Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021, 07-13 Formal Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT Tuesday,July 13,2021 6:00 p.m. Remotely via ZOOM Meeting and In Person at 10210 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting NOTE: In response to Governor Inslee's announcement reopening Washington under the "Washington Ready" plan, members of the public may attend Spokane Valley Council meetings in-person at City Hall at the address provided above, or via Zoom at the link below. Members of the public will be allowed to comment in-person or via Zoom as described below. Public comments will only be accepted for those items noted on the agenda as"public comment opportunity." If wishing to make a comment via Zoom, comments must be received by 4:00 pm the day of the meeting. Otherwise,comments will be taken in- person at the meeting in Council Chambers,as noted on the agenda below. • Sign up to Provide Oral Public Comment at the Meeting via Calling-In • Submit Written Public Comment Prior to the Meeting • Join the Zoom WEB Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATIONS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY [1]: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government.This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required.A sign-in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers.Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or[2] and may only speak at one or the other,but not both. 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Traffic Impact Fee Studies:Mirabeau&N. Pines Subareas—Bill Helbig [public comment opportunity] Council Agenda July 13,2021 Page 1 of 2 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 21-008 Adopting Traffic Impact Fee Studies —Bill Helbig, Jerremy Clark [no public comment] NEW BUSINESS: 3. Consent Agenda: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of Claim Vouchers on July 13,2021,Request for Council Action Form: $4,530,305.32 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30,2021: $575,435.53 c.Approval of June 15,2021 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting Budget Workshop d.Approval of June 22,2021 Council Meeting Minutes,Formal Format e.Approval of June 29,2021 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting,Executive Session f.Approval of June 29,2021 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format g.Approval of July 6,2021 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except agenda action items,as public comments will be taken on those items where indicated. Please keep comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Government.This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Diverse points of view are welcome but please keep remarks civil. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. To comment via zoom: use the link above for oral or written comments as per those directions. To comment at the meeting in person: speakers may sign in to speak but it is not required.A sign-in sheet will be provided in Council Chambers.Whether in person or via zoom, speakers should indicate if they want to speak at General Public Comment Opportunity [1] or [2] and may only speak at one or the other,but not both. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4.Batch Text Amendments—Marty Palaniuk 5.American Rescue Plan Act—Chelsie Taylor,Erik Lamb 6.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT Council Agenda July 13,2021 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing — Mirabeau and North Pines Subareas Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); ROW 43.21 C; RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 197-11; WAC 365-196-850; SVMC 17.110-010; SVMC 22.100. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 15, 2020: Council approved Ordinance No. 20-026 to establish Transportation Impact Fees as part of CTA-2020-0005; January 1, 2021 Master Fee Schedule updated to include Schedule G: S. Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fees; Administrative Report on 6-29-21 BACKGROUND: Staff have identified the Mirabeau Subarea and the North Pines Road/SR-27 Corridor as an area experiencing a significant amount of new development. This has and will lead to continued degradation of levels of service for traffic movement on Pines Road/SR-27 and adjacent arterials. In June 2021, Fehr & Peers developed a transportation impact fee rate study derived from the Mirabeau Subarea Study Update (the rate study is designated as the "Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" or "Rate Study" herein). The Rate Study evaluated the previously determined infrastructure improvements and their associated costs, and how those costs can be fairly and proportionately distributed to new development that contributes traffic that affects the transportation network in a manner that complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 - .110 and SVMC 22.100. The Rate Study calculates a "per trip" impact fee of $716 per PM peak-hour vehicle trip generated in the Mirabeau Subarea and $2,816 per PM peak- hour vehicle trip generated in the North Pines Road Subarea. The following list highlights prominent new development types and their associated impact fee. Costs shown are based on the "per trip" rate of each Subarea. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10t" Edition quantifies various "generation rates" associated with a multitude of different land uses and applies an appropriate multiplier to the "per trip" rate. Land Use Description Mirabeau Subarea N. Pines Rd. Subarea 1. Single Family Home/Duplex $709 per dwelling unit $2,788 per dwelling unit 2. Multi-Family $401 per dwelling unit $1,577 per dwelling unit 3. Hotel (3 or more levels) $709 per dwelling unit $2,788 per dwelling unit 4. Elementary School $0.98 per sq. ft. $3.86 per sq. ft. 5. Medical Clinic $2.35 per sq. ft. $9.24 per sq. ft. 6. General Office $0.82 per sq. ft. $3.24 per sq. ft. 7. Shopping Center $1.80 per sq. ft. $7.08 per sq. ft. Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted in December, 2020 and imposes impact fees in all areas identified pursuant to adopted rate studies in such amounts as adopted pursuant to the rate studies and Master Fee Schedule. Staff are recommending adoption of the Mirabeau and North Pines Rate Study to allow assessment and collection of impact fees. After adoption of the Rate Study, staff will come forward with an amendment to the Master Fee Schedule for the Mirabeau and North Pines impact fees. This Public Hearing will provide the opportunity for public input regarding the Transportation Impact Fee rate study and proposed changes to the impact fee schedule to be applied towards new development in the designated Mirabeau Subarea and North Pines Road Subarea. OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct public hearing. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no additional cost to the City if the proposed Rate Study and associated Transportation Impact Fees are adopted. Proposed impact fees are anticipated to generate up to $3.98 million of new revenue to be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation F .. A ,ter - -;-4.4 MirabeauN r h Pines u ar ea - s �: Transportation Impact Fee ... _ • .. _ +. `i■ RateStudy-__ ,,... 4. „.. ..„......_ , _,,_, ., ...... 4 ...,...„,, , -., 4,-, .... _ .. ,..,, . HeanPublic u4i , ..,n ' °ate { yL - -a_..,-.- „., , _„,....,ii, . - - duly 13, 2021 _7.-.__.._, ..- R ��� J. �►a. w ___ iss Bill Helbig, City Engineer "'lane -, Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineer -- Spokane . Valle z ,, _ Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Topics Transportation Impact Fee Discussion Mirabeau Subarea Study (2016) Mirabeau Subarea Study Update (2019) Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (2021) Proposed Rates Spokane 2 Transportation Impact Fees What are they? Statutorily authorized mechanism to have development pay for its proportionate impact on services and infrastructure May be limited in application to an identified geographical area rather than City-Wide History in the City of Spokane Valley F December 15, 2020 — Council adopted Ordinance 20-026 d r creating SVMC 22. 100: Transportation Impact Fees $�� Fee amounts established by rate studies and amended „.„, 4. to the Master Fee Schedule January 1, 2021 — Master Fee Schedule updated including Schedule G — South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact ,T��F Fee Schedule Spokane 3 dValley. Mirabeau Subarea Study (2016) & Update (2019) Purpose Ekrpri.rQr 532 P1 315 S 5.31 ---j Study Intersections Mira beau Subarea 284 - _.I N Pines Road Subarea — • Projects Identified in Previous Study 317 Existing Level of Service 3� • Intersections Analyzed In Update �aro4i�a 316 429 437 Future Level Of Services 293 __ 292 E MPntgomerY D• T :i i? - ` Recommendations8 —29{ EMonCgW n wzy L_t Cf;:: iZlr :52$ r E Knox Ave I 39•J II Fair Share Analysis & lu 295 tB7 298 294 4 358. Potential Funding _ . n_ �� 33� k E cetamn Ave - 301 - 330 303 3ry 3 306 EErod'NeyAte a �� 331 -_ eI ¢ 333 EAIk •,,.. N7 302 r z 'g -I I z- _ •;alr.'�ay,t.v ,.Le Spokane z - 309 312 E Main Atie MS Valley_ 336 337 308 310 311— 11 _ [ .—iprapoW • 348 E Sprague A• I pp s 3dT q 3d 3349 Abu Owed RR 366 — — 367 368 4th Ave 4 356 353 35d 37D 371 376 3 56S y 351 352 Mirabeau Subarea Studies ______ __ Y .34. ,___ i, , Purpose 1<e ue _ 'A, :. -_� ' '...._ p Pie" T -.k ), ; rt A ` Mirabeau Parkway ; ti -. Area in central part of City experiencing ci4F , Y , ,y , _ n significant development l 1 I.-ti ,r*'..�y, S.'' �'+..''" J * ., -, °.a k- Y am-. f _._.-.n ...,,v Pines Corridor Level of Service degrading- o - ; adjacent corridors impacted CD .. b 49 * f.w ° 4;- Mansfield Avenue ,„ Identify and evaluate impacted ti . _ �- intersections on adjacent arterials _ 1 si L. Indiana Avenue Document Existing Conditions Interstate 90 --� z.,-. �. � -,/.` '.� Identify Future (2040) Conditions �Y ` ¢_•t , . , va :I• DevelopMitigation Recommendations ` s'' Mission Avenue tD A Identify Fair Share Costs 5 z. _ - Mirabeau Subarea Studies Study Intersections rket ., Fr � � 5 1r1f yw i `• i k.0 Pines Road/Indiana Avenue s] ; r am r4 p .g ;„ . ffi"-04 :.k 1Y `13 le. *s!{f yrY.'� A it I -ir?'° Pines Road/I-90 EB Ramps f }, tY , � t' f� : ,',:y If ` `�Q 4) Pines Road/Mission Avenue rTOR ; I . . 0 ,li}( r r� tR ; _ I. xf i'r a a w1 a - 0 Pines Road/Broadway Avenue © ;. rt 41) Pines Road/Sprague Avenue y' v��a aka' O Mirabeau Parkway/Mansfield Avenue 8 I' `" II fibEvergreen Road/Sprague Avenue `-- , Ci Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue otv- . .... 0 Argonne Road/Trent Avenue M ii ar rt Tg� �_'' se. ��r , �_ i , s 1 . R s 615. '° Mirabeau Subarea Studies Intersection Level of Service Results (PM Peak Hour) Existing 2040 Intersection Conditions Conditions Pines Rd/Indiana Ave D E Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps E F Pines Rd/Mission Ave E F Pines Rd/Broadway Ave E D (Improved with signal timing improvements) Pines Rd/Sprague Ave E E Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave B F Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave D D Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave E F Argonne Rd/Trent Ave Fi F pokane 7 1 Argonne/Mullan Corridor Memorandum (2018) �Valley Mirabeau Subarea Studies cl:u t ',J-sr'G !'? fI't --r ,-:-f r,‘f:o;.~ •.''x`r-:e Recommended Improvements - a a i l .` ,: g Mansfield Avenue - 0 Pines Road / Indiana Avenue 5 p. ' :5 F/S 1 r ! i. Add second dedicated westbound left turn lane °`-xII',�1 ; Indiana Avenue 0 Pines Road / I-90 EB Ramps Interstate 90 -_� ,� ,, r:r Add eastbound left turn lane & northbound ! Mission Avenue 0 �° i right turn lane 411 ` � , 431 Pines Road / Mission Avenue - Reconfigure Mission Ave. approaches to eliminate split phase signal timing, add southbound right turn lane, upgrade traffic signal Broadway Avenue '..a ;a �'' x ` QPines Road / Sprague Avenue Add southbound right turn lane and second eastbound F , - '. - left turn lane CO Mirabeau Parkway / Mansfield Avenue R_1 + g 8 Add traffic signal or roundabout (estimated as signal) i Sprague Avenue P p `� - �° _ - "�' Mirabeau Subarea Studies Recommended Improvements O �CentiP�eOle iii Sullivan Road / Mission Avenue Reconfigure eastbound approach for left-only and 4' - f shared through/right turn lane interstate 90 ' • y 44 :.mow 42) Argonne Road / Trent Avenue I M�Ssio„qv r . en ;w Add second westbound left turn tie 90 -Lie - '1 .- lane �rtierstia r O. s Broadway Avenue r� Mission Avenue p. U, r i . R 2 a1 ' _ — raw..-i -I, — d.-' N r - - � 9 ,,: Sprague Avenue ~mX z ,� �. i$ 1 I 1".a , I .T Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Fair Share Cost Analysis Mirabeau North Pines Subarea Subarea Estimated Eligible Existing Project Cost Cost % Cost % Cost Deficiencies Other nding 4% Pines Rd / Indiana Ave $1,545,000 $1,545,000 18% $278,100 42% Fu $648,900 Funding Pines Rd / I-90 EB Ramps $1,152,000 $1,152,000 18% $207,360 48% $552,960 45% MIbeau Pines Rd / Mission Ave $2,000,000 $2,000,000 16% $320,000 53% $1,060,000 Sarea t Fees Mirabeau Pkwy / Mansfield Ave $1,252,000 $1,252,000 38% $475,760 5% $62,600 % North Pines Sullivan Rd / Mission Ave $97,000 $97,000 4% $3,880 9% $8,730 Road Subarea Impact Fees Pines Rd / Sprague Ave $843,000 $759,000 6% $45,540 19% $144,210 33% Argonne Rd / Trent Ave $776,000 $540,000 10% $54,000 7% $37,800 Total: $ 7,665,000 $ 7,345,000 $ 1,384,640 $ 2,515,200 Spokane 10 1/alley Impact Fees : Proposed Rates _..., City of Spokane Valley Mirabeau Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit° Proposed Mirabeau Rate PM Peak Vehicle Passby ITE Land Use Category %2 per Unit of Trip RateMeasure3 $716 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip $716 Per PM Peak Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $709 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $401 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $501 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $0.98 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $2.35 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $0.82 per sq ft 820 Sho••in•Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $1.80 Ellig 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4- 6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 10 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 8 or 10 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$716 per PM peak hour trip. Proposed N. Pines Road Rate . . City of Spokane Valley North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit 4 PM Peak Vehicle Passby per Unit of $2,816 Per PM Peak Trip E Code ITE Land Use Category Trip Rate %2 p Measure; $2,816 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $2,788 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $1,577 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $1,971 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $3.86 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $9.24 per sq ft Adopted S. Barker Rate 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $3.24 per sgft 820 Sho••in•Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $7.08 Ellig 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4- $1,272 Per PM Peak Trip 6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 11 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 9 or 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$2,816 per PM peak hour trip. Northeast Industrial Area 2 New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips $2,831 per PM Peak Trip 4sgft=square feet,room=available hotel/motel room 11 Pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC,transportation impact fees for uses not listed in the rate table shall be based on(1)the most similar land use category identified in the table,or(2)the base rate and the most similar land use category identified in ITE Trip Generation Manual,as documented by a trip generation and distribution letter in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards. Questions E lPpriver Dr 5325.34 I 1 3r11 313: P I re„ll Awe .5 1 Ell MiraWau 5uiaarea _..i kaiser WoAcs; E In N Pines Road Subarea 184 k " " ` • Projects Identified in Previous Study L-6,'', Ir l 436 316 P Intersections Analyzed In Update ,:o�iR, _ Mird0;c nl P.4.,, -I — 1 EEL. 439 437 292 438 — 293 E Mpntg,-- y� 329 I 289 1 291 — E Mc-.!1,:,ie 140, 'a<71.:r:-s 321 $ k. ;:,. ,. 395 1811 1 _te 322 ---- 296 r% �.. 323_---. illI7 rii298 ra:-.....:!,, I r+.aone A•.s 39$ - . zE CeI :IN 1•.e — 132 • '.2.111 : a: 330 '' 3 s :�:irxay F e 331 = _- =AIk:favr. 3,97 g .. F_ al,�d,ey/qua — I — Spok1:.. In oe21,11 �3I0 11 312 E Main I e335 Valle S 6 Spokane 12 I I I. I •al ley ana.,dl mv e CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Ordinance No. 21-008 Adopting Traffic Impact Fee Studies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); RCW 43.21 C; RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 197-11; WAC 365-196-850; SVMC 17.110-010; SVMC 22.100. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 15, 2020: Council approved Ordinance No. 20-026 to establish Transportation Impact Fees as part of CTA-2020-0005; January 1, 2021 Master Fee Schedule updated to include Schedule G: S. Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fees; Administrative Report on 6-29-21; Public Hearing on July 13, 2021. BACKGROUND: The proposed ordinance provides an adoption of the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and the underlying Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study and Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. In June 2021, Fehr & Peers developed a transportation impact fee rate study derived from the Mirabeau Subarea Study Update (the rate study is designated as the "Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" or "Rate Study" herein). The Rate Study evaluated the previously determined infrastructure improvements and their associated costs, and how those costs can be fairly and proportionately distributed to new development that contributes traffic that affects the transportation network in a manner that complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 - .110 and SVMC 22.100. The Rate Study calculates a "per trip" impact fee of $716 per PM peak-hour vehicle trip generated in the Mirabeau Subarea and $2,816 per PM peak- hour vehicle trip generated in the North Pines Road Subarea. The following list highlights prominent new development types and their associated impact fee. Costs shown are based on the "per trip" rate of each Subarea. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10`" Edition quantifies various "generation rates" associated with a multitude of different land uses and applies an appropriate multiplier to the "per trip" rate. Land Use Description Mirabeau Subarea N. Pines Rd. Subarea 1. Single Family Home/Duplex $709 per dwelling unit $2,788 per dwelling unit 2. Multi-Family $401 per dwelling unit $1,577 per dwelling unit 3. Hotel (3 or more levels) $709 per dwelling unit $2,788 per dwelling unit 4. Elementary School $0.98 per sq. ft. $3.86 per sq. ft. 5. Medical Clinic $2.35 per sq. ft. $9.24 per sq. ft. 6. General Office $0.82 per sq. ft. $3.24 per sq. ft. 7. Shopping Center $1.80 per sq. ft. $7.08 per sq. ft. Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted in December, 2020 and imposes impact fees in all areas identified pursuant to adopted rate studies in such amounts as adopted pursuant to the rate studies and Master Fee Schedule. Staff are recommending adoption of the Mirabeau and North Pines Rate Study to allow assessment and collection of impact fees. After adoption of the Rate Study, staff will come forward with an amendment to the Master Fee Schedule for the Mirabeau and North Pines impact fees. OPTIONS: Move to advance Ordinance 21-008 to a second reading with or without modifications, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 21-008, adopting the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and underlying traffic studies, to a second reading as proposed. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no additional cost to the City if the proposed Rate Study and associated Transportation Impact Fees are adopted. Proposed impact fees are anticipated to generate up to $3.98 million of new revenue to be applied to transportation system improvements identified in the Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig, City Engineer; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Jerremy Clark, Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 21-008, with attached studies (Mirabeau & North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (2021); Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update (2019); Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study (2016) DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.21-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE MIRABEAU SUBAREA TRAFFIC STUDY, THE MIRABEUA SUBAREA TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE, AND THE MIRABEAU AND NORTH PINES ROAD SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new growth within the City,including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established minimum standards for the City; and WHEREAS,the City is authorized to adopt,impose,and collect transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020,the City of Spokane Valley adopted Chapter 22.100 SVMC to establish and collect transportation impact fees as provided by adopted impact fee rate studies and the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS,the City's transportation impact fees are set forth in the Master Fee Schedule pursuant to SVMC 17.110.010; and WHEREAS, in June, 2016, the City completed a transportation impact study of the Mirabeau Subarea(the "Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study")identifying traffic demands within the Mirabeau Subarea through 2040,necessary capital transportation improvements to meet the traffic demands,and the fair share proportionate level of financial contribution that new development should pay for those improvements; and WHEREAS, in December, 2019, the City updated the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study (the "Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update")to include an expanded area west of the Mirabeau Subarea and south of I-90,known as the North Pines Road Subarea; and WHEREAS, in June, 2021, the City completed a transportation impact fee rate study for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas (the "Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study")based upon the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study and the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas; and WHEREAS,the adoption of these studies enable the imposition and collection of impact fees under Chapter 22.100 SVMC and pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-.110 and WAC 365-196-850; and Ordinance 21-008 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fees Page 1 of 3 DRAFT WHEREAS,on July 13,2021,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley held a public hearing, received public testimony, and considered all testimony related to the adoption of these studies; and WHEREAS, the adoption set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study,the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update,and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study to allow transportation impact fees to be assessed and collected within the Mirabeau and North Pines Subareas pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted enabling the collection of impact fees as assessed in impact fee rate studies based on traffic studies. B. Noticing of Public Hearing — The City provided notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments as follows: 1. Publication in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 25, 2021, July 2, 2021, and July 9,2021. 2. The notice was published on the City's Public Notices page on June 25,2021. 3. A press release was issued on June 30,2021. C. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110,WAC 365-196-850, and Chapter 22.100 SVMC 1. The proposed adoption of the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study,Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update,and Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study enables assessment of impact fees in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110 and pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. 2. The proposed fees are for public street and road system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas, as identified in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study,the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. 3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Ordinance 21-008 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fees Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Comprehensive Plan identify use of impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements. Section 3. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. The Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit"A",the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "B", and the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "C". The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, and the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study are incorporated by reference herein and incorporated in Chapter 22.100 SVMC as provided therein. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of July, 2021. Ben Wick,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 21-008 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fees Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "A" Mirabeau & North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington June, 2021 FEHRkPeERs Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 1 Methodology 4 Project List 5 Travel Growth 5 Cost Allocation 8 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 9 Fair-Share Cost 10 Committed External Funding 12 Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip 13 Impact Fee Schedule 14 Trip Generation 14 Pass-By Trip Adjustment 14 Schedule of Rates 14 Appendices Appendix A— Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B— Mirabeau Traffic Study Update (2019) List of Figures Figure 1. Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Traffic Study Area 3 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 4 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 9 List of Tables Table 1. Mirabeau Traffic Study Project List and Cost Estimates 5 Table 2. Growth in Mirabeau TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 7 Table 3. Growth in North Pines Road TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 8 Table 4. Percent of 2040 Traffic Attributable to each Project Location 11 Table 5. Mirabeau TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations 11 Table 6. North Pines Road TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations 12 Table 7. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 13 Table 8. Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule 15 Table 9. North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule 15 Table 10. Expanded Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule 16 Table 11. Expanded North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule 17 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIF) rate study for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road subareas in Spokane Valley. The need for a TIF is identified in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(Dec 2019), which documented land use growth in the Mirabeau and North Pines Road subareas. That study projected how resulting traffic growth will degrade traffic operations at numerous intersections in and near the two subareas and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040. That study identified the needed future transportation capacity improvements in the area, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in both subareas and growth from other parts of the region. This TIF rate study builds on the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study and identifies a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit in both the Mirabeau Subarea and the North Pines Road Subarea. Using this rate schedule, developers in the TIF area can quickly identify their fair share contribution toward new transportation projects, facilitating development and reducing the cost and complexity of traffic studies associated with project permitting and transportation concurrency requirements. Except as otherwise identified herein, the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update provides the basis for all TIF rates calculated in this rate study. As part of adoption of any TIF rates, both the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update and this TIF rate study will be adopted as supporting documents. Study Area The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update defined the impact fee area for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea as shown in Figure 1.Along with the two subareas, that Study identified seven intersections, as mapped in Figure 1, where forecast development in the two subareas would contribute to a degradation of transportation level of service (LOS) by the year 2040. The areas were defined in that study using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) to the seven intersections. • Mirabeau TIF Area - Figure 1 shows the Mirabeau subarea which covers most of the area between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley.This includes the following transportation analysis zones (TAZs) from the SRTC regional travel demand model: 320, 321, and 322. This area will be referred to in this report as the Mirabeau TIF area. • North Pines Road TIF Area - Figure 1 also shows the North Pines Road subarea, which is around North Pines Road covering most of the area between University Road and Adams Road and East Valleyway Avenue and Trent Avenue excluding the Mirabeau Subarea. The North Pines Road subarea includes the following TAZs: 293, 297, 298, 305, 306, 329, 330, 331, 395, 396, and 397. This area will be referred to in this report as the North Pines Road TIF area. Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Based on the analysis provided in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, future development in the two subareas is expected to contribute between 13% and 66% of future traffic to the seven intersections identified - depending on the intersection. pr i '530\ Lt.— E Upri Ir Dr I 532 1534 Ill 1-1 E Rich Ave L 94 315 1 ce— 313� 1 /� - 110114ppippolm"'"1"...."....""'— Montana Rail Lin 531, 2- r gTrent Ave __.J Kaiser Works F — z^ ,„ 284 / Mirabeau Subarea moo` N Pines Road Subarea EGoote�oG 0 317 C436 • Project Locations �.mP1- F-e 316 as P" 439 y r----1E Euclid Avel 437 E Grace Ave / / / / -,Sar "293 J Norther°• — 292—f� — y 438 good-p°' l I •------- E Montgomery Dr 320 �289a �'E Montgomery Ave 291 g 290 • E Ma sfield Ave 321 /5 324 ;T — E Knox Ave 395 U Q �_ 1 Union Q Indiana Ave; — z — �c I-90' E Nora Ave_ — — 296 4�r I c 329 ' 323 E Mission Ave 11 295—� I 1297 1 298 it 294 E Sinto Ave 2 - 388 o, 1 �� ii I E Boone Ave 396 k-ace245 .0 2 2 z I z z l z ° 332� � D� —30.1 E Cataldo,A e U - 330 u' 1331 ce -a— m 304 I > 305 J o 306 E Broadway Ave o z —�_� 333 I 303 } m ( -0 . N m y. - J, r z — _T N E- N r? _ —z�� � z' E Alki Ave 397 � m ;v 302-.-.D z ' I Tm_ r a I e w E Valleyway Ave z ? a � ° � Li, Spokane z z ��J• 309 310 - I 3I 1 _ u312 IE Main Ave LL335 Valley' �336 337 �308 z -z I I 6 -� l Sprague•Av 346••••Ff-\\ Sp. - — E Sprague Ave _ 1---b — sh 3.47 APP 348 349 Aba d I ned RR yT36� - 36u 3 _Li T 368 ' ' � r E 4th Ave _r.,p I Ir 568 b -353 3I54 J 370 371 376 FA351� �� 352- J I 11 f-11�T I l ~� Figure 1 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Traffic Study Area Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Methodology The impact fee for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas was developed to establish the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the Figure 2. Impact Fee GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are Methodology reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of Projects and costs improvements and cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies. identified (Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study) The following key points summarize the process for developing the ■ impact fee structure (refer to Figure 2): Eligible project costs • The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update identified a list of identified (Mirabeau future projects and estimated costs that will be needed to Subarea Traffic Study) support future growth through the year 2040. • The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update also accounted for any existing deficiency (intersections/roadway segments that do Fair share of each project to TIF areas identified not meet current level of service standards) by deducting the (Mirabeau Subarea Traffic costs of those deficiencies from the total project cost. Study) • The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update next identified the share of traffic growth that is attributed to each of the two TIF areas. Forecast growth in PM • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in the peak hour vehicle trips in TIF areas Mirabeau and North Pines Road TIF area was estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model (and modified based on estimates Growth cost allocation provided by developers) using the Institute of Transportation (cost per PM peak hour Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. vehicle trip) • A cost per PM peak hour trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips in each subarea. Impact Fee Schedule • Lastly, a land use-based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak vehicle trip. Trip rates for multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10t" Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate. The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. pi Project List The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, originally completed in 2016 and updated in December 2019, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify potential traffic improvement projects at major intersections in and near the subareas. That study identified a total of seven projects that will be needed by 2040 to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards. Those projects, and costs in 2021 dollars, are shown in Table 1.The seven projects total approximately $7.66 million in 2021 dollars (note: these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update to account for construction cost inflation or more detailed estimates by the City of Spokane Valley- COSV). Table 1. Mirabeau Traffic Study Project List and Cost Estimates Project Description Program Cost Estimate (2021 dollars) Pines Rd/Indiana Ave Add westbound left-turn lane; retime traffic signal N/A $1,545,000 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Add eastbound left-turn lane and northbound right-turn Ramps pocket (extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic N/A $1,152,000 signal Pines Rd/Mission Reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Ave to include Ave eastbound dual-left and a through-right lane and 2022-2027 TIP westbound left,through, and right turn lane; retime and (#13) $2,000,000 upgrade traffic signal; add southbound right-turn lane (extending back to the 1-90 off-ramp) Mirabeau Pkwy/ Add traffic signal, add new 180 foot southbound 2022-2027 TIP Mansfield Ave through-right lane (#41) $1,252,000 Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include a left and through- N/A $97,000 Mission Ave right lane; retime signal Pines Rd/ Add a southbound right-turn-only lane;convert the Sprague Ave existing southbound through-right lane to a through- N/A $843,000 only lane;add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Argonne Rd/ Trent Ave Add a second westbound left-turn lane. N/A $776,000 TOTAL $7,665,000 Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(December 2019).Costs were updated based on California Construction Cost Index, which showed a 3.0%inflation rate from December 2019 to March 2021.The exception being the Pines Road/Mission Avenue project,for which cost estimates were more recently updated by COSV. Note:TIP=City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country, the total eligible costs of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip.All Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way, the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the two TIF areas contribute a meaningful amount of total traffic to the combined project sites relative to the amount of growth expected. The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which project location is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the 11 identified TAZs within the two TIF areas contribute a similar proportion of the total TIF area traffic to the project sites relative to the amount of growth expected in the respective TAZ. For the Mirabeau TIF area, the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from 2015 and 2040 based on the data provided in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study (2016) as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Forecast land use growth was attained from a combination of sources, including conversations with major developers, a land use audit of development in the pipeline, and the SRTC regional travel demand model. For the North Pines Road TIF area, which was incorporated by the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update in 2019, the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories: two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified. Table 2 summarizes the calculation for the Mirabeau TIF area and Table 3 summarizes the calculation for the North Pines Road TIF area. It should be noted that COSV directs developers to apply the trip calculation methodology based on the process detailed in Section 4.4 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition when estimating trip generation for developments. In some situations the best-fit curve would be used instead of average trip rates.That methodology is applicable at the development scale where developments of various sizes can impact trip rates. However, in this situation given growth forecast in the model will occur among developments of various sizes over a 25-year period, using average trip rates is more appropriate and was applied to forecast growth in trips in the TIF area. pr i Table 2. Growth in Mirabeau TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) ITE Average Growth in Land Use (LU) 2015-2040 Unit of ITE Code ITE Description Trip Rate 1 Trips(LU LU Growth Measure growth x (PM peak hr.) trip rate) Single Family 65 Dwelling 210 Single-Family Detached 0.99 65 Residential Units Housing Multi-Family Dwelling Multifamily Housing 979 220 0.56 549 Residential Units (Low-Rise) Hotel/Motel 150 Rooms 310 Hotel 0.60 90 Thousand Retail Trade 63.89 820 Shopping Center 3.81 244 Square Feet Office 2,561 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 1,025 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 1,973 1.ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition;average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 7 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Table 3. Growth in North Pines Road TIF Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) ITE Average Growth in 5RTC Land Use (LU) 2015-2040 Unit of ITE Code ITE Description Trip Rate 1 Trips (LU LU Growth Measure growth x (PM peak hr.) trip rate) Single Family Dwelling Single-Family Detached 78 210 0.99 78 Residential Units Housing Multi-Family Dwelling Multifamily Housing 157 220 0.56 88 Residential Units (Low-Rise) Hotel/Motel 0 Rooms N/A N/A N/A 0 Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, 79 Employees 110 General Light Industrial 0.49 39 Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade (Non- Central Business 155 Employees 820 Shopping Center 1.62 252 District) Services and Offices 248 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 100 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 11 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 7 Services (FIRES) Medical 371 Employees 630 Clinic 0.85 316 Retail Trade (CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Education Employees 18 Employees 520 Elementary School 1.78 33 University Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A 0.40 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 9112 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10`"Edition;average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2. Estimated growth in trips is slightly higher than the findings in the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(2019)because the retail trip generation is based on employees instead of square foot and the trip generation from the school land use was updated. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the Mirabeau TIF area would generate 1,973 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040, and the North Pines TIF area would generate 911 new PM peak hour trips by 2040. The total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth for these two areas will be used in the calculation of the TIF rate. Cost Allocation Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip, see Figure 3. First, the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs pr i that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, resulting growth-related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Mirabeau and North Pines Road TIF areas. It should be noted that dedicated funding from external sources (state/regional grants, other mitigation payments, etc.) is considered in the impact fee eligible costs, if the dedicated funding exceeds the share of costs caused by growth outside of the TIF areas. This is currently not the case, thus non-City funding sources were not excluded from the total eligible project cost. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation STEPS Project List $7.6 M Ir If 0 Future Growth Existing Deficiency $7.3 M $320 K Jr I * + I 0 Inside Mirabeau Inside N Pines Rd Outside TIF Areas TIF Area TIF Area $1.4M $2.5 M $3.4M 4, +2%Admin 3 -2%Admin 4 Eligible Mirabeau Eligible N Pines Rd Other Funds Needed Impact Fee Impact Fee $3.8 M $"1.4 M $2.6 M Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted for the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update, which identified existing level of service (LOS) deficiencies at two of the seven project locations: Pines Road & Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue. A deficiency at an intersection is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as a LOS rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or LOS F at an unsignalized intersection. The full cost of projects at these two locations cannot be included in the impact fee and a portion must be deducted to account for the existing deficiency.The methodology for accounting for the existing deficiency is explained in Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update and provided below. Pines Road&Sprague Avenue The full cost of improvements at the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions.To account for Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 this, the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce the LOS at this intersection from an "E" to a "D" was estimated in Synchro. The result was 10% of existing traffic.This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing conditions, the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold. Therefore, to account for the existing deficiency, 10% of the total cost of the improvement project at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 5 and Table 6. Argonne Road& Trent Avenue Similarly, the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection. To account for this, the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D under existing conditions was estimated.The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne Road/North Muffan Road Corridor Retiming Project.' The estimated cost of this project ($229,200 in 2019 dollars; updated to $236,000 in 2021 dollars) was deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 5 and Table 6. In total, between the two projects, $320,000 was deducted from the $7.66 million total cost of all seven projects associated with the TIF areas to account for existing deficiencies. Fair-Share Cost With deficiencies accounted for, the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the Mirabeau and North Pines Road TIF area —there is a portion of growth that comes from other parts of Spokane Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used. The Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update identified the percentage of traffic growth through each project intersection that are expected to be attributable to development in the Mirabeau TIF area and North Pines Road TIF area.This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentages range from 4%to 53% depending on the TIF and the project location as shown in Table 4. 1 Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum. N Argonne Road/N Mullan Road Corridor Retiming.July 25, 2019. Project# SE18-0621. 10 ,� Table 4. Percent of 2040 Traffic Attributable to each Project Location Mirabeau Subarea North Pines Road Combined Portion of Intersection Portion of Future Traffic Subarea Portion of Future Traffic from Future Traffic two Subareas Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18% 42% 60% Pines Rd/1-90 EB Ramps 18% 48% 66% Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53% 57% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43% Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13% Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19% 25% Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7% 17% Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update(Dec 2019) The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth-related transportation improvements at the seven project locations that is expected to be attributable to development in the two TIF areas. For the Mirabeau TIF area, this equates to $1,384,640. A two percent administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program, including future updates to the TIF rate study. When factored in, the eligible project cost for the Mirabeau TIF area equates to $1,412,330 shown in Table 5. Table 5. Mirabeau TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations Cost to Address Existing Eligible Project TIF Area Fair Cost Project Location Project Cost Deficiencies Cost Share Attributable to Percent Study Area Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,545,000 $0 $1,545,000 18% $278,100 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps $1,152,000 $0 $1,152,000 18% $207,360 Pines Rd/Mission Ave $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 16% $320,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/ $1,252,000 $0 $1,252,000 38% $475,760 Mansfield Ave Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave $97,000 $0 $97,000 4% $3,880 Pines Rd/Sprague Ave $843,000 $84,000 $759,000 6% $45,540 Argonne Rd/Trent Ave $776,000 $236,000 $540,000 10% $54,000 SUBTOTAL $7,665,000 $320,000 $7,345,000 Varies $1,384,640 Administrative Cost(2%) $27,690 TOTAL $1,412,330 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 For the North Pines Road TIF area, the fair share total equates to $2,515,200. When the two percent administrative fee factored in, the eligible project cost for the North Pines Road TIF equates to $2,565,200 as shown in Table 6. Table 6. North Pines Road TIF Area Eligible Cost Calculations Cost to Address Cost Project Location Project Cost Existing Eligible Project TIF Area Fair Attributable to Deficiencies Cost Share Percent Study Area Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,545,000 $0 $1,545,000 42% $648,900 Pines Rd/1-90 EB Ramps $1,152,000 $0 $1,152,000 48% $552,960 Pines Rd/Mission Ave $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 53% $1,060,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/ $1,252,000 $0 $1,252,000 5% $62,600 Mansfield Ave Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave $97,000 $0 $97,000 9% $8,730 Pines Rd/Sprague Ave $843,000 $84,000 $759,000 19% $144,210 Argonne Rd/Trent Ave $776,000 $236,000 $540,000 7% $37,800 SUBTOTAL $7,665,000 $320,000 $7,345,000 Varies $2,515,200 Administrative Cost (2%) $50,300 TOTAL $2,565,500 Committed External Funding As identified in Table 5 and Table 6, the two TIF areas are eligible to fund $3.90 million of the $7.66 million total project costs. The City of Spokane Valley is responsible to fund the balance through any non- TIF area funding source. One of the more common sources of funding to pay for this external growth share are grants.To this end, the City has secured a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant of$1.73 million to fund capacity projects in the area and has chosen to advance implementation of the Pines Road and Mission Avenue intersection. Since this grant is less than the total amount the City is liable to cover to fund the share of growth outside of the TIF areas ($3.76 million), there is no change in cost attributable to either of the TIF areas. Additionally, there are existing "vested" trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement" that was established by Spokane County. While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley will count the vested trips as a credit against impact fee documented in this rate study.These trips have a value of $303.36 per PM peak hour trip. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips in their current quantity as a credit to the Mirabeau TIF until they have no vested trips remaining. pr r Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip Lastly, the cost per PM peak hour trip for each of the two TIF areas was calculated by dividing the total eligible fee for each TIF by the respective growth in PM peak hour trips in each TIF area.This equates to a fee of$716 per PM peak hour trip in the Mirabeau TIF area and $2,816 per PM peak hour trip in the North Pines Road TIF area as shown in Table 7. Table 7. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Fair Share Eligible 2015-2040 Cost per PM TIF Area Growth in PM Project Costs Peak Hour Trip Peak Hour Trips Mirabeau TIF $1,412,330 1,973 $716 North Pines Road TIF $2,565,500 911 $2,816 Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study June 2021 Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect differences in trip-making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model within Spokane Valley.The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates.Table 8 and Table 9 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass-By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses (e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway.These pass-by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee.The resulting trips are considered "new" trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The pass- by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates for the Mirabeau TIF are shown in Table 8 and the proposed impact fee rates for the North Pines Road TIF are shown in Table 9. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 10 and Table 11 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories. The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected PM peak hour person trip generation and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip which is $716 for the Mirabeau TIF area as shown in Table 8 and $2,816 in the North Pines Road TIF area as shown in Table 9. Projects with land uses not in Table 8 - Table 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $716 per PM peak hour trip for the Mirabeau TIF are and $2,816 per PM peak hour trip for the North Pines Road TIF area. pr i Oj Table 8. Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley Mirabeau Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Vehicle Passby Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit 4 @ ITiiiE Code ITE Land Use Category r 2 per Unit of Trip Rate Measures $716 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $709 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $401 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $501 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $0.98 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $2.35 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $0.82 per sq ft 820 Sho..in.Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $1.80 PISHO 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4- 6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 10 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 8 or 10 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$716 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft=square feet,room =available hotel/motel room Table 9. North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Vehicle Passb Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit 4 @ ITE Code ITE Land Use Category 2 per Unit of Trip Rate Measures i $2,816 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $2,788 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $1,577 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $1,971 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $3.86 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $9.24 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $3.24 per sq ft 820 Sho..in•Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $7.08 per sq ft 1 ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4- 6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 11 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 9 or 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$2,816 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft=square feet,room =available hotel/motel room 15 Appendix A - Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Table 10. Expanded Mirabeau Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley Mirabeau Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit' @ Vehicle Land Use Group ITE Code ITE Land Use Category Trip passby%2 per Unit of Rate' l` i Measures $716 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $709 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi-Famil 0.56 0% 0.56 $401 •erdwellin.unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $501 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $2.47 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02045 34% 0.01350 $9.66 •ers.ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $0.98 per sgft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 0.00119 $0.85 per sq ft 530 Hi.hSchool 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $0.69 •ers•ft 925 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $4.64 per sq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant(with drive-thru) 0.03267 50% 0.01634 $11.69 per sq ft 937 Coffee Sho•with Drive-Thru 0.04338 89% 0.00477 $3.42 •er s.ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $1.80 per sq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales-Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $2.68 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pum. 23.04 66% 7.83 $5,608 •er.um. 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0.00063 $0.45 per sq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $0.48 per sgft 151 Mini-Stora•e 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.12 •ers•ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $0.82 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office/Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 $2.48 per sq ft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $0.77 •ers.ft 'ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM);This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive;Projects with land uses not in Table 8 or 10 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$716 per PM peak hour trip. 2 New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips °sq ft=square feet,pump=vehicle servicing position/gas pump,room=available hotel room FEHR4 PEERS Table 11. Expanded North Pines Road Impact Fee Schedule 1110 .. City of Spokane Valley North Pines Road Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit 4 @ Land Use Grou ITE Code ITE Land Use Cate or Vehicle Unit P 8 y Trip Passby%2 perof Rate' Measure 3 $2,816 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $2,788 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi-Famil 0.56 0% 0.56 $1,577 •erdwellin.unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $1,971 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $9.72 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02045 34% 0.01350 $38.01 .ers•ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $3.86 per sq ft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 0.00119 $3.35 per sq ft 530 Hi.hSchool 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $2.73 .er s.ft 925 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $18.24 per sq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant(with drive-thru) 0.03267 50% 0.01634 $46.00 per sq ft 937 Coffee Sho.with Drive-Thru 0.04338 89% 0.00477 $13.44 •ers•ft 820 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $7.08 per sq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales-Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $10.56 per sq ft 853 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pum. 23.04 66% 7.83 $22,060 .er.um. 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0.00063 $1.77 per sq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $1.89 per sq ft 151 Mini-Stora•e 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.48 •ers.ft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $3.24 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office/Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 $9.74 per sq ft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $3.01 •ers•ft 'ITE Trip Generation Manual(10th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM);This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive;Projects with land uses not in Table 9 or 11 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on$2,816 per PM peak hour trip. 'New trips will exclude"pass-by"trips:see"ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition"(2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips °sq ft=square feet,pump=vehicle servicing position/gas pump,room=available hotel room FEHR S PEERS Appendix B - Mirabeau Traffic Study Update (2019) FEHRk PEERS Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington December 2019 DN19-0631 FEHR � PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Previous Study Findings 1 Update to Expand Subarea 1 Traffic Analysis 4 Level of Service Standards 4 Methodology 5 Existing Traffic Level of Service 7 Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service 8 Project Cost Estimates 10 Updated Project Unit Costs 10 Project Cost Estimates 11 Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis 13 Fair Share Analysis 13 Cost Per Trip 15 Conclusions 17 Appendices Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports Appendix E— Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area 2 Figure 2: Existing and Future Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 List of Tables Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study 3 Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 5 Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service 7 Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments 8 Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized 8 Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave. to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 8: Unit costs 10 Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS 11 Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections 13 Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs 14 Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation 15 Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation 17 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction The City of Spokane Valley commissioned the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study in 2016 that identified existing transportation level of service (LOS) deficiencies and future transportation improvements to support existing and planned growth in the Subarea. Based on the traffic forecasts, future traffic impacts and potential mitigation projects, a fair share analysis was used to estimate a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip that developers in the Subarea would pay to meet their obligation under SEPA. The City will use these fees to offset the cost of transportation improvement projects directly impacted by development in the Subarea. The Mirabeau Subarea is mapped in Figure 1 and covers most of the area between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley. Previous Study Findings The 2016 Mirabeau Traffic Study identified five intersections in or around the Mirabeau Subarea that are forecast to have LOS deficiencies by 2040.These intersections are shown in Table 1, including the 2015 and 2040 PM peak hour LOS and delay. For each intersection, a project was identified to address the future LOS deficiency, including a cost estimate for each project. A fair share percent was also estimated that represents the portion of future traffic that would pass through the location generated by the Mirabeau Subarea. This proportion is based on a select link analysis using the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model. Based on the estimated project costs, fair share analysis, and future traffic generated by development in the Subarea, a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip of$323.75 was calculated and assessed to developments in the area to pay for the future transportation improvement projects identified in the Study. Update to Expand Subarea In 2019, the City commissioned an update to the Mirabeau Traffic Study.This report provides a summary of the update, including an updated cost analysis and findings. The main purpose of this Study is to update the fair share cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip from the original traffic study as well as expand the geographic area by which transportation impact fees will be collected to account for new developments planned for the area south of 1-90. Instead of changing the boundaries of the previously established Mirabeau Subarea to accommodate the expanded area, a second Subarea was established directly adjacent to the Mirabeau Subarea. The second Subarea is referred to as the North Pines Road Subarea and is mapped in Figure 1. The North Pines Road Subarea is around Pines Road roughly between Sprague Avenue and Trent Avenue and University Road and Adams Road excluding the Mirabeau Subarea. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update E Upriver Dr 532 534 I E Rich Ave I 394- 315 � ._ 3131 E Trent Ave-531 Montana Rail Lm ERR r Industrii-al-Park A St l 1 Mirabeau Subarea ---� Kaiser Works 1 E, r j N Pines Road Subarea �Qc 284 taFeRtvrJ _ Industrial Park B St Poo �peNo��e��san 0 Industrial Park C St Projects Identified in Previous Studye. og 31.7 436- qp Intersections Analyzed in Update . :ttoary,9ve 316 Ra Mirabeau Prkwy E Euclid Ave ,_----- 439 43j7 J / E Grace Ave / ---;>.-- �_ 292 —438% i , 293 E Montgomery Dr 289 29,1 ce ce 1290_ 324 i E Montgomery Ave _ /cS IE Mansfield/,�� Mansfield 321 > a, E Knox Ave 395 t jag, 4 > N�xw1GbC•$aG�3 r c I z �`o I I �• �'� E Nora Ave__ �Z I l a 329 323 �o`a pit Rd -296 2� 295— 298 Za 294 �— _ I 1�97 — •-MissionA�T" 388 o — — E co Et `� ci 1 —E Boone Ave 396 cz _ J Z ZI o I - w 20 z ECaTdoAve 0 332 •,. ? J 330 - I -301 303 304 I > F 5 o I 306 iBroadway Ave o 33"1--_� m ce 333 ❑ 1 _ ti _ — -- I z E Alki Ave 39 11 7 —m —z -302- 1 z c ZI z I I t l E Valleyway Ave -> I _ Spokane Z z 309 — E.Main Ave ) I I ValleyJ-- — - 7-336 LI 337 I i I _ 310 i 3111 — 312 I 335— I _� �+ •= SpragueAv • \346 E Sprague Ave I -- I_Li s 348 — 349 Abandoned RR 366 367 - 368� yo•. — 347 Applewa� Ave _ U T —T- s —IC I I r E4Tve - - `` - 568 -P°' C351 b 352 —353-III 3547 370 - J 37111 I + 376 3 sc I- Figure 1 Ori Study Area Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Mirabeau 2040 LOS Subarea Mirabeau Project 2015 2040 Description of Cost with Proportion Subarea Fair (Intersection) LOS LOS Improv. Improvement Estimate of Future Share Cost Traffic Pines Rd/ D E D Add westbound left-turn $896,000 18% $161,000 Indiana Ave lane; retime traffic signal Add eastbound left-turn lane and northbound Pines Rd/I-90 E F D right-turn pocket $753,000 18% $135,000 EB Ramps (extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Add southbound right- turn lane (extending back to the I- 90 off-ramp); reconfigure lane Pines Rd/ assignments on Mission $457,000 16% $73,000 Mission Ave E F D Ave to include eastbound dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left, through,and right turn lane; retime traffic signal Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add Pkwy/ B F C new 180 foot southbound $874,000 38% $332,000 Mansfield Ave through-right lane Reconfigure eastbound to Sullivan Rd/ include a left and D E B $61,000 4% $2,500 Mission Ave through-right lane; retime signal Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(June 2016). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 3 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Traffic Analysis In the previous study, traffic analysis was performed for 21 intersections in and around the Mirabeau Subarea, with five of those locations identified as having traffic level of service (LOS) deficiencies by Year 2040. No updates to that analysis were performed as part of this study and the COSV still plans to implement those five projects (listed in Table 1) over time as fees are collected. However, as part of expanding the traffic analysis to include the North Pines Road Subarea as part of this study, three additional signalized intersections were identified to evaluate existing (2019) and future (2040) traffic LOS. These include: 1. Pines Road/Broadway 2. Pines Road/Sprague Avenue 3. Evergreen Road/Sprague Avenue Level of Service Standards City of Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic (LOS A) to highly-congested conditions (LOS F).The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Table 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The LOS for signalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Spokane Valley also applies Corridor LOS to evaluate major arterial corridors in the City.Average daily traffic (ADT) volume thresholds are used to measure average LOS conditions along the length of the entire corridor. Corridor LOS acknowledges that some intersections may experience greater congestion than the corridor as a whole. Sprague Avenue and Pines Road are both major arterials where corridor-level LOS can be applied. The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D at the corridor level for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) pi Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level of Signalized Unsignalized Description Intersection Delay Intersection Delay Service (seconds) (seconds) A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are 20-35 15-25 affected by the interaction with other motorists. D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 E Near-capacity operations,with speeds reduced to a low but 55-80 35-50 uniform speed. F Over-capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2016,Transportation Research Board WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas (including the Study Area) is LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Within the Study Area WSDOT's LOS standards are also considered for intersections along Pines Road, which is State Route 27. Methodology Traffic Analysis Synchro software (version 9) was used to evaluate PM peak hour LOS at the three signalized intersections included in this Update. Synchro settings were set consistent with WSDOT Synchro &SimTraffic Protocol (Aug 2018) and City of Spokane Valley standards. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes Existing intersection turn movement counts were collected between 4 PM and 6 PM on Thursday, September 19th, 2019. The existing (and future) PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 5 Yc2 - y "�cc a re -- - 8) E Boone Ave . m i m m 2 c• — z m ix z v z z w E;Cataldo Ave C Z re N —P-.. to I N z- 1 y J ; E Broadway Ave cc v -0 m • rn ce m CC z z - m- E z - - �� I EAIkiAve - z a� m ` z I 2 a_ I E Valleyway Ave z I — I - Sppokane i — _ I 1 E Main A' ) . i + I I- Valley f t—� - Sp IgueAv • E Sprag • Abandoned RR \ ] .-- - 0 Al L E 4th Aye , I' • E 5th Ave 1.Pines/Broadway 2.Pines/Sprague 3.S Evergreen Rd/Sprague 0 rn o �n o o �n o�n N N m o�rn 76(85) vo CO 173(195) o �_215(240) o 275(280) N m 837(1,005) rn 873(980) `�+L 123(130) `1+L - 140(160) ��L 127(145) a oadwa oa so,aa 4 f� 187(205)� Inv 216(240)- lit 166(185)� )11 315(320)._ o 801(960):: C o E 830(1,005):: o f 101(110) co co 93(120)-Si''' 7_v� 95(110)�' �_a� u)uO u) ll)CN MCC o M N .-N o CO •-7 7 Existing PM(2040 PM)Volumes rigule Configurations PM Peak Hour pTraffic Volumes ii Future Year (2040) Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were forecast using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017.After review of the land use forecasts in the model with City staff, no adjustments were made to the existing or future land use assumptions or transportation network in the model. Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. Under the difference method, the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models were added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic.This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note: the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model were multiplied by 0.84 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (21 years/25 years = 0.84). Post processing to account for model anomalies was also applied to arrive at the final 2040 traffic forecasts. Forecast traffic volumes in Year 2040 are also shown in Figure 2. Existing Traffic Level of Service Table 3 shows the existing PM peak hour LOS using the methodology described above for the three intersections analyzed. Under existing conditions, both the Pines Road/Broadway and Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersections operate at LOS E, exceeding the COSV and WSDOT intersection LOS D threshold. It should be noted that the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is just on the cusp of LOS D and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Additionally, both Pines Road and Sprague Avenue are major arterials through these intersections and it should be noted that for these corridors the 2016 Comprehensive Plan directs the LOS threshold to be measured by using corridor-wide LOS. While the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that individual intersections may exceed the LOS D threshold using this method (as long as the corridor-wide average is at or below LOS D), the corridor-level LOS was not a primary consideration in this case and was not analyzed as part of this study. Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 62 E Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 51 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving Existing Level of Service The most cost-effective way to improve the existing LOS at the Pines Road/ Broadway intersection would be to make signal timing adjustments. Table 4 shows what the existing PM peak hour LOS would be if the signal timing splits were optimized and cycle length maintained in order to preserve coordination between signals along the corridor. Right-turn-on-red movements were factored into the analysis. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Optimizing the signal splits would improve the Pines Road/Broadway intersection to LOS D, but would have little to no effect at the other two intersections. Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 48 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 48 D Source:Fehr&Peers Year 204o Traffic Level of Service Table 5 shows the estimated PM peak hour LOS in 2040 for the three intersections analyzed, based on traffic growth from the SRTC regional travel demand model. The 2040 delay and LOS presented in Table 5 assumes the same cycle length for the signals, but assumes the signal splits would be optimized over time to account for changing traffic patterns.The results show that in 2040 the Pines Road/ Sprague intersection would continue to operate at LOS E, but would degrade by an average of 8 seconds per vehicle from existing conditions, and would exceed WSDOT and COSV intersection LOS threshold.Again, it should be noted that City of Spokane Valley uses corridor-level LOS methodology to measure LOS for both the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors. Corridor-level LOS was not measured in 2040 as part of this analysis, but in consultation with City staff it was determined that addressing congestion at Pines Road and Sprague Avenue in the future was desired to reduce delay, improve corridor-wide LOS for both Sprague Avenue and Pines Road, and to mitigate potential congestion related safety issues. Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 49 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 64 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 52 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving 2040 Level of Service Using an iterative approach and accounting for land use constraints, a project was identified to improve the delay at the Pines Road/ Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040. A description of the project and the improvements to LOS and delay is shown in Table 6.This project would reduce the 2040 delay by about 9 seconds and bring the LOS from an E to a D (just on the cusp of a D/E). It should be noted that while this intersection is not specifically required to meet LOS D threshold per Spokane Valley standards (instead the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors are required to meet corridor-wide average LOS D threshold), improving the average vehicle delay at this intersection will ensure that WSDOT LOS standards are met and would contribute toward ensuring the Pines and Sprague corridors do not exceed LOS D corridor- wide in 2040. Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Intersection Description of Improvement Delay(sec)with LOS with Improvement Improvement • Add a southbound right-turn-only lane; • Convert the existing southbound through-right Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 54.6 D lane to a through-only lane; • Add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Source:Fehr&Peers Argonne Road & Trent Avenue Intersection The intersection of Argonne Road &Trent Avenue is near the North Pines Road Subarea, and while traffic analysis at that intersection was not performed as part of this study, this intersection was identified in the 2016 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as a location that would exceed COSV and WSDOT LOS thresholds.As part of the Comprehensive Plan, a project was identified to address the poor LOS in the future, as described in Table 7. Given that development in both the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas would increase traffic at this intersection, this project was also included as part of the fair-share cost analysis for both Subareas. Note that while the improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue would improve the LOS compared to a "do nothing" alternative, this intersection would not meet either WSDOT or COSV LOS thresholds. Land use constraints related to the BNSF railroad overpass and the narrow street cross section in Millwood limit options related to adding roadway capacity to Argonne Road. Because this improvement would add capacity and reduce delay, the cost can be factored into impact fees per the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), despite not reducing LOS to within the City or State thresholds. Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave. to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Intersection Description of Improvement Delay w/o LOS w/o Delay with LOS with Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Argonne Rd/ • Add a second westbound 109 F 96 F Trent Ave left-turn lane. Source:Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Dec 2016),Appendix A. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Project Cost Estimates This section includes updated cost estimates, including methodology, for the five projects identified in previous plans as well as the cost estimates for two projects identified in this study at both the Pines Road & Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersections. Updated Project Unit Costs Unit costs for roadway construction were identified in the 2016 traffic study. In collaboration with City staff, these costs were updated based on construction costs from recently completed transportation projects in Spokane Valley. Where recent costs were not available, unit costs were updated based on inflation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Highway Cost Index.' Costs to account for drainage and traffic control were also added. Table 8 summarizes the unit costs that were used to develop project cost estimates. Table 8: Unit costs Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost(2019$) Hard Costs Roadway Demolition Demolition and removal of old roadway Square Yard $15 Curb Demolition Demolition and removal of old curb/gutter Linear foot $16 Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old sidewalk Square Yard $20 Signal Demolition Demo and removal of old traffic signal eqpt. Each mast arm $6,000 Excavation Excavation,grading,fill,earthwork Cubic Yard $35 Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $60 Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $45 Sidewalk Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $80 Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $4,000 Traffic Signal Construction of new traffic signal Each new system $480,000 Other Costs Right-of-way Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot $12 Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew engaged 10%of"hard"costs above Drainage Cost to provide proper stormwater drainage 20%of applicable"hard"costs above Traffic Control Cost to manage traffic during construction 15%of"hard"costs above Contingency Cost contingency for unexpected drainage/ utility/ 30%of"hard"costs above earthwork conflicts;WSDOT coordination Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20%of"hard"costs above Source:City of Spokane Valley, Fehr&Peers,FHWA National Highway Cost Index. ' https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/nhcci/ptl.cfm pr i 10 ,� Project Cost Estimates Table 9 shows the cost estimates for seven potential projects in the study area where LOS would degrade to unacceptable levels in the future. This includes updated costs for the five projects identified in the previous (2016) Mirabeau Traffic Study to account for construction cost inflation, plus the additional projects at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue intersection identified in this Update and the potential project at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (2016). Details for how these costs were estimated is provided in Appendix E.All cost estimates are in 2019 dollars. Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS Non- 2016 Cost Applicable Project Description Cost Estimate Applicable Costs Estimates Costs (2016 dollars) Pines Rd/ Add westbound left-turn lane; Indiana Ave retime traffic signal $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $896,000 Pines Rd/I-90 Add eastbound left-turn lane and EB Ramps northbound right-turn pocket (extending back to Nora Ave); $1,119,000 $0 $1,119,000 $753,000 retime traffic signal Pines Rd/ Reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Ave Mission Ave to include eastbound Phase 1 dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left,through, and $588,000 $508,620 $79,380 right turn lane; retime and $457,000 upgrade traffic signal Pines Rd/ Add southbound right-turn lane Mission Ave (extending back to the 1-90 off- $812,000 $0 $812,000 Phase 2 ramp); Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add new 180 Pkwy/ foot southbound through-right $1,215,000 $0 $1,215,000 $874,000 Mansfield Ave lane Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include Mission Ave a left and through-right lane; $94,000 $0 $94,000 $61,000 retime signal Add a southbound right-turn-only Pines Rd/ lane;convert the existing Sprague Ave southbound through-right lane to $818,000 $82,000 $737,000 NEW a through-only lane;add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Argonne Rd/ Add a second westbound left-turn Trent Ave lane. $753,600 $229,200 $524,400 NEW Source:Fehr&Peers,City of Spokane Valley. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 It should be noted that the improvements at Pines Road & Mission Avenue have been split into two phases as the City is planning to implement a portion of this project (Phase 1) in 2020. Additionally, about 86% of funding for this project is from non-City funds (that portion is funded by a Surface Transportation Block Grant) and thus cannot be included as part of the fair-share cost analysis. All other projects are assumed to be funded entirely by City general funds (which include mitigation fee payments from development). Secondly, the full cost of improvements at the Pines Road & Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions. To account for this, the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce the LOS at this intersection from an "E" to a "D" was estimated in Synchro.The result was about 10% of existing traffic. This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing conditions, the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold.Therefore, 10% of the total cost of the potential improvement project at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. Similarly, the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection.To account for this, the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D under existing conditions was estimated. The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne Road/North Mullan Road Corridor Retiming project.'The estimated cost of this project ($229,000) was deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. 2 Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum. N Argonne Road/N Mullan Road Corridor Retiming.July 25, 2019. Project# SE18-0621. 12 ,� Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis Fair Share Analysis A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards. The Subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the Subarea is expected to contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions (see Table 9). In other words, what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea? The SRTC regional travel model was used to determine the percentage of traffic generated by future development within the two Subareas.The travel model has a tool called a "select zone analysis"that can track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city. The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea development separate from any other traffic generated by development in the region. The results of the select zone analysis were analyzed for each of the seven deficient intersections identified in Table 9.Table 10 shows the results of the select zone analysis. This reflects the same portion of traffic from the Mirabeau Subarea through the five deficient intersections identified from the previous (2016) study. Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections Mirabeau Subarea North Pines Road Subarea Combined Portion Intersection of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic from two Subareas Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18% 42% 60% Pines Rd/1-90 EB Ramps 18% 48% 66% Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53% 57% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43% Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13% Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19% 25% Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7% 17% Source:Fehr&Peers,SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). The results in Table 10 show that at some intersections, the majority of future traffic is generated by the two Subareas combined, while at other locations, the majority of future traffic is generated by locations outside the two Subareas. For example, at the Pines Road & I-90 Eastbound Ramps, 18% of future traffic will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 48%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined, the two Subareas will generate about 66%of the future traffic Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour. In contrast, about 10% of future traffic at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 7%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined the two Subareas will generate about 17% of the future traffic passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour, while land uses outside the Subarea will generate about 83% of future traffic passing through the intersection. The results in Table 10 were used to determine the two Subareas'financial share of the total project improvements by multiplying the total improvement cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new development in the two Subareas.The result of this calculation is the fair-share cost of each project to the Subarea and is shown in Table 11.This shows that the total fair-share cost of all seven projects adds up to $1,079,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,708,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea.A two percent administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program, including future updates to this study. Thus, the total fair share cost of improvements, including the administrative fee, equals $1,101,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,742,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea. Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs Applicable Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Intersection Portion of Total Subarea Portion Subarea Subarea Portion Road Subarea Project Cost of Future Traffic UPDATED Fair- of Future Traffic Fair-Share Cost Share Cost Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,500,000 18% $270,000 42% $628,000 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps $1,119,000 18% $201,000 48% $532,000 Pines Rd/Mission Ave $891,000 4% $143,000 53% $476,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/ $1,215,000 38% $462,000 5% $64,000 Mansfield Ave Sullivan Rd/ $94,000 4% $3,700 9% $8,200 Mission Ave Pines Rd/ Sprague Ave $737,000 6% $48,000 19% $137,000 Argonne Rd/ $524,000 10% $51,000 7% $38,000 Trent Ave Total Fair Share N/A N/A $1,079,000 N/A $1,708,000 Cost Total Fair-Share Cost with 2% N/A N/A $1,101,000 N/A $1,742,000 Administrative Fee pr r ®j Cost Per Trip Given both Subareas' share of the total project costs as identified in Table 11, the cost per PM peak hour trip could be updated for the Mirabeau Subarea and calculated for the North Pines Road Subarea by applying the same methodology as the previous study.The same amount of future land use growth in Mirabeau through Year 2040 assumed in the previous study was applied (but with updated project costs and updated trip rates) as shown in Table 12. This calculation might seem counterintuitive because there has been growth in the Mirabeau Subarea between 2016 and today. However, since this study did not re- calculate the proportion of traffic growth associated with the remaining development potential in the Mirabeau Subarea, the original total increase in trip generation was assumed.This is a common assumption used when updating impact/mitigation fees and helps to keep the fees relatively stable and predictable over time. For the North Pines Road Subarea, the difference between the land use assumed in the 2040 SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the 2015 model was used. PM peak hour trip generation was estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Table 12 summarizes the land use growth and resulting trip generation rates for both Subareas.This is the same trip generation approach used in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, except with updated rates based on the current (2017) ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation PM Peak Hour Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Road Land Use Subarea Units of Subarea PM Subarea Units of Subarea PM Peak Trip Rate Development Peak Hour Trips Development Hour Trips Single-Family Residential 0.99 65 dwelling units 65 78 dwelling units 78 Multi Family 0.56 979 dwelling units 549 157 dwelling units 88 Residential Retail 3.81 63,890 square feet 244 69,750 square feet 266 Office 0.40 2,561 employees 1,025 259 employees 104 Hotel 0.60 150 rooms 90 0 rooms 0 Medical 0.85 0 employees 0 371 employees 316 School 0.17 0 employees 0 18 employees 4 Industrial 0.49 0 employees 0 79 employees 39 Total Fair Share N/A N/A 1,973 N/A 895 Cost Source:Trip generation:ITE(2017);Mirabeau Subarea land use growth:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(2016);North Pines Subarea land use growth:SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Based on the results from Table 11 and Table 12 the cost per PM peak hour for each Subarea are as follows: Mirabeau Subarea (UPDATED): $1,101,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/ 1,973 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 558 per PM peak hour trip. This compares to $323.75 per PM peak hour trip from the 2016 study. The cost per trip went up because of higher construction costs, the two additional improvement projects (at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue), and slightly lower assumed trip rates based on the updated trip generation manual (which reduced forecast new trips generated by development from 2,176 in the previous study to 1,973). North Pines Road Subarea: $1,742,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/895 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 1,946 per PM peak hour trip Vested Trips There are still existing "vested" trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement"that was established by Spokane County. While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in October 2019, there were 816 PM peak hour vested trips outstanding amongst the land owners in the Subarea. These trips have a value of$303.36 per trip, which works out to a total value of$247,542. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips as a credit to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips remaining. rr Oj Conclusions This report provided an update to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study previously performed in 2016.The main purpose of this study was to update the projects costs, based primarily on inflation, and to expand the geographic area paying the traffic LOS impact mitigation fee as planned new developments will add a substantial amount of new traffic to the area. Instead of expanding the Mirabeau Subarea, a new Subarea called the North Pines Road Subarea was defined. As part of this analysis, the existing and future traffic LOS conditions at three new intersections in and around the two Subareas was performed. As shown in the previous study and this update, in the future, traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area as the Mirabeau Subarea, North Pines Road Subarea, and the rest of Spokane Valley and the region continue to grow.This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most of the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road corridor with a separate improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue and a minor improvement at the Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue intersection. A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea and North Pines Road Subarea landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to implement future traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution up to the amount shown in Table 13, then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making this mitigation payment (which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement), the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and circulation study, which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and within the development site. Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation Subarea Cost per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Mirabeau Subarea $ 558 North Pines Road Subarea $1,946 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 17 Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports FEHRk PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 68 55 839 50 91 1115 167 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 255 350 99 197 348 83 204 1356 81 112 1080 161 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1339 318 1634 3125 186 1650 2866 428 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 354 55 438 451 91 639 643 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1658 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1648 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 255 0 450 197 0 430 204 707 730 112 620 621 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0.82 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.81 1.03 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 255 0 472 241 0 497 204 707 730 203 620 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 0.0 46.3 35.5 0.0 45.3 51.5 28.5 28.5 59.7 40.5 40.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.8 0.0 25.8 4.0 0.0 8.7 0.4 2.5 2.5 12.8 44.0 45.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 0.0 18.0 3.5 0.0 13.0 1.8 12.7 13.0 3.6 29.8 30.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0.0 72.1 39.5 0.0 54.0 51.9 31.0 30.9 72.6 84.5 85.9 LnGrp LOS D E D D D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 616 482 944 1373 Approach Delay,s/veh 64.6 50.2 32.2 84.4 Approach LOS E D C F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 54.0 16.0 38.7 13.8 61.4 14.5 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 11.0 49.0 11.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 13.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.0 51.0 13.0 28.1 9.1 29.0 9.4 34.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 82 146 872 147 141 439 64 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1190 116 171 933 156 292 797 116 317 686 253 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4381 429 1650 4074 683 1634 2856 414 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 317 146 674 345 141 249 254 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1656 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1640 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 857 450 171 722 367 292 455 458 317 481 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.93 0.94 0.48 0.55 0.55 0.92 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 857 450 241 728 370 292 455 458 355 557 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 42.6 42.6 57.3 49.1 49.2 48.0 39.9 40.0 51.6 44.4 44.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 37.5 2.3 4.5 11.1 12.1 21.1 1.2 4.7 4.8 10.2 8.6 9.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.5 9.9 10.8 5.7 13.1 14.3 4.6 8.2 8.4 11.2 16.4 15.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.4 44.9 47.1 68.4 61.3 70.4 49.2 44.6 44.7 61.8 52.9 53.4 LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1141 1165 644 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.9 64.9 45.7 55.4 Approach LOS D E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.2 43.0 24.0 34.8 30.0 41.3 18.5 40.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 17.0 44.0 19.0 30.0 28.0 33.0 19.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.1 35.5 19.5 29.5 24.6 19.1 13.3 24.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 1.2 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.2 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 56.4 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 82 132 909 173 118 439 82 182 675 168 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 196 1761 166 157 1506 285 141 661 123 203 721 179 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 415 1650 3993 757 1650 2771 514 1650 2612 650 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 173 620 327 132 717 365 118 260 261 182 425 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1596 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1616 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 196 1264 663 157 1189 602 141 393 391 203 454 446 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.49 0.49 0.84 0.60 0.61 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.90 0.94 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 203 1264 663 203 1189 602 203 462 460 203 462 454 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 29.0 29.1 57.9 32.6 32.7 58.5 44.7 44.8 56.2 45.9 46.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.1 0.7 1.4 20.9 2.2 4.4 17.8 2.7 2.9 36.1 26.4 26.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 8.4 9.0 5.6 10.7 11.3 4.9 8.7 8.8 8.5 18.2 18.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 29.7 30.4 78.7 34.9 37.1 76.4 47.5 47.8 92.3 72.3 72.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E C D E D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1120 1214 639 1025 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.2 40.3 52.9 76.1 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.4 54.0 15.1 41.4 16.4 57.1 20.0 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 26.0 11.2 34.8 12.2 21.2 16.1 20.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 12.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 14.4 0.0 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.6 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports FEHR j PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 69 55 839 50 91 1115 164 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 244 350 99 178 310 75 98 1393 83 112 1305 191 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1335 322 1634 3125 186 1650 2875 422 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 355 55 438 451 91 637 642 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1657 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1651 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 244 0 450 178 0 385 98 726 749 112 747 749 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.72 0.00 0.92 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.81 0.85 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 244 0 472 178 0 408 98 726 749 178 747 749 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 0.0 46.3 38.4 0.0 48.7 59.5 27.3 27.3 59.8 31.6 31.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.7 0.0 25.8 11.9 0.0 23.7 4.6 2.3 2.3 14.0 11.8 12.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.3 0.0 18.0 4.1 0.0 15.0 2.0 12.4 12.8 3.7 22.8 23.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.9 0.0 72.1 50.3 0.0 72.4 64.1 29.6 29.6 73.8 43.5 43.8 LnGrp LOS D E D E E C C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 616 483 944 1370 Approach Delay,s/veh 65.7 66.5 31.6 45.6 Approach LOS E E C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.8 64.0 18.0 35.2 13.8 62.9 13.0 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 6.0 59.0 13.0 32.0 14.0 51.0 8.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 47.2 13.4 29.2 9.1 28.5 9.8 34.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.3 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 81 146 872 147 141 439 63 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 248 1249 121 170 970 163 269 766 109 315 688 254 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 424 1650 4074 683 1634 2862 408 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 316 146 674 345 141 249 253 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1657 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1641 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 248 898 472 170 751 382 269 436 439 315 483 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.52 0.57 0.58 0.93 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 254 898 472 228 800 407 269 436 439 330 570 542 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 41.0 41.1 57.3 48.0 48.1 49.6 41.2 41.2 51.7 44.2 44.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 30.8 1.7 3.3 12.6 7.5 14.0 1.9 5.3 5.4 17.6 12.6 13.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.1 9.7 10.5 5.7 12.5 13.5 4.8 8.4 8.5 11.8 16.8 16.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.2 42.8 44.4 70.0 55.5 62.1 51.5 46.5 46.7 69.3 56.8 57.5 LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1140 1165 643 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 51.6 59.3 47.7 60.3 Approach LOS D E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 26.4 43.2 24.5 35.9 29.8 39.8 18.4 42.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 12.0 45.0 20.0 33.0 26.0 31.0 18.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.3 35.4 19.4 29.2 24.6 19.4 13.3 23.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.1 1.8 0.2 2.1 0.2 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 83 132 909 176 118 439 82 182 675 166 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 197 1696 162 158 1443 278 140 695 129 206 761 187 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 419 1650 3980 767 1650 2771 514 1650 2619 644 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 173 621 327 132 719 366 118 260 261 182 424 417 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1653 1650 1577 1594 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1617 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 197 1219 639 158 1143 578 140 413 411 206 478 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.51 0.51 0.84 0.63 0.63 0.84 0.63 0.64 0.88 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1219 639 241 1143 578 165 456 454 241 532 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 30.5 30.5 57.8 34.2 34.3 58.6 43.3 43.4 55.9 44.1 44.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.3 0.8 1.5 14.0 2.6 5.1 27.1 2.4 2.5 26.8 15.4 15.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 8.7 9.3 5.3 11.1 11.7 5.3 8.6 8.6 8.0 16.5 16.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.6 31.3 32.0 71.8 36.8 39.4 85.7 45.7 46.0 82.7 59.5 59.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1121 1217 639 1023 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.9 41.4 53.2 63.8 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.5 52.1 15.1 43.3 16.4 55.2 20.2 38.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 18.0 38.5 13.0 42.0 19.0 37.5 19.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 26.7 11.2 34.1 12.2 21.7 16.1 20.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 9.1 0.1 3.7 0.2 11.4 0.2 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.0 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports FEHRk PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 205 320 97 130 280 73 55 895 50 90 1190 174 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 239 347 105 171 298 78 68 1417 79 111 1373 200 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1270 385 1634 1311 342 1634 3138 175 1650 2879 419 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 205 0 417 130 0 353 55 465 480 90 678 686 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1655 1634 0 1653 1634 1630 1683 1650 1646 1652 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 239 0 453 171 0 376 68 736 760 111 785 788 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.92 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.81 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.86 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 239 0 458 171 0 382 68 736 760 165 785 788 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 45.9 42.2 0.0 49.3 61.8 27.3 27.3 59.8 30.2 30.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.5 0.0 23.8 16.3 0.0 28.8 30.8 2.3 2.2 16.9 12.1 12.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 0.0 17.5 2.3 0.0 15.5 2.5 13.2 13.7 3.7 24.1 24.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.3 0.0 69.7 58.5 0.0 78.1 92.5 29.6 29.5 76.8 42.4 43.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E F C C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 622 483 1000 1454 Approach Delay,s/veh 66.9 72.8 33.0 44.8 Approach LOS E E C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 67.0 18.0 34.6 13.7 63.7 12.0 40.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 5.0 62.0 13.0 30.0 13.0 54.0 7.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 50.3 14.1 29.3 9.0 30.4 9.0 33.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.2 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1219 132 183 1006 166 228 760 119 305 729 280 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4335 468 1650 4086 673 1634 2823 442 1650 2318 889 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 476 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1649 1650 1577 1606 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.57 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 887 464 183 776 395 228 439 440 305 518 491 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.62 0.62 1.02 0.92 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 887 464 203 776 395 228 439 440 305 582 553 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 43.1 43.2 56.9 49.0 49.0 53.2 41.6 41.7 53.0 43.0 43.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 53.8 4.3 8.1 18.7 23.6 33.9 8.0 6.3 6.5 34.7 10.5 11.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 12.1 13.2 6.6 16.4 17.9 5.8 9.3 9.4 13.9 18.0 17.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109.2 47.5 51.3 75.5 72.6 82.9 61.2 48.0 48.2 87.8 53.5 54.0 LnGrp LOS F D D E E F E D D F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.9 76.0 51.0 62.3 Approach LOS E E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 23.1 45.9 24.0 37.0 29.0 40.0 19.4 41.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 13.0 46.0 19.0 32.0 24.0 35.0 16.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 13.7 38.2 20.9 34.0 26.0 21.1 14.4 28.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.9 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Future Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 185 1005 95 145 980 192 130 470 92 195 720 185 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 209 1569 148 169 1323 259 152 731 142 218 792 204 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 414 1650 3970 776 1650 2747 534 1650 2593 666 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 185 721 379 145 778 394 130 280 282 195 457 448 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1592 1650 1646 1636 1650 1646 1613 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 209 1126 591 169 1051 531 152 438 435 218 503 493 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.64 0.64 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.64 0.65 0.89 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1126 591 198 1051 531 165 470 467 228 533 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 34.8 34.9 57.4 38.4 38.4 58.1 42.2 42.3 55.5 43.4 43.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 18.3 1.5 2.8 25.8 4.6 8.9 31.0 2.7 2.8 32.2 18.9 19.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.6 11.0 11.8 6.3 13.0 13.8 5.9 9.2 9.3 8.8 18.4 18.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.1 36.3 37.7 83.2 43.0 47.3 89.2 44.9 45.1 87.8 62.3 62.7 LnGrp LOS E D D F D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1285 1317 692 1100 Approach Delay,s/veh 42.2 48.7 53.3 67.0 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.4 48.3 16.0 45.2 17.3 51.4 21.2 40.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 18.0 38.4 13.0 42.1 15.6 40.8 18.0 37.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 16.3 30.5 12.1 36.7 13.2 26.9 17.1 21.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 11.1 0.1 5.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.1 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports FEHR j PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/22/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1114 Vi f Vi 114 Vi ft r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1733 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 292 1120 121 184 1140 188 398 772 121 334 765 336 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3201 4334 468 1650 4087 674 1634 2823 442 1650 3292 1446 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 670 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1601 1577 1649 1650 1577 1607 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1446 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 292 815 426 184 880 448 398 446 447 334 765 336 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.39 0.61 0.61 0.93 0.88 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 296 849 444 228 995 507 398 446 447 368 886 389 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 45.9 45.9 56.8 44.8 44.8 41.1 41.1 41.2 50.9 48.1 46.6 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 15.3 7.7 13.9 15.0 5.0 9.4 0.6 6.0 6.1 12.8 5.2 5.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 12.8 14.2 6.4 14.0 14.8 4.7 9.2 9.4 12.1 12.2 9.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 53.6 59.8 71.8 49.8 54.2 41.7 47.2 47.4 63.7 53.3 52.3 LnGrp LOS E D E E D D D D D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.0 53.8 46.0 55.7 Approach LOS E D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 36.7 35.2 16.9 41.3 31.3 40.5 19.5 38.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 22.0 35.0 12.0 41.0 29.0 28.0 18.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.3 27.5 11.6 32.7 26.0 21.0 14.4 29.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.1 2.7 0.3 3.6 0.4 1.7 0.2 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Appendix E - Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets FEHRk PEERS Pines Road&Indiana Ave-600'EB Lane Addition, Partial SW Corner Island Removal,Full Island Pines Road&I-90 EB Ramps-EB 450'Lane Addition Relocation and NB 75'Lane Addition Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 400 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,000 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 900 LF $ 16 $ 14,400 75 LF $ 16 $ 1,200 Sidewalk Demo 333 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 6,660 42 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 840 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 1 Each $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Excavation 400 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 14,000 233 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 8,155 Road Section 800 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 48,000 1,059 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 63,540 Curb 900 LF $ 45 $ 40,500 75 LF $ 45 $ 3,375 Sidewalk 700 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 56,000 42 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 3,360 Curb Ramps 6 Each $ 4,000 $ 24,000 0 Each $ 4,000 $ - Traffic Signal 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 ROW 11,000 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 132,000 1,200 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 14,400 Subtotal $ 701,560 Subtotal $ 566,470 10%Mobilization $ 70,156 10%Mobilization $ 56,647 20%Drainage $ 140,312 20%Drainage $ 113,294 15%Traffic Control $ 105,234 15%Traffic Control $ 84,971 30%Contingency $ 210,468 30%Contingency $ 169,941 20%Engineering $ 140,312 20%Engineering $ 113,294 Total I $ 1,500,042 I Total I $ 1,119,017 11000 Sq Ft ROW 1200 Sq Ft ROW *About half of the ROW is WSDOT,using standard "over the fence"price for land Assumes new signal pole and longer mast arm with 1-90 Assumes reallignment of intersection to south.Move off ramp island relocation south.Relocate signal SE corner ped head.Assumes all ROW for NBR lane controller.New pole at Pines/Indiana.Reconstruct both would need to be purchased,but no cost to aquire off- right turn islands.Assumes ROW cost for additional lane ramp widening space.ADA ramps look new.No on south side of road. replacement assumed. Mirabeau Pkwy and Mansfield Ave-Signalize and Sullivan Road and Mission Ave-Restripe and partially SB 175'Lane Addition remove curb Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - 20 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 300 Curb Demo 175 LF $ 16 $ 2,800 40 LF $ 16 $ 640 Sidewalk Demo 97 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 1,940 0 Sq Yard $ 20 $ - Signal Demo 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - Excavation 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - Road Section 233 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 13,980 20 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 1,200 Curb 300 LF $ 45 $ 13,500 80 LF $ 45 $ 3,600 Sidewalk 250 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 20,000 200 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 16,000 Curb Ramps 4 Each $ 4,000 $ 16,000 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 Traffic Signal 1.25 Each $480,000 $ 600,000 0.05 Each $ 480,000 $ 24,000 ROW 2,700 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 32,400 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 668,220 Subtotal $ 53,740 10%Mobilization $ 66,822 10%Mobilization $ 5,374 20%Drainage $ 13,644 20%Drainage $ - 15%Traffic Control $ 100,233 15%Traffic Control $ 8,061 30%Contingency $ 200,466 30%Contingency $ 16,122 20%Engineering $ 133,644 20%Engineering $ 10,748 Total I $ 1,215,429 I Total I $ 94,045 2700 Sq Ft ROW 3 ramps will need to be made ADA compliant.Risk: Assumes all new ramps to meet current ADA. Might need to relocate pole and mast arm on NE Assumes new fiber to be installed back to Pines. corner to meet ADA clearance.This is not assumed in the cost. Pines and Sprague-Add 250'SBR and 325'EBL Argonne&Trent-300'WBL turn add Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 460 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,900 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 1,215 LF $ 16 $ 19,440 850 LF $ 16 $ 13,600 Sidewalk Demo 433 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 8,667 100 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 2,000 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 Excavation 200 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 6,983 208 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 7,296 Road Section 566 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 33,933 933 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 56,000 Curb 1,215 LF $ 45 $ 54,675 850 LF $ 45 $ 38,250 Sidewalk 520 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 41,600 67 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 5,333 Curb Ramps 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 3 Each $ 4,000 $ 12,000 Traffic Signal 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 ROW 5,175 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 62,100 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 432,198 Subtotal $ 386,479 10%Mobilization $ 43,220 10%Mobilization $ 38,648 20%Drainage $ - 20%Drainage $ 77,296 15%Traffic Control $ 64,830 15%Traffic Control $ 57,972 30%Contingency $ 129,659 30%Contingency $ 115,944 20%Engineering $ 86,440 20%Engineering $ 77,296 Total I $ 818,446 I Total I $ 753,634 6200 Sq Ft ROW Assumes northwest curb along Sprague would Assumes south curb along Trent Avenue would be moved 4 feet north along with restriping to be moved 12'south for 300'plus 150'taper on narrow outside lanes for second EBR.Assumes both sides of Argonne to accommodate a northwest curb along Pines would be moved second WBL.Both signal poles on the south west 12 feet to accommodate SBR.Two new side would be replaced along with the right turn signals on northwest and southeast corners. island on the SW corner. Pines&Mission Phase 2-Southbound Right Turn Lane Addition Engineers Estimate `ri0 e Prepayct Cd Pb No. amBD Date3/ Valley. Prepared by-Adam Jackson 3/5/2018 Item No. Bid Item Qty Unit Unit Price Est.Cost Use 100 MOBILIZATION @ 10% 1 L.S. $ 45,042 $ 45,042 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 L.S. $ 15,000 $ 15,000 102 SPCC PLAN 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 103 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 50,000 $ 50,000 104 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 105 EROSION CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 106 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 1344 HR. $ 4 $ 5,376 107 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB 350 L.F. $ 15 $ 5,250 108 SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 750 L.F.-in $ 5 $ 3,750 109 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL(assumes 16"depth) 400 C.Y. $ 30 $ 12,000 110 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH 778 S.Y. $ 25 $ 19,444 111 JOINT/CRACK SEALANT AT HMA JOINTS 500 L.F. $ 3 $ 1,500 112 HMA CL 1/2"PG 70-28 0.50 FT.DEPTH 130 C.Y. $ 50 $ 6,481 113 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB,TYPE B 350 L.F. $ 45 $ 15,750 114 CONRETE RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF SIDEWALK 1089 SF $ 50 $ 54,450 115 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP PERPENDICULAR TYPE A 1 EACH $ 2,500 $ 2,500 116 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 117 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 0 L.S. $ 250,000 $ - 118 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 0 L.F. $ 3.00 $ - 119 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 390 S.F. $ 18 $ 7,020 120 PLASTIC LINE 300 L.F. $ 4 $ 1,200 121 PLASTIC WIDE LINE 300 L.F. $ 12 $ 3,600 122 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 3 EACH $ 300 $ 900 123 PLASTIC STOP LINE 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 124 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION 1 L.S. $ 30,000 $ 30,000 125 STORMWATER SWALE AND ROW IN LIMITED ACCESS AREA 1 L.S. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 126 UTILITY RELCOATION(POLES AND BOXES) 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ITEMS:Total $ 495,464 Contingency 15% $ 74,320 Inflation Adjustment Factor @ 2 years 3% $ 30,174 Construction Subtotal $ 599,958 PE Engineering 20% $ 119,992 CN Engineering 10% $ 59,996 ROW(excl.WSDOT) 1 L.S. $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000 Estimated Project Cost $ 811,945 I$ 812,000 E Trent Road/N Argonne Road Proposed Layout Improvements to Address Existing LOS Deficiency Cost Estimate Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost 1 Install of Ground Sign EA $ 270.00 4 $ 1,080 2 Remove Striping (Grind) LF $ 0.50 800 $ 400 3 Thermoplastic Arrow EA $ 475.00 7 $ 3,325 4 Thermoplastic Lane Line LF $ 3.50 1100 $ 3,850 5 Thermoplastic Stop Bar LF $ 20.00 80 $ 1,600 6 Thermoplastic Traffic Letter EA $ 175.00 4 $ 700 7 Traffic Signal Modification EA $480,000.00 0.25 $ 120,000 Construction Subtotal $ 130,955 Design (20%) $ 26,190 Traffic Control (15%) $ 19,640 Mobilization (10%) $ 13,100 Contingency(30%) $ 39,290 Total $ 229,200 Exhibit B Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington December 2019 DN19-0631 FEHR � PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Previous Study Findings 1 Update to Expand Subarea 1 Traffic Analysis 4 Level of Service Standards 4 Methodology 5 Existing Traffic Level of Service 7 Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service 8 Project Cost Estimates 10 Updated Project Unit Costs 10 Project Cost Estimates 11 Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis 13 Fair Share Analysis 13 Cost Per Trip 15 Conclusions 17 Appendices Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports Appendix E— Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area 2 Figure 2: Existing and Future Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 List of Tables Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study 3 Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 5 Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service 7 Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments 8 Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized 8 Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave. to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9 Table 8: Unit costs 10 Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS 11 Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections 13 Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs 14 Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation 15 Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation 17 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction The City of Spokane Valley commissioned the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study in 2016 that identified existing transportation level of service (LOS) deficiencies and future transportation improvements to support existing and planned growth in the Subarea. Based on the traffic forecasts, future traffic impacts and potential mitigation projects, a fair share analysis was used to estimate a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip that developers in the Subarea would pay to meet their obligation under SEPA. The City will use these fees to offset the cost of transportation improvement projects directly impacted by development in the Subarea. The Mirabeau Subarea is mapped in Figure 1 and covers most of the area between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley. Previous Study Findings The 2016 Mirabeau Traffic Study identified five intersections in or around the Mirabeau Subarea that are forecast to have LOS deficiencies by 2040.These intersections are shown in Table 1, including the 2015 and 2040 PM peak hour LOS and delay. For each intersection, a project was identified to address the future LOS deficiency, including a cost estimate for each project. A fair share percent was also estimated that represents the portion of future traffic that would pass through the location generated by the Mirabeau Subarea. This proportion is based on a select link analysis using the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model. Based on the estimated project costs, fair share analysis, and future traffic generated by development in the Subarea, a cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip of$323.75 was calculated and assessed to developments in the area to pay for the future transportation improvement projects identified in the Study. Update to Expand Subarea In 2019, the City commissioned an update to the Mirabeau Traffic Study.This report provides a summary of the update, including an updated cost analysis and findings. The main purpose of this Study is to update the fair share cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip from the original traffic study as well as expand the geographic area by which transportation impact fees will be collected to account for new developments planned for the area south of 1-90. Instead of changing the boundaries of the previously established Mirabeau Subarea to accommodate the expanded area, a second Subarea was established directly adjacent to the Mirabeau Subarea. The second Subarea is referred to as the North Pines Road Subarea and is mapped in Figure 1. The North Pines Road Subarea is around Pines Road roughly between Sprague Avenue and Trent Avenue and University Road and Adams Road excluding the Mirabeau Subarea. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update E Upriver Dr 532 534 I E Rich Ave I 394- 315 � ._ 3131 E Trent Ave-531 Montana Rail Lm ERR r Industrii-al-Park A St l 1 Mirabeau Subarea ---� Kaiser Works 1 E, r j N Pines Road Subarea �Qc 284 taFeRtvrJ _ Industrial Park B St Poo �peNo��e��san 0 Industrial Park C St Projects Identified in Previous Studye. og 31.7 436- qp Intersections Analyzed in Update . :ttoary,9ve 316 Ra Mirabeau Prkwy E Euclid Ave ,_----- 439 43j7 J / E Grace Ave / ---;>.-- �_ 292 —438% i , 293 E Montgomery Dr 289 29,1 ce ce 1290_ 324 i E Montgomery Ave _ /cS IE Mansfield/,�� Mansfield 321 > a, E Knox Ave 395 t jag, 4 > N�xw1GbC•$aG�3 r c I z �`o I I �• �'� E Nora Ave__ �Z I l a 329 323 �o`a pit Rd -296 2� 295— 298 Za 294 �— _ I 1�97 — •-MissionA�T" 388 o — — E co Et `� ci 1 —E Boone Ave 396 cz _ J Z ZI o I - w 20 z ECaTdoAve 0 332 •,. ? J 330 - I -301 303 304 I > F 5 o I 306 iBroadway Ave o 33"1--_� m ce 333 ❑ 1 _ ti _ — -- I z E Alki Ave 39 11 7 —m —z -302- 1 z c ZI z I I t l E Valleyway Ave -> I _ Spokane Z z 309 — E.Main Ave ) I I ValleyJ-- — - 7-336 LI 337 I i I _ 310 i 3111 — 312 I 335— I _� �+ •= SpragueAv • \346 E Sprague Ave I -- I_Li s 348 — 349 Abandoned RR 366 367 - 368� yo•. — 347 Applewa� Ave _ U T —T- s —IC I I r E4Tve - - `` - 568 -P°' C351 b 352 —353-III 3547 370 - J 37111 I + 376 3 sc I- Figure 1 Ori Study Area Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Mirabeau 2040 LOS Subarea Mirabeau Project 2015 2040 Description of Cost with Proportion Subarea Fair (Intersection) LOS LOS Improv. Improvement Estimate of Future Share Cost Traffic Pines Rd/ D E D Add westbound left-turn $896,000 18% $161,000 Indiana Ave lane; retime traffic signal Add eastbound left-turn lane and northbound Pines Rd/I-90 E F D right-turn pocket $753,000 18% $135,000 EB Ramps (extending back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Add southbound right- turn lane (extending back to the I- 90 off-ramp); reconfigure lane Pines Rd/ assignments on Mission $457,000 16% $73,000 Mission Ave E F D Ave to include eastbound dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left, through,and right turn lane; retime traffic signal Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add Pkwy/ B F C new 180 foot southbound $874,000 38% $332,000 Mansfield Ave through-right lane Reconfigure eastbound to Sullivan Rd/ include a left and D E B $61,000 4% $2,500 Mission Ave through-right lane; retime signal Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(June 2016). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 3 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Traffic Analysis In the previous study, traffic analysis was performed for 21 intersections in and around the Mirabeau Subarea, with five of those locations identified as having traffic level of service (LOS) deficiencies by Year 2040. No updates to that analysis were performed as part of this study and the COSV still plans to implement those five projects (listed in Table 1) over time as fees are collected. However, as part of expanding the traffic analysis to include the North Pines Road Subarea as part of this study, three additional signalized intersections were identified to evaluate existing (2019) and future (2040) traffic LOS. These include: 1. Pines Road/Broadway 2. Pines Road/Sprague Avenue 3. Evergreen Road/Sprague Avenue Level of Service Standards City of Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic (LOS A) to highly-congested conditions (LOS F).The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Table 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The LOS for signalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Spokane Valley also applies Corridor LOS to evaluate major arterial corridors in the City.Average daily traffic (ADT) volume thresholds are used to measure average LOS conditions along the length of the entire corridor. Corridor LOS acknowledges that some intersections may experience greater congestion than the corridor as a whole. Sprague Avenue and Pines Road are both major arterials where corridor-level LOS can be applied. The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D at the corridor level for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road • LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors • LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) pi Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level of Signalized Unsignalized Description Intersection Delay Intersection Delay Service (seconds) (seconds) A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are 20-35 15-25 affected by the interaction with other motorists. D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 E Near-capacity operations,with speeds reduced to a low but 55-80 35-50 uniform speed. F Over-capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2016,Transportation Research Board WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas (including the Study Area) is LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Within the Study Area WSDOT's LOS standards are also considered for intersections along Pines Road, which is State Route 27. Methodology Traffic Analysis Synchro software (version 9) was used to evaluate PM peak hour LOS at the three signalized intersections included in this Update. Synchro settings were set consistent with WSDOT Synchro &SimTraffic Protocol (Aug 2018) and City of Spokane Valley standards. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes Existing intersection turn movement counts were collected between 4 PM and 6 PM on Thursday, September 19th, 2019. The existing (and future) PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 5 Yc2 - y "�cc a re -- - 8) E Boone Ave . m i m m 2 c• — z m ix z v z z w E;Cataldo Ave C Z re N —P-.. to I N z- 1 y J ; E Broadway Ave cc v -0 m • rn ce m CC z z - m- E z - - �� I EAIkiAve - z a� m ` z I 2 a_ I E Valleyway Ave z I — I - Sppokane i — _ I 1 E Main A' ) . i + I I- Valley f t—� - Sp IgueAv • E Sprag • Abandoned RR \ ] .-- - 0 Al L E 4th Aye , I' • E 5th Ave 1.Pines/Broadway 2.Pines/Sprague 3.S Evergreen Rd/Sprague 0 rn o �n o o �n o�n N N m o�rn 76(85) vo CO 173(195) o �_215(240) o 275(280) N m 837(1,005) rn 873(980) `�+L 123(130) `1+L - 140(160) ��L 127(145) a oadwa oa so,aa 4 f� 187(205)� Inv 216(240)- lit 166(185)� )11 315(320)._ o 801(960):: C o E 830(1,005):: o f 101(110) co co 93(120)-Si''' 7_v� 95(110)�' �_a� u)uO u) ll)CN MCC o M N .-N o CO •-7 7 Existing PM(2040 PM)Volumes rigule Configurations PM Peak Hour pTraffic Volumes ii Future Year (2040) Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were forecast using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017.After review of the land use forecasts in the model with City staff, no adjustments were made to the existing or future land use assumptions or transportation network in the model. Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. Under the difference method, the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models were added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic.This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note: the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model were multiplied by 0.84 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (21 years/25 years = 0.84). Post processing to account for model anomalies was also applied to arrive at the final 2040 traffic forecasts. Forecast traffic volumes in Year 2040 are also shown in Figure 2. Existing Traffic Level of Service Table 3 shows the existing PM peak hour LOS using the methodology described above for the three intersections analyzed. Under existing conditions, both the Pines Road/Broadway and Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersections operate at LOS E, exceeding the COSV and WSDOT intersection LOS D threshold. It should be noted that the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is just on the cusp of LOS D and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Additionally, both Pines Road and Sprague Avenue are major arterials through these intersections and it should be noted that for these corridors the 2016 Comprehensive Plan directs the LOS threshold to be measured by using corridor-wide LOS. While the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that individual intersections may exceed the LOS D threshold using this method (as long as the corridor-wide average is at or below LOS D), the corridor-level LOS was not a primary consideration in this case and was not analyzed as part of this study. Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 62 E Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 51 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving Existing Level of Service The most cost-effective way to improve the existing LOS at the Pines Road/ Broadway intersection would be to make signal timing adjustments. Table 4 shows what the existing PM peak hour LOS would be if the signal timing splits were optimized and cycle length maintained in order to preserve coordination between signals along the corridor. Right-turn-on-red movements were factored into the analysis. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Optimizing the signal splits would improve the Pines Road/Broadway intersection to LOS D, but would have little to no effect at the other two intersections. Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 48 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 48 D Source:Fehr&Peers Year 204o Traffic Level of Service Table 5 shows the estimated PM peak hour LOS in 2040 for the three intersections analyzed, based on traffic growth from the SRTC regional travel demand model. The 2040 delay and LOS presented in Table 5 assumes the same cycle length for the signals, but assumes the signal splits would be optimized over time to account for changing traffic patterns.The results show that in 2040 the Pines Road/ Sprague intersection would continue to operate at LOS E, but would degrade by an average of 8 seconds per vehicle from existing conditions, and would exceed WSDOT and COSV intersection LOS threshold.Again, it should be noted that City of Spokane Valley uses corridor-level LOS methodology to measure LOS for both the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors. Corridor-level LOS was not measured in 2040 as part of this analysis, but in consultation with City staff it was determined that addressing congestion at Pines Road and Sprague Avenue in the future was desired to reduce delay, improve corridor-wide LOS for both Sprague Avenue and Pines Road, and to mitigate potential congestion related safety issues. Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 49 D Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 64 E Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 52 D Source:Fehr&Peers Improving 2040 Level of Service Using an iterative approach and accounting for land use constraints, a project was identified to improve the delay at the Pines Road/ Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040. A description of the project and the improvements to LOS and delay is shown in Table 6.This project would reduce the 2040 delay by about 9 seconds and bring the LOS from an E to a D (just on the cusp of a D/E). It should be noted that while this intersection is not specifically required to meet LOS D threshold per Spokane Valley standards (instead the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors are required to meet corridor-wide average LOS D threshold), improving the average vehicle delay at this intersection will ensure that WSDOT LOS standards are met and would contribute toward ensuring the Pines and Sprague corridors do not exceed LOS D corridor- wide in 2040. Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Intersection Description of Improvement Delay(sec)with LOS with Improvement Improvement • Add a southbound right-turn-only lane; • Convert the existing southbound through-right Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 54.6 D lane to a through-only lane; • Add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Source:Fehr&Peers Argonne Road & Trent Avenue Intersection The intersection of Argonne Road &Trent Avenue is near the North Pines Road Subarea, and while traffic analysis at that intersection was not performed as part of this study, this intersection was identified in the 2016 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as a location that would exceed COSV and WSDOT LOS thresholds.As part of the Comprehensive Plan, a project was identified to address the poor LOS in the future, as described in Table 7. Given that development in both the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas would increase traffic at this intersection, this project was also included as part of the fair-share cost analysis for both Subareas. Note that while the improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue would improve the LOS compared to a "do nothing" alternative, this intersection would not meet either WSDOT or COSV LOS thresholds. Land use constraints related to the BNSF railroad overpass and the narrow street cross section in Millwood limit options related to adding roadway capacity to Argonne Road. Because this improvement would add capacity and reduce delay, the cost can be factored into impact fees per the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), despite not reducing LOS to within the City or State thresholds. Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave. to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS Intersection Description of Improvement Delay w/o LOS w/o Delay with LOS with Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement Argonne Rd/ • Add a second westbound 109 F 96 F Trent Ave left-turn lane. Source:Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Dec 2016),Appendix A. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Project Cost Estimates This section includes updated cost estimates, including methodology, for the five projects identified in previous plans as well as the cost estimates for two projects identified in this study at both the Pines Road & Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersections. Updated Project Unit Costs Unit costs for roadway construction were identified in the 2016 traffic study. In collaboration with City staff, these costs were updated based on construction costs from recently completed transportation projects in Spokane Valley. Where recent costs were not available, unit costs were updated based on inflation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Highway Cost Index.' Costs to account for drainage and traffic control were also added. Table 8 summarizes the unit costs that were used to develop project cost estimates. Table 8: Unit costs Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost(2019$) Hard Costs Roadway Demolition Demolition and removal of old roadway Square Yard $15 Curb Demolition Demolition and removal of old curb/gutter Linear foot $16 Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old sidewalk Square Yard $20 Signal Demolition Demo and removal of old traffic signal eqpt. Each mast arm $6,000 Excavation Excavation,grading,fill,earthwork Cubic Yard $35 Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $60 Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $45 Sidewalk Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $80 Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $4,000 Traffic Signal Construction of new traffic signal Each new system $480,000 Other Costs Right-of-way Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot $12 Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew engaged 10%of"hard"costs above Drainage Cost to provide proper stormwater drainage 20%of applicable"hard"costs above Traffic Control Cost to manage traffic during construction 15%of"hard"costs above Contingency Cost contingency for unexpected drainage/ utility/ 30%of"hard"costs above earthwork conflicts;WSDOT coordination Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20%of"hard"costs above Source:City of Spokane Valley, Fehr&Peers,FHWA National Highway Cost Index. ' https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/nhcci/ptl.cfm pr i 10 ,� Project Cost Estimates Table 9 shows the cost estimates for seven potential projects in the study area where LOS would degrade to unacceptable levels in the future. This includes updated costs for the five projects identified in the previous (2016) Mirabeau Traffic Study to account for construction cost inflation, plus the additional projects at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue intersection identified in this Update and the potential project at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (2016). Details for how these costs were estimated is provided in Appendix E.All cost estimates are in 2019 dollars. Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS Non- 2016 Cost Applicable Project Description Cost Estimate Applicable Costs Estimates Costs (2016 dollars) Pines Rd/ Add westbound left-turn lane; Indiana Ave retime traffic signal $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $896,000 Pines Rd/I-90 Add eastbound left-turn lane and EB Ramps northbound right-turn pocket (extending back to Nora Ave); $1,119,000 $0 $1,119,000 $753,000 retime traffic signal Pines Rd/ Reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Ave Mission Ave to include eastbound Phase 1 dual-left and a through-right lane and westbound left,through, and $588,000 $508,620 $79,380 right turn lane; retime and $457,000 upgrade traffic signal Pines Rd/ Add southbound right-turn lane Mission Ave (extending back to the 1-90 off- $812,000 $0 $812,000 Phase 2 ramp); Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add new 180 Pkwy/ foot southbound through-right $1,215,000 $0 $1,215,000 $874,000 Mansfield Ave lane Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include Mission Ave a left and through-right lane; $94,000 $0 $94,000 $61,000 retime signal Add a southbound right-turn-only Pines Rd/ lane;convert the existing Sprague Ave southbound through-right lane to $818,000 $82,000 $737,000 NEW a through-only lane;add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane. Argonne Rd/ Add a second westbound left-turn Trent Ave lane. $753,600 $229,200 $524,400 NEW Source:Fehr&Peers,City of Spokane Valley. Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 It should be noted that the improvements at Pines Road & Mission Avenue have been split into two phases as the City is planning to implement a portion of this project (Phase 1) in 2020. Additionally, about 86% of funding for this project is from non-City funds (that portion is funded by a Surface Transportation Block Grant) and thus cannot be included as part of the fair-share cost analysis. All other projects are assumed to be funded entirely by City general funds (which include mitigation fee payments from development). Secondly, the full cost of improvements at the Pines Road & Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions. To account for this, the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce the LOS at this intersection from an "E" to a "D" was estimated in Synchro.The result was about 10% of existing traffic. This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing conditions, the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold.Therefore, 10% of the total cost of the potential improvement project at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. Similarly, the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection.To account for this, the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D under existing conditions was estimated. The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne Road/North Mullan Road Corridor Retiming project.'The estimated cost of this project ($229,000) was deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9. 2 Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum. N Argonne Road/N Mullan Road Corridor Retiming.July 25, 2019. Project# SE18-0621. 12 ,� Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis Fair Share Analysis A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards. The Subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the Subarea is expected to contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions (see Table 9). In other words, what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea? The SRTC regional travel model was used to determine the percentage of traffic generated by future development within the two Subareas.The travel model has a tool called a "select zone analysis"that can track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city. The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea development separate from any other traffic generated by development in the region. The results of the select zone analysis were analyzed for each of the seven deficient intersections identified in Table 9.Table 10 shows the results of the select zone analysis. This reflects the same portion of traffic from the Mirabeau Subarea through the five deficient intersections identified from the previous (2016) study. Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections Mirabeau Subarea North Pines Road Subarea Combined Portion Intersection of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic from two Subareas Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18% 42% 60% Pines Rd/1-90 EB Ramps 18% 48% 66% Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53% 57% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43% Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13% Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19% 25% Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7% 17% Source:Fehr&Peers,SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). The results in Table 10 show that at some intersections, the majority of future traffic is generated by the two Subareas combined, while at other locations, the majority of future traffic is generated by locations outside the two Subareas. For example, at the Pines Road & I-90 Eastbound Ramps, 18% of future traffic will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 48%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined, the two Subareas will generate about 66%of the future traffic Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour. In contrast, about 10% of future traffic at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 7%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea. Combined the two Subareas will generate about 17% of the future traffic passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour, while land uses outside the Subarea will generate about 83% of future traffic passing through the intersection. The results in Table 10 were used to determine the two Subareas'financial share of the total project improvements by multiplying the total improvement cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new development in the two Subareas.The result of this calculation is the fair-share cost of each project to the Subarea and is shown in Table 11.This shows that the total fair-share cost of all seven projects adds up to $1,079,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,708,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea.A two percent administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program, including future updates to this study. Thus, the total fair share cost of improvements, including the administrative fee, equals $1,101,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,742,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea. Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs Applicable Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Intersection Portion of Total Subarea Portion Subarea Subarea Portion Road Subarea Project Cost of Future Traffic UPDATED Fair- of Future Traffic Fair-Share Cost Share Cost Pines Rd/Indiana Ave $1,500,000 18% $270,000 42% $628,000 Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps $1,119,000 18% $201,000 48% $532,000 Pines Rd/Mission Ave $891,000 4% $143,000 53% $476,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/ $1,215,000 38% $462,000 5% $64,000 Mansfield Ave Sullivan Rd/ $94,000 4% $3,700 9% $8,200 Mission Ave Pines Rd/ Sprague Ave $737,000 6% $48,000 19% $137,000 Argonne Rd/ $524,000 10% $51,000 7% $38,000 Trent Ave Total Fair Share N/A N/A $1,079,000 N/A $1,708,000 Cost Total Fair-Share Cost with 2% N/A N/A $1,101,000 N/A $1,742,000 Administrative Fee pr r ®j Cost Per Trip Given both Subareas' share of the total project costs as identified in Table 11, the cost per PM peak hour trip could be updated for the Mirabeau Subarea and calculated for the North Pines Road Subarea by applying the same methodology as the previous study.The same amount of future land use growth in Mirabeau through Year 2040 assumed in the previous study was applied (but with updated project costs and updated trip rates) as shown in Table 12. This calculation might seem counterintuitive because there has been growth in the Mirabeau Subarea between 2016 and today. However, since this study did not re- calculate the proportion of traffic growth associated with the remaining development potential in the Mirabeau Subarea, the original total increase in trip generation was assumed.This is a common assumption used when updating impact/mitigation fees and helps to keep the fees relatively stable and predictable over time. For the North Pines Road Subarea, the difference between the land use assumed in the 2040 SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the 2015 model was used. PM peak hour trip generation was estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Table 12 summarizes the land use growth and resulting trip generation rates for both Subareas.This is the same trip generation approach used in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, except with updated rates based on the current (2017) ITE Trip Generation Manual. Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation PM Peak Hour Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Road Land Use Subarea Units of Subarea PM Subarea Units of Subarea PM Peak Trip Rate Development Peak Hour Trips Development Hour Trips Single-Family Residential 0.99 65 dwelling units 65 78 dwelling units 78 Multi Family 0.56 979 dwelling units 549 157 dwelling units 88 Residential Retail 3.81 63,890 square feet 244 69,750 square feet 266 Office 0.40 2,561 employees 1,025 259 employees 104 Hotel 0.60 150 rooms 90 0 rooms 0 Medical 0.85 0 employees 0 371 employees 316 School 0.17 0 employees 0 18 employees 4 Industrial 0.49 0 employees 0 79 employees 39 Total Fair Share N/A N/A 1,973 N/A 895 Cost Source:Trip generation:ITE(2017);Mirabeau Subarea land use growth:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(2016);North Pines Subarea land use growth:SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017). Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update December, 2019 Based on the results from Table 11 and Table 12 the cost per PM peak hour for each Subarea are as follows: Mirabeau Subarea (UPDATED): $1,101,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/ 1,973 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 558 per PM peak hour trip. This compares to $323.75 per PM peak hour trip from the 2016 study. The cost per trip went up because of higher construction costs, the two additional improvement projects (at Pines Road & Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue), and slightly lower assumed trip rates based on the updated trip generation manual (which reduced forecast new trips generated by development from 2,176 in the previous study to 1,973). North Pines Road Subarea: $1,742,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/895 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from growth) = $ 1,946 per PM peak hour trip Vested Trips There are still existing "vested" trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement"that was established by Spokane County. While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in October 2019, there were 816 PM peak hour vested trips outstanding amongst the land owners in the Subarea. These trips have a value of$303.36 per trip, which works out to a total value of$247,542. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips as a credit to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips remaining. rr Oj Conclusions This report provided an update to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study previously performed in 2016.The main purpose of this study was to update the projects costs, based primarily on inflation, and to expand the geographic area paying the traffic LOS impact mitigation fee as planned new developments will add a substantial amount of new traffic to the area. Instead of expanding the Mirabeau Subarea, a new Subarea called the North Pines Road Subarea was defined. As part of this analysis, the existing and future traffic LOS conditions at three new intersections in and around the two Subareas was performed. As shown in the previous study and this update, in the future, traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area as the Mirabeau Subarea, North Pines Road Subarea, and the rest of Spokane Valley and the region continue to grow.This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most of the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road corridor with a separate improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue and a minor improvement at the Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue intersection. A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea and North Pines Road Subarea landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to implement future traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution up to the amount shown in Table 13, then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making this mitigation payment (which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement), the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and circulation study, which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and within the development site. Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation Subarea Cost per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Mirabeau Subarea $ 558 North Pines Road Subarea $1,946 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 17 Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports FEHRk PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 68 55 839 50 91 1115 167 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 255 350 99 197 348 83 204 1356 81 112 1080 161 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1339 318 1634 3125 186 1650 2866 428 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 354 55 438 451 91 639 643 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1658 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1648 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 255 0 450 197 0 430 204 707 730 112 620 621 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0.82 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.81 1.03 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 255 0 472 241 0 497 204 707 730 203 620 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 0.0 46.3 35.5 0.0 45.3 51.5 28.5 28.5 59.7 40.5 40.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 12.8 0.0 25.8 4.0 0.0 8.7 0.4 2.5 2.5 12.8 44.0 45.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 0.0 18.0 3.5 0.0 13.0 1.8 12.7 13.0 3.6 29.8 30.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0.0 72.1 39.5 0.0 54.0 51.9 31.0 30.9 72.6 84.5 85.9 LnGrp LOS D E D D D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 616 482 944 1373 Approach Delay,s/veh 64.6 50.2 32.2 84.4 Approach LOS E D C F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 54.0 16.0 38.7 13.8 61.4 14.5 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 11.0 49.0 11.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 13.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.0 51.0 13.0 28.1 9.1 29.0 9.4 34.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 82 146 872 147 141 439 64 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1190 116 171 933 156 292 797 116 317 686 253 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4381 429 1650 4074 683 1634 2856 414 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 317 146 674 345 141 249 254 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1656 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1640 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 857 450 171 722 367 292 455 458 317 481 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.93 0.94 0.48 0.55 0.55 0.92 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 857 450 241 728 370 292 455 458 355 557 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 42.6 42.6 57.3 49.1 49.2 48.0 39.9 40.0 51.6 44.4 44.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 37.5 2.3 4.5 11.1 12.1 21.1 1.2 4.7 4.8 10.2 8.6 9.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.5 9.9 10.8 5.7 13.1 14.3 4.6 8.2 8.4 11.2 16.4 15.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.4 44.9 47.1 68.4 61.3 70.4 49.2 44.6 44.7 61.8 52.9 53.4 LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1141 1165 644 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.9 64.9 45.7 55.4 Approach LOS D E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.2 43.0 24.0 34.8 30.0 41.3 18.5 40.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 17.0 44.0 19.0 30.0 28.0 33.0 19.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.1 35.5 19.5 29.5 24.6 19.1 13.3 24.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 1.2 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.2 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 56.4 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 82 132 909 173 118 439 82 182 675 168 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 196 1761 166 157 1506 285 141 661 123 203 721 179 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 415 1650 3993 757 1650 2771 514 1650 2612 650 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 173 620 327 132 717 365 118 260 261 182 425 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1596 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1616 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 196 1264 663 157 1189 602 141 393 391 203 454 446 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.49 0.49 0.84 0.60 0.61 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.90 0.94 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 203 1264 663 203 1189 602 203 462 460 203 462 454 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 29.0 29.1 57.9 32.6 32.7 58.5 44.7 44.8 56.2 45.9 46.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.1 0.7 1.4 20.9 2.2 4.4 17.8 2.7 2.9 36.1 26.4 26.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 8.4 9.0 5.6 10.7 11.3 4.9 8.7 8.8 8.5 18.2 18.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 29.7 30.4 78.7 34.9 37.1 76.4 47.5 47.8 92.3 72.3 72.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E C D E D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1120 1214 639 1025 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.2 40.3 52.9 76.1 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.4 54.0 15.1 41.4 16.4 57.1 20.0 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 26.0 11.2 34.8 12.2 21.2 16.1 20.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 12.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 14.4 0.0 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.6 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports FEHR j PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 69 55 839 50 91 1115 164 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 244 350 99 178 310 75 98 1393 83 112 1305 191 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1335 322 1634 3125 186 1650 2875 422 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 355 55 438 451 91 637 642 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1657 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1651 Q Serve(g_s),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 244 0 450 178 0 385 98 726 749 112 747 749 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.72 0.00 0.92 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.81 0.85 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 244 0 472 178 0 408 98 726 749 178 747 749 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 0.0 46.3 38.4 0.0 48.7 59.5 27.3 27.3 59.8 31.6 31.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.7 0.0 25.8 11.9 0.0 23.7 4.6 2.3 2.3 14.0 11.8 12.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.3 0.0 18.0 4.1 0.0 15.0 2.0 12.4 12.8 3.7 22.8 23.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.9 0.0 72.1 50.3 0.0 72.4 64.1 29.6 29.6 73.8 43.5 43.8 LnGrp LOS D E D E E C C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 616 483 944 1370 Approach Delay,s/veh 65.7 66.5 31.6 45.6 Approach LOS E E C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.8 64.0 18.0 35.2 13.8 62.9 13.0 40.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 6.0 59.0 13.0 32.0 14.0 51.0 8.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 47.2 13.4 29.2 9.1 28.5 9.8 34.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.3 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 81 146 872 147 141 439 63 292 625 231 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 248 1249 121 170 970 163 269 766 109 315 688 254 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 424 1650 4074 683 1634 2862 408 1650 2345 866 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 316 146 674 345 141 249 253 292 438 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1657 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1641 1650 1646 1565 Q Serve(g_s),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 248 898 472 170 751 382 269 436 439 315 483 459 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.52 0.57 0.58 0.93 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 254 898 472 228 800 407 269 436 439 330 570 542 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 41.0 41.1 57.3 48.0 48.1 49.6 41.2 41.2 51.7 44.2 44.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 30.8 1.7 3.3 12.6 7.5 14.0 1.9 5.3 5.4 17.6 12.6 13.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.1 9.7 10.5 5.7 12.5 13.5 4.8 8.4 8.5 11.8 16.8 16.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.2 42.8 44.4 70.0 55.5 62.1 51.5 46.5 46.7 69.3 56.8 57.5 LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1140 1165 643 1148 Approach Delay,s/veh 51.6 59.3 47.7 60.3 Approach LOS D E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 26.4 43.2 24.5 35.9 29.8 39.8 18.4 42.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 12.0 45.0 20.0 33.0 26.0 31.0 18.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.3 35.4 19.4 29.2 24.6 19.4 13.3 23.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.1 1.8 0.2 2.1 0.2 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.6 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 83 132 909 176 118 439 82 182 675 166 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 197 1696 162 158 1443 278 140 695 129 206 761 187 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 419 1650 3980 767 1650 2771 514 1650 2619 644 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 173 621 327 132 719 366 118 260 261 182 424 417 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1653 1650 1577 1594 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1617 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 197 1219 639 158 1143 578 140 413 411 206 478 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.51 0.51 0.84 0.63 0.63 0.84 0.63 0.64 0.88 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1219 639 241 1143 578 165 456 454 241 532 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 30.5 30.5 57.8 34.2 34.3 58.6 43.3 43.4 55.9 44.1 44.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.3 0.8 1.5 14.0 2.6 5.1 27.1 2.4 2.5 26.8 15.4 15.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 8.7 9.3 5.3 11.1 11.7 5.3 8.6 8.6 8.0 16.5 16.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.6 31.3 32.0 71.8 36.8 39.4 85.7 45.7 46.0 82.7 59.5 59.9 LnGrp LOS E C C E D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1121 1217 639 1023 Approach Delay,s/veh 37.9 41.4 53.2 63.8 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.5 52.1 15.1 43.3 16.4 55.2 20.2 38.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 18.0 38.5 13.0 42.0 19.0 37.5 19.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 26.7 11.2 34.1 12.2 21.7 16.1 20.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 9.1 0.1 3.7 0.2 11.4 0.2 5.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.0 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports FEHRk PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4' Traffic Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Future Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 205 320 97 130 280 73 55 895 50 90 1190 174 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 239 347 105 171 298 78 68 1417 79 111 1373 200 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 1270 385 1634 1311 342 1634 3138 175 1650 2879 419 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 205 0 417 130 0 353 55 465 480 90 678 686 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1655 1634 0 1653 1634 1630 1683 1650 1646 1652 Q Serve(g_s),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 239 0 453 171 0 376 68 736 760 111 785 788 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.92 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.81 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.86 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 239 0 458 171 0 382 68 736 760 165 785 788 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 45.9 42.2 0.0 49.3 61.8 27.3 27.3 59.8 30.2 30.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.5 0.0 23.8 16.3 0.0 28.8 30.8 2.3 2.2 16.9 12.1 12.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 0.0 17.5 2.3 0.0 15.5 2.5 13.2 13.7 3.7 24.1 24.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.3 0.0 69.7 58.5 0.0 78.1 92.5 29.6 29.5 76.8 42.4 43.0 LnGrp LOS E E E E F C C E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 622 483 1000 1454 Approach Delay,s/veh 66.9 72.8 33.0 44.8 Approach LOS E E C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 67.0 18.0 34.6 13.7 63.7 12.0 40.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 5.0 62.0 13.0 30.0 13.0 54.0 7.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 50.3 14.1 29.3 9.0 30.4 9.0 33.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.2 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 241 1219 132 183 1006 166 228 760 119 305 729 280 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4335 468 1650 4086 673 1634 2823 442 1650 2318 889 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 476 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1649 1650 1577 1606 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1562 Q Serve(g_s),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.57 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 887 464 183 776 395 228 439 440 305 518 491 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.62 0.62 1.02 0.92 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 887 464 203 776 395 228 439 440 305 582 553 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 43.1 43.2 56.9 49.0 49.0 53.2 41.6 41.7 53.0 43.0 43.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 53.8 4.3 8.1 18.7 23.6 33.9 8.0 6.3 6.5 34.7 10.5 11.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 12.1 13.2 6.6 16.4 17.9 5.8 9.3 9.4 13.9 18.0 17.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109.2 47.5 51.3 75.5 72.6 82.9 61.2 48.0 48.2 87.8 53.5 54.0 LnGrp LOS F D D E E F E D D F D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.9 76.0 51.0 62.3 Approach LOS E E D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 23.1 45.9 24.0 37.0 29.0 40.0 19.4 41.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 13.0 46.0 19.0 32.0 24.0 35.0 16.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 13.7 38.2 20.9 34.0 26.0 21.1 14.4 28.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.9 HCM 2010 LOS E COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1114 Vi f Vi Traffic Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Future Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 185 1005 95 145 980 192 130 470 92 195 720 185 Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 209 1569 148 169 1323 259 152 731 142 218 792 204 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4393 414 1650 3970 776 1650 2747 534 1650 2593 666 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 185 721 379 145 778 394 130 280 282 195 457 448 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1592 1650 1646 1636 1650 1646 1613 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 209 1126 591 169 1051 531 152 438 435 218 503 493 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.64 0.64 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.64 0.65 0.89 0.91 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1126 591 198 1051 531 165 470 467 228 533 522 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 34.8 34.9 57.4 38.4 38.4 58.1 42.2 42.3 55.5 43.4 43.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 18.3 1.5 2.8 25.8 4.6 8.9 31.0 2.7 2.8 32.2 18.9 19.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.6 11.0 11.8 6.3 13.0 13.8 5.9 9.2 9.3 8.8 18.4 18.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.1 36.3 37.7 83.2 43.0 47.3 89.2 44.9 45.1 87.8 62.3 62.7 LnGrp LOS E D D F D D F D D F E E Approach Vol,veh/h 1285 1317 692 1100 Approach Delay,s/veh 42.2 48.7 53.3 67.0 Approach LOS D D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.4 48.3 16.0 45.2 17.3 51.4 21.2 40.1 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 18.0 38.4 13.0 42.1 15.6 40.8 18.0 37.1 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 16.3 30.5 12.1 36.7 13.2 26.9 17.1 21.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 11.1 0.1 5.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.1 HCM 2010 LOS D COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports FEHR j PEERS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2053: Pines & Sprague 10/22/2019 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1114 Vi f Vi 114 Vi ft r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1733 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257 Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 292 1120 121 184 1140 188 398 772 121 334 765 336 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 3201 4334 468 1650 4087 674 1634 2823 442 1650 3292 1446 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 670 257 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1601 1577 1649 1650 1577 1607 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1446 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 292 815 426 184 880 448 398 446 447 334 765 336 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.39 0.61 0.61 0.93 0.88 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 296 849 444 228 995 507 398 446 447 368 886 389 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 45.9 45.9 56.8 44.8 44.8 41.1 41.1 41.2 50.9 48.1 46.6 lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 15.3 7.7 13.9 15.0 5.0 9.4 0.6 6.0 6.1 12.8 5.2 5.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 12.8 14.2 6.4 14.0 14.8 4.7 9.2 9.4 12.1 12.2 9.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 53.6 59.8 71.8 49.8 54.2 41.7 47.2 47.4 63.7 53.3 52.3 LnGrp LOS E D E E D D D D D E D D Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237 Approach Delay,s/veh 59.0 53.8 46.0 55.7 Approach LOS E D D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 36.7 35.2 16.9 41.3 31.3 40.5 19.5 38.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 22.0 35.0 12.0 41.0 29.0 28.0 18.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 12.3 27.5 11.6 32.7 26.0 21.0 14.4 29.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.1 2.7 0.3 3.6 0.4 1.7 0.2 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Appendix E - Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets FEHRk PEERS Pines Road&Indiana Ave-600'EB Lane Addition, Partial SW Corner Island Removal,Full Island Pines Road&I-90 EB Ramps-EB 450'Lane Addition Relocation and NB 75'Lane Addition Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 400 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,000 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 900 LF $ 16 $ 14,400 75 LF $ 16 $ 1,200 Sidewalk Demo 333 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 6,660 42 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 840 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 1 Each $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Excavation 400 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 14,000 233 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 8,155 Road Section 800 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 48,000 1,059 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 63,540 Curb 900 LF $ 45 $ 40,500 75 LF $ 45 $ 3,375 Sidewalk 700 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 56,000 42 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 3,360 Curb Ramps 6 Each $ 4,000 $ 24,000 0 Each $ 4,000 $ - Traffic Signal 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 ROW 11,000 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 132,000 1,200 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 14,400 Subtotal $ 701,560 Subtotal $ 566,470 10%Mobilization $ 70,156 10%Mobilization $ 56,647 20%Drainage $ 140,312 20%Drainage $ 113,294 15%Traffic Control $ 105,234 15%Traffic Control $ 84,971 30%Contingency $ 210,468 30%Contingency $ 169,941 20%Engineering $ 140,312 20%Engineering $ 113,294 Total I $ 1,500,042 I Total I $ 1,119,017 11000 Sq Ft ROW 1200 Sq Ft ROW *About half of the ROW is WSDOT,using standard "over the fence"price for land Assumes new signal pole and longer mast arm with 1-90 Assumes reallignment of intersection to south.Move off ramp island relocation south.Relocate signal SE corner ped head.Assumes all ROW for NBR lane controller.New pole at Pines/Indiana.Reconstruct both would need to be purchased,but no cost to aquire off- right turn islands.Assumes ROW cost for additional lane ramp widening space.ADA ramps look new.No on south side of road. replacement assumed. Mirabeau Pkwy and Mansfield Ave-Signalize and Sullivan Road and Mission Ave-Restripe and partially SB 175'Lane Addition remove curb Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - 20 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 300 Curb Demo 175 LF $ 16 $ 2,800 40 LF $ 16 $ 640 Sidewalk Demo 97 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 1,940 0 Sq Yard $ 20 $ - Signal Demo 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - Excavation 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - Road Section 233 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 13,980 20 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 1,200 Curb 300 LF $ 45 $ 13,500 80 LF $ 45 $ 3,600 Sidewalk 250 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 20,000 200 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 16,000 Curb Ramps 4 Each $ 4,000 $ 16,000 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 Traffic Signal 1.25 Each $480,000 $ 600,000 0.05 Each $ 480,000 $ 24,000 ROW 2,700 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 32,400 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 668,220 Subtotal $ 53,740 10%Mobilization $ 66,822 10%Mobilization $ 5,374 20%Drainage $ 13,644 20%Drainage $ - 15%Traffic Control $ 100,233 15%Traffic Control $ 8,061 30%Contingency $ 200,466 30%Contingency $ 16,122 20%Engineering $ 133,644 20%Engineering $ 10,748 Total I $ 1,215,429 I Total I $ 94,045 2700 Sq Ft ROW 3 ramps will need to be made ADA compliant.Risk: Assumes all new ramps to meet current ADA. Might need to relocate pole and mast arm on NE Assumes new fiber to be installed back to Pines. corner to meet ADA clearance.This is not assumed in the cost. Pines and Sprague-Add 250'SBR and 325'EBL Argonne&Trent-300'WBL turn add Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Roadway Demo 460 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,900 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - Curb Demo 1,215 LF $ 16 $ 19,440 850 LF $ 16 $ 13,600 Sidewalk Demo 433 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 8,667 100 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 2,000 Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 Excavation 200 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 6,983 208 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 7,296 Road Section 566 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 33,933 933 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 56,000 Curb 1,215 LF $ 45 $ 54,675 850 LF $ 45 $ 38,250 Sidewalk 520 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 41,600 67 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 5,333 Curb Ramps 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 3 Each $ 4,000 $ 12,000 Traffic Signal 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 ROW 5,175 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 62,100 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ - Subtotal $ 432,198 Subtotal $ 386,479 10%Mobilization $ 43,220 10%Mobilization $ 38,648 20%Drainage $ - 20%Drainage $ 77,296 15%Traffic Control $ 64,830 15%Traffic Control $ 57,972 30%Contingency $ 129,659 30%Contingency $ 115,944 20%Engineering $ 86,440 20%Engineering $ 77,296 Total I $ 818,446 I Total I $ 753,634 6200 Sq Ft ROW Assumes northwest curb along Sprague would Assumes south curb along Trent Avenue would be moved 4 feet north along with restriping to be moved 12'south for 300'plus 150'taper on narrow outside lanes for second EBR.Assumes both sides of Argonne to accommodate a northwest curb along Pines would be moved second WBL.Both signal poles on the south west 12 feet to accommodate SBR.Two new side would be replaced along with the right turn signals on northwest and southeast corners. island on the SW corner. Pines&Mission Phase 2-Southbound Right Turn Lane Addition Engineers Estimate `ri0 e Prepayct Cd Pb No. amBD Date3/ Valley. Prepared by-Adam Jackson 3/5/2018 Item No. Bid Item Qty Unit Unit Price Est.Cost Use 100 MOBILIZATION @ 10% 1 L.S. $ 45,042 $ 45,042 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 L.S. $ 15,000 $ 15,000 102 SPCC PLAN 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 103 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 50,000 $ 50,000 104 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 105 EROSION CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 106 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 1344 HR. $ 4 $ 5,376 107 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB 350 L.F. $ 15 $ 5,250 108 SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 750 L.F.-in $ 5 $ 3,750 109 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL(assumes 16"depth) 400 C.Y. $ 30 $ 12,000 110 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH 778 S.Y. $ 25 $ 19,444 111 JOINT/CRACK SEALANT AT HMA JOINTS 500 L.F. $ 3 $ 1,500 112 HMA CL 1/2"PG 70-28 0.50 FT.DEPTH 130 C.Y. $ 50 $ 6,481 113 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB,TYPE B 350 L.F. $ 45 $ 15,750 114 CONRETE RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF SIDEWALK 1089 SF $ 50 $ 54,450 115 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP PERPENDICULAR TYPE A 1 EACH $ 2,500 $ 2,500 116 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 117 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 0 L.S. $ 250,000 $ - 118 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 0 L.F. $ 3.00 $ - 119 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 390 S.F. $ 18 $ 7,020 120 PLASTIC LINE 300 L.F. $ 4 $ 1,200 121 PLASTIC WIDE LINE 300 L.F. $ 12 $ 3,600 122 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 3 EACH $ 300 $ 900 123 PLASTIC STOP LINE 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600 124 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION 1 L.S. $ 30,000 $ 30,000 125 STORMWATER SWALE AND ROW IN LIMITED ACCESS AREA 1 L.S. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 126 UTILITY RELCOATION(POLES AND BOXES) 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ITEMS:Total $ 495,464 Contingency 15% $ 74,320 Inflation Adjustment Factor @ 2 years 3% $ 30,174 Construction Subtotal $ 599,958 PE Engineering 20% $ 119,992 CN Engineering 10% $ 59,996 ROW(excl.WSDOT) 1 L.S. $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000 Estimated Project Cost $ 811,945 I$ 812,000 E Trent Road/N Argonne Road Proposed Layout Improvements to Address Existing LOS Deficiency Cost Estimate Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost 1 Install of Ground Sign EA $ 270.00 4 $ 1,080 2 Remove Striping (Grind) LF $ 0.50 800 $ 400 3 Thermoplastic Arrow EA $ 475.00 7 $ 3,325 4 Thermoplastic Lane Line LF $ 3.50 1100 $ 3,850 5 Thermoplastic Stop Bar LF $ 20.00 80 $ 1,600 6 Thermoplastic Traffic Letter EA $ 175.00 4 $ 700 7 Traffic Signal Modification EA $480,000.00 0.25 $ 120,000 Construction Subtotal $ 130,955 Design (20%) $ 26,190 Traffic Control (15%) $ 19,640 Mobilization (10%) $ 13,100 Contingency(30%) $ 39,290 Total $ 229,200 Exhibit C Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley June 2016 DN15-0515 Spokane Valley" FEHR PEERS .000 Valley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 Table of Contents BACKGROUND 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 IMPROVING EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 FUTURE CONDITIONS (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 8 IMPROVING FUTURE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE 15 ESTIMATING THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 16 ESTIMATING THE SUBAREA'S FAIR-SHARE CONTRIBUTION AND COST PER TRIP 18 CONCLUSIONS 21 Spokane V'al ley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 List of Figures Figure 1A. Study Intersections— Existing Lane Configurations, Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (West) 3 Figure 1 B. Study Intersections— Existing Lane Configurations, Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (East) 4 Figure 2. SRTC Traffic Analysis Zones in the Study Area 9 Figure 3A. Study Intersections— 2040 Lane Configurations, Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (West) 11 Figure 3B. Study Intersections—2040 Lane Configurations, Traffic Controls and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (East) 12 List of Tables Table 1. LOS for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 2 Table 2: Intersection Vehicle Delay and LOS for Existing Conditions (2015) 5 Table 3:Approach to Identify Most Cost-Effective Intersection Improvements 6 Table 4: Potential Projects to Improve LOS at Selected Intersections 7 Table 5: Study Area and Surrounding Area Households 9 Table 6: Study Area and Surrounding Area Employment 9 Table 7: Intersection Vehicle Delay and LOS for Future Conditions (2040) 13 Table 8: Potential Projects to Improve Future Conditions LOS at Selected Intersections 15 Table 9: Project Unit Costs 16 Table 10: Potential Projects to Improve Future Conditions LOS at Selected Intersections 17 Table 11: Subarea Share of Traffic at the Deficient Intersections 18 Table 12: Subarea's Share of Total Improvement Costs 19 Table 13:Trip Generation Calculation 20 sP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 BACKGROUND This report summarizes the methods, assumptions, and results behind the Mirabeau Subarea traffic study. The purpose of this analysis is to identify existing transportation level of service(LOS)deficiencies and future transportation improvements to support existing and planned growth in the subarea. In addition, this analysis uses the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) travel model to evaluate the proportion of future traffic growth contributed by development in the Mirabeau Subarea. Identifying the subarea traffic growth allows for the determination of the subarea's fair-share financial contribution towards transportation improvements that provide good access and traffic LOS in the future. As developer's pay their fair-share toward long-term traffic congestion relief projects, they are meeting their obligation under SEPA and no further traffic studies are needed (other than site access and circulation analysis). Page 1 SP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE This section describes the methodology and results of the traffic LOS analysis for existing conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to understand which subarea intersections are currently failing the City's adopted LOS standards of: LOS D for signalized and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Traffic volume data was provided by the City of Spokane Valley and a data vendor, National Data & Surveying Services. The traffic data provided by The City of Spokane Valley is from one week(3/18-3/24) in March of 2015.The traffic data provided by National Data & Surveying Services was collected on November 18, 2015. Since we had traffic counts from two different time periods, we intentionally "double counted" the intersection of Pines Road / Indiana Avenue to determine if there were any trends between the spring and fall of 2015 that we should be accounting for.The comparison indicated that the traffic was comparable for both time periods and no adjustments were necessary. Using the counts as input data, the traffic LOS analysis was conducted using industry-standard methodologies from the Transportation Research Board's 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The Highway Capacity Manual LOS categories are defined in Table 1.Analysis was conducted using Synchro,which is the software used by Spokane Valley and most transportation consulting firms for intersection LOS analysis. Input data including lane geometries, traffic signal timing, and traffic signal phasing was provided by Spokane Valley and WSDOT and confirmed by Fehr& Peers using aerial photos. Table 2 shows the results of the existing conditions LOS analysis. Figures 1A and 1 B show the location of the study intersections, lane configurations,traffic controls, and PM peak hour traffic volumes.Appendix A contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. TABLE 1. LOS FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Delay Average Delay Level of (seconds/vehicle)for (seconds/vehicle)for Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections* Description A rLess than 10 Less than 10 Free flow, very light traffic B 10-20 10-15 Slight delays, light traffic C M 20-35 15-25 Moderate delays, moderate traffic D 35-55 25-35 Moderate delays, may take more than one traffic signal cycle to clear E 155-80 35-50 High delays, congestion F More than 80 More than 50 Very high delays, long queues, congestion Source:2010 Highway Capacity Manual *For side-street stop-controlled intersections,delay is measured for the approach with the longest wait to cross/enter the main street. Page2 b a •xo..0 8 7 ,.. .,w ,.o ,.,,E 7-. � ..,. ®14 y Ilip E.,,.•.- . 10 0 • CI a .. •.,�..,..,... ; . �No ._ ,,,,.a ..�� 19 .. ii 1.Cement Road/Pines Rd/Trent(SR 290) 2.Pines Rd/Pinecroft Way 3.Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy 4.Pinecroft Way/Mirabeau Pkwy a a -0 a o m co c 2 Lc)l 20 if)cn M N U AA—505 o m o o_ 40 LO o o o_ .�065 u-'oN ° 1�_5 41 '-310 I IIIJL 100 0 115 Trent SR 290 �• ?}Pinecroft Way •• Mirabeau Pkwy Mirabeau Pkwy 5�r 'Tr 5 )If 0 ill' 905 `f rim 0-4► oc, o-4 r oao 5� 265-"A " -a5 r 5 co 225 a re 0 c o_ • • ♦ 5.Pines Rd/Grace Ln 6.Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave 7.1-90 WB off-ramp/Indiana Ave 8.Pines Rd/Montgomery Dr/Indiana Ave -0 a a 0 m c 20 0 o 0 50 245 N�� �5 "�JOI ' �145 ,290 Nupo V-70 Ip. 40 4I L 170 I Il Il I 400 Grace Ln 4• Mansfield Ave f Indiana Ave Montgomery DP y Indiana Ave 20 II' 65 )1 1 W »ttr oo� ono � ono .00 5�► o�v 70� N�m 260�� CV a- ��o 30 380 0 a m ® ce co d o c - a 9.Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 10.Pines Rd/Mission Ave 11.Mirabeau Pkwy/Indiana Ave 12.Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 3 c c d d R a-� o�� �350 �� m �235 �o �0 III NON �130 O M —220 N N O �0 �1�� 90 ,���, 4L ° 1-90 EB off-ramp 1-90 EB on-ramp Mission Ave Indiana Ave rtb Mansfield Ave 370 it* 265 vt� �� 20 )tr �► nn _A► (noo 50� _A , u-�oo -"Al 5 650—4 �M 165_i' .1-a) 240-- 220' CD a,11 a N 2 c a A I. ill O B 7 . r,,, �rn e w..o r. ®e r..,,,...,. ' y ® 0 13.S Evergreen Rd/E Indiana Ave 14.S Evergreen Rd/I-90 WB Ramps 15.S Evergreen Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 16.Mission Connector/E Mission Ave m c '—315 NII lf)O�II w 155 0 o w 4—250 435 )ii n 260 i4L 30 E Indiana Ave E Indiana Ave 1-90 We on-ramp 1-90 WB off-ramp 1-90 EB off-ram 1-90 EB on-ram E Mission Ave 'Yr r »tt 500--I ?TIT(' o 'ir IS 345-0. oon ovn5 Lno 210,-8v,o, 370 M M o m 500-41 CON 190—C c a,CD O 0 c 0 a o a 17.Sullivan Rd/E Indiana Ave 18.Sullivan Rd/WB on-ramp 19.Sullivan Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 20.Sullivan Rd/E Mission Ave c c c c Et Et ct Et 0 > > 0 > 0 > gJJIoIv c' '-195 no w �-150 qN 2n o 10 fI�IO in 65 `�11L ~260 �200 IILL "�ii� V-30 Pr-125 � ii E Indiana Ave WB on-ram 4• 1-90 EB off-ramp 1-90 EB on-ramp E Mission Ave },, 130� »ttr tit 290_ Ttr 105 )TTf 105—> 000o 0 1� o0 5� 0000 330 CON O ° 790 125 21.I-90 WB off-ramp/E Indiana Ave 330 210 E Indiana Ave 235 I m �� N O >m O I. iiii pokane S Val ley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE 2: INTERSECTION VEHICLE DELAY AND LOS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS (2015) Intersection Details Existing (2015) ILName Control Delay* LOS 1. Pines Road/Trent Ave Signal 63 E 2. Pines Road/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 13 (EB) C 3. Pines Road/Mirabeau Parkway Side-Street Stop 52 (WB) F 4. Mirabeau Parkway/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 1 11 (SB) B 5. Pines Road/Grace Lane Side-Street Stop 52 (WB) F 6. Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Signal 24 C 7. Indiana Avenue/1-90 WB off-ramp Signal 26 C 8. Pines Road/Indiana Avenue Signal 36 D ' 9. Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps Signal 69 E 10.Pines Road/Mission Avenue Signal 76 E 11.Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway Signal 13 B 12.Mirabeau Parkway/Mansfield Avenue Side-Street Stop 12(EB) B 13.Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue Signal 22 C 14.Evergreen Road/I-90 WB on and off-ramps Signal 13 B 15.Evergreen Road/I-90 EB on and off-ramps Signal 16 B 16.Mission Connector&Mission Avenue Side-Street Stop 13 (NB) B 17.Indiana Avenue/Sullivan Road Signal 38 D 18.Sullivan Road/1-90 WB on-ramp Signal 9 A 19.Sullivan Road/1-90 EB on-ramp Signal 20 C e 20.Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue Signal 40 D 21.Indiana Avenue/1-90 WB off-ramp , Signal 11 B * Intersection delay is averaged for all movements. Some movements(e.g. left turns) may have LOS E or F conditions to ensure that the intersection as a whole operates optimally. Spokane Valley staff continually monitors LOS E and F movements and makes intersection timing adjustments as necessary. The results in Table 2 show that five intersections are not currently meeting the City's LOS standards.All the intersections with substandard LOS are along the Pines Road corridor. • Pines Road /Trent Avenue • Pines Road / Mirabeau Parkway • Pines Road /Grace Lane • Pines Road / 1-90 EB ramps • Pines Road / Mission Avenue irPage 5 SP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 IMPROVING EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE The previous section identified several intersections along the Pines Road corridor that are not meeting the City's LOS standard. Based on this finding, Fehr & Peers developed potential improvements that Spokane Valley could implement to improve LOS and maintain acceptable traffic operations. These improvements would ensure that the City meets the Growth Management Act's transportation concurrency requirement. We undertook an iterative approach to developing the most cost-effective traffic improvement measures for each of the deficient intersections. In general, we applied the logic listed in Table 3 which begin with the least costly option and step up to more complex and costly options to improve traffic flow. If a low-cost solution is identified that meets the LOS standard, then we stop and move onto the next location. TABLE 3:APPROACH TO IDENTIFY MOST COST-EFFECTIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Modify traffic signal timings Modify lane assignments Install a traffic signal (note, that a traffic signal cannot Modify lane assignments (e.g., make a through be installed at a location unless it meets or is expected lane into a turn lane) to meet a traffic signal warrant) Add turn pockets Add turn pockets or two-way left turn lane Add through lanes Add through lanes As shown in Table 3, we start with improving the traffic organization within the existing intersection by modifying lane assignments or traffic signal timings. If that approach is insufficient, then we look to add turn pockets or turn lanes. These lanes extend back a limited distance and are less costly than the final option—adding through lanes, which must be extended to a logical start or end point to ensure they are safe and effective. In many cases, we use a combination of these approaches for the different "legs" of an intersection. For example, it may be sufficient to add a turn lane on only one of the legs and retime the traffic signal to achieve an adequate LOS. Table 4 summarizes the potential improvements for the intersections that do not meet the LOS standard. As shown in the table, all the existing LOS deficiencies can be addressed through the addition/modification of traffic signals or by adding turn lanes. Appendix B contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. Page6 sP© 'eN., Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE 4: POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO IMPROVE LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Delay with LOS with Intersection Description of Improvement Improvement Improvement Add 260 foot northbound right turn Pines Road/Trent Ave pocket; modify northbound lane 38 D assignments, retime traffic signal Pines Road/Mirabeau Install traffic signal (currently in design, Parkway expected completion in 2016) 18 B Pines Road/Grace Lane Install two-way left turn lane (expected 22 C completion in 2017) Pines Road/1-90 EB Retime traffic signal 53 D ramps Pines Road/Mission Retime traffic signal 52 D Avenue Page 7 SP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 FUTURE CONDITIONS (2040) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section summarizes the methods and assumptions to estimate future(2040)traffic volumes in the study area. Future traffic volumes were analyzed using the same methods and software described in the existing conditions LOS analysis section. The primary component of future year traffic analysis is the forecasted traffic volumes at the study intersections. Future year traffic volumes are estimated using the SRTC travel model. The travel model has inputs that include: population, employment, roads, and transit. Based on these inputs, future traffic volumes can be predicted.To ensure the future traffic forecasts are reasonable, SRTC uses the same model with existing conditions input data to model existing travel patterns.The model is fine-tuned to ensure that it can replicate existing traffic conditions in a process known as model calibration and validation. Prior to running the future conditions travel model, City staff reached out to the major developers in the study area to determine what they could reasonably expect to develop on their properties over the long- term. This information was used to update and refine the SRTC land use forecasts for the subarea. This is a critical step because SRTC only has the resources to focus on large-scale regional growth and cannot verify the development potential at the subarea scale. In addition to updating the land use in the subarea, Spokane Valley and Fehr & Peers staff did an audit of the surrounding land use growth assumptions and the assumed changes to the roadway and transit network. Within the vicinity of the subarea, additional land use growth was assumed in the area around Indiana/Sullivan/Flora and the Sullivan/Broadway/Flora areas.This additional development reflects projects that are already in the development pipeline and recent trends toward more growth in those areas. On the roadway network side, we assumed that the Bridging the Valley project at Pines Road/Trent Ave would be completed by 2040, along with additional traffic capacity at the Barker Road interchange. Figure 2 shows the SRTC model's traffic analysis zones in the study area and Tables 5 and 6 summarize the land use growth assumed in the SRTC travel model, including the updates described above. Page 8 Spokane Valley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 Figure 2. SRTC Traffic Analysis Zones in the Study Area o 12931 0 [323I 321 -- 13051 �•® N.....'",. 13881 -- `_ rfini - -.__�� 13231 .. I298, r„.....„ _ _ 396 1 13321 --z o TABLE 5: STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA HOUSEHOLDS TAZ 2010 Existing 2040 Future 2010-2040 Absolute 2010-2040 Percent SRTC Model SRTC Model Change Change 320 1,000 1,184 184 18% _ 321 0 860 860 N/A 322 0 0 0 0% Surrounding 2,771 4,320 1,549 56% Area TABLE 6: STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA EMPLOYMENT 2010 Existing 2040 Future 2010-2040 Absolute 2010-2040 Percent SRTC Model SRTC Model Change Change 320 805 1,188 383 46% 321 312 2,767 2,455 787% V 322 351 351 0 0% Surrounding 7,035 9,304 2,269 32% Area 41° Page9 sP© 'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 With the SRTC travel model land use inputs updated to reflect a more realistic level of growth in the subarea, we ran the model and used the output to develop 2040 PM peak hour traffic volume forecasts at each of the study intersections.To reduce the potential for model error,the future volume forecasts were developed using an industry-standard approach known as the difference method. The difference method takes the growth in traffic forecasted by the SRTC travel model and adds this traffic growth to the observed traffic counts at each of the intersections. This reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output. In addition to applying the difference method, Fehr & Peers reviewed several traffic studies in the area to ensure consistency between studies. One study for the Bella Tess Apartments near Indiana Avenue/Flora Road indicated that the updated SRTC model run may be understating north-south traffic volumes on Sullivan Road through the study area. Based on these findings, we post-processed the SRTC travel model volumes to include approximately 200 additional north and southbound vehicles during the PM peak hour on Sullivan Road through all four study intersections. We also increased the eastbound-westbound traffic on Indiana Avenue east of Sullivan Road by about 100 vehicles per hour in each direction based on the Bella Tess traffic study. Following the difference method forecasting and post-processing, future conditions traffic LOS was evaluated using Synchro and the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.The results are shown in Table 7. Figures 3A and 3B show the 2040 lane configurations, traffic controls, and PM peak hour turning movement forecasts. Note that all the improvements to address existing conditions LOS deficiencies are assumed in the 2040 analysis, as is the Bridging the Valley railroad grade separation and intersection improvement project at the Pines Road/Trent Avenue intersection.Appendix C contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. Page 1 0 O 3 c. . 1.Cement Road/Pines Rd/Trent(SR 290) 2.Pines Rd/Pinecroft Way 3.Pines Rd/Mirabeau Pkwy 4.Pinecroft Way/Mirabeau Pkwy o o lr)Lc) m 20 �n 0 405 0 o c �co U 690 0�0 —95 �n LO CO i 0 v cc. 0 '�-475 25 `�L 420 I ILI 265 ® �y Trent SR 290 4iL Pinecroft Way 4iL Mirabeau Pkwy Mirabeau Pkwy 10_CI »Tr 5 )T1' 0 )11' 1,125� LOCOS 0-4. 0 LO 00 O�r non 40- 350 v "' 5 0 5 m N 515 a ce d 0 0 • • ♦ 5.Pines Rd/Grace Ln 6.Pines Rd/Mansfield Ave 7.1-90 WB off-ramp/Indiana Ave 8.Pines Rd/Montgomery Dr/Indiana Ave ce o co o CO' o ��� o �260 oM CO M 55 v o 170 ,530 N 310 `�+� 50 4+L 180 )I L 0—455 Grace Ln 1 ?},, Mansfield Ave } Indiana Ave Montgomery Dr 1Indiana Ave 25 �If 95 �I� w llIIr Coco —�E coo 00� 5�i► o�v 125� N�o 490 ,8 c - CO 40 470 0 CO rn 9.Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 10.Pines Rd/Mission Ave 11.Mirabeau Pkwy/Indiana Ave 12.Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave K ce 3 c a a m II 1I1 �NM 215 roi o 4-225 coLOLO �105 ii� �1LL 90 )LL 4L 235 1-90 EB off-ramp 1-90 EB on-ramp Mission Ave Indiana Ave r!r Mansfield Ave 440 tP 315 vitt n� 25 )tr __A► nn -► 000 160� —* , moo 705 v rC 205�' CO 335--i 230 o_ oN oM N ® a'm T. 3A rpm 2040 Ili b a ..,.::1�2 ,. .o ,o.. ,♦o ,. E ' a ..e a r,.,,,..�.- ® '" M •=� 10 18 • iD 1 E .,�da:.. :.: 4 20 13.S Evergreen Rd/E Indiana Ave 14.S Evergreen Rd/I-90 WB Ramps 15.S Evergreen Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 16.Mission Connector/E Mission Ave c c a a a� � no in Ln 47-415 N > 515 m M i—305 ,�455 )I I w x-350 11 L w 0-70 E Indiana Ave �r 1-90 WB on-ram 1-90 It off-ram 1-90 EB off-ramp 11-99r0rEB on-ramp E Mission Ave 1 r ��II 550� IIII� ° �� 565,Is u�u oo _ o0 265�a o0 600 u"v m CO 605 m y 250 o v 0 c o_ i 17.Sullivan Rd/E Indiana Ave 18.Sullivan Rd/WB on-ramp 19.Sullivan Rd/I-90 EB Ramps 20.Sullivan Rd/E Mission Ave c c c c c o > l!') > ,r) > L- in N.N _355 co co = co, = C-J' a 85 J I I '--395 r,-I cn 4—365 .-N cn J ICI cn 115 "�ii� 0-190 )`il 0-250 TILL 4iiL 435 E Indiana Ave WB on-ram 1-90 EB off-ramp 1-90 EB on-ramp E Mission Ave 140_. ¶ ttr tit 430� 11r 180 )111' 535—> ��� a 0� MAN 10_ CC 340-' CO O CV - 945 140 21.1-90 WB off-ramp/E Indiana Ave 4 650 ,-425 E Indiana Ave 1005 I 00 N N N 3d Fp 2040 ii Spokane Valley Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE 7: INTERSECTION VEHICLE DELAY AND LOS FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS (2040) Intersection Details Existing (2015) !-- - 4 Name Control Delay* LOS II 1. Pines Road/Trent Ave Signal 53 + D 2. Pines Road/Pinecroft Way Side-Street Stop 16 (EB) C I 3. Pines Road/Mirabeau Parkway Signal 38 D 4. Mirabeau Parkway/Pinecroft Way I Side-Street Stop I 17(SB) C e 5. Pines Road/Grace Lane Side-Street Stop 1 28(WB) D 6. Pines Road/Mansfield Avenue Signal 33 C 7. Indiana Avenue/1-90 WB off-ramp Signal 21 C 8. Pines Road/Indiana Avenue Signal 58 E 9. Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps Signal 116 F 10.Pines Road/Mission Avenue I Signal 81 F 11.Indiana Avenue/Mirabeau Parkway Signal 17 B 12.Mirabeau Parkway/Mansfield Avenue Side-Street Stop >120 (EB) F 13. Evergreen Road/Indiana Avenue Signal 25 C 14.Evergreen Road/1-90 WB on and off-ramps Signal 22 C 15.Evergreen Road/1-90 EB on and off-ramps Signal 15 B 16.Mission Connector&Mission Avenue Side-Street Stop 15 (NB) C 17.Indiana Avenue/Sullivan Road Signal 55 D 18.Sullivan Road/I-90 WB on-ramp Signal 12 B 19.Sullivan Road/1-90 EB on-ramp Signal 33 C 20.Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue 1 Signal 75 E 21.Indiana Avenue/I-90 WB off-ramp Signal 36 C * Intersection delay is averaged for all movements. Some movements(e.g. left turns) may have LOS E or F conditions to ensure that the intersection as a whole operates optimally. Spokane Valley staff continually monitors LOS E and F movements and makes intersection timing adjustments as necessary. irPage 13 sP© 'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 The results in Table 7 indicate that most subarea intersections are expected to operate acceptably under 2040 conditions and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards, with the exception of the following locations: • Pines Road / Indiana Avenue • Pines Road / 1-90 EB ramps • Pines Road / Mission Avenue • Mirabeau Parkway/ Mansfield Avenue • Sullivan Road / Mission Avenue Three of the locations are along the Pines Road corridor, which will continue to see traffic growth into the future as Spokane Valley and the region continue to grow. It is important to note that the poor 2040 LOS conditions on Pines Road takes into account the traffic signal retiming improvements described earlier. In other words, even with optimized traffic signal timings, the LOS on the Pines Road corridor is expected to degrade at some point in the future. Traffic congestion at the Mirabeau Parkway/ Mansfield Avenue intersection is also expected to degrade to substandard conditions by 2040. This degradation in LOS is largely due to growth in the Mirabeau subarea that will add to the background traffic growth through the area. Traffic volumes are also expected to increase substantially along the Sullivan Road corridor by 2040. However, this analysis only identifies the Mission Avenue intersection along Sullivan Road as having a substandard LOS.The intersection of Sullivan Road/ Indiana Avenue is approaching LOS E, but at this time, it is premature to identify an improvement at this location since this intersection is still forecast to operate at LOS D. Page 14 SP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 IMPROVING FUTURE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE Similar to existing conditions, Fehr & Peers used an iterative approach to identify the most cost-effective means to meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards under 2040 conditions. Table 8 shows the proposed improvements at the five intersections with substandard LOS. Appendix D contains the detailed LOS calculation sheets from Synchro. TABLE 8: POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FUTURE CONDITIONS LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Delay with LOS with Intersection Description of Improvement Improvement Improvement Pines Road/Indiana Added westbound left-turn lane; retimed 42 D Ave traffic signal Added eastbound left-turn lane and Pines Road/1-90 EB northbound right-turn pocket (extending 35 D ramps back to Nora Ave); retime traffic signal Added southbound right-turn lane (extending back to the 1-90 off-ramp); reconfigure lane assignments on Mission Pines Road/Mission Ave to include eastbound dual-left and a 53 D Ave through-right lane and westbound left, through, and right turn lane; retime traffic signal Mirabeau Pkwy/ Added traffic signal, added new 180 foot 28 C Mansfield Ave southbound through-right lane Sullivan Road/Mission Reconfigure eastbound to include a left 17 B Ave and through-right lane; retime signal The improvements identified in Table 8 address all the LOS issues within the study area under 2040 conditions. Pagel. 5 SP© 'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 ESTIMATING THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS To estimate the cost of the projects identified in Table 8, Fehr & Peers collaborated with Spokane Valley staff to identify construction costs from recently completed transportation projects in Spokane Valley.Table 9 shows the unit costs and a description of the project cost elements. Table 10 summarizes the project costs. TABLE 9: PROJECT UNIT COSTS Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost (in 2016 dollars) Roadway Demolition Demolition and removal of old Square Yard $12 roadway Curb Demolition Demolition and removal of old Linear foot $13 curb/gutter Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old Square Yard $16 sidewalk Signal Demolition Demolition and removal of old traffic Each mast arm $5,000 signal equipment Excavation Excavation, grading, fill, earthwork Cubic Yard $30 Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $50 Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $35 Sidewalk Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $45 Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $2,200 Traffic Signal Each new Construction of new traffic signal $400,000 signal system Right-of-way Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot $10 Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew 10% of"hard" costs above engaged Pagel 6 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 Contingency Cost contingency for potential for 30% of"hard" costs above unexpected drainage/utility/ earthwork conflicts;WSDOT coordination Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20% of"hard" costs above TABLE io: POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FUTURE CONDITIONS LOS AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS Intersection Cost Estimate Pines Road/Indiana Ave $ 896,000 Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps $ 753,000 Pines Road/Mission Ave $ 457,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave $ 874,000 Sullivan Road/Mission Ave $ 61,000 /S1P Page 1 7 SP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 ESTIMATING THE SUBAREA'S FAIR-SHARE CONTRIBUTION AND COST PER TRIP The previous sections identified future year LOS deficiencies at five intersections within the study area. A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards. This section describes how we calculate the subarea's fair-share contribution toward the improvements identified in Table 8. The subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the subarea is expected to contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions. In other words,what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the Mirabeau Subarea? To determine the percentage of traffic generated by Mirabeau Subarea development, we use the SRTC travel model.The travel model has a tool that can track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city. This tool is called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau Subarea development separate from any other traffic generated by development in the region.The results of the select zone analysis were analyzed for each of the five deficient intersections identified in Table 8. Table 11 shows the results of the select zone analysis, TABLE is: SUBAREA SHARE OF TRAFFIC AT THE DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS Intersection Mirabeau Subarea Proportion of Future Year Traffic Pines Road/Indiana Ave 18% Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps 18% Pines Road/Mission Ave 16% Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% Sullivan Road/Mission Ave 4% The results in Table 11 indicate that the majority of traffic through the deficient intersections is generated by land uses outside of the subarea. For example, 18 percent of the traffic through the intersection of Pines Road / Indiana Avenue is generated by land uses within the Mirabeau Subarea. The highest proportion of subarea traffic is generated at the Mirabeau Parkway / Mansfield Avenue intersection—a result that is reasonable since this intersection is within the subarea. Pagel 8 sP© 'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 The results in Table 11 are used to determine the subarea's share of the total project improvements by multiplying the total improvement project cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new development in the subarea.The result of this calculation is shown in Table 12. TABLE 12: SUBAREA'S SHARE OF TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS Mirabeau Subarea Total Project Cost Mirabeau Subarea Proportion of Future Year Fair-Share Cost Intersection Traffic Pines Road/Indiana Ave 18% $ 896,000 $ 161,000 Pines Road/1-90 EB ramps 18% $ 753,000 $ 135,000 Pines Road/Mission 16% $ 457,000 Ave $ 73,000 Mirabeau Pkwy/ 38% $ 874,000 Mansfield Ave $ 332,000 Sullivan Road/ 4% $ 61,000 Mission Ave $ 2,500 With the subarea's share of the total project costs identified in Table 12, we can identify the cost per PM peak hour trip, similar to how the existing developer agreements are established. Based on the land use growth estimates provided by the area developers (summarized in Tables 5 and 6), PM peak hour trip generation is estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)trip generation rates.Table 13 summarizes the trip generation results. Pagel 9 sP© 'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 TABLE 13:TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION PM Peak Hour Land Use Total Units of Development Trip Rate Total Trips Single-Family Residential 65 dwelling units 1.00 65 Multi-Family Residential 979 dwelling units 0.62 607 Retail 63,890 square feet 3.71 236 Office 2,561 employees 0.46 1,178 Hotel 150 rooms 0.60 90 Total NA NA 2,176 *Includes 8,space. Using the results in Tables 12 and 13, the cost per PM peak hour trip is: $704,000 (subarea's share of total project costs) _ 2,176 (subarea new PM peak hour trip generation) = $323.75 per PM peak hour trip. Mitigation Credits There are still existing "vested" trips from the prior "Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement" that was established by Spokane County. While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in December 2015, there were 904 PM peak hour vested trips outstanding amongst the land owners in the subarea. These trips have a value of $303.36 per trip, which works out to a total value of$274,237. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak hour trips as a credit to the new Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips remaining. Paget 0 SP©kan'e\'' Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study June 2016 CONCLUSIONS This report documented the existing and future traffic LOS conditions within and around the Mirabeau Subarea.As described, there are existing LOS deficiencies within the subarea that Spokane Valley is actively addressing through a mix of capital projects and traffic signal retiming. In the future, traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area as the Mirabeau subarea, Spokane Valley, and the rest of the region continues to grow. This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most if the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road corridor with a minor improvement at the Sullivan Road/Mission Avenue intersection. A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to help implement future traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution of$323.75 per PM peak hour trip,then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making this mitigation payment (which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement), the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and circulation study, which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and within the development site. Paget 1 Appendix A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Pines/Cement Road & Trent (SR 290) 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 11' r ) 14 4 r 4, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1491 1578 1609 1593 1557 1625 1625 1609 1593 1625 1577 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 5 953 0 326 532 21 332 37 215 26 37 5 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 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 Percent Heavy Veh,% 9 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 9 1016 464 342 1620 64 326 36 318 33 46 6 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.23 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow,veh/h 1420 2998 1368 1517 2901 114 1385 154 1352 584 831 112 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 5 953 0 326 271 282 369 0 215 68 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1420 1499 1368 1517 1479 1537 1540 0 1352 1528 0 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.5 45.9 0.0 31.5 14.7 14.8 35.0 0.0 21.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 45.9 0.0 31.5 14.7 14.8 35.0 0.0 21.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.90 1.00 0.38 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 9 1016 464 342 826 858 362 0 318 85 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.94 0.00 0.95 0.33 0.33 1.02 0.00 0.68 0.80 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 324 1087 496 346 826 858 362 0 318 364 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 73.8 47.7 0.0 56.9 17.8 17.8 56.9 0.0 51.8 69.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 45.4 14.3 0.0 35.7 0.2 0.2 52.4 0.0 5.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 20.9 0.0 16.6 6.1 6.3 20.0 0.0 8.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.2 62.0 0.0 92.5 18.0 18.0 109.3 0.0 57.4 84.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F E F B B F E F Approach Vol,veh/h 958 879 584 68 Approach Delay,s/veh 62.3 45.6 90.2 84.7 Approach LOS E D F F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.9 89.1 40.0 39.6 56.5 12.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 34.0 54.0 35.0 34.0 54.0 35.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.5 16.8 37.0 33.5 47.9 8.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.6 HCM 2010 LOS E Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Pines & Pinecroft Way 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r h 0 "I 14 Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 40 0 765 5 0 615 0 Future Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 40 0 765 5 0 615 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 200 - - 300 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 5 0 0 44 0 841 5 0 676 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1097 1522 340 - - 424 676 0 0 846 0 0 Stage 1 676 676 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 421 846 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *397 183 656 0 0 *790 911 - - 1138 - - Stage 1 *409 451 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *744 624 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *374 183 655 - - *789 910 - - 1137 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *374 183 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 *409 451 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 *702 624 - - - - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 12.7 9.8 0 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 910 - - 476 789 1137 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.023 0.056 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - 12.7 9.8 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.2 0 - - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 4 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Pines & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4 r 'I 14 'I 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1625 1593 1625 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 665 38 121 555 5 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 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 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 1734 99 501 1966 18 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.05 0.64 0.64 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 2911 166 1517 3074 28 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 346 357 121 273 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 1513 1564 1517 1513 1588 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 901 931 501 968 1016 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.47 0.00 0.87 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 139 250 0 223 642 901 931 599 968 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 48.1 37.5 0.0 40.2 7.8 10.3 10.3 7.0 7.7 7.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 47.6 1.5 0.0 28.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.0 6.4 0.1 5.1 5.3 1.2 3.4 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 95.6 39.0 0.0 68.4 7.8 11.5 11.5 7.3 8.4 8.4 LnGrp LOS F D E A BB A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 5 291 708 681 Approach Delay,s/veh 95.6 57.3 11.5 8.2 Approach LOS F E B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 62.8 5.6 4.5 67.0 19.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 11.0 41.0 10.0 6.0 46.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 4.8 13.6 2.4 2.1 9.7 14.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Mirabeau Parkway & Pinecroft Way 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations h 'F 't Y Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 225 115 5 20 5 Future Vol,veh/h 5 225 115 5 20 5 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 2 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 278 142 6 25 6 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 150 0 - 0 438 148 Stage 1 - - - - 147 - Stage 2 - - - - 291 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1431 - - - 576 899 Stage 1 - - - - 880 - Stage 2 - - - - 759 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1430 - - - 572 897 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 627 - Stage 1 - - - - 879 - Stage 2 - - - - 755 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.2 0 10.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh/h) 1430 - - - 667 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.046 HCM Control Delay(s) 7.5 - - - 10.7 HCM Lane LOS A - - - B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 8 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Pines & Grace Ln 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 41+ 41, Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Future Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 22 5 32 43 5 22 65 645 48 32 591 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1123 1492 309 1161 1481 347 618 0 0 694 0 0 Stage 1 669 669 - 798 798 - - - - - - - Stage 2 454 823 - 363 683 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.21 - - 2.21 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *163 125 *890 *153 127 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Stage 1 *692 637 - *643 596 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *797 577 - *839 627 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *139 110 *890 *129 111 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *139 110 - *129 111 - - - - - - - Stage1 *632 612 - *588 545 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *703 528 - *769 602 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 24.1 39.6 0.9 0.5 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1240 - - 247 172 1235 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 - - 0.239 0.406 0.026 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.1 0.3 - 24.1 39.6 8 0.1 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C E A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.9 1.8 0.1 - - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 10 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: PINES & Mansfield 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .1 4' r ) 1. 'I 1 'I 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 65 70 380 170 145 50 210 725 180 50 650 30 Future Volume(veh/h) 65 70 380 170 145 50 210 725 180 50 650 30 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1667 1667 1667 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 70 75 54 183 156 54 226 780 181 54 699 32 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 175 171 145 305 184 64 535 1611 374 395 1804 83 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.63 0.62 0.03 0.59 0.58 Sat Flow,veh/h 1587 1667 1408 1587 1181 409 1587 2547 591 1587 3084 141 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 70 75 54 183 0 210 226 485 476 54 359 372 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1587 1667 1408 1587 0 1590 1587 1583 1555 1587 1583 1641 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.1 5.5 4.7 13.1 0.0 16.7 6.9 21.1 21.2 1.7 15.8 15.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.1 5.5 4.7 13.1 0.0 16.7 6.9 21.1 21.2 1.7 15.8 15.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 175 171 145 305 0 248 535 1001 984 395 926 960 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.44 0.37 0.60 0.00 0.85 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.39 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 260 333 282 305 0 318 723 1001 984 536 926 960 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.7 54.8 54.4 44.3 0.0 53.4 9.4 12.7 12.8 10.7 14.5 14.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 1.8 1.6 3.2 0.0 15.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 2.6 1.9 6.0 0.0 8.4 3.0 9.4 9.3 0.8 7.2 7.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.2 56.6 56.0 47.5 0.0 68.8 9.7 13.6 13.7 10.9 15.7 15.7 LnGrp LOS D E E D E A B B B B B Approach Vol,veh/h 199 393 1187 785 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.2 58.9 12.9 15.4 Approach LOS D E B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 14.6 80.1 11.1 24.3 8.4 86.2 18.0 17.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 25.0 47.0 13.5 25.5 15.0 57.0 13.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 8.9 17.8 7.1 18.7 3.7 23.2 15.1 7.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.7 8.7 0.1 0.8 0.1 8.9 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 12 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: 1-90 WB off-ramp & INDIANA 6/17/2016 _ C 4- 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 11' 41' ) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 260 0 0 290 425 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 260 0 0 290 425 10 Number 8 18 7 4 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1634 0 0 1634 1587 1587 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 271 0 0 302 443 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 1 4 4 Cap,veh/h 2339 0 0 2339 542 239 Arrive On Green 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3267 0 0 3267 2931 1349 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 271 0 0 302 443 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1552 0 0 1552 1466 1349 Q Serve(g_s),s 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 18.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 18.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2339 0 0 2339 542 239 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.82 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2339 0 0 2339 1263 571 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.96 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 50.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.9 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 54.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A D Approach Vol,veh/h 271 302 443 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.4 4.5 54.0 Approach LOS A A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 102.0 28.0 102.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 65.0 55.0 65.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.5 20.9 5.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.7 2.2 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: PINES & INDIANA 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 4110 '11) 11' r " 11' r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 400 70 245 550 875 160 100 865 235 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 400 70 245 550 875 160 100 865 235 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1265 2399 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1265 2399 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 412 72 253 567 902 165 103 892 242 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 178 0 0 0 96 0 0 141 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 255 304 0 567 902 69 103 892 101 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 15 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 32.8 32.8 31.7 53.2 53.2 22.5 49.5 49.5 Effective Green,g (s) 33.8 33.8 33.2 54.7 54.7 24.5 51.0 49.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.39 0.38 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 328 623 692 1175 525 263 1096 475 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.32 0.07 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.13 0.06 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.49 0.82 0.77 0.13 0.39 0.81 0.21 Uniform Delay,d1 44.6 40.8 45.6 32.2 23.1 46.2 35.3 27.1 Progression Factor 1.11 1.41 1.03 0.65 0.37 0.93 0.84 0.36 Incremental Delay,d2 11.4 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.0 1.1 5.7 0.9 Delay(s) 60.9 58.2 47.9 21.3 8.5 43.9 35.4 10.7 Level of Service E E DC A D D B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 59.2 29.2 31.3 Approach LOS A E C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 15 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 i'i' 14 li tt Traffic Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1650 1618 1618 0 1618 1650 1618 1618 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 381 5 637 0 1253 352 237 1067 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 447 6 705 0 1077 297 243 1981 0 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.60 0.59 0.16 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1522 20 2399 0 2463 656 1541 3154 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 386 0 637 0 799 806 237 1067 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1542 0 1200 0 1537 1502 1541 1537 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 30.7 0.0 33.2 0.0 58.8 58.8 19.9 24.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 30.7 0.0 33.2 0.0 58.8 58.8 19.9 24.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.44 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 453 0 705 0 695 679 243 1981 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.90 0.00 1.15 1.19 0.98 0.54 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 480 0 748 0 695 679 243 1981 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 43.2 0.0 44.1 0.0 25.9 26.2 54.5 12.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 13.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 74.9 90.2 50.7 1.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.7 0.0 12.3 0.0 39.0 41.0 11.9 10.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 0.0 58.0 0.0 100.8 116.4 105.2 13.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E F F F B Approach Vol,veh/h 1023 1605 1304 Approach Delay,s/veh 57.4 108.6 30.3 Approach LOS E F C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 88.3 25.0 63.3 41.7 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 57.5 19.5 55.5 39.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 26.6 21.9 60.8 35.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 69.3 HCM 2010 LOS E Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 18 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 4+ r ) 14 '" 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Future Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1650 1618 1650 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1650 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 279 163 68 95 137 88 47 1021 32 289 1211 268 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 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 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 273 192 80 128 202 146 250 1413 44 384 1080 237 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.43 0.42 Sat Flow,veh/h 1541 1084 452 1201 1893 1363 1541 3042 95 2989 2507 549 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 279 0 231 123 109 88 47 516 537 289 738 741 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1541 0 1537 1558 1537 1363 1541 1537 1601 1494 1537 1519 Q Serve(g_s),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8.8 8.0 3.4 35.2 35.2 12.1 56.0 56.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8.8 8.0 3.4 35.2 35.2 12.1 56.0 56.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 272 167 164 146 250 714 744 384 662 654 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.85 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.19 0.72 0.72 0.75 1.11 1.13 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 273 0 272 228 225 199 250 714 744 506 662 654 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 0.0 52.0 56.3 55.8 55.4 47.0 28.0 28.1 54.7 37.0 37.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 60.7 0.0 21.6 8.1 4.5 4.0 0.4 6.2 6.0 7.0 64.8 72.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.4 0.0 9.7 4.7 4.0 3.2 1.5 16.1 16.8 5.4 35.6 36.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 114.3 0.0 73.6 64.4 60.3 59.4 47.4 34.3 34.1 61.6 101.8 109.3 LnGrp LOS F E E E E D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 510 320 1100 1768 Approach Delay,s/veh 95.9 61.6 34.8 98.4 Approach LOS F E C F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 25.1 60.0 17.9 20.7 64.4 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 15.0 55.0 18.0 21.0 49.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.4 58.0 12.0 14.1 37.2 25.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 3.5 0.0 0.6 1.6 4.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 75.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 20 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: INDIANA & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 f _N. \ d Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations " 11' 11, r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 50 240 220 235 360 65 Future Volume(veh/h) 50 240 220 235 360 65 Number 1 6 2 12 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 53 255 234 0 383 30 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 53 1106 640 567 609 327 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.41 0.24 0.00 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 1366 2796 2796 1219 2649 1219 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 53 255 234 0 383 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1366 1362 1362 1219 1325 1219 Q Serve(g_s),s 1.2 1.9 2.2 0.0 3.9 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.2 1.9 2.2 0.0 3.9 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 53 1106 640 567 609 327 V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.23 0.37 0.00 0.63 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 949 1758 1758 1067 1710 834 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 5.9 9.7 0.0 10.5 8.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 58.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 6.0 10.0 0.0 11.5 8.4 LnGrp LOS F A B B A Approach Vol,veh/h 308 234 413 Approach Delay,s/veh 17.6 10.0 11.3 Approach LOS B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 5.2 12.6 17.8 12.4 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 21.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 3.2 4.2 3.9 5.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 2.7 2.7 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 22 HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 5.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations h 1+ 'I T. '1 1 r 'I T. Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 0 220 0 0 0 195 90 0 0 210 25 Future Vol,veh/h 20 0 220 0 0 0 195 90 0 0 210 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 175 - 0 175 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 0 227 0 0 0 201 93 0 0 216 26 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 724 724 229 838 737 93 242 0 0 93 0 0 Stage 1 229 229 - 495 495 - - - - - - - Stage 2 495 495 - 343 242 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 341 352 810 286 346 964 1324 - - 1501 - - Stage 1 774 715 - 556 546 - - - - - - - Stage 2 556 546 - 672 705 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 301 299 810 182 293 964 1324 - - 1501 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 301 299 - 182 293 - - - - - - - Stage1 656 715 - 472 463 - - - - - - - Stage 2 472 463 - 484 705 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 11.8 0 5.6 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1324 - - 301 810 - - 1501 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 - - 0.069 0.28 - - - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.2 - - 17.8 11.2 0 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.2 1.1 - - 0 - - Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 24 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 13: S Evergreen Rd & E Indiana Ave 6/17/2016 _ C 4- 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 11' r ) 4+ 'Y r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 345 370 435 315 310 355 Future Volume(veh/h) 345 370 435 315 310 355 Number 6 16 5 2 7 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 363 81 458 332 381 192 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 579 259 828 435 1485 662 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow,veh/h 3632 1583 3548 1863 3548 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 363 81 458 332 381 192 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1770 1583 1774 1863 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.2 2.9 7.4 10.8 4.5 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.2 2.9 7.4 10.8 4.5 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 579 259 828 435 1485 662 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.31 0.55 0.76 0.26 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1143 512 873 459 1485 662 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 25.3 24.0 21.9 23.2 12.3 12.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.4 0.2 0.9 7.7 0.4 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.1 1.3 3.7 6.5 2.3 2.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 24.2 22.8 31.0 12.7 13.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B Approach Vol,veh/h 444 790 573 Approach Delay,s/veh 25.4 26.3 13.0 Approach LOS C C B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.2 31.2 14.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.5 15.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.8 7.2 8.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.9 1.1 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 26 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: S Evergreen Rd & North Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4 r 11, 11, r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 260 1 155 300 835 0 0 560 245 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 260 1 155 300 835 0 0 560 245 Number 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1937 1937 1863 1863 1863 0 0 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 281 0 0 323 898 0 0 602 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap,veh/h 483 0 207 1631 2668 0 0 772 346 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3690 0 1583 3442 3632 0 0 3632 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 281 0 0 323 898 0 0 602 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1845 0 1583 1721 1770 0 0 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 483 0 207 1631 2668 0 0 772 346 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1107 0 475 1631 2668 0 0 871 390 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 31.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C Approach Vol,veh/h 281 1221 602 Approach Delay,s/veh 27.7 0.5 31.6 Approach LOS C A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 34.8 18.2 12.0 53.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 17.0 15.0 18.5 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 12.4 6.7 2.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 5.3 0.8 0.9 6.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 28 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: S Evergreen Rd & South Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4 i'i' 1111 r 'I ti, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 500 5 500 0 0 0 0 635 230 190 630 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 500 5 500 0 0 0 0 635 230 190 630 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1863 1937 1937 0 1863 1937 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 536 0 265 0 676 0 202 670 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 4 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 911 0 845 0 1134 266 691 2222 0 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.78 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 3293 0 6669 1647 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 536 0 265 0 676 0 202 670 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1647 0 1602 1647 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 8.6 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 8.6 0.0 4.2 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 911 0 845 0 1134 266 691 2222 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.29 0.30 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1228 0 1140 0 1774 431 691 2222 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 21.2 0.0 19.5 0.0 24.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.4 0.0 20.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 5.1 0.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B C A A Approach Vol,veh/h 801 676 872 Approach Delay,s/veh 21.6 26.7 1.4 Approach LOS C C A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 44.8 29.3 15.5 20.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 34.0 12.0 17.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.0 4.1 8.3 10.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 5.3 3.0 2.2 5.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 30 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Mission Connector & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 C 4- 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(veh/h) 210 190 30 250 95 65 Future Volume(Veh/h) 210 190 30 250 95 65 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 231 209 33 275 104 71 Pedestrians 1 1 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 231 573 232 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 231 573 232 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 98 78 91 cM capacity(veh/h) 1337 469 806 Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 231 209 33 275 104 71 Volume Left 0 0 33 0 104 0 Volume Right 0 209 0 0 0 71 cSH 1700 1700 1337 1700 469 806 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.16 0.22 0.09 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 2 0 21 7 Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 14.9 9.9 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.8 12.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: Sullivan & E Indiana Ave 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '1) tio r ) 4i. r 'm 11, r 'I t Traffic Volume(vph) 130 105 330 125 260 195 320 600 70 55 1020 125 Future Volume(vph) 130 105 330 125 260 195 320 600 70 55 1020 125 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1625 1625 1625 1900 1625 1900 1625 1900 1900 1900 1900 1625 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 2936 2628 1228 1787 2812 1354 2965 3438 1572 1736 4952 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 2936 2628 1228 1787 2812 1354 2965 3438 1572 1736 4952 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow(vph) 146 118 371 140 292 219 360 674 79 62 1146 140 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 163 162 0 14 129 0 0 41 0 11 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 146 141 23 140 342 26 360 674 38 62 1275 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 2 2 1 1 Confl. Bikes(#/hr) 1 5 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2°A) 2% 1% 1% 1% 7% 1% 5% 1% 4% 3% 2% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 11.8 16.3 16.3 15.4 20.9 20.9 19.0 63.2 63.2 15.1 59.3 Effective Green,g (s) 11.8 16.3 16.3 16.4 20.9 21.9 19.0 64.2 63.2 16.1 60.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.49 0.49 0.12 0.46 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 266 329 153 225 452 228 433 1697 764 214 2296 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.05 c0.08 c0.12 c0.12 0.20 0.04 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.43 0.15 0.62 0.76 0.11 0.83 0.40 0.05 0.29 0.56 Uniform Delay,d1 56.6 52.6 50.7 53.9 52.1 45.8 53.9 20.7 17.6 51.8 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.42 6.26 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 2.3 0.9 0.5 5.3 7.1 0.2 12.3 0.7 0.1 0.8 1.0 Delay(s) 58.9 53.5 51.1 59.1 59.2 46.1 52.8 9.4 110.3 52.5 26.1 Level of Service E D D E E D D A F D C Approach Delay(s) 54.0 56.0 30.6 27.4 Approach LOS D E C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 33 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Sullivan & WB on-ramp 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .1 4' 1 M 14 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 200 150 0 0 990 0 0 1105 375 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 200 150 0 0 990 0 0 1105 375 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 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1900 5036 3401 1386 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1805 1900 5036 3401 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 227 170 0 0 1125 0 0 1256 426 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 227 170 0 0 1125 0 0 1298 383 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 6% Turn Type Split NA NA NA Free Protected Phases 18! 18! 1 2 6 2 4 5 19! Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 36.7 36.7 83.3 80.6 130.0 Effective Green,g (s) 37.7 37.7 84.3 81.6 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.65 0.63 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 523 551 3265 2134 1386 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.09 c0.22 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.31 0.34 0.61 0.28 Uniform Delay,d1 37.5 36.0 10.3 14.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.36 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 Delay(s) 38.1 36.3 5.7 5.7 0.4 Level of Service D D A A A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 37.3 5.7 4.5 Approach LOS A D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 35 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Sullivan & 1-90 EB on 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4 i'i' 11, r 11, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 290 1 790 0 0 0 0 1120 260 225 1080 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 290 1 790 0 0 0 0 1120 260 225 1080 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1759 1760 1900 0 1881 1900 1881 1881 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 303 0 670 0 1167 155 234 1125 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Cap,veh/h 839 0 809 0 2015 910 325 2460 0 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3351 0 3230 0 3668 1614 3476 3668 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 303 0 670 0 1167 155 234 1125 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1675 0 1615 0 1787 1614 1738 1787 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.7 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 18.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.7 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 18.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 839 0 809 0 2015 910 325 2460 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.58 0.17 0.72 0.46 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1057 0 1019 0 2015 910 561 2460 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 0.0 46.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.3 9.2 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.2 0.4 3.0 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.5 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.2 9.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 0.0 50.8 0.0 1.2 0.4 60.3 9.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D A A E A Approach Vol,veh/h 973 1322 1359 Approach Delay,s/veh 47.6 1.1 18.5 Approach LOS D A B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 93.5 16.2 77.3 36.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 80.0 20.0 55.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 20.6 10.5 2.0 27.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 22.0 0.7 21.3 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 38 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Sullivan & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r ) 'Hi, ) 44i, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 105 5 125 30 10 65 80 1210 20 50 1710 110 Future Volume(veh/h) 105 5 125 30 10 65 80 1210 20 50 1710 110 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1900 1882 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 5 16 31 10 8 82 1235 20 51 1745 112 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap,veh/h 54 1 387 49 9 390 483 3254 53 66 1910 122 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.07 0.77 0.76 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 6 1597 0 39 1611 1810 5207 84 1810 4933 316 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 112 0 16 41 0 8 82 812 443 51 1210 647 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 6 0 1597 39 0 1611 1810 1712 1867 1810 1712 1825 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.5 15.2 15.2 3.6 35.4 35.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 31.5 0.0 1.0 31.5 0.0 0.5 4.5 15.2 15.2 3.6 35.4 35.8 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 56 0 387 58 0 390 483 2140 1166 66 1325 707 V/C Ratio(X) 2.02 0.00 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.77 0.91 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 56 0 387 58 0 390 483 2140 1166 306 1791 955 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.72 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 64.2 0.0 37.7 57.8 0.0 37.5 36.6 12.0 12.0 59.7 13.0 13.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 515.2 0.0 0.0 28.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 5.0 8.4 14.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 9.9 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.2 2.3 7.3 8.1 1.9 17.3 20.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 579.5 0.0 37.7 86.0 0.0 37.5 36.8 12.5 12.9 64.7 21.4 27.5 LnGrp LOS F D F D D B B E C C Approach Vol,veh/h 128 49 1337 1908 Approach Delay,s/veh 511.8 78.1 14.1 24.6 Approach LOS F E B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 85.2 36.0 39.7 54.3 36.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 *5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 22.0 63.0 30.5 18.0 *67 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.6 17.2 33.5 6.5 37.8 33.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 7.3 0.0 4.9 11.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.5 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 40 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: 1-90 WB off& E Indiana Ave 6/17/2016 x- 4- 4 / Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 11' 11 tt V Traffic Volume(veh/h) 235 0 210 330 245 18 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 235 0 210 330 245 18 0 0 Number 4 14 3 8 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1881 0 1625 1900 1865 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 273 0 244 384 285 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cap,veh/h 821 0 305 2012 483 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.20 0.56 0.27 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3762 0 1548 3705 1771 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 273 0 244 384 286 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1787 0 1548 1805 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.4 0.0 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.4 0.0 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 821 0 305 2012 484 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.80 0.19 0.59 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2475 0 607 2500 1950 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0.0 14.6 4.2 12.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.0 2.8 1.0 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.5 0.0 19.5 4.2 13.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A B Approach Vol,veh/h 273 628 286 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.5 10.2 13.2 Approach LOS B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 3 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.5 12.3 13.4 24.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 15.0 25.0 40.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.8 4.4 7.3 4.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.4 2.9 1.1 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 PM Peak Hour Synchro 8 Report PM Page 42 Appendix B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Pines/Cement Road & Trent (SR 290) 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations /I tt r ) 1 ) 4 r 4, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 5 905 265 310 505 20 315 35 465 25 35 5 Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1491 1578 1609 1593 1557 1625 1609 1609 1593 1625 1577 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 5 953 0 326 532 21 358 0 215 26 37 5 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 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 Percent Heavy Veh,% 9 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 9 1112 507 350 1726 68 464 0 517 33 47 6 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.37 0.00 0.23 0.59 0.59 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow,veh/h 1420 2998 1368 1517 2901 114 3065 0 1351 584 831 112 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 5 953 0 326 271 282 358 0 215 68 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1420 1499 1368 1517 1479 1537 1532 0 1351 1528 0 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.4 33.0 0.0 23.7 10.2 10.3 12.6 0.0 13.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.4 33.0 0.0 23.7 10.2 10.3 12.6 0.0 13.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 9 1112 507 350 880 914 464 0 517 86 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.86 0.00 0.93 0.31 0.31 0.77 0.00 0.42 0.79 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 76 1252 571 377 907 942 790 0 660 333 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.8 32.7 0.0 42.4 11.3 11.3 45.9 0.0 25.6 52.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 42.7 5.6 0.0 28.7 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.0 0.5 14.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 14.5 0.0 12.7 4.2 4.4 5.5 0.0 4.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.4 38.2 0.0 71.2 11.5 11.5 48.6 0.0 26.1 67.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D E B B D C E Approach Vol,veh/h 958 879 573 68 Approach Delay,s/veh 38.6 33.6 40.2 67.3 Approach LOS D C D E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.7 73.0 22.0 31.9 47.7 10.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 6.0 69.0 29.0 28.0 47.0 24.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.4 12.3 15.2 25.7 35.0 6.9 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 12.4 1.8 0.2 6.7 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 38.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Pines & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4 r 'I 14 'I 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 100 0 165 5 605 35 110 505 5 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1625 1593 1625 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 665 38 121 555 5 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 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 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 1734 99 501 1966 18 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.05 0.64 0.64 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 2911 166 1517 3074 28 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 5 110 0 181 5 346 357 121 273 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 1346 1517 0 1354 1517 1513 1564 1517 1513 1588 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.4 0.0 12.7 0.1 11.6 11.6 2.8 7.7 7.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 9 232 0 207 556 901 931 501 968 1016 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.47 0.00 0.87 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 139 250 0 223 642 901 931 599 968 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 48.1 37.5 0.0 40.2 7.8 10.3 10.3 7.0 7.7 7.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 47.6 1.5 0.0 28.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.0 6.4 0.1 5.1 5.3 1.2 3.4 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 95.6 39.0 0.0 68.4 7.8 11.5 11.5 7.3 8.4 8.4 LnGrp LOS F D E A BB A A A Approach Vol,veh/h 5 291 708 681 Approach Delay,s/veh 95.6 57.3 11.5 8.2 Approach LOS F E B A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.8 62.8 5.6 4.5 67.0 19.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 11.0 41.0 10.0 6.0 46.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 4.8 13.6 2.4 2.1 9.7 14.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Pines & Grace Ln 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 41+ 41, Traffic Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Future Vol,veh/h 20 5 30 40 5 20 60 600 45 30 550 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 22 5 32 43 5 22 65 645 48 32 591 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1123 1492 309 1161 1481 347 618 0 0 694 0 0 Stage 1 669 669 - 798 798 - - - - - - - Stage 2 454 823 - 363 683 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.21 - - 2.21 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *163 125 *890 *153 127 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Stage 1 *692 637 - *643 596 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *797 577 - *839 627 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *139 110 *890 *129 111 *845 1240 - - 1235 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *139 110 - *129 111 - - - - - - - Stage1 *632 612 - *588 545 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *703 528 - *769 602 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 24.1 39.6 0.9 0.5 HCM LOS C E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1240 - - 247 172 1235 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 - - 0.239 0.406 0.026 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 8.1 0.3 - 24.1 39.6 8 0.1 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C E A A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.9 1.8 0.1 - - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 11 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 i'i' 14 li tt Traffic Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 370 5 650 0 0 0 0 1215 365 230 1035 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1650 1618 1618 0 1618 1650 1618 1618 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 381 5 637 0 1253 352 237 1067 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 357 5 562 0 1230 339 236 2163 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.70 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1522 20 2394 0 2463 656 1541 3154 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 386 0 637 0 799 806 237 1067 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1542 0 1197 0 1537 1502 1541 1537 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 30.5 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 67.1 19.9 20.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 30.5 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 67.1 19.9 20.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.44 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 362 0 562 0 793 775 236 2163 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.07 0.00 1.13 0.00 1.01 1.04 1.00 0.49 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 362 0 562 0 793 775 236 2163 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 49.8 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 8.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 66.3 0.0 80.6 0.0 23.0 32.3 59.9 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 19.6 0.0 16.4 0.0 5.1 7.0 12.4 8.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 116.1 0.0 130.3 0.0 23.0 32.3 114.9 9.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F F F F A Approach Vol,veh/h 1023 1605 1304 Approach Delay,s/veh 125.0 27.7 28.7 Approach LOS F C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 96.0 24.4 71.6 34.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 67.5 18.9 66.1 29.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 22.5 21.9 69.1 32.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 19 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 4+ r ) 14 '" 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Future Volume(veh/h) 265 155 65 90 130 350 45 970 30 275 1150 270 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1650 1618 1650 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1650 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 279 163 68 95 137 88 47 1021 32 289 1211 268 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 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 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 273 192 80 129 203 146 202 1446 45 350 1157 253 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.48 0.47 0.23 0.92 0.91 Sat Flow,veh/h 1541 1084 452 1201 1893 1363 1541 3042 95 2989 2507 549 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 279 0 231 123 109 88 47 516 537 289 738 741 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1541 0 1537 1558 1537 1363 1541 1537 1601 1494 1537 1519 Q Serve(g_s),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8.8 8.0 3.6 34.4 34.5 11.9 60.0 60.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 23.0 0.0 18.9 10.0 8.8 8.0 3.6 34.4 34.5 11.9 60.0 60.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 272 167 165 146 202 731 761 350 709 701 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.85 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.23 0.71 0.71 0.83 1.04 1.06 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 273 0 272 240 236 210 202 731 761 368 709 701 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 0.0 52.0 56.2 55.7 55.4 50.6 26.9 26.9 48.5 5.0 5.4 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 60.7 0.0 21.6 6.8 4.4 3.9 0.6 5.7 5.5 12.6 38.4 44.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.4 0.0 9.7 4.6 3.9 3.2 1.5 15.8 16.4 5.5 28.0 29.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 114.3 0.0 73.6 63.0 60.2 59.3 51.2 32.6 32.4 61.1 43.4 49.4 LnGrp LOS F E E E E D C C E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 510 320 1100 1768 Approach Delay,s/veh 95.9 61.0 33.3 48.8 Approach LOS F E C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.0 64.0 18.0 19.2 65.8 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 10.0 59.0 19.0 15.0 54.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.6 62.0 12.0 13.9 36.5 25.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.3 4.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 21 Appendix C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Pines/Cement Road & Trent (SR 290) 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 11 r '111 1 '111 4' r 'I 1, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 1125 350 420 690 20 455 80 575 35 75 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 1125 350 420 690 20 455 80 575 35 75 10 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1491 1578 1609 1593 1558 1625 1609 1609 1593 1548 1596 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 11 1223 380 457 750 22 495 87 457 38 82 11 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 9 3 1 2 4 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 Cap,veh/h 18 1204 788 506 1646 48 522 328 508 45 81 11 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.56 0.56 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.06 Sat Flow,veh/h 1420 2998 1365 2944 2937 86 2973 1609 1352 1474 1378 185 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 11 1223 380 457 378 394 495 87 457 38 0 93 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1420 1499 1365 1472 1480 1543 1486 1609 1352 1474 0 1563 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.9 48.0 19.5 18.2 18.0 18.0 19.7 5.4 24.4 3.1 0.0 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.9 48.0 19.5 18.2 18.0 18.0 19.7 5.4 24.4 3.1 0.0 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 18 1204 788 506 830 865 522 328 508 45 0 92 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 1.02 0.48 0.90 0.46 0.46 0.95 0.27 0.90 0.85 0.00 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 59 1204 788 542 830 865 522 328 508 62 0 92 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 35.8 14.8 48.5 15.5 15.5 48.7 40.0 35.2 57.7 0.0 56.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 28.3 30.0 0.5 17.9 0.4 0.4 26.8 0.4 18.8 51.2 0.0 98.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 24.7 7.4 8.7 7.4 7.8 10.1 2.5 16.8 1.9 0.0 5.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87.0 65.8 15.3 66.4 15.9 15.9 75.6 40.5 54.0 108.9 0.0 154.9 LnGrp LOS F F B E B B E D D F F Approach Vol,veh/h 1614 1229 1039 131 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.0 34.7 63.1 141.5 Approach LOS D C E F Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 9.6 29.4 26.5 54.0 27.0 12.0 7.5 73.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 6.0 5.0 6.0 *6 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 5.0 23.0 22.0 *48 21.0 7.0 5.0 64.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 5.1 26.4 20.2 50.0 21.7 9.0 2.9 20.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 2 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Pines & Pinecroft Way 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r h 0 "I 14 Traffic Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 95 0 1005 10 0 845 0 Future Vol,veh/h 5 0 5 0 0 95 0 1005 10 0 845 0 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 0 200 - - 300 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 5 0 0 103 0 1092 11 0 918 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1465 2021 461 - - 553 918 0 0 1103 0 0 Stage 1 918 918 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 547 1103 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 - - 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - - - - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 - - 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *277 *84 547 0 0 *666 739 - - *997 - - Stage 1 *292 *349 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Stage 2 *628 *551 - 0 0 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% 1 1 1 - - 1 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *234 *84 546 - - *666 738 - - *996 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver *234 *84 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 1 *292 *349 - - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 *530 *551 - - - - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 16.4 11.4 0 0 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 738 - - 328 666 *996 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.033 0.155 - - - HCM Control Delay(s) 0 - - 16.4 11.4 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.5 0 - - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Pines & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, 4 r 'I 14 'I 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 265 0 405 5 610 215 290 555 5 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 5 265 0 405 5 610 215 290 555 5 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1625 1593 1625 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 0 0 5 288 0 351 5 663 159 315 603 5 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 0 0 9 379 0 339 440 1116 267 420 1785 15 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.58 0.58 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1344 1517 0 1354 1517 2424 581 1517 3077 26 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 0 0 5 288 0 351 5 414 408 315 297 311 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 1344 1517 0 1354 1517 1513 1491 1517 1513 1589 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 21.1 0.0 30.0 0.2 24.4 24.4 12.5 12.3 12.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.4 21.1 0.0 30.0 0.2 24.4 24.4 12.5 12.3 12.3 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 0 0 9 379 0 339 440 697 686 420 878 922 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.76 0.00 1.04 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.75 0.34 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 0 0 112 379 0 339 483 697 686 483 878 922 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 59.5 41.7 0.0 45.0 17.2 24.0 24.1 17.5 13.2 13.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.0 0.0 49.7 8.6 0.0 58.8 0.0 3.7 3.8 5.6 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.3 9.7 0.0 16.7 0.1 10.8 10.7 5.8 5.4 5.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 109.2 50.3 0.0 103.8 17.2 27.7 27.8 23.1 14.2 14.1 LnGrp LOS F D F BCCC B B Approach Vol,veh/h 5 639 827 923 Approach Delay,s/veh 109.2 79.7 27.7 17.2 Approach LOS F E C B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 19.0 60.2 5.8 4.6 74.6 35.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 20.0 41.0 10.0 4.0 57.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 14.5 26.4 2.4 2.2 14.3 32.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 7 HCM 2010 TWSC 4: Mirabeau Parkway & Pinecroft Way 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations h 'F 't Y Traffic Vol,veh/h 40 515 475 25 60 40 Future Vol,veh/h 40 515 475 25 60 40 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 2 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade,% - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 560 516 27 65 43 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 545 0 - 0 1180 533 Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 648 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1024 - - - 210 547 Stage 1 - - - - 589 - Stage 2 - - - - 521 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1023 - - - 201 546 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 337 - Stage 1 - - - - 588 - Stage 2 - - - - 498 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.6 0 17.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity(veh/h) 1023 - - - 398 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - - 0.273 HCM Control Delay(s) 8.7 - - - 17.4 HCM Lane LOS A - - - C HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1.1 Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 9 SimTraffic Performance Report 6/20/2016 5: Pines & Grace Ln Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay(hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied DelNeh(s) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Delay(hr) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 Total DelNeh(s) 25.2 23.9 9.6 26.0 28.4 13.8 9.3 4.8 5.4 8.5 2.2 2.0 Stop Delay(hr) 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stop DelNeh(s) 23.1 20.8 8.8 23.6 24.8 13.0 4.3 0.1 0.1 5.4 0.1 0.1 5: Pines & Grace Ln Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay(hr) 0.0 Denied DelNeh(s) 0.0 Total Delay(hr) 2.6 Total DelNeh(s) 5.0 Stop Delay(hr) 0.9 Stop DelNeh(s) 1.7 Mirabeau sub-area Existing Optimized Improved SimTraffic Report AM Page 3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: PINES & Mansfield 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .1 4' r ) 1. 'I 1 'I 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 95 125 470 180 170 55 220 870 205 60 885 45 Future Volume(veh/h) 95 125 470 180 170 55 220 870 205 60 885 45 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1667 1667 1667 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 1667 1667 1700 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 103 136 293 196 185 60 239 946 209 65 962 49 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 273 392 332 328 296 96 350 1381 305 251 1457 74 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.25 0.24 0.10 0.54 0.53 0.04 0.48 0.47 Sat Flow,veh/h 1587 1667 1413 1587 1204 391 1587 2574 568 1587 3066 156 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 103 136 293 196 0 245 239 581 574 65 497 514 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1587 1667 1413 1587 0 1595 1587 1583 1558 1587 1583 1639 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.4 8.8 26.0 8.7 0.0 17.8 9.4 35.0 35.2 2.7 31.2 31.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.4 8.8 26.0 8.7 0.0 17.8 9.4 35.0 35.2 2.7 31.2 31.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 392 332 328 0 392 350 850 836 251 753 779 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.35 0.88 0.60 0.00 0.63 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.26 0.66 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 273 474 402 328 0 471 436 850 836 251 753 779 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 36.1 41.4 48.0 39.3 0.0 43.7 20.0 22.1 22.3 19.3 26.1 26.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.9 0.5 17.5 2.9 0.0 1.9 1.0 1.4 1.4 0.5 4.5 4.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.9 4.1 11.7 2.8 0.0 8.0 4.2 15.5 15.3 1.2 14.6 15.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.9 41.9 65.5 42.2 0.0 45.6 21.0 23.5 23.7 19.8 30.6 30.5 LnGrp LOS D D E D DCCC B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 532 441 1394 1076 Approach Delay,s/veh 54.0 44.1 23.1 29.9 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.0 65.8 11.3 35.9 9.0 73.8 12.7 34.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 19.0 47.3 6.8 37.9 4.0 62.3 8.2 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 11.4 33.2 8.4 19.8 4.7 37.2 10.7 28.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.5 8.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 11.7 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 13 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: 1-90 WB off-ramp & INDIANA 6/17/2016 _ C 4- 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 11' 41' ) r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 490 0 0 530 495 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 490 0 0 530 495 10 Number 8 18 7 4 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1634 0 0 1634 1587 1587 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 533 0 0 576 538 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 1 4 4 Cap,veh/h 2232 0 0 2232 643 286 Arrive On Green 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3267 0 0 3267 2931 1349 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 533 0 0 576 538 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1552 0 0 1552 1466 1349 Q Serve(g_s),s 7.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 22.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 7.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 22.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 2232 0 0 2232 643 286 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.84 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 2232 0 0 2232 1353 612 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 6.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 48.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 9.5 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.6 51.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A D Approach Vol,veh/h 533 576 538 Approach Delay,s/veh 6.4 6.6 51.5 Approach LOS A A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 97.5 32.5 97.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 61.0 59.0 61.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 10.3 24.8 9.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 5.9 2.7 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: PINES & INDIANA 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 4110 '11) 11' r ) 11' r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1265 2483 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1265 2483 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 495 337 283 609 1130 353 179 1228 261 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 195 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 376 675 0 609 1130 158 179 1228 182 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 15 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 34.0 34.0 26.5 56.8 56.8 17.7 53.5 53.5 Effective Green,g (s) 35.0 35.0 28.0 58.3 58.3 19.7 55.0 53.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.42 0.41 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 340 668 583 1253 560 211 1182 514 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.40 0.13 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.27 0.13 0.15 v/c Ratio 1.11 1.01 1.04 0.90 0.28 0.85 1.04 0.35 Uniform Delay,d1 47.5 47.5 51.0 33.2 22.6 53.7 37.5 26.3 Progression Factor 0.85 0.83 1.00 0.73 0.98 0.87 0.84 0.92 Incremental Delay,d2 79.4 36.9 25.2 1.0 0.0 18.2 31.5 1.2 Delay(s) 119.9 76.4 76.3 25.3 22.3 65.1 63.0 25.4 Level of Service F E E C C E E C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 91.1 39.6 57.3 Approach LOS A F D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 57.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.11 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 16 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 i'i' 14 li tt Traffic Volume(veh/h) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1650 1618 1618 0 1618 1650 1618 1618 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 478 5 728 0 1614 400 299 1424 0 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 381 4 599 0 1242 295 231 2116 0 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.15 0.69 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1525 16 2396 0 2545 586 1541 3154 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 483 0 728 0 981 1033 299 1424 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1541 0 1198 0 1537 1514 1541 1537 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 32.5 0.0 32.5 0.0 0.0 65.5 19.5 35.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 32.5 0.0 32.5 0.0 0.0 65.5 19.5 35.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.39 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 385 0 599 0 774 763 231 2116 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.27 1.35 1.29 0.67 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 385 0 599 0 774 763 231 2116 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 0.0 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 55.3 11.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 133.7 0.0 111.7 0.0 121.2 160.0 160.5 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 28.1 0.0 20.1 0.0 26.1 34.0 18.6 15.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 182.5 0.0 160.4 0.0 121.2 160.2 215.7 13.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F F F F B Approach Vol,veh/h 1211 2014 1723 Approach Delay,s/veh 169.2 141.2 48.6 Approach LOS F F D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 94.0 24.0 70.0 36.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 65.5 18.5 64.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 37.0 21.5 67.5 34.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 115.8 HCM 2010 LOS F Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 19 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41 4+ r ) 14 '" 14 Traffic Volume(veh/h) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Future Volume(veh/h) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1650 1618 1650 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1650 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 342 223 73 98 234 238 54 1250 33 429 1408 343 Adj No.of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 273 207 68 128 327 390 71 1271 34 414 1251 297 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.42 0.41 0.28 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1541 1167 382 875 2235 1367 1541 3059 81 2989 2465 585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 342 0 296 176 156 238 54 628 655 429 864 887 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1541 0 1549 1574 1537 1367 1541 1537 1603 1494 1537 1513 Q Serve(g_s),s 23.0 0.0 23.0 14.0 12.5 19.0 4.5 52.5 52.5 18.0 66.0 66.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 23.0 0.0 23.0 14.0 12.5 19.0 4.5 52.5 52.5 18.0 66.0 66.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.39 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 273 0 274 230 225 390 71 638 666 414 780 768 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 1.08 0.77 0.69 0.61 0.76 0.98 0.98 1.04 1.11 1.15 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 273 0 274 230 225 390 71 638 666 414 780 768 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 0.0 53.6 53.4 52.7 40.3 61.3 37.6 37.6 47.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 141.1 0.0 77.2 14.3 8.9 2.8 37.1 31.7 31.2 38.6 56.7 76.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 20.4 0.0 15.7 7.0 5.9 7.7 2.7 27.8 28.9 9.6 12.3 16.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 194.6 0.0 130.8 67.6 61.6 43.0 98.4 69.3 68.8 85.6 56.7 76.4 LnGrp LOS F F E E D F E E F F F Approach Vol,veh/h 638 570 1337 2180 Approach Delay,s/veh 165.0 55.7 70.2 70.4 Approach LOS F E E E Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.0 70.0 23.0 22.0 58.0 27.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 5.0 65.0 18.0 17.0 53.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6.5 68.0 21.0 20.0 54.5 25.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 81.4 HCM 2010 LOS F Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 21 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 11: INDIANA & Mirabeau Parkway 6/17/2016 f _N. \ d Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 11 11' 11, r r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 160 335 225 585 690 305 Future Volume(veh/h) 160 335 225 585 690 305 Number 1 6 2 12 3 18 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 1434 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 174 364 245 0 750 292 Adj No.of Lanes 1 2 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 213 1152 497 642 913 610 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.42 0.18 0.00 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1366 2796 2796 1219 2649 1219 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 174 364 245 0 750 292 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1366 1362 1362 1219 1325 1219 Q Serve(g_s),s 5.8 4.2 3.8 0.0 12.2 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.8 4.2 3.8 0.0 12.2 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 213 1152 497 642 913 610 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.32 0.49 0.00 0.82 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 606 1152 1123 922 1092 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 19.3 9.1 17.4 0.0 14.2 7.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 4.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.0 4.9 2.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.9 9.2 18.1 0.0 18.6 8.4 LnGrp LOS C A B B A Approach Vol,veh/h 538 245 1042 Approach Delay,s/veh 15.0 18.1 15.7 Approach LOS B B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 14.1 25.5 21.8 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 21.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.8 5.8 6.2 14.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.4 2.5 3.2 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 23 HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 583.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations h 1+ 'I T. '1 1 r 'I T. Traffic Vol,veh/h 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Future Vol,veh/h 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - 175 - 0 175 - - Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade,% - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 60 250 255 11 168 223 326 261 5 576 38 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1467 1378 595 1533 1397 326 614 0 0 326 0 0 Stage 1 606 606 - 772 772 - - - - - - - Stage 2 861 772 - 761 625 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 106 145 504 - 95 141 715 965 - - 1234 - - Stage 1 484 487 - 392 409 - - - - - - - Stage 2 350 409 - 398 477 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 61 111 504 - 23 108 715 965 - - 1234 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 61 111 - -23 108 - - - - - - - Stage1 372 485 - 301 314 - - - - - - - Stage 2 199 314 - - 175 475 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 100.8 $2870.4 2.7 0.1 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 965 - - 61 299 23 533 1234 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.231 - - 0.445 1.03611.106 0.336 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 9.8 - - 104.8 100.$4875.1 15.1 7.9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F F F C A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 1.7 11.5 32 1.5 0 - - Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 25 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 13: S Evergreen Rd & E Indiana Ave 6/17/2016 _ C 4- 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 11' r ) 4+ 'Y r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 565 600 455 415 535 415 Future Volume(veh/h) 565 600 455 415 535 415 Number 6 16 5 2 7 14 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 614 224 528 405 582 221 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 841 376 873 459 1176 525 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 3632 1583 3548 1863 3548 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 614 224 528 405 582 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1770 1583 1774 1863 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 10.4 8.2 8.6 13.6 8.5 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 10.4 8.2 8.6 13.6 8.5 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 841 376 873 459 1176 525 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.60 0.60 0.88 0.49 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1143 512 873 459 1176 525 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 22.8 22.0 21.7 23.6 17.4 16.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.6 0.4 1.4 18.4 1.5 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 5.1 3.6 4.4 9.3 4.4 3.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 22.4 23.1 42.0 18.9 19.4 LnGrp LOS CCCD B B Approach Vol,veh/h 838 933 803 Approach Delay,s/veh 23.2 31.3 19.0 Approach LOS C C B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 20.0 25.5 19.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.5 5.0 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 14.5 15.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 15.6 10.5 12.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 1.2 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 27 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 14: S Evergreen Rd & North Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4 r 11, 11, r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 350 5 315 390 960 0 0 800 255 Future Volume(veh/h) 0 0 0 350 5 315 390 960 0 0 800 255 Number 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1937 1937 1863 1863 1863 0 0 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 384 0 0 424 1043 0 0 870 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 Cap,veh/h 598 0 256 1428 2558 0 0 871 390 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3690 0 1583 3442 3632 0 0 3632 1583 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 384 0 0 424 1043 0 0 870 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1845 0 1583 1721 1770 0 0 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s),s 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 598 0 256 1428 2558 0 0 871 390 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.41 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1107 0 475 1428 2558 0 0 871 390 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 25.5 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A D Approach Vol,veh/h 384 1467 870 Approach Delay,s/veh 26.6 1.3 54.7 Approach LOS C A D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 31.0 20.0 14.0 51.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 17.0 15.0 18.5 37.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 3.8 18.0 8.3 2.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.1 0.0 1.2 8.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 29 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: S Evergreen Rd & South Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 4 i'i' 1111 r 'I ti, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 550 5 605 0 0 0 0 800 460 355 795 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 550 5 605 0 0 0 0 800 460 355 795 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1863 1937 1937 0 1863 1937 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 602 0 501 0 870 0 386 864 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 4 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 Cap,veh/h 1025 0 951 0 1337 318 578 2109 0 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.65 1.00 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3548 0 3293 0 6669 1647 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 602 0 501 0 870 0 386 864 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1647 0 1602 1647 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 9.4 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.1 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.4 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.1 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1025 0 951 0 1337 318 578 2109 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.67 0.41 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1228 0 1140 0 1774 431 578 2109 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 19.8 0.0 19.4 0.0 23.5 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.9 0.0 20.4 0.0 24.7 0.0 12.0 0.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C C B A Approach Vol,veh/h 1103 870 1250 Approach Delay,s/veh 20.7 24.7 4.0 Approach LOS C C A Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 42.7 25.2 17.6 22.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 34.0 12.0 17.0 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.0 10.7 10.1 11.4 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 9.1 0.9 2.5 6.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 31 HCM 2010 TWSC 16: Mission Connector & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'F it ) 'F i r Traffic Vol,veh/h 265 250 70 305 110 140 Future Vol,veh/h 265 250 70 305 110 140 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - Free - None - Stop Storage Length - 292 410 - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade,% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 288 272 76 332 120 152 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 - 288 0 773 289 Stage 1 - - - - 288 - Stage 2 - - - - 485 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 1274 - 367 750 Stage 1 - 0 - - 761 - Stage 2 - 0 - - 619 - Platoon blocked,% - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1273 - 345 749 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 345 - Stage 1 - - - - 761 - Stage 2 - - - - 582 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay,s 0 1.5 15.4 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT WBL WBT Capacity(veh/h) 345 749 - 1273 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.347 0.203 - 0.06 - HCM Control Delay(s) 20.9 11 - 8 - HCM Lane LOS C B - A - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.5 0.8 - 0.2 - Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 33 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Sullivan & WB on-ramp 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .1 4' 1 M 14 r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 250 365 0 0 1235 0 0 1370 385 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 250 365 0 0 1235 0 0 1370 385 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 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1900 5036 3405 1386 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1805 1900 5036 3405 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 272 397 0 0 1342 0 0 1489 418 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 272 397 0 0 1342 0 0 1530 376 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% 6% Turn Type Split NA NA NA Free Protected Phases 18! 18! 1 2 6 2 4 5 19! Permitted Phases Free Actuated Green,G(s) 54.4 54.4 65.6 82.1 130.0 Effective Green,g (s) 55.4 55.4 66.6 83.1 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.51 0.64 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 769 809 2579 2176 1386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.21 c0.27 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.49 0.52 0.70 0.27 Uniform Delay,d1 25.2 27.1 21.1 15.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.58 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 Delay(s) 25.5 27.5 11.7 9.5 0.2 Level of Service C C B A A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 26.7 11.7 7.6 Approach LOS A C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period(min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 36 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Sullivan & 1-90 EB on 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 4 i'i' 11, r 11, Traffic Volume(vph) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Future Volume(vph) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 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 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1588 1588 2842 3574 1593 3467 3574 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1588 1588 2842 3574 1593 3467 3574 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 467 0 1027 0 0 0 0 1451 348 255 1505 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 233 234 990 0 0 0 0 1451 209 255 1505 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 1 1 1 Heavy Vehicles(%) 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 46.5 46.5 46.5 58.1 58.1 10.4 73.5 Effective Green,g (s) 47.5 47.5 47.5 59.1 59.1 11.4 74.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.57 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 580 580 1038 1624 724 304 2048 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 0.15 c0.41 c0.07 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm c0.35 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.95 0.89 0.29 0.84 0.73 Uniform Delay,d1 30.7 30.7 40.2 32.6 22.3 58.4 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.42 1.08 1.20 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.5 17.7 7.2 0.9 14.2 1.8 Delay(s) 31.1 31.2 57.9 33.6 10.2 77.2 26.3 Level of Service C C E C B E C Approach Delay(s) 49.5 0.0 29.1 33.7 Approach LOS D A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 38 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 19: Sullivan & 1-90 EB on 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4 i'i' 11, r 11, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 430 0 945 0 0 0 0 1335 320 235 1385 0 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1759 1759 1900 0 1881 1900 1881 1881 0 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 467 0 990 0 1451 209 255 1505 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Cap,veh/h 1158 0 1116 0 1707 771 294 2119 0 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.08 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3351 0 3230 0 3668 1614 3476 3668 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 467 0 990 0 1451 209 255 1505 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1675 0 1615 0 1787 1614 1738 1787 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 13.8 0.0 37.6 0.0 12.6 1.0 9.4 38.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 13.8 0.0 37.6 0.0 12.6 1.0 9.4 38.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1158 0 1116 0 1707 771 294 2119 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.85 0.27 0.87 0.71 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1237 0 1193 0 1707 771 294 2119 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 32.4 0.0 40.1 0.0 1.8 1.5 58.8 18.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.9 0.8 22.9 2.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 0.0 18.0 0.0 5.6 0.5 5.5 19.4 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.6 0.0 48.2 0.0 6.7 2.3 81.6 20.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D A A F C Approach Vol,veh/h 1457 1660 1760 Approach Delay,s/veh 43.2 6.2 29.5 Approach LOS D A C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 81.1 15.0 66.1 48.9 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 73.0 10.0 58.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 40.5 11.4 14.6 39.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 23.9 0.0 29.3 4.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 39 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Sullivan & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r 4 r 'I 44 'I 44l, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1390 40 75 2135 120 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1390 40 75 2135 120 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1900 1882 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1882 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 11 29 38 16 18 114 1511 43 82 2321 130 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap,veh/h 54 0 387 47 12 390 359 3105 88 103 2268 126 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.91 0.90 Sat Flow,veh/h 0 0 1597 0 51 1611 1810 5134 146 1810 4980 277 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 207 0 29 54 0 18 114 1008 546 82 1590 861 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 0 0 1597 51 0 1611 1810 1712 1856 1810 1712 1832 Q Serve(g_s),s 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.0 21.4 21.5 5.7 59.2 59.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 31.5 0.0 1.8 31.5 0.0 1.1 7.0 21.4 21.5 5.7 59.2 59.2 Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 54 0 387 59 0 390 359 2071 1122 103 1560 835 V/C Ratio(X) 3.84 0.00 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.05 0.32 0.49 0.49 0.80 1.02 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 54 0 387 59 0 390 359 2071 1122 167 1923 1029 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 65.0 0.0 38.0 57.9 0.0 37.7 44.6 14.4 14.4 56.9 5.8 5.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1321.4 0.0 0.0 82.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.5 2.5 20.5 29.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 21.7 0.0 0.8 3.3 0.0 0.5 3.6 10.3 11.4 2.9 27.8 32.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1386.4 0.0 38.0 140.6 0.0 37.8 45.1 15.2 15.9 59.4 26.3 35.7 LnGrp LOS F D F D D B B E F F Approach Vol,veh/h 236 72 1668 2533 Approach Delay,s/veh 1220.7 114.9 17.5 30.6 Approach LOS F F B C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 82.6 36.0 25.1 68.9 36.0 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 *5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 12.0 73.0 30.5 13.0 *72 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.7 23.5 33.5 9.0 61.2 33.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 10.5 0.0 1.0 8.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 89.4 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 41 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 21: 1-90 WB off& E Indiana Ave 6/17/2016 x- 4- 4 / Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR NEL NER Lane Configurations 11' 11 tt V Traffic Volume(veh/h) 1005 0 425 650 280 20 0 0 Future Volume(veh/h) 1005 0 425 650 280 20 0 0 Number 4 14 3 8 1 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1881 0 1625 1900 1865 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 1092 0 462 707 304 0 Adj No.of Lanes 2 0 1 2 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 0 0 0 Cap,veh/h 1186 0 490 2551 385 0 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.00 0.32 0.71 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 3762 0 1548 3705 1771 0 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 1092 0 462 707 305 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1787 0 1548 1805 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s),s 25.2 0.0 25.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 25.2 0.0 25.0 6.1 13.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 1186 0 490 2551 387 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.94 0.28 0.79 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 1186 0 505 2586 559 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 27.6 0.0 28.6 4.6 31.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.6 0.0 26.2 0.1 4.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 14.3 0.0 14.2 3.1 7.3 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 0.0 54.8 4.7 36.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D A D Approach Vol,veh/h 1092 1169 305 Approach Delay,s/veh 39.2 24.5 36.5 Approach LOS D C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 3 4 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 32.2 32.0 21.7 64.2 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 28.0 27.0 25.0 60.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 27.0 27.2 15.9 8.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.2 0.0 0.8 12.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 32.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Base 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 43 Appendix D HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: PINES & INDIANA 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 44 ) 11' r ) 11' r Traffic Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Future Volume(vph) 0 0 0 455 310 260 560 1040 325 165 1130 240 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 2688 2580 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 2688 2580 2710 2794 1250 1397 2794 1250 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 495 337 283 609 1130 353 179 1228 261 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 184 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 0 0 495 504 0 609 1130 169 179 1228 201 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 3 4 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Perm NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 1 6 5 15 2 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green,G(s) 25.7 25.7 29.6 60.6 60.6 22.2 58.7 58.7 Effective Green,g (s) 26.7 26.7 31.1 62.1 62.1 24.2 60.2 58.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.19 0.46 0.45 Clearance Time(s) 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 552 529 648 1334 597 260 1293 564 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.22 0.40 0.13 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.13 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.95 0.94 0.85 0.28 0.69 0.95 0.36 Uniform Delay,d1 50.3 51.0 48.5 29.8 20.5 49.4 33.4 23.3 Progression Factor 1.01 1.01 1.04 0.62 0.97 0.83 0.82 0.94 Incremental Delay,d2 16.9 27.0 7.8 1.4 0.1 5.1 11.0 1.1 Delay(s) 67.8 78.4 58.3 20.0 20.0 46.3 38.4 23.0 Level of Service E E ECCD D C Approach Delay(s) 0.0 73.7 31.2 36.8 Approach LOS A E C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Pines & EB Ramps 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) 4 i'i' 11, r 'I 11, Traffic Volume(vph) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Future Volume(vph) 440 5 705 0 0 0 0 1485 385 275 1310 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650 Total Lost time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb,ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1460 1465 2420 3074 1375 1537 3074 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1460 1465 2420 3074 1375 1537 3074 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor(vph) 100% 100% 100% 105% 105% 105% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Adj. Flow(vph) 478 5 766 0 0 0 0 1614 418 299 1424 0 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 239 244 720 0 0 0 0 1614 363 299 1424 0 Confl. Peds.(#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 21.5 21.5 48.6 67.7 67.7 25.3 71.4 Effective Green,g (s) 22.5 22.5 49.6 68.7 67.7 26.3 72.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.38 0.53 0.52 0.20 0.56 Clearance Time(s) 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 252 253 923 1624 716 310 1711 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.17 0.30 c0.53 c0.19 0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.96 0.78 0.99 0.51 0.96 0.83 Uniform Delay,d1 53.2 53.4 35.4 30.4 20.3 51.4 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.86 0.49 0.46 Incremental Delay,d2 42.2 46.3 4.3 11.2 0.8 22.2 1.9 Delay(s) 95.3 99.7 39.7 56.9 38.5 47.2 12.8 Level of Service F F D E D D B Approach Delay(s) 62.1 0.0 53.1 18.8 Approach LOS E A D B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 130.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 18 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 10: Pines & Mission 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) To .1 4' r ) 14 'i) 11' r Traffic Volume(veh/h) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Future Volume(veh/h) 315 205 75 90 215 410 50 1150 30 395 1295 330 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1618 1618 1618 1650 1618 1618 1618 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 342 223 73 98 234 238 54 1250 33 429 1408 343 Adj No.of Lanes 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 418 265 87 130 278 415 155 1329 35 391 1429 808 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.23 0.22 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.26 0.93 0.91 Sat Flow,veh/h 2989 1167 382 1541 1618 1368 1541 3059 81 2989 3074 1370 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 342 0 296 98 234 238 54 628 655 429 1408 343 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1494 0 1550 1541 1618 1368 1541 1537 1603 1494 1537 1370 Q Serve(g_s),s 14.4 0.0 23.7 8.1 18.2 19.1 4.2 50.8 50.9 17.0 50.1 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 14.4 0.0 23.7 8.1 18.2 19.1 4.2 50.8 50.9 17.0 50.1 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 418 0 352 130 278 415 155 667 696 391 1429 808 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.84 0.75 0.84 0.57 0.35 0.94 0.94 1.10 0.99 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 529 0 352 273 286 422 155 667 696 391 1466 825 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.47 0.47 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.3 0.0 48.1 58.2 52.1 38.3 54.5 35.2 35.2 48.0 4.2 0.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 7.9 0.0 16.4 8.4 19.3 1.8 1.3 22.9 22.4 61.3 13.3 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.4 0.0 11.8 3.8 9.6 7.4 1.9 25.7 26.7 10.3 19.4 0.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.2 0.0 64.5 66.6 71.4 40.1 55.9 58.1 57.6 109.3 17.5 1.4 LnGrp LOS E E E E D E E E F B A Approach Vol,veh/h 638 570 1337 2180 Approach Delay,s/veh 63.2 57.5 57.8 33.0 Approach LOS E E E C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 17.8 63.6 22.2 26.3 21.0 60.5 15.0 33.5 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 5.0 61.0 22.0 22.0 16.0 50.0 22.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6.2 52.1 16.4 21.1 19.0 52.9 10.1 25.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 21 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 12: Mirabeau Parkway & Mansfield 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r ) 1, ) 4' r ) 4i, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Future Volume(veh/h) 25 55 230 235 10 155 205 300 240 5 530 35 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1625 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 27 60 250 255 11 168 223 326 261 5 576 38 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 37 82 309 325 18 275 231 637 541 8 729 48 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow,veh/h 487 1082 1354 1517 84 1283 1517 1593 1354 1517 2883 190 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 87 0 250 255 0 179 223 326 261 5 302 312 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1569 0 1354 1517 0 1367 1517 1593 1354 1517 1513 1560 Q Serve(g_s),s 2.9 0.0 4.0 8.3 0.0 6.2 7.7 8.1 7.5 0.2 9.8 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.9 0.0 4.0 8.3 0.0 6.2 7.7 8.1 7.5 0.2 9.8 9.8 Prop In Lane 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 119 0 309 325 0 293 231 637 541 8 383 394 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.81 0.78 0.00 0.61 0.97 0.51 0.48 0.62 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 119 0 309 462 0 416 231 637 541 115 461 475 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 23.7 0.0 19.2 19.5 0.0 18.7 22.1 11.9 11.7 26.1 18.3 18.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.0 0.0 14.7 5.6 0.0 2.1 49.3 0.7 0.7 57.4 7.5 7.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.9 0.0 4.6 4.0 0.0 2.5 6.3 3.7 2.9 0.2 4.8 5.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7 0.0 33.9 25.1 0.0 20.7 71.5 12.6 12.4 83.5 25.8 25.8 LnGrp LOS D C C C E B B F C C Approach Vol,veh/h 337 434 810 619 Approach Delay,s/veh 36.4 23.3 28.7 26.3 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 4.3 25.0 8.0 12.0 17.3 15.3 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 4.0 20.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 2.2 10.1 6.0 9.7 11.8 10.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 25 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 20: Sullivan & E Mission Ave 6/17/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations " 1, 4 r ) 44I, ) 44I, Traffic Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1680 40 75 2280 130 Future Volume(veh/h) 180 10 140 35 15 85 105 1680 40 75 2280 130 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1881 1882 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1882 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 196 11 29 38 16 18 114 1826 43 82 2478 141 Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap,veh/h 290 85 224 244 95 298 380 3418 80 103 2493 140 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.66 0.65 0.11 1.00 0.99 Sat Flow,veh/h 1612 458 1208 1064 515 1610 1810 5163 122 1810 4976 280 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 196 0 40 54 0 18 114 1211 658 82 1696 923 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1612 0 1667 1579 0 1610 1810 1712 1860 1810 1712 1832 Q Serve(g_s),s 15.4 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.0 1.2 6.9 24.0 24.1 5.7 0.0 65.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 20.6 0.0 2.6 5.2 0.0 1.2 6.9 24.0 24.1 5.7 0.0 65.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.15 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 290 0 308 339 0 298 380 2267 1232 103 1715 918 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.13 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.30 0.53 0.53 0.80 0.99 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 382 0 404 436 0 390 380 2267 1232 167 1923 1029 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.1 0.0 44.2 45.6 0.0 43.7 43.3 11.5 11.5 56.9 0.0 0.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 1.7 2.0 11.0 19.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 0.0 0.5 3.5 11.6 12.8 2.9 2.6 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.4 0.0 44.3 45.7 0.0 43.7 43.7 12.4 13.2 58.9 11.0 19.7 LnGrp LOS E D D D D B B E B F Approach Vol,veh/h 236 72 1983 2701 Approach Delay,s/veh 53.5 45.2 14.4 15.4 Approach LOS D D B B Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 90.1 28.6 28.7 72.8 28.6 Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 *5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax),s 12.0 73.0 30.5 13.0 *72 30.5 Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 7.7 26.1 22.6 8.9 67.1 7.2 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 14.2 0.4 0.2 4.3 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes *HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Mirabeau sub-area 2040 Improvements 4:00 pm 2/7/2013 Synchro 8 Report PM Page 41 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13,2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ►1 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 6/16/2021 53985-53998 55,302.29 6/23/2021 53999-54006, wire 13282335 1,595,955.80 6/23/2021 54007-54037 191,597.73 6/25/2021 54038-54062 84,762.80 7/01/2021 54063-54111 367,211.58 7/01/2021 54112-54115 16,2I2.40 7/01/2021 54116-54126, wire 13311299 2,200,019.82 6/16/2021 Park refunds 8876-8896 15,961.00 6/28/2021 Park refunds 8897-8930 3,281.90 GRAND TOTAL: $4,530,305.32 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council Other Funds: 001.013.000.513. City Manager 101 —Street Fund 001.013.015.515. Legal 103 —Paths &Trails 001.016.000. Public Safety 105 —Hotel/Motel Tax 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 106—Solid Waste 001.018.014.514. Finance 107--PEG Fund 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 108—Affordable & Supplemental Housing Sales Tax 001.040.041. Engineering 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.040.042. Economic Development 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.040.043. Building 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.076.000.576. Parks &Rec—Administration 204—Debt Service 001.076300.576. Parks &Rec-Maintenance 301 —REET 1 Capital Projects 001.076.301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 302—REET 2 Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks& Rec-Aquatics 303—Street Capital Projects 001.076.304.575. Parks &Rec- Senior Center 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.305.571. Parks& Rec-CenterPlace 310—Civic Bldg. Capital Projects 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 312—Capital Reserve 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 314—Railroad Grade Separation Projects 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Serv. 402—Stormwater Management 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 501 —Equipment Rental &Replacement 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Eco. 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 632—Passthrough Fees &Taxes 001.090.000.594 General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preser. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/1612021 8:20:17AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 53985 6/16/2021 000030 AVISTA May 2021 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:CPW MASTER AVISTA MAY: 24,183.90 Total: 24,183.90 53986 6/16/2021 002326 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS P40350694 001.090.000.518 SMALL TOOLS/MINOR EQUPMENT 47.81 Total: 47.81 53987 6116/2021 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 72152769 001.040.043.558 MAY 2021 FLEET FUEL BILL 1,502.13 Total: 1,502.13 53988 6/16/2021 008049 CRADLEPOINT INC 1-00201293 001.090.000.518 CRADLEPOINT NET CLOUD SUBSCRIF 360.00 Total: 360.00 53989 6/16/2021 000002 H&H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. AR196166 001.011.000.511 COPIER COSTS:WEST WINGICOUNCII 113.59 AR196167 001.018.014.514 COPIER COSTS:IT 14.34 AR196168 001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS:HR 21.58 AR196169 001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS:OPSIADMIN 185.85 AR196170 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS:LEGAL 105.56 AR196171 001.040.043.558 COPIER COSTS:PERMIT CTR 51.91 AR196172 001,040,041.543 COPIER COSTS:CPW ENGINEERING 456.90 AR196173 101.042.000.542 COPIER COSTS:MAINTENANCE SHOF 15.65 AR196174 001.076.301.571 COPIER COSTS:CENTERPLACE 247.32 Total: 1,212.70 53990 6/16/2021 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 May 2021 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES:PARKS AND CPW MAY 2021 507.84 Total: 507.84 53991 6/16/2021 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 1538907 001.076.305.575 MAY 2021 MONTHLY CLEANING-CEN1 8,085.09 Total: 8,085.09 53992 6/16/2021 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 20280065 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:MAY 2021 CPW 12,887.46 20280066 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES:MAY 2021 PARKS 2,686.16 Total: 15,573.62 53993 6/16/2021 003264 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B13550786 001.040.041.543 ADOBE ACROBAT SUBSCRIPTION FOF 12.92 Total: 12.92 53994 6/16/2021 004535 SHRED-IT USA LLC 8182138871 001.090.000.518 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION 167.10 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0611612021 8:20:17AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 53994 6/16/2021 004535 004535 SHRED-IT USA LLC (Continued) Total: 167.10 53995 6/16/2021 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL JUNE 2021 001.076.300.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHARGES JUNE 1,397.97 Total: 1,397.97 53996 6/16/2021 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3478430920 001.090.000.518 • KITCHEN SUPPLIES 219.25 3478430923 001.090.000.518 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 6.86 3478430928 001.090.000.518 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 8.67 Total: 234.78 53997 6/16/2021 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 844458549 001.013.015.515 WEST INFORMATION CHARGES 855.18 Total: 855.18 53998 6116/2021 001885 7AY0 GROUP LLC 2021060003578 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 287.22 2021060005522 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 626.70 2021060025710 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 247.33 Total: 1,161.25 14 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 55,302.29 14 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 55,302.29 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/23/2021 1:05:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 53999 6/17/2021 001944 LANCER LTD 0480244 001.013.000.565 BUSINESS CARDS/ENVELOPES 487.88 Total: 487.88 54000 6/17/2021 000910 MANTZ,GLORIA EXPENSES 303.000.249.595 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 41.20 Total: 41.20 54001 6/17/2021 007280 PATTERSON,MARCI EXPENSES 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 19.55 Total: 19.55 54002 6/17/2021 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 12614 E Saltese 001.013.015.515 COURT FILINGS 240.00 Total: 240.00 54003 6/17/2021 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 4216 N Woodlawn 001.013.015.515 COURT FILINGS 240.00 Total: 240.00 54004 6/17/2021 008136 STEP UP PAINTING CSV REFUND 001.000.000.321 CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND 25.00 Total: 25.00 54005 6/17/2021 008137 WAREHAM,STEVEN&DIANNE BLA-2021-0034 001.040.043.345 PERMIT REFUND:BLA-2021-0034 200.00 Total: 200.00 54006 6/17/2021 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY FINAL PAY APP 309.000.304.594 0304-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14,874.66 Total: 14,874.66 13282335 6/21/2021 002134 FIRSTAMERICAN TITLE File No 4251-3687086 312.000.000.594 PONDEROSA PARK LAND PURCHASE 1,579,827.51 Total: 1,579,827.51 9 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 1,595,955.80 9 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 1,595,955.80 Page: '`1. 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06123/2021 2:05:43PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54007 6/23/2021 007705 CT NORTHWEST KI052138 101.042.099.542 EDl DATAAGGREGATOR&ANTENNA 5,352.78 Total: 5,352.78 54008 6/23/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 604379 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 98.25 604380 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 31.60 604381 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 82.16 604382 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 103.49 604383 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 18.17 604384 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 63.99 604386 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 76.63 Total: 474.29 54009 6/23/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51947 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 219.20 51949 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 37.40 51950 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 92.65 51955 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 70.55 51956 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 89.25 Total: 509.05 54010 6/16/2021 007114 CARDINAL INFRASTRUCTURE LLC 1995 001.011.000.511 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,875.00 Total: 4,875.00 54011 6/16/2021 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL MAY 2021 1042 001.011.000.511 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SERVICES 5,150.00 • Total: 5,150.00 54012 6/23/2021 006328 KREM-1V 05-2021 SUMMARY BILL 001.040.042.558 ADVERTISING 7,000.00 Total: 7,000.00 54013 6/23/2021 001944 LANCER LTD 0480299 001.040.042.558 SIGNS 201.47 0480304 001.040.042.558 TENT WALLS 315.81 0480367 001.040.042.558 SIGNS 40.30 Total: 557.58 54014 6/23/2021 006427 RETAIL STRATEGIES LLC 528-1 901.040.042.558 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING 12,000.00 Total: 12,000.00 54015 6/23/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC CSROW 21133 303,000,205.595 0205-RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES 2,893.62 Page: IN 11 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/2312021 2:05:43PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54015 6/23/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC (Continued) CSROW 21135 303.000.299.595 REAL ESTATE SERVICES FOR 0299 AR 1,050.00 Total: 3,943.62 54016 6/23/2021 007867 WIDENER&ASSOCIATES 194 314.000.223.595 0223-ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4,145.80 Total: 4,145.80 54017 6/23/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC CSROW 21134 403.000.317.595 20-226 APPLEWAY SW IMPROVEMENT 2,618.75 Total: 2,618.75 54018 6123/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 604385 403.000.327.595 CIP 0327:ADVERTISING 61.62 605161 403.000.327.595 CIP 0327:ADVERTISING 58.50 Total: 120.12 54019 6/23/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51969 403.000.327.595 CIP 0327:ADVERTISING 137.60 Total: 137.60 54020 6/23/2021 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 61816 303.000.300.595 0300 SURVEYING SERVICES 3,962.04 Total: 3,962.04 54021 6/2312021 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP210135-IN 309.000.315.594 0315-MATIERALS TESTING 3,485.00 Total: 3,485.00 54022 6/23/2021 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 123429 303.000.301.595 CIP 0301:PRINT SERVICE 583.27 Total: 583.27 54023 6/23/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 603662 311.000.292.595 CIP 0292:ADVERTISING 72.68 604387 311.000.292.595 CIP 0292:ADVERTISING 69.00 Total: 141.68 54024 6/23/2021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51948 311.000.292.595 CIP 0292:ADVERTISING 156.80 Total: 156.80 54025 6/23/2021 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 123407 311.000.323.595 CIP 0323:PRINT SERVICE 1,619.34 Total: 1,619.34 54026 6/23/2021 000815 BNSF RAILROAD CO 90221311 ' 314.000.143.595 CIP 0143:PROGRESS BILL#1 2,068.17 90221947 314.000.143.595 PROGRESSIVE#1 16,905.73 Page: `ik, rJ vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/23/2021 2:05:43PM Spokane Valley Bank code: aphank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 54026 6/23/2021 000815 000815 BNSF RAILROAD CO (Continued) Total: 18,973.90 54027 6/23/2021 007637 COMMONSTREET CONSULTING LLC CSROW 21132 303.000.313.595 0275/0313-RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES 23.08 Total: 23.08 54028 6/23/2021 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 488339 314.000.143.595 0143-DESIGN SERVICES 28,992.33 Total: 28,992.33 54029 6/2312021 003261 FEHR&PEERS 145990 314.000.311.595 0311-DESIGN ENGINEERING 2,064.40 Total: 2,064.40 54030 6/23/2021 000780 UNION PACIFIC RR CO 90107617 303.000.313.595 CIP 0313:ENGINEERING REVIEW 185.50 Total: 185.50 54031 6/23/2021 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 79541 311,000,323.595 CIP 0323:POSTAGE SERVICES 889.12 Total: 889.12 54032 6/23/2021 001107 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000029742 303.000.323.595 323:EVERGREEN:SPRAGUE TO MISS 35,849.21 Total: 35,849.21 54033 6/23/2021 001887 VALMONT CD2188934 303.000.323.595 0299 SPOKANE VALLEY BROADWAY& 1,900.22 CD2190661 403.000.317.595 PROJECT 317 LUMINARIES 6,305.16 CD2190730 303.000.292.595 0292 MULLAN PRESERVATION TRAFFI• 20,641.04 Total: 28,846.42 54034 6/23/2021 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 0000047043 303.000.299.595 299 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2021 C 18,273.13 Total: 18,273.13 54035 6/23/2021 002975 FREEDOM SALES AND SUPPLY LLC 2021299 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.56 Total: 43.56 54036 6/23/2021 001944 LANCER LTD 0480345 001.040.042.558 BUSINESS CARDS 88.75 Total: 88.75 54037 6/23/2021 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3478430900 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES:COMM.DEV. 172.04 3478430914 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES:COMM.DEV. 261.62 3478430917 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES:COMM.DEV. 23.00 3478430918 001.040.043.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES:COMM.DEV. 78.95 Page: vehlist Voucher List Page: 4 06/23/2021 2:05:43PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 54037 6/23/2021 000065 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE (Continued) Total: 535.61 31 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 191,597.73 31 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 191,597.73 1,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,cr the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed; Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/25/2021 9:47:22AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54038 6/25/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1KRR-GPDQ-KT1P 001.076.305.575 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 31.56 1X07-KTC3-1HXT 001.076.305.575 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 31.56 Total: 63.12 54039 6/25/2021 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 411266 001.076.300.576 CLEANING SERVICE:MIRABEAU SPRIT 279.00 Total: 279.00 54040 6125/2021 000030 AVISTA May 2021 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES:PARKS MASTER AVISTA MA 8,127.72 Total: 8,127.72 54041 6/25/2021 002326 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS P38925934 001.076.304.575 OFFICE SUPPLES:SENIOR CTR 382.89 Total: 382.89 54042 6/25/2021 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 0265390 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT 69.81 0267254 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT 69.81 S0239787 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT 66.27 S0240061 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT CENT 260.94 Total: 466.83 54043 6/25/2021 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO S010339840.001 001.076.305.575 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES:C 81.87 Total: 81.87 54044 6/25/2021 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 366630 001.076.305.575 RECYCLING COLLECTION:CENTERPL 20.00 Total: 20.00 54045 6/25/2021 004898 ETTER,MCMAHON,LAMBERSON, 07320 STMT#9 303.000.249.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,425.00 07326 STMT#7 314.000.143.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 325.00 Total: 1,750.00 54046 6/25/2021 000869 EVCO SOUND&ELECTRONICS 19996 001.090.000.518 IT SUPPORT 720.93 Total: 720.93 54047 6/25/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 604378 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 23.25 Total: 23.25 54048 6/25/2021 000007 GRAINGER 9928632026 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 25.03 9928817056 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 53.08 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/25/2021 9:47:22AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54048 6/25/2021 000007 000007 GRAINGER (Continued) Total: 78.11 54049 6/25/2021 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 132081 001.076.305.575 BUSINESS AFTER HOURS 100.00 Total: 100.00 54050 6/25/2021 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 462 5-31-2021 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 816.50 480 5-31-2021 314.000.143.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,293.50 492 5-31-2021 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,045.50 Total: 18,155.50 54051 6/25/2021 001130 MPLC 504350002 001.076.305.575 LICENSE FOR MOTION PICTURES 8/11 604.83 Total: 604.83 54052 6/25/2021 001860 PLATE'ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1Q05765 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE 312.92 Total: 312.92 54053 6/25/2021 007678 RANDALL DANSKIN PS 138896 001.000.322.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,777.96 Total: 5,777.96 54054 6/25/2021 003231 SHERWIN WILLIAMS COMPANY 3848-9 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR PARKS 61.38 Total: 61.38 54055 6/25/2021 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50320610 001.040.043.558 COUNTY IT SUPPORT:MAY 2021 12,396.14 Total: 12,396.14 54056 6/25/2021 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 June 2021#1 402.402.000.531 WATER CHARGES FOR JUNE 2021#1 900.96 Total: 900.96 54057 6/25/2021 000710 SPOKANE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2021-05-29 001.013.015.515 APRIL 2021 PHOTOCOPIES 24.00• Total: 24.00 54058 6/25/2021 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 2021#5 001.090.000.560 2021 SOC SER/ECO DEV GRANT REIM 23,963.91 Total: 23,963.91 54059 6/25/2021 007097 SPOKANE VALLEY SUMMER THEATRE 0528 001.076.305.575 ADVERTISING 1,200.00 Total: 1,200.00 54060 6/25/2021 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L143003 001.090.000.514 SAO AUDIT OF 2020 452.40 Page: '1 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/25/2021 9:47:22AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher _ Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54060 6/2572021 000257 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE (Continued) Total: 452.40 54061 6/25/2021 008134 WINSTON&CASHATT,LAWYERS PS 94799 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 390.00 Total: 390.00 54062 6l25f2021 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW JAN-APR 2021 001.076.302.576 OPERATING EXPENSES/MGMT FEE JP 8,429.08 Total: 8,429.08 25 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 84,752.80 25 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 84,752.80 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: a vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/0112021 7:05:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54063 7/1/2021 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING LLC 605158 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 23.25 605159 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 98.25 605160 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 17.25 605162 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 37.92 605163 001,040,043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 82.95 605813 001.040.042.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 109.81 605814 001,040,043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 83.74 Total: 453.17 54064 71112021 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51966 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 77.55 51967 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 224.00 51968 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 38.40 51971 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 44.20 51972 001,040,043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 96.90 51985 001.040.043.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 95.20 Total: 576.25 54065 7/1/2021 007808 AMENTO GROUP INC 052152 001.000.322.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:CITY HALE 1,469.28 052154 001.000.322.518 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:CITY HALE 1,261.80 Total: 2,731.08 54066 7/1/2021 008094 MCBRIDE CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES 52858 001.000.322.518 CEP 0311:CITY HALL 11,739.20 Total: 11,739.20 54067 7/8/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 11FF-GPX1-4Y4H 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CPW 39.19 1YQK-HN46-T4JQ 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:ENGINEERING 95.60 Total: 134.79 54068 7/8/2021 001473 APWA 870615 001.040.041.543 MEMBERSHIP:ADAM JACKSON 9/1/21. 240.00 Total: 240.00 54069 718/2021 004992 LEADERSHIP SPOKANE 2357 001.040.041.558 REGISTRATION 2022-ADAM JACKSOP 3,250.00 Total: 3,250.00 54070 7/8/2021 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE&SIGN CO 207793 001.040.041.558 SAFETY SUPPLIES 21.78 Total: 21.78 Page: .1, ii vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/0112021 7:05:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code; apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54071 7/8/2021 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0074214-1518-13 402.402.000.531 VACTORING WASTE MAY 2021 268.42 Total: 268.42 54072 7/8/2021 008079 YORK,JOY 2 101.042.000.542 PMP MEETINGS MAY 2021 3,881.25 Total: 3,881.25 54073 7/1/2021 000197 ACRANET 17211 001.018.016.518 EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS 210.00 Total: 210.00 54074 7/1/2021 007672 MULTICARE CENTERS OF 146856 001,018,016.518 EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL EXAMS 320.00 Total: 320.00 54075 7/1/2021 004850 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS,HRA PLAN 10355632 001.018.016.518 FLEX SPENDING ADMINISTRATION 396.00 Total: 396.00 54076 711/2021 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE MAY 2021 001.040.043.556 RECORDING FEES 1,124.00 Total: 1,124.00 54077 7/1/2021 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 70536 402.402.000.531 STREET SWEEPING MAY 2021 55,159.43 70537 402.402.000.531 STORM DRAIN CLEANING MAY 2021 22,976.41 Total: 78,135.84 54078 7/1/2021 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 411265 101.042.000.543 PORTABLE RESTROOM-MAINTENANC 134.00 Total: 134.00 54079 7/1/2021 008023 ARROW PROPANE LLC 2876 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES:STREET DEFT. 32.70 2893 101.042.000,542 PROPANE 46.54 Total; 79.24 54080 7/1/2021 007856 BRIAN'SAUTOMOTIVE INC 8156 001.040.041.558 SERVICE FOR 2005 DODGE 160.08 Total; 160.08 54081 7/1/2021 003795 CLEARWATER SUMMIT GROUP M0521.6864 402.402.000.531 ROADWAY WEED CONTROL 19,500.00 Total: 19,500_00 54082 7/1/2021 002920 DIRECTV INC 051738547X210605 101.042.000.543 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENANCE I 74.99 Total: 74.99 Page: —2- vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/0112021 7:05:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept DescriptionlAccount Amount 54083 711/2021 005505 EMERALD SERVICES INC 86208098 101.000.000.542 RECYCLING FOR MAINT.SHOP 174.24 Total: 174.24 54084 7/1/2021 0054474 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC001512925:02 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 41.48 PC001517302:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT SUPPLIES 14.16 Total: 55.64 54085 7/1/2021 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC 24121 101.000.000.542 REPAIR SERVICE 679.32 Total: 679.32 54086 711/2021 007947 INTERSTATE BATTERIES OF E WASH 20169149 001 e040.041.543 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 117.56 Total: 117.56 54087 7/1/2021 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPOBS4593084 101.000.000.542 REPAIR SERVICE#218 1,551.54 Total: 1,551.54 54088 7/1/2021 007881 LIVELYS FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV 0216 101.042.000.543 FIRE EXTINGUISHER REPLACEMENT 123.87 0238 101.000.000.542 FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTIONS 206.64 Total: 330.51 54089 7/1/2021 004621 OREILLYAUTOMOTIVE STORES INC 2862-497923 001.033.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 17.63 2862-497946 001.033.000.518 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 16.13 Total: 33.76 54090 7/1/2021 005049 PEDERSON,MICHAEL ROY MAY 2021 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 1,050.00 Total: 1,050.00 54091 7/1/2021 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 46746 101.042.000.542 STREET&STORMWATER MAINTENAN 9,530.26 46747 402.402.000.531 STREET&STORMWATER MAINTENAN 29,169.38 46748 101.042.000.542 STREET&STORMWATER MAINTENAN 7,790.43 46749 101.042.000.542 STREET&STORMWATER MAINTENAN 59,577.82 Total: 106,067.89 54092 7/1/2021 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC 185007 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MA1NT.SUPPLIES 103.46 Total: 103.46 54093 7/1/2021 002520 RWC GROUP XA106012845:01 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 42.01 Page: '`3- 13 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/01/2021 7:05:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 54093 7/1/2021 002520 002520 RWC GROUP (Continued) Total: 42.01 54094 7/1/2021 004099 SPOKANE VALLEY ACE HARDWARE 28422 101,042,000.542 SUPPLIES:STREET 48.87 28424 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES:STREET 20.56 28427 101.042.000.542 SMALLTOOLS/MINOR EQUIPMENT 196.01 Total: 265.44 54095 7/1/2021 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 1758908 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION CPW MAY 2021 543.25 Total: 543.25 54096 7/1/2021 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO IN001680709 101.000.000.542 VEHICLE REPAIR&MAINT.SUPPLIES 148.20 Total: 148.20 54097 7/1/2021 007136 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1WNR-1YTX-77VG 001.040.041.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES:ENGINEERING 119.74 Total: 119.74 54098 7/1/2021 003261 FEHR&PEERS 143331 001.040.041.543 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 904.80 146101 001.090.000.513 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,370.00 Total: 4,274.80 54099 7/1/2021 007671 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC 61790 001.040.041.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,055.00 Total: 3,055.00 54100 7/1/2021 006997 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 993022501 101.042.000.542 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-ENGINEE 1,500.00 993022502 101.042.000.542 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:ENGINEEI 1,478.75 Total: 2,978.75 54101 7/1/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100301 101.042.000.542 MAY 2021 ENGINEERING 83,994.80 Total: 83,994.80 54102 7/1/2021 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 489760 101.042.000.542 ON-CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES 4/10/21-E 106.25 Total: 106.25 54103 7/1/2021 000864 JUS ENGINEERS INC. 0143503 101.042.000.542 ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVC 3,862.60 Total: 3,862.60 54104 7/1/2021 000273 SRTC TS-2253 101.042.000.542 SOFTWARE MAINT:CSV SHARE OF GF 3,244.61 Page: '-3. fhi vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/01/2021 7:05:51AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 54104 7/1/2021 000273 000273 SRTC (Continued) Total: 3,244.61 54105 7/1/2021 007965 ARGUS JANITORIAL INV10847 101.042.000.543 JANITORIAL SVCS:CITY HALL,PRECIN 10,054.86 Total: 10,054.86 54106 7/1/2021 000843 ASFPM D HORTON 001.040.043.558 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL:D HORTON 500.00 Total: 500.00 54107 7/1/2021 008105 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALISTS 67619 001.016.016.521 FIRE ALARM INSPECTION-PRECINCT 375.00 Total: 375.00 54108 7/1/2021 001860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1Q48125 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES:PRECINCT 37.32 Total: 37.32 54109 7/1/2021 007159 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 621208016 001.033.000.518 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES:CITY HALL 319.18 Total: 319.18 54110 7/1/2021 007107 STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS[NC 1788564 001.040.043.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,328.50 Total: 3,328.50 54111 7/1/2021 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB10517052 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS 4,653.89 RE-313-ATB10517060 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE ROADWAY MAINTENANCI 11,713.37 Total: 16,367.26 49 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 367,211.58 49 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 367,211.58 Page: J`J vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/01/2021 11:37:10AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 54112 7/1/2021 001606 BANNER BANK 6368 MAY 2021 314.000.143.595 BNSF 7,028.00 6368 MAY 2021 001.040.041.543 ITE 41.00 6368 MAY 2021 106.000.000.537 SWANA 25.00 6368 MAY 2021 001.090.000.518 AMAZON WEB SERVICES 99.14 Total: 7,193.14 54113 7/1/2021 001606 BANNER BANK 3169 MAY 2021 001.076.305.575 NORTHWEST FENCE 10.89 3169 MAY 2021 001.076.305.575 NORTHWEST FENCE 98.01 3169 MAY 2021 001.076.305.575 GLOBAL EVENT SUPPLY 3,117.58 3169 MAY 2021 001.076.305.575 BRIDAL FESTIVAL 1,125.00 3169 MAY 2021 001.076.305.575 BRIDAL FESTIVAL 1,295.00 3169 MAY 2021 001,076,305.575 MAGGIE'S GARDEN 75.00 3169 MAY 2021 001.076.301.571 ULINE 165.56 Total: 5,887.04 54114 711/2021 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 MAY 2021 001.018.016.518 CRAIGSLIST 25.00 8573 MAY 2021 001.013.015.515 SCRA 36.40 8573 MAY 2021 001.013.015.515 MRSC 35.00 8573 MAY 2021 001.040.041.543 ITE 199.00 8573 MAY 2021 101.042.000.542 ITE 199.00 8573 MAY 2021 001.016.016.521 NORTH 40 65.32 8573 MAY 2021 001.090.000.518 AVTECH 199.95 8573 MAY 2021 001.018.014.514 MAIL BOX CENTER 25.66 8573 MAY 2021 001.033.000.518 GIBSON'S NURSERY&LANDSCAPE 525.44 8573 MAY 2021 001.013.015.515 MATTHEW BENDER&CO 369.51 8573 MAY 2021 001.040.041.543 BNSF CONTRACTOR.COM 810.00 8573 MAY 2021 001.040.042.558 LOWES 21.76 8573 MAY 2021 001.040.042.558 HOBBY LOBBY 13.00 8573 MAY 2021 001.013.000.513 SURVEY MONKEY 418.18 Total: 2,943.22 54115 7/1/2021 001606 BANNER BANK 9392 MAY 2021 001.033.000.518 NW BUSINESS STAMP 39.00 9392 MAY 2021 001.040.043.558 IDABO 75.00 9392 MAY 2021 001.040.043.558 IDABO 75.00 Page: i/& vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/0112021 11:37:10AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept DescriptionlAccount Amount 54115 7/1/2021 001606 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) Total: 189.00 4 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 16,212.40 4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 16,212.40 the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: / 7 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 07/01/2021 1:18:41PM Spokane Valley Bank code: aphank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description(Account Amount 54116 7/1/2021 008171 FITNESS FANATICS 45033.0308 314.000.223.595 CIP 0223:RELOCATION EXPENSES 40,000.00 Total: 40,000.00 54117 7/1/2021 007498 FOSTER,AZIZA EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 REISSUE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 11.45 Total: 11.45 54118 7/1/2021 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT JUNE 2021 001.016.016.521 SUPPLIES:CITY HALL,PARKS,MAINT. 813.31 JUNE 2021-1 001.090.000,518 SUPPLIES:INSTALLATION OF WASTE i 272.29 Total: 1,085.60 54119 7/1/2021 006475 PEETZ,BRANDI Q1-2021 001.011.000.511 REISSUE Q1-2021 CELL PHONE ALLOY 135.00 Total: 135.00 54120 7/1/2021 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 3313560331 001.090.000.518 LEAST CONTRACT 0040941959 967.20 Total: 967.20 54121 7/1/2021 007983 RYAN EXCAVATING ROW 2020-0862 001.040.041.322 REISSUE PERMIT REFUND:ROW-2020 164.50 Total: 164.50 54122 7/1/2021 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 45201.0121 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317:RECORD QUIT CLAIM DEED 106.50 Total: 106.50 54123 7/1/2021 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45201.0121 403.000.317.595 CIP 0317:RECORDING FEE 10.00 Total: 10.00 54124 7/1/2021 007625 T LARIVIERE INC PAY APP 2 309.000.315.594 0315 BROWNS PARK 2020 IMPROVEMI 278,606.71 Total: 278,606.71 54125 7/1/2021 008141 TMLCONSTRUCTION INC PAY APP 1 403.000.308.531 0308 REGINAL DECANT FACILITY CAN 15,314.86 Total: 15,314.86 54126 7/1/2021 002960 WICK,BEN Q4-2020 001.011.000.511 REISSUE Q4-2020 CELL PHONE ALLOY 135.00 Total: 135.00 13311299 6/30/2021 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290201986 001.016.000.521 LE CONTRACT JUNE 2021 1,863,483.00 • Page: '1. lie vohlist Voucher List Page: 2 0710112021 1:18:41PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice FundlDept Description/Account Amount 13311299 6/30/2021 000001 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) Total: 1,863,483.00 12 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 2,200,019.82 12 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,200,019.82 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: i vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/16/2021 8:34:54AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8576 6/16/2021 008116 BACON,MAKENZIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75,00 Total: 75.00 8877 6/16/2021 008117 BALDWIN,TRAVIS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total: 75.00 8878 6/16/2021 008118 BEACH,DURWIN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8879 6/16/2021 008120 BRUNO,CONNIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8880 6/16/2021 008121 CANTRELL,JORDEN PARK REFUND 001.237,10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 500.00 Total: 500.00 8881 6/16/2021 008122 CASEY,CAROLYN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8882 6/16/2021 000588 CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8883 6/16/2021 008123 DUBOIS,STEPHANIE PARK REFUND 001.237,10.99 SWIM TEAM REFUND 60.00 Total: 60.00 8884 6/16/2021 006894 F5 NETWORKS INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REISSUE DEPOSIT REFUND:BROWNS 75.00 Total: 75.00 8885 6/16/2021 008124 GAGE,PAMELA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8886 6/16/2021 004682 MIRANDA,CHRISTY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8887 6/16/2021 008125 MONSON,DOUG PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8888 6/16/2021 008126 MORGAN,MOLLY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Page: N. DV vchtist Voucher List Page: 2 06/16/2021 8:34:54AM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept ❑escription/Account Amount 8888 6/16/2021 008126 008126 MORGAN,MOLLY (Continued) Total: 75.00 8889 6/16/2021 008127 NW BRITISH CLASSICS CAR CLUB PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8890 6/1612021 008128 PARKSIDE 55+GATED COMMUNITY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:AUDITORIUM 52.00 Total: 52.00 8891 6/16/2021 008129 SCHOTT,SHELBE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8892 6/16/2021 008130 SCHULZ,CASIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8893 6/16/2021 008131 SOLCUM,MARTY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 8894 6/16/2021 008132 SWANTON,HOLLY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAYC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8895 6/16/2021 008133 WASHINGTON VIRTUAL ACADEMIES PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUNDS:MEETING 1 13,939.00 Total: 13,939.00 8896 6/16/2021 005108 WILLIAMS,CARISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total: 75.00 21 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 15,961.00 21 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 15,961.00 Page: •)1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/28/2021 4:19:05PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8897 6/28/2021 008142 BEADLE,JENELLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREENACRES 75.00 Total: 75.00 8898 6/28/2021 008119 BERGMAN,AL PARKS REFUN❑ 001,237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8899 6/28/2021 008143 BROWN,JENIFER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 ❑EPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8900 6/28/2021 008144 BROWN,KERMIT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8901 6/28/2021 007413 CARLISLE,PAUL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8902 6/28/2021 006581 COMUNIDAD CRISTIANA DE SPOKANE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREENACRES 75.00 Total: 75.00 8903 6/28/2021 001753 DINGUS,ZARECOR&ASSOC PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8904 6/28/2021 008145 FETCHO,CRAIG PARK REFUND 001.237,10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8905 6/28/2021 008146 FOSS,FRED PARK REFUND 001.237.10,99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREENACRES 75.00 Total: 75.00 8906 6/28/2021 008147 GEILE,DONNA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:FIRESIDE LOUNGE 210.00 Total: 210.00 8907 6/28/2021 008148 GRAHAM,TONY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREENACRES 75.00 Total: 75.00 8908 6/28/2021 006002 GREGERSON,TINA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8909 6/28/2021 001729 HALME CONSTRUCTION,INC. PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 210.00 Page: `4. vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/28/2021 4:19:05PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8909 6/28/2021 001729 HALME CONSTRUCTION,INC. (Continued) PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREENACRES 75.00 Total: 285.00 8910 6/28/2021 008149 HARDIN,ROBERT PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8911 6/28/2021 008150 HELMERICK,MICHELLE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total: 75.00 8912 6/28/2021 008151 HENSON,SAVANNAH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY{ 75.00 Total: 75_00 8913 6/28/2021 008152 HOLLEY,CAROLYN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8914 6/28/2021 008153 INGWALDSON,COLLEEN PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:EDGECLIFF 76.00 Total: 76.00 8915 6/28/2021 008154 KABUA,DOMIEO PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8916 6/28/2021 008155 KNIGHT,JAKE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8917 6/28/2021 008156 LEO'S PHOTOGRAPHY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8918 6/28/2021 008157 MAZHAN,DAVID PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 483.90 Total: 483.90 8919 6/28/2021 006639 NIEHUSER,TERESA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:EDGECLIFF 75.00 Total: 75.00 8920 6/28/2021 008158 PARTCH,CIARA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total: 75.00 8921 6128/2021 008159 RASMUSSEN,JODI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Page: ~S. D- vehlist Voucher List Page: 3 0612812021 4:19:05PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 8921 6/28/202'1 008159 008159 RASMUSSEN,JODI (Continued) Total: 75.00 8922 6/28/2021 008160 SANDBORN,TRACI PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8923 6/28/2021 008161 SKINNER,ERIKA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8924 6/28/2021 008162 SMEBY,CHRISTINA PARK REFUND 001.237,10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:TERRACE VIEW 75.00 Total: 75.00 8925 6/2812021 008163 SPRECHER,MARIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total: 75.00 8926 6/28/2021 008164 UNIFIED CARE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:MIRABEAU MEADC 75.00 Total: 75.00 8927 6/28/2021 008165 WOZNIAK,JUDIE PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREENACRES 75.00 Total: 75.00 8928 6/28/2021 008166 WRIGHT,DEBORAH PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:VALLEY MISSION 75.00 Total: 75.00 8929 6/28/2021 008167 XYNGULAR OPPORTUNITY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:GREAT ROOM 52.00 Total: 52.00 8930 6/28/2021 008168 ZEILER,LACEY PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:DISCOVERY PLAY( 75.00 Total: 75.00 34 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total: 3,281.90 34 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 3,281.90 Page: , ,11-! CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2021 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 30, 2021 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 343,540.35 $ 10,265.00 $ 353,805.35 Benefits: $ 208,622.02 $ 13,008.16 $ 221,630.18 Total payroll $ 552,162.37 $ 23,273.16 $ 575,435.53 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING BUDGET WORKSHOP Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers—Via Zoom Spokane Valley,Washington June 15,2021 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Linda Thompson, Councilmember John Bottelli,Parks,Rec. &Facilities Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Dave Ellis,Police Chief Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Admin.Analyst John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Mike Basinger,Economic Development Mgr. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. WELCOME: Mayor Wick welcomed everyone to the meeting. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Worksheet Overview—Mark Calhoun,Chelsie Taylor City Manager Calhoun explained that the budget book contains 21 sections, which he noted is a lot of material to cover but said it is his intent to be finished no later than 2:30; said this workshop is to provide a broad scope and explanation of the departments,but we will not go into a full line-by-line detail; said if we find we are running ahead of schedule we will re-adjust the agenda as needed.Mr. Calhoun also noted the supplemental requests will further increase the budget, and that when we come back in August to further discuss the budget,we don't expect material changes from today's information. Finance Director Taylor then gave a cursory overview of the contents of the budget workshop binder, starting with pages 1 through 8 which includes the budget calendar, a summary of the general fund as well as general fund department changes from 2021 to 2022, and street fund 101 which shows another drop in the utility tax but an increase in the motor vehicle fuel tax based on the assumption that we get back to some normal traffic. She noted recurring expenditures are greater than recurring revenues by about $2 million which is resolved by a transfer of funds; she mentioned the stormwater fund on page 7, followed by a ten- year history of our FTE (full time equivalent staff). Going back to page 2, Director Taylor stated that our 2022 proposed revenues increase by a conservative estimate of 6.43%; said the figures also assume we will not take the 1%allowed property tax increase,but it does include new construction; and said the gambling tax shows a decline as we assume they have not fully recovered from closures due to Covid-19.Ms.Taylor went through the remainder of revenues on page 2 of 8 and mentioned the significant drop in fines and forfeitures due to an accounting change that occurred in 2020 which requires that all pass-through activities be accounted for in their own fund, fund 632. She stated that recurring revenues exceed recurring Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT expenditures by about$4.6 million. Director Taylor continued her explanation, and noted on page 3 there is about $33 million expected in the ending fund balance; she also noted the spreadsheets show actual activity for three years, and that the budget reduction exercise is not a recommended course of action, and that the reductions get pretty bad fairly quickly. [Note: Agenda items were taken in the order as noted below.] Tab 1: City Council—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun went over the spreadsheet showing the line-item details and he gave a quick summary of Council's 2022 budget,which shows an overall increase by slightly over 1%; said the biggest changes are usually seen here in years following elections, and he noted some Councilmembers opted into the retirement system plan. Mr. Calhoun went over the figures for supplies and said that other services remain unchanged with the largest appropriations going to our state and federal lobbyist services; said memberships include our memberships to the Association of Washington Cities(AWC)and to the National League of Cities(NLC).Concerning broadcasting,Mr.Calhoun said he is hopeful we will have the Twisted Pair back in the near future recording our Council meetings. Tab 2: City Manager—Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun noted this department shows an overall increase of about 3.5%with the nonpayroll increase coming in just under 7%; said the FTEs remain the same as the 2021 budget which increased our FTE with our new homeless coordinator position; that the nonpayroll figures include an increase in software license by about$5,000 as a result of the public record software Gov QA,which is the latest in professional services for handling public record requests; and he briefly went over other services and charges. Tab 3: City Attorney— Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that his department is mostly status quo from the last few years with three attorneys,one of which is dedicated to code enforcement; said the nonpayroll increase is about 1%,and the largest nonpayroll amount is for when we use outside counsel for specialty items like the Shoreline Management, Growth Management,or litigation as those are very time consuming. Tab 4: Public Safety-Morgan Koudelka, Chief Dave Ellis Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka started out by explaining that all those zeroes shown under non- department are pass-throughs; said the wages and payroll are associated with maintenance services associated with the Precinct building; that the supplies mostly deal with the $25,000 for the JAG grant, adding that we just received notification in the last few days that this year's JAG grant will be closer to $30,000; he noted in the other categories some changes were made as a result of better cost calculations. He mentioned the Municipal Court which operates out of our Precinct Building; said that the $200,000 contingency is included as our budget cycle is early compared with that of the County; said we won't know the cost on a lot of these public safety contracts for a while.Mr.Koudelka went over the intergovernmental services including the District Court contract and that we pay by case types; said part of the reduction in cases is a result of Covid; that looking at historical trends, 2012 was about $1.1 million so that hadn't changed very much in ten years; said that as Covid restrictions are gradually lifted, we will see some odd fluctuations in our usage levels,plus the Blake decision is limiting a lot of the drug possessions as felonies. Mr. Koudelka also mentioned he met with staff from the Prosecutor's office, and for pretrial services,he will be bringing Council an amendment in the future as more monitoring services have been included to assist judges to help defendants appear for their court dates.For law enforcement,Mr.Koudelka noted that the County added staff as a result of the McArthur grant,but with the end of that grant, our numbers will increase as law enforcement drives our budget; said we budget for full staffing of about$24 million. Police Chief Ellis explained that all officers are being and will be supplied with body cams as part of the digital evidence management system which he said will begin rolling out this fall. Mr. Koudelka said we Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT will see more of this later in supplemental requests for law enforcement. He also said that the Precinct has some supplemental requests,that maintenance is now being handled by Mr.Bottelli and there will be some coordinating with the Chief and Assistant Chief to develop a list of priorities for the precinct,some of which will be discussed later this afternoon. He mentioned Detention Services as another large item; said staff will track those large items and keep Council apprised.Mr. Koudelka noted we have a recently negotiated Emergency Management Contract; said the Animal Control contract has about a 15% reduction from the previous year and that staff is working with the County as operating costs are controlled by CPI(Consumer Price Index),but the end result is,we will hold to the terms of our agreement as they are now;and he noted that overall for public safety,there is a 4.4%increase. There was some discussion about alternatives to jail; mention of our new Housing and Homeless Coordinator who is very interested in having someone at the prosecutor's office assist us in providing better outcomes for the homeless community; mention of working with law enforcement, and the suggestion of coming back to Council in the future with additional feedback on alternatives to jail. Councilmember Thompson asked what percentage of cases are prosecuted, and Chief Ellis said he would have to research that information;he said Covid-19 interrupted a lot so he will have to look further back than 2020 in order to get a better perspective. Mr. Koudelka said that an evaluation was done several years ago but only for DUI and domestic violence, which is what the district court had requested; said these services were expanded under the McArthur Grant but have now dropped back to basic services; but we might want to examine the potential impact to other departments if we feel too many people arrested and charged are released on their own recognizance. Tab 5:Deputy City Manager -John Hohman Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that he is the only FTE in his department,and that as noted,there has been very little change from the previous year,with a total budget increase of 3.73% Tab 6: Finance &Information Technology- Chelsie Taylor In reviewing the information under this tab, Finance Director Taylor explained that as we are now recovering,some line items were put back in the budget which had been taken out previously due to Covid, such as travel and training; and noted she is hopeful she will be able to send some staff to conferences so that they can stay current with the standards. Tab 7: General Government— Chelsie Taylor Director Taylor noted the general government shows a reduction of 65%, which she explained is due to many of the larger nonrecurring items in 2021 which were amended into the budget that year;she also noted some of the increases on page 1,in particular that some new funds were added this year for a more detailed IT budget; she mentioned the network hardware of$51,000 includes an update for a piece of hardware;said the professional services miscellaneous is more of a contingency in case it is needed; that personal computers are leased on a three-year cycle; and that the software license maintenance is mostly to keep current the financial software annual subscriptions to such things as Laserfiche. Tab 8: Human Resources—John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead went over the spreadsheet for his department, noting that his depaitnient includes just two FTEs,and that his total budget increase is 3.7%. Tab 9: Community& Public Works—Building and Planning—Jenny Nickerson,John Hohman Building Official Nickerson gave a brief overview of some of the more significant increases in Building and Planning,which include software licenses,registrations, and recording fees,which she said are mostly covered by customers; there was some discussion about waiving credit card transaction fees during Covid, and of the proposed amount based on trends,with comment from Finance Director Taylor that we expect the figures to changes since we are now collecting that credit card fee. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Tab 10: Community&Public Works—Engineering—Bill Helbig City Engineer Helbig explained about the 33 FTEs in engineering,broken out into several different funds such as general,street,and stormwater;he went over larger increases and decreases for 2022 and noted the 6% total budget increase; mentioned the change in some wages as they are bringing the GIS position in house,which still represents a significant decrease in what general engineering was paying for that,adding that the County continues hosting some of our software; said the $100,000 increase in professional services is associated with grant applications; said we will be spending about$15,000 to $50,000 in consultant fees to help us pay for those; also noted the advertising increase as we maintain our own federal consultant roster while MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center) handles the roster for all the state projects, but when federal funding is involved,there are certain requirements we must meet,including maintaining our own federal consultant roster. Mayor Wick called for a recess at 10:00 a.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:10 a.m. Tab 11: Community& Public Works—Economic Development—Mike Basinger Mr. Basinger explained that economic development oversees long-range planning for such things as the Shoreline Master Program, and Comp Plan Amendments; said the employee count is five FTEs, and they will have the new position of GIS Specialist which accounts for that 6% increase in training and payroll. Tab 12: City Hall Operations &Maintenance—John Bottelli Mr.Bottelli said this is his first City Hall budget,but not much has changed this year;under Other Services & Charges,he noted the largest is the janitorial services; and that overall the total budget increased 7%. Tab 13: Parks& Recreation—John Bottelli Mr.Bottelli started out by going to the item in the box shown on page 2 of the spreadsheet,which shows a combined increase for recurring items for all divisions of 1.34%; page 1 of the spreadsheet shows wages and payroll as well as supplies,and other services and charges for a total budget decrease of 1.24%. Moving to the Maintenance division,Mr.Bottelli explained that the majority of costs are Senske maintenance tasks, which includes maintenance on our section of the Centennial Trail with an annual contribution of$20,000; miscellaneous services of$17,000 includes trying to make the restrooms more secure and safe for the public; he noted the Recreation division shows an increase of almost 1%; the small tools and minor equipment includes inflatable movie screens which were almost twice as expensive to rent compared to purchasing. Mr. Bottelli said he is hopeful aquatics will all be back up next year, and mentioned that 80% of this budget is for the YMCA which operates all the pools. Mr. Bottelli noted that the Senior Center is operated by the Senior Citizens Association with .4 FTE to provide services to help. CenterPlace, Mr. Bottelli noted,takes up about one-third of the overall budget;he briefly went over some of the supplies and then the larger items in Other Services & Charges, for a total budget increase of.03%, and a combined reduction of 2.3% in nonpayroll. Tab #15: Street Operations &Maintenance Fund—Bill Helbig,John Hohman Mr.Helbig went over the different shaded areas shown on the spreadsheets for snowplows and bridges,and explained that the street fund shows an overall increase although much of that is contracted maintenance; he noted the removal of temporary employees due to a shortfall; said small tools and minor equipment for traffic increased$15,000 due to replacing part of the ITS (intelligent transportation system)network every two years,and said two switches will need to be replaced in 2022.For the bridge program,Mr.Helbig said we are trying to track such things as dealing with graffiti; he mentioned contracted services and that next year we are in line for another full scale of street network, with $105,000 for engineering and architect services;he said the memberships and professional licenses mostly is due to SRTC; and that overall there is about a 7% increase. Mr.Helbig went over some of the figures for snow operations, some of which are changing to more accurately reflect what we typically spend;he also mentioned our aging snowplow fleet, Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT which will be addressed again during the supplemental budget discussion;he noted we are no longer renting snowplow equipment or hiring temporary personnel for sidewalks as sidewalk maintenance will be contracted;concerning the street light replacement program,said we own the lights but they are maintained by WSDOT and the lights will be replaced over the next three years with LEDs, so overall we will see a decline in our electrical consumption. Tab #16: Stormwater Fund—Bill Helbig City Engineer Helbig went over the figures for the stormwater management fund and noted recurring expenses are now starting to approach recurring revenues, so they are watching that closely; said they are not hiring interns to help in the stormwater area;other services and charges will see a decrease as we move the GIS in-house; said private stormwater maintenance has about fourteen separate contracts, with an overall budget decrease by about 3%;he also noted they need to examine the stormwater rates as they have not been increased since incorporation. Mr. Hohman mentioned that they are also researching new technologies for stormwater treatment that wouldn't require the typical grassy swale. Tab #14: Supplemental Budget Requests—Chelsie Taylor,Mark Calhoun The following are the supplemental,estimated budget requests per department: City Manager: Five-Year Cost: $120,000. Shelter Bed Year-round rental Mr. Calhoun spoke of the steady rise in the homeless population, which issue has consumed substantial employee time in the City Attorney's Office, Police Department, Code Enforcement, Parks &Recreation, and City Administration; but that we are unable to enforce our camping on public property ordinance because according to the case Marvin v Boise,shelter bed space must be available;said he is proposing two beds for men, and two for women to be available continually as a means of assisting our homeless population and ensuring our ability to enforce our ordinance concerning camping on public property.There was some discussion about funding options such as through the Homeless Housing and Assistance Act (HHAA); and of resources for families such as Family Promise. City Manager: Five-Year Cost: $732,352.New Position,Project Manager Mr. Calhoun said current staffing levels find it exceptionally difficult to proactively address emerging federal and/or state issues such as the 2020 CARES Act,and the 2021 ARPA(American Rescue Plan Act); said this new individual would have to research and understand complex issues in a very short time period, and be able to work with City staff on issues and programs that might be considered for future Council policy input and implementation. Public Safety: Five-Year Cost: $904,500. One Police Officer Dedicated to the Homeless Effort. Mr. Calhoun explained that this would not be our FTE but would be added to the County contract. Public Safety: Five-Year Cost: $4,021,902.Addition of Five Police Officers Mr.Calhoun noted that none of this has been built into the 2022 budget and today is an opportunity to walk Council through this for future consideration;he explained that he would like Council to consider these five officers sometime in 2022 rather than now since there are currently ten vacancies in the Police Department, and Spokane County will charge us for all vacant positions,both existing and additional,whether filled or not;he said as the Police Department approaches having all ten current vacant positions filled,he will work with Chief Ellis to begin discussion with Council on the prospect of adding five additional positions. Building: Five-Year Cost: $710,677.New Position, Code Enforcement Supervisor Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that this is the start of an on-going conversation, with more to follow about what code enforcement areas does Council want to focus on in future meetings, to discuss what might need to be amended; that once that is determined, he and legal will give options on how to address those areas; said he feels this position is needed; that of the complaints we received over a year's time,many deal with building codes and development;said our staff structure is a flat management structure Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT so supervisors are working supervisors,and we are reaching a point now that the direct reports constitute a lot of employees for each supervisor; said this is a complex area and takes time to work the details and especially handle the more complex cases, in addition to having certain properties that demand so much attention. Concerning the Valley Precinct, attention was brought to page 3 of 34 showing the description of work projects,priority level,year to be or was accomplished,justification,approximate expense,and status.Mr. Calhoun said that there is a backlog of precinct items that need to be done and he wanted Council to have a policy discussion for their vision on the rear section of the building,or perhaps have a separate discussion, keeping in mind things as stormwater,the pole building,and for Council to think about what would adding parking do to the ability to expand the precinct building. Council discussion included the suggestion of doing as much work as possible at the same time; the need to prepare for expanding the building so the precinct is functioning at its best, and whether there is enough land or do we need more to accommodate the police force into the future.Mr.Koudelka said he attended a Sheriff's Office strategic planning meeting, said there is not enough secured parking for their vehicles; that there is also needed space for impounded vehicles;there are also zoning challenges and stormwater issues;which he said is why the immediate needs rose to the top and to roll that into an evaluation of what we envision we might need on that lot someday; said we have a court and while it is convenient, it is not absolutely necessary; so there are options to consider,he said there are a lot of things to keep in mind and evaluate in order to protect the taxpayers and keep in mind the police department needs. Parks&Recreation: Five-Year Cost: $358,800 Security for Restrooms Director Bottelli explained that some restrooms have locking mechanisms but some individuals have discovered how to work around that;he said the estimated cost for all restrooms is$71,760 per year,but an option would be to just have the security for problem areas, at an approximate annual cost of$38,640.Mr. Calhoun said staff is working on the details but we prefer not to wait until 2022 and are investigating whether we can fit it into the existing budget.Mr.Bottelli also mentioned the meeting he had with members of SCOPE to see what they might be able to do and that they might be better for early morning inspection instead of evening,and then get private security to do the closing,and again,said staff is exploring options. Parks&Recreation: $12,000 CenterPlace,Repainting Director Bottelli went over the figures shown on the capital outlay request for painting the ceiling of the exterior entrance portico. Parks&Recreation: $26,700 CenterPlace Recarpeting Director Bottelli explained about the request for recarpeting the Senior Center card/activity room($5,000), classroom 205 ($12,700), and the executive conference room ($9,000),with the highest priority being the senior center to avoid a trip hazard, followed by room 205, then the executive conference room; total estimated cost for all three rooms is$26,700. Parks&Recreation: $30,000 Aquatics, Capital Mr.Bottelli explained that evaluation and repair of plumbing systems and pool leaks are needed at the three pools. Parks&Recreation: $80,000 Parks Maintenance,Pond Liner Mirabeau Springs Mr.Bottelli explained that the pond liner at Mirabeau Springs needs to be replaced as activation of the pond in 2021 revealed a significant leak believed to be from a tree that fell into the pond during the winter 2020 windstorm; said the pond is losing approximately one foot of water weekly. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Parks&Recreation: $15,000 Parks Maintenance,Public Access Parking Flora Road River Property Mr. Bottelli explained that this is a request to develop basic public access parking at the Flora Road River property. Parks&Recreation: Parks Maintenance,Benches, garbage cans,etc.Appleway Trail Mr.Bottelli explained that this is a request to install benches,garbage cans,etc.,along the Appleway Trail; and that costs are currently being investigated, adding that he will be coming back with further details on this and the previous request. At 12:00,Mayor Wick called for recess for lunch.The meeting reconvened at 12:35 p.m. Community & Public Works, Estimated Cost: $253,856,000. New Positions, CAD Manager/Engineering Technician III City Engineer Helbig explained that the new position of CAD Manager/Engineering Technician III would directly supervise the Engineering Technicians I and II positions; he noted that Engineer Manager Mantz currently has eleven direct reports, and there are only two engineering techs in the office; said the second position of Engineering Tech II would help with design of projects, adding that they had a temporary engineering tech in the past who retired last year;he noted that 64%of the cost will be borne by the capital projects themselves as they bill their time directly to the projects,whether to grants or otherwise; and 36% would be billed toward the general engineering budget. Mr. Hohman said we are attempting to contract with companies for inspection, but there are not many inspection firms with available personnel,and said staff will continue looking at all options to keep up with the workload. Mr. Hohman said that last year one position was moved to re-purpose to the homeless coordinator, but that he is now asking to have that position back with a different level, adding that the supervision would reduce the direct reports to the manager by three. There was discussion about the workload and new funding packages coming from the federal and state level. Councilmember Woodard said we know we will have more projects that will need engineering, so we need to be thinking about already having someone in the system by the time we get hit with the next wave; said he'd like staff to come back with an idea about maybe we need three this time,but we need relief now to work them into our system so they are at their maximum by the time we get slammed again. Mr. Helbig further explained that more time goes to the project then to general engineering,and that general engineering will take care of the training. Mr. Hohman added that staff is looking at the current workload; that this staff works very hard and hasn't seen any downtime even with Covid;and that those who were working from home were doing so diligently; said we don't have the funds today but once we do,we will need to re-visit what the needs are;he mentioned that we almost need a full time project manager just for Barker; said many projects are complex, and we will need to discuss the American Rescue Plan to determine how we can and can't use those funds. Mr. Helbig said that until we know what is really coming, staff is not ready to propose additional staff City Manager Calhoun said we could be back with a mid-year conversation. Facilities: $415,000 Generator for CenterPlace; $100,000 Generator for City Shop City Manager Calhoun said that we have discussed previously about adding generators to our other buildings, CenterPlace and the shop; he added that if there was ever a need for an evacuation point, CenterPlace would be a good place; and added that he feels strongly about the shop's generator as given many emergencies require street maintenance as a necessary service, so making sure the building can operate at full capacity is imperative. Mr. Helbig added that we hired an engineering firm to help with the engineering design, but at CenterPlace, we'd cover the building to full capacity, which is less expensive then to do it partially, and said that the shop doesn't have a large power draw. Mr. Helbig stated that the Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT generator at CenterPlace would be twice as big as City Hall given the building's power load. Deputy Mayor Peetz mentioned she believes the Fairgrounds is part of a regional evacuation plan, and Mr. Calhoun said that perhaps that would be a good advance agenda topic that we could include the assistance of Chief Ellis. Councilmember Woodard said that even if the Fairgrounds is part of an evacuation site,one site wouldn't be able to handle everything. Community and Public Works,Vehicle Replacements City Engineer Helbig explained about the following vehicle replacements: replacing the 2003 Dodge Caravan,which is one of our oldest vehicles(cost$47,500);replacing the 2006 Dodge Dakota with 106,000 miles(cost$47,500);replacing the 2013 Ford Escape with 139,500 miles with the purchase of a new pickup ($47,500); and to add a new Ford F-550 needed for emergency wind damage removal, additional roadway maintenance, and as a backup liquid deicer vehicle ($86,500); and to replace snowplow #206, which we acquired in 2009 ($250,000). A question arose about having any of the vehicles surplussed and staff said they will provide that answer for the August report. Councilmember Woodard mentioned that he is in full support especially of the snowplow.Mr. Calhoun brought attention back to page 1 of 34 near the bottom of the page, with a total general fund recurring expense of $938,400 and $1.6 nonrecurring, of which $1 million would be that piece of financial software to replace the current Eden system;he also noted back on page 2 of 8 in the front of the book,that recurring revenues exceed recurring expenditures by$4.5 million and that we could afford to do that at this point, and said we will do our best to refine the revenues and expenditures when we talk about the budget to Council again; and said that our budget ordinance is scheduled for final adoption November 9. Tab 17: General Fund—Fund Balance—Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Chelsie went over the highlights of the Memorandum explaining about the fund balance, or reserves,how that is calculated,the minimum reserves required to meet the needs,and that it is necessary for cash flow purposes; she also explained the capital construction projects and the capital projects reserve, our history of how we manage the fund balance when it exceeds 50%, and mentioned our Aa2 rating from Moody's Investors Service, which rating is slightly stronger than the median rating of Aa3 for cities nationwide. Tab 18: Potential& Pending Capital Projects—Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor brought attention to and briefly discussed the spreadsheet showing the Pending/Potential Projects Worksheet and noted that figures in blue have changed since Council last saw this. Director Taylor noted that staff will return with follow-up reports on the 2022 budget development progress and will seek consensus from Council on how Capital Reserve Fund #312 reserves should be allocated. There was some discussion about the priority of finishing Balfour Park, and a question from Deputy Mayor Peetz about whether the$750,000 can be used for the design of the fairgrounds.Mr.Calhoun said that our lobbyist Briahna Murray's preliminary answer to that question is we can likely spend 10% toward design, or could use all toward a distinct portion of the entire project; and Mr. Calhoun said once we learn more we will come to Council and said it might be a while before we see a contract on the Fairgrounds building, perhaps not until the fall. Other project suggestions included the Sullivan/Trent interchange; Valley Partners outgrown current building space; radar speed trailer; railroad crossings and major intersections; our Master park plan and the River Loop Trail.Mr. Calhoun said when we come back next time on this topic, we will provide a list and let Council know how much money is available, and Council can collectively give staff views on funding. Ms. Taylor said that will likely occur sometime in August. Tab 19: Fiscal Policies—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun went over the fiscal policies including financial management and objectives, and noted that we built these into our budget. Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Tab #20: Council Goals—Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun explained that many of these goals carry over for many years and these specifically were adopted back in 2020; he went over the 2021 Council goals,with the following suggestions from Council: to add in the Spokane Valley River Loop Trail in goal#7; add in a goal addressing electrification much like was done with an STA grant;Councilmember Thompson suggested since the community has been impacted by the pandemic,to have a new goal to "actively partner with local, state and national partners to support the economic, and community recovery from the impact of Covid-19 pandemic." Mayor Wick suggested Covid-19 could be worked in an expanded version of goal#4, and Councilmember Thompson agreed. Tab #21:Advance Agenda Deputy Mayor Peetz said she would like more information on prosecutor services;mentioned a presentation that was given a few years ago about options like having a prosecutor in-house, and alternatives to jail. There was Council consensus to have staff bring back the previous report for further discussion. It was moved by Councilmember Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 2:19 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick, Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Special Meeting Workshop:06-15-2021 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Formal Meeting Tuesday,June 22,2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in City Hall with Council,staff and the public participating remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tim Hattenburg Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember John Bottelli,Parks,Rec&Facilities Dir. Linda Thompson, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Dave Ellis,Police Chief Bill Helbig,City Engineer Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Mike Basinger, Economic Dev.Manager Arielle Anderson,Housing&Homeless Coord. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll.All Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Haley: mentioned several STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meetings she attended and reported that the five-year INVEST in America Act which was supposed to be for the environment and surface transportation, looks like it will be mostly for public transit and electronification; said they started construction of stations for the City lines in several areas and that the City will be doing resurfacing and bike lanes all at the same time so it will all go together; said the regular STA Board meeting will have a strategic planning workshop which will take into account the extra money available through CARES funding to possibly add more projects; said the youth bus pass program is going very well; and she mentioned the upcoming budget workshop. Mayor Wick asked about the rapid transit in connection with Spokane Valley, and Councilmember Haley said that is the number one project being considered. Councilmember Woodard: said that at the Housing Committee Development Advisory Committee meeting, said there will be a CDBG (community development block grant) sub-recipient workshop for the public services at 9 a.m.June 24 and the capital workshop for CDBG will be at 10 a.m. and if interested to please contact the County Housing and Development Depaitinent; said they got a notice from HUD that they will have $55,000 more than what was originally allocated for the 2021 season, and that they have not yet decided if they will go back and fund some of the services they already did,or hold the funds until the 2022 season coming up in January; said they held their committee elections and Tom Hormel from Spokane Valley is now the chair. Councilmember Thompson: as part of the NLC (National League of Cities), said she attended the NBC- LEO(National Black Causes of Local Elected Officials)webinar about the just officially declared federal holiday of Juneteenth; said she attended her first SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meeting, and mentioned the reception with the four finalists for the SRTC executive director position; Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:06-22-2021 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT mentioned the AWC (Association of Washington Cities)kick-off to the virtual annual meeting; and spoke of the AWC Board of Directors meeting. Councilmember Higgins: reported that the Clean Air Agency is now in their new quarters on the West Plains; said he attended a ribbon cutting for Empire Eye Physicians new quarters on Indiana; and said he attended the Asian American&Pacific Islander Heritage event at CenterPlace. Councilmember Hattenburg: reference the STA meetings, said he took a tour on the City line's 60-foot electric bus, and said it was very impressive with a more of a feeling of mass transit than of riding a bus; also mentioned that transit companies on our state's westside have sent people over to look at our STA system development for electric busses; and that he attended a ribbon cutting for Synergy,a new mortgage company in Spokane Valley. Deputy Mayor Peetz: said she attended many of the already-mentioned events; also went to a Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council meeting where they talked about some of the things to do to help defendants show up for their court date;stated she participated in the Washington,D.C.virtual fly-in where she spoke with Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers and with Senator Murray's office and advocated for items on our legislative agenda; said she attended the AWC Legislative Priority meeting and mentioned the support of a transportation package to maintain or preserve those funds;and she mentioned several other bills from the legislative session. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Wick reported that he also attended the Synergy ribbon cutting;went to the Spokane Valley Farmers Market; attended the Asian American & Pacific Islander Heritage event at CenterPlace;mentioned the interviews for the SRTC Executive Director; said he toured the new Chamber of Commerce office; mentioned federal transportation earmarks and community driven funding requests and he extended thanks to representative McMorris Rodgers for her assistance in us obtaining approximately $2 million for the Bigelow Sullivan Project; went to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials meeting; mentioned the possibility of a state special transportation session; and said he also attended a Freight Mobility Board meeting where members were given a directive to come back with a ranked needs list for the State of Washington. PROCLAMATION: Pride Day After Mayor Wick read the Pride Day Proclamation, it was accepted with many thanks from Spokane Valley High School GSA President Eva Sheffler, and from member Kaci Thomas. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY Ill: After Mayor Wick read the rules for speaking, it was noted there were two people signed up to speak: Amanda Dugger, Spokane Valley: said she is the proud mother of one of the GSA members, and she extended her gratitude to Council and the Mayor for recognizing Pride Day. Christine Dugger, Spokane Valley: said she was part of those who started the group; and she also extended her thanks to Council for issuing the proclamation.There were no other public comments. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Consent Agenda: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of Claim Vouchers on June 22,2021,Request for Council Action Form: $719,586.35 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending June 15,2021: $407,733.92 c.Approval of May 25,2021 Council meeting minutes,formal format d.Approval of June 1,2021 Council meeting minutes, study session e.Approval of June 8,2021 Council meeting minutes,formal format It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent Agenda. Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:06-22-2021 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 2. Resolution 21-003 Adopting Contamination Reduction & Outreach Plan (CROP)— Erik Lamb, Morgan Koudelka It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to approve resolution 21-003 amending the Solid Waste Management Plan to incorporate the CROP. Deputy City Attorney Lamb briefly explained the purpose and requirement that we adopt this into our solid waste management plan; said the draft was sent to the Department of Ecology which approved the plan and reported that in many ways, our plan is much better than others they have seen,and that the plan fully meets the requirements of the RCW. Mr.Lamb extended kudos to Mr.Allen and Mr.Koudelka for their work in this as this is the first time anyone has put together a CROP. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY 121: After Mayor Wick reiterated the rules for speaking,it was noted there was one person signed up to speak: Barb Howard, Spokane Valley: asked if we still have the gang task force; said there were a few times she reported graffiti at Valley Mission but it seems to be getting out of control,and said she knows it costs a lot of money to repaint the buildings as a result of graffiti. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Homelessness and Housing Update —Arielle Anderson,Mike Basinger Mr.Basinger said tonight is an opportunity to give a brief update on the efforts regarding affordable housing and homelessness; he spoke of the recently approved Housing Action Plan that provides strategies and implementing actions to encourage construction of affordable housing to minimize and reduce displacement of low-income residents; he mentioned the new R4 zone with close proximity to public transit, and he introduced Arielle Anderson,the City's newly hired Housing and Homeless Coordinator. Ms. Anderson gave a summary of the work she has been doing thus far in her 90-day tenure; of the work to develop goals and strategies for the city-initiated text amendment coming up in a few months; that she helped prepare a homeless and housing survey that went out to the general community, which generated about 300 responses; said she goes into the field daily to meet those who ae unsheltered to help them get connected to services such as SNAP and other outreach teams, including mental health services and/or substance treatment based on their need; said sometimes she has to enforce code as it relates to obstructing the City's right-of-way; that she attends monthly meetings with law enforcement and with WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) and other outreach teams like those from the fire department and parks department, in order to identify `hotspots' where many homeless might congregate in our community, and to talk with those team members to make sure we are not duplicating services. Ms. Anderson said in her daily communications in the field, she learned that the majority,but not all people are from Spokane Valley; that this is the community they know and where they grew up. She mentioned that she is working with legal to prepare an app for unauthorized camping,and is working to develop a webpage dedicated to housing and housing resources;that she works with the County to make sure people in Spokane Valley know and can access services in the County, such as the Hope House Shelter. In response to a question from Council, Ms. Anderson said she hopes to send Council the results of the survey; that the results were not too shocking,and that the comment box was really important as it gave some good feedback and ideas. Mr. Calhoun asked about the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Planning Commission and Mr. Basinger confirmed that they had a community engagement plan and the survey was a part of that,and that the results will go before the Planning Commission,and then to Council;said the hope is to see an indication of how our community wants to address homeless services and the homeless; and said those results will likely be brought forward in September. Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:06-22-2021 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 4. Gang Violence— Chief Ellis Via their PowerPoint presentation, Chief Ellis, Sgt Myhre and Officer Booth spoke about gang violence and the Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force, with a mission to identify, dismantle, and/or disrupt criminal gangs in the Spokane County area; they said there are about 800 confirmed gang members in the region and about 200-300 confirmed gang associates,but the numbers fluctuate; they spoke about current trends,prevention strategies, and resources needed and challenges moving forward. Council thanked them for their work and today's presentation. 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 6. SRLJC Report This report was for information purposes only and was not reported or discussed. 7. Depaitinent Monthly Reports These reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City Manager Calhoun mentioned that Council had discussed during their May 25 meeting, about when to start in-person meetings in Council Chambers,and at that point,Council decided to wait until after June 30 when it is anticipated Governor Inslee will relax some requirements.Mr.Calhoun said except for the budget workshop held in chambers with Council and staff in-person, he wanted to get a collective opinion about holding meetings in chambers like the budget workshop.In supplying feedback from the workshop meeting, Deputy Mayor Peetz stated that some Councilmembers were having a hard time hearing, and what is Mr. Calhoun's suggestion to remedy that.Mr. Calhoun replied that if Councilmembers would speak clearly into their microphones every time they spoke,that would be the most critical helpful suggestion he could make. After Council discussion, it was determined that the meeting will be in Council chambers next week with Council in-person in chambers but not the public,and Mr.Calhoun said staff will plan for that.Mr.Calhoun also announced that the transaction has now been finalized and we are the proud owners of that 17.7 acres of property off 44th and Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes,Formal:06-22-2021 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: Draft MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday,June 29,2021 Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley,Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Linda Thompson, Councilmember Arne Woodard, Councilmember Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 5:01 p.m. At 5:28 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb announced the executive session would be extended for fifteen minutes,until 5:45 p.m. At 5:44 p.m.Mayor Wick declared Council out of executive session,at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. Ben Wick,Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Minutes:06-29-2021 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session Meeting Tuesday,June 29,2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley,Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Hattenburg Councilmember Bill Helbig, City Engineer Rod Higgins, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Linda Thompson, Councilmember Gloria Mantz,Engineering Manager Arne Woodard, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney John Bottelli,Parks,Rec&Facilities Director Jerremy Clark, Sr. Traffic Engineer Dave Ellis,Police Chief Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEM: 1.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Local Access Streets Project—Bill Helbig It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to award the 2021 Local Access Streets Project CIP #0325 to Inland Asphalt Paving in the amount of$1,545,545 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. City Engineer Helbig explained the project and the bid outcome; said he worked with finance and there are sufficient funds to cover the cost for this project in the Solid Waste Fund 106, and the Stormwater Management Fund 402; said the substantial price increase over the Engineer's Estimate is due as a result of a substantial price increase for concrete, materials, and labor. There were no public comments. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Traffic Impact Fee Studies,Mirabeau and N. Pines Subareas—Bill Helbig,Jerremy Clark After City Engineer Helbig introduced Senior Traffic Engineer Clark, and Deputy City Attorney Lamb,he started through the PowerPoint presentation explaining that tonight's topics include discussion on the transportation impact fee, and references to the 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Study and the 2019 update, along with the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study and proposed rates;he defined transportation impact fees and gave a brief history of those fees.Mr. Clark then continued through the PowerPoint showing a map of the areas of the existing and future levels of services,discussed the purpose of the Mirabeau Subarea Studies including mention of the study intersections and the level of service results during evening peak hour; he noted recommended improvements as shown on slides 8 and 9; and discussed the fee rate study and fair share cost analysis shown on slide 10,with proposed rates on the different intersections. There was some discussion about fees and fairness, and it was noted these fees are more commercial as opposed to single family residential;mention that as development occurs and more projects are funded by nondevelopment activities then we (the City) would be responsible to go back and update that trip rate. There was Council consensus to move this item forward. Mr. Helbig mentioned that Council Meeting Minutes,Study Session:06-29-2021 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT the upcoming public hearing July 13 would be followed by an ordinance first reading, and later in July, a resolution to amend the master fee schedule. 3. Capital Improvement Program—Gloria Mantz Through her PowerPoint,Ms.Mantz discussed the required steps to deliver the different phases of capital projects, and mentioned the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), consultant selection for city or state funded projects, preliminary engineer phase,right-of-way phase, and construction phase; she briefly explained the Buy American Act; and the required training in order to keep up with the multiple changes to guidelines and implementation. 4. Code Enforcement—John Hohman, Cary Driskell,Erik Lamb Deputy City Manager Hohman explained that tonight is in follow-up from several weeks ago, to give Council an opportunity to discuss different topics Council might want to further explore; said as we go through the list of items shown on the Request for Council Action, he asked Council to let staff know if they want more research and to bring back options later, and also if Council has further topics they would like explored. Council indicated they support further discussion and/or research on the following topics: 1. Modifications to the current policy of voluntary compliance. Council indicated their support of this but would like the current language tightened up, and per Mr. Hohman's suggestion, to have the written policy include what timelines might be appropriate for typical problems as well for the atypical and/or difficult circumstances. 2. Camping on private property not in an approved structure, i.e. in a tent for more than a couple days. Council agreed to explore this issue as well,and to include something about long-term living in tents versus kids just staying in a tent for a few nights. 3.Living in an RV/camper on private property. Current limit is 30 days, difficult to enforce because of how hard it is to document, and to prove someone is residing in the RV and not just using it periodically during the day for extra living space like an office or for playing games. Council indicated their support of exploring this and liked the suggestion of rather than the thirty days,to have a limit on the number of RVs and where they can be stored, or to require a permit in order to live in an RV; and to make sure whatever is included in this and other issues,that the rules and provisions will be enforceable. 4. Discuss the state definition of a junk vehicle and discuss the number of junk vehicles allowed on residential property (two sight-screened in rear or side yard); duration of exception for working on a car in the front yard(up to 120 days). Noted there needs to be a separate discussion on just this,including a review of the state law definition, as there is difficulty in determining whether the vehicle has value,such as a hulk,and to include whether such vehicle is in the right-of-way or on someone's property. 5.Number of RV/campers on a residential lot. Currently no limit, which leads to commercial storage issues, as well as illegal mini-RV parks where a handful of campers set up on residential property long-term, usually adjacent to an existing residential structure. Council agreed to support this, as noted in number 3 above. 6. Number of non junk vehicles on a residential property; there currently is no limit. Further, there are no restrictions about where vehicles may park on a residential property(e.g.,paved/gravel driveway vs. grass or dirt yard, or front, side or rear yard). Mr. Lamb noted we have no regulations limiting the number of licensed vehicles on someone's property, including parking on the front lawn; staff will also research how other cities have handled this issue; and include options for enforcement. Although the majority of Council indicated their support of further Council Meeting Minutes,Study Session:06-29-2021 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT researching this issue,Mayor Wick said he is not sure he wants to pursue this as he could envision where a large family could easily have six vehicles parked near their home; and Councilmember Thompson mentioned with the pandemic, there are people living with others to try to get by, and for her, suggested this issue go to the bottom of the list. 7. Consequences of towing/removal of RV or other vehicle claimed to be the owner's residence due to Homestead Act(the Long v. Seattle case currently pending at the state Supreme Court). Council agreed to support this, as noted in number 5 above. 8. Weeds or grass exceeding `X"inches in height for aesthetic and fire danger purposes. Also mentioned was the problem with noxious weeds;and that all could pose a fire hazard and/or significant visual blight. Council indicated they are looking forward to hearing what is proposed, adding that maybe not everything works for every neighborhood. 10. Potential adoption of the entire International Property Maintenance Code provisions, including requirements relating to requirements for upkeep of structure's paint, roofing, cracked window, etc. to avoid properties looking rundown. Deputy City Attorney Lamb mentioned that some provisions include safety issues like a cracked window; some of these provisions are already adopted but not those related to aesthesis,like chipped paint; and said we can adopt a portion of the code and that it is not necessary to adopt the whole thing. 11. Potential adoption of approach to put severely distressed, chronic nuisance, or abandoned properties into receivership, which would require new SVMC provisions similar to City of Spokane's, which would apparently be work intensive for staff according to Spokane staff. City Attorney Driskell mentioned City of Spokane has a program for dealing with the very worst of the worst; said staff could do more research,but this issue would be fairly work intensive. Council agreed that staff get more information. In response to Deputy City Manager Hohman's question if there are other issues Council would like researched,it was agreed to include something in the noise ordinance addressing loud parties,loud music, loud trail bikes especially in the early morning hours, and cars with loud mufflers. It was noted that fireworks is already prohibited, and dog barking is a SCRAPS issue, although it was noted that the dog barking issue is not being enforced. Council agreed the SCRAPS issue is a separate issue. 9. Whether to require mandatory trash pickup for all residential and commercial properties since trash continues to be the most pervasive nuisance issue the City deals with. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said they saved this one for last since it was likely to generate more discussion; said when we opted into our own program we decided not to have mandatory trash pickup, although most cities do have that provision; said trash is or can be associated with nuisance properties, and said we will be talking about this with next year's solid waste management plan update,but it is something to consider in the context of nuisance; said if Council is interested,it would require an amendment to the contract and if amended, said he believes it should result in a reduction of rates. Discussion included mention that even if it were mandated, some people wouldn't use it, and it was suggested staff look at doing some things that some of the larger cities do automatically;and to consider the idea of community garbage pickup. Council agreed to examine various options. 5. Orchard Avenue Park-John Bottelli Prior to Mr. Bottelli's presentation, Mr. Calhoun asked City Attorney Driskell to give an update of his conversation with the Attorney for the Airport Board. Mr. Driskell said that in his conversation with the attorney for the Airport Board,that the FAA won't lease property for a playground or recreational area as they(FAA) see it as a public safety issue, and they feel the energy could be better spent looking for other property; and that after the County's lease expires,they will not allow the use as a park. Council Meeting Minutes,Study Session:06-29-2021 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6.Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick It was agreed to add the neighborhoods restoration program,and emergency communications taking crime check reports on line, and as agreed to earlier in the meeting,to add a SCRAPS update. 7. Information Only The(a)Police Department Monthly Report, and the(b)Finance Monthly Report were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 8. Council Comments-Mayor Wick Deputy Mayor Peetz extended thanks to those in the community who have opened cooling centers and/or are distributing water. Councilmember Haley mentioned that Avista and STA have partnered to give free rides to and from cooling centers to those without air conditioning, and if needed,to please call 328-1552 two hours in advance; and said there is lots of room in the cooling shelters. Councilmember Thompson mentioned it appears our meeting's closed captioning isn't very accurate and to perhaps look at improving that.IT Specialist Kole mentioned that they are guaranteed only to be 80% accurate.Mr. Calhoun said that perhaps we could look for another product. 9. City Manager Comments-Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun said that assuming Governor Inslee lifts the Covid-19 restrictions around the open public meetings, are Councilmembers agreeable to meeting in chambers next week with no shields and to have the public be able to attend in-person meetings. Councilmembers indicated they are agreeable. It was moved by Councilmember Thompson, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes,Study Session:06-29-2021 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session Meeting Tuesday,July 6,2021 Mayor Wick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in person in Council Chambers, and also remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Ben Wick,Mayor Mark Calhoun, City Manager Brandi Peetz,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Pam Haley, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Hattenburg Councilmember Bill Helbig, City Engineer Rod Higgins, Councilmember John Bottelli,Parks,Rec&Facilities Director Linda Thompson, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Jerremy Clark, Sr. Traffic Engineer Absent: Dave Ellis,Police Chief Arne Woodard, Councilmember Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Woodard. It was moved by Councilmember Thompson, seconded, and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Woodard from tonight's meeting. PROCLAMATION: July is Parks and Recreation Month After Mayor Wick read the proclamation,Parks and Recreation Director Bottelli extended his appreciation. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. ACTION ITEM: 1.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Balfour Park Consultant Agreement—John Hohman,John Bottelli It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz and seconded to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a contract with AHBL, Inc. in the amount of$326,173.04 for the Balfour Park project design services. Deputy City Manager Hohman explained about the project and the bids,and mentioned the Library has also selected this company,which will save money and construction costs as the project can be streamlined with having the same team work on both projects; said the contract has been authorized and funds earmarked, but not in the budget, so if Council approves this motion,this will come forward later as part of a budget amendment. There were no public comments via zoom or in person. Vote by acclamation: in favor: unanimous. Opposed: none. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Potential Grant Opportunity,Transportation Improvement Board—Adam Jackson Mr.Jackson explained that this is the annual discussion for TIB call for projects; and as noted in his agenda packet materials,we are proposing two projects under the Urban Arterial Program(UAP),i.e.the Sullivan road Preservation and Sidewalk, Sprague to 8th Avenue, and the Argonne Corridor Reconstruction Project, Indiana to Montgomery; and one sidewalk project of 8th Avenue Coleman to Park. He noted that applications are due August 13t11, and if awarded, there is a recommended minimum City match of 20%; adding that it is not likely we would receive funding for two UAP projects. There were no objections from Council in moving this forward for a future motion consideration. Council Meeting Minutes,Study Session: 07-06-2021 Page 1 of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3.Update on City Art Sculptures—John Bottelli Director Bottelli went through his PowerPoint presentation giving a refresher for Council,himself, and the public, on the various art sculptures the City has acquired, and said staff will return in the future to talk about any needed future steps. 4.Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 5. Council Comments—Mayor Wick Deputy Mayor Peetz announced the passing of former educator Dennis Olson. 6. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun mentioned that last February staff was authorized to apply for a INFRA grant for the Bigelow Gulch/Sullivan project,and said we were just notified that we were not successful in that grant application; said that the Department of Transportation offers an opportunity for a de-brief which we will take advantage of;said being back in Council Chambers,we are working on integration between Zoom and IT production. IT Manager Knodel mentioned that staff is working with the production company to determine the best visual aspect of the meeting using cameras and zoom. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Peetz, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m. ATTEST: Ben Wick,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes,Study Session: 07-06-2021 Page 2 of 2 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2021 Department Director Approval: ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Batch Code Text Amendment (CTA 2021-0001)—Administrative Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, SVMC 19.30.040, and RCW 36.70A.106. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: CTA-2021-0001 is a batch code text amendment to relocate the regulations governing cargo containers from the Alternative Residential Options section of the code to the Supplemental Use Regulations section, and add a reference to the R-4 zone in applicable sections of the zoning code that were intended to address all residential zones. Cargo containers: The location of the cargo shipping container provision within the development standards for accessory dwelling units is "out of place." The intent of the code is to prohibit cargo shipping containers in residential zones as an accessory use. The current code location leads to ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to cargo shipping containers throughout all residential zones or only to cargo shipping containers as an ADU. The proposed amendment will move the provision to the section of the code that provides supplemental regulations applicable to accessory structures in ALL residential zones and will clarify that shipping containers are not permitted as an accessory structure to a residential use in residential zones. R-4 Zone: In 2020 the Spokane Valley City Council adopted comprehensive plan amendment CPA-2020- 0007 by ordinance #20-008 that added two policies to guide the development of alternative housing types along with implementing zoning code amendments. The amendment included creating a new R-4 zoning district and changes to Title 19, Zoning Regulations, adding development standards for the new R-4 zoning district that had application in various sections consistent with all of the residential zones. Subsequently it was found that several sections relevant to all residential zones were overlooked during the amendment process. This amendment will include the R-4 zone in sections related to battery charging stations, transitional regulations, adult uses, and marijuana uses. The Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the May 27, 2021 meeting. On June 10, 2021, the Commission conducted a public hearing and deliberations. At that meeting, the Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2021-0001 be approved. On June 24, 2021 the Commission adopted Findings and Recommendation. OPTIONS: Consensus to place this on a future agenda for a first reading as drafted or modified; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place an ordinance on a future agenda for first reading to consider approval of CTA-2021-0001. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner, Community and Public Works Dept. ATTACHMENTS: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Draft CTA-2021-0001 code text language 3. Planning Commission's Findings of Fact and Recommendation 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: 5/27/2021, 6/10/2021 and 6/24/2021 5. Staff Report CTA-2021-0001 si'oic - Valley • Batch Amendment CTA-2021 -0001 Administrative Report City Council Meeting July 13, 2021 Code Text Amendment - Overview mg- ❑ Cargo Shipping Container Issue: Regulation resides in Alternative Residential Development Options - ADU section Solution: Move to Supplemental Use Regulations - Residential ❑ R-4 Zoning District CPA-2020-0007 established R-4 zoning district Issue: Various sections of Title 19 apply to all residential zones, but the R-4 zone was not added Solution: Add R-4 to sections consistent with the residential zones. ❑ No new regulatory requirements are added Cargo Containers SVMC 1 9.40.030.D current code location Issue: Location within the ADU section leads to ambiguity. SVMC 19.40.030 Development Standards — Accessory dwelling units D Other. 1 . The owner, as established by the titleholder, shall occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the owner- occupied unit. The application for the ADU shall include a letter from the owner affirming that one legal titleholder lives in either unit, meeting the requirement of owner occupancy. 2. Prior to issuance of occupancy, a deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to indicate the presence of an ADU, the requirement of owner occupancy, and other standards for maintaining the unit as described in the SVMC. 3. Home businesses are prohibited in the ADU. 4. Approval of an ADU may be revoked if the ADU is no longer in compliance with the development standards and criteria outlined in the SVMC. 5. The owner may cancel an ADU's registration by filing a letter with Spokane County auditor. The ADU may also be cancelled • • - - n onfor •. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residentia oning district. Cargo Containers proposed SVMC 19.65. 130 Residential 19.65.130 Residential. A. Accessory Structures. 1. The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning districts shall be: a. Up to 1,000 square feet for parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size; or b. • - : • - - , o e of size for parce s greater a - - - feet in size. 2. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district. R -4 Additions - Applicable Sections • 19.65. 150 Transportation o Table 19.70- 1 Residential Standards o 19.70.050 Additional standards o 19.75.020 Applicability o 19.75.030 Transitional regulations o 19.75.040 Ground level transitional use limitations o 19.80.030 Adult use development standards o 19.85.060 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones R -4 Zoning District — Amendment Example 19.65.150 Transportation. Battery Charging Station. Battery charging stations are allowed only as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1 , R-2, R-3, R-4 and P/OS zones. Application Processing — Next Steps •k%O ''Y� �� 40 \O Study Session Administrative 'v',, `Z`e/ '�� May 27, 2021 Report �'� ��k �` O,ti'y O'� (, July 13, 2021 ��► ���, QJ. �,, (� Public Hearing %). Q p'� a'1• �� June 10, 2021 �O 1st Ordinance Q e° e *� , a Reading - TBD O Q\ Finding & 2ndOrdinance Recommendation Reading - TBD June 24, 2021 Iiiior Lioe, 19.65.150 Transportation. Battery Charging Station. Battery charging stations are allowed only as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-z and P/OS zones. 19.70.020 Residential standards. Residential development shall meet the standards shown in Table 19.70-1 . Standards for alternative residential development are set forth in Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options, and standards for planned residential developments are set forth in Chapter 19.50 SVMC, Planned Residential Developments. Table 19.70-1 — Residential Standards R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MFR(1) Front and Flanking 35' 15' 15' 15' 15' Street Yard Setback Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20' 20' 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% gross area(3) Lot Size 40,000 sq. 10,000 sq. 5,000 sq. 4,300 sq. N/A(4) ft. ft. ft.(6) ft. Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0% 60.0% Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 8 du/ac 10 du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height(5) 35' 35' 35' 35' 50' (1) Where MFR abuts R-1, R-2, e-R-3, or R-4 zones, development shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. (2) Attached garages, where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the primary structure. (3) Open space requirement does not apply to single-family development in the MFR zone. Single-family residential development in the MFR zone shall have a minimum lot size (4) of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Only one single-family dwelling shall be allowed per lot. (5) The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. (6) Duplex development in the R-3 zone shall have a minimum lot size of 14,500 square feet. 19.70.030 Mixed-use and nonresidential standards. A. Development in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones shall meet the requirements set forth in SVMC Title 24 and Chapter 19.75 SVMC, Transitional Regulations. B. Nonresidential development in the NC zone adjacent to residential uses shall comply with the following dimensional standards: 1 . Maximum building height of 35 feet; 2. Minimum front yard setback of 15 feet; 3. Minimum side yard setback of 10 feet; and 4. Minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet. 19.70.040 Setback designation and measurement. A. Except as provided in SVMC 19.70.040(B), each lot shall contain only one front setback and only one rear setback. Any other setback shall be considered a side setback. B. Where lots have double frontage, running through from one street to another, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. C. The city manager or designee is authorized to designate front, rear, and side setbacks. In situations where the city manager or designee cannot establish a front and rear setback due to the orientation of the lot, the city manager or designee shall establish these setbacks based upon orientation of the lot as compared to surrounding lots and to any existing development pattern. All other setbacks shall be defined in relation to the established front and rear setback. D. The setback shall be measured from the property line unless there is a border easement, in which case, the setback shall be measured from the border easement. E. Setbacks, when adjacent to a private street or driveway easement, shall be measured from the inner edges of the street or driveway and are established pursuant to Table 19.70-1 except the flanking street which is five feet. 19.70.050 Additional standards. A. Structure intrusions into setbacks are prohibited except: 1 . The ordinary projections of window sills, belt courses, cornices, and other architectural features projecting not more than 12 inches and roof eaves projecting not more than 24 inches. 2. Minor features of a structure, such as chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps, and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, these features may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. 3. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, and water pumps are allowed to project not more than 24 inches into the side or rear setback only. 4. Fences that meet the requirements set forth in SVMC 22.70.020. 5. Walkways and driveways, including parking in the driveway, are allowed in the front yard setback of R-1 , R-2, R-3. and R-, zones only. 6. Canopies, marquees, awnings, and similar features in mixed-use or nonresidential zones may fully extend into a front yard setback subject to the requirements of SVMC Title 24. B. Supporting member of any garage, carport, portable carport, or other automobile storage structure shall not be located within the required front yard. C. Accessory structures shall not be erected within five feet of any rear or side property line, or be located within the front yard or any public or private easement. D. Where applicable, structures shall not be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by SVMC 19.110.030, Airport hazard overlay. E. In R-1, R-2, R-3 aria K- zones, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys, and vent stacks may extend for an additional height, not to exceed 40 feet, above the average finished grade of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires, and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum height requirements; provided, that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front, side, and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height. F. Open space required pursuant to Table 19.70-1 shall be accessible to all residential units and shall be suitable for active and passive recreational purposes, subject to the following: 1 . The required open space area shall not include required yards, parking areas, required landscaped areas, stormwater facilities, or required spacing between structures; 2. The amount of open space may be reduced by up to 25 percent where at least two of the following amenities are provided: a. Play or sports courts; b. Playgrounds with equipment; c. Trails or pedestrian walkways not required for access to residential units or parking areas; d. Swimming pools; e. Gazebos; or f. Clubhouses; 3. The required open space shall not be reduced by more than 50 percent. G. Residential development in nonresidential zones shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the MFR zone in Table 19.70-1 , except single-family development in the NC zone, which shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone. Where the NC zone abuts multiple single-family residential zones, the zone with the higher density shall apply. Where there are no single-family residential adjacencies to the NC zone, the density and dimensional standards of the R-2 zone shall apply. H. New development exceeding three stories in height shall be served by paved service lanes that are at least 16 feet in width. I. The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones: 1 . All new development shall provide lighting within parking lots, along pedestrian walkways, and accessible routes of travel. 2. Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than 24 feet for parking lots and no more than 16 feet for pedestrian walkways. 3. All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare, either through exterior shields or through optical design inside the fixture, and shall not emit light above 90 degrees. 4. Street lighting installed by the City or other public utilities is exempt from SVMC 19.70.050(1). J. Principal or accessory structures shall not be located within the clearview triangle pursuant to Chapter 22.70 SVMC. 19.75.020 Applicability. A. General. 1 . The ground level setback requirements shall apply to any portion of a property located in the: a. MFR, RC, CMU, or MU zone that abuts a property located in the R-1 , R-2, or—R-3 or R-4; or b. I or IMU zone that abuts any property not zoned I or IMU. 2. The upper level setback requirements shall apply to any portion of a property located in the MFR, RC, CMU, MU, I, or IMU zones. 3. Nonresidential development in the NC zone adjacent to residential zones shall comply with the provisions of SVMC 19.70.030(B). B. Exemptions. Wireless communications facilities are not subject to Chapter 19.75 SVMC. C. The application of transitional regulations may be modified by the city manager or designee consistent with Chapter 19.75 SVMC. 19.75.030 Transitional regulations. A. General. The transition shall be provided in the form of a ground level setback of 10 feet, or the applicable setback pursuant to Chapter 19.70 SVMC, Density and Dimensions, whichever is greater, and an upper level setback as provided in SVMC 19.75.030(A)(2) and illustrated in Figure 19.75-1 . 1 . All transitional ground level setback areas shall be landscaped pursuant to the provisions of SVMC 22.70.070. 2. Upper Level Setback Calculation. a. Starting at a height of 15 feet at the boundary of an R-1, R-2, R-3 zone, the building height may be increased at a ratio of one foot of height for every one foot of horizontal distance from the nearest R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone boundary. Figure 19.75-1 provides a graphic illustration of this requirement. b. Where the protected zone boundary is the centerline of a right-of-way, the horizontal distance calculation in SVMC 19.75.030(A)(2)(a) shall be measured from the property line of the zone providing protection. Figure 19.75-1 provides a graphic illustration of this requirement. gI C I 1' 0 1 � OI �`. 45' 114 l �� 35' 25' l 15' Protected Zones 10`min, Zones Providing Protection setback Figure 19.75-1 B. The following regulations shall apply to the ground level transitional setback areas: 1 . Outdoor sales, outdoor seating, or outdoor displays or signage are prohibited within 30 feet of any R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 zone. 2. Parking, drive aisles, and/or queuing areas in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones are prohibited within 20 feet of any R-1 , R-2, or R-3 zone. All parking and drive aisles shall be landscaped and screened pursuant to SVMC 22.70.050 and 22.70.070. 3. Loading areas in the RC, CMU, MU, IMU, and I zones are prohibited within 30 feet of any R-1, R-2, or R-3 or R-4 zone. 4. Any mechanical equipment, building vents, and exhausts within the transitional setback areas shall be visually screened pursuant to SVMC 22.70.070. All building vents and mechanical equipment exhausts shall be directed away from adjacent R-1, R-2, eR-3, or R-4 zone. 5. All outdoor lighting in the transitional setback areas shall be shielded and not produce off-site glare pursuant to SVMC 22.60.030 and shall be limited to 16 feet in height above grade. 19.75.040 Ground level transitional use limitations. A. In the MFR zone ground level transitional setback areas, only the following uses are permitted: 1 . Open space and landscaping. 2. Outdoor recreation areas accessory to residential uses. 3. Parking and parking structures. 4. Club houses. B. In the ground level transitional setback areas of RC, CMU and MU zones, only the following uses are permitted: 1 . Open space and landscaping. 2. Pedestrian pathways. 3. Outdoor recreation areas accessory to permitted uses on site. C. In the ground level transitional setback areas of the I and IMU zones, the following uses are prohibited within 20 feet of a NC, RC, CMU, or MU zone: 1. Agriculture and animal uses located outside of an enclosed building; 2. Heavy industrial uses conducted outside of an enclosed building; 3. Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement uses outside of an enclosed building; and 4. Transportation uses located outside of an enclosed building. D. In the ground level transitional setback areas of the I and IMU zones, the following uses are prohibited within 30 feet of a R-1, R-2, R-3, or MFR zone: 1 . Agriculture and animal uses; 2. Heavy industrial uses; 3. Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement uses outside of an enclosed building; 4. Transportation uses located outside of an enclosed building; and 5. Outdoor storage accessory to any of the above uses unless visually screened pursuant to SVMC 22.70.070. 19.80.030 Adult use development standards. A. There shall be five existing acres of contiguous (includes across streets) zoning classified Regional Commercial. B. The use shall be located or maintained at least 1 ,000 feet from the nearest property line of the use listed in SVMC 19.80.030(B)(1) through (6). Distance shall be measured from the nearest property line of the adult retail use establishment or adult entertainment establishment(s) to the nearest property line of the following preexisting uses: 1 . Public library; 2. Public playground or park; 3. Public or private school and its grounds of kindergarten to twelfth grade; 4. Nursery school, mini-day care center, or day care center; 5. Church, convent, monastery, synagogue, or other place of religious worship; 6. Another adult use subject to the provisions of SVMC 19.80.030. C. An adult retail use establishment or adult entertainment establishment(s) shall not be located within 1 ,000 feet of an urban growth area boundary or within 1,000 feet of any of the following zones: 1 . R-1 , Single-Family Residential Estate; 2. R-2, Single-Family Residential Suburban; 3. R-3, Single-Family Residential; 4. R-4, Single-Family Residential Urban; 4 . MFR, Multifamily Residential; 5% . MU, Mixed Use; . CMU, Corridor Mixed Use; or . NC, Neighborhood Commercial. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.85.060 Marijuana production and processing in residential zones. Washington State law authorizes qualified patients and designated providers to produce marijuana and to process marijuana in dwellings, residences, domiciles, and similar housing units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods. Subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws, any owner, lessor, or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter's or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit. In addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations, lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling, residence, domicile, or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally applicable land use, development, zoning, and building regulation requirements including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements set forth in SVMC Titles 17 through 24 as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended, and the following regulations: A.Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; B. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person or allowed by state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall be enclosed, blocked, or sight-screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties so that no portion may be readily seen by normal unaided vision or readily smelled from such locations. Accessory structures shall be permanent structures enclosed by a roof and walls on all sides and connected to a permanent foundation. For purposes of SVMC 19.85.060, accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles, or other similar types of structures. Accessory structures shall be completely opaque in addition to necessary sight-screening; C. Home processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and rules, including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; and D. Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall only be allowed in the R-1, R-2,a-H-el-R-3, and R-4 zones. 19.40.030 Development standards—Accessory dwelling units. A.Site. 1.An ADU may be developed in conjunction with either an existing or new primary dwelling unit; 2.One ADU,attached or detached,is allowed per lot;and 3.One off-street parking space for the ADU is required in addition to the off-street parking required for the primary dwelling unit. B.Building. 1.The ADU shall be designed to meet the appearance of a single-family residence and shall be the same or visually match the primary dwelling unit in the type,size,and placement of the following: a.Exterior finish materials; b. Roof pitch; c.Trim;and d.Windows,in proportion(relationship of width to height)and orientation(horizontal or vertical); 2.The entrance to an attached ADU shall be located on the side or in the rear of the structure or in such a manner as to be unobtrusive in appearance when viewed from the front of the street.Only one entrance may be located on the facade of the primary dwelling unit in order to maintain the appearance of a single-family residence; 3.The ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the habitable square footage of the primary dwelling unit,nor be less than 300 square feet; 4.The footprint of the ADU shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet,whichever is greater;and 5.The ADU unit shall not have more than two bedrooms. C.Additional Development Standards for ADUs. 1.ADUs shall be located behind the front building setback line and placed on a permanent foundation; 2.ADUs shall preserve all side yard and rear yard setbacks fora dwelling unit pursuant to Table 19.70-1; 3.ADUs shall not be allowed on lots containing a duplex,multifamily dwelling,or accessory apartment contained within the principal structure;and 4. Existing detached accessory structures may be converted into detached ADUs;provided,that all development standards and criteria are met,including side yard and rear yard setbacks. D.Other. 1.The owner,as established by the titleholder,shall occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their permanent residence for six months or more of the calendar year and at no time receive rent for the owner-occupied unit.The application for the ADU shall include a letter from the owner affirming that one legal titleholder lives in either unit,meeting the requirement of owner occupancy. 2.Prior to issuance of occupancy,a deed restriction shall be recorded with the Spokane County auditor to indicate the presence of an ADU,the requirement of owner occupancy,and other standards for maintaining the unit as described in the SVMC. 3.Home businesses are prohibited in the ADU. 4.Approval of an ADU may be revoked if the ADU is no longer in compliance with the development standards and criteria outlined in the SVMC. 5.The owner may cancel an ADU's registration by filing a letter with Spokane County auditor.The ADU may also be cancelled as a result of an enforcement action. 6.Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district. 19.65.130 Residential. A.Accessory Structures. 1_The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning -4 Formatted:Indent:Left 0.5" districts shall be: a_4—Up to 1,000 square feet for parcels up to 10,000 square feet in size;or Formatted:Indent:First line: 0.5" b_-Up to 10 percent of the lot size for parcels greater than 10,000 square feet in size. 2. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district. B.Dwelling,Accessory Units.Accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. C.Dwelling,Caretaker's Residence.A caretaker's residence is limited to custodial,maintenance, management,or security of a commercial property and is only allowed accessory to another permitted use on site. D.Dwelling,Cottages.Cottages shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. E.Dwelling,Duplex.Duplex dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC, Alternative Residential Development Options. F.Dwelling,Industrial Accessory Dwelling Units.Industrial accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. G.Dwelling,Townhouse.Townhouse dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. H.Manufactured Homes on Individual Lots.Manufactured homes on individual lots shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. I.Manufactured Home Park.Manufactured home parks shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.40 SVMC,Alternative Residential Development Options. J. Recreational Vehicles. 1. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone,except as permitted pursuant to Chapter 19.40 SVMC; 2.A recreational vehicle shall not be parked within a required front yard setback for more than 15 consecutive days and not more than 30 days cumulative in any 12 consecutive months;and 3.Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2021-0001 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: I. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2021-0001 is a City-initiated text amendment to relocate the regulations governing cargo containers from the Alternative Residential Options section of the code to the Supplemental Use Regulations section and add a reference to the R-4 zone in applicable sections of the zoning code that were intended to address all residential zones. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on June 10,2021. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings:The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU-P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. Policy LU-P7: Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Policy LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial,industrial,and mixed-use land. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendment bears substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment ensures that the transitional regulations are applied to all instances in which non-residential development occurs adjacent to residential development in the R-4 zone and ensures transportation,adult and marijuana use regulations will be properly applied in the R-4 zone. The amendment additionally clarifies that cargo shipping containers are not allowed in residential zones to protect the quality and character of residential neighborhoods. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-202 1-000 I Page 1 of 2 Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health,safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. 2, Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2021- 0001 as proposed. Attachment: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2021-0001 Approved this 24th day of June,2021 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons,Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-202I-0001 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall May 27, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. Ih Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Cary Driskell, City Attorney Karl Granrath Caitlin Prunty, City Attorney Walt Haneke Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bob McKinley Martin Palaniuk, Planner Nancy Miller Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson III. AGENDA: Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the May 27, 2021 meeting agenda as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the May 13, 2021 minutes as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no Planning Commission reports. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Study Session: CTA-2021-0001 — Batch Code Text Amendment City Planner Martin Palaniuk gave a presentation on the proposed City-initiated text amendment to Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). He stated that the amendment is to clarify that cargo containers are not allowed in residential zones as an accessory structure and reference the R-4 zone in applicable sections of the zoning code that were intended to address all residential zones. Mr. Palaniuk explained that SVMC 19.40.030(D)(6) has details regarding cargo containers under the Development Standards—Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) section of the code. 1 05-27-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 He stated that staff feels that the current code location causes ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to cargo shipping containers throughout all residential zones or only shipping containers used as an ADU. The proposed amendment will move the provision to SVMC 19.65.130—Supplemental Use Regulations, Residential. This section of the code provides supplemental regulations that apply to accessory structures in all residential zones and will clarify that shipping containers are not permitted as an accessory structure in residential zones. Mr. Palaniuk also explained that in 2020, the City Council adopted a comprehensive plan amendment that created the R-4 zoning district. The amendment also included changes to Title 19, Zoning Regulations, which added development standards for the new zoning district. He stated that since the adoption of the amendment staff has found that several sections relevant to all residential zones were overlooked including sections related to battery charging stations, transitional regulations, adult uses, and marijuana uses. The proposed amendment will fix these items throughout the residential zones. He stated that there are no regulatory requirements being added to the zones and the proposed change is to keep the code consistent. Commissioner Haneke asked if the "POD" containers are allowed for temporary storage due to a remodel. Building Official Nickerson answered that they are allowed if the resident procures a"Temporary Use Permit". However, they are not allowed to be used for a long- term storage or as a storage shed. Actual cargo shipping containers would not qualify for a temporary use permit because they are prohibited by the code in all residential zones. Mr. Palaniuk said that the public hearing for this proposed code text amendment will be held on June 10, 2021. b. Presentation: Tiny Homes Building Official Jenny Nickerson gave an informational presentation regarding tiny homes. She explained that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) does not define the minimum size of a dwelling unit so a tiny home is just a single-family dwelling unit by classification. However, there are regulations regarding accessory dwelling unit stating that the unit cannot be smaller than 300 square feet. The International Residential Code (IRC) states that a dwelling is required to contain a habitable room of at least 70 square feet and it does not require that the bathroom be a separate room. In February 2021, Washington State adopted a portion of IRC Appendix Q which specifically addresses tiny houses. It states that a tiny house is defined as a home that is less than 400 square feet, excluding lofts. A loft is defined as a floor level above and open to the main floor with a ceiling height of less than 6'8". Ms. Nickerson explained that a tiny home constructed on-site requires a simple building permit. If a tiny home is constructed off-site, a permit is required at the construction location. If the tiny home is built onto a trailer, it is classified as a recreational vehicle (RV) and a permit from Labor& Industries is required. If a tiny home is built in a factory, it is classified as a manufactured home or park model RV. If a shed is converted to a tiny house, a simple building permit is required for both the shed and the conversion. Ms. Nickerson stated that a tiny home constructed on site must be designed in accordance with Washington Building Code and go through the typical building permit process (as long as it meets the zoning requirements and the building code requirements). The dwelling unit 2 05-27-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 may be as small as 70 square feet and can be designed to be removed from foundation and transported. A tiny home constructed in a factory is regulated by the Washington State Labor and Industries Factory Assembled Structures division. The local building department regulates the anchoring of the home to a foundation or footing system. Tiny homes constructed on a trailer rarely meet the minimum standards and are commonly licensed as an RV. Commissioner Miller commented that she thinks there should be a minimum square foot requirement on the primary dwelling unit on a property (like there is for accessory dwelling units). IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Granrath commented that he was excited to see that the City of Spokane Valley purchased land to be added to the parks system. Commissioner Robinson stated that she is excited that the Balfour Park expansion and the Library construction is moving forward. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary 3 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall June 10, 2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Cary Driskell, City Attorney Karl Granrath Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Martin Palaniuk, Planner Bob McKinley Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Nancy Miller Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant Paul Rieckers Sherri Robinson III. AGENDA: Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the June 10, 2021 meeting agenda as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the May 27, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Haneke requested that a discussion be held at a future meeting regarding the possibility of allowing shipping containers in certain circumstances. There was a consensus from the Planning Commission to have the discussion on a future meeting agenda. Commissioner Miller commented that condominium legislation has been signed by the Governor and there is a developer interested in doing a development in Spokane Valley. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard explained the best way of joining the webinar zoom meeting. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2021-0001 —Batch Code Text Amendment The public hearing was opened at 6:19 p.m. 1 06-10-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 City Planner Martin Palaniuk gave a presentation on the proposed City-initiated text amendment to Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). He stated that the amendment is to clarify that cargo containers are not allowed in residential zones as an accessory structure and referenced the R-4 zone in applicable sections of the zoning code that were intended to address all residential zones. Mr. Palaniuk explained that SVMC 19.40.030(D)(6) has details regarding cargo containers under the Development Standards—Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) section of the code. He stated that staff feels that the current code location causes ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to cargo shipping containers throughout all residential zones or only shipping containers used as an ADU. The proposed amendment will move the provision to SVMC 19.65.130—Supplemental Use Regulations, Residential. This section of the code provides supplemental regulations that apply to accessory structures in all residential zones and will clarify that shipping containers are not permitted as an accessory structure in residential zones. Mr. Palaniuk also explained that in 2020, the City Council adopted a comprehensive plan amendment that created the R-4 zoning district. The amendment also included changes to Title 19,Zoning Regulations, which added development standards for the new zoning district, He stated that since the adoption of the amendment, staff has found that several sections relevant to all residential zones were overlooked including sections related to battery charging stations, transitional regulations, adult uses, and marijuana uses. The proposed amendment will fix these items throughout the residential zones. He stated that there are no regulatory requirements being added to the zones and the proposed change is to keep the code consistent. There was no public comment, The public hearing was closed at 6:28 p.m. Commissioner Miller moved to recommend City Council approve CTA-202I-000I as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Beaulac commented that he would like the Planning Commission meetings to be held in the Council Chambers. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:39 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary 2 Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers —City Hall June 24,2021 I. Planning Commission Chair Bob McKinley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Cary Driskell, City Attorney Karl Granrath Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Walt Haneke Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Bob McKinley Chaz Bates, Senior Planner Nancy Miller Arielle Anderson, Housing& Homeless Coordinator Paul Rieckers Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Sherri Robinson Marianne Lemons, Administrative Assistant III. AGENDA: Commissioner Haneke moved to approve the June 24, 2021 meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. MINUTES: Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the June 10, 2021 minutes as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed V. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Robinson stated that she was happy to see that signs have been added to 32nd Avenue and Dishman Mica Road that read"bike lane ends". She also mentioned that she hopes the bikes lane connect to each other in the future. VI. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson stated that per the request of the Planning Commission at the last meeting, staff is putting together information regarding shipping containers. That agenda item will be presented at the July 22, 2021 meeting. She commented that City Hall has reopened for business and in-person meetings are being discussed. However, a formal date for an in-person meeting has not been decided yet. She also mentioned that Commissioners McKinley, Granrath, and Rieckers' terms are up at the end of the year. Anyone interested in applying for those positions should submit their applications. The deadline for applications is in October and will be published in the newspaper by the City Clerk. VII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 1 06-24-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2021-0001 —Batch Code Text Amendment Building Official Jenny Nickerson presented the Findings Of Fact for CTA-2021-0001 — Batch Code Text Amendment. She stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed code text amendment at the June 10, 2021 meeting. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward the Code Text Amendment to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. She explained that the approval of the Findings Of Fact will formalize the recommendations that were made at the public hearing. Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the Findings of Fact for CTA-2021-0001 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Study Session: 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Senior Planner Chaz Bates gave a staff presentation regarding the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He explained that local jurisdictions are allowed to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan once each year. The amendments are initiated by property owners, residents, or by the City. The application deadline to submit is October 30th- Notice was published 60 days prior to October 1st and sent to agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions. The amendments were docketed by the City Council and then sent to the Planning Commission for consideration. A public hearing on the amendments will be held on July 8, 2021 and Findings Of Fact will be heard on August 12, 2021. The item will then be sent back to City Council for final consideration and approval. Public hearing notices were published twice in the newspaper,posted on the properties, and mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the site-specific map amendments. Mr. Bates outlined the four amendments to be heard during the 2021 cycle. CPA-2021-0001: Request to change the.68 acres from Multiple Family Residential(MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU). Mr. Bates said that this amendment is privately initiated for the property located at 22 N. Skipworth Road. It is owned by Homtomi Partners. The request is to rezone the property from Multi-Family residential (MFR)to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). The property to the east, south, and west are all zoned CMU. The property to the north is zoned MFR. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support the redevelopment and infill of the parcel, would support the increase of housing opportunities, is supported by the transportation network, and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Commissioner Haneke asked for additional information regarding the proposed development of the property. Mr. Bates answered that the proposal is to add four additional units including carports. He reminded the Commission that this change is only regarding land use and the applicants would not be required to do the proposed development. Mr. Haneke asked if the current structure could be completely demolished and something else built in its place. Mr. Bates answered that it would be allowed. Commissioner Miller and Robinson also expressed concern about the applicant tearing down the current low-income housing units if the zoning change is allowed. Commissioner Granrath asked if the proposed development meets all current code regulations. Building Official Nickerson answered that the site plan has not been reviewed 2 06-24-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 for code compliance because it has not been formally submitted for development application. However, there are no setback requirements in the CMU zone except as discussed in the transitional regulations (which would apply only to the northern property line where there is MFR zoning). Commissioner Haneke asked about height regulations. Ms. Nickerson answered that there are no maximum height limitation or lot coverage regulations in the CMU zone. CPA-2021-0002: Request to change 5.56 acres from Corridor Mixed Use(CMU) to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space(P/OS). Mr. Bates explained that this amendment is City initiated for the property located across the street from City Hall on Sprague Avenue and the future proposed use is to expand Balfour Park. The City owns this property and requests to rezone the property from Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (P/OS). The property to the west(Balfour Park) is zoned P/OS,the property to the west and south is CMU, and the property to the north is MFR. The property is currently vacant. Findings show there are no critical areas on the site, the site would support Park Level of Service, is supported by the transportation network, is compatible with the surrounding uses, and implements the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Chairman McKinley commented that he attended a presentation by Mayor Ben Wick regarding the development of the library and the Balfour Park expansion and he thinks that the ideas for this area are very exciting and will be a good addition to the City. CPA-2021-0003: Request to change 46 acres from Industrial(I) to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (P/OS). Mr. Bates stated that this amendment is City initiated for the four parcels located between the Spokane River and Union Pacific railroad east of Flora Road (the property is unaddressed). The City owns the property and request to rezone the property from Industrial (I)to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (P/OS). The properties to the north, west, and east are all zoned I, and the property to the east is zoned P/OS. Findings show that the proposal would support Park Level of Service, it is a newly acquired property purchased specifically for park land, and it is compatible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Beaulac asked about wildlife conservation on the property. Mr. Bates answered that the City recognizes that there is critical wildlife habitat and frequently flooded areas on the property. CPA-2021-0004: Add goals,policies, strategies, and background text related to homelessness. Housing and Homeless Coordinator Arielle Anderson explained that the text amendment is City initiated to add goals,policies, and strategies to formalize the City's position on community resources ranging from homeless services to housing instability. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan currently lacks goals,policies and strategies for people who are unsheltered and facing housing instability. The proposed text amendment formalizes the City's commitment to a regional approach to reduce homelessness and address the lack of guidance in the development of zoning regulations regarding site housing and homeless services. The proposed amendments ensure that current publicly funded programs are equally accessible by City residents, formalizes the City action to develop implementing 3 06-24-2021 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 regulations to build out services in the community, supports continued regional cooperation, and ensures that all facilities sited in the City have commensurate on-site support. She explained that the amendment is non-site specific and does not detail where services will be located but it will address an identified deficiency within the Comprehensive Plan and support the development of a Homeless Response System specific to the needs of the City. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the amendment is consistent with the Housing Action Plan (HAP)that was recently adopted. Mr. Bates answered that it is consistent with the HAP. Mr. Beaulac also commented that he would like to see more recent data included in the amendment rather than data from 2014-2015. Commission Haneke asked about the Homeless Response System. Ms. Anderson answered that the Response System is a consistent, dependable, and streamlined response to how services will be rendered to citizens in need. IX. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Vice-Chair Robinson commented she is very happy that the City is pursuing solutions for the homeless population. She also stated that she feels that the Commission should be diving into the hard questions of land use changes and really looking at possible development projects that could occur before approving those changes. Chairman McKinley encouraged the Commissioners to listen to the State of the City that was done by Mayor Ben Wick. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Haneke moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:24 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Bob McKinley, Chair Date signed Marianne Lemons, Secretary 4 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS CITY QF BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane �L`�lle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2021-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 19,2021 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 10, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed amendment is a City-initiated text amendment to Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The proposed amendment will move regulatory standards for cargo shipping containers from SVMC 19.40.030. Accessory dwelling units to SVMC 19.65.130 Residential that addresses residential accessory structures. The amendment also adds the "R-4 zoning district"throughout Title 19 to achieve consistency with Ordinance#20-008 and#20-009 adopting the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2020-0007 and Ordinance #20-009 adopting the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map that established the R-4 zoning district as new zone. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC Title 19 are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval,and consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT:Martin Palaniuk,Planner and Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendment Language Exhibit 2: Presentation Exhibit 3: SEPA exemption determination email—May 4,2021 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Depaitnient of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to May 6,2021 Adopt Amendment SEPA Review—N/A-see exhibit 3 Published Notice of Public Hearing: May 21 &May 28,2021 Cargo Shipping Container Background: SVMC 19.40.030(D)(6)—Development Standards—Accessory dwelling units (ADU) states "Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zoning district." Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2021-0001 The location of this provision within the development standards for accessory dwelling units is "out of place". The intent of the code is to prohibit cargo shipping containers as a permitted structure in residential zones as an accessory use. The current code location leads to ambiguity as to whether the provision applies to cargo shipping containers throughout all residential zones or only cargo shipping containers as an ADU. The proposed amendment will move the provision to SVMC 19.65.130— Supplemental Use Regulations, Residential. This section of the code provides supplemental regulations that apply to accessory structures in ALL residential zones. This section within the SVMC clarifies that shipping containers are prohibited as an accessory structure to a residential use in residential zones. Staff Analysis: The movement of the code provision does not change the way that cargo shipping containers are regulated. The change places the provision in the code where it has the broad applicability intended and clearly states that cargo shipping containers are not an allowed accessory use in residential zones. R-4 Background: In 2020 the City of Spokane Valley City Council adopted a comprehensive plan amendment CPA-2020-0007 by ordinance #20-008 that added two policies to guide the development of alternative housing types along with implementing zoning code amendments. The amendment included creating a new R-4 zoning district that would provide more housing options for residents near public transit and commercial services. The amendment also included changes to Title 19,Zoning Regulations, adding development standards for the new R-4 zoning district that had application in various sections. Subsequently it was found that several sections were overlooked during the amendment process and this amendment will make sure those sections will include the R-4 zone. Staff Analysis: CPA-2020-0007 established the R-4 Single-family Residential Urban Zone. The R-4 zone is a single-family residential zone and was intended to be regulated similar to the other single-family zones relative to battery charging stations, transitional regulations, adult uses, and marijuana uses. Related updates to sections 19.65, 19.70, 19.75, 19.80,and 19.85 of the SVMC when CPA-2020-0007 was adopted were overlooked. This creates unintentional inconsistency throughout the SVMC in how the R-4 zone is regulated as compared to the other single-family residential zones. The proposed amendment will create consistent regulation applicable to all of the residential zones throughout Title 19. The following table provides a summary of the change to each section of the SVMC. Code Section Summary of change 19.65 Allows a battery charging station as an accessory use to a permitted use in the R-4 19.70 Applies the transitional regulations to MFR development where that development abuts the R-4 zone. Allows walkway and driveways in the front yard setback of the R-4 zone. Allows additional height for various structures such as cooling towers, roof gables,chimneys, and vent stacks in the R-4 zone. 19.75 Adds the R-4 zone to the zones in which the transitional regulations apply. The regulations include the ground level setback, the upper level setback, and use regulations that apply to the transitional setback. 19.80 Adds the R-4 zone to areas from which an adult use must remain 1,000 feet 19.85 Add the R-4 zone to zones that allow the production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-202 1-0001 i. The City may approve a Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. Policy LU-P5: Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial or industrial uses. Policy LU-P7: Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. Policy LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial,industrial,and mixed-use land. Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment will ensure that the transitional regulation is applied to all instances in which non-residential development occurs adjacent to residential development in the R-4 zone and ensures adult and marijuana use regulations will be properly applied in the R-4 zone. The amendment additionally clarifies that cargo shipping containers are not allowed in residential zones to protect the quality and character of residential neighborhoods. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC 17.80.150(F). 3. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS a. SVMC 21.20- State Environmental Policy Act The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that Based on WAC 197-11-800(19)(a)and the SEPA determination issued on February 21,2020 for CPA-2020-0007 no further environmental review is required. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Adequate public noticing was conducted for CTA-2021-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date that identified any concerns or issues. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns have been noted. Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2021-0001 B. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in Section A, the proposed code text amendment to move regulatory standards for cargo shipping containers from SVMC 19.40.030,Accessory dwelling units,to SVMC 19.65.130 Residential, that addresses residential accessory structures, and adds the "R-4 zoning district" throughout Title 19 is consistent with the requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(F) and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 13, 2021 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: American Rescue Plan Act GOVERNING LEGISLATION: 42 U.S.C. § 803; 31 C.F.R. Part 35. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2021, the President signed the American Rescue Plan Act ("ARPA") into law. ARPA provided for a wide variety of funding for a variety of purposes, including direct assistance to small businesses,for homeless and affordable housing purposes,and to state and local governments. Importantly for the City,ARPA established the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and allocated$350 billion to these accounts to assist state and local governments in meeting pandemic response needs and rebuilding the economy. The City of Spokane Valley will receive approximately $16 million from the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund("CLFR"). The Department of Treasury will distribute the funds in two tranches: one this summer and a second in the summer of 2022. This report is intended to provide a very broad overview of CLFR funds and the allowable uses, as well as an overview of other funds that will be managed by other sources flowing into our community from ARPA. CLFR FUNDS CLFR dollars must be used to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and its negative impacts. To determine whether and how an expense will respond to COVID-19,the City must identify a need or negative impact created by the pandemic and identity how the program, service, or other intervention will address the identified need or impact. Eligible expenses must be incurred by the City between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2024. An expense is considered incurred if it is obligated by December 31, 2024. All obligated funds must be spent by December 31,2026. Within this broad framework,ARPA identifies four primary eligible use categories for CLFR dollars. We have split the first category into two: la.Responding to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19. Costs related to the public health emergency include mitigation efforts, medical expense, behavioral healthcare, and certain public health and safety staff The category addresses costs expended to deal with the direct medical impact of COVID-19. Examples of eligible services and programs are: • Vaccination programs (lotteries,vaccination • Capital investments in public facilities to sites) meet pandemic operational needs • Medical expenses • Mental, behavioral health and substance • Testing and contact tracing abuse treatment • PPE purchases • Support for vulnerable populations to • Public communication efforts access medical or public health service • Public health, healthcare, human services, • Enhancement of healthcare capacity public safety and similar employee payroll • Support for prevention,mitigation,or other (to extent they work in COVID-19 services in congregate living facilities and response) schools Page 1 of 5 lb.Addressing the negative economic impacts caused by the pandemic. In responding to the negative economic impact of COVID-19,the City may use CLFR dollars to alleviate the economic hardships caused by the pandemic. Examples of eligible expenditures include: • Aid to unemployed workers • Aid to impacted industries such as tourism, • Aid to households facing food, housing, or travel,and hospitality other financial insecurity • NOTE: may not be used for expansion or • Support to small businesses (loans, grants, in- upgrade of facilities unless they were kind assistance) previously planned and delayed due to • Rehiring local government staff to meet pre- pandemic pandemic levels Included within this category is assistance to the hardest-hit communities and families. CLFR dollars may be used for the following services and programs if they are provided with a Qualified Census Tract ("QCT"), to families living in a QCT, or to other populations, households, or geographic areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic: • Services to address homelessness • Addressing health disparities, including • Affordable housing development community violence programs • Housing vouchers, residential counseling, or • Addressing educational disparities housing navigation assistance • Promoting healthy childhood environments Treasury guidance also provides examples of eligible uses that may not clearly fit within the identified category. For example,the guidance indicates that investments in parks and other public outdoor recreation spaces may be allowable if it is responsive to the needs of disproportionately impacted communities by promoting healthier living environments. Outdoor recreation also increases socialization and mitigates the spread of COVID-19. 2. Providing premium pay to essential workers. Workers who have continued to work throughout the pandemic to maintain the continuity of operations of essential critical sectors are eligible for premium pay. The City can either provide premium pay directly to eligible workers or provide grants to businesses with employees qualifying as essential workers. Individuals who qualify as an essential worker include: • Staff at nursing homes,hospitals,and home care • Public health and safety employees settings • Childcare workers, educators, and other school • Workers at farms, food production facilities, staff grocery stores,and restaurants • Social service and human services staff • Truck drivers, transit staff, and warehouse • Janitors and sanitation workers workers NOTE: While CLFR guidance provides for such use, Washington law likely precludes use for premium pay for work already performed and paid for, as it is considered a gift since the work has already occurred and been compensated. It would not prevent premium pay for future work if offered as part of the anticipated compensation for the work performed. 3.Replacing lost public sector revenue. CLFR dollars may be used to replace budget short falls resulting from COVID-19. ARPA provides a formula to determine "lost revenue." The Treasury will presume that any decrease in actual revenue relative to the expected revenue trend is due to COVID-19. The revenue trend is calculated at 4.1% per year or the actual annual average revenue growth over the three full fiscal years prior to the pandemic, whichever is higher. The City can calculate the extent of the reduction in revenues as of four points in time with the first measurement being December 31, 2020. Staff is in the process of calculating lost revenues as of December 31, 2020, and will have that amount available for the next Council discussion on this topic. Replacement of revenue is intended to avoid cutting valuable public Page 2 of 5 services and ensure that fiscal austerity measures do not hamper economic recovery. However, CLFR dollars cannot be placed in the rainy-day fund or other financial reserves. 4.Investing in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure. CLFR dollars spent in this category align with eligible projects under the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Project examples under each program include: Clean Water Drinking Water • Construction of publicly-owned treatment • Treatment works • Transmission and distribution (including lead • Nonpoint source pollution management service line replacement) • National estuary program projects • Source rehabilitation and decontamination • Decentralized wastewater treatment systems • Storage • Stormwater systems • Consolidation • Water measures for publicly-owned facilities • New systems development Eligible broadband projects will readily deliver minimum speeds of 100 Mbps download and 100 Mbps upload. If impractical to do so,then speeds should reach at least 20 Mbps. Broadband projects can target both private and public users. NOTE: Generally, CLFR Funds may not be used for other infrastructure (e.g., roads, other utilities). OTHER FUNDS(besides CLFR) CORONAVIRUS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND ARPA established the$10 billion Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund("CCPF")to provide funding to states, territories, and Tribal governments to carry out critical capital projects directly enabling work, education, and health monitoring, including remote options, in response to the public health emergency with respect to the COVID-19. The focus of the CCPF on the continuing need for connectivity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic complements the broader range of uses under ARPA. Capital projects funded through the CCPF must be critical in nature,providing connectivity for those who lack it. The Capital Projects Fund thus allows for investment in high-quality broadband as well as other connectivity infrastructure,devices, and equipment. In addition to supporting broadband, it also provides flexibility for each state,territory, and Tribal government to make other investments in critical community hubs or other capital assets that provide access jointly to work, education, and health monitoring. All projects must demonstrate that they meet the critical connectivity needs highlighted and amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible applicants will be required to provide a plan describing how they intend to use allocated funds under the Capital Projects Fund consistent with ARPA and guidance to be issued by Treasury. Treasury will begin to accept applications for review in the summer of 2021 and will issue guidance before that date. Guidance for the CCPF has not been issued as of this date. ASSISTANCE FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND WORKERS ARPA provided several programs for individuals and families. These programs included Economic Impact Payments of up to$1,400 for eligible individuals,an extension of unemployment assistance of an additional $300 per week through September 4, 2021 and waived federal income taxes on the first $10,200 of unemployment benefits, as well as an expansion of the Child Tax Credit. ARPA will also provide approximately $43 billion for various child care programs. Page 3 of 5 ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES ARPA includes over$63 billion in assistance to small businesses, including $28.6 billion for a Restaurant Revitalization Fund, an additional $7.25 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program, and $15 billion for targeted Economic Injury Disaster Loans. ARPA also provides$10 billion to fund the State Small Business Credit Initiative ("SSBCI"). Washington State was allocated $124,435,638 under SSBCI. ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION ARPA includes about $168 billion in funding for education purposes, including $122.7 billion for the Elementary and Secondary School Relief Fund. Washington State was allocated$1,853,788 from this fund, and it is anticipated that about 90%of these funds will be passed through to local school districts. ASSISTANCE FOR HOUSING AND HOMELESS SERVICES Homeowner Assistance Fund ARPA provides $9.961 billion for the Homeowner Assistance Fund ("HAF"). Funds from HAF may be used for assistance with mortgage payments,homeowner's insurance,utility payments,and other specified purposes. Washington State was allocated $173,153,935 under HAF, and the Washington State Department of Commerce will administer the HAF program for the State. Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) ARPA provides up to$21.55 billion for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program("ERA")which is provided directly to states(including the District of Columbia),U.S.territories(Puerto Rico,the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), and local governments with more than 200,000 residents. At least 90 percent of awarded funds must be used for direct financial assistance,including rent,rental arrears,utilities and home energy costs, utilities and home energy costs arrears, and other expenses related to housing. Remaining funds are available for housing stability services,including case management and other services intended to keep households stably housed. After subtracting out amounts allocated to local jurisdictions, Washington State received $254,886,596 in ERA funds. Additionally, Spokane County was allocated$7,173,770 and the City of Spokane was allocated $5,297,865 under this program. Homeless Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs ARPA included $5 billion for the Homelessness Assistance and Supportive Services Program, which will be allocated through HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Washington State was allocated$23,443,764 of this amount,and Spokane County and the City of Spokane were allocated $3,005,209 and $4,627,671, respectively. ARPA also included $5 billion in Emergency Housing Vouchers, and the local Continuum of Care will receive an allocation of 224 housing choice vouchers through this program. NEXT STEPS Staff will return to City Council at a future City Council meeting for discussion of City Council's desired uses for the City's ARPA funds. OPTIONS: Discussion/Information only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion/Information only. Page 4 of 5 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $16 million added to budget for eligible expenses. These amounts are not currently included in the 2021 Budget, and will be added with a future budget amendment. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director;Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Page 5 of 5 American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley Chelsie Taylor Finance Director, City of Spokane Valley July 13, 2021 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney CoT519iv1rus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund American Rescue Plan Act (March 2021) Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFR) $35o billion nationally for state and local governments City - receives approximately $16 million Several other types of funding under ARPA City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2 nt . For expenses incurred between March 3, 2021 and December 31, 2024 Incurred if obligated during that period All payments made by December 31, 2026 Directly with US Treasury Four primary categories of eligible uses Responding to public health emergency and negative economic impacts Premium pay to essential workers Replacing lost public sector revenue Investing in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Respondingto the Public Health Emergency with Respect to COVID- 19 Vaccination programs Public health, healthcare, human Medical expenses services, public safety and similar Testingand contact tracingemployee payroll PPE purchases Support for vulnerable populations to p access medical or public health Public communication efforts service Capital investments in public Enhancement of healthcare capacity facilities to meet pandemic p y operational needs Support for prevention, mitigation, or p other services in congregate living Mental, behavioral health, and facilities and schools substance abuse treatment City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Ad d r - _ ,.___: _ ; - _• I . m i c Impacts Pandemic Caused by the Aid to unemployed workers Select services and programs to those Aid to households facing food, living in a QCT or other populations, housing, or other financial insecurity households, or geographic areas Su ort to small businesses disproportionately impacted by the pp pandemic: Rehiring local government staff to Homelessness services meet pre-pandemic levels Aid to impacted industries such as Affordable housing development p tourism, travel, and hospitality Housing vouchers, residential NOTE: maynot be used for counseling, or housing navigation assistance expansion or upgrade of facilities unless they were previously planned Addressing health disparities and delayed due to pandemic Addressing educational disparities Promoting healthy childhood environments City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney PraiiFdingPay Premium to Essential Workers Staff at nursing homes, hospitals, and home care settings Workers at farms, food production facilities, grocery stores, and restaurants Truck drivers, transit staff, and warehouse workers Public health and safety employees Childcare workers, educators, and other school staff Social service and human services staff Janitors and sanitation workers NOTE: While CLFR guidance provides for such use, Washington law likely precludes use for premium pay for work already performed and paid for, as it is considered a gift since the work has already occurred and been compensated. It would not prevent premium pay for future work if offered as part of the anticipated compensation for the work performed. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ReTãEing Lost Public Sector -Revenue CLFR dollars may be used to replace budget short falls resulting from COVID-19 Replacement of revenue intended to prevent cuts to valuable services and ensure fiscal austerity measures do not hamper economic recovery Treasury provides formula to determine qualifying "lost revenue" due to COVID-19 City may calculate extent of reduction at four points in time with first measurement being December 31, 2020. If at any point there is a reduction, City may use CLFR funds to replace that reduction City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Inv road b ard I nfrast r u ct u re Clean Water Drinking Water Construction of publicly-owned Treatment treatment works Transmission and distribution Nonpoint source pollution management (including lead service line replacement) National estuary program projects Source rehabilitation and Decentralized wastewater treatment decontamination systems Storage Stormwater systems Consolidation Water measures for publicly- New systems development owned treatment works NOTE: Generally, CLFR Funds may not be used for other infrastructure (e.g., roads, other utilities). City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 8 Other ARPA Funds Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund ("CCPF") Assistance for American Families and Workers Assistance for Small Businesses Assistance for Education Assistance for Housing and Homelessness Services Homeowner Assistance Fund ("HAF") Emergency Rental Assistance Program ("ERA') Homeless Assistance and Affordable Housing Programs City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 9 Next Steps City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ro Questions ? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney n DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of July 8,2021; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council& Staff From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings July 20,2021, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 13] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ord.21-008,Adopting Traffic Fees Studies:Mirabeau&N.Pines Subareas-Bill Helbig,Jerremy Clark(5 min) 2.Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunity,Transportation Improvement Board-A.Jackson(5 min) 3.Fee Resolution 21-004,Amending Master Fee Schedule -Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS; 4. Council Goals&Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax-Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5. SREC Crime Check Online Reporting-Chief Ellis (10 minutes) 6.Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] Spokane Valley State of the City:July 21, 2021 July 27,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 20] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.First Reading Ordinance 21-009,Batch Text Amendments-Marty Palaniuk (10 minutes) 3. Spokane Valley Library Update-John Hohman,Patrick Roewe,Mark Dailey of Integrus Archi.(20 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 mins] August 3,2021:National Night Out (Aug 3, 2021, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. cancelled) Aug 10,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 3] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 21-009,Batch Text Amendments-Marty Palaniuk (10 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Council Goals&Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax-Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 mins] Aug 17,2021,Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 10] 1. Council 2022 Budget Goals-Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Balfour Park Administrative Design Update-John Hohman, John Bottelli, et al (10 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 mins] Aug 24,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 17] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: 2022 Budget-Estimated Revenues&Expenditures-Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Potential&Pending Projects-Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 35 mins] Aug 31,2021, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 24] 1.Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Sept 7,2021, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Aug 31] Proclamation:Alcohol&Drug Recovery Month 1.Advance Agenda-Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 7/8/2021 9:26:55 AM Page 1 of 2 Sept 14,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 7] Proclamation: Constitution Week-Sept 17-23 1. PUBLIC HEARING#1: 2022 Budget Revenues,Property Taxes—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Set Budget Hearing for October 12,2021 —Chelsie Taylor (5 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 20 mins] Sept 21,2021, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 14] 1. Proposed draft ordinance adopting 2022 property taxes —Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Outside Agencies Presentations— Chelsie Taylor (-60 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75 mins] Sept 28,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 21] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: mins] Oct 5,2021, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Sept 28] 1. City Manager Presentation of 2022 Preliminary Budget—Mark Calhoun (30 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Oct 12,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 5] 1. PUBLIC HEARING#2: 2022 Budget— Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 2.First Reading Ordinance 21- Property Tax (10 minutes) 3.Admin Report: 2021 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Oct 19,2021, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 12] 1.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) Oct 26,2021,Formal Meeting,6:00 p.m. [due Tue Oct 19] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2021 Budget Amendment— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2.First Reading Ordinance 21- ,Amending 2021 Budget (10 minutes) 3.First Reading Ordinance 21- ,Property Tax (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Ordinance 21, ,Adopting 2022 Budget— Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Grant Awards—Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: 2021 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Wick (5 minutes) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appleway Trail Amenities Residency Artwork&Metal Boxes Ridgemont Area Traffic Consolidated Homeless Grant SCRAPS Service Update Core Beliefs Resolution St.Illumination(owners,cost,location) HHAA Funds St. O&M Pavement Preservation Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. SVPD Precinct Needs Assessment Neighborhood Restoration SVPD Vehicle Replacement No Parking Zones TPA Park Lighting Vehicle Wgt Infrastructure Impact PFD Presentation Water Districts&Green Space Prosecutor Services Way Finding Signs Draft Advance Agenda 7/8/2021 9:26:55 AM Page 2 of 2