U a a7 o - II > O O O J o N a) O O O a) L C 3 30 ° 2 a) E 0. a) A 3 o <n c 3 zit d N J > a a) o L U 'L a7 0 > O N 3 N N > E 2 8 o`o U U N E? U U o� Ood c C a I E N O o o A a) m m eb 0 0 C >> p.� L NUM 7 NK;a N V) d(L)c3rn Q O> o aTr ��r M N N ch ° 3 0 Q > L N 0 00 N r l0 ca M OI M C P M N r) N N c M 0 a) p c' y 9 0 c E E Z 7 � L O d mU N > Umcr. w "T' UmUU eb 0 0 C >> p.� L NUM 7 NK;a N V) d(L)c3rn Q O> o aTr ��r M N N ch ° 3 0 Q > L N 0 00 N r l0 ca M OI v 7 N N C N I I C 0 cr a U mm _N d m.c 3 rn c a' > a o M d N r N r m C U O Cl) U V1 � m N C R O D 'O 5 R N > C O E '3 c OC R O O_ E 0 R E N j d o.� c N N Y H 7i Ec O O Y C7 N N O N C U m D L 0 > T O c N C L V R C U a) Q A o o O O N 110 O 3 N N Y D R v N ._ Y N R L « LL EF-_ N CD U -o U O — C N '� Cc L O j N N N v;do C != C I � � N N O_ N v o c 3 o-5 C 9 C N — oE is N>, E .52 N a D E So N R O * p a I of I ie O Z _ N R � d R > N Y R 0 3 C Y U O cr �O c co -R E m 2Z A w T R R I 7 Q O e N y N O o. C C � c y o dN g d T N O C U N .0 > d R N E O N N O N L R 'O Ol C L R E 0 S o N'OY 0_ C« c -o Q'O U N qj .R N O 0 C(D G) d L y 0 ooN. Y O d .L.. E R p« n o m E N N O d E N 3 m y c O L N O C d' 0 0 c 0 s C O(WD>> i0 Y R L v 7 N N C N I I C 0 cr a U mm _N d m.c 3 rn c a' > a o M d N r N r m C U O Cl) U V1 � m N C R O D 'O 5 R N > C O E '3 c OC R O O_ E 0 R E N j d o.� c N N Y H 7i Ec O O Y C7 N N O N C U m D L 0 > T O c N C L V R C U a) Q A o o O O N 110 O 3 N N Y D R v N ._ Y N R L « LL EF-_ N CD U -o U O — C N '� Cc L O j N N N v;do C != C I � � N N O_ N v o c 3 o-5 C 9 C N — oE is N>, E .52 N a D E So N R O * p a I of I ie O Z _ N R � d R > N Y R 0 3 C Y U O cr �O c co -R E m 2Z A w c LM f0 O R E o O y C � i R cr U � o N N .3 0 J N a 1 ._ 7 U 0 t5 5 d� m= F O N O T M 7 Q N M d r r e N C C dN g d Ucr iid c LM f0 O R E o O y C � i R cr U � o N N .3 0 J N a 1 ._ 7 U 0 t5 5 d� m= F O N O T N^Nr �+ d+ 0 t 8 o> e Q o. o E a r r ci dN g r o R N N N O N L � O S o � N N C la O i U 7 R 0, d R N S E Q O O Y N � � N R � O U c o "O D N N N mR 0 0n as J m .- c LM f0 O R E o O y C � i R cr U � o N N .3 0 J N a 1 ._ 7 U 0 t5 5 d� m= F O N O T r E E O V a j o 0 3 L 0 rn m o 00 U N N o C d a ro co 0 Q) > ro > COQ) ro L U N N a L N + N -0 m a) y y 7 N.0 C d caU m a) m C 3 m =U a) O `� rno v c a om ama Y a) 3 L m c� ro O_ L �3�. 0) ca ` O r: 00 E o YO N E N N Y_ m O N y 0 N N N N O. O O C o'� E C Oa c°i 0 (`U6 3 °. N E O T O c > L U c a cU_ a) O NCD C_ c _ O d o E o 3oE3c%� ~ 3 C N ON N O ac ° ro y o m 0 0 o E: =` E '¢� co U ro ca Q) m y vi O C C U a 3 U) I �= E 2' - U CL 'N d 0) y C J'0 d O 0�3 YO O a) Oa OddF N m� a> v>a' cu a) C° N N N Y o)L3 O L n '0 O) o DO N°) ON 0) O ` O Lm a 'cU� 0cro U a > �m..0cN �eEm m Om Y aroE 7 O O 2> C a1 ID O NN O N 0)a0O O UUOIn Z a W Q Q L �F--�F-- OQ�1 LLm m RF- N a r N N N N a) a) Cl) N 0 N N r M N r M N N a) N N N N N N a) N N N r M N ) N N N N N a) r S C D �. V) > ) C) T N i� � C aJcaarT m Um a C)Omi mN a _N N N N N N N _N 04 04 N N 0° 1° 0 �3rn d' °-S3rn d' " E arn 6 L Q> L Q> Cl L 0 0 0 O L Q O> ° L Q Q> O. O L Q> a° L OI t N r In Q>N N Q) N r U') OD p CO N N r In NON M M r In W l`7 V r Cp Opp V r O) PJ O M In In r O) O O O {p (O r 0) Y C L YO y ro -ca D1 O O N O ro T 'O °;ESE m e aN'0o D1 0 "0 d L N .X f6 my�o O C co c a) o 0 0✓ iaya0m�~ 3 cm co 0)cOo o=o n N o-ffi o~ r ro 0 0 7 -O O C '0 O O. C 01 an d« O c_ m ro `o 'O N E v E ro � N 5 L E a) 0 a) m _ r a O 0) a O is c J O R u-0 X E "O m V .% O c 7 y y U_ -0 Q 'c m N U 3 3 ZD > CL y Co0ca C T m EO oa a > >m0 N 50)->a) a n a) E Q. oc Ud O C N -cc,, L c 0 0 L N O > m N ro N O O ro m E a) -0 a) O" O 0) .O c O. O c a) r To a) a) N Y Q L OY '00 O 0 .. 3 cNd w .0 c .0 t V �Qm°� O E O 0 N a=O 0) O N O c U >Z C' L moa O a) 3 N c `o C a)3 N N 3cE 'oma c'EU rn� no I oma;= rnoiq m 5 D o E � m � a0 O.-_ � c op o E� F Y O co Em ca E C O N C ro N C O N N a "' Ea a) ro ro A>? 'O -T> N 0 0 ro C>> 0 E U C O N O 0 cm la �_ L ro O a ro 0 0 0 L O_ C i- l!) a ro 'O C C 2 O ca 7 ro 0 0 Y C7 m L a U 2 3 O O- aJ a O O J 0 2 M Q 10 10 A co Of 0 N e E E v CL 7 05 U l0 N O_ c Q d .O. dN : 09 3 CL Q N N r U d U -1 0 N N Z. O> C 6 O 2 C r T6 '. r r N E u C W w E E 0 U O N �a,corn r O> O. � L r cO mrM fn N N C L O 0 0 3 rn Q Q L q > M � W r r M N M L C .3 0 � � m N U C N C lC � m rn O U C (D O -0 O d U ro co 4) a oO- E ) o E 1:5O. _ T O. O 0 0 N N coN . -0 > c d > d O Q Q z CL N O U 0 C UT U m d L) v 0 U m m d r o N U N CL N ~ p M 0 L N 0-0 o E 6 c 2` -0'-2 E O O .T� N 5 U i=. :t-- < O O>> 7 � O ._ <LL Ow— UmJJU U N N N N N N �Qrr o r m Q L Ch N CCh D — L '6 '5o' .21 .2y -o O Lrn >aM (0 >>OfOa UQ r M r CO rrM Q) �L r M C N O O. E o' O. O) N Y W m oo 3 t N N 4 N � 'O D. N O O c Y O N U c c U E m E E o j0 N >~ Q N N H Y Q N 0 A E CL 2 CL 2 e/. ; m/ _ - § �0E a 7 22 /\ 22e 2s 2) ~s» 2 2/®) >, L) >� 2" ƒ@7 �7 a~ /£\ L. cl: M=c G» at± o=a. Gd- 0-§ oa- a ,-65 a/f0k a/00 a20 /// 2\//\/\/\ �\\/\ ( \ \ cu cq a$0 CM\\/\ a${!\ Q\\/\ a$00 aek-7 QeQJ& r. �(Ua a;k_e ;a3J& _N Ch aN o 3 m a a o Q ° t e > m N CO r l[i 3: 3 ami 02 O O 3 m a > Q O L dLrco N r N r l0 u M a C.0 N N C L �03m a b aa ° r m N W r C] Ln Q m Y O 0 L co L ro m O L O ro O ami ro m rn la U w as m O p_ m E C X m W LLL N U N Y a ° °a°� c: O r rM N C U o N C c 3 O O U -O C O N C CD w -0 mc > m 9 9 o M It r CL 0 0 v C O N T CL U aN+ 0 3 rn 'C 6 )R > N r 00 m a) C � ro � 0 o O L L N 3 E ac N A > mE ro o � a a cu c N � � cu 'a d N a o H c c E � C m a 'O O 5 as 0 N a N .> 1 d C C E m m ro C C ae a E N Y d O E a) co (a d ro un N 0 N L 10 > r � n r r Cl) a7 U N E E O U 3 0 c �• o O a) rop_ c y O ca o o >. E 0 (D T O U L .N y N ch N 3 0 O) a 0— CL W >i T i r o0- 0 3 -2 ro O :E y O O O U .O C C 0 O U N Z5 U N N O_ F E . N N 0 E 0 O' c O N w F- d) y c L SCD 0m a p a r r > m iia rm Qi 0 Y m m T m C NN Mn �5 ♦L U yU) dayia3rn A o o ° E N > O N 0) N r Cn O 0 m N R P ro =a o N y O C 3 m a > $ oL c%rN)n N r r � N E 0 N L.+ C E C) a E E 0 m r v N a) CL m 0 tT0 3 N >` 9 m E a E a 0 O 3 C 0 � � Y a U N �N- L c `o Q > CIL — •c d o n N No r N � N O E u ro d d ro o mo C U N 3 Y 0 m `m c d o0 3� 0 o •_• N N (C6 N U N m 3 O C L L y U ~ U U U a O ca o- � a a o o, c_ xU N E N E moo'3 5 d O N d N c L a o 3 9 Q p CL— L o > M l0 r 0 m 3 N U U a N U N A N C L d g 3 rn Q ~O Q L m > M 0) M r D t a O II E coN o 0 N 7 d � O c U y C N N E d O_ 0 O O am a r ro o H rn t9 w� N aN p 3 c Q o a ° s o>o Y7 CO R 17 !o c m in T N r U U 0 10 3 0 m E N T N 3 as 6 c c d s c 3 o 3 d 3 c 3 O 6 y ° o O N O O 5 d O C N m N N N V D m L F A a m m m o ro d N y> o m a 3 a ro c m m o ti 2 � U U LL 10 r T CL ° a T ro o m m E a � m U N T m O L m O > N j t0 a) G n ` O m N N c .0 CC° O N ro O a c O N y ri N m -o C N C O C m C L N N 3 N L .- U 3 -° Y O. m C a) L N ro L m m -O N Oc m L m N L y O Y N a) C O 'N N O O a C m N O C C ° N m N �O ro CL d ca N Y N x N E Y 7 o 3 9 o d ax m U CL o O mmcl m 3 w O N o F m O. o ro Y L 9 U ro 0) 'C N m E c m NC D1 L a) CN O a) > U O m C L O C C O O N N > N L > 3 o L N U N > m O C 3O m d J m 0 3 ° L N m '� O O. L U a O N M f,6 N N 3 N U C IO NN 7 -F, N F c D •I N p O m p� D) Of 9 El > m N Y 7 0 W" 7 C Z C C =_ z m ° A m v co T 3 a) 'm m K C ro m m 3 3 0 o m m N m a o@ N a -0 N '00 a F p N 3 d ai p O. p O N N N N o m ro d m E 'm 0° °>. E an Q o° N c m o° m m N T o o a° a U N g `_ ° E 3 T o a d o. o a a ro m o O 7 a C Vi N 7 L J ro N .O U N d :O E N Q m N m y ro Z J 7 E U L Q C D O E N N O_ U N L C O U Y 7 O O - c 'O m �N YO 7 C Q ° Vi 'O a) U o U N C O t0 U 0 3 aN m F o E 7 0 o y ro F ti m > 7 N a> N c0 d m d m d o W o- p O'� .fl J L° F E O ro 3 m c Q s F 7 a 7 0 L F Q c) N c E m c L F m 7 N ro> L m W M U y N Q. m 'a) 3 d r� T N 0 C p 0 0 'O W M .� v) N O L ro m ro E d w ; N m ° O Z m m N C N y O 2 O m O F a) 7 O U N Q J O 01 N @ > C a) N U ro .°7 N C C L F D O ,� _ ° O ro N C �, '� U a) N U C N N c 3 - D O m a ° F 0 s W a o. r 'oo c o p N a' °' o 0 ' m a F c m (a d- m c F c a) 'o N E a E m n `o E -r -m m F o w m > 3 3 o °' °> `m m a o c 0 L -o o oro ac 'O m y m 7 o m L j 3 3 CL t U ° 2 E a) O N cm Y -° m a o 5 m c a y c o m Q -o > H W o f N o Oo o a) ro o m° N m A 0 a �- c m c° d� T ro 9 7 N o � c 0 J Y N 3 ) N - T a) m E L m O w C N C O O) a N FO o C N N t` E U O. ' N m L i ° C N 7 a°i m Z m o o ° o N U 7 o A o o mLm C E X o N N _ 3 A 5 o _T m ro 0 J M E t% o -O 0 a r- E N m c m p m m N Q O L ° N N a) m L _ N N -° O N )p 9 N > �" J N N L-. ° m O N ro c YO O) ro N 7 O N O Q "O m U d O. O C N U a) y a) N O > F E w N o O t O) O ._.. w m .N N m w L O a `" ° E_ y@ W m v c ro m aN) -o o L o t a °'° v N E Y C a E d ~ .0 C 7 ` N Z 0 °c c Y as aro ° 'c_ N o aa)) v E E Y 7 o v T ro E d m m m ro O Z T o > m m E _ N L ° E 2 ac - m aa) ac) a E O- O 7 0 m C E N O C O 7 L O LL ° 7 N L F m E l0 O U � O U m N ° Q Y O) F r T Q ' ' 3 m e � Lli mmo! OMER H 2 O LL W Q 0 r N MOMW I� sauen mlgmmm �T=y/hc ..o.z J/,e uMo4s..9.9 .0. mmmo F< 1 0 o ®i mm a Q m ' ' 3 m e � Lli H 2 O LL W Q 0 r N I� sauen �T=y/hc ..o.z J/,e uMo4s..9.9 .0. m a m W a } Q z 0 m O N A■■■11 1■■ i m W a } Q z 0 m O N s: 'A U!- ..0 £ I f i I 'SUC U X o£ ad I > 0 z QI W I � c W a I io W I of a F cl N d WI � I I I I I In T N 0 0 m c m ro m ro Ia T 10 E Y d X y N x - L ioYmQ l0 Nm y it I i LU M c I OHL N 3 i m I w W v L 0 Z C 0 m s � V LL E v 1. `0 ¢ x x r N ..9 m Q SNI= owe.ij loots Ieinjonj3S JAL u6.Z JhL ..O.S 0.E i� n N ..Z/4 ..Z/4 .Z/4 ..Z/4 .ZA EIEI❑ ccc - ---------� o------FIFIE] - - - -- N-- - -N ❑ac EIFT-1 acc ccc E �Od O N ydi \ ccc ❑aa N r- 0 0 _ O � 3 N d N ccc EIFIEI s �30 - «o m E E " = m O co 0o Vy r N N 010 m .N T x N x T I N N T Cd a M E .i 0 O O O O 3 � � ya ai = o x r C 0 \y N 61 Y 'E= O 00 E CL = E ° r w A. Z,Qx CL Q S E NN E '00 W M N E r c c x x x o 0) 0- N N i F O � J x FIEII CICJf� �, ElD N _v R V! y 0, 'ct 3 461 ..b.£ o '= °e V � H P1 ' 0 T O OD O V uo.8 T Cd a 0 0 IT M T. W 0 Z W a 0 J W LL W 0 m 0 1 J m W 0 Z W a 0 J W LL W 0 m t z U _3 3 N O 1 d N V 0 to a J W LL W a I a a W I S 1 7 1 W lC Z H 3 3 N O 1 d z 0 Q N J Q H W cc 0 J W LL W 0 C c. W 3 0 J t z 1 3 3 Id JL S -1 7 1 W H Y V 0 J m cc Z 1 3 3 H I S SNOWIS m v 0 J m D J W LL W 0 C It N {7 133HJLS W33N01d m E 0 w C r U � � • J V C O C O O ZE N 3 O U v S t z 0 J m Z 0 F Q N J a W m 0 J W LL W 0 m M M 1 3 3 a 1 S Li 3 3 N O 1 d Q M i W 0 Z W Q s Val 1 3 3 1 1 6 1 N 3 0 U V S co cc 1331i1S SNO W IS L l9 O A 1 L 3 � � D: {C � C .y d (r 7 as a W L (7 Q �� \11111. ♦ « a m U p C O A t L ` VJ C C d '3 LL V L « � N 0 � O 0 133li1S El33 NO1d 01 v 0 m m H Cl) W 3 2 W Q 1 3 3 u 1 S 1 1 1 W no Q i 1 3 3 H 1 S SNOVUIS 0 CO) Z 0 a N J Q W cc cc W n z W > a t z W 133M -LS I I I W 0 z W 13 3 HJLS SNO W IS S Ln z m yyr 06 N r N 0 J to z 0 r N J H W cc cc r ro W D z W Q a 1 3 3 HIS SN OVJIS 1 3 3 d 1 S H 3 3 N O 1 d t z 0 M r N Y V 0 J m Z 0 N J a LU 0 J W LL W a G co M N 1 3 3 H I S 111 3 3 NO 1 d F -- 7i --- is 13 3 W I S I N 3 0 b VS W 3 Z W Q r N ZE t Z 0 M m V a d E N S52 E _ O a O y O N 00 0 d E o E 9 o m O N Y U O a c O c O = a U m R Z c d 0 E E 0 L o 0 0 m a -c F L rn 0 E 76 So W 0 o c a C_ O R = N c f N OE) 0c 0 cM CD m 0 a z o O LL A aEi E 0 C u m ] E o J F rn v c a > E c' n E w o 0 0� a W C `00 m V) o Z y a c Z o c-0 Z Y — m rn o 4) N _ aNi E o > o O m m 7 O 7 N C_ N Q C Od a y O U O U •wO F=W m W O0 O N co t O «CN l0 N N Ic U N C �a UN O r c y > > O Y C O Y E o Q F15 . 4) 'c o m > o m o LL U pa z v n p m m d m N W m E am) � c m G N �/ /� U « O N 0 _ � y Y ou 0 0 m O C co 0 G T N T C 1) O �+ Co O O V T a C d m 'N 7 t $ U a c e. > > W v 0 c a0i m E E o to _Q c Cliz ° EL N W m N �s °c tl i ` r6 0 0 R y c ar rn 0 Q N E v o m 0 E F m ti E E rn o °'D r ' 0 IL 0 0 c H C r «' c ° > .> o E y m m °' o v W 7 i z U .0 O1 C , E .0 N 'O d rn T 0 .` IL i� 0 N Z o °c .� .N C O 0 o 0 0 io m a V .o m m m c — .0 0 0 o o E o y c N E W Z a x E .c ti c is o C 7 LO x T U O N N E7 O UN N R H E 00 o i (D Z5 o EwC C E E 0m 0o 0° AOc ocE o m > o °Qm°OVO Lm yyNNNc G z O mra 'oo s i u) U O Or U D Q n 3 Fo is m $ O o a N 'd W O Na MO y Em; m N I 0 y v o a) r F F p p, N m m O i m m 3 0 r N E r W E E E 0 0 °' O II 0 7 0 0 S 'pm an L N �_ C ~7 O 7 C m z O 0 T N U 7 N � Ti J O -0 d L C N C J a N 0 O N m J C O r a E N o I C rn a c a F m C 0 A t cc p -o d3 O Y T W W •Np O. 'O c c GU o cg C Lm aW m0N TN Em y v O Ua O U C ao '6O U _ CL r N O c ON O'o a d U V OO C,TN LL d Z OQ N N O N •07 C N O 4 G d a O y= > Y C � 0) O O O m F' t L m '6 C O y �=. •� 'O E C c co m a m (n U a 7 a d ¢ N U m _D1 2 _� S O fn O O C ii N a[ — w i o \ \ co C C O c c m N Y 'i � - — � � W 0 � ra � a � a - — - - V -r- 4) d L z m 3 - d o t E p m Y E c E o W y Q v o t d O c p E O Y O) p A N d O W NN Z E N U N Q _ N N j. N N O N m N a ¢ a m rn p v Y Q m m y $ R 3 T 4 °aEi d E E J t oc a� ¢ ° E U C y _> _ Q) O t U N 0 E m _O N 7 N y C r O U. 0 N U m W y •° R y o C N > r o c m 'o, m f o o E t c E " >. a m Z c Q y y o o d W m c E U � N c c a m E E I 7 y m D O N — o Q r N o o o 0 0¢ 3 0 0 o U m d o 3 > A a F a x N U U ° c p W c Z C N w E N E m E a a E °�- h J °o m o > rn 3 E m 0 ° c0 > 'i y m E Q j J t d r v m c d Q a O o in ` W t �° o o D d m v m d c E a I YI T d Uo 1p !!J Q U C7 o w m ¢d c m U J c m m N m N W r = d pZ-j t a c N O W d O T dU N ? N E C d a T �. .L .! Y a O m aou _ U m a N N v m W aEi >: T W Q L E m J c rn cmi c c 'j o > O t T m v Y � 3 t m ° p io _o c c d 4) WO m 0 C N T Z N C ld LL¢ N N L N O _� _pc > L p O O O rn d N o E E O Q co 2 o t 4Ui H c y N E t a c R o L W ° 3 N a� N U -° m c 2 o s d o 3 I a° d 'm ¢ c -o E co: - 0 a t y o h a Eo 0 ° 0 r t o m m W t y a E Z m m c y Z o T v m m d 0 m c � 3 W om rn d c '° t E o ° ° ° F E °� p N y N O Z N „m, U 7 O W uj > ° N y ° U U W U O C d a n 4¢ c Y E o Y N U Q W W O O O p w Q I I I t c = a U F= Q w I I I 1 U 1 m I Q m 7 U _ y N I 7 y N t 7 E m O Y:01 0 'Q N p = T m E m v m o E U LL o 3 2 3 Q 0d 0 y �; Y U ° 0 E P m ¢ E L _F N O ° C ` n 3 E 00 °c 3 d ^ U 312 m E A :3o E y a o 0� m c m- d E m Y N n Z - v m U y t 0 N O L y Z A c o p E t m m m E W O .N d a Fca = I I I 1 I 3 1 E a Y �O R fUiU m C ' m N , U - N m U Y U_ w a c m e y E L N cc c O m y y `m u a c o 0 0 3 M o g rn a c rn p o o° m �' d a E y� rn c L o L; C E L C O N« m E a N y m ` N 0 m « N CL E N N m 3 a C C o m a N m N C Mlco, '0 '•' N L 3 N a O) _C m l0 N N m C N 'y C > E > A c m O m •0 m N y m m C m m m a N 7 m a> O- a N m O m L m m .Z O` C m 'V d C N y O C L v N 'O > m O. 'y C > m 7 w p 3 m 7 O y L N m m m O U m m C m O x E n c w o a a> o Im E 'm a E m ° '$ p rn m i 1,D « B E x -m0 d d N cca m e m o > N Sp Nm c c 4= C E C Y 3 C N N `• m N U N O N m L 7 E d m m O 0 CL 4)N Ot p `p m 7 m O) L C m C E O 0 ¢ O N N ,m- i c N U 0 E '-= a -00 O. >_ U m m L m N m O' o E pw CL D O p C m v a N a m 00 C m o oCL m m m :O « >+ m « m lf1 .O U C j (p E m lNC C N l0 m mC j a L p� N O « a Q V O 0 O V m C m .m. m J m iC C m •p 1p N 7 m m y N O 0 m >` O T > m d N N m V1 'c U C .m. N -O tll N O O m C C L E 0 E N U - m N c « 'p O m m m C Q m 0 m O N a m y N 3 O C ._ m L U O. N C O) .E C O E V y m O a N a m m O N a N Q0 c C U 0 U C O O= O. d O c Cl o d N .c d ~ O m a0 x O U m O a 3 o w a m m O U O O E t m Q m N N m Q co r a L U Q w x vi to E O m $ a a° m E :° IS C C c m yE a v;J=co « o g Q m �' .0 c o D .m. a N m O. CC m O O. _m N C a -r- 'a' y N a m N N ltl 7 C m O" m Rf a ?(D m N 'O m O. N L a m U_ C O Y C -m0 m 'a L C N O U L C 3 m m m N 7 (` N m m C U 4 E L m O N m m C •0 7 « lC0 U N y g c «> c m m 3 a a� 3 c m a x rn m N c R c Q c Lu p m E y c m « m Y c m v d 7 N co !� m O a d O m a Vi N O CD > O) m •c E OL 30 y rn m h o .c O rn .N m c 0 m c N m N M rn c c m y c a- a c a m 0 c o c a o X c c 3 v O O _ 3 o c « 3 c m m m 3a c �° n y W W '0 u Y ai m m m °° > ,5 E E a o -°o o. - 50 N c m M 2 a m-0 o C N C O m m 0 a j T m ? O > 0 y U r .3 c m ` O m y m t`0 d N U U E N O y O m N 9 L m O>C C UUO) m� pN U O m d O y L 7 tC N m N a T V p 0 W w c c 2 3 aa- E > E °' E¢ m m a c cYmi a `�° ayi > > w cu m 2 $ o O m rn E a m i o(a c y 0 W .0 x p m E d 3 L o yc o u a`> ayi L E c y c.40) c m ►° v W p m o, N j x rn C o O. a .3 O. A O/ 3 7 y U O- m c 6 o •o 9 n m c= v`« rn 3 w m y N m N co y c ami .0 o H > m> c a c m U m N a Q E m 0 E tm 5 v v � Lm, A 2 c � O w o 0 p � E � a. c o `3 L 3 v w 0 m c m E p O p p ` C > m LL O C L .� >. m E C N o N m m f0 N O N m () 0 0 `o m U _o m c c d a E 3 m L VJ m m d C m p i lCO C C W d C O 3 m c -Ca >i « U N CD N fa0 r >O (mJ L a A a W d F m Q W m W C C C E O N d O m p O w m N O d m 3 9 U IS - U ..m.. U O a V 9 o) O O� m y m tY C C 'O d m N j C d C N 7 a N _ J m O. U ti m m m r O U O 7 m -0 a a a x ai m 0 0 p Y a •C m N 0. •D cf m p C C E p N j Z C a m '� cY E « m V1 c d c L m C N �, N« m o C •• O 0 > L m 4) .r > m y CO m N 0 U N 0 wN y? a m m Z y c c L c m ya > 'Cl 3 d o « rn m a r « OC d m m c a p m cc O` r -- p a�►NN oymc?� UNq crnN N7 o;ma -IM m Z ` E cm o yOdO mm> c Ep'Yo3 Q m 0 0. _ ow .Em to E c� R N aE m° o E o � v LE N i Um .J 0 p N o 3 o --" ' 6"a 0 mE m a m ay L N ONO XO 0 a C m m N U o m ir CD Q .m o COm m m GE) W O _ >y O E 5,m CO 0 > 3 0ZE C co c N Q y a L m° m m 3 Lm c c y 6 m E c m o m ai `—° rn m� W m c a E x> m > 'C '00 O U a C 7 > a m m O m O W O v 4) 10 OO OO aac FY¢m a mLY - m m U 'pm7 c momo dJ= m L QN c m u ID m 3 a , CS E o E o N i ac`m � m E 0Ua¢ o mH 9 a m 6- 0 mR g a g s C N a n O N n Q Z Z O N C� x is Z W a a Q 1 1 1 1 = - 1 NE TIMMEN P� _ 3AVHlui 3N z 3Atl HILI MN�„- 3AV H 1 1 ,1 3AV 15 L E MN 3AV H1S0 N - 3A "A / / -. 3Atl 15lE Mf. €r i 1 � '3Ad'H1655 s—'---.—�__.._-_._•--•_- • . - . . / $ - 11 3- NIVWN 3AV NIVW MN 1 1 1 meq. • 1 � • Z a a a 01-1 n D 0 T! 1 1 1 1 = - 1 NE TIMMEN P� _ 3AVHlui 3N z 3Atl HILI MN�„- 3AV H 1 1 ,1 3AV 15 L E MN 3AV H1S0 N - 3A "A / / -. 3Atl 15lE Mf. €r i 1 � '3Ad'H1655 s—'---.—�__.._-_._•--•_- • . - . . / $ - 11 3- NIVWN 3AV NIVW MN 1 1 1 meq. • Z O- ��--w N z ry < = p �V)� o _ F-0�o� iC I— W Q -Qv z J • r Z:DZa�W a CD ESxoQz Z uf�"'wS 0LuLu ao° =F--��w uQ- Wp 2:W >Q �� PROPOSED RDC Chapter 18.235: MIXED-USE DISTRICTS (CMU, WMU, WLS, LRVP) Sections: 18.235.010 Purpose. 18.235.020 Special provisions for the Central Mixed USE! District. 18.235.030 Special provisions for the Waterfront Mixed Use District. 18.235.040 Special provisions for the Waterfront Low Scale District. 18.235.050 Special provisions for the Lake River View Protection Overlay District. 18.235.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of the mixed-use districts is to encourage multiple uses within the unique areas that make up Ridgefield's central downtown and waterfront areas. The mixed-use districts include the older commercial and residential core of Ridgefield, the waterfront business center and a waterfront residential area that accommodates floating homes. The three districts are tied together by geography, varying proximity to Lake River, transportation links and public infrastructure. Each district has a distinct character and opportunities, to be emphasized through use and design standards tailored to each of the three districts. B. The mixed-use districts shall allow for a mix of uses in a single building or across an integrated site of multiple buildings, and across the district more broadly. Mixed-use developments are intended to allow for efficient use of land and public services in an urban setting; encourage human interaction and sense of place; create safe, attractive and convenient environments; and increase development flexibility. C. Views of the Lake River Shoreline and the Ridgefield National 'Wildlife Refuge are prominent visual features in the central core of Ridgefield. It is the intent of the Lake River View Protection Overlay District (LRVP) to protect these views in order to provide for a unifying feature across all three mixed-use districts. 18.235.020 Special provisions for the Central Mixed Use District. A. Purpose. The purpose of the Central Mixed Use (CMU) district: is to provide for and enhance the traditional commercial and civic core of the community in downtown. The district shall: 1. Encourage a mix of uses including residential, commercial, office and civic uses. The district shall provide for flexibility in the mix of uses, both within an individual development and across the district. 2. Accommodate a range of housing types, densities, costs and ownership patterns, with a focus on multifamily and mixed-use residential development including senior housing, in close proximity to employment opportunities and goods and services. 3. Promote the highest quality architectural design and preserve the character -defining elements of the downtown core area as articulated in the "14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield." Design guidelines shall encourage new development and redevelopment that reflects the scale and materials of existing development. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 1 July 11, 2013 4. Create a pedestrian -friendly atmosphere that promotes pedestrian, bicycle and transit access and lessens traffic impacts and dependence on automobile transportation. 5. Preserve or create open space for the enjoyment of local residents, business employees and the general public, in part through a density transfer program. 6. Provide a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods that preserves neighborhood livability, and integration with the adjacent waterfront districts. B. Applicability. Full site improvements are required for parking, lighting, landscaping, walkways, storage space, and service areas if a development proposal is: 1. New development; 2. Expanding the square footage of an existing structure by 20 percent; or 3. The construction valuation is 50 percent of the existing site and building valuation. C. Uses. 1. Uses shall comply with the requirements of RDC 18.205. 2. Mix of uses. The CMU district allows and encourages a mixture of land uses, both vertically and horizontally, on one parcel or several contiguous combined parcels, but does not require such a mixture of uses on site, provided the development proposal, when considered in relation to surrounding development, achieves the purposes and objectives of this chapter. D. Lot requirements. 1. Minimum lot area shall be 5,000 square feet. 2. Minimum lot width shall be 50 feet. 3. Minimum lot depth shall be 90 feet. E. Dirriensional standards. TABLE 18.235.020-1 1. Minimum front yard setback (street). (1) (2) 0 - 5 feet 2. Maximum front yard setback (street). (2) (3) 0 - 10 feet 3. Minimum side or rear yard (interior) setback: i. Abutting RLD, RMD, PF or POS zones. (2) 5 feet ii. Not abutting one of the above. 0 feet 4. Minimum height (4) 20 - 30 feet 4. Maximum height (5) 65 feet 5. Maximum impervious surface coverage. (6) 100% RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 2 July 11, 2013 Table notes: 1) Parking structures, surface parking areas, service areas, gas station islands and similar paved surfaces shall have a minimum 5 -foot wide setback landscaped to an L2 standard. 2) Underground parking may extend into any required setbacks, provided it is landscaped at ground level. 3) Maximum setback for new corner buildings shall be zero feet. Maximum setback for all other buildings shall be 10 feet. 4) Minimum height for new corner buildings shall be 30 feet or at least two stories. Minimum height for all other buildings shall be 20 feet, which can be accomplished through facade treatments such as the false front. 5) The Lake River View Protection Overlay District standards, when applicable, supersede this provision. See RDC 18.235.050. 6) Provided setback and site landscaping requirements are met. F. Density. 1. Maximum residential density for development in CMU district shall be 16 dwelling units per acre, except as modified by the density transfer or senior housing bonus up to a maximum of 32 dwelling units per acre. Minimum residential density shall be eight dwelling units per acre, if residential uses are included in the development. 2. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for nonresidential development in the CMU district shall be 2.0, except where modified by the density transfer provisions up to a maximum of 3.0. Floor area for residential uses shall not be calculated as part of the FAR for the site and shall be allowed in addition to the FAR limits. Minimum FAR for nonresidential development shall be 0.5. 3. If a building combines residential and nonresidential uses, residential uses shall occupy a minimum of 25 percent to a maximum of 70 percent of the gross floor area of the building. The minimum and maximum standards in 18.235.020.E.1 and 2 for residential density and FAR shall be met. Residential uses shall not occupy the ground floor. G. Street frontage. 1. At least 50 percent of a street frontage not encumbered by protected critical areas shall be occupied by buildings. 2. At least one main entrance of a building shall face directly toward the street. Entrances shall be made physically and visually inviting by means of incorporating a minimum of two of the following entry enhancement features: i. Additional landscaping equal to 10 percent of required site landscaping; ii. At least 200 square feet of paving materials different from the street sidewalk; iii. At least 100 square feet of awning, marquee, or arcade over the entry; iv. At least 200 square feet of pedestrian plaza with landscaping and benches that is attached to the entry; RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 3 July 11, 2013 v. Entry recessed from the facade surface by at least three feet; or vi. Accent lighting. H. Building design and features. 1. Building design shall reinforce the building's location adjacent to street edge and public space. 2. Building design should emphasize high quality design that implements the provisions contained in the City of Ridgefield's 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield" document, including but not limited to: Use of colors and architectural details in building design. Articulation of base, body and cornice in building design. iii. Use of stone, brick, stucco and wood as primary materials. 3. New buildings must build a floor to ceiling height of at least 12 feet on the ground floor, and be fire -rated construction to accommodate retail or restaurants. 4. Fenestration. i. Where the lot abuts Main Avenue or Pioneer Street, new buildings must have a minimum of 50 percent of the first floor facing the street treated with transparent windows or doors. ii. Where the lot abuts Main Avenue or Pioneer Street, new buildings must have a minimum of 25 percent of the upper stories facing the street treated with transparent windows. iii. Where the lot abuts Main Avenue or Pioneer Street, buildings not subject to subsections (i) and (ii) must maintain the existing percentage of the first floor facing the street treated with transparent windows or doors, or treat a minimum of 25 percent of the first floor facing the street with transparent windows or doors, whichever is greater. iv. New alley -facing facades must have a minimum of 25 percent of the first floor treated with transparent windows or doors. 5. Any portion of the first floor facade facing Main Avenue or Pioneer Street without windows or doors that is at least 30 feet in length shall be articulated in one or more of the following ways: i. Incorporating relief through such features as wall projections or recesses, projecting windows, entrances, or other visual relief. ii. Installing a vertical trellis in front of the fagade with climbing vines or planting materials. iii. Awning, marquee or arcade at least four feet and six inches deep, over the full length of sidewalk or walkway adjacent to the building, and minimum eight feet above the walkway level. iv. Providing texture or artwork (mosaic, mural, sculpture, relief, etc.) over the facade surface. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 4 July 11, 2013 v. Other equivalent methods that provide for the enhancement of the facade, as determined by the planning director. 6. New buildings located at an intersection where at least one leg of the intersection is Main Avenue or Pioneer Street shall accentuate the building corner facing the intersection by including architectural treatment that emphasizes the corner, such as: balconies, turret, corner accentuating roof line, sculpture, chamfered corners, distinctive use of materials, canopy, and bay window. 7. The following accessory structures shall be screened by a fence or landscaping to a value of 80 percent year-round opacity from public view along Main Avenue or Pioneer Street: i. All on-site service areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas, garbage collection, recycling areas, and similar activities. ii. Utility vaults, ground -mounted mechanical units, trash receptacles and other similar structures. iii. Satellite dishes or pedestrian -oriented waste receptacles along walkways are not required to comply with this standard. 8. Mechanical units, utility equipment, elevator equipment, and telecommunication equipment located on the roof shall be grouped together, incorporated into the roof design, and/or screened from adjacent walkways to a value of 80 percent year-round opacity. Signs. Signs are permitted according to the provisions of Chapter 18.710. J. Lighting. Lighting shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.715. In addition, lighting shall comply with the following standards: All building entrances and storefronts shall be illuminated. 2. Lighting fixtures should complement the design of the project in reference to the character, style and scale of the project. 3. Parking area light post height shall not exceed 25 feet. K. Parking. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided as required in RDC Chapter 18.720. 2. Parking areas shall be located so as to minimize their visual impact. Parking shall be placed at the side or rear of buildings, to encourage pedestrian, transit and bicycle access. Parking shall not be located between the front of a building and the street except as a nonconforming use pursuant to Chapter 18.340. On corner lots where one leg of the intersection is an arterial, minor arterial, or collector street, the parking area shall be no closer than the lesser of 100 feet or 25 percent of the street frontage, measured horizontally along the frontage, from the intersecting rights-of-way of the arterial, minor arterial, or collector street with another street. L. Landscaping. Landscaping shall meet the requirements of RDC 18.725. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 5 July 11, 2013 2. There is no minimum percentage of required landscaping in the CMU district, provided setbacks and buffers are provided as required by RDC 18.725.050. M. Fences Fences shall comply with the provisions of RDC 18.740. 2. Fences designed for privacy, security and/or screening shall be: i. Made of material that is compatible with the building design, such as repetition of the building material on fence columns and/or stringers. ii. Used only in combination with trellis, landscaping, or other design alternatives to separate such fence from the pedestrian environment along Main Avenue or Pioneer Street. N. Outdoor uses. 1. Outdoor storage or display areas, excluding outdoor seating or event areas, shall occupy an area no larger than 10 percent of gross floor area except for plant sales that shall occupy no more than 75 percent of gross floor area. 2. Permanent outdoor seating and event areas, cumulatively, are limited to 20 percent of the gross site area. The Planning Director may issue a temporary use permit for the use of up to 30 percent of the gross site area for temporary outdoor seating and event space consistent with RDC 18.205.015.F. The City Council, in a public meeting, may authorize a temporary use permit for temporary outdoor seating and event space that uses more than 30 percent of the gross site area. 3. Outdoor uses in the public right-of-way are prohibited unless the city expressly authorizes the temporary use of the right-of-way, e.g. for sidewalk sales or other special events. O. Open space density transfer. 1. Purpose. The purpose of density transfer regulations is to provide an incentive to property owners for encouraging the provision of open space, while maintaining the overall density of the CMU district. 2. Applicability. i. All land within the CMU district is eligible for designation as open space for the purpose of density transfer under this subsection. ii. Trails through land designated for other use, or isolated open areas such as pedestrian plazas fully integrated in other use areas, shall not qualify for transfer of density. iii. Density may be transferred to any parcel within the CMU district provided resulting development meets all other provisions of the CMU district contained in this section. 3. Transfer rates. Transfer of density from land planned for open space shall be at a rate of either eight dwelling units per acre or an FAR of 1.0, as elected by the applicant. Dwelling units or FAR to be transferred shall be calculated based on the net buildable acreage of the open space lot. The number of bonus dwelling units shall be determined by RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 6 July 11, 2013 rounding fractional numbers to the nearest whole number and rounding up to the nearest whole number from 0.5. 4. Lots qualifying to receive a transfer of density must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. 5. The application of this subchapter shall not result in the creation of a single open space lot with a gross area that is less than 80 percent of the minimum lot size in the CMU district, nor shall any lot dimension (width, depth) be created that is less than 80 percent of the minimum required dimension. 6. The property owner shall provide a guarantee that the land qualifying for such transfer shall be protected as open space. Such guarantees may include, but are not limited to: conservation covenants or easements; mitigation plans; designation of open space areas to be held in common ownership; public dedications or easements; and, special setbacks from protected resources. 7. Should the City not accept dedication of the property, the property owner and City Council shall enter into a Development Agreement which shall) establish the requirements and standards for the upkeep and maintenance of the property, in perpetuity, and the property owner shall record a covenant that runs with the land requiring that the owner of the property shall maintain the property in accordance with the requirements and standards of the Development Agreement, in perpetuity. 8. Process. The property owner may apply for open space density transfer concurrent with other applications for the same parcel(s). Applications shall be processed as a Type II request or higher, depending on the level of review for concurrent applications. i. The application must include a site plan delineating the boundaries of the proposed open space parcel(s) and receiving parcel(s). ii. The application must include calculations of the area in square feet of each lot proposed, and resulting density. P. Senior housing bonus. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the senior housing bonus is to Encourage the construction of housing which is accessible and affordable to seniors of Ridgefield. 2. Applicability. The senior housing bonus may be used for any multifamily or mixed-use development in the CMU zone. The bonus shall be part of any subdivision, PUD, binding site plan, or site plan application. If the bonus is approved, the use shall comply with the requirements for this section for the life of the use. 3. Requirements. i. Senior housing restrictions. a. Age restriction. The development shall be restricted to persons 55 years of age or older and handicapped persons as defined by federal law. At least half of the total housing units shall be occupied by persons 55 years of age or older, except for spouses of such residents for whom there is no minimum age requirement. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 7 July 11, 2013 b. Conversion from occupancy by seniors. No conversion of occupancy to persons other than those specified by subsection (a) shall be allowed without first complying with the underlying zoning and site requirements. The bonus shall not apply to the property if it is no longer occupied by those persons specified by subsection (a), and the bonus housing units shall be eliminated unless otherwise authorized by the applicable development regulations. ii. Density bonus. If a senior housing bonus application is approved, developments may exceed the allowed density of the CMU zone by as much as 50 percent, up to a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre. a. The number of bonus units shall be determined by rounding fractional numbers to the nearest whole number and rounding up to the nearest whole number from 0.5. b. An agreement in a form approved by the City shall be recorded as a covenant or other legally binding limitation on the use and intensity of the property requiring compliance with the requirements of this section and requiring that the age restrictions on housing units created under this section shall be upheld for the life of the project. This covenant or other legally binding limitation on the use and intensity of the property shall run with the land, shall be binding on the assigns, heirs and successors of the applicant, and shall be recorded in Clark County's real property records before the use is occupied. iii. Application for and use of the density bonus. The density bonus shall only be used in the multifamily or mixed-use development for which it is approved. The bonus application shall be made as part of the first discretionary application made for the project. The decision maker for this application shall decide the request for the bonus. iv. Site requirements. All site requirements and development standards of the CMU district shall apply to uses that obtain a senior housing bonus. Additionally, developments shall be designed to project a residential appearance through architectural design, landscaping, the use of building materials, and surface lengths. 18.235.030 Special provisions for the Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) District. A. Purpose. The purpose of the WMU district is to encourage multiple uses while providing an environment for public access to and enjoyment of the waterfront. The WMU district shall accommodate both employers and visitors. The district encourages development that will establish a waterfront where people can be productive, work, and create value while also serving as a destination that caters to those who want to visit, recreate, relax, and shop. The goal of this zone is to implement the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (RUACP) revitalize the waterfront as a publicly accessible shoreline for community gathering and recreation. B. Function of the WMU District. 1. Provide responsible economic reuse of a brownfield site. Redevelopment within this district will create jobs, provide shopping and housing opportunities, and offer education on the environmental history and stewardship of the area. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 8 July 11, 2013 2. Provide public access to the water. This district is the nearest public waterfront and access to the Columbia River for the community of North Clark County, and therefore, access to the water is an essential element of this district. 3. Transition to the Wildlife Refuge. The proximity and relationship the WMU district has with the National Wildlife Refuge is unique. Development in the district should embrace this bond by incorporating connectivity to the environment, the active community, and vibrant ecology. Design guidelines for this district shall be conscious of the transition to the Wildlife Refuge and shall minimize impacts to wildlife by utilizing construction techniques and building materials likely to reduce impacts to the bird population. 4. Relationship to Downtown. Integration of the WMU district with the Downtown Mixed Use district is a key element for successful redevelopment of the waterfront. Both the CMU and WMU districts will benefit from well-planned adjacent districts that accommodate a variety of users and business opportunities. C. Uses. Uses. Uses shall comply with the requirements of RDC 18.205 and 18.235.030.C. 2. Review procedures. For any uses proposed in the WMU district, the proposal shall demonstrate compliance with: Concurrency and level -of -service standards of the city's capital facilities plan; Adopted engineering standards; iii. An approved master planned subdivision; and iv. Any development agreement applicable to property within this district. 3. Primary and accessory uses. The planning director shall distinguish between primary and accessory uses as follows: i. Primary uses are uses which are listed as permitted or limited uses in Table 18.205.020-1 and Table 18.235.030-1. Accessory uses have the following characteristics: a. Occupy less gross floor area than the permitted use(s); b. Do not occupy the majority of storefront area visible from the primary entrance; c. Signage is less than provided for the primary use(s); d. Do not have significant adverse impacts on the city, the environment, or the surrounding neighborhood which cannot be adequately mitigated through compliance with the RDC; e. Are listed as a permitted or limited use in Table 18.205.020-1 or Table 18.235.030-1 or are accessory to a permitted or limited use as defined in RDC 18.100.280.A. 4. The uses in Table 18.235.030-1 are intended to provide for specific uses appropriate for the waterfront in the WMU. These uses supplement the uses listed in Table 18.205.020-1. Together these uses are intended to encourage a mix of uses in the WMU. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 9 July 11, 2013 i. Permitted uses. Permitted uses are listed in Table 18.235.030-1 with a "P". These uses are allowed, subject to site plan review if required per RDC 18.500, if they comply with the development standards and other regulations contained in the RDC. ii. Limited Uses. Allowed uses with additional limitations are listed in Table 18.235.030-1 with an "L". If the property proposed for development is owned by the Port of Ridgefield, limited uses are allowed if they comply with the limitations listed in the footnotes to Table 18.235.030-1, as determined by the Planning Director through a Type I review, and the development standards and other regulations contained in the RDC. Limited uses in Table 18.235.030-1 are subject to site plan review as governed by RDC 18.500. Limited uses shall not be approved unless the application includes a Resolution made by the Port of Ridgefield Commissioners that the proposed use was anticipated in the master plan approved by the City. iii. Prohibited Uses. Uses listed in Table 18.235.030-1 with an "N" are specifically prohibited. iv. Notes. A (#) references specific review/approval criteria as noted. TABLE 18.235.030-1 SPECIFIC WMU LAND USE A. Marine Related Uses. L1ly0 1. Public safety docks and boathouses for emergency services or public safety P officers such as Fire Districts, Police, Coast Guard, and similar services. 2. Marine fuel sales. 0 3. Private docks and boathouses in support of a commercial or educational P use. Private docks shall be accessory to a research company or educational institution located within the WMU district. 4. Private docks and boathouses. Private docks not accessory to a research I L(1) company or educational institution located within the WMU district. 5. Floating restaurant and floating retail uses. Floating retail uses shall directly L(2) serve the boating public or shall be retail uses which support water recreation. 6. Recreational boat launches and associated vehicle/trailer parking. —7 7. Water taxi. -� p B. Employment Uses. 1. Assembly of finished products. L 2. Waterfront light manufacturing not to exceed 10,000 square feet, and not L involving noise, vibration, or odors beyond the interior of the building which are not common, or otherwise incompatible in a predominantly commercial district. Waterfront light manufacturing may include winemaking, breweries, bakeries, assembly of finished products, artisan crafts utilizing welding or construction, RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts July 11, 2013 Page 10 fabrication of recreational products, woodworking, small machine repair when most noise or odors from such repair can be contained within the place of business, artists' studio, and similar uses. 3. Waterfront light manufacturing as provided in B-2 above, except the product P or products manufactured at that location are made available for sale to retail customers at the location at which they are made. 4. Outdoor storage (covered or uncovered). -T- L (3) 5. Warehousing, including mini warehouses. L (4) C. Heavy Industrial Uses. 1. Wood treatment industry. N 2. All other heavy industrial uses. N D. Transportation Uses. �- 2. Public transit stops and station. L 3. Passenger rail station. L E. Public Recreation and Open Space Uses. T 1. Outdoor meeting and gathering spaces. P 2. Public restrooms. P 3. Public plazas and outdoor markets. P 4. Art and sculpture installations. --Fp- 5. Public information kiosks. 5. TP Table Notes: 1) Private docks and boathouses will be approved subject to the Special Provisions in Section 18.235.030.E. 2) Floating restaurants will be approved subject to the Special Provisions in Section 18.235.030.E. 3) Outdoor storage shall be allowed secondary to primary uses if it is screened according to the provisions of Section 18.725, and does not cover more than 10 percent of the gross site area of the primary lot of parcel where the primary use is located. Outdoor storage not directly associated with a primary use, such as storage of boats, trailers, building materials, equipment or similar objects, shall only be permitted to the extent expressly allowed in a development agreement adopted by the Port of Ridgefield and the City of Ridgefield. 4) Consistent with the purpose of the WMU zoning district, warehousing is a prohibited use in the WMU zone unless the Ridgefield City Council and the Port of Ridgefield adopt a development agreement which expressly allows warehousing and which delineates the scope and intensity of warehousing allowed. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 11 July 11, 2013 5. Similar Use. In addition to uses listed in Table 18.235.030-1, the planning director shall determine whether a use not clearly identified in Table 18.235.030-1 as "Permitted", "Limited". or "Prohibited" is sufficiently similar to uses identified in Table 18.235.030-1, or an approved master plan, and if similar to a permitted or limited use or use approved in the master plan, the use is allowed subject to all other provisions of this chapter. This determination will be made through a Type I process. Submittal requirements for a Type I use determination review require a detailed description of the use, applicable fee, a resolution made by the Port of Ridgefield Commissioners that the proposed use was anticipated in the master plan approved by the city, a completed Type I application form, and additional supporting materials the planning director deems essential to the review. The planning director shall complete the review under the Type I application process pursuant to RDC 18.310.060. Appeals of the planning director's determination shall be allowed pursuant to RDC 18.310.100. D. Site Requirements. TABLE 18.235.030-2 SITE REQUIREMENTS A. Minimum area for new development. B. Minimum lot area. C. Minimum lot width. (1) D. Minimum lot depth. ----- E. Minimum front yard setback. -TO I WMU None 5,000 square feet 50 feet 30 feet feet F. Maximum front yard setback. G. Minimum side or rear yard setback: 1. Abutting RLD and RMD zones. 25 feet 10 feet 1 2. Abutting other zones. H. Minimum landscaped area. 115%(2) 71Maximurn impervious surface coverage. 0 feet 85%(3) J. Maximum height. 75 feet (4) Table Notes: 1) Minimum width does not apply to the flag portion of a flag lot which shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide. 2) Minimum landscaped area can be consolidated to include additional lots when approved through a master plan and/or development agreement. 3) Maximum impervious area can be consolidated to include additional lots when approved through a master plan and/or development agreement. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 12 July 11, 2013 4) Rooftop mechanical units are excluded from maximum height requirements when screening is supplied for the mechanical unit. To be exempt from height limitations, screening provided which is the same height as the mechanical unit, constructed of materials consistent with the architectural features of the structure including roof elements, and measuring no more than thirty percent of the building length from north to south is permitted. Architectural features, including but not limited to, parapets, roof elements, mechanical screening improvements, and aesthetic architectural features are also excluded from maximum height regulations. E. Special Provisions. 1. Public access to the waterfront. All lots abutting a shoreline must provide reasonable public access to the shoreline for Lake River. Reasonable public access can be provided through vehicular and/or pedestrian access in public city rights-of-way or other private public easements. 2. Parking lots. Parking lots shall not be located closer to the shoreline than occupied buildings. Existing parking associated with uses existing on the date this district is established shall be permitted to continue but no expansion will be allowed. 3. Nonconforming uses. In recognition of the time needed to attract uses within the WMU district, the period of discontinuance of non -conforming use pursuant to Section 18.340.040.A.5. shall be two years. 4. Relocation of existing uses. In recognition of the need to relocate structures and uses within the WMU district to accommodate on-going environmental remediation of property within the district, the businesses lawfully operating within the district on the date the district is established may be relocated, moved, or reconstructed within the district and will continue to be considered as permitted uses. 5. View corridors. Views of the waterfront and of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge are an important amenity to the waterfront development and the adjacent residential and commercial downtown districts. To protect these views, and provide for waterfront development as planned, view corridors shall be provided as follows: no structures with a height of more than 25 feet shall be located within view corridors established within the westerly projections of Depot, 9th, Cook, Hall, Elm, Maple, Division, and Mill Streets to the mean low water line of Lake River, and are measured 30 feet from each side of the centerline of these streets. The city may permit exceptions to the view corridors to allow obstruction of up to two of these corridors or may modify the restrictions on height and width standards through a Type II process, when accompanied by a resolution adopted by the Port of Ridgefield Port Commission at a public meeting. 6. View sheds. View sheds have been established in order to preserve maximum views of the National Wildlife Refuge from downtown, the adjacent hillside south of Ash Street, and residential areas north of Cook Street. To protect these views, no structures with a height of more than 45 feet shall be located south of the westerly projection of the centerline of Ash Street or north of the westerly projection of the centerline of Cook Street. Exceptions allowable to height limitation in Table 18.235.030-2 (site requirements) are permitted in the view shed protection area. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 13 July 11, 2013 7. Private docks. Private docks, or limited access docks, are generally inconsistent with the goals of the WMU district. However, in limited cases where public access is incompatible with a proposed use, a private or limited access dock may be permissible. In the site plan review process, the applicant must first demonstrate why public access is not desirable for the dock. Appropriate reasons may include public safety concerns with access to the dock, possible interference with a critical function of the dock if public access were permitted, the need for additional privacy to protect research or trade secrets, or the need for emergency services security. In these limited cases, the city may consider the needs for the private dock in comparison to the goals of the WMU district zone and any applicable master plan. The city may permit private docks only when the request is accompanied by a resolution adopted by the Port of Ridgefield Port Commission at a public meeting. 8. Floating retail or restaurants. The waterfront is a limited resource and water -dependent USeS must be given priority along the water and adjacent shoreline. Floating retail and restaurants are generally consistent with the purpose of the WMU district if limited according to the provisions of this section. Floating retail uses are limited to retail uses which cater to the boating or water recreating public. Floating restaurant uses are permitted if they promote public access and enjoyment of the waterfront and if they are designed to increase public enjoyment and access. Floating restaurant uses are also permitted when the design does not obstruct public use of walkways or marina facilities. The city may permit floating retail or restaurants only when the request is accompanied by a resolution adopted by the Port of Ridgefield Port Commission at a public meeting. 9. Building orientation. Buildings should be oriented with the front of the building facing the internal circulation corridor. Buildings should generally be oriented along an east -west axis when located between the internal circulation and Lake River. Buildings between the internal circulation and the railroad tracks can be oriented along a north -south or east -west axis. Buildings within two hundred feet of the Lake River shoreline must include an entrance and storefront display on the west side of the building. F. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided as required in Section 18.230.070 to provide a minimum of 15 percent landscaped area. Landscaping shall meet all requirements detailed in RDC 18.725. G. Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided as required in Chapter 18.720. Parking garages are exempt from parking lot landscaping standards and dimensional standards for surface parking lots. Parking dimensions and drive aisles shall be designed to promote efficient use of parking areas and provide adequate passenger car maneuverability. H. Signage. Signs are permitted according to the provisions of Chapter 18.710 18.235.040 Special provisions for the Waterfront Low Scale (WLS) District. A. Purpose. 1. The Waterfront Low Scale (WLS) District encompasses the area bounded by Railroad Avenue, Mill Street and Lake River. 2. The WLS district is intended to implement provisions of the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan for well designed, mixed-use development along the Lake River RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 14 July 11, 2013 waterfront. The purpose of the district is to preserve and enhance the natural resources base of the area and to connect the city to its waterfront. The district shall provide for a mix of uses including existing waterfront housing, primarily floating homes; visual access to the waterfront; and commercial uses. The district shall provide for primarily water -oriented uses within the shorelines of the City that meet the provisions of the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program (SMP). B. Shorelines restrictions. 1. The city may approve developments within the city's shorelines only after the applicant meets the provisions contained in the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program. Applicants are required to obtain any required shorelines permits in addition to land use permits required by this Title. See Chapter 18.820, Shoreline Management. 2. Applicability. If the provisions of the SMP conflict with other applicable local ordinances, policies and regulations, including this section, the more restrictive shall apply. C. Uses. Uses shall comply with the provisions of RDC 18.205. 2. Uses in over -water structures. Uses in over -water structures must comply with all use regulations applying to the upland lot that the floating structures are attached to. In addition, uses in over -water structures must comply with the adopted SMP and the Ridgefield Building Code for over -water structures. D. Lot requirements. There shall be no minimum or maximum lot size for development in the WLS district. 2. The minimum lot width shall be 50 feet. E. Threshold for design and site improvements. Conformance with RDC 18.235.040.F -J is required if a development proposal is: New development; 2. Expansion of the gross floor area of an existing structure by 20 percent; or 3. Construction valued at 50 percent of the existing site and building valuation. F. Dimensional standards. TABLE 18.235.040-1 Table Notes: RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 15 July 11, 2013 WLS A. Minimum front yard setback (street). (1) (4 0 ft (1) B. Minimum side or rear yard (interior) setback: 0 ft C. Maximum height 35 ft D. Maximum impervious surface coverage. 85%(2) Table Notes: RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 15 July 11, 2013 1) Front yard setback for residential developments (excluding mixed-use developments), parking structures, surface parking areas, service areas, gas station islands, and similar paved surfaces shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide measured from the back of the sidewalk, and be fully landscaped to an L2 standard. 2) For over -water structures, requirements apply to upland lot only. G. Design standards. 1. Building design shall reinforce the building's location adjacent to street edge and public space. Building design shall also reinforce the connection with the Lake River waterfront. 2. Where the lot abuts Mill Street, at least 50 percent of the lot's street frontage not encumbered by protected critical areas shall be occupied by buildings 3. Where the lot abuts Mill Street, at least one main entrance of a building shall face directly toward the street. Entrances shall be made physically and visually inviting by means of incorporating a minimum of two of the following entry enhancement features attached to the entry: i. Additional landscaping equal to 10 percent of required site landscaping; ii. At least 200 square feet of paving materials different from the street sidewalk; iii. At least 100 square feet of awning, marquee, or arcade over the entry. iv. At least 500 square feet of pedestrian plaza with landscaping and benches that is attached to the entry. v. Entry recessed from the fagade surface by at least three (3) feet; or vi. Accent lighting. 4. Where the lot abuts Mill Street, nonresidential buildings must have a minimum of 50 percent of the first floor facing the street treated with transparent windows or doors. Any portion of the first floor fagade without windows or doors that is at least 30 feet in length shall be articulated in one or more of the following ways: i. Incorporating relief through such features as wall projections or recesses, projecting windows, entrances, or other visual relief. ii. Installing a vertical trellis in front of the facade with climbing vines or planting materials. iii. Providing texture or artwork (mosaic, mural, sculpture, relief, etc.) over the facade surface. iv. Other equivalent methods that provide for the enhancement of the facade, as determined by the planning director. 5. The following accessory structures shall be screened by a fence or landscaping to a value of 80 percent year-round opacity from public view along Mill Street: i. All on-site service areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas, garbage collection, recycling areas, and similar activities. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 16 July 11, 2013 ii. Utility vaults, ground -mounted mechanical units, trash receptacles and other similar structures. iii. Satellite dishes or pedestrian -oriented waste receptacles along walkways are not required to comply with this standard. 6. Mechanical units, utility equipment, elevator equipment, and telecommunication equipment located on the roof shall be grouped together, incorporated into the roof design, and/or screened from adjacent walkways. H. Signs. 1. Signs are permitted according to the provisions of Chapter 18.710. Lighting. Lighting shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.715. Parking. 1. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided as required in RDC Chapter 18.720 in addition to the following standards. 2. Parking visible from Mill Street shall be screened to 80 percent year-round level of opacity. 3. Parking lots shall be located so as to minimize their visual impact. Parking shall be placed at the side or rear of buildings, to encourage pedestrian, bus and bicycle access. 4. For development within the shorelines of the city, parking shall be located landward of the primary structure as far as possible or within the primary structure where parking is allowed as accessory to a permitted use. 5. Floating home moorages must provide a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces and a maximum of two parking spaces per floating home. The parking is to be provided on the upland lot to which the floating home moorage is attached. K. Landscaping. Landscaping shall comply with the provisions of RDC 18.725. 2. A minimum of 15 percent landscaped area shall be required for development in the WLS zoning district. Fences. Fences shall meet the requirements of RDC 18.740. 2. Fences designed for privacy, security and/or screening shall be: i. Made of material that is compatible with the building design, such as repetition of the building material on fence columns and/or stringers. ii. Used only in combination with trellis, landscaping, or other design alternatives to separate such fence from the pedestrian environment along Mill Street. M. View corridors. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 17 July 11, 2013 1. Views of the waterfront and of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge are an important amenity to the waterfront development and the adjacent residential and commercial downtown districts. To protect these views view corridors shall be provided as follows: no structures with a height of more than 25 feet shall be located within view corridors established within the westerly projections of Mill, Simons, Pioneer, and Sargent Streets to the mean low water line of Lake River, and are measured 30 feet from each side of the centerline of these streets. The city may permit exceptions to the view corridors to allow obstruction of up to one of these corridors or may modify the restrictions on height and width standards through a Type III process. 18.235.050 Special provisions for the Lake River View Protection Overlay District. A. Purpose. 1. The Lake River shoreline and the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge are prominent landmarks in the central core of Ridgefield. Views of these areas produce a variety of significant and tangible benefits for both residents and visitors to Ridgefield. Views contribute to the economic environment of the city by substantially enhancing property values. Views contribute to the visual environment of the city by providing inspiring panoramic vistas, and creating distinctive supplements to architectural design. Views contribute to the cultural environment of the city by providing a unifying effect, allowing individuals to relate different areas of the city to each other in space and time. 2. To maintain and enhance the beneficial effects of the Lake River shoreline and Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge views from the central core, the city shall create an overlay district that limits the heights of buildings and structures that may impede such views. 3. The goals of this overlay are to provide visual access along the westerly projections of the public right-of-ways west of Main Avenue and to encourage the preservation of upper story view sheds westward from Main Avenue over individual lots. 4. To achieve these purposes the height of buildings shall stair step down the hill from Main Avenue to the western edge of the district. In addition, building and structure orientation should both enhance view shed opportunities from the building and should minimize obstruction of view sheds from adjacent buildings and structures. B. District. The Lake River View Protection Overlay District shall extend from the centerline of Sargent Street to the centerline of Mill Street and from the centerline of Main Avenue to the eastern edge of the main line of the BNSF railroad tracks. 1. View corridors within the overlay district include Sargent, Pioneer, Simons and Mill, streets west of Main Street. 2. View sheds include views of the Lake River shoreline and the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge over private property from Main Avenue westward. 3. Within the overlay district: i. The elevation differential between the centerline of Main Avenue and the centerline of First Avenue, as extended north to south through the district, ranges between six to 12 feet; RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 18 July 11, 2013 ii. The elevation differential between the centerline of First Avenue and the centerline of Railroad Avenue, as extended north to south through the district, ranges between 20 to 32; and iii. The overall elevation differential between the centerline of Main Avenue and Railroad Avenue, as extended north to south through the district, ranges between 26 to 44 feet. C. Applicability. If a structure, lot, or other parcel of land lies partly within the overlay district, that part of the structure, lot, or parcel shall meet all the requirements for this district as set forth in this subsection. D. Relationship to underlying zoning. With the exception of the maximum building or structure height requirement, all other requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply to development within this district. E. Maximum building and structure height limits. Maximum building and structure heights shall conform with Figure 18.235.050-1. The height of buildings shall stair step down from east to west in order to preserve the upper story views from upslope buildings. Property owners are encouraged to maximize viewing opportunities from western -facing facades. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 19 July 11, 2013 FIGURE 18.235.050-1 F. Exemptions. 1. Development in the CMU district that qualifies for a senior housing bonus as detailed in RDC 18.235.020.N shall be exempt from the maximum building and structure height limits listed in 18.235.050.E. 2. Public works infrastructure, including but not limited to transportation and lighting structures, shall be exempt from the maximum building and structure height requirements listed in 18.235.050.E. G. Review Required. 1. As part of an application for any proposed land use action within the LRVP overlay, the applicant shall provide a scaled map showing the location, species, diameter at breast height, and approximate crown diameter at its widest point of all trees and tree canopies within the boundaries of this district. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 20 July 11, 2013 RIDGEFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.2'10.130: DOWNTOWN TRANSITION AREA 18.210.130 Special provisions for the Downtown Transition Area. A. Purpose. To accommodate potential future expansion of the CMU district, which encompasses the City's traditional commercial and civic core, the Downtown Transition Area allows for limited commercial activity in the residential districts surrounding the CMU district. B. District boundaries. The Downtown Transition Area (DTA) shall be bounded by the centerline of Sargent Street extended to 8th Avenue, 8th Avenue south of Pioneer Street, 5th Avenue north of Pioneer Street, Division Street, and Railroad Avenue, exclusive of properties zoned RMD-16, CMU or P/OS. The district shall also include parcels abutting Division Street on the north side of the street between N Railroad Avenue and N 5th Avenue, and parcels abutting Sargeant Street on the south side of the street between S 3rd Avenue and S 5th Avenue. The district boundaries shall be as illustrated in Figure 18.210.130-1. Figure 18.210.130-1 C. Uses. Within the Downtown Transition Area, limited commercial and office activity may be allowed provided: 1. Use is located on a lot platted 10,000 square feet or less zoned RLD. RDC 18.210.130 Downtown Transition Area Page 1 2. The building in which the use is located was lawfully established prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Existing buildings may be expanded by no more than 20 percent of the existing total floor area. Non-residential SDCs, impact fees, and building and life safety codes may apply to proposed alterations or expansions. 3. Use meets the definition of General Office, General Retail Trade/Services, Eating and Drinking Establishment use types as defined in RDC 18.100. D. Review. The planning director shall review applications for uses in the Downtown Transition Area not allowed by the underlying zoning as well as proposed expansions and alterations consistent with RDC 18.210.130.0 through a Minor Site Plan Review as described in RDC 18.500.030.6. E. Development standards. The parking, landscaping, lighting, and sign standards for the CMU zone shall apply to proposed nonresidential uses in the DTA. F. Adjustment of dimensional standards for building expansions. The city will attempt to allow flexibility in lot coverage and dimensional standards set forth in RDC 18.210.030 and 18.210.040 so long as the adjustments to the standards are consistent with the character of the Downtown Transition Area as follows: 1. The burden of demonstrating that the proposed relaxation of the base zone dimensional standards is consistent with the character of the DTA lies solely on the applicant and shall be supported by substantial evidence, including, but not limited to, demonstrating consistency with the 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield." 2. Building setbacks to the street may be reduced if the proposed structure is of the sarne, or substantially similar, scale, mass, height and composition of materials as 50 percent of like types of buildings within a distance of two blocks of the proposed structure on the same street. 3. The building height must meet the requirements for the underlying residential zone. 4. The request for flexibility may exceed 20 percent of the numeric base zone standard without application of RDC 18.350.030.6. RDC 119.210.130 Downtown Transition Area Page 2 W 5- � 00 I W Z 0 �o Q U o(D �z ..z -O X N 0 �- Z H W Q ary ao Q Floating Homes — Ridgefield Municipal Code Chapter 14.96 14.96.010 Moorage location: Every floating home moorage shall be located on privately -owned or privately -controlled premises. 14.96.020 Land access: Everyfloating home moorage shall have access to not less than 20 feet of land frontage abutting a public street sufficiently improved for automobile travel. 14.96.030 Moorage walkways: Every floating home moorage shall have firm and substantial walkways with a net width of not less than 4 feet and extending from land to every floating home site in the moorage. A. Two boards or other surfacing material used in the construction of walkways may be no more than one half inch apart. B. The maximum allowable slope across any walkway shall be no more than 4 degrees without eccentric loading. C. Where two or more segmented walkways join a metal joint shall be provided for the transition. 14.96.040 Moorage lighting. Every floating home moorage and the walkways to every floating home site shall be illuminated to provide safe access. A. All luminaries shall be attached to the walkway. B. A photometric plan that meets the engineering standards for a pedestrian pathway shall be met. 14.96.050 Fire protection. Floating home moorages shall be provided with fire extinguishing equipment as follows: 1. Portable fire -protection equipment. One fire extinguisher, 2A, 20-13: C rating minimum, shall be provided in each required hose station. The fire chief shall designate the type and number of all other fire appliances to be installed and maintained in each floating home moorage. 2. Standpipes. All portions of floats exceeding 250 feet in distance from fire apparatus access and marine service stations shall be provided with an approved Class I standpipe system installed according to International Building Code Section 905 and the International Fire Code. 14.96.060 Water service connections. Every floating home moorage shall have a water service connection and shall provide water service piping securely fastened and stabilized above water from the water service connection to an outlet connection at each floating home site on a floating home moorage. The water piping in everyfloating home in a floating home moorage shall be connected to the water service outlet serving the floating home and the connection shall be securely fastened and stabilized with flexible connections above high water line. Water service connections and water service piping shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with applicable standards established by or pursuant to ordinance. 14.96.070 Public sewer connection. Every floating home moorage any part of which is within 200 feet of a public sewer shall have a lawfully installed connection to a public sewer with flexible connections. 14.96.080 Local side sewer system. Every floating home moorage shall provide a local side sewer system -for the collection of sewage from every floating home in the moorage. The local side sewer system shall be connected to the public sewer, shall have an inlet connection at each floating home site and shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with this and all other applicable ordinances regulating the construction, alteration, repair and connection of side sewers. 14.96.090 Connection to local side sewer system. Every floating home in a floating home moorage connected to a public sewer shall be connected to the local side sewer system. Owners and operators of floating home moorages shall not permit any floating home to be moored at any moorage under their control unless the floating home is connected to the local side sewer system. It is a violation for any person to use, occupy or let any floating home for human habitation unless it is connected to the sewer system. A reconnection permit is required for any floating home that is relocated from its original site of connection to a new connection not previously permitted local side sewer system. Such reconnection is subject to the approval of the General Manager of the Clark Regional Wastewater District and/or his/her designee. 14.96.100 Sewer installation fees. The fee for the installation of any new side sewer serving a home within a floating home moorage is the fee provided by law for the connection to the public sewer of side sewers serving mobile home parks. 14.96.17.0 Plumbing systems. All plumbing and plumbing systems in everyfloating home shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code except as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Health or his/her designee. 14.96.120 Garbage disposal. Every floating home moorage shall be provided with adequate garbage storage and collection facilities, which shall be located in an accessible place on the moorage site. No garbage or refuse shall be thrown or dumped into the waters. 14.96.1310 Electrical service and wiring. Electrical service approved by Clark Public Utilities shall be provided to floating homes and floating home moorages. Electrical wiring and equipment in every floating home shall conform to requirements of the Seattle Electrical Code. No floating home shall be permitted to connect or reconnect to the electric utility's distribution system unless approved for such connection by the Building Official in accordance with the Electrical Code. 14.96.140 Housing standards for existing floating homes. Every floating home shall comply with the minimum housing standards of the Development Code (R.M.C. Title 18) and the International Building Code 2012 as adopted. 14.96.150 Stairs. Stairs that provide a required means of egress shall have a minimum clear width of 30 inches. Maximum riser height shall be not more than 8 inches and minimum tread depth shall be not less thar, 9.25 inches. 14.96.160 Guards. Guard rails are not required where open decks, balconies, and walkways do not exceed 36 inches in height above the water line. 14.96.170 Fasteners. Fastenings in areas exposed to the elements shall be hot dipped galvanized steel, marine grade bronze, copper, stainless steel, or other corrosion resistant material suitable for marine use. 14.96.180 Boat Wells. Boat wells under floating structures shall be separated from the dwelling unit, and from structural members supporting the dwelling unit, by a minimum of one layer of 5/8 inch Type X, water resistant, gypsum wall board, or equivalent approved fire rated assembly. Boat wells shall provide adequate natural ventilation to prevent the buildup of flammable vapors. 14.96.190 Framing. All framing lumber in contact with the floatation device and all framing lumber within 12 inches of the water surface shall be factory preservative treated in accordance with AWPA-U1. Plywood shall be exterior grade and all plywood below the lowest inhabitable floor level shall be marine grade. 14.96.200 Roof Coverings. Roof coverings shall be fire-resistant or non-combustable. 14.96.210 Reserve Buoyancy Criteria. The floatation system shall have sufficient buoyancy to support the design weight of the float home plus the maximum combined weight of deadweight items and design snow load and maintain a minimum distance of 3 inches from the water to the lowest primary transverse support stringers. When design wind load is applied to the superstructure the amount of heel shall be not less than 3 inches from the water. 14.96.220 Exiting and Emergency Egress. Floating homes shall have a minimum of 18 inches width of open deck on all sides. 14.96.230 Mooring. Cleats, bollards, bull rails or other such devices shall be sufficient in number and attached to the floating structure in such a way as to provide adequate mooring points to secure the float home in the highest design wind load. Mooring lines and/or chains shall be kept in good condition, kept free of chafing, and shall be removable without the use of tools. 14.96.240 Property lines. The boundaries of floating home moorage sites shall be considered the lot line for determining compliance with Ridgefield Municipal Code Title 18. 1. A clear space of at least eight feet shall be provided between adjacent structures measured from a building wall line horizontal to adjacent building wall line. Roof eave projections shall be no closer than six feet. 14.96.250 Approval of moorage site plan required. Every floating home moorage shall continuously conform to a moorage site plan that has been approved by the Director of Community Development. Such approval shall be obtained as follows: Three copies of the site plan, drawn to scale and completely dimensioned, and setting forth the address and legal description of the property on which the moorage is located and the name and address of the owner or operator of the moorage, shall be filed with the Director of Community Development. Interpretation For the purposes of determining the required wall and opening protection and roof -covering requirements, distance shall be measured to the exterior wall of the home, and not to the float. The moorage site plan shall show: 1. The dimensions of the floating home moorage site; 2. The location of abutting public waterways; 3. The location and dimensions of private waterways and land access to the moorage; 4. The location and identification of individual floating home sites; 5. The location and dimensions of off-street parking spaces; 6. The location and dimensions of walkways and any accessory structures or facilities; 7. The water service system; 8. The local side sewer system; and 9. The electrical service and lighting system. 'The site plan shall be reviewed by the Building Official, the Fire Chief, the Director of Community ,Development for conformance with the requirements of this code and other applicable ordinances. Upon approval by the Director of Community Development, two copies of the approved site plan shall be retained in the office of the Director of Community Development, and one copy, which shall be maintained on the premises of the floating home moorage, shall be returned to the owner or operator. 14.96.260 Moorage register of ownership. Every owner or operator of a floating home moorage shall maintain a current register of everyfloating home moored on the premises, such register to record the name and address of the legal owner of each floating home and the registration number assigned to it by the Clark County Assessor. A copy of the register shall be made available upon request to any City department referred to in this chapter. 14.96.265 Americans with Disabilities Act. All Marina construction is required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 14.96.270 Applicability. This Chapter shall take effect within 30 days of adoption by the Ridgefield City Council. Existing marina operations have 5 years to comply fully with the provisions of this chapter. aL R1 -2 -Lb Ir.�.n Welcome to Downtown Ridgefield New Business Checklist Welcome Prospective Business Owner, We are glad that you are interested in locating your business in Ridgefield's historic downtown and hope that you will find our downtown is the perfect fit for your business endeavors. This checklist has been created to assist you through the process of opening a new business in downtown. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact City Hall at (360) 887-3557. LAND USE & BUILDING ❑ Identify a potential location for your business. ❑ Contact our planning staff at (360) 887-3557 to confirm that your planned use is consistent with current land use zoning. Completion of a Planning Inquiry Form in advance may expedite the process. r ❑ If you plan to build a new structure, convert an existing structure from a residential use to a commercial or a shared UJ (commercial/residential) use, or perform significant improvements, it is likely that you will have to obtain building permits for the construction/conversion. Please contact our Building Official at (360) 887-8610 to schedule a meeting to identify which permits may be required. To facilitate your project, the City completes all coordination with the Clark County Fire Marshal's office. Impact fees and/or system development charges may also apply, please contact our Public Works Director at (360) 887-8251 to schedule a meeting to determine if infrastructure impacts apply. ❑ If you plan to construct a new building, please fill out a Water/Sewer Availability Request form to determine if there is water and sewer serving the site. The cost to perform a water/sewer availabilityanal sis is $50.00. N SECURE THE LOCATION a LU ❑ Negotiate a purchase & sale or lease agreement with the owner. OBTAIN APPLICABLE CITY LICENSES & PERMITS The following licenses and permits may be required and can be obtained at City Hall (230 Pioneer Street): ❑ BUSINESS LICENSE. Ridgefield's annual business license is a flat fee of $50.00. ❑ BUILDING PERMITS. If applicable, a variety of building permits may be required pursuant to your planned construction or improvements. Permit fees are required in accordance with the City's Master Fee Schedule, which is available on the City's website (www.ci.ridgefield.wa.us). M ❑ CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT. Locating a new type of business in an existing building requires a change of LU occupancy permit, which can be obtained at City Hall. The change of occupancy permit is a flat fee of $100.00, however �— impact fees or system development charges may also apply. ❑ SIGN PERMIT. Ridgefield Municipal Code Chapter 18.710 regulates the types of signs allowed in the City. Since signage is a key part of your business' success and consistency of Ridgefield's vision, we suggest you meet with City staff prior to making any signage decisions. A sign permit may be obtained at City Hall; the permit fee is 1 % of the value of the sign, but not less than $25.00. ❑ UTILITY ACCOUNT SET-UP. The City operates water, sewer and storm waiter utilities. Staff at City Hall would be happy to assist you with setting up your account for these services. YOU'RE COMPLETE! Congratulations and we wish you and your business much success! Following is additional information that may assist you in starting your business: zz 0 Electricity: Clark Public Utilities (360) 992-3000 or www.clarkpublicutilities.com Q 0 Garbage: Waste Connections (360) 892-5370 or www.wcnx.org 0 Natural Gas: NW Natural (360) 571-5465 or www.nwnatural.com Z0 Ridgefield Business Association (360) 887-3600 or www.ridgefieldwash.com 0 To maintain the character of our downtown, the community has developed 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield, which is available on the City's website (www.ci.ridgefield.wa.us) 1 0 0 D 4--) U) co 0 LL 11 V) -v 0� co - LL n� W 0 O U U� � 4-j 0 c i. D ry 0 mol -►-j n� W E E 0 W JI Calc V) N V) N .I a--) VIII W W Z O a ro 0 Q ry o:otl:o: �Otl tl 0 > > ti o ti Cla "T4 a N i O 70 L L N N c ra L ^ Li Q - O y, ` C - c a' C LO C f6 N V ra C Y 3 J SL c p c ra Oar J p C O -u) O N O O O NO L 3 3 �@ • Q- 0 O C a) 7 '6 C :3 p C N c C `� 3 a v N > > Q N io O U a -.w .N p -0 N O C _O c O @ T o C c E 0_ � 3 a1 0 -0 E N 00 0 C O Oc _0O N 3 ° c OU O� 0� c o 0C E 0c -0 a) sL+ O> N m ra _ o c O i. • 0aO ui EaC O C a) J N > >' O p E c Q O d N C 7 aa)i C -diCp U • 03 � 0 � � o� f�°'ro E,� �c • N -p -0-- v a) o p c� OU a) O a) a) a a) C 3= a wo L Q OQ QEc u C Qra Q c p mo m= N 3 0 Q ro CC, 0) c • Doc a) � C � 3. a) > .2 6 c p U oic ora �3 mw > 3 a) -c o-0 w o E uw v o E .,A O� 00 O C a) a) C '>O -0 Ua > O Q v YO O Q N LU wQ w-0 a a-2 a-0 w o o:otl:o: ti tl 0 0 o ti o ti Cla "T4 a N i O 70 c�.v�� N N c L L ^ Li Q - O y, ` C - c a' .nn O C f6 N V ra C Y 3 J SL a) E 3 ra Oar J p cn c -u) u E 3 O O O 3 a �@ • N C O C O C C N v N i — 0 a v a oO :3C tfo 3 a -.w O O :3 C _O c O o o C Q E u T � fy a1 0 -0 E N 00 0 C O in 6 a) N 3 ° N c OU O� > c N N --� o E o N a) sL+ O> N 3 O (o N E O) _ o c j o • O .N O N m -C 3 0 `0 J N >, E >' O p E c O d N O C 7 aa)i C E O 'X • Q> Q O 0 -0 u v E,� o • Q O N ao O N i N OU a) Q a) a) a C C .0 .� Y Q u C O N C O C i O • a) � � N a) Q� � � +L+ Y C C Q N N a) 0 0 O V Q'- -0 N r0 0 ra �m c3 ro vo c Qo Q� >o 2 cm �> v �> U Oo UQ u nQ 0- ro -0 Ua o:otl:o: A �= o � Ln OOOtltI Cla "T4 a _u L `5 ♦ r•s O 70 N � a u L ^ Li Q - O y, ` C - c a' C a 0 E O Cc, C N O v c a) a N E a ~ v� 0 O C n 0 U N W y v L C a .c o, T >, ra +� SL � _L C � jC Cp s .0 �- ,n m C C E VE` 2' O) -E, N O a C c ro J cn W -u) o:otl:o: OOOtltI O 70 u O Q C a) aN.+ rCb in u J O O p _0 cn O -u) c N E 3 O O O 3 a �@ E c c C O C O -C N v N i N 0 a v a oO o tfo c 3 a -.w 0 Y C _O Q o w c ro Q O • • .� O u N O a1 0 -0 Q O C ra cc C O C c i0 3 O N 3 ° O OU O N C a r6 m O N Q E -0 .0 O> N p Y Q (o N E O) 0 o c j o -0 Q 3 �� > U �' O Q • y N N 3 p O 0 O >' O p E c O Nc O Q O-0 -0 aa)i C O c • Q> Q O > O> 'O O N Cl a) .0) Y � Q° a>) cn0 N as U °' ao o u o:otl:o: O 70 u (CO o aCL = c in o ro N O O p _0 E 3 w In C O L C N v N ro ra O T -_ a v o 0 °Q c 3 o a -.w ° c -aY roro O u N p- O "' ra cc co o ro V c ° c OV 3 ra o N 3 m Q o ro v C ro 3> +O-+ U E E U _ 0 o c o m �� o V 3 a) O 0 Q c 3 a' ro N >' O p 0 Q O N r63 ° O u roa) E m YN O CL O-0 N —m N c N CO C fa a) N Q° a>) Q a o a>) c70 70 Qa rn O Ln - o a c o N U m a) a) a a) D V o U HrNi N L 4, 0 Q v @ a6 u Q Z E v, ♦N+ E d 0 Y 6 a) L C O a) _ ~ O V 3 V O D a) a N C� j c z O v 3o -0O G a u a 13mo0'LnoE LTJ i R mm-oQ�:am`Qwo gb 0 c " `t 1 Li 8O N 6)L-+ N EO r, v� ON U -�°- .N V ru+ @ c 0)- O c°o v� Ln N r Q E 0-0-0 O- C C O c ° i° N C v U N T.0. � uo L � �= O Y Ol -, 4, 0 0 c r O w -C y p c to 3 N 'O w N O C °- `� L O �' C� r0 @ N N �Q ov roj3 p'B N +' Q y ccvQ 3 N Q bio f6 N -o N `-' tU � Q r0 c m (EDa_', . o ��O C o .� CL o� N O- a.., N �� o a, 4 N O M rn (D n v N _. (•. _ _) n p L O `° ra Ovi p+ N> Y �°'�cQa�pQ I— 0 -@o 22 tnr-0am--ooLn m 0) E•��oO .E1gE-?cb m °m�ov�� M O _c y Y 'p 'x fo M W J-, L -,r-_�, L O O +J �-+ C C U 3 N '_' 7 ." N °- Y �Y to C _ yr i +-. N Q'^ p Qi3oQ�`°`�°°ram Q °Q'a°ia,'poc Q co QQ�Q�-uQ , (0-0 cc c w c� o �L� � o c W -C w toc n o' i(ao` MM3 uca�pa,3� 3' -C 0 o) 0 @ a, - c c c Q o o ate, t 3= 3° o �o�- E c O W m N PA r, L I n -- _. (•. _ _) y r U J :J U��, CC w 't _ _ rn C, (L E c O W m N PA M I N W F- U w m --------------------------- ---�---; V) Ln Cf .� O O' _ a..-, + C U : Q Oa � a a F- W -C O 0 U a � a Q w a U Z — � G) O a Q Q Z O j Z ' E ; Q _O 0 ; n U ; --------------------------- cNi U ' ---�---; V) Ln Cf .� O' ru + C _O r. > CL 0 _� rG = _0 QU O U � v. `r � Q N '4_1 Q U Q -t? W 4-j� �� O L —; Cf)—� Q O C = Q� w — = Q O > O �i� – ~ to ry cr, C Q �O O N X O 0) M N C O a)O °��(D ;CoQ. f ci � O N j U Q _ 4-j N , ry LU cn � - ; 341d" • F 0 L a Ci R E c O W J N N Ln N +-j J PI J - 0 A r Ci 'L •_i J J O 4: :- � -- 1 L:• - - 1 - - CI .� U ,U J `1 Ci R E c O W J N N Ln N +-j J PI Downtown Ridgefield Planning & Development Open House Presentation June 18, 2015 1. Background 2. Project Purpose 3. Environmental and Market Assessment 4. Conclusion Background Strategic Core Values 1. Capitalize on Natural Environmental Assets 2. Creole A Complete ?` Community: Live, Work, Play !� 3. Capitalize on Regional Innovation Economy Report Card ckground General Policy Recommendation "Cleanup and redevelopment of downtown Brownfield properties in core downtown area to create economic critical mass" Project Objectives 1. Implement "Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Project Action Plan" " 2. Evaluate potential catalytic value of i brownfield properties 3. Provide a baseline for the adoption of a Downtown Subarea Plan Planning Area qvc I c-: arket Analysis Ridgefield is the fastest growing town in Washington State Vacant, prime real estate: - - Downtown: 6 aces - Waterfront: 40+ acres Industry Growth Areas Residential: serving empty nesters, seniors, young creatives _ - Recreation & Hospitality: in conjunction with the Refuge _ - Office Space: serve local professionals and creative firms Flex & Industrial Space: fit well with waterfront Market Hybrids: realistic market opportunities (e.g. mixed use) Market Analysis Key development concepts sugge market analysis Village residential Independent boutique retail • Destination wildlife reserve attractors • Professional and creative services Corporate campus Live -work mixed use Focus Properties Park Lour Bus Barn Weeks Pa Redevelopment Scenarios A four story development with ground level retail and apartments above Four live/work townhomes with shop Space on the ground floor and living ! Space an two floors above 1, 2 and 3 -story structures -with office - floors ground level retail A multi -tenant ag-production facility With an event/public area Feasibility ost of remediation exceeds value of ,"710development • Current Downtown rental rates do not redevelopment 4iiiiiand • Feasibility limited by zoning 2/12/2016 61 Objective -------------------------------------------- Create the climate for Downtown revitalization 4,* Revitalization Strategies ,frastruclure Link Generate and regulatory development Initiate Support adequate DIctlonn to of waterfront wotearoht Capitafae on development resources to aCCOmmatlale with development the Refuge of Downtown Sustain ]evelopmeM downlown properties economic growth -------------------------------------------- 00 Mechanisms • Brownfield • Subaea pkan properties .Balance • P,—.r St. • p o along the exert se • Attroct on • Assist RSD in tl�ovelopment con stutly w tertront • developing • Revise« •Idem • Refuge trail (re 9eents� Bus Barn salelf� areas downtown nwtual t,ets •portal • Identify . Uroon Refuge zoning con Connection community opportunities program for property consofdation 2/12/2016 61 JiK ut -now f J6 V J J c 0- E E 0 u co v v 0 2 w c m w _N c O O V u v i 0 Ul c a CL a �m �Q Q� �D � N LO LO O 't U a� c 0 oCL c � 2W E o U =' N 0 > Q 2� 0 RIDGEFIELD Multimodal Plan The Ridgefield Multimodal Plan is intended to guide the development of a multimodal transportation system in the City of Ridgefield that includes safe and convenient travel options for all residents and visitors including pedestrians, bicyclists, golf cart operators, drivers, and transit users. The trails and off-street paths illustrated here represent conceptual connections based on an objective analysis of the existing and proposed roadway and trail networks. The bicycle and golf cart network illustrated here represents a broad array of possible bicycle/golf cart facilities, including standard striped bike lanes, enhanced bike lanes, shoulders, off- street trails, and/or "Neighborhood Greenway" routes. Particularly in the Ridgefield Junction Subarea and 45th St. Subarea, the network segments represent roadways that may be good candidates for a bike, pedestrian, and/or golf cart facility based on the connectivity standard described below, and other factors including roadway classifications and land use. In the next phase of network development, additional criteria such as roadway lanes, presence of shoulders, projected vehicle volumes, and/or posted speed limits will be used to refine this network with specific recommendations for bike/pedestrian/golf cart facility types. The feasibility of constructing specific facilities on these connections has not yet been determined. City of RIDGE F I E LD Washington Please take a minute KEY DESTINATIONS to provide feedback What locations would you like to connect? on the following: "GAPS" OR BARRIERS Which locations currently offer poor connections? Where the does the system break down? INCORRECT/MISSING CONNECTIONS Which connections seen here are misrepresented or otherwise incorrect? Which connections are not shown?