The URL can be used to link to this page

2015 Downtown Waterfront Subarea Plan WEBDOWNTOWN/ WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document is an update to the 2011 Downtown Waterfront Integration Project – Action Plan, prepared for the City of Ridgeﬁeld and the Port of Ridgeﬁeld by Normandeau Associates and Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. This 2016 Downtown Waterfront Subarea Plan was updated and prepared for the City of Ridgeﬁeld by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Funding for the original 2011 Downtown Waterfront Integration Project – Action Plan was made possible by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the City of Ridgeﬁeld. The plan represents a collaborative eort that has been supported by many committed community members in Ridgeﬁeld. We would like to particularly acknowledge the involvement of: • Citizens of Ridgefield • City of Ridgefield • Port of Ridgefield • Ridgefield Business Association •Ridgefield Main Street• US Fish and Wildlife Service • Washington State Department of Ecology CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 7 LIST OF CATALYST PROJECTS 8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 11 RECENT MOMENTUM AND SUCCESS 13 PLAN PURPOSE 15 PLANNING PROCESS 16 CITYWIDE CONTEXT 18 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING AREA 20 CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT/MARINA VISION 27 CHAPTER 3: DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT: POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 31 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 32 LAND USE 33 CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS 34 DESIGN GUIDELINES 35 CHAPTER 4: CATALYST PROJECTS AND ACTION ITEMS 37 CATALYST PROJECTS SUMMARY 38 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 40 LAND USE POLICY AND REGULATIONS 44 CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS 46 ACTION ITEM LIST 48 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN (2016) APPENDIX B: DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT MARKET STUDY (2015) APPENDIX C: DOWNTOWN ACCESSORY GUIDELINES (2013) APPENDIX D: DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD PRESERVATION PLAN (2010) APPENDIX E: 14 ESSENTIAL GUIDELINES FOR DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD (2004) APPENDIX F: DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD PLANNING GUIDELINES (2002) APPENDIX G: ZONING MAP (2014) APPENDIX H: ZONING REGULATIONS (2013) APPENDIX I: FLOATING HOME DRAFT ZONING CODE (2015) APPENDIX J: DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CHECKLIST (2011) DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 5 The citizens of Ridgeﬁeld are working to revitalize their historic downtown area and to clean and redevelop the community’s waterfront. In 2009, the City of Ridgeﬁeld, Port of Ridgeﬁeld, business owners, property owners, and interested citizens embarked on an Integrated Planning Grant project to develop a shared vision along with a coordinated set of planning strategies, priority actions, and projects for the downtown and waterfront areas. The project resulted in the Downtown Waterfront Integration Project Action Plan. The plan is designed to promote the social, environmental and economic well-being of Ridgeﬁeld through the revitalization of downtown and redevelopment of the waterfront. The citizens of Ridgeﬁeld endeavor to create a community where people of all ages can pursue their aspirations in ways that do not preclude future generations from doing the same. Three public meetings and workshops were held in 2010 to develop a uniﬁed vision and to identify and prioritize catalyst projects that will help achieve that vision. Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identiﬁed, discussed and resolved. Those discussions, along with public input at community events, through the City of Ridgeﬁeld’s website, and stakeholder interviews, led to a clear action plan created and adopted in 2011 as the Downtown Waterfront Integration Project Action Plan. This document, the Downtown Waterfront Subarea Plan, is an update to the 2011 Action Plan. It maintains the vision, direction, framework, and much of the content of the Action Plan, with updates to reﬂect progress that has been made and additional planning EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT ACTION PLAN (2011) Downtown Circulation Plan (2015) Comprehensive Plan (2013) Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Planning Guidelines (2002) City of Ridgeﬁeld 14 Essential Design Guidelines (2004) Other Documents & WorkZoning MapZoning CodeDowntown Accessory GuidelinesDowntown Business checklistDowntown Market Assessment Preserving Downtown Ridgeﬁeld (2010) DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN (2016) eorts related to the downtown, waterfront, and marina district in the past ﬁve years. This document also provides a reference and compilation of the dierent planning documents and work most relevant to the downtown and waterfront. Below illustrates the planning documents and work that have contributed to development of this comprehensive document. This plan presents a vision for integrating long- term redevelopment of the Ridgeﬁeld waterfront with its historic downtown through community conversations and City and Port of Ridgeﬁeld planning. This updated plan also provides an update on progress, policy recommendations, and catalyst projects. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN6 HOMETOWN CHARACTER OPEN SPACE TRAILS JOBS ACCESS TO RIVER STRATEGY FOR REVITALIZATION & INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN & WATERFRONT CAPITALIZE ON NATURAL ASSETS GROW A BALANCED ECONOMY MARINA/BOATING LODGING CULTURAL ASSETS OUTDOOR RECREATION DESTINATION DINING & ENTERTAINMENT EXTENSIVE PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACES TARGETED BUSINESS RECRUITMENT I-5 JUNCTION & DISCOVERY CORRIDOR PORTLAND/VANCOUVER METRO AREA PACIFIC NORTHWEST LOCAL & REGIONAL MARKETING PLAN ENGAGED COMMUNITY BOUTIQUE & RETAIL SERVICES ACTIVE, INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDABLE & DESIRED HOUSING NORTHWEST LIFESTYLE ADEQUATE & AFFORDABLE GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC SERVICES FOSTER A COMPLETE COMMUNITY 1 2 3 Three Guiding Principles are drawn from the vision statement. These principles, reviewed and reﬁned through the public involvement process, provide guidance on the focus and direction of community resources and energy. They synthesize the community’s inherent assets and values to direct future marketing, development, and investment. More detail on the vision and guiding principles is provided in CHAPTER 2: Downtown/Waterfront/Marina Vision. UNIFIED VISION Ridgeﬁeld is a regional employment and residential center that drives a local, robust economy. Ridgeﬁeld preserves and protects critical natural areas and is committed to community and environmental sustainability. Ridgeﬁeld is a destination area for tourists and visitors – admired for its walkable downtown, “Main Street” feeling, and small town character. Ridgeﬁeld is pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly with strong connections between neighborhoods, the downtown-waterfront, and adjoining activity centers. The policy recommendations on the following page are compiled from the 2011 Downtown Waterfront Integration Project Action Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Circulation Plan, and other City initiatives. The status of eorts to implement these policies is provided in CHAPTER 3: Downtown/Waterfront: Policies and Guidelines. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 7 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • Capitalize on previous community successes • Encourage downtown businesses oriented toward services more than goods due to behavioral changes with demographic shifts • Clean-up and support redevelopment of downtown brownﬁeld properties in core downtown area to create economic critical mass • Improve Main Street as a focal point to assist in connecting the downtown and waterfront areas • Support the vision with investment in necessary public infrastructure • Provide for pedestrian friendly circulation and access • Maintain the community’s quality of life with development eorts • Capitalize on proximity to the Refuge and Lake River LAND USE • Encourage upper story residential development in the downtown and waterfront for a 24/7 presence to support community and business vitality • Focus development and redevelopment of the downtown areas between Main and 5th Avenues and Mill Street to Pioneer Street • Encourage arts, cultural and institutional uses in the downtown core • Implement the provisions contained in the International Building Code to allow for greater ﬂexibility to utilize existing buildings when desired • Maintain and enhance Downtown as the civic and cultural center for the community • Encourage multifamily residential development in designated MDR areas • Encourage innovative housing policies, regulations, and practices to provide aordable housing. • Encourage a mix of single family and multiple family housing with a balance of housing options. • Actively support residential rehabilitation and inﬁll. CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS • Support the completion of the Pioneer Street Rail Overpass • Support a second connection to the waterfront from the downtown to provide for looped pedestrian access • Provide for public access opportunities to Lake River • Connect downtown, waterfront, refuge and residential areas via land and water trails and pathways • Prepare a Transportation Plan to assess impacts to the Pioneer Street Corridor • Include design improvements for pedestrian mobility and create an iconic gateway for the downtown and waterfront • Maintain the community’s quality of life with development eorts • Capitalize on proximity to the Refuge and Lake River DESIGN GUIDANCE • Implement design guidelines for the downtown area that will integrate guidelines identiﬁed in the 2004 Downtown Design Guidelines Plan • Establish design guidelines for the waterfront to create consistency and connectivity to develop its own character and identity • Establish street accessory guidelines in alignment with the 2004 Downtown Design Guidelines Plan. • Provide for appropriate building heights in downtown to maintain the “small town feel” • Orient buildings towards the Lake River Shoreline • Maintain the comfortable, “Main Street” feeling, including ground ﬂoor commercial uses and a ﬂexible approach to intermingling residential and small scale commercial and oce uses • Encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access throughout the downtown and waterfront areas through thoughtful multimodal design • Form partnerships on Historic Preservation and explore the potential of a downtown historic district • Protect view sheds to the waterfront through identiﬁed view protection corridors DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN8 LIST OF CATALYST PROJECTS The following catalyst projects, identiﬁed from a list of action items, were evaluated and prioritized based on the following criteria. More detail on each of these projects and their current status is included in CHAPTER 4: Catalyst Projects and Action Items. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Waterfront Cleanup and Redevelopment Recruit Environmental Center on the Waterfront Coordinated Branding, Marketing and Business Recruitment Program Public Events Comprehensive Way-Finding and Signage Program Government Civic Center Open Space Development and Improvement Development of New Library Clean Up Downtown Brownﬁeld Sites Explore Potential to Include Parklets LAND USE POLICY AND REGULATIONS Complete Development Code Update for Downtown and Waterfront Waterfront Design Guidelines Local Financing Mechanisms Public Marina Feasibility Study CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS Pioneer Street Rail Overpass Downtown Streetscapes and Uses Downtown Circulation Plan Trails and Pathways DOES THE PROJECT PROMOTE INTEGRATION? WAS THE PROJECT IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY BY THE PUBLIC? IS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING PLANS? IS THE PROJECT FEASIBLE? DOES THE PROJECT BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY? DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 9 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 11 Ridgeﬁeld, a community in transition from small town to regional center for innovative industry, creative residents, and excellent outdoor recreation opportunities, has an unprecedented opportunity to shape its future. This plan, originally written in 2011 with revisions in 2016, presents a vision for integrating long-term redevelopment of the Ridgeﬁeld waterfront with its historic downtown through community conversations and City and Port of Ridgeﬁeld planning. Ridgeﬁeld is an active community with a strong sense of its identity and the intrinsic values that make it a wonderful place to live, work, and play. This plan seeks to leverage its assets to foster sustainable economic and community development. FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA Integrating the development of the waterfront with revitalization and re-invention of the downtown will enhance Ridgeﬁeld’s eorts to become a sustainable regional center where residents can live and work and visitors will be captivated by the natural and man-made attractions. The 2011 integrated planning eort was initiated by City of Ridgeﬁeld (City) and Port of Ridgeﬁeld (Port) leadership to coordinate redevelopment of the waterfront with revitalization of downtown (FIGURE 1 Project Area). In 2011, a major cleanup of the former wood treating facility on the waterfront was nearing completion. The Port is leading the eort to redevelop the 40-acre property into a community asset that provides economic, environmental, and community beneﬁts. This joint planning eort through the City and the Port in conjunction with community members seeks to: • Maximize mutual beneﬁts and remove barriers to waterfront redevelopment and downtown revitalization • Coordinate economic development eorts, land use policy and regulations, infrastructure development, and public amenity improvements • Incorporate sustainable development principles into land use planning and facility development CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN12DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN12 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT ACTION PLAN (2011) Downtown Circulation Plan (2015) COMMUNITY MEETING #3 Prioritize Projects DRAFT ACTION PLAN Priorities (short-term & long-term) Funding MechanismsAssign Responsibilities COMMUNITY MEETING #2 Review Economic Strategy This document is an update to the Ridgeﬁeld Downtown/Waterfront Integration Project – Action Plan, which was completed in 2011. This update maintains the vision, direction, framework, and much of the content of the Action Plan, with updates to reﬂect progress that has been made and additional planning eorts related to the downtown, waterfront, and marina district in the past ﬁve years. FIGURE 2 Planning Eorts Contributing to this Document illustrates the planning documents and work that has contributed to development of this comprehensive document. DRAFT VISION, ECONOMIC STRATEGY, AND ACTION ITEM LIST Analysis of potential actions and priorities BROWNFIELD EDUCATION WORKSHOPInformation and guidance documents Comprehensive Plan (2013) Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Planning Guidelines (2002) City of Ridgeﬁeld 14 Essential Design Guidelines (2004) Other Documents & Work Zoning MapZoning Code Downtown Accessory GuidelinesDowntown Business checklist Downtown Market Assessment COMMUNITY MEETING #1 Visioning Workshop NEEDS ANALYSIS & SCOPE FORMALIZATION PLAN PROJECT SCity PortUSFWS CountyCREDCLCREP Preserving Downtown Ridgeﬁeld (2010) DOWNTOWN/ WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN (2016) FIGURE 2 PLANNING EFFORTS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS DOCUMENT DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 13 RECENT MOMENTUM AND SUCCESS Over the past two decades, the Port of Ridgeﬁeld and City of Ridgeﬁeld have successfully worked together on developing and implementing a plan to meet the needs of the growing community, plan for the future and establish Ridgeﬁeld as a destination for commerce and livability. The Port and City realized that working together, they could improve Ridgeﬁeld’s standing with elected ocials and prospective funders. The following illustrates the signiﬁcant success and momentum accomplished: 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL “EMERGENCY ACTION” DECLARED ON WATERFRONT In 1995, the Department of Ecology declared an, “Emergency Action” was necessary to protect Carty Lake and Lake River from pending impacts of PWT contamination. The Port and City are liable parties but have no ﬁnancial means to fund the clean-up. Strategic environmental remediation planning begins. The Port begins to seek funding support and forms political relationships necessary to respond to the crisis. 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING AGREEMENT REACHED In 2001 the Port and Ecology reach a landmark funding agreement whereby Ecology would ﬁnance the clean-up of the PWT site and the Port would manage the physical work. The value of this funding package today is nearly $80 million; by 2010 $60 million had been received. PORT OF RIDGEFIELD COINS THE TERM, “DISCOVERY CORRIDOR” Acting on the belief that the economic potential of North County and the Port District was under imagined, the Port set out to rebrand the area as a home for technology-based companies. The Port promotes the concept with state, federal and local elected ocials. 2002 “DEFINING THE DISCOVERY CORRIDOR” PUBLISHED The Port prepared and published a vision and strategic action plan promoting the I-5 Corridor and North County as a future home for technology, education and knowledge based employers. Community transportation infrastructure was identiﬁed as a potential limiting factor. 2003 DISCOVERY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION VISIONING A small group of citizens met to discuss transportation needs and policies of North County. The map and policies became talking points during meetings with Clark County and WSDOT. New Ridgeﬁeld Interchange contemplated. 2004 RIDGEFIELD INTERCHANGE SKETCH Community members sketched a redesigned Ridgeﬁeld Interchange and presented the concept to WSDOT sta. Work began to put the project on transportation plans. 2005 RIDGEFIELD RAIL OVERPASS $1 MILLION PLANNING GRANT The Port submits a funding request for planning the rail overpass project. Freight mobility and safety were driving concerns and helped gain outside support for the project. RIDGEFIELD I-5 INTERCHANGE FUNDING Together the Port and City approached state and federal legislators and requested funding for interchange planning and reconstruction. That year, the City receives $9 million in federal SAFETEA-LU funding and $12 million in Washington State “Transportation Package” and CTED grant funding. Over the following few years, the City ultimately receives over $32 million in State and federal funding, allowing the project to proceed with construction. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN14 2009 REGIONAL SEWER PLAN COMPLETED & MOU SIGNED Based in large part on the job creation potential of Ridgeﬁeld, the area receives $4 million in grant funds to support regional sewer planning and development. Policies and cooperative planning result in a regional plan and an agreement of local jurisdictions to work toward a regional sewer system. The regional approach allows Ridgeﬁeld to plan and develop cost eective sewer treatment for its citizenry and businesses. STIMULUS FUNDING & INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION Based on project planning and preparation the City of Ridgeﬁeld was successful in getting federal stimulus funding for the interchange. Construction gets underway. Excavated material is brought to the Port to be used to cap the site and protect human health and the environment. 2010 $100,000 INTEGRATED PLANNING GRANT RECEIVED Working together the Port and City of Ridgeﬁeld received a grant from Washington State Department of Ecology to fund strategic coordinated planning to support revitalization of downtown Ridgeﬁeld and the waterfront. The planning goal is to create a shared roadmap to a vibrant, healthy community, economy and natural environment. SECOND RAIL OVERPASS PLANNING GRANT RECEIVED The Port received a second $1 million grant. Funds will be used to complete overpass engineering to 90% level. Project permitting and entitlement work begins. Project is prepared for construction prior to next federal transportation funding bill. The estimated funding request for construction is $9.5 million. 2013 ZONING AMENDED With input from the Port of Ridgeﬁeld, the City of Ridgeﬁeld adopted amended zoning designations for the waterfront, downtown, and transition areas. CLEANUP AGREEMENT The Port of Ridgeﬁeld and the Department of Ecology reached an agreement for funding and completing the cleanup of the waterfront. The Port initiated cleanup activities. 2014 PHASE II OF OVERPASS COMPLETED The Port constructed Phase II of the overpass project, the street where the overpass will touch down on the west side of the railroad. 2015 OVERPASS FUNDING SECURED In 2015, the City and Port were awarded $7.8 million in funding from the Washington Department of Transportation to construct the ﬁnal phase of the Pioneer Street Overpass. Even during times of economic woes, Ridgeﬁeld has managed to continue to attract funding for key infrastructure projects to prepare Ridgeﬁeld for the future. This plan provides the vision and roadmap to continue the tradition of success. Google Earth Imagery DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 15 PLAN PURPOSE The primary purpose of the Downtown Waterfront integration project was to develop a shared vision along with a coordinated set of planning goals, priority actions and projects for the downtown and waterfront areas. In addition, the community wanted to encourage coordination, collaboration and communication among the interested parties working in the area which include elected ocials and sta of the Port of Ridgeﬁeld and City of Ridgeﬁeld, business owners, property owners and interested citizens. The plan is designed to promote the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of Ridgeﬁeld through the revitalization of downtown and redevelopment of the waterfront. The citizens of Ridgeﬁeld endeavor to create a community where people of all ages can pursue their aspirations in ways that do not preclude future generations from doing the same. Both the City and Port are interested in establishing a strong working relationship and strategic plan that can guide public decision making and investment for the twenty to thirty year redevelopment horizon. The Port and City recognize that in order to be successful, successions of civic leadership will be contributing to the implementation and updating of this plan. The parties also recognize that some of the component projects in the downtown and on the waterfront will require support and potentially investment by the Port and City. To be successful in creating a vital, dynamic downtown and attractive, engaging waterfront, the community must: • Integrate land use planning; • Cooperate in project and amenity development; • Coordinate public investments; and • Attract private investment in the planning area. This plan is designed to support a shared endeavor of the Port, City and people of Ridgeﬁeld. This plan must be a living document - it will need to continue to evolve over time in order to address opportunities and challenges as they emerge. The 2011 plan was the starting point. This 2016 plan is an update, and future periodic updates will ensure clear priorities in the successful revitalization of downtown area. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN16 PLANNING PROCESS The Downtown/Waterfront Integration Action Plan was developed through a community-based planning process designed to engage residents, business owners, and City and Port leadership in a creative conversation about the future. The needs and priorities were identiﬁed largely by input from community members. Interviews with City and Port sta and community organizations were also essential to this eort and are available in a separate document. ANALYZE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The planning process was initiated in the spring of 2010 with a comprehensive review of existing planning documents and meetings with City and Port sta. The objectives of these meetings were to identify the needs of the community and develop an understanding of the relationships between City and Port planning eorts. The ﬁndings of this analysis were presented at a community meeting on April 28, 2010. The community meeting included small group discussions to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for the downtown and waterfront and to formulate a draft vision statement for the downtown and waterfront. FORMULATING A VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES Based on the ﬁndings of Step 1, the project team drafted a vision statement for the downtown and waterfront and options for strategies to implement that vision. The vision and strategies were shared with the community in a town hall meeting on June 22, 2010. A meeting was also held with members from the Ridgeﬁeld Business Association (RBA) to gather input on community building themes and economic strategies. Additional public input and feedback were received during the City of Ridgeﬁeld’s National Night Out and the Port of Ridgeﬁeld’s Annual Picnic during the month of August 2010. The vision statement, guiding principles, community building themes and economic strategies were revised based on community input received at those events and are included in CHAPTER 2: Downtown/Waterfront/Marina Vision. GENERATING AND PRIORITIZING ACTIONS A large list of potential projects to promote downtown/waterfront integration and development was generated from existing plans and input from the community. The project team evaluated the feasibility, beneﬁts, and community support for each project and prioritized them based on those criteria. The project list is discussed in CHAPTER 4: Catalyst Projects and Action Items. In a community meeting on October 19, 2010, the public identiﬁed “catalyst projects” that would have the greatest potential to move Ridgeﬁeld’s downtown and waterfront toward the vision for the future. DRAFTING ACTION PLAN The 2011 Action Plan synthesized the ﬁndings and input of the planning process and identiﬁed implementation steps to guide the community to achieving the downtown/waterfront vision. The 2016 Subarea Plan is an update, incorporating work and reporting on progress that has been made, as well as new catalyst projects. Communication, coordination, and cooperation between elected leaders, public sta and other interested parties (business owners, property owners, citizens) will be critical to the successful attainment of the community’s shared vision. No single entity can be expected to implement the plan and related projects. Collaboration is essential. STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 17 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN18 CITYWIDE CONTEXT The planning process revealed a number of key ﬁndings that must be considered to successfully achieve sustainable development and integration of the Ridgeﬁeld downtown and waterfront. This study focuses on the waterfront and downtown, but their development is inherently connected to commercial development at the I-5 Junction, residential development in Ridgeﬁeld, and proximity to the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge. The challenges and opportunities of each of these areas need to be considered in planning for the future of downtown and the waterfront and the community as a whole. I-5 JUNCTION A growing commercial, medical, and light industrial complex is developing at the Junction. These businesses operate on a dierent business model than downtown shops or future waterfront enterprises. Businesses located at the junction capitalize on the freeway trac and greater access to the metropolitan region. There is a potential for these three geographic concentrations (I-5 Junction, Downtown, Waterfront) of economic development to complement one another, but there are tensions inherent in their dierent needs. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS There has been a recent boom in residential development in Ridgeﬁeld. The newly developed residential properties are primarily single-family dwelling units. The average cost of new housing in Ridgeﬁeld is priced above the cost of housing in other north Clark County communities including La Center and Battle Ground. While this growth slowed during the national recession, it has rebounded and Ridgeﬁeld is now growing rapidly. The population growth in the community has important implications for infrastructure, schools, transportation, and economic development. DOWNTOWN The primary assets of downtown are its small town charm and walkable scale. Supporting the small businesses in downtown is an important goal for the community. There is limited information on shoppers at these businesses, but it appears there is great potential to market to the growing residential neighborhoods within Ridgeﬁeld city limits and adjacent areas. An emerging trend in successful small downtowns is for consumers to frequent these areas for services, such as restaurants and cafes more than for goods, which are typically purchased at larger retail stores or on the internet. Businesses and public buildings are clustered on a three block section of Pioneer Street and three blocks along Main Avenue. While this is a limited area, successful downtowns are built on a critical mass of businesses, so the community should focus on ﬁlling in this area, rather than expanding it. Cleanup and redevelopment of potentially contaminated properties (brownﬁelds) can also play a key role in creating more developable land within this downtown core. However, ﬁnding funding assistance for property owners to clean up smaller, individual properties is dicult. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 19 WATERFRONT The primary assets associated with the waterfront include public access to the waterfront; proximity to natural resources including the water, Refuge and wildlife; and the business and economic beneﬁt potential associated with the redevelopment of the waterfront properties. The cleanup of contamination at the former wood treating facility on the Port’s waterfront property is complete, providing the opportunity to redevelop approximately 40 acres of waterfront property in the core of the community of Ridgeﬁeld. This site has historically been the traditional employment center for Ridgeﬁeld. The redevelopment of this property will be for a mixed-use waterfront employment center that is intended to provide for a diversity of job types and wages, and may also include residential, retail, and other uses. The redevelopment of this area will also provide for increased public access to the waterfront and recreational opportunities. The waterfront development needs to lead development in the downtown/waterfront area, and the downtown’s growth will be dependent on the development, growth, and success of the waterfront. The waterfront will be a major attraction for visitors, residents, and business people who might not leave or explore beyond the junction area. Downtown will beneﬁt from the increased trac to the waterfront and should support and promote that development. Waterfront developers should reach out to the entire community to ensure that when built out, Ridgeﬁeld is still a place in which people still want to live, work, and play. The waterfront area also contains property currently built with a ﬂoating home development known as the McCuddy Marina. In 2010, McCuddy secured a new 25-year lease from the Department of Natural Resources. It is important to everyone’s future that the Port, City and Mc- Cuddy work together to improve the waterfront. RIDGEFIELD NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE According to information contained in the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, the Refuge draws approximately 90,000 visitors each year and tourism is expected to grow. With close proximity to over 2 million residents in the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area, the Refuge is considered an “urban” refuge. Visitation at the Refuge has increased 8-fold since the 1980s and is expected to continue to increase. The current perception of Ridgeﬁeld residents and business owners is that visitors largely bypass downtown Ridgeﬁeld and if they do come into downtown, they spend little money in the community. There is a great opportunity for local businesses to proﬁt from eco-tourism. Eco-tourism is tourism in often threatened, natural environments, especially to support conservation eorts and observe wildlife. Keys to capturing that opportunity include: creating physical linkages that encourage Refuge tourists to stop in downtown, improving way-ﬁnding and signage to lead tourists to local businesses, and developing partnerships between the Refuge, City, Port and local businesses to leverage investment, tourism, and achieving the vision set forth by the community. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN20 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING AREA DOWNTOWN ASSESSMENT The boundary of the downtown project area is shown in FIGURE 1 Project Area. Ridgeﬁeld is a growing community with a great deal to oer residents, businesses, and visitors. With the picturesque Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge as its backyard, Ridgeﬁeld’s rolling hills, tranquil setting, and old-fashioned downtown evoke a welcoming “Main Street America” charm and character. So, what is “Main Street America”? The phrase has been used to describe everything from our nostalgic past to our current economic woes, but when we talk about Main Street America, we are thinking of real places doing real work to revitalize economies and preserve their character. Ridgeﬁeld wants to preserve the small, hometown feel that brings to mind a safe, walkable downtown with tree lined streets - a place you are likely to meet and greet your neighbors. With sweeping views of the Wildlife Refuge, downtown Ridgeﬁeld’s tree-lined streets are the perfect place to enjoy a number of unique shops and charming restaurants. A pleasant walk along Main and Pioneer streets will take you past a salon, coee house, antiques store, art gallery, gift boutique, tea house, and more. Downtown Ridgeﬁeld is also the City’s civic center with City Hall, the post oce, community library, community center, and police station. SETTING THE STAGE In the mid-1990s, Ridgeﬁeld expanded its city limits from the downtown area to include the area surrounding the I-5 interchange. This expansion opened a signiﬁcant amount of land for employment-based development. For example, Southwest Washington Health System (PeaceHealth) purchased a 75-acre development east of the interchange for a future medical campus. The opportunity for new jobs and a base for local, regional, and national businesses will allow Ridgeﬁeld to continue to be a well- balanced, vibrant community. Downtown Ridgeﬁeld has been the historic business core of Ridgeﬁeld. The expanded city limits oer both opportunities and challenges for downtown. Growth in population and businesses in Ridgeﬁeld will bring people and business prospects to downtown. Development of the I-5 Junction and waterfront will bring challenges, especially if downtown tries to compete with, rather than complement, uses at the I-5 Junction and waterfront. Strategic planning is about creating shared vision and action - identifying needs, priorities, partners, actions and funding sources allows us to work forward. We plan in order to be prepared and as we have seen repeatedly, being ready to act attracts funding partners – preparation is the key to success. Periodic strategic planning has brought over $75 million to Ridgeﬁeld projects in the past ten years. These projects addressed the most pressing community priorities – environmental clean-up and protection; transportation safety and eciency; waste-water treatment, yet as the community evolves, there will always be a need to plan for the future. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 21 BUILDING ON CURRENT ASSETS Downtown is undergoing a revitalization period that matches a growing population and quickening economy throughout the community. Currently oce and retail space is limited, but with a growing number of new and expanded businesses and community events held on the ﬁrst Saturday of each month, more people are exposed to the unique environment downtown Ridgeﬁeld provides. With other destinations close to downtown, including the Ridgeﬁeld Wildlife Refuge, and a commitment to expansion and economic development – including the Pioneer Street Rail Overpass, which will create a new link between the Port and the Downtown area – the core of Ridgeﬁeld is poised for a bright future. One consistent theme and overriding value in the uniﬁed vision for downtown/waterfront integration is “keeping the hometown feel” of Ridgeﬁeld. Downtown will be the cornerstone for ensuring that Ridgeﬁeld’s “hometown feel” is carried through to the future. Downtown should provide services for locals and visitors alike, as well as enhancements for the waterfront experience. Downtown should acknowledge the community’s history and complement the new development of the waterfront and I-5 Junction. FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ALIKE People attracted to Ridgeﬁeld embody the casual, outdoor, Northwest lifestyle. Local residents need services that may include, among others, dry cleaners, salons, a specialty paper store, and high-end pet supplies. Downtown should also remain the civic and cultural center for the community. In the future, visitors may enjoy additional cafes, gift stores, art galleries, coee shops and specialty shops geared to a clientele exploring the natural environment. Downtown’s growth will be tied to the success and type of development that occurs at the I-5 Junction and waterfront. ACCENT ON ACCESS Downtown’s future will also be impacted by the extension of Pioneer Street to the waterfront. Keeping downtown friendly to pedestrians may be aected by changes in trac that accesses the waterfront; Pioneer Street will be the direct connection for boaters, visitors, and employment. Pioneer Street, east of Main Avenue, will see more vehicular trac than Main Avenue. This is not to say that Pioneer Street will not be pedestrian friendly. Rather, street design should consider more vehicles sharing the streetscape as the waterfront develops. Main Avenue will, more likely be, the strollable “avenue” for downtown Ridgeﬁeld. Anchored by Overlook Park, Davis Park, the Library and Community Center — and serving as the gateway to the waterfront — Main Avenue will grow into the “meet and greet” spine of Ridgeﬁeld for local residents and visitors alike. Lined with specialty stores and eateries, Main Avenue will set the pace for a classic Northwest experience – urbane yet connected to the surrounding environment, accessible to economic resources like airports and cultural activities without having to bear the brunt of their direct impacts like noise, trac, or competing uses. Development and implementation of design standards and policy will ensure that Main Avenue is the downtown showcase that anchors local and visiting commerce. The intersection at Pioneer Street and Main Avenue will literally and ﬁguratively be the gateway to the waterfront. That intersection is the pivot point for the Ridgeﬁeld “menu” – east of the intersection is the civic leg of downtown and the connection to the Junction: west of the intersection is the newly developed waterfront, public access to the water, and views of the Refuge: and north and south of the intersection connects the strollable downtown shops and activities with the residences and views of the Refuge. It will be the crossroads for the type of experience the community is looking for in Ridgeﬁeld. Ridgeﬁeld has the opportunity to make this intersection an iconic entrance to the waterfront – a visual representation of what Ridgeﬁeld is at its core. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN22 STRATEGIES FOR GROWTH Incorporated into this plan for downtown and our waterfront, the City, in partnership with the Port and other interested groups, has developed a road map that will help to grow and expand the business eorts for downtown and the waterfront. The City and consultants have identiﬁed the brownﬁelds and have generated ideas contained in this plan and its appendices for cleanup and future redevelopment of those sites. The City, in partnership with local organizations, has initiated a series of events designed to draw people to the downtown/ waterfront area known as ﬁrst Saturdays. From outdoor movies and picnics in the summer to Birdfest and Bluegrass and the Big Paddle, all contribute to the vibrancy of downtown Ridgeﬁeld. A key economic driver is the Pioneer Street Rail Overpass, intended to create a more accessible link between downtown and the waterfront. This key part of our infrastructure will assist the Port in continuing their long and successful history in economic development and recruitment of new Ridgeﬁeld businesses. The City of Ridgeﬁeld should apply for economic development grants and work with regional developers on devising incentives for inﬁll development. Using the Master Plan and connecting the transportation improvements, Ridgeﬁeld would compete well for funding sources that focus on economic development, downtown development, and transportation/ sustainability. GATEWAY TO OPPORTUNITY Long term, downtown Ridgeﬁeld can be the “Gateway” to the waterfront and the Refuge. It can be a great place to walk and bike. Development of downtown to accommodate the needs of its residents and business owners, as well as visitors, to ﬁnd services and enjoy a Northwest experience in a charming, “Main Street” town that looks to the future while honoring its past and the environment. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 23 WATERFRONT/MARINA ASSESSMENT The waterfront properties adjacent to the downtown area of Ridgeﬁeld consist of the Port owned waterfront property, the City of Ridgeﬁeld Wastewater Treatment Plant, Union Paciﬁc Railroad property and private property currently owned by McCuddy’s Marina. The Port-owned property is in the process of obtaining land use entitlement permits for the redevelopment while the privately owned property is operated as a private marina. The Port property consists of over 40 acres of waterfront property and includes the existing public boat and kayak launches. McCuddy’s Marina property is approximately 14 acres in size and contains a ﬂoating home community, boat moorage facility and commercial uses such as Ridgeﬁeld Kayak. WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT The Port is has completed a major environmental clean up eort and intends to redevelop the waterfront property. The clean up eort began in 1995 when the Port and the Washington State Department of Ecology reached an agreement to begin cleaning the site. The site has been the traditional employment center for the community. Historically, the site was utilized by industrial businesses. The Port has been preparing for the redevelopment of this property and has included the guiding vision, goals, and design factors for the project in the Port of Ridgeﬁeld Comprehensive Scheme for Harbor Improvements (current revision adopted by the Port Commissioners in 2008). In 2013 the Port received approvals from the Hearing Examiner to develop the brownﬁeld property. Once the development takes its ﬁnal form the Port will need to pursue environmental and land use permits from State, Federal, and local agencies. The current adopted zoning for the waterfront property provides for an opportunity of mixed uses including employment and light industrial uses; in water uses and structures, upper-level residential; oce and professional uses; retail and service uses; accompanied by open spaces and public waterfront access. Considerations to allow for the continued use of adjacent waterfront properties for ﬂoating home and private boat moorage and additional commercial uses have also been addressed. MARINA The marina area, directly south of the waterfront, serves a variety of uses, including covered and uncovered boat slips, boat houses, the Clark County Fire & Rescue ﬁre boat house, a kayak rental business, upland parking, and 46 ﬂoating homes ranging in assessed value from $17,000 to $121,000. Property in the marina is subject to multiple layers of regulatory oversight from the City of Ridgeﬁeld, Clark County Fire & Rescue, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington Department of Ecology. In 2015, residents of the marina, City of Ridgeﬁeld, and other stakeholders developed a vision statement and actions to guide any future actions in the marina area. The vision statement is as follows: The marina area provides unique residential and recreational opportunities to connect to the Lake River waterfront that are safe, well maintained, and environmentally sensitive. The marina’s proximity and connections to downtown and future waterfront development provide opportunities to live, work, shop and play, centered around a close sense of community among residents. Also in 2015, the City worked to update the zoning code for the ﬂoating homes, included in APPENDIX I. ACCESS In 2006, planning began for a rail overpass to provide a new, direct road access to the Lake River waterfront from downtown Ridgeﬁeld. Following a feasibility study of alignments, the selected alignment will extend Pioneer Street to the west via a curving overpass that will land near the base of Mill Street. The project provides for safe and ecient access to the waterfront and allows for the closure of the at-grade rail crossings at Mill Street and Division Street. Preliminary planning on the overpass project has been started and preliminary design work is currently being completed. The planning and construction of the overpass is part of the redevelopment plan for the waterfront. Completion of the rail overpass is critical to the redevelopment of the waterfront area. Inclusion of aesthetic design details at the intersection of Pioneer Street and Main Avenue and on the facade of the overpass should be considered and included to provide for design integration of the downtown and waterfront areas. Pedestrian and trail connections between DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN24 downtown and the waterfront are critical to the overall integration of these two areas. The community has expressed a strong desire to increase pedestrian, bicycle and water linkages between the downtown and waterfront areas. The Ridgeﬁeld community also wants be an active part of the county pedestrian, bike, and water trails so that Ridgeﬁeld can be part of the larger Clark County recreation plan for trails and the promotion and marketing that serves the plan. Construction of the rail overpass project should provide for appealing pedestrian access provisions that provide adequate separation from vehicular trac as well as areas to stop and enjoy the view of the natural waterfront amenities. The Downtown Circulation Plan also identiﬁes a long-term need for an additional pedestrian/ bicycle railroad crossing in the vicinity of Division Street to provide a northern connection to the waterfront. DESIGN AND CHARACTER The natural environment and the adjacent Wildlife Refuge should be reﬂected in the design and character of the waterfront redevelopment. Downtown has approved design guidelines that can be adopted or waterfront design guidelines can be proposed to the City Council. Zoning provisions have been adopted that include providing for the protection of view sheds to Lake River and the Refuge, and limiting the height of structures adjacent to the Refuge and ﬂoating home development by allowing for increased heights in the center of the Port redevelopment site. It is recommended that building and site design standards be adopted to guide the overall development of the waterfront and provide design integration provisions with the downtown and surrounding environment. INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN AND WATERFRONT/MARINA PHYSICAL The two major barriers to physical connectivity between downtown and the waterfront are topography and the rail corridor. The topographic distinction can be approached as an asset. The top of the ridge east of the rail corridor aords expansive views over Lake River and the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge. These views from downtown are an amenity for individual properties and for the community. The development of Overlook Park takes advantage of these views and is a focal point linking downtown, the waterfront, and the Refuge. The low lying elevation of the waterfront also provides an opportunity for development of buildings of greater height than existing buildings in downtown without impacting views or architectural cohesiveness. The rail corridor serves as a backbone for moving freight and passengers on the west coast. Plans are underway to support high-speed rail transportation along this line. The railroad overpass is being designed to provide safe, unobstructed, and direct vehicle and pedestrian access to the Ridgeﬁeld waterfront, as well as to the “Carty” unit (and potentially the “River S” unit via a future bridge spanning Lake River) of the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge. At present, safety and access to the waterfront by emergency vehicles, cars, trucks, and pedestrians are considered deﬁcient because of the at-grade rail crossings and inadequate emergency access. The Pioneer Street rail overpass, scheduled for construction in 2017, will be a landmark architectural gateway, drawing people to downtown and the waterfront, as well as a critical element of the transportation infrastructure. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 25 ECONOMIC There is potential for both competition and synergy between businesses in the downtown and waterfront districts. The types of businesses that currently thrive in downtown are mostly food and drink establishments, niche retail, and entertainment. These businesses all beneﬁt from the character and scale of the downtown. Plans for redevelopment on the waterfront can promote businesses that complement rather than compete with existing shops. Such businesses could include research and development, professional services, and high tech companies. Downtown will be more boutique type shops that are family owned. The Waterfront will attract specialty stores looking for a regional presence. They will be destinations for those seeking a recreational, Northwest experience. It is recommended that the Port of Ridgeﬁeld continue to move forward with plans to redevelop the waterfront area. The Port’s plans include restaurants, a hotel, and retail stores. While these new businesses will, to a degree, compete with existing downtown businesses, they may also raise the cache of Ridgeﬁeld as a destination and attract more consumers to the entire area. Both downtown and the waterfront mutually beneﬁt from increasing the critical mass of amenities and businesses that draw people to Ridgeﬁeld. LAND USE POLICY Since 2011, when this plan was originally adopted, the City of Ridgeﬁeld has updated both its comprehensive plan and zoning code (2013) for the Downtown and Waterfront areas. The revised zoning code chapters, available in APPENDIX H and APPENDIX I, implement the recommendations of the 2011 version of this plan, accomplishing the following: • Prepare separate mixed-use districts for the downtown and waterfront areas. The separate zones are intended to recognize that although the areas are tied together by geography, proximity to Lake River, transportation and infrastructure; they each have distinct characteristics. The separate mixed-use zones are intended to protect and enhance the character of each area while ensuring overall integration of the downtown and waterfront areas. • Divide the waterfront area into two zoning districts; a waterfront mixed-use district for the Port property and a mixed-use commercial and residential district for the McCuddy Marina property. These separate waterfront districts are intended to recognize that the Port has vested land use entitlement permits to develop the waterfront property and that the adjacent McCuddy property has recently secured the necessary permits to continue using the property for a ﬂoating home community but to also allow limited commercial use of the property. • Adopt a zoning map consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map. The zoning map that is contained in the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be implemented upon the adoption of revised development regulations. State law requires that the zoning map and the land use designation map contained in the Comprehensive Plan are coordinated and consistent with each other. (Completed in December 2010) • Adopt the boundary for the downtown mixed-use zone as designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan map. Recommend that the City review this boundary to allow for the expansion of the boundary to allow for future growth of the downtown area. • Include the 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgeﬁeld by integrating the guidelines into the downtown mixed-use zoning district. • Review possible standards to evaluate the inclusion of a Lake River View Protection Overlay District in the development code to maintain and enhance the beneﬁcial eects of preserving views of Lake River and the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 27 The uniﬁed vision of this plan has been crafted drawing from the visions articulated in the Comprehensive Plans of the City and the Port, and reﬁned based on public comment during community meetings. The following uniﬁed vision for the Downtown/Waterfront subarea is as follows: Ridgeﬁeld is a regional employment and residential center that drives a local, robust economy. Ridgeﬁeld preserves and protects critical natural areas and is committed to community and environmental sustainability. Ridgeﬁeld is a destination area for tourists and visitors – admired for its walkable downtown, “Main Street” feeling, and small town character. Ridgeﬁeld is pedestrian, bicycle, and transit friendly with strong connections between neighborhoods, the downtown-waterfront, and adjoining activity centers. This vision incorporates the values most important to the community. When asked what they would like the waterfront and downtown to be like in ten years, the most common responses from community members were: GREEN — with open space, access to Lake River and other natural assets, and green jobs all connected by trails and pathways, roads and rail VIBRANT — with community activities, outdoor recreation, gathering spaces for families and neighbors, jobs, entrepreneurial spirit THRIVING LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY — with independent shops and businesses in downtown, the waterfront, and I-5 Junction that complement each other and take advantage of the unique assets of each location, known for its quality workforce, and employment opportunities DESTINATION — an attractive town for residents and tourists known for its small-town character, natural assets, and water recreation, shopping, quaint business district: regional employment center COMPLETE COMMUNITY — where people can live, work and play The vision formulated by the community is for Ridgeﬁeld to be recognized for its livability, natural environment and innovative local economy. The vision statement is the framework from which the general policy recommendations and revitalization and integration strategies for the downtown and waterfront were crafted. CHAPTER 2: DOWNTOWN/ WATERFRONT/ MARINA VISION DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN28DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN28 Three mutually supportive Guiding Principles further reﬁne and implement the vision statement. These Principles, developed by the community through a comprehensive public process, provide guidance on the focus and direction of community resources and energy. They synthesize the community’s inherent assets and values to direct future marketing, development, and investment. (See FIGURE 3 Guiding Principles and Values). This focus allows Ridgeﬁeld to develop and prioritize speciﬁc projects and policies that align with the principles and implement the vision. GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1FOSTER A COMPLETE COMMUNITY Live, work, and play in Ridgeﬁeld The traditional small-town layout of downtown Ridgeﬁeld, with residences in walking distance to businesses, provides the urban form for a community where people can live, work, and play in one area. Increasingly, people and businesses are seeking to locate in such communities. The natural assets of Ridgeﬁeld make it all the more attractive. Redevelopment of the waterfront expands the opportunities for new businesses and residences in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, downtown, and a beautiful environment. Businesses in the technology, research, and professional services ﬁelds have the ability to locate outside metropolitan areas and away from highways, and often base their location decisions greatly on quality of life. GUIDING PRINCIPLE 2CAPITALIZE ON NATURAL ASSETS Ridgeﬁeld as an eco-recreation destination The citizens of Ridgeﬁeld clearly desire to protect, clean, enjoy and learn from their environment. Sustainability is a community value. Citizens want to see wise and ecient use/re-use of natural resources and energy. There is strong community interest in branding Ridgeﬁeld as a destination for outdoor recreation based on the assets of Lake River, which also provides access to Vancouver Lake and the Columbia River, the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge, and a regional network of land and water trails. The development and promotion of Ridgeﬁeld as a place for outdoor recreation and appreciation of the area’s natural assets will attract people (visitors, shoppers, entrepreneurs and investors) to the waterfront and downtown area that have the same values and who will promote sustainable commerce and investment. Part of Ridgeﬁeld’s brand will be a center of eco-tourism, where visitors are asked to preserve, protect, and observe wildlife and their habitats. GUIDING PRINCIPLE 3GROW A BALANCED ECONOMY Ridgeﬁeld as a hub in the regional innovation economy Ridgeﬁeld is the heart of the Discovery Corridor, an area suited for innovation-based companies including technology companies, medical services, research and development companies, and education facilities. The downtown and waterfront area can serve to attract entrepreneurs, startup businesses and private sector investment by providing employment space, entertainment, social venues, recreation opportunities, and other core business services. A business friendly, business savvy regulatory environment coupled with a dynamic, thriving downtown business district will attract and retain new businesses and innovators – all key components to regaining and sustaining the area’s economic health. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 29 HOMETOWN CHARACTER OPEN SPACE TRAILS JOBS ACCESS TO RIVER STRATEGY FOR REVITALIZATION & INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN & WATERFRONT CAPITALIZE ON NATURAL ASSETS GROW A BALANCED ECONOMY MARINA/ BOATING LODGING CULTURAL ASSETS OUTDOOR RECREATION DESTINATION DINING & ENTERTAINMENT EXTENSIVE PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACES TARGETED BUSINESS RECRUITMENT I-5 JUNCTION & DISCOVERY CORRIDOR PORTLAND/ VANCOUVER METRO AREA PACIFIC NORTHWEST LOCAL & REGIONAL MARKETING PLAN ENGAGED COMMUNITY BOUTIQUE & RETAIL SERVICES ACTIVE, INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDABLE & DESIRED HOUSING NORTHWEST LIFESTYLE ADEQUATE & AFFORDABLE GOVERNMENT/ PUBLIC SERVICES FOSTER A COMPLETE COMMUNITY 1 2 3 FIGURE 3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 31 From the vision and guiding principles, the City and Port developed a set of policies and guidelines that were included in the 2011 plan, after being reviewed and reﬁned through the public process. This 2016 update to the plan carries those policies forward and also incorporates policies and guidelines developed through other planning eorts since 2016 . This chapter summarizes the policies and guidelines in four overarching categories: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CONNECTION AND ACCESS DESIGN GUIDANCE The City and Port have made signiﬁcant progress since this plan was initially adopted in 2011. Therefore, the summary tables that follow outline the policies and guidelines, report on the current status of each, and in some cases, provide a reference to additional work or information contained in the Appendices of this Plan. In this way, the reader of the plan can easily ﬁnd adopted or in-process work that is relevant to the policies and guidelines. Additionally, the “report card” status can be updated and additional references included as work progresses in future years. The status of each policy or guideline is reported with one of the following symbols: REPORT CARD STATUS ON-GOING An “ongoing” status means that the policy is currently being implemented and will continue to be implemented into the future. In other words, implementation is continuous and there is not an anticipated date of completion. IN PROGRESS An “in progress” status means that an eort is underway and will be completed at some point in the future. COMPLETED A “completed” status indicates that the eort has been completed or is near completion with only administrative tasks remaining. NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS Though there may be plans in place or initial discussions, the bulk of this eort has not yet been initiated. CHAPTER 3: DOWNTOWN/ WATERFRONT: POLICIES AND GUIDELINES DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN32 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY OR GUIDELINE REPORT CARD STATUS REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION Capitalize on previous community successes Encourage downtown businesses oriented toward services more than goods due to behavioral changes with demographic shifts APPENDIX J: Downtown Business Checklist (2011) Clean-up and support redevelopment of downtown brownﬁeld properties in core downtown area to create economic critical mass APPENDIX B: Downtown Waterfront Market Study (2015) Improve Main Street as a focal point to assist in connecting the downtown and waterfront areas Support the vision with investment in necessary public infrastructure Provide for pedestrian friendly circulation and access APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) Maintain the community’s quality of life with development eorts Capitalize on proximity to the Refuge and Lake River ON-GOING IN PROGRESS COMPLETED NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 33 LAND USE POLICY OR GUIDELINE REPORT CARD STATUS REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION Encourage upper story residential development in the downtown and waterfront for a 24/7 presence to support community and business vitality APPENDIX G: Zoning Map (2014) and APPENDIX H: Zoning Regulations (2013) Focus development and redevelopment (new and inﬁll) of the downtown areas between Main Avenue and 5th Avenue and Mill Street to Pioneer Street APPENDIX G: Zoning Map (2014) and APPENDIX H: Zoning Regulations (2013) Encourage arts, cultural and institutional uses in the downtown core Implement the provisions contained in the International Building Code to allow for greater ﬂexibility to utilize existing buildings when desired APPENDIX H: Zoning Regulations (2013) Maintain and enhance Downtown as the civic and cultural center for the community APPENDIX D: Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Preservation Plan (2010) Encourage multifamily residential development in designated MDR areas Encourage innovative housing policies, regulations, and practices to provide aordable housing. APPENDIX I: Floating Home Draft Zoning Code (2015) Encourage a mix of single family and multiple family housing that achieves an overall goal of 6 units per net acre, with a balance of housing options. Actively support residential rehabilitation and inﬁll.APPENDIX I: Floating Home Draft Zoning Code (2015) ON-GOING IN PROGRESS COMPLETED NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN34 CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS POLICY OR GUIDELINE REPORT CARD STATUS REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION Support the completion of the Pioneer Street Rail Overpass Support a second connection to the waterfront from the downtown to provide for looped pedestrian access APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) Provide for public access opportunities to Lake River Connect downtown, waterfront, refuge and residential areas via land and water trails and pathways APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) Prepare a Transportation Plan to assess impacts to the Pioneer Street Corridor APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) Include design improvements for pedestrian mobility and create an iconic gateway for the downtown and waterfront APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) Maintain the community’s quality of life with development eorts Capitalize on proximity to the Refuge and Lake River ON-GOING IN PROGRESS COMPLETED NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 35 DESIGN GUIDELINES POLICY OR GUIDELINE REPORT CARD STATUS REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION Implement design guidelines for the downtown area that will integrate guidelines identiﬁed in the 2004 Essential Downtown Design Guidelines Plan APPENDIX E: 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgeﬁeld (2004), APPENDIX H: Zoning Regulations (2013), and APPENDIX I: Floating Home Draft Zoning Code (2015) Establish design guidelines for the waterfront to create consistency and connectivity to develop its own character and identity Establish street accessory guidelines in alignment with the 2004 Downtown Design Guidelines Plan. APPENDIX C: Downtown Accessory Guidelines (2013) Provide for appropriate building heights in downtown to maintain the “small town feel” APPENDIX F: Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Planning Guidelines (2002) Orient buildings towards the Lake River Shoreline Maintain 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 oce uses APPENDIX H: Zoning Regulations (2013) Encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access throughout the downtown and waterfront areas through thoughtful multimodal design APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) Form partnerships on Historic Preservation and explore the potential of a downtown historic district APPENDIX D: Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Preservation Plan (2010) Protect view sheds to the waterfront through identiﬁed view protection corridors APPENDIX H: Zoning Regulations (2013) ON-GOING IN PROGRESS COMPLETED NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 37 The development and improvement of communities can be a long-term endeavor. The uniﬁed vision for integration of downtown and the waterfront will be achieved over time through an incremental approach. Ultimately, the hard work of agency sta, local entrepreneurs, elected ocials and community volunteers will make the uniﬁed vision a reality. Dedication and commitment of City, Port, community businesses, property owners, and residents to the long-term vision and community development strategies is critical to success. In the 2011 plan, a set of speciﬁc action items was developed to implement the community’s shared vision and community development strategies. (See Action Item List on page 48). These action items were compiled and vetted through multiple community meetings, review of existing City and Port planning documents, and the experience of the project team. The Action Items were organized into one of three categories, in alignment with the policy recommendations in CHAPTER 3: Downtown/ Waterfront: Policies and Guidelines. • Community and Economic Development • Land Use Policy and Regulations • Connections and Access The Action Items were evaluated and prioritized based on the following criteria: DOES THE ITEM PROMOTE INTEGRATION? — refers to physical and economic connectivity between the waterfront and downtown WAS THE ITEM IDENTIFIED AS PRIORITY BY THE PUBLIC? — based on comments and surveys in the community meetings hosted as part of this planning process IS THE ITEM CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING PLANS? — refers to City and Port Comprehensive Plans and related planning documents IS THE ITEM FEASIBLE? — based on assessment of availability of funding, organizational capacity, and whether an action is within the inﬂuence of local organizations that will implement the Action Plan DOES THE ITEM BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY? — based on the three criteria that emerge from the community’s vision for the future of downtown and the waterfront: improves the economy, protects and integrates nature, and preserves, promotes, and enhances the character of Ridgeﬁeld CHAPTER 4: CATALYST PROJECTS AND ACTION ITEMS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN38DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN38 CATALYST PROJECTS SUMMARY The 2011 Plan also identiﬁed Priority Catalyst Projects based on public input and the evaluation of the identiﬁed Action Items utilizing the review criteria. Catalyst is a word from chemistry for a compound that causes a reaction to occur more quickly and vigorously. These Catalyst Projects were identiﬁed as the most important for catalyzing revitalization and integration of the downtown and waterfront, and are high priorities for allocation of public and private resources and necessary to achieve the community vision. Many of the Catalyst Projects represent several related Actions Items on the list. This chapter includes a summary table of the Priority Catalyst Projects, including the lead agency, timeframe, and project status as of January 2016. Short term is deﬁned as one to three years; Mid term is deﬁned as three to 10 years; Long term is deﬁned as 10 to 20 years or longer. The summary table is followed by a description of each Priority Catalyst Project. The complete list of identiﬁed Action Items and their evaluation is included at the end of the chapter on page 48. PROJECTS LEAD AGENCY TIMEFRAME STATUS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Waterfront Cleanup and Redevelopment Port of Ridgeﬁeld Clean up – complete Redevelopment – short to medium term Recruit Environmental Center on the Waterfront Port of Ridgeﬁeld/City of Ridgeﬁeld Mid to Long Term Coordinated Branding, Marketing and Business Recruitment Program Facilitated by City of Ridgeﬁeld Short to mid term Public Events City of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by Port of Ridgeﬁeld, Ridgeﬁeld Business Association, and Friends of the Refuge)Short to long term Comprehensive Way-Finding and Signage Program City of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by WSDOT and Clark County) Mid Term Government Civic Center City of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by Ridgeﬁeld School District, US Postal Service, Fort Vancouver Regional Library, Clark County Fire and Rescue)Long Term Open Space Development and Improvement City of Ridgeﬁeld (downtown) and Port of Ridgeﬁeld (waterfront)Short to Long Term Development of New Library City of Ridgeﬁeld Near to medium term Clean Up Downtown Brownﬁeld Sites City of Ridgeﬁeld Near to medium term Explore Potential to Include Parklets City of Ridgeﬁeld Medium term ON-GOING IN PROGRESS COMPLETED NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 39DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 39 PROJECTS LEAD AGENCY TIMEFRAME STATUS LAND USE POLICY AND REGULATIONS Complete Development Code Update for Downtown and Waterfront City of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by Clark County, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Port of Ridgeﬁeld, Friends of the Refuge)Completed Waterfront Design Guidelines City of Ridgeﬁeld/Port of Ridgeﬁeld Short to Mid Term Local Financing Mechanisms City of Ridgeﬁeld/Port of Ridgeﬁeld Short Term Public Marina Feasibility Study Port of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by the City of Ridgeﬁeld) Long Term CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS Pioneer Street Rail Overpass Port of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by the City of Ridgeﬁeld)Funded Downtown Streetscapes and Uses City of Ridgeﬁeld Completed Downtown Circulation Plan City of Ridgeﬁeld Completed Trails and Pathways City of Ridgeﬁeld (Assisted by Clark County, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Port of Ridgeﬁeld, Friends of the Refuge)Short to Long Term ON-GOING IN PROGRESS COMPLETED NOT YET INITIATED or UNKNOWN STATUS CATALYST PROJECTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED) DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN40 WATERFRONT CLEANUP AND REDEVELOPMENT The cleanup and redevelopment of the 40-acre Port property on the Ridgeﬁeld waterfront is a transformative project for the community. After years of dedicated eort, the clean- up phase of the project is complete. The Port has developed a conceptual plan for redevelopment of the property as a mixed- use waterfront with a promenade along Lake River, open space, and ﬂexible development options. The Port is currently engaging with private sector developers to move forward with redevelopment. CONSIDERATIONS • Cleanup action eectiveness for supporting future use • Integration of cleanup with redevelopment (example: placing protective soil cap over site and creating ﬁnal grade for property) • Pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle connections with downtown, Refuge, and neighborhoods • Positioning physical and marketing redevelopment eorts to mutually beneﬁt waterfront and downtown development • Implications for on- and o-site transportation infrastructure and utilities • Future transportation investments • Bridge over Lake River to Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Complete cleanup action in coordination with redevelopment 2. Entitle property — Federal, state, and local environmental and land use permitting 3. Marketing and targeted business recruitment 4. Construction of public amenities and infrastructure 5. Building construction through Port reviewed and recommended development agreements 40 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 41 RECRUIT ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER ON THE WATERFRONT One of the most compelling ideas for attracting visitors to the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge, downtown, and the waterfront is to establish a dynamic, interactive environmental research and education center on the waterfront. This potential center could function as the ocial visitor center to the Refuge or be aliated with a university or non-proﬁt organization. This concept has been articulated as part of the Conﬂuence Project, a regional art and cultural collaboration along the Columbia River. While the City and Port would take the lead in recruiting an Environmental Center, the ultimate decision will be at the state or federal level (i.e., WSU or Department of Interior). Economic feasibility has yet to be determined. CONSIDERATIONS • Compatibility between the research and learning center and potential future businesses on the waterfront • Potential for US Fish and Wildlife Service presence to move or change their plan to non-federally owned property IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Complete a market demand and feasibility analysis 2. Develop partnerships with academic institutions and/or other organizations to support, develop and operate the center 3. Develop conceptual plans for physical development and operation 4. Pursue funding sources for development COORDINATED BRANDING, MARKETING AND BUSINESS RECRUITMENT PROGRAM As of 2016, the City and Port of Ridgeﬁeld have taken substantial steps to develop a coordinated branding, marketing, and business recruitment program. The City, Port, and Ridgeﬁeld Business Association have always actively marketed the community, however, marketing is a perpetual eort and can always be improved. Therefore, an in-depth survey, market research, and branding eort was initiated and is concluding in 2016 with a complete program and recommendations for branding and business recruitment. Additionally, the Ridgeﬁeld Main Street program started in 2014 and is dedicated to economic development, advocacy, design, and organizing in Ridgeﬁeld’s downtown. Ridgeﬁeld Main Street has helped build pride and investment in Ridgeﬁeld’s downtown, and continues to do so through a variety of projects and events. CONSIDERATIONS • Coordination and collaboration between businesses in downtown, the waterfront and the I-5 Junction • Implementing a brand for Ridgeﬁeld used by all organizations promoting the community (Both the City and Port have recently participated in the “Land Here, Live Here” marketing eort led by Identity Clark County but that eort does not speciﬁcally “brand” Ridgeﬁeld) IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Continue to build capacity in the Ridgeﬁeld Business Association and Ridgeﬁeld Main Street Program 2. Harness data collected on consumers in Ridgeﬁeld including where they live, what they buy, how much they spend, and other goods and services they would like to see in Ridgeﬁeld in order to recruit and attract businesses desired by the community. 3. Continue to take appropriate steps to position available properties for redevelopment (such as addressing potential environmental issues or infrastructure needs) 4. Implement recommended marketing strategy coordinated with the Port, City and Ridgeﬁeld Business Association 5. Develop and provide additional resources to priority marketing eorts DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN42 PUBLIC EVENTS Events like the 4th of July Parade, BirdFest, Heritage Days, Hometown Celebration and First Saturday create energy and vitality in communities by bringing people together in public spaces and advance economic development. They also drive consumers to local businesses. Programming many events throughout the year is a proven strategy for promoting downtown districts. The redevelopment of the waterfront increases the potential for events that draw people to both downtown and the river. CONSIDERATIONS• Filling in gaps during the year when there are few public events in the community • Coordinating between regional events like the Clark County Fair, events on the Refuge,events in downtown and the waterfront • Develop capacity to create and host additional events to attract visitors and customers to the Downtown and Waterfront IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1.Continue to support existing regular events 2.When possible, hire an events coordinator 3.Coordinate between City, Port, Ridgeﬁeld Business Association and Refuge to create new events that ﬁt the vision ofthe community 4.Develop events strategy to create events that promote business (i.e., Sidewalk sales, Holiday shopping events) COMPREHENSIVE WAY-FINDING AND SIGNAGE PROGRAM A signage program provides visitors with direction to the amenities of the community including downtown, the waterfront, and the Refuge. Currently, there are signs on I-5 identifying the exit for the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge and along Pioneer Street welcoming people to Historic Downtown. Plans for Overlook Park include an information kiosk to advertise events and activities. A way-finding and signage program could improve the existing signs by creating a uniform design that identifies Ridgefield, directs residents and visitors to different amenities, designates routes for bicycling and other uses, and signifies arrival at different destinations. CONSIDERATIONS • Coordination with Washington State Department of Transportation on additional signage on I-5 • Maintenance and updating of information •Signage should be consistent with developingand promotion of Ridgeﬁeld Brand as well as identiﬁed routes in APPENDIX A: Downtown Circulation Plan (2016) IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1.Identify key locations for additional signage 2.Utilize a uniform design for signs 3.Select fabricator to construct signs 4.Install and maintain signage GOVERNMENT CIVIC CENTER A large portion of existing downtown and waterfront oce space is occupied by government oces including City Hall, the Port administration building, library, post oce, and police station. These civic uses act as anchor tenants that identify these areas as centers of the community and draw in people during weekdays when many tourists and residents are at work. CONSIDERATIONS • Maintenance and upgrading of civicbuildings to accommodate current and future use • Need for a long-term plan for centralizing a Civic Center as part of the downtown revitalization plans IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1.Continue to operate existing government services from locations in downtown and the waterfront 2.Include centralizing a Civic Center indowntown as part of the work of the Downtown Revitalization Task Force recommended in coordinated branding, marketing, and business recruitment catalyst project DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 43 OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT Several major park projects are planned including renovation of Abrams Park, development of Overlook Park, and public green spaces on the redeveloped waterfront. These green spaces are important elements of the community that provide recreation opportunities and bring nature into the city. Parks are also economic assets that can enhance the character of a town, raise property values, and attract residents and tourists who in turn spend money at local businesses. CONSIDERATIONS • Competition for limited space downtown between parks and private businesses • Balance of public open space and business opportunities on the redeveloped waterfront • Maintenance of park facilities IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Complete design of Overlook Park and construct using grant funds 2. Consider changes to consolidate Davis Park and Ridgeﬁeld Community Park as recommended in the Ridgeﬁeld Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan 3. Implement City’s Parks Plan DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LIBRARY Public libraries have been shown to build a community’s capacity for economic activity and resiliency. They are logical partners for local economic development initiatives that focus on people and quality of life. The Ridgeﬁeld Community Library held 485 programs in 2014 that reached 6,292 patrons. Additionally, it provides free access to technology, electronic resources geared for businesses, and courses that can be taken remotely to improve marketable skills. Based on 2012 circulation ﬁgures on items checked out or renewed and adjusted for open hours and space, the Ridgeﬁeld Library is one of the busiest libraries with the Fort Vancouver Regional Library District. Community leaders are diligently working on selecting the perfect site for a new library, which will be substantially larger than the current location, allowing the library to increase its positive impacts in the community. CLEAN UP DOWNTOWN BROWNFIELD SITES In 2014 the City of Ridgeﬁeld commissioned a market assessment and feasibility study of the downtown brownﬁeld sites to inform options for clean-up and redevelopment (See APPENDIX B: Downtown Waterfront Market Study (2015)). The study found that downtown and the waterfront would be suitable for a variety of development scenarios, including 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. However, a detailed ﬁnancial analysis concluded that redevelopment of the downtown brownﬁeld sites was not ﬁnancially feasible if the costs of environmental remediation are included as part of the property redevelopment budgets. Separate funding of clean-up eorts for these sites could enable ﬁnancially successful redevelopment eorts. EXPLORE POTENTIAL TO INCLUDE PARKLETS A parklet is a sidewalk extension that provides more public space and amenities for people using the street to sit, relax, have a cup of coee, or enjoy art or landscaping, for example. Usually parklets are installed on parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces. Parklets can be designed as temporary installations or for more permanent uses. The design and amenities oered can vary, and could be determined through a community input process. In some locations where they’ve been installed, parklets have been used as an extension of outdoor seating for restaurants and cafes. Ridgeﬁeld can explore the use of parklets, particularly as temporary installations initially, as a strategy to enhance the vibrancy of Main Avenue or Pioneer Street. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN44 COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE FOR DOWNTOWN AND WATERFRONT Since the original development of this plan in 2011, the City of Ridgeﬁeld has adopted a complete development code update, informed in part by the recommendations of the original plan. The new development code includes zoning designations of Central Mixed Use (CMU), Waterfront Mixed Use District (WMU), Waterfront Low Scale District (WLS), the Lake River View Protection Overlay District (LRVP), and the Downtown transition area (DTA). These new zones have been applied as shown in the City’s updated zoning map, below: WATERFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES Design guidelines establish a framework to promote quality development that ﬁts the character of an area. The City developed design guidelines for downtown in 2004 (Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Planning Guide). The community meetings for this public involvement eort reinforced the ﬁndings of previous community planning processes in Ridgeﬁeld – that maintaining the character of downtown is a priority. Currently, there are no design guidelines for the waterfront beyond the standards in the Development Code. Design guidelines are a useful tool for achieving that objective. CONSIDERATIONS • Applicability of the downtown design guidelines to the waterfront • Development on the waterfront could be required to meet a minimum number of the speciﬁc design guidelines for downtown to create architectural consistency while allowing it to develop a distinct character and identity • The waterfront and downtown design should include bird safe standards and encouragement of sustainable building practices and energy eciency IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Develop a form of design guidelines for the waterfront in conjunction with the Port of Ridgeﬁeld 2. Approval of waterfront design guidelines by planning commission which were created by the City and Port 3. Adoption of waterfront design guidelines by the City Council 44 LAND USE POLICY AND REGULATIONS RLD-4 IND IND RLD-6 CRB IND OFF OFF IND OFF RLD-6 RLD-4 RLD-4 RLD-4 PF RMD-16 PF RLD-4 RLD-8 PF RMD-16 RLD-4 RLD-4 P/OS WMU CCBPF RLD-6 RMD-16 CMU CCB P/OS PF P/OS RMD-16 P/OS CNB P/OS P/OS RMD-16 PF OFF PF PF CCB PF RMD-16 CNB CNB RMD-16 RLD-6 CNB P/OS RMD-16 P/OS P/OS P/OS WLS PF P/OS CCB P/OS P/OS PF RMD-16 P/OS RMD-16 P/OS RMD-16 CNB RMD-16 RMD-16 PF P/OS P/OS PF PF P/OS P/OS P/OS PF P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS RMD-16 OFF P/OS NE 259TH ST NE 29TH AVENWCARTY R D NW 289TH ST S 5TH ST SHI L L HU R S T R D NE 10TH AVENW 31ST AVEN 65TH AVES 45TH AVEN MAIN AVENW 11TH AVENETIMMENRDS ROYLE RDNW 291ST ST N 45TH AVEN W H IL L HURSTRDNE CARTY RDS 9TH AVENW MAIN AVES 85TH AVES 65TH AVENE 10TH AVENW 31ST AVENW 51ST AVENE 279TH ST S TIMM RDN HERON DR NW 229TH ST NE 239TH STNE 29TH AVEN 10TH ST S DOLAN RD S 15TH ST NW 299TH ST NW 11TH AVENESTOUGHTONRDNW 71ST AVEN 20TH ST NE 45TH AVES 10TH WAY NW 41ST AVES S E V IE R RDS 10TH S T S UNION RIDGE PKWY NWMAPLECRESTRDS 11TH ST NW 289TH ST MILL ST N 35TH AVEN S M Y T H E RD N 40TH AVEDIVISION ST NE 37TH AVENE 269TH STN 32ND CTNREIMANRDMAPLE ST NW 234TH ST NE 249TH ST N 5TH WAY S8TH WA Y S 74TH PLNE 289TH ST NFALCO N D R N 1ST AVES 6TH WAY NE 2ND AVENE1 4 TH CTS 29TH CTS DUSKY DRS 19TH PLS 24TH PLS 34TH PLS 25TH PLS 8TH AVES 5TH AVES 32ND PLS 31ST WAYS 31ST CTNWECKLUNDR DS TAVERN ER DRS 15TH CTS 21ST PLN RAILROAD AVES 35TH PLN 9TH WAY SIMONS ST ASH ST NW PARADISE PARK RD N8THW A Y S 20TH WAYN 43RD PLS 1 S T WAY NW 279TH ST S 7TH AVES2 2ND CIRS T ITAN DR N 1ST CIR CEMETERY RD W MILL ST NHELENSVIEWDRN RAVEN DRNORTHRIDGE DRS 13TH CTS PHOEBE DR S 13TH CIR N 10TH WAY N 7TH CIR S 56TH PLS 31ST PLN 10TH ST NW 299TH ST S 35TH PLNW 51ST AVEN 9TH WAY NW 289TH ST S 35TH PLRidgefield Designation Residential Low Density - 4 (RLD-4) Residential Low Density - 6 (RLD-6) Residential Low Density - 8 (RLD-8) Residential Medium Density - 16 (RMD-16) Central Mixed Use (CMU) Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) Waterfront Low Scale (WLS) Office (OFF) Commercial Community Business (CCB) Commercial Neighborhood Business (CNB) Commercial Regional Business (CRB) Industrial (IND) Public Facilities (PF) Parks/Open Space (P/OS) Water County Designation Single-Family Residential (R1-10) Single-Family Residential (R1-7.5) Single-Family Residential (R1-6) Residential (R-12) Residential (R-22) Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Business Park (BP) Light Industrial (ML) Rural-5 (R-5) Rural-10 (R-10) Rural-20 (R-20) Rural Com.- Outside Rur.Center (CR-1) Agriculture-20 (AG-20) Agriculture/Wildlife (AG/WL) Parks/Open Space (P/OS) Parks/Wildlife Refuge (P/WL) Urban Holding Overlay District (UH) Taxlots City Limits Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary 0.25 0.50Miles City of RidgefieldZoning Adopted by City Council : Signed______________ Dated______________ ÁGeographic Information System (GIS)Geographic Information System (GIS) Note: This data is compiled from many sources and scales.Clark County makes this information available as aservice, and accepts no responsibility for anyinaccuracy, actual or implied. Date: 1/6/2014Document Path: Q:\Projects\conSrvs\OtherAgencies\19805\LandUse\2013\RidgeZon11x17.mxd DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 45 LOCAL FINANCING MECHANISMS Many of the projects identiﬁed to promote sustainable development and integration of the downtown and waterfront require investment of public funds. Over time, these projects will spur economic development and increase local tax revenues through higher property values and greater sales. In the short term, there is a need to develop ﬁnancing plans for speciﬁc projects in the downtown and waterfront areas. In most states, such revitalization eorts are supported by tax increment ﬁnancing (TIF) districts. In Washington State, the ability to utilize TIF is limited by legal constraints. Modiﬁed versions of TIF are being explored as pilot projects in several communities across the state. State and federal grants for infrastructure, economic development, and open space and public recreation can play a signiﬁcant role in ﬁnancing public projects. The establishment of a public development authority (PDA) is another eective redevelopment ﬁnancing mechanism. A PDA is a public corporation created by a city or county to fulﬁll a particular public purpose or perform a public function pursuant to Revised Code of Washington Chapter. 35.21.730. PDAs are typically created to manage the development and operation of a single project or revitalization of a neighborhood, which the city or county determines is best managed outside of its traditional bureaucracy and lines of authority. The particular project may be entrepreneurial in nature and may intersect with the private sector in ways that would strain public resources and personnel. The Port of Ridgeﬁeld is a type of PDA and is working to redevelop the waterfront as well as other projects in the community. Combination of the brownﬁeld properties in Downtown might be a candidate to consolidate as a PDA. It will take creative thinking to underwrite such a project. By appearing larger, and as a key component of downtown revitalization, there may be some unforeseen opportunities that could be attractive to potential public project funders. CONSIDERATIONS • Partnerships are strong beneﬁts for competitiveness of grant applications (Joint Port and City applications should be attractive to funding agencies, especially if other partners are supportive) • The community’s vision for sustainable development aligns with the priorities of many federal and state grant programs IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Identify state and federal grant programs to support Catalyst Projects 2. Develop a systematic plan for obtaining grant funding for Catalyst Projects over time (as projects are implemented, momentum will grow, and the community will ﬁnd itself in an increasingly better position to obtain future grants) 3. Consider establishing a PDA to promote revitalization of downtown 4. Combine downtown brownﬁelds into a single project – include in Downtown Revitalization Task Force agenda 5. Work with private sector developers to form partnerships to promote redevelopment and reinvestment in downtown and waterfront areas. PUBLIC MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY The cleanup of the former wood treatment facility on the waterfront creates a historic opportunity to create more public access to the water. In addition to McCuddy’s Marina and the public boat launch facilities, there is potential to expand boating opportunities and visitors on Lake River and the Columbia River by creating a public marina on Port property. The proximity to the Columbia River and the distance between existing marinas drive the economic potential to brand Ridgeﬁeld as a boating destination. The economic and ﬁnancial feasibility of construction and operation of a public marina should be studied. CONSIDERATIONS • Cost of dredging Lake River to create a boat basin • Environmental conditions - potential that sediments have been contaminated by the former wood treatment facility • Financial balance of revenues from slip fees and other sources with costs of construction, operation and maintenance of marina • Availability of grant funding to support construction of a marina IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Conduct market assessment of demand for marina facilities, including optimal mix of slip sizes 2. Develop ﬁnancial pro forma of marina costs and revenues DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN46 PIONEER STREET RAIL OVERPASS A grade-separated rail crossing is critical to redevelopment of the waterfront. The Pioneer Street Rail Overpass is intended to provide safe, unobstructed, and direct access to the waterfront. At present, safety and access to the waterfront by emergency vehicles, cars, trucks, and pedestrians are considered deﬁcient because of the at-grade rail crossings and inadequate emergency access. The Port is leading the eort to construct the overpass. Phase I, the approach at the west end of Pioneer Street, was completed in 2006. Phase II, the landing of the future overpass west of the railroad, was completed in 2014. In 2015, funding for Phase III, the overpass, was secured. Construction of the overpass is planned to occur in 2016-2017. In addition to being an important infrastructure investment for Ridgeﬁeld, the Pioneer Street Rail Overpass will visually and physically connect downtown and the waterfront. The intersection at Pioneer Street/Main Avenue will also be the visual connection to the Refuge. The overpass will provide a comfortable and safe connection for people traveling on foot, by bicycle, and in vehicles. DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPES AND USES Downtown streetscapes should be designed to provide inviting people-oriented spaces to encourage people to linger, shop, and enjoy downtown Ridgeﬁeld. Streets should include buers between sidewalk and travel lanes, and should provide a network of comfortable routes for bicycle access. Sidewalks and potential parklets can include landscaping, street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, and bicycle parking, which provide real and perceived separation between trac and pedestrians. Generally, because of the anticipated high volume of vehicular trac, local services will be located on Pioneer Street, complementing the services provided at the Junction. Alleyways north and south of Pioneer Street can be developed for increased walkability and access to an expanded commercial center. Since 2011, the City of Ridgeﬁeld has developed the Downtown Circulation Plan (See APPENDIX A), which has some streetscape recommendations, and the Downtown Accessory Guidelines (APPENDIX C), which provides guidance on selection of street furniture, lighting, and other streetscape elements. 46 CONNECTIONS AND ACCESS DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 47 DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN Expanded from the original idea of a Pioneer Street Corridor Plan, the Downtown Circulation Plan (APPENDIX A) was developed in 2015/2016 to assess transportation needs in the downtown now and in the future, with full development of the waterfront. The plan was developed based on community input, a review of past work and plans, and a thorough assessment of the existing transportation conditions in downtown. The Downtown Circulation Plan makes recommendations for near-term projects designed to complete the downtown transportation networks for walking and bicycling; enhance the historic, walkable downtown character; and address existing issues or potential areas of conﬂict. The plan also provides long-term recommendations for the downtown/waterfront area, including two potential transportation network options and a suite of transportation demand management strategies, designed to provide people with attractive travel options that go beyond driving alone. CONSIDERATIONS • Amount and type of development and redevelopment that occur on the waterfront and downtown will have implications on which long-term transportation network is ultimately selected. • Feasibility and cost of an improved railroad crossing at Division Street. • Need for additional walking and bicycling connection to between residential neighborhoods and the waterfront in the vicinity of Division Street. The Downtown Circulation Plan provides recommendations for high- medium- and low- priority near-term implementation steps. TRAILS AND PATHWAYS The Ridgeﬁeld community is close to nature both physically and culturally. The walkability of downtown and the extensive trail system in the Refuge are great assets to be enhanced and promoted. At the community meetings, there was strong consensus and desire for more pedestrian and bicycle connections between the residential neighborhoods, downtown, waterfront, and the Refuge. Sta from City, Port, Clark County, LCREP, water trails, and the Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Refuge have all begun to coordinate plans to develop these trail and pathway connections, including water trails. CONSIDERATIONS • Connecting City, County, and Refuge trail planning eorts • Pedestrian and bicyclist safety • Waterfront Access IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 1. Identify priority trail and pathway projects 2. Identify gaps/opportunities to increase connectivity 3. Continue coordination between agencies 4. Identify funding sources to implement trail projects 5. Construct and maintain trails and pathways DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN48 ACTION ITEM LIST RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-1 Action Items List Note: The Action Item List is included “as is” from the 2011 Action Plan. Future updates of this plan will undertake a thorough revision of the Action Item list as items are accomplished and as the City’s and Port’s priorities shift to future actions. DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 49 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-2 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN50 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-3 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-1 Action Items List DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 51 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-4 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-2 DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN52 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-5 RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION PROJECT — ACTION PLAN B-1 Action Items List DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT SUBAREA PLAN 53 55 APPENDIX A: DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN (2016) CITY OF RIDGEFIELDDOWNTOWNCIRCULATIONPLAN January 2016 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME I) Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 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 II) Appendix A Main Street Meeting Handout Appendix B Existing Conditions Memorandum Appendix C Future Conditions Memorandum City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 1 Executive Summary Kittelson & Associates, Inc.1 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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. Pioneer Street, Ridgefield Kittelson & Associates, Inc.2 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 2 Downtown Circulation Plan Goals and Objectives Kittelson & Associates, Inc.3 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 8th Avenue near school 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 Pioneer Street at Main Avenue 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 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 3 Background and Related Documents Kittelson & Associates, Inc.6 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 façade, 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 Analysis (2013): The Miller’s Landing Transportation Impact 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. Some 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 Plan, the Citywide Transportation Plan, the 45th and Pioneer Subarea Plan, and the Ridgefield Junction Plan. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.7 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 4 Plan Development Process Kittelson & Associates, Inc.8 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 efforts followed similar processes, including engagement with project stakeholders and members of the public at regular intervals. The Downtown Circulation Plan was developed following the framework shown to the left. Each step of the framework included input from members of the community, stakeholders, City Planning Commission, City Council, and/or technical experts on the City staff or consultant team. These meetings allowed the project team to hear about current and future community priorities and understand existing challenges with the downtown transportation system. Project‐related outreach occurred as follows:  September Public Open House and Online Survey: The project team solicited general input from members of the community, both in person and via an online survey, to help inform the goals and objectives of the plan, inform the existing conditions, and collect ideas for solutions.  October Main Street Meeting: The project team met with members of the Main Street group in their monthly meeting, open to the public. The group discussed the existing challenges to circulation Kittelson & Associates, Inc.9 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 B 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. Ridgefield open house Downtown circulation plan input Discussion of circulation issues Kittelson & Associates, Inc.10 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 5 Existing Conditions Kittelson & Associates, Inc.11 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Figure 1: Existing roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in downtown Ridgefield 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 B, 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. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.12 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 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, 3:30pm, 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. Figure 2: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Kittelson & Associates, Inc.13 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 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 or on nearby side streets. Delivery patterns and the existing designated freight route are displayed in Figure 4. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10:30am 11:30am12:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:30pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Figure 3: Overall Occupancy Rates in Downtown Ridgefield Parking Study Area Figure 4: Freight and delivery routes Kittelson & Associates, Inc.14 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 Location 85th Percentile Speed (mph) Southbound or Eastbound Northbound or Westbound Main Avenue (between Pioneer and Simons ) 22 20 Pioneer Street (east of 3rd) 24 23 Pioneer Street (west of 8th) 28 29 Heavy vehicles were found to account for between 8.8% and 10.2% 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. Intersections 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 all‐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 at 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 of the study intersections are shown in Figure 5. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.15 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 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, exceeding the City of Ridgefield’s standards, as shown in Figure 6. Further detail on vehicle operations can be found in Appendix C the Future Conditions Memorandum. Figure 5: Existing Vehicular Level of Service Figure 6: Future No Build Vehicular Level of Service Kittelson & Associates, Inc.16 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Figure 7: Five‐year crash history (2010‐2014) Traffic Safety 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 in injury and 15 in property damage only. No crashes 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. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.17 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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:  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. 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 team then evaluated each project based on whether or not 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 project relies heavily on the data generated and reviewed as 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: Crosswalk at school exit Kittelson & Associates, Inc.19 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan The new pedestrian overpass provides access to the wildlife refuge north of downtown Students crossing with crossing guard at Pioneer Street and 5th Avenue Connectivity: Does the project...  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? Safety: Does the project…  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? Kittelson & Associates, Inc.20 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 carried 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. Miller’s Landing has options for future development The selected long‐term concepts seek to preserve public open space Kittelson & Associates, Inc.21 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 7 Near-Term Plan Elements Kittelson & Associates, Inc.22 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 Near‐term solutions seek to address sidewalk gaps. Near‐term solutions assume that the Pioneer Street overpass is constructed Sidewalk repair and improvement is needed in some locations. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.23 Ridgefi eld Downtown Circulation StudyNovember 2015 - Draft for DiscussionFigure 8: Preliminary Near Term ProjectsDowntown Loading Zone / Delivery AreaBike parking and streetscape improvementsOn-street parking managementtĂǇĮŶĚŝŶŐƐŝŐŶĂŐĞ2423222526292827142134567891210111315161718192021303132Priority all ages bike routesPriority pedestrian improvementsDesignated freight routeStriped on-street parkingStriped crosswalkIntersection treatmentShared street bikeway treatmentOn-street bicycle lanes (both sides)Sidewalk infillMulti-use trailMulti-use trailSchool drop-off zonePioneer Street OverpassPioneer StMill StN 9th Ave N 8th Ave S 7th Ave N 5th Ave N 4th Ave N 3rd Ave N Main Ave N 1st Ave N Railroad AveDivision StSimons StSargent StNHillhurst Rd 24 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Table 2: Near‐Term Downtown Circulation Plan Elements ID Name Description Priority 1 Division Street bicycle route Division Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Low 2 3rd Avenue bicycle route 3rd Avenue north of Pioneer Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 3 Simons Street bicycle route Simons Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 4 5th Avenue (from Pioneer Street to Simons Street) 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 block, and allow on‐street parking outside of school start and end times. High 4.d. 5rd Avenue (from Sargent Street to Simons Street) is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. High 5 Pioneer Street bicycle lanes Stripe buffered bicycle lanes east of 5th Avenue, and do not permit on‐ street parking in these blocks. High 6 8th Avenue bicycle route 8th Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 7 Abrams Park multi‐use path Enhance the existing multi‐use path through the park as a pedestrian and bicycle route with signage and (optional) pavement. Low 8 Mill Street sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on both sides of Mill Street. High 9 Simons Street sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on areas of Simon Street missing sidewalks. Medium 10 Main Avenue bicycle route Main Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 11 Sargent Street bicycle route Sargent Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 12 3rd Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 3rd Avenue missing sidewalks. High 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 15 Maple Street sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on Maple Street on one or both sides. High 16 5th Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 5th Avenue south of Pioneer that are missing sidewalks. High 17 7th Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on 7th Avenue south of Pioneer on one or both sides. Low Kittelson & Associates, Inc.25 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan ID Name Description Priority 18 Main Avenue/Mill Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised intersection. Low 19 Main Avenue/Simons Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised intersection. Low 20 3rd Avenue/Division Street intersection Reduce southwest corner radius and convert to standard 2‐way stop‐ controlled intersection (3rd Avenue stops). High 21 3rd Avenue/Mill Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised intersection. Low 22 3rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Medium 23 4rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Low 24 5rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. High 25 8rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Monitor crossing activity to determine potential enhanced crossing, such as crossing guard or rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). Medium 26 Hillhurst Road/ Pioneer Street intersection Consider traffic patrol during morning peak period. Install radar‐ activated speed limit sign for westbound traffic. High 27 Pioneer Street freight route Revise signage to direct freight and boat trailers to use the Pioneer Street overpass to the waterfront area (after closure of Division Street crossing). Medium 28 3rd Avenue on‐street parking Stripe on‐street parking on 3rd Street between Pioneer Street and Mill Street. Consider time limits in the future. Medium 29 Downtown loading zone / delivery area Evaluate the need to designate a loading zone / delivery area in the downtown core after the overpass is opened. Low 30 Bike parking and streetscape improvements Identify opportunities to provide bicycle parking on Pioneer Street, Main Avenue, and at key destinations. Identify opportunities for streetscape improvements, such as lighting and sidewalk furniture, in the course of project development in the downtown area. High 31 On‐street parking management Monitor on‐street parking utilization every 2 to 3 years and consider management strategies to meet parking availability goals (e.g. time limits, restrictions, or meters). Low 32 Wayfinding signage Install wayfinding signage to alert people to preferred bicycle routes and the designated freight route. High Kittelson & Associates, Inc.26 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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‐ guide/, 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.27 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Near‐Term Project #1, 2, 3, 4.d, 6, 10, and 11: Bicycle Boulevard Treatment 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 Low Motor Vehicle Speeds Low Motor Vehicle Volumes 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. 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. 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. Source:NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide Kittelson & Associates, Inc.28 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Near‐Term Project #22, 23,and 24: Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions 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 3rd, 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 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Near‐Term Project #4: 5th Avenue (Pioneer to Simons) 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 of 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. College Way Kittelson & Associates, Inc.30 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Section 8 Long-term Plan Elements Kittelson & Associates, Inc.31 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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. Pioneer Street at 3rd Avenue Kittelson & Associates, Inc.32 Ridgefi eld Downtown Circulation StudyNovember 2015 - Draft for DiscussionFigure 9: Long Term Alternative Pioneer Street Signalization SIGNAL OR MULTI-LANE ROUNDABOUTPOTENTIAL MULTI-USE PATH CONNECTIONPOTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE OVERCROSSINGMultimodal street connectionAll ages bike routeDesignated freight routePotential route Pioneer StMill StN 9th Ave N 8th Ave S 7th Ave N 5th Ave N 4th Ave N 3rd Ave N Main Ave N 1st Ave N Railroad AveDivision StSimons StSargent StNHillhurst Rd 33 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Figure 10: Roundabouts have fewer conflict points than signalized intersections. 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/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 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:  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. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.34 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Figure 11: Draft roundabout layout for Pioneer Street Signalization concept Pioneer Street/Hillhurst Road, looking southwestPioneer Street/Hillhurst Road, looking east Kittelson & Associates, Inc.35 Ridgefi eld Downtown Circulation StudyNovember 2015 - Draft for DiscussionFigure 12: Long Term Alternative Divison Street ConnectionMultimodal street connectionAll ages bike routeDesignated freight routePotential route ABCPOTENTIAL GATEWAY TREATMENT: ROUNDABOUT OR SIGNAL? POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONSPioneer StMill StN 9th Ave N 8th Ave S 7th Ave N 5th Ave N 4th Ave N 3rd Ave N Main Ave N 1st Ave N Railroad AveDivision StSimons StSargent StNHillhurst Rd 36 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Division Street Connection 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 Summary Assessment 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. 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 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Alignment B Summary Assessment 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 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 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 more comprehensive cost/benefit analysis and engineering feasibility study would ultimately drive a selection of a preferred alignment. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.38 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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 vehicles 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 Ornamental signal pole Kittelson & Associates, Inc.39 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Cross Section of New Connection 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 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‐ use path on one side. Each of these options can be considered for future implementation. Figure 14: New Alignment Cross Section Options Kittelson & Associates, Inc.40 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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. The existing at‐grade railroad crossing at Division Street is narrow and has no pedestrian facilities Kittelson & Associates, Inc.41 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Concepts 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. 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. Table 3: Concepts Evaluation Plan Goal / Objectives Division Street Connection Pioneer Street Signalization Connectivity  Redundant routes for all modes  Complete pedestrian facilities and crossings  Low stress bicycle routes  Provides an additional route for all modes to the waterfront.  Provides the opportunity for a low stress bicycle route and complete pedestrian facilities along the new connection.  Provides another route for walking and bicycling to the waterfront. (Providing this connection may be more or less difficult than providing a full Division Street connection, 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  Safe access to schools  Reduce crashes for all modes  Complete networks for pedestrians and bicyclists  A new connection for all modes would not provide an exclusive pedestrian/bicycle path; however, there may be an opportunity for a pedestrian bicycle path adjacent to the new connection.  Signals on Pioneer Street improve crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.  High levels of vehicle delay and traffic on Pioneer Street could result in more aggressive 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  Inclusive process and responsive to public input  Minimize impacts on property owners  Public input received has expressed the need for more circulating routes in the downtown area – there has been some support for a “couplet”.  Requires right‐of‐way acquisition from school property and from 1 to 10 other residential land‐owners depending on alignment.  Additional public input and support could increase the equity score.  Some public input has been against the installation of traffic signals on Pioneer; however, public input also reflects support for improved crossing opportunities.  Would require an easement or right‐of‐ way acquisition from the school property to construct multi‐use path. May require property acquisition from residential land owners if roundabout at Hillhurst/Pioneer is selected. Score Medium High Kittelson & Associates, Inc.42 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Plan Goal / Objectives Division Street Connection Pioneer Street Signalization Economic Vitality  Leverage public investments to encourage economic development in downtown  Efficient investments in infrastructure to serve long‐term needs  Improves circulation and freight access.  Provides opportunity for transit circulation “loop”. If transit service becomes more frequent in the future, could have two lines serving – one in each direction.  Represents a substantial public investment, potentially at or beyond the Pioneer Street overpass level of investment. However, the introduction of another route connecting eastern parts of Ridgefield with Downtown and the Waterfront creates the opportunity for additional economic development in the downtown and waterfront areas, adjacent to the new connection.  As traffic volumes increase, freight will encounter additional delays.  Signals at downtown intersections slow traffic and can provide an opportunity for people to “stop and shop”.  Provides opportunity for bidirectional transit travel on Pioneer Street. Bus blockage could add to delay given lack of space for pull‐outs.  Signalization typically costs between $250,000 and $350,000 per intersection, a relatively low cost compared to the construction of a new road. However, the construction of a non‐motorized connection across Division Street has the 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  Improve connections to natural areas  Minimize impacts to existing environmental assets  The connection from Pioneer Street to Division Street would result in the loss of part of an existing natural area above Gee Creek; however, it would avoid major impacts to Abrams Park. The new connection at Division, however, would improve access to the waterfront, another public natural resource.  The non‐motorized connection across Division Street would improve access to the waterfront, a public natural resource. Impacts to existing natural areas would be minimal. 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, 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, mix, 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 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.43 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan 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. Only confident cyclists are comfortable riding on Pioneer Street today Pioneer Street and Main Avenue Kittelson & Associates, Inc.44 City of Ridgefield Downtown 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. Including bicycle parking with new development and streetscape 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 associations (TMAs) have been formed to help with TDM efforts, including regular programming and education. Bicycle parking corral in Portland, OR Kittelson & Associates, Inc.45 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan From ClarkCommute.org 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, CTRAN, 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 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. A shuttle could carry people between downtown, the waterfront, parking, and/or other destinations Kittelson & Associates, Inc.46 City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Maximize School Bus Effectiveness Two of Ridgefield’s schools are located adjacent to downtown, and a third is located on HIllhurst 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. 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 or downtown areas. Ridgefield should continue to 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. A school bus on Pioneer Street Kittelson & Associates, Inc.47 CITY OF RIDGEFIELDDOWNTOWNCIRCULATION PLAN January 2016 VOLUME II: APPENDICES City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME I) Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 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 II) Appendix A Main Street Meeting Handout Appendix B Existing Conditions Memorandum Appendix C Future Conditions Memorandum City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Appendix A Main Street Meeting Handout ________________ 0 1,300 2,600650 Feet Pioneer St Mill St N 9 t h Ave N 8 t h AveS 7 t h Ave H ill h urst Ave N 5 t h Ave N 4 t h Ave N 3 t h Ave N Main Ave N 1 st Ave N R ailroad Ave Ash St D ivision St Simons St Sargent St S 7 t h AveS 7 t h Ave H ill h urst Ave H ill h urst Ave H ill h urst Ave H ill h urst Ave H ill h urst Ave H ill h urst Ave N Main Ave N Main Ave N 5 t h Ave N 5 t h Ave The City of Ridgeﬁeld is conducting a Downtown Circulation Study to un- derstand and plan for future needs in downtown Ridgeﬁeld as our city grows and evolves. The study will consider the circulation and access needs of people living, working, and visiting downtown, whether they are walking, bicycling, riding transit, or driving. In addition, the study will examine parking, freight access, and loading areas. Downtown Circulation Study Study Area Existing Facilities and Potential Alternatives Sargent St Principal arterial Minor arterial Local street Alley Sidewalk Bike lane Multi-use trail Possible connection (non-motorized or vehicle) Potential intersection or crossing improvement Future Pioneer Street overpass Potential future closure Study Process We are currently in the process of collecting data on trafﬁc, parking, existing pedestrian & bicycle facilities, and loading & deliveries. Vision, Goals, Objectives Existing Conditions & Future No Build Performance Measures Alternatives Development Alternatives Analysis Preferred Alternative Concept Downtown Circulation StudyPossible Solutions and Treatments   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 4 Recommendations to City Council    There was significant committee discussion about opportunities for creative bench and furniture designs, and concern that a Ò one size fits allÓ 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 BobÕ 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. 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. Two bench model recommendations from the committee include theCraftsmen model, at left, and the Restoration model, at right. 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).   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 4 Recommendations to City Council     There was significant committee discussion about opportunities for creative bench and furniture designs, and concern that a Ò one size fits allÓ 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 BobÕ 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. 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. Two bench model recommendations from the committee include the Craftsmen model, at left, and the Restoration model, at right. 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).   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 10 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. Additional priorities for future consideration are based on the committeeÕ s discussions and action items identified in the 2002 Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield and the Downtown/Waterfront Integration ProjectÑ 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. The DAG CommitteeÕ 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). Street furniture | Pedestrian scale lighting (From Downtown Accessory Guidelines) Potential Intersection Treatments ROUNDABOUT ALL-WAY STOP CONTINENTAL STRIPES AND CURB EXTENSIONS PAVERS, DIFFERENT COLORS OR TEXTURES SIGNAL Potential Crossing Treatments Non-motorized Connections Bicycle Parking Historic “Old Town” Feel Wayﬁnding FLASHING BEACONS City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Appendix B Existing Conditions Memorandum ________________ DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: November 3, 2015 Project #: 18853 To: 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 Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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. Figure 1: Downtown Ridgefield Study Area Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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. Initial phase of Pioneer Street OverpassA bicyclist uses the shared travel lane on Pioneer Street. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 2: Existing roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in downtown Ridgefield Existing Vehicular and Bicycle Parking 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 3: Existing on‐street parking and areas where on‐street parking is 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: Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.  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. Figure 4: Overall Occupancy Rates in Downtown Ridgefield Parking Study Area 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. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:30pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 5: Main Street Parking Occupancy (Between Mill and Pioneer) Figure 6: Pioneer Street Parking Occupancy (between Main and 5th) 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 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10:30am 11:30am 12:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 4:30pm Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 7: Freight and Delivery Routes Managing Parking in Your Community, a publication of the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program.1 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. 1 Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/lcd/tgm/docs/parkingprimerfinal71213.pdf Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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 – 3rd 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 street”2 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 2 One example of a shared street is a “woonerf” – a street with traffic calming treatments that prioritizes the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 8: Existing Sidewalks and Sidewalk Gaps 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. 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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/5th Avenue intersection, and on the west leg of the Pioneer Street/8th Avenue intersection. There are additional crossings of 5th Avenue and 8th 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. 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. 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 12 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 13 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Table 1: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Descriptions. Source: Mineta Transportation Institute 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 14 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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 1. 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 Figure 9: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 15 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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 3rd 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 10: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Main Avenue between Pioneer Street and Simons Street Figure 11: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Pioneer Street between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total VehiclesSouthbound Northbound 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total VehiclesEastbound Westbound Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 17 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 12: Daily motor vehicle volumes along Pioneer Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue 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 Location Observed 85th Percentile Speed (mph) Southbound or Eastbound Northbound or Westbound Main Avenue between Pioneer Street and Simons Street 22 20 Pioneer Street East of 3rd Avenue 24 23 Pioneer Street West of 8th Avenue 28 29 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total VehiclesEastbound Westbound Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 18 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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 3rd Avenue  Mill Street/N Main Avenue  Mill Street/N 3rd 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 Peak 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 19 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Table 3: Intersection Turn Count Data Source Intersection Turning Movement Count Source and Date Division Street/N Main Avenue Miller’s Landing Subdivision TIA – December 2012 Division Street/N 3rd 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 3rd Avenue Miller’s Landing Subdivision TIA – December 2012 Pioneer Street/N 5th Avenue Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study ‐ October 2015 Pioneer Street/N 8th Avenue Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study ‐ September 2015 Pioneer Street/S 9th 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/5th 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 20 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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. Figure 13: Intersection vehicular level of service Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 21 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 14: Five‐year crash history (2009‐2013) OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study Project #: 18853 November 3, 2015 Page 22 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.  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. Appendix 2 Parking Utilization Maps Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 10:30 AM Occupancy 0% - 25% 26% - 50% 51% - 70% 71% - 85% 86% - 100%H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\gis\Parking.mxd - kkingsley - 11:03 AM 11/4/2015Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington South FIPS 4602 Feet Average Parking OccupancyRidgefield, WAAverage parking occupancy was calculated for the average of three days, October 6-8. Each occupancy survey occurred over the course of an hour at the start time listed at right. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 11:30 AM Occupancy 0% - 25% 26% - 50% 51% - 70% 71% - 85% 86% - 100%H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\gis\Parking.mxd - kkingsley - 11:03 AM 11/4/2015Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington South FIPS 4602 Feet Average Parking OccupancyRidgefield, WAAverage parking occupancy was calculated for the average of three days, October 6-8. Each occupancy survey occurred over the course of an hour at the start time listed at right. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 12:30 PM Occupancy 0% - 25% 26% - 50% 51% - 70% 71% - 85% 86% - 100%H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\gis\Parking.mxd - kkingsley - 11:03 AM 11/4/2015Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington South FIPS 4602 Feet Average Parking OccupancyRidgefield, WAAverage parking occupancy was calculated for the average of three days, October 6-8. Each occupancy survey occurred over the course of an hour at the start time listed at right. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 02:30 PM Occupancy 0% - 25% 26% - 50% 51% - 70% 71% - 85% 86% - 100%H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\gis\Parking.mxd - kkingsley - 11:04 AM 11/4/2015Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington South FIPS 4602 Feet Average Parking OccupancyRidgefield, WAAverage parking occupancy was calculated for the average of three days, October 6-8. Each occupancy survey occurred over the course of an hour at the start time listed at right. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 03:30 PM Occupancy 0% - 25% 26% - 50% 51% - 70% 71% - 85% 86% - 100%H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\gis\Parking.mxd - kkingsley - 11:04 AM 11/4/2015Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington South FIPS 4602 Feet Average Parking OccupancyRidgefield, WAAverage parking occupancy was calculated for the average of three days, October 6-8. Each occupancy survey occurred over the course of an hour at the start time listed at right. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 04:30 PM Occupancy 0% - 25% 26% - 50% 51% - 70% 71% - 85% 86% - 100%H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\gis\Parking.mxd - kkingsley - 11:05 AM 11/4/2015Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington South FIPS 4602 Feet Average Parking OccupancyRidgefield, WAAverage parking occupancy was calculated for the average of three days, October 6-8. Each occupancy survey occurred over the course of an hour at the start time listed at right. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 3 City of Ridgefield Parking and Delivery Survey Responses Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 4 Traffic Volumes Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 18 2015 Start Time Mon Tue Wed Thu 15-Oct-15 Fri 16-Oct-15 Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Sat 17-Oct-15 Sun 18-Oct-15 Average Week Hourly Traffic Average Week Profile 12:00 AM 6 2 4 14 27 12 1:00 AM 3 5 4 8 15 8 2:00 AM 3 2 3 9 4 5 3:00 AM 2 6 4 3 5 4 4:00 AM 14 8 11 12 4 10 5:00 AM 25 28 27 12 6 18 6:00 AM 69 70 70 24 29 48 7:00 AM 137 138 138 45 26 87 8:00 AM 106 116 111 112 68 101 9:00 AM 159 133 146 137 97 132 10:00 AM 160 209 185 203 144 179 11:00 AM 173 198 186 192 126 172 12:00 PM 190 194 192 203 183 193 1:00 PM 221 180 201 206 159 192 2:00 PM 215 200 208 193 138 187 3:00 PM 230 223 227 169 126 187 4:00 PM 236 239 238 190 154 205 5:00 PM 233 250 242 165 124 193 6:00 PM 176 205 191 162 121 166 7:00 PM 112 121 117 111 64 102 8:00 PM 82 68 75 69 47 67 9:00 PM 44 96 70 39 34 53 10:00 PM 18 48 33 30 22 30 11:00 PM 10 23 17 30 4 17 Day Total 2624 2762 2700 2338 1727 2368 % Weekday Average 97.2% 102.3% % Week Average 110.8% 116.6% 114.0% 98.7% 72.9% AM Peak 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 173 209 186 203 144 179 PM Peak 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 236 250 242 206 183 205 Comments: Page 1 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 19 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time Mon 19-Oct-15 Tue Wed Thu Fri Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Sat Sun Average Week Hourly Traffic Average Week Profile 12:00 AM 10 10 10 1:00 AM 6 6 6 2:00 AM 5 5 5 3:00 AM 6 6 6 4:00 AM 9 9 9 5:00 AM 38 38 38 6:00 AM 77 77 77 7:00 AM 125 125 125 8:00 AM 129 129 129 9:00 AM 126 126 126 10:00 AM 181 181 181 11:00 AM 163 163 163 12:00 PM 167 167 167 1:00 PM 194 194 194 2:00 PM 196 196 196 3:00 PM 196 196 196 4:00 PM 249 249 249 5:00 PM 202 202 202 6:00 PM 171 171 171 7:00 PM 112 112 112 8:00 PM 74 74 74 9:00 PM 44 44 44 10:00 PM 16 16 16 11:00 PM 9 9 9 Day Total 2505 2505 2505 % Weekday Average 92.8% % Week Average 105.8%100.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 181 181 181 PM Peak 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 249 249 249 Comments: Page 2 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Volume Data (Weekend) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 17 2015 - Oct 18 2015 Start Time Sat 17-Oct-15 Sun 18-Oct-15 Average Weekend Hourly Traffic Average Weekend Profile 12:00 AM 14 27 21 1:00 AM 8 15 12 2:00 AM 9 4 7 3:00 AM 3 5 4 4:00 AM 12 4 8 5:00 AM 12 6 9 6:00 AM 24 29 27 7:00 AM 45 26 36 8:00 AM 112 68 90 9:00 AM 137 97 117 10:00 AM 203 144 174 11:00 AM 192 126 159 12:00 PM 203 183 193 1:00 PM 206 159 183 2:00 PM 193 138 166 3:00 PM 169 126 148 4:00 PM 190 154 172 5:00 PM 165 124 145 6:00 PM 162 121 142 7:00 PM 111 64 88 8:00 PM 69 47 58 9:00 PM 39 34 37 10:00 PM 30 22 26 11:00 PM 30 4 17 Day Total 2338 1727 2039 % Weekday Average % Week Average 114.7% 84.7% AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 203 144 174 PM Peak 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 206 183 193 Comments: Page 3 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 18 2015 Start Time Mon Tue Wed Thu 15-Oct-15 Fri 16-Oct-15 Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Sat 17-Oct-15 Sun 18-Oct-15 Average Week Hourly Traffic Average Week Profile 12:00 AM 10 6 8 25 29 18 1:00 AM 9 9 9 16 21 14 2:00 AM 4 3 4 20 9 9 3:00 AM 5 11 8 8 10 9 4:00 AM 19 12 16 20 9 15 5:00 AM 68 58 63 23 10 40 6:00 AM 136 148 142 52 41 94 7:00 AM 558 606 582 80 50 324 8:00 AM 242 258 250 231 104 209 9:00 AM 326 243 285 276 156 250 10:00 AM 286 312 299 436 205 310 11:00 AM 342 322 332 415 231 328 12:00 PM 397 349 373 383 295 356 1:00 PM 379 361 370 340 269 337 2:00 PM 571 525 548 387 232 429 3:00 PM 450 446 448 325 200 355 4:00 PM 519 499 509 347 232 399 5:00 PM 501 501 501 278 188 367 6:00 PM 342 429 386 256 222 312 7:00 PM 226 213 220 194 131 191 8:00 PM 145 129 137 116 77 117 9:00 PM 88 171 130 83 66 102 10:00 PM 44 76 60 56 40 54 11:00 PM 27 54 41 57 15 38 Day Total 5694 5741 5721 4424 2842 4677 % Weekday Average 99.5% 100.3% % Week Average 121.7% 122.7% 122.3% 94.6% 60.8% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 558 606 582 436 231 328 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 571 525 548 387 295 429 Comments: Page 1 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 19 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time Mon 19-Oct-15 Tue Wed Thu Fri Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Sat Sun Average Week Hourly Traffic Average Week Profile 12:00 AM 16 16 16 1:00 AM 8 8 8 2:00 AM 9 9 9 3:00 AM 9 9 9 4:00 AM 17 17 17 5:00 AM 77 77 77 6:00 AM 142 142 142 7:00 AM 589 589 589 8:00 AM 278 278 278 9:00 AM 222 222 222 10:00 AM 278 278 278 11:00 AM 315 315 315 12:00 PM 330 330 330 1:00 PM 309 309 309 2:00 PM 542 542 542 3:00 PM 383 383 383 4:00 PM 448 448 448 5:00 PM 467 467 467 6:00 PM 377 377 377 7:00 PM 219 219 219 8:00 PM 139 139 139 9:00 PM 77 77 77 10:00 PM 47 47 47 11:00 PM 19 19 19 Day Total 5317 5317 5317 % Weekday Average 92.9% % Week Average 113.7%100.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 589 589 589 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 542 542 542 Comments: Page 2 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Volume Data (Weekend) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 17 2015 - Oct 18 2015 Start Time Sat 17-Oct-15 Sun 18-Oct-15 Average Weekend Hourly Traffic Average Weekend Profile 12:00 AM 25 29 27 1:00 AM 16 21 19 2:00 AM 20 9 15 3:00 AM 8 10 9 4:00 AM 20 9 15 5:00 AM 23 10 17 6:00 AM 52 41 47 7:00 AM 80 50 65 8:00 AM 231 104 168 9:00 AM 276 156 216 10:00 AM 436 205 321 11:00 AM 415 231 323 12:00 PM 383 295 339 1:00 PM 340 269 305 2:00 PM 387 232 310 3:00 PM 325 200 263 4:00 PM 347 232 290 5:00 PM 278 188 233 6:00 PM 256 222 239 7:00 PM 194 131 163 8:00 PM 116 77 97 9:00 PM 83 66 75 10:00 PM 56 40 48 11:00 PM 57 15 36 Day Total 4424 2842 3640 % Weekday Average % Week Average 121.5% 78.1% AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 436 231 323 PM Peak 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 387 295 339 Comments: Page 3 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 18 2015 Start Time Mon Tue Wed Thu 15-Oct-15 Fri 16-Oct-15 Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Sat 17-Oct-15 Sun 18-Oct-15 Average Week Hourly Traffic Average Week Profile 12:00 AM 7 5 6 18 25 14 1:00 AM 5 6 6 11 17 10 2:00 AM 4 1 3 15 8 7 3:00 AM 3 7 5 6 7 6 4:00 AM 15 9 12 18 8 13 5:00 AM 41 40 41 23 9 28 6:00 AM 97 108 103 41 37 71 7:00 AM 212 228 220 72 43 139 8:00 AM 157 176 167 144 92 142 9:00 AM 251 188 220 213 134 197 10:00 AM 210 272 241 249 165 224 11:00 AM 274 291 283 267 177 252 12:00 PM 319 283 301 286 251 285 1:00 PM 311 293 302 273 222 275 2:00 PM 342 305 324 293 192 283 3:00 PM 345 344 345 254 163 277 4:00 PM 353 373 363 277 188 298 5:00 PM 356 373 365 231 169 282 6:00 PM 267 325 296 195 183 243 7:00 PM 167 169 168 152 102 148 8:00 PM 131 101 116 102 54 97 9:00 PM 69 138 104 65 49 80 10:00 PM 39 63 51 41 26 42 11:00 PM 17 33 25 42 9 25 Day Total 3992 4131 4067 3288 2330 3438 % Weekday Average 98.2% 101.6% % Week Average 116.1% 120.2% 118.3% 95.6% 67.8% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 274 291 283 267 177 252 PM Peak 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 356 373 365 293 251 298 Comments: Page 1 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 19 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time Mon 19-Oct-15 Tue Wed Thu Fri Average Weekday Hourly Traffic Sat Sun Average Week Hourly Traffic Average Week Profile 12:00 AM 16 16 16 1:00 AM 8 8 8 2:00 AM 9 9 9 3:00 AM 9 9 9 4:00 AM 12 12 12 5:00 AM 47 47 47 6:00 AM 109 109 109 7:00 AM 193 193 193 8:00 AM 183 183 183 9:00 AM 174 174 174 10:00 AM 216 216 216 11:00 AM 252 252 252 12:00 PM 252 252 252 1:00 PM 256 256 256 2:00 PM 298 298 298 3:00 PM 286 286 286 4:00 PM 329 329 329 5:00 PM 312 312 312 6:00 PM 255 255 255 7:00 PM 161 161 161 8:00 PM 110 110 110 9:00 PM 59 59 59 10:00 PM 36 36 36 11:00 PM 12 12 12 Day Total 3594 3594 3594 % Weekday Average 88.4% % Week Average 104.5%100.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 252 252 252 PM Peak 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 329 329 329 Comments: Page 2 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Volume Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Volume Data (Weekend) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 17 2015 - Oct 18 2015 Start Time Sat 17-Oct-15 Sun 18-Oct-15 Average Weekend Hourly Traffic Average Weekend Profile 12:00 AM 18 25 22 1:00 AM 11 17 14 2:00 AM 15 8 12 3:00 AM 6 7 7 4:00 AM 18 8 13 5:00 AM 23 9 16 6:00 AM 41 37 39 7:00 AM 72 43 58 8:00 AM 144 92 118 9:00 AM 213 134 174 10:00 AM 249 165 207 11:00 AM 267 177 222 12:00 PM 286 251 269 1:00 PM 273 222 248 2:00 PM 293 192 243 3:00 PM 254 163 209 4:00 PM 277 188 233 5:00 PM 231 169 200 6:00 PM 195 183 189 7:00 PM 152 102 127 8:00 PM 102 54 78 9:00 PM 65 49 57 10:00 PM 41 26 34 11:00 PM 42 9 26 Day Total 3288 2330 2815 % Weekday Average % Week Average 116.8% 82.8% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 267 177 222 PM Peak 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 293 251 269 Comments: Page 3 of 3 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:S Main Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13622201 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Oct 15 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At S Main Ave (Northbound) S Main Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 87:05 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 10 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 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 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 23 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 14 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 17 1558:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 11 158 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 11 159 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 161 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 8 158 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 14 164 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 161 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 9 159 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 144 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 12 139 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 12 128 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 10 1248:55 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 112 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 128 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 76 0 236 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Pedestrians 16 0 4 8 28 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 7:25 AM -- 8:25 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:35 AM -- 7:50 AM 0 0 0 7761 0 1 0 16 0 63 0 84 1 79 64 22 77 1 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.616.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.8 4.7 4.5 2.6 0.0 7 2 3 18 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:S Main Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13622202 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Oct 15 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At S Main Ave (Northbound) S Main Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 11 0 224:05 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 22 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 0 32 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 10 0 22 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0 24 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 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 10 0 18 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 13 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 18 2695:00 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 27 274 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 14 0 28 280 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 20 268 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 23 269 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 12 0 23 268 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 27 269 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 21 265 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 14 256 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 16 248 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 9 0 23 253 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 17 2575:55 PM 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 10 0 22 261 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 128 16 0 0 0 4 0 0 36 0 128 0 312 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 12 Pedestrians 44 0 20 60 124 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 4:10 PM -- 5:10 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:10 PM -- 4:25 PM 0 0 0 117100 0 1 0 26 1 125 0 127 1 152 125 35 119 1 0.90 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.70.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.3 3.2 2.9 1.7 0.0 28 4 19 42 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N 5th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13622203 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Oct 15 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At N 5th Ave (Northbound) N 5th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right 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 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 2 3 0 12 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 7 0 25 7:20 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 3 6 0 21 7:25 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 0 0 1 6 10 0 36 7:30 AM 0 1 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 3 8 12 0 44 7:35 AM 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 6 12 17 0 57 7:40 AM 0 0 1 0 12 0 1 0 1 26 0 0 4 12 25 0 82 7:45 AM 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 2 31 0 0 5 15 26 0 92 7:50 AM 0 0 2 0 17 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 1 9 39 0 93 7:55 AM 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 11 21 0 73 5718:00 AM 0 0 1 0 15 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 7 4 0 40 591 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 1 0 14 589 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 585 8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 5 1 0 17 577 8:20 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 11 1 0 21 577 8:25 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 16 557 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 7 0 0 18 531 8:35 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 0 0 8 2 0 22 496 8:40 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 12 3 0 27 441 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 6 0 0 17 366 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 15 2888:55 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 TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 32 0 148 0 4 0 12 328 0 0 40 144 360 0 1068 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 12 Pedestrians 8 4 0 80 92 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 7:05 AM -- 8:05 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 0 1 20 8803 8 179 0 21 99 172 21 91 187 292 181 21 287 102 0.55 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.10.00.0 12.5 6.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.6 0.0 1.1 6.4 3.4 1.1 0.0 4.2 8.8 11 4 1 29 0 0 0 000 0 2 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N 5th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13622204 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Oct 15 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At N 5th Ave (Northbound) N 5th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals 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 14 0 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 2 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 16 3 0 46 4:15 PM 2 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 21 3 0 56 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 12 4 0 36 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 18 3 0 39 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 2 16 4 0 44 4:35 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 16 0 0 39 4:40 PM 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 18 0 0 38 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 17 6 0 42 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 12 3 0 25 4:55 PM 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 23 4 0 45 5125:00 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 25 3 0 51 516 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 18 1 0 36 497 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 4 21 2 0 45 496 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 1 20 1 0 43 483 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 2 19 9 0 46 493 5:25 PM 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 21 5 0 46 500 5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 19 0 0 0 17 6 0 47 503 5:35 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 5 0 37 501 5:40 PM 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 13 3 0 34 497 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 12 4 0 35 490 5:50 PM 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 25 4 0 45 5105:55 PM 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 18 2 0 42 507 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 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 0 8 0 12 20 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 4:05 PM -- 5:05 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:05 PM -- 4:20 PM 4 2 9 5902 1 193 0 7 204 35 15 61 194 246 38 7 261 210 0.82 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.6 2.6 0.0 3.8 1.4 8 8 2 11 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 9/28/2015 1:28 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N 8th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13599401 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Sep 24 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At N 8th Ave (Northbound) N 8th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 11 1 0 237:05 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 0 15 2 0 35 7:10 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 10 2 0 32 7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 10 3 0 28 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 3 0 26 7:25 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 23 11 0 55 7:30 AM 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 25 7 0 59 7:35 AM 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 27 0 0 0 33 8 0 75 7:40 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 38 0 0 1 39 7 0 91 7:45 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 36 0 0 1 44 1 0 86 7:50 AM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 42 0 0 1 42 0 0 92 7:55 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 1 46 2 0 85 6878:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 23 1 0 69 733 8:05 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 31 0 0 0 7 0 0 41 739 8:10 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 6 0 0 21 728 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 13 713 8:20 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 15 0 0 1 9 0 0 31 718 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 16 0 0 28 691 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 11 0 0 29 661 8:35 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 8 0 0 20 606 8:40 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 9 1 0 24 539 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 1 0 1 9 1 0 31 484 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 10 1 0 28 4208:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 6 1 0 17 352 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 48 0 0 0 4 0 16 464 0 0 12 500 32 0 1076 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 48 0 4 8 16 92 Pedestrians 12 0 20 0 32 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 7:10 AM -- 8:10 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 1 1 26 401 8 330 0 8 315 45 28 5 338 368 54 8 360 317 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 75.0 8.2 0.0 25.0 2.5 35.6 0.0 0.0 9.8 7.1 40.7 25.0 7.5 2.5 7 7 14 0 0 0 0 000 0 1 0 0 2 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 9/28/2015 1:28 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N 8th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13599405 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Wed, Sep 23 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At N 8th Ave (Northbound) N 8th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 16 3 0 454:05 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 30 0 0 0 18 1 0 53 4:10 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 32 1 0 1 19 1 0 59 4:15 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 2 20 0 0 47 4:20 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 0 31 1 0 52 4:25 PM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 1 25 0 0 45 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 0 31 2 0 65 4:35 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 20 2 0 49 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 2 25 3 0 47 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 17 0 0 2 26 1 0 51 4:50 PM 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 32 2 0 1 32 2 0 75 4:55 PM 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 26 2 0 0 21 2 0 55 6435:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 22 1 0 2 24 3 0 55 653 5:05 PM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 2 31 4 0 60 660 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 32 1 0 1 33 2 0 71 672 5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 23 0 0 1 35 0 0 62 687 5:20 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 17 0 0 4 41 0 0 65 700 5:25 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 25 0 0 1 29 2 0 65 720 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 25 1 0 0 28 3 0 63 718 5:35 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 0 0 3 20 1 0 51 720 5:40 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19 1 0 5 23 0 0 50 723 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 1 0 1 34 3 0 50 722 5:50 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 23 2 0 6 28 0 0 62 7095:55 PM 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 5 15 0 0 42 696 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 4 0 4 0 0 0 12 0 12 288 4 0 24 436 8 0 792 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 16 0 28 Pedestrians 28 0 4 0 32 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 6 0 14 719 11 282 8 22 343 20 20 17 301 385 31 31 303 358 0.91 0.0 0.0 7.1 14.30.00.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 5.9 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.0 10 5 4 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N 9th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13622205 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Oct 15 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At N 9th Ave (Northbound) N 9th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals 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 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 3 17 0 0 36 7:20 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 2 17 0 0 32 7:25 AM 6 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 2 19 0 0 52 7:30 AM 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 3 0 4 29 0 0 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 9 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 35 22 0 4 34 0 0 110 7:50 AM 19 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 34 8 0 4 29 0 0 99 7:55 AM 12 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 13 0 2 18 0 0 82 7388:00 AM 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 10 0 4 6 0 0 52 766 8:05 AM 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 5 0 0 21 753 8:10 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 2 8 0 0 21 757 8:15 AM 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 3 5 0 0 20 741 8:20 AM 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 3 5 0 0 27 736 8:25 AM 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 4 0 0 24 708 8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 3 10 0 0 29 670 8:35 AM 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 3 10 0 0 28 616 8:40 AM 6 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 4 10 0 0 48 561 8:45 AM 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 5 4 0 0 31 482 8:50 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 4 5 0 0 23 4068:55 AM 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 1 9 0 0 26 350 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 168 0 60 0 12 0 0 0 0 380 200 0 36 392 0 0 1248 Heavy Trucks 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 20 0 8 0 52 Pedestrians 8 8 0 0 16 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 7:05 AM -- 8:05 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 101 0 47 621 0 229 103 32 243 2 148 9 332 277 2 137 282 345 0.61 10.9 0.0 2.1 0.00.00.0 0.0 6.1 11.7 9.4 7.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 7.8 7.2 0.0 10.9 5.3 8.1 9 9 2 0 0 0 0 000 0 1 1 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 10/21/2015 1:33 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N 9th Ave -- Pioneer St QC JOB #:13622206 CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DATE:Thu, Oct 15 2015 5-Min Count Period Beginning At N 9th Ave (Northbound) N 9th Ave (Southbound) Pioneer St (Eastbound) Pioneer St (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right 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 0 574:05 PM 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12 0 11 10 0 0 74 4:10 PM 8 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 6 0 2 16 0 0 59 4:15 PM 3 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 14 0 4 19 0 0 61 4:20 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 4 0 3 13 0 0 39 4:25 PM 4 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 7 0 7 19 1 0 53 4:30 PM 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 5 0 2 19 2 0 61 4:35 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 8 14 0 0 45 4:40 PM 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 7 0 5 13 1 0 56 4:45 PM 7 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 8 0 6 18 0 0 52 4:50 PM 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 14 1 0 50 4:55 PM 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 8 0 7 16 0 0 60 6675:00 PM 9 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 0 5 21 0 0 62 672 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 5:20 PM 15 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 0 6 18 1 0 67 699 5:25 PM 11 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 7 17 1 0 60 706 5:30 PM 8 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 4 0 6 15 0 0 52 697 5:35 PM 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 5 17 0 0 53 705 5:40 PM 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 6 11 1 0 47 696 5:45 PM 5 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 9 0 5 20 0 0 53 697 5:50 PM 6 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 4 0 6 22 0 0 52 6995:55 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 8 0 6 19 0 0 51 690 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeft Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 156 8 92 0 4 4 0 0 0 152 120 0 72 196 12 0 816 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 8 0 20 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 4:30 PM -- 5:30 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 111 5 64 111 2 154 94 75 190 8 180 3 250 273 15 170 219 302 0.87 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 5.2 2.1 1.3 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.0 2.2 0.0 1.8 3.7 2.0 10 0 0 2 1 0 0 000 0 0 1 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 5 Vehicle Classification Data Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:00 AM 1 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5:00 AM 0 16 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 6:00 AM 0 54 9 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 69 7:00 AM 0 85 29 0 11 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 137 8:00 AM 1 64 29 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 106 9:00 AM 0 90 46 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 159 10:00 AM 4 100 33 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 160 11:00 AM 1 122 27 1 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 173 12:00 PM 1 132 35 0 6 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 11 190 1:00 PM 4 133 51 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 221 2:00 PM 3 154 40 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 215 3:00 PM 10 149 43 1 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 230 4:00 PM 7 170 40 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 236 5:00 PM 6 170 34 0 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 233 6:00 PM 5 113 30 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 176 7:00 PM 1 81 19 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 112 8:00 PM 1 51 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 82 9:00 PM 0 30 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 44 10:00 PM 0 12 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11:00 PM 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 Day Total 45 1752 499 7 141 7 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 155 2624 Percent 1.7% 66.8% 19.0% 0.3% 5.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% ADT 2624 AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 6:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 4 122 46 1 13 1 4 15 173 PM Peak 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 1:00 PM 9:00 PM 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 10 170 51 2 12 3 3 1 25 236 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3:00 AM 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4:00 AM 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5:00 AM 0 18 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 6:00 AM 0 50 11 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 70 7:00 AM 0 90 31 2 7 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 138 8:00 AM 2 77 22 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 116 9:00 AM 0 88 32 2 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 133 10:00 AM 3 132 53 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 209 11:00 AM 2 140 24 0 19 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 8 198 12:00 PM 4 118 47 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 194 1:00 PM 3 110 47 0 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 180 2:00 PM 2 118 49 2 14 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 200 3:00 PM 4 140 48 2 9 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 16 223 4:00 PM 2 154 45 2 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 239 5:00 PM 3 167 47 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 250 6:00 PM 7 127 34 0 20 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 13 205 7:00 PM 2 82 19 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 121 8:00 PM 0 45 17 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 9:00 PM 1 65 23 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 96 10:00 PM 0 32 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 48 11:00 PM 0 17 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Day Total 36 1788 571 16 181 8 1 28 2 0 0 0 0 131 2762 Percent 1.3% 64.7% 20.7% 0.6% 6.6% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% ADT 2762 AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 3 140 53 2 19 1 4 10 209 PM Peak 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM Volume 7 167 49 2 20 2 1 5 1 16 250 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1:00 AM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2:00 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:00 AM 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:00 AM 0 6 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6:00 AM 0 19 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 7:00 AM 0 32 7 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 45 8:00 AM 1 67 26 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 112 9:00 AM 1 82 41 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 137 10:00 AM 0 144 44 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 203 11:00 AM 4 132 45 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 192 12:00 PM 1 144 41 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 203 1:00 PM 1 139 42 0 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 206 2:00 PM 1 140 31 0 5 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 193 3:00 PM 2 112 28 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 169 4:00 PM 1 128 42 0 9 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 190 5:00 PM 1 109 30 0 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 165 6:00 PM 2 111 30 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 162 7:00 PM 3 66 23 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 111 8:00 PM 2 49 11 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 69 9:00 PM 1 27 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 39 10:00 PM 0 20 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 30 11:00 PM 0 22 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 30 Day Total 22 1589 464 2 116 10 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 116 2338 Percent 0.9% 68.0% 19.8% 0.1% 5.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% ADT 2338 AM Peak 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 4 144 45 1 9 2 2 8 203 PM Peak 7:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 1:00 PM Volume 3 144 42 1 13 1 5 16 206 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 1 20 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 1:00 AM 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 2:00 AM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4:00 AM 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5:00 AM 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6:00 AM 0 15 7 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 29 7:00 AM 0 14 7 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 26 8:00 AM 0 58 6 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 9:00 AM 0 63 24 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 97 10:00 AM 1 111 23 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 144 11:00 AM 0 90 19 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 126 12:00 PM 2 120 36 0 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 183 1:00 PM 1 115 24 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 159 2:00 PM 0 103 18 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 138 3:00 PM 2 95 16 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 126 4:00 PM 3 102 35 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 154 5:00 PM 2 88 18 0 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 124 6:00 PM 1 83 20 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 121 7:00 PM 1 38 11 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 64 8:00 PM 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 47 9:00 PM 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 34 10:00 PM 0 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 11:00 PM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Day Total 18 1174 285 1 92 3 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 134 1727 Percent 1.0% 68.0% 16.5% 0.1% 5.3% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% ADT 1727 AM Peak 1:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 4 111 24 12 1 3 4 144 PM Peak 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 3 120 36 1 9 1 5 41 183 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2:00 AM 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3:00 AM 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4:00 AM 0 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5:00 AM 0 24 9 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 6:00 AM 0 54 15 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 77 7:00 AM 1 80 29 1 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 125 8:00 AM 1 79 27 2 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 129 9:00 AM 2 90 19 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 126 10:00 AM 1 121 31 0 11 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 13 181 11:00 AM 5 97 33 1 16 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 163 12:00 PM 0 100 31 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 167 1:00 PM 0 128 39 1 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 194 2:00 PM 1 127 52 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 196 3:00 PM 3 144 32 2 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 196 4:00 PM 3 166 44 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 249 5:00 PM 1 132 51 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 202 6:00 PM 2 127 28 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 171 7:00 PM 0 78 23 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 112 8:00 PM 4 47 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 74 9:00 PM 0 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 10:00 PM 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 11:00 PM 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Day Total 28 1676 498 11 171 3 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 104 2505 Percent 1.1% 66.9% 19.9% 0.4% 6.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% ADT 2505 AM Peak 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 5 121 33 2 16 1 3 13 181 PM Peak 8:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 4 166 52 2 18 1 2 18 249 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB/SB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total Grand Total 149 7979 2317 37 701 31 1 98 3 0 0 0 0 640 11956 Percent 1.2% 66.7% 19.4% 0.3% 5.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% ADT 2391 Comments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1:00 AM 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2:00 AM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3:00 AM 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4:00 AM 1 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 5:00 AM 0 45 15 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 6:00 AM 0 103 20 1 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 7:00 AM 16 320 115 13 38 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 45 558 8:00 AM 0 154 56 3 17 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 242 9:00 AM 2 205 74 3 21 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 12 326 10:00 AM 4 198 63 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 286 11:00 AM 1 226 64 1 30 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 9 342 12:00 PM 2 262 91 3 21 2 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 7 397 1:00 PM 4 255 85 1 24 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 379 2:00 PM 10 353 119 15 34 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 32 571 3:00 PM 11 303 88 5 30 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 450 4:00 PM 6 362 101 1 34 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 519 5:00 PM 6 353 83 2 41 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 501 6:00 PM 4 238 60 1 28 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 342 7:00 PM 0 169 38 0 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 226 8:00 PM 1 110 24 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 145 9:00 PM 1 65 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 88 10:00 PM 0 27 8 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 11:00 PM 0 19 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Day Total 69 3800 1136 49 388 16 0 68 2 0 0 0 1 165 5694 Percent 1.2% 66.7% 20.0% 0.9% 6.8% 0.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% ADT 5694 AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 16 320 115 13 38 4 11 45 558 PM Peak 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 11 362 119 15 41 4 8 1 1 32 571 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1:00 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3:00 AM 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4:00 AM 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:00 AM 0 39 12 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 6:00 AM 0 103 22 1 12 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 148 7:00 AM 1 369 142 11 34 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 42 606 8:00 AM 2 160 50 5 32 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 258 9:00 AM 1 154 58 2 20 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 243 10:00 AM 2 199 73 4 25 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 312 11:00 AM 1 212 54 2 29 4 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 322 12:00 PM 5 216 75 2 30 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 349 1:00 PM 2 233 90 1 26 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 361 2:00 PM 8 337 109 13 34 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 14 525 3:00 PM 5 294 92 5 25 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 17 446 4:00 PM 4 317 114 2 38 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 16 499 5:00 PM 5 350 95 1 29 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 501 6:00 PM 11 272 92 0 32 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 15 429 7:00 PM 2 163 30 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 213 8:00 PM 1 81 34 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 129 9:00 PM 0 120 43 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 171 10:00 PM 0 58 10 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 76 11:00 PM 0 42 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 Day Total 50 3750 1216 49 408 20 3 65 8 0 0 0 0 172 5741 Percent 0.9% 65.3% 21.2% 0.9% 7.1% 0.3% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% ADT 5741 AM Peak 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 2 369 142 11 34 4 1 9 2 42 606 PM Peak 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 11 350 114 13 38 4 1 8 2 17 525 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1:00 AM 0 13 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2:00 AM 0 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3:00 AM 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4:00 AM 0 11 5 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5:00 AM 0 13 5 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6:00 AM 0 38 6 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 7:00 AM 0 53 13 1 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 8:00 AM 1 143 68 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 231 9:00 AM 1 173 67 2 20 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 276 10:00 AM 4 287 104 2 20 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 13 436 11:00 AM 4 282 84 0 29 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 415 12:00 PM 3 263 87 0 14 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 383 1:00 PM 3 215 71 0 29 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 340 2:00 PM 2 274 74 0 20 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 387 3:00 PM 2 235 62 0 17 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 325 4:00 PM 4 244 80 0 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 347 5:00 PM 1 197 58 0 14 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 278 6:00 PM 4 186 49 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 256 7:00 PM 1 144 33 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 194 8:00 PM 1 88 19 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 9:00 PM 0 67 13 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 10:00 PM 0 43 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 11:00 PM 0 43 9 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 Day Total 31 3057 925 5 247 11 0 57 2 0 0 0 0 89 4424 Percent 0.7% 69.1% 20.9% 0.1% 5.6% 0.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% ADT 4424 AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 4 287 104 2 29 3 7 1 13 436 PM Peak 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 4 274 87 29 2 7 16 387 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 24 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1:00 AM 0 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2:00 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3:00 AM 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4:00 AM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5:00 AM 0 6 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6:00 AM 0 25 6 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 7:00 AM 0 29 10 0 4 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 8:00 AM 0 83 14 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 104 9:00 AM 0 106 38 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 10:00 AM 0 150 41 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 11:00 AM 1 165 38 0 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 231 12:00 PM 3 198 59 0 23 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 3 295 1:00 PM 2 198 46 1 12 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 269 2:00 PM 3 176 38 0 12 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 232 3:00 PM 2 144 32 2 16 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 200 4:00 PM 5 159 45 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 232 5:00 PM 1 139 36 0 8 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 6:00 PM 2 167 39 1 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 222 7:00 PM 1 102 16 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 8:00 PM 0 57 16 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 9:00 PM 0 54 7 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 10:00 PM 0 35 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11:00 PM 2 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Day Total 22 2073 495 5 165 5 0 44 3 0 0 0 0 30 2842 Percent 0.8% 72.9% 17.4% 0.2% 5.8% 0.2% 0.0% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% ADT 2842 AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 6:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 1 165 41 16 8 7 231 PM Peak 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 5 198 59 2 23 2 7 1 10 295 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 1 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 1:00 AM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2:00 AM 1 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3:00 AM 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4:00 AM 0 11 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 5:00 AM 0 53 15 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 6:00 AM 0 98 25 1 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 142 7:00 AM 2 365 121 11 31 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 53 589 8:00 AM 5 185 58 3 17 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 1 2 278 9:00 AM 0 150 43 1 20 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 222 10:00 AM 1 182 52 1 25 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 7 278 11:00 AM 2 204 69 0 25 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 315 12:00 PM 1 213 72 2 30 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 330 1:00 PM 1 215 61 2 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 309 2:00 PM 6 303 156 9 30 2 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 29 542 3:00 PM 2 258 72 3 28 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 383 4:00 PM 1 316 83 2 31 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 8 448 5:00 PM 4 297 114 2 32 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 14 467 6:00 PM 3 259 82 0 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 377 7:00 PM 1 148 47 2 16 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 219 8:00 PM 0 97 34 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 9:00 PM 0 59 13 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 10:00 PM 0 42 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 11:00 PM 0 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Day Total 31 3493 1138 39 374 22 5 49 6 0 0 0 3 157 5317 Percent 0.6% 65.7% 21.4% 0.7% 7.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 3.0% ADT 5317 AM Peak 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 5 365 121 11 31 4 2 5 1 1 53 589 PM Peak 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 6 316 156 9 32 2 1 6 2 1 29 542 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total Grand Total 203 16173 4910 147 1582 74 8 283 21 0 0 0 4 613 24018 Percent 0.8% 67.3% 20.4% 0.6% 6.6% 0.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% ADT 4803 Comments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 1:00 AM 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 2:00 AM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 4:00 AM 1 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 5:00 AM 0 22 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 141 6:00 AM 0 64 16 1 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 497 7:00 AM 0 114 47 4 28 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 12212 8:00 AM 0 87 43 0 17 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 5157 9:00 AM 0 142 62 2 21 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 14251 10:00 AM 2 129 50 0 17 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10210 11:00 AM 0 163 55 0 31 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 14274 12:00 PM 2 173 75 2 24 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 32319 1:00 PM 1 181 87 1 28 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 7311 2:00 PM 4 207 71 2 30 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 15342 3:00 PM 9 205 76 1 26 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 18345 4:00 PM 5 216 71 2 26 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 22353 5:00 PM 2 233 79 0 26 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 14356 6:00 PM 1 177 43 0 26 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 17267 7:00 PM 0 110 34 1 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6167 8:00 PM 0 95 22 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3131 9:00 PM 0 49 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 069 10:00 PM 0 21 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 639 11:00 PM 0 10 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 Day Total 27 2421 872 16 355 13 0 39 1 0 0 0 0 48 3992 Percent 0.7% 60.6% 21.8% 0.4% 8.9% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% ADT 3992 AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 2 163 62 4 31 2 4 6 274 PM Peak 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM Volume 9 233 87 2 30 5 6 1 7 356 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 1:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 3:00 AM 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4:00 AM 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 5:00 AM 0 21 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 340 6:00 AM 1 60 24 1 11 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 7108 7:00 AM 0 132 50 4 24 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 10228 8:00 AM 1 88 42 3 28 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7176 9:00 AM 0 112 49 0 16 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 6188 10:00 AM 1 162 67 2 22 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 15272 11:00 AM 0 180 54 2 25 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 18291 12:00 PM 3 154 78 0 26 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 13283 1:00 PM 5 162 77 2 24 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 11293 2:00 PM 1 175 72 4 28 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 12305 3:00 PM 3 204 89 5 16 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 17344 4:00 PM 1 224 77 4 35 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 14373 5:00 PM 0 235 77 3 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17373 6:00 PM 2 193 71 0 33 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 20325 7:00 PM 0 120 28 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4169 8:00 PM 0 65 26 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1101 9:00 PM 0 92 37 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0138 10:00 PM 0 42 12 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 363 11:00 PM 0 26 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 Day Total 18 2463 950 30 372 20 3 47 3 0 0 0 0 42 4131 Percent 0.4% 59.6% 23.0% 0.7% 9.0% 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% ADT 4131 AM Peak 6:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 1 180 67 4 28 2 1 4 1 6 291 PM Peak 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 3:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 5 235 89 5 37 4 1 10 1 5 373 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 1:00 AM 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011 2:00 AM 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 3:00 AM 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 4:00 AM 0 9 5 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 5:00 AM 0 8 6 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 323 6:00 AM 0 28 6 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 041 7:00 AM 0 46 11 1 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 472 8:00 AM 0 92 35 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2144 9:00 AM 0 137 41 2 18 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12213 10:00 AM 1 164 42 1 23 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 12249 11:00 AM 3 170 59 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15267 12:00 PM 1 163 80 2 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 17286 1:00 PM 1 165 65 0 25 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 10273 2:00 PM 0 184 56 0 21 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 6 18293 3:00 PM 0 166 57 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10254 4:00 PM 0 183 60 0 15 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 11277 5:00 PM 3 146 53 0 18 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 5231 6:00 PM 0 133 40 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9195 7:00 PM 0 106 32 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3152 8:00 PM 0 69 21 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4102 9:00 PM 0 45 15 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 065 10:00 PM 0 27 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 141 11:00 PM 0 29 7 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 042 Day Total 9 2115 703 7 231 7 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 45 3288 Percent 0.3% 64.3% 21.4% 0.2% 7.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% ADT 3288 AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 3 170 59 2 23 2 3 4 267 PM Peak 5:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 3 184 80 2 25 2 8 8 293 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 19 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 1:00 AM 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 017 2:00 AM 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 3:00 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 4:00 AM 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 5:00 AM 0 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 6:00 AM 0 17 8 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 7:00 AM 0 23 10 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 243 8:00 AM 1 62 21 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 392 9:00 AM 0 75 38 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2134 10:00 AM 0 113 34 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4165 11:00 AM 0 108 41 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7177 12:00 PM 2 149 61 0 23 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 8251 1:00 PM 1 147 36 0 16 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 14222 2:00 PM 0 132 43 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7192 3:00 PM 1 116 24 0 15 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1163 4:00 PM 1 127 41 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8188 5:00 PM 0 112 36 0 10 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 6169 6:00 PM 0 128 31 1 14 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 5183 7:00 PM 1 77 11 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3102 8:00 PM 0 43 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 9:00 PM 0 38 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 149 10:00 PM 0 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 026 11:00 PM 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Day Total 8 1547 467 3 173 4 0 27 2 0 0 0 0 23 2330 Percent 0.3% 66.4% 20.0% 0.1% 7.4% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% ADT 2330 AM Peak 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 1 113 41 2 18 1 6 3 177 PM Peak 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 2 149 61 1 23 2 4 1 4 251 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total 12:00 AM 0 8 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 216 1:00 AM 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08 2:00 AM 1 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 3:00 AM 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 4:00 AM 0 7 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012 5:00 AM 0 22 15 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 047 6:00 AM 0 66 23 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3109 7:00 AM 0 117 32 3 24 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 10193 8:00 AM 0 109 45 1 15 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 8183 9:00 AM 0 99 36 1 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 10174 10:00 AM 0 131 50 2 21 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 3216 11:00 AM 1 144 61 0 26 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 11252 12:00 PM 0 151 56 3 23 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 11252 1:00 PM 2 167 53 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10256 2:00 PM 2 167 82 4 20 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 14298 3:00 PM 0 176 63 4 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 15286 4:00 PM 6 215 65 1 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15329 5:00 PM 0 181 77 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20312 6:00 PM 1 165 60 0 16 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 9255 7:00 PM 0 102 39 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5161 8:00 PM 0 70 25 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3110 9:00 PM 0 44 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 059 10:00 PM 0 30 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 11:00 PM 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 012 Day Total 13 2191 813 23 322 10 0 22 1 0 0 0 3 44 3594 Percent 0.4% 61.0% 22.6% 0.6% 9.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.2% ADT 3594 AM Peak 2:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 1 144 61 3 26 3 4 1 5 252 PM Peak 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 6 215 82 4 31 2 3 1 1 4 329 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Vehicle Classification Data LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB/WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time Motor- cycles Cars & Trailer 2 Axle Long Buses 2 Axle 6 Tire 3 Axle Single 4 Axle Single <5 Axle Double 5 Axle Double >6 Axle Double <6 Axle Multi 6 Axle Multi >6 Axle Multi Not Classified Total Grand Total 75 10737 3805 79 1453 54 3 169 7 0 0 0 3 202 16587 Percent 0.4% 61.9% 21.9% 0.5% 8.4% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% ADT 3467 Comments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 6 Traffic Speed Data Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:SB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 1 1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11-20 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21-30 1 3:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 4:00 AM 0 1 8 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21-30 9 5:00 AM 0 4 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 16-25 17 6:00 AM 3 10 29 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 21-30 40 7:00 AM 21 37 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 16-25 67 8:00 AM 22 24 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 16-25 37 9:00 AM 27 47 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 16-25 60 10:00 AM 31 45 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 15-24 55 11:00 AM 37 41 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 16-25 54 12:00 PM 56 32 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 11-20 50 1:00 PM 69 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 11-20 51 2:00 PM 58 50 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 11-20 69 3:00 PM 57 38 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 11-20 56 4:00 PM 51 46 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 16-25 66 5:00 PM 35 51 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 107 16-25 68 6:00 PM 34 31 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 12-21 42 7:00 PM 20 16 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 16-25 22 8:00 PM 14 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 16-25 14 9:00 PM 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 16-25 12 10:00 PM 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 3 11:00 PM 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 4 Day Total 541 518 240 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1329 16-25 758 Percent ADT 1329 40.7% 39.0% 18.1% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% AM Peak 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 6:00 AM 4:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 37 47 30 11 1 1 92 PM Peak 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 5:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 69 51 20 2 1 1 117 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:SB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15-24 0 1:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 2:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11-20 2 3:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 4:00 AM 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 16-25 7 5:00 AM 0 4 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 16-25 18 6:00 AM 3 15 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 16-25 43 7:00 AM 13 32 47 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 16-25 79 8:00 AM 15 32 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 16-25 52 9:00 AM 19 44 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 16-25 54 10:00 AM 45 41 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 16-25 63 11:00 AM 45 52 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 11-20 67 12:00 PM 54 33 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 11-20 50 1:00 PM 60 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 11-20 52 2:00 PM 54 36 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 11-20 54 3:00 PM 44 40 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 12-21 54 4:00 PM 58 42 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 11-20 61 5:00 PM 51 50 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 11-20 67 6:00 PM 46 45 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 11-20 60 7:00 PM 23 26 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 16-25 37 8:00 PM 6 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16-25 17 9:00 PM 8 5 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 16-25 21 10:00 PM 5 5 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 16-25 13 11:00 PM 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 21-30 5 Day Total 553 555 279 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1409 16-25 833 Percent ADT 1409 39.2% 39.4% 19.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 5:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 45 52 47 4 114 PM Peak 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM 10:00 PM 5:00 PM Volume 60 50 16 3 118 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:SB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20-29 4 1:00 AM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 3 2:00 AM 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11-20 3 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-10 0 4:00 AM 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 16-25 7 5:00 AM 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 20-29 4 6:00 AM 0 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 16-25 9 7:00 AM 1 10 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 23 8:00 AM 17 23 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 16-25 38 9:00 AM 29 29 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 16-25 51 10:00 AM 38 55 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 16-25 70 11:00 AM 28 49 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 16-25 66 12:00 PM 48 46 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 16-25 65 1:00 PM 55 41 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 11-20 59 2:00 PM 52 36 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 11-20 53 3:00 PM 34 28 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 16-25 40 4:00 PM 49 39 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 11-20 55 5:00 PM 41 26 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12-21 39 6:00 PM 29 33 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 16-25 44 7:00 PM 26 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 16-25 20 8:00 PM 14 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 16-25 17 9:00 PM 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16-25 9 10:00 PM 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15-24 4 11:00 PM 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16-25 4 Day Total 479 458 217 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1176 16-25 675 Percent ADT 1176 40.7% 38.9% 18.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 38 55 22 3 111 PM Peak 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 55 46 19 2 114 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:SB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 7 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 16-25 7 1:00 AM 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6-15 4 2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 3:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 4:00 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 5:00 AM 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 4 6:00 AM 0 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 21-30 9 7:00 AM 2 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 16-25 10 8:00 AM 9 14 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 16-25 32 9:00 AM 13 25 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 16-25 46 10:00 AM 22 39 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 16-25 57 11:00 AM 22 37 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 16-25 50 12:00 PM 30 40 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 16-25 57 1:00 PM 27 33 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 16-25 49 2:00 PM 17 26 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 16-25 36 3:00 PM 11 24 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 16-25 39 4:00 PM 21 39 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 16-25 59 5:00 PM 15 33 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 16-25 50 6:00 PM 23 19 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 16-25 37 7:00 PM 6 9 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 18 8:00 PM 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11-20 4 9:00 PM 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 4 10:00 PM 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16-25 8 11:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11-20 1 Day Total 232 363 226 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 853 16-25 589 Percent ADT 853 27.2% 42.6% 26.5% 3.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 22 39 21 3 83 PM Peak 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 30 40 20 4 1 92 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:SB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15-24 1 1:00 AM 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 3 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21-30 1 3:00 AM 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 3 4:00 AM 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21-30 6 5:00 AM 0 4 17 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 16-25 21 6:00 AM 3 17 32 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 16-25 49 7:00 AM 5 36 46 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 16-25 82 8:00 AM 18 32 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 16-25 57 9:00 AM 23 28 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 16-25 49 10:00 AM 45 37 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 11-20 52 11:00 AM 30 39 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 16-25 51 12:00 PM 56 25 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 11-20 43 1:00 PM 47 27 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 16-25 44 2:00 PM 37 50 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 16-25 72 3:00 PM 38 38 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 16-25 55 4:00 PM 57 52 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 11-20 71 5:00 PM 30 40 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 16-25 52 6:00 PM 24 29 12 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 16-25 41 7:00 PM 12 24 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 16-25 37 8:00 PM 5 18 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 16-25 26 9:00 PM 1 4 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16-25 13 10:00 PM 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16-25 6 11:00 PM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 4 Day Total 436 510 313 37 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1299 16-25 822 Percent ADT 1299 33.6% 39.3% 24.1% 2.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 5:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 45 39 46 7 2 96 PM Peak 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 7:00 PM 6:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 57 52 22 5 1 125 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Speed Data LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:SB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace Grand Total 2241 2404 1275 136 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6066 16-25 3679Percent36.9% 39.6% 21.0% 2.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative Percent 36.9% 76.6% 97.6% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ADT 1213 85th Percentile: Mean Speed(Average): Median Mode: 22 MPH 15 MPH 16 MPH 18 MPHComments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 3 1:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15-24 1 2:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-10 0 4:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15-24 1 5:00 AM 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 3 6:00 AM 2 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 16-25 13 7:00 AM 10 30 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 16-25 35 8:00 AM 21 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 16-25 23 9:00 AM 41 21 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 11-20 34 10:00 AM 35 27 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 12-21 38 11:00 AM 30 42 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 11-20 52 12:00 PM 47 35 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 11-20 50 1:00 PM 60 42 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 11-20 62 2:00 PM 53 36 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 11-20 53 3:00 PM 69 49 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 11-20 72 4:00 PM 57 47 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 11-20 66 5:00 PM 52 56 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 16-25 73 6:00 PM 58 42 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 11-20 61 7:00 PM 24 31 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 16-25 43 8:00 PM 17 16 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 16-25 34 9:00 PM 0 10 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 16-25 26 10:00 PM 4 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 16-25 7 11:00 PM 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16-25 4 Day Total 586 517 175 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1295 11-20 712 Percent ADT 1295 45.3% 39.9% 13.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 41 42 10 3 81 PM Peak 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 3:00 PM Volume 69 56 19 2 126 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16-25 1 1:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-10 0 3:00 AM 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 3 4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11-20 1 5:00 AM 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 11-20 5 6:00 AM 4 9 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 16-25 15 7:00 AM 8 20 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 16-25 37 8:00 AM 18 22 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 16-25 30 9:00 AM 27 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 11-20 38 10:00 AM 47 44 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 11-20 59 11:00 AM 35 39 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 12-21 50 12:00 PM 46 35 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 12-21 50 1:00 PM 53 24 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 11-20 41 2:00 PM 43 45 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 11-20 59 3:00 PM 68 49 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 11-20 71 4:00 PM 67 50 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 11-20 72 5:00 PM 64 56 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 11-20 77 6:00 PM 63 33 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 11-20 53 7:00 PM 32 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 11-20 34 8:00 PM 10 23 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 16-25 33 9:00 PM 19 31 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 16-25 47 10:00 PM 6 6 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 16-25 20 11:00 PM 2 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 16-25 11 Day Total 612 555 174 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1353 11-20 759 Percent ADT 1353 45.2% 41.0% 12.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 7:00 AM 3:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 47 44 17 1 101 PM Peak 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 PM 10:00 PM 5:00 PM Volume 68 56 16 2 1 132 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20-29 4 1:00 AM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15-24 3 2:00 AM 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 4 3:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 4:00 AM 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 5 5:00 AM 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16-25 6 6:00 AM 2 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 16-25 10 7:00 AM 5 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 16-25 14 8:00 AM 24 23 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 11-20 31 9:00 AM 23 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 12-21 35 10:00 AM 47 36 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 11-20 51 11:00 AM 41 44 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 11-20 57 12:00 PM 45 35 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 11-20 50 1:00 PM 45 46 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 11-20 61 2:00 PM 58 34 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 11-20 53 3:00 PM 44 33 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 16-25 48 4:00 PM 58 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 11-20 47 5:00 PM 47 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 11-20 46 6:00 PM 49 33 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 11-20 49 7:00 PM 32 26 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 11-20 36 8:00 PM 21 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 11-20 17 9:00 PM 13 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 12-21 11 10:00 PM 7 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 16-25 13 11:00 PM 7 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 16-25 14 Day Total 570 463 119 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1162 11-20 653 Percent ADT 1162 49.1% 39.8% 10.2% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 47 44 9 2 1 95 PM Peak 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 58 46 15 1 96 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 7 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 16-25 5 1:00 AM 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 16-25 4 2:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 1 3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 4:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16-25 1 5:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11-20 2 6:00 AM 6 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16-25 10 7:00 AM 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 15-24 9 8:00 AM 10 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 15 9:00 AM 12 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 16-25 25 10:00 AM 21 27 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 16-25 39 11:00 AM 24 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 16-25 27 12:00 PM 37 41 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 12-21 53 1:00 PM 34 33 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 16-25 46 2:00 PM 42 31 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 11-20 45 3:00 PM 28 36 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 15-24 45 4:00 PM 21 30 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 16-25 46 5:00 PM 21 23 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 16-25 36 6:00 PM 13 27 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 16-25 44 7:00 PM 14 14 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 16-25 24 8:00 PM 41 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 6-15 27 9:00 PM 19 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 11-20 15 10:00 PM 3 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 20-29 8 11:00 PM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 Day Total 360 344 154 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 874 16-25 497 Percent ADT 874 41.2% 39.4% 17.6% 1.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 6:00 AM 1:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 24 27 13 2 1 61 PM Peak 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 42 41 17 4 91 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8-17 3 1:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16-25 1 2:00 AM 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21-30 3 3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11-20 1 4:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15-24 0 5:00 AM 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 16-25 10 6:00 AM 3 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16-25 14 7:00 AM 8 13 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 16-25 24 8:00 AM 11 30 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 16-25 40 9:00 AM 16 26 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 16-25 36 10:00 AM 37 36 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 12-21 48 11:00 AM 33 39 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 13-22 49 12:00 PM 48 24 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 11-20 39 1:00 PM 61 33 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 11-20 53 2:00 PM 30 38 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 16-25 55 3:00 PM 37 50 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 16-25 65 4:00 PM 52 53 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 16-25 70 5:00 PM 43 59 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 16-25 73 6:00 PM 38 47 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 16-25 64 7:00 PM 18 23 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 16-25 40 8:00 PM 13 14 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 16-25 25 9:00 PM 0 6 16 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 16-25 22 10:00 PM 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 16-25 10 11:00 PM 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 4 Day Total 456 515 212 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1206 16-25 727 Percent ADT 1206 37.8% 42.7% 17.6% 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 37 39 12 2 1 85 PM Peak 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 9:00 PM 8:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 61 59 18 5 1 124 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Speed Data LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St QC JOB #:13622209 SPECIFIC LOCATION:North Main Avenue between Pioneer St & Simons St CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:NB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace Grand Total 2584 2394 834 71 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5890 11-20 3255Percent43.9% 40.6% 14.2% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative Percent 43.9% 84.5% 98.7% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ADT 1178 85th Percentile: Mean Speed(Average): Median Mode: 20 MPH 13 MPH 15 MPH 8 MPHComments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 1:00 AM 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 2 2:00 AM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 3 3:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 26-35 3 4:00 AM 0 0 1 8 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 26-35 11 5:00 AM 1 3 20 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 21-30 38 6:00 AM 0 2 31 53 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 21-30 83 7:00 AM 87 88 82 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286 16-25 169 8:00 AM 10 32 61 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 21-30 93 9:00 AM 9 11 84 57 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 21-30 141 10:00 AM 2 17 61 59 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 21-30 120 11:00 AM 8 13 99 47 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 21-30 146 12:00 PM 7 33 88 54 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 21-30 142 1:00 PM 4 22 77 71 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 21-30 147 2:00 PM 60 97 124 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 16-25 221 3:00 PM 8 40 109 59 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 21-30 168 4:00 PM 9 15 107 120 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 21-30 227 5:00 PM 8 11 94 88 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 21-30 182 6:00 PM 6 17 80 59 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 21-30 139 7:00 PM 4 9 44 45 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 21-30 89 8:00 PM 2 1 28 32 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 21-30 60 9:00 PM 1 6 12 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 21-30 23 10:00 PM 0 3 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 21-30 9 11:00 PM 0 2 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 22-31 10 Day Total 226 423 1217 876 123 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2877 21-30 2092 Percent ADT 2877 7.9% 14.7% 42.3% 30.4% 4.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 4:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 87 88 99 59 11 1 2 286 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 60 97 124 120 18 2 310 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 26-35 1 1:00 AM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 3 2:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21-30 2 3:00 AM 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21-30 7 4:00 AM 0 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 23-32 8 5:00 AM 0 1 16 18 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 21-30 34 6:00 AM 0 0 30 55 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 21-30 85 7:00 AM 75 69 110 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 16-25 179 8:00 AM 5 21 66 51 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 21-30 116 9:00 AM 1 10 58 52 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 21-30 110 10:00 AM 5 7 74 58 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 21-30 132 11:00 AM 8 19 76 55 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 21-30 131 12:00 PM 7 13 82 59 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 21-30 141 1:00 PM 3 24 112 42 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 21-30 153 2:00 PM 38 95 119 23 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278 16-25 214 3:00 PM 11 26 99 64 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 21-30 163 4:00 PM 7 19 95 80 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 21-30 175 5:00 PM 12 30 132 66 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 21-30 197 6:00 PM 12 23 122 72 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 21-30 193 7:00 PM 2 5 45 53 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 21-30 97 8:00 PM 1 5 30 20 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 21-30 50 9:00 PM 1 2 26 23 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 21-30 48 10:00 PM 0 4 18 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 21-30 29 11:00 PM 0 1 6 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 21-30 12 Day Total 189 374 1325 866 105 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2867 21-30 2190 Percent ADT 2867 6.6% 13.0% 46.2% 30.2% 3.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 75 69 110 58 13 1 299 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 38 95 132 80 11 1 1 278 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 4 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 22-31 9 1:00 AM 0 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 22-31 5 2:00 AM 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 21-30 5 3:00 AM 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 21-30 6 4:00 AM 0 0 4 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 22-31 10 5:00 AM 0 0 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 21-30 10 6:00 AM 0 0 9 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 21-30 25 7:00 AM 1 1 15 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 21-30 30 8:00 AM 3 3 23 37 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 21-30 60 9:00 AM 5 2 65 54 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 21-30 119 10:00 AM 9 26 94 97 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 21-30 190 11:00 AM 10 13 97 88 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 21-30 185 12:00 PM 10 12 88 93 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 21-30 181 1:00 PM 7 13 73 59 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 21-30 132 2:00 PM 11 29 86 71 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 21-30 156 3:00 PM 5 15 76 64 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 21-30 140 4:00 PM 3 4 81 61 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 21-30 141 5:00 PM 0 9 70 46 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 21-30 115 6:00 PM 6 21 67 32 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 21-30 99 7:00 PM 3 15 43 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 21-30 70 8:00 PM 3 6 25 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 21-30 36 9:00 PM 1 3 20 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 21-30 31 10:00 PM 0 3 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 21-30 21 11:00 PM 0 1 7 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 21-30 15 Day Total 77 177 975 825 122 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2189 21-30 1800 Percent ADT 2189 3.5% 8.1% 44.5% 37.7% 5.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 10 26 97 97 16 2 1 238 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 11 29 88 93 12 1 211 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 1 4 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 21-30 8 1:00 AM 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 22-31 7 2:00 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 3 3:00 AM 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22-31 4 4:00 AM 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 22-31 6 5:00 AM 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 5 6:00 AM 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21-30 16 7:00 AM 0 0 12 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21-30 23 8:00 AM 0 9 28 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 21-30 45 9:00 AM 0 8 46 27 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 21-30 73 10:00 AM 1 19 48 46 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 21-30 93 11:00 AM 13 20 54 39 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 21-30 93 12:00 PM 9 23 77 37 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 21-30 114 1:00 PM 2 6 54 64 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 21-30 118 2:00 PM 2 4 41 51 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 21-30 91 3:00 PM 1 9 36 38 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 21-30 73 4:00 PM 6 6 45 51 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 21-30 95 5:00 PM 2 10 33 31 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 21-30 64 6:00 PM 1 12 58 33 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 21-30 90 7:00 PM 1 8 25 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 21-30 46 8:00 PM 0 0 9 18 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 21-30 27 9:00 PM 0 1 9 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 21-30 24 10:00 PM 0 1 6 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 21-30 11 11:00 PM 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21-30 5 Day Total 38 137 609 535 96 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1429 21-30 1144 Percent ADT 1429 2.7% 9.6% 42.6% 37.4% 6.7% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 13 20 54 46 7 2 1 132 PM Peak 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 9 23 77 64 12 2 152 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 3 1:00 AM 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 26-35 4 2:00 AM 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 26-35 3 3:00 AM 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 21-30 5 4:00 AM 0 0 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 21-30 12 5:00 AM 0 2 16 29 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 21-30 44 6:00 AM 1 1 27 64 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 21-30 91 7:00 AM 71 76 115 34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 16-25 191 8:00 AM 2 22 81 45 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 21-30 126 9:00 AM 2 15 56 37 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 21-30 93 10:00 AM 7 24 75 33 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 21-30 107 11:00 AM 4 12 81 47 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 21-30 128 12:00 PM 3 24 73 65 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 21-30 138 1:00 PM 3 16 63 55 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 21-30 118 2:00 PM 60 91 91 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 16-25 181 3:00 PM 7 28 93 58 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 21-30 151 4:00 PM 9 26 95 75 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 21-30 170 5:00 PM 14 12 88 89 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 21-30 177 6:00 PM 6 38 87 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 21-30 137 7:00 PM 3 11 60 39 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 21-30 99 8:00 PM 0 5 35 24 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 21-30 58 9:00 PM 0 2 12 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 21-30 25 10:00 PM 0 0 10 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21-30 19 11:00 PM 0 0 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 25-34 8 Day Total 194 407 1176 824 113 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2723 21-30 2000 Percent ADT 2723 7.1% 14.9% 43.2% 30.3% 4.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 5:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 71 76 115 64 15 1 1 301 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 60 91 95 89 17 1 282 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Speed Data LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace Grand Total 724 1518 5302 3926 559 49 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12085 21-30 9228Percent6.0% 12.6% 43.9% 32.5% 4.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative Percent 6.0% 18.6% 62.4% 94.9% 99.5% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ADT 2417 85th Percentile: Mean Speed(Average): Median Mode: 28 MPH 23 MPH 23 MPH 23 MPHComments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 26-35 6 1:00 AM 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 23-32 4 2:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16-25 1 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16-25 1 4:00 AM 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 4 5:00 AM 0 0 2 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 26-35 12 6:00 AM 0 0 12 21 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 21-30 33 7:00 AM 39 85 112 31 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 16-25 196 8:00 AM 4 11 48 34 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 21-30 82 9:00 AM 6 6 66 72 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 21-30 138 10:00 AM 2 3 52 66 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 21-30 117 11:00 AM 10 10 58 79 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 21-30 137 12:00 PM 5 22 85 82 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 21-30 166 1:00 PM 6 17 60 90 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 21-30 150 2:00 PM 18 53 134 44 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 16-25 187 3:00 PM 4 18 117 75 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 21-30 192 4:00 PM 5 5 71 146 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 249 21-30 216 5:00 PM 6 2 92 153 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286 21-30 245 6:00 PM 1 3 70 76 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 21-30 145 7:00 PM 0 1 38 66 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 21-30 103 8:00 PM 0 2 31 37 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 21-30 68 9:00 PM 2 2 12 34 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 21-30 45 10:00 PM 0 0 8 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21-30 24 11:00 PM 0 2 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21-30 9 Day Total 108 243 1081 1144 226 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2817 21-30 2225 Percent ADT 2817 3.8% 8.6% 38.4% 40.6% 8.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 39 85 112 79 14 1 1 272 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM 1:00 PM 5:00 PM Volume 18 53 134 153 31 2 286 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 4 1:00 AM 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 22-31 5 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21-30 1 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 26-35 2 4:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 1 5:00 AM 0 0 2 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21-30 15 6:00 AM 0 1 16 33 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 21-30 48 7:00 AM 40 83 121 54 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307 16-25 203 8:00 AM 1 8 53 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 21-30 93 9:00 AM 4 7 52 48 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 21-30 99 10:00 AM 3 3 56 72 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 21-30 128 11:00 AM 4 4 58 80 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 21-30 138 12:00 PM 9 13 55 83 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 21-30 138 1:00 PM 3 13 85 63 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 21-30 148 2:00 PM 14 57 126 46 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247 16-25 182 3:00 PM 11 14 116 93 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 21-30 209 4:00 PM 11 13 104 129 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287 21-30 233 5:00 PM 9 12 99 118 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 21-30 217 6:00 PM 13 6 85 76 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193 21-30 160 7:00 PM 1 3 34 61 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 21-30 94 8:00 PM 2 3 17 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 21-30 59 9:00 PM 0 2 39 70 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 21-30 109 10:00 PM 1 1 11 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 21-30 36 11:00 PM 0 1 13 17 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 21-30 29 Day Total 126 244 1149 1170 170 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2874 21-30 2319 Percent ADT 2874 4.4% 8.5% 40.0% 40.7% 5.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 4:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 40 83 121 80 20 2 1 307 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 14 57 126 129 27 3 287 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 21-30 12 1:00 AM 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21-30 7 2:00 AM 0 0 3 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21-30 12 3:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 1 4:00 AM 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 26-35 8 5:00 AM 0 1 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21-30 11 6:00 AM 1 0 8 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 21-30 19 7:00 AM 1 0 12 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 21-30 40 8:00 AM 3 7 35 75 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 21-30 110 9:00 AM 5 3 33 82 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 21-30 115 10:00 AM 6 4 57 102 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 21-30 159 11:00 AM 5 8 58 93 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 21-30 151 12:00 PM 6 1 59 88 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 21-30 147 1:00 PM 12 8 47 83 25 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 21-30 130 2:00 PM 4 11 55 82 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 21-30 137 3:00 PM 3 7 48 78 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 21-30 125 4:00 PM 1 3 62 100 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 21-30 162 5:00 PM 2 6 52 69 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 21-30 121 6:00 PM 2 7 66 39 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 21-30 105 7:00 PM 3 5 46 41 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 21-30 86 8:00 PM 0 4 17 35 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 21-30 52 9:00 PM 0 2 12 21 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 21-30 33 10:00 PM 0 1 12 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 21-30 25 11:00 PM 1 0 7 21 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 26-35 29 Day Total 55 78 700 1098 274 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2235 21-30 1797 Percent ADT 2235 2.5% 3.5% 31.3% 49.1% 12.3% 1.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 6:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 6 8 58 102 26 5 1 198 PM Peak 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 6:00 PM 4:00 PM 1:00 PM 8:00 PM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 12 11 66 100 25 2 2 189 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 1 3 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 26-35 11 1:00 AM 0 0 2 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21-30 11 2:00 AM 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 26-35 6 3:00 AM 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 4 4:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21-30 2 5:00 AM 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 4 6:00 AM 0 0 11 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 21-30 22 7:00 AM 1 2 5 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23-32 14 8:00 AM 2 1 16 20 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 21-30 36 9:00 AM 0 2 13 46 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 21-30 59 10:00 AM 1 4 30 37 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 21-30 67 11:00 AM 4 11 38 38 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 21-30 75 12:00 PM 4 20 43 60 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 21-30 103 1:00 PM 4 7 27 79 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 21-30 106 2:00 PM 0 7 41 56 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 21-30 96 3:00 PM 3 5 26 62 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 21-30 88 4:00 PM 4 6 34 60 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 21-30 94 5:00 PM 0 7 30 46 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 21-30 76 6:00 PM 0 2 48 48 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 21-30 95 7:00 PM 0 1 23 42 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 21-30 65 8:00 PM 0 0 12 22 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 21-30 34 9:00 PM 0 2 9 20 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 21-30 29 10:00 PM 0 1 5 10 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 21-30 15 11:00 PM 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 25-34 4 Day Total 24 81 422 694 166 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1413 21-30 1116 Percent ADT 1413 1.7% 5.7% 29.9% 49.1% 11.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 4 11 38 46 11 1 99 PM Peak 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 4 20 48 79 17 5 143 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 2 1 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 26-35 7 1:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 26-35 2 2:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 46-55 2 3:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21-30 2 4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21-30 1 5:00 AM 0 0 10 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21-30 18 6:00 AM 0 0 11 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 21-30 39 7:00 AM 44 78 107 51 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 16-25 184 8:00 AM 2 3 56 51 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 21-30 106 9:00 AM 2 5 42 35 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 21-30 77 10:00 AM 3 1 50 69 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 21-30 119 11:00 AM 4 12 75 60 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 21-30 135 12:00 PM 6 14 57 69 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 21-30 126 1:00 PM 1 8 61 74 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 21-30 135 2:00 PM 28 67 97 61 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 16-25 164 3:00 PM 12 11 81 75 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 21-30 156 4:00 PM 4 7 75 121 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 21-30 195 5:00 PM 5 8 95 125 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 21-30 220 6:00 PM 5 23 101 62 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 21-30 162 7:00 PM 2 2 45 43 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 21-30 87 8:00 PM 0 1 27 34 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 21-30 60 9:00 PM 0 0 14 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 21-30 39 10:00 PM 0 1 8 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21-30 21 11:00 PM 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 26-35 7 Day Total 120 242 1016 1019 182 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2594 21-30 2035 Percent ADT 2594 4.6% 9.3% 39.2% 39.3% 7.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 4:00 AM 2:00 AM 2:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 44 78 107 69 13 1 1 1 288 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 28 67 101 125 26 3 260 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Speed Data LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave QC JOB #:13622207 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street west of 8th Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace Grand Total 433 888 4368 5125 1018 91 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 11933 21-30 9493Percent3.6% 7.4% 36.6% 42.9% 8.5% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative Percent 3.6% 11.1% 47.7% 90.6% 99.2% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ADT 2386 85th Percentile: Mean Speed(Average): Median Mode: 29 MPH 24 MPH 25 MPH 28 MPHComments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 1:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 2:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11-20 1 3:00 AM 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 2 4:00 AM 0 1 2 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 26-35 7 5:00 AM 1 8 6 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 21-30 16 6:00 AM 5 9 26 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 21-30 53 7:00 AM 11 51 47 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 16-25 98 8:00 AM 8 33 23 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 16-25 55 9:00 AM 19 44 41 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 16-25 84 10:00 AM 16 28 48 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 16-25 75 11:00 AM 24 55 44 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 16-25 99 12:00 PM 63 39 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 16-25 69 1:00 PM 32 59 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 16-25 99 2:00 PM 45 87 34 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 16-25 121 3:00 PM 30 74 44 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 16-25 118 4:00 PM 36 58 63 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 16-25 120 5:00 PM 24 61 49 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 16-25 110 6:00 PM 19 52 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 16-25 81 7:00 PM 10 29 19 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 16-25 47 8:00 PM 5 22 24 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 16-25 45 9:00 PM 0 14 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 19 10:00 PM 5 2 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 21-30 7 11:00 PM 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16-25 7 Day Total 355 730 588 165 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1859 16-25 1317 Percent ADT 1859 19.1% 39.3% 31.6% 8.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 6:00 AM 5:00 AM 4:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 24 55 48 27 4 1 132 PM Peak 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 63 87 63 14 2 170 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8-17 1 1:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11-20 1 2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21-30 1 3:00 AM 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 2 4:00 AM 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 23-32 5 5:00 AM 1 4 11 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21-30 17 6:00 AM 3 17 22 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 21-30 39 7:00 AM 18 50 59 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 16-25 109 8:00 AM 27 32 30 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 16-25 62 9:00 AM 8 33 41 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 16-25 74 10:00 AM 13 50 51 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 16-25 100 11:00 AM 23 53 40 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 16-25 93 12:00 PM 11 57 48 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 16-25 104 1:00 PM 34 79 28 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 16-25 106 2:00 PM 33 73 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 16-25 115 3:00 PM 21 67 38 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 16-25 104 4:00 PM 24 79 51 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 16-25 129 5:00 PM 30 83 44 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 16-25 127 6:00 PM 28 63 55 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 16-25 118 7:00 PM 13 32 21 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 16-25 53 8:00 PM 4 21 12 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 16-25 33 9:00 PM 2 18 10 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 16-25 28 10:00 PM 5 6 9 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 21-30 17 11:00 PM 0 1 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 22-31 6 Day Total 301 820 620 184 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1945 16-25 1440 Percent ADT 1945 15.5% 42.2% 31.9% 9.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 8:00 AM 11:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 5:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 27 53 59 18 2 2 135 PM Peak 1:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 7:00 PM 12:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 34 83 55 16 3 1 1 164 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 26-35 5 1:00 AM 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 26-35 3 2:00 AM 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 26-35 2 3:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 4:00 AM 0 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 21-30 7 5:00 AM 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 22-31 5 6:00 AM 0 7 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 17-26 12 7:00 AM 3 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21-30 18 8:00 AM 5 17 22 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 16-25 39 9:00 AM 13 51 39 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 16-25 90 10:00 AM 23 53 44 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 16-25 97 11:00 AM 20 48 49 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 16-25 97 12:00 PM 19 59 51 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 16-25 109 1:00 PM 12 61 31 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 16-25 91 2:00 PM 28 70 31 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 16-25 100 3:00 PM 27 54 33 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 16-25 86 4:00 PM 28 52 40 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 16-25 92 5:00 PM 15 51 31 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 16-25 81 6:00 PM 10 35 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 16-25 56 7:00 PM 5 29 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 16-25 51 8:00 PM 8 14 21 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 16-25 35 9:00 PM 2 10 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 16-25 18 10:00 PM 0 6 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16-25 14 11:00 PM 2 7 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 17-26 8 Day Total 223 637 478 171 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1534 16-25 1114 Percent ADT 1534 14.5% 41.5% 31.2% 11.1% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM Volume 23 53 49 16 2 1 132 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 1:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 28 70 51 16 3 1 144 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 2 1 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21-30 10 1:00 AM 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21-30 4 2:00 AM 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21-30 4 3:00 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 3 4:00 AM 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 21-30 5 5:00 AM 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 4 6:00 AM 1 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 16-25 8 7:00 AM 2 9 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16-25 13 8:00 AM 8 16 21 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 16-25 37 9:00 AM 7 17 30 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 16-25 47 10:00 AM 7 28 36 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 16-25 64 11:00 AM 9 29 39 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 16-25 68 12:00 PM 9 42 41 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 16-25 82 1:00 PM 19 32 36 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 16-25 68 2:00 PM 4 34 31 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 16-25 65 3:00 PM 5 33 24 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 16-25 56 4:00 PM 4 36 34 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 16-25 70 5:00 PM 10 26 25 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 16-25 51 6:00 PM 11 23 31 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 16-25 54 7:00 PM 6 17 13 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 16-25 30 8:00 PM 1 3 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 21-30 14 9:00 PM 1 5 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16-25 10 10:00 PM 0 1 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 21-30 7 11:00 PM 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 21-30 4 Day Total 110 358 405 184 29 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1089 16-25 763 Percent ADT 1089 10.1% 32.9% 37.2% 16.9% 2.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 9 29 39 19 3 1 94 PM Peak 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 19 42 41 17 4 1 112 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16-25 3 1:00 AM 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 3 2:00 AM 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15-24 1 3:00 AM 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 21-30 4 4:00 AM 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 21-30 9 5:00 AM 0 5 11 13 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 21-30 24 6:00 AM 3 15 30 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 21-30 58 7:00 AM 15 53 43 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 16-25 95 8:00 AM 9 31 41 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 16-25 72 9:00 AM 22 26 30 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 16-25 56 10:00 AM 12 50 30 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 16-25 80 11:00 AM 22 47 38 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 16-25 84 12:00 PM 29 64 26 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 16-25 89 1:00 PM 18 49 39 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 16-25 88 2:00 PM 38 73 32 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 16-25 105 3:00 PM 26 68 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 16-25 103 4:00 PM 23 58 52 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 16-25 110 5:00 PM 24 56 43 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 16-25 98 6:00 PM 15 35 35 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 16-25 70 7:00 PM 10 27 35 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 16-25 62 8:00 PM 3 24 15 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 16-25 39 9:00 PM 2 2 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 21-30 10 10:00 PM 3 4 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 21-30 10 11:00 PM 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16-25 6 Day Total 279 695 561 180 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1732 16-25 1255 Percent ADT 1732 16.1% 40.1% 32.4% 10.4% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 9:00 AM 7:00 AM 7:00 AM 6:00 AM 5:00 AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM Volume 22 53 43 29 3 1 127 PM Peak 2:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 38 73 52 12 3 148 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Speed Data LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:EB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace Grand Total 1268 3240 2652 884 101 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8159 16-25 5891Percent15.5% 39.7% 32.5% 10.8% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative Percent 15.5% 55.3% 87.8% 98.6% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ADT 1631 85th Percentile: Mean Speed(Average): Median Mode: 24 MPH 18 MPH 19 MPH 18 MPHComments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21-30 4 1:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 2:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 1 3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-10 0 4:00 AM 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16-25 3 5:00 AM 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 16-25 8 6:00 AM 1 5 11 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21-30 19 7:00 AM 20 35 35 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 16-25 70 8:00 AM 13 33 29 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 16-25 61 9:00 AM 40 49 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 16-25 84 10:00 AM 24 40 36 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 16-25 76 11:00 AM 39 60 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 16-25 100 12:00 PM 98 53 27 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 11-20 85 1:00 PM 47 67 58 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 16-25 124 2:00 PM 50 78 43 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 16-25 120 3:00 PM 57 87 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 16-25 129 4:00 PM 35 72 66 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 16-25 137 5:00 PM 46 76 75 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 16-25 151 6:00 PM 31 59 62 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 16-25 121 7:00 PM 11 34 42 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 16-25 76 8:00 PM 11 20 32 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 16-25 52 9:00 PM 0 9 22 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 21-30 35 10:00 PM 2 8 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16-25 19 11:00 PM 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 21-30 7 Day Total 528 794 683 119 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2133 16-25 1476 Percent ADT 2133 24.8% 37.2% 32.0% 5.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 40 60 40 9 2 142 PM Peak 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 PM 5:00 PM Volume 98 87 75 13 1 208 Comments: Page 1 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 16 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15-24 1 1:00 AM 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21-30 3 2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-10 0 3:00 AM 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 3 4:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16-25 1 5:00 AM 3 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 21-30 9 6:00 AM 11 10 15 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 16-25 25 7:00 AM 13 38 33 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 16-25 70 8:00 AM 24 33 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 16-25 50 9:00 AM 10 35 45 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 16-25 80 10:00 AM 20 62 52 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 16-25 114 11:00 AM 40 77 45 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 16-25 122 12:00 PM 37 72 40 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 16-25 112 1:00 PM 31 77 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 16-25 112 2:00 PM 28 68 49 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 151 16-25 117 3:00 PM 43 101 56 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 16-25 156 4:00 PM 41 101 59 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 16-25 160 5:00 PM 40 107 59 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 16-25 166 6:00 PM 45 78 44 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 16-25 122 7:00 PM 9 18 46 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 16-25 64 8:00 PM 5 12 24 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 21-30 37 9:00 PM 11 25 42 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 16-25 67 10:00 PM 2 12 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 16-25 23 11:00 PM 1 9 11 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16-25 20 Day Total 415 939 697 126 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2186 16-25 1636 Percent ADT 2186 19.0% 43.0% 31.9% 5.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 40 77 52 9 2 165 PM Peak 6:00 PM 5:00 PM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 11:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 45 107 59 15 2 1 209 Comments: Page 2 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 17 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 18-27 6 1:00 AM 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 17-26 6 2:00 AM 0 2 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22-31 7 3:00 AM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 2 4:00 AM 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 16-25 8 5:00 AM 3 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 16-25 10 6:00 AM 3 3 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 21-30 17 7:00 AM 10 10 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 16-25 33 8:00 AM 5 38 25 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 16-25 63 9:00 AM 18 44 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 16-25 75 10:00 AM 25 51 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 16-25 86 11:00 AM 27 63 44 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 16-25 107 12:00 PM 39 55 41 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 16-25 95 1:00 PM 38 61 43 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 16-25 103 2:00 PM 36 75 40 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 16-25 115 3:00 PM 21 57 46 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 16-25 102 4:00 PM 43 68 38 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 16-25 105 5:00 PM 21 41 48 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 16-25 88 6:00 PM 15 40 52 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 16-25 92 7:00 PM 6 30 45 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 16-25 75 8:00 PM 5 18 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 16-25 44 9:00 PM 4 9 18 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 16-25 27 10:00 PM 5 6 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 16 11:00 PM 3 3 12 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21-30 18 Day Total 328 687 614 115 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1754 16-25 1301 Percent ADT 1754 18.7% 39.2% 35.0% 6.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 27 63 44 12 2 140 PM Peak 4:00 PM 2:00 PM 6:00 PM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM 2:00 PM Volume 43 75 52 9 2 156 Comments: Page 3 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 18 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 1 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 21-30 7 1:00 AM 1 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 16-25 6 2:00 AM 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 3 3:00 AM 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11-20 3 4:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 2 5:00 AM 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16-25 3 6:00 AM 3 10 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 19 7:00 AM 3 14 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 16-25 20 8:00 AM 5 15 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 16-25 30 9:00 AM 6 15 31 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 16-25 46 10:00 AM 8 15 35 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 16-25 50 11:00 AM 15 24 30 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 16-25 54 12:00 PM 14 61 54 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 16-25 115 1:00 PM 26 46 43 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 16-25 88 2:00 PM 22 33 48 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 16-25 80 3:00 PM 12 25 43 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 16-25 67 4:00 PM 14 31 44 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 16-25 75 5:00 PM 16 33 37 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 16-25 70 6:00 PM 13 44 34 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 16-25 78 7:00 PM 6 18 25 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 16-25 43 8:00 PM 0 11 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 16-25 26 9:00 PM 5 10 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 17-26 21 10:00 PM 1 1 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 21-30 11 11:00 PM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21-30 3 Day Total 172 420 498 141 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1241 16-25 917 Percent ADT 1241 13.9% 33.8% 40.1% 11.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 15 24 35 14 1 83 PM Peak 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 10:00 PM 12:00 PM Volume 26 61 54 11 3 139 Comments: Page 4 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace 12:00 AM 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 16-25 6 1:00 AM 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8-17 1 2:00 AM 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 31-40 2 3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11-20 2 4:00 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16-25 1 5:00 AM 0 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21-30 11 6:00 AM 4 9 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 17-26 20 7:00 AM 14 24 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 16-25 47 8:00 AM 17 41 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 16-25 67 9:00 AM 13 42 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 16-25 67 10:00 AM 22 54 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 16-25 89 11:00 AM 36 60 40 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 16-25 100 12:00 PM 35 66 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 16-25 88 1:00 PM 40 69 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 16-25 99 2:00 PM 45 73 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 16-25 102 3:00 PM 39 68 38 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 16-25 105 4:00 PM 35 81 67 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 16-25 148 5:00 PM 26 79 65 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 16-25 144 6:00 PM 31 77 42 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 16-25 119 7:00 PM 0 31 39 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 16-25 70 8:00 PM 4 15 29 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 17-26 43 9:00 PM 4 10 18 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 16-25 28 10:00 PM 1 3 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 21-30 14 11:00 PM 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16-25 4 Day Total 373 813 565 104 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1862 16-25 1378 Percent ADT 1862 20.0% 43.7% 30.3% 5.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AM Peak 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 5:00 AM 2:00 AM 2:00 AM 11:00 AM Volume 36 60 40 6 1 1 141 PM Peak 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 4:00 PM 4:00 PM Volume 45 81 67 11 1 190 Comments: Page 5 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Type of report: Tube Count - Speed Data SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) SUMMARY - Tube Count - Speed Data LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave QC JOB #:13622208 SPECIFIC LOCATION:Pioneer Street east of 3rd Ave CITY/STATE:Ridgefield, WA DIRECTION:WB DATE:Oct 15 2015 - Oct 19 2015 Start Time 1 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 61 65 66 70 71 75 76 999 Total Pace Speed Number in Pace Grand Total 1816 3653 3057 605 42 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9176 16-25 6709Percent19.8% 39.8% 33.3% 6.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative Percent 19.8% 59.6% 92.9% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ADT 1835 85th Percentile: Mean Speed(Average): Median Mode: 23 MPH 17 MPH 18 MPH 18 MPHComments: Page 6 of 6 Report generated on 10/21/2015 3:30 PM Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 7 Study Intersections’ Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Devices Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 8 Existing Operations Analysis Results and Worksheets 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0745124448323780 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)3502 Control Delay (s)11.2 9.5 0.6 1.9 Lane LOS BAAA Approach Delay (s) 11.2 9.5 0.6 1.9 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)0 22 14 24 28 1 5 11 2081 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)5 5 12 40145019870 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 6026762141320 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 SB 1 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)3101 Control Delay (s)9.9 10.2 0.6 0.8 Lane LOS ABAA Approach Delay (s)9.9 10.2 0.6 0.8 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1 12 103021911431 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 205033222732 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 2032 Volume Right 2022 cSH 786 769 1530 1591 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)2000 Control Delay (s)9.7 9.7 0.7 0.2 Lane LOS AAAA Approach Delay (s)9.7 9.7 0.7 0.2 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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)0018 Control Delay (s)0.2 0.2 9.6 11.0 Lane LOS AAAB Approach Delay (s)0.2 0.2 9.6 11.0 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 (ft/s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0210 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 conf 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 AABE Approach Delay (s)0.5 0.9 11.3 41.4 Approach LOS B E Intersection Summary Average Delay 7.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 NB 1 SB 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)1163 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 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXAM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)3 3 13 30928315750 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 4437 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)2200 Control Delay (s)9.5 9.4 0.2 0.5 Lane LOS AAAA Approach Delay (s)9.5 9.4 0.2 0.5 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)03605161530112 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 Volume 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)10722049085871 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)1082205106961021 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 conf 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 #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 9 5 120 109 Volume Left 1256 Volume Right 8091 cSH 911 669 1498 1469 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1100 Control Delay (s)9.0 10.4 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS ABAA 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 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)34501012101171 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)45601012701221 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 4011 Volume Right 6001 cSH 948 792 1605 1600 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS AAAA 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 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 vC1, 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 cSH 1393 1455 703 609 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft)0027 Control Delay (s)0.5 0.1 10.2 11.5 Lane LOS AABB 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 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 #EB 1 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)0116 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 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph)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)1134 Control Delay (s)0.3 0.5 13.1 14.3 Lane LOS AABB 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 2015 Existing Traffic Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 11/3/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Task 3 Existing Conditions\Synchro\18853_EXPM.syn Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 conf 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 Summary Average Delay 5.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 9 Crash Data OFFICER REPORTED CRASHES THAT OCCURRED ON ALL ROADS (EXCLUDING STATE ROUTE 5)IN THE CITY OF RIDGEFIELD1/1/2010 ‐ 12/31/2014 UNDER 23 UNITED STATES CODE – SECTION 409, THIS DATA CANNOT BE USED IN DISCOVERY OR AS EVIDENCEAT TRIAL IN ANY ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE WSDOT, OR ANY JURISDICTIONS INVOLVED IN THE DATAJURISDICTIONPRIMARY TRAFFICWAYBLOCK NUMBERINTERSECTING TRAFFICWAYDIST FROM REF POINT MI or FTCOMP DIR FROM REF POINTREFERENCE POINT NAME MILE POST A/BREPORT NUMBER DATE TIMEMOST SEVERE INJURY TYPE # INJ #FAT#VEH#PEDS#PEDALVEHICLE 1 TYPEVEHICLE 2 TYPEJUNCTION RELATIONSHIPROADWAY SURFACE CONDITIONS LIGHTING CONDITIONSFIRST COLLISION TYPE / OBJECT STRUCKCollision TypeVEH 1 ACTIONVEH 2 ACTIONMV DRIVER CONT CIRC 1 (UNIT 1)MV DRIVER CONT CIRC 1 (UNIT 2)VEH 1 COMP DIR FROM VEH 1 COMP DIR TO VEH 2 COMP DIR FROM VEH 2 COMP DIR TOIMPACT LOCATION (Effective for City, County & Misc 1/1/2010; SR's indefinite)State Route 50116.92E355780 9/9/2014 19:12 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Passenger CarPickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Not at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDaylightOne parked--one movingParkedGoing Straight AheadLegally Parked, Unoccupied Under Influence of AlcoholNoneEastWestRight Shoulder Decreasing MilepostState Route 50116.943318073 9/10/2013 10:03 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb At DrivewayDryDaylightEntering at angleAngleMaking Left TurnGoing Straight Ahead Did Not Grant RW to VehicleNoneSouthWestEastWestLane 1 Decreasing MilepostState Route 50116.942446985 5/8/2013 16:30 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Not StatedNot at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDaylightOne parked--one movingParkedLegally Parked, Unoccupied Going Straight AheadOtherWestEastRight Shoulder Increasing MilepostState Route 5013rd16.96E390845 12/31/2014 9:00 Possible Injury 1 0 1 1 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lbAt Intersection and RelatedDryDaylightVehicle going straight hits pedestrianPedGoing Straight AheadFail to Yield Row to PedestrianSouthNorthIntersecting Road Increasing MilepostState Route 5015th17.07E384060 12/6/2014 18:20 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Passenger CarPickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb At Intersection and RelatedWetDark-Street Lights On Entering at angleAngleGoing Straight AheadMaking Left TurnNoneDid Not Grant RW to VehicleWestEastNorthEastLane 1 Increasing MilepostState Route 50117.092447030 5/17/2014 19:51 Evident Injury1 0 1 1 0 Not StatedNot at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDaylightVehicle going straight hits pedestrianPedGoing Straight AheadUnknown Driver DistractionRight Shoulder Decreasing MilepostState Route 50117.10E334055 6/3/2014 15:08 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Bus or Motor StagePassenger CarNot at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDaylightOne parked--one movingParkedGoing Straight AheadIllegally Parked, Unoccupied NoneOtherWestEastLane 1 Increasing MilepostState Route 50117.18E384059 12/9/2014 7:41 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Passenger CarPassenger CarNot at Intersection and Not RelatedWetDaylightFrom same direction - both going straight - both moving - rear-end Rear EndGoing Straight AheadSlowingFollow Too CloselyNoneEastWestEastWestLane 1 Decreasing MilepostState Route 50117.18E307398 2/13/2014 14:20 Possible Injury 1 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb MotorcycleNot at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDaylightFrom same direction - both going straight - both moving - rear-end Rear EndGoing Straight AheadSlowingUnder Influence of AlcoholNoneEastWestEastWestLane 1 Decreasing MilepostState Route 5018th17.20E334056 6/5/2014 18:59 Serious Injury2 0 2 0 0 Passenger CarPassenger CarAt Intersection and RelatedDryDaylightFrom same direction - one left turn - one straightAngleMaking Left TurnSlowingDid Not Grant RW to VehicleNoneEastSouthEastWestLane 1 Decreasing MilepostState Route 50117.242447198 9/7/2010 7:42 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Passenger CarPassenger CarAt DrivewayWetDaylightEntering at angleAngleGoing Straight AheadBackingNoneImproper BackingEastWestNorthVehicle Backing Lane 1 Decreasing MilepostState Route 5019th17.272447203 1/12/2011 7:50 Possible Injury 1 0 1 1 0 Passenger CarAt Intersection and RelatedWetDaylightVehicle turning right hits pedestrianPedMaking Right TurnFail to Yield Row to PedestrianSouthEastIntersecting Road Increasing MilepostState Route 50117.30E187299 6/20/2012 19:31 No Injury0 0 1 0 0 Passenger CarAt DrivewayDryDaylightFenceFixed ObjectMaking Right TurnImproper TurnEastNorthPast Right Shoulder Decreasing MilepostState Route 501Old Pioneer17.322447227 6/5/2011 11:18 Possible Injury 1 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Passenger CarAt Intersection and RelatedDryDaylightEntering at angleAngleStopped at Signal or Stop Sign Going Straight Ahead NoneDriver Interacting with Passengers, Animals or Obj SoutheastVehicle Stopped WestEastIntersecting Road Increasing MilepostCity Street MILL ST25 F W N RAILROAD AVEE342313 7/4/2014 22:54 Evident Injury1 0 1 1 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lbNot at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDark-Street Lights On Vehicle going straight hits pedestrianPedGoing Straight AheadNoneWestEastLane of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N 3RD AVEMILL STE354862 9/3/2014 14:55 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb At Intersection and RelatedDryDaylightEntering at angleAngleGoing Straight AheadGoing Straight Ahead Did Not Grant RW to VehicleNoneEastWestNorthSouthLane of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N 4TH AVE 400299 F S NW DIVISION ST2447188 6/3/2010 19:56 No Injury0 0 3 0 0 Passenger CarPickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Not at Intersection and Not RelatedWetDaylightOne parked--one movingParkedGoing Straight AheadLegally Parked, Unoccupied Under Influence of AlcoholSouthNorthOutside Shoulder of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N 4TH AVE 200135 F S MILL ST2447029 5/11/2014 1:00 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Not StatedNot at Intersection and Not RelatedDryDark-Street Lights On One parked--one movingParkedLegally Parked, Unoccupied Other*OtherOutside Shoulder of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N 4TH PLMILL STE343656 7/17/2014 21:33 Evident Injury1 0 2 1 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb At Intersection and RelatedDryDark-Street Lights On From same direction - all othersBackingBackingStopped in Roadway OtherOtherVehicle Backing Vehicle BackingLane of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N MAIN AVE 400 N ASH ST2737712 3/1/2010 15:34 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb At Intersection and Not RelatedDryDaylightOne parked--one movingParkedGoing Straight AheadLegally Parked, Unoccupied Apparently FatiguedSouthNorthOutside Shoulder of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N MAIN AVENW DIVISION STE321666 4/17/2014 8:08 Serious Injury1 0 1 1 0 Passenger CarAt Intersection and RelatedWetDaylightVehicle going straight hits pedestrianPedGoing Straight AheadNoneSouthNorthLane of Primary TrafficwayCity Street N MAIN AVE 300 MILL STE384430 12/16/2014 6:20 Evident Injury1 0 1 1 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lbAt Intersection and RelatedWetDark-Street Lights On Vehicle going straight hits pedestrianPedGoing Straight AheadHeadlight ViolationNorthSouthLane of Primary TrafficwayCity Street S 8TH AVE 10030 F S N HIGHLAND ST2446976 7/17/2011 12:39 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Passenger CarAt DrivewayWetDaylightEntering at angleAngleMaking Left TurnGoing Straight Ahead Did Not Grant RW to VehicleNoneWestNorthNorthSouthLane of Primary TrafficwayCity Street S 9TH AVE /S HILL100 N HIGHLAND ST2446978 6/1/2012 14:30 No Injury 0 0 1 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb At Intersection and Not Related Dry Daylight Tree or Stump (stationary)Fixed ObjectGoing Straight AheadOver Center LineSouthNorthPast the Outside Shoulder of Primary TrafficwayCity Street SIMONS ST 20087 F E N MAIN AVE2446986 10/2/2013 20:15 No Injury0 0 2 0 0 Pickup,Panel Truck or Vanette under 10,000 lb Not StatedNot at Intersection and Not RelatedWetDark-No Street Lights One parked--one movingParkedLegally Parked, Unoccupied Going Straight AheadInattentionWestEastOutside Shoulder of Primary TrafficwayWSDOT - CRASH DATA and REPORTING10/07/20151 of 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix 10 Input from Open House and Survey Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. CITY OF RIDGEFIELD OPEN HOUSE Input on Downtown Circulation Study On September 23rd, 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 3rd, 4th, 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 3rd (too many trucks) need to slow down Downtown Circulation Study PN # 18853 October 2015 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.  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 I‐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 9th 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 Downtown Circulation Study PN # 18853 October 2015 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.  Downtown is pretty good Parking  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 4.20%6 10.49%15 56.64%81 53.15%76 35.66%51 40.56%58 62.24%89 21.68%31 Q1 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: 0 Total Respondents: 143 #Other (please specify)Date 1 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 !10/6/2015 7:59 AM Offering diverse hous... Affordable Convenient to places to sh... High quality of development Walkable Readily accessible t... Fits with small... Neighborly 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Answer Choices Responses Offering diverse housing choices Affordable Convenient to places to shop and work High quality of development Walkable Readily accessible to open space and trail amenities Fits with small town/rural Ridgefield character Neighborly 1 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 4 Grocery store, Quality affordable restaurant 10/5/2015 9:34 PM 5 Academic community 10/5/2015 8:36 PM 6 unique character, not big box, consistent with heritage of Ridgefield 10/5/2015 7:39 PM 7 keep the small town feel, no more growth please 10/5/2015 7:09 PM 8 Large open spaces remaining 10/5/2015 5:08 PM 9 Sports Complex, Baseball, Scoccer, Basketball.10/5/2015 11:47 AM 10 Just want to stress the need for a grocery store like F. Meyer 10/5/2015 10:51 AM 11 I don't see any greenblet areas on the map.10/5/2015 10:39 AM 12 The continued building is a huge concern to me. Ridgefield is losing the small town feeling already and it has had a huge and I believe negative impact on our schools. 10/5/2015 10:28 AM 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 SurveyMonkey Q2 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: 16 20.83% 20 11.46% 11 15.63% 15 12.50% 12 7.29% 7 7.29% 7 7.29% 7 5.21% 5 2.08% 2 10.42% 10 96 6.64 5.38% 5 15.05% 14 5.38% 5 9.68% 9 10.75% 10 8.60% 8 11.83% 11 9.68% 9 11.83% 11 11.83% 11 93 5.19 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 Total Score Clear separation and buffering between residential and commercial developments Mixed use neighborhoods with some medium density residential located side- by-side with neighborhood retail services 3 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 20.62% 20 7.22% 7 10.31% 10 8.25% 8 8.25% 8 4.12% 4 6.19% 6 7.22% 7 11.34% 11 16.49% 16 97 5.67 9.00% 9 4.00% 4 10.00% 10 9.00% 9 6.00% 6 13.00% 13 7.00% 7 12.00% 12 12.00% 12 18.00% 18 100 4.76 0.99% 1 8.91% 9 4.95% 5 9.90% 10 10.89% 11 6.93% 7 11.88% 12 16.83% 17 14.85% 15 13.86% 14 101 4.41 10.00% 10 18.00% 18 16.00% 16 11.00% 11 7.00% 7 13.00% 13 11.00% 11 6.00% 6 5.00% 5 3.00% 3 100 6.49 20.79% 21 15.84% 16 9.90% 10 9.90% 10 10.89% 11 9.90% 10 8.91% 9 1.98% 2 4.95% 5 6.93% 7 101 6.72 17.76% 19 16.82% 18 9.35% 10 9.35% 10 19.63% 21 7.48% 8 4.67% 5 7.48% 8 3.74% 4 3.74% 4 107 6.77 8.41% 9 3.74% 4 11.21% 12 7.48% 8 9.35% 10 10.28% 11 15.89% 17 12.15% 13 12.15% 13 9.35% 10 107 5.01 3.57% 4 10.71% 12 16.96% 19 10.71% 12 12.50% 14 10.71% 12 8.04% 9 11.61% 13 9.82% 11 5.36% 6 112 5.63 Opportunities for larger- scale retail development Opportunities for industrial and business park development that complements existing uses Primary reliance on auto circulation within the subarea and to the rest of Ridgefield Opportunities for non- auto circulation as with walking and bike trails Protection of existing wetlands and other critical areas from development Master planning that both protects and complements wetland/critical areas as an amenity for high quality development Single large park area Smaller parks clustered near residential and existing natural areas 4 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 11.11%14 7.94%10 40.48%51 55.56%70 42.06%53 49.21%62 66.67%84 30.16%38 Q3 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: 17 Total Respondents: 126 #Other (please specify)Date 1 leave it how it is... farm land..10/12/2015 7:00 PM Offering diverse hous... Affordable Convenient to places to sh... High quality of development Walkable Readily accessible t... Fits with small... Neighborly 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Answer Choices Responses Offering diverse housing choices Affordable Convenient to places to shop and work High quality of development Walkable Readily accessible to open space and trail amenities Fits with small town/rural Ridgefield character Neighborly 5 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 2 less densely built than the current newly developed neighborhoods where the streets are too small and traffic promises to be very difficult if this density continues. 10/9/2015 12:32 PM 3 The current vision is flawed, and will ruin the small town 10/6/2015 1:19 PM 4 Left farm land 10/5/2015 10:36 PM 5 More park/green space than is shown 10/5/2015 8:25 PM 6 too 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 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 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 6 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 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: 47 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 Total Score 7 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 26.03% 19 12.33% 9 9.59% 7 6.85% 5 5.48% 4 10.96% 8 9.59% 7 8.22% 6 4.11% 3 6.85% 5 73 6.62 19.23% 15 10.26% 8 6.41% 5 8.97% 7 8.97% 7 5.13% 4 14.10% 11 10.26% 8 8.97% 7 7.69% 6 78 5.91 10.39% 8 7.79% 6 7.79% 6 5.19% 4 11.69% 9 5.19% 4 2.60% 2 9.09% 7 18.18% 14 22.08% 17 77 4.65 3.75% 3 2.50% 2 11.25% 9 5.00% 4 5.00% 4 8.75% 7 5.00% 4 20.00% 16 17.50% 14 21.25% 17 80 3.95 2.82% 2 1.41% 1 12.68% 9 9.86% 7 9.86% 7 9.86% 7 12.68% 9 22.54% 16 9.86% 7 8.45% 6 71 4.66 6.41% 5 20.51% 16 14.10% 11 17.95% 14 15.38% 12 15.38% 12 1.28% 1 3.85% 3 1.28% 1 3.85% 3 78 6.79 17.81% 13 12.33% 9 10.96% 8 12.33% 9 12.33% 9 10.96% 8 8.22% 6 4.11% 3 4.11% 3 6.85% 5 73 6.52 18.75% 15 13.75% 11 18.75% 15 12.50% 10 8.75% 7 5.00% 4 10.00% 8 5.00% 4 5.00% 4 2.50% 2 80 6.94 6.41% 5 8.97% 7 8.97% 7 10.26% 8 7.69% 6 12.82% 10 19.23% 15 6.41% 5 8.97% 7 10.26% 8 78 5.23 9.64% 8 16.87% 14 10.84% 9 12.05% 10 13.25% 11 9.64% 8 8.43% 7 6.02% 5 7.23% 6 6.02% 5 83 6.19 Clear separation and buffering between residential and commercial developments Mixed use neighborhoods with some medium density residential located side- by-side with neighborhood retail services Opportunities for larger- scale retail development Opportunities for industrial and business park development that complements existing uses Primary reliance on auto circulation within the subarea and to the rest of Ridgefield Opportunities for non- auto circulation as with walking and bike trails Protection of existing wetlands and other critical areas from development Master planning that both protects and complements wetland/critical areas as an amenity for high quality development Single large park area Smaller parks clustered near residential and existing natural areas 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.. work with the County and decrease the amount of people moving in..keep tough growth management laws..stay rural.. 10/12/2015 7:14 PM 2 Ease of access into and through the area by car is necessary. At current development densities, these roads will not 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. 10/9/2015 12:42 PM 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 good example. 10/6/2015 7:37 PM 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 11 Change the design guidelines to reflect the principles of the master plan of green, innovative, technology. Move away from old west theme 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 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 SurveyMonkey Q6 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 37.04% 20 37.04% 20 24.07% 13 1.85% 1 54 1.87 52.31% 34 30.77% 20 6.15% 4 10.77% 7 65 1.48 24.62% 16 41.54% 27 26.15% 17 7.69% 5 65 2.02 25.53% 12 29.79% 14 34.04% 16 10.64% 5 47 2.10 27.27% 12 13.64% 6 40.91% 18 18.18% 8 44 2.17 17.02% 8 40.43% 19 25.53% 12 17.02% 8 47 2.10 53.49% 23 25.58% 11 13.95% 6 6.98% 3 43 1.57 Parks Schools Downtown businesses Junction area businesses Wildlife Refuge Waterfront Your neighborhood 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Top Priority Moderate Priority Low Priority N/A Total Weighted Average Parks Schools Downtown businesses Junction area businesses Wildlife Refuge Waterfront Your neighborhood 10 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey Q7 Which of these locations currently have poor access and/or are challenging to get to and why? Answered: 61 Skipped: 82 #Responses Date 1 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. 10/15/2015 8:40 AM 2 No continuous walking path/sidewalks from 45th ave to downtown.10/14/2015 9:11 PM 3 Water Front, confusing and limited.10/14/2015 12:18 PM 4 Junction area businesses - need sidewalk along Pioneer Street to get people safely from freeway to Pioneer Canyon development 10/14/2015 10:06 AM 5 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.. 10/12/2015 7:21 PM 6 Downtown from neighborhoods-bike lane 10/10/2015 9:26 PM 7 Don't like the round-abouts - people don't know how to use them.10/9/2015 9:45 PM 8 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. 10/9/2015 12:48 PM 9 Dangerous along Pioneer. Waterfront doesn't feel safe due to so many non locals being brought in 10/8/2015 10:26 PM 10 More sidewalks, connectivity are needed from downtown to the high school for safety and promotion of walking/biking. 10/8/2015 2:25 PM 11 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. 10/7/2015 9:41 AM 12 None, love it the way it is 10/6/2015 9:33 PM 13 It is dangerous and difficult to get Downtown on bike or foot from neighborhoods closer to I-5. This is because there is very little shoulder room and no sidewalk on Pioneer between 32nd Place and Downtown. 10/6/2015 6:22 PM 14 Shoulders aren't big enough and no sidewalks to walk/bike from junction to downtown.10/6/2015 6:17 PM 15 Pioneer St between 45th and Downtown 10/6/2015 4:37 PM 16 Downtown Ridgefield from Cedar Ridge via walking or biking.10/6/2015 4:12 PM 17 the downtown area has narrow streets and very hard to park on weekends and during events.10/6/2015 2:58 PM 18 Schools are maxed yet the town continues to build houses.........idiotic 10/6/2015 1:24 PM 19 Downtown businesses need walking/biking paths from my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods near 45th St 10/6/2015 11:13 AM 20 Downtown business parking for events 10/6/2015 2:52 AM 21 Abrams Park. The parking when busy is awful.10/5/2015 9:37 PM 22 No bike lanes on our roads!10/5/2015 9:09 PM 23 Waterfront...unsafe access. Needs revitalization and would like to see opportunity for businesses and development and make that area a destination. 10/5/2015 8:57 PM 24 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. 10/5/2015 8:46 PM 25 can't bike out of downtown due to narrow roads, is it possible to plan a separate bike/walking path toward the junction? 10/5/2015 7:53 PM 26 you are not allowing people to answer they way we want you are loading the answers. that BS 10/5/2015 7:13 PM 27 The Hillhurst corridor attracts many bikers and runners. This area needs more trails and parks for people outdoors. 10/5/2015 6:14 PM 11 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 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 on the curvy hill with no sidewalk. 10/5/2015 5:14 PM 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.10/5/2015 4:42 PM 32 Waterfront doesn't seem as accessible as it could be due to the railroad tracks and it's unclear to me where there are trails--no signage. 10/5/2015 4:21 PM 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 windey Pioneer is dangerous. 10/5/2015 3:33 PM 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 No safe way to walk/bike downtown from the newer developments on Pioneer.10/5/2015 3:11 PM 38 Water front us the worse. We need two bridges and no more at track level crossings.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 I cannot get to green gables neighborhood from downtown going east w/o taking the symthe road which is very narrow & 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 10/5/2015 1:58 PM 41 Wildlife refuge - limited shoulder for biking, walking from other locations.10/5/2015 1:53 PM 42 My family would love to be able to walk or bike to downtown from the 45th/Pioneer Street area. A sidewalk or trail system to downtown would make many residence very happy. 10/5/2015 1:24 PM 43 Schools: Lack of sidewalk space/bike lanes on Hillhurst, lack of same on Pioneer and N. 5th. Unsafe for children to 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. 10/5/2015 1:22 PM 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 happen. 10/5/2015 12:23 PM 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 are desperately needed before someone gets hurt. 10/5/2015 11:59 AM 49 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 pass is built. 10/5/2015 11:24 AM 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 sidewalk but would be nice to connect the park 10/5/2015 11:20 AM 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 much larger. 10/5/2015 10:35 AM 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 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 60 Easier to get to if road legal ATV allowed in city limits 10/5/2015 10:27 AM 61 Lack of dedicated biking lanes.10/5/2015 10:27 AM 13 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey Q8 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, 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 allow for nature to stay intact as well. 10/14/2015 12:18 PM 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 other by bike safely if you want to. Make biking more accessible and safer. 10/8/2015 10:26 PM 9 complete sidewalks to the high school from downtown.10/8/2015 2:25 PM 10 A sidewalk all the way from I-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 I love the golf cart ordinance and plan to get one soon. I think it's very important to have walking trails and paved sidewalks. 10/6/2015 2:58 PM 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 31 From the High school to downtown with multiple point of entry.10/5/2015 6:18 PM 32 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 10/5/2015 4:21 PM 38 From Pioneer Canyon to downtown 10/5/2015 4:00 PM 39 More areas to walk or bike near the waterfront.10/5/2015 3:41 PM 40 home developments connected with downtown area via pedestrian path 10/5/2015 3:33 PM 41 Connect newer developments on Pioneer with downtown. By sidewalk or trails.10/5/2015 3:11 PM 42 Pedestrian 10/5/2015 2:55 PM 43 A walking/biking path between the junction and downtown.10/5/2015 2:38 PM 44 Better separation of traffic from pedestrian/bikes along pioneer 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 Mixed use development that allows for shops, homes, and parks to be located near one another, thus reducing the need for cars. 10/5/2015 1:53 PM 47 Trails or walkway connecting 45th/Pioneer Street to downtown.10/5/2015 1:24 PM 48 Large scale bike trail offering great, safe biking throughout Abrams and connecting to Union Ridge/View Ridge campuses to Heron Ridge neighborhood, and to Pioneer opposite Gee Creek Estates. 10/5/2015 1:22 PM 49 Walking anywhere in ridgefield is problematic because of the incontinuity of the sidewalks. You walk down a street, 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 1:09 PM 50 bike paths on the refuge.10/5/2015 12:58 PM 51 Pioneer street east of G creek 10/5/2015 12:23 PM 52 Pioneer, dangerous for walkers & bikers 10/5/2015 12:17 PM 53 No opinion 10/5/2015 12:05 PM 54 See above. As development moves east, people, especially kids are using Pioneer as their trail.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 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 A walking/biking trail or road either down 199th St or 179th St. It is very dangerous to walk or bike down those streets and many others. 10/5/2015 10:50 AM 62 Repair to sidewalks 10/5/2015 10:48 AM 63 Safe bike path to downtown area from pioneer street subdivisions.10/5/2015 10:40 AM 64 Path to high school 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 SurveyMonkey 66 Maintain existing paths.10/5/2015 10:35 AM 67 Connection from Pioneer Canyon to Abrams Park 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 68 Connect Reiman rd trail to Smythe Rd to Pioneer Canyon 10/5/2015 10:33 AM 69 Allow road legal ATV in city limits 10/5/2015 10:27 AM 70 downtown 10/5/2015 10:27 AM 71 Sidewalks on hilliest 10/5/2015 10:23 AM 16 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 46.60%48 5.83%6 31.07%32 42.72%44 33.01%34 43.69%45 47.57%49 23.30%24 11.65%12 Q9 For what purpose do you most often come to downtown Ridgefield? Answered: 103 Skipped: 40 Total Respondents: 103 #Other (please specify)Date 1 To visit friends 10/14/2015 12:19 PM Shopping Work School (including p... Special Events Library Post Office Dining Going to the waterfront I live downtown 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Answer Choices Responses Shopping Work School (including pick up/drop off) Special Events Library Post Office Dining Going to the waterfront I live downtown 17 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 2 Sports - Abrams 10/14/2015 10:06 AM 3 so quaint I love to take visitors there..10/12/2015 7:22 PM 4 The park.10/7/2015 9:59 PM 5 Park 10/6/2015 4:13 PM 6 Abrams park 10/5/2015 9:38 PM 7 Parks 10/5/2015 9:36 PM 8 i don't want growth to take away from our small town lives 10/5/2015 7:14 PM 9 Special events 10/5/2015 5:29 PM 10 Manicures ??10/5/2015 3:43 PM 11 Parks 10/5/2015 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 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. 10/5/2015 10:43 AM 16 I would like to move my office downtown but I'm afraid that downtown might be dead in a few years.10/5/2015 10:36 AM 17 Suggest moving Post Office to the Junction area 10/5/2015 10:34 AM 18 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey Q10 What are your top priorities for transportation in downtown Ridgefield? Answered: 103 Skipped: 40 72.86% 51 22.86% 16 4.29% 3 0.00% 0 70 1.31 42.31% 33 42.31% 33 15.38% 12 0.00% 0 78 1.73 20.37% 11 31.48% 17 44.44% 24 3.70% 2 54 2.25 28.13% 18 29.69% 19 32.81% 21 9.38% 6 64 2.05 19.30% 11 26.32% 15 29.82% 17 24.56% 14 57 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 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). 10/14/2015 12:33 PM 2 How about a trolley or bikes for rent for visitors..10/12/2015 7:24 PM 3 I fear for my children who cross at 8th and Pioneer for school. I have witnessed many scary incidents yet the school and city don't care. 10/8/2015 10:31 PM 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 8 (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 can't rank every feature) 10/5/2015 1:55 PM Safety Complete sidewalks Easy, convenient... Parking Bike lanes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Top Priority Moderate Priority Low Priority N/A Total Weighted Average Safety Complete sidewalks Easy, convenient crossings Parking Bike lanes 19 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 9 All of these are high priority.10/5/2015 1:13 PM 10 Again, page won't allow me to answer each inquiry 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 Q11 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 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 Historic Downtown...). Something like that. 10/14/2015 12:33 PM 3 Abrams pedestrian bridge over creek 10/14/2015 10:07 AM 4 I think the downtown is easy to navigate, park and walk in now. However, if there are more visitors or residents, that 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. 10/9/2015 12:52 PM 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 8 Mill Street Sidewalks 10/6/2015 4:38 PM 9 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 the post office space. Move them and put some office / condo buildings. 10/6/2015 3:00 PM 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 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 10/5/2015 9:37 PM 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 domino effect. 10/5/2015 8:48 PM 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 I would like to see some of the run-down housing renovated or rebuilt.10/5/2015 2:41 PM 24 Due to street parking on pioneer, you can't see when you pull out from intersections (check out 4th street coming from north) 10/5/2015 2:23 PM 21 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey 25 With the population growth - pioneer canyon is not wide enough for traffic & need traffic light on pioneer canyon & s 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 10/5/2015 2:06 PM 26 Parking around Union Ridge and View Ridge insufficient and unsafe for pedestrians at drop off and pick up times and during special events, whether school or community events. 10/5/2015 1:25 PM 27 Cming out of the post office parking lot, across from the library, is like taking your life into your own hands whether it be trying to cross the street or pull out in a car. There is always cars parked in either side, creating blind spots. 10/5/2015 1:13 PM 28 Eliminate parking on one side of the road to improve traffic passing each other. Or change some roads into one way roads and make parking nose in like S. Main street 10/5/2015 12:26 PM 29 The property beside the police station and beside the theater.10/5/2015 12:01 PM 30 Businesses along pioneer-buildings look old and are not visually appealing 10/5/2015 11:36 AM 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 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 center. Build up to 3-4 story buildings in downtown 10/5/2015 10:37 AM 37 Make 5th ave a one way heading North. Too many people during school rush trying to turn left onto pioneer.10/5/2015 10:35 AM 38 I'd like the waterfront do offer more and old like more beautification in the downtown area. We also should be 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) 10/5/2015 10:25 AM 22 / 22 City of Ridgefield Sub Area Plannig Survey SurveyMonkey City of Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan Appendix C Future Conditions Memorandum ________________ FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\18853 - RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN\TASK 5 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT\18853 FUTURE CONDITIONS_DRAFT MEMO._2015-12-22_V1DOCX.DOCX DRAFT MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2015 Project #: 18853 To: 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 day 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: Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon  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 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Total Vehicles2015 Eastbound 2015 Westbound 2035 Additional Traffic Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 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 3rd Avenue  Mill Street/N Main Avenue  Mill Street/N 3rd Avenue  Pioneer Street/N Main Avenue  Pioneer Street/N 3rd 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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 Analyses 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. Figure 2: Intersection Vehicular Level of Service – Year 2035 Peak Hour Traffic Conditions Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Table 1: Year 2035 No‐Build Shoulder Hour Analysis 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). Intersection Weekday AM LOS | Average Delay (s/veh) Weekday PM LOS | Average Delay (s/veh) Hour Before Peak Peak Hour Hour After Peak Hour Before Peak Peak Hour Hour After Peak Pioneer Street/Main Avenue A | 10.0 F | >50 C | 18.4 F | >50 F | >50 F | >50 Pioneer Street/3rd Avenue B | 12.9 E | 41.3 C | 18.8 F | >50 F | >50 E | 40.6 Pioneer Street/5th Avenue C | 15.8 F | >50 D | 30.2 F | >50 F | >50 F | >50 Pioneer Street/8th 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 | >50 F | >50 F | >50 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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. Ridgeﬁeld Downtown Circulation Study November 2015 - Draft for Discussion Figure 3: Preliminary Near Term Projects Downtown Loading Zone / Delivery Area Bike parking and streetscape improvements On-street parking management 222120 23 24 27 26 25 12 2 1 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 28 29 Multimodal street connection Multimodal street connection Priority all ages bike routes Priority pedestrian improvements Designated freight route Striped on-street parking Striped crosswalk Intersection treatment Shared street bikeway treatment Potential route On-street bicycle lanes (both sides) Sidewalk inll Multi-use trail Multi-use trail School drop-o zone Pioneer Street Overpass Pioneer St Mill St N 9th AveN 8th AveS 7th AveN 5th AveN 4th AveN 3rd AveN Main AveN 1st AveN Railroad AveDivision St Simons St Sargent St N Hillhurst Ave Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Table 2: Summary and Prioritization of Preliminary Near‐Term Projects ID Name Description Priority 1 Division Street bicycle route Division Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Low 2 3rd Avenue bicycle route 3rd Avenue north of Pioneer Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 3 Simons Street bicycle route Simons Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 4 5th Avenue (from Pioneer Street to Simons Street) 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 block, and allow on‐street parking outside of school start and end times. High 4.d. 5rd Avenue (from Sargent Street to Simons Street) is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. High 5 Pioneer Street bicycle lanes Stripe buffered bicycle lanes east of 5th Avenue, and do not permit on‐street parking in these blocks. High 6 8th Avenue bicycle route 8th Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 7 Abrams Park multi‐use path Enhance the existing multi‐use path through the park as a pedestrian and bicycle route with signage and (optional) pavement. Low 8 Mill Street sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on both sides of Mill Street. High 9 Simons Street sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on areas of Simon Street missing sidewalks. Medium 10 Main Avenue bicycle route Main Avenue is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 11 Sargent Street bicycle route Sargent Street is a priority link in the all ages bike network. Apply “bicycle boulevard” treatments. Medium 12 3rd Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 3rd Avenue missing sidewalks. High 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 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ID Name Description Priority 15 Maple Street sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on Maple Street on one or both sides. High 16 5th Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on areas of 5th Avenue south of Pioneer that are missing sidewalks. High 17 7th Avenue sidewalk infill Complete 6’ sidewalks (minimum) on 7th Avenue south of Pioneer on one or both sides. Low 18 Main Avenue/Mill Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised intersection. Low 19 Main Avenue/Simons Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised intersection. Low 20 3rd Avenue/Division Street intersection Reduce southwest corner radius and convert to standard 2‐ way stop‐controlled intersection (3rd Avenue stops). High 21 3rd Avenue/Mill Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Option to install raised intersection. Low 22 3rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Medium 23 4rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. Low 24 5rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Add striped crosswalks and curb extensions. High 25 8rd Avenue/Pioneer Street intersection Monitor crossing activity to determine potential enhanced crossing, such as crossing guard or rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). Medium 26 Hillhurst Road/ Pioneer Street intersection Consider traffic patrol during morning peak period. Install radar‐activated speed limit sign for westbound traffic. High 27 Pioneer Street freight route Revise signage to direct freight and boat trailers to use the Pioneer Street overpass to the waterfront area (after closure of Division Street crossing). Medium 28 3rd Avenue on‐street parking Stripe on‐street parking on 3rd Street between Pioneer Street and Mill Street. Consider time limits in the future. Medium 29 Downtown loading zone / delivery area Evaluate the need to designate a loading zone / delivery area in the downtown core after the overpass is opened. Low 30 Bike parking and streetscape improvements Identify opportunities to provide bicycle parking on Pioneer Street, Main Avenue, and at key destinations. Identify opportunities for streetscape improvements, such as lighting and sidewalk furniture, in the course of project development in the downtown area. High Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ID Name Description Priority 31 On‐street parking management Monitor on‐street parking utilization every 2 to 3 years and consider management strategies to meet parking availability goals (e.g. time limits, restrictions, or meters). Low 32 Wayfinding signage Install wayfinding signage to alert people to preferred bicycle routes and the designated freight route. High 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 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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/3rd 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 12 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 13 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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 8th and 4th Avenues. Figure 5: Long Term Alternative 2 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 14 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Long Term Alternative 3 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 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 15 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 16 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon 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 Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 17 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon  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 Intersection Existing Traffic Control Warrant 1 (Eight‐ Hour Veh. Volume) Met? Warrant 2 (Four‐ Hour Veh. Volume) Met? Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) Met? Pioneer Street/Main Avenue AWSC Yes Yes Yes Pioneer Street/3rd Avenue TWSC No No No Pioneer Street/5th Avenue TWSC No No No Pioneer Street/8th 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 18 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Alternatives Selected for Further Consideration 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. Ridgefi eld Downtown Circulation StudyNovember 2015 - Draft for DiscussionFigure 9: Long Term Alternative Divison Street ConnectionMultimodal street connectionAll ages bike routeDesignated freight routePotential route ABCPOTENTIAL GATEWAY TREATMENT: ROUNDABOUT OR SIGNAL? POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONSPioneer StMill StN 9th Ave N 8th Ave S 7th Ave N 5th Ave N 4th Ave N 3rd Ave N Main Ave N 1st Ave N Railroad AveDivision StSimons StSargent StNHillhurst Rd Ridgefi eld Downtown Circulation StudyNovember 2015 - Draft for DiscussionFigure 10: Long Term Alternative Pioneer Street Signalization SIGNAL OR MULTI-LANE ROUNDABOUTPOTENTIAL MULTI-USE PATH CONNECTIONPOTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE OVERCROSSINGMultimodal street connectionAll ages bike routeDesignated freight routePotential route Pioneer StMill StN 9th Ave N 8th Ave S 7th Ave N 5th Ave N 4th Ave N 3rd Ave N Main Ave N 1st Ave N Railroad AveDivision StSimons StSargent StNHillhurst Rd Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 21 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Alternatives Evaluation 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 Signalization 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 Goal Division Street Connection Pioneer Street Signalization Connectivity  Redundant routes for all modes  Complete pedestrian facilities and crossings  Low stress bicycle routes  Provides an additional route for all modes to the waterfront.  Provides the opportunity for a low stress bicycle route and complete pedestrian facilities along the new connection.  Provides another route for walking and bicycling to the waterfront. (Providing this connection may be more or less difficult than providing a full Division Street connection, 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  Safe access to schools  Reduce crashes for all modes  Complete networks for pedestrians and bicyclists  A new connection for all modes would not provide an exclusive pedestrian/bicycle path; however, there may be an opportunity for a pedestrian bicycle path adjacent to the new connection.  Signals on Pioneer Street improve crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.  High levels of vehicle delay and traffic on Pioneer Street could result in more aggressive 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  Inclusive process and responsive to public input  Minimize impacts on  Public input received has expressed the need for more circulating routes in the downtown area – there has been some support for a  Some public input has been against the installation of traffic signals on Pioneer; however, public input also reflects support for improved crossing Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 22 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon property owners “couplet”.  Requires right‐of‐way acquisition from school property and from 1 to 10 other residential land‐owners depending on alignment.  Additional public input and support could increase the equity score. opportunities.  Would require an easement or right‐of‐way acquisition from the school property to construct multi‐use path. May require property acquisition from residential land owners if roundabout at Hillhurst/Pioneer is selected. Score Medium High Economic Vitality  Leverage public investments to encourage economic development in downtown  Efficient investments in infrastructure to serve long‐ term needs  Improves circulation and freight access.  Provides opportunity for transit circulation “loop”. If transit service becomes more frequent in the future, could have two lines serving – one in each direction.  Represents a substantial public investment, potentially at or beyond the Pioneer Street overpass level of investment. However, the introduction of another route connecting eastern parts of Ridgefield with Downtown and the Waterfront creates the opportunity for additional economic development in the downtown and waterfront areas, adjacent to the new connection.  As traffic volumes increase, freight will encounter additional delays.  Signals at downtown intersections slow traffic and can provide an opportunity for people to “stop and shop”.  Provides opportunity for bidirectional transit travel on Pioneer Street. Bus blockage could add to delay given lack of space for pull‐outs.  Signalization typically costs between $200,000 and $300,000 per intersection, a relatively low cost compared to the construction of a new road. However, the construction of a non‐motorized connection across Division Street has the 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  Improve connections to natural areas  Minimize impacts to existing environmental assets  The connection from Pioneer Street to Division Street would result in the loss of part of an existing natural area above Gee Creek; however, it would avoid major impacts to Abrams Park. The new connection at Division, however, would improve access to the waterfront, another public natural resource.  The non‐motorized connection across Division Street would improve access to the waterfront, a public natural resource. Impacts to existing natural areas would be minimal. Score Medium Medium Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 23 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Division Street Connection: Alignments Evaluation 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. Alignment A Summary Assessment 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. Property impacts  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. 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  Uses 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. A diagram of potential property impacts is included in Appendix H. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 24 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Alignment B Summary Assessment 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 25 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Alignment C Summary Assessment 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. Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Study – Future Conditions ‐‐ DRAFT Project #: 18853 December 22, 2015 Page 26 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Evaluation Summary In summary, both long term alternatives have benefits and impacts:  The 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. Appendix A 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions No-Build HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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) 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)2601 Control Delay (s)11.4 10.5 0.4 0.8 Lane LOS BBAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)0 25 14 24 48 1 5 13 2091 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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) 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)3200 Control Delay (s)10.7 11.5 0.4 0.3 Lane LOS BBAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1 12 103023111441 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 104023611521 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 1021 Volume Right 1011 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)2000 Control Delay (s)9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS AAAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/22/2015 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 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 Summary Delay 119.6 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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 AABE 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 0210 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 480 1260 28 6 Volume Left 7815 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)2167 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)3 3 13 9092238151210 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 9092251151270 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 3925 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)2200 Control Delay (s)9.9 10.9 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS ABAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)036011161830132 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)047013172140152 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph)11 14 32 18 Volume Left (vph)0070 Volume Right (vph)7142 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1075204245951391 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)1075204258951461 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 1545 Volume Right 7091 cSH 826 511 1444 1293 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1100 Control Delay (s)9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS ABAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)35504012401191 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)46605012801221 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 4011 Volume Right 6001 cSH 936 791 1605 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS AAAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Summary Delay 159.3 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/22/2015 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 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 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 ABAA Intersection Summary Delay 10.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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)0004 Control Delay (s)0.1 0.0 9.9 12.9 Lane LOS AAAB 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM 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_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 0210 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)0019 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 3302 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)0010 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Weekday Hour Before AM 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_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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 #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM 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_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)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 0210 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 5513 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)1032 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday AM 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_2035AM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 #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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Summary Delay 133.3 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before 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_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 AAEE 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Before 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_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HBShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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, Lane #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 Summary Delay 88.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 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_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)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 2035 No Build Future Traffic Conditions Hour Following Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\Shoulder Analysis\18853_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)7 986 7 14 514 20 509618 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 509618 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 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_2035PM_NO BUILD_DIV CLOSED HFShoSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)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 Appendix C Goals and Objectives Downtown Circulation Study October 2015 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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. 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. Downtown Circulation Study PN # 18853 October 2015 2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 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. Appendix D Near-Term Project Prioritization 1234a4b4c4d567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132Benefits multiple modes 11121211122211222222113111314111213~ ped00010100011100111111111111111000101~ bike11100011111111111111001000101000101~ freight00000000000000000000000000001101001~ auto00011100000000000000001000101010010Completes a critical network (ped/bike/freight)12200021202122211111000121010201100Is an immediate identified need00012211002100222220000000212021212Improves safety11110112101111211111112111212110100Is low cost / high constructibility22222223211122111111222222222222112Total566657786386669777754475659610665737Total Scores0 = does not fulfill criterion7 and above is "high"1 = partially fulfills criterion6 is "medium"2 = fulfills criterion5 and below is "low"For "benefits multiple modes" the score is the sum of the number of modes substantially benefitted by the projectNear Term Project Number Appendix E 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions Division Street Connection Alternatives 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 SB 1 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)0 87 14 24 378 1 5 13 2091 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 Direction, Lane #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 ABAA Intersection Summary Delay 12.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)5 5 12 14 0146291140 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 0146291200 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)2200 Control Delay (s)9.4 9.7 2.5 0.6 Lane LOS AAAA 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1 12 103023111441 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 104023611521 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 1021 Volume Right 1011 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)2000 Control Delay (s)9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS AAAA 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 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 NB 1 SB 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 Summary Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 0210 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 conf 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 AABE 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 7815 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)1143 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (With Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/16/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (WITH Access to Millers LandinSynchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 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 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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)0070 Volume Right (vph)0142 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill 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 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)10752043195871 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)10752043395921 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 1545 Volume Right 7091 cSH 941 767 1512 1562 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1100 Control Delay (s)8.9 9.7 0.7 0.4 Lane LOS AAAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill 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 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)35504012401131 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)46605012801151 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 4011 Volume Right 6001 cSH 945 798 1614 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.9 9.5 0.3 0.5 Lane LOS AAAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S 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 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 BAAA Intersection Summary Delay 11.6 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer 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 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Direction, 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th 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 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th 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 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 1 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)1166 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th 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 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)0 41 14 24 165 1 5 13 2091 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, Lane #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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 8.7 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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)3200 Control Delay (s)11.0 11.7 0.8 0.3 Lane LOS BBAA 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1 12 103023111441 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 104023611521 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 1021 Volume Right 1011 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)2000 Control Delay (s)9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS AAAA 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 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 0210 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 conf vol 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 7815 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)1156 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday AM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 (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 446 399 132 363 355 214 130 259 vC1, stage 1 conf 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 SB 1 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph)125 132 32 18 Volume Left (vph)0070 Volume Right (vph)0142 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1075204243951401 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)1075204256951471 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 conf 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 1545 Volume Right 7091 cSH 826 512 1443 1295 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1100 Control Delay (s)9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS ABAA Approach Delay (s)9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)35504012401131 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)46605012801151 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 4011 Volume Right 6001 cSH 945 798 1614 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.9 9.5 0.3 0.5 Lane LOS AAAA 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 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 Summary Delay 155.7 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 AAEE 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 2035 - Division Street Extension (No Access to Miller's Landing) Weekday PM Peak Hour 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/15/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Synchro\Future\2035_Alternatives\Division Extension (NO Access to Millers Landing)Synchro 7 - Report Kittelson & Associates, Inc.Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 (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 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 Appendix F 2035 Future Year Signal Warrant Analysis KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB (503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 990 398 0 168 Fax: (503) 273-8169 2nd Highest Hour 948 381 0 161 3rd Highest Hour 905 364 0 154 Project #:4th Highest Hour 863 347 0 146 Project Name:5th Highest Hour 820 330 0 139 Analyst:6th Highest Hour 778 313 0 132 Date:7th Highest Hour 735 296 0 125 File:8th Highest Hour 693 279 0 118 9th Highest Hour 634 255 0 108 Intersection:10th Highest Hour 545 219 0 92 Scenario: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 Warrant Name Analyzed? Met?16th Highest Hour 347 139 0 59 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes Yes 17th Highest Hour 198 80 0 34 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes Yes 18th Highest Hour 109 44 0 18 #3 Peak Hour Yes Yes 19th Highest Hour 99 40 0 17 #4 Pedestrian Volume No -20th Highest Hour 40 16 0 7 #5 School Crossing No -21st Highest Hour 30 12 0 5 #6 Coordinated Signal System No -22nd Highest Hour 30 12 0 5 #7 Crash Experience No -23rd Highest Hour 20 8 0 3 #8 Roadway Network No -24th Highest Hour 20 8 0 3 Volume Adjustment Factor =1.0 North-South Approach =Minor East-West Approach =Major Major Street Thru Lanes =1 Minor Street Thru Lanes =1 A 500 150 3 No Speed > 40 mph?No B 750 75 10 Yes Population < 10,000?No A 400 120 7 No Warrant Factor 100%B 600 60 11 Yes Peak Hour or Daily Count?Peak Hour A 350 105 9 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% 70%Yes 100%Yes 80%Yes Warrant #1 ‐ Eight Hour Warrant Factor Condition Major Street Requirement Minor Street Requirement Hours That Condition Is Met Condition for Warrant Factor Met? Signal Warrant Met? Input Parameters Hour Major Street Minor Street Analysis Traffic Volumes Pionner St/Main Ave Warrant Summary 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build 18853 Ridgefield DCS SWB 12/22/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Excel\Signal Warrant Analysis\[18853_Main at Pioneer_Signal Warrant Analysis.xls]Warrant Summary 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #2 ‐Four‐Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #3 ‐Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB (503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 983 412 16 52 Fax: (503) 273-8169 2nd Highest Hour 941 394 15 50 3rd Highest Hour 899 377 15 48 Project #:4th Highest Hour 857 359 14 45 Project Name:5th Highest Hour 814 341 13 43 Analyst:6th Highest Hour 772 324 13 41 Date:7th Highest Hour 730 306 12 39 File:8th Highest Hour 688 288 11 36 9th Highest Hour 629 264 10 33 Intersection:10th Highest Hour 541 227 9 29 Scenario: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 Warrant Name Analyzed? Met?16th Highest Hour 344 144 6 18 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 197 82 3 10 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 108 45 2 6 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 98 41 2 5 #4 Pedestrian Volume No -20th Highest Hour 39 16 1 2 #5 School Crossing No -21st Highest Hour 29 12 0 2 #6 Coordinated Signal System No -22nd Highest Hour 29 12 0 2 #7 Crash Experience No -23rd Highest Hour 20 8 0 1 #8 Roadway Network No -24th Highest Hour 20 8 0 1 Volume Adjustment Factor =1.0 North-South Approach =Minor East-West Approach =Major Major Street Thru Lanes =1 Minor Street Thru Lanes =1 A 500 150 0 No Speed > 40 mph?No B 750 75 0 No Population < 10,000?No A 400 120 0 No Warrant Factor 100%B 600 60 0 No Peak Hour or Daily Count?Peak Hour A 350 105 0 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% 70%No 100%No 80%No Warrant #1 ‐ Eight Hour Warrant Factor Condition Major Street Requirement Minor Street Requirement Hours That Condition Is Met Condition for Warrant Factor Met? Signal Warrant Met? Input Parameters Hour Major Street Minor Street Analysis Traffic Volumes Pionner St/3rd Ave Warrant Summary 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build 18853 Ridgefield DCS SWB 12/22/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Excel\Signal Warrant Analysis\[18853_3rd at Pioneer_Signal Warrant Analysis.xls]Warrant Summary 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #2 ‐Four‐Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #3 ‐Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB (503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1162 528 11 40 Fax: (503) 273-8169 2nd Highest Hour 1112 505 11 38 3rd Highest Hour 1062 483 10 37 Project #:4th Highest Hour 1013 460 10 35 Project Name:5th Highest Hour 963 437 9 33 Analyst:6th Highest Hour 913 415 9 31 Date:7th Highest Hour 863 392 8 30 File:8th Highest Hour 813 370 8 28 9th Highest Hour 744 338 7 26 Intersection:10th Highest Hour 639 290 6 22 Scenario:11th Highest Hour 523 238 5 18 12th Highest Hour 500 227 5 17 13th Highest Hour 453 206 4 16 14th Highest Hour 418 190 4 14 15th Highest Hour 418 190 4 14 Warrant Name Analyzed? Met?16th Highest Hour 407 185 4 14 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 232 106 2 8 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 128 58 1 4 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 116 53 1 4 #4 Pedestrian Volume No -20th Highest Hour 46 21 0 2 #5 School Crossing No -21st Highest Hour 35 16 0 1 #6 Coordinated Signal System No -22nd Highest Hour 35 16 0 1 #7 Crash Experience No -23rd Highest Hour 23 11 0 1 #8 Roadway Network No -24th Highest Hour 23 11 0 1 Volume Adjustment Factor =1.0 North-South Approach =Minor East-West Approach =Major Major Street Thru Lanes =1 Minor Street Thru Lanes =1 A 500 150 0 No Speed > 40 mph?No B 750 75 0 No Population < 10,000?No A 400 120 0 No Warrant Factor 100%B 600 60 0 No Peak Hour or Daily Count?Peak Hour A 350 105 0 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% Warrant Summary 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build 18853 Ridgefield DCS SWB 12/22/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Excel\Signal Warrant Analysis\[18853_5th at Pioneer_Signal Warrant Analysis.xls]Data Input Input Parameters Hour Major Street Minor Street Analysis Traffic Volumes Pionner St/5th Ave Warrant #1 ‐ Eight Hour Warrant Factor Condition Major Street Requirement Minor Street Requirement Hours That Condition Is Met Condition for Warrant Factor Met? Signal Warrant Met? 70%No 100%No 80%No 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #2 ‐Four‐Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #3 ‐Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB (503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1162 558 17 17 Fax: (503) 273-8169 2nd Highest Hour 1112 534 16 16 3rd Highest Hour 1062 510 16 16 Project #:4th Highest Hour 1013 486 15 15 Project Name:5th Highest Hour 963 462 14 14 Analyst:6th Highest Hour 913 438 13 13 Date:7th Highest Hour 863 415 13 13 File:8th Highest Hour 813 391 12 12 9th Highest Hour 744 357 11 11 Intersection:10th Highest Hour 639 307 9 9 Scenario: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 Warrant Name Analyzed? Met?16th Highest Hour 407 195 6 6 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No 17th Highest Hour 232 112 3 3 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes No 18th Highest Hour 128 61 2 2 #3 Peak Hour Yes No 19th Highest Hour 116 56 2 2 #4 Pedestrian Volume No -20th Highest Hour 46 22 1 1 #5 School Crossing No -21st Highest Hour 35 17 1 1 #6 Coordinated Signal System No -22nd Highest Hour 35 17 1 1 #7 Crash Experience No -23rd Highest Hour 23 11 0 0 #8 Roadway Network No -24th Highest Hour 23 11 0 0 Volume Adjustment Factor =1.0 North-South Approach =Minor East-West Approach =Major Major Street Thru Lanes =1 Minor Street Thru Lanes =1 A 500 150 0 No Speed > 40 mph?No B 750 75 0 No Population < 10,000?No A 400 120 0 No Warrant Factor 100%B 600 60 0 No Peak Hour or Daily Count?Peak Hour A 350 105 0 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% 70%No 100%No 80%No Warrant #1 ‐ Eight Hour Warrant Factor Condition Major Street Requirement Minor Street Requirement Hours That Condition Is Met Condition for Warrant Factor Met? Signal Warrant Met? Input Parameters Hour Major Street Minor Street Analysis Traffic Volumes Pionner St/8th Ave Warrant Summary 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build 18853 Ridgefield DCS SWB 12/22/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Excel\Signal Warrant Analysis\[18853_8th at Pioneer_Signal Warrant Analysis.xls]Data Input 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #2 ‐Four‐Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #3 ‐Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 Begin End EB WB NB SB (503) 228-5230 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1112 447 285 0 Fax: (503) 273-8169 2nd Highest Hour 1064 428 273 0 3rd Highest Hour 1017 409 261 0 Project #:4th Highest Hour 969 390 248 0 Project Name:5th Highest Hour 921 370 236 0 Analyst:6th Highest Hour 874 351 224 0 Date:7th Highest Hour 826 332 212 0 File:8th Highest Hour 778 313 200 0 9th Highest Hour 712 286 182 0 Intersection:10th Highest Hour 612 246 157 0 Scenario: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 Warrant Name Analyzed? Met?16th Highest Hour 389 156 100 0 #1 Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Yes Yes 17th Highest Hour 222 89 57 0 #2 Four-Hour Vehicular volume Yes Yes 18th Highest Hour 122 49 31 0 #3 Peak Hour Yes Yes 19th Highest Hour 111 45 29 0 #4 Pedestrian Volume No -20th Highest Hour 44 18 11 0 #5 School Crossing No -21st Highest Hour 33 13 9 0 #6 Coordinated Signal System No -22nd Highest Hour 33 13 9 0 #7 Crash Experience No -23rd Highest Hour 22 9 6 0 #8 Roadway Network No -24th Highest Hour 22 9 6 0 Volume Adjustment Factor =1.0 North-South Approach =Minor East-West Approach =Major Major Street Thru Lanes =1 Minor Street Thru Lanes =1 A 500 150 10 Yes Speed > 40 mph?No B 750 75 10 Yes Population < 10,000?No A 400 120 12 Yes Warrant Factor 100%B 600 60 13 Yes Peak Hour or Daily Count?Peak Hour A 350 105 13 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: 8th-Highest Hour / Peak Hour 70% 70%Yes 100%Yes 80%Yes Warrant #1 ‐ Eight Hour Warrant Factor Condition Major Street Requirement Minor Street Requirement Hours That Condition Is Met Condition for Warrant Factor Met? Signal Warrant Met? Input Parameters Hour Major Street Minor Street Analysis Traffic Volumes Pionner St/Hillhurst Ave Warrant Summary 2035 Miller's Landing Full Build 18853 Ridgefield DCS SWB 12/22/2015 H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\Excel\Signal Warrant Analysis\[18853_Hillhurst at Pioneer_Signal Warrant Analysis.xls]Data Input 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #2 ‐Four‐Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 500 1000 1500 2000Higher Minor StreetCombined Major Street Warrant #3 ‐Peak Hour 100% Warrant Factor 2 Major / 2 Minor 2 Major / 1 Minor 1 Major / 2 Minor 1 Major / 1 Minor Traffic Volumes Appendix G 2035 Future Year Traffic Conditions Alternative 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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)2601 Control Delay (s)11.4 10.5 0.4 0.8 Lane LOS BBAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)0 25 14 24 48 1 5 13 2091 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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)3200 Control Delay (s)10.7 11.5 0.4 0.3 Lane LOS BBAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1 12 103023111441 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 104023611521 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 1021 Volume Right 1011 cSH 808 790 1558 1586 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)2000 Control Delay (s)9.5 9.6 0.4 0.2 Lane LOS AAAA 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 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 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 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 Frt 1.00 0.99 0.91 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot)1887 1870 1637 Flt 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)0000300000700 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 154 0 0 946 000002080 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 6143 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 1000 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 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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)0000700190010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 335 0 0 1183 00300970 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 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 7815 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 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 000052 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 Summary 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 Queues 15: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Lane Group EBT WBT 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. Queues 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 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 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 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. Queues 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday AM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 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 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 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. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Division St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)3 3 13 9092238151210 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 9092251151270 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 3925 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)2200 Control Delay (s)9.9 10.9 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS ABAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Division St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)036011161830132 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)047013172140152 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph)11 14 32 18 Volume Left (vph)0070 Volume Right (vph)7142 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 AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Mill St & Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1075204245951391 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)1075204258951461 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 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 1545 Volume Right 7091 cSH 826 511 1444 1293 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1100 Control Delay (s)9.4 12.1 0.1 0.3 Lane LOS ABAA 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Mill St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)35504012401191 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)46605012801221 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 4011 Volume Right 6001 cSH 936 791 1605 1598 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.9 9.6 0.3 0.4 Lane LOS AAAA 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 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 86: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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)00002300000160 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1042 0 0 396 000001620 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Pioneer St & 3rd Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 #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 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 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 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)000040070020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1088 0 0 552 00400400 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 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 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 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Pioneer St & N 8th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 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 000067 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, d1 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 Summary 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 Queues 86: Pioneer St & S Main Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 3 Lane Group EBT WBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 1042 419 178 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.34 0.59 Control Delay 18.6 4.2 39.1 Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.8 4.2 39.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 357 91 83 Queue Length 95th (ft) #762 99 151 Internal Link Dist (ft) 222 197 289 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1206 1224 301 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 12 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.34 0.59 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Queues 17: Pioneer St & N 5th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 1 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 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 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. Queues 19: Pioneer St & N 9th Ave 12/21/2015 2035 Signalized Traffic Conditions (No Division St Extension) 10/26/2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report SWB Page 2 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 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 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. SITE LAYOUT Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 AM Peak New Site Roundabout SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Created: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:38:40 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 LANE SUMMARY Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 AM Peak New Site Roundabout Lane Use and Performance Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueCap.Deg. Satn Lane Util. Average Delay Level of Service Lane Config Lane Length Cap. Adj. Prob. Block.Total HV Veh Dist veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % % South: Hillhurst Ave 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 A 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 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:36:41 PM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 AM Peak New Site Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID OD Mov Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph 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 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:28:47 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 SITE LAYOUT Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 PM Peak New Site Roundabout SIDRA INTERSECTION 6.1 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Created: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:44:06 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 LANE SUMMARY Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 PM Peak New Site Roundabout Lane Use and Performance Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueCap.Deg. Satn Lane Util. Average Delay Level of Service Lane Config Lane Length Cap. Adj. Prob. Block.Total HV Veh Dist veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % % South: Hillhurst Ave 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 1d 236 2.1 887 0.266 100 6.9 LOS A 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 1d 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 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:36:40 PM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: Pioneer St/Hillhurst Ave 2035 PM Peak New Site Roundabout Movement Performance - Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID OD Mov Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h % v/c sec veh ft per veh mph South: Hillhurst Ave 3 L2 217 1.0 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 0.75 0.84 27.1 18 R2 83 0.0 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 0.75 0.84 26.7 Approach 300 0.7 0.581 19.1 LOS C 3.1 76.9 0.75 0.84 27.0 East: Pioneer St 1 L2 108 1.0 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 0.39 0.29 32.2 6 T1 362 3.0 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 0.39 0.29 32.8 Approach 471 2.5 0.266 6.9 LOS A 1.1 27.8 0.39 0.29 32.7 West: Pioneer St 2 T1 738 5.0 0.765 18.6 LOS C 7.2 186.4 0.60 0.39 28.3 12 R2 433 2.0 0.436 8.6 LOS A 2.3 58.8 0.34 0.21 31.5 Approach 1171 3.9 0.765 14.9 LOS B 7.2 186.4 0.51 0.32 29.4 All Vehicles 1941 3.1 0.765 13.6 LOS B 7.2 186.4 0.52 0.40 29.7 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 | Copyright © 2000-2015 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Processed: Friday, December 18, 2015 9:44:13 AM Project: H:\projfile\18853 - Ridgefield Downtown Circulation Plan\Traffic Ops\18853_Roundabout.sip6 Appendix H Potential Property Impacts Alignment A = potential property impacts= City of Ridgefield property Alignment B = potential property impacts= City of Ridgefield property Alignment C = potential property impacts= City of Ridgefield property 57 APPENDIX B: DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT MARKET STUDY (2015) SECTIONS INCLUDING: RIDGEFIELD DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT INTEGRATION AREA MARKET STUDY (2015); DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (2015); DOWNTOWN PROPERTY SUMMARY ANALYSIS SHEETS PIONEER ST 3RD AVEMAIN AVESIMONS ST F o c u s Areas Downtown Ridgefield Study Area Downtown Ridgefield Plan Park Laundry Bus Barn Weeks Property Legend Focus Property City of Ridgefield UGA Water Downtown Study Area Street Unincorporated Area I-5 I-5 PIONEER ST Downtown Ridgefield Plan 1 OBJECTIVE Restore brownfield properties in Downtown Ridgefield Work Program Overview 2 RESEARCH Evaluate existing conditions including: - Planning History - Demographics - Market - Environmental Conditions Strategy Restore and develop downtown brownfield properties 3 STRATEGIZE A revitalization strategy was selected based on the priorities in the Downtown Waterfront Integration Action Plan 4 ANALYZE Downtown brownfield properties: - Bus Barn - Weeks Property - Park Laundry ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 1. MARKET APPROACH (Do nothing) 2. MUNICIPAL APPROACH (City takes the lead) 3. INSITUTIONAL APPROACH (Public Development Authority) 5 OPTIONS E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC 2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666 (360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 • Fax (360) 696-8453 E-mail: edhovee@edhovee.com Economic and Development Services MMEEMMOORRAANNDDUUMM 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. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 2 DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN RRIIDDGGEEFFIIEELLDD MMAARRKKEETT SSTTUUDDYY SSUUMMMMAARRYY 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/I-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/I-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/I-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 3 DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN RRIIDDGGEEFFIIEELLDD PPRROOFFIILLEE 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.1 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 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. 1 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. Ridgefield Downtown Study Area Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., Clark County GIS. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 4 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:  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 2 Per www.ci.ridgefield.wa.us, as of August 2014. Downtown Ridgefield Comprehensive Plan Designations Source: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, City of Ridgefield, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc., Clark County GIS. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 5 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 Form Building Form Material, Detail & Color  Street to building relationship  The importance of corners  Ridgefield’s alleys  The facade as wall, streets as rooms  The pedestrian level  Building programmability & adaptability  Building orientation  Background buildings & “civic” buildings  The base, body & cornice  Ridgefield’s buildings at night  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 6 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 7 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) Business Type # of Businesses % of Businesses Building SF % of Building SF 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% Total 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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 8 Downtown Core / Waterfront Business & Institutional Inventory (2014) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 1312 14 15 1716 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 27 29303132 33 3435 36 Sources: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC, as of September 2014. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 9 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) Property Characteristic Core Area Waterfront Neighborhoods Total 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 10  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.  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. 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. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 11 Developed sites are classified in terms of improvements to land (I:L) 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, 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. 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. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 12 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:  Core area land with the VBLM is 4½ 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 VBLM Lands Core Area Waterfront Neighborhoods Total Vacant Land 3.62 0.00 13.07 16.69 Underutilized 0.95 0.00 23.24 24.19 Total 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 13 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 ½ 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 I-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 I-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 I-5. Pioneer Street traffic volumes have been forecast to increase 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. 4 4 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. 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. As the town’s population becomes more diverse, so too do its businesses. El Rancho Viejo is located on N 3rd Avenue just north of Pioneer Street and the Ridgefield School District’s current Maintenance Shop and Warehouse. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 14 Phase 1 improvement of the Ridgefield I-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 I-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 15 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 (“Historic Downtown”) 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 16 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 I-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 17 MMAARRKKEETT AARREEAA GGEEOOGGRRAAPPHHIIEESS 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 / I-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/I-5 trade area together with the other incorporated cities and unincorporated areas of Clark County.  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 / I-5 Corridor Market Geography Source: ESRI 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 18 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/I-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 I-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. TTRRAADDEE AARREEAA DDEEMMOOGGRRAAPPHHIICCSS && EEMMPPLLOOYYMMEENNTT This discussion begins with an overview of population and related growth trends for the City of Ridgefield as compared with the larger Ridgefield/I-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 19 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/I-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 may 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 Growth Rates (2010-14) 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/I-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 20 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/I-5 Corridor, Clark County and metro region:  Median age of Downtown area residents is below that of the Ridgefield/I-5 Corridor, county and region (at over 34 versus 38-41 years). The Downtown and Ridgefield/I-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/I-5 areas consist of families versus 70% or less county and region-wide.  Downtown and Ridgefield/I-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/I-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/I-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 % Family Households % Associate Degree+ Median Household Income % Households With 2+ Vehicles E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 21 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) Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). Depicted by the graph is the state OFM medium forecast of population growth in 5-year time increments from 2015-35. 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 22  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/I-5 Corridor accounted for just over 4,400 jobs. This represents just over 3% of covered employment in Clark County. By comparison, the Ridgefield/I-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 I-5 Junction. Other base employment in the Ridgefield/I-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 23 property east of the I-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 Action Plan to allowing Ridgefield “to continue as a well-balanced, vibrant community.” Ridgefield / I-5 Corridor Employment Profile (2013) NAICS Employment Sector Ridgefield / I-5 Clark County Ridgefield / I-5 % of County 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/I-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 24 RREESSIIDDEENNTTIIAALL MMAARRKKEETT 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 25 Market Overview. As noted, the Downtown and Ridgefield/I-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/I-5 housing units as of 2015:  Only 23% of Downtown area and 18% of Ridgefield/I-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/I-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/I-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/I-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/I-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/I-5 area. By comparison, more than 22% of Clark County and 28% of metro region housing consists of plex and multifamily housing.  Due to consistently high population growth, the Downtown and greater Ridgefield/I-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/I-5 area, 51% countywide and 40% regionally. A greater % Housing Renter-Occupied Median Housing Values Attached+Multifamily Housing Units % of Homes Built 1990 or Later Source: Claritas. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 26 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 context 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 to jobs, wages, and interest rates. Ridgefield Residential Building Permits (2004-14) 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 27 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 28 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 now accounts for the majority 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 rates 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 Clark County & Portland Metro Apartment Vacancy (2004-14) Year Clark County Portland Metro 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. Source: Multifamily NW 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 29 occur based in part on responses to market forces and in part due to responsive public planning policy. Comparative Apartment Market Indicators (August 2014) Downtown/ Waterfront Integration Area Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region Total Inventory (# Units)26 52 31,003 211,476 % Built 2000 - 2014 0.00%0.00%24.20%17.80% % Market Rate 100.00% 100.00%86.56%85.04% Average Asking Rents (Monthly) Studio $ - $ - $666 $837 1 Bedroom $ - $ - $791 $906 2 Bedrooms $ - $ - $930 $998 3+ Bedrooms $ - $ - $1,146 $1,187 Concessions No Data No Data 0.70%1.10% Vacancy Rate No Data No Data 2.00%2.80% 12 Month Absorption (Units)0 0 1,330 4,234 Under Construction (units)0 0 216 6,109 Proposed Development # of Projects 0 0 17 47 # of Units 0 0 5,264 8,265 Market Averages Units per Apartment Property 13 10 50 38 Built 2000 - 2014 0 0 7,504 37,642 Market Rate 26 52 26,835 179,841 # of Apartment Properties 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 Rates (Fall 2014) Total 1 Bed 2 Bed 2 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 3 Bed Units Studio 1 Bath 1 Bath 2 Bath TWNHS 1 Bath 2 Bath 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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 30 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/I-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/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 31 Ridgefield Attached Housing Development (2012-13) Zip Code Total # Avg Price $/SF Total # Avg Price $/SF Ridgefield/I-5 Zip Codes 2012 1 $170,000 $94 17 $192,100 $102 2013 7 $157,300 $93 21 $217,900 $109 Clark County (All Zip Codes) 2012 89 N/A $112 461 N/A $99 2013 127 N/A $126 588 N/A $114 New Attached Sales Existing Attached Sales Sources: E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC from Real Estats.6 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.7 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. 6 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. 7 Per square foot pricing has averaged about $127 for new Ridgefield/I-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 32 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:8  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 Meriwether 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, townhome/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. 9 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 Oswego). 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 33 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. RREETTAAIILL The retail market in the Ridgefield/I-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 I-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. Vacancy rates went from less 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. Regional Retail Absorption & Vacancy (2007-14) Sources: CoStar 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 34 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 / I-5 Corridor Retail Submarket. The Ridgefield/I-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 I-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 I-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/I-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 I-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) Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region 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) Average $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 I-5/Ridgefield interchange. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 35 Retail Sales & Leakage. The approximately 16,500 residents of the Ridgefield/I-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/I-5 Corridor, sales leakage is indicated across most retail categories – except gasoline stations (catering to I-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/I-5 Corridor Trade Area Retail Demand & Supply (2015) 2015 Demand 2015 Supply Leakage Leakage/(Surplus) NAICS Retail Categories (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) (Demand-Supply) As % of Demand 441 Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers $67,148,200 $1,012,698 $66,135,502 98% 442 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores $6,018,966 $837,200 $5,181,766 86% 443 Electronics & Appliance Stores $5,562,013 $1,817,797 $3,744,216 67% 444 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores $33,550,506 $36,395,085 ($2,844,579) -8% 445 Grocery (Food & Beverage Stores)$38,764,898 $3,557,616 $35,207,282 91% 446 Health & Personal Care Stores $15,992,807 $6,057,381 $9,935,426 62% 447 Gasoline Stations $28,981,735 $30,144,086 ($1,162,351) -4% 448 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $13,748,601 $1,861,715 $11,886,886 86% 451 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores $5,741,923 $5,824,931 ($83,008) -1% 452 General Merchandise Stores $34,867,624 $16,465,882 $18,401,742 53% 453 Miscellaneous Store Retailers $8,052,598 $4,291,880 $3,760,718 47% 454 Nonstore Retailers $25,796,474 $1,361,250 $24,435,224 95% 722 Dining (Food Services & Drinking Places)$30,141,892 $38,797,154 ($8,655,262) -29% 44-45, 72 Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink $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 36 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 I-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 /I-5 corridor trade area – as considered above (R/I-5)  Clark County (CC)  8-county Portland metro region (Metro) Downtown / Waterfront Market Opportunities by Trade Area Served Downtown & Waterfront Retail Category InTown R/I-5 CC Metro Strategic Approach Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers Most suitable for I-5 location Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores Possible specialty approach Electronics & Appliance Stores Possible small store Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores Not likely unless boutique use Grocery (Food & Beverage Stores)I-5 orientation unless specialty Health & Personal Care Stores Small neighborhood or specialty Gasoline Stations Most suitable for I-5 location Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores Possible boutique if clustered Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, & Music Stores Modest potential General Merchandise Stores Most suitable for I-5 location Miscellaneous Store Retailers Limited specialty retail potential Nonstore Retailers Can supplement storefront sales Dining (Food Services & Drinking Places)Best to serve local + CC visitors Legend: = Trade area sales leakage of 50%+ = Trade area sales leakage < 50% = No apparent sales leakage Opportunity by Trade Area 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 37 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/I-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 population 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 not 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. 10 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 / I-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/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 38 RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN && HHOOSSPPIITTAALLIITTYY 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 I-5 and reduced accessibility to the larger Ridgefield/I-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/I-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 134th 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/I-5 corridor – likely reaching into Woodland, Battle Ground and south to the I-5/I-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 39 While not certain, it is possible that there may be 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 I-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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 40 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 Skamania 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 41 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 Miller’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 42 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 I-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 43 OOFFFFIICCEE SSPPAACCEE 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 (as lease terminations far outpaced new lease transactions), with vacancy peaking in 2010 at 11.4%. Since 2010, vacancies have been reduced each year – back to just above 8% in 2014 and also now back to pre-recession levels. Office space absorption is positive, but not at the exuberant pace experienced before the recession. In the early years of economic recovery, sub- par job growth contributed to weaker office space 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/I-5 corridor area (in Clark County). Ridgefield /I-5 Corridor Office Submarket. As of mid-2014, the Ridgefield/I-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. Regional Office Absorption & Vacancy (2007-14) Sources: CoStar 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 44 In Ridgefield, the single largest office building is the approximately 17,500 square foot Heron Gate development located just west of the I-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) Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region 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%8.90% 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/I-5 area office space. Successful build-out also would require the capture of a substantial share of Clark County and metro office space demand over a multi-year period. Looking forward, office space development in the Ridgefield/I-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 45 IINNDDUUSSTTRRIIAALL && FFLLEEXX SSPPAACCEE 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. 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. 15 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. Regional Industrial & Flex Absorption & Vacancy (2007-14) Sources: CoStar 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 46 Ridgefield / I-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 I-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) Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region 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) Average $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 10% 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/I-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/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 47 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 I-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 cost 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 product 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. MMAARRKKEETT HHYYBBRRIIDDSS 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 48 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. DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN && WWAATTEERRFFRROONNTT SSTTRRAATTEEGGIICC DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT OOPPTTIIOONNSS 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 Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 49 Downtown Ridgefield Market Opportunities - Comparative Reuse Matrix Potential Site Use Market Opportunity DT Ridgefield Advantages DT Ridgefield Disadvantages Economic Returns Key Issues to Address Implementation Requirements Single Family Residential Capture growing market demand with smaller custom infill lot development  Neighborhood proximity to core area & wildlife refuge amenities  Smaller parcels, requiring infill  Critical area issues as w/steep slopes # Jobs: High during construction only Wages: Mid-High Taxes: Mid-High  Addressing critical area concerns  Coordination with affected owners Provisions for small scale master plan, short plat, attached unit & live-work Village Residential Plays to strength of surrounding single- family to add more diverse, attached urban housing; reinforces job & shopping options  Waterfront for amenity-rich, high value units  Downtown with smaller units for seniors & young eco-creatives  Waterfront not planned for housing to date  Attached housing limited by downtown zoning # Jobs: High during construction only Wages: Mid-High Taxes: Mid-High depending on property valuation  Waterfront & downtown plan review to better accommodate diverse housing  Uncertain mixed use feasibility Possible Comp Plan & zoning revisions; assistance with finding & securing suitable housing sites downtown Independent Boutique Retail Best bet for dining & specialty retail serving local neighborhoods + destination visitors  Appeal as compact, authentic small town experience  Wildlife Refuge proximity  Few sites for added DT retail  Creating critical mass for initial waterfront phase # Jobs: Mid Wages: Low-Mid Taxes: High with retail sales tax  Lack of suitable downtown sites  Need for “buy local” & visitor marketing Securing waterfront retail developer + finding suitable added DT retail sites Destination Wildlife Reserve Value-added ecotourism & boutique lodging  Waterfront as Refuge gateway  DT for supportive business services  Low budget visitor appeal  No public-private partnership role # Jobs: Mid-High Wages: Low-Mid Taxes: Mid-High  Visitor marketing  Options for public- private partnership Identification of Skamania Lodge type signature investment Professional & Creative Services Ability to offer those who live to also work in Ridgefield  Live-work appeal  Small sites for owner-occupied office space  Few downtown zoned sites  New construction too expensive? # Jobs: High Wages: Mid-High Taxes: Mid  Existing buildings for office rehab  Land for small site new office Marketing to residents for appea of a downtown office address Corporate Campus High amenity site on the waterfront for office + flex space  Premiere location for green tech  Mixed use on-site housing potential  Distance to I-5 & access limitations  Plans may exceed market capacity # Jobs: Mid-High Wages: High Taxes :Mid  24/7 waterfront site access  Realistic capture of office + flex Railroad overcrossing completion & joint site marketing Live-Work Mixed Use Flexible live-work rehab & new mixed use options  High amenity, slow paced community feel  Zoning use & density limits  Values too low for feasibility? # Jobs: Low-Mid Wages: Mid-High Taxes: Mid  Waterfront & DT plan refinements  Feasibility of DT mixed use Re-look at Comp Plan to facilitate mixed use; demo live-work project E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 50 Market Opportunity. As the Ridgefield community grows and diversifies, market opportunities also can be expected to evolve and mature over time:  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 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. Another community landmark – good for dining and relaxing indoors or out. The current City 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. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 51  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/or bed 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 I-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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 52 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 53 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.  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. 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. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 54 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 I-5 Junction. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 55 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX.. SSUUPPPPLLEEMMEENNTTAALL DDAATTAA TTAABBLLEESS On the following pages are provided supplemental data tables listed 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/I-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 56 Downtown Study Area Property Ownerships by Acreage (2014) Property Owner # of Parcels Acreage 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 280 71.19 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 CITY OF RIDGEFIELD 7 31.89 NVR LLC 25 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)4 7.46 MATRIX SENIOR LIVING WA LLC 2 5.85 CAMPBELL JAMES & CAMPBELL ROZANN 1 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 1 3.13 Owners of < 3.00 acres 463 142.83 Neighborhoods Subtotal 521 271.32 Total Owners 872 405.61 Core Area Waterfront Neighborhoods 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 Distribution of Downtown Study Area Acreage by Vacant Land & Ratio of Building to Land Values (2014) Ratio Building to Land Values Acreage % of Acreage 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% 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% 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% Total 405.61 100% Core Area Waterfront Neighborhoods 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 58 Population Demographics (Claritas - 2015) Description Downtown Area Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region 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% 0.74% 0.90% 0.98% Asian Alone 2.37% 2.01% 4.56% 6.06% Native Hawaiian and Other Pac. 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% 6.24% 6.80% 6.29% Age 10 - 14 9.34% 7.70% 7.28% 6.42% Age 15 - 17 5.27% 4.84% 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 9.88% 9.20% 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% 3.68% 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% 62.19% 50.82% 46.95% Married, Spouse absent 4.85% 3.86% 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% 1.77% 2.58% 3.44% Some High School, no diploma 4.97% 4.03% 5.72% 5.75% High School Graduate (or GED)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% 7.44% 6.57% 8.81% Professional School Degree 1.82% 2.47% 1.53% 2.31% Doctorate Degree 0.70% 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 59 Household & Income Profile (Claritas - 2015) Description Downtown Area Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region Households 2020 Projection 906 6,291 177,764 1,009,167 2015 Estimate 807 5,876 167,697 958,721 2010 Census 696 5,449 158,099 908,038 2000 Census 451 4,014 127,210 781,382 % Growth 2015-2020 12.26% 7.07% 6.00% 5.26% % Growth 2010-2015 16.05% 7.82% 6.07% 5.58% % Growth 2000-2010 54.18% 35.77% 24.28% 16.21% 2015 Est. Households by Household Type (%) Family Households 80.79% 80.14% 69.97% 63.55% Nonfamily Households 19.33% 19.86% 30.03% 36.45% 2015 Est. HHs by HH Income (%) CY HHs, Inc < $15,000 1.73% 4.20% 9.08% 10.95% CY HHs, Inc $15,000 - $24,999 5.33% 5.36% 9.28% 9.32% CY HHs, Inc $25,000 - $34,999 12.27% 10.47% 10.27% 9.52% CY HHs, Inc $35,000 - $49,999 8.18% 10.21% 14.79% 13.69% CY HHs, Inc $50,000 - $74,999 20.57% 19.38% 20.28% 18.94% CY HHs, Inc $75,000 - $99,999 17.60% 16.87% 14.09% 13.13% CY HHs, Inc $100,000 - $124,999 18.96% 15.47% 8.83% 9.33% CY HHs, Inc $125,000 - $149,999 7.31% 7.62% 5.22% 5.54% CY HHs, Inc $150,000 - $199,999 4.34% 5.41% 4.56% 5.08% CY HHs, Inc $200,000 - $249,999 1.61% 2.04% 1.48% 1.80% CY HHs, Inc $250,000 - $499,999 1.86% 2.54% 1.70% 2.08% CY HHs, Inc $500,000+0.25% 0.43% 0.41% 0.64% 2015 Est. Average Household Income $86,771 $88,527 $73,010 $75,797 2015 Est. Median Household Income $77,649 $75,567 $58,108 $58,618 2015 Est. Family HH Type, Presence Own Children (%) Married-Couple Family, own children 42.18% 35.15% 33.70% 32.73% Married-Couple Family, no own children 37.27% 48.59% 42.89% 43.33% Male Householder, own children 4.14% 3.40% 4.03% 3.85% Male Householder, no own children 1.99% 2.53% 3.27% 3.48% Female Householder, own children 9.82% 5.75% 9.64% 9.75% Female Householder, no own children 4.60% 4.54% 6.48% 6.86% 2015 Est. Households by Household Size (%) 1-person household 15.37% 15.57% 23.71% 27.58% 2-person household 31.10% 36.33% 33.47% 33.71% 3-person household 18.59% 17.51% 16.70% 15.94% 4-person household 19.70% 16.97% 14.22% 12.83% 5-person household 9.79% 8.10% 6.82% 5.83% 6-person household 3.47% 3.39% 3.01% 2.45% 7 or more person household 1.98% 2.13% 2.07% 1.66% 2015 Est. Average Household Size 2.98 2.86 2.66 2.51 Family Households 2020 Projection 731 5,042 124,399 640,673 2015 Estimate 652 4,709 117,338 609,271 2010 Census 561 4,364 110,672 578,249 2000 Census 350 3,235 90,959 510,162 % Growth 2015-2020 12.20% 7.07% 6.02% 5.15% % Growth 2010-2015 16.10% 7.89% 6.02% 5.36% % Growth 2000-2010 60.32% 34.90% 21.67% 13.35% E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Integration Area Market Study (Revised Draft) Page 60 Employment & Transportation Indicators (Claritas - 2015) Description Downtown Area Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region 2015 Est. Pop Age 16+ by Employment Status (%) In Armed Forces 0.00% 0.05% 0.12% 0.07% Civilian - Employed 61.64% 57.17% 57.32% 59.35% Civilian - Unemployed 6.28% 5.37% 7.06% 6.92% Not in Labor Force 32.02% 37.41% 35.51% 33.66% 2015 Est. Civ Employed Pop 16+ by Occupation (%) Architect/Engineer 1.55% 2.67% 2.79% 2.97% Arts/Entertain/Sports 0.45% 1.18% 2.00% 2.68% Building Grounds Maint 2.36% 3.81% 3.78% 3.39% Business/Financial Ops 4.91% 4.96% 4.77% 5.37% Community/Soc Svcs 3.36% 3.06% 1.39% 1.79% Computer/Mathematical 2.82% 1.98% 2.47% 3.15% Construction/Extraction 4.73% 4.81% 5.02% 4.11% Edu/Training/Library 5.18% 5.98% 5.10% 5.31% Farm/Fish/Forestry 0.36% 1.01% 0.32% 0.73% Food Prep/Serving 2.00% 2.76% 4.41% 5.89% Health Practitioner/Tec 7.09% 7.09% 5.53% 5.25% Healthcare Support 2.36% 2.11% 2.78% 2.36% Maintenance Repair 1.91% 2.79% 3.36% 2.87% Legal 2.36% 1.27% 0.81% 1.16% Life/Phys/Soc Science 0.45% 0.35% 0.56% 0.79% Management 12.55% 12.17% 9.43% 10.51% Office/Admin Support 13.00% 13.52% 14.32% 13.27% Production 7.82% 5.43% 5.89% 5.84% Protective Svcs 3.91% 2.46% 2.27% 1.56% Sales/Related 5.36% 8.01% 9.97% 10.93% Personal Care/Svc 4.18% 2.92% 4.45% 4.03% Transportation/Moving 11.27% 9.64% 8.58% 6.04% 2015 Est. Pop 16+ by Occupation Classification (%) Blue Collar 25.73% 22.67% 22.85% 18.87% White Collar 59.09% 62.24% 59.14% 63.17% Service and Farm 15.18% 15.09% 18.00% 17.96% 2015 Est. Households by Number of Vehicles (%) No Vehicles 2.85% 2.42% 5.07% 8.65% 1 Vehicle 12.39% 13.53% 30.30% 32.81% 2 Vehicles 47.96% 39.99% 38.82% 38.40% 3 Vehicles 22.18% 28.20% 17.44% 13.87% 4 Vehicles 9.42% 10.42% 5.94% 4.45% 5 or more Vehicles 5.20% 5.45% 2.42% 1.82%2 or more Vehicles 2015 Est. Average Number of Vehicles 2.44 2.52 1.99 1.80 2015 Est. Workers Age 16+, Transp. To Work (%) Drove Alone 83.82% 81.93% 78.67% 71.40% Car Pooled 3.55% 5.96% 9.41% 9.73% Public Transportation 0.75% 0.76% 2.62% 5.90% Walked 1.12% 1.47% 1.52% 3.59% Bicycle 0.19% 0.05% 0.41% 2.19% Other Means 1.40% 1.41% 1.17% 0.97% Worked at Home 9.26% 8.43% 6.21% 6.21% 2015 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Travel Time to Work (%) Less than 15 Minutes 11.36% 16.19% 24.70% 25.59% 15 - 29 Minutes 37.53% 41.41% 41.31% 38.95% 30 - 44 Minutes 36.82% 28.90% 21.83% 21.52% 45 - 59 Minutes 6.39% 6.96% 6.84% 7.86% 60 or more Minutes 7.91% 6.53% 5.32% 6.08% 2015 Est. Avg Travel Time to Work in Minutes 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 61 Housing Profile (Claritas - 2015) Description Downtown Area Ridgefield/I-5 Clark County Metro Region 2015 Est. Tenure of Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied 77.45% 81.82% 65.67% 61.66% Renter Occupied 22.68% 18.16% 34.33% 38.34% 2015 Owner Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence 11.4 13.9 14.0 14.8 2015 Renter Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence 6.7 7.6 7.1 7.2 2015 Est. All Owner-Occupied Housing Values Value Less than $20,000 0.64% 1.27% 1.89% 2.20% Value $20,000 - $39,999 0.64% 0.56% 1.93% 1.94% Value $40,000 - $59,999 0.32% 0.48% 0.79% 0.92% Value $60,000 - $79,999 0.32% 0.48% 1.02% 0.81% Value $80,000 - $99,999 0.64% 0.77% 0.93% 0.88% Value $100,000 - $149,999 4.64% 3.31% 6.34% 5.50% Value $150,000 - $199,999 7.20% 6.24% 16.75% 11.68% Value $200,000 - $299,999 28.48% 23.81% 34.30% 29.33% Value $300,000 - $399,999 28.00% 25.33% 17.14% 19.31% Value $400,000 - $499,999 12.32% 14.60% 9.47% 11.96% Value $500,000 - $749,999 11.04% 15.77% 6.18% 9.71% Value $750,000 - $999,999 3.20% 5.12% 2.12% 3.66% Value $1,000,000 or more 2.72% 2.29% 1.14% 2.11% 2015 Est. Median All Owner-Occupied Housing Value $325,816 $351,742 $259,340 $288,898 2015 Est. Housing Units by Units in Structure 1 Unit Attached 2.49% 1.41% 5.49% 5.01% 1 Unit Detached 91.01% 88.89% 67.08% 62.15% 2 Units 0.00% 0.74% 3.09% 2.91% 3 or 4 Units 1.30% 0.49% 3.81% 4.49% 5 to 19 Units 0.00% 0.10% 9.17% 10.41% 20 to 49 Units 0.00% 0.00% 2.25% 3.79% 50 or More Units 0.00% 0.00% 4.21% 6.75% Mobile Home or Trailer 4.26% 8.01% 4.69% 4.33% Boat, RV, Van, etc.0.95% 0.37% 0.20% 0.17%2 or more Units 2015 Est. Housing Units by Year Structure Built Housing Unit Built 2005 or later 15.74% 8.59% 6.00% 5.47% Housing Unit Built 2000 to 2004 36.45% 28.82% 20.16% 15.83% Housing Unit Built 1990 to 1999 16.21% 23.99% 24.62% 18.38% Housing Unit Built 1980 to 1989 4.50% 9.66% 12.38% 10.74% Housing Unit Built 1970 to 1979 11.72% 12.66% 17.80% 16.87% Housing Unit Built 1960 to 1969 5.56% 5.18% 6.93% 8.71% Housing Unit Built 1950 to 1959 1.30% 2.23% 4.50% 7.23% Housing Unit Built 1940 to 1949 1.54% 2.90% 3.50% 4.81% Housing Unit Built 1939 or Earlier 6.75% 6.00% 4.11% 11.97%Housing Unit Built 1990 or later 2015 Est. Median Year Structure Built 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 62 Employment in Ridgefield / I-5 Corridor & Clark County (2013) NAICS Employment Sector Firms Jobs Avg Wage Firms Jobs Avg Wage 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 Ridgefield / I-5 Clark County * Note: Data is for the Ridgefield/I-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) Year Ridgefield Rest of County Clark County Ridgefield % of Clark County 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 2408 Main Street • P.O. Box 225 • Vancouver, WA 98666 (360) 696-9870 • (503) 230-1414 • Fax (360) 696-8453 E-mail: edhovee@edhovee.com Economic and Development Services MMEEMMOORRAANNDDUUMM 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 local 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 – the 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-page 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. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 2 RRIIDDGGEEFFIIEELLDD DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN // WWAATTEERRFFRROONNTT FFEEAASSIIBBIILLIITTYY && IIMMPPAACCTT SSUUMMMMAARRYY 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 3 MMAARRKKEETT CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS FFRROOMM PPHHAASSEE 11 RREEPPOORRTT 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 I-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-occupied 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 for 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 4 PPRROOPPEERRTTYY PPRROOFFIILLEE 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) Map # Serial # Ownership Parcel Bldg Land Building Total Taxable 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 O. & 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 Assessed ValuationSquare Feet of 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 5 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 parking). 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. CCOOMMPPRREEHHEENNSSIIVVEE PPLLAANN && ZZOONNIINNGG CCOONNSSIIDDEERRAATTIIOONNSS 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 Central 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 6 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 Permitted Uses Limited Uses Conditional Uses • Boarding houses • General retail trade/services • Eating and drinking establishment • Gasoline service station • Daycare facility • Office • Indoor entertainment facility • Community recreation and social facility • Park or trail • All education and cultural uses (colleges, K-12 schools, specialized, conference center, religious and cultural institutions) • Medical clinic/laboratory • Nursing and personal care facility • Emergency services • Broadcasting and telecommunications • Single-family attached residential* • Multifamily attached residential* • Community residential facility* • Bed and breakfast* • Recreational vehicle (single)* • Tent city • Artisan and specialty good production • Electric vehicle infrastructure* • Veterinary clinic and hospital • Adult use facility • Utility facility** • Wireless communication facility* • Interim recycling facility* • Park and ride lot • Hotel and motel • Animal kennel and shelter** • Light manufacturing • Research and development • Fleet service • Hospital** 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 7 • 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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 8 E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 9 SSIITTEE 11 -- PPAARRKK LLAAUUNNDDRRYY 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 ¼ 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 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. Site 1 Park Laundry Sources: Clark County GIS, Esri, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 10 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 & Clark Plaza The 46 apartments (pictured above) feature quality senior housing with a street level interpretive center and art gallery – on a ¼ 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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 11 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 12 SSIITTEE 22 –– SSCCHHOOOOLL BBUUSS BBAARRNN 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 identify potential re-use of the building 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. Site 2 School Bus Barn Sources: Clark County GIS, Esri, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 13 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 2B 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 1A – Ag-Production Facility Concept 2B – 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 14 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 2B, 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 2B. • 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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 15 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 16 SSIITTEE 33 –– WWEEEEKKSS PPRROOPPEERRTTYY ((WWIITTHH PPOOSSSSIIBBLLEE WWEERRTTZZ AADDDD--OONN)) 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 question of possible combination with the 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. Site 3 Weeks (with Wertz potential add-on) Sources: Clark County GIS, Esri, and E. D. Hovee & Company, LLC. E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 17 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? Battle Ground Village 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 18 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, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 19 FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL PPRROO FFOORRMMAA DDEETTAAIILL 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 Low Mid High Comments 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 Per gsf building area (hard construction cost) Retail $90.00 $110.00 $130.00 Consistent with rates for strip shopping space Office $115.00 $140.00 $165.00 Secondary low-mid rise office building Multi Family Residential $120.00 $160.00 $200.00 Low for apartments, mid for live-work, high for condo Parking Cost - per SF $7.50 $70.00 $90.00 Low for surface lot, mid-high for above grade structure Indirect/Soft Cost Rate 30% 35% 40% Low for single use, low-mid for mixed use w/sales tax Gross Profit Margin 12% 15% 18% Applied to for sale components of project (e.g. condos) B. Operating Projections Market Rate Rents Per square foot 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 5% 8% 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 style apts; high older units Parking (annual per space) -- $250 $500 Low - applied to all sites w/o active management Capitalization Rates 6.00% 7.25% 8.25% Low - apartments; mid - retail, high - office C. Sales Revenue Detail 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 forma analysis. Range of EstimateCapital/Operating Parameter E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC for MFA and City of Ridgefield: Ridgefield Downtown/Waterfront Feasibility & Economic Impact Analysis Page 20 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 21 Financial Pro Forma Summary by Site & Development Concept Concept A Concept B Concept 1A Concept 2B Concept A Concept B Concept C Rental Apartments For-Sale Townhomes Ag Process User Commercial Retail One Level Storefront Two Level Retail/Office Three Level (w/Wertz) Development Program (Square Feet) Storefront Space (SF)4,500 2,000 4,600 5,680 2,250 2,250 4,500 Production/Office (SF)-- 4,000 1,760 -- 2,250 9,000 Residential (SF)12,750 6,000 -- -- -- -- -- Common Area (not rentable SF)2,750 -- 1,400 2,560 -- -- -- Subtotal (GSF)20,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 2,250 4,500 13,500 Garage Parking (GSF)-- 3,000 -- -- -- -- -- Total Building Area (GSF)20,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 2,250 4,500 13,500 Residential (Owner units)-- 4 -- -- -- -- -- Residential (Rental units)17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 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 Cost w/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 Sales 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 $2,505,000 Cost % Supported by Value 74% 58% 45% 38% 63% 73% 94% Funding Gap ( )$ (1,127,100) $ (1,206,000) $ (2,009,186) $ (2,385,824) $ (283,200) $ (306,900) $ (174,000) Gap w/o Clean-up Cost $(210,100) $(289,000) $(1,306,186) $(1,682,824) $93,800 $70,100 $203,000 1) Park Laundry 2) School Bus Barn 3) Weeks Property (+ Wertz Option) Pro Forma Analysis Component 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 22 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 23 • 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, promotion 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. EECCOONNOOMMIICC IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS 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 24 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 Concept A Concept B Concept 1A Concept 2B Concept A Concept B Concept C Rental Apartments For-Sale Townhomes Ag Process User Commercial Retail One Level Storefront Two Level Retail/Office Three Level (w/Wertz) 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 1) Park Laundry 2) School Bus Barn 3) Weeks Property (+ Wertz Option)Employment & Payroll Category 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 Barn 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 25 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 Concept A Concept B Concept 1A Concept 2B Concept A Concept B Concept C Rental Apartments For-Sale Townhomes Ag Process User Commercial Retail One Level Storefront Two Level Retail/Office Three Level (w/Wertz) 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 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 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 Property Tax $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% Number of Years 20 1) Park Laundry 2) School Bus Barn 3) Weeks Property (+ Wertz Option)Clark County & Other Jurisdiction Revenue by Type 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 26 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). PIONEER ST 3RD AVEN The Weeks property is located near the corner of S. 3rd Avenue and Pioneer Street in Ridgefield. The property was formerly a bowling alley, but is now an undeveloped lot that adjoins another L-shaped undeveloped property to the east. The eastern property is the location of a former Shell service station until it burned down in the 1970’s. Weeks Property Background A site hazard assessment was conducted by Clark County Public Health on the western property in October 2006. The assessment results showed soil and groundwater contamination exceeding the MTCA Method A cleanup levels for gasoline and several other associated chemicals. Downtown Ridgefield IPG Environment Gasoline contamination appears to have migrated to the Weeks Property in groundwater from the former service station property to the east. This water is not being used as potable water nor is it likely to contaminate Lake River. Two treatments spaced six months apart would be a likely remedy. Each event would take eight days to complete. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted quarterly for three years. Site History Site Assessment Timeline Redevelopment Scenarios Concepts A and B: Weeks Property Only Concept C: Weeks and Eastern Property 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 approximately seven spaces of on-site customer and/or employee parking. The Source Climbing Center in Vancouver, Washington is a three story building with a base footpring of approximately 50 feet by 100 feet and is a popular recreation site in the downtown area. This concept includes redevelopment of both the Weeks property and the former gas station property to the east, providing for full half-block building frontage. This concept tests 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. The Northwood is a brew pub in Battleground Village with a pub on the ground floor and brewery production above. Multnomah VIllalge is a small shopping center in SW Portland, OR with small-scale shop spaces in a village environment. Concept B has a similar building footprint, but would include one floor of office space above ground floor. This alternative would reserve the back half of the site for parking to serve anticipated customer and/or employee parking needs. N SIMIONS ST MAIN AVEThe Former Park Laundry property is an undeveloped lot located at 122 N. Main Avenue in Ridgefield. A building was constructed on this property around 1948 was used by Park Laundry from 1965 to 1977. The laundry service is believed to have included a self-service, coin-operated washer and dryers, laundry, and dry cleaning services. Park Laundry ceased operations in 1978 and Union Ridge Investment Company (URIC) purchased the property in 1979. At the time of purchase there was no dry cleaning equipment in the building. The building was demolished and the property sold in 2000, but the owner defaulted and the property was quitclaimed by 2007. Park Laundry Background The historical dry cleaning operations have resulted in significant groundwater contamination in the area of the property. Initial site investigations in 2006 detected volatile organic compounds, primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE) and associated breakdown products in the soil and groundwater on the property and nearby. Downtown Ridgefield IPG Environment The lateral extent of surface soil impacts are limited to the site and those immediately adjacent. The groundwater plume extends approximately 1000 ft downgradient of the site, along the flow of groundwater in the north-northwest direction. A likely remedy would be excavation in the source area and chemical oxidation treatment of the chlorinated solvents through injections. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted semi-annualy for 10 years. Site History Site Assessment Timeline Redevelopment Scenarios Concepts A: Retail and Apartment Mixed Use Concept B: Townhouses 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 (providing at least one 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, with a mix of one and two bedroom units (and/or a couple of studios). Prestige Plaza is a live-work residential space in downtown Vancouver, WA that provides studios as well as one- and two- bedroom apartments with retail space available at ground level. This concept aims to stay within the current density limit of 16 units per acre. It proposes 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 two-car tandem parking garage behind. The two upper levels are residential- ownership units at 750 square feet per level. 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. 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. Orenco Station in Hillsboro, OR (left) has created medium density mixed use developments. In Vancouver, WA the Lewis & Clark Plaza provides small, quality senior housing apartment units above an interpretive center and art gallery on a one-quarter block site. N PIONEER ST3RD AVEThe Bus Barn is located at 304 Pioneer Street and is currently owned and operated by the Ridgefield School District (RSD). The building is an approximately 10,000 square foot single-story brick structure on a one- quarter block property. The building is an iconic landmark in historic downtown Ridgefield. The building is used for facilities maintenance, equipment repair, maintenance staff facilities, and storage of dry goods, school-related supplies, and archives. The remainder of the property is used for access and parking. The RSD would consider sale of the building and conversion to a new use if environmental issues can be resolved. Bus Barn Background The building was formerly used for vehicle sales and maintenance as well as being a service station. Historically, there may have been as many as five gasoline underground storage tanks on the property. All of the USTs have been decommissioned and all but one were removed. Downtown Ridgefield IPG Environment Some gasoline and deisel detected on site. Treatment of the petroleum through injections along the south and north sides of the building. In situ treatment, which treats the soil and groundwater in place, is a potential cleanup option for the site. Two treatments spaced six months apart. Each event would take 18 days to complete. Groundwater monitoring would be conducted quarterly for three years. Site History Site Assessment Timeline Redevelopment Scenarios Concept A: Agriculture Production Facility Concept B: Commercial Retail/Office This concept is focused on creating a multi-tenant agricultural production facility (as for micro-brewers) together with an event public area. As illustrated by the development diagram below, storefront activated uses would account for about 5,600 square feet of the renovated area, with production spaces taking 4,000 square feet and a common area (including corridors and restrooms) of about 1,600 square feet. Existing parking behind the building would be retained but with improvements for circulation, landscaping, and ADA access. A building on the corner of NE 24th Ave and NE Glisan Street in Portland, Oregon transitions from an abandoned auto repair shop (top) to a shared space called The Ocean (left)for six different businesses with a communal green space. Concept B 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 projection space, and a significant component of 3,760 square feet as common area. Existing parking behind the building would be retained but with improvements for circulation, landscaping, and ADA access. The Carlton Winemaker’s Studio (top) is home to 12 individual vitners that produce wines under one roof and share communal tasting and barrel rooms (left) for visitors and private events. PIONEER ST ADJACENT BUILDING N 3RD AVEALLEYPRODUCTION EVENT/ PUBLIC AREA SHOP COMMON AREA SHOP PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION UTILITIESPIONEER ST ADJACENT BUILDING N 3RD AVEALLEYTENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE TENANT SPACE 59 APPENDIX C: DOWNTOWN ACCESSORY GUIDELINES (2013) 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 “Historic Downtown” 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. Sample furniture models, from left: Columbia Cascade Craftsmen model, Columbia Cascade Manor model, Dura Art Stone Capstan Square model   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 1 Recommendations to City Council 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 2 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 café 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 3 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 “Historic Downtown” 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 “Historic Downtown” 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. 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 Company1, 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.                                                          1 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. 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.   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 4 Recommendations to City Council     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. 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. Two bench model recommendations from the committee include the Craftsmen model, at left, and the Restoration model, at right. 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).   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 5 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: 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. Examples of garbage cans include the following models, all from Columbia Cascade Company (clockwise from upper left): Renaissance, Madison, Manor and Craftsmen.   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 6 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: ¥ 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. 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. ! Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 7 Recommendations to City Council 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. -Lo cation: Prioritize installation of benches outside civic locations, such as City Hall and the library, and along Pioneer and Main streets.2 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. 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, café seating b) Through pedestrian zone c) Utility zone: street trees, utilities, and street furniture   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 8 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)3 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                                                          3 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 9 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 4th 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 10 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. 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 Downtown/Waterfront Integration Project—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. 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).   Downtown Accessory Guidelines Committee Page 11 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 4th 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.4 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.                                                          4 See http://www.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.   Appendix A Page A-1 Public Outreach Results 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: Wooden slats, dark green metal. Votes 54 or 47% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents selecting this reason Materials 16 30% Comfort 17 31% Design 18 33% “Fits” in Downtown Ridgefield 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 “Historic Downtown” 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 a given bench, thus 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 Page A-2 Public Outreach Results Broadway Bench Materials of Sample: Recycled plastic slats and red metal Votes 23 or 20% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents selecting 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. ¥ 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-3 Public Outreach Results Renaissance Bench Materials of Sample: Black metal Votes 29 or 25% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents selecting this reason Materials 11 33% Comfort 10 33% Design 13 41% “Fits” in Downtown Ridgefield 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-4 Public Outreach Results Greenway Bench Materials of Sample: Recycled plastic version installed in Davis Park; picture provided at event. Votes 6 or 5% Reasons for vote: Number and percentage of respondents selecting this reason Materials 2 33% Comfort 2 33% Design 4 67% “Fits” in Downtown Ridgefield 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-5 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 1st. ¥ 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 (3%) 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 61 APPENDIX D: DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD PRESERVATION PLAN (2010) May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield i 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 1-1 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 2-1 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 Plan. 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 BirdFest. 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 2-2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 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. May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 3-1 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.gov/ longrangeplan/historic/sites.html). 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. 3-2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 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. May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 3-3 113 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 3-4 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 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. May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 4-1 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. 4-2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 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 May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 4-3 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 4-4 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 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-zoned property: 620 acres (in city limits) 391 vacant and underutilized General Commercial: 246 acres Neighborhood Commercial: 47 acres 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. May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 4-5 4-6 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 Table 4-1. Preservation Goals and Implementation Steps Preservation Goals Implementation Steps Estimated Timing 1. Provide education and involvement in Downtown Ridgefield history 1.1 Install sign blade toppers and/or gateway “Historic Downtown” signage 1.2 Research and record historic stories about properties and events in downtown 1.3 Develop a staff – and/or volunteer led walking tour; develop down-loadable self-guided walking tour brochure 1.4 Install interpretive elements along sidewalks 1.5 Add a mural rendering of a historic photo of downtown 1.1 2010 1.2 2011 / Continuing 1.3 2010 1.4 2011-2012 1.5 2011-2012 2. Provide education about preservation tools and resources 2.1 Assign responsible staff to assist with historic preservation 2.2 Make the “How-To Guidebook” available via the City website 2.3 Send building officials/permit reviewers to historic building training (DAHP or locally provided) and adopt International Existing Building Code 2.1 2011 2.2 2010 / Continuing 2.3 2011 / Continuing 3. Increase number of properties listed on the Clark County and National Historic registers 3.1 Recognize listed properties at City Council meetings (plaque) 3.2 Encourage individual property owners to list their properties 3.3 Provide streamlined permitting for registered properties 3.4 Reduce permitting fees for registered properties 3.1 2010 / Continuing 3.2 2010 / Continuing 3.3 2011 / Continuing 3.4 2010 / Continuing 4. Develop appropriate mechanisms in Zoning Code 4.1 Define the area for overlay 4.2 Complete Draft Code (set regulatory controls to meet goals) 4.3 Draft code language 4.4 Complete adoption process 4.1 2010 4.2 2010 4.3 2010 4.4 2011 5. Encourage appropriate rehabilitation and restoration 5.1 Recognize rehab projects by City Council 5.2 Educate design review staff and/ or committee members 5.3 Periodically retain historic resources expertise for evaluation and education 5.1 2010 / Continuing 5.2 2011 / Continuing 5.3 2011 / Continuing 6. Establish residential historic district(s) 6.1 Assign responsible party 6.2 Define the area for evaluation 6.3 Pursue grant funding to conduct historic building/district survey 6.4 Complete documentation/ nomination process 6.5 Potentially identify design goals for district 6.1 2011 6.2 2011 / 2012 6.3 2011 / 2012 6.4 2011 / 2012 6.5 2011 / 2012 May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 5-1 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 5-2 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield May 2010 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 May 2010 Preserving Downtown Ridgefield 5-3 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 APPENDIX A How-To Documents 63 APPENDIX E: 14 ESSENTIAL GUIDELINES FOR DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD (2004) RIDGEFIELD, WACity of Ridgeﬁeld 14 Essential Guidelines for Downtown Ridgeﬁeld Urbsworks, Inc. Architecture and Urban Design Marcy McInelly, AIA | Project Manager, Primary Author Joseph Readdy, NCARB, AIA | Guideline Assistance, Editing Ryan Sullivan | Graphic Design Assistance, Production October 22, 2004 Introduction 01 Guideline Districts 05 Chapter 1 Urban Form 07 1.1 Street to Building Relationship 09 1.2 The Importance of Corners 11 1.3 Ridgefield’s Alleys 13 1.4 The Facade as Wall, Streets as Rooms 15 Chapter 2 Building Form 17 2.1 The Pedestrian Level 19 2.2 Building Programmability & Adaptability 21 2.3 Building Orientation 23 2.4 Background Buildings & “Civic” Buildings 25 2.5 The Base, Body & Cornice 27 Chapter 3 Material, Detail & Color 29 3.1 Ridgefield’s Buildings at Night 31 3.2 The Color of Downtown Ridgefield 33 3.3 Building Materials 35 3.4 The Doors and Windows of Ridgefield 37 3.5 The Storefronts of Ridgefield 39 Design Review Process 41 Table of Contents 1City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Introduction Background INTRODUCTION Residents, business owners and visitors describe the friendly and inviting small town atmosphere, the walkable main streets and animated storefronts as some of Ridgefield’s greatest assets. This guideline document defines, describes and illustrates the 14 essential characteristics that contribute to the physical form of Ridgefield. These essential design guidelines are intended to ensure that new development builds upon these strengths by preserving, strengthening and adding to them. This document is divided into three primary sections: “Introduction,” “Downtown Design Guidelines,” and “The Design Process.” The “Introduction” describes the planning background that led to the publication of these guidelines, and describes Ridgefield’s voluntary, incentive-based system of design review. The section called “Design Districts” places the Downtown District in context, as the first of three districts that are intended to receive design attention. Most of the users of this document will refer to the second chapter, which lists the 14 design guidelines under the headings “Urban Form,” “Building Form,” and “Material, Detailing and Color.” In this section, each guideline is introduced with information explaining why the guideline is important, illustrations of the urban design concept and how the concept is manifested in Ridgefield. The guidelines themselves are relatively short—generally one to three sentences. In some cases the guidelines are accompanied by a list of material or treatments that fall into three categories: “encouraged,” “allowed,” and “requires further review.” A “Purpose Statement” precedes each guideline. The third and final section, “The Design Process” is a flowchart that illustrates the review process. HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT If you are an applicant, planning improvements to your building or planning a new development. You will want to be familiar with Chapter 2, “Downtown Design Guidelines.” Your application for design review will need to make clear to City review staff and officials how your proposal responds to each guideline. Other helpful sections for applicants include 1.4, “Ridgefield’s Approach to Design Regulations,” and Chapter 3 “ The Design Review Process.” If you are a neighbor, reviewing a development proposal. You will want to be familiar with Chapter 2, “Downtown Design Guidelines.” You may find the sections which precede each Design Guideline—“Why is this Important,” and “Purpose Statements” very helpful in understanding the intent behind each of the design guidelines. Other helpful sections for affected neighbors include Chapter 1.3, “Existing Zoning and Standards,” and Chapter 1.4, “Ridgefield’s Approach to Design Regulations.” If you are a review official. Since it is your job to review projects and judge the degree to which they meet the Design Guidelines, you will want to be very familiar with the Design Guidelines, both the intent behind them as well as the guidelines themselves. It is your role to provide design guidance to applicants, and encourage voluntary compliance. In cases where the guideline is not clear to the applicant or there is more than one way to meet it, the Purpose Statement can be helpful. If you are considering moving to Ridgefield to live or work. The document will provide a good picture of Ridgefield’s personality, its urban form and the regulatory environment it seeks to promote. Introduction 2 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines ABOUT THIS PROJECT In August 2004, the City of Ridgefield contracted with Urbsworks, Inc, Architecture and Urban Design, a Portland-based firm, to work with a citizen’s task force to provide design guidelines for an Incentive Based Downtown Design Guideline Program. This was the second phase of a downtown planning project; the first phase consisted of Downtown Planning Guidelines (published in 2002). The Design Committee is comprised of nine members, including planning commissioners, developers, citizens, and small business owners. Between August and October 2004, Urbsworks conducted two workshops with the Design Committee and two workshops with the general public of Ridgefield. In addition, Urbsworks conducted an inventory and evaluation of Ridgefield’s urban form and building design. This document is the result of the workshops, the inventory and evaluation. The project funds were been made available through The Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development with matching funds from the City of Ridgefield. DOWNTOWN, THE HEART OF RIDGEFIELD [Excerpted from Downtown Ridgefield Planning Guidelines—2002] Downtown Ridgefield has always been the traditional heart of the community. Downtown is the social, commercial, governmental crossroads of old Ridgefield. Ridgefield has abundant resources to draw upon, including its small town character and charm, and the natural surroundings, such as the rolling hills, the Lake River waterfront, the National Wildlife Refuge, attraction to artisans, rich Native American archaeological history, and its association with the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Ridgefield stands poised for dramatic growth. Every segment of the community is preparing for such growth. The Port of Ridgefield has completed a master-planning program at the Lake River waterfront. The Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge is planning for the expansion of its interpretive and visitor facilities in anticipation of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The plans include a new interpretive center at the refuge and a downtown information kiosk to inform Lewis and Clark visitors. In Ridgefield, all roads lead to and from downtown whether one is traveling to the Wildlife Refuge, the Port, City government buildings, residential areas, or out to the I-5 Junction. An end product of this planning effort is to create a destination area for downtown Ridgefield that provides quality merchandise, service, and activities with an ambience that is unique to Ridgefield. The goal for this document is a Design Guideline Handbook for the downtown commercial core of the City that represents the unique ambience of Ridgefield. “With everything poised to happen, how can Ridgefield preserve its sense of place? How can it protect and enhance its village- like atmosphere that everyone enjoys so much?” Downtown Ridgefield Planning Guidelines—2002 Observations on Ridgefield’s Opportunities & Constraints [Excerpted from Urbsworks’ memo dated 27 August 2004—Summary of Site Visit & Design Committee One] Ridgefield’s intact urban environment, its grid of streets, pedestrian-oriented, walkable environment and its many good buildings give Ridgefield a head start compared with many western American towns at the turn of the century. Ridgefield does not have to contend with too much through traffic, truck traffic, vacant lots or urban blight. Fran Kemper’s comment that “What’s most important is the façade” supports this observation. There is a very distinct, recognizable character to Ridgefield—as Peggy Quall observed, “early to mid-century small town.” At the same time, while there is a very distinct character in Ridgefield, it consists of equal parts intangible elements and tangible physical elements. Brent Grening’s comment “how does it all work together?”sums up this concept. Design regulations cannot protect the intangibles, but the exercise that the Design Committee has committed to in developing Design Guidelines can also be used to help identify those intangibles and set up programs to cultivate and protect them. As Brent said, “We need to teach ourselves how to have that conversation with the people who come to Ridgefield.” Design guidelines are inherently more difficult to administer. However, if they are well-written, designed and illustrated, they can encourage good design. Ridgefield’s decision to go this route, combined with Ridgefield’s “human capital” and the Design Committee’s conviction to make regulatory environment “simple and friendly here for developers,” in Chad Session’s words, make it more possible that Ridgefield can make design guidelines work for them. Overly prescriptive design guidelines that specify trim, finish material, or require imitation of historic elements may not produce long-lasting buildings that weather well. At the same time, high quality materials and good detailing are very important. Ridgefield’s Design Guidelines must help applicants understand this. Understanding the forms of Ridgefield that makes up its good bones is critical also, possibly more critical than identifying one period style that all new buildings must imitate. At Urbsworks, we think that the goal is to have buildings “emulate,” not imitate Ridgefield’s older structures. In Brent’s words, the guidelines should “allow innovation, and not have regulations require a staid or contrived response… a totally managed environment—that’s not Ridgefield.” As Cyrus observed, Ridgefield has good bones, “but the bones don’t have much flesh on them, and there is not much to work with.” Some historic research is important to understanding how Ridgefield has evolved and to use that research to inform Introduction There is a very distinct, recognizable character to Ridgefield. How would you describe it? Ridgefield style is “early to mid-century small town.” Peggy Quall, Design Committee “The space between freeway and Ridgefield Downtown, helps give downtown its character.” Workshop participant “It’s at the end of the road and hard to get to.” Workshop participant “It’s quaint and friendly. You can’t help but slow down.” Workshop participant “It’s at the end of the road—a destination. You have to want to come to Ridgefield.” Workshop participant “The natural beauty of the vista of the estuary.” Workshop participant 3City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines with the people who come to Ridgefield.” Brent Grening, Design Committee • We want it to be “simple and friendly here for developers.” Chad Sessions, Design Committee • The guidelines should “allow innovation, and not have regulations require a staid or contrived response… a totally managed environment—that’s not Ridgefield.” Brent Grening, Design Committee In addition, at the Public Workshops, business owners and residents said • I would like the regulation to be helpful. It should be welcoming, not a bunch of do’s and don’ts. • The tone should be: Here’s who we are, how can we help you fit in? • The guidelines should provide a road map: how to get from A to B, how to get through the maze. • A dilemma is, how to be inviting while prohibiting certain things, or setting minimums. • If it’s well illustrated, people will be drawn to it. Possible incentives that have been discussed include • A reduction of City fees: impact, hook-up and business fees • 1st Independent Bank loan package • Low interest loan pools: Urban Development Action grant (DAG) pay backs, industrial revenue bonds (IRBs), and revenue from special downtown taxing districts. • Incentive grant programs: CDBGs, fund raising, state local and private • Tax incentives—TRA 196, ERTA 1981 • Public improvements: sidewalks, streetlights, plantings • Property Tax incentives • TIF projects • Business Improvement District • Historic Easement • Partner relationships: Parks Board, Business Association, Planning Commission • Free design Assistance • Use the design guidelines to present the personality of Ridgefield as positive and welcoming. • Illustrate Ridgefield’s patterns clearly, and describe how to use them to guide future developments. • The ultimate goal is to have future development strengthen, extend and preserve Ridgefield patterns. This approach was reinforced at meetings and workshops conducted during the course of this project. When asked at the first Design Committee Workshop, what characterizes a simple and friendly regulatory environment? members responded with • Design Guidelines can be used to help identify the character of Ridgefield and set up programs to cultivate and protect it. “We need to teach ourselves how to have that conversation the Design Guidelines. We would like to use this to help identify future programs that can help to celebrate Ridgefield’s 100th anniversary and “build a walk through history here in Ridgefield,” as Kevin Snyder suggested. Ridgefield’s Approach to Design Regulations Earlier in 2004, the Design Committee recommended that new design guidelines developed for the City of Ridgefield Downtown District be incentive-based, not required. Several goals were established for this project • Use the process of developing design regulations to define the character and personality of Ridgefield. Introduction Map showing City of Ridgefield Zoning. Downtown Ridgefield Design Guideline Study Area is zoned Downtown Mixed Use. What are the most important things in Ridgefield to regulate? “What’s most important is the façade” Fran Kemper, Design Committee “How does it all work together?” Brent Grening, Design Committee What characterizes a simple and friendly regulatory environment? Design Guidelines can be used to help identify the character of Ridgefield and set up programs to cultivate and protect it. “We need to teach ourselves how to have that conversation with the people who come to Ridgefield.” Brent Grening, Design Committee We want it to be “simple and friendly here for developers.” Chad Sessions, Design Committee The guidelines should “allow innovation, and not have regulations require a staid or contrived response… a totally managed environment— that’s not Ridgefield.” Brent Grening, Design Committee 4 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines • Main Street Program Existing Zoning & Standards Historic Downtown that is the focus of this study is zoned Downtown Mixed Use (DMU). The zoning for the area specifies • Land uses—permitted, conditional and specifically prohibited • Lot requirements, such as setbacks and minimum lot width and depth • Landscaping screening and buffering standards In addition, Section 18.500.050, defines review standards that are handled by the Planning Director, including Subsection 2, regarding the location of buildings in relationship to streets, and Subsection 3, regarding the percent of wall area facing a street that is required to have windows. These design guidelines will be administered by the Planning director and reviewed by the Design Committee, according to the Incentive-based Voluntary Design Guidelines Program. If there is a conflict between the Design Guidelines and the Chapter 18.230—Zoning and Standards, Chapter 18.230—Zoning and Standards shall govern. If there is a conflict between the Design Guidelines and the Building Code provisions administered by the building department, the Building Code provisions shall govern. History of Ridgefield in Pictures Courtesy of Ridgefield Public Library. Introduction 5City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines The Downtown District The Downtown District has been defined as the area bounded by 5th Avenue on the east, Sargent Street on the south, Lake River Street on the west and Mill Street on the north. It is this district that is the focus of the 14 Essential Design Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield. However, as part of the Urban Form and Building Form evaluation, Urbsworks identified two additional “districts” that support and help define the Downtown Commercial district. The Entry District The Entry District, defined as the length of Pioneer Street from the red barn at the bend in the road (Pioneer and Old Pioneer Way) to the edge of the Downtown District is the area that leads into the downtown, helping to create the “sense of arrival” that many participants in the Public Workshops described as one of Ridgefield’s most unique features. In order to preserve and enrich this important feature, Urbsworks recommends that the City of Ridgefield undertake a similar design and planning exercise for this District as it has undertaken for the Downtown District. There has been desire voiced at the Workshops that Pioneer Street Entry District accommodate live /work uses in the future. Some participants talked about Portland’s NW 23rd Street as a model. Up to the 1980’s NW 23rd was a predominantly residential street. Over the years it has transitioned into an interesting and vibrant commercial/ office and residential district. Many of the original residential building which lined NW 23rd have been rehabilitated and adapted to a mix of compatible uses—typically retail or restaurant at the ground level, office and/ or residential above. The Port District The Port District, identified roughly on the diagram at the left, represents another important opportunity for the Downtown District. In 2003, the Port of Ridgefield completed a master- planning program for their district at the Lake River waterfront. During the course of this project, the Port was represented by Brent A. Grening, a member of the City of Ridgefield Design Committee. During the Design Workshops, a commitment was expressed that development in the Port District would support the Downtown District and vice versa. Planning and Design of the Port District and the Entry District Recommended future actions and options include: • Use the 14 Essential Design Guidelines for Downtown Ridgefield as interim guidelines for new development. • Develop a new set for each district using this document as a framework to address district personality. For example, for each district address the features that fit into the three primary categories identified in this document: Urban Form, Building Form and Materials and Detailing. • Identify and illustrate those elements that differentiate the district and unify the district.. • Develop design guidelines that preserve, extend and/or strengthen the patter. Guideline Districts Guideline Districts Port District Downtown District Entry District Three design districts Red barn in the bend of the road marks the eastern end of the proposed entry district. Above, residential structures, some converted to office uses. Downtown District Study area History of Ridgefield in Pictures Courtesy of Ridgefield Public Library. Ridgefield Mercantile—SW corner of Pioneer and Main. Fred Herbert moved from here to the NW corner in 1928. Historical storefront. Railroad Station—the railroad arrived in 1908 and a station was opened.1953 Pioneer Avenue—1915.1937Pioneer and Main. Hardware Store—NE corner of Pioneer and Main. How can Ridgefield recover, uncover and celebrate its history? As Ridgefield prepares to celebrate its 100th anniversary, we should ask the question, how do we “build a walk through history here in Ridgefield?” Kevin Snyder, Planning Director Creamery—SW corner of Mill and Main. Operated into the 1920’s. History of Ridgefield in Pictures Courtesy of Ridgefield Public Library. 7City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Urban Form Urban Form 1.1 STREET TO BUILDING RELATIONSHIP 1.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF CORNERS 1.3 RIDGEFIELD’S ALLEYS 1.4 THE FACADE AS WALL, STREETS AS ROOMS Urban form is one of the often overlooked physical features that creates a sense of place. Ridgefield is fortunate to have good urban form, and a strong sense of place. In Ridgefield, the historic main street buildings are still mostly intact. They face the street with welcoming facades, rather than being removed from the street behind rows of parked cars. And unlike many other small towns in the western US, the main street does not double as a state highway, carrying large volumes of cars to somewhere else—“through” the town, rather than “to” it. These and other things contribute to the sense of arrival that many participants in the Design Workshops commented on, when asked the question: “what specific elements give Ridgefield its character?” Many visitors, residents and customers arrive in Ridgefield after traveling down Pioneer Street, past forested areas and open country, then to the red barn at the bend in the road, then through a segment of Pioneer that is defined by residential structures facing the street but set back about twenty feet. Finally, at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Pioneer, the buildings form a dramatic enclosure to the street and this pattern is continued for 1-1/2 blocks. The strength of this pattern is what led Urbsworks to declare that one of the most important aspects of Ridgefield to be preserved is its urban form. Many people assume that the most important features contributing to Ridgefield’s character are the materials, detailing and color of the buildings. While these are important (and thoroughly addressed in Chapters 3), no amount of paint, expensive material and fancy decoration can make up for bad urban form. If you have good urban form, everything else falls into place. That is why it is important to place this chapter first. The design of the space between buildings is as important as the design of the buildings themselves. They are the public rooms of Ridgefield. Entry District 2 Downtown District 3 1 Countryside After travelling through the countryside and the “entry district,” one arrives at the intersec- tion of 3rd Avenue and Pioneer, where the buildings form a dramatic enclosure to the street and this pattern is continued for 1-1/2 blocks. Chapter 1 Urban Form 9City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important “Height-to-width ratio,” meaning “building height to street width relationship” is a formula that has been used by city designers to create pleasing public spaces since the Renaissance. One of the most important elements of Ridgefield’s good urban form is the spatial enclosure created by street width to building enclosure, especially on the 1-1/2 block segment of Pioneer between 3rd Avenue and Main Avenue. This issue should be considered when establishing an appropriate minimum and maximum building height. As a general rule, a ratio of 1 : 3 is an effective minimum to create spatial enclosure. How does Ridgefield measure up? At 3rd and Pioneer, at City Hall, the ratio is 1 : 2.3 (building height : street width) At Main Avenue Pioneer, at the Hardware store, the ratio is 1 : 1.75 (building height : street width) According to the formula, Ridgefield, with a street width of approximately 60 feet, should strive for a minimum building height of 20.’ Street to Building Relationship Urban Form Even when the building is a single story, its perceived height can be increased through a façade treatment such as the “false front.” 10 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Along Pioneer Street, between Main Avenue and 4th Avenue, Ridgefield currently has a building height-to-width ratio that • establishes a strong sense of urban enclosure; and • by contrasting with the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods, with their patterns of lower scale buildings set back from the street, creates a sense of arrival. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Consider requiring all new buildings within the study area to meet a minimum height of 20 feet and maximum setback of 0.’ 2) Even when the building is a single story, this guideline can be met through a façade treatment such as the “false front.” 3) Consider allowing flexibility on the maximum height of buildings within the study area. Consider requiring new buildings to demonstrate the height-to-width ratio that would result. 4) Consider allowing mixed use buildings that accommodate one or more floors of residential and/or office to build up to the highest acceptable height. Urban Form Ratio 1:2.3—City Hall Ratio 1:1.75—Hardware Store “The height-to-width ratio of the space generates spatial enclosure, which is related to the physiology of the human eye. If the width of the public space is such that the cone of vision encompasses less street wall than sky opening, the degree of spatial enclosure is slight. The ratio of 1 increment of height to 6 of width is the absolute minimum, with 1 to 3 being an effective minimum if spatial enclosure is to result. As a general rule, the tighter the ratio, the stronger the sense of place and, often, the higher the real estate value.” Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk et al, Architectural Graphic Standards, Ninth Edition Ratio 1:2.3—City Hall Ratio 1:1.75—Hardware Store Ratio 1:3—Effective Minimum Ratio for Spatial Enclosure 11City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important In downtown areas such as the Ridgefield Study Area, corner buildings are more important than in-line buildings. Corner buildings must face two streets, not just one. Corner buildings mark the extent of the block, so it’s important that they meet the minimum height (at least), and have a physical prominence. In many towns and cities, the most valuable real estate is the corner sites. In real estate and retail parlance, four corners at an important intersection is the “100% intersection.“ Ridgefield’s 100% intersection is probably the intersection of Pioneer Street and Main Avenue. The Hardware store takes advantage of the prominent site. The other three corners—two vacant and one with a one story building—present an opportunity for future development to finish the intersection urban form. The Importance of Corners Urban Form Corner buildings have a responsibility to mark intersections, and to strengthen and mark the extent of the block. When the corners of blocks are marked well, lots in between can be lower height buildings or even vacant and not erode the urban form as much as a vacant corner. In many towns and cities, the most valuable real estate is the corner sites. In real estate and retail parlance, four corners at an important intersection is the “100% intersection.“ 12 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Along Pioneer Street, between Main Avenue and 4th Avenue, Ridgefield has prominent corner buildings at some corners. These buildings should be used as an example to guide future development at the remaining corners, to • mark the blocks and intersections; and • establish importance of the intersection of Main Avenue and Pioneer Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Consider requiring all new corner buildings within the study area to meet a maximum setback of 0’ and a minimum height of 30 feet or at least two levels. 2) Encourage new buildings to respond to other corner buildings by facing the corners with windows or entries, accentuated building forms or chamfered corners. Urban Form The City Hall at the corner of Pioneer and 3rd Avenue. Above, facing 3rd Avenue. The hardware store at the corner of Pioneer and Main Avenue is a marker. It is finished with main street facade treatment on two sides, not just one.Corner buildings can define intersections as special places. Here two examples of buildings that face the corner with special treatment. On the left, a chamfered corner, windows and a balcony; on the right, accentuated building forms and an inset entry. Ridgefield’s 100% intersection. MAIN AV E N U E P ION E E R View to Natural Area Above, facing Pioneer. 13City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important Alleys are very important for locating service-related functions, such as garbage pick up and loading docks away from the main street. Ridgefield is fortunate to have an extensive, well-main- tained alley system within the study area. Many other cities struggle without them or have not maintained theirs. Because the alleys are more utilitarian than the main street, they can be very interesting places, more casual in character, as well as offering a secondary path-way system through the downtown. In addition they can offer downtown locations for small or startup businesses at a lower cost. Ridgefield’s Alleys Urban Form FOR M A L F A C A D E S FACE S T R E E T S INFOR M A L F A C A D E S FACE AL L E Y S Because the alleys are more utilitarian than the main street, they can be very interesting places, more casual in character The north-south alley system through Ridgefield offers a secondary path-way system through the downtown. PIONEERMAIN AVENUE 14 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Ridgefield has an intact, well maintained alley system that runs north-south through most blocks within the study area. These al- leys provide • an important location for the service functions of buildings; and • an interesting secondary pathway system that is different in character from the main streets—less formal and more casual. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, con- sider the following guidelines: 1) Encourage strong differentiation of Ridgefield’s alleys from its main streets, both in building form as well as materials and colors. On the main streets, materials and colors are limited to a more restrained palette (see Chapter 3). Encourage a more ex- pansive palette to be used on the alley-facing sides of buildings. Similarly, where facades facing the main street are encouraged to enclose the street through strict geometric form, encourage facades facing the alley to be more expressive and experimental in form. Urban Form Encourage a more expansive palette of colors to be used on the alley-facing sides of buildings. 15City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important “What are the most important things in Ridgefield to regulate?” Question posed at the Design Workshops “What’s most important is the façade.” Fran Kemper, Ridgefield Design Committee It’s true that in Ridgefield, with its good urban form, the façade is a focus. However, before any discussion of the materials and detailing of the facades themselves (addressed in Chapters 3) it helps to understand the façade’s role in defining Urban Form. Looking at Urban Form forces a shift in emphasis from the individual buildings to the ensemble of buildings, their unifying elements and their collective role in defining space. This is a way of seeing the street not as a corridor or a left over space, but rather as a lively, vital place of its own. At this level, think about Ridgefield’s ensembles of buildings and how they form the walls of Ridgefield’s grand public rooms—the street spaces. In Ridgefield the rooms have an additional role: they focus the view towards the natural area—the rolling hills, the Lake River waterfront, and the National Wildlife Refuge. The Facade as a Wall; Streets as Rooms Urban Form 16 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Along Pioneer Street, building ensembles form a cohesive wall that • encloses the street, and • focuses the view toward the river and natural area. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Before examining the materials and detailing of a new building façade or a facade improvement, consider its role in enclosing the street and focusing the view. 2) Consider the façade as part of an ensemble of buildings with both unifying elements such as the “base, body, and cornice,” (see Chapter 2), and differentiating elements such as color, materials and architectural style (see Chapter 3). Urban Form The false front. In Ridgefield the rooms have an additional role: they focus the view towards the natural area—the rolling hills, the Lake River waterfront, and the National Wildlife Refuge. Even smaller one-story buildings play an important role in the building ensemble. Here, two Ridgefield buildings put on an impressive front. 17City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Building Form Building Form 2.1 THE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL 2.2 BUILDING PROGRAMMABILITY & ADAPTABILITY 2.3 BUILDING ORIENTATION 2.4 BACKGROUND BUILDINGS & CIVIC BUILDINGS 2.5 THE BASE, BODY & CORNICE What is building form? Why is it important? Often, building form—that is, a building’s bulk, height and massing, and its ability to adapt to changing uses over time—can be more important than the materials and detail of the building. Each building has several roles to play: first, as a member of an ensemble of buildings that together create urban enclosure, mark corners, create pleasing and inviting street walls and frame views. Another role buildings play is housing and marking important civic functions, such as City Hall, Police Station and Post Office. Buildings also provide the well-designed rooms where people live and work. Since buildings last a long time, these rooms should be designed to accommodate different uses over time, to bring diverse uses to an area and respond to changing market and real estate demands. Chapter 2 Building Form 19City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important For Ridgefield —the economically viable, pedestrian friendly village– a street level that is animated and inviting is of primary importance. The pedestrian level is usually the first experience visitors have. In fact, people often don’t notice the upper levels of the buildings unless they live or work in the building. Retail and inviting storefronts with merchandise spilling out on to the sidewalk support healthy commercial activity. More passive uses at the ground level, such as professional offices, should also have inviting architectural treatment at the pedestrian level. The pedestrian level of buildings include the side walk zone. Good sidewalks have three distinct zones: • The building frontage, for display of merchandise, for stopping and viewing and window shopping, and for outside café tables • The through pedestrian zone • The plant strip/buffer zone, for street furniture such as benches, garbage receptacles, newspaper stands, kiosks and street trees The Pedestrian Level Building Form Cafe seating in the building frontage zone. 20 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Within the Ridgefield study area, especially along Pioneer Street, the street level of buildings create an animated, inviting pedestrian friendly environment through • storefront windows • merchandise displays at the frontage zone of the sidewalk Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) The Downtown Mixed Use zone (18.500.050) standard requires “At least twenty percent of the wall area facing the street to have windows.” Consider requiring all buildings within the study area to exceed the minimum standard for windows facing the street at the pedestrian level. 2) Consider requiring new buildings within the study area to be designed to accommodate future retail, even if the near term planned use is more passive, such as professional offices. 3) Encourage awnings and storefront design that allows for merchandise displays or café seating in the frontage zone. Building Form Merchandise display in the frontage zone on Pioneer Street. The Downtown Mixed Use zone (18.500.050) standard requires “At least twenty percent of the wall area facing the street to have windows.” Consider requiring all buildings within the study area to exceed the minimum standard for windows facing the street at the pedestrian level. a. Consider requiring new buildings within the study area to be designed to accommodate future retail, even if the near term planned use is more passive, such as professional offices. b. Encourage awnings and storefront design that allows for merchandise displays or café seating in the frontage zone. In front of the cafe, seating in the frontage zone. a. frontage zone: canopy & merchandise display. b. through pedestrian zone. c. street furniture and street tree zone. ab c a abb 21City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important Reuse and rehabilitate existing buildings whenever possible. Require new buildings to be constructed of high quality materials and built to last. Rooms within should lend themselves to changing uses over time. Main street buildings should be able to accommodate retail at the ground floor, even if the current market doesn’t support commercial uses. Building Programm- ability & Adaptability Building Form Rooms over the Hardware Store. Rooms within downtown buildings should lend themselves to changing uses over time. 22 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Within the Ridgefield study area, buildings have accommodated changing uses over time, such as the • City Hall—first constructed to house a bank, now houses the City administrative offices and Council chambers • Liberty Theater—first constructed as a theater, now serves as a coffee shop and music/meeting hall Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Consider requiring new or rehabilitated buildings to build a floor to ceiling height of at least 15 feet, and be fire rated construction to accommodate future or immediate retail or restaurant. 2) Consider requiring the upper levels of the building to be designed to accommodate housing or office. Building Form 1) Consider requiring new or rehabilitated buildings to build a floor to ceiling height of at least 15 feet, and be fire rated construction to accommodate future or immediate retail or restaurant. 2) Consider requiring the upper levels of the building to be designed to accommodate housing or office. 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 23City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important Typically, buildings in Downtown Ridgefield have two orientations, to the main street and to the alley. Corner buildings have two street faces. Ridgefield’s street facing facades typically sit immediately at the back of the sidewalk (have a zero foot setback), and have inviting storefronts at the pedestrian level. Where buildings have more than one level, they have large windows facing the street on upper levels. This pattern contributes to the visual connection between the inside and outside of buildings, and fosters safety and security in the public street spaces. Urban designers refer to this as “eyes on the street.” Similar physical and visual connection should be fostered on alley facing buildings to foster a safe and secure environment there as well. Building Orientation Building Form The City Hall at the corner of Pioneer and 3rd Avenue, facing 3rd Avenue. The hardware store at the corner of Pioneer and Main Avenue is a marker. It is finished with main street facade treatment on two sides, not just one. ...and facing Pioneer. 24 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Within the Ridgefield study area, especially along Pioneer Street, the orientation of buildings fosters a safe, inviting and attractive environment at the street level through • visual and physical connections between the inside and outside of buildings. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) The Downtown Mixed Use zone (18.500.050) standard requires “At least twenty percent of the wall area facing the street to have windows.” Consider requiring all buildings within the study area to exceed the minimum standard for windows facing the street at upper levels. 2) Consider requiring alley facing facades to place windows facing the alley at alley level and/or upper levels of buildings. Building Form FOR M A L F A C A D E S FACE S T R E E T S INFOR M A L F A C A D E S FACE AL L E Y S Typically, buildings in Downtown Ridgefield have two orientations, to the main street and to the alley. Eyes on the street and alley. 25City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important Ridgefield has a good balance of background buildings and “civic” buildings. The City Hall building and the Police Station building have extra ornamentation and more impressive architecture, befitting their civic function. Traditionally, financial institutions and government buildings have more monumental architecture, which explains the City Hall building’s style, as it accommodated a bank before was adapted to house City administrative functions and Council Chambers. Background building—sometimes referred to as “filler” buildings or “fabric” buildings—fill the spaces in between and house offices, stores and living units. Together these two types of buildings form the important ensembles that create urban enclosure and street walls. On the main street, maintaining a balance between the two is important. Important sites warrant more monumental architecture, and possibly important civic functions as well. Background Buildings & “Civic” Buildings Building Form Extra ornamentations and more monumental architecture at the Police Station and the Hardware store. 26 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Within the Ridgefield study area, a pleasing balance between background buildings and monumental civic buildings is maintained through • Ornamented architecture that is limited to important civic buildings or important markers, such as the Hardware store, the Police Station and City hall. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Important sites warrant more monumental architecture. Consider the developing goals for future architecture on undeveloped sites—should the site accommodate a background building or a monument building? Two especially important sites are the vacant lots directly across Main Avenue from the Hardware store and the grocery store. 2) When evaluating new buildings or remodels that propose significant changes to the style of the building, consider the role of the building within the ensemble of buildings that form the block front. Is it a background building or a monument building? Building Form City Hall Background building: Offices on Pioneer Street. Background building: Grocery Store on southeast corner of Pioneer and Main Street. Hardware Store marking northeast corner of Pioneer and Main Street. 27City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important These define the lines and bands of materials that separate the storefront level from the middle, or “body” of the building and the top, or cornice level. When carried across buildings, these bands provide unifying effect, even while individual buildings are very different in material, size and design. These lines help bond an ensemble of buildings, and reinforce the street enclosure and the “façade as wall” concept. The base of the building can include façade elements that also support the pedestrian activity and storefronts at the street level, including masonry-belt courses, canopies, awnings, signs and storefront transom windows. The Base, Body & Cornice Building Form A very fancy cornice on an early 20th century building. 28 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement Within the Ridgefield study area, buildings express the base, body and cornice level of buildings through façade elements such as • Base elements: storefront transom windows, signs, canopies and awnings • Body elements: bands of masonry or wood marking demarcating window courses or groups of windows • Cornice elements: simple masonry bands, wood overhangs with brackets and stone and wood cornices. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Consider requiring new buildings and remodels to design buildings with a base, body and cornice. 2) Consider requiring new buildings to demonstrate the relationship between its proposed façade elements and those of the existing adjacent buildings. Building Form BASE MIDDLE TOP The Hardware store demarcates base and body through simple wood trim bands. The top cornice is formed from a wood trim band, a plain entablature, and a wooden bracketed overhang. BASE MIDDLE TOP BASE MIDDLE TOP How the base, body and cornice system works on buildings of different heights. Above, a 2 story building; below, a 3 story building. 2 Story Building 3 Story Building 29City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Materials, Detailing & Color Materials, Detailing and Color 3.1 RIDGEFIELD’S BUILDINGS AT NIGHT 3.2 THE COLOR OF DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD 3.3 BUILDING MATERIALS 3.4 THE DOORS AND WINDOWS OF RIDGEFIELD 3.5 THE STOREFRONTS OF RIDGEFIELD Chapter 3 Materials, Detailing & Color 31City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important The experience of Ridgefield at night is very different from the daytime experience. The City has not yet installed street lighting in the downtown district. The pleasing character of Ridgefield at night is the result of those lights mounted on the building façades that cast a soft light onto the sidewalk and focus attention on building entrances and architectural details. The light from within building storefront windows also contributes to the general illumination, as well as adding animation, interest, and vitality to the streetscape at night. This is the combination of lighting sources and techniques that can be used to create an ambiance, atmosphere, and magical character, while at the same time ensuring security. A combination of storefront lighting and building mounted lighting that is both functional and architecturally compatible is strongly encouraged for all new projects. When the City is able to complete its program of street lighting, that program will reinforce and complement those projects completed using these design guidelines. Rather than eliminating the need for careful consideration of building illumination, a program of street lighting will supplement the contribution made by individual building projects to the unique character of Ridgefield. Ridgefield’s Buildings at Night Materials, Detailing & Colors Ridgefield City Hall at night. 32 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement The character of Ridgefield is extended into the evening and nighttime by the contribution of building-integrated lighting and storefront lighting. At night, the daytime views of the hills and river are lost. Instead, the character of Ridgefield is about the soft glow of lighting cast onto the sidewalks and the inviting sparkle of storefront lighting. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this essential pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Choose lighting fixtures that complement the design of the project, are appropriate to the character, style, and scale of the project and reinforce the character of Ridgefield; 2) Choose lighting fixtures that perform an aesthetic function, such as those on the City Hall; 3) Choose lighting fixtures that perform an architectural function, such as hidden lighting for signs and other architectural details; 4) Carefully consider the design of storefronts and entrances with consideration to the issue of illumination; 5) Carefully consider the purpose of each light fixture, and its placement and aim so as to maximize its utility and minimize negative impacts, such as glare or unnecessary illumination of the sky. 6) Consider of all light fixtures to minimize unnecessary illumination of the sky; 7) Consider whether to continue a “theme” light fixture –such as those on City Hall– that would extend a design theme within the downtown against creating an element unique to the project; Materials, Detailing & Color City Hall lights during the day. Carefully consider the design of storefronts and entrances with consideration to the issue of illumination. 8) Consider maintenance and operational requirements for re- lamping all light fixtures (a burnt out light fixture is worse than no light fixture); The light from within the building storefront windows also contributes to the general illumination, as well as adding animation, interest, and vitality to the streetscape at night. 33City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important The color of downtown Ridgefield should reflect its natural environment: earth tones from the hills and plants and the colors of the sky and clouds –especially as they are reflected in the water of Lake River. Colors are inherent in the materials used to construct projects as well as the colors applied to the project as finishes. Materials intended for use in the project, such as brick or stone, have their own unique colors. Materials are discussed in section 2.3.3 of the Design Guidelines. The inherent color of these natural materials should also reflect the natural environment of Ridgefield. For example, brick is available in colors ranging from black, to red, to buff, to brown. Only some of the colors of brick will be appropriate for projects in Ridgefield. The colors for all streets within the design district should be selected from this palette of natural color. Brilliant, full-saturated colors should be carefully considered and used only as accents within a larger color palette. A wider range of colors can be considered for the alleys. As part of its incentive-based design guideline program, the City has offered to institute a design assistance program to help applicants prepare a color palette that reflects the goals of Ridgefield. The Color of Downtown Ridgefield Materials, Detailing & Color City Hall brick.Hardware store wood trim. 34 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement In order to enhance the unique character of Ridgefield and strengthen its connection to its natural setting, all projects should consider the contribution that color can make. Colors matching those of the surrounding landscape, vegetation, and sky should be the primary source of color palettes for all projects. Therefore consider the following guidelines when designing your project. Guidelines Appropriate use of color represents an opportunity to reinforce and enhance downtown Ridgefield. 1) Consider the finish materials for the project first when developing a palette of colors; 2) Consider the colors of Ridgefield that reflect its natural environment first when developing a color palette; 3) Consider resources such as Benjamin Moore or Miller Paint for historically appropriate colors; 4) Consider resources such as the design assistant program when developing a color palette; 5) Consider maintenance and repair when developing a color palette. Materials, Detailing & Color Main street palette shared reflect Ridgefield’s natural environment. Brilliant, full-saturated colors should be carefully considered and used only as accents within a larger color palette. A wider range of colors can be considered for the alleys. Allow more expressive color. 35City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important We should have a few minimums, on materials and style. Don’t build warehouse-type buildings with corrugated metal for example. “This is Ridgefield’s ‘main street’—industrial materials are not appropriate.”Workshop participant Unlike pure, abstract color as considered in Guideline 2.3.2, building materials provide a deeper, richer character by virtue of their inherent textures. Brick is available in many colors, but it is also available in many textures. Beyond that the visual effect of a brick wall is a function of the scale of the brick, its individual texture, the mortar joint detail, and the pattern of the bricks in place. There are four primary materials that are historically appropriate for Ridgefield: stone, brick, stucco, and wood. The City Hall uses both stone and brick to establish its presence and significance on Pioneer Street. The Hardware Store is constructed and detailed using wood, Both of these buildings are appropriate for Ridgefield. Each should be considered as examples from which to learn when designing a new project for downtown. Since not every building in downtown has to be a “monument,” other materials –like stucco– are also appropriate. Beyond the discussion of the four primary materials for new buildings in downtown Ridgefield, there are supporting materials that should be considered when designing a new project: glass and fabric. The importance of the pedestrian level experience of each new project has been discussed in Section 2.2.1. The primary contributor to the quality of the pedestrian experience is Building Materials Materials, Detailing & Color 36 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines appropriately scaled and proportioned expanses of clear glazing. Tinted or opaque glass is strongly discouraged. Awnings which extend from the storefront over the sidewalk represent a gracious way to define space, protect pedestrians from the elements, “frame” the storefront windows, and advertise ones business. Appropriate materials for awnings are glass in metal frames and fabric. Metal or vinyl awnings are strongly discouraged. Purpose Statement The history of Ridgefield provides us with the appropriate patterns for future downtown development. Buildings like the Hardware Store and City Hall represent how corner buildings on significant sites could be designed. Other buildings, like the Liberty Theater or Lily Wiggans, provide positive examples of how other buildings constructed within the fabric of significant sites can make significant contributions to the character of Ridgefield. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, it’s important to consider the location of the project, the historic context for the project, and the scale of the project. Therefore consider the following guidelines: 1) Consider the location of the project –corner, mid-block, or alley– when selecting primary materials for the project; 2) Consider selecting the primary materials for all projects from the four primary materials used historically in Ridgefield; stone, brick, stucco, and wood; 3) Consider the historic patterns for architectural detailing or combining these primary materials; 4) Use appropriate material selections to reinforce the hierarchy and character of the building form. For example, use stone as a Materials, Detailing & Color base, with brick or stucco as the body, and brick, stucco, or wood as a cornice; 5) Use the best material that meets the budget for the project in the simplest way possible, for example use stucco rather than “thin” brick; Consider selecting the primary materials for all projects from the four primary materials used historically in Ridgefield; stone, brick, stucco, and wood. 37City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important The experience of every visitor to Ridgefield can be positively reinforced with careful consideration to the doors and windows of each new project. This is level of scale where the details are most closely observed and directly experienced. Modern technologies and materials have made it possible to construct doors and windows that are much more efficient and more waterproof than they once were. On the other hand, they often look “modern” and they can negatively impact the character of buildings intended to blend into historic surroundings. Often these doors and windows appear too “flat” and do not have the same character of older buildings constructed with thicker materials. The visual result is that new buildings that have not been carefully detailed can appear flat, or “fake” when adjacent to buildings that are truly historic or built with respect to historic patterns for thick walls. This difference is most readily apparent when viewed in conditions with strong natural light and deep shadows. The modern building’s lack of depth is obvious when compared with the animation provided by light and shadow of the historic building. Windows. The Hardware Store represents the oldest original pattern of fenestration in Ridgefield. The windows there are extremely simple in design. The major element of each storefront window is a pair of transparent panes of glass separated by a simple vertical mullion and surmounted by clerestory windows. The clerestory windows have a relatively simple pattern of subdivisions with stained glass. The design guidelines recommend that windows should be no more extravagantly detailed than these. Doors. The doors of Ridgefield are a place where expressions of individuality are most appropriate. In almost all cases, however, a major element of the door should be glass. This pattern is reflected in virtually all of the doors of downtown Ridgefield. The Doors & Windows of Ridgefield Materials, Detailing & Color 38 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement The historic pattern of downtown Ridgefield is one where most buildings were constructed with thick walls where the windows and doors were set back from the building face. These doors and windows were simply constructed with minimal extraneous detailing. In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, it’s important to carefully observe the actual pattern of historic doors and windows rather than substitute “flourishes” that represent modern interpretation of historic themes. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Consider replicating the scale, proportion, and position of the historic pattern of doors and windows when designing new projects. Use window and door placement to reinforce the “thickness” of building walls –and by extension the solidity and permanence of the building; 2) Consider the hierarchy of the existing historic windows in Ridgefield, such as those of the Hardware Store, that are extremely simple in form but enhanced by clerestory windows with true divided lights. 3) Consider using doors and windows that match historic patterns for construction and detailing rather than those that “look” historic. For example, use windows with true divided lights rather than solid panes of glazing with applied trims which attempt to mimic the effect of divided lights. 4) Consider the opportunities for design expression when selecting doors for new projects. Reflect on the designs already in place in downtown buildings; 5) Consider reserving the “fanciest” details for the smallest elements, such as door hardware, hinges, locks, and handles. Materials, Detailing & Color Consider the hierarchy of the existing historic windows in Ridgefield, such as those of the Hardware Store, that are extremely simple in form but enhanced by clerestory windows with true divided lights. Conside window and door placement to reinforce the “thickness” of building walls –and by extension the solidity and permanence of the building. 39City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Why This Is Important The storefront level of downtown Ridgefield is where motorists and pedestrians confirm their initial impressions about the character of the city. All of the elements of urban form, street enclosure, the pedestrian realm, street furniture, etc. help define the scale and form of Ridgefield. The Storefronts of Ridgefield Materials, Detailing & Color Hardware store Cafe Lily Wiggans 40 City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines Purpose Statement What truly reinforces the character of Ridgefield is the pattern of storefront development. The storefronts animate the public realm. They provide a lens that looks both in both directions, projecting the personality of the individual business outward while offering an invitation to enter. The adaptability of buildings over time indicates that all new projects in the Downtown Ridgefield District (as defined by the study area) should feature storefront design. Guidelines In order to preserve, extend and/or strengthen this pattern, consider the following guidelines: 1) Because the storefront is an important component of the character of Ridgefield, consider requiring that every application demonstrate how the proposal contributes to the storefront level of Ridgefield. 2) Consider creating a storefront pattern of development for all ground floor street-fronting projects. Materials, Detailing & Color The storefronts provide a lens that looks in both directions, projecting the personality of the individual business outward while offering an invitation to enter. The storefronts animate the public realm. Because the storefront is an important component of the character of Ridgefield, consider requiring that every application demonstrate how the proposal contributes to the storefront level of Ridgefield. 41City of Ridgefield Urban Design Guidelines The Design Review Process The Design Review Process 65 APPENDIX F: DOWNTOWN RIDGEFIELD PLANNING GUIDELINES (2002) $/7.4/7.4(%(%!24 /&2)$'%&)%,$ $OWNTOWN2IDGElELDHASALWAYSBEENTHETRADITIONALHEARTOF THECOMMUNITY$OWNTOWNISTHESOCIALCOMMERCIALGOVERN MENTALANDCROSSROADSOFOLD2IDGElELD(OWEVERTHISCENTRAL POSITIONISLIKELYTOBECHALLENGEDASTHECOMMUNITYANDREGION FOCUSUPONTHEDEVELOPMENTOFTHEREGIONALINDUSTRIALAND COMMERCIALPROPERTYANDINFRASTRUCTUREATTHE) *UNCTION 2IDGElELDSTANDSPOISEDFORDRAMATICGROWTH%VERYSEGMENT OFTHECOMMUNITYISPREPARINGFORSUCHGROWTHEXCEPTDOWN TOWN4HE0ORTOF2IDGElELDHASCOMPLETEDAMASTER PLANNING PROGRAMATTHE,AKE2IVERWATERFRONT4HE2IDGElELD.ATIONAL 7ILDLIFE2EFUGEISPLANNINGFORTHEEXPANSIONOFITSINTERPRETIVE ANDVISITORFACILITIESINANTICIPATIONOFTHE,EWISAND#LARK"I #ENTENNIALHEPLANSINCLUDEANEWINTERPRETIVECENTERATTHE REFUGEANDADOWNTOWNINFORMATIONKIOSKTOINFORM,EWISAND #LARKVISITORSINANDBEYOND3IGNIlCANTNEWDEVELOP MENTACTIVITYISUNFOLDINGATTHE2IDGElELD) JUNCTION4HE#ITY HASISSUEDPRELIMINARYSUBDIVISIONAPPROVALFORNEARLYNEW HOMESSURROUNDINGDOWNTOWN4HE#ITYISINVESTINGINCAPITAL FACILITIESTOACCOMMODATETHEEXPECTEDNEAR TERMGROWTH $OWNTOWN2IDGElELDHASENJOYEDTHECONSTRUCTIONOFANEW 0OST/FlCEAND#ITY0OLICEBUILDINGSIGNALINGTHECITYSCOM MITMENTTOKEEPTHECOREOFGOVERNMENTALACTIVITIESINTHE DOWNTOWNAREA)NDIVIDUALBUSINESSLEADERSAREINVESTINGIN ANDREHABILITATINGOLDERDOWNTOWNBUILDINGS/NTHEOTHER HANDTHEPRIVATESECTORHASNOTCOMMITTEDTOMANYNEW BUILDINGSINTHEDOWNTOWNCORE )N2IDGElELDALLROADSLEADTOANDFROMDOWNTOWNWHETHER ONEISTRAVELINGTOTHE7ILDLIFE2EFUGETHE0OST/FlCE THE#ITYGOVERNMENTBUILDINGSSCHOOLSRESIDENTIALAREAS OROUTTOTHE) *UNCTIONS9ETTHECOMMUNITYHASNOCOORDI NATEDPLANTOPROTECTORENHANCEDOWNTOWN2IDGElELD4HE COMMONREFRAININTOWNISTOWONDERh7ITHEVERYTHINGPOISEDTO HAPPENHOWCAN2IDGElELDPRESERVEITSSENSEOFPLACE(OWCANIT PROTECTANDENHANCEITSVILLAGE LIKEATMOSPHERETHATEVERYONEENJOYS SOMUCHv 4HE#ITYGOVERNMENTANDBUSINESSLEADERSOF2IDGElELDARE UNWILLINGTOALLOWTHEANTICIPATEDNEWGROWTHTOECLIPSETHE ROLEOFDOWNTOWNASTHETRADITIONALHEARTOFTHECOMMUNITY $/7.4/7.0,!..).' '2!.4'/!,3 )NTHEYEARTHE#ITYAPPLIEDFORANDRECEIVEDFUNDING FROMTHE#LARK#OUNTY$EPARTMENTOF#OMMUNITY3ERVICES #OMMUNITY$EVELOPMENT"LOCK'RANTPROGRAM4HElVE MAJORGOALSOFTHEPLANNINGPROJECTINCLUDE Z$EVELOPMENTOFALEADERSHIPCOMMITTEEOFPRIVATEAND PUBLICINTERESTSTOACTASTHECENTRALGUIDANCEGROUP Z#REATIONOFMULTIPLEPUBLICFORUMSFORDISCUSSIONOFDOWN TOWNSTRENGTHSWEAKNESSESANDNEEDS Z#REATIONOFANACTIONPLANWITHhBITESIZEDvMEASURABLE GOALSFORONETHREEANDlVEYEARINCREMENTSTHATWILL ADDRESSISSUESSUCHASAVISIONFORDOWNTOWNABUSINESS PLANFORDOWNTOWNCREATINGAMARKETNICHEBUSINESS RECRUITMENTCREATINGLASTINGLINKSWITHINTERESTGROUPS INFRASTRUCTUREPARKINGFUNDINGINCENTIVESREGULATIONS DESIGNANDAMENITIESCOMMUNITYEVENTSANDPROMOTION ANDTAXSTRUCTURE Z0RESENTATIONOFPLANNINGGUIDELINESTOTHECOMMUNITY ANDTHE#ITY#OUNCILFORREVIEWANDADOPTION Z,ONGTERMIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEADOPTEDPLANSWITH PROVISIONSFORPERIODICREVIEWANDUPDATINGOFTHE PLANNINGGUIDELINES ,%!$%23()0#/--)44%% 4HE#ITYINITIALLYCREATEDATASKFORCEOFPUBICAND PRIVATELEADERSTOLEADTHEPLANNINGEFFORTS4HETASK FORCEMEMBERSINCLUDEDTHEDIRECTOROFTHE2IDGElELD #HAMBEROF#OMMERCEDOWNTOWNBUSINESSLEADERS THECITYMANAGERAREPRESENTATIVEOFTHEPLANNING COMMISSIONANDTHEPLANNINGDIRECTOR 4HElRSTOBJECTIVEOFTHETASKFORCEWASTOINVITEANATIONALLY RECOGNIZEDDOWNTOWNBUSINESSCONSULTANTTO2IDGElELD *ON3CHALLERTCAMETO2IDGElELDIN-AYOFTOPROVIDE OVERALLGUIDANCEONHOWMAKEDOWNTOWN2IDGElELDA DESTINATIONSHOPPINGANDBUSINESSAREAASWELLASTOPROVIDE INDIVIDUALIZEDASSESSMENTSOFSIXDOWNTOWNBUSINESSES 4HEPUBLICMEETINGSHELDINTHEOLD,IBERTY4HEATERATTRACTED MORETHANPEOPLEINTERESTEDINDOWNTOWNREVITALIZATION ANDDESTINATIONRETAILING!SARESULTOFTHEINDIVIDUALIZED BUSINESSASSESSMENTSSEVERALDOWNTOWNBUSINESSOWNERS HAVEMADECHANGESTOTHEPHYSICALLAYOUTOFTHEIRSTORESAND ADJUSTEDTHEIRMARKETINGSTRATEGIES-R3CHALLERTSRECOM MENDATIONSFORCREATINGh$ESTINATION$OWNTOWN2IDGElELDv AREOUTLINEDLATERINTHISREPORT $URINGTHESECONDPHASEOFTHEPLANNINGPROJECTTHELEADER SHIPCOMMITTEETURNEDITSATTENTIONONIDENTIFYINGTHEESSEN TIALELEMENTSOFADOWNTOWNPLANNINGPROGRAM$ISCUSSED LATERINTHEREPORTARETHEKEYELEMENTSOFTHEDOWNTOWN PLANNINGPROGRAM#ITIZEN0ARTICIPATION2EGULATORY2EVIEW AN!RCHITECTURAL)NVENTORY#ONCEPTUAL"UILDING$ESIGNS ASERIESOFBASEMAPSANDPLANSANDAN!CTION0LAN ).42/$5#4)/. $/7.4/7.2)$'%&)%,$ 0,!..).'02/'2!- '/!, $EVELOPMENTACTIVITYIN2IDGElELDSINCETHEADOPTIONOF THE'ROWTH-ANAGEMENT!CT'-! #OMPREHENSIVE0LAN HASBEENLIMITEDPRIMARILYTOSOMELIGHTINDUSTRIALAND COMMERCIALACTIVITYATTHE) *UNCTION.EWDEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWNDURINGTHESAMETIMEPERIODHASBEENLIMITED TOCONSTRUCTIONOFANEW530OST/FlCEANDCHANGING BUSINESSESWITHINEXISTINGBUILDINGS!SMOREDEVELOPMENT OCCURSATTHE) *UNCTIONTHE#ITY#OUNCILHASEXPRESSED CONCERNTHATEFFORTSBEMADETOHELPKEEPDOWNTOWNASA VIABLEPLACEFORCOMMERCIALANDBUSINESSDEVELOPMENT 4HE#ITYRECEIVEDA#OMMUNITY$EVELOPMENT"LOCK 'RANT#$"' INTOHELPDEVELOPANACTIONPLAN TOHELPGUIDEDOWNTOWNREVITALIZATIONOVERTHENEXTlVE YEARS4HEPROJECTSTUDYAREAENCOMPASSESLANDSFROM,AKE 2IVERTOTH3TREETANDFROM-ILL3TREETTO3ARGENT3TREET !NENDPRODUCTOFTHISPLANNINGEFFORTWOULDCREATEADESTI NATIONAREAFORDOWNTOWN2IDGElELDTHATPROVIDESQUALITY MERCHANDISESERVICEANDACTIVITIESWITHINANAMBIENCETHAT ISUNIQUETO2IDGElELDANDNOTREADILYAVAILABLEELSEWHERE 2IDGElELDHASABUNDANTRESOURCESTODRAWUPONINCLUDING ITSSMALLTOWNCHARACTERANDCHARMTHENATURALSURROUNDINGS SUCHASTHEROLLINGHILLSTHE,AKE2IVERWATERFRONTANDTHE 2IDGElELD.ATIONAL7ILDLIFE2EFUGEITSATTRACTIONTOARTISANS ITSRICH.ATIVE!MERICANARCHAEOLOGICALHISTORYANDITSASSOCI ATIONWITHTHE,EWISAND#LARK%XPEDITION7ITHINTHE'REATER 0ORTLAND6ANCOUVERAREATHEREAREMORETHAN PEOPLEWHOCOULDBECOME2IDGElELDVISITORSANDCUSTOMERS ATLEASTONCE 3#/0%/&7/2+ 4HE#ITYCOMPLETEDTHElRSTHALFOFTHE#$"'DOWNTOWN PLANNINGPROJECTWHENITBROUGHT*ON3CHALLERTANATIONALLY KNOWNANDRESPECTEDBUSINESSCONSULTANTINTO2IDGElELDFOR ADAYANDA HALFOFWORKSHOPSANDINDIVIDUALCONSULTATIONS WITHDOWNTOWN2IDGElELDMERCHANTS 4HESECONDMAJORCOMPONENTOFTHE#$"'PROJECTPROVIDES AFOUNDATIONFORDOWNTOWNPLANNINGARCHITECTURALDESIGN STANDARDSVEHICULARANDPEDESTRIANCIRCULATIONANDBUSINESS RECRUITMENT4HE#$"'PHASEOFTHEPROJECTENDED $ECEMBER #ITIZEN0ARTICIPATION 4HEPROJECTTEAMWILLCREATEAPUBLICINVOLVEMENT COMPONENTFORTHISPHASEOFTHE#$"'PROJECTAND FORFUTUREPLANNINGACTIVITY 2EGULATORY2EVIEW 4HEPLANNINGSTAFFANDTEAMMUSTREVIEWEXISTINGCITYREGULA TIONSSTANDARDSANDPRACTICESTODETERMINEWHETHERTHE#ITY CANIMPROVEITSREGULATORYANDADMINISTRATIVEPRACTICESRELA TIVETODOWNTOWNBUSINESSANDDEVELOPMENT)NADDITION THETEAMWILLCONSIDERANDRECOMMENDINCENTIVEPROGRAMS TOENCOURAGEDEVELOPMENTTHATISSENSITIVETOTHECHARACTER OFDOWNTOWN&OREXAMPLETHE#ITYCOULDWAIVEIMPACT FEESINTHEPROJECTAREAFORNEWSTRUCTURESTHATAREBUILTTO BEARCHITECTURALLYCOMPATIBLEWITHADOPTEDDESIGNSTANDARDS ANDTHATPROMOTEGROUNDmOORRETAILUSEANDUPPERmOOROFlCE ORRESIDENTIALUSE #REATEA"ASE0LAN -APOF$OWNTOWN 4HEPROJECTTEAMOFVOLUNTEERSANDCONSULTANTSPREPARED ABASEMASTERPLANOFTHEDOWNTOWNPLANNINGAREASHOWING THELOCATIONOFEXISTINGSTREETSANDALLEYSTRAFlCCIRCULATION PARKINGAREASUTILITIESAMENITIESPARKSEXISTINGBUSINESSES ANDKEYUSES4HEBASEMAPILLUSTRATEDLINKAGESTOEXISTING KEYUSESANDFEATURESSUCHAS!BRAMS0ARK+RAUSE"ARN ,AKE2IVERANDTHE#ARTY5NITOFTHE2IDGElELD.ATIONAL 7ILDLIFE2EFUGE )DENTIFY+EY&EATURESAND !RCHITECTURAL%LEMENTS3TYLES )NTHESUMMEROFTHEPROJECTTEAMPHOTOGRAPHED KEYBUILDINGSANDSTREETSCAPES4HISPHOTOGRAPHICSURVEY PRODUCEDANINVENTORYOFARCHITECTURALSTYLESANDELEMENTS THATAREREmECTIVEOFTHECHARACTEROFDOWNTOWN2IDGElELD 4HEINVENTORYISAPERMANENTRECORDOFEXISTINGDOWNTOWN 2IDGElELDTODAY4HISINVENTORYOFARCHITECTURALELEMENTSCAN BECOMEAPALETTEFROMWHICHFUTUREBUILDINGSMAYBEDRAWN ANDCONSTRUCTED&UTUREBUILDINGSMIGHTBESUBJECTTODESIGN REVIEWTOENSURETHATTHEINTEGRITYOFTHEDOWNTOWNCHARACTER ISNOTSUBSTANTIALLYALTEREDANDLOST #IRCULATION0LAN 4HEPROJECTWILLDEVELOPAPEDESTRIANANDVEHICULAR CIRCULATIONPLANTHATWILLLINKTOGETHERTHEKEYEXISTINGAND FUTUREELEMENTSOFTHEDOWNTOWNPLAN4HEPROJECTTEAMWILL WORKWITHTHE0ORTOF2IDGElELDTOENSURETHATIMPLEMENTA TIONOFBOTHTHE0ORTSMASTERPLANFORTHEWATERFRONTAND THE#ITYSDOWNTOWNPLANNINGEFFORTSCONSIDERTHETRAFlC CIRCULATIONANDSAFETYISSUESTHATARECENTRALTOEACH REDEVELOPMENTEFFORT 3TREETSCAPES 4HEPROJECTWILLDEVELOPASTREETSCAPESTANDARDCONSISTINGOF LIGHTSBENCHESTRELLISESPAVINGBRICKSANDAPPROPRIATETREES ANDVEGETATIONTHATWILLENHANCETHEARCHITECTURALCHARACTER ANDSMALLTOWNATMOSPHEREOFTHEDOWNTOWNAREA)NCLUDED INTHESTREETSCAPESTUDYISTHEIDENTIlCATIONOFVISUALPOINTSOF INTERESTTHATWILLDRAWVISITORSDOWNTHESTREETTOEXPERIENCE WHATLIESAHEAD %XISTING,OT#OVERAGE0LANS 4HEPROJECTDEVELOPEDAN@AS BUILTPLANTHATILLUSTRATESTHE FOOTPRINTSOFEXISTINGKEYBUILDINGSINTHECOREAREATODETER MINETHELOCATIONOFTHEBUILDINGONTHELOTANDTHEAMOUNTOF LOTCOVERAGE4HEPURPOSEOFTHESTUDYISTOCREATEANEGRESS ANDINGRESSACCESSPLANFORTHEBUILDINGANDTODETERMINE THEAMOUNTOFSPACEAVAILABLEFORBUILDINGEXPANSIONORFOR AMENITIESSUCHASPATIOSPARKINGORDININGAREAS "UILDING!NALYSIS 4HEPROJECTWILLEVALUATESELECTEDKEYBUILDINGSTODETERMINE WHETHER THEREISAMAXIMUMUSEOFSPACEANDWHETHER THEBUILDINGREmECTSTHEARCHITECTURALCHARACTEROF2IDGE lELDASDESCRIBEDINTHEINVENTORYOFARCHITECTURALELEMENTS 4HEANALYSISWILLMAKERECOMMENDATIONSFORDESIGNCONSIS TENCYANDWILLCOMMENTONOPPORTUNITIESTOMAXIMIZEUSEOF SPACE&OREXAMPLEAONE STORYBUILDINGMIGHTBEABLETO BEEXPANDEDINTOATWO STORYBUILDINGTOCREATEADDITIONAL GROUNDRETAILSPACEANDUPPERSTORYRESIDENTIALSPACE/R FOREXAMPLETHEMARKETBUILDINGONTHESOUTHEASTCORNEROF 0IONEERAND-AINSTREETSCOULDBEDIVIDEDSOASTOCREATE STOREFRONTWINDOWSONBOTHSTREETSANDOFlCEORCOMMERCIAL SPACEABOVE &UTURE5SE-ASTER0LAN 4HEPROJECTWILLCREATEAMAPBASEDUPONTHEEXISTINGCONDI TIONSSTUDIESDESCRIBEDABOVETHATIDENTIlESPOTENTIALSITES FORDEVELOPMENTOFFUTUREKEYBUILDINGSORFEATURESCONSISTENT WITHTHEDESTINATIONCHARACTEROFDOWNTOWN&OREXAMPLE IFTHEDOWNTOWNINTENDSTOCAPITALIZEUPONAFUTURETOURISM TRADEKEYFUTUREDEVELOPMENTSMIGHTINCLUDEA7ELCOME #ENTERLODGINGRESTAURANTSRECREATIONALRENTALSANDACCESS POINTSTONATURALORCULTURALRESOURCES4HEFUTUREUSEMAP WILLIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLOCATIONSFORTHESENEWBUSINESSES ORACTIVITIES/RFOREXAMPLEIFTHEDESTINATIONFOCUSOF DOWNTOWNISARTSORIENTEDFUTUREBUSINESSACTIVITIESMIGHT INCLUDEGALLERIESSTUDIOLIVINGSPACEOUTDOORPUBLICART AREASETC !CTION0LAN 4HElNALTASKISTOCREATEANACTIONPLANTHATOUTLINES CONCRETESTEPSTHE#ITYWILLUNDERTAKEOVERAlVEYEAR PERIODTOIMPLEMENTADOWNTOWNREVITALIZATIONPROCESS 0OTENTIALACTIONITEMSCOULDINCLUDE A ,IMITINGOPPORTUNITIESFORDEVELOPMENTNOTCONSISTENT WITHTHEDESTINATIONCHARACTEROFDOWNTOWN B 2EMOVINGGOVERNMENTALDISINCENTIVES C 3TREAMLININGTHEGOVERNMENTALPERMITTINGPROCESS D #REATINGINCENTIVEFORDEVELOPMENTCONSISTENTWITH THEDOWNTOWNVISION E $EVELOPINGAPLANFORTHEREUSEOFTHE@BUSBARN F 0REPARINGAPROSPECTUSFORBUSINESSRECRUITMENT G 0LACINGUTILITYWIRESUNDERGROUND H )NSTALLINGNEWLIGHTSTANDARDSTHATAREORNAMENTALAND THATREDUCELIGHTPOLLUTION I #REATINGADOWNTOWN7ELCOME#ENTER J 0UBLICIMPROVEMENTSTOTHE2IDGElELDMARINA K ,INKINGTHEDOWNTOWNAREAWITHTHE0ORTOF2IDGElELDS PROPOSEDMARINADEVELOPMENTAND L #REATINGADOWNTOWNHISTORICPRESERVATIONDISTRICT 345$9!2%!S. 3rd AVENUEN. 3rd AVENUES. 4th AVENUEN. 4th AVENUES. 5th AVENUEN. 5th AVENUES. MAIN AVENUEN. MAIN AVENUEPIONEER STREET (SR501) SIMONS STREET MILL STREET SARGENT STREET N Block 1 Block 2 (upper) Block 2 (lower) Block 4 Block 11 Block 12 Block 13Block 10Block 5 Block 14 Block 15Block 8Block 7 Block 6 Block 9 4HE/LD4OWN2IDGElELDAREATHATISTHEFOCUSOFTHISPLANNINGSTUDYISBOUNDEDBY,AKE2IVER TOTHEWESTTH!VENUETOTHEEAST-ILL3TREETTOTHENORTHAND3ARGENT3TREETTOTHESOUTH4HE PROJECTSTUDYAREAISZONED$OWNTOWN-IXED5SE$-5 Z$OWNTOWN6ISION 7HATKINDOFPLACESHOULDDOWNTOWN2IDGElELDBECOME Z-ARKETING 7HATSTEPSSHOULDBETAKENTOMARKET2IDGElELDAS ADESTINATIONAREA Z)NFORMATION 7HATKINDSOFINFORMATIONABOUTDOWNTOWN2IDGElELD NEEDSTOBEPRESENTEDTOTHEREGIONANDHOWISTHAT BESTACCOMPLISHED Z0HYSICAL)MPROVEMENTS 7HATKINDSOFPHYSICALIMPROVEMENTSARENECESSARYTOHELP FULlLLTHEVISIONOFDOWNTOWNASTHEHEARTOFTHECOMMUNITY Z"USINESS$EVELOPMENT 7HATTYPESOFBUSINESSESAREAPPROPRIATEINDOWNTOWN ANDWHOSHOULDTAKETHELEADERSHIPROLEINPROMOTING BUSINESSDEVELOPMENT Z'OVERNMENT!CTION7HATSTEPSSHOULDTHE#ITYGOVERNMENT TAKETOMAKEINVESTMENTINDOWNTOWNMOREATTRACTIVE /VERTHENEXTlVEYEARSTHE#ITYTHEBUSINESSCOMMUNITY ANDOTHERPERSONASANDAGENCIESSHOULDUNDERTAKESEVERAL !#4)/.)4%-3 $URINGTHESUMMERANDFALLOFTHE#ITY HOSTEDASERIESOFCOMMUNITYWORKSESSIONSTO DISCUSSTHETYPESOFSPECIlCACTIONSTHATWOULD GENERATENEWECONOMICANDSOCIALVITALITYINDOWN TOWN2IDGElELD4HEWORKSESSIONWERELEDBYA REPRESENTATIVEOFTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONACOM MUNITYVOLUNTEERANDTHEPLANNINGDIRECTOR 4HECOMMITTEESENTINVITATIONSTOEVERYPERSONTHAT OWNEDABUSINESSORPROPERTYWITHINTHEPROJECT STUDYAREA4HEFOURWORKSESSIONSGENERATEDA PLANNINGSCHEMECENTEREDONSIXMAJORTHEMES 4HERESULTSAREPRESENTEDASACTIONITEMINTHETABLES BELOW4HEACTUALRESULTSOFTHECOMMUNITYWORK SESSIONSURVEYSFOLLOW $/7.4/7.2)$'%&)%,$ /04)/.3&/2!#4)/. PROACTIVESTEPSTOHELPIMPROVETHEBUSINESSCLIMATEINDOWN TOWN2IDGElELDANDTOMAKETHECOREOFTHECITYAMOREATTRACTIVE PLACEINWHICHTOSHOPWORKLIVEANDENJOY4HETIMEFRAMEFOR ACCOMPLISHINGTHEPLANNINGACTIVITIESISWITHINONEYEARWITHIN ONETOTHREEYEARSANDWITHINlVEYEARS +%9 "USINESSESMERCHANTSANDBUSINESSES ,IBRARY&T6ANCOUVER,IBRARY 2IDGElELD"RANCH #ITY#ITYOF2IDGElELD 0ORT0ORTOF2IDGElELD $2#$OWNTOWN2EVITALIZATION#OMMITTEE 0RIVATE5NNAMEDPRIVATEPERSONSORGROUPS &RIENDS&RIENDSOFTHE2IDGElELD7ILDLIFE2EFUGE 05$#LARK0UBLIC5TILITIES 'RANTS5NIDENTIlEDPUBLICAGENCIESORPRIVATEFOUNDATIONS 2EFUGE2IDGElELD.ATIONAL7ILDLIFE2EFUGE 7357ASHINGTON3TATE5NIVERSITY $/7.4/7.6)3)/. !CTION)TEM!CTIVITY9EAR 2ESPONSIBLE0ERSONS4ASKS )DENTIFYANAMEFORDOWNTOWN2IDGElELD#ITY"USINESSES!DOPTEDBYTHEBUSINESSGROUPIN h/LD4OWN2IDGElELDv #ONCENTRATEONWHATWEHAVEAQUAINTWALK ABLE#ITY"USINESSES4HE#ITYSHOULDTIEPUBLICWALKWAYSANDTRAILSTOTHESERESOURCESALONG DOWNTOWNTHE7ILDLIFE2EFUGETHE2EFUGE0LANK(OUSE 2EFUGE0ORT,AKE2IVER4HEBUSINESSCOMMUNITYSHOULDTIEITSELFTOTHENATURALAND ARCHAEOLOGICALRESOURCES,EWIS#LARKHISTORICRESOURCEBASEOFTHEAREARATHERTHANATTEMPTTOCREATEA DIFFERENTANDPOSSIBLYFALSETHEME #REATEASPECIALTYRETAILENVIRONMENT"USINESS#ITY#ITYZONINGREGULATIONSSHOULDFAVORRETAILANDCOMMERCIALTRADEOVER OTHERTYPESOFLANDUSES(OWEVERAHEALTHYDOWNTOWNNEEDSAMIXOF COMMERCIALOFlCEANDRESIDENTIALUSES -!2+%4).' !CTION)TEM!CTIVITY9EAR 2ESPONSIBLE0ERSONS4ASKS -AKEACONNECTIONTOTHEPLANNED,EWIS#LARK#ITY2EFUGE"USINESSES 4HELEADERSHIPCOMMITTEESHOULDCOORDINATEAPLANOFACTION "I CENTENNIALTOURS0ORT&RIENDSTOGET2IDGElELDTIEDINTOTHE"I CENTENNIAL 0LACE,EWIS#LARKINFORMATIONALSIGNSON) DIRECTING#ITY"USINESS#ONTACT73$/47ASHINGTON3TATE$EPARTMENT/F4RANSPORTATION VISITORSTO2IDGElELDTOGETSIGNSPLACEDATTHEOFF RAMPSANDON32 0LACEINFORMATIONALSIGNSALONG0IONEER3TREETATTHE#ITY"USINESS#ONTACT73$/4TOGETAPPROVALFORTWODIRECTIONALSIGNS ) *UNCTIONDIRECTINGVISITORSTOh/LD4OWN2IDGElELDv -ARKETINGEFFORTSSHOULDAIMATSMALLERHIGH TECH#ITY0ORT"USINESS%STABLISHATASKFORCETHROUGHTHELEADERSHIPCOMMITTEETO ORBIOTECHCOMPANIESWORKWITH#2%$##OLUMBIA2EGIONAL%CONOMIC$EVELOPMENT #OMMISSION ANDOTHERSTOATTRACTSUCHCOMPANIESTOTOWN -ARKETINGEFFORTSSHOULDENCOURAGEGOVERNMENT#ITY0ORT"USINESS#ITYSHOULDDEVELOPANINFORMATIONBROCHUREREGARDINGLANDAVAILABILITY AGENCYINVESTMENTINDOWNTOWNHOUSINGOFlCES ANDSERVICES 0ROMOTETHELINKAGEBETWEENDOWNTOWNANDTHE#ITY0ORT"USINESS5NKNOWN COLLEGECAMPUSAT735ORTOTHENEW#OUNTY AMPHITHEATERBEINGBUILTALONG) 0REPAREFOR2IDGElELDSTHANNIVERSARYIN#ITY$2#$OWNTOWN 5NKNOWN 2EVITALIZATION#OMMITTEE 0LACEABLUEINFORMATIONALSIGNALONG) LETTING$2#)NVESTIGATELOWFREQUENCYRADIOASAWAYTOLETDRIVERSON PEOPLEKNOWTOTUNEINTO2IDGElELD) KNOWABOUT/LD4OWN2IDGElELD ).&/2-!4)/. !CTION)TEM!CTIVITY9EAR 2ESPONSIBLE0ERSONS4ASKS 0UBLISHAREGULARCALENDAROFEVENTS ,IBRARY$2#4HELIBRARYSHOULDBECOMETHECENTRALREPOSITORYANDDISTRIBUTIONCENTER FORINFORMATIONABOUT/LD4OWN2IDGElELD #OLLECTSOMEBASICDATAABOUTVISITATIONBEFORE#ITY$2#4HE$2#ANDPLANNINGCOMMISSIONAREBEGINNINGTOCOLLECT BUILDINGPLANSSUPPORTEDONLYBYASSUMPTIONSDATAONVISITORSTOTHE2EFUGEBOATLAUNCHPERMITSRETAILSALESETC #REATEORREVISEAMAPANDINFORMATIONALPIECE#ITY$2##ITYAND$2#SHOULDCONTINUEMONTHLYMEETINGS DESCRIBINGOPPORTUNITIESFORACTIVITIESINTHE 2IDGElELDAREA 7ELCOME#ENTERKIOSK&RIENDS0LACEANINFORMATIONALSIGNATTHEWELCOMECENTERSITETOLETPEOPLE KNOWWHATISCOMING3UPPORTFUNDRAISINGANDPLANNINGEFFORTS #REATEANDPUBLISHAWALKINGTOURANDORHISTORIC#ITY$2#,IBRARY5SEHIGHSCHOOLOR735STUDENTSUPPORTTOUPDATEANDREPRINT SITESTOUROFTHE/LD4OWNTHEDECADEOLDWALKINGTOUR!DDBUSINESSTOTHETOUR !DDTHEWORDhTOvTOTHE2IDGElELDWELCOMESIGN#ITY'ETPERMISSIONTOPAINTINTHEWORDhTOvSOTHATTHESIGNREADS h7ELCOMETO2IDGElELDv #REATEOTHERINFORMATIONCENTERSSUCHASTHE$2##ITY#REATEA@"ULLETIN"OARDvDOWNTOWNWHEREALLmYERSCANBEPOSTED #OMMUNITY#ENTERTHE4RI -OUNTAIN2 60ARK RESTAURANTSANDCOFFEEHOUSES 0(93)#!,)-02/6%-%.43 !CTION)TEM!CTIVITY9EAR 2ESPONSIBLE0ERSONS4ASKS -AKECONNECTIONSTOTHE,EWISAND#LARK4RAIL#ITY2EFUGE#OORDINATEPLANNINGACTIVITIESAMONGCITYREFUGEAND BEINGPLANNEDREGIONALLY#LARK#OUNTY6ANCOUVERPARKS $EVELOPASELECTIONOFTHETYPESOFAMENITIES#ITY$2#0LANNINGCOMMISSIONTOCONDUCTWORKSESSIONSANDADOPTSTANDARDS APPROPRIATEINDOWNTOWNEGBENCHESSTREETLIGHTS mOWERBASKETSETC #REATEACENTRALPARKINGAREAATTHE*UNCTIONANDSHUTTLE#ITY$2#0ARK2IDE $2#ANDCITYHALLTOCOORDINATE PEOPLEINTO2IDGElELDESPECIALLYDURINGFESTIVALTIMES #REATEATREEPLANTHATISMORECOMPATIBLE #ITY$2#"USINESS4HEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSHOULDCREATEATASKFORCETOWORKWITHA WITHTHEBUILDINGSLOCALSPECIALISTTOREVISETHETREEPLANTINGPLANFOR/LD4OWN4REES SHOULDNOTOBSCURETHEBUILDINGSORBUSINESSSIGNSANDSHOULDBE EASIERTOMAINTAIN#ONSIDERCREATIVEOPTIONSSUCHAS@#HRISTMASTREE INTHERIGHTS OF WAYTHATCANBEHARVESTEDANDDONATEDTO CHARITABLEAGANCIES #REATEAPEDESTRIANANDBICYCLEPATHTOTHEWILDLIFE#ITY0ORT2EFUGE#ITYPARKSBOARDTOCOORDINATEPLANNING REFUGEANDTHEWATERFRONTFROMDOWNTOWN 0ARKINGTHECITYNEEDSAMUNICIPALPARKINGLOT#ITY$2#0LANNINGCOMMISSIONTORECOMMENDLOCATIONANDFUNDINGSTRATEGY 0LANANDBUILDABIKEROUTETO,AKE6ANCOUVER #ITY0ORT#OORDINATEWITH6AN #LARK2EGIONAL 2E OPENTHEFERRYBOATSHUTTLESERVICEBETWEEN0ORT5NKNOWN THE2IDGElELDWATERFRONTAND3T(ELENS/REGON %VALUATEBURYINGTHEELECTRICLINESINTHE/LD4OWN#ITY$2##ITY0UBLIC7ORKSTOWORKWITH#LARK0UBLIC5TILITIES "53).%33$%6%,/0-%.4 !CTION)TEM!CTIVITY9EAR 2ESPONSIBLE0ERSONS4ASKS &OCUSATTENTIONONRETAILBUSINESS #ITY$2#0LANNINGCOMMISSIONTOEVALUATEDEVELOPMENTREGULATIONSANDBUILD LIAISONWITHBUSINESSES 3TARTANASSOCIATIONOFDOWNTOWNBUSINESSES$2#!CCOMPLISHED ANDINTERESTEDPERSONSTOLEADDOWNTOWN PLANNINGANDMARKETINGACTIVITIES )NCLUDEOFlCEDEVELOPMENTASPARTOFTHEBUSINESS#ITY0LANNINGCOMMISSIONTOREVIEWDEVELOPMENTREGULATIONS FOCUSDOWNTOWN %STABLISHAMARKETINGANDRECRUITMENTPROGRAM$2#0ORT#ITY,EDBYTHE$2#WITHSUPPORTFROM#ITYAND0ORT '/6%2.-%.4!#4)/. !CTION)TEM!CTIVITY9EAR 2ESPONSIBLE0ERSONS4ASKS %LIMINATEREDUCEORWAIVEIMPACTFEESFOR/LD4OWN#ITY4HEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSHOULDCONSIDERAMENDMENTS TOTHE#APITAL&ACILITY0LANANDTHE)MPACT&EECODETOALLOWFOR REDUCTIONSINIMPACTFEESINTHE/LD4OWNSTUDYAREA#ONSIDERIMPACT FEECREDITSFORPHYSICALIMPROVEMENTSMADETOPUBLICSTREETSAND RIGHTS OF WAYIN/LD4OWN %LIMINATEORREDUCEWATERANDSEWERCONNECTIONFEES#ITY4HEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONANDPUBLICWORKSSHOULDEVALUATEWAYSTO REDUCECONNECTIONFEESONTHE/LD4OWNSTUDYAREASINCEWATERAND SEWERSERVICEISALREADYAVAILABLEDOWNTOWN 7AIVEREDUCEORPHASE#ITYFEESINCONSIDERATION#ITY$2#"USINESS4HEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSHOULDCREATEATASKFORCETOBEGINWORK OFBUILDINGSDESIGNEDTOBLENDINTODOWNTOWNONBUILDINGANDLANDSCAPINGDESIGNGUIDELINESFORDOWNTOWN4HE COMMISSIONSHOULDCONSIDERINCENTIVESASWELLASREGULATORY MECHANISMTOENCOURAGENEWBUILDINGSTOBLENDINTORATHER THANOVERPOWERTHECHARACTEROF/LD4OWN2IDGElELD 5SEAPORTIONOFTHETAXREVENUEGENERATEDBY #ITY#REATEADEDICATEDACCOUNTFUNDEDBYSALESTAXTHATWILL NEW*UNCTIONBUSINESSTOHELPINVESTINDOWNTOWN PROVIDELONGTERMFUNDINGFORPUBLICIMPROVEMENTSINTHE IMPROVEMENTSSUCHASSTREETLIGHTSBENCHES/LD4OWNAREA mOWERSKIOSKOROTHERAMENITIES 3TREAMLINETHEHOMEOCCUPATIONAPPROVALPROCESS#ITY4HEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSHOULDWORKWITHPROPERTYOWNERSTO ENCOURAGEADDITIONALCOMMERCIALUSESINEXISTINGRESIDENTIALBUILDINGS INTHE/LD4OWNAREA 0ROHIBITGROUNDmOORRESIDENTIALUSES#ITY-AKETHEMORATORIUMONGROUNDmOORRESIDENTIALUSESINTHE/LD4OWN AREAPERMANENT 2EZONESOMEPROPERTIESTHATAREZONED#ITY4HEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSHOULDWORKWITHPROPERTYOWNERS COMMERCIALTORESIDENTIALWHOWISHTOTAKELANDOUTOFCOMMERCIALZONINGANDPLACEITINTO RESIDENTIALZONING 2EROUTETRAFlCON.TH!VEFROMTHESCHOOLAND#ITY0UBLIC7ORKSAND3CHOOL$ISTRICTTOCOORDINATE%VALUATEPUBLIC !BRAMS0ARKTORELIEVECONGESTIONON0IONEERAND SAFETYCONCERNSONRD!VETRUCKROUTE BRINGTRAFlCOUTON-AIN!VEORRD!VE /VERTHECOURSEOFOURMEETINGSANDINYEARSPAST PEOPLEHAVECONSIDEREDSCORESOFIDEASTHATMIGHT HELPCREATEAHEALTHIERDOWNTOWNECONOMYAND SENSEOFPLACE4HEPURPOSEOFTHISEXERCISEWASTO CONSIDERALLTHEOPTIONSDISCUSSEDTORANKTHEMBY PRIORITYANDTOCONSIDERWHOMIGHTBERESPONSIBLE FORCOMPLETINGTHETASK&ROMTHISEXERCISETHE#ITY PRODUCEDAN!CTION0LANWHICHIFIMPLEMENTED COULDLEADTOREALIMPROVEMENTSINTHEDOWNTOWN COREAREA /04)/.3&/2!#4)/.3526%9 !.$05",)#-%%4).'2%35,43 4HEIDEASWEREGROUPEDBYTHEGENERALTOPICSEGMARKETING DESIGNREGULATIONSETC%ACHIDEAWASRANKEDACCORDINGTOPRIORITY ASFOLLOWS (IGHESTPRIORITY3HOULDBEACCOMPLISHEDWITHINTHENEXTYEAR -EDIUMPRIORITY3HOULDBEACCOMPLISHEDWITHINTHENEXTYEARS ,OWPRIORITY3HOULDBEACCOMPLISHEDWITHINTHENEXTYEARS $ONTBOTHERDOINGTHIS &INALLYEACHPERSONORGROUPBESTSUITEDTOCOMPLETETHETASKEG AMERCHANTGROUPTHECITYGOVERNMENTTHE0ORTPRIVATEPERSONSOR OTHERSWASRECOMMENDED +%9 "USINESSESMERCHANTSANDBUSINESSES ,IBRARY&T6ANCOUVER,IBRARY 2IDGElELD"RANCH #ITY#ITYOF2IDGElELD 0ORT0ORTOF2IDGElELD $2#$OWNTOWN2EVITALIZATION#OMMITTEE 0RIVATE5NNAMEDPRIVATEPERSONSORGROUPS &RIENDS&RIENDSOFTHE2IDGElELD7ILDLIFE2EFUGE 05$#LARK0UBLIC5TILITIES 'RANTS5NIDENTIlEDPUBLICAGENCIESORPRIVATEFOUNDATIONS 2EFUGE2IDGElELD.ATIONAL7ILDLIFE2EFUGE 7357ASHINGTON3TATE5NIVERSITY )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS 6 6)3)/. )DENTIFYANAMEFORDOWNTOWN2IDGElELDSUCHAS!VG"USINESS h$ONTLIKETHEWORD@OLDv h/LD4OWN(ISTORIC$OWNTOWNETCVOTES #ITY h(ISTORICDOWNTOWNISAGOODTIEINTO,EWIS#LARKv POINTS h/LD4OWNISTWOWORDSv)) LOWh!LREADYDONEv ))) HIGHh/LD4OWN2IDGElELDv #ONCENTRATEONWHATWEHAVEAQUAINTWALK ABLE!VG#ITY h)FWECONCENTRATEONWHATWEHAVEITWILLBEMOREDOWNTOWNTHE 7ILDLIFE2EFUGETHE2EFUGE0LANKVOTES "USINESSES REALNOTCONTRIVEDv (OUSEARCHAEOLOGICALRESOURCES,EWIS#LARKPOINTS 2EFUGE h"UTWENEEDMORE4HE#ITYNEEDSADISTINCTPERSONALITYv LOW%VERYONE h-AYBESURRENDERTOTHENATURERATHERTHANTHE HIGH HIGHCOMMERCEv h)TISARESOURCETHATISAVAILABLETOUSALLNOWv h)TSALLAPIECEOFTHEWHOLEPLANv 4HEDOWNTOWNVISIONSHOULDHELPCREATEASPECIALTY!VG#ITY h)DONTFEELQUALIlEDTOSAYWHETHERSPECIALTYRETAIL RETAILENVIRONMENT4RYTOATTRACTTOYSTORESKIDSVOTES "USINESSES ISBESTBUTWEMUSTHAVESOMEIDENTITYv STORESARTISTPHOTOGRAPHERSTUDIOSGALLERIESPOINTS #HAMBEROFh'ETBUSBARNUPANDRUNNINGWITHPRIVATEFUNDS LOW#OMMERCE UNIQUESHOPSDININGADVENTUREv HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS 6 6)3)/. #OMMUNITY6ISION2IDGElELDNEEDSA!VG#ITY h-IGHTNEEDOUTSIDEINPUTv VISIONABOUTTHEKINDSOFBUSINESSITSWANTSVOTES "USINESSES h$EVELOPTHEMEARTISTSARTISANSETCv TOATTRACTANDSHOULDMARKETITSELFTOWARDSPOINTS 0ORT h-ARKETINCONJUNCTIONWITHA@-AIN3TREETGRANTv THOSEBUSINESSES LOW$2# h.EEDTOGETTHEWORDOUTWEARECLOSEBYTHEFREEWAYv HIGHh)LIKETHEIDEABUTIN2IDGElELDITWILLNEVERHAPPEN BUSINESSESAREALREADYINALLAVAILABLESTOREFRONTS HOWWOULDTHEYBEDISPLACEDANDWHEREv h$OWNTOWN2IDGElELDHASAGREATAMBIANCELETS ENCOURAGEMOREOFTHESAMEv h-ARKETTHESTRENGTHSOFDOWNTOWNTOCATCHTHEPEOPLE COMINGINTOTHEAREAv 4HEVISIONWHATEVERITISSHOULDINCLUDE!VG#ITY h+EEPEMPLOYMENTATTHE*UNCTIONv EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITIESSUCHASOFlCESVOTES "USINESSES h4HE*UNCTIONWILLBEDOINGTHISv ANDSMALLBUSINESSNOTJUSTRETAILPOINTS 0ORT h7ENEEDAPLANTOVALIDATEORDIRECTUSAGAIN@,ETSROLLv LOW0RIVATE HIGH 2IDGElELDSHOULDNOTTRYTOCREATEAVISIONFOR!VG0RIVATE h&REEMARKETISEASIERTOACHIEVEBECAUSETHEFREE DOWNTOWNTHE&REE-ARKETWILLCREATEAVOTES MARKETISLESSWORKFORTHECITYv REALITYNOTAVISIONPOINTS h4HEFREEMARKETWILLCREATEANOTHER"ATTLE'ROUNDv LOWh)THINKITISABALANCEOFPLANNO PLANv HIGH -ARKETDOWNTOWNASAREALh-AYBERRYvOR!VG#ITY h-OSTDESCRIBEITASONEALREADYv .ORMAN2OCKWELLLIKEVILLAGEVOTES "USINESSES POINTS 0ORT LOW$2# HIGH -ARKETDOWNTOWN2IDGElELDASh*USTATTHEOTHER!VG#ITY h)STHISTHEBESTMARKETINGTACTICv ENDOFTHESTREETvVOTESh)JUSTDONTGETITv POINTS LOW HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS - -!2+%4).' ,EWISAND#LARKGROUPTOURSAREBEGINNINGTOSTART UP!VG#ITY h!GREATRESOURCEv 2IDGElELDNEEDSTOMAKEACONNECTIONTOTHESETOURS VOTES 2EFUGE h0LANKHOUSEv SOASNOTTOBEBY PASSEDPOINTS "USINESSES LOW0ORT HIGH&RIENDS 0RIVATE 4HERESHOULDBE,EWIS#LARKINFORMATIONALSIGNS!VG2EFUGE h4IEINTO,EWIS#LARK"ICENTENNIALv ON) DIRECTINGVISITORSTO2IDGElELDPOINTS #ITY h0LANKHOUSEv LOW0ORT HIGH"USINESSES )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS - -!2+%4).' 4HERESHOULDBEINFORMATIONALSIGNALONG0IONEER!VG0ORT h#ITY#ENTERv 3TREETATTHE) *UNCTIONDIRECTINGVISITORSTOPOINTS #ITY h#REATEANATTRACTIONPRIORTOANYSIGNAGEv h/LD4OWNv2IDGElELD,OCALTALENTCOULDDESIGNIT LOW"USINESSES h/URTIESTO,EWIS#LARKSHOULDNOTBEPASSEDUPv THE0ORTMIGHTBEABLETOPLACEITONITSPROPERTY HIGH0RIVATE h3OUNDSATTAINABLEv ANDTHE#ITYCANHELPPAYFORIT -ARKETINGEFFORTSSHOULDAIMATSMALLERHIGH TECH!VG#ITY h.OTIMELIKETHEPRESENTv ORBIOTECHCOMPANIES2IDGElELDHASSEVERALVOTES"USINESSES h0ROVIDEMORESENSEOFCOMMUNITYv ADVANTAGESTOOFFERSUCHASCLOSEPROXIMITYTOPOINTS 0ORT h%VERYTHINGv UNIVERSITIESNOINCOMETAXASTRONGLIBRARYDISTRICT LOW ANDASTRONGSENSEOFCOMMUNITYANDPLACE HIGH -ARKETINGEFFORTSSHOULDINCLUDESUCHTARGETSAS!VG#ITY h!NYHELPWOULDBEGREATv THE6ANCOUVER(OUSING!UTHORITYORTHEFEDERALVOTES 'RANTS h!PPLYFORGRANTSASNECESSARY7EALREADYHAVEENOUGH6(! 'ENERAL3ERVICES!DMINISTRATIONTOENCOURAGEPOINTS HOUSINGDOWNTOWNv GOVERNMENTAGENCYINVESTMENTINDOWNTOWN LOW HOUSINGOFlCESANDSERVICES HIGH 0ROMOTETHELINKAGEBETWEENDOWNTOWNAND!VG#ITY h$ONTSEEHOWTHISWILLWORKv THECOLLEGECAMPUSAT735ORTOTHENEWVOTES 735 h4HE$ISCOVERY#ORRIDORv #OUNTYAMPHITHEATERBEINGBUILTALONG) POINTS "USINESSES h-AYBEA735CAMPUSACTIVITYFORCREDITv LOWh4HISISGOODDOWEMARKETWHATWEDONTHAVE HIGH ORDOWEGETITTHENMARKETITv h!DDLINKAGETO&ELIDAOFFOFTHAT(AZEL$ELLv h"ACKROAD4OURTO2IDGElELD,A#ENTERv 2IDGElELDSTHANNIVERSARYWILLBEIN!VG#ITY h&ORMALOCALCOMMITTEETOSTARTPUTTINGTOGETHERACELEBRATIONv 7HATSHALLWEDOTOPREPAREFORITVOTES $2# h2ESEARCHHISTORYv POINTS "USINESSES h"AKECOOKIESBUTWAITYEARSv LOW0ORT HIGH /BTAINPERMISSIONTOUSETHEPHRASE!VG"USINESSES h"EST+EPT3ECRETv/NLYIFPEOPLELIKEITh-ERCHANTS h/URLITTLECORNEROFPARADISEvVOTES ALREADYHAVEPERMISSIONv POINTS h4OOTRITEv LOW HIGH 0LACEABLUEINFORMATIONALSIGNALONG) LETTING!VG PEOPLEKNOWTOTUNEINTO2IDGElELDVOTES POINTS LOW HIGH ,OOKINTOLOWFREQUENCYRADIOATTHE*UNCTION!VG2EFUGE h$ONTUNDERSTANDTHISBUTITMIGHTWORKv FORACOMBINED7ILDLIFE2EFUGE/LD4OWNVOTES h-AYNOTBEAVAILABLETECHNOLOGYv 2IDGElELDMESSAGEPOINTS h)DONTQUITEGETTHISONEINOURHIGHFREQUENCYCARSTEREOWORLDv LOW HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS ) ).&/2-!4)/. 4HERESHOULDBEA#ALENDAROF#OMMUNITY%VENTS!VG#ITY h5SEWEBSITEv PUBLISHEDREGULARLYVOTES ,IBRARY h0OSSIBLEPAIDADVERTISINGv POINTS $2# h7EBSITEv LOW HIGH #OLLECTSOMEBASICDATAABOUTVISITATIONBEFORE!VG#ITY h!GOODPLACETOSTARTv BUILDINGPLANSSUPPORTEDONLYBYASSUMPTIONSVOTESh$ONEv &OREXAMPLEHOWMANYRECREATIONALLAUNCHORDOCK POINTSh#REATEADESTINATIONlRSTv ATTHE,AKE2IVER"OAT,AUNCH(OWMANYVISITORSDOES LOWh-AYALREADYHAVEv THE7ILDLIFEREFUGEATTRACT!RETHERESEASONALORDAILY HIGHh$ONEv mUCTUATIONS!RETHEREMEASURABLETRENDSINTERMSOF QUANTITYORTYPESOFVISITORS 4HERESHOULDBEAMAPANDINFORMATIONALPIECE!VG#ITY h.EEDTODEVELOPTHISlRSTv DESCRIBINGOPPORTUNITIESFORACTIVITIESINTHE2IDGElELD VOTES"USINESSES h!LREADYDONEv AREASUCHASBIKINGBOATINGBIRDINGKAYAKINGETC POINTS 2EFUGE LOW0ORT HIGH$2# )NFO+IOSK #LARK#OUNTY 4HE7ELCOME#ENTERKIOSKIDEASHOULDKEEPMOVING!VG!LLGROUPS#ITYh.EEDEDINTIMELYFASHIONALONGWITHPLANKHOUSEv +EEPTHECOMMUNICATIONOPENBETWEENALLGROUPS VOTES &RIENDS$2# POINTS 7ELCOME#ENTER LOW#OMMITTEEAND HIGH%VERYONEALLRECEIVED VOTE 4HERESHOULDBEAWALKINGTOURANDORHISTORICSITES!VG#ITY h)KNOWTHEREISNTONEv TOUROFTHE/LD4OWNVOTES "USINESSES h0EDESTRIANADVENTUREWITHSHOPSDININGETCv POINTS ,IBRARY h0LANK(OUSEv LOW,OCALHISTORICGROUP HIGH#ITIZENS !DDTHEWORDhTOvTOTHE2IDGElELDWELCOMESIGN!VG#ITY VOTES POINTS LOW HIGH 4HE0UBLIC,IBRARYISCURRENTLYANINFORMATIONCENTER!VGh$ISTRIBUTECALENDARv ABOUTTHE2IDGElELDAREA4HEREAREOTHERPLACESTHAT VOTESh$EVELOPNOTEBOOKS7EBSITE WITHACCESSATEACHPLACEv COULDALSOSERVEASINFORMATIONCENTERSSUCHASTHE POINTS h$ONEv #OMMUNITY#ENTERTHE4RI -OUNTAIN2 60ARK LOWh!LREADYHAPPENINGv RESTAURANTSANDCOFFEEHOUSES HIGHh2EVAMPORRECREATECURRENTCENTRALWEBSITESITEv h.EEDCOMMUNICATIONORGANIZATIONTOURISMv )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS 0 0(93)#!,)-02/6%-%.43 -AKECONNECTIONSTOTHE,EWISAND#LARK4RAILBEING!VG2EFUGE PLANNEDREGIONALLYVOTES #ITY0ORT$2# POINTS 7ELCOME#ENTERGROUP LOWHIGH ALLWITHVOTE $EVELOPASELECTIONOFTHETYPESOFAMENITIES!VG#ITY h.EEDTHISINFORMATIONUP FRONTv APPROPRIATEINDOWNTOWNEGBENCHESVOTES "USINESSES h3URVEYCITYv STREETLIGHTSmOWERBASKETSETCPOINTS $2# LOW HIGH #REATEACENTRALPARKINGAREAATTHE*UNCTION!VG#ITY h%SPECIALLYFESTIVALTIMESTHOF*ULYWOULDBEAGOODTIMEFORTHISv ANDSHUTTLEPEOPLEINTO2IDGElELDESPECIALLYVOTES 0ORT DURINGFESTIVALTIMESPOINTS LOW HIGH #REATEAPEDESTRIANANDBICYCLEPATHTOTHE!VG#ITYh4IMEWITHOPENINGOF)NTERPRETIVE#ENTERv WILDLIFEREFUGEANDTHEWATERFRONTFROMDOWNTOWN VOTES 0ARKS ))h2EGIONALPARKSv POINTS 2EVITALIZATIONGROUP LOW HIGH 0ARKINGTHECITYNEEDSAMUNICIPALPARKINGLOT!VG#ITY h5SELOTACROSSFROM#ITY(ALLANDAT7ELCOME#ENTERlRSTv INTHELOTNEXTTO$AVIS0ARK$ONTWASTEVALUABLE VOTES $2# h3EElVEYEARPLANv STREETLEVELBUSINESSSPACEON0IONEEROR-AIN3TREETS POINTS 0ORT h.OBOATTRAILERPARKINGv FORPARKINGLOTS LOWhv HIGHh'OVERNMENTSHOULDlNDASPACEOUTSIDEOFTHECOMMERCIALAREAv h.OTAGOODIDEAv h$OWNTOWNSHOULDBEUSEDFORALOTOFNEARFUNCTIONSRATHER THANAPARKINGLOTFORCARSv 0LANANDBUILDABIKEROUTETO,AKE6ANCOUVER!VG#ITY VOTES 0ORT POINTS LOW HIGH 2E OPENTHEFERRYBOATSHUTTLESERVICEBETWEEN!VG0ORT THE2IDGElELDWATERFRONTAND3T(ELENS/2VOTES -ARINA "OTHVISITORSANDCOMMUTERSMIGHTUSETHEFERRYBOAT POINTS LOW HIGH "URYINGELECTRICLINESINTHEOLDTOWNAREAMAYBETOO!VG#ITY h-OVELINESTOREAROFBUILDINGS'OTTOSTARTSOMEWHEREv EXPENSIVE4HEGETESTIMATESOFTHEACTUALCOSTS VOTES 0ORT h'ETPRETTIERLIGHTSEVENTUALLYv POINTS 'RANTS h!LLLINESORJUSTALONG0IONEERAND-AINSTREETSv LOW HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS "$"53).%33$%6%,/0-%.4 &OCUSATTENTIONONRETAILBUSINESS!VG#ITY h7ENEEDENOUGHSHOPSTOSPENDTHEDAYv VOTES h9ESv POINTS LOWHIGH 3TARTANASSOCIATIONOFDOWNTOWNBUSINESSESAND!VG"USINESSES h0LANTOCONTINUEFORYEARSv INTERESTEDPERSONSTOLEADDOWNTOWNPLANNINGAND VOTES h4HEDOWNTOWNNEEDSANASSOCIATION4HEONLYREASON@5PTOWN MARKETINGACTIVITIESPOINTS 6ILLAGEIN6ANCOUVERSUCCEEDEDISBECAUSEOFANASSOCIATIONv LOW HIGH 3TARTADOWNTOWNCOMMITTEEWITHINAREVITALIZED!VG"USINESSES #HAMBEROF#OMMERCEVOTES POINTS LOW HIGH )NCLUDEOFlCEDEVELOPMENTASPARTOFTHEBUSINESS!VG#ITY h5NDERRIGHTCIRCUMSTANCESv FOCUSDOWNTOWNVOTES POINTS LOW HIGH %STABLISHAMARKETINGANDRECRUITMENTPROGRAM!VG#ITY VOTES POINTS LOW HIGH 2EINVIGORATETHE#HAMBEROF#OMMERCE!VG"USINESS h$IDNTDOMUCHBEFOREv VOTESh2ECRUITBUSINESSESv VOTES LOW HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS '! '/6%2.-%.4!#4)/. 2EDUCETHEBURDENCREATEDBYCITYIMPACTFEES!VG#ITY h)NVESTIGATEFUNDINGAVAILABLEFORHISTORICREHABv &OREXAMPLEVOTES POINTS LOWHIGH %LIMINATEORREDUCEWATERANDSEWERCONNECTIONFEES!VG05$ h$ONTCHARGEAFEEFORALOTTHATORIGINALLYHADABUILDINGHOOK UPv &OREXAMPLEVOTES POINTS LOWHIGH 7AIVEFEESINCONSIDERATIONOFBUILDINGSDESIGNED!VG#ITY h0ERHAPSREDUCEFEESv TOBLENDINTODOWNTOWNVOTES h'RANTSv POINTS h!GREATIDEAFORATTRACTIONv LOW HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS '! '/6%2.-%.4!#4)/. 4HERESHOULDBENODESIGNSTANDARDSWITHOUTAN!VG#ITY h0ERHAPSLOWINTERESTLOANSv INCENTIVEPROGRAM4HEDESIGNPROGRAMSHOULDBE VOTES INCENTIVEDRIVENNOTREGULATORYDRIVENPOINTS LOW HIGH 0HASECOLLECTIONOFTHEFEESRATHERTHANCOLLECTTHEM!VG#ITY ALLATTIMEOFBUILDINGPERMITAPPLICATIONVOTES POINTS LOW HIGH 4HERESHOULDBEDESIGNSTANDARDSINPLACE!VG#ITY h!BSOLUTELYv REGARDLESSOFTHEINCENTIVESVOTES POINTS LOW HIGH %LIMINATEALLIMPACTORCONNECTIONFEESFORDOWNTOWN!VG#ITY h3OHOWDOWEPAYFORITv DEVELOPMENT4HECITYSHOULDGETOUTOFTHEWAY VOTESh9ESYESYES/NLYTHEDOWNTOWNCOMMERCIALAREA LOW -USICTOMYEARSv POINTS HIGH 0ROVIDEPEOPLEANIMPACTFEECREDITFORIMPROVEMENTS!VG#ITY MADETOTHESTREETORPEDESTRIANCIRCULATIONSYSTEM VOTES POINTS LOW HIGH 4HE#ITYSHOULDUSEAPORTIONOFTHETAXREVENUE!VG#ITY h)STHISLEGALv GENERATEDBYNEW*UNCTIONBUSINESSTOHELPINVEST VOTESh3ECUREANYGRANTSAVAILABLEv INDOWNTOWNIMPROVEMENTSSUCHASSTREETLIGHTS POINTS BENCHESmOWERSKIOSKOROTHERAMENITIES LOW HIGH $ESIGNSTANDARDS4HERESHOULDBEDESIGN!VG#ITY h3ECUREACOMPLIANCEGRANTv STANDARDSFORTHEDOWNTOWNANDFORTHE*UNCTION VOTES POINTS LOW HIGH 4HE#ITYGOVERNMENTSHOULDSTREAMLINETHEHOME!VG#ITY h)TSlNEv OCCUPATIONAPPROVALPROCESSVOTES h0ERHAPSASLONGASITISFAIRTORETAILERSWHOPAYMONEY POINTS FORSPACESTORENTv LOW HIGH %LIMINATETHATPORTIONOFTHEFEEEARMARKEDFORTHE!VG#ITY h)MPROVEMENTSWILLBENECESSARYOVERTIMEv COLLECTIONSYSTEMSINCEDOWNTOWNDOESNOTREQUIRE VOTES05$ COLLECTIONSYSTEMIMPROVEMENTSPOINTS LOW HIGH )TEM0RIORITY0ERSON'ROUP#OMMENTS '! '/6%2.-%.4!#4)/. "URYINGELECTRICLINESINTHEOLDTOWNAREAMAYBE!VG#ITY h0ROBABLYWAYTOEXPENSIVEv TOOEXPENSIVE4HECITYSHOULDGETCOSTESTIMATES VOTES FORM#05ANDOTHERSASTOWHATTHEACTUALCOSTS POINTS WILLBEFOREPROCEEDINGANYFURTHER LOW HIGH #OLLECTTHEFEESASPARTOFTHEMONTHLYWATERSEWERBILL!VG#ITY h0ERHAPSUP FRONTCOSTANDMONTHLYv VOTES05$ POINTS LOW HIGH 4HEDEVELOPMENTCODESHOULDBEAMENDEDTOPROHIBIT!VG#ITY h5NLESSA""HOTELv GROUNDmOORRESIDENTIALUSESVOTESh7HEREv POINTS LOW HIGH 2EZONESOMEPROPERTIESTHATAREZONEDCOMMERCIAL!VG#ITY h)FNECESSARYv TORESIDENTIALVOTESh-ULTI USEv POINTS LOW HIGH ! !$$)4)/.3 #HECKONGRANTSFORBROCHUREMAPSIGNAGEFORLOOP 'RANTS ORDRIVEFROM6ANCOUVERTO2IDGElELDANDBEYOND $EVELOPh"ACK2OADvTOUROF2IDGElELD ) 3IGNhMILESTO@/LD4OWN2IDGElELDv #HECKONGRANTSFOROVERNIGHTSLIPSATTHEDOCKSOR2 6SSPACESAT!BRAMS0ARK )DENTIFYTYPESOFBUSINESSESWANTEDANDTHENMARKETTOTHATTYPEOFINDUSTRY -OVEPOWERPHONELINESTOREAROFBUILDINGSANDREPLACEPOLESWITHSTREETLIGHTSTOMATCHDOCK -AKETH3TONE WAYNORTHINFRONTOF5NION2IDGESCHOOLFORPUBLICSAFETYFORKIDS $IRECTTRAFlCFROM5NION2IDGEAND!BRAMSPARKDOWNTOWNONTO-AINOR4HIRD3TREETS &IBEROPTICSLINESDOWNTOWN (AVE05$TAKEOVERALLWATERSEWERSYSTEMSNOW )NNORA""h7ENEEDVISITORSTOSTAYAWHILEv h%ASERESTRICTIONSTOALLOW""SDOWNTOWNSHORTTERM FOR,EWIS#LARK"I CENTENNIALANDTHENMAYBELONGTERMv h.EEDACCOMMODATIONSv #REATEAHOMECOMINGWEEKENDh!NEWEVENTFORTHE#ITYv #REATEA4REE0LAN#ITY h2AUL-ORENOVOLUNTEEREDv $2# h'ROW#HRISTMASTREESANDCUTTHEMANDDONATETHEMTOTHENEEDYv &LOWER"ASKETSFORDOWNTOWN#ITY 'ARDEN#LUB #/.#%045!,"5),$).'$%3)'.3 !.$$%4!),3 #/.#%045!,"5),$).'$%3)'.3 !.$$%4!),3 $URINGTHESUMMEROFTHEPROJECTTEAMPHOTOGRAPHED KEYBUILDINGSANDSTREETSCAPES4HEPHOTOGRAPHSAREAN INVENTORYOFTHEARCHITECTURALSTYLESANDBUILDINGDETAILSTHAT REmECTTHECHARACTEROF/LD4OWN2IDGElELD4HEINVENTORY ISAPERMANENTRECORDOFTHEHEARTOF2IDGElELDASITEXISTS TODAY0HOTOGRAPHSOFDOWNTOWNBUILDINGSANDACTIVITIES FROMEARLIERMOMENTSWILLALSOSUPPLEMENTTHEINVENTORY INTIME-ANYOFTHEEARLIERBUILDINGSHAVEBEENALTEREDOR LOSTBUTTHEPHOTOGRAPHICRECORDOFTHESEBUILDINGSCANHELP GUIDETHEDESIGNOFBUILDINGSYETTOBEBUILT 4HEINVENTORYOFARCHITECTURALELEMENTSWILLBECOMEAPALETTE FROMWHICHFUTUREBUILDINGSMAYBEDRAWNANDCONSTRUCTED &UTUREBUILDINGCONSTRUCTIONMAYBESUBJECTTODESIGNREVIEW TOENSURETHATTHEESSENTIALCHARACTEROF/LD4OWNISNOT SUBSTANTIALLYALTEREDANDLOST 4HEFOLLOWINGlVE#ONCEPTUAL"UILDING$ESIGNSAND$ETAILS AREPRESENTEDASASTARTINGPOINTFORTHESUBSEQUENTCOM MUNITYDISCUSSIONABOUTTHEFUTURELOOKOF/LD4OWN4HEY ARENOTINTENDEDTOBEBLUEPRINTSFORDEVELOPMENT4HElVE CONCEPTUALDESIGNSAREMEANTTOBECLEARLYMODERNBUILDINGS THATCOULDSERVEAVARIETYOFUSESSUCHASGROUNDmOOR COMMERCIALORlRSTmOORPARKINGANDUPPERSTORYOFlCESOR APARTMENTS4HEYAREALLINTENTIONALLYTWOSTORIESTALLSOASTO REmECTTHESCALEOFTHEEXISTING/LD4OWNANDALSOTOPROVIDE FORATRUEMIXOFUSES 4HECALL OUTSREPRESENTEDBYTHELETTERS!"AND#ARE MEANTTOILLUSTRATEAPARTICULARDESIGNFEATURETHATISFOUNDIN /LD4OWN2IDGElELDBUILDINGSSUCHASKNEEBRACESPARAPET WALLSANDMULTI PANEDWINDOWS.EWBUILDINGSTHATINCORPO RATETHESECHARACTER DElNINGELEMENTSMAYBLENDMOREEASILY INTOTHEFABRICOFTHEDOWNTOWN 2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3 4HE2EVITALIZATION"LOCKPAGESAREASTUDYOFTHEEXISTING BUILTANDUNDEVELOPEDSPACESIN/LD4OWN4HEPAGES PROVIDEAQUICKREFERENCEABOUTWHATLANDAREASAREFULLY BUILTORUNDER UTILIZEDANDTHEREFOREPOTENTIALLYAVAILABLEFOR REDEVELOPMENTANDWHATAREASAREVACANTANDBUILDABLE 4HEPROJECTTEAMMAPPEDEVERYBLOCKWITHINTHESTUDYAREA !LLSTREETSSIDEWALKSALLEYSEXISTINGBUILDINGSANDSTRUC TURESANDEMPTYSPACESWITHINEACHBLOCKAREDRAWNTO SCALE4HEPURPOSEOFTHESTUDYISTOCREATEANEGRESSAND INGRESSACCESSPLANFOREVERYBUILDINGANDTODETERMINETHE AMOUNTOFSPACEAVAILABLEFORBUILDINGEXPANSIONORFORAME NITIESSUCHASPATIOSPARKINGORDININGAREAS 4HE2EVITALIZATION"LOCKSTUDYPROVIDESASOLIDBASELINEFOR FUTUREPLANNINGBYPROVIDINGTHEBASEMAPSFORFUTUREINDIVID UALBUILDINGASSESSMENTANDCIRCULATIONPLANNING4HE2EVITAL IZATION"LOCKANALYSISMAYALSOPROVIDETHEFOUNDATIONOF FUTUREMARKETINGTOOLSFOR/LD4OWNSINCETHEPUBLICNOW HASANACCURATEREPRESENTATIONOFWHATEXISTSANDWHATIS AVAILABLETOACCOMMODATEFUTUREDEVELOPMENT BUILDING TYPE A 1/4" = 1'0" A B "5),$).'490%!g WINDOW TYPES 1/2" = 1'0" DOUBLE STOREFRONT 3 1/2"3 1/2"31/2"31/2"2' 6"2' 6"2' 6" 31/2"3 1/2"31/2"1/2"3 1/2"3 1/2"3 1/2" 1/2"2' 6"1' 0"1' 0"2' 0"variesvaries6'5" shownvaries 8'4" shown3 1/2"2' 6" TRIPLE !0ANED7INDOWSW4RIMAS3HOWN WINDOW TYPES 1/2" = 1'0" DOUBLE STOREFRONT 3 1/2"3 1/2"31/2"31/2"2' 6"2' 6"2' 6" 31/2"3 1/2"3 1/2" 1/2"3 1/2"3 1/2"3 1/2" 1/2"2' 6"1' 0"1' 0"2' 0"variesvaries6'5" shownvaries 8'4" shown3 1/2"2' 6" TRIPLE "3TOREFRONT7INDOWS 7INDOW$ETAIL (ISTORIC2IDGElELD3TOREFRONT BUILDING TYPE B 1/4" = 1'0" A B C "5),$).'490%"g !0ARAPET7ALL #2ECESSED%NTRY$ETAILS ENTRY DETAILS 1/2" = 1'0"6' 8"MID-STREET ENTRY CORNER ENTRY Edge of Overhang Above Varies StorefrontGlass 13' 0"PR 3º x 7º DRS.3' 0" min."&LAT!RCH ENTRY DETAILS 1/2" = 1'0"6' 8"MID-STREET ENTRY CORNER ENTRY Edge of Overhang Above Varies StorefrontGlass 13' 0"PR 3º x 7º DRS.3' 0" min.#/2.%2%.429 -)$342%%4%.429 BUILDING TYPE C 1/4" = 1'0" A B C "5),$).'490%#g !"2OOF0ITCHAND+NEE"RACE$ETAIL KNEE BRACE DETAIL 1" = 1'0" FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW Channel Rustic Siding Minimum Roof Pitch 6" x 6" Knee Brace Assembly 2 x 8 Backer 3' 0" 12" 1 x 4 2 x 86"#-ETAL"ATTEN2OOF BUILDING TYPE D 1/4" = 1'0" A B "5),$).'490%$g !#RAFTSMAN3TYLE#OLUMNS",ATTICE$ETAILS Craftsman Style column with Plywood as shown over structural steel cl.5'0"3'0"1' 51/2"111/2"2'9"Structural Steel Frame9" 9" 9" 1/2" = 1'0"11/2"11/2"11/2"11/2"11/2"9" 2'0" 2'6" 11/2" 9" 11/2"11/2"71/2"71/2"2 x 8 trim 2 x 8 trim 1 x 6 Board & Battensiding @ 12" o/c 2 x 12 skirt board BUILDING TYPE E 1/4" = 1'0" A B C "5),$).'490%%g )ONIC#OLUMNS 8-12" “Colonial Style” column with post & base caps as shown 9-12" “Old Style” letters on 2'0" high painted plywood frame with 1x3" painted wood trim Windows with mullions 2 x Sill 2 x 3 Trim 1 x 2 Batts @ 12" o/c over rough sawn plywood Toe board cut from 2 x 68'0"3"11/2"3'4" high1/3" = 1'0"11/2"8'0"2'0"!&ACIA3IGN""OARD"ATTEN3IDING#)ONIC#OLUMNS RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 1 N 1" = 40'PIONEER STREETS. MAIN AVENUE Res Res Residential Future Welcome Center Site 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g 2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3 RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 2 (upper) N 1" = 40'PIONEERSTREETM I L L S T R E E T Upper Living Center Upper Living Center Vacant VacantUpper Post Office 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g 500%2 RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 2 (lower) N 1" = 40'MILL STREETPIONEER STREETN. MAIN AVENUE Living Center Vacant Theatre/ Coffee Shop Pub Com. Post Office Residential Res. Res. 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g ,/7%2 RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCKS 4&5 N. 3rd AVENUE N. MAIN AVENUE MILL STREETSIMONS STREETN 1" = 30' Office Library/ Community Center Bank Residence Office Public Park 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3 g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 6 Hardware Com-mercial Salon Police Vacant Park Memorial Old Jail Office Commercial Credit Union City Hall Fire Station ALLEY PIONEER STREETN. 3rd AVENUE N. MAIN AVENUE Sporting Goods SIMONS STREETN 1" = 30'2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 7 ALLEY PIONEER STREETS . 3rd AVENUE S . MAIN AVENUE SARGENT STREETN 1" = 30' Wedding Chapel Office Corner Market Cafe Laundromat Vacant Vacant Vacant Res Res Res Res 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 8SARGENT STREETS . 4th AVENUE S . 3rd AVENUE PIONEER STREETN 1" = 30' Res.Res. Res. Vacant Auto Shop 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 9 Ridgefield School District MaintenanceBuilding VacantRestaurant Grocery/Deli/Flowers Insurance Auto Parts ALLEY PIONEER STREETN. 4th AVENUE N. 3rd AVENUE SIMONS STREETN Residential 1" = 30'2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCKS 10&11SIMONS STREETMILL STREETN. 4th AVENUE N. 3rd AVENUE N 1" = 30' Residential Residential Residential Residential 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCKS 12&13 N. 5th AVENUESIMONS STREETMILL STREETN. 4th AVENUE N 1" = 30' Residential Residential Residential Residential 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 14 N. 5th AVENUE N. 4th AVENUE PIONEER STREETSIMONS STREETN 1" = 30' Residence Residence Residence Office Art Center Residence ALLEY Residential 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3g RIDGEFIELD REVITALIZATION BLOCK 15 S . 5th AVENUESARGENT STREETPIONEER STREETS . 4th AVENUE N 1" = 30' Residence Residence Retail Residence Vacant Residential Residential Residential 2)$'%&)%,$2%6)4!,):!4)/.",/#+3g )N-AY-R*ON3CHALLERTPRESENTEDAWORKSHOPFORDOWN TOWNBUSINESSPEOPLEINWHICHHEOUTLINEDAPROCESSFORCREAT INGADESTINATIONRETAILBUSINESS-R3CHALLERTSPREMISEISTHAT ANYBUSINESSNOTJUSTDOWNTOWNCANBECOMEADESTINATION +EYEXCERPTSOFHISPRESENTATIONAREINCLUDEDBELOW -!*/2/7.%2#(!,,%.'%3 Z 3EEYOURSTOREANDPRODUCTASACONSUMERSEESIT Z !CTLIKE&ORTUNE Z 0UTASIDEINDIVIDUALITYFORGROUPUNITY Z 2EFOCUSYOURONE OF A KINDSTRENGTHS Z #REATIVELYDEPARTFROMYOURBUSINESSCOMFORTZONE $%34).!4)/.2%4!),).'-94(3 Z (IGHTRAFlCLOCATION Z (IGHINCOMELOCATION Z 3TORESIZE Z 0RODUCTPRICING Z 0RODUCTSELECTION Z &INANCIALSTRENGTH Z 2ETAILEXPERIENCE Z )FITSNOTBROKENx Z 7AITINGFOR"IG"ROTHER 7(9"53).%33%3,/3%#534/-%23 Z DIE Z MOVEAWAY Z INmUENCEDBYFRIENDS Z LUREDAWAYBYCOMPETITION Z DISSATISlEDBYPRODUCT Z TURNEDAWAYBYANATTITUDEOFINDIFFERENCE ONTHEPARTOFACOMPANYEMPLOYEE 4/$!93#/.35-%2 Z 4IMEPRESSURED Z 7ANTORIGINALANDUNIQUERETAILERS Z .ON COMPLAINERS Z /VER MARKETED Z "OREDEASILY Z FACTOR Z 0RODUCT-ICRO .ICHES Z %XPERTISECHOOSESITEMS Z 4AKEITEMSFROMGENERICTOPERSONAL Z 0RODUCTSELECTIONDOMINANT Z @&RONT LOADINNOVATIVEPRODUCTS Z &INDLIMITEDDISTRIBUTIONMANUFACTURERS Z 3IGNATUREITEMSBECOMEUNIQUELYYOURS 2%!,4)-%#534/-%23%26)#% Z #USTOMER3ERVICEMUSTBE Z #USTOMERSEXPECTIMMEDIATESATISFACTIONANDATTENTION Z #USTOMERTIMEPRESSURESCANBEANSWERED Z #REATECUSTOMERDIALOGUEMECHANISM Z $IALOGUEMUSTBEPARTOFTHEBUSINESS Z $ElNITIONOF)NTEGRATED-ARKETING Z h!PLANNEDSTRATEGYTOUTILIZEMULTIPLEFORMSOFMEDIAAND PROMOTIONSTOATTRACTCONSUMERSTOYOURBUSINESSESv $%&).)4)/./&-!2+%4).' Z h!COLLECTIONOFFUNCTIONSINVOLVEDINMOVINGGOODS FROMPRODUCERTOCONSUMERv "53).%33#534/-%2#/22)$/2 Z 7HEREABUSINESSMAKESCONTACTWITHACUSTOMEROR PROSPECTANDAJUDGMENTABOUTTHEORGANIZATIONISFORMED )-!'%#/.&,)#43 7)4(-!2+%4).' Z &ACADEOFBUILDING Z 3IGNAGE Z 7INDOWS Z %NTRYFRONTDOOR Z $ISPLAYS Z /UTSIDEAPPEARANCE Z -ERCHANDISING Z ,AYOUT Z $ECOR Z ,IGHTING Z 3OUND Z 3CENT Z $RESSOFPERSONNEL Z !TTITUDESOFPERSONNEL Z #ONVERSATIONSOFPERSONNEL !$6%24)3).'&/5.$!4)/. Z .OADBUDGETISEVERLARGEENOUGH Z )TTAKESTENTIMESMOREMONEYTOGETANEWSHOPPER THANITCOSTSTOBRINGANEXISTINGSHOPPERBACK Z )TTAKESANADVERTISINGMESSAGEAMINIMUMOF TIMES TOIMPACTACONSUMER !00%.$)8) #REATINGA$ESTINATION"USINESS *ON3CHALLERT 3CHALLERT!SSOCIATES)NC -ANAGEMENT#ONSULTANTS 2ETAILn53!COM 53).'7/2$/&-/54( Z 2EFERRALPROGRAM nh)WANTANOTHERCUSTOMERLIKEYOU AND)AMWILLINGTOREWARDYOUFORITv n#OLLECTIVEREFERRALPROGRAM Z 4ESTIMONIALS n7HATOURCUSTOMERSTHINKABOUTUS n)NTHEIROWNWORDS n#USTOMERSMUSTALLOWCOMPLIMENTS TOBEUSEDINMARKETINGMATERIALS -!2+%4).'4//,3 Z 4RADITIONALADS n0RINT n2ADIO n4ELEVISION n3PECIALTYPRODUCTS n"ILLBOARDS Z 7ORD OF MOUTH n4ESTIMONIALSREFERRALS -!2+%4).'7)4($!4!"!3%3 Z #APTUREEVERYNAME n'UESTBOOKS n"USINESSCARDS n2EGISTERTOWIN n.EWSLETTERSIGN UP n)NTERNETDATABASE Z .AMEADDRESSPHONEFAXEMAIL ANDQUALIlERQUESTIONS -!+).'4(%).4%2.%43%.3)",% Z $ATABASECOLLECTIONSYSTEM n#OLLECTNAMESMANUALLYOR n!LISTSERVEAUTOMATICALLYCOLLECTSNAMES 4(%0/7%2/& ).4%2.%4-!2+%4).' Z )NTERNETADDSNEWUSERSQUICKLY Z (IGHLYTARGETEDEMAILSWITHAPERSONALIZEDMESSAGECAN PRODUCEEXTREMELYHIGHRESULTS Z #OMMUNICATIONSARRIVEVERYQUICKLY Z 4RADITIONALMAILCOSTSAREREDUCED -!2+%4).'4//,3)."53).%33 Z %VENTSINSIDEINDIVIDUALBUSINESSES n!NNIVERSARY n#USTOMERAPPRECIATIONNIGHT n!RTISTORAUTHORSIGNING n9OURSTOREASANEVENTCENTER Z #ROSSPROMOTIONS n,IKEBUSINESSESSHARECUSTOMERS Z "OUNCE BACKPROMOTIONS n%NTICECUSTOMERFORANUNPLANNEDRETURNVISIT -!2+%4).'4//,05",)#)49 Z TIMESMORELIKELYTOBEDELIVEREDTHANADVERTISING Z 3ENTTOFEATUREEDITORNOTADREP Z 7RITTENBYYOUONNEWSABOUTYOURBUSINESS Z 5SEh0UBLICITYLEAPINGv Z #ANBEDIFlCULTTORECEIVE Z 7ORTHTHEEFFORTWHENYOUGETIT h-534 (!6%v02)/2)4)%3 Z !DDRESSPHONEHOURSOFOPERATION Z 7HATMAKESUSDIFFERENTBRANDING Z 3TOREPHOTO Z $IRECTIONS Z $ATABASECOLLECTIONSYSTEM Z #OMMUNICATIONINCENTIVE Z 3ATISlEDCUSTOMERTESTIMONIALS Z 0RODUCTANDSERVICEOFFERING 4(%35##%33&5, 2%4!),%23-/44/ Z h9OUDONTWANTTOBECONSIDEREDTHEBESTOFTHEBEST 9OUWANTTOBECONSIDEREDTHEONLYONESTHATDOWHAT YOUDOv*ERRY'ARCIA !00,9).').4%'2!4%$-!2+%4).' Z #ORRECTTWOBUSINESSIMAGEISSUES Z 3TRENGTHENCUSTOMERDATABASE Z 3TARTWEBSITE Z !DDTIME FRIENDLYCUSTOMERSERVICE Z #REATEBI MONTHLYIN STOREPROMOTION Z 'ENERATETWOPUBLICITYRELEASESONEACOMMUNITYTIE IN Z /NECROSSOVERANDBOUNCE BACKPROMOTION Z %MAILORMAILABUSINESSNEWSLETTER Z "EGINACUSTOMERFREQUENCYPROGRAM Z 2EADY&IRE!IM !00%.$)8)) 2IDGEFIELD5RBAN!REA #OMPREHENSIVE0LAN25!#0 '/!,2%6)4!,):).' $/7.4/7.2)$'%&)%,$ !$/04%$*!.5!29 4OWORKWITHTHEBUSINESSCOMMUNITYANDTHE0ORTOF 2IDGElELDTOREVITALIZE$OWNTOWN2IDGElELDANDTHE,AKE 2IVER7ATERFRONTASAMIXED USERETAILTOURISTRESIDENTIAL ANDSERVICECENTER 4HE25!#0STRONGLYFAVORSPROGRAMSTHATWILLBUILDUPON TWOOFTHE#ITYSMAJORASSETSITSLARGELYPRESERVEDCENTRAL BUSINESSDISTRICTANDWATERFRONT!S#LARK#OUNTYAND2IDGE lELDGROWTHESETWOASSETSWILLBECOMEINCREASINGLYRARE ANDVALUABLE4HE25!#0ENCOURAGESPUBLICANDPRIVATE INVESTMENTINTHESEAREASCONSISTENTWITHTHEPOLICIESBELOW 0/,)#9 )NDEVELOPINGACTIONPLANSANDWHENREVIEWINGDEVEL OPMENTAPPLICATIONSTHE#ITYSHALLENSURETHATTHEEXISTING STRENGTHSOF$OWNTOWN2IDGElELDANDTHE7ATERFRONTAREA AREMAINTAINED A /RIENTATIONANDACCESSTOTHE,AKE2IVERSHORELINE B #OMFORTABLESMALLTOWNhMAINSTREETvFEELING C 0EDESTRIANBICYCLEANDBUSACCESS D !BSENCEOFLARGESIGNSPARKINGLOTSAND DRIVE THROUGHBUSINESSES 4AKEADVANTAGEOF2IDGElELDS7ATERFRONT A 7ORKWITHTHE#OUNTYAND3TATEAGENCIESTOTRANSITION FROMANINDUSTRIALWATERFRONTTOMIXED USECOMMERCIAL RESIDENTIALANDTOURIST ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENTTHATFOCUSES ONTHEAMENITYVALUESOF,AKE2IVER B $ISCOURAGEDEVELOPMENTTHATDOESNOTRECEIVEDIRECT BENElTSFROMAWATERFRONTLOCATIONORWHICHISINCOMPAT IBLEWITHMIXED USECOMMERCIALRESIDENTIALANDTOURIST ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENT C $EVELOPA7ATERFRONT:ONING$ISTRICTWHICHSPECIlESPERMIT TEDANDCONDITIONALLY PERMITTEDLANDUSESLANDSCAPEAND DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSANDPUBLICACCESSREQUIREMENTS D %NSURETHAT2IDGElELDSAND#LARK#OUNTYSTRANSPORTATION PLANSINCLUDEAUTOMOBILEBICYCLEBOATTRAINANDPEDES TRIANACCESSTOTHE7ATERFRONTAREA E 4OPROVIDEUNRESTRICTEDVEHICULARACCESSTOTHEWATERFRONT AREAENCOURAGEDEVELOPMENTOFARAILROADOVERPASSAS PARTOFTHElRSTSIX YEAR#APITAL&ACILITIES0LAN F %NCOURAGEDEVELOPMENTOFARIVERFRONTPROMENADEINTHE 7ATER&RONT-IXED5SEZONEANDINTEGRATESUCHAPROM ENADEINTOTHEGREATER#ITYTRAILSYSTEM %NCOURAGEINVESTMENTIN$OWNTOWN2IDGElELDWHILE CONSERVING$OWNTOWN2IDGElELDSSMALLTOWNhMAINSTREETv FEELING4HIShFEELINGvHASSEVERALCOMPONENTSWHICHREQUIRE CONSIDERATIONANDPROTECTIONINTHEPLANNINGANDLANDDEVEL OPMENTPROCESS A 3TOREFRONTSTYPICALLYARELOCATEDONTHESTREETALONGRIGHT OF WAYLINES WITHSTREETSIDEWINDOWSSIDEWALKSAND STREETTREESSEPARATINGON STREETPARKING B 0ARKINGAREASARELOCATEDBEHINDBUILDINGSNOTINFRONT OFTHEM0ARKINGLOTSWHICHARELOCATEDTOTHESIDESOF BUILDINGSANDWHICHABUTASTREETSHALLBESEPARATEDBY ALANDSCAPEBUFFER C $OWNTOWNBUSINESSESAREENCOURAGEDTOTAKEADVANTAGE OFTHEIRHISTORICCHARACTERBYMAINTAININGORIGINALBUILDING FACADESWITHAPPROPRIATELYSIZEDANDDESIGNEDSIGNS D 2ESIDENCESAREENCOURAGEDTOLOCATEABOVEBUSINESSES E "USINESSACTIVITYSHOULDBEORIENTEDTOWARDSTHESTREET SIDEWALKCAFESTASTEFULLYDESIGNEDAWNINGSANDAPPRO PRIATESTREETVENDINGACTIVITIESAREENCOURAGED F 0ROVISIONSSHALLBEMADEFORPEDESTRIANANDBICYCLE ACCESSANDPARKING(OWEVERPEDESTRIANMALLS WHICHELIMINATEVEHICULARACCESSTOSTOREFRONTSSHALL BEDISCOURAGED $EVELOPA$OWNTOWN-IXED 5SEZONINGDISTRICTTO IMPLEMENTTHE25!#0 !SBUDGETPRIORITIESPERMITPREPAREAMASTERPLANFOR $OWNTOWN2IDGElELDANDTHE7ATERFRONTWHICHCONSIDERS AMONGOTHERTHINGS A %CONOMICREALITIESANDTHEBUSINESSPLANSOF PROPERTYOWNERS B -ULTI MODALTRANSPORTATIONFACILITIESINCLUDINGPUBLIC ACCESSTOTHE,AKE2IVERSHORELINEANDSAFEPEDESTRIAN ANDBICYCLEACCESSFROM$OWNTOWNTOTHERAILROADTRACKS C /BJECTIVELANDSCAPINGANDDESIGNSTANDARDSTOENSURE COMPATIBILITYAMONGMIXED USERESIDENTIALCOMMERCIAL TOURISTANDINSTITUTIONALDEVELOPMENTS D /PENSPACEANDPARKNEEDS G $ESIGNSTANDARDSFORWATERFRONTDEVELOPMENTWHICH MAXIMIZEVIEWPOTENTIALEGhSTAIR STEPPINGvBACK FROMTHE,AKE2IVERSHORELINE ANDMINIMIZESTRAFlC ANDNOISEIMPACTS E !PPROPRIATEMIXEDUSESSUCHAS26PARKSDOCKS ANDMARINASSPECIALTYRETAILSHOPSGOVERNMENTAND SERVICECENTERSHOTELSANDRESTAURANTSRECREATIONAL SALESANDSERVICEGENERALMERCHANDISEHOUSING ANDENTERTAINMENTBUSINESSES F !PPROPRIATELOCATIONSFORAFFORDABLEHOUSINGOPPORTUNITIES 4OREALIZETHEGOALOFANACTIVE$OWNTOWNAND7ATER FRONTOPPORTUNITIESFORAPPROPRIATELYDESIGNEDHIGHERDENSITY RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENTSHALLBEPROVIDEDTHROUGHSUCH METHODSAS A -IXEDUSEDEVELOPMENTS B #LUSTERSMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS C !CCESSORYHOUSINGUNITShGRANNYmATSv D 3ECOND STORYAPARTMENTSABOVEBUSINESSES E (OUSEBOATS 67 APPENDIX G: ZONING MAP (2014) RLD-4 IND IND RLD-6 CRB IND OFF OFF IND OFF RLD-6 RLD-4 RLD-4 RLD-4 PF RMD-16 PF RLD-4 RLD-8 PF RMD-16 RLD-4 RLD-4 P/OS WMU CCBPF RLD-6 RMD-16 CMU CCB P/OS PF P/OS RMD-16 P/OS CNB P/OS P/OS RMD-16 PF OFF PF PF CCB PF RMD-16 CNB CNB RMD-16 RLD-6 CNB P/OS RMD-16 P/OS P/OS P/OS WLS PF P/OS CCB P/OS P/OS PF RMD-16 P/OS RMD-16 P/OS RMD-16 CNB RMD-16 RMD-16 PF P/OS P/OS PF PF P/OS P/OS P/OS PF P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS P/OS RMD-16 OFF P/OS NE 259TH ST NE 29TH AVENWCARTY RD NW 289TH ST S 5TH ST SHI L L HU R S T R D NE 10TH AVENW 31ST AVEN 65TH AVES 45TH AVEN MAIN AVENW 11TH AVENETIMMENRDS ROYLE RDNW 291ST ST N 45TH AVEN W HIL L HURST RDNE CARTY RDS 9TH AVENW MAIN AVES 85TH AVES 65TH AVENE 10TH AVENW 31ST AVENW 51ST AVENE 279TH ST S TIMM RDN HERON DR NW 229TH ST NE 239TH STNE 29TH AVEN 10TH ST S DOLAN RD S 15TH ST NW 299TH ST NW 11TH AVENESTOUGHTONRDNW 71ST AVEN 20TH ST NE 45TH AVES 10TH WAY NW 41ST AVESSEVI E R RDS10THST S UNION RIDGE PKWY NWMAPLECRESTRDS 11TH ST NW 289TH ST MILL ST N 35TH AVEN S M Y THERD N 40TH AVEDIVISION ST NE 37TH AVENE 269TH STN 32ND CTNREIMANRDMAPLE ST NW 234TH ST NE 249TH ST N 5TH WAY S8THWAY S 74TH PLNE 289TH ST NFALCO N D R N 1ST AVES 6TH WAY NE 2ND AVENE1 4 THCTS 29TH CTS D U SKY D RS 19TH PLS 24TH PLS 34TH PLS 25TH PLS 8TH AVES 5TH AVES 32ND PLS 31ST WAYS 31ST CT N WE CK L UND RD S T A V ERN E R DR S 15TH CTS 21ST PLN RAILROAD AVES 35TH PLN 9TH WAY SIMONS ST ASH ST NW PARAD ISE PARK RD N8THWAY S 20TH WAYN 43RD PLS 1ST WAY NW 279TH ST S 7TH AVES2 2NDCIRS T ITAN DR N 1ST CIR CEMETERY RD W MILL ST NHELENSVIEWDRN RAVEN DRNORTHRIDGE DRS 13TH CTS P HOE BE DR S 13TH CIR N 10TH WA Y N 7TH CIR S 56TH PLS 31ST PLN 10TH ST NW 299TH ST S 35TH PLNW 51ST AVEN 9TH WAY NW 289TH ST S 35TH PLRidgefield Designation Residential Low Density - 4 (RLD-4) Residential Low Density - 6 (RLD-6) Residential Low Density - 8 (RLD-8) Residential Medium Density - 16 (RMD-16) Central Mixed Use (CMU) Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) Waterfront Low Scale (WLS) Office (OFF) Commercial Community Business (CCB) Commercial Neighborhood Business (CNB) Commercial Regional Business (CRB) Industrial (IND) Public Facilities (PF) Parks/Open Space (P/OS) Water County Designation Single-Family Residential (R1-10) Single-Family Residential (R1-7.5) Single-Family Residential (R1-6) Residential (R-12) Residential (R-22) Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Business Park (BP) Light Industrial (ML) Rural-5 (R-5) Rural-10 (R-10) Rural-20 (R-20) Rural Com.- Outside Rur.Center (CR-1) Agriculture-20 (AG-20) Agriculture/Wildlife (AG/WL) Parks/Open Space (P/OS) Parks/Wildlife Refuge (P/WL) Urban Holding Overlay District (UH) Taxlots City Limits Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary 0.25 0.50Miles City of Ridgefield Zoning Adopted by City Council : Signed______________ Dated______________ ¡Geographic Information System (GIS)Geographic Information System (GIS) Note: This data is compiled from many sources and scales.Clark County makes this information available as a service, and accepts no responsibility for any inaccuracy, actual or implied. Date: 1/6/2014Document Path: Q:\Projects\conSrvs\OtherAgencies\19805\LandUse\2013\RidgeZon11x17.mxd 69 APPENDIX H: ZONING REGULATIONS (2013) SECTIONS INCLUDING: CENTRAL MIXED USE (CMU), WATERFRONT MIXED USE DISTRICT (WMU), WATERFRONT LOW SCALE DISTRICT (WLS), THE LAKE RIVER VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (LRVP), AND THE DOWNTOWN TRANSITION AREA (DTA) RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 1 July 11, 2013 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 2 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. Dimensional 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 3 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 façade 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 4 July 11, 2013 v. Entry recessed from the façade 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: i. Use of colors and architectural details in building design. ii. 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 façade 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 façade 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 façade surface. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 5 July 11, 2013 v. Other equivalent methods that provide for the enhancement of the façade, 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. I. 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: 1. 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. 1. 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. 1. Landscaping shall meet the requirements of RDC 18.725. RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 6 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 1. 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 7 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 8 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 9 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. 1. 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: i. Concurrency and level-of-service standards of the city’s capital facilities plan; ii. 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. ii. 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 10 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 USE A. Marine Related Uses. 1. Public safety docks and boathouses for emergency services or public safety officers such as Fire Districts, Police, Coast Guard, and similar services. P 2. Marine fuel sales. P 3. Private docks and boathouses in support of a commercial or educational use. Private docks shall be accessory to a research company or educational institution located within the WMU district. P 4. Private docks and boathouses. Private docks not accessory to a research company or educational institution located within the WMU district. L(1) 5. Floating restaurant and floating retail uses. Floating retail uses shall directly serve the boating public or shall be retail uses which support water recreation. L(2) 6. Recreational boat launches and associated vehicle/trailer parking. P 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 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, L RDC 18.235 Mixed Use Districts Page 11 July 11, 2013 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 or products manufactured at that location are made available for sale to retail customers at the location at which they are made. P 4. Outdoor storage (covered or uncovered). 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. 1. Outdoor meeting and gathering spaces. P 2. Public restrooms. P 3. Public plazas and outdoor markets. P 4. Art and sculpture installations. P 5. Public information kiosks. P 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 12 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 WMU A. Minimum area for new development. None B. Minimum lot area. 5,000 square feet C. Minimum lot width. (1) 50 feet D. Minimum lot depth. 30 feet E. Minimum front yard setback. 0 feet F. Maximum front yard setback. 25 feet G. Minimum side or rear yard setback: 1. Abutting RLD and RMD zones. 10 feet 2. Abutting other zones. 0 feet H. Minimum landscaped area. 15% (2) I. Maximum impervious surface coverage. 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 13 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 14 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 Section18.230.070 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 15 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. 1. 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. 1. 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: 1. 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 WLS A. Minimum front yard setback (street). (1) (2) 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 16 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 façade 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 façade 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 façade with climbing vines or planting materials. iii. Providing texture or artwork (mosaic, mural, sculpture, relief, etc.) over the façade surface. iv. Other equivalent methods that provide for the enhancement of the façade, 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 17 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. I. Lighting. 1. Lighting shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.715. J. 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. 1. 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. L. Fences. 1. 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 18 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 19 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 20 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. 30 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. RDC 18.210.130 Downtown Transition Area Page 1 RIDGEFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.210.130: 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 2 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.C through a Minor Site Plan Review as described in RDC 18.500.030.B. 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 same, 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.G.   71 APPENDIX I: FLOATING HOME DRAFT ZONING CODE (2015) 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: Every floating 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‐B: 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 every floating 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. 14.96.110 Plumbing systems. All plumbing and plumbing systems in every floating 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. 14.96.130 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 than 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 every floating 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. 73 APPENDIX J: DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CHECKLIST (2011) 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. STEP 1 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.  If you plan to build a new structure, convert an existing structure from a residential use to a commercial or a shared (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 availability analysis is $50.00. STEP 2 SECURE THE LOCATION  Negotiate a purchase & sale or lease agreement with the owner. STEP 3 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).  CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT. Locating a new type of business in an existing building requires a change of 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 water 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! INFORMATION Following is additional information that may assist you in starting your business:  Electricity: Clark Public Utilities (360) 992-3000 or www.clarkpublicutilities.com  Garbage: Waste Connections (360) 892-5370 or www.wcnx.org  Natural Gas: NW Natural (360) 571-5465 or www.nwnatural.com  Ridgefield Business Association (360) 887-3600 or www.ridgefieldwash.com  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)