Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-23-20 Council Workshop
To join Zoom Meeting, click here. Meeting ID: 822 3771 9815 Passcode: 350875 To join by phone: 253-215-8782 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barb Tolbert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Barb Tolbert – Ashleigh APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 1. Ordinance Approving 2020 Budget Amendments ATTACHMENT A Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 2. Resolution Approving the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan ATTACHMENT B Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly / Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Jan Schuette 3. Resolution Vacating a Portion of Public Right of Way ATTACHMENT C Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 4. Development Agreement with NorthPoint Development, LLC ATTACHMENT D Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles Arlington City Council Workshop Monday, November 23, 2020 at 7:00 pm 5. Ordinance Adopting Capital Facilities Plan for Arlington School District ATTACHMENT E Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 6. Ordinance Adopting Capital Facilities Plan for Lakewood School District ATTACHMENT F Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 7. Approval of Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement ATTACHMENT G Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles 8. October Community & Economic Development Report ATTACHMENT H Staff Presentation: Marc Hayes 9. October Financial Report ATTACHMENT I Staff Presentation: Kristin Garcia ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS PUBLIC COMMENT For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council. Please limit your remarks to three minutes. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION RECONVENE ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Jesica Stickles / Mayor Barb Tolbert City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #1 Attachment A COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: 2020 Budget Amendments ATTACHMENTS: 2020 Ordinance Amending the 2020 Budget (including Exhibit A) 2020 Proposed Budget Amendments DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Finance; Kristin Garcia, Director 360-403-3431 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 2020 – $21,272,670 BUDGET CATEGORY: Various BUDGETED AMOUNT: 2020 – $63,227,172 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Attached are the proposed amendments for the 2020 budget. The majority of items have been previously approved by council. Adopting the budget ordinance is the official action to formally incorporate the adjustments into the budget. 91% of the amendments fall into 3 categories; bond refinancing, interfund transfers to reserve funds and capital projects/equipment purchases. 48% of all amendments are related to refinancing the city’s 2007 and 2010 LTGO bonds and refinancing the Graafstra promissory note, 19% of all amendments are related to inter-fund transfers (operating transfers to reserve funds or to capital funds to pay for projects and meet grant match requirements) and 23% of all amendments are for capital projects and/or equipment purchases which are paid for by grants and/or accumulated capital reserves. A public Workshop; discussion only. At the December 7, 2020 Council meeting, the recommended motion, following the public hearing will be, “I move to approve the ordinance amending the 2020 budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget for the City of Arlington, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” ORDINANCE NO. 2020—XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2018-008 WHICH ADOPTED THE 2019-2020 BIENNIAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON BY PROVIDING SUPPLEMENT THERETO AND PROVIDING TRANSFER AND ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, staff has identified the need to make certain revisions to the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget that were not foreseen when Ordinance No. 2018-008 was adopted on November 19, 2018, and WHEREAS, this ordinance was introduced with proper notice and citizens have been given the opportunity to comment, and WHEREAS, because this will require increasing the appropriation level in one or more funds, an amendment is needed, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A34.130, the 2020 Budget section of the 2019-2020 biennial budget is hereby amended to provide for adjustments to expenditures, and by providing authority for any necessary transfers of money within or between funds as indicated in the “Amendment” column on the attached document Exhibit A. Section 2. That the attached is a summary of the amended budget for the year 2020 for the City of Arlington and that copies of the detailed amended budget are available to any interested taxpayer at the Finance Department, City Hall, Arlington, Washington. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after its passage and publication of a summary consisting of the ordinance title hereof as authorized by law. Passed by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney EXHIBIT A 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ALL FUNDS 2020 MODIFIED BUDGET 12/16/2019 AMENDMENTS FINAL BUDGET GENERAL FUND 18,874,939$ 4,690,999$ 23,565,938$ GENERAL FUND MANDATORY RESERVE FUND - - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FUND 260,000 40,819 300,819 CED PERMITTING FUND 1,200,000 1,200,000 STREETS MAINTENANCE FUND 1,134,894 30,000 1,164,894 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND 2,000 2,000 4,000 GROWTH FUND 1,314,225 500,000 1,814,225 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FUND 4,968,664 170,000 5,138,664 PUBLIC ART 45,000 45,000 LODGING TAX FUND 149,191 149,191 CEMETERY FUND 214,267 50,000 264,267 TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX FUND 2,048,000 2,048,000 REET 1 FUND 344,113 3,286,500 3,630,613 REET 2 FUND 284,871 1,745,000 2,029,871 CAPITAL FACILITIES/BUILDING FUND 26,500 350,000 376,500 BOND CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,750,000 1,750,000 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 5,665,525 1,130,084 6,795,609 PARK IMPROVEMENT 346,083 3,542,857 3,888,940 LIBRARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND - - CEMETERY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND - - EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,764,202 236,500 2,000,702 AIRPORT FUND 3,790,453 669,000 4,459,453 WATER FUND 4,087,664 4,087,664 SEWER FUND 6,079,523 6,079,523 WATER IMPROVEMENT FUND 2,476,181 553,459 3,029,640 SEWER IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,592,904 125,952 1,718,856 STORM WATER CIP FUND 500,250 500,250 AIRPORT RESERVE FUND 162,889 750,000 912,889 WATER/SEWER BOND RESERVE FUND - - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND 1,004,331 262,500 1,266,831 AIRPORT CIP 4,324,000 4,324,000 MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FUND 1,764,503 35,000 1,799,503 CEMETERY PRE-NEED TRUST FUND 2,000 2,000 4,000 CITY FIDUCIARY FUNDS 150,000 150,000 CEMETERY ENDOWMENT FUND - - - GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 63,227,172$ 21,272,670$ 84,499,842$ 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FUND Council Approval Date Item Amendment Notes 001 - GENERAL 1/21/2020 Professional Agreement for Housing Action Plan $ 50,000 Project is required per E2SHB1923. Project is grant funded (DOC). 001 - GENERAL 2/3/2020 City Council chambers microphones $ 30,000 General fund revenues. Franchise- PEG capital. 001 - GENERAL 2/18/2020 ILA for embedded social worker $ 37,950 Original budget was $120,470, additional amount in ILA provides for back fill for employee leave and medical oversight. 001 - GENERAL 3/16/2020 Professional services agreement with Karen Reed $ 25,000 Consultant for work related to annexation discussions with North County RFA. Cost split with North County RFA. 001 - GENERAL 5/4/2020 Equipment for live streaming/TV 21 $ 20,000 Accumulated PEG capital funds will be used for this purchase. The equipment will allow council meetings to be live streamed to YouTube. 001 - GENERAL 6/1/2020 & 9/5/2020 Coronavirus Relief Fund $ 888,300 CARES Act funding to cover eligible expenses related to COVID-19. 001 - GENERAL 8/3/2020 Professional services agreement with Liz Loomis $ 55,000 Public affair services for proposed annexation. Costs split with North County RFA. 001 - GENERAL 9/18/2018 Contract with Safebuilt $ 700,000 Professional services agreement for plan review, building inspection and code official services. Amendment needed due to volume of work. Paid for by plan review fees. 001 - GENERAL 3/2/2020 2020 Bond Refunding - 2010 LTGO $ 1,530,000 Refunding of the city's 2010 LTGO (Station 46) bonds to receive lower interest rate and save interest rate costs over the remaining life of the bonds. 001 - GENERAL 6/1/2020 2020 LTGO Bonds $ 343,000 Principal and interest payments for new bonds - construction of new fire station, police impound facility and M&O facility. 001 - GENERAL Transfer to establish CED Permitting Fund $ 1,011,749 This fund was created as a managerial fund to track permit related revenues as per state law and to meet audit requirements. TOTAL - 001 $ 4,690,999 1 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 005 - PROGRAM DVLP 10/19/2020 Police access control system $ 40,819 Paid for from available program development funds. TOTAL - 005 $ 40,819 006 - CED PERMITTING Transfer out to General Fund $ 1,200,000 This is a transfer (reimbursement to the general fund) of permit related revenues matched to permit related costs. TOTAL - 006 $ 1,200,000 101 - STREET 3/16/2020 Emergency repair - 207th/Burn Rd $ 30,000 A water main break occurred at 207th and Burn Rd. requiring emergency repair to restore water services to that location. TOTAL - 101 $ 30,000 105 - SOCIAL SERVICES Outreach program providing services to those in need of treatment/housing $ 2,000 Demand for services was more than originally budgeted. Paid for by a combination of grants and donations. TOTAL - 105 $ 2,000 107 - GROWTH FUND Increase transfer to Transportation Improvement Fund $ 500,000 Increase the transfer to the transpiration improvement fund for match on grant funded projects and for cash flow pending grant reimbursements. TOTAL - 107 $ 500,000 108 - EMS 6/1/2020 FCS Group cost of service update $ 20,000 Contract with FCS Group to update cost of transport rates for 2021/2022 that are billed to partner agencies that contract with the city for EMS services. 108 - EMS 6/1/2020 2020 LTGO Bonds $ 150,000 EMS Fund portion of Station 46 and Station 48 bonds. TOTAL - 108 $ 170,000 2 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 116- Cemetery 9/16/2019 Contract with Southern By Design $ 50,000 Cemetery landscape maintenance. TOTAL - 116 $ 50,000 303 - REET 1 3/2/2020 Refinancing of Graafstra promissory note $ 3,286,500 Debt on the Graafstra note has been historically paid by REET 1 funds but expensed out of the Park Improvement Fund. Debt proceeds were recorded here and transferred to the Park Improvement Fund where the debt payment was made. Debt was refinanced to received lower interest rate and save on interest costs over the remaining life of the bond. TOTAL - 303 $ 3,286,500 304 - REET 2 3/2/2020 2020 Bond Refunding - 2007 LTGO $ 1,745,000 Refunding of the city's 2007 LTGO (N. Olympic Improvements) bonds to receive lower interest rate and save interest rate costs over the remaining life of the bonds. TOTAL - 304 $ 1,745,000 305 - CAPITAL FACILITIES 6/1/2020 Design and construction mgmt services for construction of station 48 $ 350,000 Paid for by accumulated reserves in the capital facilities building fund. TOTAL - 305 $ 350,000 306 - BOND FUND 6/1/2020 Construction costs for Station 48 $ 1,750,000 Paid for by 2020 LTGO bonds. TOTAL - 306 $ 1,750,000 310 - TRANS.IMP 3/2/2020 67th Ave Rail/Trail Crossing Project $ 195,000 Budgeted in 2019 but was pending federal grant award. Amendment will move budget from 2019 to 2020. 310 - TRANS.IMP 5/4/2020 Design contract 173rd Phase 1 $ 77,445 $75,000 was in 2019 budget, asking to move budget to 2020 with slight increase. 310 - TRANS.IMP 7/20/2020 Contract with Perteet $ 600,000 Smokey Point Blvd Corridor Project Planning and Design. Project budget approximately $1,600,000 but expect the majority of project costs to be in 2021. This project may require an additional amendment in 2021. 3 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 310 - TRANS.IMP 9/21/2020 SR 530 and Smokey Point Blvd Temporary Traffic Signal $ 257,639 This project will replace the trailer mounted signal system that has been in place since the fall 2019. TOTAL - 310 $ 1,130,084 311 - PARK.IMP 3/2/2020 Refinancing of Graafstra promissory note $ 3,200,000 Refinance of principal to lower interest rate costs and save on interest costs over the remaining life of the bonds. 311 - PARK.IMP Invoice for tree mitigation along 67th Ave $ 1,500 Paid for by tree mitigation fees. 311 - PARK.IMP 2019 Budget Retainage paid out on Haller Splash Park project $ 38,000 Project was completed in 2019 but L&I and other lien releases were not received until 2020 - retainage cannot be paid until all releases are received from the State. 311 - PARK.IMP 1/21/2020 Innovation Center/Pocket Park $ 303,357 In the 2019/2020 budget, council approved a total of $311,379 for the project. The 2019 portion of the project will be added to the 2020 budget as this project will take place in 2020. Project is grant funded. TOTAL - 311 $ 3,542,857 320 - EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 2/3/2020 Medic Unit #48 replacement $ 236,500 Original approved budget was $190,000. Vehicle will be paid for from accumulated equipment replacement reserves. TOTAL - 320 $ 236,500 402 - AIRPORT 10/19/2020 Airport vehicle and aircraft recovery equipment $ 69,000 The Airport was awarded a CARES ACT grant for $69,000 to be used exclusively for airport operations. 402 - AIRPORT Transfer of excess Airport operating fund balance to Airport Reserve Fund $ 600,000 This is an annual transfer of excess airport revenues to the Airport Reserve fund to accumulate reserves to pay for future capital projects and have available funding to meet grant match requirements. TOTAL - 402 $ 669,000 405 - WATER IMP.1/21/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center Utilities (South of SR 531) $ 56,647 Project will be paid for from accumulated utility capital reserves. Split between Water/Sewer improvement funds. 4 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 405 - WATER IMPRV.3/16/2020 Emergency repair 207th St/Burn Rd. $ 60,000 A water main break occurred at 207th and Burn Rd requiring an emergency repair to restore water services to Arlington customers. 405 - WATER IMP.5/4/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center - amendment to Murraysmith contract $ 69,305 This an amendment to the existing Murraysmith contract for design services for infrastructure design and preparation of construction documents to support the 51st Ave Urban Village. Original budget was $113,295. Split between Water/Sewer Imprv. Funds. 405 - WATER IMP.7/6/2020 Contract with Pacific Groundwater Group $ 159,419 Geotechnical and hydrogeological services for testing and drilling 5 potable water exploration wells. 405 - WATER IMP.7/6/2020 Contract with Holt Services $ 208,088 Services for testing and drilling 5 potable water exploration wells. TOTAL - 405 $ 553,459 406 - SEWER IMP 1/21/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center Utilities (South of SR 531) $ 56,647 Project will be paid for from accumulated utility capital reserves. Split between Water/Sewer improvement funds. 406 - SEWER IMP 5/4/2020 Design for Cascade Industrial Center - amendment to Murraysmith contract $ 69,305 This an amendment to the existing Murraysmith contract for design services for infrastructure design and preparation of construction documents to support the 51st Ave Urban Village. Original budget was $113,295. Split between Water/Sewer Imprv. Funds. TOTAL - 405 125,952$ 410 - AIRPORT RESERVE Increase transfer to Airport CIP fund 750,000$ Increase transfer to make sure the Airport CIP fund has enough cash to pay for project invoices at year end pending FAA reimbursements TOTAL - 410 750,000$ 412 - STORM MGMT 2019 Budget Purchase of sweeper 262,500$ Paid for by Department of Ecology grant. Budgeted in 2019 but did not receive and wasn't invoiced until 2020, moving budget from 2019 to 2020. TOTAL - 412 262,500$ 5 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 504 - M&O Utilities Expense 35,000$ Under budgeted in 2019/2020. Budget trued up in 2021/2022. TOTAL - 504 35,000$ 622 - CEMETERY PRE-NEED Purchase of liners 2,000$ More services than expected resulting in more purchases of liners TOTAL - 622 2,000$ 633 - CITY FIDUCIARY Establish Fiduciary Fund 150,000$ GASB 84 now requires fiduciary activities to be reported in a separate fund. These are items that are collected on behalf of another organization (like court related costs that are remitted to the state). TOTAL - 633 150,000$ SUB TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,690,999$ SUB TOTAL ALL OTHER FUNDS 16,581,671$ GRAND TOTAL ALL AMENDMENTS 21,272,670$ 6 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #2 Attachment B COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Resolution for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Public Works; Jim Kelly, Director / Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: None BUDGET CATEGORY: N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT: N/A LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Presentation of the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan for years 2021-2026. A Public Hearing on the 2021-2026 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) will be held December 7, 2020. HISTORY: Attached to this CAB is a copy of the City’s proposed Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (6-year TIP) for Council review. In accordance with State Law, every municipality must annually update their TIP for the following six years. Any road construction project that is to be considered for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or Transportation Improvement Board funding must be listed on the TIP. To be eligible for allocation of ½ -cent gas tax monies, projects must also be listed. The attached TIP represents projects that the City would like to have completed, or funded, over the next Workshop; discussion only. At the December 7, 2020 Council meeting, the recommended motion, following the public hearing will be, “I move to approve the resolution adopting the City of Arlington 2021-2026 six year transportation improvement plan, and authorize the Mayor to sign the resolution.” Page 1 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) TI P N O . AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS NON-MOTORIZED PROJECTS 707 33 674 1,620 300 1,320 1,880 230 1,650 1,475 100 1,375 663 5,019 5,682 1 COA 74th St Trail Segment 77 13 64 PSRC (Fed)0 650 60 590 PSRC (Fed)73 654 727 Construct a multiuse (ped/bike) trail along the west side of 74th Ave between north end of PE CN Arlington Valley Rd trail and 204th St trail segment 2 COA Gilman Trail Segment 0 0 75 75 675 75 675 750 Construct a 12-ft wide multiuse trail connecting the Centennial Trail to Country Charm Park PE CN 675 UNFUNDED 3 COA 2nd Street Sidewalk Completion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project to install sidewalks on 2nd St (French Ave to Washington Ave) where none exists. 4 COA 63rd Ave Trail - Gap Project to connect 197th to Cemetery Road 0 0 75 75 0 75 0 75 Extend 12-ft wide multiuse trail behind the cemetery to Cemetery Road PE CN 5 COA 59th/188th Sidewalk and connectivity improvements 530 530 TIB - CS 40 40 TIB - CS 0 0 0 570 570 Sidewalks, parking, ADA ramps, street trees, public art. Funding is from Compete Streets Grant ALL CN 6 COA Non-Motorized Improvements - Cemetery Rd/47th Ave/188th St 0 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 Create protected bike lanes, connect sidewalks, improve existing airport trail (fencing to meet ALL 1,000 UNFUNDED meet FAA requirements) Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities 7 DEV 204th Portage Creek Trail 80 80 DEV 220 220 DEV 0 0 0 300 300 Multi use Trail along Portage Creek from HWY 9 to Centennial Trail.ALL ALL 8 DEV Multi Use Trail From Portage Creek Trail to Hazel (HWY 9)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi use Trail along Highway 9 (west side) to Hazel, then along Hazel (east side) to Highland intersection PE CN 9 COA Multi Use Trail From 204th to Crown Ridge Blvd (HWY 9)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multi use Trail along Highway 9 (east side) to Crown Ridge Blvd, trail to be vertically separated from highway traffic. PE CN 10 COA 59th Sidewalk gap project 0 0 1,000 20 200 DEV 0 20 980 1,000 Connect gaps in sidewalk on east side of 59th and improvements to Airport Trail on east side ALL 780 UNFUNDED Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities 11 COA Gilman Loop Trail - Gilman to 88th Dr NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trail connecting Country Charms Park to 88th Dr. From Gilman Ave PE CN 12 COA Bluff Trail – 188th St to Smokey Point Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trail (12-foot wide) connecting 188th St to Smokey Point Blvd along the bluff PE CN 13 COA Burke Trail – Centennial Trail to Eagle Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connect the Eagle Trail to the Centennial Trail through Haller Park PE CN 14 DEV Country Charm Access – Gilman to Country Charm Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Connect the Gilman Trail to the County Charm Park with a trail/access driveway.PE CN Page 2 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS Developer driven and funded project. 15 COA Country Charm Park Trail and Connection to Twin Rivers Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a walking trial loop within Country Charm Park.PE CN Connect Country Charm Park to Twin Rivers Park. Requires a bridge. 16 COA Edgecombe Trail – 172nd to City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connect 172nd to Marysville Edgecombe creek trail, along the re-aligned Edgecombe Creek PE CN 17 COA Frontage Trail – 211th to Portage Creek Wildlife Refuge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SNOCO Trail would connect Centennial Trail to the Portage Creek Wildlife Refuge PE CN 18 COA Gleneagle Trail – Centennial Trail to Arlington High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trail would connect Centennial Trail to Arlington High School through Gleneagle PE CN 19 COA Olympic Ave Ped Improvements 0 300 300 0 0 300 0 300 Stop sign at 1st Ave, Bulb out ramps at crossings ALL PE Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities 20 COA 188th BNSF Rail/Trail Crossing Project 0 0 0 500 100 400 UNFUNDED 100 400 500 Extend trail across BNSF RR to intersection at 67th Ave on 188th ST PE ALL Target Complete Streets or Non-Motorized Funding Opportunities 21 COA Annual Sidewalk Program 20 20 60 60 TBD 80 80 TBD 300 300 TBD 20 440 460 Repair existing sidewalks; citywide CN CN CN CN TRAFFIC SAFETY / INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 3,017 1,712 1,305 0 0 0 540 165 375 250 0 250 1,877 1,930 3,807 22 COA Island Crossing Temporary Signal 150 150 0 0 0 150 0 150 Install temporary signal at SR530 and Smokey Point Blvd CN (Carry-over from 2020) 23 COA 204th St and 74th Ave Intersection Improvement (Proj #I-9)912 757 155 WATER UTILITY 0 0 757 155 912 Install control and pedestrian improvements at the 204th St and 74th Ave intersection.ALL 24 COA 204th St and 77th Ave Roundabout (Proj #I-8)600 500 100 TIB GRANT 0 0 0 500 100 600 Install roundabout at 204th St and 77th Ave intersection CN (Carry-over from 2020) 25 COA 40th Ave Intersection Improvement (Proj #I-13)1,275 225 1,050 TIB GRANT 0 0 0 225 1,050 1,275 Install intersection control at 40th Ave/172nd St (SR-531)ALL (Carry-over from 2020) 26 COA Intersection Improvements 67th and 188th 0 420 45 375 UNFUNDED 0 45 375 420 Convert to a signal controlled intersection.ALL 27 COA Radius Improvements 172nd and 91st Ave 0 0 0 250 250 DEV 0 250 250 Increase radius, improve site distance, reduce speeds, adjust grade of cross section. Connect sidewalks. Page 3 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 28 COA Analysis of Intersection at SPB/172nd 80 80 0 120 120 0 200 0 200 Study of intersection for improved traffic flow.PE PE 29 COA Airport Blvd/188th St NE Intersection Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Install a roundabout at the Airport Blvd/188th St NE intersection PE CN WIDENING / CORRIDOR PROJECTS 1,305 530 775 2,843 488 2,355 2,320 320 2,000 7,975 610 7,365 1,948 12,495 44,659 30 COA 211TH PL - SR 530 Roundabout 10 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 Work with WSDOT for installation of roundabout at 211th Place & SR-530 intersection PE 31 COA Burn Road Rehabilitation 150 150 STREETS FUND 250 250 STREETS FUND 0 0 400 0 400 Rehabilitate Burn Road to address instability issues, stream channel, and future growth. PE will be by PE CN competative design 32 COA Highland Dr. Corridor - SR 9 to Stillaguamish Ave(Proj #R-5 and #T4)0 0 0 3,900 600 3,300 TIB Grant 600 3,300 3,900 Project to upgrade the Highland Drive corridor from SR-9 to Stillaguamish Ave to arterial standards ALL 33 COA Smokey Pt Blvd Design - 174th Ave to 200th Ave(Proj #R-30)875 360 515 PSRC & UTIL 583 228 355 PSRC & UTIL 570 70 PSRC 75 10 PSRC 668 1,435 2,103 Complete preliminary planning, public outreach, engineering design, and PE & RW PE & RW 500 UNFUNDED 65 UNFUNDED ROW plan for corridor improvements to expand Smokey Point Blvd 34 COA SR-531 Corridor Rehabilitation (Proj #R-14B)10 10 10 10 0 0 20 0 20 Roadway and corridor improvements on 172nd St (SR-531) from 43rd Ave to Smokey Point Blvd.PE PE 35 DEV 51st Ave Improvements (Proj #R-20) - 172nd to South City Limits 0 0 1,000 1,000 DEV 4,000 WSDOT/TIB 0 5,000 5,000 Extend 51st Ave as a five-lane roadway from SR-531 to south Arlington city limits 4,000 UNFUNDED 36 COA 43rd Ave improvements - SR531 to 180th St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN 37 DEV 204th corridor Improvements - 74th to 69th 100 100 DEV 2,000 2,000 DEV 750 250 500 DEV 0 250 2,600 2,850 COA Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN CN 38 DEV Smokey Point Blvd Safety Improvements 179th to 172nd 140 140 DEV 0 0 0 0 140 140 Construct restricted access and medians to improve safety. LID Project ALL 39 COA Smokey Point Blvd North 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reconstruct SPB from 200th to SR530 with a 3 lane section 40 COA 172nd from HWY 9 to 91st 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve 172nd to a 3 lane section from Highway 9 roundabout east to 91st Ave NE Page 4 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 41 DEV 91st Ave NE Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve 91st Ave NE to a 3-lane road section 42 COA 59th Ave NE Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DEV Improve 59th Ave NE to a 3-lane road section with sidewalk and on street parallel parking on the east and an improved trail section on the west 43 COA 188th St NE Improvements from 59th Ave NE to 67th Ave NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve 188th St NE to a 3-lane road section with sidewalk on the south and a trail section on the north 44 COA Tveit Rd Improvements from Stillaguamish Ave to City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve Tveit Road to a 3-lane section with sidewalk on the south side and a mixed-use trail on the north side 45 DEV 180th St NE Improvements from 59th Ave NE to end of road 20 20 DEV 0 0 0 0 20 20 Improve 180th St NE to a 2-lane industrial road section with an improved trail section on the north side ALL 46 DEV 183rd Extension from Smokey Point Blvd to Airport Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN 47 COA 63rd Ave Phase 5 Improvements from 188th to 197th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail. PE CN Realign intersection at 188th to the east, add trail at east side of road. 48 COA Hazel St Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve Hazel St to a 3 lane urban section with sidewalks and mixed use trail PE CN NEW ALIGNMENT PROJECTS 1,850 0 1,850 9,733 2,833 6,900 5,030 580 4,450 3,100 450 2,650 3,863 15,850 19,713 49 DEV 59th Extension from 195th to Cemetery Road 0 0 450 100 350 DEV 0 100 350 450 COA Construct 3 lane roadway with mixed use trail and intersection improvements at Cemetery Road.ALL 50 COA Extend Arlington Valley Road from 191st to 188th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with mixed use trail. Wetland delineation to be determined in feasibility stage.PE CN 51 DEV 180 the Extension from Smokey Point Blvd to Airport Property 0 50 50 DEV 400 400 DEV 0 0 450 450 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE ALL 52 COA 180 th Extension from Airport Property to Airport Blvd 0 50 50 DEV 800 50 0 50 800 850 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE ALL 750 UNFUNDED 53 COA 188th St NE Tunnel Extension through Airport Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a tunnel and two-lane road with shoulders and mixed use trail PE CN Tunnel should be wide enough to expand to a 4-lane roadway in the future with a mixed-use trail Page 5 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS 54 COA 183rd Extension from Developer Project (183rd) to Airport Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct a 3-lane road section with sidewalks and bike lanes PE CN 55 DEV 211TH PL Extension to 59th AVE (Proj #Dev-1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Install a 3-lane urban connector road and sidewalks between 211th Place and 59th Ave PE CN and install a multiuse trail in critical area buffer 56 DEV 169th St Extension Phase 1 SPB to 38th Ave (Affinity Property) (Proj # R-19)1,000 1,000 DEV 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 Extend 169th St as a three lane urban roadway from Smokey Point Blvd to 38th Ave (Affinity lot). CN 57 COA 169th St Extension 0 433 433 430 430 3,100 450 2,650 PSRC (Fed)1,313 2,650 3,963 Extend 169th St as a two lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 38th Ave to 43rd Ave.PE & RW PE & RW CN PSRC Contingency funding; PE/RW in 2022-2023, CN in 2024. 58 DEV 169th St from 43rd Ave to 51st Ave - Phase 3 50 50 DEV 1,500 1,500 DEV 0 0 0 1,550 1,550 Extend east-west street as a three lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 67th to Arlington Valley Road PE 59 COA 169th St from 51st Ave to 59th Ave - Phase 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 169th St as a three lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 51st to 59th Ave. PE 60 DEV 169th St from 59th Ave to 67th Ave – Phase 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 169th St as a two lane urban roadway with multiuse trail from 59th to 67th. PE 61 DEV 199th/197th St Extension (Gayteway Project)0 550 0 550 DEV 1,700 0 0 0 2,250 2,250 COA 67th Ave to Arlington Valley Rd connector - Industrial section with multiuse trail.1,700 UNFUNDED 62 COA 173rd St, Phase 1 - SPB to 40th AVE (Proj #R-28)0 2,200 1,900 300 UTILITES 0 0 1,900 300 2,200 Project includes construction of new road and pedestrian facilities between Smokey Pt Blvd and 40th Ave.CN 63 COA 173rd St, Phase 2 (Proj #R-28)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project includes redesign of road alignment and construction of new road and pedestrian facilities btwn 40th and 43rd Ave 64 COA 173rd St, Phase 3 43rd to Airport Blvd (Proj #R-27)0 3,250 500 300 AIRPORT 0 0 500 2,750 3,250 Project includes redesign of road alignment and construction of new road between 43rd Ave and Airport Blvd ALL 2,450 UNFUNDED 65 COA 47th Ave in Airport Business Park (Proj #R-21A)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design, permit and construct 2-lane road through Airport Business Park extending from 173rd to Airport Blvd PE CN 66 DEV 47th Ave NE from 169th South to City Limits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construct 47th as a 3 lane industrial section from 169th south to city limits PE CN 67 DEV 63rd Ave Phase 1 PUD Site to Smartcap 188th Site 500 500 DEV 0 0 0 0 500 500 Page 6 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS COA Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway from PUD improvements ALL 68 DEV 63rd Ave Phase 2 188th south through HCI Property 100 100 DEV 0 0 0 0 100 100 COA Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail ALL 69 DEV 63rd Ave Phase 3 Gap from HCI to Smartcap 0 400 0 0 0 400 400 COA Extend 63rd Ave as a (2 lane alley) to be increased to a PE & CN 400 UNFUNDED three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail by future development 70 COA 63rd Ave Phase 4 Gap from PUD site to 172nd 0 900 1,250 0 0 2,150 2,150 Extend 63rd Ave as a three-lane roadway with 12-ft wide multiuse trail.PE & RW 900 UNFUNDED 1,250 UNFUNDED 71 DEV 74th Ave Extension from 204th North to Portage Creek 200 200 DEV 0 0 0 0 200 200 Extend 74th Ave as a 3 lane urban section from the intersection at 204th to Portage Creek ALL RW 72 DEV 74th Ave Extension Portage Creek to Hazel St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 74th Ave as a 3 lane urban section from Portage Creek, including the bridge expansion, to Hazel St PE CN 73 DEV 71st Ave Extension from 204th to 74th Ave 0 400 400 DEV 0 0 0 400 400 Extend 71st Ave as a 3 lane urban section from the intersection at PE CN 204th northeast to meet up with and interconnect to 74th Ave 74 COA 180th St NE Extension from BSNF Railway to 67th Ave NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extend 180th St NE from current end near BNSF railway to 67th Ave NE PE CN including new crossing over the railroad tracks PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 2,035 225 1,810 1,100 0 1,100 1,100 0 1,100 3,300 0 3,300 225 7,310 7,535 75 COA Smokey Pt Blvd Overlay 935 225 710 PSRC (Fed)0 0 225 710 935 Pavement preservation project on SPB from S City limits to 174th St. CN ALL 76 COA ANNUAL PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM 1,100 1,100 TBD 1,100 1,100 TBD 1,100 1,100 TBD 3,300 3,300 TBD 0 6,600 6,600 MISCELLANEOUS LOCATIONS DETERMINED BY PAVEMENT CONDITION ALL ALL ALL ALL Page 7 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS JOINT AGENCY PROJECTS 2,610 160 2,450 9,510 510 9,000 19,900 300 19,600 53,875 375 53,500 1,345 84,550 85,895 77 WSDOT ISLAND CROSSING ROUNDABOUT 150 150 3,800 500 3,300 UNFUNDED 0 0 650 3,300 3,950 COA CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT AT SR 530 AND SMOKEY POINT BLVD PE CN COUNTY Complete design in 2021, seek funding for 2022 construction STILLI 78 WSDOT SR 530/59TH ROUNDABOUT 10 10 10 10 0 0 20 0 20 COA INSTALL ROUNDABOUT AT 59TH AVE AND SR 530 PE PE 79 WSDOT 172nd and 63rd Ave Roundabout 0 250 WSDOT 250 WSDOT 0 0 500 500 COA Roundabout at intersection of 63rd and 172nd 250 UNFUNDED 250 UNFUNDED 80 WSDOT SR530/Burke Signalization (Proj #I-7)0 0 2,550 50 WSDOT 0 50 2,500 2,550 COA Installation of signal and improvements at SR9/SR530/Burke per 2011 SR9 Route Development Plan PE & CN 2,500 UNFUNDED 81 WSDOT SR530/SR9/Division Signal (Proj #I-6)0 0 1,050 50 WSDOT 2,625 75 WSDOT, PSRC/STP 125 3,550 3,675 COA Installation of improved signalization and channelization at SR530/SR9/Division intersection per 2011 PE & CN 1,000 UNFUNDED 2,550 UNFUNDED SR9 Route Development Plan 82 WSDOT SR-531 Widening Project (Proj #R-14A)2,450 2,450 WSDOT 5,450 5,450 WSDOT 15,750 15,750 WSDOT 16,000 250 15,750 WSDOT 250 39,400 39,650 COA Project to widen SR-531 (172nd Street) between 43rd Ave and 67th Ave. PE RW CN CN 83 WSDOT SR-531 Widening Phase 2 (Proj N/A)0 0 0 35,000 0 35,000 35,000 COA This project proposes to widen SR-531 from 67th Ave to SR-9. Other funding to be determined.ALL 35,000 UNFUNDED 84 WSDOT SR530/Broadway Intersection Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Installation of improved signalization and channelization at Burke and Broadway PE CN 85 COA 89th from 172nd to 186th Feasibility study 0 0 150 150 0 150 0 150 COUNTY Determine location and alignment for connector to the Arlington High School and Crown Ridge Blvd to 172nd PE CN DEV 86 WSDOT Freeway On/Off Ramp at 188th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Create on/off ramp to facility access to the SPB corridor, create alternative routes in / out of the city for traffic flow and safety.PE CN 87 WSDOT Portage Creek Trail crossing at HWY 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COA Trail crossing at HWY 9. Connects two segments of the Portage Creek Trail.PE CN 88 LID Smokey Point Local Improvement District 0 0 100 50 100 50 100 100 200 COA Create LID to improve areas of SPB, 169th, 40th, 172nd, 173rd PE 50 UNFUNDED CN 50 UNFUNDED May include Projects # 19, 27, 31, 40, and 45 89 LID SR 530 Corridor Study 50 WSDOT 150 WSDOT 0 200 200 COA Corridor study PE 50 UNFUNDED CN 150 UNFUNDED Page 8 2020 6yr TIP Project List (DRAFT 11-03-20) Adopted Resolution No. To be Determined CITY OF ARLINGTON 2021 - 2026 SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Thousands of Dollars) AG E N C Y PROJECT NAME AND DESCRIPTION 2021 OBLIG & PHASE*CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2022 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2023 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE 2024-2026 OBLIG & PHASE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS FUND SOURCE CITY FUNDS OTHER FUNDS SUMMARY 2,660 8,864 4,131 20,675 1,595 29,175 1,535 68,440 9,921 127,154 STATE, FEDERAL, OTHER AND UNFUNDED FUNDS: DEVELOPER DEVELOPER 2,660 2,190 DEVELOPER 4,131 4,770 DEVELOPER 1,595 2,450 DEVELOPER 1,535 250 DEVELOPER 9,921 9,660 DEVELOPER WSDOT WASH. ST. DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 2,450 WSDOT 5,450 WSDOT 15,750 WSDOT 15,750 WSDOT 39,400 WSDOT UNFUNDED CITY UNDETERMINED UNFUNDED 8,300 UNFUNDED 9,205 UNFUNDED 42,890 UNFUNDED 60,395 UNFUNDED COUNTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY 0 COUNTY COUNTY 0 COUNTY 0 COUNTY 0 COUNTY TBD TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 1,100 TBD 1,160 TBD 1,180 TBD 3,600 TBD 7,040 TBD AIR AIRPORT 0 AIR 300 AIR 0 AIR 0 AIR 300 AIR UTIL UTILITY FUNDS - WATER/SEWER/STORM 190 335 UTILITIES 0 UTILITIES 0 UTILITIES 525 UTILITIES TIB TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD 1,680 TIB 40 TIB 0 TIB 3,300 TIB 5,020 TIB PSRC PSRC 1,254 PSRC 320 PSRC 590 PSRC 2,650 PSRC 4,814 PSRC CMAQ CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ 0 CMAQ HSIP HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 HSIP 0 HSIP PED-BIKE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE 0 PED-BIKE SRTS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 SRTS 0 SRTS TIGER TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVER 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 BUILD 0 BUILD FMSIB FREIGHT MOBILITY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT BOARD 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB 0 FMSIB CDBG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 CDBG 0 CDBG DOC DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 DOC 0 DOC OTHER BOND OR LOAN 0 OTHER OTHER 0 OTHER 0 OTHER 0 OTHER 8,864 SUB TOT 20,675 SUB TOT 29,175 SUB TOT 68,440 SUB TOT 127,154 SUB TOT CITY FUNDS: ART-ST ARTERIAL STREET FUND GMA-ST GROWTH MANAGEMENT STREET FUND DEMAND PROJECTED GROWTH MANAGEMENT STREETS REVENUES TM TRAFFIC MITIGATION 4,131 UTIL WATER/SEWER/STORM FUNDS ANNUAL DEFICIT OR SURPLUS ESTIMATED CARRYOVER SURPLUS OR DEFICIT FROM PREVIOUS YEAR YEAR TO YEAR ESTIMATED ANNUAL SURPLUS OR DEFICIT 2,660 SUB TOT 4,131 SUB TOT 1,595 SUB TOT 1,535 SUB TOT 9,921 SUB TOT 11,524 TOTAL 24,806 TOTAL 30,770 TOTAL 69,975 TOTAL 137,075 GRAND TOT RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE OFFICIAL SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has the responsibility to plan for transportation improvements within the City pursuant to the Growth Management Act and RCW 36.70A.070; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed six year transportation improvement plan (TIP) at their City Council workshop on November 23, 2020, and at a public hearing conducted on December 7, 2020 and determined approving the six year TIP was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. That certain comprehensive Transportation Improvement Plan for the six years commencing July 1, 2021 as detailed in the attached “Exhibit A” is hereby adopted as the Official Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan for the City of Arlington. PASSED at a regular meeting of the City of Arlington, Washington held on the 7th day of December 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON _______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #3 Attachment C across property owned by the Arlington School District (district), and abuts First Street. Refer to attached map. The vacation process requires Council to refer the matter to Planning Commission, by to the City. This alley runs parallel with both French and Lenore Avenues and would be accessible from First Street, if ever opened. The alley is approximately 151 feet in length by 16 feet in width, and terminates at this point, as the remainder of the alley was vacated when the “A” building was constructed. No utilities currently exist in the alley, but an easement could be created within the RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF UNOPENED RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED WITHIN BLOCK 9 OF GIFFORDS FIRST ADDITION TO ARLINGTON WHEREAS, the City of Arlington has identified an unopened portion of public right of way (alley) located within Block 9 of Gifford’s First Addition to Arlington and wishes to initiate the vacation of said alley; and WHEREAS, it was identified that the Arlington School District constructed private storm drainage facilities within the alley; and WHEREAS, the School District is the sole ownership of property on both sides of the alley; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the alley is no longer necessary to the City’s operation; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington Washington do hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Council directs city staff to refer the above alley vacation to the planning commission for its review. 2. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the City Council, as required by RCW Chapter 35.79 and the Arlington Municipal Code sections 3.70.030 and 12.18.050 at the regular meeting of the City Council on the XX day of January, 2021 APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #4 Attachment DCOUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: Development agreement for NorthPoint Development, LLC ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Development Agreement, Legal Description of the Property, Depiction of the Property, Conceptual Site Plan, Economic Impact Analysis, and Policy Analysis DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: Proposed Development Agreement between the City and NorthPoint Development, LLC, related to the planned industrial development known as the Cascade Commerce Center, a 426 acre industrial park, of which 87 acres are within Arlington’s portion of the Cascade Industrial Center. NorthPoint Development, LLC wishes to enter vesting of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and permitting processes will not change within the terms established by this agreement, but only if the City receives a complete Binding Site Plan for the subject property by March Workshop; discussion only. At the December 7, 2020 Council meeting, the recommended motion, after the public hearing will be, “I move to approve the Development Agreement for NorthPoint Development, LLC, an Industrial Park project, known as the Cascade Commerce Center, and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.” Development Agreement - Page 1 of 15 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this ____ day of __________, 2020, by and between the City of Arlington (“City”), a Washington municipal corporation, and NorthPoint Development, LLC (“Owner”), a Missouri limited liability company. The City and Owner are referred to collectively as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Owner is a national industrial developer of more than 80 million square feet nationwide with interest in developing approximately 426 acres in the Cascade Industrial Center, which development shall be known as the Cascade Commerce Center; and B. WHEREAS, the Cascade Commerce Center will include development of properties in the cities of Arlington and Marysville which is legally described in Exhibit A (the “Property”) and shown in Exhibit B (the “Development Area”); and C. WHEREAS, approximately 87 acres of this 426 acre development will be in the City of Arlington; and D. WHEREAS, Owner expects to invest nearly four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) in this 426 acre industrial park over the next several years in its construction of approximately 4.156 million square feet of industrial space and approximately $14.7 million in public road, water and sewer improvements; and E. WHEREAS, Owner’s project will provide other public benefits to the City, including the creation of thousands of new jobs that improve the City’s jobs to housing balance and complete the realignment of Edgecomb Creek; and F. WHEREAS, a project of this magnitude will result in substantial short- and long- term economic benefits to the city and area taxing districts, including the Arlington School District, City of Arlington, Snohomish County Public Hospital District No. 3, Sno-Isle Library System, and Snohomish County, which estimated benefits are described further in Exhibit D (the “Economic Impact Analysis”); and G. WHEREAS, RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 authorizes cities to enter into development agreements with property owners to govern the future development of real property, and a development agreement between Owner and the City is a collaboration that will provide mutual benefit for the Parties and the citizens and businesses of Arlington; and H. WHEREAS, this Agreement is necessary to provide the Owner with confidence that its multi-year investment in the project will not be unreasonably delayed or burdened; and I. WHEREAS, the completion of the Project in accordance with this Agreement will implement city, county and regional employment goals and policies, including goals and policies Development Agreement - Page 2 of 15 of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea plan, which include but are not limited to: ____________________, as illustrated further in Exhibit E (the “Policy Analysis”); and J. WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the Parties intend to set forth common goals, mutual agreements and understandings as they relate to the development review process and ultimate development of the Property and the Project; and K. WHEREAS, by executing this Agreement, the Parties recognize that future amendments or separate Development Agreement(s) may be appropriate to further address development and mitigation. AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.210 and in consideration of, and subject to, the mutual promises, benefits, and obligations set forth herein, the City and Owner enter into the following Development Agreement and agree to be bound by its terms. 1. Land. The Property governed by this Agreement, exclusive of public right-of- way, consists of approximately eighty seven (87) acres located at 6600 172nd Street NE, Arlington, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A to this Agreement. The Property governed by this Agreement is depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement. 2. The Project. The Project is the proposed development of the Property with approximately 2.9 million square feet of Class A industrial manufacturing and warehouse space, together with associated parking, drainage, and utility infrastructure. The Project also includes a relocation of Edgecomb Creek, habitat enhancement, and a pedestrian trail. A copy of the project’s conceptual site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C (“Conceptual Site Plan”) 3. Vested Rights. 3.1 Vesting of Binding Site Plan to Development Standards. Except as expressly stated otherwise herein, any amendments to or additions to City development standards adopted by the City during the term of this Agreement shall not apply to or affect the conditions of development of the Project and construction of buildings provided that Owner files a complete binding site plan application by March 30, 2021. If a complete binding site plan is not filed by March 30, 2021, development of the Project shall be vested to and governed by the City of Arlington Municipal Code development standards and any policies adopted consistent therewith which are in effect at the time Owners file a complete binding site plan application for the Development Area, generally consistent with the Conceptual Site Plan. As used in this Agreement, the term “development standards” shall be as defined in RCW 36.70B.170, including development regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines addressing zoning, environmental review (including SEPA procedures and substantive SEPA policies), building and site design, utilities, stormwater, transportation concurrency and other laws, ordinance, policies, and administrative regulations and guidelines of the City governing land development. Development Agreement - Page 3 of 15 3.2 Traffic Impact Fees – Vesting. Traffic impact fees assessed to this project shall be based on the rate in effect at the time this Agreement is approved unless in accordance with Section 3.1 the Owner has filed a complete binding site plan application by March 30, 2021. 3.3 Exemptions. Except as specifically addressed in Sections 3.1, the following are exempt from vesting under this Agreement: 3.3.1 Plan review fees, inspection fees, and school and fire impact fees established by schedules, charts, tables, or formula; 3.3.2 Water, sewer, stormwater, and other utility connection charges, general facility charges, Capital Facility Charges, and monthly service charges; 3.3.3 Amendments to building, plumbing, mechanical, fire, and other construction codes adopted pursuant to RCW 19.27 and 19.27A until such time as building permit application(s) are submitted; and 3.3.4 Other City enactments that are adopted pursuant to state or federal mandates (such as, but not limited to, the City’s NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit) that preempt the City’s authority to vest regulations. 3.4 Changes to Application or Approved Binding Site Plan. The Parties recognize the Owner may change aspects of the Conceptual Plan to accommodate market demand or better situate the buildings within the Development Area. Changes to orientation of the building, including any consequent infrastructure changes, or changes to the size of any building in the Conceptual Plan shall not be deemed to vitiate the vested rights set forth in the terms of this Agreement. 3.5 Minor Amendments to the Binding Site Plan. A minor revision to an approved binding site plan application shall be an administrative decision which does not require a change to this Agreement provided the minor revision does not result in a change in the proposed type of development or use, increase the trip generation by greater than 10 percent, require a variance, or require the re-recording of the Binding Site Plan. 3.6 Future Amendments to Code. Owner may request to be bound by future amendments to the Arlington Zoning Code, the Arlington Municipal Code, or other standards, regulations, policies, or guidelines against which Owner is vested under this Agreement. The City’s Community and Economic Development Director may deny such request if the Director determines that compliance with the vested regulation is necessary to meet the City’s intent in approving this Development Agreement or to achieve a development of like quality and benefit to the City. If Owner disagrees with such denial, Owner may apply for an amendment of this Agreement as provided in Subsection 3.7 below. Development Agreement - Page 4 of 15 3.7 Amendments to Agreement. This Agreement may be amended administratively if no new land use not allowed under then-current regulations is proposed, no reduction in the amount of required open space is proposed, no increase in the total amount of square footage allowed by main level FAR or no more than a 25% increase in total square footage if located on multiple levels; no reduction in the infrastructure required by this Agreement is proposed; and the request does not involve a request to be bound by future code amendments that has been denied by the Planning Director as provided in Subsection 3.5. Any amendment not meeting the criteria of the preceding sentence must be approved by the Arlington City Council using the process for consideration of development agreements set forth in the AMC. 3.8 City’s Reserved Rights. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves authority to impose new or different officially adopted regulations of general applicability to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety, as determined by the Arlington City Council after written notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to Owner. 4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be eight (8) years, except as provided in this Section. The City and Owner may agree at any time after the extension of this Agreement to extend the term of this Agreement for a further five (5) years, provided that such extension is approved by the Arlington City Council,. 5. Access, Circulation, and Public Roads. As stated in Section 3.3 of the approved AMMIC Subarea Plan, the concepts of the framework plan were to be used to guide development over the short and long-term. However, the goal of the framework plan was not to establish inflexible locations of public roads. The City recognizes that the road layout within the Conceptual Site Plan is different from the road network shown in the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Subarea Plan; however, the City accepts that the construction of a roundabout at 63rd Ave., the construction of 59th Avenue NE to the city limits of Marysville and development of future internal private roads will achieve an equal level of service. Further, the Parties agree that the extension of 59th Avenue NE will be two travel lanes, a turn lane, an intersection to accommodate 168th St. NE, and no on-street parking, within the newly constructed portion. 6. Transportation Impact Fees and Credits. The City acknowledges that All road construction shall satisfy the requirements of the AMC Chapter 20.56 and other City ordinances, regulations and requirements of state law. Owner will be required to construct road improvements that may be eligible for credit towards payment of the City’s traffic impact fees in accordance with AMC 20.90.040(d) through (f), which at the time of this agreement states: (d) If, as a condition of approval of development activity, the city requires the dedication of land, or construction of system improvements, in excess of the minimum development standards set out in this title, the developer shall be eligible for a credit towards the transportation mitigation fees otherwise payable under this chapter. The amount of said credit shall be measured based on the pre-development fair market value of said land or Development Agreement - Page 5 of 15 improvements required in excess of the minimum standards and shall be deducted from the transportation mitigation fees charged under this chapter. (e) A trip-for-trip credit for existing trips may be given when a site is being expanded or undergoing a change in use. However, no credits for existing trips may be transferred from one site to another. (f) The city administrator or designee may adjust the amount of the impact fee otherwise imposed hereby with respect to specific projects requiring a building permit upon determining that: (1) Unusual circumstances requires such adjustment to ensure that such impact fees are imposed fairly; and (2) Studies and data submitted by the owner regarding the impacts of such owner's proposed development activity requires such adjustment to ensure that such impact fees are imposed fairly. Impact fees shall not be deemed unfair unless such unusual circumstances and studies and data support a finding that the impact fees otherwise imposed hereby allocate to the specific project in question a share of the cost of the systems improvements reasonably related to new development that is greater than or substantially less than such project's allocable proportionate share of such costs. 7. Oversized Water, Sewer and Stormwater – Credits. The City acknowledges that Owner may be eligible to receive credits for construction of oversized utilities as may be required by the City. 8. Cost Recovery (Latecomer) Agreements. The City agrees to cooperate with the Owner to timely review and act on Owner’s requests for cost recovery agreements in accordance with AMC Chapters 13.28 (Stormwater), 13.04 (water), and 13.08 (sewer) and RCW Chapter 35,91.. 9. Entitlement and Permitting. The City shall agree to timely review of requests for permits such as early clear and grading which may be necessary to achieve economies of scale for the volume of import fill material required for site development. 10. Building Heights Flexible. In accordance with AMC 20.39.010 and 20.39.020 building heights are a flexible development standard which the City may address through a development agreement as authorized in AMC 20.39.005. The City agrees to consider building heights above the maximum building height of 50 feet for the Light Industrial zone provided: a. the building height proposed complies with the applicable performance standards in AMC 20.38.080 for the Airport Protection Subdistrict; Development Agreement - Page 6 of 15 b. the Owner receives an approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after submission of an FAA Form7460-1 and completion of any required public comment period; c. the Owner executes an avigation easement as requested by the City of Arlington Airport Authority; and d. the public safety and interests are considered and appropriately protected as may be required. 11. Realignment of Edgecomb Creek. The City, in adopting the Arlington- Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center Subarea Plan, identified the realignment of Edgecomb Creek as critical improvement that would enhance fish and wildlife habitat, reduce flooding in the sub-basin, and integrate the stream with strategies for the management of stormwater as the industrial center is built-out. Further, the realignment project is necessary to maximize the economic benefit of industrial center development, including improvements to the City’s jobs to housing ratio. In recognition of the City’s Subarea Plan objectives, the City agrees to support Owner’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal and state permits prerequisite to local approvals that will be required to complete the realignment. 11.1 Edgecomb Creek Corridor. The City will accept a 215-foot-wide habitat corridor included in which will be the relocated Edgecomb Creek. 11.2 Ditch X Buffer Reduction. The City will work with Owner on the realignment of Ditch X and its connection to Edgecomb Creek. Recognizing the elevation change between Ditch X and Edgecomb Creek, the City will accept proposed reductions in the buffer down to 0 feet for Ditch X to allow for its alignment to connect with Edgecomb Creek. 12. Transfer of Ownership. The City has entered into this Agreement in reliance on the Owner’s experience, skill and resources. Nothing herein prevents NorthPoint or its capital partner, Northwestern Mutual, from transferring or assigning this project or a portion thereof, to entities controlled by either NorthPoint or Northwestern Mutual. However, should NorthPoint or Northwestern Mutual wish to sell or transfer their Ownership to a third party, the City reserves the right to inquire into the qualifications of the prospective assignee or transferee, and Owner shall assist the City in so inquiring. The City may request conditions on the sale or transfer of development rights governed by this agreement upon such terms and conditions as allowed under law, provided, however, any such terms and conditions so attached shall be related to the qualifications of the prospective assignee or transferee. In the event of transfer of ownership of all or any portion of the Property with the consent of the City, the benefits accruing to, and the obligations placed upon the Owner under this Agreement shall run with the land and title to the Property and inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, each person having any right or title or other legal interest in the Property with respect to that party’s interest in the Property. This Agreement shall be deemed to create privity of contract and estate with and among all persons and entities acquiring any interest in the Property subsequent to the date hereof. 13. Miscellaneous Provisions. Development Agreement - Page 7 of 15 13.1 Code Citations. All citations and references to the Arlington Zoning Code and Arlington Municipal Code in this Agreement shall refer to those provisions in force as of the Effective Date. 13.2 Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Recorder. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, their successors in interest and assigns. 13.3 Amendments. City and Owner agree that amendments to this Agreement are likely just prior to or after completion of the project level SEPA review or binding site plan approval. Major amendments to this Agreement shall require review and approval by the Arlington City Council. City staff shall be entitled to administratively approve minor amendments to this Agreement. A “Minor Amendment” is defined as an amendment that does not increase the density of the Project or significantly increase its adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 14. Specific Performance. During the Term of this Agreement as provided for in Section 5, above, the Parties specifically agree that damages may not be an adequate remedy for breach of this Agreement and that the Parties may be entitled to specific performance of all terms of this Agreement by any Party in default hereof. No party shall be in default under this Agreement unless it has failed to perform following written notice of default from the other party. Notice of default shall allow the defaulting party thirty (30) days to cure or commence cure where thirty (30) days is insufficient for a complete cure. Each notice of default shall specify the nature of the alleged fault and the manner in which the default may be cured satisfactorily. A party not in default under this Agreement shall have all rights and remedies provided by law or equity, including without limitation: issuance of a stop work order, injunction, damages, action for specific performance, or to require action consistent with this Agreement. Nothing herein will operate to prevent either party from taking legal action regarding noncompliance that threatens public health, safety or welfare prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day cure period following notice of default. No such action or preceding will operate to automatically terminate this Agreement, nor shall it release either party from any promise or obligation herein nor shall it release either party from any liability or obligation with respect to any breach of this Agreement occurring prior to the commencement of any legal action by a party. 15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, notwithstanding any conflicts of law provisions. 16. Notices. All notices and other communications required or otherwise provided for by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given to the following persons: CITY OF ARLINGTON NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT Attention: Attention: Marc Hayes Thane Smith 18204 59th Ave NE 4825 NW 41st ST, Suite 500 Arlington, WA 982223 Riverside, MO 64150 Development Agreement - Page 8 of 15 And to its Attorney: And to its Attorney: City of Arlington City Attorney Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, PLLC Attn: Steve Pieffle Attn: Duana Kolouskova 238 N. Olympic 11201 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Arlington, WA 98270 Bellevue, Washington The Parties may, from time-to-time, notify each other in writing of changes in the names and addresses of persons to receive notices and communications and such changes shall become effective upon receipt by the non-notifying Party. Notices shall be deemed received within three days after being placed in the United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, or upon personal delivery. 17. Full Understanding – Construction. The Parties each acknowledge, represent and agree that they have read this Agreement, that they fully understand the terms thereof; that they have had the opportunity to be fully advised by their legal counsel and any other advisors with respect thereto; and that they are executing this Agreement after sufficient review and understanding of its contents. 18. Attorney’s Fees. If either Party institutes litigation against the other Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to redress any breach thereof, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in such litigation. 19. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, sentences, clauses and phrases shall remain viable and in full force and effect. 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, with each Party sending a .pdf of its signature to the other Party via email transmission. This Agreement, when fully executed and signature pages exchanged as provided herein shall be effective as the original document. 21. Equal Opportunity to Participate in Drafting. The Parties have participated and had an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement. No ambiguity shall be construed against any Party based upon a claim that such Party drafted the ambiguous language. 22. Exhibits. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits: Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property Exhibit B: Depiction of the Property Exhibit C: Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit D: Economic Impact Analysis Exhibit E: Policy Analysis Development Agreement - Page 9 of 15 23. Future Agreements. Nothing herein shall restrict the City and the Owner from agreeing to amend this Agreement or enter in to one or more additional Agreements relating to this property provided that this Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements, discussions and representation on all subjects relating to the development of the Property. Neither Party is entering into this Agreement in reliance on any oral or written promises, inducements, representations, understandings, interpretations or agreements other than those contained in this Agreement and the exhibits hereto. 24. Effect of Expiration or Termination. Upon expiration as provided for in Section 4, all rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further effect. All development applied for after expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be required to satisfy any then applicable City codes, ordinances, regulations and requirements notwithstanding the issuance of any concurrency certificate during the effective period of this Agreement. All development applied for after the expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement shall be subject to SEPA review if not previously completed and may be conditioned to mitigate any environmental impacts of such development, notwithstanding any mitigation provided during the term of this Agreement and the City shall not be required to credit any mitigation provided during the term of this Agreement against any mitigation subsequently determined necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts of any development for which a permit is issued after expiration or sooner termination of this Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that the requirements of this Agreement shall apply only during its term and to any permits or approvals applied for during its term, and that once this Agreement has expired or is terminated, all rights created by the terms of this Agreement will have expired or terminated. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. NORTHPOINT DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARLINGTON By: By: Its: Barbara Tolbert Date: Its: Mayor Date: Attest: Wendy van Der Meersche, City Clerk Development Agreement - Page 10 of 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney Development Agreement - Page 11 of 15 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _____________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the _______________ of NorthPoint Development, a _______ limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: ____________________ Printed: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for Washington Residing at: My appointment expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that BARBARA TOLBERT is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the CITY OF ARLINGTON, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _______________________ Printed: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for Washington Residing at: My appointment expires: Development Agreement - Page 12 of 15 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Development Agreement - Page 13 of 15 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF THE PROPERTY Development Agreement - Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT C Development Agreement - Page 15 of 15 EXHIBIT D PARCEL A PARCEL B 31052700400300 31052700300100 31052700201000 31052700200900 31052700100100 31052700- 31052700-100200 100800 31052700100300 31052700100900 27 26 27 22 26 23 27 22 59TH AVE NE NO R T H E R N P A C I F I C RA I L R O A D 27 CITY OF ARLINGTON CITY OF MARYSVILLE www.LDCcorp.com 20210 142nd Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 F 425.482.2893T 425.806.1869 S ur v ey i n g E n g i neer i ng Pl a nn i n g Woodinville 1851 Central Pl S, #101 Kent, WA 98030 Kent NATURAL 9 HOLDINGS LLC EXHIBIT MAP AR L I N G T O N C I C 0 SCALE: 1" =1000' 1000'1000'2000' www.LDCcorp.com 20210 142nd Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 F 425.482.2893T 425.806.1869 S ur v ey i n g E n g i neer i ng Pl a nn i n g Woodinville 1851 Central Pl S, #101 Kent, WA 98030 Kent NATURAL 9 HOLDINGS LLC EXHIBIT MAP AR L I N G T O N C I C LEGAL DESCRIPTION GPM GPM GPM GPM 17 2 n d S T N E ST A T E R O U T E 5 3 1 51st AVE NE 15 2 n d S T N E LE V I N R O A D 59th AVE NE BUILDING 9 BU I L D I N G 1 BU I L D I N G 2 BU I L D I N G 6 BU I L D I N G 5 BU I L D I N G 4 BU I L D I N G 3 LO T 8 BU I L D I N G 8 BU I L D I N G 7 CASCADE INDUSTRIAL CENTER (ARLINGTON AND MARYSVILLE, WA)CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 2020.11.06 SCALE 1:600 N PUBLIC ROAD PU B L I C R O A D PU B L I C R O A D PUBLIC ROAD PUB L I C R O A D PU B L I C R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PRIV A T E R O A D PRIV A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROADPRIVATE ROAD PUBLIC ROAD PU B L I C R O A D PUBLIC ROAD PUBLIC ROAD TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 toyerstrategic.com August 3, 2020 Mr. Thane Smith Director of Development NorthPoint Development 12977 N. Outer 40 Road, Suite 203 St. Louis, MO 63141 RE: PRELIMINARY EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC IMPACT FORECAST Mr. Smith: You have asked our firm to conduct a preliminary employment and economic impact forecast for NorthPoint’s Cascade Commerce Center project to be located on approximately 426 acres in the cities of Arlington and Marysville, Washington. Based on conceptual site plans this project is expected to have approximately 4.1 million square feet of industrial warehouse1 space. FORECAST LIMITATIONS Specific tenants have not been identified for this project at this stage, but the project will clearly accommodate core industrial uses in accordance with the local subarea plan, zoning, etc. We caution that forecasting/modeling impacts at this early stage is not precise and any model should be refined as the project progresses and more information is available. However, despite these limitations the following can be relied upon for general guidance as to the potential employment and economic impacts that are likely to result from your development project. METHODOLOGY SUMMARIZED In additional to providing site location analysis, our firm has completed a preliminary analysis of the potential 2 employment and economic impacts attributable to the proposed industrial park within the CIC. STEP ONE: ESTABLISHING BASE EMPLOYMENT A. The first part is to establish the project’s likely employment density. Absent specific employment levels supplied by an end user, we review the employment densities reported in local studies (e.g. buildable lands reports, market analysis), as well as any employment data the developer has for tenants of like facilities in their portfolio. The following are some of the sources we consulted: King County Buildable Lands Report In analyzing employment and population trends, the 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report cites employment density (employees per square feet) figures from 2012. These range from 1 employee per 250 square feet in Kirkland up to 1 employee per 1,000 square feet for Burien with a total average of 1 employee per 637 square feet. More specifically, Kent and Renton (which have diverse industrial bases of warehousing, storage, and manufacturing) saw overall industrial employment densities of 1 employee per 766 and 700 square feet, respectively. Snohomish County Employment Density Study Snohomish County’s study from April 2007 (which supported their buildable lands assumptions in 2012) determined that manufacturing generates 1 employee per 500 square feet; services generate 1 employee per 400 square feet; and wholesale, transportation and utilities (including warehousing) generated 1 employee per 1,000 square feet. The Snohomish County 1 “Industrial warehouse” space is not limited to warehousing uses. This term is generally used to describe a range of industrial buildings that have open floor plans and high ceilings, and which can accommodate manufacturers, technology firms, wholesalers, distributors, research facilities, etc. 2 Specific tenants are currently unknown. This analysis is limited to a preliminary forecast that relies upon assumptions which are highly likely to change over time. PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NORTHPOINT CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 2 of 3 study further reviews the employment densities used by other jurisdictions (pages 10-14), identifying employment densities that range from around 300 square feet per employee to roughly 2,000 square feet per employee. Rally the Valley The City of Kent recently finalized its Rally the Valley subarea planning. Based on research conducted for that effort, average employment densities in Kent’s large industrial area were reported as: Manufacturing/Flex Tech: 1 employee per 430 square feet Warehousing/Wholesale/Distribution: 1 employee per 2,070 square feet Thurston County 2014 Buildable Lands Report As part of Table 4-4 on page 68, the Thurston Regional Planning Council determined that generalized employment ratios per square feet in Thurston County in 2010 indicated that industrial development generated 1.5 employees per 1,000 square feet (excluding large distribution centers). Additionally, Table 4-6 on page 70 highlights development trends from recent construction during 2000-2009 show industrial development having a generalized employment rate of 1.5 employees per 1,000 square feet (excluding large distribution centers) or approximately 1 employee per 667 square feet. Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan This subarea plan indicates that the approximately 1,762 acres within the CIC have development capacity for additional employment. Further the study indicates that the CIC subarea’s growth target can be reached provide employment densities range from 5 to 14 jobs per acre. Based on an identified employment capacity of 24,800 to 32,700, we presume that these densities are per gross acre. B. A mix of industries anticipated to locate in the development was identified based on local plans (like the Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan), the targeted industries of local economic development groups, existing industries in the area, and other market factors. This selection process included making assumptions about the likely distribution of this mix of industries based on the proposed building sizes, conceptual building designs, industry characteristics, current and forecasted market demands, and proprietary information. C. Three scenarios were modeled (low, medium, and high) using a mix of core industry business types that may locate in this project. For each we conservatively applied a range of employment densities from 1 employee per 600 square feet to 1 employee per 2,000 square feet depending on each industry type. D. These scenarios resulted in the following forecast employment: Low Medium High Forecasted Jobs Jobs/Bldg Square Foot Jobs/Gross Acre STEP TWO: APPLYING MULTIPLIERS TO MODEL A. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) RIMS II Multipliers 3 for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue MSA against the forecast employment to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced employment4 resulting from the final demand change. B. Multipliers are also applied to forecast additional final demand changes, including economic output, value-add (local GDP), and earnings (e.g. wages, salaries, proprietor’s income). These figures are shown in 2018 dollars. 3 This is the 2012 benchmark input-output (I/O) national table with 2018 regional data 4 Multipliers do not distinguish between full-time and part-time jobs PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NORTHPOINT CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 3 of 3 FORECASTED ECONOMIC IMPACT 3,118 3,980 4,857 2,260 2,891 3,529 (in millions)$522M $698M $910M (in millions)$376M $500M $650M (in millions)$128M $169M $219M CONCLUSION We trust this information will be helpful. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. DAVID TOYER PRESIDENT 5 Also known as direct, indirect, and induced jobs TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. 3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1 EVERETT, WA 98201 toyerstrategic.com September 14, 2020 Mr. Thane Smith Director of Development NorthPoint Development 12977 N. Outer 40 Road, Suite 203 St. Louis, MO 63141 PROPERTY TAX ANAYLSIS FOR CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Mr. Smith: As a follow up to our “Preliminary Employment and Economic Impact Forecast” for NorthPoint’s 426-acre Cascade Commerce Center, you have asked our firm to provide a “Property Tax Analysis” for all applicable taxing districts. As shown in the spreadsheet below, this analysis identified a potential annual property tax benefit of more than $5 million to the applicable taxing districts. A more detailed breakdown by each Tax Code Area (TCA) is attached along with a map. Local Government Sub-Total 924,076.38$ Schools Sub-Total 2,849,436.51$ Public Safety Sub-Total 996,808.23$ Library Sub-Total 217,684.21$ Conservation Sub-Total 13,798.96$ TOTAL 5,001,804.30$ PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 2 of 5 Please note that our Property Tax Analysis is limited by the following: 1. The levy rates used are those provided by the Snohomish County Assessor for Tax Year 2020, as future tax levy rates can not be predicted at this time 2. The project’s size results in buildings spread across three “tax code areas” necessitating each tax code area be analyzed separately before total projections by taxing district can be determined 3. The projected taxable valuation of each building is based on an average valuation of $119/square foot for the building shells and land, which number does not reflect taxable personal property at full occupancy 4. The projection assumes does not predict any property tax exemptions under RCW 84.25 as it is not known at this time which buildings (or portions thereof) will be occupied by qualifying firms 5. This analysis is limited to a view of what the total property taxes would be on this project in 2020 if all 9 shell buildings were constructed We trust this information is helpful to your company and the respective taxing districts affected by this project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC. DAVID TOYER PRESIDENT CC: Mayor Barb Tolbert, City of Arlington Mayor Jon Nehring, City of Marysville Gloria Hirashima, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Marysville Paul Ellis, City Administrator, City of Arlington Marc Hayes, Community & Economic Development Director, City of Arlington Jeff Thomas, Community Development Director, City of Marysville Executive Dave Somers, Snohomish County Councilman Nate Nehring, Snohomish County District 1 Terrie Battuello, Port of Everett Matt Smith, Economic Alliance of Snohomish County PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 3 of 5 TAX C O D E A R E A 1 1 0 (AR L I N G T O N ) Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Bo n d s Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t En r i c h m e n t Ci t y o f A r l i n g t o n Ar l i n g t o n E M S P e r m a n e n t Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Sn o - I s l e L i b r a r y S y s t e m Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y - C N T Co u n t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Fu t u r e s St a t e S c h o o l 1 St a t e S c h o o l 2 Es t i m a t e d T o t a l R e a l Pr o p e r t y T a x 2020 Tax Levy Mil Rate Per $1000 1.039014907 1.503458348 1.428339642 0.338152539 0.478412969 0.268729408 0.441109017 0.637493757 0.027961822 1.864150739 1.003521812 9.03034496131 148,988,000$ 154,800.75$ 223,997.25$ 212,805.47$ 50,380.67$ 71,277.79$ 40,037.46$ 65,719.95$ 94,978.92$ 4,165.98$ 277,736.09$ 149,512.71$ 1,345,413.04$ Building 6 656,000 Building 7 596,000 Total 1,252,000 Est Taxable Value 148,988,000.00$ $119/sf TAX C O D E A R E A 5 1 1 Ma r y s v i l l e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Bo n d s Ma r y s v i l l e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Ca p i t a l P r o j e c t s Ma r y s v i l l e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t En r i c h m e n t Ci t y o f M a r y s v i l l e Ma r y s v i l l e R e g i o n a l F i r e Ma r y s v i l l e E M S P e r m a n e n t Sn o - I s l e L i b r a r y S y s t e m Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y - C N T Co u n t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Fu t u r e s St a t e S c h o o l 1 St a t e S c h o o l 2 Es t i m a t e d T o t a l R e a l Pr o p e r t y T a x 2020 Tax Levy Mil Rate Per $1000 0.834740635 0.633980229 2.50000000 1.151426554 1.4500000 0.50000000 0.441109017 0.637493757 0.027961822 1.864150739 1.003521812 11.04438456560 125,902,000$ 105,095.52$ 79,819.38$ 314,755.00$ 144,966.91$ 182,557.90$ 62,951.00$ 55,536.51$ 80,261.74$ 3,520.45$ 234,700.31$ 126,345.40$ 1,390,510.11$ Building 8 626,000 Building 9 432,000 Total 1,058,000 Est Taxable Value 125,902,000.00$ $119/sf PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 4 of 5 TAX C O D E A R E A 5 0 8 Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Bo n d s Ar l i n g t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t En r i c h m e n t Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Pu b l i c H o s p i t a l D i s t r i c t # 3 Ci t y o f M a r y s v i l l e Ma r y s v i l l e R e g i o n a l F i r e Ma r y s v i l l e E M S P e r m a n e n t Sn o - I s l e L i b r a r y S y s t e m Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y - C N T Co u n t y C o n s e r v a t i o n Fu t u r e s St a t e S c h o o l 1 St a t e S c h o o l 2 Es t i m a t e d T o t a l R e a l Pr o p e r t y T a x SCH016ARL SCH016ARL HSP003CAS HSP003CAS CTYMAR RFAMAR CTYMAR LIBSNO CNT CNT STASCH STASCH 2020 Tax Levy Mil Rate Per $1000 1.039014907 1.503458348 0.478412969 0.26872941 1.151426554 1.4500000 0.50000000 0.441109017 0.637493757 0.027961822 1.864150739 1.003521812 10.36527933394 218,603,000$ 227,131.78$ 328,660.51$ 104,582.51$ 58,745.05$ 251,705.30$ 316,974.35$ 109,301.50$ 96,427.75$ 139,358.05$ 6,112.54$ 407,508.94$ 219,372.88$ 2,265,881.16$ Building 1 243,000 Building 2 289,000 Building 3 952,000 Building 4 137,000 Building 5 216,000 Total 1,837,000 Est Taxable Value 218,603,000.00$ $119/sf PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS CASCADE COMMERCE CENTER Page 5 of 5 POLICY ANALYSIS RCW 36.70A – GMA Goals (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. The Development Agreement furthers goals 1, 2, 5, 7 and 11 of the GMA. Specifically, it encourages economic development within an urban area and regionally designated manufacturing industrial center, including a focus on expanding and recruiting businesses and positioning the City to improve its jobs to housing balance. The Agreement further creates the predicable conditions required to support attracting economic development opportunities, processing site-specific development permits in a timely manner, and providing citizens with certainty as to the type of development that would occur on this site. Vision 2040 – Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) VISION 2040 continues to emphasize the important role of centers and compact urban communities in accommodating future population and employment. VISION 2040 envisions a future where 1: • The overall natural environment is restored, protected, and sustained. • Population and employment growth is focused within the designated urban growth area. • Within the urban growth area, growth is focused in cities. • Within cities, centers serve as concentrations of jobs, housing, and other activities. • A better balance of job locations and housing is achieved, facilitated, and supported by incentives and investments. • Rural development is minimized. • Resource lands are permanently protected, supporting the continued viability of resource-based industries, such as forestry and agriculture. • Existing infrastructure and new investments are used more efficiently and effectively, and are prioritized for areas that are planning for and accommodating growth. • Meaningful steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions and minimize the region’s contribution to climate change Vision 2040 also addresses manufacturing/industrial centers as follows: 1 From pages 13 and 14, Vision 2040, Regional Growth Strategy Manufacturing/Industrial Centers 2. The region also contains a number of manufacturing/industrial centers. These are existing employment areas with intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/industrial centers are intended to continue to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment. Manufacturing/industrial centers have a different urban form and purpose than regional growth centers. They can be characterized as areas of large contiguous blocks served by the region’s major transportation infrastructure, including roads, rail, and port facilities. These centers have generally developed an urban form suitable for outdoor storage and facilities, with large spaces for the assembly of goods. They do not typically contain residential uses. Protecting these centers from incompatible uses, as well as providing them with adequate public facilities and services, requires deliberate and careful planning. Good access to the region’s transportation system, in particular, will contribute to their continued success. Regional Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Goal and Policies 3 Goal: The region will continue to maintain and support viable regional manufacturing/industrial centers to accommodate manufacturing, industrial, or advanced technology uses. MPP-DP-8: Focus a significant share of employment growth in designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers. The Development Agreement helps the City carry out the regional vision for these designated areas to accommodate significant regional employment growth, improve jobs-to-housing ratios region-wide, and protect industrial areas (short and long-term) from incompatible future land uses. Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) DP-7 City and County comprehensive plans should locate employment areas and living areas in close proximity in order to maximize transportation choices and minimize vehicle miles traveled and to optimize use of existing and planned transportation systems and capital facilities. DP-37 The County and cities should conserve designated industrial land for future industries and related jobs by: a. Protect it from encroachment by incompatible uses and development on adjacent land; b. Discouraging non-industrial uses on it unless such uses support and enhance existing industrial land uses; and c. Discouraging conversion of it to other land use designations unless it can be demonstrated that a specific site is not suitable for industrial uses. ED-6 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MICs) designated through the process in ED-5 shall be located in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). MICs should have clearly defined geographic boundaries and develop in accordance with the general guidelines established in the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Specifically, an MIC should meet the following criteria, it: a. Consists of major, existing regional employment areas of intensive, concentrated manufacturing, industrial and high technology land uses, including – but not limit to – aviation facilities and services; b. Provides capacity and planning for a minimum of 20,000 jobs; c. Is located outside other designated centers but in a UGA; d. Includes land uses that cannot easily be mixed at higher densities with other uses; e. Is supported by adequate public facilities and service, including good access to the regional transportation system; and f. Discourages retail and office uses unless they are supportive of the preferred uses in (a). ED-8 Jurisdictions are encouraged to work with businesses and organizations to develop economic 2 Pages 14 and 15, Vision 2040, Regional Growth Strategy 3 Page 49, Vision 2040, Development Patterns development plan elements and analyze the land use designations, infrastructure and services needed by business uses. ED-12 The County and cities should coordinate economic plans with transportation, housing, and land use policies that support economic development and predictability for future growth. ED-13 Jurisdictions should recognize, where appropriate, the growth and development needs of businesses of local, regional or statewide significance and ensure that local plans and regulations provide opportunity for the growth and continued success of such businesses. ED-16 In their comprehensive plans, the cities of Arlington and Marysville identify an industrial center spanning those two cities as a candidate for regional designation as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). The proposed MIC is entirely within the urban growth area and predominantly within the city limits of Arlington and Marysville. Based on the recommendation of Snohomish County Tomorrow, developed through a collaborative and paricipatory process, the County identifies the proposed Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center as a candidate for regional designation as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The Development Agreement furthers and is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies as it encourages projects within the designated industrial and manufacturing jobs center, which area is envisioned to be a primary employment center in the County. The Agreement encourages manufacturing and industrial development near major transportation corridors, promotes a higher jobs to housing ratio, and recognizes of the area’s ability to support employment growth. Arlington Comprehensive Plan Goals & Policies PL-12.1 Industrial land uses should be located in the vicinity of Arlington Airport in order to take advantage of existing and anticipated transportation systems. PL-12.6 The City should support the development and growth of the Arlington-Marysville AMMIC by supporting a concentrated manufacturing and industrial base and by planning for future growth and infrastructure improvements. GE-1 Promote a strong, diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy, while respecting the natural environment and preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the City. PE-1.2 The City should maintain a favorable business climate through consistent implementation of City regulations, a streamlined permit process, excellent customer service, and through other available means and mechanisms. PE-1.5 The City should work to attract living wage job providers to locate in Arlington. GE-2 Provide an adequate job-producing land base to ensure an adequate number of jobs for citizens within the community and to aid the community in paying for infrastructure and services. PE-2.2 The City should strive to maintain a high jobs to housing ratio. PE-2.3 The City should identify sectors of the economy within Arlington where opportunity might exist to create additional jobs and identify potential strategies for attracting employment. In particular, provide a supportive business environment for start-up, light manufacturing and assembly businesses in the airport/industrial area. PE-8.1 The City should work to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support existing industrial/manufacturing uses and protect the AMMIC area from encroachment by incompatible uses in order to attract new manufacturing and industrial businesses. PE-8.2 The City should develop policies and regulations that are coordinated with economic development strategies to encourage growth and sustain manufacturing and industrial businesses within the AMMIC. The Development Agreement helps to implement comprehensive plan goals and policies for industrial development, build-out of the AMMIC subarea, and a high ratio of jobs to housing. Arlington-Marysville MIC Subarea Plan Goals & Policies AMMIC-LU-1.6: Attract employment densities sufficient to accommodate the 20-year growth projection of 20,000 jobs by 2040. This proposal is consistent with and furthers the AMMIC subarea’s goals and policies, especially those listed above. City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #5 Attachment E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Capital Facilities Plan DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Arlington School District is requesting that the City approve for inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan, the Districts 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan. School Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact As part of this adoption cycle, the School District requested that the City adopt the plan as a part of the City’s budget adoption process, as allowed by RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) (iv), to align with the processes used by both Snohomish County and City of Marysville. Planning Commission voted at a regular meeting on November 17, 2020 to unanimously approve recommendation of the plan to City Workshop; discussion only. At the December 7, 2020 Council meeting, the recommended motion, following the public hearing will be; “I move to adopt the Arlington School District 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” ORDINANCE NO. 2020-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE ARLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens as a way of controlling the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Arlington School District, in accordance with the GMA, has proposed amendments to its Capital Facilities Plan to accommodate projected student enrollment, to include a schedule and a financing program for capital improvements over the next 6 years (2020- 2025); and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered these amendments at their August 4, 2020 workshop and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the City’s Biennial Budget process, per RCW 36.70A130 (2)(a)(iv), was a proposed update to the Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same, along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their workshop meeting November 23, 2020, and held an open record public hearing on December 7, 2020 and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and finds the same to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Amended. The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to include the version of the “Arlington School District Capital Facilities Plan 2020 - 2025” approved by the Arlington School District on August 10, 2020 as part of the Capital Facilities Element (CF) of the Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-XXX 2 PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 JUNE 2020 Draft Adopted: ____________, 2020 ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Judy Fay, Vice President Mary Levesque Michael Ray Marc Rosson Jim Weiss, President SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Chrys Sweeting For information regarding the Arlington Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan, contact the Office of the Superintendent, District Administration Office, 315 N. French Street, Arlington, WA 98223. Telephone: (360) 618-6200; Fax: (360) 618-6221. Approved by the Board of Directors on ___________, 2020 1 Table of Contents Page Section 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................2 Section 2. District Educational Program Standards ..................................................................6 Section 3. Capital Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................9 Section 4. Student Enrollment Projections .............................................................................12 Section 5. Capital Facilities Needs .........................................................................................14 Section 6. Capital Facility Financing Plan ..............................................................................16 Section 7. School Impact Fees ................................................................................................19 Appendix A ……………………………………………...……..Population and Enrollment Data Appendix B ……………………………………………...……………Student Generation Rates Appendix C ……………………………………………...……………..Impact Fee Calculations 2 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan The Washington State Growth Management Act (the “GMA”) includes schools in the category of public facilities and services. School districts have adopted capital facilities plans to satisfy the requirements of the GMA and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in their districts. Arlington Public Schools (the “District”) has prepared this Capital Facilit ies Plan (the “CFP”) to provide Snohomish County (the “County”) and the City of Arlington (the “City”) with a schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2020-2025). In accordance with the Growth Management Act, the Snohomish County Ordinance Nos. 97-095 and 99-107, this CFP contains the following required elements: Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle, and high schools). An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, s howing the locations and capacities of the facilities. A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites. The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities, which clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. The financing plan separates projects and portions of projects which add capacity from those which do not, since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding. A calculation of impact fees to be assessed and support data substantiating said fees. In developing this CFP, the District followed the following guidelines set forth in the S nohomish County General Policy Plan: District should use information from recognized sources, such as the U.S. Census or the Puget Sound Regional Council. School districts may generate their own data if it is derived through statistically reliable methodologies. The information must not be inconsistent with Office of Financial Management (“OFM”) population forecasts. Student generation rates must be independently calculated by each school district. The CFP must comply with the GMA. The methodology used to calculate impact fees must comply with the GMA. In the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, county or cities within the District, the District in a future CFP update must identify alternative funding sources to replace the intended impact fee funding. The methodology used to calculate impact fees complies with the criteria and the formulas established by the County and the City. 3 Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions in Snohomish County to “ensure the availability of sufficient land and services for future K-20 school needs.” Policy ED- 11. The District appreciates any opportunity for cooperative planning efforts with its jurisdictions. B. Overview of Arlington Public Schools Two-hundred square miles in area, the District encompasses the City of Arlington and portions of unincorporated Snohomish County. The District is bordered by the Conway, Darrington, Granite Falls, Lakewood, Marysville, Sedro-Woolley, and Stanwood-Camano School Districts. The District serves a student population of 5,581 (October 1, 2019 FTE enrollment) with four elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), one high school (grades 9-12), one alternative high school (grades 9-12), and one support facility for home schooled children (grades K-12). For the purposes of facility planning, this CFP considers grades K-5 as elementary, grades 6-8 as middle school, and grades 9-12 as high school. For purposes of this CFP, neither enrollment in the Stillaguamish Valley School (a home school support facility serving grades K-12) nor enrollment in the alternative high school (Weston) are included. The District has experienced moderate growth in recent years after a period of declining student population. For a period of years (2012-2015) the District, due to the declining student population, did not prepare an updated Capital Facilities Plan. The District prepared a CFP in 2016 in anticipation of potential growth, enrollment increases, and future capacity needs. Growth has been steady in the District since 2016 and is projected to continue to increase at all grade levels over the six year planning period. This 2020 update builds on the 2018 CFP and identifies growth-related projects at the middle and high school levels, and future planning for new capacity at the elementary level. 4 FIGURE 1 MAP OF FACILITIES 5 6 SECTION 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements, and use of relocatable classrooms (portables). In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements, government mandates, and community expectations also affect classroom space requirements. Traditional educational programs are often supplemented by programs such as special education, bilingual education, preschool and daycare programs, computer labs, and music programs. These programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity of school facilities. A. Districtwide Educational Program Standards Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to: APPLE (formerly named ECEAP); Elementary program for handicapped students; and Enhanced Learning Program/Highly Capable; and English Language Learner Program (Eagle Creek Elementary). District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of various external or internal changes. External changes may include mandates or needs for special programs, or use of technology. Internal changes may include modifications to the program year, class sizes, and grade span configurations. Changes in physical aspects of the school facilities could also affect educational program standards. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates of this CFP. The District educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined below for the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Each grade span has a targeted level of service (LOS) which is expressed as a “not to exceed” number. The minimum LOS for each grade span is expressed as “maximum average class size”. This figure is used to determine when another class is added. When this average is exceeded, the District will add additional classes if space is available. Only academic classes are used to compute the maximum average class size. The District has fully implemented full-day kindergarten in and reduced K-3 class size requirements. 7 B. Educational Program Standards for Elementary Schools Class size for Kindergarten and grades 1-3 is targeted not to exceed 21 students, with a maximum average class size of 21 students; Class size for grade 4 is targeted not to exceed 25 students, with a maximum average class size of 27 students; Class size for grade 5 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average class size of 29 students; Special Education for some students is provided in a self-contained classroom; Music instruction will be provided in a separate classroom (when available); and All elementary schools currently have a room dedicated as a computer lab, or have access to mobile carts with laptop computers for classroom use. C. Educational Program Standards for Middle and High Schools Class size for grade 6 is targeted not to exceed 27 students, with a maximum average class size of 29 students Class size for middle school grades 7-8 is targeted not to exceed 29 students, with a maximum average class size of 31 students; Class size for high school grades 9-12 is targeted not to exceed 30 students, with a maximum average class size of 32 students; It is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day. Therefore, high school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor in the range of 90% to 96% (based on a regular school day). Middle school classroom capacity has been adjusted using a utilization factor of 85%; Special Education for some students will be provided in a self-contained classroom; and Identified students will also be provided other programs in classrooms designated as follows: 1. Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms). 2. Learning Support Centers. 3. Program Specific Classrooms (i.e., music, drama, art, home and family education). D. Minimum Educational Service Standards The District will evaluate student housing levels based on the District as a whole system and not on a school by school or site by site basis. This may result in portable classrooms being used as interim housing, attendance boundary changes or other program changes to balance student housing across the system as a whole, while meeting the District’s paramount duties under the State Constitution. A boundary change or a significant programmatic change would be made by the District’s Board of Directors following appropriate public review and comment. The District 8 may also request that development be deferred until planned facilities can be completed to meet the needs of the incoming population; however, the District has no control over the ultimate land use decisions made by the permitting jurisdictions. The District’s intent is to adhere to the target facility service standards noted above without making significant changes in program delivery. At a minimum, average class size in the grade K -8 classrooms will not exceed 26 students and average class size in 9-12 classrooms will not exceed 32 students. For purposes of this determination, the term “classroom” does not include special education classrooms or special program classrooms (i.e. computer labs, art rooms, chorus and band rooms, spaces used for physical education, and other special program areas). Furthermore, the term “classroom” does not apply to special programs or activities that may occur in a regular classroom or to classes held in assembly halls, gyms, cafeterias, or other common areas. The minimum educational service standards are not the District’s desired or accepted operating standard. For the school years of 2017-18 and 2018-19, the District’s compliance with the minimum level of service was as follows 2017-18 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 21.7 26 19.4 32 32.5 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations. 2018-19 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 22.0 26 20.1 32 32.9 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations. Portables are not included in this analysis. 9 SECTION 3 CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools, relocatable classrooms, undeveloped land, and support facilities. School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program standards. See Section 2. A map showing locations of District facilities is provided as Figure 1. A. Schools The District maintains four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, an alternative high school, and the Stillaguamish Valley School (a Home- School Support center). Elementary schools currently accommodate grades K-5, the middle schools serve grades 6-8, and the high school and alternative high school provide for grades 9-12. The Stillaguamish Valley School serves grades K-12. School capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building and the space requirements of the District’s adopted educational program. It is this capacity calculation that is used to establish the District’s baseline capacity, and to determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The Stillaguamish Valley School and Weston High School are housed in separate District-owned facilities and are not included in this CFP for the purposes of measuring capacity or projecting enrollment. Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities were not included in the school capacity calculations provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 Elementary School Inventory Elementary School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Eagle Creek 23.70 57,362 28 630 1989 Kent Prairie 10.10 57,362 28 630 1993 Presidents 12.40 60,977 31 680 2004 Pioneer 20.60 61,530 25 562 2002 TOTAL 66.62 237,231 112 2,502 10 Table 2 Middle School Inventory Middle School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations* Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Post Middle 24.60 76,323 36 757 1993 Haller Middle 25.46 86,002 31 612 2006 TOTAL 50.06 162,325 67 1,369 *Includes a total of six special education classrooms between both schools. Table 3 High School Inventory High School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Arlington High 54.00 256,181 53 1,780 2003 B. Relocatable Classrooms Relocatable classrooms are used on an interim basis to house students until funding can be secured to construct permanent classrooms. The District currently uses eleven relocatable classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity (an additional 10 relocatables are located at Stillaguamish Valley School). A typical relocatable classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students. The District’s relocatable classrooms have adequate useful remaining life and are evaluated regularly. Current use for the 2020-19 school year of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory Elementary School Relocatables Interim Capacity Eagle Creek 2 58 Kent Prairie 4 84 Presidents 2 58 Middle School Relocatables Interim Capacity Post Middle 4 113 High School Relocatables Interim Capacity Arlington High 1 32 TOTAL 13 345 11 C. Support Facilities In addition to schools, the District owns and operates additional facilities, which provide operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in Table 5. Table 5 Support Facility Inventory Facility Building Area (Square Feet) Site Location Administration and Special Programs 21,402 Roosevelt Building, Presidents Transportation 41,550 Leased Support Services 70,991 Old HS “A” Bldg D. Land Inventory & Other Facilities The District owns the following undeveloped sites: A 167-acre site (“Hwy 530 Site”) located 1.5 miles from the city limits of Arlington adjacent to SR 530. The property is outside of the Urban Growth Area boundary and not serviced by municipal utilities. The District is currently negotiating a sale of this property. Seven sites ranging from 25 to 160 acres that are managed as forest land by a forestland manager and generally topographically unsuitable for school site development. An additional 58.9 acres at the Post Middle School site of farmland located in a floodplain and therefore unsuitable for development. The District owns the “A” Building on the former high school campus. The “A” Building has been taken out of educational use and is no longer eligible (by OSPI) for use as for cl assroom space. The Stillaguamish Valley School, which supports home-schooled students, is located on the Eagle Creek Elementary site. This facility consists of 10 portable classrooms and is not considered part of the District’s permanent facility capacity. Additionally, the District leases a 33,000 square foot building on a 10 acre site near the Arlington Airport. This remodeled building houses the (alternative) Weston High School. Since this site houses only alternative educational programs, the building’s capacity is not included as part of the District’s eligible facility inventory1. 1 Students enrolled in these alternative programs are not included in enrollment numbers for the purposes of this CFP update. 12 SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS A. Projected Student Enrollment 2020-2025 Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period. In the past, the District has used the methodology from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to determine enrollment projections. The cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students who will be attending school the following year. It uses a weighted average of the most recent years to project enrollment. The District has adjusted the OSPI projections to reflect the District’s full-time equivalent enrollment (reduction of students enrolled but not housed in District facilities). Based on this methodology, a total of 828 FTE students are expected to be added to the District by 2025 - an increase of 14.8% over 2019 enrollment levels. OFM population-based enrollment projections were estimated for the District using OFM population forecasts as adopted by Snohomish County. Between 2014 and 2019, the District’s enrollment constituted 17.2% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2020 and 2025 the District’s enrollment will constitute 17.2% of the District's total population and using OFM/County data, a total enrollment of 6,159 FTE is projected in 2025. See Appendix A. Table 6 Projected Student Enrollment 2025-2025 * Actual October 2019 FTE enrollment The District uses the adjusted OSPI cohort survival projections for purposes of predicting enrollment during the six years of this Plan. The District will monitor actual enrollment over the next two years and, if necessary, make appropriate adjustments in the next Plan update. Change % Change Projection 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 19-25 19-25 District/OSPI 5,581 5,690 5,843 5,972 6,083 6,279 6,409 828 14.8% OFM/County 5,581 5,677 5,773 5,869 5,965 6,061 6,159 578 10.4% 13 B. 2035 Enrollment Projections Student enrollment projections beyond 2025 are highly speculative. Based on OFM/County data for 2025 and an estimated student-to-population ratio of 17.2%, 6,800 FTE students are projected for 2035. The total enrollment estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term site acquisition needs for elementary, middle, and high school facilities. Enrollment by grade span was determined based on recent and projected enrollment trends at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels. Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 20352 is provided in Table 7. Again, these estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes. Table 7 Projected Student Enrollment (Ratio Method – OFM/County) 2035 Grade Span Projected Enrollment Elementary (K-5) 3,060 Middle School (6-8) 1,632 High School (9-12) 2,108 TOTAL (K-12) 6,800 2 Snohomish County Planning & Development Services provided the underlying data for the 2035 projections. 14 SECTION 5 CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student enrollment from existing school capacity (excluding relocatable classrooms) for each of the six years in the forecast period (2020-2025). Capacity needs are expressed in terms of “unhoused students.” Note that the identified capacity needs do not include growth-related capacity needs from recent development. Table 8A below shows future capacity needs assuming no new construction during the planning period. Table 8A Future Capacity Needs Grade Span 2025 Projected Unhoused Students - Total 2025 Projected Unhoused Students – Growth Post- 2019 Elementary (K-5) 533 517 Middle School (6-8) 136 136 High School (9-12) 89 89 TOTAL (K-12) 758 742 Projected student capacity is depicted on Table 8B. This is derived by applying the projected number of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements (if any) by the District through 2025 are included in Table 8B. It is not the District’s policy to include relocatable classrooms when determining future capital facility needs; therefore interim capacity provided by relocatable classrooms (including additions and adjustments) is not included. Information on relocatable classrooms and interim capacity can be found in Table 4. Information on planned construction projects can be found in Section 6 and the Financing Plan, Table 9. 15 Table 8B Projected Student Capacity 2020 - 2025 Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency Elementary 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 Added Capacity Total Capacity 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 2,502 Enrollment 2,518 2,579 2,648 2,753 2,849 2,961 3,035 Surplus (Deficiency) (16) (77) (146) (251) (347) (459) (533) Middle School Surplus/Deficiency Middle 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 Added Capacity 150^ Total Capacity 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,519 1,519 Enrollment 1,343 1,399 1,391 1,399 1,412 1,420 1,505 Surplus (Deficiency) 26 (30) (22) (30) (43) 99 14 ^Replacement and Expansion of Post Middle School High School Surplus/Deficiency High 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 2,036 Added Capacity 256^ Total Capacity 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,780 2,036 2,036 2,036 Enrollment 1,721 1,712 1,804 1,820 1,822 1,898 1,869 Surplus (Deficiency) 59 68 (24) (40) 214 138 167 ^Arlington High School Addition 16 SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN A. Planned Improvements The District has identified several capacity projects within the six year planning period needed to meet growth-related needs: Permanent Capacity Adding Projects: Replacement of Post Middle School with the addition of 150 new student seats. Expansion of Arlington High School would add 256 additional student seats. Temporary Capacity Projects: The District plans to add portable facilities at the elementary level and potentially at other levels during the six year planning period of this CFP. Property Acquisition: The District plans to acquire land for an elementary school site. The District is also starting to plan for elementary capacity solutions as growth continues at that grade level. Future updates to the CFP will include any specifically planned projects. In the event that planned construction projects do not fully address space needs for student growth and a reduction in interim student housing, the Board could consider various courses of action, including, but not limited to: Alternative scheduling options; Changes in the instructional model; Grade configuration changes; Increased class sizes; or Modified school calendar. Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number of sources including voter approved bonds, state school construction assistance program funds, and impact fees. Each of these funding sources is discussed in greater detail below. 17 B. Financing Sources 1. General Obligation Bonds/Capital Levies Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects, and require a 60% voter approval. Capital levies require a 50% voter approval and can be used for certain capital improvement projects. In February 2020, the District presented a $25.1 capital levy and $107.5 million bond measure to its voters. The voters approved the capital levy, which includes, among other things, funding for the new classrooms and a science, technology, engineering, art and math (STEAM) workshop wing addition at Arlington High School. The bond proposal included funding for the construction of a new middle school to replace Post Middle School. The bond did not achieve the required 60% minimum for passage. 2. State School Construction Assistance Funds State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. The State deposits revenue from the sale of renewable resources from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889 into the Common School Account. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate General Obligation Bond funds or the Superintendent of Public Instruction can prioritize projects for funding. School districts may qualify for State School Construction Assistance funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. The District is currently eligible for state school construction assistance funds at the 64.85% level for eligible projects. 3. Impact Fees Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. C. Six-Year Financing Plan Table 9 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2020-2025. The financing components include a capital levy funds, future bond revenue, impact fees, and other future sources. Projects and portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fee funding. Thus, impact fees will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which do not add capacity or which remedy existing deficiencies. The District’s Board of Directors is considering options for funding the needed Post Middle School replacement/addition but has not made any decisions relative to the six year planning period of this CFP. However, the needs remain, as reflected in this CFP, and continue in the District’s planning. The District will update the CFP as needed, including consideration of an interim update, to reflect updated planning decisions. 18 Table 9 Capital Facilities Financing Plan Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/Other Local State Match Impact Fees Elementary Potential Property Purchase TBD X X Middle School Post Middle School Replacement and Expansion $27.666 $27.666 $27.666 $83.000 X X X High School Arlington High School Expansion $1.00 $1.00 $6.186 $8.186 X X Improvements Adding Temporary Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/Other Local State Match Impact Fees Relocatables $0.600 $0.600 $0.600 $1.800 X X Noncapacity Improvements (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/Other Local State Match Impact Fees Various Schools (all grade levels) Security improvements; pedestrian safety improvements; energy efficiency measures; miscellaneous improvements $5.259 $7.560 $4.298 $17.117 X 19 SECTION 7 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The GMA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of additional public facilities needed to accommodate new development. Impact fees cannot be used for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities used to meet existing service demands. A. School Impact Fees in Snohomish County The Snohomish County General Policy Plan (“GPP”) which implements the GMA sets certain conditions for school districts wishing to assess impact fees: The District must provide support data including: an explanation of the calculation methodology, a description of key variables and their computation, and definitions and sources of data for all inputs into the fee calculation. Such data must be accurate, reliable and statistically valid. Data must accurately reflect projected costs in the Six-Year Financing Plan. Data in the proposed impact fee schedule must reflect expected student generation rates from the following residential unit types: single family; multi-family/studio or 1-bedroom; and multi-family/2-bedroom or more. Snohomish County and the City of Arlington’s impact fee programs require school districts to prepare and adopt CFPs meeting the specifications of the GMA. Impact fees are calculated in accordance with the formula, which are based on projected school facility costs necessitated by new growth and are contained in the District’s CFP. B. Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees Impact fees are calculated utilizing the formula in the Snohomish County Impact Fee Ordinance. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per dwelling unit to purchase land for school sites, make site improvements, construct schools, and purchase/install relocatable facilities that add interim capacity needed to serve new development. A student factor (or student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings of one bedroom and two bedrooms or more). A description of the student methodology is contained in Appendix B. The District has in recent years identified some volatility in the Multi-Family 2+ bedroom student generation rates given the small number of units in the data set. In order to control for that volatility in this CFP and until more consistent District-specific demographic information is available, the District has 20 calculated Multi-Family 2+ BR student generation rates using the countywide average of the corresponding rates published in the 2018 capital facilities plans (the last County-adopted set of plans) of the other school districts in Snohomish County. These averages reflect recent development trends in Snohomish County which will likely influence any multi-family construction that occurs in the District in the near term. King County recognizes countywide averages as a reasonable approach to calculating student generation rates when there is a lack of sufficient development data within a school district. See KCC 21A.06.1260. The resulting average student generation rates are as follows: Multi-Family 2+ BR Rates K-5 6-8 9-12 0.171 0.099 0.108 As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not add capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, because the impact fee formula calculates a “cost per dwelling unit”, an identical fee is generated regardless of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in the calculation or whether the District only uses the percentage of the total new capacity project costs allocated to the Districts growth-related needs, as demonstrated in Table 8- A. For purposes of this Plan, the District has chosen to use the full project costs in the fee formula. Furthermore, impact fees will not be used to address existing deficiencies. See Table 9 for a complete identification of funding sources. The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation: A capacity addition at Arlington High School. A capacity addition at the replacement Post Middle School Please see Table 11 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project. 21 C. Proposed Arlington School District Impact Fee Schedule Using the variables and formula described in subsection B, impact fees proposed for the District are summarized in Table 10. See also Appendix C. Table 10 School Impact Fees 2020 Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single Family $3,811 Multi-Family (1 Bedroom) No fee ($0) Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom) $3,455 Table 10 reflects a 50% adjustment to the calculated fee as required by local ordinances. 22 Table 11: Impact Fee Variables **Uses 2018 Snohomish County average (see pages 19-20). Student Generation Factors – Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary .294 N/A Middle .126 Senior .175 Total .595 Temporary Facility Capacity Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (1 Bdrm) Capacity 22 Elementary .000 Cost $300,000 Middle .000 Senior .000 State Match Credit Total .000 Current State Match Percentage 64.85% Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (2+ Bdrm)** Construction Cost Allocation Elementary .171 Current CCA 238.22 Middle .099 Senior .108 District Average Assessed Value Total .378 Single Family Residence $403,171 Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value Arlington HS (expansion) - 256 Post Middle School (replacement and expansion) – 150 added capacity (for total new capacity of 907) Multi Family (1 Bedroom) $125,314 Multi Family (2+ Bedroom) $178,051 Required Site Acreage per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90 Middle 108 Arlington HS (expansion) $8,186,671 Post Middle School (repl/expansion) $83,000,0000 High 130 District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds Current/$1,000 $1.039 Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Elementary 237,231 Current Bond Buyer Index 2.44% Middle 162,325 Senior 256,181 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Total 98.61% 655,737 Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 5,034 Middle 3,356 Senior 839 Total 1.39% 9,229 Total Facility Square Footage Elementary 242,265 Middle 165,681 Senior 257,020 Total 100.00% 664,966 APPENDIX A POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA A-1 APPENDIX B STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW B-1 B-2 B-3 **See pages 19-20 of the CFP for more information related to the Multi-Family 2+ Bedroom student generation rates used in this CFP. APPENDIX C SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS C-1 City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #6 Attachment F COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance, Planning Commission Findings of Fact, Capital Facilities Plan DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The Lakewood School District is requesting that the City approve for inclusion in its Comprehensive Plan, the Districts 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan. School Districts are required by the Growth Management Act to provide a plan for future growth and future enrollment, and to establish impact As part of this adoption cycle, the School District requested that the City adopt the plan as a part of the City’s budget adoption process, as allowed by RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) (iv), to align with the processes used by both Snohomish County and City of Marysville. Planning Commission voted at a regular meeting on November 17, 2020 to unanimously approve recommendation of the plan to City Workshop; discussion only. At the December 7, 2020 Council meeting, the recommended motion, following the public hearing will be; “I move to adopt the Lakewood School District 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan, and authorize the Mayor to sign the ordinance.” ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020--XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AS PART OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arlington, Washington has the authority to enact laws to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens as a way of controlling the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Lakewood School District, in accordance with the GMA, has proposed amendments to its Capital Facilities Plan to accommodate projected student enrollment, to include a schedule and a financing program for capital improvements over the next 6 years (2020- 2025); and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered these amendments at their August 4, 2020 workshop and recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, included in the review of the City’s Biennial Budget process, per RCW 36.70A130 (2)(a)(iv), was a proposed update to the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the same, along with the Planning Commission recommendations, at their workshop meeting November 23, 2020, and held an open record public hearing on December 7, 2020 and determined approving the amendments was in the best interest of the City and its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and finds the same to be consistent with city and state law and in the best interests of the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan Amended. The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to include the version of the “Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan 2020 - 2025” approved by the Lakewood School District on August 10, 2020 as part of the Capital Facilities Element (CF) of the Arlington Final Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 7th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 2019-XXX 2 ______________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Steven J. Peiffle City Attorney LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 306 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 Adopted: __________, 2020 May 2020 Draft LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 306 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 BOARD OF DIRECTORS JAHNA SMITH, PRESIDENT LARRY BEAN LEAHA BOSER CATHERINE “SANDY” GOTTS STEVEN LARSON SUPERINTENDENT SCOTT PEACOCK For information regarding the Lakewood School District Capital Facilities Plan, contact the Office of the Superintendent, Lakewood School District, P.O. Box 220, North Lakewood, WA 98259 -0220. Tel: (360) 652-4500 or Fax: (360) 652-4502. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 Section 2. District Educational Program Standards ..................................................................4 Section 3. Capital Facilities Inventory ......................................................................................8 Section 4. Student Enrollment Projections .............................................................................11 Section 5. Capital Facilities Needs .........................................................................................14 Section 6. Capital Facilities Financing Plan ...........................................................................17 Section 7. School Impact Fees ................................................................................................20 Appendix A ……………………………………………………Population and Enrollment Data Appendix B ………………………………………………...Student Generation Factor Review Appendix C …………………………………………………….School Impact Fee Calculations INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan The Washington State Growth Management Act (the “GMA”) includes schools in the category of public facilities and services. School districts have adopted capital facilities plans to satisfy the requirements of the GMA and to identify additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in their districts. The Lakewood School District (the “District”) has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the “CFP”) to provide Snohomish County (the “County”) and the cities of Arlington and Marysville with a description of facilities needed to accommodate projected student enrollment and a schedule and financing program for capital improvements over the next six years (2020-2025). In accordance with the Growth Management Act, adopted County Policy, the Snohomish County Ordinance Nos. 97-095 and 99-107, the City of Arlington Ordinance No. 1263, and the City of Marysville Ordinance Nos. 2306 and 2213, this CFP contains the following required elements: Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle, and high school). An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities. A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites. The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities, which clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. The financing plan separates projects and portions of projects which add capacity from those which do not, since the latter are generally not appropriate for impact fee funding. A calculation of impact fees to be assessed and supporting data substantiating said fees. In developing this CFP, the District followed the following guidelines set forth in the Snohomish County General Policy Plan: Districts should use information from recognized sources, such as the U.S. Census or the Puget Sound Regional Council. School districts may generate their own data if it is derived through statistically reliable methodologies. Information must not be inconsistent with Office of Financial Management (“OFM”) population forecasts. Student generation rates must be independently calculated by each school district. The CFP must comply with the GMA. The methodology used to calculate impact fees must comply with the GMA. In the event that impact fees are not available due to action by the state, -2- county or cities within the District, the District in a future CFP update must identify alternative funding sources to replace the intended impact fee funding. The methodology used to calculate impact fees also complies with the criteria and the formulas established by the County. Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions in Snohomish County to “ensure the availability of sufficient land and services for future K-20 school needs.” Policy ED- 11. The District appreciates any opportunity for cooperative planning efforts with its jurisdictions. B. Overview of the Lakewood School District The Lakewood School District is located along Interstate 5, north of Marysville, Washington, primarily serving unincorporated Snohomish County and a part of the City of Arlington and the City of Marysville. The District is bordered on the south by the Marysville School District, on the west and north by the Stanwood School District, and on the east by the Arlington School District. The District serves a student population of 2,514 (October 1, 2019, reported OSPI enrollment) with three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. -3- FIGURE 1 MAP OF FACILITIES -4- SECTION 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements, and use of relocatable classroom facilities (portables), as well as specific and unique physical structure needs required to meet the needs of students with special needs. In addition to factors which affect the amount of space required, government mandates and community expectations may affect how classroom space is used. Traditional educational programs offered by school districts are often supplemented by nontraditional, or special programs such as special education, expanded bilingual education, remediation, migrant education, alcohol and drug education, AIDS education, preschool and daycare programs, computer labs, music programs, and others. These special or nontraditional educational programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity of school facilities, and upon planning for future needs. The educational program standards contained in this CFP reflect the District’s implementation of requirements for full-day kindergarten and reduced K-3 class size. Special programs offered by the District at specific school sites include, but are not limited to: Lakewood Elementary School (Preschool through 5th Grades) • Bilingual Education Program • Title I Remedial Services Program • P – 5th Grade Counseling Services • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program (ECEAP) • Developmentally Delayed Preschool Program - Ages 3 to 5 • Developmentally Delayed Kindergarten Program • K-5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program • K – 5th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • Learning Assistance Program - Remedial Services • Occupational Therapy Program -5- English Crossing Elementary School (Kindergarten through 5th Grades) • K through 5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program • Bilingual Education Program • K – 5th Grade Counseling Services • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • Learning Assistance Program - Tutorial Services • Occupational Therapy Program • Special Education EBD Program Cougar Creek Elementary School (Kindergarten through 5th Grades) • Bilingual Education Program • Title I Remedial Services Program • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • Learning Assistance Program – Remedial Services (Learning Lab) • Occupational Therapy Program • K – 5th Grade Special Education Resource Room Program • K – 5th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • K – 5th Grade Counseling Services • 3 – 5th Highly Capable/Enrichment Program (serves grades 3-5 district-wide) Lakewood Middle School (6th through 8th Grades) • Speech and Language Disorder Therapy Program • 6th-8th Grade Special Education Resource and Inclusion Program • 6th-8th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • Bilingual Education Program • Learning Assistance Program - Tutorial Services • Occupational Therapy Program • 6th – 8th Grade Counseling Services Lakewood High School • 9th-12th Grade Special Education Resource Room and Transition Program • 6th-12th Grade Special Education Life Skills Program • Bilingual Education Program • Occupational Therapy Program • Speech and Language Disorder Program • 9th – 12th Grade Counseling Program Variations in student capacity between schools may result from the special or nontraditional programs offered at specific schools. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in these special programs. New schools are designed to accommodate many of these programs. However, existing schools often require space modifications to accommodate special programs, and in some circumstances, these modifications may affect the overall classroom capacities of the buildings. -6- District educational program standards may change in the future as a result of changes in the program year, special programs, class sizes, grade span configurations, use of new technology, and other physical aspects of the school facilities. The school capacity inventory will be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates of this Capital Facilities Plan. The District educational program standards which directly affect school capacity are outlined below for the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Educational Program Standards For Elementary Schools • Class size for grades K – 4th will not exceed 19 students. • Class size for grade 5th will not exceed 26 students. • All students will be provided library/media services in a school library. • Special Education for students may be provided in self-contained or specialized classrooms. • All students will be provided music instruction in a separate classroom. • All students will have scheduled time in a computer lab. Each classroom will have access to computers and related educational technology. • Optimum design capacity for new elementary schools is 475 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered. • All students will be provided physical education instruction in a gym/multipurpose room. Educational Program Standards For Middle and High Schools • Class size for middle school grades will not exceed 26 students. • Class size for high school grades will not exceed 28 students. • As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a work space during planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of all regular teaching stations throughout the day. In updating this Capital Facility Plan, a building review of classroom use was conducted in order to reflect the actual classroom utilization in the high school and middle school. Therefore, classroom capacity should be adjusted using a utilization factor of 95% at the middle school and 85% at the high school to reflect the use of classrooms for teacher planning. Special Education for students will be provided in self-contained or specialized classrooms. • All students will have access to computer labs. Each classroom is equipped with access to computers and related educational-technology. • Identified students will also be provided other nontraditional educational opportunities in classrooms designated as follows: Counseling Offices Resource Rooms (i.e. computer labs, study rooms) Special Education Classrooms Program Specific Classrooms (i.e. music, drama, art, physical education, Industrial Arts and Agricultural Sciences). -7- • Optimum design capacity for new middle schools is 600 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered. • Optimum design capacity for new high schools is 800 students. However, actual capacity of individual schools may vary depending on the educational programs offered. Minimum Educational Service Standards The District will evaluate student housing levels based on the District as a whole system and not on a school by school or site by site basis. This may result in portable classrooms being used as interim housing, attendance boundary changes or other program changes to balance student housing across the system as a whole. A boundary change or a significant programmatic change would be made by the Board of Directors following appropriate public review and comment. The District may also request that development be deferred until planned facilities can be complete d to meet the needs of the incoming population; however, the District has no control over the ultimate land use decisions made by the permitting jurisdictions. The District’s minimum level of service (“MLOS”) is as follows: on average, K-4 classrooms have no more than 24 students per classroom, 5-8 classrooms have no more than 26 students per classroom, and 9-12 classrooms have no more than 28 students per classroom. The District sets minimum educational service standards based on several criteria. Exceeding these minimum standards will trigger significant changes in program delivery. Minimum standards have not been met if, on average using current FTE figures: K-4 classrooms have more than 24 students per classroom, 5-8 classrooms have more than 28 students per classroom, or 9-12 classrooms more than 30 students per classroom. The term “classroom” does not include special education classrooms or special program classrooms (i.e. computer labs, art rooms, chorus and band rooms, spaces used for physical education and other special program areas). Furthermore, the term “classroom” does not apply to special programs or activities that may occur in a regular classroom. The MLOS is not the District’s desired or accepted operating standard. For 2017-18 and 2018-19, the District’s compliance with the MLOS was as follows (with MLOS set as applicable for those school years): 2017-18 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary^ REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 19.06 28 22.88 30 21.47 * The District determines the reported service level by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations (excludes portables). 2018-19 School Year LOS Standard MINIMUM LOS# Elementary^ REPORTED LOS Elementary MINIMUM LOS Middle REPORTED LOS Middle MINIMUM LOS High REPORTED LOS High 26 19.16 28 23.08 30 22.00 * The District determines the reported MLOS by adding the number of students in regular classrooms at each grade level and dividing that number by the number of teaching stations (excludes portables). -8- SECTION 3 CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools, relocatable classrooms, undeveloped land, and support facilities. Facility capacity is based on the space required to accommodate the District’s adopted educational program standards. See Section 2. Attached as Figure 1 (page 3) is a map showing locations of District facilities. A. Schools The District maintains three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Lakewood Elementary School accommodates grades P-5, Cougar Creek Elementary School accommodates grades K-5, and English Crossing Elementary School accommodates grades K-5. Lakewood Middle School serves grades 6-8, and Lakewood High School serves grades 9-12. School capacity was determined based on the number of teaching stations within each building and the space requirements of the District’s adopted educational program. It is this capacity calculation that is used to establish the District’s baseline capacity, and to determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The school capacity inv entory is summarized in Table 1 and reflects the District’s updated educational program standards (reduced K-4 class size) and recently completed capacity addition at Lakewood High School. Relocatable classrooms are not viewed by the District as a solution for housing students on a permanent basis. Therefore, these facilities are not included in Table 1. Table 1 School Capacity Inventory Elementary School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled English Crossing * 41,430 20 403 1994 Cougar Creek 10** 44,217 22 444 2003 Lakewood * 45,400 16 323 1958, 1997 TOTAL * 131,047 58 1,170 Middle School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Lakewood Middle * 62,835 25 618 1971, 1994, and 2002 High School Site Size (Acres) Building Area (Square Feet) Teaching Stations Permanent Capacity Year Built or Remodeled Lakewood High * 169,000 34 850 1982, 2020 *Note: All facilities are located on one 89-acre campus located at Tax Parcel No. 31053000100300. **The Cougar Creek site is approximately 22 acres located at 16216 11 th Ave NE, Arlington, WA 98223. Note that the presence of critical areas on the site does not allow full utilization at this site. -9- B. Relocatable Classrooms Relocatable classrooms are used on an interim basis to house students until funding can be secured to construct permanent classrooms. The District currently uses 15 relocatable classrooms at various school sites throughout the District to provide additional interim capacity. A typical relocatable classroom can provide capacity for a full-size class of students. Current use of relocatable classrooms throughout the District is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 includes only those relocatable classrooms used for regular capacity purposes. The District’s relocatable classrooms have adequate useful remaining life and are evaluated regularly. Table 2 Relocatable Classroom (Portable) Inventory Elementary School Relocatable Classrooms Interim Capacity English Crossing 2 40 Cougar Creek 4 80 Lakewood 6 120 SUBTOTAL 12 240 Middle School Relocatable Classrooms Interim Capacity Lakewood Middle 3 78 SUBTOTAL 3 78 High School Relocatable Classrooms Interim Capacity Lakewood High 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 TOTAL 15 318 -10- C. Support Facilities In addition to schools, the District owns and operates additional facilities which provide operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in Table 3. Table 3 Support Facility Inventory Facility Building Area (Square Feet) Administration 1,384 Business and Operations 1,152 Storage 2,456 Bus Garage/Maintenance Shop 5,216 Stadium 14,304 The District is also a party to a cooperative agreement for use of the Marysville School District transportation facility (which is owned by the Marysville School District). D. Land Inventory The District does not own any sites which are developed for uses other than schools and/or which are leased to other parties. -11- SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District’s October 1, 2019, reported enrollment was 2,514. Enrollment projections are most accurate for the initial years of the forecast period. Moving further into the future, more assumptions about economic conditions and demographic trends in the area affect the projection. Monitoring birth rates in Snohomish County and population growth for the area are essential yearly activities in the ongoing management of the capital facilities plan. In the event that enrollment growth slows, plans for new facilities can be delayed. It is much more difficult, however, to initiate new projects or speed projects up in the event enrollment growth exceeds the projection. A. Six Year Enrollment Projections Two enrollment forecasts were conducted for the District: an estimate by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) based upon the cohort survival method; and a modified cohort enrollment forecast prepared by a demographer. The District also estimated enrollment based upon adopted Snohomish County population forecasts (“ratio method”). Based on the cohort survival methodology, a total of 2,968 students are expected to be enrolled in the District by 2025, a notable increase from the October 2019 enrollment levels. Notably, the cohort survival method is not designed to anticipate fluctuations in development patterns. The cohort method has not proven to be a reliable measure for the Lakewood School District. For example, the cohort projection in 2017 predicted that the District’s October 2019 enrollment would be 2,423, about 91 fewer students than the actual October 2019 enrollment figures. The 2019 cohort projections for 2025, however, show a 19.1% projected increase by the 2025 school year. The District obtained in 2020 an enrollment forecast from a professional demographer, FLO Analytics. Based on this analysis, a total enrollment of 2,888, or 374 additional students, are expected by the 2025-26 school year. This projection is an increase of nearly 15% over 2019 enrollment. Growth is projected at all three grade levels. The FLO Analytics forecast utilizes historic enrollment patterns, demographic and land use analysis based upon information from Snohomish County and the cities of Arlington and Marysville, census data, OFM forecasts, and Washington State Department of Health birth data. The detailed FLO Analytics forecast report is on file with the District. Snohomish County provides OFM population-based enrollment projections for the District using OFM population forecasts as adopted by the County. The County provided the District with the estimated total population in the District by year. Between 2012 and 2019, the District’s student enrollment constituted approximately 15.74% of the total population in the District. Assuming that between 2020 and 2025, the District’s enrollment will continue to constitute 15.74% of the District’s total population and using OFM/County data, OFM/County methodology projects a total enrollment of 2,743 students in 2025. The comparison of OSPI cohort, District projections, and OFM/County projected enrollments is contained in Table 4. -12- Table 4 Projected Student Enrollment (FTE) 2020-2025 Projection Oct. 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Change 2019-25 Percent Change 2019-25 OFM/County 2,514 2,552 2,590 2,628 2,666 2,704 2,743 229 9.1% OSPI Cohort** 2,514 2,573 2,660 2,712 2,808 2,885 2,968 454 18.1% District*** 2,514 2,527 2,584 2,667 2,760 2,831 2,888 374 14.88% * Actual reported enrollment, October 2019 **Based upon the cohort survival methodology; complete projections located at Appendix A.. ***FLO Analytics (2020); grade level projections located in Appendix A. The District is aware of notable pending residential development within the District. Specifically, nearly 300 multi-family units are planned for or currently in construction over the next five year period within the District’s portion of the City of Arlington. In the District’s portion of the City of Marysville, there is ongoing multifamily and single family development are currently under construction. Sustained low to moderate levels of single family development are projected within the District through the next ten years. Given the District-specific detailed analysis contained in the FLO Analytics report, the District is relying on the projections in that report for purposes of planning for the District’s needs during the six years of this plan period. Future updates to the Plan may revisit this issue. B. 2035 Enrollment Projections Student enrollment projections beyond 2025 are highly speculative. Using OFM/County data as a base, the District projects a 2035 student FTE population of 2,878. This is based on the OFM/County data for the years 2012 through 2019 and the District’s average fulltime equivalent enrollment for the corresponding years (for the years 2012 to 2019, the District’s actual enrollment averaged 15.74% of the OFM/County population estimates). The total enrollment estimate was broken down by grade span to evaluate long-term needs for capital facilities. Projected enrollment by grade span for the year 2035 is provided in Table 5. Again, these estimates are highly speculative and are used only for general planning purposes. -13- Table 5 Projected Student Enrollment 2035 Grade Span FTE Enrollment – October 2019 Projected Enrollment 2035* Elementary (K-5) 1,094 1,253 Middle School (6-8) 652 746 High School (9-12) 768 879 TOTAL (K-12) 2,514 2,878 *Assumes average percentage per grade span remains constant between 2029 and 2035. See Appendix, Table A-2. Note: Snohomish County Planning and Development Service provided the underlying data for the 2035 projections. -14- SECTION 5 CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS The projected available student capacity was determined by subtracting projected FTE student enrollment from permanent school capacity (i.e. excluding portables) for each of the six years in the forecast period (2020-2025). Capacity needs are expressed in terms of “unhoused students.” Projected future capacity needs are depicted on Table 6-A and are derived by applying the projected enrollment to the capacity existing in the 2019-20 school year. The method used to define future capacity needs assumes no new construction. For this reason, planned construction projects are not included at this point. This factor is added later (see Table 7). This table shows actual space needs and the portion of those needs that are “growth related” for the years 2020-2025. Note that this chart is misleading as it reads out growth-related capacity needs related to recent growth within the District. Table 6-A* Additional Capacity Needs 2019-2025 Grade Span 2019** 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Pct. Growth Related Elementary (K-5) Total Growth Related 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 28 28 24 24 9 9 100% Middle School (6-8) Total Growth Related 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 42 42 42 42 100% High School Total Growth Related*** 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 45 45 69 69 75 75 112 112 100% *Please refer to Table 7 for capacity and projected enrollment information. **Actual October 2019 Enrollment ***Additional “Growth Related Capacity Needs” equal the “Total” for each year less “deficiencies” existing as of 2019. Existing deficiencies as of 2019 include capacity needs related to recent growth from new development through that date. -15- By the end of the six-year forecast period (2025), additional permanent classroom capacity will be needed as follows: Table 6-B Unhoused Students Grade Span Unhoused Students /Growth Related in Parentheses) Elementary (K-5) 9/(9) Middle School (6-8) 42/(42) High School (9-12) 112/(112) TOTAL UNHOUSED (K-12) 163/(163) Again, planned construction projects are not included in the analysis in Table 6-B. In addition, it is not the District’s policy to include relocatable classrooms when determining future capital facility needs; therefore interim capacity provided by relocatable classrooms is not included in Table 6-B. However, Table 6-C incorporates the District’s current relocatable capacity (see Table 2) for purposes of identifying available capacity. Table 6-C Unhoused Students – Mitigated with Relocatables Grade Span 2025 Unhoused Students /Growth Related in (Parentheses) Relocatable Capacity Elementary (K-5) 9/(9) 240 Middle School (6-8) 42/(42) 78 High School (9-12) 112/(112) 0 Total (K-12) 163(163) 318 Importantly, Table 6-C does not include relocatable adjustments that may be made to meet capacity needs. For example, the relocatable classrooms currently designated to serve elementary school needs could be used to serve high school capacity needs. Therefore, assuming no permanent capacity improvements are made, Table 6-C indicates that the District will have adequate interim capacity with the use of relocatable classrooms to house students during this planning period. Projected permanent capacity needs are depicted in Table 7. They are derived by applying the District’s projected number of students to the projected capacity. Planned improvements by the District through 2025 are included in Table 7 and more fully described in Table 8. -16- Table 7 Projected Student Capacity 2020-2025 Elementary School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 Added Permanent Capacity 162^ Total Permanent Capacity 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,332 Enrollment` 1,094 1,103 1,138 1,163 1,198 1,194 1,179 Surplus (Deficiency) 76 67 32 7 (28) (24) 153 * Reported October 2019 enrollment ^ Capacity Addition at Lakewood Elementary Middle School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 618 670 670 670 670 670 670 Added Permanent Capacity 52** 198^ Total Permanent Capacity 670 670 670 670 670 670 868 Enrollment 652 634 621 608 643 712 747 Surplus (Deficiency) 18 36 49 62 27 (42) 121 * Reported October 2019 enrollment **Addition of STEM Lab and 2 classrooms in Spring 2020 ^ Capacity Addition at Lakewood Middle School High School Surplus/Deficiency Oct 2019* 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Existing Capacity 571 850 850 850 850 850 850 Added Permanent Capacity* 279** Total Permanent Capacity 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 Enrollment 768 790 826 895 919 925 962 Surplus (Deficiency) 82 60 24 (45) (69) (75) (112) * Reported October 2019 enrollment **Lakewood High School expansion in 2017. See Section 6 for project information. See Appendix A for complete breakdown of enrollment projections. See Table 6-A for a comparison of additional capacity needs due to growth versus existing deficiencies. Table 7 does not include existing, relocated, or added portable facilities. -17- SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN A. Planned Improvements In March 2000, the voters passed a $14,258,664 bond issue for school construction and site acquisition. A new elementary school and a middle school addition were funded by that bond measure. In April 2014, the District’s voters approved a $66,800,000 bond measure to fund improvements, including a capacity addition at Lakewood High School, which opened in the fall of 2017. Based upon current needs, the District anticipates that it may need to consider the following acquisitions and/or improvements within the six years of this Plan. Projects Adding Permanent Capacity: Addition of STEM Lab and two classrooms at Lakewood Middle School (spring 2020); A planned expansion at Lakewood Elementary School, to create a preschool and early center in order to free up space for K-5 classrooms, subject to future planning analysis and funding; and A planned expansion at Lakewood Middle School, subject to future planning analysis and funding; and Acquisition and siting of portable facilities to accommodate growth needs. Non-Capacity Adding Projects: Transportation Facility expansion to Operations Center; and Administration Building improvements. Other: Land acquisition for future sites. In the event that planned construction projects do not fully address space needs for student growth and a reduction in interim student housing, the Board could consider various courses of action, including, but not limited to: Alternative scheduling options; Changes in the instructional model; Grade configuration changes; Increased class sizes; or Modified school calendar. Funding for planned improvements is typically secured from a number of sources including voter approved bonds, State School Construction Assistance funds, and impact fees. The potential funding sources are discussed below. -18- B. Financing for Planned Improvements 1. General Obligation Bonds Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects. A 60% voter approval is required to approve the issuance of bonds. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes. In March 2000, District voters approved a $14,258,664 bond issue for school construction and site acquisition, which included funding of Cougar Creek Elementary School. In April 2014, the District’s voters approved a $66,800,000 bond measure to fund improvements, including a capacity addition, at Lakewood High School. 2. State School Construction Assistance State School Construction Assistance funds come from the Common School Construction Fund. The State deposits revenue from the sale of renewable resources from State school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889 into the Common School Account. If these sources are insufficient to meet needs, the Legislature can appropriate General Obligation Bond funds or the Superintendent of Public Instruction can prioritize projects for funding. School districts may qualify for State School Construction Assistance funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. The District is eligible for State School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) funds for certain projects at the 58.12% funding percentage level. The District does not anticipate being eligible for SCAP funds for the projects planned in this CFP. 3. Impact Fees Impact fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for constructio n of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School impact fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at the time plats are approved or building permits are issued. 4. Six Year Financing Plan The Six-Year Financing Plan shown in Table 8 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities for the years 2020-2025. The financing components include a bond issue, impact fees, and State Match funds. Projects and portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fee funding. Thus, impact fees will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which do not add capacity or which remedy existing deficiencies. -19- Table 8 Capital Facilities Plan Improvements Adding Permanent Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/ Other Local State Funds Impact Fees Elementary School Lakewood El Addition $4.0 $4.0 $8.00 X X Middle School STEM Lab and Class Room Addition at LMS Lakewood MS Addition $0.550 $6.0 $6.0 $0.555 $12.00 X X X X High School Portables $0.250 $0.750 $1.000 X Site Acquisition $0.775 $0.775 X X Improvements Not Adding Capacity (Costs in Millions) Project 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost Bonds/ Levy/ Other Local State Funds Impact Fees Elementary Middle School High School District Operations Center $3.0 X District Office $7.0-10.0 X -20- SECTION 7 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The GMA authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of additional public facilities needed to accommodate new development. Impact fees cannot be used for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities used to meet existing service demands. A. School Impact Fees in Snohomish County The Snohomish County General Policy Plan (“GPP”) which implements the GMA sets certain conditions for school districts wishing to assess impact fees: The District must provide support data including: an explanation of the calculation methodology, a description of key variables and their computation, and definitions and sources of data for all inputs into the fee calculation. Such data must be accurate, reliable and statistically valid. Data must accurately reflect projected costs in the Six-Year Financing Plan. Data in the proposed impact fee schedule must reflect expected student generation rates from the following residential unit types: single family; multi-family/studio or 1-bedroom; and multi-family/2-bedroom or more. Snohomish County established a school impact fee program in November 1997, and amended the program in December 1999. This program requires school districts to prepare and adopt Capital Facilities Plans meeting the specifications of the GMA. Impact fees calculated in accordance with the formula, which are based on projected school facility costs necessitated by new growth and are contained in the District’s CFP, become effective following County Council adoption of the District’s CFP. B. Methodology and Variables Used to Calculate School Impact Fees Impact fees are calculated utilizing the formula in the Snohomish County Impact Fee Ordinance. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per dwelling unit to purchase land for school sites, make site improvements, construct schools, and purchase/install relocatable facilities that add interim capacity needed to serve new development. A student factor (or student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings of one bedroom and two bedrooms or more). A description of the student methodology is contained in Appendix B. As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not -21- add capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, because the impact fee formula calculates a “cost per dwelling unit”, an identical fee is generated regardless of whether the total new capacity project costs are used in the calculation or whether the District only uses the percentage of the total new capacity project costs allocated to the Districts growth-related needs, as demonstrated in Table 6-A. For purposes of this Plan, the District has chosen to use the full project costs in the fee formula. Furthermore, impact fees will not be used to address existing deficiencies. See Table 8 for a complete identification of funding sources. The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation: Capacity additions at Lakewood Elementary School and Lakewood Middle School. Portable acquisition costs at the High School level. Please see Table 8 for relevant cost data related to each capacity project. -22- FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors – Single Family Average Site Cost/Acre Elementary .193 N/A Middle .060 High .048 Total .301 Temporary Facility Capacity Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (1 Bdrm) Capacity 20/26 Elementary .033 Cost $250,000 Middle .017 High .010 State Match Credit Total .050 Current State Match Percentage 58.12% (not expected) Student Generation Factors – Multi Family (2+ Bdrm) Construction Cost Allocation Elementary .063 Current CCA 238.22 Middle .045 High .063 District Average Assessed Value Total .170 Single Family Residence $420,840 Projected Student Capacity per Facility District Average Assessed Value Lakewood El (addition) – 162 Lakewood MS (addition) – 198 Multi Family (1 Bedroom) $125,314 Multi Family (2+ Bedroom) $178,051 Required Site Acreage per Facility SPI Square Footage per Student Facility Construction/Cost Average Elementary 90 Middle 108 Lakewood El (Addition) $8,000,000 Lakewood MS (Addition) $12,000,000 High 130 District Debt Service Tax Rate for Bonds Current/$1,000 $1.55 Permanent Facility Square Footage General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Elementary 131,047 Bond Buyer Index (avg February 2020) 2.44% Middle 62,835 High 169,000 Developer Provided Sites/Facilities Total 97.12% 362,882 Value 0 Dwelling Units 0 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary 6,656 Middle 512 High 3,584 Total 2.88% 10,752 Total Facility Square Footage Elementary 137,703 Middle 63,347 High 172,584 Total 100.00% 373,634 -23- C. Proposed Lakewood School District Impact Fee Schedule Using the variables and formula described in subsection B, impact fees proposed for the District are summarized in Table 9. See also Appendix C. Table 9 School Impact Fees Snohomish County, City of Arlington, City of Marysville* Housing Type Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit Single Family $3,566 Multi-Family (1 Bedroom) $445 Multi-Family (2+ Bedroom) $1,641 *Table 9 reflects a 50% adjustment to the calculated fee as required by local ordinances. APPENDIX A POPULATION AND ENROLLMENT DATA A-1 Table A-1 ACTUAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2014-2019 PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENT 2020-2025 Based on OSPI Cohort Survival* A-2 Table A-2 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN (COUNTY/OFM Enrollment Projections)*** Enrollment by Grade Span Oct. 2019* Avg. %age 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Elementary (K-5) 1,094 43.52% 1,111 1,127 1,144 1,160 1,177 1,194 Middle School (6-8) 652 25.93% 662 672 681 691 701 711 High School (9-12) 768 30.55% 779 791 803 815 826 838 TOTAL** 2,514 100% 2,552 2,590 2,628 2,666 2,704 2,743 *Actual October 2019 Enrollment. ** Totals may vary due to rounding. ***Using average percentage by grade span. A-3 Table A-3 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT BY GRADE SPAN (DISTRICT - FLO Analytics)** APPENDIX B STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR REVIEW B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 APPENDIX C SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #7 Attachment G vision, goals and policies that were included in the AMMIC Subarea Plan, and addresses the necessary capital investments required as development occurs. Once adopted, this process streamlines the development review process, as elements related to the SEPA process have been pre-identified, and a Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action Planning Commission Workshop & Public Hearing November 3, 2020 Agenda & Goals of the Meeting •Welcome & Introduction •Planned Action EIS •Purpose of Planned Action EIS •Timeline and Milestones •Alternatives •Findings •Discussion •Public Hearing 11/3/2020 2 Study Area 3 •The study area is the Arlington portion of the Cascade Industrial Center. •Formerly known as the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center the CIC straddles the cities of Arlington and Marysville. •The Arlington portion of this center encompasses about 2,291 acres surrounding and including the Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO). 11/3/2020 3 Builds on AMMIC Subarea Plan 4 •The CIC EIS builds on the subarea plan process: o Market Study o Community & Stakeholder Engagement o Stakeholder interviews o Online community survey o Vision public workshop o Advisory Committee Meetings o Draft Plan workshop o Legislative process for adoption 11/3/2020 4 Purpose of EIS •Informational document for decision makers •Understand environmental implications and identify mitigation measures •Test conceptual alternatives •Develop a preferred alternative 5 11/3/2020 5 Planned Action Process •Planned actions provide more detailed environmental analysis during the area-wide planning phase, rather than during the permit review process. •Future projects in the Study Area that develop under the designated Planned Action will not require SEPA determinations at the time of permit application if they are certified as consistent with plan/mitigation. 11/3/2020 6 EIS Timeline Spring 2020 •Scoping: •21-day comment period •3 Comments Fall 2020 •Draft EIS: •30-day comment period Winter 2020 •Final EIS: •Respond to Comments •Evaluate Preferred Alternative 7 11/3/2020 Scoping •EIS Scoping –April 2020. •Public scoping notice was issued to a mailing list and posted online to receive comments on issues that should be studied in the EIS. •The scoping period extended from April 8 to April 29, 2020. •Ecology: Noted state regulations that apply regarding dangerous waste at WAC 173-303. •All federal, state, and local regulations will apply. •Community Transit: Address Transit Demand. •WSDOT: Comments on Scope of Transportation Analysis. •City also in communication with Tribes. 11/3/2020 8 Vision The vision for the CIC is to serve as a manufacturing and industrial employment center, with a diverse range of industrial activities that provide employment opportunities for residents in Snohomish County and the region. Employment is envisioned in sectors such as aerospace, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing. 11/3/2020 9 Draft EIS Alternatives Three scenarios for future growth Three alternatives are compared in the Draft EIS. The Alternatives are based on community and stakeholder input and meant to give a range of ideas and prompt conversations about the area’s future: •No Action Alternative –Current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning •Alternative 1 –Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors •Alternative 2 –High Growth A Preferred Alternative will be developed through the Draft EIS review process. We can mix and match, combine them all together, or components of them together, to make the preferred alternative. 10 11/3/2020 No Action Alternative Existing Land Use and Zoning 11 The No Action Alternative would continue the current Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning for the study area. No changes to the Comprehensive Plan to address added infrastructure investments in the Capital Facility Plan or other amendments necessary to implement Subarea Plan strategies for CIC opportunity sites in Arlington would be addressed. No Planned Action would be adopted to facilitate environmental review of new development or redevelopment. The current intent for the Arlington portion of the CIC is to serve as a manufacturing and industrial employment center, with a diverse range of industrial activities that provide employment opportunities for residents in Snohomish County and the region. The majority (~80%) of the Study Area is currently zoned for industrial/aviation uses across Aviation Flightline, General Industrial, and Light Industrial zoning districts The No Action Alternative would allow for net growth rounded to 4,824 jobs with no changes to housing. The No Action Alternative plans assume current employment density and sectoral distribution with the existing 4,969 jobs maintained and increased; however, there are no incentives or investments planned. 11/3/2020 Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors Based on subarea plan vision 12 Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan. Higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as “opportunity sites” in the Subarea Plan and lower density development (at existing employment density) is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. High density employment is anticipated in sectors identified in the Subarea Plan such as aerospace, advanced manufacturing, robotics, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing. Employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. In addition to high density industrial or manufacturing employment, workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities would be newly established on the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the airport. This would support the industry sectors identified in the Subarea Plan especially food processing and seafood industries and robotics. Along with diverse industrial development, future development under this alternative is anticipated to include a small amount of new residential development that is compatible with the industrial land use mix of the center 11/3/2020 Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors Based on a high growth scenario Alternative 2 anticipates a high growth scenario for employment within the center. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. Similar to Alternative 1, employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. The sectoral mix of employment under this alternative is anticipated to reflect current patterns and countywide trends. Current employment patterns show less than half of the total jobs in Manufacturing and close to 20% of jobs in Warehousing, Transportation and Utilities. Workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities or residential development suitable to industrial districts are not anticipated in this alternative. Without a focus on manufacturing sectors identified in the Subarea Plan, and supportive investments in workforce training and education, this pattern is expected to continue. 13 11/3/2020 Alternative Growth Range of Growth/Change •No Action –current plus a little more jobs •Alternative 1–More jobs with focus on sectors and some housing •Alternative 2 –high growth in jobs, no change in housing 14 Population 890 890 0 2,273 1,383 890 0 Dwellings 332 332 0 848 516 332 0 Jobs 4,969 9,793 4,824 11,594 6,625 13,813 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Existing No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Population, Dwellings, Jobs 2040 Population Dwellings Jobs11/3/2020 14 Evaluating Environmental Conditions EIS Contents Chapter 1.0 Summary Chapter 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives Chapter 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Chapter 4.0 Acronyms and References Chapter 5.0 Distribution List Key Findings Chapter 3 Topics High Level Findings Natural Environment •Similar results under all alternatives –limited critical area impacts •Opportunities to advance green infrastructure Cultural Resources •There is no difference in impact between each of the alternatives. •No previously unrecorded archaeological sites or historic properties were identified through the survey for the DEIS. •It is recommended that DAHP be consulted to determine need for cultural resources surveys for any specific development actions under the proposal. Transportation •See following slides Land use and aesthetics •Consistent with state and regional policies for focused centers •Policy implications –location of jobs •All alternatives provide capacity for new growth –different mix •Height generally similar or less among alternatives •Transitions among uses –industrial design guidelines Utilities and Public Services •Most infrastructure is in place and the City has begun planning for service in the underdeveloped portion of the Study Area, south of 172nd Street NE. Some infrastructure will need to be upgraded as redevelopment occurs and the City has begun planning for this. •No significant adverse impacts on police, schools or parks. •Implement system plans. 15 11/3/2020 Existing Transportation Facilities Non-motorized Facilities Transit 16 Freight Corridors 11/3/2020 Transportation 17 •The Action Alternatives would allow for additional growth in the study area beyond what would occur with the No Action Alternative. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related solely to the proposed Action Alternatives. •Several intersections operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour along SR 531 with or without the Action Alternatives. •These intersections would also have poor operations with mitigation under both the No Action and Action Alternatives conditions. The SR 531 impacts are considered a cumulative significant and unavoidable adverse impact that would occur with or without the action alternatives. •There may be secondary impacts related to widening the SR 531 corridor as part of the proposed mitigation for the action alternatives. •Providing the corridor improvements is anticipated to shift traffic volumes and delays may increase at some locations along SR 531. Reducing reliance on auto travel within the study area would help reduce secondary impacts. 11/3/2020 Several transportation improvement projects are currently planned in and around the study area to increase capacity, reduce conflicts with the railroad, and improve connectivity. As the area develops arterial, collector, and local roads would be provided to establish a quarter-mile grid road network, where possible. Planned Action Ordinance Sections: 1: Recitals 2: Purpose 3: Findings 4: Procedures and Criteria 5: Monitoring and Review 6: Conflict 7: Severability 8: Effective Date Exhibits: A. CIC Planned Action Area B. SEPA Checklist and Mitigation Measures B-1 Modified SEPA Checklist B-2 Mitigation Document B-3 Additional Mitigation Requirements & Procedures B-4 Applicable Regulations and Advisory Notes 18 11/3/2020 Key Criteria PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Land Use Alternative PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Net Change in Trip Generation Compared to No Action Alternative No Action Alternative 6,244 — Alternative 1 7,422 1,178 Alternative 2 8,518 2,274 Preferred Alternative TBD TBD - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Existing No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Population, Dwellings, Jobs 2040 Population Dwellings Jobs 19 11/3/2020 Mitigation Measures •Follow from EIS •Shoulds = Shalls •Topics: •Natural Environment •Cultural Resources •Transportation •Land Use and Aesthetics •Public Services & Utilities •Transportation •Require SEPA Mitigation Fee –based on demand from new development •Cost estimates: based on proportional share of trips •Adapt for Preferred Alternative 20 11/3/2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 11/3/2020 21 •Chapter 8: Transportation Element •Cascade Industrial Center Improvements Subsection •SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE. Widening SR 531 from 2 to 4-lanes with intersection improvements at major intersections. Multiuse paths constructed along SR 53. •SR 531 between 67th Avenue NE and SR 9. Widening SR 531 from 2 to 4-lanes with intersection improvements at major intersections. Multiuse paths constructed along SR 53. •67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE. Installation of traffic signal and railroad crossing improvements. •168th St 43rd Ave -Smokey Point Blvd. Construct 3 lane roadway from Smokey Point Blvd to 47th Ave (Project 36) •63rd Ave –North 188th St -SR 531. Construct new 3 lane roadway from SR 531 (172nd St) to 188th St. Construct right-in-right-out intersection control at intersection with SR 531. •Chapter 9: Capital Facilities and Public Services Element •Regional Stormwater and Habitat –Cascade Industrial Center •Edgecomb Creek relocation concepts have been developed and the potential for regional stormwater management facilities in coordination with construction of the new stream corridor are proposed with development under the AMMIC Subarea Plan and the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement. Next Steps Council review Final EIS Council adoption 22 11/3/2020 Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement October 2020 Prepared by: BERK Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC Hererra Inc., Environmental Consultants Transpo Group Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS iii Cover Letter October 1, 2020 Subject: Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS Dear Reader, The Cascade Industrial Center (formerly called the Arlington-Maryville Manufacturing Industrial Center or AMMIC) is a vibrant industrial employment center for the city of Arlington. Given the area’s importance to the local and regional economy, and its desire to keep the center vital and thriving, the City completed a subarea plan that included a vision, and goals and policies for the future. This proposal is to adopt a Planned Action consistent with RCW 43.21c.440 and associated Comprehensive Plan amendments to address necessary capital investments that study implementation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan. The City is evaluating three alternatives in the attached Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): ▪ No Action Alternative – The Current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning would be retained and allow modest job increases. Given current market conditions this is likely to reflect existing job sectors in the subarea. ▪ Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors: Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the AMMIC Subarea Plan. Higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as “opportunity sites” in the Subarea Plan and development at existing employment density is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. Employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. In addition to high density industrial or manufacturing employment, workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities would be newly established. Future development under this alternative is anticipated to include a small amount of new residential development that is compatible with the industrial land use mix of the center. Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors: Alternative 2 anticipates a high growth scenario for employment within the center. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. Similar to Alternative 1, employment uses would be designed to take Cover Letter Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS iv advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. The sectoral mix of employment under this alternative is anticipated to reflect current trends. The Draft EIS evaluates the three alternatives for potential adverse and beneficial impacts to the environment including: natural environment, cultural resources, transportation, land use and aesthetics, public services, and utilities. During and following a Draft EIS comment period, a Preferred Alternative will be developed that is anticipated to be in the range of the alternatives above and may mix and match features. The Preferred Alternative would be evaluated in the Final EIS. Responses to comments on the Draft EIS will also be provided in the Final EIS. The key issues facing decision makers include: ▪ Development of a Preferred Alternative illustrating the desired future for the subarea. ▪ Type and level of growth to be incentivized in a Planned Action. ▪ Type and location of new street investments to serve new growth. With the publication of this Draft EIS a 30-day comment period has been established from October 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020. Comments are due by 5:00 PM, October 30, 2020 and should be directed to: Marc Hayes, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Dr. NE Arlington, WA 98223 mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov Submittal of comments by email is preferred. Please include in the subject line “Cascade Industrial Center Draft EIS Comments.” A community meeting to introduce the planned action, alternatives, and Draft EIS is scheduled on October 6, 2020. The meeting is hosted by the Arlington Planning Commission. An Open House component is scheduled to begin at 5:30 pm and the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 pm. The zoom can be accessed through the following link: https://arlingtonwa.zoom.us/j/82350757022?pwd=MmxJNzdhbHQ0Y0RJdTVuKzJoUjFYQT09 You may review the City of Arlington’s website for more information at http://www.arlingtonwa.gov/310/Public-Notices. If you desire clarification or have questions please call Marc Hayes at 360.403.3457 or by mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov Thank you for your interest in the Cascade Industrial Center. Community and Economic Development Director and SEPA Responsible Official Fact Sheet Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS v Fact Sheet Project Title Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternatives The Arlington portion of the Cascade Industrial Center (CIC) is a long -standing industrial employment center with a diverse range of manufacturing, warehousing and distribution businesses. The City desires to ensure that the CIC continues to be a economically vital center with both regional and local significance. With this goal, the City adopted a subarea plan for the Center with a vision, land use, and economic development action strategies. The subarea plan was adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. The City intends to adopt a planned action under RCW 43.21C.440 to facilitate future permitting of devleopment consistent with the subarea plan. To help form the planned action, the City is evaluting three alternatives: ▪ No Action Alternative – The Current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning would be retained and allow modest increases in jobs. ▪ Alternative 1 Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors: Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan. Higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as “opportunity sites” in the Subarea Plan and lower density development (at existing employment density) is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. High density employment is anticipated in sectors identified in the Subarea Plan such as aerospace, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing. Fact Sheet Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS vi ▪ Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors: Alternative 2 anticipates a high growth scenario for employment within the center. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. Through the Draft EIS public outreach opportunities during the comment period and in response to comments, a Preferred Alternative will be developed that is anticipated to be in the range of the alternatives above and may mix and match features. Proponent and Lead Agency City of Arlington Location The Study Area is about 2,170 acres in area based on parcels, and is bounded by the Portage Creek Wildlife area and Cemetery Road in the north, Arlington Downtown to the east, the City of Marysville on the south, and Smokey Point Boulevard and Totem Park to the west. Tentative Date of Implementation Winter 2020 Responsible Official Marc Hayes, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Dr. NE Arlington, WA 98223 Ph: 360.403.3457 mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov Contact Person Marc Hayes, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington Fact Sheet Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS vii 18204 59th Dr. NE Arlington, WA 98223 Ph: 360.403.3457 mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov Licenses or Permits Required The Planned Action requires a 60-day review by the State of Washington Department of Commerce and other state agencies. Locally, the Planned Action will be cons idered by the Planning Commission and their recommendations forwarded to the City Council who will deliberate and determine approval. Authors and Principal Contributors to the EIS Under the direction of the Arlington Community Development Department, the consultant team prepared the EIS as follows: ▪ BERK Consulting: Planned Action SEPA Lead, Alternative Development, Land Use/Aesthetics ▪ Herrera: Plants and Animals, Water Resources, Utilities ▪ CRC: Cultural Resources ▪ Transpo Group: Transportation Draft EIS Date of Issuance October 1, 2020 Draft EIS Comment Period Comment Period The City of Arlington is requesting comments from citizens, agencies, tribes, and all interested parties on the Draft EIS from 10/ 01/2020 to 10/ 30/2020. Comments are due by 5:00 PM, 10/30/2020. All written comments should be directed to: Fact Sheet Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS viii Marc Hayes, Community and Economic Development Director City of Arlington 18204 59th Dr. NE Arlington, WA 98223 Ph: 360.403.3457 mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov Submittal of comments by email is preferred. Please include in the subject line “Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Draft EIS Comments.” Public Meeting A public open house and workshop to review alternatives, and the planned action, is scheduled for October 6, 2020 hosted by the Arlington Planning Commission over Zoom teleconferencing. An Open House component is scheduled to begin at 5:30 pm and the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 pm. The zoom can be accessed through the following link: https://arlingtonwa.zoom.us/j/82350757022?pwd=MmxJNzdhbHQ0Y0RJdTVuKzJoUjFYQT09 Date of Final Action January 2021 Location of Background Data Prior SEPA documents have addressed the Arlington CIC uniquely or cumulatively, including: ▪ City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 2015 ▪ Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan EIS, 2015 ▪ Determination of Non-Significance and Checklist for Subarea Plan for the Arlington- Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center You may review the City of Arlington’s website for more information at www.arlingtonwa.gov/. If you desire clarification or have questions, please contact Marc Hayes at 360.403.3457 or by mhayes@arlingtonwa.gov. Fact Sheet Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS ix Purchase/Availability of Draft EIS This Draft EIS is available for review at Arlington City Hall: 238 N Olympic Avenue, Arlington, WA 98223. The Draft EIS is posted on the City of Arlington’s website at http://www.arlingtonwa.gov/310/Public-Notices. Compact disks or thumb drives are available for purchase at cost at Arlington City Hall. Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xi Distribution List The following agencies, organizations, and individuals received a notice of availability for the Draft and Final EIS. Digital copies of the documents were also provided to agencies with jurisdiction, local service providers, and other interested parties upon request. Federal and Tribal Agencies ▪ Arlington Postmaster & Office ▪ Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians ▪ Tulalip Tribe of Indians State and Regional Agencies ▪ Department of Agriculture ▪ Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ▪ WSDOT Aviation Division ▪ Department of Commerce ▪ Department of Corrections ▪ Department of Ecology ▪ Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) ▪ Department of Fish and Wildlife ▪ Department of Health ▪ Department of Natural Resources ▪ Parks and Recreation Commission ▪ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ▪ Puget Sound Partnership ▪ Puget Sound Regional Council ▪ Department of Social and Health Services Distribution List Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xii ▪ Department of Transportation County Officials ▪ Snohomish County – Public Works ▪ Snohomish Co. Traffic Review (SEPA) ▪ Snohomish County – Planning ▪ Snohomish County – Boundary Review Adjacent Jurisdictions ▪ City of Marysville – Planning ▪ City of Marysville – Utilities ▪ City of Marysville – Cross Connection Services, Utilities, and Transit ▪ Burlington Northern Railroad ▪ Cascade Natural Gas ▪ Community Transit ▪ Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ▪ Snohomish County PUD ▪ Snohomish Health District ▪ Waste Management ▪ Arlington School District ▪ Lakewood School District Community Organizations and Individuals ▪ Notice is sent to a Community Development Department Listserv of persons interested in planning in the City. Media ▪ Everett Herald Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xiii Contents 1.0 Summary 1-1 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Planning Process 1-4 1.3 Public Comment Opportunities 1-4 1.4 Objectives and Alternatives 1-4 1.4.1 Objectives 1-4 1.4.2 Alternatives 1-6 1.5 Key Issues and Options 1-17 1.5.1 Other Alternatives 1-17 1.5.2 Major Issues, Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved 1-17 1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-18 1.6.1 Natural Environment 1-18 1.6.2 Cultural Resources 1-20 1.6.3 Transportation 1-24 1.6.4 Land Use and Aesthetics 1-26 1.6.5 Utilities and Public Services 1-28 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives 2-1 2.1 Introduction and Purpose 2-1 2.2 Description of the Study Area 2-1 2.3 Process 2-2 2.3.1 Planning Process 2-2 2.3.2 Public Comment Opportunities 2-2 2.4 Objectives and Alternatives 2-4 2.4.1 Proposal Objectives 2-4 2.4.2 Alternatives 2-5 Contents Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xiv 2.4.3 Alternative Comparisons 2-12 2.5 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Proposed Action 2-16 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation 3-1 3.1 Natural Environment 3-2 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-2 3.1.2 Impacts 3-12 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures 3-16 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-18 3.2 Cultural Resources 3-19 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-20 3.2.2 Impacts 3-37 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 3-39 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-41 3.3 Transportation 3-42 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-42 3.3.2 Impacts 3-60 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures 3-79 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-87 3.4 Land Use and Aesthetics 3-88 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-88 3.4.2 Impacts 3-112 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures 3-120 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-122 3.5 Utilities and Public Services 3-123 3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-123 3.5.2 Impacts 3-134 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures 3-140 4.0 Acronyms and References 4-1 4.1 Acronyms 4-1 4.2 References 4-2 5.0 Appendices 5-1 A Inadvertent Discovery Plan 5-2 B Planned Action Ordinance 5-4 C Traffic Counts 5-5 Contents Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xv D PM Peak Hour TM Volumes 5-6 E HCM Definitions 5-7 F LOS Worksheets 5-8 G General Trip Distribution 5-9 Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xvi Exhibits Exhibit 1. Study Area 1-3 Exhibit 2. Alternative Parcel Acres by Zoning District 1-8 Exhibit 3. Current Zoning Designations within CIC, 2020 1-9 Exhibit 4. Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors 1-11 Exhibit 5. Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors 1-13 Exhibit 6. Alternative Parcel Acres by Zoning District 1-14 Exhibit 7. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth 1-15 Exhibit 8. Total Population, Dwellings, and Jobs 2040 by Alternative 1-15 Exhibit 9. Planned Action Process 1-16 Exhibit 10. Alternative Features 1-16 Exhibit 11. Cultural resources which meet the threshold of significance 1-22 Exhibit 12. No Action Alternative: Current and Planned Growth 2-6 Exhibit 13. Study Area Zoning by Acreage, 2020 2-6 Exhibit 14. Current Zoning Within Study Area 2-7 Exhibit 15 Alternative 1: Current and Planned Growth 2-8 Exhibit 16. Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors 2-9 Exhibit 17. Alternative 2: Current and Planned Growth 2-10 Exhibit 18. Alternative 2 2-11 Exhibit 19. Alternative Parcel Acres by Zoning District 2-12 Exhibit 20. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth 2-13 Exhibit 21. Total Population, Dwellings, and Jobs 2040 by Alternative 2-14 Exhibit 22. Planned Action Process 2-14 Exhibit 23. Alternative Features 2-15 Exhibit 24. Proposed Industrial Design Standards 2-15 Exhibit 25. Geologically Hazardous Areas 3-4 Exhibit 26. Study Area Wellhead Protection Areas and Aquifer Sensitivity 3-6 Exhibit 27. Study Area Streams and Wetlands 3-9 Exhibit 28. Regulatory Permit Matrix 3-17 Exhibit 29. Locations of mapped soil units comprising ten acres or more study area 3-22 Exhibit 30. Locations of mapped soil units comprising less than ten acres each of the study area 3- Exhibits Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xvii 23 Exhibit 31. Portion of cadastral survey of Township 31 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian. 1875 3-28 Exhibit 32. Land patents issued within the study area 3-29 Exhibit 33. Portion of the Mount Vernon, WA quadrangle. 1911 3-31 Exhibit 34.Portion of the Marysville, Washington quadrangle. 1959 3-32 Exhibit 35.Portion of the Arlington, Washington quadrangle. 1969 3-33 Exhibit 36. Satellite image of Arlington, WA a. 2018 3-1 Exhibit 37. Historic structures previously inventoried and field verified within the study area. 3-4 Exhibit 38.Historic structures added to the inventory as part of the 2011 HPI Upload Project 3-6 Exhibit 39. Satellite image of study area annotated with shovel probe locations. 2018 3-11 Exhibit 40. Satellite image of Parcel 31051500202400 a. 2018 3-12 Exhibit 41. Overview of 24 ft by 60 ft irregular pit left in mound after removal of house in Parcel 31051500202400. 3-13 Exhibit 42. Satellite image of surveyed portion of Parcel 31051500300100 3-14 Exhibit 43. Overview of slope built with fill debris. 3-15 Exhibit 44. Satellite image of parcel 31051600400900 with shovel probe locations. 2018 3-16 Exhibit 45. Satellite image of surveyed portions of parcels 31052100400100, 31052100400106, and 31052100202000. 2018 3-17 Exhibit 46. Satellite image of surveyed portion of parcel 31052200300100 a. 2018 3-18 Exhibit 47. Satellite image of surveyed portion of parcel 3105140030420. 2018 3-19 Exhibit 48. Overview of north end of road cut leading into parcel 31051400304200 3-20 Exhibit 49. List of shovel probe locations and descriptions 3-21 Exhibit 50. Representative image of typical soil profile. Profile image of Probe 24. 2018 3-36 Exhibit 51. Cultural resources which meet the threshold of significance. 3-38 Exhibit 52. Existing Non-Motorized Facilities 3-44 Exhibit 53. Existing Transit Facilities 3-46 Exhibit 54. Average Weekday PM Peak Period Ridership by Route per Bus 3-47 Exhibit 55. Average Weekday PM Peak Period Travel Time by Route 3-48 Exhibit 56. Existing Freight Corridors 3-52 Exhibit 57. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary 3-54 Exhibit 58. Existing SR 531 Intersection Queuing Summary 3-56 Exhibit 59. Five Year Collision Summary – 2015 to 2019 3-57 Exhibit 60. Planned Improvements 3-62 Exhibit 61. 2040 No Action Average Weekday PM Peak Period Ridership by Route per Bus 3-66 Exhibit 62. 2040 No Action Average Weekday PM Peak Period Travel Time by Route 3-67 Exhibit 63. 2040 CIC No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 3-68 Exhibit 64. 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary 3-68 Exhibit 65. 2040 No Action SR 531 Intersection Queuing Summary 3-70 Exhibit 66. 2040 Action & Action Alternative 1 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 3-71 Exhibits Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xviii Exhibit 67. 2040 No Action and Alternative 2 Average Weekday PM Peak Period Ridership by Route per Bus 3-73 Exhibit 68. 2040 Alternative 2 Average Weekday PM Peak Period Travel Time by Route 3-74 Exhibit 69. 2040 CIC No Action & Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 3- 75 Exhibit 70. 2040 No Action Alternative & Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison 3-75 Exhibit 71. 2040 No Action Alternative & Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour SR 531 Operations 3-77 Exhibit 72. 2040 Action Alternative 2 SR 531 Intersection Queuing Summary 3-77 Exhibit 73. Action Alternative 2 With and Without Mitigation Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary 3-81 Exhibit 74. 2040 Action Alternative 2 With and Without Mitigation Weekday PM Peak Hour Arterial Operations 3-82 Exhibit 75. Pro-Rata Project Share Action Alternative 2 3-83 Exhibit 76. Summary of Mitigation and Action Alternative Pro-Rata Cost 3-84 Exhibit 77: National Plan of Integrated Airports System Airports 3-91 Exhibit 78: Acreage by Land Use Category, Arlington MIC, 2020. 3-94 Exhibit 79: Current Land Use, 2020 3-95 Exhibit 80: Looking East Across Arlington Municipal Airport. 3-96 Exhibit 81: Arlington Municipal Airport Layout. 3-97 Exhibit 82. Centennial Trail 3-98 Exhibit 83: Study Area Acres by Zone, Study Area, 2020. 3-99 Exhibit 84: Development Standards by Zone, Study Area, 2020. 3-99 Exhibit 85: Current Zoning Map, 2020 3-101 Exhibit 86. of APD Districts & Development Standards, 2020 3-103 Exhibit 87. Job Growth by Sector for Study Area, 2010-2018. 3-104 Exhibit 88. Snohomish County Employment Forecasts, 2015-2040. 3-105 Exhibit 89: Looking east across 67th Ave, south of 204th St NE looking toward Highway 9 3-106 Exhibit 90: Looking east from 59th Avenue between 188th and 172nd St NE 3-107 Exhibit 91: Looking South from Airfield across 172nd St NE 3-107 Exhibit 92: Southeastern Edge 3-108 Exhibit 93: Southern Boundary of Study Area 3-109 Exhibit 94: Northern boundary of Study Area 3-110 Exhibit 95: Assessed Value per SF in Study Area, by parcel 3-111 Exhibit 96. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth 3-114 Exhibit 97. Stormwater Infrastructure in the Study Area 3-123 Exhibit 98. Stormwater Infrastructure Map 3-124 Exhibit 99. Water Infrastructure in the Study Area 3-125 Exhibit 100. Water Infrastructure Map 3-126 Exhibit 101. Wastewater Infrastructure in the Study Area 3-127 Exhibits Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS xix Exhibit 102. Wastewater Infrastructure Map 3-128 Exhibit 103. City of Arlington’s Level of Service Standards for Police Services 3-130 Exhibit 104. City of Arlington’s Level of Service Standards for Fire/EMS Services 3-130 Exhibit 105. Arlington Fire Department Level of Service Standards for Fire/EMS Services 3-131 Exhibit 106. Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities 3-131 Exhibit 107. City of Arlington’s Level of Service Standards for Parks 3-132 Exhibit 108. Arlington Public Schools Effective Level of Service Standards 3-133 Exhibit 109. Growth of Maximum Daily Water Demand Among Alternatives 3-135 Exhibit 110. Growth of Wastewater Generation Among Alternatives 3-137 Exhibit 111. Fire Calls for Service by Alternative 3-137 Exhibit 112. Potential Impacts on Parks Services 3-138 Exhibit 113. Student Generation Rate 3-138 Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-1 1.0 Summary The proposed study area is the Arlington Cascade Industrial Center encompassing about 2,291 acres surrounding and including the Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO). See Exhibit 1 1.1 Purpose The proposal includes the adoption of a Planned Action consistent with RCW 43.21c.440 and associated Comprehensive Plan amendments to address necessary capital investments that study implementation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan and associated implementing policies/regulatory amendments. Opportunity sites identified in the subarea plan are further evaluated for potential job growth and mix that meet the subarea plan vision, goals, and intent for jobs in aerospace, robotics, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber. Job increases of nearly 5,000 to 9,000 or more are studied representing potential capacity under the current Comprehensive Plan (No Action) and under two Action Alternatives that vary capital investments and any necessary policy or code amendments that encourage added land use and growth consistent with the Subarea Plan. Action alternatives also consider options for Edgecomb Creek realignment and restoration. Through the Draft EIS public outreach opportunities during the comment period and in response to comments, a Preferred Alternative will be developed that is anticipated to be in the range of the alternatives above and may mix and match features This Draft EIS is organized into chapters as follows: ▪ Chapter 1.0 Summary ▪ Chapter 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Chapter 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Section 3.1 Natural Environment Section 3.2 Cultural Resources Section 3.3 Transportation 1.0 Summary ▪ Purpose Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-2 Section 3.4 Land Use and Aesthetics Section 3.5 Utilities and Public Services ▪ Chapter 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ Chapter 5.0 Appendices For each environmental topic the affected environment, or existing conditions, are described. The effects of each alternative on the environmental topic are evaluated. Where adverse impacts are identified, mitigation measures are identified 1.0 Summary ▪ Purpose Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-3 Exhibit 1. Study Area Source: City of Arlington, 2020; BERK, 2020. 1.0 Summary ▪ Planning Process Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-4 1.2 Planning Process The CIC EIS builds on the subarea plan planning process. Public participation was an important aspect of the subarea planning process; feedback informed various stages of Plan development, from visioning, plan alternatives, goals and policies. Engagement activities included stakeholder interviews, an online community survey, a vision public workshop, advisory committee meetings, a draft plan workshop and public meetings during the legislative process. The Planned action will include comment opportunities during the ▪ Draft EIS – Prepare a Draft EIS to test alternatives in September-October 2020. ▪ Preferred Alternative and Final Plan – Considering the Draft EIS and public input, engage stakeholders and the community to create a Preferred Alternative. Develop a Final Plan and EIS incorporating the Preferred Alternative by the end of 2020. 1.3 Public Comment Opportunities Current and Future Comment Opportunities With the publication of this Draft EIS, a 30-day comment period has been established from October 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020. A public meeting is planned in this period to assist with development of a Preferred Alternative. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Subarea Plan and Planned Action. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and deliberation. The schedule will be included at the project website. 1.4 Objectives and Alternatives 1.4.1 Objectives SEPA requires a statement of objectives that address the purpose and need for the proposal. The proposal objectives for the CIC are based on the AMMIC Subarea Plan Guiding Principles and objectives for Coordinated Planning. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-5 Guiding Principles Coordinated investments and regional impact. ▪ Coordinated investments within the AMMIC allow it to function as a regional center with a focus on production, especially advanced manufacturing. AMMIC businesses leverage and support manufacturing industrial activity across the region, including activities at Paine Field, Port of Everett and Port of Seattle Tacoma. In addition to Arlington and Marysville, Snohomish County and the central Puget Sound region benefit from development in the AMMIC through its positive impact on regional economic health and competitiveness. Economic diversity. ▪ The presence of a variety of economic activities allows cities and regions to be resilient against changing economic trends and cycles. The AMMIC provides opportunities for a broad range of economic activities and industries. Employment-rich production businesses contribute to job growth in the Center. These include business in advanced manufacturing, aerospace, food processing, mass timber, as well as broader manufacturing activity. AMMIC businesses also engage in repair and distribution to support and leverage manufacturing and industrial activity. Building on and strengthening distinctive competitive advantages. ▪ The AMMIC enjoys a distinct competitive advantage in the region for manufacturing, especially related to aerospace. In addition to a diverse range of firms, the AMMIC builds on this recognized business and industry clusters to leverage its comparative advantage and agglomeration benefits. Economic activity and opportunity. ▪ AMMIC’s industrial businesses create jobs that pay good wages and are accessible to people with all levels of education. Partnerships with local community colleges, high schools, as well as other local and regional institutions ensure residents have access to training opportunities and businesses have access to a trained workforce. The presence of affordable housing in both Arlington and Marysville support the local workforce and economy. Accessibility and connectivity. ▪ Planned transportation improvements in and around the AMMIC have increased capacity, reduced conflicts with the railroad, and improved freight connectivity. AMMIC employees can access readily available public transit, including the future SWIFT BRT on Smokey Point Blvd. The Cities of Arlington and Marysville, local businesses and Community Transit, have partnered to provide innovative, on-demand transit or feeder routes that serve industrial 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-6 facilities and provide good connections to transit and to park and ride facilities. Nonmotorized facilities within the AMMIC have improved and employees and residents enjoy easy access to the Arlington Airport Trail and the Centennial Trail. High quality design. ▪ Industrial development in the MIC is consistent with design standards to ensure quality development that benefits property owners and the Cities. Sustainability. ▪ Development in the AMMIC is consistent with standards for modern industrial development and environmental requirements. Where feasible, industrial facilities integrate low impact development concepts, including rain gardens, pervious pavements, and green roofs. Industrial development also utilizes alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. 1.4.2 Alternatives This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) studies three alternatives described below and is further detailed in Chapter 2: ▪ No Action Alternative – The Current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning would be retained and allow modest job increases. Given current market conditions this is likely to reflect existing job sectors in the subarea. ▪ Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors: Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan. Higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as “opportunity sites” in the Subarea Plan and lower density development (at existing employment density) is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. High density employment is anticipated in sectors identified in the Subarea Plan such as aerospace, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel-ready land at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport. Slightly smaller increases are anticipated on the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE, on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. In addition to high density industrial or manufacturing employment, workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities would be newly established on the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the airport. This would support the industry sectors identified in the 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-7 Subarea Plan especially food processing and seafood industries and robotics. Along with diverse industrial development, future development under this alternative is anticipated to include a small amount of new residential development that is compatible with the industrial land use mix of the center. See Exhibit 8. This alternative supports net increases of employment of 6,625 jobs, 516 dwellings, and 1,383 residents. See Exhibit 6. ▪ Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors – Alternative 2 anticipates a high growth scenario for employment within the center. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. See Exhibit 10. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel-ready land at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport and the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE. Slightly smaller increases of employment are anticipated on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Similar to Alternative 1, employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. The sectoral mix of employment under this alternative is anticipated to reflect current patterns and countywide trends. Current employment patterns show less than half of the total jobs in Manufacturing and close to 20% of jobs in Warehousing, Transportation and Utilities. Workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities or residential development suitable to industrial districts are not anticipated in this alternative. Without a focus on manufacturing sectors identified in the Subarea Plan, and supportive investments in workforce training and education, this pattern is expected to continue. See Exhibit 8. This alternative supports net increases of employment of 8,844 jobs with no changes to dwellings or population compared to existing conditions and the No Action Alternative. See Exhibit 9. Through the Draft EIS public outreach opportunities during the comment period and in response to comments, a Preferred Alternative will be developed that is anticipated to be in the range of the alternatives above and may mix and match features. Major features of the alternatives are described and compared below. Land Use Each alternative proposes a different mix of employment sectors within existing land use designations, particularly Alternative 1. See Exhibit 2. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-8 Exhibit 2. Alternative Parcel Acres by Zoning District Designation No Action Acres Alternative 1 Alternative 2 General Industrial 861.86 861.86 861.86 Aviation Flightline 737.02 737.02 737.02 Light Industrial 236.68 312.52 236.68 Business Park 165.57 193.01 165.57 General Commercial 165.23 63.44 165.23 Highway Commercial 88.42 86.93 88.42 Public/Semi-Public 35.98 35.98 35.98 Grand Total 2,290.78 2,290.78 2,290.78 Source: BERK, 2020. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would continue the current Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning for the study area. No changes to the Comprehensive Plan to addressed added infrastructure investments in the Capital Facility Plan or other amendments necessary to implement Subarea Plan strategies for CIC opportunity sites in Arlington would be addressed. No Planned Action would be adopted to facilitate environmental review of new development or redevelopment. The current intent for the Arlington portion of the CIC is to serve as a manufacturing and industrial employment center, with a diverse range of industrial activities that provide employment opportunities for residents in Snohomish County and the region. The majority (~80%) of the Study Area is currently zoned for industrial/aviation uses across Aviation Flightline, General Industrial, and Light Industrial zoning districts. See Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14. The No Action Alternative would allow for net growth rounded to 4,824 jobs with no changes to housing. See Exhibit 12. The No Action Alternative plans assume current employment density and sectoral distribution with the existing 4,969 jobs maintained and increased; however, there are no incentives or investments planned. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-9 Exhibit 3. Current Zoning Designations within CIC, 2020 Source: City of Arlington, 2020; Snohomish County, 2020; BERK, 2020. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-10 Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan. Higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as “opportunity sites” in the Subarea Plan and lower density development (at existing employment density) is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. High density employment is anticipated in sectors iden tified in the Subarea Plan such as aerospace, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel-ready land at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport. Slightly smaller increases are anticipated on the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE, on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. In addition to high density industrial or manufacturing employment, workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities would be newly established on the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the airport. This would support the industry sectors identified in the Subarea Plan especially food processing and seafood industries and robotics. Along with diverse industrial development, future development under this alternative is anticipated to include a small amount of new residential development that is compatible with the industrial land use mix of the center 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-11 Exhibit 4. Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors Source: City of Arlington 2020; BERK, 2020. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-12 Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors Alternative 2 anticipates a high growth scenario for employment within the center. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. See Exhibit 10. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel-ready land at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport and the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE. Slightly smaller increases of employment are anticipated on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Similar to Alternative 1, employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. The sectoral mix of employment under this alternative is anticipated to reflect current patterns and countywide trends. Current employment patterns show less than half of the total jobs in Manufacturing and close to 20% of jobs in Warehousing, Transportation and Utilities. Workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities or residential development suitable to industrial districts are not anticipated in this alternative. Without a focus on manufacturing sectors identified in the Subarea Plan, and supportive investments in workforce training and education, this pattern is expected to continue. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-13 Exhibit 5. Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors Source: City of Arlington 2020; BERK, 2020. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-14 Future Alternatives Following the Draft EIS comment period, the City may develop a Preferred Alternative that is similar to a studied alternative or in the range of the studied alternatives. The Preferred Alternative may combine different features of the studied alternatives. Land Use Comparison Each alternative proposes a different mix of employment sectors within existing land use designations, particularly Alternative 1. See Exhibit 19. Exhibit 6. Alternative Parcel Acres by Zoning District Designation No Action Acres Alternative 1 Alternative 2 General Industrial 861.86 861.86 861.86 Aviation Flightline 737.02 737.02 737.02 Light Industrial 236.68 312.52 236.68 Business Park 165.57 193.01 165.57 General Commercial 165.23 63.44 165.23 Highway Commercial 88.42 86.93 88.42 Public/Semi-Public 35.98 35.98 35.98 Grand Total 2,290.78 2,290.78 2,290.78 Source: BERK, 2020. Growth Each alternative’s projected growth is listed in Exhibit 20. Alternative 2 has the greatest total employment and would retain and increase jobs. It would not add any new dwellings compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would increase employment by 6,625, or 1,801 jobs more than the No Action Alternative and 2,219 less than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would support the vision, intent and sectoral mix outlined in the Subarea Plan and accommodate supportive uses such as educational/workforce training facilities and business incubators. Alternative 1 would also add a small number of dwellings such as live/work units suitable in industrial districts compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-15 Exhibit 7. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth Ex i s t i n g No A c t i o n Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 1 Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 2 Ne t C h a n g e * Population 890 890 0 2,273 1,383 890 0 Dwellings 332 332 0 848 516 332 0 Jobs 4,969 9,793 4,824 11,594 6,625 13,813 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. The total population, housing, and jobs for each alternative is illustrated in Exhibit 21. As noted above, Alternative 2 has the greatest total jobs with sectors similar to current conditions and trends whereas Alternative 1 grows jobs compared to No Action Alternative and has a different sectoral mix than both the No Action and Alternative 2; Alternative 1 has a smaller number of total jobs than Alternative 2 and has includes a small share of housing. Given the location of the CIC, the No Action Alternative would likely result in a mix of industrial and commercial employment sectors. Though the No Action Alternative has capacity for jobs, without further investment there are not likely to be the land use mix or employment sectors envisioned in the Subarea Plan. Exhibit 8. Total Population, Dwellings, and Jobs 2040 by Alternative Source: PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020: BERK, 2020. - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Existing No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Population, Dwellings, Jobs 2040 Population Dwellings Jobs 1.0 Summary ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-16 Planned Actions Action Alternatives 1 and 2 propose the designation of a Planned Action in the Study Area, as authorized under SEPA (RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164 through -172). Planned actions provide more detailed environmental analysis during the area-wide planning phase, rather than during the permit review process. Future projects in the Study Area that develop under the designated Planned Action will not require SEPA threshold determinations at the time of permit application if they are certified as consistent with the type of development, growth and traffic assumptions, and mitigation measures studied in the EIS. Such projects are still required to comply with adopted laws and regulations and would undergo review pursuant to the City’s adopted land use and building permit procedures. See Exhibit 22 for a summary of the process. A draft Planned Action Ordinance is included in Appendix C. Exhibit 9. Planned Action Process Source: BERK, 2020. Comparison of Features Based on the description of alternatives in this chapter, Exhibit 23 compares the features of the alternatives in terms of changes to plans and regulations and infrastructure investments. Exhibit 10. Alternative Features Feature No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Plans and Regulations Continue Current Plans and Regulations X X Implements Subarea Plan including changes to Capital Facilities Element to Support Growth X X Prepare & Issue Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Consider Adoption of Planned Action Ordinance defining allowed development & required mitigation Review Future Permits for Consistency with Planned Action Ordinance 1.0 Summary ▪ Key Issues and Options Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-17 Feature No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Implements Changes to Development Regulations Consistent with Subarea Plan X Planned Action Ordinance X X Investments Current Transportation Investments X X X Added Multimodal Transportation Investments to support Job Types X X Add trail in the buffer of relocated Edgecomb creek X X Source: BERK, 2020. 1.5 Key Issues and Options 1.5.1 Other Alternatives The City explored several options for a mix of land use and zoning designations with during the Subarea Plan process before creating a bookend of alternatives to test in this Draft EIS. These Draft EIS alternatives are meant to identify pros, cons, and tradeoffs of employment intensities and patterns. It is anticipated a preferred alternative would be developed through public input and evaluated in the Final EIS, and could combine or mix and match elements of the Draft EIS Alternatives 1.5.2 Major Issues, Significant Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved The key issues facing decision makers include: ▪ Development of a Preferred Alternative illustrating the desired future for the subarea. ▪ Type and level of growth to be incentivized in a Planned Action. ▪ Type and location of new street investments to serve new growth. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-18 1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1.6.1 Natural Environment How did we analyze Natural Environment? Impacts on the natural environment were identified by evaluating the presence, extent, and type of existing natural resources through a review of available information about the site (e.g., surveys and studies); identifying changes anticipated under each action alternati ve compared to the No Action Alternative such as housing and employment density, changes in impervious surfaces, and changes in open spaces and habitat; and analyzing anticipated effects of those changes on specific elements of the natural environment in the study area. Sources included a literature review of existing soils, wetlands, streams, vegetation and fish and wildlife. What impacts did we identify? Impacts to natural resources in the study area from all alternatives could include impacts to wetlands, streams, buffers, existing vegetation, and fish and wildlife. Impacts common to all alternatives also include temporary construction-related exposure to soil erosion until building sites are permanently stabilized. These impacts will be minimized by implementation of stormwater requirements related to stormwater pollution prevention at construction sites. What is different between the alternatives? Employment increases are anticipated across the Study Area under the No Action Alternative and both Action Alternatives; however, the proposed land uses and level of intensity would differ between each alternative. Substantial differences in impacts to the natural environment between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternatives 1 and 2 could occur based on the level of development activities in or adjacent to critical areas and their buffers. Action Alternative 1 and Action Alternative 2 would both result in more rapid and intense development than the No Action Alternative and have a greater risk of impacts to critical areas. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-19 What are some solutions or mitigation for Natural Environment impacts? All alternatives are expected to attract development within the study area and within critical areas and/or buffers. The City of Arlington will comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and apply reasonable mitigation measure to reduce significant adverse impacts. Potential measures to mitigate adverse impacts of specific projects within the Study Area, as well as avoidance and minimization measures that would be part of those projects, will be refined through final design and permitting of each project. During redevelopment or new development under all alternatives, opportunities exist to strategically reduce impervious surfaces, employ low impact development techniques, and restore native vegetation to improve the conditions of the natural environment in these spaces. The surface water runoff volume from the site is expected to increase under all the alternatives because the proposed development will increase the total area of impervious surfaces. However, development projects will be required to install stormwater facilities that control flow rates and treat stormwater pollutants prior to discharge to receiving water bodies. For redevelopment projects, this would result in an overall improvement (relative to exis ting conditions) for older developments that do not currently have modern stormwater management facilities. The relocation of Edgecomb Creek away from the ditches and into a more naturally sinuous channel with a riparian corridor could ensure that sufficient wetland and stream advanced mitigation is incorporated into the selected Action Alternatives to address habitat and critical areas impacts associated with some of the proposed development in the CIC. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? Under all proposed alternatives, any redevelopment or new development will require compliance with all applicable regulations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts to critical areas including wetlands, streams, buffers, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Redevelopment or new development will also need to meet stormwater requirements to protect surface and groundwater from increased flow or water quality impacts. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated on the natural environment under any of the proposed alternatives. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-20 1.6.2 Cultural Resources How did we analyze Cultural Resources? Assessment methods included a review of previous ethnographic, historical, and archaeological investigations in the local area, a records search at on DAHP’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) (DAHP 2020a) for known sites in the immediate area, a review of relevant background literature and maps (including General Land Office [GLO], United States Geological Service [USGS], and county atlases), preliminary field investigations, and the preparation of this report. The Consultant (CRC) contacted cultural resource staff of the Snohomish Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and Tulali p Tribes. This correspondence was not intended to be or replace formal government-to-government consultation. This assessment utilized research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely nature and location of historic properties within the project, as well as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1)) (DAHP 2020b). For the purposes of this project, a cultural resource of significance will include any historic property which has been deemed eligible for addition to an historical register, including the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), or county and city level registers. In general, all archaeological sites are considered resources of significance and should be avoided or mitigated appropriately. Exceptions to this include select historic era archaeological sites which have been deemed ineligible for listing on an historic register based on NRHP criteria for significance. Based on NRHP assessment criteria developed by the National Park Service (NPS 2002:2), historical significance is conveyed by properties that: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. According to NRHP guidelines, the “essential physical features” of a property must be intact for it to convey its significance, and the resource must retain its integrity, or “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (NPS 2002:44). The seven aspects of integrity are: 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-21 1) Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred); 2) Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property); 3) Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); 4) Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property); 5) Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); 6) Feeling (a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time); and 7) Association (the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property). Criteria used for assessment of potential eligibility for the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) are similar to NRHP criteria (DAHP 2019). Criteria to qualify include: ▪ The resource should have documented historical significance at the local or state level; ▪ The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity; and ▪ The resource must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance. What impacts did we identify? Proposed work has the potential to impact known archaeological sites and historic properties of significance. Development under any of the proposed alternatives would presumably result in removal of two archeological sites and two historic properties recorded within the proposed action. Site 45SN720 has been determined not eligible for the NRHP; disturbance to this site would not generate significant impacts. Disturbances to the remaining three resources, including any archaeological test excavations, would require further consultation with DAHP. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-22 Exhibit 11. Cultural resources which meet the threshold of significance Cultural Resource Type Register Status Section Arlington Municipal Airport – Bore Sighting Range Historic Property Determined eligible 16 Arlington Municipal Airport – Small Arms Range Historic Property Determined eligible 21 45SN26 Pre-Contact Lithic Scatter No determination made 22 45SN720 Historic Isolate Determined not eligible 22 Source: DAHP 2020b, CRC 2020. Surface and subsurface investigations indicated substantial surface disturbances throughout the surveyed parcels with disturbance sources varying from repeated clear-cutting of the forest, changes to creek flow and flooding, road cut and construction, utilities installation, and fill zones. The negative shadow of an early to mid-twentieth century house was observed in parcel 31051500202400. The structure appears to have been removed recently and no intact features were observed. A road cut observed in parcel 31051400304200 was of late-twentieth century construction and does not meet the threshold of significance. No previously unrecorded archaeological sites or historic properties were identified through this survey . However, due to the limited nature of the survey, it remains possible for as-yet unknown potentially significant archaeological or historic sites to be present within the project. It is therefore recommended that DAHP be consulted to determine need for cultural resources surveys for any specific development actions under the proposal. What is different between the Alternatives? There is no difference in impact between each of the alternatives for cultural resources. Under all studied Alternatives, additional growth and development will occur in the study area, leading to potential increases in height and bulk of buildings and increased land use intensity , resulting in similar impacts to cultural resources. What are some solutions or mitigation for Cultural Resources impacts? Regarding cultural resources, mitigation refers to the outcome of the consultation process when a significant impact to cultural resources is identified. In such situations, mitigation is used to moderate impacts. The following measures could be implemented to help avoid and manage significant impacts to recorded and as-yet unrecorded cultural resources within the Arlington CIC: ▪ Consult DAHP to determine need for cultural resources surveys for any specific development 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-23 actions under the proposal. The preliminary field investigations conducted in this study were based on a conceptual design and provide a general history of the study area and limited insight into the subsurface conditions within tested areas that may be developed under the proposal. ▪ Continue coordination of cultural resource avoidance and mitigation programs for future project-level development through formal government-to-government consultation with the Snohomish Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes. Tribes often are able to provide additional information regarding cultural resources not documented in published literature which can help direct cultural resources investigations and support compliance assessments to ensure that cultural resources are not significantly impacted by development activities. ▪ Consider partnering with existing businesses or agencies with a strong interest in history, and which likely maintain good historical records of the project location. Under the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) and the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44), a permit from DAHP is required to conduct activities that may alter an archaeological site containing prehistoric objects. This includes importing fill, compaction, use of heavy machinery, tree removal, construction, and any other activities that would change or impact the site. Such a permit would be needed for development in the location of site 45SN26. Should any potentially significant archaeological or historic sites be encountered in development under the proposal and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would be generated. These impacts could potentially be minimized through development and implementation of mitigation measures appropriate to the nature and extent of discovered sites. Mitigation measures may include one or more of the following: ▪ Limiting the magnitude of the proposed work; ▪ Modifying proposed development through redesign or reorientation to minimize or avoid further impacts to resources; ▪ Rehabilitation, restoration, or repair of affected resources; ▪ Preserving and maintaining operations for any involved significant historic structures; ▪ Archaeological monitoring, testing, or data recovery excavations; ▪ Documentation of historic elements of the built environment through photographs, drawings and narrative, at the appropriate level based upon Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation standards (DAHP 2020a). With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? With mitigation, the ultimate outcome is no significant unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-24 1.6.3 Transportation How did we analyze Transportation? Transportation impacts were evaluated consistent with the methods of the Arlington Comprehensive Plan 2017 with the exception of the SR 531 corridor. The SR 531 corridor was evaluated using microsimulation to determine intersection delay, corridor travel t imes and intersection vehicle queues based on coordination with WSDOT. The transportation analysis includes 2040 traffic forecasts using the City of Arlington travel demand mode and an evaluation of street system operations, non-motorized and transit facilities. Transportation impacts of the Action Alternatives were identified through a comparison to the No Action Alternative. What impacts did we identify? Transportation demands for all modes would be increased with the Action Alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative. Transit ridership and travel times would increase during the weekday PM peak hours with the alternatives. There are non-motorized facilities to facilitate walking and biking and it is anticipated that as development occurs and transportation improvements are completed additional non-motorized facilities would be constructed. Under the No Action Alternative and Action Alternatives, 6 of the 12 study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. Additionally, under the Action Alternatives, eastbound travel times along SR 531 between I-5 and SR 9 are anticipated to decrease and increase in the westbound direction when compared to the No Action Alternative. The evaluation includes improvements already contemplated in the WSDOT’s STIP and City’s TIP. What is different between the alternatives? Action Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate more weekday PM peak hour trips compared to Action Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative. As a result of the higher trip generation, it is anticipated that increases in traffic volumes, delays and travel times would be higher with Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. What are some solutions or mitigation for Transportation impacts? The transportation analysis highlighted the need for the planned but uncertain improvements along SR 531 between 43rd Street NE and 67th Avenue NE. In addition, a traffic signal should be installed at the 67th Avenue NE/NE 188th Street intersection to address future operational issues 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-25 with the alternatives. The CIC development could contribute a proportional cost share to unfunded improvements. As development occurs, required frontage improvements would help complete the netw ork and new development would be required to pay traffic impact fees to contribute towards planned improvements. Other mitigation measures include: ▪ Transportation Impact Fees – The City of Arlington has a traffic impact fee program and developers would be required to pay fees to mitigate transportation impacts. ▪ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - The City should consider TDM mitigation measures. TDM works to move people out of single occupant vehicles (SOVs) to more sustainable modes like walking, biking, and transit. As part of the alternatives mitigation, it is recommended that businesses be required to implement transportation demand management plans. To support TDM, Community Transit has planned enhancements including a Swift line that would improve service in the study area and help encourage transit use. In addition, as part of the SR 531 corridor improvements multiuse trails are planned for both sides of the corridor and other roadway improvements and frontage improvements would provide enhancements to sidewalks and bicycle facilities. ▪ Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) - ITS improvements such as adaptive signal control systems would improve traffic operations at intersections within the CIC area. ▪ Capacity Improvements – Adding capacity at key intersections that are impacted by the CIC and development in the area could improve LOS and decrease vehicle delays. ▪ LOS Policy – Increasing capacity at intersections and along the roadway system may improve LOS for vehicles; however, it could create impacts for other modes. The City may desire to revisit LOS policies to have a more multimodal LOS that gives priority to other modes and considers connectivity of the pedestrian and bicycle network and/or minimizing barriers for non-auto modes. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-26 1.6.4 Land Use and Aesthetics How did we analyze Land Use and Aesthetics? This analysis addresses consistency of the studied alternatives with City and regional plans and policies. This section also addresses physical land use patterns within and surrounding the Study Area, considering changes in type and intensity of industrial and residential uses. Existing land use pattern conditions are based on field reconnaissance, imagery review, and Snohomish County and City of Arlington parcel data. What impacts did we identify? The evaluation reviewed whether alternatives would cause: ▪ Inconsistency with current plans and policies. ▪ Differences in activity levels at boundaries of uses likely to result in incompatibilities. ▪ Change to land use patterns or development intensities that preclude reasonable transitions between areas of less intensive zoning and more intensive zoning. Policy Consistency: All alternatives are consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) goals to focus growth and reduce sprawl in the region. All alternatives would support an industrial center per the City’s Comprehensive Plan though some would alter the level of jobs, distribution and sectors. Land Use Patterns in the Center: All studied alternatives include some amount of redevelopment. As redevelopment occurs within the Study Area, there is the potential for localized land use compatibility impacts to occur where newer development is of greater height and intensity than existing development. These compatibility impacts, if they occur, are temporary and will be resolved over time. The extent of these conflicts varies by alternative and can be reduced by the application of existing or new development and industrial design standards. New growth is expected to occur under all the studied alternatives, although the amount of growth and composition of the mix of land uses will vary by alternative. Activity levels would increase across the Study Area with new businesses, employees and some residents. Land Use Surrounding the Study Area: Land use compatibility impacts are unlikely to occur to the south, southwest or north of the Study Area due to physical barriers, topography, or the buffer requirements of the Arlington Municipal Airport. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-27 What is different between the alternatives? Policy Consistency: The No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives would continue to meet GMA goals by identifying the CIC as a manufacturing industrial center which can focus growth and avoid sprawl in the region. However, with no further investments the area may be less likely to redevelop as envisioned in the AMMIC Subarea Plan under the No Action Alternative. Given its relatively lower employment capacity, the No Action Alternative is also less likely to assist the City in meeting its growth allocations for 2035, whereas the Action Alternatives could assist with that objective. Land Use Patterns in the Center: Overall there are no differences in allowed heights under the No Action Alternative or the Action Alternatives. Alternative 1 would distribute high -density employment growth on sites identified as priority sites in the AMMIC subarea plan while the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 are anticipated to continue existing patterns of growth. The greatest employment growth is associated with Alternative 2 and only Alternative 1 anticipates a slight increase in residential growth. The No Action Alternative has the lowest growth anticipated of the three alternatives. There are proposed industrial design standards for development compatibility. Land Use Surrounding the Study Area: Compatibility conflicts could occur due to changes in the mix of land use and changes related to the increased intensity and height of new development. Building height increases on the northwest side of the Study Area, west of 47th Ave NE could place future buildings of up to 50 feet in this area. However, these maximum heights are not likely since much of the land is also restricted by FAA regulations. Within the Study Area there is limited potential for land use conflicts under the No Action Alternative or Action Alternatives since new development is not anticipated to be of greater height or intensity compared to existing development. What are some solutions or mitigation for Land Use and Aesthetics impacts? ▪ The manufacturing industrial center is intended to take the majority of the city’s projected employment growth. Minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be incorporated into the implementation of the Action Alternatives to ensure full consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Subarea Plan. ▪ Careful attention in the creation of industrial development-specific design standards could limit any potential land use compatibility conflicts between the Study Area and in adjacent areas. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-28 With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? Under all studied alternatives, additional growth and development will occur in the Study Area, leading to increases in height and bulk of buildings and increased land use intensity. This transition is unavoidable but is not considered significant or adverse within an urban area designated as a Manufacturing Industrial Center in the Comprehensive Plan. Future growth is likely to create temporary or localized land use compatibility issues as development occurs. The potential impacts related to these changes may differ in intensity and location in each of the alternatives. However, with existing and new development regulations, and design guidelines, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 1.6.5 Utilities and Public Services How did we analyze Utilities and Public Services? Utilities were analyzed by considering how the proposed alternatives, including changes in population, dwelling units, and jobs would affect water demand, wastewater generation, and the quantity of stormwater runoff. Stormwater quality is discussed in the Natural Environment section. What impacts did we identify? Increased demand for drinking water, increased wastewater generation, and changes in surfaces that generate the need for additional stormwater infrastructure. What is different between the alternatives? Demand for water and generation of wastewater are scalable with population and jobs. As a result, all the alternatives increase water demand and wastewater generation. The Action Alternatives include larger increases in jobs than the No Action Alternative, so the Action Alternatives would result in larger increases in water demand and wastewater generation. Alternative 1 includes some additional population, which are not included in the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. Alternative 2 includes more new jobs than the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1. Base on application of planning level estimates of water demand and wastewater generation per person and per employee, Alternative 2 is expected to result in the greatest increase in water demand and wastewater generation; however, water use can vary significantly by industry. 1.0 Summary ▪ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 1-29 There is no substantial difference between the No Action Alterative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2, from the standpoint of stormwater flow generation and ability of the stormwater system to convey the flow. What are some solutions or mitigation for Utilities and Public Services impacts? ▪ The Arlington Comprehensive Plan addresses levels of service and capital improvements for fire, police, and parks. This is updated periodically with the Comprehensive Plan. ▪ The Arlington Municipal Code includes common open space standards for new residential developments. ▪ The City could incentivize or require participation in regional stormwater when concepts are developed to help spur development and water quality and stormwater management. ▪ The City could employ crime prevention through environmental design standards through its industrial design guidelines. ▪ Park and recreation improvements are proposed with each action alternative such as in association with the relocation of Edgecomb Creek. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated for the water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities under any of the alternatives. The City has developed comprehensive plans for all three utilities and these plans are updated regularly to reflect system needs. The capital project needs to support redevelopment of the Study Area are similar in scale to projects that the utilities execute on a regular basis. The costs of these improvements would be partially offset by general facility connection charges and rates for service. Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-1 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction and Purpose The proposal includes the adoption of a Planned Action consistent with RCW 43.21c.440 and associated Comprehensive Plan amendments to address necessary capital investments that study implementation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan and associated implementing policies/regulatory amendments. Opportunity sites identified in the subarea plan are further evaluated for potential job growth and mix that meet the subarea plan vision, goals, and intent for jobs in aerospace, robotics, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber. Job increases of nearly 5,000 to 9,000 or more are studied representing potential capacity under the current Comprehensive Plan (No Action) and under two Action Alternatives that vary capital investments and any necessary policy or code amendments that encourage added land use and growth consistent with the Subarea Plan. Action alternatives also consider options for Edgecomb Creek realignment and restoration. 2.2 Description of the Study Area The study area is the Arlington portion of the Cascade Industrial Center. Formerly known as the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center the CIC straddles the cities of Arlington and Marysville. The Arlington portion of this center encompasses about 2,291 acres surrounding and including the Arlington Municipal Airport (AWO). 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Process Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-2 2.3 Process 2.3.1 Planning Process The Arlington CIC planning process reflects two phases summarized below. ▪ Draft Plan and EIS – Prepare a Draft EIS to test alternatives. ▪ Preferred Alternative and Final Plan – Considering the Draft EIS and public input, engage stakeholders and the community to create a Preferred Alternative. Develop a Final EIS incorporating the Preferred Alternative. 2.3.2 Public Comment Opportunities AMMIC Subarea Plan Engagement Efforts Public participation was an important aspect of the subarea planning process; feedback informed various stages of Plan development, from visioning, plan alternatives, goals and policies. Engagement activities included: Stakeholder Interviews In September 2017, the project team conducted eight interviews with individual stakeholders, property owners, and business owners in the MIC. The interviews provided insights into the needs and concerns in the area as well as an opportunity to introduce and connect interviewees to the upcoming planning process. Online Community Survey In March 2018, an online survey was distributed to residents in both cities as well as business owners and employees in the MIC. This was a way to both increase awareness of the Subarea Planning process and gather input from people who could not attend in -person meetings. A total of eighty-four respondents provided feedback through the online survey. Their input underscored the needs and concerns raised through interviews. Vision Public Workshop More than 80 property owners and community members attended the AMMIC Subarea Pla n kickoff workshop on April 4, 2018 to learn about the project and provide input. The consultant team set up project boards including informational and interactive boards to receive public input. The public had opportunities to provide input through three ways: ▪ An open house where the consultant team was at hand to provide information and answer 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Process Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-3 ▪ questions. There were also boards where points of interest or ideas for future improvements could be noted. ▪ A facilitated large group discussion. ▪ Three smaller group discussions, which involved a facilitated conversation and mapping activity. Advisory Committee Meetings In addition to these engagement activities, the Cities created an advisory group to review technical information, provide input and recommendations, and works collectively to refine components of the Subarea Plan. This group was comprised of senior technical staff from regional agencies, and AMMIC business and property owners. The advisory group met three times over the course of preparation of the Subarea Plan to provide input on substantive aspects of plan development. Draft Plan Public Workshop More than 80 property owners and community members attended the AMMIC Subarea Plan workshop on October 17, 2018 to provide input on the draft plan concepts. The consultant team set up project boards including informational and interactive boards to receive public input. The meeting included an open house, presentation, question and answer session and time for one- on-one discussion with City staff and consultants. Attendees were encouraged to provide input related to strengths and weaknesses in the Plan. Legislative Process The AMMIC Subarea Plan was adopted by Council in December 2018 following a Planning Commission hearing and recommendation. Recent Public Engagement Efforts To date public comment opportunities have included the activities described below. Event summaries are included in Appendix B. EIS Scoping – April 2020. A public scoping notice was issued to a mailing list and posted online to receive comments on issues that should be studied in the EIS. The scoping period extended from April 8 to April 29, 2020. Current and Future Comment Opportunities With the publication of this Draft EIS, a 30-day comment period has been established from October 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020. A public meeting is planned in this period to assist with 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-4 development of a Preferred Alternative. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Subarea Plan and Planned Action. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and deliberation. The schedule will be included at the City of Arlington website: http://www.arlingtonwa.gov/310/Public-Notices 2.4 Objectives and Alternatives 2.4.1 Proposal Objectives SEPA requires a statement of objectives that address the purpose and need for the proposal. The proposal objectives for the EEC are based on the AMMIC Subarea Plan Guiding Principles and objectives for coordinated planning and investments. Guiding Principles Coordinated investments and regional impact. Coordinated investments within the AMMIC allow it to function as a regional center with a focus on production, especially advanced manufacturing. AMMIC busine sses leverage and support manufacturing industrial activity across the region, including activities at Paine Field, Port of Everett and Port of Seattle Tacoma. In addition to Arlington and Marysville, Snohomish County and the central Puget Sound region benefit from development in the AMMIC through its positive impact on regional economic health and competitiveness. Economic diversity. The presence of a variety of economic activities allows cities and regions to be resilient against changing economic trends and cycles. The AMMIC provides opportunities for a broad range of economic activities and industries. Employment-rich production businesses contribute to job growth in the Center. These include business in advanced manufacturing, aerospace, food processing, mass timber, as well as broader manufacturing activity. AMMIC businesses also engage in repair and distribution to support and leverage manufacturing and industrial activity. Building on and strengthening distinctive competitive advantages. The AMMIC enjoys a distinct competitive advantage in the region for manufacturing, especially related to aerospace. In addition to a diverse range of firms, the AMMIC builds on this recognized business and industry clusters to leverage its comparative advantage and 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-5 agglomeration benefits. Economic activity and opportunity. AMMIC’s industrial businesses create jobs that pay good wages and are accessible to people with all levels of education. Partnerships with local community colleges, high schools, as well as other local and regional institutions ensure residents have access to training opportunities and businesses have access to a trained workforce. The presence of affordable housing in both Arlington and Marysville support the local workforce and economy. Accessibility and connectivity. Planned transportation improvements in and around the AMMIC have increased capacity, reduced conflicts with the railroad, and improved freight connectivity. AMMIC employees can access readily available public transit, including the future SWIFT BRT on Smokey Point Blvd. The Cities of Arlington and Marysville, local businesses and Community Transit, have partnered to provide innovative micro-transit or feeder routes that serve industrial facilities and provide good connections to transit and to park and ride facilities. Nonmotorized facilitie s within the AMMIC have improved and employees and residents enjoy easy access to the Arlington Airport Trail and the Centennial Trail. High quality design. Industrial development in the MIC is consistent with design standards to ensure quality development that benefits property owners and the Cities. Sustainability. Development in the AMMIC is consistent with standards for modern industrial development and environmental requirements. Where feasible, industrial facilities integrate low impact development concepts, including rain gardens, pervious pavements, and green roofs. Industrial development also utilizes alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. 2.4.2 Alternatives No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would continue the current Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning for the study area. No changes to the Comprehensive Plan to addressed added infrastructure investments in the Capital Facility Plan or other amendments necessary to implement Subarea Plan strategies for CIC opportunity sites in Arlington would be addressed. No Planned Action would be adopted to facilitate environmental review of new development or 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-6 redevelopment. The current intent for the Arlington portion of the CIC is to serve as a manufacturing and industrial employment center, with a diverse range of industrial activities that provide employment opportunities for residents in Snohomish County and the region . The majority (~80%) of the Study Area is currently zoned for industrial/aviation uses across Aviation Flightline, General Industrial, and Light Industrial zoning districts. See Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14. The No Action Alternative would allow for net growth rounded to 4,824 jobs with no changes to housing. See Exhibit 12. The No Action Alternative plans assume current employment density and sectoral distribution with the existing 4,969 jobs maintained and increased; however, there are no incentives or investments planned. Exhibit 12. No Action Alternative: Current and Planned Growth Population Dwellings Jobs Existing 890 332 4,969 Planned Growth (net) 2040 0 0 4,824 Total 216 9,793 Source: City of Arlington, 2020; PSRC 2020; Transpo Group, 2020; BERK, 2020. Exhibit 13. Study Area Zoning by Acreage, 2020 Zone Acres General Industrial 862 Aviation Flightline 737 Light Industrial 237 Business Park 166 General Commercial 165 Highway Commercial 88 Public/Semi Public 36 Total 2,291 Source: City of Arlington, 2020; Snohomish County, 2020; BERK, 2020. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-7 Exhibit 14. Current Zoning Within Study Area Source: City of Arlington, 2020; Snohomish County, 2020; BERK, 2020. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-8 Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) Subarea Plan. Higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as “opportunity sites” in the Subarea Plan and lower density development (at existing employment density) is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. High density employment is anticipated in sectors identified in the Subarea Plan such as aerospace, robotics, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel-ready land at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport. Slightly smaller increases are anticipated on the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE, on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. In addition to high density industrial or manufacturing employment, workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities would be newly established on the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the airport. This would support the industry sectors identified in the Subarea Plan especially food processing and seafood industries and robotics. Along with diverse industrial development, future development under this alternative is anticipated to include a small amount of new residential development that is compatible with the industrial land use mix of the center. See Exhibit 16. This alternative supports net increases of employment of 6,625 jobs, 516 dwellings, and 1,383 residents. See Exhibit 15. Exhibit 15 Alternative 1: Current and Planned Growth Existing Alternative 1: 2040 Net Change* Population 890 2,273 1,383 Dwellings 332 848 516 Jobs 4,969 11,594 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 202; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. Alternative 1 would implement the AMMIC Subarea Plan and include Comprehensive Plan amendments to address necessary capital investments as well as zoning changes that increase Light Industrial and Business Park zoning and decrease General Commercial and Highway Commercial zoning. See Exhibit 16. This alternative will adopt a Planned Action Ordinance to help facilitate environmental review of new development and redevelopment. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-9 Exhibit 16. Alternative 1: Cascade Center Vision Job Sectors Source: BERK, 2020. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-10 Alternative 2: High Growth Trend Sectors Alternative 2 anticipates a high growth scenario for employment within the center. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. See Exhibit 18. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel -ready land at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport and the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE. Slightly smaller increases of employment are anticipated on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Similar to Alternative 1, employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. Areas of substantial development, besides the Airport Business Park, will be in the southwest quadrant of 51st Ave/172nd St. and the southwest quadrant of 67th Ave./172nd The sectoral mix of employment under this alternative is anticipated to reflect current patterns and countywide trends. Current employment patterns show less than half of the total jobs in Manufacturing and close to 20% of jobs in Warehousing, Transportation and Utilities. Workforce training, incubators and similar entrepreneurial support facilities or residential development suitable to industrial districts are not anticipated in this alternative. Without a focus on manufacturing sectors identified in the Subarea Plan, and supportive investments in workforce training and education, this pattern is expected to continue. See Exhibit 18. This alternative supports net increases of employment of 8,844 jobs with no changes to dwellings or population compared to existing conditions and the No Action Alternative. See Exhibit 17. Exhibit 17. Alternative 2: Current and Planned Growth Existing Alternative 2: 2040 Net Change* Population 890 890 0 Dwellings 332 332 0 Jobs 4,969 13,813 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 202; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. Alternative 2 would adopt a Comprehensive Plan capital facility plan amendments regarding infrastructure investments necessary to support the study area, and a Planned Action Ordinance to help guide future development and facilitate environmental review of new developm ent and redevelopment. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-11 Exhibit 18. Alternative 2 Source: BERK, 2020. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-12 Future Alternatives Following the Draft EIS comment period, the City may develop a Preferred Alternative that is similar to a studied alternative or in the range of the studied alternatives. The Preferred Alternative may combine different features of the studied alternatives. 2.4.3 Alternative Comparisons Major features of the alternatives are described and compared below. Land Use Each alternative proposes a different mix of employment sectors within existing land use designations, particularly Alternative 1. See Exhibit 19. Exhibit 19. Alternative Parcel Acres by Zoning District Designation No Action Acres Alternative 1 Alternative 2 General Industrial 861.86 861.86 861.86 Aviation Flightline 737.02 737.02 737.02 Light Industrial 236.68 312.52 236.68 Business Park 165.57 193.01 165.57 General Commercial 165.23 63.44 165.23 Highway Commercial 88.42 86.93 88.42 Public/Semi-Public 35.98 35.98 35.98 Grand Total 2,290.78 2,290.78 2,290.78 Source: BERK, 2020. Growth Each alternative’s projected growth is listed in Exhibit 20. Alternative 2 has the greatest total employment and would retain and increase jobs. It would not add any new dwellings compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would increase employment by 6,625, or 1,801 jobs more than the No Action Alternative and 2,219 less than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would support the vision, intent and sectoral mix outlined in the Subarea Plan and 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-13 accommodate supportive uses such as educational/workforce training facilities and business incubators. Alternative 1 would also add a small number of dwellings such as live/work units suitable in industrial districts compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. Exhibit 20. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth Ex i s t i n g No A c t i o n Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 1 Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 2 Ne t C h a n g e * Population 890 890 0 2,273 1,383 890 0 Dwellings 332 332 0 848 516 332 0 Jobs 4,969 9,793 4,824 11,594 6,625 13,813 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. The total population, housing, and jobs for each alternative is illustrated in Exhibit 21. As noted above, Alternative 2 has the greatest total jobs with sectors similar to current conditions and trends whereas Alternative 1 grows jobs compared to No Action Alternative and has a different sectoral mix than both the No Action and Alternative 2; Alternative 1 has a smaller number of total jobs than Alternative 2 and includes a small share of housing. Given the location of the CIC, the No Action Alternative would likely result in a mix of industrial and commercial employment sectors. Though the No Action Alternative has capacity for jobs, without further investment there are not likely to be the land use mix or employment sectors envisioned in the Subarea Plan. 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-14 Exhibit 21. Total Population, Dwellings, and Jobs 2040 by Alternative Source: PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020: BERK, 2020. Planned Actions Action Alternatives 1 and 2 propose the designation of a Planned Action in the Study Area, as authorized under SEPA (RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164 through -172). Planned actions provide more detailed environmental analysis during the area-wide planning phase, rather than during the permit review process. Future projects in the Study Area that develop under the designated Planned Action will not require SEPA threshold determinations at the time of permit application if they are certified as consistent with the type of development, growth and traffic assumptions, and mitigation measures studied in the EIS. Such projects are still required to comply with adopted laws and regulations and would undergo review pursuant to the City’s adopted land use and building permit procedures. See Exhibit 22 for a summary of the process. A draft Planned Action Ordinance is included in Appendix C. Exhibit 22. Planned Action Process Source: BERK, 2020. - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Existing No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Population, Dwellings, Jobs 2040 Population Dwellings Jobs Prepare & Issue Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Consider Adoption of Planned Action Ordinance defining allowed development & required mitigation Review Future Permits for Consistency with Planned Action Ordinance 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Objectives and Alternatives Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-15 Comparison of Features Based on the description of alternatives in this chapter, Exhibit 23 compares the features of the alternatives in terms of changes to plans and regulations and infrastructure investments. Exhibit 23. Alternative Features Feature No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Plans and Regulations Continue Current Plans and Regulations X X Implements Subarea Plan including changes to Capital Facilities Element to Support Growth X X Implements Changes to Development Regulations Consistent with Subarea Plan X Planned Action Ordinance X X Investments Current Transportation Investments X X X Added Multimodal Transportation Investments to support Job Types X X Add trail in the buffer of relocated Edgecomb creek X X Source: BERK, 2020. Proposed design standards to implement Action Alternatives are anticipated to include: Exhibit 24. Proposed Industrial Design Standards Feature Site Context Integration of the natural environment Circulation Site Character 2.0 Proposal and Alternatives ▪ Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Proposed Action Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 2-16 Feature Edges and adjacent areas Security and Lighting Landscaping Screening Service facilities Parking Building Design Building form and scale Building orientation Building materials Specific Development Types Industrial Complexes and Campus Industrial Incubator Industrial Advanced Manufacturing facilities Food processing facilities Maritime facilities Wood products manufacturing facilities Industrial service facilities Industrial live/work facilities Source: BERK, 2020. 2.5 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Proposed Action Delaying the proposed action would limit the overall amount of development in the Arlington portion of the CIC that could otherwise occur with the proposal by changing development regulations or approving a Planned Action Ordinance. Delaying the proposal would also delay any increased demand for public services or utilities associated with development. Delaying the proposal would delay improvements of water quality accompanying redevelopment and green infrastructure investments. If the proposal is not adopted, the area would continue with the established industrial land use designation, though with a different employment sector mix than under the proposed action. Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-1 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation This chapter describes the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for the following topics: ▪ Section 3.1 Natural Environment ▪ Section 3.2 Cultural Resources ▪ Section 3.3 Transportation ▪ Section 3.4 Land Use and Aesthetics ▪ Section 3.5 Utilities and Public Services Following a description of current conditions (affected environment), the analysis compares and contrasts the alternatives and provides mitigation measures for identified impacts. It also summarizes whether there are significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-2 3.1 Natural Environment This section addresses critical areas, geologically hazardous areas, water resources, and plants and animals. 3.1.1 Affected Environment Critical Areas The existing development within the study area is primarily high intensity industrial consisting of the 737-acre Arlington Municipal Airport and several manufacturing, processing, and fabrication firms. There are two creeks that flow through the study area: Edgecomb Creek and Portage Creek. Both creeks have documented salmonid presence or the potential to provide habitat for salmonids. There are a few isolated forested areas adjacent to Arlington Municipal Airport and within wetland and stream buffers. These areas and other parks and open spaces in the Study Area provide habitat for a variety of bird and mammal species and for stormwater infiltration. Other critical areas, including geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife conservation areas are mapped in both the developed and undeveloped areas of the study area. In addition to these natural resources within the CIC, the study area is bounded on the north by the Portage Creek Wildlife Reserve, a 157-acre natural area. Each major critical area is addressed below including: ▪ Geologically Hazardous Areas ▪ Geologic Hazards ▪ Water Resources: Groundwater, Surface Water, Streams, Wetlands, and Water Quality ▪ Plants and Animals Geologically Hazardous Areas The study area is characterized by erosion hazards and liquefaction hazards. City of Arlington critical area regulations address public health and safety by requiring all development proposals on sites containing erosion hazard areas to submit an erosion control plan prior to the approval of any permit. Plans shall be consistent with the guidelines set forth in the International Building Code grading section and the Arlington Department of Public Works’ construction standards specifications. Clearing for roads and utilities shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the engineering design. Development proposals on sites containing landslide hazard areas shall comply with the requirements set forth in AMC 20.93.630.b and c. Development 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-3 proposals located in landslide areas with slopes thirty-three percent or greater shall comply with the steep slope regulations described in AMC 20.93.630.c. Development proposals in landslide hazard areas with slopes less than thirty-three percent shall not increase surface water discharge or sedimentations and must demonstrate through geotechnical analysis that there is no significant risk to the development proposal or adjacent properties. If the provisions described above and set forth in AMC 20.93.630.b. are not met, a minimum buffer of fifty feet shall be provided from the edges of all landslide hazard areas. Geologic Hazards The study area is characterized by erosion hazards and liquefaction hazards. See Critical area regulations address public health and safety by regulating new development in terms of erosion control during construction, building code and foundations. Exhibit 25 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-4 Exhibit 25. Geologically Hazardous Areas Source: City of Arlington 2012; Herrera 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-5 Water Resources Groundwater The northern portion of the study area sits upon Arlington Alluvium, a very porous substrate with high infiltration potential. High groundwater in the southern portion of the study area limits the potential for stormwater infiltration. There is one mapped wellhead protection area (WHPA) near the Arlington Municipal Airport and two WHPAs that extend into the northwest corner of the study area. The aquifer that provides water for the City’s airport well field is located under the Arlington Airport within the study area. The depth of the shallow aquifer is approximately 50 feet and depth of the deep aquifer is 150 feet. The Washington State Department of Health administers requirements for water systems (WAC 246-290 through 246-296). The City of Arlington’s wellhead protection program addresses public health and groundwater protection by requiring all development proposals within a public groundwater recharge area or within 100 feet of a drinking water well to comply with the requirements in AMC 20.93.930 through 960 and WAC 246-290-135. Per WAC 246-290-135.b, a 100 foot and 200-foot sanitary control area shall be maintained around all wells and springs, respectively, unless engineering justification demonstrates that a smaller area can provide an adequate level of source water protection. Per AMC 20.93.930 and 940 a hydrogeologic site evaluation and best management practices plan is required for proposals within a public groundwater recharge area or within 100 feet of water wells. If a hydrogeologic site evaluation identifies significant impacts to critical public aquifer storage recharge areas, the project is required to document potential impacts and provide a detailed mitigation plan for avoiding potential impacts. Per AMC 20.93.950, the City may require that the mitigation plan include preventative measures, monitoring, process control, and remediation. See Exhibit 26 for wellhead protection areas and aquifer sensitivity in the study area. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-6 Exhibit 26. Study Area Wellhead Protection Areas and Aquifer Sensitivity Source: City of Arlington 2012; Herrera 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-7 Surface Water The study area straddles the divide between two river basins, the Stillaguamish and the Snohomish, which are regionally recognized as Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 5 and 7, respectively (Arlington 2010). Runoff from the northern portion of the Study Area ultimately drains to the Stillaguamish via Portage Creek or the South Fork Stillaguamish. Runoff from the southern portion of the Study Area ultimately drains to the Snohomish via Edgecomb Creek. Streams Edgecomb Creek and Portage Creek constitute Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) that provide habitat for federal and state listed fish species. Both creeks are classified as Type F-ESA streams, which are natural waters that have substantial fish, wildlife, or human use. Type F-ESA streams have a buffer of 150 feet according to AMC 20.93.730 that limits certain activities per AMC 20.93.720 Edgecomb Creek originates in the hills east of the study area and flows west then south before draining into the middle fork of Quilceda Creek. Within the study area Edgecomb Creek has been highly channelized for rail and agriculture (Marysville 2015). There is a narrow riparian buffer along the creek, but most of the land surrounding the creek has been converted to agricultural uses. There is a proposal to relocate the creek from its current alignment into a more natural channel with a riparian corridor that would provide better fish and wildlife habitat. The conceptual channel alignment would include (Marysville 2008): ▪ A low-flow channel for year-round stream flow ▪ A high-flow channel to convey flood flows, to address flooding issues in the basin ▪ Instream large woody debris for habitat ▪ 100- to 150-foot buffers on either side of the creek along the entire length of the project ▪ Native vegetation planting in the channel and buffer ▪ Off-channel rearing habitat ▪ Connection to hillside streams north of 162nd Street NE The relocation of Edgecomb Creek away from the ditches and into a more naturally sinuous channel with a riparian corridor would benefit wildlife and stream habitat and provide an opportunity to integrate the stream with stormwater management in the study area. The City would implement a 150-foot vegetated buffer that would improve and protect the natural function of the stream (AMC 20.93.730). Creek relocation would also correct several culverts that pose a partial barrier to fish passage (WDFW 2018b). Removing or retrofitting those culverts to provide complete fish passage to all life stages of fish during all flows would improve salmonid habitat in the study area. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-8 Portage Creek originates in the hills east of Arlington and flows generally northwest through the northeast corner of the study area before draining into the Stillaguamish River appr oximately 3.4 miles west of the study area. Both creeks in the study area either have documented salmonid presence or have the potential to provide habitat for salmonids, several of which are federally listed as Threatened or as State candidate species. Wetlands The City of Arlington and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) identifies several Category II wetlands associated with Edgecomb Creek: two Category III wetlands on the Arlington/Marysville border and one Category III wetland in the northeast corner of the site. Standard buffer widths vary by jurisdiction and range from 35 feet for a Category IV wetland to 190 feet for a Category I wetland. Any development within a wetland or buffer will require compensatory mitigation at the appropriate ratios. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-9 Exhibit 27. Study Area Streams and Wetlands Source: City of Arlington 2012; Herrera 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-10 Water Quality Stormwater infrastructure in the study area includes collection, treatment, and storage systems with outfalls to Edgecomb and Portage Creeks, relying on them to convey storm flows away from the study area. “Runoff from urbanizing areas often results in greater volumes and more rapid rates of water flow over shorter durations relative to undeveloped areas. These modified flows can degrade the channels and harm the aquatic ecosystems they support” (Arlington 2010). Arlington has completed a number of culvert replacement projects to improve fish passage and reduce localized flooding in the area. Most or all segments of the Stillaguamish River are identified (listed under CWA 303d) as impaired for fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and temperature (Ecology 2020). “Clean -up plans developed under two Stillaguamish Total Maximum Daily Load studies (TMDLs) are enforced through the NPDES wastewater discharge permit for the Arlington Water Reclamation Facility, and the NPDES Phase II stormwater general permit for Arlington and other cities” (Arlington 2017a). Surface water in the southern portion of the study area drains to the Snohomish Rive r via Edgecomb and Quilceda Creek which joins the Snohomish River delta near Marysville. The Snohomish River at its mouth is identified as impaired for Fecal Coliform, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and pH (Ecology 2020). In 2008, Ecology developed a TMDL water clean plan for fecal coliform in the Snohomish River Tributaries, including Quilceda Creek. As a requirement of Snohomish County’s NPDES permit, beginning in 2010, Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management Division began a monitoring program to identify and eliminate sources of fecal coliform within the TMDL coverage areas (Snohomish County) Edgecomb Creek is generally highly disturbed and impacted by human land use patterns. Non - point source pollution from agriculture and urban development have increased the presence of pollutants in Edgecomb Creek. Data from Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 2020) indicates that high concentration of fecal coliform bacteria has been a concern in Edgecomb Creek in the past, but a TMDL has been implemented to address this concern (Otak 2010). Low dissolved oxygen levels are also a concern in the summer months and can compromise crucial fish habitat Portage Creek is identified as impaired for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform (Ecology 202 0). The City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan (Arlington 2017) notes that surface water quality and quantity of riverine and riparian habitats associated with Portage Creek are in a state of recovery, but that it is of “paramount importance that…waterways be protected and managed to improve listed species population status and recover their functionality.” 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-11 Plants and Animals Plants The Study Area is highly urbanized with only a small percentage of the area consisting of parks and open natural spaces. Vegetation communities throughout unmaintained areas, landscaped areas, and other small green spaces are likely dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) giant horsetail, hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), and common dandelion (Taraxucum officinale). There are several palustrine forested and palustrine emergent wetlands in the study area. Freshwater palustrine forested wetlands are likely dominated by willows (Salix spp.), black cottonwood, and red alder. Shrub species commonly found in these wetlands include Himalayan blackberry, rose spirea (Spirea douglasii), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). Common emergent vegetation in freshwater wetlands consist of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), cattail (Typha spp.), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and American skunkcabbage (Lysichiton americanus). Upland buffers between wetlands and adjacent impervious surfaces are likely dominated by Himalayan blackberry, bull thistle, tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobea), garlic mustard (Aligria petioloata), and gorse (Ulex europgeus). No state or federal rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered native plant species or important plant communities are documented in the study area (WDNR 2020). Animals Fish Creeks in the study area either have documented salmonid presence or have the potential to provide habitat for salmonids, several of which are federally listed as threatened under the endangered species act (ESA). Both creeks in the study area may be used by ESA-listed Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Edgecomb Creek and Portage Creek may also be used by ESA-listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) during foraging and migration. Additionally, both creeks within the study area are mapped for the presence of several recreational and commercially important species including pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), Puget Sound coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch), and fall chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Wildlife Wildlife depends on diverse plant communities for cover, denning, reari ng, foraging, and shelter from predators. The urban and industrial land uses that make up most of the study area include 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-12 considerable barriers to wildlife migration and limited areas of usable habitat. However, riparian corridors, wetlands, parks, and other remaining open spaces do provide some wildlife habitat for bird, mammal, and fish species common in the Puget Sound Region. Due to the highly developed nature of the study area, mammal species are likely to include species tolerant of human activity such as opossums, Norway rats, eastern cottontail rabbits, eastern gray squirrels, deer mice, feral cats, muskrats, racoons, and perhaps coyotes and black-tailed deer. Areas adjacent to the study area including the Portage Creek Wildlife Reserve have a sufficient number of habitat types that support a greater diversity of mammal, bird, reptile, and insect communities. 3.1.2 Impacts Thresholds of Significance Impacts described in the following sections are broad evaluations based on the design details available at the time of analysis; each future planned action will be subject to Arlington municipal regulations and will need to demonstrate consistency with applicable critical area and water quality regulations. The thresholds of significance utilized in this impact analysis include: ▪ Erosion that could not be contained on future development sites. ▪ Exposure of people to risk of injury or substantial damage to structures and infrastructure due to the creation or acceleration of a geologic hazard. ▪ The potential to reduce groundwater recharge or impact aquifer water quality due to mismanaged or poorly designed mitigation measures. ▪ The potential for degradation or loss of wetland, stream, or fish and wildlife habitat, or inconsistency with current regulations protecting critical area functions and values or shoreline ecological functions. ▪ Likelihood of jeopardizing a plant or animal population that is not currently vulnerable in Arlington and is a priority habitat or species. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: As discussed in the Land Use section (Section 3.4), about 14% percent of the study area is currently vacant and could convert to industrial uses allowed in the No Action Alternative (i.e. under the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code) or Action Alternatives’ based on the AMMIC Subarea Plan. This could add impervious area, reduce groundwater recharge, and increase the risk of contaminants entering the City’s aquifer. The 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-13 aquifer that provides water for the City’s airport well field is located under the Arlington Airport within the study area. The depth of the shallow aquifer is approximately 50 feet; however, the deep aquifer is 150 feet and most uses should not affect the water quality if best management practices are used. Wetlands and other vegetation communities in the study area and any wildlife using the area could also be affected. City critical area regulations, stormwater regulations, and grading standards would apply to reduce potential impacts. Water Quality – Stormwater: Under all alternatives development and redevelopment projects have the potential to generate stormwater pollution during construction. City code requires all projects to implement Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) stormwater management best management practices during construction that will minimize these impacts. Under all alternatives, the anticipated increases in employees could result in additional traffic in the Study Area, which could contribute pollutants to stormwater generated in the roadway. However, this impact is expected to be offset by the stormwater quality improvements resulting from treatment facilities that are required by regulations during redevelopment. The surface water runoff volume from the site is expected to increase under all the alternatives because the proposed development will increase the total area of impervious surfaces. However, City stormwater code requires new development of the scale proposed to install stormwater facilities, typically through the use of infiltration or LID facilities, that control flow rates and treat stormwater pollutants prior to discharge to receiving water bodies. Any areas that are redeveloped would also be subject to these requirements, which would result in an overall improvement (relative to existing conditions) for older developments that do not currently have modern stormwater management facilities. Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Wildlife: Under all alternatives, the undeveloped, shovel-ready 125-acre parcel at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport would be developed and the removal of existing vegetation and replacement with impervious surfaces and structures would occur. The reduction of upland vegetation would have a direct impact on urban wildlife and habitat areas. However, there are no habitats or species documented as WDFW Priority Habitats or species (WDFW 2018a), or as habitats for species of local importance. Under all action alternatives, all category II wetlands associated with Edgecomb Creek would be disturbed and a portion of Edgecomb Creek would be relocated from its current alignment into a more natural channel with a riparian corridor that would provide better fish and wildlife habitat. A portion of the City of Arlington mapped Category III wetland in the northeast corner of the site and three NWI mapped wetlands would also be disturbed under all action alternatives. Riparian areas associated with Portage Creek may also be affected as a result of construction activities. Impacts to Wetlands, Edgecomb Creek, and Portage Creek, if any were to occur, would be subject to the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements set forth in federal and state laws and in the City's CAO. These regulatory requirements are sufficient to 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-14 reduce potential impacts on stream habitat such that residual impacts would be less than significant. Under all action alternatives, there would be more people and pets using natural areas near Portage and Edgecomb Creeks over a 24-hour period, which could potentially disturb wildlife and vegetation. If users follow designated paths, the additional human and pet use in or abutting sensitive areas could be managed. Appropriate open space design could be implemented to avoid and minimize the impacts of increased natural area use. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, development would continue under the current Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning for the study area ; impacts are anticipated to be similar to “Impacts Common to All.” No Planned Action would be adopted to facilitate environmental review of new development. While the AMMIC Subarea Plan has been adopted, implementation would not change with zoning or capital investments. Compared to the Action Alternatives, redevelopment and development may not be as well coordinated, such as with the Edgecomb Creek relocation. Under the No Action Alternative, job growth geography will be the same as both Action Alternatives but will occur at lower intensity (6 jobs per acre) compared to Action Alternatives 1 and 2 though regulations governing building coverage, impervious areas, and landscaping/screening would remain the same; for example, zoning allows 100% lot coverage in commercial and industrial zones though screening (AMC Chapter 20.76) and protection of critical areas (Chapter 20.93) would override. The No Action Alternative would allow for net growth rounded to 4,824 jobs with no changes to housing and assumes current employment density and sectoral distribution with the existing 4,969 jobs maintained and increased. Action Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is based on the vision for job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix of the AMMIC Subarea Plan. Compared to the No Action Alternative, under Action Alternative 1 higher density employment is anticipated on sites identified as opportunity sites in the Subarea Plan and lower density development (at existing employment density) is anticipated on the remaining sites with development capacity. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped 125-acre parcel at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport and in the underdeveloped parcels south of 172nd Street NE. Along with diverse industrial development, future development under this alternative is anticipated to include a small amount of new residential development that is compatible with the industrial land use mix of the center. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-15 Slightly smaller increases are anticipated on the site north of the airport at 47th Ave NE, on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. Under Alternative Action 1, employment would increase by 6,625, or 1,801 jobs more than the No Action Alternative and 2,219 less than Alternative 2. The change in the share of different zoning districts would not change applicable lot coverage standards. While there are more jobs anticipated in this alternative these are not likely to increase building space since the employment sectors envisioned in this alternative, such as advanced manufacturing, house more employees per square feet than existing sectors such as warehousing. ,The increases in residential development and employees compared to the No Action Alternative could result in additional traffic and impervious surfaces in the Study Area whic h could contribute additional pollutants to stormwater generated in the roadway. Under Action Alternatives 1 and 2, there would be more people and pets using natural areas near Portage and Edgecomb Creeks over a 24-hour period, which could potentially disturb wildlife and vegetation. If users follow designated paths, the additional human and pet use in or abutting sensitive areas could be managed. Appropriate open space design could be implemented to avoid and minimize the impacts of increased natural area use. Action Alternative 2 Potential impacts on the natural environment under Action Alternative 2 would be similar to the Action Alternative 1 except that there would be a higher growth scenario for employment within the center. Compared to the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1, Alternative 2 has the greatest total employment and would retain and increase jobs. It would not add any new dwellings compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative Action 1. Employment increases are anticipated across the center on all sites with development capacity. The greatest increases in employment are anticipated on undeveloped, shovel-ready 125-acre parcel at the Airport Business Park site immediately west of the Arlington Municipal Airport and the sit e north of the airport at 47th Ave NE. Slightly smaller increases of employment are anticipated on the parcel at the intersection of 67th Ave NE and 199th St NE, on the site east of 59th Ave and south of 172nd Avenue NE, and on the site east of the airport and west of 67th Ave NE. Similar to Alternative 1, employment uses would be designed to take advantage of the area’s natural features, including a relocated Edgecomb Creek. Action Alternative 2 supports net increases of employment of 8,844 jobs. Greater increases in employees could result in more traffic and impervious surfaces in the CIC compared to the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1; while lot coverage standards are similar under all 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-16 alternatives, more building space could be constructed over the long-term to house the greatest amount of jobs envisioned in existing employment sectors 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features All alternatives are expected to attract development within the study area and within critical areas and/or buffers. The City of Arlington will comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and apply reasonable mitigation measure to reduce significant adverse impacts. Potential measures to mitigate adverse impacts of specific projects within the Study Area as well as avoidance and minimization measures that would be part of the project will be refined through final design and permitting. During redevelopment or new development under all alternatives, and particularly Alternatives 1 and 2 that propose to amend the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to implement the Subarea Plan , opportunities exist to strategically reduce impervious surfaces, employ low impact development techniques, and restore native vegetation to improve the conditions of the natural environment in these spaces. The relocation of Edgecomb Creek away from the ditches and into a more naturally sinuous channel with a riparian corridor would benefit wildlife and stream habitat and provide an opportunity to integrate the stream with stormwater management. Creek relocation would also correct several culverts that pose a partial barrier to fish passage (WDFW 2018b). Removing or retrofitting those culverts to provide complete fish passage to all life stages of fish during all flows would improve salmonid habitat in the study area. Compared to the No Action Alternative, under Alternatives 1 and 2, the relocation of Edgecomb Creek would be coordinated with subarea development and redevelopment plans. The completion and coordination of the creek relocation with the Action Alternatives would ensure wetland and stream advanced mitigation is incorporated into the selected Action Alternatives to address critical areas impacts associated with some of the proposed development in the CIC. During final design and permitting, the City of Arlington will first try to avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands through design measures and best management practices. Where impacts are unavoidable, the City will mitigate them in accordance with applicable federal regulations, local critical areas ordinances and permit requirements. The City is committed to no net loss of wetland and stream functions. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-17 Regulations and Commitments Development and redevelopment projects within the study area that have the potential to impact environmentally sensitive natural resources or surface and groundwater will require compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts is typically required for all applicable permitting reviews and authorizations Exhibit 28Exhibit 28 provides a regulatory permit matrix for action requiring local, state, and federal authorizations. Appropriate mitigation measures specific to proposed development and redevelopment projects will be proposed through final design and permitting. This may include preservation, enhancement, and restoration of wetland and streams and associated buffers. Exhibit 28. Regulatory Permit Matrix Jurisdictional Agency Regulations/Authorizations City of Arlington Pre-application submittal conference SEPA Determination (No Action Alternative) Planned Action Consistency Determination (Action Alternatives) Critical Areas review City of Arlington Stormwater Code Compliance Washington State Department of Ecology CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Section 404 Clean Water Act CWA Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Requires Compliance with: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act Magnuson-Stevens Act Critical Areas Regulations The City’s Critical Areas regulations (AMC 20.93) are applicable for the protection of wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, geologically hazardous and frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and designated buffers to protect critical areas. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Natural Environment Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-18 Washington State The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) administers the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) program under the state Hydraulic Code 0WAC 220-110), which was specifically designed to protect fish. An HPA is required for projects that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of the salt waters or fresh waters of the state, and will apply project elements with in-water or overwater work. Federal Federal regulations including the Clean Water Act Section 404 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, as administered by the U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers are appli cable to any proposed alterations to Waters of the US. Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act are additionally required for federal permits. The Magnuson-Stevens fishery Conservation and Management Act provides protection for Essential Fish Habitat. The Marine Mammal Act is applicable for the protection of species in marine waters. Projects require federal authorization will typically require 6 to 18 months for final review. Other Proposed Mitigation Measures There is potential to require street standards with green infrastructure on new connections to improve stormwater management and increase ecological benefits associated with development. This would be implemented either through advanced infrastructure implementation or through street frontage improvements as development occurs. The City could set a maximum impervious area through new zones that together with stormwater standards encourage pervious pavement, biofiltration, full mature growth of native trees and shrubs, or other methods to address water quality, groundwater recharge, and ecological function. 3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under all of the proposed alternatives, any redevelopment or new development will require compliance with all applicable regulations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts to critical areas including wetlands, streams, buffers, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Redevelopment or new development will also need to meet stormwater requirements to protect surface and groundwater from increased flow or water quality impacts. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated on the natural environment under any of the proposed alternatives. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-19 3.2 Cultural Resources This section addresses consistency of the alternatives with. state regulations pertaining to the identification and protection of cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53), and compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves. Under SEPA, agencies must consider the environmental consequences of a proposal, including impacts to cultural resources, before taking action. The Affected Environment reviews existing context and identifies any previously recorded cultural resources in the project area. This section also evaluates the potential for previously recorded and as-yet unrecorded archaeological sites and historic buildings to be disturbed by development based on future conditions that consider the level of growth and land use change described in Chapter 2 for the alternatives. Assessment methods included a review of previous ethnographic, historical, and archaeological investigations in the local area, a records search at on DAHP’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) (DAHP 2020a) for known sites in the immediate area, a review of relevant background literature and maps (including General Land Office [GLO], United States Geological Service [USGS], and county atlases), preliminary field investigations, and the preparation of this report. CRC contacted cultural resource staff of the Snohomish Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes. This correspondence was not intended to be or replace formal government-to-government consultation. Any additional information made available to the City during the EIS process will be included in the Final EIS. This assessment utilized research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely nature and location of historic properties within the project, as well as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1)) (DAHP 2020b). 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-20 3.2.1 Affected Environment Environmental Context Overview The project is within the Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock) vegetation zone in the Willamette-Puget Lowland physiographic province characterized by the wi de “trough” between the Coast and Cascade Ranges formed during the advance and retreat of Pleistocene epoch glaciers (Franklin and Dyrness 1973; McKee 1972). The project is located approximately 2.1 km (1.31 miles) south of the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River, approximately 14.15 km (8.79 miles) west of Port Susan, and approximately 13.5 km (8.4 miles) north of the mouth of the Snohomish River. The project location encompasses 2,291 acres within the City of Arlington. Starting on the Burlington North Railroad approximately 275 m (900 ft) north of Portage Creek, the project extends to the south and west to include: ▪ the industrial zone between the Burlington Northern Railroad to the west, Prairie Creek to the north, and the uplands to the east and south; ▪ the residential and industrial zone bounded by 204th St NE to the north, 67th Ave NE to the east, the Arlington Municipal Airport to the west, and the Arlington City limits to the south; ▪ the Arlington Municipal Airport; ▪ the agricultural zone south of the Airport and within the City Limits; and ▪ a residential plot bounded by the marshes of Portage Creek to the north, 35th Ave to the west, 188th St NE to the south, and 3919 188th St NE to the east. It is located within multiple local drainage systems including the extended Portage Creek drainage to the north of the project, which drains directly into the Stillaguamish River, and the Quilceda Creek drainage to the south of the project, whose outlet is at the mouth of the Snohomish River to the south. Elevation within the project location is relatively flat, ranging from 110 ft above sea level near Portage Creek to 160 feet above sea level near the eastern uplands. The project is situated on the glacial plain between Portage Creek and the uplands and tends to be relatively flat, with obvious grading in locations such as the airport runways and individual properties. Geomorphology The landscape of northwest Washington is a product of crustal deformation initiated by the Cascadia subduction zone; successive glacial scouring and deposition most recently during the Pleistocene; and landslides, erosion and deposition, and human activity during the Holocene (Troost and Booth 2008). During the Late Pleistocene or last glacial period (110,000 to 12,000 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-21 years BP), the Cordilleran ice sheet covered much of the American northwest and scoured the landscape during advance and retreat episodes initiated by localized climate fluctuations. The most recent glaciation was the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation during which the Puget Lobe entered northwest Washington around 17,000 years BP (Thorson 1980). This final episode scoured the landscape producing moraine features and topographic lows prior to its recession. The northern Puget Lowland topography is generally defined by alluvial valleys and north- northwest trending upland troughs and hills (Dethier et al. 1995). The Puget Lobe reached the vicinity of present-day Seattle by about 14,500 years BP achieving its maximum extent near Olympia by 14,000 years BP (Booth et al. 2003). The onset of climatic warming caused the ice sheets to retreat to the north and began the transition into the Holocene. The Puget Lobe retreated past Seattle by 13,600 years BP (Booth et al. 2003). As the glacier receded during this more temperate period, meltwater became impounded behind the ice forming a series of proglacial lakes that eventually merged into Lake Russell, which extended roughly from the southern margin of present-day Whidbey Island to Olympia impounding low lying sections of the Puget Sound and adjacent river valleys (Bretz 1913; Waitt and Thorson 1983). Glacial Lake Russell merged with Lake Bretz (Minard and Booth 1988; Thorson 1981) before draining via the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The retreat of the glacier an d draining of recessional meltwater resulted in the deposition of glacial till, outwash, glaciolacustrine, glaciomarine, and ice contact sediment in the Puget Lowland (Booth 1994; Booth et al. 2003). The project lies in an outwash plain composed of glacial recessional outwash with evidence of glacio-marine sediments deposited during the Everson marine incursion at the end of the Fraser glaciation (Dethier et al. 1995; Hannum 2018). While sedimentation was widespread and voluminous during the Pleistocene, de position during the Holocene has been more restricted occurring in river valleys and at the base of steep slopes (Booth et al. 2003). The uplands of the Puget Lowland are largely characterized by glacial till deposits that have been exposed since the end of the Pleistocene epoch. Deposition in these areas during the Holocene has been minimal and generally limited to the build-up of organic matter on the forest floor. Mapped Surface Geologic Unit The geology mapped in the project location consists of Pleistocene continental glacial drift (Qgd) (WA DNR 2020). The unit was further defined by Minard (1985) as the Marysville Sand Member of the Vashon Drift Recessional Outwash (Qvrm). Qvrm sediments originated from south flowing meltwater which filled the valley. Deposits can be described as mostly well-drained, stratified to massive outwash sand, with some gravel, and some areas of silt and clay. The sediments are used locally as fill and local soil variations include peat deposits, nonglacial sediments, and modified land (Minard 1985; WA DNR 2020). Conversely, Pessl et al. (1989) define the deposits as Qvrm, Recessional-Marine deposits from the Vashon Stade composed of “fossil- bearing stony silt, sand, and clay with associated layers, lenses, and pods of other di atoms and 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-22 medium- to well- sorted, massive to laminated sand, silt, and clay.” Deposits are estimated to be 1 to 10 m (3 to 33 ft) thick. However, in sum, both sources conclude the surface geology is of glacial origin dating to the end of the Vashon Stade. Mapped Soil Units The soils mapped in the project location consist of approximately 11 described soil units (Exhibit 29 and Exhibit 30). The project is largely mapped as soils derived from glacial outwash or glacial till. Areas associated with the Portage Creek drainage system in the northern quarter or the Quilceda Creek drainage in the southern quarter of the project are composed of soil units derived from alluvium. Sediments throughout the project generally consist of sand to sandy loam with local variations in gravel content. Other variations include deposits of peat, silty clay, and ashy sandy loam. Approximately 83 percent of the project is mapped as well drained with the water table 80 inches or more below the ground surface. The remaining acreage (approximately 17 percent of the project) is mapped as poorly drained to very poor ly drained with the water table 0 to 36 inches below the ground surface (USDA NRCS 2020). Exhibit 29. Locations of mapped soil units comprising ten acres or more study area Mapped Soil Unit Percent of Project Location within Study Area Parent Material General Stratigraphic Description Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 55.1 % Centrally, including airport grounds and industrial properties to the east Glacial outwash formed in outwash plains Loamy sand to sand Water table > 80 inches below surface (in b. s.) Everett very gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 25.1 % In the northern quarter of the project, in association with the Portage Creek floodplain Sandy and gravely glacial outwash Very gravelly sandy loam to extremely cobbly coarse sand Water table > 80 in b. s. Custer fine sandy loam 8.5 % South of SR 531 Glacial outwash Fine sandy loam to sand Water table 0 to 12 in b. s. Norma loam 8.2 % South of SR 531 and in other drainage systems Alluvium Ashy loam to sandy loam Water table 0 in b. s. Tokul gravelly medial loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes and 15 to 30 percent slopes 1 % East of the termination of 191st Place NE and in property between the relict railroad tracks and 67th Ave NE Volcanic ash mixed with loess over glacial till Gravelly medial loam to cemented material Water table 18 to 36 in b. s. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-23 Mapped Soil Unit Percent of Project Location within Study Area Parent Material General Stratigraphic Description Mukilteo muck <1 % East of 68th Dr. NE Herbaceous organic material Muck to peat to fine sandy loam Water table 0 to 12 in b. s. Bellingham silty clay loam <1 % East of the termination of 191st Place NE Alluvium over lacustrine deposits Silty clay loam to silty clay Water table 0 to 12 in b. s. Source: USDA NRCS 2020 Exhibit 30. Locations of mapped soil units comprising less than ten acres each of the study area Mapped Soil Unit Percent of Project Location within Project Parent Material General Sediment Description Pits .3 % Present in property at 199th St NE -- -- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes .1 % Present in property between the relict railroad tracks and 67th Ave NE Sandy and gravely glacial outwash Very gravelly sandy loam to extremely cobbly coarse sand Water table > 80 in b.s. Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams < .1 % Present at 3729 188th St NE in a drainage route for Portage Creek tributary Mix of two units: Alderwood – basal till; and Everett – glacial outwash Alderwood: gravelly ashy sandy loam to gravelly sandy loam Water table 18 to 36 in b.s. Everett: gravelly ashy sandy loam to extremely gravelly sand Water table > 80 in b.s. Source: USDA NRCS 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-24 Ethnographic Context Traditional Territory The project is within the traditional lands of the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of the Southern Coast Salish tribes. Stillaguamish territory encompassed the Stillaguamish River drainage, including both the North and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River, Pilchuck Creek, and areas between the Skagit and Snohomish Rivers. The Stillaguamish were speakers of Northern Lushootseed and maintained close relationships with neighboring tribes such as the Skagit, Snohomish, and Sauk-Suiattles. Originally named the Stoluck-wa-mish River Tribe in the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot, the tribe is represented by the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Tulalip Tribes (Ruby et al. 2010; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 2019; Suttles and Lane 1990). The Tulalip Tribes are the federally recognized successors in interest to the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, and other allied tribes and bands signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott (Tulalip Tribes 2020). Precontact settlements were often located on major waterways, river confluences, heads of bays, or inlets, and people practiced a seasonal subsistence economy that included hunting, fishing, and plant food horticulture. In the winter, people lived at permanent village settlement s in plank houses constructed from cedar (Bruseth 1926). Summer months were spent hunting, fishing, and gathering at specialized, temporary camps located near food resources. In estuarine and marine environments in the region, there was an abundance of pla nt and animal resources available. A combination of fish, shellfish, marine mammals, waterfowl, game, roots, and berries served as rich, diverse, and relatively reliable resource base (Blukis Onat 1987; Suttles and Lane 1990). Prairie locations surrounding Arlington, including Kent’s Prairie to the northeast of the project, offered a wide range of plant resources for sustenance and craft (Miss and Campbell 1991). Plants found locally included wild onion, edible roots, bulbs and tubers, as well as various grass, sedge, and reed species. Upland prairie locations were also environments for deer and elk that could be hunted. Ethnographic Place Names Early ethnographers documented locations of villages and names of resource areas, water bodies, and other cultural or geographic landscape features from local informants. Knowledge of these features contributes to the broader archaeological context of the project location and the nature of the archaeology that may be encountered during this assessment. As discussed by Schumacher (2009), at least 26 Stillaguamish villages, campsites, fishing, clamming, and potlatch sites have been identified in historic records, including permanent villages at present-day Arlington, Stanwood, and others around the mouth of the Stillaguamish River (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Indian Claims Commission 1974; Smith 1941; Tweddell 1974). At the junction of the North and South Forks of the Stillaguamish River was one of four main Stillaguamish villages, which by about 1850 “had two large houses...and several hundred 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-25 people” (Indian Claims Commission 1974). This village was referred to as Skabalko and was widely known as a popular meeting and trading location (Bruseth 1926). Most permanent settlements were located along the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River, but others have been identified archaeologically along the South Fork of the Stillaguamish (Miss and Campbell 1991). Information provided by Stillaguamish cultural resources personnel (Berger and Gardner 2019:9) indicates a Stillaguamish longhouse once stood on the north edge of the marshlands at the head of Quilceda Creek, in the vicinity of the southern part of the study area, providing context for the wide terrestrial range used to procure resources and shelter. A map provided by Sally Snyder for the Stillaguamish case to the Indian Claims Commission depicted three cultural locations in the study area vicinity, including one, bá’quab, to the south of the study area at the termination of the Quilceda Creek drainage (Indian Claims Commi ssion 1974:586-687, Map 4). Additional information provided by Nels Bruseth for the same case indicated Kent’s Prairie, just northeast of the study area, was used for gathering root or bulb crops and that a trail led from it to Quilceda Creek (Indian Claims Commission 1974:595). To the south, Tweddell (1974) and Waterman (2001) recorded several place names associated with the Snohomish Tribes, including those related to Quilceda Creek. According to Waterman (2001:337) the Creek was known as tuxqwota’itsdEb, meaning “sturgeon place” and Tweddell (1974:145) indicated the creek was well-known as a place to procure silver salmon and five villages were named along the lower reaches of Quilceda Creek (Tweddell 1974:162 -166). Historical Context Spanish explorers first visited the Northwest Coast in 1774 followed by British Royal Navy Captain George Vancouver and Lieutenant Peter Puget, who first explored the Puget Sound area, in 1792 (Marino 1990). By 1833, the Hudson’s Bay Company established a presence in the Puge t Sound region and stimulated development and economic intrigue in the region. After the United States government gained full control of the Puget Sound region in 1846, many settlers claimed land under the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 which promoted homestead settlement in the Oregon Territory allowing individuals to claim 320 acres of land and married couples to claim 640 acres with the provision that they would cultivate the land for four consecutive years. The Washington Territory was organized in 1853 with Isaac I. Stevens appointed as the governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs (Marino 1990). By the mid-1850s, Euro-American settlement in the region had drastically affected Native American people and their traditions. The United States government and local Tribal groups entered into a series of treaties. These treaties stated that signatory Tribes would cede their traditional lands to the United States government and settle within designated reservations. Signatory Tribes would retain rights of resource gathering in their usual and accustomed territory. The relocation of Native American peoples to reservations opened wide swaths of land for Euro-American settlement throughout the region. This in conjunction with the enactment of the Homestead Act of 1862, which 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-26 afforded United States citizens the opportunity to claim 160 acres of surveyed government land, helped hasten the settlement of the American west and the Puget Sound region. The history of Arlington has been detailed in numerous sources (e.g. Arlington 2020a, b, c; Oakley 2007; Olsen 1993; Ruby et al. 2010). A brief summary follows. The first Euro-American to explore the area was a prospector, Samuel Hancock, travelling the Stillaguamish River in 1850. Overland travel was made possible in 1856 when the U.S. Army cleared a trail north from Snohomish, crossing the Stillaguamish River just below the forks. Settlers began filing claims in the Arlington area in the 1880s and by 1887 two business were opened in the vicinity. Two towns were platted in the vicinity in 1890, Haller City and Arlington, with Haller City on the banks of the Stillaguamish River and Arlington occupying the uplands. A stiff rivalry grew between the towns in the pursuit of local dominance. However, when the Seattle, Lake Shore, & Eastern Railroad constructed their train depot in Arlington in 1890, it gave Arlington the greater economic gain, and by 1895 most business, aside from mills, had relocated to Arlington. The two towns incorporated as Arlington in 1903. Arlington began as a logging and agriculture-based economy with travel facilitated by railways and established wagon roads. In 1905 the town was connected to a wider network of communities through state roads heading north and a rail line heading east to Darrington. Economic assistance was provided during the Great Depression when local mills closed. A Civilian Conservation Corps camp opened in Darrington in 1933, providing jobs and projects to the surrounding area, including Arlington. Projects completed included the construction of sidewalks for Arlington in 1933 and the placement of outhouses on farms. Funding from the Civil Works Administration and the Works Progress Administration allowed for the Arlington Airport to be constructed in the mid-1930s. The airport was temporarily leased by the U.S. Navy for training and auxiliary support from 1940 to the end of World War II, when it was placed in municipal control. While logging, aviation, and agriculture continue to be important industries in the Arlington are a, modern Arlington is also a growing bedroom community. The completion of Interstate 5 in 1969 allowed for greater population mobility, allowing workers to look further afield for housing. By 1980, Arlington was home to workers from as far away as Seattle and would experience an increase over 450 percent in population in the following 20 years. Historical Records Search Review of historical maps and aerial imagery provide an understanding of the historic and modern land use, and ownership of the project and surrounding area. The General Land Office (GLO) conducted early cadastral surveys to define or re-establish the boundaries and subdivisions of Federal Lands of the United States so that land patents could be issued transferring the title of the land from the Federal government to individuals. The GLO produced 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-27 a map in 1875 for Township 31 North, Range 5 East, including the project location (Exhibit 3.2-3). The survey illustrated numerous drainages, creeks, prairies, and marshes in the project vicinity. No cultural features such as trails, homesteads, or Indian villages were depicted in the study area location (USSG 1875). Land patents on file at the Bureau of Land Management (2020) indicate Alexander Robb filed the first land patent within the project location in April of 1882 (BLM Serial/Accession Nr. WAOAA 068768; Authority: April 24, 1820: Sale-Cash Entry [3 Stat. 566]; total 160 acres). By 1894 all lands within the project location had been distributed through land patents to 21 individuals and the State of Washington, with the majority obtained through cash purchases (Exhibit 31 and Exhibit 32.) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-28 Exhibit 31. Portion of cadastral survey of Township 31 North, Range 05 East, Willamette Meridian. 1875 Source: USSG 1875 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-29 Exhibit 32. Land patents issued within the study area Name Date Section Nr. Aliquots within project BLM Serial Nr., Authority, and total acres David Hake1 6/1/1882 11 SW¼SW¼ WAOAA 068771; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Oliver P. Cummings 8/31/1889 11 SE¼SW¼ WASAA 068836; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Lewis Clark 9/5/1890 14 N½N½ WASAA 068874; Homestead Entry Original; 160 Matthew Birckenmeier 8/4/1891 14 S½NW¼ NE¼SW¼ WASAA 068949; Homestead Entry Original; 160 Willard F Sly 8/12/1891 14 W½SW¼ SE¼SW¼ WAOAA 068953; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Alexander Robb 4/20/1882 15 S½N½ WAOAA 068768; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Lewis D. W. Shelton 6/1/1882 15 N½SW¼ SW¼SW¼ NW¼SE¼ WAOAA 068770; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 David Hake1 6/1/1882 15 NE¼NE¼ WAOAA 068771; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Joachim Kroger 5/5/1890 15 SE¼SW¼ SW¼SE¼ WASAA 068867; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Peter Funk2 11/23/1891 15 E½SE¼ WASAA 068992; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Lewis A. Larimore 8/24/1891 21 N½N½ WASAA 068955; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Moses M. Walker 11/23/1891 21 S½N½ WASAA 069004; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Christ Meyer 12/20/1892 21 SE¼ WASAA 069050; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Joachim Kroger 5/5/1890 22 W½NE¼ WASAA 068867; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Albert Nelson 6/18/1890 22 N½S½ WASAA 068870; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 John Ostrand 9/18/1890 22 S½S½ WASAA 068893; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Peter Funk2 11/23/1891 22 E½NE½ WASAA 068992; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 John A. Gerow 11/23/1891 22 NW¼ WASAA 068994; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Cosme Pacheco 1/28/1888 27 S½NE¼ WAOAA 068793; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-30 Name Date Section Nr. Aliquots within project BLM Serial Nr., Authority, and total acres Abraham T. Lewis & Ellenor Thomas 10/13/1891 27 S½NW¼ WASAA 068966; Homestead Entry Original; 160 Carl W. Ostrand 11/23/1891 27 N½N½ WASAA 068997; Sale-Cash Entry; 160 Thomas D. Davis 10/13/1891 28 S½NE¼ WASAA 068968; Homestead Entry Original; 160 Christian Christianson 7/9/1894 28 N½NE¼ WASAA 069078; Homestead Entry Original; 80 Note: project location with descriptions limited to lands within the project. 1, 2 – refer to individuals with land patents in multiple sections within the project location. BLM 2020 An 1898 land classification map for western Washington depicted the project as generally within an “area from which timber has been cut,” with portions of Sections 16 and 21 in a “timbered area,” and a portion of Section 27 in a “burnt area” (USGS 1898). Historic land classification sheets, county atlases, and topographic maps provide information regarding landownership and use during the early 1900s, beginning in 1910 (Historic MapWorks 2020; USGS 2019). Most land claimed by 1894 within the project location was patented as 160-acre tracts. By 1910, most of the original homesteads had been divided and property was typically held in lots of 80 acres or less with the exception of: ▪ Matthew Birkenmeier (Birckenmeier), in portions of Sections 11, 14, and 15, with a total of 1,061.7 acres; ▪ The Hild Ranch Company in the north half of Section 28 with 240 acres; ▪ School land in the southeast corner of Section 16 with 160 acres; and ▪ The Sill Brothers Land Company in the northwest corner of Section 15 with 120 acres (Anderson 1910). Topographic maps and county atlases from the early twentieth century depict a series of railroads and wagon roads throughout the area, with three railroads, the Northern Pacific Railway, the Marysville and Northern Railway, and an off-shoot of the Great Northern Railroad, crossing the project location in a north to south alignment. Structures mapped within the project location at the time tended to be located along the Seattle and Vancouver Line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, which ran north to south along the eastern boundary of Section 22, and the associated local road located on the section line of the same (Exhibit 3.2-5; Anderson 1910; USGS 1911). An approximately 10-acre cemetery was noted in the northeast corner of Section 15 as early as 1910 (Anderson 1910). The project location was bordered to the northwest by the South Slough (modern Portage Creek and associated drainage channels), which drained into the Stillaguamish River to the north. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-31 Exhibit 33. Portion of the Mount Vernon, WA quadrangle annotated with study area (red) and modern road names. 1911 Source: USGS 1911 Subsequent atlases depicted a growing population and changes in land use. In 1910 the project location was within property owned in 51 separate holdings with most property in 20 -acre lots or larger. By 1936, the project was divided into 76 separate holdings with many of the larger properties having been subdivided and/or changed hands. Of the large holdings noted in 191 0, only Matthew Birckenmeier still retained a majority of his property, with most other property owners selling off (e.g. the Sill Brothers) or subdividing within the family (e.g. the Hild family). Similarly, mapped structures and road infrastructure reflected the more condensed population as seen in the completion of Highway 99 and other major roads through the area and the addition of several structures in close proximity to each other along the new roadways (Exhibit 3.2-6; Metsker 1936; USGS 1941). The addition of the Arlington Airport, first mapped in 1941 as a landing field in Section 15 and extended to the modern-day layout by 1956, caused the removal of previously mapped structures in the vicinity while consolidating ownership and land usage of approximately 1,140 acres (Boswell and Heideman 2011). By the time Interstate 5 was completed in 1969, SR 531/ 172nd St NE/ Edgecomb Rd 67 th Av e N E / Ce n t e n n i a l T r a i l 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-32 construction and settlement patterns had shifted to the vicinities of Smokey Point Blvd, previously noted as Route 99 or Pacific Highway, and north of the airport, near Portage Creek, where population and construction continued to increase through 1995 (Exhibit 3.2-7; Kroll 1943; USGS 1956a, b, c). Exhibit 34.Portion of the Marysville, Washington quadrangle annotated with study area (red) and modern road names. 1959 Source: USGS 1941 SR 531/ 172nd ST NE/ Edgecomb Rd 67 t h A v e N E / Ce n t e n n i a l T r a i l 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-33 Exhibit 35.Portion of the Arlington, Washington quadrangle annotated with study area (red) and modern road names. 1969 Source: USGS 1956a Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were consulted for potential information on historical activities in the vicinity. Maps were available for Arlington between 1905 and 1940, but did not extend to project location (ProQuest 2020). Historic aerial imagery is available for the project location beginning in 1954 (NETR 2020). Historic aerial imagery in 1954 depicted the project location as an SR 531/ 172nd ST NE/ Edgecomb Rd 67 t h A v e N E / Ce n t e n n i a l T r a i l 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-34 airport filling most of the land, surrounded by agricultural parcels. By 1981 land outside the airport property was under development for residential or commercial use, with only the land south of the airport remaining agricultural. Imagery from 2006 resembles that of 2020, with dense residential growth to the north and west of the airport, continued commercia l development to the east, and static agricultural land use to the south. Cultural Resources Database Review Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) A review of the WISAARD database maintained by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) identified previous cultural resource studies, recorded precontact and historic sites, and recorded built environment, which helps gauge the potential and likely nature of cultural re sources present within the project vicinity (DAHP 2020a). Approximately 15 cultural resources surveys have been completed within the study area in association with: airport infrastructure improvements (Shantry 2010), proposed electrical and telecommunication facilities (Kassa 2016; Schumacher 2009), commercial and private developments (Blake 2017; Iversen and Hurst 2018; Osiensky and Iversen 2019; Stipe 2011), historic railroad alterations (Ozbun et al. 2005), Prairie Creek drainage improvements (Iversen 2014; Wilson et al. 2013), and road improvement projects (Boggs 2011; Chambers 2010; Goetz Stutzman 1995; Iversen and Steingraber 2016; Robinson 1999) (). Many of these projects were associated with improvements to properties that had been graded or paved in the past, which limited surface and subsurface investigations. Of those which were able to complete subsurface survey, two were performed in the Arlington Airport vicinity and one was completed in the northeast corner of the project, along Prairie Creek. Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-1 Exhibit 36. Satellite image of Arlington, WA annotated with study area boundaries (red) and locations of previously completed cultural resource surveys (white). 2018 Source: Google 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-2 Both Kassa (2016) and Shantry (2010) completed subsurface testing near the Arlington Airport, observing disturbed and intact glacial sediments. Kassa (2016:11-12) tested property in the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 31 North, Range 05 East, using shovel tests to depths of 110 centimeters. Test units revealed an initial sediment layer, likely disturbed from agricultural developments, above disturbed to intact glacial outwash deposits. Shantry (2010:18) completed dozens of shovel and auger tests in preparation for a new road on the southwest edge of the airport property. Test probes were excavated to a depth of 100 to 259 centimeters revealing sands of increasing coarseness with depth, which were identified as recessional glacial outwash deposits. Disturbance was observed in association with a logging railroad grade which crossed the project location. Wilson et al. (2013) surveyed a culvert replacement and drainage improvements project associated with Prairie Creek at the northeast corner of the project location. While some areas were impassable with hand tools, one shovel and auger probe was completed to depths of over 2.5 meters (8 feet). Observed sediments were described as fill materials above alluvial fine sandy loam and silty fine sands above glacial outwash (Wilson et al. 2013:21-22). DAHP also has record of three archaeological sites, historic register-listed property, one cemetery, and approximately 67 historic inventory properties within the study area. Each is addressed below. Three archaeological sites have been identified within the project location: 45SN26, 45SN709, 45SN720. One additional site, 45SN486, was identified within one mile of the project boundary. 45SN26, previously known as the Myrick-Anderson site, is located between the Burlington Northern Railroad and 67th Avenue NE. It was identified as a precontact lithic scatter approximately 500 yards (N-S) by 100 yards (E-W) through a local informant who had collected materials from the site, which included choppers, scrapers, large bipoints and fragments, and one “McNary serrated point” (Myrick and Kidd 1961). The recorder notes that the site was historically in close proximity to a creek (Myrick and Kidd 1961). It was recorded as a surface scatter and no subsurface testing was conducted. While the recorder indicated a belief the site was mainly a surface deposit, additional testing was recommended for the east side of 67th Avenue adjacent to the site (Myrick and Kidd 1961). A site visit was conducted in 1991 but the surface was obscured by grading and/or fill materials (75 percent of the site) or thick grasses (Obermayr 1991). No determination has been made for this site concerning its eligibility for listing on historic registers. Site 45SN709 is identified as an historic residential structure with an historic modified tree component. Located 57 m (187 ft) east of the Bill Quake Memorial Park, the site is composed of the gravelly concrete foundational remains of a 1934 residence as well as associated outbuildings and historic debris. The historic modified tree consists of an immature tree growing from a stump with a 6 to 8 inch metal gear near the top of the trunk and two wooden boards nailed to the base (Osiensky 2019). The home was vacated in 1970 and the buildings were 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-3 removed in the mid-1980s. No determination has been made for this site concerning its eligibility for listing on historic registers. Site 45SN720 was recorded as an historic isolate located west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and south of 180th St NE. The recorder further defined the site as the foundational remains and associated deposited materials of a razed historic era building. Associated historic materials included amethyst glass, molded ceramics, nails, and the remains of an emerald green bottle glass container. The recorder dated the structure to the 1940s to 50s with the associated debris extending the dates to the 1930s to 50s (Macrae 2019). The site was subsequently determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One precontact isolate, a basalt thumbnail scraper, was recorded as site 45SN486, approximately .76 km (.47 miles) east of the northeast quarter of the project. The scraper was observed in the upper 20 centimeters of a shovel probe excavated during a cultural resources survey for a proposed PSE transmission line. The initial stratigraphy indicated a thin layer of imported gravels above native sediments. Geographically, the site is within 300 m (986 ft) of Portage Creek (Carrilho 2009; Piper and Smith 2009). This is similar to other known sites in the area, which tend to be focused in close proximity to precontact and historic waterways such as Portage Creek, Quilceda Creek, and the South Fork of the Stillaguamish River (DAHP 2020a). Only one register-listed property is recorded within the study area. The Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Arlington, also known as the Arlington Municipal Airport, was recommended eligib le for the NRHP in 2011 under Criterion A: Property is associated with historically significant events, and Criterion C: Property embodies the characteristics of a type, a period or the work of a master. While construction and use of a landing strip on the property began in 1934, mainly funded by public programs such as the Civil Works Administration and the Washington Emergency Relief Agency, it was the Airport’s association with the U.S. Navy during World War II that was chief in the recommendation for listing on the NRHP. The navy officially took over the use and maintenance of the Airport property in 1940, condemning and expanding into the property to the south in the following years. A new cross-runway and additional structures such as offices, barracks, a dispensary, and other support facilities were constructed over the course of the next few years. To make room, the navy sold off many of the original frame structures and barns left on the property after the expansion. Purchased structures were then removed from the property. The navy moved the airport to caretaker status at the end of the war before deactivating it the following year and ultimately sold the property to the City of Arlington in 1959 (Boswell and Heideman 2011). The Arlington Municipal Cemetery is located at 20310 67th Avenue NE, west of the northeast corner of the study area. Plotted in 1903 as the Harwood Cemetery, the original cemetery property was approximately 10 acres in the extreme northeast corner of Section 15 of Township 31 North, Range 05 East. County atlases indicate the property was expanded to approximately 30 acres between 1952 and 1975 (Snohomish County 2020). The property was run privately by a 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-4 non-profit organization until 1999 when the City of Arlington took ownership. As of 2009, approximately 2 acres are still undeveloped. At one point the graves from the Old Pioneer Cemetery were moved to Lot 4 of this cemetery (DAHP 2020c). A review of DAHP (2020a) records indicates 67 properties within the project location have been added to the Historic Property Inventory (HPI). Of these, seven have been determined eligible, four have not had a determination made, and ten have been determined not eligible for listing on historic registers (Exhibit 3.2-9). The eligibility, age, and general information was restricted for one HPI. At least three structures were inventoried twice. Three of the structures are related to the early establishment of communities in Arlington and the Edgecomb, area to the south, dating from 1909 to 1924. A single barn from circa 1940 was inventoried within the project location. The remaining 18 structures date to the early 1940s and are related to the U.S. Navy’s development and use of the Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Exhibit 37. Historic structures previously inventoried and field verified within the study area. Structure Name DAHP Property No. Address Built Date(s) Historic Use Historic Register Status Ekroth Barn 706273 17821 59th Ave NE 1940 Agricultural / Subsistence - Farmstead Determined Eligible Bore Sighting Range 48242 Arlington Municipal Airport 1944 Defense - Air Facility Determined Eligible Runway/Taxi 48241 Arlington Municipal Airport 1942 Defense - Air Facility Determined Eligible Warm-up Apron 48240 Arlington Municipal Airport 1942 Defense - Air Facility Determined Eligible Class C Overhaul Building 48239 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Defense - Air Facility Determined Eligible Hangar 48237 Arlington Municipal Airport 1944 Defense - Air Facility Determined Eligible Fire Station 48233 Arlington Municipal Airport 1944 Defense - Air Facility Determined Eligible Kraetz Stump House/ Stillaguamish Pioneer Park Stump House * 114196 & 18589 20722 67th Ave 1909 Domestic- Single Family House Determined Not Eligible 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-5 Structure Name DAHP Property No. Address Built Date(s) Historic Use Historic Register Status Armory and Instrument Building 48238 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Defense - Air Facility Determined Not Eligible Married Officers Quarters 43 48235 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Domestic- Single Family House Determined Not Eligible Married Officers Quarters 45 48236 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Domestic- Single Family House Determined Not Eligible Married Officers Quarters 46 48234 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Domestic- Single Family House Determined Not Eligible Paint Storage Building 48232 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Government- Public Works Determined Not Eligible Lumber Storage Building 48231 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Government- Public Works Determined Not Eligible Repair Shop 48230 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Government- Public Works Determined Not Eligible Public Works Building* 48245 & 48229 Arlington Municipal Airport 1945 Government- Public Works Determined Not Eligible -- Arlington Municipal Airport -- -- Information Restricted Naval Auxiliary Air Station 50930 18204 59th Dr NE 1943 Defense - Air Facility Not Determined Small Arms Range* 48259 & 48243 Arlington Municipal Airport 1944 Defense - Air Facility Not Determined Stillaguamish Pioneer Hall 18587 20722 Armar Rd 1924 Social – Community Hall Not Determined Farrell’s General Merchandise 18584 6631 172nd St NE c. 1910 Commerce/Tra de Not Determined *- denotes property added to the inventory twice. DAHP 2020b Forty-three properties were added to the HPI as part of DAHP’s 2011 HPI Upload Project, which involved the addition of available information from the County Assessor’s building records to WISAARD (Exhibit 3.2-10; ACI et al. 2011). None of the uploaded data was field verified at the time, nor were eligibility assessments conducted. Thirteen of the structures are related to 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-6 commerce and industry and were built between 1924 and 1969. One structure, built in 1960, relates to air traffic activities. The remaining structures are listed as houses constructed between 1915 and 1969. Exhibit 38.Historic structures added to the inventory as part of the 2011 HPI Upload Project Address DAHP Property No. Built Date(s) Historic Use 19819 67th Ave NE 269318 1953 Commerce/Trade - Warehouse 5530 Cemetery Rd 269305 1953 Commerce/Trade - Warehouse 17825 59th Ave NE 269290 1969 Industry/Processing/Extraction - Manufacturing Facility 19117 63rd Ave NE 269268 1968 Industry/Processing/Extraction - Manufacturing Facility 16900 51st Ave NE, Marysville 269246 1968 Industry/Processing/Extraction - Manufacturing Facility 6520 188th St NE 269227 1964 Commerce/Trade - Professional Near 172nd St NE and 67th Ave NE, Snohomish County 269220 1964 Industry/Processing/Extraction At 192nd St NE and 61st Ave NE, Snohomish County 269219 1965 Commerce/Trade - Warehouse Within the Arlington Municipal Airport complex 269218 1960 Transportation - Air-Related Within the Arlington Municipal Airport complex 269217 1943 Industry/Processing/Extraction 20714 Armar Rd 269214 1924 Industry/Processing/Extraction 18130 67th Ave NE 269205 1969 Industry/Processing/Extraction 20015 67th Ave NE 269199 1968 Industry/Processing/Extraction 19604 67th Ave NE 269194 1961 -- 6320 188th Ave NE 269029 1939 Domestic- Single Family House 19603 67th Ave N 266198 1966 Domestic- Single Family House 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-7 Address DAHP Property No. Built Date(s) Historic Use 3719 188th St NE 266193 1969 Domestic- Single Family House Cemetery Rd 260812 1963 Domestic- Single Family House 20020 67th Ave NE 229452 1955 Domestic- Multiple Family House 18926 66th Ave NE, 229448 1942 Domestic- Single Family House 16612 51st Ave NE 229440 1959 Domestic- Single Family House 6404 188th Ave NE 229435 1942 Domestic- Single Family House 6119 172nd St NE 229433 1952 Domestic- Single Family House 5822 Cemetery Rd 229385 1943 Domestic- Single Family House 18026 67th Ave NE 229375 1958 Domestic- Single Family House 5120 170th Pl NE 229358 1968 Domestic- Single Family House 16928 51st Ave NE 229352 1969 Domestic- Single Family House 17000 52nd Ave NE 229309 1968 Domestic- Single Family House 3729 188th St NE 229137 1959 Domestic- Single Family House 3733 188th St NE 229131 1930 Domestic- Single Family House 16512 51st Ave NE, Marysville 229080 1939 Domestic- Single Family House 3725 188th St NE 229076 1934 Domestic- Single Family House 16408 51st Ave NE, Marysville 228909 1945 Domestic- Single Family House 20104 67th Ave NE 228879 1960 Domestic- Single Family House 3505 188th Ave NE 228857 1926 Domestic- Single Family House 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-8 Address DAHP Property No. Built Date(s) Historic Use 67th Ave NE 221787 1949 Domestic- Single Family House 6803 188th St NE 218629 1955 Domestic- Single Family House 16422 51st Ave NE 218599 1920 Domestic- Single Family House 18118 67th Ave NE 215726 1915 Domestic- Single Family House 18110 67th Ave NE 214102 1930 Domestic- Single Family House 5802 Cemetery Rd 213846 1955 Domestic- Single Family House 17700 67th Ave NE 211133 1934 Domestic- Single Family House 20224 67th Ave NE 211130 1959 Domestic- Single Family House Note: Structures were not field verified at the time of the upload and therefore have not had a determination made concerning listing on historic registers. Addresses are in Arlington unless otherwise noted. Sources: ACI et al. 2011; DAHP 2020b Snohomish County Register of Historic Places The Snohomish County Register of Historic Places does not list any landmarks or registered properties within one mile of the project, or within the city limits of Arlington (Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission 2020). Archaeological Predictive Models DAHP Predictive Model The DAHP statewide predictive model uses environmental data about the locations of known archaeological sites to identify where previously unknown sites are more likely to be found. The model correlates locations of known archaeological data to environmental data “to determine the probability that, under a particular set of environmental conditions, another location would be expected to contain an archaeological site” (Kauhi and Markert 2009:2 -3). Environmental data categories included in the model are elevation, slope, aspect, distance to water, geology, soils, and landforms. According to the model, portions of the project are ranked as “Survey Highly Advised: Very High Risk,” “Survey Highly Advised: High Risk,” and “Survey Recommended: Moderate Risk.” As mapped, risk of encountering archaeological sites is greatest in areas with 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-9 access to fresh water and wetland resources such as along Portage Creek and the marshland at the head of Quilceda Creek, and in the land between 188th St NE and 18th St NE. Areas of moderate risk include land along 172nd St NE, Airport Blvd, and in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Railroad between the Arlington Municipal Cemetery and Arlington Valley Road, and at the extreme northern tip of the project. The remaining land is considered “High Risk” for archaeological materials or deposits. Potential for Previously Unrecorded Cultural Resources This assessment considers the implications of the predictive model coupled with an understanding of geomorphological context, local settlement patterns, and post-depositional processes to characterize the potential for archaeological deposits to be encountered. Mapped soils in the project location are derived from Pleistocene era glacial sediments with localized alluvial deposits. Due to the paucity of deposition during the Holocene, archaeological material and deposits would be identified at or near surface of native soils. Historic era logging and clearing, agricultural activities, and road and airport development likely disturbed most near surface materials, limiting the likelihood of preserved archaeological deposits. Ethnographic and historic sources indicate the sustained use of natural open areas, such as Kent’s Prairie, and active waterways such as Portage and Quilceda Creeks. Additionally, historic maps indicate a preponderance of structures, railroads, and roads to be placed along section and quarter section lines. Historic records showed a transitioning land use which included the active salvaging and/or removal of structures from within the Arlington Municipal Airport. Archaeological sites and materials have been identified within the study area and in the project vicinity, supporting the long history of human presence on the landscape. This history, supported by predictive models, suggests most archaeological resources will be localized to the east side of the project and along section and quarter-section lines within the project. Manifestations of the precontact and ethnohistoric record that may be present within the project locations could include evidence of activities such as procurement and processing of plant, animal, and/or mineral resources, overland travel, or temporary camps, as well as ceremonial or religious activities that may be represented by an array of deposits or materials such as fire-modified rock, lithic or bone tools or implements, basketry, or lithic waste flake scatters that likely resulted from human activity around the periphery of more permanent settlements in the vicinity. Historic-period archaeological materials may be associated with historic-era logging, domestic activities, recreational activities, domestic, agricultural, and commercial structures or structural remains, and/or transportation development and could consist of a variety of materials, including railroad grades or materials, foundation remains, outbuilding deposits, lost or discarded tools or debris, domestic debris, remains of domesticated animals, and/or sanitary cans or other food waste materials. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-10 Field Methodology and Investigations Date(s) of Survey June 1st through June 8th, 2020 Field Personnel CRC archaeologist Jessica Gardner conducted field investigations. Notes are on file at CRC. Weather and Surface Visibility Weather conditions were partly cloudy to sunny. Surface visibility of mineral soils within the areas surveyed was generally poor at 0 to 10% visible due to vegetation. Area Surveyed The pedestrian survey and subsurface testing covered approximately 159 acres of the 2,285 - acre study area (7 percent). Locations of Limited Pedestrian Survey and Subsurface Testing Portions of Snohomish County parcels 31052100400100, 31052100400106, 31052200300100, 31052100202000, 31051600400900, 31051500300100, as well as all of Parcels 31051500202400 and 31051400304200, were surveyed for this investigation. Surveyed landscapes were chosen based on access and degree of prior disturbance. Only parcels owned by the city were surveyed. The survey also avoided landscapes which were obviously disturbed or impenetrable to hand tools (e.g., paved surfaces) to maintain focus on areas with the greatest probability for intact deposits. Field Methodology Field methodology consisted of limited surface survey and subsurface testing via hand excavated shovel test probes (STPs) in select locations within the study area. Locations within the proposed planned action area were chosen for testing that had a higher probability for archaeological resources, that if present, would be physically impacted by development. The probes were 30 to 40 centimeters in diameter, were manually excavated with a shovel, and all sediments were passed through ¼-inch hardware mesh to screen for artifacts. Target depth for shovel probes was 100 cm depending on depth to intact, unweathered glacial sediments that are understood to be culturally-sterile. Results Pedestrian survey and shovel probes were conducted on eight parcels (Exhibit 3.2 -11). Of the eight parcels surveyed, three are maintained as grasslands, four are maintained as woodlands, and one is actively being covered in several feet of fill debris. Surface visibility was poor for each 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-11 parcel with vegetation varying from thick grasses to a dense and varying understory including stinging nettle, salal, wild blackberry varieties, Oregon grape, and various fe rns. Due to the thick vegetation, a surface survey was conducted opportunistically between shovel probes, focusing on exposed dirt. Exhibit 39. Satellite image of study area annotated with shovel probe locations. 2018 Source: Google 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-12 Parcel 31051500202400, located on the north edge of the project on Cemetery Road, is generally flat with the central area covered in gravel (Exhibit 40). The lot is used to store city sanitation supplies. A mound is located on the northeast corner with an approximate 24 ft by 60 ft pit in the center, likely left after the removal of a house (Exhibit 41). The mound is approached from the west by a gravel drive on the north edge. A single light pole was located to the north of the pit. The surface is predominantly covered in grasses, with minor soil exposures revealing a high quantity of gravels, indicating disturbed or imported deposits. Historic aerial images depicted a house in this location in 1954. The structure was removed after 2011 (NETR 2020). Exhibit 40. Satellite image of Parcel 31051500202400 annotated with shovel probe and house demolition locations. 2018 Source: Google 2020 House demo debris 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-13 Exhibit 41. Overview of 24 ft by 60 ft irregular pit left in mound after removal of house in Parcel 31051500202400. Taken from northwest end of pit, view to the southeast Source: CRC 2020. Parcel 31051500300100 is located on Cemetery Road and includes part of the Arlington Municipal Airport grounds and the Airport trail system. The survey was located along the trail system and avoided portions maintained as an active airfield (Exhibit 42). A surface survey identified a steep slope leading down to the trail is likely made up of imported and compacted fill materials, based on the active fill zone at the central western edge of the parcel (Exhibit 43). The northwest corner is maintained as a fenced and locked deep quarry pond. Due to quarry work, imported fill materials, and trail maintenance, a majority of the parcel is of a disturbed context. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-14 Exhibit 42. Satellite image of surveyed portion of Parcel 31051500300100 annotated with survey boundary, shovel probe location and disturbances Google 2020 Quarry pond Fill debris 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-15 Exhibit 43. Overview of slope built with fill debris. Taken from the top of the south edge of the slope, view to the north Source: CRC 2020. Parcel 31051600400900 is located northwest of the Arlington Municipal Airport grounds and is a relatively flat grasslands surrounded by trees. The landscape has been altered through the installation of a series of imported gravel trails and asphalt roads providing access to the airport grounds to the south and east and a private facility to the north (Exhibit 44). 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-16 Exhibit 44. Satellite image of parcel 31051600400900 annotated with shovel probe locations. 2018 Google 2020 A parkland trail system runs through Parcels 31052100400100, 31052100400106, and 31052100202000, located on the southwest side of Airport Boulevard and the Arlington Municipal Airport (Exhibit 45). The land surface within the woodlands was very uneven with evidence of animal burrows, likely being rabbit warrens, and stump removal throughout. The woodlands within parcel 31052100202000, located on the western edge of the project location, have a relatively thick understory with several older cedar and pine trees. A petroleum pipeline runs through the parcel in a northwest to southeast orientation. The remaining woodland parcels in the southeast have a much shorter and less dense understory with predominantly young trees, indicating the woods were likely cleared from the parcels in the last twenty years. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-17 Exhibit 45. Satellite image of surveyed portions of parcels 31052100400100, 31052100400106, and 31052100202000 annotated with shovel probe locations, Petroleum pipeline (yellow) and sewer lines (green). 2018 Google 2020 The inspected portion of parcel 31052200300100 is located on a flat grassy lot between the airport grounds and 172nd Street NE with evidence of buried sewer and power utilities (Exhibit 46). Sewer line Petroleum pipeline 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-18 Exhibit 46. Satellite image of surveyed portion of parcel 31052200300100 annotated with shovel probe locations. 2018 Google 2020 Parcel 31051400304200 is located along the south side of Arlington Valley Road and covers the side of a ridge rising above wetlands and glacial plains (Exhibit 47). It includes an intermittent creek channel which flows down the ridge toward Portage Creek to the north. The creek has steep banks with a road cut running parallel on the west side before veering to the north (Exhibit 48). A flood swale runs between the road and the creek north from the point where the road separates from the creek route. The swale shows evidence of landscape alterations including excavation and stabilization through imported quarry stones. The road cut is compacted with imported gravels and late twentieth-century debris, such as a car and a refrigerator shell which can be seen in the brush on the shoulders. Historic aerial images indicate the road was constructed between 1969 and 1980 and ceased to be maintained between 1990 and 2006 (NETR 2020). Additional disturbances to the parcel include small and large push piles throughout the lower elevations. Sewer vault 172nd Street Power vaults 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-19 Exhibit 47. Satellite image of surveyed portion of parcel 3105140030420 annotated with shovel probe locations, approximate creek route (blue), road cut (brown), and drainage swale (purple). 2018 Google 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-20 Exhibit 48. Overview of north end of road cut leading into parcel 31051400304200, view to the south-southwest Source: CRC 2020. Sixty-two potential probes were plotted in a pre-survey 90 m to 135 m grid based on estimated probability of intact cultural deposits. A total of 41 shovel probes was excavated (Exhibit 49). The potential probes not excavated were generally in locations of disturbance or in locations which further client communications indicated were within areas recently surveyed. Shovel probes ranged in depth from 33 to 101 centimeters below the surface. A typical soil profile generally matched mapped soil units for the area and can be described as a disturbed layer of topsoil (dark brown to black organic sandy loam) over disturbed or intact weathered glacial (brown to yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand), above unweathered glacial deposits (brown to pale yellow medium to coarse grained sand, 0 to 40 percent gravels)(Exhibit 50). Six of the 41 probes contained modern or temporally non-diagnostic cultural materials between 0 and 38 centimeters below the surface, with the majority between 0 and 15 cen timeters below the surface. Materials located between 15 and 38 centimeters were associated with disturbed 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-21 subsoils. Items were generally non-diagnostic or modern plate or container glass shards. All shovel probes were backfilled after documentation. No archaeological materials or features were observed through subsurface investigations. Exhibit 49. List of shovel probe locations and descriptions Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 1 562868.00 m E 5336278.00 m N 0-9 – Topsoil – Very dark brown sandy loam with ~30% angular to rounded gravels. 9-38 – Imported gravels in disturbed context – Brown sandy silt to silty sand, 30-40% angular to rounded gravels, very firm. Terminated due to compacted gravels. 0-38 - red ceramic/brick fragments 2 562867.00 m E 5336193.00 m N 0-12 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, 10-20% small gravels, subangular to rounded, slightly firm, moist, rootlets to 3 cm. 12-25 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, 20 to 30% gravels, subangular to rounded, slightly firm, moist, decomposing wood/root debris. 25-45 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft, 5 to 10 % gravels, subangular to rounded. 45-70 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft, 5-10% gravels, subangular to rounded. 70-95 – Glacial – Multilithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand, ~40% gravels, subangular to rounded. 95-100 – Glacial – Light yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~40% small to medium gravels, subangular to rounded, soft. 0-20 - 1 piece thin plastic 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-22 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 3 562765.00 m E 5336279.00 m N 0-12 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 12-33 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 33-47 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 47-72 – Glacial – Light yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~40% small to medium gravels, subangular to rounded, firm Terminated in glacial. None 4 562773.00 m E 5336205.00 m N 0-60 – Disturbed Topsoil and subsoils – Dark brown fine to coarse grained with some silt, ~50% subangular to rounded gravels and cobbles, very firm. Terminated due to compaction. Evidence of push piles to west. 0-3 cm - 4 small shards pane glass, 1 small shard backed glass, modern/non- diagnostic 5 562425.00 m E 5335921.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – quarry pond N/A 6 562434.00 m E 5335790.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – airport fill zone N/A 7 562405.27 m E 5335694.87 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, roots. 10-45 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, roots. Terminated due to excessive roots. None 8 562115.00 m E 5335606.00 m N 0-33 – Topsoil – Dark brown sandy loam with 30% angular to rounded gravels and cobbles. 33 – Imported materials – Dark gray medium to coarse grained sand and gravels, very hard. Terminated due to hard compaction. None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-23 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 9 561988.00 m E 5335543.00 m N 0-48 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown silty sand 30-40% gravels. 48-90 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 90-100 – Weathered Glacial – yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft None 10 562120.00 m E 5335471.00 m N 0-26 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 26-38 – Imported materials – Dark gray medium to coarse grained sand and gravels, hard. 38-39 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 39-59 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 59-70 – Glacial – Light yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~40% small to medium gravels, subangular to rounded, hard/dense. Terminated due to dense/compacted gravels. None 11 561982.00 m E 5335405.00 m N 0-3 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, disturbed. 3-15 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand. 15-20 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand. 20-37 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Mix of brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand and light yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~40% small to medium gravels, subangular to rounded, soft. 37-75 –Glacial – Light yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~40% small to medium gravels, subangular to rounded, soft. Terminated in intact glacial. 0-15 - 1 small plate glass shard (modern). 15- Landscaping plastic sheeting. 15-30 - 1 small plated glass shard, thick. 12 562122.00 m E 5335335.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – existing structure N/A 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-24 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 13 561990.00 m E 5335267.00 m N 0-3 – Imported gravels – Dark brown loamy sand with ~50% chipped gravels and ~10% rootlets. Terminated in compacted chipped gravels and fines. Placed as shovel scrape to establish extent of disturbance/road bed. None 14 561020.00 m E 5334823.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – sewer line, and proximity to previous study N/A 15 561020.00 m E 5334684.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 10-30 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 30-70 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 70-100 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft None 16 561022.00 m E 5334546.00 m N 0-3 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 3-30 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 30-50 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 50-100 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-25 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 17 561023.00 m E 5334410.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, humic. 10-35 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained silty sand, roots throughout. 35-55 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 55-65 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 65-78 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft Terminated due to roots and narrowing caused by roots. None 18 561158.00 m E 5334751.00 m N Skipped due to proximity to previous study N/A 19 561156.00 m E 5334620.00 m N Skipped due to homeless camp N/A 20 561160.00 m E 5334481.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – propane pipeline N/A 21 561293.00 m E 5334415.00 m N 0-9 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 9-23 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 23-55 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 55-100 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-26 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 22 561293.00 m E 5334548.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, roots. 10-27 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, roots. 27-60 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft, roots. 60-90 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft Terminated due to narrowing caused by roots. None 23 561427.00 m E 5334473.00 m N 0-16 – Topsoil –Dark brown fine grained sand, slightly firm to firm. 16-31 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, slightly firm to firm. 31-60 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, slightly firm to firm. 60-87 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft, slightly firm to firm. 87-100 – Glacial – Multi-lithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand, ~40% gravels, subangular to rounded, no rootlets None 24 561606.00 m E 5334316.00 m N 0-15 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, 20-30% roots. 15-50 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, 20-30% roots. 50-75 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft, 20-30% roots. 75-90 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft Terminated due to narrowing caused by roots. None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-27 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 25 561664.00 m E 5334228.00 m N 0-15 – Topsoil –Dark brown fine grained sand 15-56 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 56-79 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 79-100 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft None 26 561603.00 m E 5334138.00 m N 0-22 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 22-40 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 40-70 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 70-95 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 95-100 – Glacial – Multilithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand, ~40% gravels, subangular to rounded, no rootlets. None 27 561668.00 m E 5334046.00 m N 0-15 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, 30-40% roots. 15-35 – Weathered Glacial – brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, 30-40% roots. 35-44 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft, 30-40% roots. Terminated due to roots. 0-15 - 3 clear glass container shared, non- diagnostic. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-28 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 28 561609.00 m E 5333957.00 m N 0-13 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 13-43 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 43-67 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 67-95 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 95-100 – Glacial – Multilithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand, ~40% gravels, subangular to rounded, no rootlets. None 29 561675.00 m E 5333864.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 10-40 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 40-53 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 53-94 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 94-100 – Glacial – Multilithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand, ~40% gravels, subangular to rounded, no rootlets. None 30 561611.00 m E 5333774.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – proximity to water line N/A 31 561749.00 m E 5333769.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – proximity to water line N/A 32 561816.00 m E 5333905.00 m N 0-16 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics 16-64 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~20% rounded to subangular gravels, lenses of medium to coarse grained sand with trace silts, possibly from bioturbation. 64-100 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~30% gravels and cobbles None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-29 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 33 561747.00 m E 5334039.00 m N 0-15 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics 15-87 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~20% rounded to subangular gravels 87-100 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~30% gravels and cobbles None 34 561822.00 m E 5334182.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, 10-13 – Lens of ash, south side. 10-47 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 47-87 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 87-100 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft None 35 561910.00 m E 5334183.00 m N 0-13 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand, ~5% gravels. 13-28 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, ~5% gravels. 28-47 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft, 5% gravels. 47-100 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft, 5% gravels None 36 561971.00 m E 5334091.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics 10-25 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with some silt. 25-57 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~20% rounded to subangular gravels 57-80 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~30% gravels and cobbles None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-30 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 37 561908.00 m E 5334002.00 m N 0-14 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics 14-35 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand, 0-5% gravels, gradual boundary. 35-80 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand, 0-5% gravels, gradual boundary. 80-95 – Weathered Glacial – Brown medium to coarse grained sand, multi lithic, gradual boundary. 95-100 – Weathered Glacial – Brown medium to coarse grained sand, multi-lithic, ~10% gravels None 38 561974.00 m E 5333910.00 m N 0-5 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics 5-13 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial - dark yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~5% rounded to subangular gravels 13-18 – Relict Topsoil – Black organicy medium to coarse grained sand with some rootlets. 18-43 – Weathered glacial – Dark yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~5% rounded to subangular gravels. 43-80 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand. 80-100 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~10% gravels and cobbles. None 39 561913.00 m E 5333820.00 m N 0-20 – Topsoil – Dark brown sandy loam with rootlets to 10 cm. Abrupt boundary. 20-90 - Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~20% rounded to subangular gravels with lenses of dark yellowish brown medium grained sand with some silt. 90-101 – Potentially Intact Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~30% gravels and cobbles None 40 561976.00 m E 5333733.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance location in roadway/pathway and within previous survey N/A 41 562108.00 m E 5333741.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-31 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 42 562102.00 m E 5333866.00 m N 0-8– Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics, some rootlets. 8-18 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~5% gravels. 18-20 – Relict Topsoil – Black organicy medium to coarse grained sand with some rootlets. 20-67 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~5% gravels. 67-101 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~5% gravels. None 43 562104.00 m E 5333999.00 m N 0-19 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics 19-52 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~20% rounded to subangular gravels 57-75 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~30% gravels and cobbles None 44 562235.00 m E 5333926.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown loamy sand with organics, ~5% gravels and ~30% roots. 10-66 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown coarse grained sand with ~20% rounded to subangular gravels. 66-95 – Glacial – Multi-lithic brown (range of 10 YR 8/1-3/1) coarse grained sand with ~30% gravels and cobbles. Terminated in intact glacial. None 45 N/A Number not used N/A 46 562239.00 m E 5333792.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 47 561654.00 m E 5333684.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 48 561603.00 m E 5333595.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-32 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 49 561980.00 m E 5333644.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 50 562072.00 m E 5333589.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 51 562157.00 m E 5333645.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 52 562252.00 m E 5333591.00 m N Skipped, unit is within area of previous study N/A 53 562336.00 m E 5333647.00 m N Skipped due to disturbance – proximity to pathways and within previous survey N/A 54 562436.00 m E 5333588.00 m N 0-15 – Topsoil – Dark grayish brown loam, 15-23 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 23-35 – Disturbed Topsoil – Dark grayish brown loam. 36-75 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Alternative lenses of brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand, dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft, and multi-lithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand disturbed. 75-92 – Glacial – Light yellowish brown medium to coarse grained sand with ~40% small to medium gravels, subangular to rounded, soft. Terminated due to narrowing caused by gravels. 0-15 - Brown bottle glass shard, shoulder, non- diagnostic. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-33 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 55 562518.00 m E 5333647.00 m N 0-32 – Topsoil – Dark brown fine grained sand 32-42 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sandy silt/silty sand 42-51 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 51-70 – Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with traces of silt, soft 70-85 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand with trace silts, soft 85-100 – Glacial – Multi-lithic light yellowish brown to dark brown medium to coarse grained sand None 56 564606.59 m E 5335924.97 m N 0-23 – Topsoil – Black sandy loam, soft to slightly-firm. 23-49 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial and Topsoil – Dark Brown fine to medium grained silty sand with 20-30% gravels to cobbles, firm to very firm. 49-70 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – very dark brown fine to coarse grained silty sand, with ~10% gravels, soft to slightly firm. Terminated due to cobble in wall limiting access to base. None 57 564532.58 m E 5335894.12 m N 0-90 – Weathered Glacial – Yellowish brown fine to medium grained sandy silt to silty sand with 30-40% subangular to rounded gravels. Terminated due to cobble at base. None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-34 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 58 564455.22 m E 5335831.00 m N 0-3 – Topsoil – Dark brown sandy silt. 3-27 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown silty sand-sandy silt, slightly firm, moist. 27-30 – Relict Topsoil – Black silty sand with organics, saturated. 30-32 – Weathered Glacial – Brown fine to medium grained sand with some silt, hard. Water table at 26 cmbs. Terminated due to water table and compaction. None 59 564405.00 m E 5335757.00 m N 0-30 – Topsoil – Very dark brown silt loam, 20% roots. 30-70 – Alluvium – Gray fine grained sand with some silt, firm to very firm. Terminated due to compaction and narrowing due to roots. None 60 564355.00 m E 5335680.00 m N 0-16 – Topsoil – Very dark brown loamy sand, some rootlets, soft. 16-80 – Disturbed Weathered Glacial – Dark yellowish brown fine to medium grained sand, mottled with dark grayish brown fine grained sand, soft. 80-100 – Weathered Glacial – dark brown medium to coarse grained sand with rounded to subangular small to large (.5-6 cm) gravels, firm. None 61 564492.00 m E 5335747.00 m N Skipped as inaccessible – southeast of creek with steep banks. N/A 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-35 Probe # Probe Location (WGS84 Zone 10, UTM coordinates, +/- 3 meters) Stratigraphic Description (depths are centimeters below surface [cmbs]) Cultural Materials Found 62 564442.00 m E 5335662.00 m N 0-10 – Topsoil – Dark brown to black organic loam. 10-16 – Imported – Gray subrounded to angular gravels and fines, hard compaction. Terminated due to compaction. Original location was on trail. A 4 cm deep shovel scrape revealed compacted imported gravels. Shifted location to vegetated area hoping to avoid disturbed area. None 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-36 Exhibit 50. Representative image of typical soil profile. Profile image of Probe 24. 2018 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-37 A brief investigation revealed the Kraetz Stump House, Stillaguamish Pioneer Hall, Ekroth Barn, and the housing foundations for 45SN709 have all been removed from their documented locations and will not be impacted by this project. 3.2.2 Impacts Thresholds of Significance Proposed alterations within the CIC may have an impact on many aspects of recorded cultural landscape and may require further considerations when work will include a cultural resource of significance. For the purposes of this project, a cultural resource of significance will include any historic property which has been deemed eligible for addition to an historical register, including the NRHP, the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), or county and city level registers. In general, all archaeological sites are considered resources of significance and should be avoided or mitigated appropriately. Exceptions to this include select historic era archaeological sites which have been deemed ineligible for listing on an historic register based on NRHP criteria for significance. Based on NRHP assessment criteria developed by the National Park Service (NPS 2002:2), historical significance is conveyed by properties that: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. According to NRHP guidelines, the “essential physical features” of a property must be intact for it to convey its significance, and the resource must retain its integrity, or “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (NPS 2002:44). The seven aspects of integrity are: Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred); Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property); Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited d uring a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property); 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-38 Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); Feeling (a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time); and Association (the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property). Criteria used for assessment of potential eligibility for the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) are similar to NRHP criteria (DAHP 2019). Criteria to qualify include: ▪ The resource should have documented historical significance at the local or state level; ▪ The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity; and ▪ The resource must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Proposed work has the potential to impact known archaeological sites and historic properties of significance. The following two archeological sites and two historic properties are recorded within the proposed study area (Exhibit 51). Development under any of the studied alternatives could presumably result in removal of these resources. Site 45SN720 has been determined not eligible for the NRHP; disturbance to this site would not generate significant impacts. Disturbances to the remaining three resources, including any archaeological test excavations, would require further consultation with DAHP. Exhibit 51. Cultural resources which meet the threshold of significance. Cultural Resource Type Register Status Section Arlington Municipal Airport – Bore Sighting Range Historic Property Determined eligible 16 Arlington Municipal Airport – Small Arms Range Historic Property Determined eligible 21 45SN26 Pre-Contact Lithic Scatter No determination made 22 45SN720 Historic Isolate Determined not eligible 22 Source: DAHP 2020b Surface and subsurface investigations indicated substantial surface disturbances throughout the surveyed parcels with disturbance sources varying from repeated clear-cutting of the forest, changes to creek flow and flooding, road cut and construction, utilities installation, and fill zones. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-39 The negative shadow of an early to mid-twentieth century house was observed in parcel 31051500202400. The structure appears to have been removed recently and no intact features were observed. A road cut observed in parcel 31051400304200 was of late-twentieth century construction and does not meet the threshold of significance. No previously unrecorded archaeological sites or historic properties were identified through this survey. However, due to the limited nature of the survey, it remains possible for as-yet unknown potentially significant archaeological or historic sites to be present within the project. It is therefore recommended that DAHP be consulted to determine need for cultural resources surveys for any specific development actions under the proposal. No Action Alternative There is no difference in impact between each of the alternatives. See Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Action Alternative 1 There is no difference in impact between each of the alternatives. See Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Action Alternative 2 There is no difference in impact between each of the alternatives. See Impacts Common to All Alternatives. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features Regulations and Commitments Under the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) and the Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44), a permit from DAHP is required to conduct activities that may alter an archaeological site containing prehistoric objects. This includes importing fill, compaction, use of heavy machinery, tree removal, construction, and any other activities that would change or impact the site. Such a permit would be needed for development in the location of site 45SN26. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-40 Other Proposed Mitigation Measures Regarding cultural resources, mitigation refers to the outcome of the consultation process when a significant impact to cultural resources is identified. In such situations, mitigation is used to moderate impacts. The following measures could be implemented to help avoid and manage significant impacts to recorded and as-yet unrecorded cultural resources within the Arlington MIC: ▪ Consult DAHP to determine need for cultural resources surveys for any specific development actions under the proposal. The preliminary field investigations conducted in this study were based on a conceptual design and provide a general history of the study area and limited insight into the subsurface conditions within tested areas that may be developed under the proposal. ▪ Continue coordination of cultural resource avoidance and mitigation programs for future project-level development through formal government-to-government consultation with the Snohomish Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes. Tribes often are able to provide additional information regarding cultural resources not documented in published literature which can help direct cultural resources investigations and support compliance assessments to ensure that cultural resources are not significantly impacted by development activities. ▪ Consider partnering with existing businesses or agencies with a strong interest in history, and which likely maintain good historical records of the project location. Should any potentially significant archaeological or historic sites be encountered in development under the proposal and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would be generated. These impacts could potentially be minimized through development and implementation of mitigation measures appropriate to the nature and extent of discovered sites. Mitigation measures may include one or more of the following: ▪ Limiting the magnitude of the proposed work; ▪ Modifying proposed development through redesign or reorientation to minimize or avoid further impacts to resources; ▪ Rehabilitation, restoration, or repair of affected resources; ▪ Preserving and maintaining operations for any involved significant historic structures; ▪ Archaeological monitoring, testing, or data recovery excavations; ▪ Documentation of historic elements of the built environment through photographs, drawings and narrative, at the appropriate level based upon Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation standards (DAHP 2020a). The City can require an inadvertent discovery protocol in in the Planned Action Ordinance. See Appendix A. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Cultural Resources Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-41 3.2.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to be generated by this proposal. With the implementation of a protocol for review of projects, it should be possible to prevent any significant unavoidable impacts. Should any potentially significant archaeological or historic sites be discovered and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would be generate d. Mitigation for such impacts, such as damage assessment and site treatment, would need to be addressed under appropriate state and federal laws through government-to-government consultation with affected tribes. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-42 3.3 Transportation This chapter provides an understanding of current transportation conditions and the potential transportation-related impacts of the development alternatives for the Arlington portion of the Cascade Industrial Center (CIC). 3.3.1 Affected Environment This section describes existing transportation conditions within the Arlington CIC and key facilities near the CIC. Characteristics are provided for the non-motorized facilities, transit, traffic volumes, and traffic operations in the study area. The study area includes the SR 531 (172nd Street NE) corridor from the I-5 interchange to SR 9 as well as the following study intersections: 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE Non-Motorized Facilities Exhibit 52 shows the key pedestrian and bike facilities in the vicinity of the CIC. Within the CIC, sidewalks are provided along Smokey Point Blvd except between 173rd Street NE and SR 530. Sidewalks are present on 51st Avenue NE/Airport Blvd north of SR 531. Bike lanes are also provided along 51st Avenue NE/Airport Blvd north of SR 531. Two multi-use trails serve the CIC including the Centennial Trail and Airport Trail. The Centennial Trail runs along the eastern side of the CIC and is approximately 23 miles long connecting the Cities of Snohomish, Lake Stevens, and Arlington. The path is a 10-foot wide paved trail used for walking, bicycling, hiking, and horseback riding. The Airport Trail is an unimproved walking path which runs around the Arlington Airport. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-43 The Arlington portion of the CIC is well connected with sidewalks and bicycle facilities. In addition, planned future roadway improvements would provide additional connectivity. The network of sidewalks, bike facilities and multimodal trails access to and from as well as within the CIC encourages trip making via walking and biking for commuter or other purposes. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-44 Exhibit 52. Existing Non-Motorized Facilities Source: BERK, Transpo Group 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-45 Transit Exhibit 53 illustrates the transit service to and from the CIC. The Arlington CIC is served by 7 transit routes, all operated by Community Transit. All 7 routes serve the Smokey Point Transit Center, as the routes’ northern or southernmost terminus. Routes 201 and 202 travel north-south between the Lynnwood transit Center and the Smokey Point Transit Center. The routes run Monday-Sunday, with approximately 10- to 15-minute headways in the peak periods. Route 209 travels north-south between the Lake Stevens Transit Center and the Smokey Point Transit Center. Route 209 runs Monday-Sunday, with slightly reduced Saturday and Sunday service, but operates with approximately 30-minute headways in the peak direction. Route 220 travels between the Smokey Point Transit Center and downtown Arlington. Route 220 operates with limited weekday service making 10 round trips and operates more frequent service on weekends with hourly headways on Saturday and Sunday. Route 227 travels north-south between downtown Arlington and the Seaway Transit Center off Seaway Blvd by the Boeing site in Everett. This route is a commuter route with three trips to Boeing in the morning and two trips from Boeing to Arlington in the afternoon. This route does not run on weekends. Route 230 travels east-west between the Smokey Point Transit Center and downtown Darrington. This route is also a commuter route and travels each direction once in the morning and once in the afternoon during the week. Route 230 does not run on the weekend. Route 240 travels between downtown Stanwood and the Smokey Point Transit Center. Route 240 operates with approximately 90-minute headways during the weekdays and 60-minute headways on the weekends (both Saturday and Sunday). There are three park and ride facilities located near or along the periphery of the CIC. The Arlington Park and Ride is located west of SR 9, north of W 4th Street. There is also a park and ride facility in Marysville located north of SR 531 and west of I-5. In addition, the Smokey Point Transit center is located north of SR 531 and west of Smokey Point Blvd in Arlington. This transit center provides access to the 7 Community Transit routes described above. Community transit has long-range plans to provide Swift bus rapid transit service along Smokey Point Blvd with potential stops at the I-5/156th new interchange and Smokey Point Transit Center. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-46 Exhibit 53. Existing Transit Facilities Source: Community Transit, BERK, Transpo Group 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-47 Exhibit 54 summarizes the average weekday PM peak period (4 to 6 p.m.) ridership from January 2020 for the 7 Community Transit routes serving the CIC. Exhibit 54. Average Weekday PM Peak Period Ridership by Route per Bus Source: Community Transit, Transpo, 2020 Routes 201 and 202 carry the most riders with between 20 and 35 riders per bus per direction. The other transit routes carry less than 10 passengers per bus during the weekday PM peak period. Exhibit 55 shows the bus travel time for each route during the weekday PM peak period by direction. The travel time summary includes how much of the bus travel time is related to dwell time at stops and the amount of run time (or time the vehicle is driving). 29 . 4 19 . 4 33 . 9 24 . 8 5. 6 8. 2 6. 7 5. 5 3. 7 5. 1 5. 9 6. 3 NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D ROUTE 201 ROUTE 202 ROUTE 209 ROUTE 220 ROUTE 227 ROUTE 230 ROUTE 240 Nu m b e r o f P a s s e n g e r s Boarding 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-48 Exhibit 55. Average Weekday PM Peak Period Travel Time by Route Source: Community Transit, Transpo, 2020 Routes 201 and 202 have the longest weekday PM peak period travel times with an 82-88-minute travel time between the Lynwood Transit Center and Smokey Point Transit Center. While these are not the longest routes in number of miles, they operate along more congested corridors and have more boardings than the other routes. Route 201 and 202 also have the largest dwell times because the routes carry the most passengers, so they spend more time loading and unloading during the trip. Longer dwell times can mean the bus is spending too much time loading/unloading and can slow th e route down; however, no standards or metrics are currently utilized. Generally, given the passengers served and number of bus stops along these routes the dwell times are reasonable. Roadway Network The AMMIC is served by several major highways and a number of arterial and local streets. The key roadways are described below. 8.3 8.6 9.8 10.3 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.5 73 . 1 40 . 3 77 . 8 71 . 8 40 . 3 45 . 1 23 . 3 21 . 0 53 . 1 59 . 0 49 . 5 47 . 7 81.4 48.9 87.5 82.1 42.2 47.2 24.9 22.6 55.3 60.5 51.6 50.1 NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D ROUTE 201 ROUTE 202 ROUTE 209 ROUTE 220 ROUTE 227 ROUTE 230 ROUTE 240 Ti m e ( M i n ) Dwell Time (min)Run Time (min) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-49 Interstate 5 (I-5) borders the west side of the AMMIC in North Marysville, connecting between Marysville to the south and Mount Vernon to the north. It is a six-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 70 mph north of 172nd Street NE (SR 531) and 60 mph to the south. Existing access to the AMMIC is primarily via the ramps at SR 531/172nd Street NE. State Route 9 (SR 9) runs north/south east of the AMMIC connecting between Lake McMurray to the north and Snohomish to the south. It is a two-lane facility with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Access to the AMMIC from SR 9 is provided via an at-grade intersection with SR 531/172nd Street NE. There are no sidewalks, bicycle facilities, or parking along SR 9. 172nd Street NE (SR 531) runs east/west connecting I-5 to the west and SR 9 to the east, bisecting the AMMIC. It is primarily a five-lane facility between I-5 and 43rd Avenue NE and a two-lane roadway between 43rd Avenue NE and SR 9 with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. No parking is allowed; however, bike lanes and sidewalks are provided between I-5 and 43rd Avenue NE. Smokey Point Boulevard runs north/south along the western side of the AMMIC. It is classified as a principal arterial by the City of Marysville with a posted speed limit of 35-40 mph. In the study area the roadway typically has a five-lane cross section with four travel lanes and a central two- way left-turn lane. North of SR 531/172nd Street NE, Smokey Point Boulevard narrows to two lanes. There is no parking allowed along Smokey Point Boulevard and sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roads. No bicycle facilities are provided. 40th Avenue NE north/south roadway which currently primarily functions as access to commercial facilities south of SR 531 (172nd Street NE). A signal is currently being installed at the 40th Street NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersections. Sidewalks are currently provided along 40th Avenue NE. 43rd Avenue NE runs north/south and is classified as a minor arterial by the City of Marysville. It is a two-lane roadway in the study area with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Sidewalks are provided and parking is allowed along parts of the roadway. No bicycle facilities are provided. 51st Avenue NE/Airport Boulevard is a north/south roadway that runs through the center of the study area and west of the airport in Arlington. It is classified as an arterial north of SR 531 and as a collector south of SR 531 by the City of Arlington. The City of Marysville classifies 51st Avenue NE as a principal arterial south of SR 531. South of SR 531 the roadway has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and a two-lane cross section with minimal sidewalk and no bicycle facilities. North of SR 531, the posted speed limit is 35 mph with a three-lane cross section. Sidewalks are provided along the east side of the roadway and bicycle lanes are provided along both sides. The Airport trail, a multi-use path, runs along the west side of 51st Ave NE. No parking is allowed on the street. 59th Avenue NE is classified as an arterial roadway north of SR 531 (1752nd Street NE) dead 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-50 ending south of SR 531 (172 Street NE). North of SR 531 (1752nd Street NE) the roadway has a two-lane cross section with no sidewalks or bike facilities and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. South of SR 531 (1752nd Street NE) the roadway is a three-lane section with a central two-way left turn lane. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway. 67th Avenue NE is a classified as an arterial by the City of Arlington running north/south along the eastern portion of the AMMIC. The roadway generally has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and a predominately three-lane cross section. Sidewalks are provided along the east side of the roadway and no parking is allowed. The centennial Trail runs along the west side of 67th Avenue NE, providing bicycle and additional pedestrian facilities. 156th Street NE is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour east of Smokey Point Boulevard and 25 miles per hour west of Smokey Point Boulevard. It is classified as a principal arterial by the City of Marysville and runs east/west. No bicycle facilities are provided and parking is limited, but sidewalks are provided along the roadway in the study area. 152nd Street NE is classified as Minor Arterial by the City of Marysville and runs east/west. It has a two-lane cross section and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. No bicycle or parking is provided along the roadway, and sidewalks are minimal. Freight Network As a manufacturing and industrial center, the study area is rooted in freight traffic. There are a number of employers in the area generating truck traffic, as well as two railroads both operated by the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad. One BNSF line runs near the I -5 corridor and carries both freight and passenger rail traffic. Passenger rail is operated by Amtrak. This line runs from Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver, B.C. with the closest passenger stations in Everett and Stanwood. The second BNSF line is located on the east side of the study area boundary and runs from the City of Arlington connecting with the I-5 mainline track at approximately 116th Street NE in Marysville. Most rail crossings are at-grade in the study area. These at-grade crossings include west of the 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection, along 152nd Street NE east of 51st Avenue NE, west of the Smokey Point Boulevard/136th Street NE intersection, and along 51st Avenue NE south of 144th Avenue NE. At-grade crossings impact the roadway system within the study area and access to the study area from both Arlington and Marysville. The presence of trains delays freight movement and increases congestion and safety issues at the crossings. There is a planned improvement to provide a grade separate interchange at I-5 and 156th Street NE, which would improve freight and vehicle access to the study area. The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) is used to classify state highways, county roads, and city streets according to average annual gross truck tonnage they 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-51 carry as directed by RCW 47.05.021. The FGTS establishes funding eligibility for the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) grants and supports designations of HSS (Highways of Statewide Significance) corridors, pavement upgrades, traffic congestion management, and other state investment decisions. The FGTS classifies roadways using five freight tonnage classifications, T-1 through T-5. Routes classified as T-1 or T-2 are considered strategic freight corridors and are given priority for receiving FMSIB funding. The classifications are as follows: ▪ T-1: Over 10,000,000 annual gross tonnage (over approximately 800 trucks per day). ▪ T-2: 4,000,000 to 10,000,000 annual gross tonnage (approximately 320 to 800 trucks per day). ▪ T-3: 300,000 to 4,000,000 annual gross tonnage (approximately 24 to 320 trucks per day). ▪ T-4: 100,000 to 300,000 annual gross tonnage (approximately 8 to 24 trucks per day). ▪ T-5: Over 20,000 gross tonnage in a 60-day period. Exhibit 56 shows roadways within the CIC classified as T-1, T-2, and T-3. The roadways with the highest classification, and heaviest amount of truck traffic, are I-5, SR 531, 67th Avenue NE, and Smokey Point Boulevard. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-52 Exhibit 56. Existing Freight Corridors Source: BERK, Transpo Group 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-53 Traffic Volumes The following study intersections were identified for review based on potential transportation impacts of the CIC Alternatives: 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) or collected in January 2020. The weekday PM peak hour (one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.) is typically used for evaluating transportation system needs as it represents the highest travel activity experienced during the day. Traffic counts collected before 2020 were grown at an average annual growth rate of 1 percent to establish existing 2020 conditions. This growth rate was based on an evaluation of historic counts and data available in the area. Existing traffic counts are provided in Appendix C with PM peak hour turning movement counts summarized in Appendix D. The highest observed weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes were along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) near the I-5 Interchange and Smokey Point Boulevard. Weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes along SR 531 decrease in the eastbound and westbound directions along the corridor moving east from the I-5 interchange toward SR 9. Volumes north of SR 531 (172nd Street NE) at 188th Street NE were less than 550 vehicles in either direction during the weekday PM peak hour. Volumes along Smokey Point Boulevard at 152nd and 156th Streets NE ranged between 675 and 915 vehicles in the southbound direction and 715 and 855 vehicles in the northbound direction during the weekday PM peak hour. Higher volumes along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) are consistent with the State Route functional class designation whereas lesser volumes along Smokey Point Boulevard and 67th Avenue NE are representative of the classification as arterials. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-54 Traffic Operations Performance measures were identified for determining traffic operations including intersection delay-based level of service (LOS) at the 12 study intersections and corridor travel times and vehicle queuing along SR 531. Intersection LOS For signalized locations, LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle and is reported for the intersections as a whole. At side-street stop-controlled intersections LOS is measured in average delay per vehicle during the peak hour of traffic and is reported for the worst operating approach of the intersection. Traffic operations for an intersection can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A through F), with LOS A indicating free - flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Appendix E contains a detailed explanation of LOS criteria and definitions. Based on coordination with WSDOT staff, SimTraffic was used to evaluate the intersection delay at WSDOT intersections. SimTraffic does not assign a LOS letter grade to describe intersection operations; however, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition parameters were used to provide the LOS. Sidra 8 and the WSDOT October 2019 Sidra parameters were used to evaluate operations at roundabout controlled intersection. City of Arlington study intersections traffic operations were evaluated based on the procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition and using the Synchro 10 software program. The HCM 2000 method was used at intersections where parameters such as signal timing or phasing prohibited the use of HCM 6th Edition. Signal timing splits and offsets were optimized for all future conditions. Exhibit 57 summarizes the study intersections existing operations. The adopted standard at all of the study intersections is LOS D with the exception of the two Smokey Point Blvd intersections which are in Marysville and have a LOS E standard. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 57. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay2 WM3 1. 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE Arlington D Two- Way Stop E 49 EBL 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal B 13 - 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal D 38 - 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-55 Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay2 WM3 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal F 103 - 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal A 9 - 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal C 33 - 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal E 77 - 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal E 55 - 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal C 32 - 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Round- about A 8 EB 11. Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE4 Marysville E Signal B 15 - 12. Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE Marysville E Signal B 17 - Source: Transpo Group, 2020. 1. Level of Service (A – F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 6th Edition) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound. 4. Evaluated based on HCM 2000. A majority of intersections operate at LOS D or better, meeting the current LOS standards, with the exception of the following four intersections: ▪ 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE (LOS E) ▪ Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) (LOS F) ▪ 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) (LOS E) ▪ 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) (LOS E) SR 531 Travel Time Corridor travel times were evaluated along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) from west of the I-5 SR Ramps to SR 9 using SimTraffic. Due to traffic conditions during COVID-19 new traffic queue and travel time data could not be collected along SR 531 to calibrate the travel time model. The SimTraffic microsimulation model was calibrated to the traffic operation condition on a typical weekday based on Google Map Traffic. Google Map Traffic uses historical location data to determine the congestion patterns and vehicle queue on the network by time of the day. Google provides a historical display of congestion patterns using colors representing free-flow condition (Green) to stop-and-go condition (dark-red). This congestion pattern shows where the bottleneck formed along the SR 531 corridor, and how far the congestion backed up between intersections. Transpo adjusted the SimTraffic settings to be consistent with the vehicle 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-56 queuing/congestion patterns from the Google Traffic Map historical data. In the eastbound direction, existing travel times are approximately 16 minutes over the 4-mile SR 531 corridor with an average arterial speed of approximately 18 mph. In the westbound direction, the travel time is approximately 12 minutes over the 4-mile SR 531 corridor resulting in an average arterial speed of approximately 20 mph. Individual segment travel times and speeds are provided in Appendix D. Overall, the SR 531 corridor is congested during the weekday PM peak hour with travel speeds below approximately 17 mph below the posted speed limit of 35 mph. SR 531 Intersection Queuing Vehicle Queuing along SR 531 is summarized in Exhibit 58. Vehicle queues were evaluated based on SimTraffic. Detailed queuing worksheets are provided in Appendix F. The summary provides 95th percentile queue lengths, which is the maximum queue length that would only be exceeded 5 percent of the time. Typically, 95th percentile queues are used to design lane lengths. Average vehicle queues would be less than the presented 95th percentile queues. Exhibit 58. Existing SR 531 Intersection Queuing Summary Intersection 95th Percentile Queue Lengths1 Intersection Maximum Reported 95th Percentile Queue2 Queues Exceeding Available Storage 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 375 feet WB Through: 375 feet - 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 450 feet except NB NB Through-Left: 1,775 feet NB Right: 1,425 feet WB Right 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 600 feet except NB NB Through: 2,500 feet NB and SB Left SB Right 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 275 feet EB Through: 275 feet - 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 250 feet except EB through EB Through: 600 feet - 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 675 feet except EB through- right EB Through-Right: 2,200 feet EB, WB, and NB left 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 775 feet except EB through- right WB Through-Right: 1,225 SB through-right 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-57 Intersection 95th Percentile Queue Lengths1 Intersection Maximum Reported 95th Percentile Queue2 Queues Exceeding Available Storage 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 425 feet except for the SB through-right SB Through-Right: 525 feet WB, NB, and SB left 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)3 Less than 75 feet NB Through-Right: 75 feet - Source: Transpo Group, 2020. Notes: WB = westbound; EB = eastbound, SB = southbound; NB = northbound. • Queuing based on 95th percentile queue lengths from SimTraffic Queuing and Blocking report unless otherwise noted. • Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 5. Queuing based Sidra 8. The longest queue lengths are along SR 531 intersections at the Smokey Point Blvd and 51st Avenue NE. The vehicle queuing is consistent with the findings of the travel time analysis showing conditions are congested. Traffic Safety Exhibit 59 summarizes the most recent 5-year collision history at the study intersections and roadway segments based on data obtained from the WSDOT. The data was reviewed to understand if there are any existing traffic safety issues within the study area. Exhibit 59. Five Year Collision Summary – 2015 to 2019 Location Traffic Control 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Annual Average Collisions per MEV1 Intersections 1. 67th Ave NE/188th St Two-Way Stop 2 4 4 2 2 14 2.8 0.68 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 Signal 7 14 9 11 10 51 10.2 0.72 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 Signal 13 25 11 13 11 73 14.6 0.90 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 Signal 41 56 38 41 29 205 41.0 2.51 5. 40th Ave NE/SR 531 Signal2 3 0 1 5 1 10 2.0 0.25 6. 43rd Ave NE/SR 531 Signal 5 11 8 9 4 37 7.4 0.89 7. 51st Ave NE/SR 531 Signal 7 7 19 11 10 54 10.8 1.29 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-58 Location Traffic Control 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Annual Average Collisions per MEV1 8. 59th Ave/SR 531 Signal 10 5 2 4 5 26 5.2 0.73 9. 67th Ave NE/SR 531 Signal 10 10 6 7 8 41 8.2 1.15 10. SR 9/SR 531 Roundabout 2 9 6 6 1 24 4.8 0.77 11. Smokey Pt Blvd /156th St NE Signal 3 2 2 5 1 13 2.6 0.39 12. Smokey Pt Blvd/ 152nd St NE Signal 1 4 3 7 7 22 4.4 0.59 Roadway Segment SR 531 between I-5 Ramps - 3 2 1 3 2 11 2.2 - SR 531: I-5 NB Ramp to Smokey Pt Blvd - 9 1 8 9 4 31 6.2 - SR 531: Smokey Pt Blvd to 40th Avenue NE - 8 9 17 14 20 68 13.6 - SR 531: 40th Ave to 43rd Ave NE 6 4 7 5 6 28 5.6 - SR 531: 43rd Ave NE to 51st Ave NE - 15 15 9 10 11 60 12.0 - SR 531: 51st Ave NE to 59th Ave NE - 11 8 5 3 8 35 7.0 - SR 531: 59th Ave NE to 67th Ave NE 6 8 13 6 5 38 7.6 - SR 531: 67th Ave NE to SR 9 - 5 8 6 2 7 28 5.6 - 67th Ave NE: SR 531 to 188th St 2 2 3 1 1 9 1.8 - 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-59 Location Traffic Control 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Annual Average Collisions per MEV1 Smokey Pt Blvd: 152nd St NE to 156th St NE - 2 0 1 1 1 5 1.0 - Smokey Pt Blvd: 156th St NE to SR 531 - 12 18 19 28 25 102 20.4 - Under 23 U.S. Code § 409 and 23 U.S. Code § 148, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. 1. Collisions per million entering vehicles 2. A traffic signal is currently being installed at the intersections. Historic collisions data reflects a side -street stop- controlled intersection. Study intersections with a collision rate greater than one collision per million entering vehicles (MEV) should be considered for further review to determine if a safety issue may exist. As shown on Exhibit 59, the following three study intersections have collisions per MEVs greater than one: ▪ Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) At the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 and 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 the most common type of collision reported was rear-end. Rear-end collisions are common with stop-and-go conditions and areas with high traffic congestion. Approach turn was the most common type of collision reported at the 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 intersection. The approach turn collision type is common at intersections with permissive left turn phasing like 51st Avenue NE/SR 531. As described previously in the review of traffic operations, conditions along SR 531 are congested. WSDOT does have planned improvements along this corridor which address the traffic operations and resulting traffic safety issues. Similar to the intersections, the majority of the collisions along the roadway segments occur along SR 531 where the highest level of traffic occurs. Of the individual segments, the highest number of collisions was reported along Smokey Point Boulevard between 156th Street NE and 172nd Street NE. Along SR 531 the most common type of collision reported was rear-end followed by angle and approach turn. As noted above, rear-end collisions are common with stop-and-go conditions and congested corridors. Of the reported collisions over the 5-year period the majority resulted in property damage only. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-60 Additionally, 16 pedestrian/bicyclist collisions were reported at intersections and 12 were reported along roadway segments, no fatalities were reported. As part of the SR 531 transportation project, WSDOT would improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities including provision of a multiuse trail on both sides of SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE. 3.3.2 Impacts The transportation impacts of the No Action and Action Alternatives are described in this section. Thresholds of Significance The study intersections are in the Arlington, WSDOT, and Marysville jurisdictions where the alternatives would have the primary transportation impacts. The LOS standards for the study area are described as follows: City of Arlington LOS Standards. The City of Arlington has adopted LOS D for arterials and collectors. In addition, the LOS D standard applies to local roads that primarily serve its central business district or industrial areas. The City of Arlington further recognizes and adopts the most current LOS standard along state highways. WSDOT. LOS D for highways of statewide significance (HSS) facilities in urban areas. City of Marysville LOS Standards. The City of Marysville has adopted a LOS E “mitigated” for signalized intersections and intersections of two arterials along Smokey Point Blvd (LOS E “mitigated” means that the congestion should be mitigated through improvements, transit, ridesharing, or other travel modes when the intersection falls below LOS E ). The LOS E mitigated standard applies to the Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE and Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE study intersections in the study area. Impacts Common to All Alternatives The following conditions and impacts are common to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. Planned Improvements Several transportation improvement projects are currently planned in and around the study area to increase capacity, reduce conflicts with the railroad, and improve connectivity. As the area develops arterial, collector, and local roads would be provided to establish a quarter-mile grid 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-61 road network, where possible. These projects are shown on Exhibit 60. Key projects for the CIC are discussed below. I-5 Interchange at 156th Street NE This project is part of the Connecting Washington funding package and includes construction of a new I-5 interchange at 156th Street NE. This new interchange relieves some of the traffic pressures at 172nd Street NE, which is currently the main interchange to access the CIC. The I- 5/156th Street interchange would not be constrained by the rail line so freight traffic will not be impacted by the rail traffic. Specific to the study intersections, this project will result in capacity improvements at the Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE intersection. The channelization for the analysis includes 2 general purpose lanes in all directions, dual northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, and southbound and eastbound right turn lanes. Dedicated east and westbound left turn lanes are currently provided at the intersection and were assumed to be maintained in the future. 156th/152nd Street Connector The City of Marysville is planning to extend 156th Street NE east of I-5 from Smokey Point Blvd to 51st Avenue NE/152nd Street NE. A- 4/5 lane arterial would be constructed including sidewalks and a multi-use trail. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-62 Exhibit 60. Planned Improvements Source: BERK, Transpo Group 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-63 188th Street NE Improvements This project would improve 188th Street NE to a three-lane section between 59th Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE, as well as install a traffic signal at the 67th Avenue and 188th Street NE intersection. A 12-foot multi-use path will be constructed with the project and connect to the centennial trail. 51st Avenue NE Widening (SR 531 to Arlington-Marysville Border) The City of Arlington is planning to widen 51st Avenue NE to a five-lane section between SR-531 and the border with the City of Marysville. SR 531 Rehabilitation & 40th Avenue NE Signalization This project would include roadway and corridor improvements on SR 531 (172nd Street NE) from 43rd Avenue NE to Smokey Point Blvd, eliminate left turn pockets, install medians, and includes construction of a north leg. Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities would also be completed. The following improvements are planned in the vicinity of the CIC; however, they do not change the configuration of the study intersections and SR 531 corridor but may influence travel patterns to and from the CIC. ▪ 43rd Street NE Extension - This project would extend 43rd Street NE from south of SR 531 to 152nd Street NE. The roadway would be 2-3 lanes, with sidewalks, bike lanes, and a multi-use trail. ▪ Smokey Point Blvd Improvements - This project would reconstruct Smokey Point Blvd from SR 531 to 188th Street from a two-lane roadway to a five-lane roadway. It would also construct restricted access and medians to improve safety. A 12-foot multi use trail would also be constructed along the roadway. ▪ 152nd Street NE Widening (Smokey Point Blvd to 47th Avenue NE) - This project would widen the existing two-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with curb, gutter, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. In addition to the projects described above, WSDOT has identified improvements along SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE and SR 9. These transportation projects are not included in the current State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP); therefore, they were not assumed as part of the baseline evaluation of the alternatives. The SR 531 improvements between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE are funded through Connected Washington and were anticipated to be completed by 2024. The SR 531 improvements include widening the roadway form a two- to a four-lane roadway with intersection improvements and/or installations of roundabouts at major intersections. In addition, non-motorized improvements would be made along the corridor including a multi-use trail along 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-64 both sides of SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE. Since these are not on the STIP, the funding is uncertain and the improvements were not assumed in the baseline alternatives analyses. Non-Motorized Facilities The future non-motorized system within the study area is consistent across alternatives. The planned improvement section above describes non-motorized improvements that would occur as new roadways are constructed. The Arlington portion of the study area is well connected with sidewalks and bicycle facilities. In addition, future roadway improvements would provide additional connectivity. The network of sidewalks, bike facilities and multimodal trails access to and from as well as within the study area encourages trip making via walking and biking for commuter or other purposes. Traffic Safety Traffic generated by the alternatives results in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. Increases in rail traffic would result in additional conflicts betwe en vehicular, non- motorized and rail traffic. It is unlikely that the project traffic would significantly change safety issues in the study area. With growth in traffic in the study area, it would likely become progressively more challenging for side-street traffic at unsignalized intersections to enter the traffic stream. Traffic Forecasts Future (2040) weekday PM peak hour traffic forecasts were developed consistently for Alternatives using the City of Arlington travel demand model. The Arlington Travel Demand Model has a base year of 2010 and a future year of 2040. The land use (outside of the study area) and transportation system assumptions are the same for all Alternatives. The CIC land use was adjusted within the City’s travel demand model for each Alternative. The City’s travel demand model is used for the CIC trip generation, distribution and assignment to the study area. Future 2040 forecasts are developed by adding intersection volume growth identified between the models existing and future years. Adjustments are made to the 2040 background traffic volumes for balancing. This methodology is an industry standard practice for post-processing raw travel demand model results into forecast traffic volumes. Because existing conditions were established for 2020, growth in traffic volumes were reduced by 33 percent to remove 10 years (2010 to 2020) of growth from the model volumes. Forecast traffic volumes for all Alternatives are provided in Appendix D. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative transportation impacts are described in this section. The No Action 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-65 Alternative is the baseline condition against which the Action Alternatives are compared. Transit To understand the operations of transit in the study area in 2040 forecasts were developed t o estimate ridership and transit travel speeds. The following assumptions were made to develop the transit forecasts: ▪ Routes in 2040 are assumed to be the same as existing 2020 (pre-COVID) service ▪ Ridership will grow 1 percent annually per year from 2020 to 2040 per route. Ridership has decreased in recent years on many of the Community Transit routes in this area. Additionally, while the near-term impacts of COVID-19 on transit ridership are unknown, ridership is generally expected to continue decreasing in the near future. It is assumed that a 1 percent annual increase over 20 years is conservative. ▪ Dwell times are expected to increase 2.5 seconds for every boarding and alighting. ▪ Transit Run Times (the travel time from the start and end of the route, not including dwell times) is expected to increase 5 percent for ‘rural routes’ where only minor changes in traffic volumes are expected (includes Community Transit Routes 209, 220, 230, and 240) ▪ Transit Run Times are expected to increase 10 percent for ‘mainline routes’ where moderate changes in traffic volumes are expected in the next 20 years. Mainline routes includes Community Transit Routes 201/202, and 227. Based on these assumptions, the weekday PM peak transit ridership for 2040 No Action is summarized in Exhibit 61. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-66 Exhibit 61. 2040 No Action Average Weekday PM Peak Period Ridership by Route per Bus Source: Transpo 2020 Routes 201 and 202 are anticipated to continue to have the most weekday PM peak hour ridership with up to 41 boardings per bus anticipated for route 202 in the northbound direction. 36 24 41 30 7 10 8 7 4 6 7 8 NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D ROUTE 201 ROUTE 202 ROUTE 209 ROUTE 220 ROUTE 227 ROUTE 230 ROUTE 240 PM P e a k P a s s e n g e r s Boarding 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-67 Minimal ridership is still anticipated on the remaining routes. Based on these assumptions, the 2040 No Action transit operations are summarized in Exhibit 62. Exhibit 62. 2040 No Action Average Weekday PM Peak Period Travel Time by Route Source: Transpo, 2020. Routes 201 and 202 are forecast to continue to have the longest weekday PM peak period travel times with a 90 to 96-minute travel time between the Lynwood Transit Center and Smokey Point Transit Center. Trip Generation No Action Alternative trip generation within the Arlington CIC is based on the land use and jobs projections consistent with the Arlington Comprehensive Plan. Trip generation was determined for the No Action Alternative using the Arlington travel demand model. Exhibit 63 provides a summary of the forecast No Action Alternative weekday PM peak hour trip generation. 8.8 9.0 10.4 10.8 2.0 2.2 1.7 1.7 2.4 1.6 2.2 2.6 80 . 4 44 . 3 85 . 5 79 . 0 42 . 3 47 . 4 24 . 5 22 . 0 58 . 4 62 . 0 51 . 9 50 . 1 89.2 53.3 95.9 89.8 44.3 49.6 26.2 23.7 60.8 63.6 54.1 52.7 NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D ROUTE 201 ROUTE 202 ROUTE 209 ROUTE 220 ROUTE 227 ROUTE 230 ROUTE 240 Ti m e ( M i n ) Dwell Time (min)Run Time (min) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-68 Exhibit 63. 2040 CIC No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Alternative In Out Total 2040 No Action 1,687 4,557 6,244 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. A total of 6,244 weekday PM peak hour trips are anticipated to be generated under No Action Alternative. The No Action traffic volume forecasts for this analysis are based on the City of Arlington travel demand model. The City’s travel demand model was used to determine the trip distribution and assignment of the No Action CIC trips. The general travel patterns identified by the travel demand model are depicted in Appendix ZZ. The general distribution of the CIC traffic is anticipated to be: • 8 percent to/from the north via I-5 • 9 percent to/from the north via SR 9 • 3 percent to/from the northwest • 15 percent to/from the south via I-5 • 60 percent to/from the south via local roads • 5 percent to/from the south via SR 9 Traffic Operations As discussed previously, traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection delay, SR 531 travel times and vehicle queuing for intersections along SR 531. Signal timing splits and offsets were optimized for future 2040 operations. Exhibit 64 provides a summary of the intersection operations. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 64. 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay2 WM3 1. 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE Arlington D Two-Way Stop F >180 EBL 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-69 Intersection Jurisdiction LOS Standard Traffic Control LOS1 Delay2 WM3 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal D 54 - 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal F 93 - 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal F 142 - 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal D 42 NBL 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal D 45 - 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal F >180 - 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal F >180 - 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Signal F 113 - 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) WSDOT D Round- about B 14 SB 11. Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE4 Marysville E Signal E 65 - 12. Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE Marysville E Signal C 22 - Source: Transpo Group, 2020. • Level of Service (A – F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 6th Edition) 1. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 2. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound. 3. Evaluated utilizing HCM 6th edition, not HCM 2000 as under existing conditions because signal timing splits were optimized under future condition, eliminating the minimum green time error encountered under existing conditions. As shown in Exhibit 64, over half of the intersections are forecast to operate at LOS F and a majority of the poor operations are anticipated along SR 531. The affected environment showed that poor operations are already experienced along SR 531 with several intersections operating below LOS standards, long queues and slow travel speeds during the weekday PM peak hour. The anticipated increase in traffic volumes with the No Action Alternative (including background growth in the study area) exacerbates the already congested conditions. The congestion in the study area is already a known issue. As described previously, there are two planned improvements to widen SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE. The analysis shows there is a need for these improvements even with the No Action Alternative and these are further explored in the discussion of mitigation measures. The forecast No Action Alternative SR 531 eastbound travel time is 33 minutes with an average speed of approximately 10 mph. In the westbound direction, the SR 531 travel time is approximately 20 minutes with an average speed of approximately 13 miles per hour. Generally, the longest delays are east of 43rd Avenue NE where the roadway narrows from four lanes to two lanes. Individual segment travel times and speeds are provided in Appendix G. As described previously, the results indicate congestion at study intersection and along SR 531 as a 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-70 result of planned growth with the No Action Alternative. Operations also indicate that the planned improvements to widen SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE are needed. Exhibit 65 provides a summary of the forecast vehicle queuing under No Action Alternative. Detailed worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 65. 2040 No Action SR 531 Intersection Queuing Summary Intersection 95th Percentile Queue Lengths1 Intersection Maximum Reported 95th Percentile Queue2 Queues Exceeding Available Storage 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Less than 825 feet except the SB left SB Left: 1,050 feet EB and SB right 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Between 400 to 1,625 feet NB Right: 1,625 feet EB left and WB right 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) East/West queues less than 575 feet North/South queues less than 2,950 NB Through: 2,950 feet WB and SB right, NB and SB left 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Between 75 and 450 feet EB Through: 450 feet EB, WB, NB, and SB left 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Between 50 and 725 feet WB Through: 725 feet EB and WB left 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Up to 3,775 feet for Through movements Up to 450 feet for turning movements NB Through: 3,775 feet EB, NB, and SB left NB Right 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Up to 3,675 feet SB Left: 3,675 feet EB, WB, NB left SB through-right 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Up to 2,450 feet for through movement Up to 275 feet for turning movements SB Through- Right: 2,450 feet WB, NB, and SB left 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)3 Less than 300 feet SB Through-Left: 300 feet - Source: Transpo Group, 2020. Notes: WB = westbound; EB = eastbound, SB = southbound; NB = northbound. • Queuing based on 95th percentile queue lengths from SimTraffic Queuing and Blocking report unless otherwise noted. • Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 4. Queuing based Sidra 8. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-71 Queue lengths are anticipated to increase over existing conditions. Exhibit 65 shows 95th percentile queues over 1,000 feet on at least one approach at several study intersections including: ▪ I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) The majority of the queues are projected to extend beyond turn-lane storage facilities. The finding of poor operations and congested conditions is consistent with the LOS and travel time analysis. In addition to the summary information presented above, the I-5 interchange was reviewed to determine if there would be impacts to the mainline operations with vehicle queues extending beyond the off-ramp storage. The I-5 SB off-ramp has a vehicle storage of approximately 1,690- feet. The I-5 NB off-ramp storage is approximately 1,800 feet with two-lanes. The traffic operations analysis shows that projected No Action I-5 off-ramp vehicle queues would be accommodated within available storage and would not impact the I-5 mainline traffic. Detailed vehicle queuing is provided in Appendix D. Action Alternative 1 Action Alternative 1 supports net increases of employment of 1,801 jobs and 516 dwellings compared to the No Action Alternative. Exhibit 66 provides a summary of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation and the net increase over the No Action Alternative for Alternative 1. Exhibit 66. 2040 Action & Action Alternative 1 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Alternative In Out Total 2040 No Action 1,687 4,557 6,244 2040 Action Alternative 1 2,088 5,334 7,422 Net New Trips 401 777 1,178 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. Action Alternative 1 is anticipated to generate approximately 1,178 net new weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips compared to the No Action Alternative. The general travel patterns for 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-72 Alternative 1 are anticipated to be similar to the No Action Alternative a nd are shown in Appendix D. Action Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate approximately 1,100 more weekday PM peak hour trips compared to Action Alternative 1. Action Alternative 1 transit, traffic volume and traffic operations impacts would be greater than or similar to those described for the No Action Alternative. The Alternative 1 transportation impacts would be less than those described in the following section for Alternative 2. The evaluation of the No Action Alternatives and Action Alternative 2 provides bookends for the level of transportation impacts anticipated with the alternatives. Given the similar transportation impacts of all the alternatives, section 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures shows similar measures are recommended for all Alternatives. Action Alternative 2 Action Alternative 2 transportation impacts are described in this section. Impacts of Action Alternative 2 are identified by comparing against the No Action Alternative. Transit Alternative 2 ridership and transit travel speed forecasts were developed to determine the level of impact on transit. The transit forecasts were developed using the same assumptions as the No Action Alternative plus the following to account specifically for additional transit trips with Alternative 2: ▪ 5 percent of Alternative 2 trips would be made by transit (Alternative 2 forecasts 2,274 new weekday PM peak hour trips, which equates to 114 new weekday PM peak transit trips) ▪ Alternative 2 transit trips were allocated to routes based on existing transit ridership i.e. routes that currently serve more riders will serve more future riders. ▪ Additional increase in transit run times would be proportional to the number of new trips forecasted in Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative, which equates to an approximate 27 percent increase in trips between 2020 and 2040 with Alternative 2. This ratio was applied to the forecasted No Action Alternative increase in travel times. For ‘rural routes’ (209, 220, 230 and 240) transit run times will increase an additional 1.3 percent (26.7 percent x 5 percent = 1.3 percent increase in transit travel time from No Action to Alternative 2) For ‘mainline routes’ (201/202, 227) transit run times will increase an additional 2.7 percent (26.7 percent x 10 percent = 2.7 percent increase in transit travel times from No Action to Alternative 2) Based on these assumptions, the weekday PM peak transit ridership for 2040 Alternative 2 is summarized in Exhibit 67 and compared to the No Action Alternative. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-73 Exhibit 67. 2040 No Action and Alternative 2 Average Weekday PM Peak Period Ridership by Route per Bus Source: Transpo, 2020. As shown, boardings for route 201 is forecast to grow by 18 and route 202 is forecast to grow by 21 riders per bus during the weekday PM peak hour with Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative. The remaining routes would see an increase of 2 to 3 boardings with Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative. Based on these assumptions, the Alternative 2 transit operations are summarized below in Exhibit 68. 47 31 53 39 9 13 10 9 5 8 9 10 36 24 41 30 7 10 8 7 4 6 7 8 NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D ROUTE 201 ROUTE 202 ROUTE 209 ROUTE 220 ROUTE 227 ROUTE 230 ROUTE 240 PM P e a k P a s s e n g e r s Alternative 2 Boarding No Action Boarding 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-74 Exhibit 68. 2040 Alternative 2 Average Weekday PM Peak Period Travel Time by Route Source: Transpo, 2020. Routes 201 and 202 are forecast to continue to have the longest weekday PM peak period travel times with a 90 to 96-minute travel time between the Lynwood Transit Center and Smokey Point Transit Center with Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is forecast to increase transit travel time by approximately 2 to 3 minutes compared to the No Action Alternative. Over the course of the route this 2 to 3-minute increase in travel time would likely go unnoticed by riders. Trip Generation Action Alternative 2 would result in an increase in employment of approximately 4,000 jobs with no changes to dwellings compared to the No Action Alternative. Exhibit 69 provides a summary of Alternative 2 anticipated weekday PM peak hour trip generation and the net increase over the No Action Alternative. 9.7 9.5 11.4 11.5 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.9 2.6 1.8 2.4 2.8 82 . 6 45 . 5 87 . 8 81 . 1 42 . 9 48 . 0 24 . 8 22 . 3 59 . 9 62 . 8 52 . 6 50 . 7 92.3 55.0 99.2 92.6 45.1 50.4 26.7 24.2 62.5 64.6 55.0 53.5 NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D SO U T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D NO R T H B O U N D EA S T B O U N D EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D ROUTE 201 ROUTE 202 ROUTE 209 ROUTE 220 ROUTE 227 ROUTE 230 ROUTE 240 Ti m e ( M i n ) Dwell Time (min)Run Time (min) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-75 Exhibit 69. 2040 CIC No Action & Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Alternative In Out Total 2040 No Action 1,687 4,557 6,244 2040 Action Alternative 2 2,317 6,201 8,518 Net New Trips 630 1,644 2,274 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. Action Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate approximately 2,274 net new weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips compared to the No Action Alternative. Trips associated with Action Alternative 2 were distributed assigned to the network based on the City of Arlington travel demand model. Appendix ZZ provides a summary of the general trip distribution of the CIC trips within the study area. It is anticipated that trip distribution would be consistent for all Alternatives. Traffic Operations Traffic operations were evaluated based on intersection delay, SR 531 travel times and vehicle queuing for intersections along SR 531. Signal timing splits and offsets were optimized under future Action Alterative 2 conditions. Exhibit 70 provides a comparison of the intersection operations between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 2 scenarios. Detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 70. 2040 No Action Alternative & Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Comparison Intersection LOS Standard No Action Alternative 2 Change in Delay LOS1 Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay WM 1. 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE D F 306 EBL F 455 EBL +149 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D D 54 - D 44 - -10 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D F 93 - F 86 - -7 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D F 142 - F 147 - 5 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-76 Intersection LOS Standard No Action Alternative 2 Change in Delay LOS1 Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay WM 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D D 42 NBL C 30 NBL -12 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D D 45 - D 38 - -7 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D F 231 - F 228 - -3 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D F 261 - F 240 - -21 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D F 113 - F 156 - 43 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D B 14 SB B 15 EB 1 11. Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE E E 65 - E 69 - 4 12. Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE E C 22 - C 23 - 1 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. • Level of Service (A – F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 6th Edition) 5. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 6. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound. As shown in Exhibit 70, with Action Alternative 2, 6 study intersections would continue to meet the LOS standard during the weekday PM peak hour. The remaining 6 study intersections would operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour for both the No Action and Action Alternative 2 conditions. Although intersection delay is shown to decrease slightly at three of the intersections operating at LOS F, the results are likely due to congested conditions along the corridor and the inability to process all of the future traffic demands. The travel time analysis presented below shows that there would be impacts to the SR 531 corridor as a result of Action Alternative 2. The intersection operations analysis highlights impacts of the Action Alternative 2 at the following intersections: • 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE • Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) • 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-77 Overall, the poor operations and congested conditions discussed as part of the No Action Alternative would continue with Action Alternative 2. Potential mitigations measures are identified in section 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures. Exhibit 71 provides a comparison between the SR 531 corridor travel times and speeds for the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 2. Detailed travel time worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 71. 2040 No Action Alternative & Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour SR 531 Operations Direction Distance No Action Alternative 2 Change in Travel Time (min) Change in Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (min) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (min) Arterial Speed (mph) Eastbound 4.6 miles 33 10 29 12 -4 +2 Westbound 3.9 Miles 20 13 23 11 +3 -2 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. As shown in Exhibit 72, in the westbound direction along SR 531, travel times are anticipated to increase by approximately 3 minutes with Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative. Similar to the intersections operations analysis, a slight decrease in travel times is shown for the SR 531 eastbound when comparing the No Action Alternative to Action Alternative 2. The change in travel time is relatively small and overall the SR 531 remains congested with poor operations along the corridor for both the No Action and Alternative 2 conditions. Exhibit 72 provides a queuing summary of forecast 2040 Action Alternative 2 conditions. Detailed queuing worksheets are provided in Appendix F. Exhibit 72. 2040 Action Alternative 2 SR 531 Intersection Queuing Summary Intersection 95th Percentile Queue Lengths1 Intersection Maximum Reported 95th Percentile Queue2 Queues Exceeding Available Storage 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 95th percentile queue lengths are less than approximately 800 feet except the SB left SB Left: 1,050 feet EB and SB right 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Queue lengths range from 425 to 1,650 feet NB Right: 1,625 feet EB left WB right 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-78 Intersection 95th Percentile Queue Lengths1 Intersection Maximum Reported 95th Percentile Queue2 Queues Exceeding Available Storage 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) East/West queues less than 575 feet North/South queues approximately 2,425 feet SB Through: 2,425 feet WB and SB right NB and SB left 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Between 75 and 450 feet EB Through: 450 feet EB, WB, NB, and SB left 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Between 75 and 550 feet WB Through: 550 feet EB and WB left 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Through queues up to 3,775 feet with turning movement queues up to 475 feet NB Through: 3,775 feet EB, NB, and SB left NB right 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Queues up to 3,425 feet SB Left: 3,425 feet EB, WB, and NB left SB through-right 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) Through-right queues up to 3,500 feet. Left/right turning queues up to 300 feet SB Through-Right: 3,500 feet WB, NB, and SB left 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)3 Less than 350 feet EB Through-Left: 350 feet - Source: Transpo Group, 2020. Notes: WB = westbound; EB = eastbound, SB = southbound; NB = northbound. • Queuing based on 95th percentile queue lengths from SimTraffic Queuing and Blocking report unless otherwise noted. • Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. 7. Queuing based Sidra 8. The anticipated vehicle queues for Action Alternative 2 is generally consistent with the No Action Alternative. Decreases in the longest queues are anticipated at the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) and 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersections. Increases in the longest queue lengths are anticipated at the 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) and SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersections. Vehicle queuing at the I-5 northbound and southbound off ramps is anticipated to be approximately 1,625 feet and 1,050 feet, respectively. Similar to the No Action Alternative, the Alternative 2 vehicle queues are anticipated to be accommodated without backing onto the I- 5 mainline. Overall, the evaluation of traffic operations for the Action Alternative 2 shows poor operations 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-79 would continue along SR 531 similar to existing and No Action Alternative conditions. 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures This section presents mitigation measures that would offset or reduce potential transportation impacts of the alternatives. The impacts of the action alternatives are similar, which results in similar mitigation measures. Mitigation measures include physical improvements to intersections and roadways to facilitate vehicular traffic as well as measures to reduce the overall reliance on the auto mode. Intersection and Roadway Improvements Based on the identified impacts under the Action Alternatives, intersection and/or roadway improvements are recommended along the SR 531 corridor and at the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection. SR 531 Corridor Improvements WSDOT has identified improvements along SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE and SR 9; however, the funding is uncertain at this time, so these improvements were not assumed as part of the baseline analysis. The project includes widening SR 531 from 2 to 4-lanes with intersection improvements and/or installation of roundabouts at major intersections. Additionally, as part of the planned improvements, multiuse paths would be constructed along SR 531. Implementation of multiuse paths allows for alternative transportation modes like walking and biking, reducing reliance on SOVs to help reduce traffic volumes in the study area. An analysis was conducted for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 to provide an understanding of how improvements to SR 531 could mitigate the impacts of the CIC project. Widening along SR 531 would shift travel patterns in the study area travel demand; therefore, future forecasts with the improvements were completed for the Action Alternative 2 usin g the same method as described for the impacts analysis. The analysis assumes maintain traffic signal control at the study intersections; however, roundabout control could be provided. Specific improvements at intersections will require a detailed intersection control evaluation (ICE) as part of the WSDOT design process. The analysis also assumes signal timing improvements along SR 531 between 43rd Street NE and 67th Avenue NE including changes to the cycle lengths and coordination with optimized cycle lengths and offsets. The future forecasts show higher volumes along SR 531 between 43rd Street NE and SR 9 when compared to the unmitigated conditions due to the shift in traffic volume with additional capacity along this corridor. A summary of intersection volumes with mitigation is provided in Appendix D. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-80 67th Avenue NE/NE 188th Street Intersection Improvements The Action Alternatives would impact the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at this intersection when Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) signal warrants are meant. -5/SR 531 Interchange and Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 The Action Alternatives would impact the I-5/SR 531 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 intersection. These intersections already operate poorly and are a known bottleneck in the City. Both the I-5 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 intersections are built out and adding capacity would require major improvements. The City of Arlington and WSDOT ha ve no planned improvements identified at these locations. As part of a current development application traffic study, the City of Arlington is requiring that a more detailed review be conducted at the I-5/SR 531 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 intersection. If improvements are identified, the City of Arlington could seek a proportional cost share from future CIC development. In addition to capacity improvement, consideration could be given to intelligent transportation systems (ITS) such as adaptive signal control (ASC) systems along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) between the I-5 ramps and 67th Avenue NE. Improvements to signal timing would allow for better progression and travel times along the corridor. SR 531 Synchro/SimTraffic analysis files were provided by WSDOT as a basis of the analysis of Alternative 2 2040 traffic conditions with mitigation. WSDOT is currently evaluating specific corridor and intersection improvements such as traffic signals and roundabouts along SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE. It is anticipated that with the widening and intersection improvements along SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE both signals and roundabouts will improve operations over the current and projected future condition. This analysis assumes traffic signals at key intersections along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) based on the Synchro/Simtraffic files provided by the WSDOT. The intent of this analysis is to show that corridor improvements would mitigate the Alternative 2 impacts; more detailed operations analysis at the intersections and along the corridor would be evaluated as part of the study completed to determine the ultimate design of the planned improvements. The analysis of the Alternative 2 mitigated conditions assumes SR 531 widening and intersection improvements (traffic signals and turn lanes) between 43rd Avenue NE and SR 9 as well as a traffic signal at the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection. No improvements are assumed at the I-5/SR 531 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 intersection. In addition, this Alternative 2 mitigated conditions analysis does not assume any reduction in vehicle traffic volumes with implementation of transportation demand management strategies or increases in transit. Intersection operations and travel time results for unmitigated and mitigated conditions are shown in Exhibit 73 and Exhibit 74 with detailed analysis worksheets provided in Appendix F. Traffic operations are shown for Alternative 2 representing the highest traffic levels projected at 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-81 the study intersections. Similar mitigation would be needed with the other Alternatives. Exhibit 73. Action Alternative 2 With and Without Mitigation Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Summary Intersection Without Mitigation With Mitigation Change in Delay LOS1 Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay WM 1. 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE F 455 EBL B 20 - -435 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)4 D 47 - E 74 - 27 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)4 F 84 - F 104 - 20 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)4 F 118 - F 174 - 56 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) C 31 - C 24 - -7 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) D 38 - C 31 - -7 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) F 206 - C 35 - -171 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) F 246 - F 160 - -86 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) F 163 - E 56 - -107 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE)4 B 15 EB C 25 NB 10 11. Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE E 69 - E 69 - 0 12. Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE C 23 - C 23 - 0 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. • Level of Service (A – F) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 6th Edition) 1. Average delay per vehicle in seconds 2. Worst movement reported for unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections. NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound. 3. There are no planned capacity improvements at theses intersections. With shifts in traffic anticipated as a result of the widening of SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE, traffic volumes would increase at these intersections resulting in additional delay. As shown in Exhibit 73, with implementation of a traffic signal the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection would operate at LOS B during the weekday PM peak hour. The SR 531 improvements would result in an increase in delay at the I-5 Ramp and Smokey Point Blvd intersections that are already anticipated to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. The increase in delay at the I-5 Ramp and Smokey Point Blvd intersections is due traffic volumes increasing as vehicle travel patterns shift with the improvements and additional capacity along other portions of the SR 531 corridor. As noted previously, there are no improvements planned at the I-5 Ramp and Smokey Point Blvd intersections with the SR 531 project and this area would continue to be a bottleneck for the study area; however, the City is 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-82 working with a current development project to evaluate potential improvements. With the widening of SR 531 (172nd Street NE), delay would decrease at the following intersections: ▪ 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) ▪ 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) As shown in Exhibit 73, additional mitigation measures would be needed beyond the SR 531 widening and the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection to support the CIC proposal. Exhibit 74 summarizes the travel times along SR 531 with and without mitigation. Exhibit 74. 2040 Action Alternative 2 With and Without Mitigation Weekday PM Peak Hour Arterial Operations Direction Without Mitigation With Mitigation Travel Time (min) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (min) Arterial Speed (mph) Eastbound 29 12 35 8 Westbound 23 11 16 15 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. Exhibit 74 shows with the widening of SR 531 and anticipated shifts in traffic volumes travel times would improve in the westbound direction but increase in the eastboun d direction. Consistent with the intersection LOS analysis, the corridor analysis shows that additional improvements would be needed beyond the SR 531 widening and the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection to support the CIC proposal. It is recomm ended to strategies to reduce auto demand be considered since additional physical improvements will be costly and many of the intersections have already been built out. Proportional Cost Share There is no current project at the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection, I-5/SR 531 interchange and the Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) intersection and funding is uncertain for the widening SR 531. Poor operations are anticipated in the study area with or without Alternatives 1 and 2. In order to mitigate the impacts of the Action Alternatives, it is recommended that developments within the study area contribute a percent proportionate 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-83 share of identified transportation improvement projects. Exhibit 75 shows the pro-rata share of Action Alterative 2 at the study intersections. Exhibit 75. Pro-Rata Project Share Action Alternative 2 Intersection 2040 No Action Intersection Vehicle Volumes 2040 Action Alternative 2 Intersection Vehicle Volumes Project Trips1 Percent Pro-Rata Share2 1. 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE 1,650 1,770 120 6.8% 2. I-5 SB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 4,985 4,995 10 0.2% 3. I-5 NB Ramps/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 5,420 5,430 10 0.2% 4. Smokey Point Blvd/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 5,245 5,260 15 0.3% 5. 40th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 2,780 2,800 20 0.7% 6. 43rd Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 2,535 2,605 70 2.7% 7. 51st Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 2,800 2,870 70 2.4% 8. 59th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 3,015 3,125 110 3.5% 9. 67th Avenue NE/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 2,895 2,955 60 2.0% 10. SR 9/SR 531 (172nd Street NE) 2,805 2,825 20 0.7% 11. Smokey Point Blvd/156th Street NE 4,630 4,665 35 0.8% 12. Smokey Point Blvd/152nd Street NE 3,125 3,185 60 1.9% Source: Transpo Group, 2020 1. 2040 Action Alternative 2 intersection vehicle volumes – 2040 No Action intersection vehicle volumes 2. Project trips / 2040 Action Alternative intersection vehicle volumes. The pro-rata share of Alternative 2 related volumes at study intersections range between less than 1 percent to 7 percent. The highest project share is at the 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE which serves as a primary access to the northeast portion of the CIC area. The cost of potential improvements was reviewed to provide an understanding of potential proportional cost share for CIC development projects. Exhibit shows the SR 531 corridor and 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE intersection improvement costs and the CIC development share. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-84 Exhibit 76. Summary of Mitigation and Action Alternative Pro-Rata Cost Location Improvement Estimated Total Cost (Million $)1 2040 No Action Intersection Vehicle Volumes2 2040 Action Alternative 2 Intersection Vehicle Volumes2 Project Trips3 Percent Pro- Rata Share4 Pro- Rata Cost (Million $)5 SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE Widening SR 531 from 2 to 4-lanes with intersection improvements at major intersections. Multiuse paths constructed along SR 531 $39.3 14,025 14,355 330 2.3% $0.904 SR 531 between 67th Avenue NE and SR 9 $45.0 5,700 5,780 80 1.4% $0.630 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE Installation of traffic signal and railroad crossing improvements $3.1 1,650 1,770 120 6.8% $0.211 Total $87.4 $1.745 Source: Transpo Group, 2020 SR 531 43rd Avenue NE to 67th Avenue NE project cost based on WSDOT published as of September 25, 2020 https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr531/43rd-ave-67th-ave/home. SR 531 67th Avenue NE to SR 9 project cost based on City of Arlington Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2024. Intersection improvement cost 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE based on estimates prepared by Transpo Group. 2. Volumes for SR 531 are total entering volumes for the major intersections. 3. 2040 Action Alternative 2 intersection vehicle volumes – 2040 No Action intersection vehicle volumes 4. Project trips / 2040 Action Alternative intersection vehicle volumes. 5. Percent Pro-Rata Share x Estimated Total Cost The total proportional share of the Alternative 2 mitigation improvement cost could be charge using a per trip fee. Considering the total cost of the CIC Alternative 2 development share of $1.745 million and 2,247 net new trips, the fee per trip would be $767.37. Incorporated Plan Features All alternatives would include frontage improvements following City and State design standards including sidewalk, curb, and gutter. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-85 Regulations and Commitments The following regulations and standards address transportation: ▪ The following regulations and standards: AMC Chapter 10.80 - Commute Trip Reduction AMC Chapter 20.56 - Streets and Sidewalks Chapter 20.90 - Concurrency and Impact Fees Arlington Engineering Standards AMC Chapter 20.44.098 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Transportation Impact Fees Mitigation will be collected in the form of transportation impact fees. The City of Arlington has a traffic impact fee program. Impact fees will be determined at a project level when permit applications are filed. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) should be considered to mitigate the impacts of the alternatives. TDM works to move people out of single occupant vehicles (SOVs) to more sustainable modes like walking, biking, and transit. The Arlington Marysville MIC Subarea Plan incorporates transportation demand management policies. The following provides a description of goal (AMMIC T-8) and associated policies related to transportation demand management and reduction of single occupancy vehicles. AMMIC-T-8: An integrated system of public transportation alternatives and demand management programs provide mobility alternatives, reduce single occupant vehicles and expand the general capacity of arterials and collector streets in the AMMIC. AMMIC-T-8.1: Continue to coordinate with all agencies and neighboring jurisdictions involved with public transportation, whether they be bus, HOV lanes, light rail, heavy rail, ride sharing, vanpooling, or other forms, to identify what is of best use to the AMMIC and participa te in those ventures and proposals which are of general and/or specific benefit to the AMMIC. [PT-6.1] AMMIC-T-8.2: Continue to work with Community Transit to support and enhance a multimodal transportation system including future bus rapid transit (BRT) by ensuring that the AMMIC transportation plans and facilities are consistent with public transit plans and programs. AMMIC-T-8.3: Collaborate with Community Transit to expand and enhance bus transit service between the AMMIC and local and regional areas of high-density residential development. AMMIC-T-8.4: Encourage developers to consider public transportation in transportation plans 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-86 submitted as part of development permit approval consideration. New developments should encourage van and carpooling, public transit use, and other alternatives to reduce single- occupancy vehicular travel. [PT-6.4] AMMIC-T-8.5: Support construction of improved first-and-last mile connections with local and regional transit service. Work to provide transit stops and shelters along arterials and/ or facilitate vanshare activities through curb space management on-street or within off-street parking within the AMMIC. AMMIC-T-8.6: Work to provide bike lockers and facilities at key transit connections. AMMIC-T-8.7: Support and coordinate with Community Transit and WSDOT on the development of an expanded regional park-and-ride system to support use of alternative transportation modes in the AMMIC. Seek to provide tax credits or other incentives for allowing public parking on private property. AMMIC-T-8.8: Promote programs that reduce travel demands on the transportation system through the following strategies: ▪ Encourage the use of HOV programs—buses, carpools, and vanpools—through both private programs and under the direction of Community Transit; ▪ Promote flexible work schedules allowing the use of transit, carpools, or vanpools; ▪ Promote reduced employee travel during the daily peak travel periods through flexible work schedules and programs to allow employees to telework part or full time; ▪ Encourage major employers to develop carpools, commuter routes, and provide company incentives if carpools are used [PT-6.5]; ▪ Encourage employers to provide transportation demand management (TDM) measures in the workplace through such programs as preferential parking for HOVs, improved access for transit vehicles, and employee incentives for using HOVs; ▪ Develop commute trip mode split goals for the site and conduct regular surveys to monitor progress [T 1.3]; and ▪ Implement the provisions of the State Comm ute Trip Reduction Act. As part of the alternatives mitigation, it is recommended that businesses be required to implement transportation demand management plans. Community Transit also has planned enhancements including a Swift line that would improve ser vice in the study area and help encourage transit use. Planned roadway improvements and frontage improvements would provide enhancements to the sidewalk network and with roadway improvements that include the provision of sidewalks and bike lanes. Alternative 1 also provides additional workforce housing within the CIC, which would allow for employees to live closer to work and help reduce trips as well as make the use of alternative mode more viable. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Transportation Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-87 Other Proposed Mitigation Measures The City and/or WSDOT could identify other capital improvement projects to increase the capacity at impacted intersections and along roadways in the study area. Additionally, consideration could be given to programs like intelligent transportation systems (ITS) such as adaptive signal control (ASC) systems to improve traffic operations of the street system within the study area. Implementation of such strategies could result in an overall improvement of 10 to 15 percent, which could result in reduced delays and potentially improv e LOS. ITS improvements or other capacity could be incorporated with other already planned improvements and/or could be required as part of developer contributions or frontage improvements. As described previously, consideration of ITS or ASC could be implemented along SR 531 (172nd Street NE) between the I-5 ramps and 67th Avenue NE. Improvements to signal timing would allow for better progression and travel times along the corridor. Consideration could also be given to changes to the jurisdiction’s LOS policy. Increasing capacity at intersections and along the roadway system may improve LOS for vehicles; however, it could create impacts for other modes. The City and/or WSDOT may desire to revisit LOS policies to have a more multimodal LOS that gives priority to other modes and considers connectivity of the pedestrian and bicycle network and/or minimizing barriers for non-auto modes. 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The Action Alternatives would allow for additional growth in the study area beyond what would occur with the No Action Alternative. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts related solely to the proposed Action Alternatives. Several intersections operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour along SR 531 with or without the Action Alternatives. These intersections would also have poor operations with mitigation under both the No Action and Action Alternatives conditions. The SR 531 impacts are considered a cumulative significant and unavoidable adverse impact that would occur with or without the action alternatives. There may be secondary impacts related to widening the SR 531 corridor as part of the proposed mitigation for the action alternatives. Providing the corridor improvements is anticipated to shift traffic volumes and delays may increase at some locations along SR 531 . Reducing reliance on auto travel within the study area would help reduce secondary impacts. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-88 3.4 Land Use and Aesthetics This section addresses consistency of the alternatives with City and regional plans and policies. The Affected Environment reviews the Arlington-Marysville Subarea Plan vision and policies, Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan policies as well as Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC’s) centers growth strategy and Snohomish County Countywide Policies. Alternatives are compared to these strategies and policies. This section also addresses physical land use patterns within and surrounding the Stu dy Area, considering changes in the types of industrial, and manufacturing uses. Existing land use pattern and aesthetic conditions are based on field reconnaissance, imagery review, and Snohomish County and City of Arlington parcel data. Future conditions consider the level of growth and land use change described in Chapter 2 for the alternatives. 3.4.1 Affected Environment Existing Policies and Regulations Arlington Plans Arlington Comprehensive Plan The City of Arlington’s Comprehensive Plan is the community’s vision for Arlington over 20 years, 2015-2035. The Comprehensive Plan’s land use strategy accommodates Arlington’s growth targets and establishes a mix of uses that will serve current and future populations. Its general goal is to “ensure that the character and location of land uses optimize the economic benefit, enjoyment by residents, and protection of natural resources” through implementing growth management policy, economic devleopment strategy, neighborhood conservation, and environmental preservation. The Element also strategizes to achieve the City’s goal for formal designation of the Study Area as a Manufacturing Industrial Center. The City hopes to incorporate an additional 2,421 housing units by 2035 and for employment to reach 20,884. Current employment in the area is estimated at 5,586 jobs. Much of the employment growth is expected to stem from the airport zone and aerospace industry. Arlington expresses its plans of rthe Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) by limiting non-supportive uses within the Study Area. This includes retail, residential, and unrelated office uses. Encouraged uses will be industrial and advanced technology. In addition, the Plan identifies policies for the subarea and zones relevant to the AMMIC. These 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-89 include the following: PL-1.9 Business Park: The Business Park designation is intended to promote office, high technology research and development, and related uses in a master-planned, park- like setting. PL-1.10 Light Industrial: This designation is intended to allow those types of industrial, wholesale, or service uses that have minimal impacts on surrounding properties. This is accomplished by having all activities done in completely enclosed structures. Due to the proximity of this zone to the Arlington Airport, care should be taken to ensure that uses are compatible with it, and that they will not impact airborne aircraft because of the height of structures, smoke, glare, lights which shine upwards, radio interferences from transmissions, nor any water impoundments or sanitary landfills which would create potential hazards from waterfowl to airborne aircraft. PL-1.11 General Industrial: This land use designation is intended to allow a full range of industrial, wholesale, or service uses that traditionally may have impacts to surrounding properties, as they involve a great deal of activity and storage outside the building; large doors are open; and there may be more noise, light, heat, smoke, dust, and odors detected beyond the property lines than in other zones. PL-1.12 Aviation Flightline: – This designation is intended to allow only aviation related uses proximate to airport runways and taxiways. Aviation related uses include any uses related to supporting aviation that require direct taxi-way access as a necessary part of their business operations, such as aviation services, manufacturing of aviation-related goods, general services whose primary customers would be those engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restaurants primarily catering to pilots, employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clearly related to aviation. The Plan also outlines policies specifically geared toward industrial land use, with the goal of supporting a high jobs-to-households ratio. These policies include: PL-12.1: Industrial land uses should be located in the vicinity of Arlington Airport in order to take advantage of existing and anticipated transportation systems. PL-12.5: The City should pursue the designation of the Arlington-Marysville Manufacturing Industrial Center (AMMIC) in the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies and regional designation by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).1 PL-12.6: The City should support the development and growth of the Arlington - Marysville AMMIC by supporting a concentrated manufacturing and industrial base and by planning for future growth and infrastructure improvements. 1 The AMMIC was designated as a regional MIC in 2018 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-90 PL-12.7: The City should develop appropriate zoning, design review and landscaping regulations so that manufacturing uses within the Arlington portion of the AMMIC are buffered from adjacent or abutting residential uses. PL-12.8: The City should ensure that at least 80% of the property within the AMMIC is planned and zoned for industrial and manufacturing uses. Compatible non-industrial uses shall be as allowed under PSRC certification and be conditioned to mitigate for potential conflicts with current and future industrial uses. Arlington Marysville MIC Subarea Plan The outlined vision in the Subarea Plan is that the AMMIC is an industrial employment center with the majority of land used for job-rich industrial uses. Commercial uses are restricted to those who provide services to industrial businesses and employees and residential uses are not allowed. Growth targets for development in the entire AMMIC straddling both Arlington and Marysville is an additional 20,000 jobs by 2040. This plan outlines a growth strategy which includes transportation improvements both for the street network and trail systems, the iden tification of opportunity sites for focused infrastructure improvements south of the airport site, green infrastructure development for stormwater management, and a potential realignment of Edgecomb Creek. AMMIC-LU-1: Land within the MIC is designated for industrial use in sufficient quantity to ensure the economic growth and vitality of Marysville and Snohomish County. AMMIC-LU-2: Growth in the AMMIC complements existing character and development pattern. AMMIC-LU-3: Industrial activity in the AMMIC does not adversely impact adjacent uses and neighborhoods. AMMIC-LU-4: Development in the AMMIC is attractive as well as efficient, exhibiting high quality architectural and landscape design. AMMIC-LU-5: Site development in the AMMIC incorporates natural feature s, open spaces, stormwater drainage facilities and, where applicable, restored stream corridors as landscape and amenity features and incorporate these natural systems as part of the MIC’s design identity. AMMIC-LU-6: Roadways, walkways, trails and other public circulation features accommodate all appropriate transportation modes and are attractively landscaped in a way that reinforces the AMMIC’s identity and design character. Airport Master Plan Arlington Municipal Airport, owned and operated by the City of Arlington, is an important part of 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-91 the national system of airports, as well as a key component of the transportation infrastructure that serves the City of Arlington, Snohomish County, and the northern portion of the Seattle - Tacoma Metropolitan Area. Exhibit 77: National Plan of Integrated Airports System Airports Source: PSRC Regional Aviation Baseline Study, 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-92 The airport’s transportation facilities, and aviation-related businesses and facilities, is a significant regional economic asset. The average annual operations numbers are approximately 60,000 per year across a range of aircraft. The Arlington Airport Master Plan was last updated in 2012 and will updated again in 2023 or 2024 depending on funding. Growth Management Act Arlington’s strategy for growth is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA), which restricts urban growth to urban areas to prevent sprawl. This is represented in the following GMA goals: (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (5) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. Source: RCW 36.70A.020 PSRC Vision 2050 and Snohomish County Countywide Policies Both the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC’s) Multi-County Planning Policies (MCPPs) and the Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) direct cities toward a centers strategy, in which urban growth is concentrated in designated regional and local centers, 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-93 consistent with Arlington’s land use strategy. Regional centers, such as the Arlington CIC, are designated in the MCPPs, but local centers are also recognized as important to regional growth . PSRC is currently updating its regional plan that extends the time horizon for regional planning. A draft version of the VISION 2050 plan was provided to the public in July 2019, detailing how the four-county region would work to accommodate 5.8 million people and 3.4 million jobs by the year 2050. This document is currently under review, and a final version is expected to be approved in 2020. Multicounty Planning Policies support the development of industrial centers, described as “existing employment areas with intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities,” (p.27). MPP-RC-7: Give funding priority—both for transportation infrastructure and for economic development – to support designated regional growth centers and manufacturing/industrial centers, consistent with the regional vision. Regional funds are prioritized to regional centers. MPP-RGS-10: Focus a significant share of employment growth in designated regional manufacturing/industrial centers. In the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan, establishing Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and Centers for concentration of growth is the established strategy for efficiency of providing public services and reduced conversion of unused land to low-density, sprawled development types. There are four types of Centers in Snohomish County, including Manufacturing and Industrial Centers (MIC) such as the Arlington/Marysville MIC. Objective LU 1.A Establish UGAs with sufficient capacity to accommodate the majority of the county’s projected population, employment, and housing growth over the next 20 years. Objective LU 2.C Encourage intensification and revitalization of existing and planned commercial and industrial areas. Whenever possible, it is the county’s intent to support the efforts of the cities to preserve, enhance, or develop centers within their city limits. Land Use Patterns Current Land Use Patterns Land use in the Study Area is predominantly industrial, with the airport and other industrial uses comprising 50% of the total acreage. Commercial and Services combine to represent 27% of land use, and 14% is vacant – some of which is undevelopable. Ten percent (10%) of Study Area 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-94 land is used for residential, agricultural, or open space uses. Exhibit 78: Acreage by Land Use Category, Arlington MIC, 2020. Assessor Land Use Category Parcel Acres Parcel Acres (% Total) Ag-Open Space CU 107 5% Airport 728 34% Commercial 435 20% Manufacturing/Industrial 320 15% Public/Civic 1 0% Residential 118 5% Right of Way 3 0% Services 161 7% Vacant 297 14% Total 2,170 100% Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2019; BERK, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-95 Exhibit 79: Current Land Use, 2020 Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2020; BERK, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-96 Exhibit 80: Looking East Across Arlington Municipal Airport. Image Source: City of Arlington, 2020. The Arlington Municipal Airport is central to the Study Area. A variety of services offered include flight training, scenic charter flights, aerial photography, and airplane maintenance. There are five runways and four taxiways. The airport is also surrounded by a variety of land uses allocated to agriculture /open space. Undeveloped agricultural lands are within the City of Marysville classified under the Open Space Taxation Act of Washington. Residential land uses are primarily located adjacent to airport property along the northern and western boundaries, with a small area located south of the airport. A large area of residential land use is also located east of 67th Avenue NE, and exten ds both north and south of 172nd St/SR531 NE. The majority of industrial development within the vicinity of the airport is concentrated east, located west of 67th Avenue NE and continuing northeasterly towards the Arlington Central Business District (CBD). Existing industrial development located within the northern portion of the airport. The majority of commercial, office, and business park development is located south and west of the airport and concentrated along 172nd St/SR531 NE, near the Interstate 5 (I-5) interchange. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-97 The Arlington Airport is unique in that it has sufficient area to accommodate both aviation and non-aviation development area. Exhibit 81 shows specific development areas within the airport. Approximately 130 businesses are located on airport property that lease land and/or facilities from the City of Arlington. Approximately 25% of these businesses involve aviation or aviation - related uses associated with the airport. The remaining businesses consist primarily of nonaviation uses located within the Arlington Airport Industrial Park. The industrial park consists of approximately 102 acres and is located east of 59th Avenue NE, within the northeast quad rant of the airport. Exhibit 81: Arlington Municipal Airport Layout. Image Source: City of Arlington, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-98 Paths, mobility, and connectivity Evaluation and assessment of mobility throughout the Study Area. Mobility in the Study Area is primarily auto-oriented with roads connecting between industrial and commercial centers. Two major trails, Airport and Centennial, provide access and recreation for pedestrians and cyclists. ▪ Airport Trail: A 6-mile pedestrian trail surrounds the airport. ▪ Centennial Trail: A cycling trail runs north-south alongside 67th Avenue NE through the Study Area. The trail extends 23 miles connecting to Lake Stevens and Snohomish to the south and north to Pilchuck. Exhibit 82. Centennial Trail Centennial Trail, Source: City of Arlington 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-99 Land Use Designation and Zoning Districts Current zoning within the Study Area includes (in order of acreage) General Commercial, Aviation Flightline, Light Industrial, Business Park, General Industrial, Highway Commercial, and Public/Semi-public zones. See Exhibit 83 and Exhibit 85. General Industrial, Aviation Flightline, and Light Industrial combine to comprise 80% of the acreage in the Study Area. Zones have maximum building heights of 45-50’. This is echoed in the low-rise building style throughout this district. The Arlington Airport is zoned Aviation Flightline strictly for airport operations and uses directly related to aviation operations on site. A 236-acre area north of the Airport is zoned for Light Industrial. The Light Industrial district is intended to be a business park-like setting, compared to the General Industrial district which allows more resource-based manufacturing. The Arlington Airport’s Business Park zone comprises 166 acres and is designed to accommodate office, hi- tech, research and development and related uses in a master-planned layout. Exhibit 83: Study Area Acres by Zone, Study Area, 2020. Zone Acres % Total General Industrial 861.86 38% Aviation Flightline 737.02 32% Light Industrial 236.68 10% Business Park 165.57 7% General Commercial 165.23 7% Highway Commercial 88.42 4% Public/Semi-Public 35.98 2% TOTAL: 2,290.78 100% Sources: City of Arlington, 2020; BERK, 2020. Exhibit 84: Development Standards by Zone, Study Area, 2020. Zone Min Lot Size Setback Requirements (Non-Arterial) Setback Requirements (Arterial) Setback Requirements (Lot Line) Height Limits Max Lot Coverage General Industrial 10,000 SF 25’ 25’ 5’ 50’ 100% 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-100 Zone Min Lot Size Setback Requirements (Non-Arterial) Setback Requirements (Arterial) Setback Requirements (Lot Line) Height Limits Max Lot Coverage Aviation Flightline 10,000 SF 25’ 25’ 5’ 50’ 100% Light Industrial 10,000 SF 25’ 25’ 5’ 50’ 100% Business Park 10,000 SF 25’ 25’ 5’ 50’ 100% General Commercial - 25’ for bldg. >10,000 SF; 10’ for bldg. <10,000 SF 25’ for bldg. >10,000 SF; 10’ for bldg. <10,000 SF 5’ 45’ 100% Highway Commercial - 25’ for bldg. >10,000 SF; 10’ for bldg. <10,000 SF 25’ for bldg. >10,000 SF; 10’ for bldg. <10,000 SF 5’ 50’ 100% Public/Semi- public Same as predominately surrounding zone Sources: Municipal Code of Arlington Table 20.48-5, 2020; BERK, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-101 Exhibit 85: Current Zoning Map, 2020 Sources: City of Arlington, 2020; BERK, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-102 In addition to the base zoning, the area within and around the airport are within a special zoning overlay called the Arlington Airport Protection District (APD). The APD is a zoning overlay that modifies the density and land use requirements of underlying zoning districts. The APD was adopted in the Arlington Municipal Code based on state regulations that require cities to enact development regulations to discourage siting of incompatible land uses and densities adjacent to general aviation airports to reduce hazards to lives and properties and ensure a safe flying environment. The APD zoning overlay consists of four Subdistricts (A, B, C & D). Subdistrict A is fur ther subdivided into five Airport Safety Zones. Each Subdistrict and Airport Safety Zone modifies the underlying zone’s allowable density and land uses. The following notable regulations apply to Subdistricts A, B, C, and D: ▪ No land uses that could cause electronic interference. ▪ No buildings or structures that produce fly ash, dust, vapor, gases, or other forms of emissions that could affect visibility. Subdistrict A includes 5 protection and safety zones related to airplane takeoff and landing and has the most zoning restrictions. Subdistrict B restricts any special functions under the airport traffic pattern. Special function uses are based on the relative inability of individuals occupying such a space to move out of harm’s way. Structures that fit this criteria include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and sports stadiums. Subdistricts C and D have the fewest limitations. Development of some industrial and manufacturing facilities are potentially challenged by the restriction on particulate emissions in all Subdistricts. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-103 Exhibit 86. of APD Districts & Development Standards, 2020 1Average number of people per gross acre. Source: City of Arlington, 2020 Zone Standards Subdistrict A Structures, devices, or other objects that make it difficult for pilots to identify airport lights, or otherwise impair visibility are prohibited. No bulk above ground storage greater than 6,000 gallons of flammable or hazardous substance. Except for aeronautical events, no permanent (e.g. housing) or temporary (e.g. festivals) public assembly of people. Special functions prohibited under airport traffic pattern. Runway Protection Zone No use, building, or other structure permitted. Accessory activities, such as off-street parking or low-growing landscaping, are permitted. No high intensity uses permitted. No emergency services stations or operations. Inner Safety Zone No high intensity uses permitted. No emergency services stations or operations. Maximum Residential Density: 1 du/10 acres Maximum Nonresidential Intensity1: 25 Inner Turning Zone No high intensity uses permitted. No emergency services stations or operations. Maximum Residential Density: 1 du/5 acres Maximum Nonresidential Intensity1: 60 Outer Safety Zone Maximum Residential Density: 1 du/5 acres Maximum Nonresidential Intensity1: 60 Sideline Safety Zone Maximum Residential Density: 1 du/5 acres Maximum Nonresidential Intensity1: 80 Subdistrict B Special functions prohibited under airport traffic pattern. Subdistrict C No unique restrictions Subdistrict D No unique restrictions 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-104 Employment Patterns and Growth The population of Arlington is estimated at currently 20,600 as of June 2020. The Arlington Comprehensive Plan estimates a 2035 population of 24,937. Job growth in the Study Area has grown by almost 50% 2010-2018, compared to 24% for Snohomish County overall. See Exhibit 87. The most growth, by number of jobs, has been in the Construction/Resources and Manufacturing sectors. Exhibit 87. Job Growth by Sector for Study Area, 2010-2018. Sources: PSRC, 2018; BERK, 2020. In 2018, the Study Area captured 10% of Snohomish County’s Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade/Transportation/Utilities (WTU) employment, and 2% of overall employment. Forecasts for employment growth in Snohomish County, according to PSRC’s 2017 Land Use Vision, anticipates overall employment growth of 48% from 2015-2040 and 11% growth in Manufacturing/WTU sectors. Assuming consistent capture rates, this forecasts employment of 8,825 in Manufacturing and WTU sectors and total employment of 9,179 by 2040 for the Study Area, an increase from the 2018 estimates of 3,095 and 4,969 respectively. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-105 Exhibit 88. Snohomish County Employment Forecasts, 2015-2040. Sources: PSRC Land Use Vision, 2017; BERK, 2020. Buildable Lands Capacity The Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report, released in 2012 and adopted in 2013, analyzed land parcels countywide for development capacity. The analysis combined individual parcel s into “Economic Units” to more accurately describe land uses within parcels, across parcels, and parcel assembly opportunities when multiple, commonly owned parcels lie side by side. The analysis deducted critical areas (including a small proportional ded uction for unmapped critical areas), easements, and capital facilities from its final inventory of developable land. The analysis found capacity for 10,502 additional jobs in the CIC. Snohomish County, in consultation with its cities through the Snohomish County Tomorrow process, developed and adopted growth targets for the City of Arlington amounting to growth of 6,971 additional residents, 2,725 additional housing units, and 12,170 additional jobs by the year 2035. OFM projections are for a population in excess of 26,000 residents, and 10,000 homes by 2040. Neighborhood Character The Study Area is characterized by low-rise commercial and industrial development, vacant lots, and outdoor storage areas. The airport is the central feature of the Study Area, with long runways connected in a triangular pattern. It is buffered by open space and related industry buildings to enhance the site’s safety, noise, and aesthetics. The character of the Study Area does not naturally lend itself to residential development, as the 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-106 building scale favors larger format supply-side businesses rather than pedestrian-focused infrastructure or retail shopping experiences. The presence of the airport, and the spatial patterns associated with its functional needs, is another aspect of neighborhood character that limits the attractiveness of the area as a walkable node for residential or mixed-use development. Exhibit 89: Looking east across 67th Ave, south of 204th St NE looking toward Highway 9 Northeastern zone of Study Area, Image: Google Maps 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-107 Exhibit 90: Looking east from 59th Avenue between 188th and 172nd St NE Transition from Airfield to General Industrial area, Image: Google Maps Exhibit 91: Looking South from Airfield across 172nd St NE Transition from Airfield to Commercial areas and beyond, Image: Google Maps 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-108 Edges and Adjacent Neighborhoods The southeastern edge of the Study Area is formed by 67th Ave NE. The neighborhood east of this boundary consists of residential development. The southeastern edge of the Study Area is formed by 67th Ave NE. The southern border of the Study Area aligns with the city of Marysville border. Exhibit 92: Southeastern Edge Image: Google Maps 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-109 Exhibit 93: Southern Boundary of Study Area Image: Google Maps Area along the northern boundary includes both Arlington and portions of the Arlington UGA. The Portage Creek Wildlife Reserve is a large park/open space in the northwest corner and most other surrounding development is single family residential. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-110 Exhibit 94: Northern boundary of Study Area Redevelopment Potential Assessed value per square foot of land is one metric used to identify parcels that may be likely to redevelop. Parcels where the assessed value per square foot is low, such as parcels with older, low value buildings, and vacant parcels, may be under-utilized. Some of these under-utilized parcels may be likely to redevelop under given market conditions and based on property owner interests. In some cases, parcels that are not under-utilized may also redevelop based on property owner interests or other changes. Within the Study Area, assessed value per SF ranges as high as $95/SF, although most parcels fall below $25/SF. Highest value parcels are shown in gold in Exhibit 95. These parcels are distributed across the eastern half of the Study Area and often cluster together around road intersections. Other factors play into which sites are ready for redevelopment such as site attributes, zoning allowances, market conditions, owner preferences, etc. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-111 Exhibit 95: Assessed Value per SF in Study Area, by parcel Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2020; BERK, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-112 3.4.2 Impacts Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIS, the thresholds of significance are: ▪ Inconsistency with current plans and policies. ▪ Differences in activity levels at boundaries of uses likely to result in incompatibilities. ▪ Change to land use patterns or development intensities that preclude reasonable transitions between areas of less intensive zoning and more intensive zoning. Impacts Common to All Alternatives All studied alternatives include some amount of redevelopment. As redevelopment occurs within the Study Area, there is the potential for localized land use compatibility impacts to occur where newer development is of greater height and intensity than existing development. These compatibility impacts, if they occur, are temporary and will be resolved over time. The extent of these conflicts varies by alternative and can be reduced by the application of existing or new development and design standards. Land Use Plans and Policies There are no common impacts to land use plans and policies. See each alternative for more information. Land Use Within the Cascade Employment Center New growth is expected to occur under all the alternatives, although the amount of growth and composition of the mix of land uses will vary by alternative. Activity levels would increase across the Study Area with new businesses, and employees. Alternative 1 will also see a small addition of residents to the study area. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-113 Exhibit 96 shows the projected growth in building space and land use mix under each of the alternatives. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-114 Exhibit 96. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth Ex i s t i n g No A c t i o n Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 1 Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 2 Ne t C h a n g e* Population 890 890 0 2,273 1,383 890 0 Dwellings 332 332 0 848 516 332 0 Jobs 4,969 9,793 4,824 11,594 6,625 13,813 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. The majority of growth through 2040 is anticipated to occur on vacant, partially used and redevelopable sites as identified through the buildable lands analysis in 2012. With the exception of two parcels just south of 172nd Street in the western portion of the study area and a few smaller parcels east of the airports, these sites are also in the lower range of $1-$5 assessed value as shown on Exhibit 95 Land Use Surrounding the Study Area Land use compatibility impacts are unlikely to occur to the south, southwest or north of the Study Area. In the south, 172nd Street is a physical barrier between the Study Area and areas to the south including across the city boundary in Marysville. Past the barrier of the street, undeveloped land buffer development in the Study Area from development in Marysville. In the southwest trees and open space buffer residential neighborhoods are buffered from the airfield and development. In the north, the Portage Creek Wildlife Reserve and existing development act as physical barriers separating the Study Area from areas further north. There are slight differences in impacts regarding development in the northern portion among the alternatives and this is covered under individual alternatives below. Changes in land use in the Study Area will be supported by the development of additional street connections, a relocated Edgecomb Creek, and improvements to 172nd Street (as part of the Connecting Washington project). In general, these improvements provide important amenity and transportation resources to support the land use in all studied alternatives. Collectively these resources provide access to transportation connections and recreation amenities for future employees and residents to commute to and from and circulate within the Study Area. The increased connectivity and support for non-motorized circulation minimizes the use of land for auto-related uses such as employee parking. Well designed, activated, and located public spaces provide multiple benefits such as places to recreate, gathering spaces, access to nature, a visual break from surrounding development, and environmental benefits. Together, these 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-115 additions increase opportunities for people to circulate within the area and reduce the impact of additional development. Additional information about the impacts of transportation in the Study Area can be found in Chapter 3. Transportation. No Action Alternative Land Use Plans and Policies The No Action Alternative would not amend current Arlington plans or regulations to reflect changed conditions with the adoption of the Subarea Plan. No Planned Action would be adopted to facilitate environmental review of new development or redevelopment. The No Action Alternative would continue the current land use designations and zoning districts of General Commercial, Aviation Flightline, Light Industrial, Business Park, General Industrial, Highway Commercial. The No Action Alternative would continue to meet GMA goals by identifying the CIC as a manufacturing industrial center which can focus growth and avoid sprawl in the region. However, with no further investments the area may take longer to redevelop as envisioned in the Subarea Plan. In 2018, the Study Area captured 10% of Snohomish County’s Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade/Transportation/Utilities (WTU) employment, and 2% of overall employment. The No Action Alternative assumes roughly similar capture rates, with the Study Area growing to roughly 9,800 jobs by 2040. This is lower than the 12,170 adopted job target for 2035. The No Action Alternative is also unlikely to assist the City in meeting its increased VISION 2050 growth allocations for the 2017-2050 period given its relative lower development capacity. Land Use Patterns Within the Cascade Industrial Center The No Action Alternative is the least intensive land use alternative. It applies future growth to existing conditions using the policies and zoning that are in place toda y. As a result, future land use under the No Action Alternative is consistent with Arlington’s current Comprehensive Plan, zoning (Exhibit 85) and development regulations (Exhibit 84). No additional dwelling units or population is anticipated. Under the No Action Alternative current employment at about 4,969 jobs is maintained and increased by 1,962 jobs; however, there are no incentives or investments planned. As the area grows, the mix of land uses under the No Action Alternative will remain similar to the existing condition, with manufacturing, construction/resources and warehousing, transportation and utilities sector uses. Based on the City’s non-motorized transportation plan improvements to SR 531 and better connectivity could increase the likelihood of the redevelopment of land uses in a few areas. There is likely to be some redevelopment on under-utilized sites in the Study Area, but industrial development in sectors envisioned in the subarea plan is not anticipated. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-116 Improvement to SR 531 to the addition of non-motorized paths per the City’s non-motorized transportation plan will create a stronger non-motorized connection between the study area and surrounding areas, which could lead to increased activity on this corridor. Building forms would also remain similar to the low-rise industrial building forms that exist today. Redevelopment of some areas may result in larger buildings where new construction maximizes development on parcels that are currently underutilized according to existing zoning. This is most likely to occur on underutilized or vacant parcels, especially west and northwest pf the airport. With a mix of land uses and building form similar to existing conditions, there are unlikely to be issues with land use incompatibility within the center. Land Use Patterns Abutting the Study Area General Industrial, Aviation Flightline, and Light Industrial combine to c omprise 80% of the zoned acreage in the Study Area. According to the Land Use Code, maximum heights for these zones are in the 45-50 feet range. While heights of 45-50 feet are allowed, development of this scale is not likely for industrial buildings in the manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, utilities, and construction sectors. These sectors tend to have large industrial users with buildings such as warehouses and logistics facilities, that need large sites with single level buildings in the 35-40’ height ranges. Some buildings that maximize the allowed heights are possible on some sites such as the city-owned vacant parcels. Action Alternative 1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The current Comprehensive Plan envisions the CIC as an industrial environment characterized by the clustering of industrial activities. Non-supportive uses such as residential, retail, and unrelated office uses are limited within the Study Area. Under Alternative 1, the CIC would continue to be a node for industrial uses. Sectors identified as desired sectors from the Subarea Plan would be encouraged. The current Land Use Element includes policies that support the CIC as an industrial center. Alternative 1 is consistent with policy language in the Land Use Element and the AMMIC Subarea Plan that prioritizes job-rich industrial uses for the area. Supportive uses such as a limited amount of housing, such as for the center’s workforce, and commercial uses and services for employees and businesses are anticipated. In addition, training and workforce development uses are anticipated to support the development of a vibrant industrial center. The current Comprehensive Plan specifies a land use designation with heights and intensities which are consistent with the heights and intensities anticipated under Alternative 1. Existing zoning has maximum heights in the 45-50’ range. Intensification of manufacturing, food processing and maritime uses are anticipated to use greater use of technology / automation. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-117 Building forms under Alternative 1 are however anticipated to fit within existing regulations for heights and densities. Development under Alternative 1 would be consistent with the AMMIC Subarea Plan. It would include adjustments to the zoning code to allow workforce housing, increase Light Industrial and Business Park zoning and decrease General Commercial and Highway Commercial zoning. Policy adjustments in the Comprehensive Plan would include modifications to the Capital Facilities Element. Alternative 1 would also adopt a Planned Action Ordinance to help facilitate environmental review of new development and redevelopment. Alternative 1 would further GMA goals by concentrating industrial activity and employment activity in the Study Area which can focus growth and avoid sprawl in the region. As noted above, in 2018, the Study Area captured 10% of Snohomish County’s Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade/Transportation/Utilities (WTU) employment, and 2% of overall employment. Alternative 1 assumes higher capture rates, given the addition of workforce development facilities, a planned action ordinance, and other investments, with the Study Area growing to roughly 11, 595 jobs by 2040. This is close to the 12,170 adopted job target for 2035. Alternative 1 could assist the City in meeting its increased VISION 2050 growth allocations for the 2017-2050 period with its greater growth in employment growth above the No Action Alternative. Airport Uses and Standards: Alterative 1 would continue existing zoning and regulations at the Arlington Municipal Airport. Land Use Patterns Within the Study Area Alternative 1 represents the medium growth alternative. While remaining industrial/manufacturing uses, a different set of land uses are mixed and distributed differently compared to Alternative 2 or the No Action Alternative. This alternative is aligned with the job growth, geographical distribution, and sector mix vision of the AMMIC Subarea Plan. Based on this, land uses across aerospace, robotics, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing are anticipated to dominate the study area. Given the need for workforce supports, residential development would be newly established in the area west of 51st Ave NE, south of the National Foods site and north of the Emerald Springs RV park site. Educational and training facilities would b e newly established on the Airport Business Park parcels west of the airport offering workforce development, or reskilling opportunities, relevant to manufacturing clusters in the study area. This will include creating a center of excellence, within the Airport Business Park, that will address and provide advanced training facilities for the industry clusters that are prevalent in the CIC. This will ensure that industries will have a continual supply of trained employees to fulfill their employment needs. Edgecomb Creek would be relocated and industrial development with employee serving amenities such as trails or small recreation areas would develop on sites adjacent to the 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-118 creek. Building heights may reach as high as 50 feet under Alternative 1, but mostly in concentrated areas of infill development on the eastern portion of the Study Area, and on vacant, partially used or developable parcels along the southern edge of the study area. Areas adjacent to the residential areas on the northwest and eastern edges are anticipated to be less likely to redevelop. Alternative 1 supports net increases of jobs rounded to 6,625 jobs. While employment-oriented development would be a focus on vacant, partially used or redevelopable parcels, this alternative allows a small amount of housing to support the industrial workforce. The study area would see only a small increase of 516 dwellings and 1,383 population, rounded. This alternative would increase residential dwellings to nearly three times that of the No Action Alternative and existing conditions. The slight increase in housing units is likely to bring a small amount of additional weekend and evening activity into the Study Area. Additional street and non-motorized connections as envisioned in the subarea plan would help meet the anticipated increase in employees. New street connections would improve the connections to transit, as well as improve circulation. Land Use Patterns Abutting the Study Area Compatibility conflicts could occur due to changes in the mix of land use and changes related to the increased intensity and height of new development. Building height increases on the northwest side of the Study Area, west of 47th Ave NE could place future buildings of up to 50 feet in this area. However, these maximum heights are not likely since much of the land is also restricted by FAA regulations around use and intensity. Within the Study Area there is limited potential for land use conflicts under Alternative 1 since new development is not anticipated to be of greater height or intensity compared to existing development. However, careful attention in the creation of industrial development-specific design standards could limit any potential land use compatibility conflicts between the Study Area and in adjacent areas. Action Alternative 2 Land Use Plans and Policies Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would be consistent with current Comprehensive Plan policies that envision the CIC as an industrial environment characterized by the clustering of industrial activities. Non-supportive uses such as residential, retail, and unrelated office uses are limited within the Study Area. Under Alternative 2, the CIC would continue to be a node for industrial uses. Sectors identified as desired sectors from the Subarea Plan would be encouraged. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-119 The current Land Use Element includes policies that support the CIC as an industrial center. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 is consistent with policy language in the Land Use Element and the AMMIC Subarea Plan that prioritizes job-rich industrial uses for the area. While supportive uses such as commercial uses and services for employees and businesses are anticipated, this alternative does not anticipate housing or educational uses. The current Comprehensive Plan specifies a land use designation with heights and intensities which are consistent with the heights and intensities anticipated under Alternative 2. Existing zoning has maximum heights in the 45-50’ range. Building forms under Alternative 2 are anticipated to be similar to the No Action Alternative fit within these regulations. Without specific investments in supportive facilities, development under Alternative 2 is less likely to be consistent with the AMMIC Subarea Plan’s desired industry sectors. The land use mix is more likely to be similar to the No Action Alternative and based on market conditions and trends. Policy adjustments in the Comprehensive Plan would include modifications to the Capital Facilities Element but no changes to zoning are anticipated. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would also adopt a Planned Action Ordinance to help facilitate environmental review of new development and redevelopment. Alternative 2 would further GMA goals by concentrating industrial activity and employment activity in the Study Area which can focus growth and avoid sprawl in the region. Alternative 2 assumes higher and aggressive capture rates, given the planned action ordinance, and other investments, with the Study Area growing to roughly 13, 815 jobs by 2040. This is higher than the 12,170 adopted job target for 2035. The alternative could assist the City in meeting its increased VISION 2050 growth allocations for the 2017-2050 period with its greater growth in employment growth above the No Action Alternative. Land Use Patterns within the Cascade Industrial Center Alternative 2 is the high growth alternative. It would maintain the existing mix of industrial/manufacturing uses with job growth concentrated in manufacturing, construction/resources and warehousing, transportation and utilities sectors. See Exhibit 87 Similar to Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative, building heights may reach as high as 50 feet under Alternative 2 but mostly in concentrated areas of infill development on the eastern portion of the Study Area, and on vacant, partially used, or developable parcels along the southern edge of the study area. Areas adjacent to the residential areas on the northwest and eastern edges are anticipated to be less likely to redevelop. Alternative 2 supports net increases of jobs rounded to jobs. Employment-oriented development would be a focus on vacant, partially used or redevelopable parcels, and this alternative does not anticipate the addition of any housing to the area. The study area would maintain its existing 332 dwellings and 890 population, rounded. This alternative would increase jobs to nearly three 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-120 times that of the No Action Alternative and existing conditions. Additional street and non-motorized connections as envisioned in the subarea plan would help meet the anticipated increase in employees. New street connections would improve the connections to transit, as well as improve circulation. Land Use Patterns Abutting the Study Area Compatibility conflicts could occur due to changes in the mix of land use and changes related to the increased intensity and height of new development. Building height increases on the northwest side of the Study Area, west of 47th Ave NE could place future buildings of up to 50 feet in this area. However, these maximum heights are not likely since much of the land is also restricted by FAA regulations. Within the Study Area there is limited potential for land use conflicts under Alternative 2 since new development is not anticipated to be of greater height or intensity compared to existing development. However, careful attention in the creation of industrial development-specific design standards could limit any potential land use compat ibility conflicts between the Study Area and in adjacent areas. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features The Arlington Comprehensive Plan designates the CIC as a regional MIC. The Comprehensive Plan includes policies and plans for improvements to support the development of the land use under the No Action Alternative. The Subarea Plan includes a vision for the CIC and supports industrial development in job-rich sectors including advanced manufacturing, food processing, aerospace, maritime and wood products manufacturing. Increases in land use intensity and changes to the land use mix under Alternatives 1 and 2 could be mitigated through improved design guidelines and specific development code changes envisioned as part of the implementation of Subarea Plan. The Action Alternatives promotes improved amenities such as the relocation of Edgecomb Creek. In addition, improvements to non-motorized transportation connections supports new development and helps to soften potential impacts of more intensive land use. Regulations and Commitments Arlington’s Municipal Code contains regulations that help to ensure land use compatibility. A summary of these regulations, which would mitigate impacts associated with the alternatives, is presented below. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-121 Development Regulations. Title 20 contains Arlington’s Land Use Code, which establishes zoning and development regulations. These development regulations contain provisions governing the design of buildings, site planning, and provisions to minimize land use incompatibilities. Existing General Commercial, Aviation Flightline, Light Industrial, Business Park, General Industrial, Highway Commercial, zoning districts contain provisions relating to building form and design, such as standards related to height, scale, density, setbacks, screening, parking, landscaping, etc. Regulations are in place to address such issues related to the implementation of the No Action Alternative. Arlington Design Standards (Chapter 20.46 AMC). Citywide design standards address primary design features, including building massing, orientation, transparency, and secondary design features including roof modulation, façade materials, weather protection and public amenities. These regulation and standards work to promote land use compatibility. These rules would be in place under the No Action Alternative. Airport Master plan standards address land uses, building heights and location, and public access. Historic/Cultural: See Chapter 3 for existing rules and regulations that apply to historic and cultural resources. Other Proposed Mitigation Measures Land Use Plan Consistency Manufacturing Industrial Centers are intended to take the majority of the city’s projected industrial employment growth. Minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be incorporated into the implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 to ensure full consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Study Area policies and zoning. Zoning and development regulation changes associated with Alternatives 1 would be incorporated into the AMC to ensure consistency. Design Standards The Action Alternatives 1 and 2 will also include the adoption of design standards specific to industrial areas and development types. It is anticipated that design regulations developed to implement the Action Alternatives would include standards related to: integration of the natural environment, building design, circulation and streetscapes, public spaces, industrial building features, site planning, parking, lighting, screening, and signage. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-122 3.4.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under all studied alternatives, additional growth and development will occur in the Study Area, leading to potential increases in height and bulk of buildings and increased land use intensity. This transition is unavoidable but is not considered significant or adverse within an urban area designated as a regional Manufacturing Industrial Center in the Comprehensive Plan. Future growth is likely to create temporary or localized land use compatibility issues as development occurs. The potential impacts related to these changes may differ in intensity and location in each of the alternatives. However, with existing and revised development regulations, zoning requirements, and design standards, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. The Action Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative 1 is consistent with the vision and policy direction of the Subarea Plan. However, updates to some policies and maps in the Comprehensive Plan will be needed under the Action Alternatives to ensure full consistency. With applicable laws described in mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-123 3.5 Utilities and Public Services This section describes the public services and existing utilities in the Study Area. Existing utilities include water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities in the Study Area and the expected impacts resulting from each alternative. 3.5.1 Affected Environment Stormwater The Public Works Department in the City of Arlington is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the City’s stormwater collection and conveyance system within the Study Area. See Exhibit 3-1 and Exhibit 3-1. Stormwater is captured by catch basins distributed across the city and conveyed through a network of open ditches, pipes, catch basins, culverts, and several different types of stormwater management facilities. Exhibit 97. Stormwater Infrastructure in the Study Area STORMWATER ASSET FEATURE COUNT Pipe (LF) 21,800 Catch Basins 660 Stormwater Facilities 33 Source: City of Arlington GIS data (Arlington 2018) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-124 Exhibit 98. Stormwater Infrastructure Map Source: City of Arlington 2012; Herrera 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-125 The northern portion of the Study Area drains towards the Stillaguamish River while the rest drains towards Quilceda Creek via ditches, Hayho Creek, Westphal Creek, and Edgecomb Creek. Many capital projects have been completed in the area in the last 10 y ears to prepare for increased development, including culvert replacement projects to address flooding and fish passage concerns. Additional capital improvement program (CIP) projects through 2035 include monitoring projects and planning for and constructing additional regional stormwater management facilities (Arlington 2010). The City has identified some potential regional facility locations within the Study Area in areas where on-site stormwater management is difficult due to shallow groundwater tables or poor soils, particularly in the southern portion of the Study Area. More work is needed to define the stormwater management needs associated with redevelopment and the City may consider those needs during the upcoming Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update. Drinking Water Potable water is provided by Arlington and Marysville to the Study Area. The City of Marysville provides water service for the Smokey Point Neighborhood within the southwest corner of the Study Area. The City of Arlington services the remaining portion of the Study Area. See Exhibit 3-3 and 3-4. Exhibit 99. Water Infrastructure in the Study Area Drinking Water Asset Feature Count Owner City of Arlington City of Marysville Pipe (LF) 135,900 9,000 Pumps 0 0 Hydrants 304 24 Source: City of Arlington GIS data (Arlington 2018) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-126 Exhibit 100. Water Infrastructure Map Source: City of Arlington 2012; Herrera 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-127 The Arlington portion’s water is supplied by groundwater from two wellfields (Arlington 2019). The City has sufficient water supply and secured wholesale supplies to meet demand beyond 2035, and the City is pursuing additional water rights to meet long term demands. The system was recently extended for the Airport Business Park. Planned improvements in the Study Area through 2035 include extension of the system into the undeveloped area of the Arlington portion south of 172nd Street, as well as system upgrades to serve redevelopment. Wastewater The City of Arlington provides wastewater services to the majority of the Study Area, including a collection and conveyance system and treatment facility. The City of Marysville provides wastewater service for the Smokey Point Neighborhood within the southwest corner of the Study Area. The wastewater infrastructure within the Study Area is listed in Exhibit 3-3. Exhibit 101. Wastewater Infrastructure in the Study Area Wastewater Asset Feature Count Owner City of Arlington City of Marysville Force Main (LF) 25,900 0 Gravity Main (LF) 44,500 7,000 Lift Stations 4 0 Manholes 350 19 Source: City of Arlington GIS data (Arlington 2018) 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-128 Exhibit 102. Wastewater Infrastructure Map Source: City of Arlington 2012; Herrera 2020 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-129 Wastewater flowing out of the Study Area flows to a single water reclamation facility (WRF), which discharges to the Stillaguamish River. Expansion of the membrane bioreactor (MBR) component of the WRF is planned by 2035 and the City has accounted for Study Area growth in evaluating its wastewater system requirements. The City recently expanded its wastewater service area to include the portion Arlington portion that is south of 172nd Street and east of 51st Avenue. Overall, the existing system has been extended through the developed areas of the Arlington portion and Lift Station 2 was upgraded in 2017 to serve increased demand related to existing and future development. Capacity improvements are scheduled for four other lift stations over the next 20 years and other conveyance improvements will be needed to accommodate increased demand related to redevelopment. Capital projects from 2017 to 2035 include extension of the system into the undeveloped parcels of the Arlington portion south of 172nd Street, operational improvements, refurbishment of existing facilities, and flow monitoring projects (Arlington 2017). Police The City of Arlington’s Police Department (APD) provides public law enforcement services to the city 24 hours a day in response to calls from the area’s 911 operations. APD is “is committed to providing excellent service and reducing crime and disorder” along with providing related services such as crime prevention, community engagement, and more. The Department has 35 FTEs with 30 officers, 1 limited commission, and 4 civilian personnel . The APD has two part-time contracted employees (a Domestic Violence Coordinator and a Law Enforcement Embedded Social Worker). There are 03 patrol “beat” areas in the city, with the CIC located within the Central beat. The department operates one police station during regular business hours located at 110 E 3rd Street, which is North of the study area. APD maintains working relationships with other service providers, including the county’s sheriff’ office and the City of Marysville. Arlington’s Police Department must uphold local, state, and federal standards. The City of Arlington’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan describes some local public services and measures of potential impacts. The City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards are shown in Exhibit 103. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-130 Exhibit 103. City of Arlington’s Level of Service Standards for Police Services Service Performance Standard Goal Crime Rate Per 1,000 Population 34.6 Crime Clearance Rate % 20 Emergency Response Time in Minutes 3 Events per Officer per Year 1,000 Sources: City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2017; WA OFM, 2020, BERK Consulting, 2020. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The City of Arlington’s Fire Department (AFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) services to the city 24 hours a day in response to calls from the area’s 911 operations. The AFD is “committed to the saving of lives and preservation of property” through their operations and services. AFD services include fire prevention, fire response and suppression, emergency management, life-saving EMS, and public education. The department’s physical address is 6231 188th Street Northeast and it also currently responds from three fire stations, including Station 47 that serves the study area. AFD maintains working relationships with other service provides as well as contracting services to other jurisdictions. Current partnerships include including Snoqualmie County Fire Districts. Overall, the City of Arlington is about half of the population served by the AFD. Arlington’s Fire Department must uphold local, state, and federal standards. The City of Arlington’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan describes some local public services and measures of potential impacts. The City has adopted standards for fire services in four categories – water supply, personnel, response time, and facilities. Some information about these service standards are shown in Exhibit 104 (the City’s 2017 Comprehensive plan has additional information and discussion). Exhibit 104. City of Arlington’s Level of Service Standards for Fire/EMS Services Service Standard Category Criteria Water Supply Meet the criteria mandated by the Department of Health as well as City policies and design criteria Personnel Employees Response Time Calls within a five-minute response time. Facilities Facilities that can fit standard inventory and necessary square footage to maintain total inventory. Sources: City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2017; BERK Consulting, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-131 In addition to adopted LOS standards, this EIS evaluates impacts through effective level of service standards, which commonly can be full time equivalent fire fighters or EMS aid responders per 1,000 population or employment. Based on expected growth under different alternatives, effective LOS standards may be used to evaluate the impacts of potential growth. Effective LOS standards are shown in Exhibit 105. Because the AFD serves a larger geographic area than the city, population sizes for the entire service area are used. Exhibit 105. Arlington Fire Department Level of Service Standards for Fire/EMS Services Effective LOS Standard 2018 Observed LOS Firefighters/EMTs per 1,000 Population (2018) 1.00 Firefighters/EMTs per 1,000 Dwelling Units (2018) 1.37 Firefighters/EMTs per 1,000 Jobs 0.14 Sources: City of Arlington Fire Department Annual Report, 208, OFM, 2020; BERK Consulting, 2020. Parks and Recreation The City of Arlington Parks and Recreation Department provides public space, parks, open spaces, facilities, and programming services within the city. Their mission is “to enhance the quality of life for the community through parks and recreation.” Parks and Recreation operations are primary located within city administration offices. A vol untary Parks, Arts, & Recreation Commission acts as advisors on related policy issues, while P&R also works with other partners organizations such as schools. The Study Area includes the Bill Quaker Memorial pal and the Waldo E Evans Memorial Park. The City of Arlington has built or coordinated the construction of several trails over the past decade. The most notable is the City’s portion of the Centennial Trail. The City’s section of the trail runs from 172nd Street NE along 67th Avenue NE north to Haller Park. There is also a 5.5 -mile trail circumnavigating the Airport. Exhibit 106. Inventory of Existing Park & Recreation Facilities Facility Type/Name Size Community Parks Bill Quake Memorial Park 13 acres Waldo E Evans Memorial Park 6 acres City Trails 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-132 Facility Type/Name Size Centennial Trail (City Portion) Airport/Industrial, CBD 2.7 miles Airport Trail 6.5 miles 188th Street Connector Trail .5 miles Indoor Recreation Facilities Arlington Boys & Girls Club Sources: City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2017; BERK Consulting, 2020. The Parks and Recreation department follows local policy standards and guidelines as may also incorporate national administration standards/practices. The City of Arlington’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan describes some local public services and measures of potential impacts. The city has adopted Levels of Service Standards for Parks but not open spaces. The land use code does however have requirements for preserving usable open space in each major residential plat. The City’s adopted LOS standards are based on park facility types is shown in Exhibit 107. Parks, open space, and recreational opportunities may also be provided by other partners within and out of Arlington. Exhibit 107. City of Arlington’s Level of Service Standards for Parks Facility Type Adopted LOS (unit/1,000) Community Parks 3.9 Neighborhood/Mini- Parks 1.7 Trails 1.4 Sources: City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2017; BERK Consulting, 2020. Public Schools The study area is served by Arlington Public Schools (APS) district for educational services. Their mission is to educate “all students, preparing and inspiring them to graduate and seek their full potential as lifelong learners.” The district has about 6,000 students enrolled and has eight schools and one learning center. In response to an ongoing public health emergency, in March 2020 schools were ordered to close and transition to online learning. As of June 2020, the State has issued a proclamation related to schools re-opening for the 2020-21 school year. It is possible APS may maintain school 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-133 closure for at least some of the next school year. District information notes some of the changing services its public-school system is offering and details about adjusting educational services in response to public health declarations. The City of Arlington has not formally adopted level of service standards for the Arlington Public Schools (APS) district. A common effective level of service standard is a student to teacher ratio, which can be used to measure and compare standards across jurisdictions. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) oversees public K-12 education in Washington State and sets policy for the District. Impacts on public schools may be evaluated impacts through effective level of service standards, which commonly can be student to teacher ratios. APS effective level of service standards is shown in Exhibit 108. The Arlington Public Schools has a ratio of 18.6 students per teacher. Typically, lower student to teacher ratios are preferred are lower grades or students who may have additional educational needs. Exhibit 108. Arlington Public Schools Effective Level of Service Standards School Students Teachers Ratio Address Arlington School District Elementary Middle School High School 5,969 2,607 1,313 1,857 321 157 68 97 18.6 16.6 19.3 19.1 315 N French Ave, Arlington Four campuses Two campuses Two campuses Eagle Creek Elementary 720 41 17.6 1216 E 5th, Arlington Kent Prairie Elementary 727 45 16.2 8110 207th St NE, Arlington Pioneer Elementary 578 34 17.0 8213 Eaglefield Dr, Arlington Presidents Elementary 582 37 15.7 505 E 3rd, Arlington Haller Middle School 642 31 20.7 600 E 1st, Arlington Post Middle School 671 37 18.1 1220 E 5th St, Arlington Arlington High School 1,718 82 21.0 18821 Crown Ridge Blvd, Arlington Weston High School 139 15 9.3 4407 172nd St NE, Arlington Arlington Open Doors 48 2 24.0 4407 172nd ST NE, Arlington Arlington Special Educ School 68 n/a 315 N French Ave, Arlington Stillaguamish Valley Learning Center 73 6 12.2 1215 E 5th, Arlington Sources: OSPI, 2020; BERK Consulting, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-134 3.5.2 Impacts Thresholds of Significance Utilities were analyzed by considering how the proposed alternatives, including changes in population, dwelling units, and jobs would affect water demand, wastewater generation, and the quantity of stormwater runoff. Stormwater quality is discussed in the Natural Environment section. For the purposes of this EIS, alternatives would be considered to result in significant impacts on utilities if there are: ▪ Inconsistencies with utility system planned growth and capital plans. Impacts on public services and utilities would be significant under one or more of the following thresholds: ▪ Negatively affect the response times for police and/or fire and emergency medical services. ▪ Increased demand for special emergency services beyond current operational c apabilities of service providers. ▪ Reduce access to park and open space facilities. ▪ Result in increases in students and lack of facilities. Impacts Common to All Alternatives The No Action Alternative does not alter existing population, while the Action Alternatives increase jobs by between 4,824 and 8,844 jobs and increase population by between 0 and 1,383. Impacts common to all alternatives are increased demand for drinking water, increased wastewater generation, and changes in surfaces that generate the need for additional stormwater infrastructure. All studied alternatives would have an increase in employment and could increase demand for services. Most infrastructure is in place and the City has begun planning for service in the underdeveloped portion of the Study Area, south of 172nd Street NE. Some infrastructure will need to be upgraded as redevelopment occurs and the City has begun planning for this. Stormwater The City is currently updating its Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and evaluating the need to provide increased infrastructure in the Study Area and the potential for regional stormwater facilities. Though the number of new dwellings and jobs vary across the alternatives, all the alternatives will create large amounts of new and replaced impervious surfaces. Projects that 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-135 create these surfaces will need to meet the requirements of Arlington Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 13.28 which requires compliance with the Washington Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, which requires low impact development BMPs, flow control, and water quality treatment. Redevelopment projects have the potential to generate stormwater pollution during construction. City code requires all projects to implement Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) stormwater management best management practices during construction that will minimize these impacts. Drinking Water The 2015 Water System Plan accounts for job growth of up to 12,000 jobs in the Study Area by 2035. The Plan found that the City has sufficient water supply from its water treatment plant, groundwater wellfields and wholesale water supply to meet the existing demand and fire flow requirements. The City also has sufficient water rights to meet the 20-year and nearly the 50-year demand requirement. Though each of the alternatives will increase water demand through industrial and residential use, all the alternatives are well within the demand anticipated by the utilities current plans and water connection fees would help offset the cost for system expansion. The 2015 Water System Plan (Amended in 2017) accounts for an increase in maximum daily demand (MDD) of over four million gallons per day (mgd), or 57 percent of the MMD in 2015. None of the alternatives is expected to increase MDD by more than 25 percent of this planned value; therefore, none of the alternatives are expected to have a significant impact on the utilities planned growth or capital plans. See Exhibit 109. Exhibit 109. Growth of Maximum Daily Water Demand Among Alternatives No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Increase in Population 0 1,383 0 Increase in Jobs 4,824 6,625 8,844 Increase in Water Demand MDD (gallons per day) 506,520 820,100 928,620 Assumptions: 90 gallons per day per person (Arlington 2019) and 105 gallons per day per person (WDOH 2019) Source: City of Arlington GIS data (Arlington 2018) Existing water storage is adequate through 2025, but additional storage will be required prior to 2035 for redundancy and for future storage requirements related to growth. A 1.0-million-gallon reservoir is proposed to provide water storage to the City’s 520 Zone and to resolve the 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-136 projected 20-year system-wide storage deficiency. The existing Airport Well needs to be abandoned or relocated related to a well casing collapse, aging structure, and general safety issues, and a booster pump station is needed to improve back-up and fire flow supply to the 710 Zone and the proposed 615 Zone (currently 540 Zone). If the booster pump station and additional supply wells are delayed, the reservoir would need to be built sooner. The Study area falls within Zone 342, so the alternatives do not directly impact these upgrades. Redevelopment under all alternatives would need to comply with City code, and in some cases, this would require upgrades to service connections, water mains, or other system modifications to provide adequate fire flow. The City plans to increase source capacity at the Haller and Airport Wellfields and construct a booster pump station to supply fire flows, which will allow the City to meet demand requirements beyond 2050 (Arlington 2019), and the City is increasing water conveyance capacity from 8 inch pipes to 12 inch pipes during routine replacement project, including projects in the Study Area (J. Kelly, pers. comm.). This citywide fire flow analysis used general fire flow requirements of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for two hours, though fire flow requirements vary by land use category from 1,000 for low density residential up to 3,500 gpm for industrial land uses and schools. Under all alternatives, different types of development in the study area may require greater fire flow than the 1,000 gpm used for the citywide analysis. AMC Chapter 13.04.180 requires development and redevelopment in the Study Area to meet fire flow and other fire protection requirements. Wastewater The Comprehensive Wastewater Plan (CWP) accounts for large amounts of growth in the Study Area, including over 15 million square feet of commercial and industrial facilities contributing to the wastewater system. Each of the alternatives includes large increases in employment but none of the alternatives include growth that are significantly different from the assumptions of the CWP. Current flows to the WRF are currently well below the plant’s permit limit of 2.67 million gallons per day (mgd) for the maximum month average influent flow (MMF). The City’s Comprehensive Wastewater Plan predicts that this capacity will be exceeded by 2035. The City will need to implement membrane upgrades at the WRF, which is already included in the City’s Capita l Improvement Plan (Arlington 2017). This is expected to begin in 2023. While the expected increase in wastewater generation is 2.18 MGD, the impact of development in the study area is expected to account for 11% of this flow, which is not expected to have a significant impact on the city-wide capacity. See Exhibit 3-5. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-137 Exhibit 110. Growth of Wastewater Generation Among Alternatives No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Increase in Population 0 1,383 0 Increase in Jobs 4,824 6,625 8,844 Increase in Water Demand (gallons per day) 106,000 254,000 195,000 Assumptions; 78 gallons per day per person, 22 gallons per day per employee (Arlington 2017). Police Research across police departments by the ICMA Center for Public Safety Management (CPSM) shows that workload, deployment, and response times are better indicators for the demand for police services and the supply of police resources. Each alternative would increase employee population but increases in industrial jobs is anticipated to have little impact on the city’s adopted LOS standards for police services. While the population within the CIC is anticipated to increase under Alternative 1 this increase is small enough that significant impacts to crime rate, crime clearance rate, response time, or events per officer that would constitute the need to examine police staffing levels is not anticipated. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The City’s Fire LOS is based on response times of 5 minutes. The Fire Department measures that periodically. However, an understanding of response times in the CIC is not separately measured. Per the evaluation in the Transportation chapter the current intersection operations meet the City’s standards. Another means of measuring the demand on services is based on incident calls. Each alternative would increase calls for service using data from the to varying degrees. See Exhibit 111. Exhibit 111. Fire Calls for Service by Alternative No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Net Population Increase 0 1,383 0 Calls per Capita: .25 0 346 0 Source: City of Arlington 2020; BERK, 2020. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-138 Additional employment in the area would increase daytime population and potentially increase call volumes as well. The City is in the process of constructing a new, two story fire station (Station 48). This new station is located at the corner of 51st Avenue N.E. (Airport Boulevard) and 43rd Avenue NE Arlington in the vicinity of the CIC which will likely ensure response times are within the adopted LOS. The new facility is being constructed with commercial and industrial grade infrastructure for water supply as well. Parks and Recreation The potential impacts on the city’s adopted level of services for parks and trails are shown in Exhibit 112. This analysis finds all things equal that under effective standards: a district deficit may be created of 5.4 acres of community parks based on expected population growth under Alternative 1. Exhibit 112. Potential Impacts on Parks Services Effective LOS Standard Adopted LOS No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 2040 Potential Impacts by Alternative Community Parks 3.9 acres per 1,000 -5.4 Neighborhood/Mini-parks 1.7 acres per 1,000 -2.4 Trails 1.4 miles per 1,000 -1.9 Sources: City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan, 2017; BERK Consulting, 2020. Public Schools Effective LOS observed can be used to analyze impacts of growth under the study’s alternatives. Potential for impacts on educational services are shown in Exhibit 113. According to the school district an estimated student-to-population ratio of 17.28% is projected for 2035. Based on this, Alternative 2 is expected to generate 238 students. Exhibit 113. Student Generation Rate No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 2040 Potential Impacts by Alternative Net change in population n/a 1,383 n/a Student Generation: Student to Population Ratio = 0.172 238 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-139 Sources: OSPI, 2020; BERK Consulting, 2020. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative includes no expected increases in population and the lowest number of new jobs (4,824). Impacts are not expected to be any different from what is described above. Police & Fire/Emergency Services Growth under the No Action Alternative would cumulatively contribute demand for officers but would produce the lowest growth and lowest demand for police services. The No Action Alternative would produce the lowest calls for service. Schools The No Action Alternative would produce no additional dwellings. Parks Under the No Action Alternative, the small residential population would have access to the small W.E. Evans Park. Action Alternative 1 Police & Fire/Emergency Services Alternative 1 include a population increase of 1,383 and 6,625 new jobs. As described under Impacts Common to All, Alternative 1 has the greatest housing and population and the greatest impact to police, fire, and parks service demands based on levels of service. However, employee increases may also increase demand such as for fire inspections and police calls for service and Alternative 1 is in the range of expected employment increases. Alternative 1 also includes multimodal transportation investments that may reduce the number of vehicles being driven to the Study Area, which has the potential to reduce the amount of stormwater pollution being generated by vehicles, which could reduce the burden on the stormwater utility to conduct stormwater facility maintenance. Schools Alternative 1 would produce the most dwellings and the greatest student generation. It is anticipated that the capacity of current schools could accommodate the students over the planning period as the growth would occur over a long-term. If permanent capacity becomes a concern, the School District could realign attendance boundaries or provide temporary portables or other demand management measures. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-140 Parks Under Alternative 1, the small residential population would have access to the small W.E. Evans Park. Edgecomb Creek relocation concepts have been developed and the potential for open space in coordination with construction of the new stream corridor will be evaluated and is likely to be more coordinated with development under Alternatives 1. Action Alternative 2 Alternative 2 includes the largest increase in jobs among the alternatives; 8,844 more jobs than existing conditions. Utility and service impacts associated with these additional jobs are not expected to be any different from Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Alternative 2 also includes multimodal transportation investments that may reduce the number of vehicles being driven to the Study Area, which has the potential to reduce the amount of stormwater pollution being generated by vehicles, which could reduce the burden on the stormwater utility to conduct stormwater facility maintenance. Schools Alternative 2 would produce no additional dwellings. Parks Under Alternative 2, the small residential population would have access to the small W.E. Evans Park. No additional residents are expected under this alternative, however, Edgecomb Creek relocation concepts have been developed and the potential for open space in coordination with construction of the new stream corridor will be evaluated and is likely to be more coordinated with development under Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features Edgecomb Creek relocation concepts have been developed and the potential for regional stormwater management facilities in coordination with construction of the new stream corridor will be evaluated and is likely to be more coordinated with development under Alternatives 1 and 2 than under the No Action Alternative. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-141 Regulations and Commitments The City’s municipal code includes requirements that would apply to new development and redevelopment for all three alternatives, including requirements to improve the conveyance system if necessary, to meet engineering and safety standards for water and wastewater, as well as requirements to treat stormwater runoff from pollutant generating impervious surfaces. Water When evaluating new construction, Arlington Public Works and Utilities Department personnel determine the ability of the water system to meet fire flow requirements at that location with a minimum of 20 psi residual pressure throughout the distribution system. If the water system cannot provide the required fire flow for the specific project, the developer is required to revise building construction and/or make the necessary improvements to the distribution system to meet the project’s fire flow requirements as established by the City Fire Chief. The available fire flow will be determined by the City’s engineering staff using the water system hydraulic model. AMC Chapter13.08. includes provisions for service connections and mains to be upgraded by developers during redevelopment if required to meet engineering design and construction standards. Chapter 13.08. also includes provisions for installation of pumps if required to achieve adequate pressure during peak demands. Wastewater AMC Chapter 13.36 includes provisions for wastewater service connections and extensions when existing connections are inadequate or sewer mains are not present along the frontage of a property. Stormwater AMC Chapter 13.28 includes provisions that require redevelopment to meet stormwater management requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, which requires low impact development BMPs, flow control, and water quality treatment. Under all the alternatives these requirements are expected to result in a net improvement in the quality of stormwater that is discharged to the Stillaguamish River and Quilceda Creek via ditches, Hayho Creek, Westphal Creek, Portage Creek, Prairie Creek and Edgecomb Creek. The following regulations address public services: ▪ Title 15 Fire – Includes requirements for fire suppression. ▪ Comprehensive Plan – Addresses levels of service and capital improvements for fire, police, and parks. This is updated every eight years with the Comprehensive Plan. ▪ Parks and Recreation Masterplan– Establishes a plan for 2016-2023 including capital projects. 3.0 Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation ▪ Utilities and Public Services Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 3-142 ▪ Arlington School District Levy 2020 – Addresses Capital Replacement projects to ensure proper function of current schools. Other Proposed Mitigation Measures ▪ The City could incentivize or require participation in regional stormwater when concepts are developed to help spur development and water quality and stormwater management. ▪ The City could employ crime prevention through environmental design standards through its industrial design guidelines. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated for the water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities under any of the alternatives. The City has developed comprehensive plans for all three utilities and these plans are updated regularly to reflect system needs. The capital project needs to support redevelopment of the Study Area are similar in scale to projects that the utilities execute on a regular basis. The costs of these improvements would be partially offset by connection charges and rates for service. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated for fire, police, schools, and parks and recreation under any of the alternatives. With regular capital facility planning and implementation of mitigation measures no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-1 4.0 Acronyms and References 4.1 Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AMC Arlington Municipal Code CAO Critical Areas Ordinance CIP Capital Improvement Program CTR Commute Trip Reduction ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG Greenhouse Gas GMA Growth Management Act gpm Gallons per Minute HCM Highway Capacity Manual LF Linear Feet LOS Level of Service MDD Maximum Daily Demand MEV Million Entering Vehicles mgd million gallons per day MPH Miles per Hour MVMT Million Vehicle Miles Traveled NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NWI National Wetlands Inventory PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council RCW Revised Code of Washington SMP Shoreline Master Program SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SR State Route TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-2 VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 4.2 References Anderson Map Company (Anderson) 1910 Township 31 North, Range 5 East. In Snohomish County Atlas, 1910. Anderson Map Company, Seattle. Artifacts Consulting, Inc. (ACI), Historic Preservation Northwest, and GeoEngineers 2011 Assessors Data Project: Snohomish County. Prepared for DAHP by Historic Preservation Northwest, GeoEngineers, and Artifacts Consulting, Inc. (Project Lead). On file at DAHP, Olympia. Berger, M. and J. Gardner 2019 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marysville Commercial Development, Marysville, Snohomish County, Washington. Cultural Resource Consultants. Report submitted to Lee Associates. Blake, K. L. 2017 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Arlington Airport Business Park Project, Arlington, Washington. WHPacific, Inc. Submitted to City of Arlington. Blukis Onat, A. R. 1987 Resource Protection Planning Process Identification of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Northern Puget Sound Study Unit . BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to the Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Boggs, B. 2011 Cultural Resources Assessment for the 173rd Right-of-Way Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc./ SWCA. Submitted to City of Arlington Director of Public Works. Booth, D. B. 1994 Glaciofluvial infilling and scour of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during ice -sheet glaciation. Geology 22:695–698. Booth, D. B., R. A. Haugerud, and K. G. Troost 2003 The Geology of Puget Lowland Rivers. In Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, edited by D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and D. B. Booth, chapter 2. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Boswell, S., and E. Heideman 2011 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Arlington. On file at DAHP, Olympia. 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-3 Bretz, H. 1913 Glaciation of the Puget Sound Region. Bulletin No. 8. Washington Geological Survey, Olympia, Washington. Bruseth, N. 1926 Indian stories and legends of the Stillaguamish and allied tribes. Unknown publisher. Carrilho, Y. 2009 State of Washington Archaeological Isolate Inventory Form, 45SN486. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Chambers, J. 2010 Archaeological Assessment for the 67th Avenue Phase III Improvement Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. Drayton Archaeological Research. Submitted to City of Arlington. City of Arlington (Arlington) 2020a History of Arlington. Electronic document, https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/463/History -of- Arlington, accessed January 10, 2020. 2020b Airport’s Early Beginning. Electronic document, https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/186/Airports-Early-Beginning, accessed January 10, 2020. 2020c The Airport Today. Electronic document, https://www.arlingtonwa.gov/195/The-Airport- Today, accessed January 10, 2020. City of Arlington, Comprehensive Plan, 2017 City of Arlington, Arlington Marysville Subarea Plan, 2018 Dethier, D. P., Fred Pessl, R. F. Keuler, M. A. Balzarini, and D. R. Pevear 1995 Late Wisconsinan glaciomarine deposition and isostatic rebound, northern Puget Lowland, Washington. GSA Bulletin 107(11):1288-1303. Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-8. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Goetz Stutzman, L. 1995 Cultural Resources Survey for the City of Arlington SR 351 and 67th Avenue NE Intersection Improvement Project, Snohomish County, Washington. Historic Research Associates Inc. Submitted to Barrett Consulting Group, Inc Bellingham, WA. Hannum, M. 2018 Cultural Resources Assessment for Smokey Point Apartments Project, Snohomish County, Washington. SWCA Environmental Consultants. Submitted to AmCal Multi-Housing, Inc, Agoura Hills, CA and Baker-MOR, LLC, Spokane, WA. Historic MapWorks 2020 Washington Historical Maps and Atlases. Electronic database, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Browse/United_States/Washington/Page/4/, accessed January 14, 2020. 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-4 Indian Claims Commission 1974 Commission Findings on the Coast Salish and western Washington Indians. In Coast Salish and Western Washington Indians, Volume 5. Garland Publishing, New York. Iversen, D. 2014 Archaeological Monitoring for the Prairie Creek Drainage Improvements Project – Phase 2 Construction, City of Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. ASM Affiliates. Submitted to City of Arlington Director of Public Works. Iversen, D. and J. Hurst 2018 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Swire Coca-Cola Arlington Distribution Facility, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Submitted to Big-D Construction. Iversen, D. and A. Steingraber 2016 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Arlington Valley Road Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Submitted to City of Arlington Public Works. Kassa, S. 2016 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Arlington Remote Pole Yard Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. Cultural Resource Consultants Inc. Submitted to Snohomish County PUD No. 1. Kauhi, T. C., and J. Markert 2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers. Submitted to DAHP, Olympia. Kroll Map Company (Kroll) 1943 Township 31 N Range 5 E. W.M. 1952 revision. In Kroll’s Atlas of Snohomish County, 1943. Kroll Map Co., Seattle. Macrae, J. 2019 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN720. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Marino, C. 1990 History of Western Washington Since 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast, Volume 7, pp. 169-179, edited by Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. McKee, B. 1972 Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York. Metsker Map Company (Metsker) 1936 Township 31 N., Range 5 E. W. M. In Metsker’s Atlas of King County, 1936. Metsker Map Co., Inc., Seattle. Minard J. P. 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-5 1985 Geologic map of the Arlington West 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washington. Miscellaneous Filed Studies Map MF-1740, 1:24,000. U. S. Geological Survey. Minard J. P., and D. B. Booth 1988 Geologic map of the Redmond quadrangle, King County, Washington 1:24,000. U. S. Geological Survey. Miss, C. J. and S. K. Campbell 1991 Prehistoric Cultural Resources of Snohomish County, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Myrick, H. and R. S. Kidd 1961 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN26. On fil e at DAHP, Olympia. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) 2020 Historic Aerials. Electronic Resource, http://www.historicaerials.com/?javascript, accessed January 10, 2020. Oakley, J. 2007Arlington – Thumbnail History. Essay 8416. Electronic document, https://www.historylink.org/File/8416, accessed January 8, 2020. Obermayr, E. 1991 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN26. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Olsen, D. C. 1993 Letter Regarding History of Arlington. Submitted to Nathan R. C/O View Ridge Elementary, Everett, WA. Osiensky, W. 2019 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN709. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Osiensky, W. and D. Iversen 2019 Cultural Resources Assessment for the SCG 188th Street Industrial Park Project, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Submitted to SMARTCAP. Ozbun, T. L., J. A. Chapman, J. M. Allen 2005 Cultural Resource Survey of Northwest Pipeline Corporation’s Capacity Replacement Project, Western Washington, Addendum Seven: Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Spur at the Arlington 3 Pipeyard. Archaeological Investigations, Northwest, Inc. Submitted to Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Houston, TX. Pessl, F., Jr, D. P Dethier, D. B. Booth, and J. P. Minard 1989 Surficial Geologic Map of the Port Townsend 30- by 60-Minute quadrangle, Puget Sound Region, Washington. USGS, Washington, D. C. Piper, J., and R. Smith 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-6 2009 Phase 2 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Sedro Woolley-Horse Ranch Transmission Line Upgrade, Skagit County and Snohomish County, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates Inc. Submitted to Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. ProQuest 2020 Digital Sanborn Maps, 1867-1970. Electronic resource, http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.spl.org/about.html, accessed January 10, 2020. Robinson, J. M. 1999 A Cultural Resource of Washington State Department of Transportation’s SR 531: Milepost 6.99 to Milepost 8.59 Widening Project, Snohomish County, Washington. Eastern Washington University: Archaeological and Historical Services. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, Agreement Y-05070. Ruby, R. H., J. A. Brown, and C. C. Collins 2010 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest, Third Edition. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman Schumacher, J. 2009 Cultural Resources Survey for Mid-Mountain Materials Cell Tower (SE07101A), Arlington, Washington. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. Submitted to Adapt Engineering, Inc. Shantry, K. 2010 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Arlington Airport West Side Road, Snohomish County, WA. Northwest Archaeological Associates Inc. Submitted to The City of Arlington and Arlington Municipal Airport. Smith, M. 1941 The Coast Salish of Puget Sound. American Anthropologist N.S. 43, 1941:197-211. Snohomish County 2020 Snohomish County First 100 Years. GIS database, https://loscho.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=d88679dd9d 04410f806546b0d7f776f2, accessed January 14, 2020. Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission 2020 Snohomish County Register of Historic Places. Electronic resource, https://www.snocohistoric.com/historic-sites, accessed January 14, 2020. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 2019 The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. Electronic document, https://www.stillaguamish.com/about-us/, accessed January 10, 2020. Stipe, F. 2011 Arlington Food Bank Cultural Resource Survey . Tetra Tech, Bothell, WA. Submitted to The Arlington Food Bank. Suttles, W., and B. Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 485-502. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Thorson, R. M. 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-7 1980 Ice-Sheet Glaciation of the Puget lowland, Washington, during the Vashon Stade (late Pleistocene). Quaternary Research (13) 3:303-321. 1981 Isostatic Effects of the Last Glaciation in the Puget Lowland, Washington . U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 81-370, Washington, D.C. Troost, K. G., and D. B. Booth 2008 Geology of Seattle and the Seattle area, Washington. Electronic resource, http://reg.gsapubs.org/content/20/1.abstract, accessed January 10, 2020. Tulalip Tribes 2020 Who We Are – About Us. Electronic document, https://www.tulaliptribesnsn.gov/WhoWeAre/AboutUs/, accessed January 10, 2020. Tweddell, C. E. 1974 A Historical and Ethnological Study of the Snohomish Indian people. In Coast Salish and Western Washington Indians, Volume 2, pp. 475-694. Garland Publishing, New York. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation S ervice (USDA NRCS) 2020 Web Soil Survey, Washington. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed January 7, 2020. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2020 General Land Office Records Search. Electronic resource, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx, accessed January 10, 2020. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1898 Map of western Washington, showing classification of lands. Electronic resource, http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/51, accessed January 10, 2020. 1911 Mount Vernon Quadrangle, WA. 1:125000 30-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C. 1941 Marysville Quadrangle, WA. 1:6250015-Minute Series. USGS, Washington, D.C. 1956a Arlington West Quadrangle, WA. 1:24000 7.5-Minute Series, 1956 edition. USGS, Washington D.C. 1956b Arlington West Quadrangle, WA. 1:24000 7.5-Minute Series, 1969 edition USGS, Washington, D.C. 1956c Arlington West Quadrangle, WA. 1:24000 7.5-Minute Series, 1995 edition. USGS, Washington, D.C. 2019 TopoView. Electronic database, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/47.5715/-122.6354, accessed January 10, 2020. United States Surveyor General (USSG) 1875 Township 31 N, Range 05 E, Willamette Meridian. General Land Office Survey Plat. Department of Interior General Land Office, Washington, D.C. Waitt, R. B., Jr., and R. M. Thorson 1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, edited by S. C. Porter, pp. 53–70. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 4.0 Acronyms and References ▪ References Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 4-8 2019 Washington Heritage Register Guidebook. Electronic document, https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/WHR%20 APPLICATION%20COMPLETEguide_2019.pdf, accessed January 13, 2020. 2020a Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database. Electronic resource, https://secureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/, accessed January 13, 2020. 2020b Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting 2020. On file at DAHP, Olympia. 2020c Cemetery Report, Arlington Municipal Cemetery. On file at DAHP, Olympia. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) 2020 Washington Interactive Geologic Map. Division of Geology and Earth Resources – Washington’s Geological Survey. Electronic resource, https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology/, accessed January 7, 2020. Waterman, T. T. 2001 sda?da? gweł dibeł lešucid ?acaciłtalbixw Puget Sound Geography . Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, contributing editors. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Wilson, K. C. Lockwood, and B. Hoyt 2013 Prairie Creek Drainage Improvements Project – Phase 2 Construction Cultural Resources Assessment, Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. ESA. Submitted to City of Arlington Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-1 5.0 Appendices A Inadvertent Discovery Plan 5-2 B Planned Action Ordinance 5-4 C Traffic Counts 5-5 D PM Peak Hour TM Volumes 5-6 E HCM Definitions 5-7 F LOS Worksheets 5-8 G General Trip Distribution 5-9 5.0 Appendices ▪ A ▪ Inadvertent Discovery Plan Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-2 A Inadvertent Discovery Plan Protocols for Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, the following actions will be taken: In the find location, all ground disturbing activity will stop. The find location will be secured from any additional impacts and the supervisor will be informed. The project proponent will immediately contact the agencies with jurisdiction over the lands where the discovery is located, if appropriate. The appropriate agency archaeologist or the proponent’s contracting archaeologist will determine the size of the work stoppage zone or discovery location in order to sufficiently protect the resource until further decisions can be made regarding the work site. The project proponent will consult with DAHP regarding the evaluation of the discovery and the appropriate protection measures, if applicable. Once the consultation has been completed, and if the site is determined to be NRHP-eligible, the project proponent will request written concurrence from the agency or tribe(s) that the protection and mitigation measures have been fulfilled. Upon notification of concurrence from the appropriate parties, the project proponent will proceed with the project. Within six months after completion of the above steps, the project proponent will prepare a final written report of the discovery. The report will include a description of the contents of the discovery, a summary of consultation, and a description of the treatment or mitigation measures. Protocols for Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are found within the project location, the project proponent, its contractors or permit-holders, the following actions will be taken, consistent with Washington State RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055: If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance. The project proponent will prepare a plan for securing and protecting exposed human remains and retain consultants to perform these services. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county medical 5.0 Appendices ▪ A ▪ Inadvertent Discovery Plan Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-3 examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to DAHP, which will then take jurisdiction over the remains. DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. DAHP will then handle all consul tation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Contact Information Snohomish Tribe 11014 19th Avenue SE, Suite 8, Everett, WA 98208‐5121 Primary Contact: The Honorable Michael Evans, Chairman, Phone: 425‐671‐1387 Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians 3310 Smokey Point Drive PO Box 277, Arlington, WA 98223‐0277 Primary Contact: Kerry Lyste, THPO, Cultural Resources, Phone: 360‐652‐7362 ext. 226 Tulalip Tribes 6410 23rd Avenue NE, Tulalip, WA 98271 Primary Contact: Richard Young, Cultural Resources, Phone: 360‐716‐2652 Cell: 425‐239‐0182 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343, Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, office: 360-586-3066 Primary Contact: Stephanie Jolivette, Local Government Archaeologist, Office: (360) 586 -3088, Cell: (360) 628-2755 Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, office: 360 -586- 3534, cell: 360-790-1633 Snohomish County Medical Examiner’s Office 9509 29th Ave. West, Everett, WA 98204 Primary Contact: J. Matthew Lacy, Chief Medical Examiner, 425-438-6200 Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office 3000 Rockefeller Avenue MS 606, Everett, WA 98201 Primary Contact: Adam Fortney, Sheriff, (425) 388-3393 5.0 Appendices ▪ B ▪ Planned Action Ordinance Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-4 B Planned Action Ordinance Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 1 ORDINANCE NO.________ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Arlington, Washington, establishing a planned action for the Cascade Industrial Center pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA; and WHEREAS, to guide the Cascade Industrial Center’s growth and redevelopment, the City has engaged in extensive subarea planning and adopted AMMIC Subarea Plan, retitled as the Cascade Industrial Center subsequent to adoption; and WHEREAS, the City desires to designate a Planned Action for the Cascade Industrial Center; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and WHEREAS, the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS identifies impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the Cascade Industrial Center; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations and ordinances which will help protect the environment; and WHEREAS, the City’s SEPA Rules, set forth in AMC 20.98.020 provide for Planned Actions within the City; and WHEREAS, the City as lead agency provided public comment opportunities through an EIS scoping period from October 1 to October 30, 2020; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth in this ordinance are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 2 A. Combine environmental analysis, land use plans, development regulations, City codes and ordinances together with the mitigation measures in the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS to mitigate environmental impacts and process planned action development applications in the Planned Action Area; B. Designate the Cascade Industrial Center as a Planned Action Area for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to SEPA, RCW 43.21C.440; C. Determine that the EIS prepared for the Cascade Industrial Center meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent projects within the Planned Action Area qualify as Planned Actions; E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how the City will process implementing projects within the Planned Action Area; F. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by relying on the EIS completed for the Planned Action; and G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The City is subject to the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A), and is applying the Planned Action to a UGA [Urban Growth Area]; and B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA; and C. The City is adopting capital facility plan amendments to implement said Plan; and D. An EIS has been prepared for the Planned Action Area, and the City Council finds that the EIS adequately identifies and addresses the probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action Area; and E. The mitigation measures identified in the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action Area; and F. The AMMIC Subarea Plan (retitled the Cascade Industrial Center) and Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action; and G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development; and H. The City provided several opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the Cascade Industrial Center Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS; I. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 47.06.140 are excluded from the Planned Action and not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a planned action; and J. The Planned Action applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall City boundaries and smaller than overall County designated UGAs; and K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action, with implementation of Subarea Plan and mitigation measures identified in the EIS. SECTION 4. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Planned Action Projects within Planned Action Area. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 3 A. Planned Action Area. This Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific project application within the Planned Action Area shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS issued by the City on October 1, 2020 and the Final EIS published on Month, Year. The Draft and Final EIS documents shall comprise the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS for the Planned Action Area. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference, are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to apply appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects within the Planned Action Area. C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in Subsection 4(D) and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. A development application for a site-specific Planned Action project located within Planned Action Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it completes the modified SEPA Checklist in Exhibit B and meets the criteria set forth in Subsection 4(D) of this Ordinance and all other applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City are met. D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Planned Action Area was contemplated as a Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS: (1) Qualifying Land Uses. (a) Planned Action Categories: The following general categories/types of land uses are defined in the AMMIC Subarea Plan (now retitled the Cascade Industrial Center) and are considered Planned Actions: i. Industrial/Manufacturing: The general industrial (GI) and light industrial (LI) uses primarily to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise, or equipment. Aerospace, robotics, advanced manufacturing, food processing, maritime, wood products and mass timber manufacturing are desired sectors identified in the subarea plan. Workforce development uses and limited amounts of workforce housing tied to these sectors are also allowed. The performance standards set forth in Part I of Chapter 20.44 place limitations on the characteristics of uses located in these districts. The light industrial district is distinguished from the general industrial district in that the light industrial district is intended to be a cleaner, more business park-like area, whereas the general industrial district allows more resource-based manufacturing, and has a greater tolerance of the nuisances that typically accompany such manufacturing. Furthermore, the limitations in the light industrial district are more restrictive than those in the general industrial district. ii. Aviation-related uses: Aviation Flightline uses proximate to airport runways and taxiways. Aviation related uses include any uses related to supporting aviation that require direct taxiway access as a necessary part of their business operations, such as aviation services, manufacturing of aviation-related goods, general services whose primary customers would be those engaged in aviation-related activities (e.g., restaurants primarily catering to pilots, employees, or passengers), or other uses that are clearly related to aviation. iii. Commercial: Industrial serving commercial uses including retail, office, and services consistent with zone requirements. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 4 iv. Open Space, Recreation: Active and passive parks, recreation, and open space facilities consistent with zone requirements, including fish and wildlife habitat enhancements considered in the AMMIC Subarea Plan or associated EIS. (b) Planned Action Uses: A land use shall be considered a Planned Action Land Use when: i. it is within the Planned Action Area as shown in Exhibit A; ii. it is within one or more of the land use categories described in subsection 1(a) above; and iii. it is listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action Area. A Planned Action may be a single Planned Action use or a combination of Planned Action uses together in a mixed use development. Planned Action uses include accessory uses. (c) Public Services: The following public services, infrastructure and utilities are also Planned Actions: Multi-modal transportation improvements, water and sewer improvements, and stormwater improvements, considered in capital plans associated with the AMMIC Subarea Plan (now retitled Cascade Industrial Center). i. Applicants for public services, infrastructure and utilities projects shall demonstrate consistency with the AMMIC Subarea Plan (now retitled Cascade Industrial Center), Arlington Shoreline Master Program, and Arlington Critical Areas Ordinance. ii. Essential public facilities defined in RCW 47.06.140 are excluded from the Planned Action and not eligible for review or permitting as Planned Actions unless they are accessory to or part of a project that otherwise qualifies as a planned action. (2) Development Thresholds: (a) Land Use: The following amounts of various new land uses are contemplated by the Planned Action: Table D2a-1. Alternative Comparison of Total and Net Growth * Ex i s t i n g No A c t i o n Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 1 Ne t C h a n g e * Al t e r n a t i v e 2 Ne t C h a n g e * Population 890 890 0 2,273 1,383 890 0 Dwellings 332 332 0 848 516 332 0 Jobs 4,969 9,793 4,824 11,594 6,625 13,813 8,844 *Net change compared to existing. Source; PSRC 2020; Transpo Group 2020; BERK, 2020. (b) Shifting development amounts between land uses in Subsection 4(D)(2)(a) may be permitted when the total build-out is less than the aggregate amount of development reviewed in the EIS; the traffic trips for the preferred alternative are not exceeded; and, the development impacts identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 5 (c) Further environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11- 172, if any individual Planned Action or combination of Planned Actions exceed the development thresholds specified in this Ordinance and/or alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS. (3) Transportation Thresholds: (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The maximum number of PM peak hour trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the EIS is as follows: Table D3a-1. PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Generated, All Alternatives Alternative PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips Net Change in Trip Generation Compared to No Action Alternative No Action Alternative 6,244 — Alternative 1 7,422 1,178 Alternative 2 8,518 2,274 Source: Transpo Group, 2020. (b) Concurrency. All Planned Actions shall meet the transportation concurrency requirements and the level of service (LOS) thresholds established in the Arlington Comprehensive Plan and AMC Chapter 20.56. (c) Traffic Impact and Mitigation. The responsible City official shall require documentation by Planned Action Project applicants demonstrating that the total trips identified in Subsection 4.D(3)(a) are not exceeded, that the project meets the concurrency standards of Subsection 3.D(3)(b), and that the project has mitigated impacts consistent with Exhibit B. Planned action applicants shall provide the following documentation at a minimum unless otherwise required to address standards of AMC 20.04.120 and AMC 20.56,: (i) Trip generation and total trips in relation to the trip bank in Subsection 3.D(3)(a) and (d). (ii) Site-specific access design and consistency with City standards. (iii) Implementation of required frontage improvements per Exhibit B-3 and applicable City engineering standards. (iv) Share of cost on areawide mitigation per Exhibit B-3. (d) Discretion. The City Engineer or his/her designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the City Engineer at his or her sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action. (4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of adverse impacts to any element(s) of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, would not qualify as a Planned Action. (5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official may determine Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 6 that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. (6) Substantive Authority. Pursuant to SEPA Substantive Authority at AMC 20.98.200 and Comprehensive Plan Policies, impacts shall be mitigated through the measures included in Exhibit B. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate as “planned actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: (a) The proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance; (b) The proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Subsection 4(D) of this ordinance; (c) The proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Subsection 4(D) of this ordinance; (d) The proposal is consistent with the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the AMMIC Subarea Plan (now retitled Cascade Industrial Center); (e) The proposal’s significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) The proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) The proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) The proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is designated as a planned action under this ordinance. (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a Planned Action SEPA checklist (Exhibit B), or an alternative form approved by state law, and review of the application and supporting documentation. (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq., and this ordinance. F. Effect of Planned Action. (1) Designation as a Planned Action Project by the SEPA Responsible Official means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this Ordinance and found to be consistent with the development parameters and thresholds established herein, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. (2) Upon determination by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official that the proposal meets the criteria of Subsection 4(D) and qualifies as a planned action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process: (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC). Applications for planned actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include the Planned Action SEPA checklist (Exhibit B). (2) The City’s SEPA Responsible Official shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in AMC Chapter 20.98. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 7 (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. (a) The decision of the City’s SEPA Responsible Official regarding qualification of a project as a Planned Action is an administrative decision. The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision. Notice of the determination on zoning permit decisions per AMC 20.16.100 involving a planned action shall also be mailed or otherwise verifiably delivered to federally recognized tribal governments and to agencies with jurisdiction over the planned action project, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440. (b) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in AMC Chapter 20.16, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. (c) Notice of the application for a planned action project shall be consistent with Chapter 20.98 AMC. (4) If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance. See Subsection 4(G)(3)(a) regarding notice of the zoning permit decision. (5) To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements, the City or applicant may request consideration and execution of a development agreement for a Planned Action project, consistent with RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. (6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the SEPA Responsible Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 5. Monitoring and Review. A. The City should monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action area as deemed appropriate to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Planned Action Area. B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed by the SEPA Responsible Official no later than five years from its effective date. The review shall determine the continuing relevance of the Planned Action assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. The SEPA Responsible Official shall also consider the implementation of Public Agency Actions and Commitments in Exhibit C. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 6. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measures imposed thereto, and any Ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control, except that the provision of any International Building Code shall supersede. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 8 SECTION 7. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ____________________, 2020 _________________________________ Jessica Stickles, Mayor pro tem Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2020 _________________________________ Barb Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk Steve Peiffle, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2020 EFFECTIVE the _________day of ______________________, 2020 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 9 Exhibit A: Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action Area Source: City of Arlington, 2020; BERK, 2020. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 10 Exhibit B. SEPA Checklist and Mitigation Measures Exhibit B: Example Environmental Checklist and Required Mitigation Document INTRODUCTION The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that are likely to have adverse impacts upon the environment. In order to meet SEPA requirements, the City of Arlington issued the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on October 1, 2020, and the Final EIS was issued on Month XX, 2020. The Draft and the Final EIS together are referenced herein as the “EIS”. The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action Area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. On Month XX, 2020, the City of Arlington adopted Ordinance No. _____ establishing a planned action designation for the Cascade Industrial Center studied as Planned Action in the EIS (see Exhibit A). SEPA Rules indicates review of a project proposed as a planned action is intended to be simpler and more focused than for other projects (WAC 197- 11-172). In addition, SEPA allows an agency to utilize a modified checklist form that is designated within the planned action ordinance (see RCW 43.21c.440). This Exhibit B-1 provides a modified checklist form adopted in the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action Ordinance. MITIGATION DOCUMENT A Mitigation Document is provided in Exhibit B-2, and also summarized in the environmental checklist. Exhibit B-2 establishes specific mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the EIS. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in the EIS, and which are located within the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). In addition, Exhibit B-3 provides details of transportation mitigation requirements. APPLICABLE PLANS AND REGULATIONS The EIS identifies specific regulations that act as mitigation measures. These are summarized in Exhibit B-4 by EIS topic, and are advisory to applicants. All applicable federal, state, and local regulations shall apply to Planned Actions, including the regulations that are adopted with the Preferred Alternative. Planned Action applicants shall comply with all adopted regulations where applicable including those listed in the EIS and those not included in the EIS. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City of Arlington will use this checklist to determine whether the project is consistent with the analysis in the Cascade Industrial Center Planned Action EIS and qualifies as a planned action or would otherwise require additional environmental review under SEPA. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own project plans and the Planned Action EIS without the need to hire experts. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 11 EXHIBIT B-1 MODIFIED SEPA CHECKLIST A. Proposal Description Date: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Address Street: City, State, Zip Code: Parcel Information Assessor Parcel Number: Property Size in Acres: Give a brief, complete description of your proposal. Property Zoning District Name: Building Type: Permits Requested (list all that apply) Land Use: Building: Engineering: Other: All Applications Deemed Complete? Yes __ No __ Explain: Are there pending governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes __ No __ Explain: Existing Land Use Describe Existing Uses on the Site: Proposed Land Use – Check and Circle All That Apply Industrial/Manufacturing Aviation Flightline Commercial Open Space, Recreation Other Non-residential Uses: Building Square Feet Existing: Proposed: Employment in Ordinance: XXX Job Remainder as of _______20__ _____________________________ square feet Dwellings # Existing Dwellings: #____ Dwelling Type _______________ #____ Dwelling Type _______________ # Proposed Dwellings Units: #____ Type _________ #____ Type _________ Proposed Density (du/ac): Dwelling Threshold Total in Ordinance: XXX Dwelling Bank Remainder as of __________20__ _______________________________dwellings Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 12 Building Height Existing Stories: Existing Height in feet Proposed Stories: Proposed Height in feet: Parking Spaces Existing: Proposed: Impervious Surfaces Existing Square Feet: Proposed Square Feet: PM Peak Hour Weekday Vehicle Trips Existing Estimated Trips Total: Future Estimated Trips Total: Net New Trips: Source of Trip Rate: ITE Manual ___ Other ____ Transportation Impacts Determined Consistent with AMC 20.04.120 and Chapter 20.56. Yes ____ No ____ Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing). Describe plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to this proposal. List any available or pending environmental information directly related to this proposal. B. Environmental Checklist and Mitigation Measures NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHECKLIST AND MITIGATION MEASURES Geology/Soils Checklist and Mitigation Measures 1. Description of Conditions A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _______________ B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? _______________ C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? _______________________ Staff Comments: 2. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 3. Has any part of the site been classified as a "geologically hazardous" area? (Check all that apply) Landslide Hazards Erosion Hazards Seismic Hazards Liquefaction Hazards Other: ____________________________ Describe: 4. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-4 regarding Mitigation Document and Applicable Regulations and Advisory Notes, respectively: Temporary erosion and sediment controls Compliance with grading and fill standards Compliance with Critical Area Regulations Explain: Water Resources/Stormwater Checklist and Mitigation Measures 5. Will the proposal require or result in (check all that apply and describe below): any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of Edgecomb Creek or Portage Creek? fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands? surface water withdrawals or diversions? discharges of waste materials to surface waters? groundwater withdrawal or discharge? waste materials entering ground or surface waters? Staff Comments: 6. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection, treatment, and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 7. Is the area designated a critical aquifer recharge area? If so, please describe: 8. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 14 Water Resources/Stormwater Checklist and Mitigation Measures 9. What measures are proposed to reduce or control water resources/stormwater impacts? Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-4 regarding Mitigation Document and Applicable Regulations and Advisory Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with construction-related stormwater requirements, including temporary erosion and sediment control, and development and implementation of a stormwater pollution and spill prevention plan. Determination of necessary permanent, long-term water quality treatment requirements. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques employed, consistent with AMC 13.28? Adequate erosion protection at outfalls. Other: Explain: Plants and Animals Checklist and Mitigation Measures 10. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous tree: Alder, maple, aspen, other _______________ Evergreen tree: Fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: Cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: Water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _______________ Other types of vegetation: _______________ Staff Comments: 11. Are there wetlands on the property? Please describe their acreage and classification. 12. Is there riparian habitat on the property? 13. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 14. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site 15. Are there plants or habitats subject to Critical Areas and/or Shoreline Master Program? 16. Is the proposal consistent with critical area regulations, shoreline regulations, and requirements of the AMMIC Subarea Plan (now retitled Cascade Industrial Center)? Please describe. 17. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, buffers, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 15 Plants and Animals Checklist and Mitigation Measures 18. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-4 regarding Mitigation Document and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with Critical Areas Ordinance Compliance with Shoreline Master Program Implementation of on-site or street frontage green infrastructure Implementation of Chapter 20.76 - Screening and Trees Other: Explain: CULTURAL RESOURCES CHECKLIST AND MITIGATION MEASURES Cultural Resources Checklist and Mitigation Measures 19. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national or state preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Staff Comments: 20. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. 21. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national or state preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. 22. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-4 regarding Mitigation Document and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with AMMIC (now renamed Cascade Industrial Center) Subarea Plan. Compliance with other applicable land use and shoreline policies and development regulations. Tribal, federal, or state consultations for cultural or eligible historic resources. Evaluation per Exhibit B-2 and implementation of associated recommended conditions. Inadvertent discovery plan. Other Explain: Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 16 TRANSPORTATION CHECKLIST AND GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation Checklist and Mitigation Measures 23. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Staff Comments: 24. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 25. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 26. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 27. How many PM peak hour vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? 28. Is the land use addressed by the EIS Greenhouse Gas Analysis? 29. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2, Exhibit B-3, and B- 4 regarding Mitigation Document, Additional Mitigation Requirements and Procedures, and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Evaluate and mitigate roadways consistent with Planned Action Ordinance Section 4.D(3). Commute Trip Reduction (AMC Chapter 10.80) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs Street frontage standards Impact fee and SEPA mitigation fee for fair share of capital improvements Other: Explain: LAND USE AND AESTHETICS CHECKLIST AND MITIGATION MEASURES Land Use and Aesthetics Checklist and Mitigation Measures 30. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Staff Comments: 31. Describe any structures on the site. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what type, dwelling units, square feet? 32. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 33. What is the current Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning classification of adjacent sites? 34. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 17 Land Use and Aesthetics Checklist and Mitigation Measures 35. What is the planned use of the site? List type of use, number of dwelling units and building square feet. 36. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 37. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 38. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 39. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 40. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s)? 41. Would any views in the immediate vicinity be altered or obstructed? 42. Would the proposal produce light or glare? What time of day would it mainly occur? 43. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 44. What existing offsite sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 45. Would shade or shadow affect public parks, recreation, open space, or gathering spaces? Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-2 and B-4 regarding Mitigation Document and Applicable Regulations and Notes, respectively (check all that apply): Compliance with AMMIC Subarea Plan. Compliance with other applicable land use and shoreline policies and development regulations. Other Explain: UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES CHECKLIST AND MITIGATION MEASURES Public Services and Utilities Checklist 46. Water Supply: Would the project result in an increased need for water supply or fire flow pressure? Can City levels of service be met? Staff Comments: 47. Wastewater: Would the project result in an increased need for wastewater services? Can City levels of service be met? Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 18 Public Services and Utilities Checklist 48. Police Protection: Would the project increase demand for police services? Can City levels of service be met? 49. Fire and Emergency Services: Would the project increase demand for fire and/or emergency services? Can levels of services be met? 50. Schools: Would the project result in an increase in demand for school services? Can levels of services be met? Is an impact fee required? 51. Parks and Recreation: Would the project require an increase in demand for parks and recreation? Can levels of services be met? 52. Other Public Services and Utilities: Would the project require an increase in demand for other services and utilities? Can levels of services be met? 53. Proposed Measures to control impacts including Exhibit B-1 and B-4 regarding Mitigation Required for Development Applications and Exhibit B-3 Applicable Regulations (check all that apply): Capital Facility Plan has been considered, and development provides its fair share of the cost of improvements consistent with applicable local government plans and codes. Law enforcement agency has been consulted, and development reflects applicable code requirements. Fire protection agency has been consulted, and development complies with Uniform Fire Code. School impact fee, if applicable. Parks impact fee, if applicable. Developer has coordinated with City to ensure that sewer lines, water lines, or stormwater facilities will be extended to provide service to proposed development site where required. General facility charges have been determined to ensure cumulative impacts to utilities are addressed. Other Measures to reduce or control public services and utilities impacts: Explain: C. Applicant Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 19 Signature: Date: D. Review Criteria REVIEW CRITERIA The City’s SEPA Responsible Official may designate “planned actions” consistent with criteria in Ordinance No. ______ Subsection 4.E. Criteria Discussion (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this Ordinance; (b) the proposed uses and densities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 4.D of this Ordinance; (c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 4.D of this Ordinance; (d) the proposal is consistent with the City of Arlington Comprehensive Plan and the AMMIC Subarea Plan; (e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the SEPA Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; (h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), unless the essential public facility is accessory to or part of a development that is designated as a planned action under this ordinance. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 20 DETERMINATION CRITERIA Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the process in Ordinance No. ____ Section 4.G. Requirement Discussion Applications for planned actions were made on forms provided by the City including this Cascade Industrial Center Environmental Checklist and Mitigation Document. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with BMC Chapter 20.02. The proposal is located within Planned Action Area pursuant to Exhibit A of this Ordinance The proposed use(s) are listed in Section 4D of the Ordinance and qualify as a Planned Action. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 21 E. SEPA Responsible Official Determination A. Qualifies as a Planned Action: The application is consistent with the criteria of Ordinance_____ and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. It shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in _____, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. Notice shall be made pursuant to AMC Chapter 20.98. as part of notice of the underlying permits and shall include the results of the Planned Action determination. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required. See Section 4.G(3)(a) regarding notice of the zoning permit decision. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in AMC Chapter 20.16. NOTE: If it is determined during subsequent detailed permit review that a project does not qualify as a planned action, this determination shall be amended. Signature Date: B. Does not Qualify as Planned Action: The application is not consistent with the criteria of Ordinance _____, and does not qualify as a Planned Action project for the following reasons: Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SEPA Process Prescribed: C. Responsible Official Signature Signature: Date: Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 22 EXHIBIT B-2 MITIGATION DOCUMENT A Mitigation Document is provided in this Exhibit B-1 to establish specific mitigation measures based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures in this Exhibit B-1 shall apply to Planned Action Project applications that are consistent with the Alternative range reviewed in the Planned Action EIS and which are located within the Planned Action Area (see Exhibit A). Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in Planned Action Project application plans is mandatory in order to qualify as a Planned Action Project. Where “should” or “would” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action Project. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. The City’s SEPA Responsible Official’s authorized designee shall determine consistency with this mitigation document. Natural Environment Planned Actions shall be consistent with subarea plan dimensional and development standards including maximum impervious coverages. Planned Actions shall be consistent with the relocation of Edgecomb Creek and associated habitat improvements. Planned Actions shall implement required street frontages identified in the Arlington Complete Streets Program, including landscaping and green infrastructure. Planned Actions may incorporate green stormwater retrofits that provide water quality benefits beyond standard requirements by code. Cultural Resources Within shoreline jurisdiction, Planned Actions must be consistent with cultural resources policies and regulations. Planned Action notices shall be sent to DAHP and tribes (Snohomish Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes) for each application consistent with Section G of the ordinance. If DAHP predictive model maps location as high to very high probability (Map B-1.1): a. If cultural resources survey not previously completed, conduct cultural resources survey including subsurface testing where feasible and documentation of historic (i.e. 50 years old or older) built environment in advance of construction. Survey report will include inadvertent discovery plan (IDP). b. If cultural resources survey of the location completed more than 10 years ago, an updated report including IDP may be needed. c. If cultural resources survey of the location completed within past 10 years, prepare an IDP. If DAHP predictive model maps location as low to moderate probability (Map B-1.1): a. If cultural resources survey not previously completed, conduct cultural resources desktop review and field reconnaissance including documentation of historic (i.e. 50 years old or older) built environment in advance of construction. Report will include inadvertent discovery plan (IDP). b. If cultural resources review completed for the location more than 10 years ago, an updated desktop review including IDP may be needed. c. If cultural resources survey of the location completed within past 10 years, prepare an IDP. Where required under Mitigation Measures 7 and 8, Planned Actions shall prepare Inadvertent Discovery Plans as a condition of project approval. The City may condition Planned Actions according to the results of required reviews under Mitigation Measures 7 and 8. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 23 Map B-1.1 Cultural Resources Probability Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Land Use and Aesthetics Planned Actions shall be consistent with the AMC development standards and guidelines for the CIC. Planned Actions shall implement design standards specific to industrial areas and development types. Transportation See Exhibit B-3. Public Services Planned Actions shall demonstrate consistency with crime prevention through environmental design principles through compliance with CIC development standards and guidelines. Planned Actions shall pay applicable impact fees per Chapter 20.90 for parks and schools. A Planned Action shall provide the common and private open space required per dwelling in the Arlington Municipal Code. Utilities Planned Actions shall meet City standards for adequate water and sewer service, pay applicable general facility charges, and incorporate water and sewer infrastructure improvements in street frontage improvements as appropriate. Planned Action shall implement the required stormwater manual and implement necessary stormwater improvements. If a regional stormwater facility is approved by the City, an applicant may request or the City may condition development to Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 24 pay a fee based on the area of new and replaced impervious surface subject to the applicable stormwater management manual in place at the time of application. EXHIBIT B-3 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS & PROCEDURES Transportation Frontage Improvements When a property redevelops and applies for permits, frontage improvements (or in-lieu contributions) and right-of-way dedications if needed are required by the Arlington Municipal Code (AMC 20.56.170). If right-of-way (or an easement) is needed, it also must be dedicated to the City by the Planned Action Application property owner. Planned Action applicants may request and the City may consider a fee-in-lieu for some or all of the frontage improvements that are the responsibility of the property owner consistent with criteria in AMC 20.56.170 and agreements pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 or other instrument deemed acceptable to the City and applicant. Mitigation Fees Areawide Improvements: Implementation of improvements identified in Table B.3-1 shall occur through a SEPA fair share fee program such that new development contributes its share of the cost for these projects. Cost Basis: Unless amended, or replaced with a transportation impact fee, mitigation fees consistent with the proportionate share of costs shall be applied to planned action applications. This fee shall be payable in addition to the impact fee in AMC Chapter 20.90 until such time as the improvements in Table B.3-1 are incorporated into the City’s impact fee basis. A Planned Action’s trips calculated per Section 4.D(3)(d) will be used to determine a development’s demand and mitigation payment. Mitigation Fee Payable at Permit Issuance: The mitigation fee shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance. The Planned Action Share Transportation Fees will be incorporated into the City master fee schedule. Fees shall be subject to biennial review to affirm the cost basis including a construction cost index or an equivalent as determined by the City. Should the State of Washington develop capital improvements that are scheduled in addition to the listed mitigation in Table B.3-1, the City may collect a fair share cost of such improvements to the extent the improvements add capacity to address growth. Transportation Demand Management Each Planned Action shall demonstrate consistency with requirements for Commute Trip Reduction (AMC Chapter 10.80). The City may condition Planned Actions to provide for transportation demand management measures to assist in meeting City levels of service and concurrency. Each Planned Action shall provide for electric vehicle infrastructure (AMC Chapter 20.44.098). Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 25 Table B.3-1. Summary of Mitigation and Action Alternative Pro-Rata Cost Location Improvement Estimated Total Cost (Million $)1 2040 No Action Intersection Vehicle Volumes2 2040 Action Alternative 2 Intersection Vehicle Volumes2 Project Trips3 Percent Pro- Rata Share4 Pro- Rata Cost (Million $)5 SR 531 between 43rd Avenue NE and 67th Avenue NE Widening SR 531 from 2 to 4-lanes with intersection improvements at major intersections. Multiuse paths constructed along SR 531 $39.3 14,025 14,355 330 2.3% $0.904 SR 531 between 67th Avenue NE and SR 9 $45.0 5,700 5,780 80 1.4% $0.630 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE Installation of traffic signal and railroad crossing improvements $3.1 1,650 1,770 120 6.8% $0.211 Total $87.4 $1.745 Source: Transpo Group, 2020 1. SR 531 43rd Avenue NE to 67th Avenue NE project cost based on WSDOT published as of September 25, 2020 https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr531/43rd-ave-67th-ave/home. SR 531 67th Avenue NE to SR 9 project cost based on City of Arlington Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2019-2024. Intersection improvement cost 67th Avenue NE/188th Street NE based on estimates prepared by Transpo Group. 2. Volumes for SR 531 are total entering volumes for the major intersections. 3. 2040 Action Alternative 2 intersection vehicle volumes – 2040 No Action intersection vehicle volumes 4. Project trips / 2040 Action Alternative intersection vehicle volumes. 5. 5. Percent Pro-Rata Share x Estimated Total Cost EXHIBIT B-4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND ADVISORY NOTES In addition to the AMMIC Subarea Plan goals and policies and the Arlington Land Use Code development regulations, the following regulations may apply. All applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met regardless of whether they are highlighted in this Exhibit or not. Natural Environment Development and redevelopment projects within the study area that have the potential to impact environmentally sensitive natural resources will require compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts is typically required for all applicable permitting reviews and authorizations. The table below provides a regulatory permit matrix for actions requiring local, state, and federal authorizations. Appropriate mitigation Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 26 measures specific to project alternatives will need to be proposed when alternatives are farther along in the planning process. This may include preservation, enhancement, and restoration of wetland and marine shoreline buffer. Table B.4-1. Environmental Regulations Jurisdictional Agency Regulations/Authorizations City of Arlington Pre-application submittal conference SEPA Determination (No Action Alternative) Planned Action Consistency Determination (Action Alternatives) Critical Areas review City of Arlington Stormwater Code Compliance Washington State Department of Ecology CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Certification Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Section 404 Clean Water Act CWA Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Requires Compliance with: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act Magnuson-Stevens Act Sources: City of Arlington Municipal Code; Herrera 2020. Land Use and Aesthetics Arlington’s Municipal Code contains regulations that help to ensure land use compatibility. Title 20 Land Use Code. Arlington Design Standards (Chapter 20.46 AMC). Arlington Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Airport Master Plan: contains regulations applicable to Flightline zone areas. Cultural Resources In terms of historic and cultural resources the following local, state, and federal laws or rules apply: Arlington’s SMP includes policies and regulations that would require appropriate cultural review by tribal and other agencies. State funded capital projects require Governor’s Executive Order 0505 review. Implementation of the Executive Order requires all state agencies implementing or assisting capital projects using funds appropriated in the State's biennial Capital Budget to consider how future proposed projects may impact significant cultural and historic places. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that each federal agency identify and assess the effects its actions may have on historic buildings. Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 27 Transportation The following regulations address transportation: Travel Demand Management (TDM): Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law requires employers with 100 or more employees and located in high-population counties to implement TDM programs. Arlington Complete Streets Program Arlington Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Program The following regulations and standards: AMC Chapter 10.80 - Commute Trip Reduction AMC Chapter 20.56 - Streets and Sidewalks Chapter 20.90 - Concurrency and Impact Fees Arlington Engineering Standards AMC Chapter 20.44.098 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Public Services The following regulations address public services: Comprehensive Plan – Addresses levels of service and capital improvements for fire, police, and parks. This is updated every eight years with the Comprehensive Plan. Title 15 Fire – Includes requirements for fire suppression. Parks and Recreation Master Plan– Establishes a plan for 2016-2023 including capital projects. Arlington School District Levy 2020 – Addresses Capital Replacement projects to ensure proper function of current schools. Utilities Water When evaluating new construction, Arlington Public Works and Utilities Department personnel determine the ability of the water system to meet fire flow requirements at that location with a minimum of 20 psi residual pressure throughout the distribution system. If the water system cannot provide the required fire flow for the specific project, the developer is required to revise building construction and/or make the necessary improvements to the distribution system to meet the project’s fire flow requirements as established by the City Fire Chief. The available fire flow will be determined by the City’s engineering staff using the water system hydraulic model. AMC Chapter13.08. includes provisions for service connections and mains to be upgraded by developers during redevelopment if required to meet engineering design and construction standards. Chapter 13.08. also includes provisions for installation of pumps if required to achieve adequate pressure during peak demands. Wastewater AMC Chapter 13.36 includes provisions for wastewater service connections and extensions when existing connections are inadequate or sewer mains are not present along the frontage of a property. Stormwater AMC Chapter 13.28 includes provisions that require redevelopment to meet stormwater management requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, which requires low impact development BMPs, flow control, and water quality treatment. Under all the alternatives these requirements are expected to result in a net improvement in the quality Draft City of Arlington CIC Planned Action Page 28 of stormwater that is discharged to the Stillaguamish River and Quilceda Creek via ditches, Hayho Creek, Westphal Creek, Portage Creek, Prairie Creek and Edgecomb Creek. 5.0 Appendices ▪ C ▪ Traffic Counts Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-5 C Traffic Counts Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 67TH AVE NE 67TH AVE NE 188TH ST NE188TH ST NE (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 67TH AVE NE & 188TH ST NE PM Tuesday, January 7, 2020Date: Motorized Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Peak Hour Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 65 011 13 0 6 126 2 107 471 457 19 30 398527 235 109 N S EW 0 0 39 5 44 33 7 170 188TH ST NE 188TH ST NE67 T H A V E N E 67 T H A V E N E 1,123 0 5 1 0 N S EW 4 1 01 0 0 0 0 Interval Start Time RightLeft Thru Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound U-Turn Rolling HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn 4:00 PM 1,1230 29 0 0 1 0 0 10 95 0 5 124 33243 3 6 16 4:15 PM 1,0120 24 1 0 3 0 0 12 92 0 3 92 27415 5 6 21 4:30 PM 9290 34 0 0 1 0 0 8 72 0 2 100 28853 3 4 11 4:45 PM 8380 20 1 0 1 0 0 14 78 0 1 79 22915 2 1 17 5:00 PM 7770 19 0 0 2 0 0 3 85 0 5 74 22112 2 4 15 5:15 PM 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 4 67 0 3 73 19112 0 3 14 5:30 PM 0 16 0 0 3 1 0 5 77 0 2 62 19714 4 9 4 5:45 PM 0 6 2 0 2 1 0 7 68 0 1 60 16811 2 2 6 Count Total 0 163 4 0 13 2 0 63 634 0 22 664 1,900175 21 35 104 Peak Hour 0 107 2 0 6 0 0 44 337 0 11 395 1,123126 13 17 65 HV% PHF 0.68 0.59 0.90 0.81 3.0% 26.3% 6.3% 1.9% 4.1% 0.85 EB WB NB SB All 2 01 4 0 1 5 1 1 9 17 5 5 2512 7 12 N S EW 0 0 6 10 12 30 Heavy VehiclesInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 3 5 1 1 10 4:15 PM 1 7 3 3 14 4:30 PM 2 5 0 2 9 4:45 PM 1 8 1 3 13 5:00 PM 0 6 0 5 11 5:15 PM 0 5 0 2 7 5:30 PM 0 2 0 2 4 5:45 PM 0 3 0 2 5 Count Total 7 41 5 20 73 Peak Hour 7 25 5 9 46 Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3 4:15 PM 0 1 2 0 3 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 1 7 0 8 Peak Hour 0 1 5 0 6 Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM SMOKEY POINT BLVD SMOKEY POINT BLVD156TH ST NE156TH ST NE (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 SMOKEY POINT BLVD & 156TH ST NE PM Tuesday, January 7, 2020Date: Motorized Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Peak Hour Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 41 09 32 6 16 240 2 32 674 721 54 16 847880 274 232 N S EW 0 0 62 4 18 5 65 7 50 156TH ST NE 156TH ST NESM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V 1,849 0 0 0 0 N S EW 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Interval Start Time RightLeft Thru Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound U-Turn Rolling HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn 4:00 PM 1,8490 7 0 0 8 1 0 38 168 0 1 177 48062 7 1 10 4:15 PM 1,8330 15 2 0 3 2 0 60 148 0 3 141 46262 9 2 15 4:30 PM 1,7710 8 0 0 1 2 0 50 183 0 2 151 47560 7 1 10 4:45 PM 1,6600 2 0 0 4 1 0 37 158 0 3 155 43256 9 1 6 5:00 PM 1,5510 3 1 0 3 0 0 43 148 0 6 189 46446 8 0 17 5:15 PM 0 4 0 0 10 5 0 54 104 0 6 143 40061 5 0 8 5:30 PM 0 5 2 0 3 1 0 37 113 0 2 129 36454 3 1 14 5:45 PM 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 28 108 0 2 106 32349 6 2 9 Count Total 0 49 5 0 40 12 0 347 1,130 0 25 1,191 3,400450 54 8 89 Peak Hour 0 32 2 0 16 6 0 185 657 0 9 624 1,849240 32 5 41 HV% PHF 0.87 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 2.1% 1.2% 0.96 EB WB NB SB All 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 8 0 0 815 1 0 N S EW 0 0 14 0 8 00 Heavy VehiclesInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 2 0 3 5 4:15 PM 1 2 0 4 7 4:30 PM 0 1 0 3 4 4:45 PM 0 3 0 4 7 5:00 PM 0 3 0 5 8 5:15 PM 0 3 0 4 7 5:30 PM 0 1 0 5 6 5:45 PM 0 4 0 1 5 Count Total 1 19 0 29 49 Peak Hour 1 8 0 14 23 Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM SMOKEY POINT BLVD SMOKEY POINT BLVD152ND ST NE152ND ST NE (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:3 SMOKEY POINT BLVD & 152ND ST NE PM Tuesday, January 7, 2020Date: Motorized Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Heavy Vehicles Peak Hour Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk 3 0 26 8 243 3 102 10 3 10 913 855 348 411 746754 23 10 N S EW 0 0 64 2 4 60 2 14 0 0 152ND ST NE 152ND ST NESM O K E Y P O I N T B L V D SM O K E Y P O I N T B L V 2,030 0 0 0 0 N S EW 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Interval Start Time RightLeft Thru Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound U-Turn Rolling HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn 4:00 PM 2,0300 7 0 0 34 2 0 2 142 0 56 183 5252 58 38 1 4:15 PM 2,0190 1 0 0 28 1 0 1 150 0 78 149 5086 60 34 0 4:30 PM 1,9950 1 2 0 24 0 0 1 168 0 66 150 5301 73 43 1 4:45 PM 1,9070 1 1 0 16 0 0 0 142 0 68 160 4671 52 25 1 5:00 PM 1,7960 4 1 0 20 1 0 2 161 0 87 159 5141 46 28 4 5:15 PM 0 5 2 0 21 0 0 1 146 0 76 155 4841 42 31 4 5:30 PM 0 1 2 0 23 0 0 0 150 0 53 144 4420 45 24 0 5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 22 0 0 1 118 0 52 110 3560 31 20 0 Count Total 0 22 8 0 188 4 0 8 1,177 0 536 1,210 3,82612 407 243 11 Peak Hour 0 10 3 0 102 3 0 4 602 0 268 642 2,03010 243 140 3 HV% PHF 0.64 0.90 0.88 0.95 0.0% 1.1% 2.1% 1.6% 1.7% 0.96 EB WB NB SB All 0 03 2 0 2 0 0 0 15 9 4 12 1614 0 0 N S EW 0 0 12 0 7 90 Heavy VehiclesInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 5 0 3 8 4:15 PM 0 2 3 4 9 4:30 PM 0 5 0 5 10 4:45 PM 0 4 1 3 8 5:00 PM 1 2 1 3 7 5:15 PM 0 6 2 2 10 5:30 PM 0 6 0 6 12 5:45 PM 0 2 3 1 6 Count Total 1 32 10 27 70 Peak Hour 0 16 4 15 35 Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 I-5 mp 2 0 6 .0 8 _S R5 3 1_S B_Ramp s _2 0 19 -0 4 0 9 - T MC T u e Apr 9 , 2 0 19 Full Le ng th (1 2 AM-1 2 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Mo t o r cycle s , Lig h ts , S ing le -Un it T r ucks , Ar ticu late d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe d e s tr ians , Bicycle s on Ro ad, Bicycle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e nts I D: 6 43 2 68, Locatio n: 4 8.152 2 84 , -1 22.1 9 108 1 , S ite Cod e : 0 05 2 060 8 S B_0 41 9 Pr o v id e d b y : Was hing ton S tate DO T 1 57 0 0 Day to n Av e Nor t h , MS -120 , P.O . Bo x 33 0 31 0 , S e attle , WA, 9 8 13 3 , US Le g I-5 SB Ram p s SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)I-5 SB O N Ra m p S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e R T L U App P e d *HR R T L U App Pe d *Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int 2 0 19 -0 4 -0 9 12 :0 0 AM 5 0 2 0 7 0 9 0 2 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 16 0 0 19 0 5 9 12 :15 AM 4 0 6 0 10 0 5 0 3 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 1 6 4 0 0 10 0 5 8 12 :3 0 AM 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 17 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 9 0 4 6 12 :4 5 AM 2 0 2 0 4 0 7 0 14 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 10 8 0 0 18 0 4 3 Ho u r ly T o ta l 16 0 15 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 8 8 0 0 119 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 5 6 0 2 0 6 1:0 0 AM 5 0 2 0 7 0 9 0 8 0 0 17 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 9 0 3 3 1:15 AM 3 0 3 0 6 0 9 0 15 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 8 0 3 8 1:3 0 AM 2 0 3 0 5 0 3 1 14 0 0 18 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 9 0 3 2 1:4 5 AM 2 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 10 0 4 4 Ho u r ly T o ta l 12 0 13 0 2 5 0 2 8 1 5 7 0 0 8 6 0 0 1 16 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 14 7 2 :0 0 AM 3 0 6 0 9 0 5 0 9 0 0 14 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 0 3 3 2 :15 AM 2 0 7 0 9 0 18 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 9 4 0 0 13 0 4 5 2 :3 0 AM 3 1 4 0 8 0 2 5 0 4 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 12 0 4 9 2 :4 5 AM 1 0 5 0 6 0 17 0 6 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 9 0 3 8 Ho u r ly T o ta l 9 1 2 2 0 3 2 0 6 5 0 2 4 0 0 8 9 0 0 1 2 8 16 0 0 4 4 0 16 5 3 :0 0 AM 1 0 5 0 6 0 19 0 9 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 9 0 4 3 3 :15 AM 1 0 11 0 12 0 2 7 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 12 5 0 0 17 0 5 9 3 :3 0 AM 8 0 13 0 2 1 0 4 2 0 9 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 18 7 0 0 2 5 0 9 7 3 :4 5 AM 1 0 2 3 0 2 4 0 4 9 0 10 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 3 7 14 0 0 5 1 0 13 4 Ho u r ly T o ta l 11 0 5 2 0 6 3 0 13 7 0 3 1 0 0 16 8 0 0 0 7 5 2 7 0 0 10 2 0 3 3 3 4 :0 0 AM 3 0 12 0 15 0 7 9 0 9 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 5 4 13 0 0 6 7 0 17 0 4 :15 AM 6 0 19 0 2 5 0 12 5 0 8 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 7 1 15 0 0 8 6 2 2 4 4 4 :3 0 AM 10 0 3 5 0 4 5 0 12 8 2 2 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 1 0 0 8 7 0 2 8 2 4 :4 5 AM 11 0 6 3 0 7 4 1 12 9 1 2 5 0 0 15 5 0 0 2 6 8 2 5 0 0 9 3 1 3 2 2 Ho u r ly T o ta l 3 0 0 12 9 0 15 9 1 4 6 1 3 6 2 0 0 5 2 6 0 0 2 2 5 9 7 4 0 0 3 3 3 3 10 18 5 :0 0 AM 13 0 2 9 0 4 2 0 12 4 0 17 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 114 2 4 0 0 13 8 0 3 2 1 5 :15 AM 15 0 5 4 0 6 9 0 14 1 4 19 0 0 16 4 0 0 2 9 6 3 3 0 0 12 9 0 3 6 2 5 :3 0 AM 12 0 8 4 0 9 6 0 117 0 2 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 0 10 5 4 5 0 0 15 0 0 3 8 3 5 :4 5 AM 2 3 0 110 0 13 3 0 15 0 2 3 9 0 0 19 1 0 0 1 8 0 6 9 0 0 14 9 0 4 7 3 Ho u r ly T o ta l 6 3 0 2 7 7 0 3 4 0 0 5 3 2 6 9 5 0 0 6 3 3 0 0 3 3 9 5 17 1 0 0 5 6 6 0 15 3 9 6 :0 0 AM 2 4 0 5 2 0 7 6 0 16 7 3 3 8 0 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 10 2 6 1 0 0 16 3 0 4 4 7 6 :15 AM 2 2 0 6 2 0 8 4 0 17 7 1 5 6 0 0 2 3 4 0 0 0 12 2 7 7 0 0 19 9 0 5 17 6 :3 0 AM 4 5 1 9 1 0 13 7 0 14 4 3 7 4 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 110 7 1 0 0 18 1 0 5 3 9 6 :4 5 AM 4 0 0 9 6 0 13 6 2 13 9 3 10 6 0 0 2 4 8 0 0 2 110 7 5 0 0 18 5 0 5 6 9 Ho u r ly T o ta l 13 1 1 3 0 1 0 4 3 3 2 6 2 7 10 2 7 4 0 0 9 11 0 0 3 4 4 4 2 8 4 0 0 7 2 8 0 2 0 7 2 7 :0 0 AM 2 9 1 6 5 0 9 5 2 17 1 2 114 0 0 2 8 7 0 0 3 9 9 9 6 0 0 19 5 0 5 7 7 7 :15 AM 5 0 0 8 4 0 13 4 0 15 5 3 117 0 0 2 7 5 0 0 0 112 13 7 0 0 2 4 9 0 6 5 8 7 :3 0 AM 3 9 0 12 7 0 16 6 0 14 7 3 9 1 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 2 8 8 12 4 0 0 2 12 0 6 19 7 :4 5 AM 4 7 0 14 5 0 19 2 0 12 0 3 12 7 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 2 6 7 9 7 0 0 16 4 0 6 0 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 16 5 1 4 2 1 0 5 8 7 2 5 9 3 11 4 4 9 0 0 10 5 3 1 0 7 3 6 6 4 5 4 0 0 8 2 0 0 2 4 6 0 8 :0 0 AM 4 4 1 6 9 0 114 0 117 0 13 6 0 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 8 9 9 7 0 0 18 6 0 5 5 3 8 :15 AM 4 2 0 8 3 0 12 5 0 116 1 119 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 0 10 4 12 3 0 0 2 2 7 0 5 8 8 8 :3 0 AM 4 5 0 8 1 0 12 6 1 9 8 3 118 0 0 2 19 0 0 0 9 6 13 7 0 0 2 3 3 0 5 7 8 8 :4 5 AM 4 8 0 8 1 0 12 9 1 9 0 1 12 1 0 0 2 12 0 0 1 9 5 13 7 0 0 2 3 2 0 5 7 3 Ho u r ly T o ta l 17 9 1 3 14 0 4 9 4 2 4 2 1 5 4 9 4 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 1 3 8 4 4 9 4 0 0 8 7 8 0 2 2 9 2 9 :0 0 AM 5 2 1 7 4 0 12 7 0 10 2 0 14 4 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 7 2 118 0 0 19 0 0 5 6 3 9 :15 AM 5 7 0 6 0 0 117 1 12 0 2 18 7 0 0 3 0 9 0 0 2 8 2 12 4 0 0 2 0 6 0 6 3 2 9 :3 0 AM 5 3 0 7 6 0 12 9 2 10 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 9 1 13 5 0 0 2 2 6 0 6 6 1 9 :4 5 AM 6 6 0 6 8 0 13 4 3 110 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 10 0 0 3 8 6 13 9 0 0 2 2 5 0 6 6 9 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 2 8 1 2 7 8 0 5 0 7 6 4 3 5 4 7 3 2 0 0 117 1 0 0 5 3 3 1 5 16 0 0 8 4 7 0 2 5 2 5 10 :0 0 AM 5 7 0 5 6 0 113 3 8 6 1 19 5 0 0 2 8 2 0 0 0 8 5 16 5 0 0 2 5 0 0 6 4 5 10 :15 AM 5 1 2 8 3 0 13 6 1 10 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 8 8 13 9 0 0 2 2 7 1 6 6 4 10 :3 0 AM 7 3 1 6 8 0 14 2 3 9 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 10 2 17 5 0 0 2 7 7 0 7 3 8 10 :4 5 AM 5 6 0 7 2 0 12 8 1 10 8 0 2 4 4 0 0 3 5 2 0 0 0 9 6 2 0 8 0 0 3 0 4 0 7 8 4 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 3 7 3 2 7 9 0 5 19 8 3 8 7 5 8 6 2 0 0 12 5 4 0 0 1 3 7 1 6 8 7 0 0 10 5 8 1 2 8 3 1 11:0 0 AM 7 2 0 7 0 0 14 2 0 119 0 2 3 4 0 0 3 5 3 0 0 6 10 1 19 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 9 5 11:15 AM 7 1 0 6 8 0 13 9 0 12 1 1 2 3 8 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 3 9 9 2 0 7 0 0 3 0 6 1 8 0 5 1 of 10 11:3 0 AM 6 1 0 6 1 0 12 2 0 13 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 13 9 18 9 0 0 3 2 8 2 8 5 1 11:4 5 AM 7 6 0 7 5 0 15 1 0 118 1 2 7 2 0 0 3 9 1 0 0 1 9 6 2 0 8 0 0 3 0 4 0 8 4 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 8 0 0 2 7 4 0 5 5 4 0 4 8 8 2 10 15 0 0 15 0 5 0 0 10 4 3 5 8 0 3 0 0 12 3 8 3 3 2 9 7 12 :0 0 P M 6 1 1 7 3 0 13 5 2 110 1 2 7 8 0 0 3 8 9 0 0 1 9 7 2 11 0 0 3 0 8 1 8 3 2 12 :15 P M 9 0 0 6 5 0 15 5 0 114 1 2 8 0 0 0 3 9 5 0 0 0 12 2 2 14 0 0 3 3 6 0 8 8 6 12 :3 0 P M 6 4 0 6 7 0 13 1 1 12 6 1 2 5 8 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 0 111 2 2 7 0 0 3 3 8 0 8 5 4 12 :4 5 P M 6 8 1 6 9 0 13 8 2 13 1 0 2 6 6 0 0 3 9 7 0 0 2 10 1 2 4 9 0 0 3 5 0 0 8 8 5 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 8 3 2 2 7 4 0 5 5 9 5 4 8 1 3 10 8 2 0 0 15 6 6 0 0 3 4 3 1 9 0 1 0 0 13 3 2 1 3 4 5 7 1:0 0 P M 6 6 0 4 9 0 115 1 113 0 2 5 8 0 0 3 7 1 0 0 4 119 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 8 0 7 1:15 P M 8 0 0 6 2 0 14 2 0 12 9 0 2 6 7 0 0 3 9 6 0 0 1 10 6 2 2 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 8 6 8 1:3 0 P M 6 8 0 6 1 0 12 9 0 13 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 3 8 3 0 0 1 114 2 2 7 0 0 3 4 1 0 8 5 3 1:4 5 P M 6 0 1 6 1 0 12 2 0 10 3 0 2 7 2 0 0 3 7 5 0 0 3 118 2 12 0 0 3 3 0 1 8 2 7 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 7 4 1 2 3 3 0 5 0 8 1 4 7 5 3 10 4 7 0 0 15 2 5 0 0 9 4 5 7 8 6 5 0 0 13 2 2 1 3 3 5 5 2 :0 0 P M 6 3 0 6 5 0 12 8 2 110 4 2 5 9 0 0 3 7 3 0 0 3 12 2 2 2 8 0 0 3 5 0 1 8 5 1 2 :15 P M 6 0 1 5 1 0 112 0 12 6 0 3 10 0 0 4 3 6 0 0 1 13 2 2 4 5 0 0 3 7 7 0 9 2 5 2 :3 0 P M 6 4 1 6 2 0 12 7 1 12 5 5 3 18 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 4 12 8 2 2 0 0 0 3 4 8 0 9 2 3 2 :4 5 P M 8 4 1 6 3 0 14 8 6 112 3 3 2 2 0 0 4 3 7 0 0 4 10 5 2 2 1 0 0 3 2 6 0 9 11 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 7 1 3 2 4 1 0 5 15 9 4 7 3 12 12 0 9 0 0 16 9 4 0 0 12 4 8 7 9 14 0 0 14 0 1 1 3 6 10 3 :0 0 P M 4 5 0 5 8 0 10 3 3 117 0 3 2 1 0 0 4 3 8 0 0 3 12 2 2 3 9 0 0 3 6 1 1 9 0 2 3 :15 P M 5 9 2 6 3 0 12 4 1 9 6 3 3 10 0 0 4 0 9 0 0 2 10 3 2 5 8 0 0 3 6 1 0 8 9 4 3 :3 0 P M 5 3 0 5 5 0 10 8 13 13 2 3 3 0 3 0 0 4 3 8 0 0 4 113 2 4 6 0 0 3 5 9 0 9 0 5 3 :4 5 P M 8 0 1 8 2 0 16 3 8 117 0 3 3 5 0 0 4 5 2 0 0 0 10 5 2 13 0 0 3 18 0 9 3 3 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 3 7 3 2 5 8 0 4 9 8 2 5 4 6 2 6 12 6 9 0 0 17 3 7 0 0 9 4 4 3 9 5 6 0 0 13 9 9 1 3 6 3 4 4 :0 0 P M 7 6 0 5 3 0 12 9 12 13 6 4 3 13 0 0 4 5 3 1 0 2 111 2 5 0 0 0 3 6 1 0 9 4 3 4 :15 P M 7 4 0 6 3 0 13 7 4 110 4 3 3 3 0 0 4 4 7 0 0 7 9 7 2 4 0 0 0 3 3 7 0 9 2 1 4 :3 0 P M 7 0 0 7 0 0 14 0 4 14 7 1 3 5 1 0 0 4 9 9 0 0 1 10 4 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 9 7 3 4 :4 5 P M 6 3 0 7 2 0 13 5 1 9 2 2 3 16 0 0 4 10 0 0 1 10 3 2 3 7 0 0 3 4 0 1 8 8 5 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 8 3 0 2 5 8 0 5 4 1 2 1 4 8 5 11 13 13 0 0 18 0 9 1 0 11 4 15 9 5 7 0 0 13 7 2 1 3 7 2 2 5 :0 0 P M 7 6 0 7 4 0 15 0 2 13 1 3 3 3 9 0 0 4 7 3 0 0 1 116 2 4 5 0 0 3 6 1 0 9 8 4 5 :15 P M 7 7 1 7 1 0 14 9 1 13 2 2 3 7 7 0 0 5 11 0 0 1 111 2 3 6 0 0 3 4 7 0 10 0 7 5 :3 0 P M 5 6 0 8 0 0 13 6 0 14 0 5 2 8 9 0 0 4 3 4 0 0 1 8 1 2 15 0 0 2 9 6 1 8 6 6 5 :4 5 P M 6 3 0 7 9 0 14 2 4 8 4 0 3 3 4 0 0 4 18 0 0 2 7 5 19 1 0 0 2 6 6 2 8 2 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 7 2 1 3 0 4 0 5 7 7 7 4 8 7 10 13 3 9 0 0 18 3 6 0 0 5 3 8 3 8 8 7 0 0 12 7 0 3 3 6 8 3 6 :0 0 P M 6 3 0 5 0 0 113 0 10 0 0 3 2 4 0 0 4 2 4 0 0 4 9 4 2 19 0 0 3 13 0 8 5 0 6 :15 P M 6 2 0 5 3 0 115 0 9 7 1 3 0 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 8 9 2 0 3 0 0 2 9 2 1 8 0 9 6 :3 0 P M 5 4 0 4 4 0 9 8 0 10 4 0 3 0 7 0 0 4 11 0 0 6 9 1 19 9 0 0 2 9 0 0 7 9 9 6 :4 5 P M 3 4 0 4 8 0 8 2 1 7 2 0 2 6 7 0 0 3 3 9 0 0 2 9 3 2 13 0 0 3 0 6 1 7 2 7 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 13 0 19 5 0 4 0 8 1 3 7 3 1 12 0 2 0 0 15 7 6 0 0 14 3 6 7 8 3 4 0 0 12 0 1 2 3 18 5 7 :0 0 P M 4 4 1 2 4 0 6 9 2 7 1 1 2 15 0 0 2 8 7 1 0 0 8 6 19 7 0 0 2 8 3 1 6 3 9 7 :15 P M 3 7 0 2 8 0 6 5 1 7 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 9 5 0 0 3 8 8 15 5 0 0 2 4 3 0 6 0 3 7 :3 0 P M 3 5 0 3 9 0 7 4 1 7 5 0 19 5 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 1 8 5 16 1 0 0 2 4 6 0 5 9 0 7 :4 5 P M 2 0 0 19 0 3 9 0 5 2 0 18 7 0 0 2 3 9 0 0 2 5 8 14 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 7 8 Ho u r ly T o ta l 13 6 1 110 0 2 4 7 4 2 7 0 2 8 19 0 0 10 9 1 1 0 6 3 17 6 5 5 0 0 9 7 2 1 2 3 10 8 :0 0 P M 4 1 0 2 5 0 6 6 4 6 4 0 16 3 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 2 5 9 15 5 0 0 2 14 2 5 0 7 8 :15 P M 3 2 0 3 1 0 6 3 2 5 3 1 14 4 0 0 19 8 0 0 4 5 3 110 0 0 16 3 1 4 2 4 8 :3 0 P M 2 3 0 2 9 0 5 2 3 4 4 0 13 9 0 0 18 3 0 0 0 6 1 12 2 0 0 18 3 3 4 18 8 :4 5 P M 18 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 13 4 0 0 17 8 0 0 2 4 9 9 6 0 0 14 5 0 3 6 3 Ho u r ly T o ta l 114 0 10 7 0 2 2 1 9 2 0 5 1 5 8 0 0 0 7 8 6 0 0 8 2 2 2 4 8 3 0 0 7 0 5 6 17 12 9 :0 0 P M 2 2 0 17 0 3 9 0 6 4 0 12 6 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 4 5 9 8 0 0 14 3 0 3 7 2 9 :15 P M 15 0 18 0 3 3 3 4 8 0 8 8 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 5 0 8 9 0 0 13 9 2 3 0 8 9 :3 0 P M 9 0 2 0 0 2 9 3 3 9 0 9 7 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 3 3 6 5 0 0 9 8 1 2 6 3 9 :4 5 P M 9 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 3 6 0 6 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 5 0 0 7 6 2 2 0 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 5 5 0 7 6 0 13 1 8 18 7 0 3 7 5 0 0 5 6 2 0 0 0 15 9 2 9 7 0 0 4 5 6 5 114 9 10 :0 0 P M 11 0 9 0 2 0 1 4 0 0 6 1 0 0 10 1 0 0 1 4 2 4 5 0 0 8 7 0 2 0 8 10 :15 P M 6 0 5 0 11 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 1 2 7 3 1 0 0 5 8 0 15 0 10 :3 0 P M 10 0 11 0 2 1 1 2 4 0 4 2 0 0 6 6 0 0 3 2 2 2 7 0 0 4 9 1 13 6 10 :4 5 P M 5 0 8 0 13 1 16 0 3 8 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 5 3 0 12 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 3 2 0 3 3 0 6 5 3 110 0 19 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 5 111 13 6 0 0 2 4 7 1 6 14 11:0 0 P M 6 1 7 0 14 0 17 0 3 5 0 0 5 2 0 0 1 8 15 0 0 2 3 0 8 9 11:15 P M 1 0 10 0 11 2 11 0 3 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 2 6 0 8 7 11:3 0 P M 4 0 3 0 7 0 11 0 3 8 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 8 17 0 0 2 5 0 8 1 11:4 5 P M 2 0 9 0 11 0 6 0 3 2 0 0 3 8 0 0 2 13 10 0 0 2 3 0 7 2 Ho u r ly T o ta l 13 1 2 9 0 4 3 2 4 5 0 14 4 0 0 18 9 0 0 3 3 5 6 2 0 0 9 7 0 3 2 9 T o ta l 3 5 4 4 2 0 4 4 9 3 0 8 0 5 7 116 8 2 5 8 9 6 14 7 5 4 0 0 2 3 10 8 3 0 12 1 6 9 5 4 115 2 6 0 0 18 4 8 0 3 0 4 9 6 4 5 % App ro a c h 4 4 .0 %0 .2 %5 5 .8 %0 %--3 5 .7 %0 .4 %6 3 .8 %0 %0 %----3 7 .6 %6 2 .4 %0 %0 %--- Le g I-5 SB Ram p s SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)I-5 SB O N Ra m p S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e R T L U App P e d *HR R T L U App Pe d *Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int 2 of 10 % T o ta l 7 .1%0 %9 .1%0 %16 .2 %-16 .6 %0 .2 %2 9 .7 %0 %0 %4 6 .5 %-0 %-14 .0 %2 3 .2 %0 %0 %3 7 .2 %-- Mo to r c yc le s 3 0 10 0 13 -12 3 13 0 0 2 8 -0 -6 14 0 0 2 0 -6 1 % Mo to r c yc le s 0 .1%0 %0 .2 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .1%3 .1%0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%---0 .1%0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%-0 .1% Lig h ts 3 4 6 1 19 4 19 3 0 7 6 7 3 -7 6 6 5 8 4 14 3 9 7 0 0 2 2 14 6 -0 -6 7 6 7 112 7 9 0 0 18 0 4 6 -4 7 8 6 5 % Lig h ts 9 7 .7 %9 5 .0 %9 3 .3 %0 %9 5 .2 %-9 2 .8 %8 7 .5 %9 7 .6 %0 %0 %9 5 .8 %---9 7 .3 %9 7 .9 %0 %0 %9 7 .7 %-9 6 .4 % S ing le -Unit T r uc ks 5 1 1 15 0 0 2 0 2 -2 7 5 1 17 9 0 0 4 5 5 -0 -10 9 13 1 0 0 2 4 0 -8 9 7 % S ing le -Unit T r uc ks 1.4 %5 .0 %3 .3 %0 %2 .5 %-3 .3 %1.0 %1.2 %0 %0 %2 .0 %---1.6 %1.1%0 %0 %1.3 %-1.8 % Ar tic ula te d T r uc ks 17 0 12 8 0 14 5 -2 4 2 0 9 3 0 0 3 3 5 -0 -5 4 3 3 0 0 8 7 -5 6 7 % Ar tic ula te d T r uc ks 0 .5 %0 %2 .8 %0 %1.8 %-2 .9 %0 %0 .6 %0 %0 %1.4 %---0 .8 %0 .3 %0 %0 %0 .5 %-1.1% Bus e s 12 0 12 0 2 4 -6 4 8 7 1 0 0 14 3 -0 -17 6 8 0 0 8 5 -2 5 2 % Bus e s 0 .3 %0 %0 .3 %0 %0 .3 %-0 .8 %8 .3 %0 .5 %0 %0 %0 .6 %---0 .2 %0 .6 %0 %0 %0 .5 %-0 .5 % B ic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 0 1 -0 -1 1 0 0 2 -3 % B ic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %---0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % P e d e s tr ia n s -----10 9 ------3 -112 -----2 8 % P e d e s tr ia n s -----9 4 .0 %------10 0 %-9 2 .6 %-----9 3 .3 %- B ic yc le s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----7 ------0 -9 -----2 % B ic yc le s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----6 .0 %------0 %-7 .4 %-----6 .7 %- Le g I-5 SB Ram p s SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)I-5 SB O N Ra m p S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e R T L U App P e d *HR R T L U App Pe d *Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int *Pe d e s tr ians an d Bicy cle s o n Cr os s walk. HR : Har d r ig h t, L: Le ft, R: Rig ht, T : T hr u, U: U-T u r n 3 of 10 I-5 mp 2 0 6 .0 8 _S R5 3 1NB_Ramp s _2 0 16 -0 7 13 - T MC We d Jul 13 , 20 1 6 Fu ll Le n g t h (1 2AM-12 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Mo to r cycle s , Car s , Lig h t Go o d s Ve h icle s , S in g le -Un it T r u cks , Ar t icu late d T r u cks , Bu s e s , Pe de s tr ian s , Bicycle s on Ro ad , Bicy cle s o n Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e nts I D: 3 3 16 4 7, Locat io n: 4 8.15 2 38 2 , -12 2 .1 87 5 05 , S ite Cod e : 0 5 20 6 08 NB07 1 6 Le g I-5 NB O N Ra m p SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE)I-5 NB O FF Ra m p SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e Ap p P e d *T R U Ap p P e d *L T R HR App P e d *L T U Ap p Pe d *Int 2 0 16 -0 7 -13 12 :0 0 AM 0 0 19 10 0 2 9 0 2 4 0 1 3 2 5 7 1 5 2 9 0 3 4 0 12 0 12 :15 AM 0 0 15 10 0 2 5 0 13 1 2 3 3 4 9 0 5 15 0 2 0 0 9 4 12 :3 0 AM 0 1 19 12 0 3 1 0 3 0 2 16 2 1 0 6 12 0 18 0 7 0 12 :4 5 AM 0 0 11 3 0 14 0 8 0 2 2 5 3 5 0 2 15 0 17 0 6 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 6 4 3 5 0 9 9 0 4 8 1 7 10 6 16 2 1 18 7 1 0 8 9 0 3 5 0 1:0 0 AM 0 1 18 8 0 2 6 1 4 1 0 2 1 2 6 1 4 18 0 2 2 0 7 4 1:15 AM 0 1 18 9 0 2 7 1 10 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 8 0 10 0 6 7 1:3 0 AM 0 2 2 2 4 0 2 6 0 6 0 1 2 0 2 7 0 3 18 0 2 1 0 7 4 1:4 5 AM 0 0 15 9 0 2 4 0 4 2 1 12 19 0 0 11 0 11 0 5 4 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 4 7 3 3 0 0 10 3 2 2 4 3 2 7 3 10 2 2 9 5 5 0 6 4 0 2 6 9 2 :0 0 AM 0 0 16 7 0 2 3 0 11 0 0 14 2 5 0 3 5 0 8 0 5 6 2 :15 AM 0 0 17 5 0 2 2 0 7 0 0 12 19 0 1 8 0 9 0 5 0 2 :3 0 AM 0 1 2 3 6 0 2 9 1 4 0 0 10 14 1 1 11 0 12 0 5 5 2 :4 5 AM 0 0 3 3 12 0 4 5 0 9 0 0 16 2 5 0 2 10 0 12 0 8 2 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 8 9 3 0 0 119 1 3 1 0 0 5 2 8 3 1 7 3 4 0 4 1 0 2 4 3 3 :0 0 AM 0 1 4 0 3 0 4 3 0 6 0 1 10 17 0 3 6 0 9 0 6 9 3 :15 AM 0 0 3 3 2 1 3 6 0 3 0 0 12 15 0 3 7 0 10 0 6 1 3 :3 0 AM 0 0 4 2 10 0 5 2 0 4 0 0 13 17 0 2 2 2 0 2 4 0 9 3 3 :4 5 AM 0 0 4 4 8 0 5 2 0 7 0 1 13 2 1 0 3 16 0 19 0 9 2 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 15 9 2 3 1 18 3 0 2 0 0 2 4 8 7 0 0 11 5 1 0 6 2 0 3 15 4 :0 0 AM 0 0 7 8 6 0 8 4 0 6 0 0 15 2 1 0 3 11 0 14 0 119 4 :15 AM 0 0 10 2 5 0 10 7 0 4 0 1 18 2 3 0 2 2 3 0 2 5 0 15 5 4 :3 0 AM 0 0 10 7 9 0 116 0 3 0 0 16 19 1 3 5 2 0 5 5 0 19 0 4 :4 5 AM 0 1 12 0 15 0 13 5 0 3 0 0 2 8 3 1 0 6 6 9 0 7 5 0 2 4 1 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 4 0 7 3 5 0 4 4 2 0 16 0 1 7 7 9 4 1 14 15 5 0 16 9 0 7 0 5 5 :0 0 AM 0 1 12 5 18 0 14 3 0 15 0 0 3 1 4 6 0 5 5 2 0 5 7 0 2 4 6 5 :15 AM 0 1 15 5 3 4 0 18 9 0 9 0 0 5 9 6 8 0 9 6 0 0 6 9 0 3 2 6 5 :3 0 AM 0 2 15 7 4 5 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 9 4 114 0 9 117 0 12 6 0 4 4 2 5 :4 5 AM 0 1 19 5 3 8 0 2 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 9 9 13 2 0 10 13 0 0 14 0 0 5 0 5 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 5 6 3 2 13 5 0 7 6 7 0 7 7 0 0 2 8 3 3 6 0 0 3 3 3 5 9 0 3 9 2 0 15 19 6 :0 0 AM 0 1 16 9 2 7 0 19 6 0 2 0 0 1 7 5 9 6 0 12 8 0 0 9 2 0 3 8 4 6 :15 AM 0 0 18 7 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 9 2 12 3 0 13 8 9 0 10 2 0 4 4 5 6 :3 0 AM 0 0 19 7 4 8 0 2 4 5 0 5 1 0 1 10 3 15 5 0 2 8 12 0 0 14 8 0 5 4 8 6 :4 5 AM 0 0 18 8 5 5 0 2 4 3 0 6 0 0 0 9 4 15 4 0 17 13 1 0 14 8 0 5 4 5 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 7 4 1 16 3 0 9 0 4 0 16 2 0 2 3 6 4 5 2 8 0 7 0 4 2 0 0 4 9 0 0 19 2 2 7 :0 0 AM 0 1 2 11 5 7 0 2 6 8 0 4 8 1 0 8 0 12 9 0 2 8 12 3 0 15 1 0 5 4 8 7 :15 AM 0 3 2 5 2 5 3 0 3 0 5 0 3 6 0 2 9 7 13 5 1 2 4 113 0 13 7 0 5 7 7 7 :3 0 AM 0 1 2 2 6 6 6 0 2 9 2 0 6 1 1 2 13 3 19 7 0 2 7 13 6 0 16 3 0 6 5 2 7 :4 5 AM 0 2 2 0 3 6 9 0 2 7 2 0 4 8 0 2 15 3 2 0 3 2 2 4 17 5 0 19 9 0 6 7 4 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 7 8 9 2 2 4 5 0 113 7 0 19 3 2 6 4 6 3 6 6 4 3 10 3 5 4 7 0 6 5 0 0 2 4 5 1 8 :0 0 AM 0 0 16 9 7 2 0 2 4 1 0 3 5 0 0 118 15 3 2 2 7 13 4 0 16 1 0 5 5 5 8 :15 AM 0 0 2 0 2 6 0 0 2 6 2 0 5 6 1 2 111 17 0 1 18 15 7 0 17 5 0 6 0 7 8 :3 0 AM 0 0 2 0 5 5 4 0 2 5 9 0 4 8 0 0 12 9 17 7 1 2 2 14 1 0 16 3 0 5 9 9 8 :4 5 AM 0 1 2 0 4 5 2 0 2 5 6 0 5 0 0 1 13 1 18 2 0 2 9 16 9 0 19 8 0 6 3 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 7 8 0 2 3 8 0 10 18 0 18 9 1 3 4 8 9 6 8 2 4 9 6 6 0 1 0 6 9 7 0 2 3 9 7 9 :0 0 AM 0 2 2 0 1 4 9 0 2 5 0 0 5 0 0 2 9 4 14 6 2 18 12 4 0 14 2 0 5 3 8 9 :15 AM 0 0 2 0 1 6 7 0 2 6 8 0 7 1 0 2 9 6 16 9 0 2 8 15 1 0 17 9 0 6 16 9 :3 0 AM 0 1 2 14 6 5 0 2 7 9 0 5 8 0 3 9 2 15 3 0 4 1 15 6 0 19 7 0 6 2 9 9 :4 5 AM 0 2 2 0 8 6 4 0 2 7 2 0 5 8 0 2 12 2 18 2 4 3 1 15 6 0 18 7 0 6 4 1 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 5 8 2 4 2 4 5 0 10 6 9 0 2 3 7 0 9 4 0 4 6 5 0 6 118 5 8 7 0 7 0 5 0 2 4 2 4 10 :0 0 AM 0 0 2 3 3 6 6 0 2 9 9 0 7 2 0 2 10 7 18 1 0 3 1 16 4 0 19 5 0 6 7 5 10 :15 AM 0 0 2 5 7 8 3 0 3 4 0 0 6 4 2 2 10 5 17 3 0 3 5 15 8 0 19 3 0 7 0 6 10 :3 0 AM 0 0 2 12 7 0 0 2 8 2 0 8 9 0 2 118 2 0 9 3 4 3 18 7 0 2 3 0 0 7 2 1 10 :4 5 AM 0 2 2 4 3 7 1 0 3 14 0 10 5 0 5 14 2 2 5 2 6 5 8 19 1 0 2 4 9 0 8 15 1 of 10 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 2 9 4 5 2 9 0 0 12 3 5 0 3 3 0 2 11 4 7 2 8 15 9 16 7 7 0 0 0 8 6 7 0 2 9 17 11:0 0 AM 0 1 2 3 8 7 3 0 3 11 0 7 9 0 0 12 1 2 0 0 3 5 1 19 6 0 2 4 7 0 7 5 8 11:15 AM 0 3 2 8 7 8 6 0 3 7 3 0 9 2 0 0 119 2 11 6 5 2 19 8 0 2 5 0 0 8 3 4 11:3 0 AM 0 3 2 5 9 9 0 0 3 4 9 0 9 6 0 0 12 4 2 2 0 0 4 8 2 15 0 2 6 3 0 8 3 2 11:4 5 AM 0 1 2 6 5 9 8 0 3 6 3 0 10 1 0 0 12 7 2 2 8 3 7 5 2 13 0 2 8 8 0 8 7 9 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 8 10 4 9 3 4 7 0 13 9 6 0 3 6 8 0 0 4 9 1 8 5 9 12 2 2 6 8 2 2 0 10 4 8 0 3 3 0 3 12 :0 0 P M 0 1 2 8 4 9 2 0 3 7 6 0 7 9 0 4 12 9 2 12 4 5 8 2 2 4 0 2 8 2 0 8 7 0 12 :15 P M 0 0 3 2 8 9 4 0 4 2 2 0 12 0 0 4 13 0 2 5 4 1 6 9 2 0 2 0 2 7 1 0 9 4 7 12 :3 0 P M 0 1 2 9 8 8 9 0 3 8 7 0 8 6 0 3 12 6 2 15 0 5 9 2 17 0 2 7 6 0 8 7 8 12 :4 5 P M 0 1 3 12 8 4 0 3 9 6 0 12 5 0 16 16 4 3 0 5 0 4 1 2 5 4 0 2 9 5 0 9 9 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 3 12 2 2 3 5 9 0 15 8 1 0 4 10 0 2 7 5 4 9 9 8 6 5 2 2 7 8 9 7 0 112 4 0 3 6 9 1 1:0 0 P M 0 1 2 6 3 7 9 0 3 4 2 0 13 0 3 2 0 2 0 7 3 6 0 2 3 8 2 0 5 0 2 4 3 0 9 4 5 1:15 P M 0 0 2 5 9 5 7 0 3 16 0 13 0 5 2 4 19 5 3 5 4 1 3 5 2 9 5 0 3 3 0 0 10 0 0 1:3 0 P M 0 1 2 5 5 7 4 0 3 2 9 0 12 7 3 2 8 19 7 3 5 5 3 4 2 2 6 5 0 3 0 7 0 9 9 1 1:4 5 P M 0 0 2 7 2 6 7 0 3 3 9 0 13 8 1 11 2 18 3 6 8 0 4 9 2 0 8 0 2 5 7 0 9 6 4 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 2 10 4 9 2 7 7 0 13 2 6 0 5 2 5 12 8 3 8 17 14 3 7 6 16 4 9 7 3 0 113 7 0 3 9 0 0 2 :0 0 P M 0 3 2 8 1 7 8 0 3 5 9 0 10 1 0 4 14 9 2 5 4 4 5 7 18 7 0 2 4 4 0 8 5 7 2 :15 P M 0 1 2 6 1 7 3 0 3 3 4 0 13 2 0 4 18 6 3 2 2 0 5 8 18 0 0 2 3 8 0 8 9 4 2 :3 0 P M 0 0 2 5 4 9 5 0 3 4 9 0 113 0 6 19 5 3 14 2 7 2 19 1 0 2 6 3 0 9 2 6 2 :4 5 P M 0 0 2 5 0 10 0 0 3 5 0 0 12 9 0 0 16 9 2 9 8 2 8 2 2 7 8 0 3 6 0 0 10 0 8 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 4 10 4 6 3 4 6 0 13 9 2 0 4 7 5 0 14 6 9 9 118 8 8 2 6 9 8 3 6 0 110 5 0 3 6 8 5 3 :0 0 P M 0 4 2 8 5 114 0 3 9 9 2 14 8 0 5 17 7 3 3 0 1 6 3 2 0 3 0 2 6 6 0 9 9 5 3 :15 P M 0 0 2 6 8 10 1 0 3 6 9 0 15 2 0 9 19 5 3 5 6 1 6 5 2 13 0 2 7 8 0 10 0 3 3 :3 0 P M 0 2 2 7 4 9 6 0 3 7 0 2 14 2 0 7 2 18 3 6 7 7 7 3 18 7 1 2 6 1 0 9 9 8 3 :4 5 P M 0 0 2 8 5 118 0 4 0 3 0 14 2 1 4 17 7 3 2 4 2 7 8 2 11 0 2 8 9 0 10 16 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 6 1112 4 2 9 0 15 4 1 4 5 8 4 1 2 5 7 6 7 13 7 7 11 2 7 9 8 14 1 10 9 4 0 4 0 12 4 :0 0 P M 0 0 2 6 4 113 0 3 7 7 0 14 6 0 7 18 2 3 3 5 0 8 8 2 2 2 0 3 10 0 10 2 2 4 :15 P M 0 0 2 8 6 13 2 1 4 19 0 12 6 0 5 2 2 2 3 5 3 0 7 5 2 2 3 0 2 9 8 0 10 7 0 4 :3 0 P M 0 0 2 9 2 13 4 0 4 2 6 2 14 0 0 10 19 4 3 4 4 2 7 8 2 2 1 0 2 9 9 0 10 6 9 4 :4 5 P M 0 1 3 4 2 13 2 0 4 7 4 2 16 4 0 8 2 11 3 8 3 0 7 5 2 2 4 0 2 9 9 0 115 6 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 118 4 5 11 1 16 9 6 4 5 7 6 0 3 0 8 0 9 14 15 2 3 16 8 9 0 0 12 0 6 0 4 3 17 5 :0 0 P M 0 2 3 2 7 14 2 0 4 6 9 1 15 1 0 12 2 2 8 3 9 1 4 6 4 2 12 0 2 7 6 0 113 6 5 :15 P M 0 0 3 2 0 13 0 0 4 5 0 0 13 5 0 5 18 7 3 2 7 3 7 8 2 17 0 2 9 5 0 10 7 2 5 :3 0 P M 0 1 3 10 117 0 4 2 7 0 14 3 0 6 18 3 3 3 2 1 7 6 18 5 0 2 6 1 0 10 2 0 5 :4 5 P M 0 0 2 7 3 9 7 0 3 7 0 1 15 2 0 4 19 5 3 5 1 3 7 9 17 3 0 2 5 2 0 9 7 3 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 3 12 3 0 4 8 6 0 17 16 2 5 8 1 0 2 7 7 9 3 14 0 1 11 2 9 7 7 8 7 0 10 8 4 0 4 2 0 1 6 :0 0 P M 0 3 2 5 2 10 8 0 3 6 0 1 9 8 0 2 14 3 2 4 3 1 4 1 19 8 0 2 3 9 0 8 4 2 6 :15 P M 0 2 2 2 5 7 4 0 2 9 9 2 8 5 0 1 13 0 2 16 1 7 1 2 2 9 0 3 0 0 0 8 15 6 :3 0 P M 0 0 2 11 8 2 0 2 9 3 0 10 4 1 9 117 2 3 1 1 6 0 17 8 0 2 3 8 0 7 6 2 6 :4 5 P M 0 3 2 3 7 8 6 0 3 2 3 0 10 1 0 4 13 7 2 4 2 2 5 2 15 4 0 2 0 6 0 7 7 1 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 8 9 2 5 3 5 0 0 12 7 5 3 3 8 8 1 16 5 2 7 9 3 2 5 2 2 4 7 5 9 0 9 8 3 0 3 19 0 7 :0 0 P M 0 0 2 17 7 8 0 2 9 5 0 113 1 0 12 7 2 4 1 6 3 5 16 9 0 2 0 4 0 7 4 0 7 :15 P M 0 3 17 4 6 1 0 2 3 5 0 8 5 1 4 12 4 2 14 0 3 9 16 0 1 2 0 0 0 6 4 9 7 :3 0 P M 0 0 17 8 6 9 0 2 4 7 0 9 7 0 1 13 1 2 2 9 0 5 4 17 5 1 2 3 0 0 7 0 6 7 :4 5 P M 0 0 15 5 5 3 0 2 0 8 0 8 9 1 2 117 2 0 9 1 4 8 16 5 0 2 13 0 6 3 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 3 7 2 4 2 6 1 0 9 8 5 0 3 8 4 3 7 4 9 9 8 9 3 7 17 6 6 6 9 2 8 4 7 0 2 7 2 5 8 :0 0 P M 0 0 17 6 6 0 0 2 3 6 0 8 5 1 3 117 2 0 6 3 4 2 13 7 0 17 9 0 6 2 1 8 :15 P M 0 0 18 9 5 5 0 2 4 4 0 8 1 1 1 118 2 0 1 4 4 8 12 4 0 17 2 0 6 17 8 :3 0 P M 0 0 15 4 5 4 0 2 0 8 0 6 7 1 2 9 8 16 8 1 4 6 13 0 0 17 6 0 5 5 2 8 :4 5 P M 0 1 14 2 4 5 0 18 7 0 4 9 0 5 7 1 12 5 1 3 9 9 1 0 13 0 0 4 4 2 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 1 6 6 1 2 14 0 8 7 5 0 2 8 2 3 11 4 0 4 7 0 0 9 17 5 4 8 2 0 6 5 7 0 2 2 3 2 9 :0 0 P M 0 0 115 4 2 0 15 7 0 5 1 0 4 7 2 12 7 0 2 9 8 6 0 115 0 3 9 9 9 :15 P M 0 1 117 4 1 0 15 8 0 5 2 0 1 7 1 12 4 2 2 3 8 6 0 10 9 0 3 9 1 9 :3 0 P M 0 6 9 2 3 7 0 12 9 0 4 8 0 1 7 2 12 1 2 18 7 6 0 9 4 0 3 4 4 9 :4 5 P M 0 0 10 1 2 9 0 13 0 0 3 9 0 0 6 1 10 0 0 2 1 7 9 0 10 0 0 3 3 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 7 4 2 5 14 9 0 5 7 4 0 19 0 0 6 2 7 6 4 7 2 4 9 1 3 2 7 0 4 18 0 14 6 4 10 :0 0 P M 0 0 9 1 19 0 110 0 3 1 0 1 5 1 8 3 0 2 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 2 8 3 10 :15 P M 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 9 0 0 3 8 1 1 5 6 9 6 0 12 4 9 0 6 1 0 2 4 7 10 :3 0 P M 0 0 4 9 2 1 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 6 10 6 0 9 4 1 0 5 0 0 2 2 6 10 :4 5 P M 0 0 5 2 3 0 0 8 2 0 3 4 0 0 6 9 10 3 0 16 2 8 0 4 4 0 2 2 9 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 0 2 6 2 9 0 0 3 5 2 0 14 3 1 2 2 4 2 3 8 8 0 5 7 18 8 0 2 4 5 0 9 8 5 11:0 0 P M 0 0 4 5 18 0 6 3 0 3 2 0 1 5 4 8 7 2 4 3 2 0 3 6 0 18 6 Le g I-5 NB O N Ra m p SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE)I-5 NB O FF Ra m p SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e Ap p P e d *T R U Ap p P e d *L T R HR App P e d *L T U Ap p Pe d *Int 2 of 10 11:15 P M 0 0 3 3 17 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 1 6 1 8 5 0 12 3 1 0 4 3 0 17 8 11:3 0 P M 0 0 2 8 16 0 4 4 0 17 0 1 5 2 7 0 2 4 2 4 0 2 8 0 14 2 11:4 5 P M 0 0 2 1 11 0 3 2 0 18 0 0 3 6 5 4 0 5 2 0 0 2 5 0 111 Ho u r ly T o ta l 0 0 12 7 6 2 0 18 9 0 9 0 0 3 2 0 3 2 9 6 4 2 5 10 7 0 13 2 0 6 17 T o ta l 0 7 5 16 6 2 2 5 3 5 0 2 2 19 7 4 16 6 3 2 3 3 0 2 9 4 9 9 0 7 16 5 5 4 111 3 17 2 12 13 1 3 15 3 0 6 0 5 3 8 3 4 % App r o a c h --7 5 .6 %2 4 .3 %0 %--3 8 .2 %0 .2 %1.8 %5 9 .8 %--2 0 .7 %7 9 .3 %0 %--- % T o ta l 0 %-3 0 .9 %9 .9 %0 %4 0 .8 %-11.7 %0 .1%0 .5 %18 .4 %3 0 .8 %-5 .9 %2 2 .5 %0 %2 8 .4 %-- Mo to r c yc le s 0 -12 7 2 7 0 15 4 -3 3 0 0 8 6 119 -2 0 9 9 0 119 -3 9 2 % Mo to r c yc le s --0 .8 %0 .5 %0 %0 .7 %-0 .5 %0 %0 %0 .9 %0 .7 %-0 .6 %0 .8 %0 %0 .8 %-0 .7 % C a r s 0 -12 9 6 6 4 19 0 2 17 15 8 -5 13 8 2 0 2 3 3 7 8 0 3 13 19 4 -2 5 8 4 9 4 0 3 2 119 8 9 -4 2 3 4 1 % C a r s --7 8 .0 %7 8 .3 %10 0 %7 8 .1%-8 1.3 %6 6 .7 %7 9 .3 %7 8 .8 %7 9 .7 %-8 1.5 %7 7 .5 %6 6 .7 %7 8 .3 %-7 8 .7 % Lig h t Go o d s Ve hic le s 0 -2 8 9 6 8 3 3 0 3 7 2 9 -10 13 5 3 5 14 5 1 2 5 0 4 -4 6 8 2 2 7 7 1 2 7 4 6 -8 9 7 9 % Lig h t Go o d s Ve hic le s --17 .4 %15 .6 %0 %17 .0 %-16 .0 %16 .7 %11.9 %14 .6 %15 .1%-14 .8 %18 .8 %3 3 .3 %17 .9 %-16 .7 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 0 -3 7 0 18 9 0 5 5 9 -9 6 2 13 3 10 4 2 1 -8 1 2 3 4 0 3 15 -12 9 5 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks --2 .2 %3 .5 %0 %2 .5 %-1.5 %6 .7 %4 .4 %3 .1%2 .5 %-2 .6 %1.9 %0 %2 .1%-2 .4 % Ar tic u la te d T ruc ks 0 -2 13 10 9 0 3 2 2 -3 2 3 10 2 3 1 2 7 6 -19 8 9 0 10 8 -7 0 6 % Ar tic u la te d T ruc ks --1.3 %2 .0 %0 %1.5 %-0 .5 %10 .0 %3 .4 %2 .3 %1.7 %-0 .6 %0 .7 %0 %0 .7 %-1.3 % Bus e s 0 -4 9 2 0 5 1 -11 0 3 2 6 4 0 -0 2 5 0 2 5 -116 % Bus e s --0 .3 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 %0 %1.0 %0 .3 %0 .2 %-0 %0 .2 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 -1 0 0 1 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 4 0 4 -5 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d --0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % P e d e s tr ia n s 7 1 ---16 ----10 3 ---0 % P e d e s tr ia n s 9 4 .7 %---10 0 %----9 2 .8 %---- Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s wa lk 4 ---0 ----8 ---0 % Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s wa lk 5 .3 %---0 %----7 .2 %---- Le g I-5 NB O N Ra m p SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE)I-5 NB O FF Ra m p SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e Ap p P e d *T R U Ap p P e d *L T R HR App P e d *L T U Ap p Pe d *Int *Pe d e s tr ians an d Bicy cle s o n C r o s s walk. HR: Har d r ig h t, L: Le ft, R: Rig h t, T : T h r u , U: U-T u r n 3 of 10 S R5 3 1mp 6 .6 3_S mo ke y_Po int _Blvd _2 0 19 -07 2 3 - T MC T u e Jul 2 3, 20 1 9 Fu ll Le n g th (12 AM-1 2 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Motorcy cle s , Lig hts , S ing le -Un it T r ucks , Ar ticu late d T rucks , Bus e s , Pe de s tr ians , Pe d e s trian s , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicycle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo ve m e nts I D: 68 0 546, Locatio n : 4 8 .1 5245, -122 .1 82971 , S ite Cod e : 5 3 1006 6 3_071 9 Pr o v id e d by: Was h in g ton S tate DO T 15700 Day ton Av e Nor th, MS -120 , P.O . Box 33 0310, S e attle , WA, 9 8133, US Le g Sm o ke y Po in t Blvd SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)S m o ke y P o in t Blvd SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p Pe d *Int 2 0 19 -0 7 -2 3 12 :0 0 AM 3 2 3 0 8 0 0 16 2 0 18 6 6 3 11 0 2 0 0 5 3 2 16 1 5 4 0 10 0 12 :15 AM 3 3 5 0 11 0 6 19 2 0 2 7 0 3 6 16 0 2 5 0 3 2 8 9 4 4 4 0 10 7 12 :3 0 AM 3 3 1 0 7 0 2 12 2 1 17 1 2 3 14 0 19 0 6 14 7 1 2 8 0 7 1 12 :4 5 AM 4 1 3 0 8 2 2 11 1 0 14 0 1 5 5 0 11 0 7 2 1 9 0 3 7 0 7 0 Ho u rly T o tal 13 9 12 0 3 4 2 10 5 8 7 1 7 6 7 12 17 4 6 0 7 5 0 2 1 9 5 4 1 6 16 3 0 3 4 8 1:0 0 AM 9 0 4 0 13 0 3 16 3 0 2 2 0 1 4 5 0 10 0 10 17 17 1 4 5 0 9 0 1:15 AM 7 1 3 0 11 1 1 9 5 0 15 2 1 5 5 0 11 1 6 14 4 0 2 4 1 6 1 1:3 0 AM 6 3 8 0 17 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 1 2 10 0 13 0 11 10 8 0 2 9 0 6 6 1:4 5 AM 4 1 2 0 7 0 0 15 2 0 17 1 1 3 3 0 7 2 3 19 5 1 2 8 0 5 9 Ho u rly T o tal 2 6 5 17 0 4 8 1 4 4 7 10 0 6 1 3 4 14 2 3 0 4 1 3 3 0 6 0 3 4 2 12 6 1 2 7 6 2 :0 0 AM 2 2 2 0 6 1 1 10 0 0 11 0 2 3 12 0 17 0 1 12 8 0 2 1 2 5 5 2 :15 AM 5 3 3 0 11 2 1 14 2 0 17 2 4 2 4 0 10 0 3 9 1 1 14 0 5 2 2 :3 0 AM 4 1 5 0 10 0 1 13 0 1 15 0 2 4 6 0 12 2 5 9 9 1 2 4 0 6 1 2 :4 5 AM 6 1 2 0 9 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 2 2 10 0 14 0 6 8 6 0 2 0 0 6 1 Ho u rly T o tal 17 7 12 0 3 6 3 3 5 5 2 1 6 1 2 10 11 3 2 0 5 3 2 15 3 8 2 4 2 7 9 2 2 2 9 3 :0 0 AM 4 1 1 0 6 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 6 0 2 2 7 0 11 2 9 13 2 2 2 6 2 6 9 3 :15 AM 11 3 2 0 16 0 0 2 6 1 0 2 7 0 1 3 5 0 9 0 9 17 4 1 3 1 0 8 3 3 :3 0 AM 8 3 7 0 18 0 0 2 9 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 13 0 16 0 6 2 6 9 0 4 1 0 10 5 3 :4 5 AM 17 7 3 0 2 7 0 0 4 1 2 1 4 4 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 17 3 7 3 0 5 7 0 13 6 Ho u rly T o tal 4 0 14 13 0 6 7 0 0 118 8 1 12 7 0 6 6 3 2 0 4 4 2 4 1 9 3 18 3 15 5 2 3 9 3 4 :0 0 AM 3 4 6 3 0 4 3 0 1 4 9 2 0 5 2 0 4 2 2 4 0 3 0 1 9 10 11 0 3 0 0 15 5 4 :15 AM 3 4 2 2 0 3 8 1 2 7 1 13 0 8 6 1 6 2 13 0 2 1 0 12 3 0 4 1 4 7 0 19 2 4 :3 0 AM 4 3 7 8 0 5 8 0 3 7 3 3 2 8 1 0 5 3 19 0 2 7 0 2 2 4 5 16 2 8 5 0 2 5 1 4 :4 5 AM 4 6 10 4 0 6 0 1 2 9 0 10 0 10 2 1 11 7 2 7 0 4 5 0 3 1 9 8 2 0 5 15 4 0 3 6 1 Ho u rly T o tal 15 7 2 5 17 0 19 9 2 8 2 8 3 2 8 2 3 2 1 2 2 6 14 8 3 0 12 3 1 7 4 18 3 5 1 8 3 16 0 9 5 9 5 :0 0 AM 5 8 12 7 0 7 7 0 2 9 6 3 0 10 1 0 2 9 2 5 0 3 6 0 2 9 6 8 11 0 10 8 1 3 2 2 5 :15 AM 5 2 2 1 2 0 7 5 0 3 10 4 5 1 113 0 4 10 3 5 0 4 9 0 2 8 8 5 15 2 13 0 0 3 6 7 5 :3 0 AM 5 0 2 2 6 0 7 8 0 0 9 2 9 2 10 3 0 16 10 3 6 0 6 2 0 5 1 15 8 2 0 1 2 3 0 1 4 7 3 5 :4 5 AM 6 8 2 5 12 0 10 5 1 3 8 6 7 0 9 6 3 12 9 3 2 0 5 3 0 6 1 16 1 2 4 3 2 4 9 0 5 0 3 Ho u rly T o tal 2 2 8 8 0 2 7 0 3 3 5 1 8 3 7 8 2 4 3 4 13 3 3 4 3 8 12 8 0 2 0 0 0 16 9 4 7 2 7 0 6 7 17 2 16 6 5 6 :0 0 AM 5 6 2 5 19 0 10 0 0 7 12 1 8 0 13 6 2 14 4 3 8 0 5 6 0 3 7 10 1 2 0 2 16 0 0 4 5 2 6 :15 AM 6 6 2 8 16 0 110 0 8 13 5 2 1 2 16 6 0 11 2 0 4 5 0 7 6 0 6 0 13 2 3 6 2 2 3 0 0 5 8 2 6 :3 0 AM 7 3 3 1 19 0 12 3 0 2 15 0 19 3 17 4 1 15 18 3 8 0 7 1 2 7 1 12 5 5 0 2 2 4 8 1 6 16 6 :4 5 AM 3 3 3 2 2 4 0 8 9 2 13 113 3 2 1 15 9 3 16 2 4 4 9 0 8 9 0 8 7 13 2 4 8 3 2 7 0 0 6 0 7 Ho u rly T o tal 2 2 8 116 7 8 0 4 2 2 2 3 0 5 19 8 0 6 6 3 5 6 5 6 6 6 17 0 0 2 9 2 2 2 5 5 4 9 0 15 4 9 9 0 8 1 2 2 5 7 7 :0 0 AM 5 6 3 9 11 0 10 6 0 6 12 5 2 5 0 15 6 3 11 17 6 4 0 9 2 1 6 0 10 4 3 2 2 19 8 0 5 5 2 7 :15 AM 6 7 5 1 2 1 0 13 9 3 6 14 6 2 7 4 18 3 1 2 5 2 8 5 2 0 10 5 2 9 7 14 0 3 4 6 2 7 7 1 7 0 4 7 :3 0 AM 6 9 4 4 18 0 13 1 0 13 14 3 4 2 1 19 9 3 2 5 3 2 6 3 0 12 0 1 7 3 13 4 4 2 2 2 5 1 0 7 0 1 7 :4 5 AM 4 6 4 7 2 4 0 117 0 12 12 2 3 5 3 17 2 1 19 2 4 5 5 0 9 8 2 10 3 16 7 4 2 6 3 18 1 7 0 5 Ho u rly T o tal 2 3 8 18 1 7 4 0 4 9 3 3 3 7 5 3 6 12 9 8 7 10 8 8 0 10 1 2 3 4 0 4 15 6 3 3 3 5 4 5 15 0 16 10 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 :0 0 AM 5 6 3 4 19 0 10 9 1 8 13 3 2 6 1 16 8 2 2 9 3 0 5 1 0 110 1 7 6 14 3 4 7 9 2 7 5 0 6 6 2 8 :15 AM 3 8 3 9 2 4 0 10 1 3 10 12 7 4 0 2 17 9 4 2 2 19 6 1 0 10 2 1 7 3 13 9 3 0 6 2 4 8 0 6 3 0 8 :3 0 AM 6 9 4 3 2 7 0 13 9 1 11 14 3 3 7 3 19 4 4 3 1 4 3 8 5 0 15 9 0 6 9 112 3 7 9 2 2 7 2 7 19 8 :4 5 AM 4 5 6 6 2 0 0 13 1 1 17 13 8 5 8 2 2 15 2 3 4 4 2 7 0 0 14 6 1 8 2 14 4 4 4 7 2 7 7 3 7 6 9 Ho u rly T o tal 2 0 8 18 2 9 0 0 4 8 0 6 4 6 5 4 1 16 1 8 7 5 6 12 116 13 4 2 6 7 0 5 17 3 3 0 0 5 3 8 15 8 3 1 10 2 7 5 2 7 8 0 9 :0 0 AM 3 7 5 7 4 7 0 14 1 0 17 10 5 4 0 1 16 3 6 3 7 5 5 10 0 0 19 2 0 6 5 10 9 6 5 8 2 4 7 2 7 4 3 9 :15 AM 6 0 5 6 2 3 0 13 9 2 14 13 9 3 9 0 19 2 1 3 9 5 5 6 4 0 15 8 2 7 2 10 9 5 3 6 2 4 0 3 7 2 9 9 :3 0 AM 4 9 4 8 17 0 114 7 2 3 17 4 4 5 1 2 4 3 3 3 9 4 7 9 1 0 17 7 0 6 0 14 8 4 6 12 2 6 6 2 8 0 0 9 :4 5 AM 5 2 5 6 2 2 0 13 0 2 2 0 13 7 4 7 1 2 0 5 6 4 1 5 1 9 2 0 18 4 0 7 6 12 7 6 3 13 2 7 9 2 7 9 8 Ho u rly T o tal 19 8 2 17 10 9 0 5 2 4 11 7 4 5 5 5 17 1 3 8 0 3 16 15 6 2 0 8 3 4 7 0 7 11 2 2 7 3 4 9 3 2 2 7 3 9 10 3 2 9 3 0 7 0 10 :0 0 AM 4 4 3 9 3 8 0 12 1 3 3 1 16 6 3 6 0 2 3 3 5 3 2 3 8 8 6 0 15 6 1 4 6 12 2 5 4 11 2 3 3 2 7 4 3 10 :15 AM 5 3 4 8 3 3 0 13 4 2 19 14 1 4 0 4 2 0 4 1 4 9 7 2 13 3 0 2 5 4 4 7 9 15 1 4 3 9 2 8 2 3 8 7 4 10 :3 0 AM 4 1 6 8 3 9 0 14 8 2 19 14 8 4 5 3 2 15 6 4 8 4 9 10 4 0 2 0 1 3 7 0 17 1 6 0 12 3 13 3 8 7 7 10 :4 5 AM 4 6 5 0 3 2 0 12 8 0 2 0 16 0 6 2 1 2 4 3 2 4 0 5 9 12 1 0 2 2 0 1 8 1 14 6 5 4 8 2 8 9 1 8 8 0 Ho u rly T o tal 18 4 2 0 5 14 2 0 5 3 1 7 8 9 6 15 18 3 8 8 9 5 14 16 9 2 18 4 4 4 0 8 3 1 9 2 7 6 5 9 0 2 11 4 0 1117 9 3 3 7 4 11:0 0 AM 5 3 5 1 2 9 0 13 3 3 15 15 7 6 6 1 2 3 9 7 3 5 5 4 9 8 0 18 7 0 7 0 12 4 4 8 9 2 5 1 4 8 10 11:15 AM 4 8 5 9 4 3 0 15 0 1 2 6 15 6 4 8 2 2 3 2 1 5 1 6 7 112 0 2 3 0 3 6 5 19 0 5 3 18 3 2 6 6 9 3 8 11:3 0 AM 4 7 5 5 2 7 0 12 9 1 17 17 2 5 2 3 2 4 4 7 5 6 6 1 10 9 0 2 2 6 2 6 3 17 9 6 8 10 3 2 0 6 9 19 11:4 5 AM 5 6 6 7 3 4 0 15 7 1 2 1 18 2 5 1 0 2 5 4 2 5 9 6 2 116 0 2 3 7 0 7 6 2 2 0 5 5 6 3 5 7 1 10 0 5 Ho u rly T o tal 2 0 4 2 3 2 13 3 0 5 6 9 6 7 9 6 6 7 2 17 6 9 6 9 17 2 0 1 2 4 4 4 3 5 0 8 8 0 5 2 7 4 7 13 2 2 4 4 3 12 5 4 17 3 6 7 2 12 :0 0 PM 6 8 5 3 5 0 0 17 1 1 3 1 14 6 5 8 1 2 3 6 6 5 5 6 5 119 0 2 3 9 5 7 6 15 9 5 9 9 3 0 3 5 9 4 9 12 :15 PM 4 6 6 2 4 7 0 15 5 0 2 6 17 8 6 8 0 2 7 2 0 6 2 7 2 10 8 0 2 4 2 2 6 9 19 0 6 4 14 3 3 7 8 10 0 6 12 :3 0 PM 3 9 6 6 4 4 0 14 9 3 2 5 17 8 6 5 1 2 6 9 4 4 4 8 5 13 5 0 2 6 4 0 8 3 18 4 6 7 11 3 4 5 4 10 2 7 12 :4 5 PM 5 5 6 2 4 1 0 15 8 6 2 6 16 8 5 4 2 2 5 0 3 7 0 7 3 114 0 2 5 7 1 8 1 18 6 6 0 15 3 4 2 9 10 0 7 Ho u rly T o tal 2 0 8 2 4 3 18 2 0 6 3 3 10 10 8 6 7 0 2 4 5 4 10 2 7 13 2 3 1 2 9 5 4 7 6 0 10 0 2 8 3 0 9 7 19 2 5 0 4 9 13 2 7 2 6 3 9 8 9 1:0 0 PM 4 5 9 1 3 9 0 17 5 4 2 7 2 0 1 6 2 1 2 9 1 1 5 8 7 4 14 1 0 2 7 3 3 9 3 18 0 6 0 18 3 5 1 2 10 9 0 1:15 PM 5 9 6 7 2 7 0 15 3 4 2 6 17 3 6 0 1 2 6 0 4 5 9 7 7 115 0 2 5 1 3 8 4 18 2 7 3 7 3 4 6 1 10 10 1:3 0 PM 7 2 7 8 3 1 0 18 1 1 2 5 16 9 5 5 1 2 5 0 3 5 1 8 9 118 0 2 5 8 0 8 4 2 0 2 6 9 18 3 7 3 3 10 6 2 1:4 5 PM 4 4 6 0 2 7 0 13 1 2 2 6 19 5 6 7 0 2 8 8 10 6 0 8 1 10 7 0 2 4 8 1 8 7 19 0 6 8 18 3 6 3 6 10 3 0 Ho u rly T o tal 2 2 0 2 9 6 12 4 0 6 4 0 11 10 4 7 3 8 2 4 4 3 10 8 9 18 2 2 8 3 2 1 4 8 1 0 10 3 0 7 3 4 8 7 5 4 2 7 0 6 1 14 3 3 12 4 19 2 2 :0 0 PM 6 2 5 2 3 9 0 15 3 6 2 4 12 1 4 5 3 19 3 5 4 4 6 8 12 0 0 2 3 2 1 7 2 18 4 8 2 13 3 5 1 1 9 2 9 2 :15 PM 5 6 5 3 2 9 0 13 8 4 19 17 5 6 2 4 2 6 0 13 5 1 7 0 114 0 2 3 5 1 8 4 18 3 8 2 13 3 6 2 4 9 9 5 2 :3 0 PM 7 4 5 2 5 5 0 18 1 3 2 9 16 6 3 3 1 2 2 9 4 5 1 8 9 14 3 0 2 8 3 2 6 8 2 2 8 6 5 15 3 7 6 5 10 6 9 2 :4 5 PM 6 1 7 0 3 5 0 16 6 1 15 19 8 7 1 1 2 8 5 4 4 9 9 6 12 8 0 2 7 3 3 9 4 18 8 9 8 2 1 4 0 1 4 112 5 1 of 9 Ho u rly T o tal 2 5 3 2 2 7 15 8 0 6 3 8 14 8 7 6 6 0 2 11 9 9 6 7 2 6 19 5 3 2 3 5 0 5 0 10 2 3 7 3 18 7 8 3 3 2 7 6 2 14 9 0 14 4 118 3 :0 0 PM 7 5 7 0 4 7 0 19 2 1 17 13 4 5 1 1 2 0 3 5 7 0 118 13 6 0 3 2 4 1 8 9 17 1 8 2 10 3 5 2 1 10 7 1 3 :15 PM 7 0 5 6 3 5 0 16 1 3 18 18 4 5 1 1 2 5 4 1 4 6 8 7 118 0 2 5 1 0 8 3 2 2 1 9 2 19 4 15 1 10 8 1 3 :3 0 PM 7 5 6 6 3 4 1 17 6 3 3 3 17 5 6 0 0 2 6 8 6 4 8 116 12 8 0 2 9 2 1 8 9 18 3 6 7 16 3 5 5 2 10 9 1 3 :4 5 PM 7 6 5 2 4 3 0 17 1 3 3 3 2 16 5 3 0 3 0 2 7 5 2 10 2 13 2 0 2 8 6 0 8 8 19 8 8 5 19 3 9 0 4 114 9 Ho u rly T o tal 2 9 6 2 4 4 15 9 1 7 0 0 10 10 1 7 0 9 2 15 2 10 2 7 19 2 16 4 2 3 5 14 0 115 3 2 3 4 9 7 7 3 3 2 6 6 4 15 12 8 4 3 9 2 4 :0 0 PM 6 4 6 6 2 2 0 15 2 2 2 3 2 15 5 4 1 2 9 3 5 4 9 111 12 9 0 2 8 9 1 6 8 16 3 8 4 2 1 3 3 6 2 10 7 0 4 :15 PM 5 3 4 2 3 8 0 13 3 5 2 7 18 0 4 7 1 2 5 5 3 4 9 9 9 13 3 0 2 8 1 0 9 6 18 6 9 6 14 3 9 2 2 10 6 1 4 :3 0 PM 6 1 7 0 2 9 0 16 0 0 2 3 19 1 4 2 0 2 5 6 8 4 8 10 9 12 4 0 2 8 1 1 9 6 15 9 9 2 17 3 6 4 1 10 6 1 4 :4 5 PM 7 4 7 0 3 5 0 17 9 1 3 5 2 16 5 3 0 3 0 4 5 4 7 9 5 16 2 0 3 0 4 0 8 3 17 5 9 1 13 3 6 2 0 114 9 Ho u rly T o tal 2 5 2 2 4 8 12 4 0 6 2 4 8 10 8 8 0 2 19 6 2 110 8 2 1 19 3 4 14 5 4 8 0 115 5 2 3 4 3 6 8 3 3 6 3 6 5 14 5 4 5 4 3 4 1 5 :0 0 PM 7 0 5 0 3 9 0 15 9 1 2 6 2 18 4 0 0 2 8 4 1 5 7 10 7 13 6 0 3 0 0 1 7 3 18 6 8 6 11 3 5 6 1 10 9 9 5 :15 PM 7 6 4 5 2 9 0 15 0 1 2 4 2 2 5 3 8 0 2 8 7 0 4 8 9 6 12 7 0 2 7 1 3 6 8 2 18 10 4 16 4 0 6 4 1114 5 :3 0 PM 8 6 5 8 4 4 0 18 8 1 17 17 7 3 6 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 115 13 4 0 3 16 3 7 2 15 9 8 7 16 3 3 4 4 10 6 9 5 :4 5 PM 5 8 3 3 3 0 0 12 1 1 2 1 18 6 4 3 0 2 5 0 18 3 7 9 7 111 0 2 4 5 3 7 7 19 8 9 1 17 3 8 3 6 9 9 9 Ho u rly T o tal 2 9 0 18 6 14 2 0 6 18 4 8 8 8 0 6 15 7 1 10 5 2 2 4 2 0 9 4 15 5 0 8 0 113 2 10 2 9 0 7 6 1 3 6 8 6 0 14 7 9 15 4 2 8 1 6 :0 0 PM 5 1 5 0 3 4 0 13 5 2 2 3 13 3 3 8 1 19 5 5 5 3 9 5 14 4 0 2 9 2 1 6 2 17 7 8 2 19 3 4 0 2 9 6 2 6 :15 PM 3 4 4 4 3 4 0 112 1 14 13 1 3 9 1 18 5 6 3 8 7 9 12 2 0 2 3 9 0 6 5 19 1 9 6 14 3 6 6 1 9 0 2 6 :3 0 PM 5 7 3 2 2 9 0 118 0 3 4 15 1 3 3 2 2 2 0 8 2 8 6 9 9 9 0 19 6 1 5 8 16 4 6 9 17 3 0 8 5 8 4 2 6 :4 5 PM 4 6 2 9 2 4 0 9 9 2 18 14 0 2 6 2 18 6 3 3 2 5 1 10 4 0 18 7 0 5 2 14 6 6 3 5 2 6 6 0 7 3 8 Ho u rly T o tal 18 8 15 5 12 1 0 4 6 4 5 8 9 5 5 5 13 6 6 7 8 6 2 2 15 1 2 9 4 4 6 9 0 9 14 2 2 3 7 6 7 8 3 10 5 5 12 8 0 8 3 4 4 4 7 :0 0 PM 18 2 5 2 6 0 6 9 1 16 116 2 8 1 16 1 1 3 4 4 4 9 8 0 17 6 2 4 5 12 4 7 4 5 2 4 8 7 6 5 4 7 :15 PM 4 1 2 6 19 0 8 6 5 15 10 3 2 7 0 14 5 2 3 2 4 1 8 0 0 15 3 0 4 0 13 4 6 4 4 2 4 2 2 6 2 6 7 :3 0 PM 2 7 2 4 2 5 0 7 6 1 11 9 5 13 1 12 0 2 2 5 3 7 7 9 0 14 1 1 3 1 12 6 5 1 13 2 2 1 3 5 5 8 7 :4 5 PM 3 4 2 8 2 6 0 8 8 3 15 8 7 2 2 2 12 6 6 2 8 4 1 6 0 0 12 9 0 3 7 10 2 5 4 12 2 0 5 3 5 4 8 Ho u rly T o tal 12 0 10 3 9 6 0 3 19 10 5 7 4 0 1 9 0 4 5 5 2 11 119 16 3 3 17 0 5 9 9 3 15 3 4 8 6 2 4 3 3 4 9 16 15 2 3 8 6 8 :0 0 PM 3 7 2 9 2 1 0 8 7 0 13 8 1 2 1 1 116 3 2 4 4 5 6 2 0 13 1 2 3 5 10 5 5 5 4 19 9 0 5 3 3 8 :15 PM 3 4 3 0 2 4 0 8 8 3 11 6 1 2 1 1 9 4 4 2 5 4 6 6 7 0 13 8 1 2 8 13 0 6 4 15 2 3 7 2 5 5 7 8 :3 0 PM 3 0 2 4 2 3 0 7 7 1 5 6 3 16 0 8 4 6 2 4 3 7 5 0 0 111 2 4 3 8 0 5 0 10 18 3 6 4 5 5 8 :4 5 PM 2 8 2 2 15 0 6 5 1 14 6 5 12 0 9 1 3 2 0 3 1 4 2 0 9 3 2 4 5 10 2 5 5 5 2 0 7 1 4 5 6 Ho u rly T o tal 12 9 10 5 8 3 0 3 17 5 4 3 2 7 0 7 0 2 3 8 5 16 9 3 15 9 2 2 1 0 4 7 3 7 15 1 4 17 2 2 4 3 4 8 2 6 9 2 0 0 1 9 :0 0 PM 2 0 10 13 0 4 3 2 4 5 8 16 1 7 9 2 13 2 6 5 6 0 9 5 0 2 7 7 4 4 1 8 15 0 3 3 6 7 9 :15 PM 18 18 17 0 5 3 1 8 7 1 12 2 9 3 3 11 2 6 4 0 0 7 7 1 2 1 6 7 5 1 6 14 5 4 3 6 8 9 :3 0 PM 2 5 16 16 0 5 7 0 1 4 4 16 3 6 4 1 2 1 15 3 2 0 6 8 0 15 8 1 3 5 7 13 8 0 3 2 7 9 :4 5 PM 13 11 6 0 3 0 2 7 4 4 8 4 6 3 2 9 18 3 3 0 6 0 2 16 7 4 3 3 3 12 6 2 2 7 9 Ho u rly T o tal 7 6 5 5 5 2 0 18 3 5 2 0 2 17 5 2 10 2 9 9 8 5 4 8 5 16 1 0 3 0 0 3 7 9 2 9 6 16 0 2 4 5 5 9 9 13 4 1 10 :0 0 PM 16 10 5 0 3 1 2 5 4 5 9 1 6 0 3 7 11 2 7 0 4 5 0 2 3 4 6 3 4 4 10 7 0 2 4 3 10 :15 PM 16 8 5 0 2 9 0 5 3 2 9 2 4 8 0 6 12 17 0 3 5 0 11 4 4 3 1 4 9 0 2 2 0 2 10 :3 0 PM 10 3 6 0 19 0 3 4 0 7 0 5 0 1 3 12 2 2 0 3 7 0 9 4 7 2 9 1 8 6 2 19 2 10 :4 5 PM 7 5 6 0 18 0 4 16 2 0 2 2 2 3 6 2 3 0 3 2 1 2 0 4 9 2 9 1 9 9 0 17 1 Ho u rly T o tal 4 9 2 6 2 2 0 9 7 2 17 13 3 2 7 3 18 0 6 19 4 1 8 9 0 14 9 1 6 3 18 6 12 3 10 3 8 2 4 8 0 8 11:0 0 PM 8 6 3 0 17 0 2 17 2 1 2 2 6 10 10 2 3 0 4 3 4 11 5 4 15 1 8 1 1 16 3 11:15 PM 9 1 1 0 11 5 2 3 0 2 1 3 5 1 3 9 17 0 2 9 1 7 3 6 15 3 6 1 1 13 6 11:3 0 PM 6 2 3 0 11 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 6 5 6 4 18 0 2 8 0 9 3 3 2 1 1 6 4 1 12 9 11:4 5 PM 5 1 3 0 9 0 1 17 3 1 2 2 1 2 10 4 0 16 0 7 3 2 18 3 6 0 0 10 7 Ho u rly T o tal 2 8 10 10 0 4 8 5 7 8 6 9 3 10 5 13 2 1 3 3 6 2 0 116 5 3 4 15 5 6 9 8 2 6 6 3 5 3 5 T o ta l 3 8 5 0 3 17 1 19 9 7 1 9 0 19 13 3 12 17 10 4 19 2 6 7 2 9 6 14 4 0 4 2 8 7 2 5 9 9 4 0 3 7 6 5 9 2 0 13 2 2 8 9 2 4 7 3 5 110 0 1 4 3 9 5 7 3 1 2 0 8 6 2 17 8 5 7 5 13 % Appr o a c h 4 2 .7 %3 5 .2 %2 2 .1%0 %--8 .4 %7 2 .3 %18 .6 %0 .7 %--19 .6 %3 0 .5 %4 9 .8 %0 %--2 2 .7 %5 2 .7 %2 1.1%3 .5 %--- % T o ta l 6 .7 %5 .5 %3 .5 %0 %15 .7 %-2 .1%18 .1%4 .6 %0 .2 %2 5 .0 %-4 .5 %7 .0 %11.5 %0 %2 3 .0 %-8 .2 %19 .1%7 .6 %1.3 %3 6 .3 %-- Mo to rc yc le s 2 2 3 5 8 0 6 5 -4 3 8 18 0 6 0 -2 6 3 6 4 8 0 110 -3 1 4 9 18 2 10 0 -3 3 5 % Mo to rc yc le s 0 .6 %1.1%0 .4 %0 %0 .7 %-0 .3 %0 .4 %0 .7 %0 %0 .4 %-1.0 %0 .9 %0 .7 %0 %0 .8 %-0 .7 %0 .4 %0 .4 %0 .3 %0 .5 %-0 .6 % Lig hts 3 7 0 0 2 9 8 3 19 5 4 1 8 6 3 8 -119 5 9 6 5 3 2 4 8 7 9 6 13 4 3 1 -2 4 4 4 3 8 2 5 6 16 4 0 12 4 3 3 -4 4 0 6 10 2 9 4 4 2 4 7 7 2 6 19 6 7 3 -5 4 17 5 % Lig hts 9 6 .1%9 4 .1%9 7 .8 %10 0 %9 5 .8 %-9 8 .2 %9 2 .6 %9 3 .1%10 0 %9 3 .2 %-9 4 .0 %9 4 .7 %9 3 .5 %0 %9 4 .0 %-9 3 .1%9 3 .6 %9 6 .6 %9 9 .3 %9 4 .3 %-9 4 .2 % S ing le -Unit T r uc ks 4 3 6 4 2 5 0 13 2 -11 4 0 4 7 7 0 4 9 2 -8 3 6 1 19 8 0 3 4 2 -16 8 3 7 9 5 0 3 6 0 0 -15 6 6 % S ing le -Unit T r uc ks 1.1%2 .0 %1.3 %0 %1.5 %-0 .9 %3 .9 %2 .9 %0 %3 .4 %-3 .2 %1.5 %3 .0 %0 %2 .6 %-3 .5 %3 .4 %1.1%0 .4 %2 .9 %-2 .7 % Artic u la te d T r uc ks 12 2 5 5 0 4 2 -3 2 9 6 8 7 0 3 8 6 -4 5 4 9 16 5 0 2 5 9 -12 2 2 6 2 7 0 3 9 1 -10 7 8 % Artic u la te d T r uc ks 0 .3 %0 .8 %0 .3 %0 %0 .5 %-0 .2 %2 .8 %3 .3 %0 %2 .7 %-1.7 %1.2 %2 .5 %0 %2 .0 %-2 .6 %2 .4 %0 .2 %0 %1.9 %-1.9 % Bus e s 7 3 6 3 1 0 13 7 -2 2 5 3 0 3 0 -0 6 3 14 0 7 7 -8 14 7 3 0 9 5 -3 3 9 % Bus e s 1.9 %2 .0 %0 .1%0 %1.5 %-0 .2 %0 .2 %0 .1%0 %0 .2 %-0 %1.6 %0 .2 %0 %0 .6 %-0 .2 %0 .1%1.7 %0 %0 .5 %-0 .6 % P e de s tria ns 0 0 0 0 0 -0 1 0 0 1 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 -1 % P e de s tria ns 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 1 4 0 5 -2 2 0 0 4 -1 3 3 0 7 -0 3 0 0 3 -19 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 .2 %0 %0 .1%-0 .2 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % Pe d e s tr ian s -----13 0 -----2 6 5 -----8 6 -----17 1 % Pe d e s tr ian s -----9 7 .7 %-----9 2 .3 %-----9 3 .5 %-----9 6 .1%- Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s walk -----3 -----2 2 -----6 -----7 % Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s walk -----2 .3 %-----7 .7 %-----6 .5 %-----3 .9 %- Le g Sm o ke y Po in t Blvd SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)S m o ke y P o in t Blvd SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p Pe d *Int *Pe d e s trian s an d Bicycle s on Cr os s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig ht, T : T h r u , U: U-T ur n 2 of 9 S R5 31mp 6 .9 2 _4 0 t h_Ave _NE_2 0 19 -0 7 2 3 - T MC T ue Ju l 23, 2019 Fu ll Le ng th (1 2 AM-12 AM (+1)) All Clas s e s (Motor cy cle s , Lig h ts , S ing le -Unit T r ucks , Articulat e d T rucks , Bu s e s , Pe d e s tr ian s , Pe de s tr ians , Bicy cle s on Road , Bicy cle s on Cr os s walk) All Mov e m e nts I D: 680545 , Lo catio n : 48.152363, -1 2 2 .17 6 6 , S ite Code : 5 3100692_0719 Prov ide d by: Was h ing ton S tate DO T 15700 Day ton Ave Nor th, MS -1 2 0 , P.O . Box 330310, S e attle , WA, 9 8 1 3 3 , US Le g 4 0 th Ave NE (No t o p e n ye t)SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)4 0 th Ave NE (Bu s in e s s e s )SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ir e ctio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int 2 0 19 -0 7 -2 3 12 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 4 8 12 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 4 0 4 7 12 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 9 12 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 11 0 12 0 6 9 4 0 0 10 0 0 17 2 1:0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 17 0 0 17 0 3 3 1:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 18 0 0 19 0 3 2 1:3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 2 5 1:4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 3 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 4 6 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 1 7 2 0 0 7 3 0 12 7 2 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 2 3 2 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 3 0 2 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 13 0 0 13 0 2 8 2 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 3 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 112 3 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 4 1 3 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 5 2 3 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 5 9 3 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 3 4 0 7 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 0 12 9 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 9 8 0 0 9 9 1 2 3 0 4 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 7 5 4 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 116 4 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 0 8 7 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 4 8 0 0 4 9 0 13 8 4 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 10 1 0 0 10 3 0 19 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 2 3 19 6 0 0 19 9 0 5 2 5 5 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 0 0 10 7 0 1 0 4 0 5 0 1 6 9 0 0 7 0 0 18 2 5 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 115 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 8 1 0 19 8 5 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 16 6 0 0 16 8 0 2 7 1 5 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 119 0 0 119 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 3 2 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 4 0 0 4 4 4 0 1 0 7 0 8 2 6 5 16 0 0 5 2 2 0 9 7 4 6 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 7 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 4 118 0 0 12 2 0 2 7 2 6 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 2 12 7 0 0 12 9 0 2 8 7 6 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 4 0 0 16 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 14 4 0 0 14 7 0 3 13 6 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 5 0 0 16 5 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 13 8 0 0 13 9 0 3 0 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 2 6 0 0 6 2 6 0 1 0 14 0 15 1 10 5 2 7 0 0 5 3 7 0 117 8 7 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 0 0 16 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 113 0 0 113 0 2 7 8 7 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 8 0 0 18 8 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 4 13 8 0 0 14 2 0 3 3 6 7 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 18 7 0 0 18 7 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 4 14 1 0 0 14 5 0 3 3 8 7 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 0 0 17 3 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 6 15 8 0 0 16 4 0 3 4 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 11 0 0 7 11 0 2 0 18 0 2 0 0 14 5 5 0 0 0 5 6 4 0 12 9 5 8 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 9 0 0 16 9 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 8 13 9 0 0 14 7 0 3 2 0 8 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 0 0 16 5 0 1 0 9 0 10 0 1 16 3 0 0 16 4 0 3 3 9 8 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 3 0 0 18 3 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 6 14 3 0 0 14 9 0 3 3 6 8 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 1 3 13 8 0 1 14 2 0 3 5 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 17 0 0 7 17 0 2 0 2 7 0 2 9 1 18 5 8 3 0 1 6 0 2 0 13 4 8 9 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 16 2 0 1 0 10 0 11 0 8 12 9 0 0 13 7 0 3 10 9 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 19 0 0 3 0 7 0 10 0 7 14 2 0 0 14 9 1 3 4 9 9 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 13 0 0 2 13 0 2 0 8 0 10 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 8 1 3 8 1 9 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 5 0 0 18 5 0 3 0 10 0 13 0 9 14 4 0 0 15 3 1 3 5 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 9 0 3 5 0 4 4 0 3 2 5 6 5 0 0 5 9 7 3 13 9 1 10 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 2 2 7 0 4 0 11 0 15 0 6 15 5 0 0 16 1 0 4 0 3 10 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 3 0 0 18 3 0 1 0 12 0 13 3 14 19 9 0 0 2 13 0 4 0 9 10 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 0 2 17 0 3 0 9 0 12 0 15 2 0 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 4 9 10 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 16 0 18 0 10 17 8 0 0 18 8 0 4 3 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 10 0 4 8 0 5 8 3 4 5 7 3 7 0 0 7 8 2 0 17 0 0 11:0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 0 0 2 3 4 0 5 0 16 0 2 1 0 10 17 4 0 0 18 4 0 4 3 9 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 8 0 9 0 17 0 8 2 15 0 0 2 2 3 0 4 8 0 11:3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 14 0 2 0 0 8 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 8 0 4 6 8 11:4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 18 0 19 0 19 2 4 6 0 0 2 6 5 0 5 0 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 16 0 0 9 16 0 2 0 0 5 7 0 7 7 0 4 5 8 5 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 18 9 3 12 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 0 2 2 5 0 5 0 2 4 0 2 9 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 4 9 4 12 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 9 0 0 2 4 9 0 5 0 2 8 0 3 3 0 2 5 2 2 4 0 0 2 4 9 0 5 3 1 12 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 7 0 0 2 4 7 0 6 0 2 0 0 2 6 1 2 3 2 2 4 0 0 2 4 7 0 5 2 0 12 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 4 2 0 5 0 2 3 0 2 8 1 2 5 2 14 0 0 2 3 9 0 5 0 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 3 0 0 9 6 3 0 2 1 0 9 5 0 116 2 9 3 8 8 2 0 0 9 7 5 0 2 0 5 4 1:0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6 5 0 0 2 6 5 0 7 1 3 1 0 3 9 1 19 2 2 3 0 1 2 4 3 0 5 4 7 1:15 P M 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 5 9 0 0 2 5 9 0 6 0 12 0 18 0 2 0 2 3 6 0 0 2 5 6 0 5 3 4 1:3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 2 3 5 0 2 0 2 3 0 2 5 0 18 2 3 1 0 0 2 4 9 0 5 0 9 1 of 9 1:4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 7 0 0 2 2 8 0 7 2 2 5 0 3 4 2 16 2 0 7 0 0 2 2 3 0 4 8 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 9 8 6 0 0 9 8 7 0 2 2 3 9 1 0 116 3 7 3 8 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 0 2 0 7 5 2 :0 0 P M 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 2 3 5 0 1 0 16 0 17 2 12 2 2 5 0 0 2 3 7 0 4 9 0 2 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 0 0 2 4 3 0 6 0 18 0 2 4 0 14 2 19 0 0 2 3 3 0 5 0 0 2 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 8 2 0 0 2 8 2 1 4 0 18 0 2 2 3 2 2 2 6 0 0 1 2 8 3 1 5 8 7 2 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 6 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 2 5 0 18 2 2 3 0 0 2 4 1 0 5 2 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 10 2 0 0 0 10 2 0 1 13 0 7 5 0 8 8 5 6 6 9 2 7 0 1 9 9 4 1 2 10 3 3 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 13 0 19 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 4 4 0 4 6 7 3 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 5 8 0 0 2 5 8 1 5 0 15 0 2 0 1 19 2 2 4 0 0 2 4 3 0 5 2 1 3 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 6 0 0 2 9 6 0 6 0 2 4 0 3 0 1 18 2 3 7 0 0 2 5 5 0 5 8 1 3 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 18 0 2 4 0 18 2 0 5 0 0 2 2 3 0 5 4 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 10 5 8 0 0 10 5 8 1 2 3 0 7 0 0 9 3 2 7 7 8 8 8 0 0 9 6 5 0 2 116 4 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 3 0 0 2 6 3 0 4 0 16 0 2 0 0 14 2 17 0 0 2 3 1 0 5 14 4 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 5 0 0 2 3 5 0 6 0 2 5 0 3 1 1 15 2 3 2 0 0 2 4 7 0 5 13 4 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 9 0 0 2 8 9 0 7 0 2 4 0 3 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 5 4 2 4 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 5 0 0 2 8 5 0 7 0 2 1 0 2 8 0 8 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 9 0 5 4 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 7 2 0 0 10 7 2 0 2 4 0 8 6 0 110 1 5 9 8 7 0 0 0 9 2 9 0 2 111 5 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 4 7 0 0 2 4 7 0 9 0 2 7 0 3 6 0 18 2 4 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 5 4 3 5 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 4 0 0 2 5 4 0 5 0 18 0 2 3 1 15 2 4 8 0 0 2 6 3 0 5 4 0 5 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 1 0 0 2 5 1 0 7 0 2 9 0 3 6 1 2 9 2 2 8 0 0 2 5 7 0 5 4 4 5 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 0 0 2 0 9 0 4 0 2 4 0 2 8 1 13 2 12 0 0 2 2 5 0 4 6 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 6 1 0 0 9 6 1 0 2 5 0 9 8 0 12 3 3 7 5 9 3 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 2 0 8 9 6 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 19 1 0 11 0 13 0 2 4 0 17 2 0 9 0 0 2 2 6 0 4 4 1 6 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 6 0 0 19 6 0 8 0 2 0 0 2 8 2 11 2 2 5 0 0 2 3 6 0 4 6 0 6 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 7 0 0 19 7 0 8 0 11 0 19 0 19 17 4 0 0 19 3 0 4 0 9 6 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 6 0 0 16 6 0 7 0 17 0 2 4 2 17 18 5 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 9 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 3 4 0 6 1 0 9 5 4 6 4 7 9 3 0 0 8 5 7 0 17 0 2 7 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 3 0 0 14 3 0 8 0 15 0 2 3 0 14 15 5 0 0 16 9 4 3 3 5 7 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 0 0 14 3 0 11 0 11 0 2 2 1 7 16 8 0 0 17 5 0 3 4 0 7 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 118 0 7 0 4 0 11 0 10 14 7 0 0 15 7 0 2 8 6 7 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 10 9 0 4 0 11 0 15 0 6 13 6 0 0 14 2 0 2 6 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 0 0 5 13 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 7 1 1 3 7 6 0 6 0 0 6 4 3 4 12 2 7 8 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 110 0 0 110 0 3 0 9 0 12 1 6 13 3 0 0 13 9 0 2 6 1 8 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 9 4 0 2 0 13 0 15 0 2 0 12 6 0 0 14 6 0 2 5 5 8 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 7 1 0 1 0 12 0 13 0 4 13 1 0 0 13 5 0 2 19 8 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 7 6 0 3 0 13 0 16 2 7 112 0 0 119 0 2 11 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 1 0 0 3 5 1 0 9 0 4 7 0 5 6 3 3 7 5 0 2 0 0 5 3 9 0 9 4 6 9 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 9 8 1 0 10 0 0 17 2 9 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 8 6 0 1 0 6 0 7 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 2 0 18 5 9 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 9 2 0 0 9 3 0 15 6 9 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 4 8 0 1 0 5 0 6 2 4 8 4 0 0 8 8 0 14 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 6 4 0 0 2 6 4 0 3 0 15 0 18 4 8 3 6 4 1 0 3 7 3 0 6 5 5 10 :0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 7 0 8 0 1 5 7 0 0 5 8 0 12 1 10 :15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 1 0 5 0 6 0 2 4 4 0 0 4 6 0 8 7 10 :3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 1 4 9 0 0 5 0 0 9 5 10 :4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 8 0 0 4 8 0 7 0 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 6 0 0 14 6 0 2 0 2 3 0 2 5 0 4 19 8 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 7 3 11:0 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 6 3 0 0 6 4 0 9 2 11:15 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 4 11:3 0 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 3 5 0 0 3 6 0 5 9 11:4 5 P M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 9 0 0 2 9 0 4 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 2 16 7 0 0 16 9 0 2 6 4 T o ta l 1 0 1 0 2 4 4 1 13 8 0 8 0 0 13 8 0 9 2 2 5 3 3 9 4 5 0 12 0 1 3 8 7 7 6 12 8 6 8 1 3 13 6 4 8 9 2 8 6 6 0 % Ap pr o a c h 5 0 .0 %0 %5 0 .0 %0 %--0 %10 0 .0 %0 %0 %--2 1.1%0 .2 %7 8 .7 %0 %--5 .7 %9 4 .3 %0 %0 %--- % T o ta l 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %4 8 .2 %0 %0 %4 8 .2 %-0 .9 %0 %3 .3 %0 %4 .2 %-2 .7 %4 4 .9 %0 %0 %4 7 .6 %-- Mo to r c yc le s 0 0 0 0 0 -0 8 3 0 0 8 3 -1 0 4 0 5 -4 7 4 0 0 7 8 -16 6 % Mo to r c yc le s 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 .6 %0 %0 %0 .6 %-0 .4 %0 %0 .4 %0 %0 .4 %-0 .5 %0 .6 %0 %0 %0 .6 %-0 .6 % Lig hts 1 0 1 0 2 -1 12 8 3 8 0 0 12 8 3 9 -2 4 8 2 9 2 2 0 117 2 -7 4 3 12 0 2 8 0 3 12 7 7 4 -2 6 7 8 7 % Lig hts 10 0 %0 %10 0 %0 %10 0 %-10 0 %9 3 .0 %0 %0 %9 3 .0 %-9 8 .0 %6 6 .7 %9 7 .6 %0 %9 7 .6 %-9 5 .7 %9 3 .5 %0 %10 0 %9 3 .6 %-9 3 .5 % S in g le -Unit T ru c ks 0 0 0 0 0 -0 4 6 7 0 0 4 6 7 -4 0 15 0 19 -12 4 4 2 0 0 4 5 4 -9 4 0 % S in g le -Unit T ru c ks 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %3 .4 %0 %0 %3 .4 %-1.6 %0 %1.6 %0 %1.6 %-1.5 %3 .4 %0 %0 %3 .3 %-3 .3 % Ar tic ula te d T ru c ks 0 0 0 0 0 -0 3 8 2 0 0 3 8 2 -0 1 3 0 4 -12 3 0 8 0 0 3 2 0 -7 0 6 % Ar tic ula te d T ru c ks 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %2 .8 %0 %0 %2 .8 %-0 %3 3 .3 %0 .3 %0 %0 .3 %-1.5 %2 .4 %0 %0 %2 .3 %-2 .5 % Bu s e s 0 0 0 0 0 -0 3 2 0 0 3 2 -0 0 1 0 1 -1 11 0 0 12 -4 5 % Bu s e s 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 %0 .1%0 %0 .1%-0 .1%0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%-0 .2 % P e de s tria ns 0 0 0 0 0 -0 1 0 0 1 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 -1 % P e de s tria ns 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 0 0 0 0 -0 5 0 0 5 -0 0 0 0 0 -4 5 1 0 10 -15 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 .5 %0 %10 0 %0 %0 .1%-0 .1% P e d e s tr ian s -----4 1 -----2 -----3 3 -----8 % P e d e s tr ian s -----9 3 .2 %-----10 0 %-----8 6 .8 %-----8 8 .9 %- Bicycle s o n Cr o s s walk -----3 -----0 -----5 -----1 % Bicycle s o n Cr o s s walk -----6 .8 %-----0 %-----13 .2 %-----11.1%- Le g 4 0 th Ave NE (No t o p e n ye t)SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)4 0 th Ave NE (Bu s in e s s e s )SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ir e ctio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Ea s tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int *Pe d e s t rian s and Bicycle s on Cros s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig ht, T : T hr u, U: U-T u r n 2 of 9 S R531mp 7 .12 _4 3rd _Ave _NE_2 0 19 -0 7 10 - T MC We d Ju l 1 0, 201 9 Fu ll Le ng th (12 AM-12 AM (+1)) All Clas s e s (Mo torcy cle s , Lig h ts , S ing le -Un it T r u cks , Articulate d T r ucks , Bu s e s , Pe de s trians , Bicycle s on Ro ad, Bicycle s on Cr os s walk) All Move m e nts I D: 6 76 657 , Lo cation : 4 8.152 292 , -12 2.172 292 , S ite Code : 531 007 12_07 19 Pr ov ide d by: Was hing ton S tate DOT 1 570 0 Dayton Ave Nor th, MS -120 , P.O . Bo x 330 310 , S e attle , WA, 9 813 3, US Le g 4 3 r d Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)4 3 rd Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App P e d *Int 2 0 19 -0 7 -10 12 :0 0 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 3 0 11 0 3 0 4 0 7 0 0 2 7 0 1 2 8 0 4 8 12 :15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 3 0 2 1 0 4 0 2 0 6 0 0 19 0 2 2 1 0 4 9 12 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 9 0 3 1 4 0 8 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 0 4 0 12 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 10 0 4 1 2 0 7 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 3 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 10 0 5 1 0 14 2 12 0 2 8 0 0 8 3 2 3 8 8 0 17 0 1:0 0 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 2 0 13 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 0 4 1 1:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 14 0 1 15 0 3 1 1:3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 10 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 1 1 6 0 19 1:4 5 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 14 0 0 15 0 2 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 3 0 4 3 0 9 0 5 0 14 0 1 5 2 1 4 5 8 0 118 2 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 3 0 3 0 2 :15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 16 1 0 18 0 5 0 1 0 6 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 3 9 2 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 12 2 :4 5 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 14 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 2 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 4 1 2 0 4 4 0 7 0 1 0 8 0 1 5 3 1 0 5 5 0 10 9 3 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 3 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 4 6 3 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 3 6 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 1 16 1 1 19 0 6 1 3 :3 0 AM 2 0 2 0 4 0 1 13 3 0 17 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 5 0 4 9 3 :4 5 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 8 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 6 0 6 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 0 2 0 4 0 2 116 6 0 12 4 0 7 0 8 0 15 0 3 7 4 2 1 8 0 0 2 2 3 4 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 6 4 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 9 1 4 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 9 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 10 0 4 :3 0 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 9 5 3 0 9 9 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 14 4 4 :4 5 AM 3 0 1 0 4 0 1 9 9 3 0 10 3 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 7 7 0 1 8 0 0 19 0 Ho u r ly T o tal 5 0 1 0 6 1 2 3 2 5 8 0 3 3 5 0 3 0 5 0 8 0 5 17 0 0 1 17 6 0 5 2 5 5 :0 0 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 1 5 0 9 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 3 0 0 5 4 0 15 3 5 :15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 10 4 2 0 10 6 0 1 0 4 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 1 8 1 0 19 4 5 :3 0 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 12 3 5 0 12 8 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 1 16 4 1 0 16 6 0 3 0 1 5 :4 5 AM 1 0 4 0 5 0 1 13 4 4 0 13 9 0 2 0 3 0 5 2 0 16 3 0 0 16 3 0 3 12 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 0 6 0 9 1 1 4 5 2 16 0 4 6 9 0 9 0 9 0 18 2 2 4 6 0 1 1 4 6 4 0 9 6 0 6 :0 0 AM 1 0 2 0 3 4 1 14 9 3 0 15 3 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 1 10 8 0 0 10 9 0 2 7 0 6 :15 AM 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 15 4 5 0 16 0 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 0 12 2 1 0 12 3 0 2 9 8 6 :3 0 AM 3 0 2 0 5 0 2 15 3 2 0 15 7 0 5 1 4 0 10 0 3 12 1 1 1 12 6 0 2 9 8 6 :4 5 AM 1 0 4 0 5 3 0 14 7 7 0 15 4 0 1 0 6 0 7 0 2 16 2 0 0 16 4 0 3 3 0 Ho u r ly T o tal 5 0 13 0 18 7 4 6 0 3 17 0 6 2 4 0 13 1 18 0 3 2 0 6 5 13 2 1 5 2 2 0 119 6 7 :0 0 AM 3 1 7 0 11 0 2 14 7 4 0 15 3 0 1 1 9 0 11 1 5 110 0 2 117 0 2 9 2 7 :15 AM 6 0 3 0 9 2 0 18 8 3 0 19 1 0 4 0 6 0 10 0 1 12 6 0 1 12 8 0 3 3 8 7 :3 0 AM 2 0 2 0 4 0 2 16 8 6 0 17 6 0 8 0 10 0 18 0 2 15 4 0 4 16 0 1 3 5 8 7 :4 5 AM 6 0 2 0 8 0 3 17 1 8 0 18 2 0 7 0 9 0 16 0 3 14 6 0 1 15 0 0 3 5 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 17 1 14 0 3 2 2 7 6 7 4 2 1 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 1 3 4 0 5 5 1 11 5 3 6 0 8 5 5 5 1 13 4 4 8 :0 0 AM 3 1 2 0 6 0 0 17 3 7 0 18 0 0 9 2 7 0 18 0 4 14 0 1 0 14 5 0 3 4 9 8 :15 AM 4 1 1 0 6 0 3 16 9 5 0 17 7 0 8 0 15 0 2 3 0 3 10 2 3 3 111 1 3 17 8 :3 0 AM 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 19 2 10 0 2 0 3 0 10 1 10 0 2 1 0 2 15 7 0 2 16 1 1 3 8 8 8 :4 5 AM 5 1 2 0 8 0 3 17 9 19 0 2 0 1 0 11 0 14 0 2 5 0 5 14 7 1 0 15 3 0 3 8 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 14 3 6 0 2 3 0 7 7 13 4 1 0 7 6 1 0 3 8 3 4 6 0 8 7 0 14 5 4 6 5 5 5 7 0 2 14 4 1 9 :0 0 AM 2 0 3 0 5 9 3 18 2 9 0 19 4 0 12 0 8 0 2 0 0 8 10 8 0 0 116 0 3 3 5 9 :15 AM 3 1 1 0 5 0 4 16 9 15 0 18 8 0 14 0 2 7 0 4 1 0 5 115 2 5 12 7 0 3 6 1 9 :3 0 AM 4 0 5 0 9 5 2 16 9 13 0 18 4 0 16 0 2 4 0 4 0 0 3 14 8 1 3 15 5 0 3 8 8 9 :4 5 AM 3 0 5 0 8 0 2 16 5 2 3 0 19 0 0 13 0 2 8 0 4 1 0 4 112 3 4 12 3 0 3 6 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 12 1 14 0 2 7 14 11 6 8 5 6 0 0 7 5 6 0 5 5 0 8 7 0 14 2 0 2 0 4 8 3 6 12 5 2 1 0 14 4 6 10 :0 0 AM 8 1 2 0 11 0 1 19 1 17 0 2 0 9 0 12 1 2 8 0 4 1 0 3 113 2 6 12 4 0 3 8 5 10 :15 AM 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 2 12 2 5 0 2 3 8 0 19 0 2 6 0 4 5 0 4 12 2 3 5 13 4 0 4 2 1 10 :3 0 AM 3 0 5 0 8 0 1 17 5 2 7 0 2 0 3 0 2 4 0 2 5 0 4 9 0 3 14 1 2 2 14 8 0 4 0 8 10 :4 5 AM 2 1 3 0 6 0 2 17 6 19 0 19 7 0 2 8 0 4 0 0 6 8 0 14 16 3 5 4 18 6 0 4 5 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 13 2 14 0 2 9 0 5 7 5 4 8 8 0 8 4 7 0 8 3 1 119 0 2 0 3 0 2 4 5 3 9 12 17 5 9 2 0 16 7 1 11:0 0 AM 1 3 1 0 5 0 1 2 16 2 6 0 2 4 3 0 2 8 2 3 2 0 6 2 0 3 16 2 0 2 16 7 1 4 7 7 11:15 AM 6 0 2 0 8 0 5 18 1 2 0 0 2 0 6 0 2 9 3 4 2 0 7 4 0 7 18 0 8 5 2 0 0 0 4 8 8 11:3 0 AM 4 0 8 0 12 0 3 2 3 5 2 2 0 2 6 0 0 2 3 2 4 6 0 7 1 0 9 18 1 3 6 19 9 0 5 4 2 11:4 5 AM 3 0 3 0 6 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 4 5 0 3 2 1 4 1 0 7 4 0 6 18 0 3 5 19 4 2 5 19 Ho u r ly T o tal 14 3 14 0 3 1 0 11 8 5 3 9 0 0 9 5 4 0 112 8 16 1 0 2 8 1 0 2 5 7 0 3 14 18 7 6 0 3 2 0 2 6 12 :0 0 PM 4 0 4 0 8 2 5 17 3 3 0 0 2 0 8 0 2 7 2 3 9 0 6 8 0 8 17 6 2 5 19 1 0 4 7 5 12 :15 PM 3 2 4 0 9 1 3 2 2 4 3 8 0 2 6 5 0 3 7 0 4 9 0 8 6 0 11 18 8 2 2 2 0 3 0 5 6 3 12 :3 0 PM 4 2 3 0 9 0 3 2 0 8 3 5 0 2 4 6 0 3 7 0 4 9 0 8 6 0 16 17 4 3 3 19 6 0 5 3 7 12 :4 5 PM 1 1 1 0 3 1 3 17 3 3 9 0 2 15 0 6 5 5 7 4 0 14 4 0 19 17 7 2 7 2 0 5 0 5 6 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 12 5 12 0 2 9 4 14 7 7 8 14 2 0 9 3 4 0 16 6 7 2 11 0 3 8 4 0 5 4 7 15 9 17 7 9 5 0 2 14 2 1:0 0 PM 2 2 1 0 5 0 1 19 5 3 6 0 2 3 2 0 3 7 4 6 4 0 10 5 0 11 18 7 1 3 2 0 2 0 5 4 4 1:15 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 5 19 7 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 4 7 3 4 5 0 9 5 1 7 17 4 0 5 18 6 1 5 0 7 1:3 0 PM 1 4 6 0 11 1 3 19 8 3 5 0 2 3 6 0 5 3 1 5 5 0 10 9 0 5 19 2 4 11 2 12 2 5 6 8 1:4 5 PM 9 0 1 0 10 0 4 19 2 19 0 2 15 0 3 6 1 4 4 0 8 1 1 14 19 9 4 8 2 2 5 0 5 3 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 15 6 8 0 2 9 1 13 7 8 2 111 0 9 0 6 0 17 3 9 2 0 8 0 3 9 0 2 3 7 7 5 2 9 2 7 8 2 5 3 2 15 0 2 :0 0 PM 2 0 4 0 6 0 1 19 2 2 4 0 2 17 0 4 0 0 5 2 0 9 2 0 6 17 2 3 6 18 7 2 5 0 2 1 of 9 2 :15 PM 4 1 1 0 6 0 1 2 0 5 2 0 0 2 2 6 0 4 4 2 5 8 0 10 4 0 10 2 0 8 3 4 2 2 5 0 5 6 1 2 :3 0 PM 7 1 0 0 8 3 2 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 5 3 0 4 2 0 4 8 0 9 0 0 11 17 8 4 5 19 8 1 5 4 9 2 :4 5 PM 4 3 3 0 10 0 3 19 4 4 0 0 2 3 7 1 3 8 2 6 0 0 10 0 1 4 17 3 2 8 18 7 2 5 3 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 17 5 8 0 3 0 3 7 8 12 114 0 9 3 3 1 16 4 4 2 18 0 3 8 6 1 3 1 7 3 1 12 2 3 7 9 7 5 2 14 6 3 :0 0 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 14 9 16 0 16 7 0 4 3 2 5 1 0 9 6 1 6 19 3 3 3 2 0 5 0 4 7 0 3 :15 PM 4 2 2 0 8 0 2 2 0 6 2 8 0 2 3 6 1 4 7 4 6 3 0 114 2 8 18 2 0 9 19 9 2 5 5 7 3 :3 0 PM 3 2 2 0 7 0 2 2 0 2 2 7 0 2 3 1 0 4 1 9 6 8 0 118 0 13 15 0 6 5 17 4 0 5 3 0 3 :4 5 PM 3 1 2 0 6 1 5 19 8 3 1 0 2 3 4 0 3 0 2 3 6 0 6 8 1 7 2 0 0 3 4 2 14 2 5 2 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 11 6 6 0 2 3 1 11 7 5 5 10 2 0 8 6 8 1 16 1 17 2 18 0 3 9 6 4 3 4 7 2 5 12 2 1 7 9 2 4 2 0 7 9 4 :0 0 PM 3 2 3 0 8 0 4 2 16 3 3 0 2 5 3 0 5 2 2 6 7 0 12 1 0 9 19 8 3 6 2 16 0 5 9 8 4 :15 PM 5 0 1 0 6 2 4 2 0 8 3 1 0 2 4 3 0 5 4 2 7 3 0 12 9 0 6 17 0 6 6 18 8 0 5 6 6 4 :3 0 PM 3 1 0 0 4 1 3 2 2 9 3 5 0 2 6 7 0 4 8 2 5 1 0 10 1 0 6 17 8 3 3 19 0 1 5 6 2 4 :4 5 PM 3 1 3 0 7 0 6 2 15 3 1 0 2 5 2 0 3 5 4 4 2 0 8 1 0 8 17 7 7 2 19 4 0 5 3 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 14 4 7 0 2 5 3 17 8 6 8 13 0 0 10 15 0 18 9 10 2 3 3 0 4 3 2 0 2 9 7 2 3 19 17 7 8 8 1 2 2 6 0 5 :0 0 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 19 8 2 4 0 2 2 5 0 5 3 1 6 0 0 114 0 6 17 9 10 4 19 9 0 5 4 1 5 :15 PM 2 0 3 0 5 2 7 2 2 0 3 2 0 2 5 9 1 4 4 1 3 9 0 8 4 0 3 2 0 0 4 3 2 10 0 5 5 8 5 :3 0 PM 4 0 9 0 13 0 5 16 0 2 4 0 18 9 0 3 8 1 4 8 0 8 7 0 7 18 3 3 7 2 0 0 0 4 8 9 5 :4 5 PM 2 0 4 0 6 0 2 17 8 2 9 0 2 0 9 0 3 8 3 3 7 0 7 8 1 8 2 0 1 4 4 2 17 0 5 10 Ho u r ly T o tal 8 0 19 0 2 7 2 17 7 5 6 10 9 0 8 8 2 1 17 3 6 18 4 0 3 6 3 1 2 4 7 6 3 2 1 18 8 2 6 0 2 0 9 8 6 :0 0 PM 7 2 3 0 12 0 8 16 7 2 2 0 19 7 0 4 2 3 4 7 0 9 2 0 7 16 3 5 2 17 7 0 4 7 8 6 :15 PM 3 2 5 0 10 0 5 15 6 18 0 17 9 0 4 0 2 4 3 0 8 5 0 4 18 4 2 1 19 1 0 4 6 5 6 :3 0 PM 6 3 3 0 12 0 2 15 4 19 0 17 5 0 3 9 5 2 4 0 6 8 0 5 18 4 9 1 19 9 0 4 5 4 6 :4 5 PM 8 1 5 0 14 1 5 112 2 1 0 13 8 0 2 7 1 3 3 0 6 1 0 3 15 5 4 4 16 6 1 3 7 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 4 8 16 0 4 8 1 2 0 5 8 9 8 0 0 6 8 9 0 14 8 11 14 7 0 3 0 6 0 19 6 8 6 2 0 8 7 3 3 1 17 7 6 7 :0 0 PM 7 2 3 0 12 0 1 12 5 14 0 14 0 0 2 8 0 2 5 0 5 3 0 4 116 7 1 12 8 0 3 3 3 7 :15 PM 2 1 2 0 5 2 4 9 5 15 0 114 0 4 1 3 3 3 0 7 7 0 1 13 7 1 2 14 1 1 3 3 7 7 :3 0 PM 3 1 0 0 4 0 1 10 4 2 5 0 13 0 0 2 6 1 3 0 0 5 7 0 1 13 5 4 4 14 4 0 3 3 5 7 :4 5 PM 2 0 2 0 4 0 1 7 7 13 0 9 1 0 2 8 2 3 1 0 6 1 1 5 12 5 2 5 13 7 1 2 9 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 14 4 7 0 2 5 2 7 4 0 1 6 7 0 4 7 5 0 12 3 6 119 0 2 4 8 1 11 5 13 14 12 5 5 0 2 12 9 8 8 :0 0 PM 2 1 1 0 4 0 4 9 8 17 0 119 0 4 1 1 2 5 0 6 7 0 3 12 6 4 2 13 5 0 3 2 5 8 :15 PM 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 7 3 8 0 8 2 0 2 1 1 2 4 0 4 6 2 4 10 9 5 6 12 4 0 2 5 5 8 :3 0 PM 5 0 5 0 10 0 4 6 6 16 0 8 6 0 3 0 1 17 0 4 8 0 2 9 7 1 2 10 2 0 2 4 6 8 :4 5 PM 3 0 0 0 3 1 1 6 3 12 0 7 6 0 17 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 3 8 0 5 0 8 8 0 2 0 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 11 2 7 0 2 0 1 10 3 0 0 5 3 0 3 6 3 0 10 9 3 8 9 0 2 0 1 2 12 4 12 15 10 4 4 9 0 10 3 3 9 :0 0 PM 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 6 0 14 0 7 6 0 2 4 2 13 0 3 9 1 3 10 2 2 2 10 9 0 2 2 7 9 :15 PM 3 0 2 0 5 2 1 5 6 7 0 6 4 1 18 1 2 1 0 4 0 0 2 6 8 2 2 7 4 0 18 3 9 :3 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8 8 0 5 7 0 16 0 14 0 3 0 0 3 5 8 0 2 6 3 0 15 0 9 :4 5 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 3 12 0 4 6 0 12 1 16 0 2 9 0 1 6 5 2 1 6 9 1 14 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 4 2 4 0 10 2 5 19 7 4 1 0 2 4 3 1 7 0 4 6 4 0 13 8 1 9 2 9 3 6 7 3 15 1 7 0 6 10 :0 0 PM 2 0 5 0 7 0 1 2 9 7 0 3 7 1 13 2 14 0 2 9 1 0 5 9 2 2 6 3 0 13 6 10 :15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 2 5 0 12 1 10 0 2 3 0 3 5 8 0 2 6 3 0 111 10 :3 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 7 0 3 2 0 11 0 5 0 16 0 1 5 1 0 1 5 3 0 10 1 10 :4 5 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4 1 0 2 5 0 7 0 8 0 15 0 0 4 3 2 0 4 5 1 8 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 0 5 0 8 1 2 9 9 18 0 119 1 4 3 3 3 7 0 8 3 1 4 2 11 4 5 2 2 4 1 4 3 4 11:0 0 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 6 7 0 3 4 0 4 0 8 0 12 0 0 4 1 0 2 4 3 0 9 2 11:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 19 5 0 2 4 0 5 1 9 0 15 0 1 4 2 0 0 4 3 1 8 3 11:3 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 12 0 6 0 2 0 8 0 0 2 7 1 1 2 9 0 4 9 11:4 5 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 5 0 6 0 11 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 7 0 5 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 4 0 2 0 6 0 1 7 4 13 0 8 8 0 2 0 1 2 5 0 4 6 0 1 13 7 1 3 14 2 1 2 8 2 T o ta l 2 2 8 5 2 18 7 0 4 6 7 4 6 17 5 117 0 8 13 4 2 0 13 2 2 5 5 19 0 9 9 7 2 2 5 8 0 4 2 6 4 16 3 7 7 10 8 7 3 18 8 2 3 9 116 7 7 2 5 2 9 6 3 3 % App ro a c h 4 8 .8 %11.1%4 0 .0 %0 %--1.3 %8 8 .5 %10 .1%0 %--4 4 .8 %2 .3 %5 3 .0 %0 %--3 .2 %9 3 .1%1.6 %2 .0 %--- % T o ta l 0 .8 %0 .2 %0 .6 %0 %1.6 %-0 .6 %3 9 .5 %4 .5 %0 %4 4 .6 %-6 .4 %0 .3 %7 .6 %0 %14 .4 %-1.3 %3 6 .7 %0 .6 %0 .8 %3 9 .4 %-- Mo to r c yc le s 0 0 1 0 1 -0 16 2 0 18 -4 1 1 0 6 -0 2 2 0 0 2 2 -4 7 % Mo to r c yc le s 0 %0 %0 .5 %0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 .1%0 .1%0 %0 .1%-0 .2 %1.0 %0 %0 %0 .1%-0 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 % Lig hts 2 2 8 5 1 18 6 0 4 6 5 -17 3 10 9 9 5 13 2 2 0 12 4 9 0 -18 8 1 9 6 2 2 2 0 0 4 19 7 -3 7 0 10 2 3 5 18 8 2 3 9 110 3 2 -2 8 18 4 % Lig hts 10 0 %9 8 .1%9 9 .5 %0 %9 9 .6 %-9 8 .9 %9 3 .9 %9 8 .5 %0 %9 4 .4 %-9 8 .5 %9 9 .0 %9 8 .3 %0 %9 8 .4 %-9 8 .1%9 4 .1%10 0 %10 0 %9 4 .5 %-9 5 .1% S ing le -Unit T r uc ks 0 1 0 0 1 -1 3 9 9 12 0 4 12 -19 0 2 2 0 4 1 -5 3 4 4 0 0 3 4 9 -8 0 3 % S ing le -Unit T r uc ks 0 %1.9 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .6 %3 .4 %0 .9 %0 %3 .1%-1.0 %0 %1.0 %0 %1.0 %-1.3 %3 .2 %0 %0 %3 .0 %-2 .7 % Artic ula te d T r uc ks 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 6 8 3 0 2 7 2 -1 0 11 0 12 -2 2 5 4 0 0 2 5 6 -5 4 0 % Artic ula te d T r uc ks 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 .6 %2 .3 %0 .2 %0 %2 .1%-0 .1%0 %0 .5 %0 %0 .3 %-0 .5 %2 .3 %0 %0 %2 .2 %-1.8 % Bus e s 0 0 0 0 0 -0 2 7 2 0 2 9 -3 0 4 0 7 -0 16 0 0 16 -5 2 % Bus e s 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 .2 %0 .1%0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 %0 %0 .2 %0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%-0 .2 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 0 0 0 0 -0 3 1 0 4 -1 0 0 0 1 -0 2 0 0 2 -7 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 .1%0 %0 %-0 .1%0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % Pe d e s trian s -----3 9 -----2 -----13 -----2 1 % Pe d e s trian s -----8 4 .8 %-----4 0 .0 %-----8 1.3 %-----8 4 .0 %- Bic yc le s o n Cro s s wa lk -----7 -----3 -----3 -----4 % Bic yc le s o n Cro s s wa lk -----15 .2 %-----6 0 .0 %-----18 .8 %-----16 .0 %- Le g 4 3 r d Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)4 3 rd Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App P e d *Int *Pe de s tr ian s and Bicy cle s on Cro s s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig ht, T : T h r u, U: U-T u r n 2 of 9 S R5 31mp 7 .6 2 _51s t _Ave _NE_2 0 19 -0 7 10 - T MC We d Jul 10, 2019 Full Le n g th (12 AM-12 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Motor cy cle s , Lig hts , S ing le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticu late d T r ucks , Bus e s , Pe d e s tr ians , Bicy cle s on Road, Bicycle s o n Cr os s walk) All Move m e nts I D: 6766 5 5, Lo cation : 4 8 .15 2 117, -1 2 2.1 6 1569 , S ite Cod e : 5 3100 7 62_0 7 19 Pr o vid e d b y : Was h ing ton S tate DO T 1 5700 Dayton Ave No r th, MS -120, P.O . Box 330 3 10, S e attle , WA, 981 3 3, US Le g 5 1s t Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)5 1s t Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *Int 2 0 19 -0 7 -10 12 :0 0 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 0 0 13 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 5 0 12 :15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 16 1 0 18 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 4 5 12 :3 0 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 2 0 7 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 2 4 0 0 2 5 0 3 7 12 :4 5 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 10 1 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 15 3 0 2 0 0 3 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 1 1 4 0 6 0 4 4 2 4 0 5 0 0 3 1 8 0 12 0 6 9 0 3 0 9 9 0 16 7 1:0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 3 7 1:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 15 0 0 17 0 2 9 1:3 0 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 17 1:4 5 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 12 1 0 16 0 2 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 3 7 1 0 3 9 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 8 5 4 1 0 6 3 0 10 9 2 :0 0 AM 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 2 :15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 17 0 0 2 0 0 3 6 2 :3 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 2 0 7 0 17 2 :4 5 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 15 1 0 17 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 10 1 0 14 0 3 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 1 2 2 0 5 0 1 4 0 3 0 4 4 0 3 0 5 0 8 0 9 5 0 3 0 6 2 0 119 3 :0 0 AM 6 1 1 0 8 0 1 2 7 2 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 2 9 1 0 12 0 5 4 3 :15 AM 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 2 7 0 0 2 8 0 1 0 5 0 6 0 1 16 0 0 17 0 5 4 3 :3 0 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 2 3 0 0 2 7 0 4 7 3 :4 5 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 8 2 0 4 0 0 5 0 1 0 6 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 6 1 7 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 8 4 2 0 14 0 2 10 7 4 0 113 0 11 0 9 0 2 0 0 7 7 4 1 0 8 2 1 2 2 9 4 :0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 1 0 5 9 0 2 0 8 0 10 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 9 2 4 :15 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 8 1 0 6 9 0 3 1 5 0 9 0 2 2 8 0 0 3 0 0 110 4 :3 0 AM 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 8 9 0 0 9 0 0 3 1 10 0 14 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 14 7 4 :4 5 AM 1 3 3 0 7 0 5 9 1 4 0 10 0 0 8 1 11 0 2 0 0 6 7 0 5 0 8 1 0 2 0 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 1 4 6 0 11 0 7 3 0 5 6 0 3 18 0 16 3 3 4 0 5 3 0 9 16 1 5 0 17 5 0 5 5 7 5 :0 0 AM 2 0 4 0 6 0 1 9 0 2 0 9 3 0 7 1 8 0 16 0 1 4 8 2 0 5 1 0 16 6 5 :15 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 8 8 2 0 9 3 0 17 2 17 0 3 6 0 1 7 9 2 0 8 2 0 2 13 5 :3 0 AM 1 3 3 0 7 1 6 12 2 3 0 13 1 0 13 6 12 0 3 1 0 3 15 3 10 0 16 6 0 3 3 5 5 :4 5 AM 0 4 6 0 10 1 12 12 4 10 0 14 6 0 2 9 7 16 0 5 2 0 4 15 1 11 0 16 6 0 3 7 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 7 15 0 2 5 2 2 2 4 2 4 17 0 4 6 3 0 6 6 16 5 3 0 13 5 0 9 4 3 1 2 5 0 4 6 5 0 10 8 8 6 :0 0 AM 1 4 10 0 15 1 3 13 3 2 0 13 8 1 11 4 16 0 3 1 0 8 10 7 5 0 12 0 0 3 0 4 6 :15 AM 2 5 7 0 14 1 3 14 5 4 0 15 2 0 6 2 2 3 0 3 1 0 3 12 0 0 0 12 3 0 3 2 0 6 :3 0 AM 2 1 7 0 10 1 4 13 0 5 0 13 9 0 2 2 1 2 5 0 4 8 0 9 10 3 4 0 116 0 3 13 6 :4 5 AM 3 6 6 0 15 0 10 14 5 11 0 16 6 0 2 4 5 12 0 4 1 0 10 16 2 12 0 18 4 0 4 0 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 8 16 3 0 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 5 3 2 2 0 5 9 5 1 6 3 12 7 6 0 15 1 0 3 0 4 9 2 2 1 0 5 4 3 0 13 4 3 7 :0 0 AM 2 7 8 0 17 0 4 12 6 12 0 14 2 1 19 4 2 4 0 4 7 1 9 10 0 5 0 114 0 3 2 0 7 :15 AM 5 5 6 0 16 0 5 16 4 11 0 18 0 0 13 5 2 2 0 4 0 0 10 117 8 0 13 5 0 3 7 1 7 :3 0 AM 4 6 9 0 19 2 9 15 3 9 0 17 1 0 16 5 2 0 0 4 1 0 8 15 1 5 0 16 4 0 3 9 5 7 :4 5 AM 4 3 4 0 11 2 14 16 3 11 0 18 8 0 2 5 9 2 6 0 6 0 0 12 14 5 8 0 16 5 0 4 2 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 15 2 1 2 7 0 6 3 4 3 2 6 0 6 4 3 0 6 8 1 1 7 3 2 3 9 2 0 18 8 1 3 9 5 13 2 6 0 5 7 8 0 15 10 8 :0 0 AM 1 1 4 0 6 0 2 14 8 3 0 15 3 0 13 5 2 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 12 4 7 1 15 3 0 3 5 2 8 :15 AM 6 2 11 0 19 0 8 16 5 11 0 18 4 0 17 3 2 0 0 4 0 0 9 9 2 2 0 10 3 0 3 4 6 8 :3 0 AM 2 6 6 0 14 0 5 17 7 10 0 19 2 0 12 2 2 5 0 3 9 0 9 14 8 5 0 16 2 0 4 0 7 8 :4 5 AM 4 6 11 0 2 1 1 12 16 0 10 0 18 2 0 13 7 3 6 0 5 6 0 18 12 3 15 0 15 6 0 4 15 Ho u r ly T o tal 13 15 3 2 0 6 0 1 2 7 6 5 0 3 4 0 7 11 0 5 5 17 10 3 0 17 5 0 5 7 4 8 7 2 9 1 5 7 4 0 15 2 0 9 :0 0 AM 3 4 8 0 15 0 6 16 1 7 0 17 4 0 13 4 2 2 0 3 9 0 15 10 5 4 0 12 4 0 3 5 2 9 :15 AM 3 4 5 0 12 0 6 16 5 9 0 18 0 0 8 5 2 1 0 3 4 0 13 111 10 0 13 4 0 3 6 0 9 :3 0 AM 9 11 6 0 2 6 0 4 16 2 15 0 18 1 0 16 4 2 5 0 4 5 0 2 5 12 1 9 0 15 5 0 4 0 7 9 :4 5 AM 2 5 6 0 13 0 3 15 4 8 0 16 5 0 16 11 2 7 0 5 4 0 2 5 10 9 8 0 14 2 0 3 7 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 17 2 4 2 5 0 6 6 0 19 6 4 2 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 5 3 2 4 9 5 0 17 2 0 7 8 4 4 6 3 1 0 5 5 5 0 14 9 3 10 :0 0 AM 8 4 6 0 18 0 6 15 6 12 0 17 4 2 16 4 3 9 0 5 9 0 15 10 5 5 0 12 5 0 3 7 6 10 :15 AM 9 5 13 0 2 7 0 2 19 7 7 0 2 0 6 0 12 8 3 4 0 5 4 0 2 3 117 9 0 14 9 0 4 3 6 10 :3 0 AM 11 6 14 0 3 1 0 4 15 8 11 0 17 3 0 17 3 3 4 0 5 4 0 2 6 13 9 8 0 17 3 0 4 3 1 10 :4 5 AM 10 3 8 1 2 2 0 5 15 8 2 3 0 18 6 0 6 8 2 7 0 4 1 0 2 6 14 6 8 0 18 0 0 4 2 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 8 18 4 1 1 9 8 0 17 6 6 9 5 3 0 7 3 9 2 5 1 2 3 13 4 0 2 0 8 0 9 0 5 0 7 3 0 0 6 2 7 0 16 7 2 11:0 0 AM 10 9 11 0 3 0 0 3 19 7 10 0 2 10 1 17 13 2 8 0 5 8 0 2 3 16 5 4 0 19 2 0 4 9 0 11:15 AM 4 4 7 0 15 0 5 17 9 13 0 19 7 1 2 6 13 3 1 0 7 0 0 3 2 14 9 12 0 19 3 0 4 7 5 11:3 0 AM 13 8 10 0 3 1 0 2 2 14 19 0 2 3 5 0 13 3 3 3 0 4 9 0 3 0 15 8 12 0 2 0 0 0 5 15 11:4 5 AM 15 13 6 0 3 4 0 7 18 5 17 0 2 0 9 0 15 5 3 5 0 5 5 0 2 5 18 7 17 0 2 2 9 0 5 2 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 4 2 3 4 3 4 0 110 0 17 7 7 5 5 9 0 8 5 1 2 7 1 3 4 12 7 0 2 3 2 0 110 6 5 9 4 5 0 8 14 0 2 0 0 7 12 :0 0 PM 11 6 12 0 2 9 1 9 17 6 16 0 2 0 1 0 14 6 3 6 0 5 6 0 2 4 17 1 13 0 2 0 8 0 4 9 4 12 :15 PM 14 6 13 0 3 3 0 6 19 3 11 0 2 10 0 14 8 4 6 0 6 8 0 3 7 16 9 9 0 2 15 0 5 2 6 12 :3 0 PM 10 11 10 0 3 1 0 5 18 1 13 0 19 9 0 19 7 4 9 0 7 5 0 3 6 16 3 8 0 2 0 7 0 5 12 12 :4 5 PM 9 6 9 0 2 4 0 11 16 7 8 0 18 6 0 17 7 3 7 0 6 1 0 3 7 2 0 1 11 0 2 4 9 0 5 2 0 Ho u r ly T o tal 4 4 2 9 4 4 0 117 1 3 1 7 17 4 8 0 7 9 6 0 6 4 2 8 16 8 0 2 6 0 0 13 4 7 0 4 4 1 0 8 7 9 0 2 0 5 2 1:0 0 PM 8 6 12 0 2 6 0 8 18 9 10 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 5 3 9 0 6 4 0 3 2 19 4 10 0 2 3 6 0 5 3 3 1:15 PM 9 4 4 0 17 0 11 17 7 13 0 2 0 1 0 13 8 3 5 0 5 6 1 4 1 17 4 9 0 2 2 4 0 4 9 8 1:3 0 PM 11 10 7 0 2 8 0 5 19 7 12 0 2 14 0 18 7 3 1 0 5 6 0 3 9 18 6 9 0 2 3 4 0 5 3 2 1:4 5 PM 9 12 5 0 2 6 0 3 15 7 14 0 17 4 0 18 5 4 2 0 6 5 1 3 4 17 8 8 0 2 2 0 0 4 8 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 7 3 2 2 8 0 9 7 0 2 7 7 2 0 4 9 0 7 9 6 0 6 9 2 5 14 7 0 2 4 1 2 14 6 7 3 2 3 6 0 9 14 0 2 0 4 8 2 :0 0 PM 4 7 2 0 13 0 4 19 0 12 0 2 0 6 0 9 6 3 8 0 5 3 0 3 0 2 0 8 11 0 2 4 9 0 5 2 1 2 :15 PM 12 5 5 0 2 2 2 8 17 5 12 0 19 5 0 15 7 2 8 0 5 0 0 3 6 19 0 11 0 2 3 7 0 5 0 4 1 of 9 2 :3 0 PM 8 13 13 0 3 4 0 6 19 1 17 0 2 14 0 2 4 10 4 8 0 8 2 1 4 5 17 3 11 0 2 2 9 1 5 5 9 2 :4 5 PM 6 4 6 0 16 2 10 2 0 7 2 3 0 2 4 0 2 17 10 2 1 0 4 8 0 4 4 18 1 8 0 2 3 3 0 5 3 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 0 2 9 2 6 0 8 5 4 2 8 7 6 3 6 4 0 8 5 5 2 6 5 3 3 13 5 0 2 3 3 1 15 5 7 5 2 4 1 0 9 4 8 1 2 12 1 3 :0 0 PM 3 6 12 0 2 1 1 9 14 7 12 0 16 8 1 2 8 9 3 1 0 6 8 0 4 7 17 0 8 0 2 2 5 0 4 8 2 3 :15 PM 8 5 4 0 17 1 7 17 5 2 6 0 2 0 8 0 2 1 8 4 5 0 7 4 0 4 3 16 4 13 0 2 2 0 0 5 19 3 :3 0 PM 9 15 11 0 3 5 0 7 2 0 0 17 0 2 2 4 0 2 9 10 3 5 0 7 4 0 4 1 17 0 10 0 2 2 1 0 5 5 4 3 :4 5 PM 5 12 9 0 2 6 1 5 19 1 2 1 0 2 17 0 12 15 3 6 0 6 3 0 4 5 15 8 12 0 2 15 0 5 2 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 5 3 8 3 6 0 9 9 3 2 8 7 13 7 6 0 8 17 1 9 0 4 2 14 7 0 2 7 9 0 17 6 6 6 2 4 3 0 8 8 1 0 2 0 7 6 4 :0 0 PM 15 8 5 0 2 8 0 12 2 0 7 11 0 2 3 0 0 2 2 10 3 9 0 7 1 0 3 7 19 2 11 0 2 4 0 0 5 6 9 4 :15 PM 14 15 3 0 3 2 0 6 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 7 0 11 15 4 0 0 6 6 2 4 0 17 5 5 0 2 2 0 2 5 4 5 4 :3 0 PM 2 7 16 2 7 0 7 0 1 7 2 0 6 2 1 0 2 3 4 0 2 0 19 2 4 0 6 3 0 3 9 17 5 13 0 2 2 7 0 5 9 4 4 :4 5 PM 15 11 11 0 3 7 0 3 19 9 19 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 12 3 8 0 7 2 0 4 3 18 7 4 0 2 3 4 0 5 6 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 7 1 5 0 4 6 0 16 7 1 2 8 8 12 7 2 0 9 12 0 7 5 5 6 14 1 0 2 7 2 2 15 9 7 2 9 3 3 0 9 2 1 2 2 2 7 2 5 :0 0 PM 10 12 9 0 3 1 0 6 19 2 14 0 2 12 1 2 5 10 3 8 0 7 3 0 4 0 17 3 14 0 2 2 7 0 5 4 3 5 :15 PM 8 6 2 0 16 2 5 19 4 13 0 2 12 2 17 6 3 6 0 5 9 0 3 6 19 6 14 0 2 4 6 0 5 3 3 5 :3 0 PM 4 12 5 0 2 1 0 7 14 8 13 0 16 8 0 15 12 4 1 0 6 8 1 3 0 2 11 5 0 2 4 6 0 5 0 3 5 :4 5 PM 7 6 8 0 2 1 0 6 16 6 13 0 18 5 0 16 14 3 5 0 6 5 0 3 3 18 3 6 0 2 2 2 0 4 9 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 9 3 6 2 4 0 8 9 2 2 4 7 0 0 5 3 0 7 7 7 3 7 3 4 2 15 0 0 2 6 5 1 13 9 7 6 3 3 9 0 9 4 1 0 2 0 7 2 6 :0 0 PM 3 7 5 0 15 0 8 15 7 16 0 18 1 0 12 8 2 7 0 4 7 0 4 0 18 6 8 0 2 3 4 0 4 7 7 6 :15 PM 10 17 12 0 3 9 0 8 14 4 13 0 16 5 0 1 5 3 9 0 4 5 0 4 9 16 2 9 0 2 2 0 0 4 6 9 6 :3 0 PM 7 3 6 0 16 0 3 12 1 19 0 14 3 0 9 8 3 2 0 4 9 0 3 4 19 0 4 0 2 2 8 0 4 3 6 6 :4 5 PM 3 6 2 0 11 0 6 111 13 0 13 0 0 10 8 3 3 0 5 1 0 4 1 15 7 11 0 2 0 9 0 4 0 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 3 3 3 2 5 0 8 1 0 2 5 5 3 3 6 1 0 6 19 0 3 2 2 9 13 1 0 19 2 0 16 4 6 9 5 3 2 0 8 9 1 0 17 8 3 7 :0 0 PM 1 7 4 0 12 0 2 10 0 9 0 111 0 6 8 2 8 0 4 2 0 2 5 111 8 0 14 4 0 3 0 9 7 :15 PM 4 4 3 0 11 0 5 9 5 9 0 10 9 0 9 6 2 6 0 4 1 0 3 3 13 8 6 0 17 7 0 3 3 8 7 :3 0 PM 5 5 4 0 14 0 6 9 0 7 0 10 3 0 7 7 2 9 0 4 3 1 2 7 13 6 3 0 16 6 0 3 2 6 7 :4 5 PM 5 3 1 0 9 0 2 7 6 8 0 8 6 0 4 2 2 2 0 2 8 0 3 9 110 2 0 15 1 0 2 7 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 15 19 12 0 4 6 0 15 3 6 1 3 3 0 4 0 9 0 2 6 2 3 10 5 0 15 4 1 12 4 4 9 5 19 0 6 3 8 0 12 4 7 8 :0 0 PM 3 4 4 0 11 0 2 9 1 4 0 9 7 0 13 3 2 0 0 3 6 0 3 1 12 3 9 0 16 3 0 3 0 7 8 :15 PM 3 2 3 0 8 0 4 5 6 9 0 6 9 0 9 7 2 4 0 4 0 0 2 2 10 5 2 0 12 9 0 2 4 6 8 :3 0 PM 5 2 4 0 11 0 1 5 7 3 0 6 1 0 9 6 2 0 0 3 5 0 2 5 116 2 0 14 3 0 2 5 0 8 :4 5 PM 3 2 1 0 6 0 1 6 0 4 0 6 5 0 4 9 2 0 0 3 3 0 15 8 2 3 0 10 0 0 2 0 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 14 10 12 0 3 6 0 8 2 6 4 2 0 0 2 9 2 0 3 5 2 5 8 4 0 14 4 0 9 3 4 2 6 16 0 5 3 5 0 10 0 7 9 :0 0 PM 3 3 2 0 8 1 1 4 9 3 0 5 3 0 4 3 2 0 0 2 7 0 2 4 9 7 3 0 12 4 0 2 12 9 :15 PM 2 4 5 0 11 0 3 4 1 5 0 4 9 0 4 4 16 0 2 4 0 19 6 7 3 0 8 9 0 17 3 9 :3 0 PM 5 3 4 0 12 0 3 4 7 3 0 5 3 0 1 3 9 0 13 0 18 5 1 4 0 7 3 0 15 1 9 :4 5 PM 1 4 2 0 7 0 5 3 4 3 0 4 2 0 8 2 9 0 19 0 10 6 9 2 0 8 1 0 14 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 11 14 13 0 3 8 1 12 17 1 14 0 19 7 0 17 12 5 4 0 8 3 0 7 1 2 8 4 12 0 3 6 7 0 6 8 5 10 :0 0 PM 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 2 0 4 2 5 0 11 0 15 5 7 3 0 7 5 0 12 2 10 :15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 4 0 2 6 0 1 2 6 0 9 0 7 6 6 1 0 7 4 0 10 9 10 :3 0 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 5 0 0 1 9 0 10 2 15 4 5 0 0 6 0 2 9 7 10 :4 5 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 15 2 0 17 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 6 4 3 1 0 5 0 0 7 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 2 3 0 7 1 5 8 6 9 0 10 0 0 5 5 3 0 0 4 0 2 4 3 2 11 5 0 2 5 9 2 4 0 6 11:0 0 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 8 3 0 3 1 0 3 1 2 0 6 0 2 4 0 2 0 4 4 0 8 2 11:15 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 1 3 0 7 1 5 4 2 2 0 4 9 0 8 0 11:3 0 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 2 0 10 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 6 2 3 2 0 3 1 0 4 7 11:4 5 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 0 17 0 2 1 3 0 6 0 6 2 9 1 0 3 6 0 5 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 1 1 0 4 1 1 7 2 7 0 8 0 0 10 3 11 0 2 4 1 19 13 4 7 0 16 0 0 2 6 8 T o ta l 4 5 0 4 4 0 4 8 9 1 13 8 0 2 4 4 0 1 10 7 6 2 7 9 1 0 119 5 4 12 10 2 6 4 7 6 2 0 4 4 0 3 5 4 6 11 18 7 5 10 5 5 1 5 4 4 1 12 9 7 1 6 2 9 8 5 1 % Ap pr o a c h 3 2 .6 %3 1.9 %3 5 .4 %0 .1%--3 .4 %9 0 .0 %6 .6 %0 %--2 8 .9 %13 .4 %5 7 .6 %0 %--14 .5 %8 1.3 %4 .2 %0 %--- % T o ta l 1.5 %1.5 %1.6 %0 %4 .6 %-1.3 %3 6 .1%2 .6 %0 %4 0 .0 %-3 .4 %1.6 %6 .8 %0 %11.9 %-6 .3 %3 5 .3 %1.8 %0 %4 3 .5 %-- Mo to rc yc le s 0 2 4 0 6 -2 15 3 0 2 0 -1 5 4 0 10 -5 2 0 0 0 2 5 -6 1 % Mo to rc yc le s 0 %0 .5 %0 .8 %0 %0 .4 %-0 .5 %0 .1%0 .4 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .1%1.1%0 .2 %0 %0 .3 %-0 .3 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 % Lig hts 4 3 5 4 14 4 6 4 1 13 14 -3 8 2 10 114 6 9 9 0 1119 5 -9 3 1 4 5 8 19 5 8 0 3 3 4 7 -18 0 7 9 9 4 7 5 2 8 1 12 2 8 3 -2 8 13 9 % Lig hts 9 6 .7 %9 4 .1%9 4 .9 %10 0 %9 5 .2 %-9 5 .3 %9 4 .0 %8 8 .4 %0 %9 3 .7 %-9 0 .7 %9 6 .2 %9 5 .8 %0 %9 4 .4 %-9 6 .4 %9 4 .3 %9 7 .1%10 0 %9 4 .7 %-9 4 .3 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 5 2 0 10 0 3 5 -11 3 4 0 7 4 0 4 2 5 -6 9 7 6 4 0 14 0 -3 0 3 2 2 11 0 3 6 3 -9 6 3 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 1.1%4 .5 %2 .0 %0 %2 .5 %-2 .7 %3 .2 %9 .4 %0 %3 .6 %-6 .7 %1.5 %3 .1%0 %3 .9 %-1.6 %3 .1%2 .0 %0 %2 .8 %-3 .2 % Artic ula te d T ruc ks 9 3 7 0 19 -4 2 6 1 13 0 2 7 8 -2 3 2 17 0 4 2 -2 8 2 4 3 5 0 2 7 6 -6 15 % Artic ula te d T ruc ks 2 .0 %0 .7 %1.4 %0 %1.4 %-1.0 %2 .4 %1.6 %0 %2 .3 %-2 .2 %0 .4 %0 .8 %0 %1.2 %-1.5 %2 .3 %0 .9 %0 %2 .1%-2 .1% Bus e s 0 1 4 0 5 -1 3 1 2 0 3 4 -2 4 1 0 7 -3 19 0 0 2 2 -6 8 % Bus e s 0 %0 .2 %0 .8 %0 %0 .4 %-0 .2 %0 .3 %0 .3 %0 %0 .3 %-0 .2 %0 .8 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 1 0 0 0 1 -1 1 0 0 2 -0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 2 -5 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 .2 %0 %0 %0 %0 .1%-0 .2 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 .1%0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % Pe d e s tr ia n s -----15 -----12 -----11 -----5 % Pe d e s tr ia n s -----6 2 .5 %-----10 0 %-----10 0 %-----8 3 .3 %- Bic ycle s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----9 -----0 -----0 -----1 % Bic ycle s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----3 7 .5 %-----0 %-----0 %-----16 .7 %- Le g 5 1s t Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)5 1s t Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ir e c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *Int *Pe de s tr ians and Bicycle s on Cr os s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig h t, T : T hru, U: U-T u r n 2 of 9 S R53 1mp 8 .12 _59 t h_Ave _NE_2 019 -07 10 - T MC We d Jul 1 0, 2 01 9 Full Le n g th (12 AM-12 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Mo tor cy cle s , Lig hts , S ing le -Un it T r u cks , Ar ticulate d T r ucks , Bu s e s , Pe de s tr ians , Bicycle s o n Road , Bicy cle s on Cros s walk) All Mo ve m e n ts I D: 67 66 56, Lo cation : 48.15 20 48, -12 2.1 50 767, S ite Cod e : 53 10 081 2_07 19 Prov id e d by : Was h in g ton S tate DO T 15 700 Dayton Ave No r th , MS -1 20, P.O . Bo x 330 31 0, S e attle , WA, 9 81 33, US Le g 5 9 th Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE)5 9 th Ave NE S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ire c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *In t 2 0 19 -0 7 -10 12 :0 0 AM 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 8 0 4 1 12 :15 AM 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 2 6 0 4 2 12 :3 0 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 4 0 3 1 12 :4 5 AM 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 0 15 0 2 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 12 0 1 0 13 0 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 6 0 9 3 0 14 1 1:0 0 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 3 7 1:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 0 17 0 3 0 1:3 0 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 15 1:4 5 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 11 0 17 Ho u r ly T o tal 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 4 2 0 5 8 0 9 9 2 :0 0 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 2 :15 AM 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 14 2 0 16 0 3 0 2 :3 0 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 13 2 :4 5 AM 5 0 2 0 7 0 2 12 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 2 0 13 0 3 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 11 0 2 0 13 0 2 3 2 2 1 3 7 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 4 8 5 0 5 4 0 10 8 3 :0 0 AM 5 0 3 0 8 0 2 2 4 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 9 3 0 14 0 4 9 3 :15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 3 0 17 0 4 6 3 :3 0 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 16 0 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 17 6 0 2 3 0 4 2 3 :4 5 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 9 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 18 0 3 3 0 7 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 8 0 4 0 12 0 6 10 5 0 0 111 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 3 5 4 3 0 0 8 7 0 2 13 4 :0 0 AM 5 0 0 0 5 0 1 5 7 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 13 7 0 2 3 0 8 7 4 :15 AM 4 0 0 0 4 0 1 6 9 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 1 0 3 3 0 10 8 4 :3 0 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 8 8 4 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 18 2 4 0 4 3 0 13 9 4 :4 5 AM 8 0 0 0 8 0 10 9 3 5 0 10 8 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 5 4 8 0 7 6 0 19 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 18 0 0 0 18 0 2 0 3 0 3 6 0 3 2 9 0 1 0 5 0 6 0 10 6 5 10 0 0 17 5 0 5 2 8 5 :0 0 AM 6 0 1 0 7 0 3 8 1 9 0 9 3 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 11 11 3 4 0 5 6 0 16 0 5 :15 AM 10 0 2 0 12 0 6 9 5 14 0 115 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 16 2 5 4 9 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 5 :3 0 AM 18 0 0 0 18 0 10 111 11 0 13 2 0 5 1 3 0 9 0 17 4 8 8 2 0 14 7 0 3 0 6 5 :4 5 AM 12 0 0 0 12 0 2 3 117 11 0 15 1 0 6 0 13 0 19 0 12 6 6 116 0 19 4 0 3 7 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 4 6 0 3 0 4 9 0 4 2 4 0 4 4 5 0 4 9 1 0 14 1 2 0 0 3 5 0 5 6 15 0 2 8 1 0 4 8 7 0 10 6 2 6 :0 0 AM 2 2 0 3 0 2 5 0 10 116 8 0 13 4 0 5 0 8 0 13 0 16 5 6 4 8 0 12 0 0 2 9 2 6 :15 AM 18 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 114 9 0 13 1 0 6 1 18 0 2 5 0 13 6 4 4 5 0 12 2 0 2 9 8 6 :3 0 AM 15 0 1 0 16 0 14 115 5 0 13 4 0 2 1 9 0 12 0 4 8 2 4 5 0 13 1 0 2 9 3 6 :4 5 AM 2 7 0 0 0 2 7 0 2 5 14 2 14 0 18 1 0 6 1 13 0 2 0 0 7 6 8 9 2 0 16 7 0 3 9 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 8 2 0 6 0 8 8 0 5 7 4 8 7 3 6 0 5 8 0 0 19 3 4 8 0 7 0 0 4 0 2 7 0 2 3 0 0 5 4 0 0 12 7 8 7 :0 0 AM 2 4 0 2 0 2 6 0 5 110 16 0 13 1 0 3 0 16 0 19 0 6 7 7 5 9 0 14 2 0 3 18 7 :15 AM 3 5 0 0 0 3 5 0 7 14 1 10 0 15 8 0 6 0 13 0 19 0 6 6 6 5 3 0 12 5 0 3 3 7 7 :3 0 AM 4 0 3 2 0 4 5 0 12 114 7 0 13 3 0 2 0 13 0 15 0 6 8 0 6 4 0 15 0 0 3 4 3 7 :4 5 AM 4 2 0 5 0 4 7 0 17 13 1 5 0 15 3 0 2 0 8 0 10 0 9 7 1 10 1 0 18 1 0 3 9 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 14 1 3 9 0 15 3 0 4 1 4 9 6 3 8 0 5 7 5 0 13 0 5 0 0 6 3 0 2 7 2 9 4 2 7 7 0 5 9 8 0 13 8 9 8 :0 0 AM 3 5 0 3 0 3 8 0 9 12 1 3 0 13 3 0 5 0 8 0 13 0 4 7 9 6 3 0 14 6 0 3 3 0 8 :15 AM 3 6 0 4 0 4 0 0 13 15 5 8 0 17 6 0 1 0 8 0 9 0 3 5 6 5 0 0 10 9 0 3 3 4 8 :3 0 AM 4 3 0 3 0 4 6 0 8 12 7 4 0 13 9 0 4 1 13 0 18 0 3 8 2 6 0 0 14 5 0 3 4 8 8 :4 5 AM 4 7 0 5 0 5 2 0 9 13 9 5 0 15 3 0 5 1 14 0 2 0 0 4 9 7 5 2 0 15 3 0 3 7 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 16 1 0 15 0 17 6 0 3 9 5 4 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 0 15 2 4 3 0 6 0 0 14 3 14 2 2 5 0 5 5 3 0 13 9 0 9 :0 0 AM 4 2 0 5 0 4 7 0 4 12 0 5 0 12 9 0 5 0 9 0 14 0 2 8 0 5 2 0 13 4 0 3 2 4 9 :15 AM 3 7 1 5 0 4 3 0 7 13 0 5 0 14 2 0 2 0 8 0 10 0 3 7 2 4 6 0 12 1 0 3 16 9 :3 0 AM 4 9 1 3 0 5 3 0 5 12 9 4 0 13 8 0 1 2 8 0 11 0 8 7 0 4 5 0 12 3 0 3 2 5 9 :4 5 AM 4 7 2 1 0 5 0 0 7 113 2 0 12 2 0 1 2 10 0 13 0 7 9 3 4 1 0 14 1 0 3 2 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 17 5 4 14 0 19 3 0 2 3 4 9 2 16 0 5 3 1 0 9 4 3 5 0 4 8 0 2 0 3 15 18 4 0 5 19 0 12 9 1 10 :0 0 AM 4 8 0 4 0 5 2 0 3 12 9 1 0 13 3 0 2 1 6 0 9 0 1 7 6 3 8 0 115 0 3 0 9 10 :15 AM 5 6 1 4 0 6 1 0 5 15 2 3 0 16 0 0 1 0 5 0 6 0 4 10 6 4 6 0 15 6 0 3 8 3 10 :3 0 AM 3 8 0 4 0 4 2 0 6 13 0 2 0 13 8 0 2 0 8 0 10 0 6 12 0 3 5 0 16 1 0 3 5 1 10 :4 5 AM 4 5 3 4 0 5 2 0 3 12 8 9 0 14 0 0 1 3 11 0 15 0 5 10 3 4 1 0 14 9 0 3 5 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 18 7 4 16 0 2 0 7 0 17 5 3 9 15 0 5 7 1 0 6 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 16 4 0 5 16 0 0 5 8 1 0 13 9 9 11:0 0 AM 8 7 2 7 0 9 6 0 3 13 1 16 1 15 1 0 5 0 14 0 19 0 6 12 3 5 0 0 17 9 0 4 4 5 11:15 AM 6 7 0 8 0 7 5 0 7 12 4 4 0 13 5 0 9 2 2 1 0 3 2 0 1 110 7 9 0 19 0 0 4 3 2 11:3 0 AM 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 6 15 3 6 0 16 5 0 6 0 10 0 16 0 7 12 7 5 5 0 18 9 0 4 5 8 11:4 5 AM 5 0 1 2 0 5 3 0 12 14 1 6 0 15 9 0 2 0 7 0 9 1 8 12 6 7 6 0 2 10 0 4 3 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 9 2 3 17 0 3 12 0 2 8 5 4 9 3 2 1 6 10 0 2 2 2 5 2 0 7 6 1 2 2 4 8 6 2 6 0 0 7 6 8 0 17 6 6 12 :0 0 PM 10 4 1 8 0 113 1 5 12 2 8 0 13 5 0 4 0 19 0 2 3 0 4 115 5 0 0 16 9 0 4 4 0 12 :15 PM 7 1 1 6 0 7 8 0 6 12 4 5 0 13 5 0 3 2 11 0 16 0 5 13 3 5 8 0 19 6 0 4 2 5 12 :3 0 PM 6 4 1 9 0 7 4 0 2 13 6 12 0 15 0 0 4 0 16 0 2 0 0 5 12 5 5 3 0 18 3 1 4 2 7 12 :4 5 PM 5 0 0 2 0 5 2 0 7 119 5 0 13 1 0 6 4 13 0 2 3 0 10 14 9 6 5 0 2 2 4 1 4 3 0 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 8 9 3 2 5 0 3 17 1 2 0 5 0 1 3 0 0 5 5 1 0 17 6 5 9 0 8 2 0 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 6 0 7 7 2 2 17 2 2 1:0 0 PM 6 0 1 4 0 6 5 0 5 15 4 2 0 16 1 0 5 0 11 0 16 0 4 14 3 5 8 0 2 0 5 0 4 4 7 1:15 PM 4 7 0 7 0 5 4 0 9 13 3 2 0 14 4 0 2 3 18 0 2 3 0 9 13 7 4 8 0 19 4 0 4 15 1:3 0 PM 6 4 0 9 0 7 3 0 6 12 8 2 0 13 6 0 5 0 15 0 2 0 0 4 14 4 3 7 0 18 5 0 4 14 1:4 5 PM 5 4 1 3 0 5 8 0 4 117 12 0 13 3 0 11 0 11 0 2 2 0 3 14 8 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 4 14 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 2 5 2 2 3 0 2 5 0 0 2 4 5 3 2 18 0 5 7 4 0 2 3 3 5 5 0 8 1 0 2 0 5 7 2 19 3 0 7 8 5 0 16 9 0 1 of 9 2 :0 0 PM 5 2 0 6 0 5 8 0 7 14 3 1 0 15 1 0 10 0 19 0 2 9 0 6 15 2 4 4 0 2 0 2 0 4 4 0 2 :15 PM 8 0 0 6 0 8 6 0 4 10 8 1 0 113 0 4 0 6 0 10 0 3 16 6 4 4 0 2 13 0 4 2 2 2 :3 0 PM 10 8 0 15 0 12 3 0 8 12 9 4 0 14 1 0 11 0 8 0 19 0 4 14 9 3 5 0 18 8 0 4 7 1 2 :4 5 PM 6 9 0 8 0 7 7 0 5 14 0 2 0 14 7 0 4 0 9 0 13 0 5 15 1 4 7 0 2 0 3 1 4 4 0 Ho u r ly T o tal 3 0 9 0 3 5 0 3 4 4 0 2 4 5 2 0 8 0 5 5 2 0 2 9 0 4 2 0 7 1 0 18 6 18 17 0 0 8 0 6 1 17 7 3 3 :0 0 PM 5 5 2 8 0 6 5 0 3 10 9 10 0 12 2 0 10 0 13 0 2 3 0 6 15 1 4 9 0 2 0 6 0 4 16 3 :15 PM 6 0 1 7 0 6 8 0 3 15 3 3 0 15 9 0 8 1 10 0 19 0 5 15 8 2 9 0 19 2 1 4 3 8 3 :3 0 PM 9 3 2 2 0 0 115 0 4 12 6 2 0 13 2 0 8 0 11 0 19 0 3 17 3 3 3 0 2 0 9 0 4 7 5 3 :4 5 PM 6 7 0 13 0 8 0 0 5 14 9 2 0 15 6 0 4 1 10 0 15 0 3 15 3 3 9 0 19 5 0 4 4 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 7 5 5 4 8 0 3 2 8 0 15 5 3 7 17 0 5 6 9 0 3 0 2 4 4 0 7 6 0 17 6 3 5 15 0 0 8 0 2 1 17 7 5 4 :0 0 PM 12 2 2 2 1 0 14 5 0 10 12 5 1 0 13 6 0 4 1 12 0 17 0 4 16 8 4 2 0 2 14 0 5 12 4 :15 PM 8 9 0 17 0 10 6 0 7 118 3 0 12 8 0 3 0 6 0 9 0 2 16 0 3 8 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 3 4 :3 0 PM 14 3 2 3 4 0 17 9 0 5 12 1 3 0 12 9 0 3 0 7 0 10 0 1 16 6 4 0 0 2 0 7 0 5 2 5 4 :4 5 PM 6 8 0 9 0 7 7 0 7 13 3 3 0 14 3 0 2 0 5 0 7 0 5 16 2 5 5 0 2 2 2 0 4 4 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 4 2 2 4 8 1 0 5 0 7 0 2 9 4 9 7 10 0 5 3 6 0 12 1 3 0 0 4 3 0 12 6 5 6 17 5 0 8 4 3 0 19 2 9 5 :0 0 PM 10 3 1 18 0 12 2 0 3 115 5 0 12 3 0 8 1 5 0 14 0 1 18 2 3 4 0 2 17 0 4 7 6 5 :15 PM 5 7 0 11 0 6 8 0 4 13 9 0 0 14 3 0 4 0 15 0 19 0 2 19 3 2 8 0 2 2 3 0 4 5 3 5 :3 0 PM 5 5 0 9 0 6 4 0 6 112 2 0 12 0 0 3 0 7 0 10 0 6 18 2 2 6 0 2 14 0 4 0 8 5 :4 5 PM 5 2 0 5 0 5 7 0 7 12 5 2 0 13 4 0 5 0 6 0 11 0 2 18 4 2 0 0 2 0 6 0 4 0 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 6 7 1 4 3 0 3 11 0 2 0 4 9 1 9 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 1 3 3 0 5 4 0 11 7 4 1 10 8 0 8 6 0 0 17 4 5 6 :0 0 PM 4 3 1 5 0 4 9 0 4 13 4 0 0 13 8 0 1 0 11 0 12 0 9 17 0 2 4 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 2 6 :15 PM 4 1 0 3 0 4 4 0 3 117 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 11 0 13 0 7 15 7 15 0 17 9 0 3 5 6 6 :3 0 PM 4 2 0 3 0 4 5 0 3 10 5 1 0 10 9 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 1 18 9 2 0 0 2 10 0 3 7 2 6 :4 5 PM 2 9 0 8 0 3 7 0 3 10 6 3 0 112 0 8 2 6 0 16 0 3 16 1 14 0 17 8 0 3 4 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 15 5 1 19 0 17 5 0 13 4 6 2 4 0 4 7 9 0 15 2 3 2 0 4 9 0 2 0 6 7 7 7 3 0 7 7 0 0 14 7 3 7 :0 0 PM 2 6 0 3 0 2 9 0 1 8 2 0 0 8 3 0 2 0 5 0 7 0 1 117 11 0 12 9 0 2 4 8 7 :15 PM 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 9 5 0 0 9 6 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 13 5 12 0 14 8 0 2 6 8 7 :3 0 PM 3 5 0 4 0 3 9 0 2 6 2 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 6 17 0 14 4 0 2 4 8 7 :4 5 PM 14 0 4 0 18 0 0 7 6 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 115 9 0 12 5 0 2 2 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 9 5 1 11 0 10 7 0 4 3 15 0 0 3 19 0 5 0 8 0 13 0 4 4 9 3 4 9 0 5 4 6 0 9 8 5 8 :0 0 PM 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 7 2 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 13 3 9 0 14 5 0 2 4 2 8 :15 PM 17 0 1 0 18 0 1 5 7 0 0 5 8 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 114 9 0 12 3 0 2 0 1 8 :3 0 PM 9 0 4 0 13 0 1 5 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 115 9 0 12 5 0 19 5 8 :4 5 PM 10 0 2 0 12 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 6 11 0 9 7 0 16 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 5 7 0 8 0 6 5 0 3 2 3 5 0 0 2 3 8 0 1 0 6 0 7 0 4 4 4 8 3 8 0 4 9 0 0 8 0 0 9 :0 0 PM 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 1 0 4 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 6 4 0 10 0 0 15 3 9 :15 PM 8 0 1 0 9 0 0 4 8 0 0 4 8 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 8 1 5 0 8 6 0 14 5 9 :3 0 PM 5 0 1 0 6 0 3 4 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 3 0 6 0 0 116 9 :4 5 PM 6 0 2 0 8 0 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 2 0 5 0 7 0 2 6 8 8 0 7 8 0 12 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 3 0 4 0 2 7 0 3 17 7 1 0 18 1 0 4 0 6 0 10 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 4 0 5 4 2 10 :0 0 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 6 3 4 0 6 9 0 10 0 10 :15 PM 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 6 2 0 9 0 10 :3 0 PM 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 0 4 8 0 7 3 10 :4 5 PM 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 1 0 4 7 0 6 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 16 0 2 0 18 1 0 8 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 12 12 0 2 2 6 0 3 2 8 11:0 0 PM 8 0 1 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3 7 3 0 4 0 0 7 5 11:15 PM 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 18 1 0 19 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 4 3 0 4 7 0 7 3 11:3 0 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 4 0 3 1 11:4 5 PM 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 0 2 9 0 4 8 Ho u r ly T o tal 2 2 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 5 8 1 0 5 9 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 13 1 9 0 14 0 0 2 2 7 T o ta l 3 2 9 4 3 1 3 8 7 0 3 7 12 2 4 3 0 8 4 2 3 3 0 9 2 9 16 4 0 2 5 7 3 1 6 12 0 9 0 0 1 3 4 5 8 5 4 9 2 9 8 3 0 118 7 7 4 2 5 6 5 3 % Ap pro a c h 8 8 .7 %0 .8 %10 .4 %0 %--4 .7 %9 1.9 %3 .4 %0 %--2 8 .6 %3 .4 %6 8 .0 %0 %--2 .9 %7 2 .0 %2 5 .1%0 %--- % T o ta l 12 .8 %0 .1%1.5 %0 %14 .5 %-1.7 %3 2 .8 %1.2 %0 %3 5 .7 %-1.0 %0 .1%2 .4 %0 %3 .5 %-1.3 %3 3 .3 %11.6 %0 %4 6 .3 %-- Mo to r c yc le s 1 0 1 0 2 -1 15 0 0 16 -0 0 1 0 1 -2 2 0 6 0 2 8 -4 7 % Mo to r c yc le s 0 %0 %0 .3 %0 %0 .1%-0 .2 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 %0 .2 %0 %0 .1%-0 .6 %0 .2 %0 .2 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 % Lig h ts 2 9 3 6 2 5 3 6 2 0 3 3 2 3 -4 0 0 8 0 9 0 2 8 6 2 8 7 7 8 -2 3 9 2 7 5 2 1 0 7 8 7 -2 6 6 8 2 16 2 6 6 9 0 1115 1 -2 4 0 3 9 % Lig h ts 8 9 .1%8 0 .6 %9 3 .5 %0 %8 9 .5 %-9 3 .0 %9 6 .0 %9 2 .6 %10 0 %9 5 .8 %-9 3 .0 %8 7 .1%8 5 .1%0 %8 7 .4 %-7 7 .1%9 6 .1%8 9 .5 %0 %9 3 .9 %-9 3 .7 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 2 0 5 5 17 0 2 2 7 -2 0 18 5 17 0 2 2 2 -11 3 6 2 0 7 6 -5 5 18 4 17 6 0 4 15 -9 4 0 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 6 .2 %16 .1%4 .4 %0 %6 .1%-4 .7 %2 .2 %5 .5 %0 %2 .4 %-4 .3 %9 .7 %10 .1%0 %8 .4 %-15 .9 %2 .2 %5 .9 %0 %3 .5 %-3 .7 % Ar tic ula te d T ruc ks 13 2 1 3 0 13 6 -4 12 4 6 0 13 4 -5 1 2 2 0 2 8 -19 12 2 12 3 0 2 6 4 -5 6 2 % Ar tic ula te d T ruc ks 4 .0 %3 .2 %0 .8 %0 %3 .7 %-0 .9 %1.5 %1.9 %0 %1.5 %-1.9 %3 .2 %3 .6 %0 %3 .1%-5 .5 %1.4 %4 .1%0 %2 .2 %-2 .2 % Bus e s 19 0 4 0 2 3 -5 8 0 0 13 -2 0 6 0 8 -3 6 9 0 18 -6 2 % Bus e s 0 .6 %0 %1.0 %0 %0 .6 %-1.2 %0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%-0 .8 %0 %1.0 %0 %0 .9 %-0 .9 %0 .1%0 .3 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .2 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 1 0 0 0 1 -0 1 0 0 1 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 1 0 0 1 -3 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % P e d e s tr ian s -----2 -----0 -----0 -----3 % P e d e s tr ian s -----10 0 %-----------0 %-----7 5 .0 %- Bic ycle s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----0 -----0 -----1 -----1 % Bic ycle s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----0 %-----------10 0 %-----2 5 .0 %- Le g 5 9 th Ave NE SR 5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE)5 9 th Ave NE S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE) D ire c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U Ap p Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *In t *Pe de s tr ians and Bicy cle s on Cros s walk. L: Le ft , R: Rig h t, T : T hr u, U: U-T u r n 2 of 9 S R5 3 1mp 8 .5 9 _6 7 t h_Ave _NE_2 0 19 -0 7 10 - T MC We d Ju l 1 0 , 20 19 Fu ll Le n g t h (1 2 AM-12 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Mo t o r cy cle s , Lig h t s , S in g le -Unit T r u cks , Ar ticu late d T r u cks , Bu s e s , T r ain s , Pe d e s tr ians , Bicy cle s o n Ro ad , Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo v e m e nts I D: 6 7 6 6 58 , Lo cation : 48 .1 5 1 9 0 7 , -1 2 2.14 0 5 9 , S it e Co d e : 5 31 0 0 8 5 9 -0 7 1 9 Pr ov id e d b y : Was hing ton S t at e DO T 15 70 0 Day ton Av e No r t h , MS -1 2 0, P.O . Bo x 3 3 03 1 0 , S e at tle , WA, 9 81 3 3 , US Le g 6 7 th Ave NE S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)6 7 th Ave NE D ir e c tio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d T im e R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p P e d * 2 0 19 -0 7 -10 12 :0 0 AM 3 4 1 0 8 0 1 6 1 0 8 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 12 :15 AM 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 9 1 0 11 0 1 2 1 0 4 0 12 :3 0 AM 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 12 :4 5 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 6 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 7 7 2 0 16 0 3 2 2 3 0 2 8 0 8 4 5 0 17 0 1:0 0 AM 5 2 0 0 7 0 1 6 0 0 7 0 1 3 0 0 4 0 1:15 AM 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1:3 0 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1:4 5 AM 4 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 14 3 2 0 19 0 2 16 2 0 2 0 0 2 5 2 0 9 0 2 :0 0 AM 3 2 3 0 8 0 1 5 1 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 :15 AM 4 2 2 0 8 0 1 4 1 0 6 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 2 :3 0 AM 6 3 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 :4 5 AM 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 16 9 5 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 4 0 3 6 1 0 10 0 3 :0 0 AM 5 2 1 0 8 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 3 :15 AM 9 1 1 0 11 0 2 18 2 0 2 2 0 1 4 3 0 8 0 3 :3 0 AM 7 2 0 0 9 0 1 10 2 0 13 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 3 :4 5 AM 18 1 0 0 19 0 0 19 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 5 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 3 9 6 2 0 4 7 0 3 6 3 5 0 7 1 0 2 14 7 0 2 3 0 4 :0 0 AM 14 8 1 0 2 3 0 1 4 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 2 6 0 8 0 4 :15 AM 2 1 4 4 0 2 9 0 0 5 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 7 3 0 10 0 4 :3 0 AM 2 8 7 0 0 3 5 0 6 5 4 3 0 6 3 0 0 7 7 0 14 0 4 :4 5 AM 2 2 5 0 0 2 7 0 6 7 5 6 0 8 7 0 1 16 7 0 2 4 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 8 5 2 4 5 0 114 0 13 2 19 12 0 2 4 4 0 1 3 2 2 3 0 5 6 0 5 :0 0 AM 2 9 10 2 0 4 1 0 4 6 7 5 0 7 6 1 0 9 7 0 16 0 5 :15 AM 2 8 9 1 0 3 8 0 8 6 7 3 0 7 8 0 3 13 15 0 3 1 0 5 :3 0 AM 4 1 10 2 0 5 3 0 9 7 9 6 0 9 4 0 8 13 12 0 3 3 0 5 :4 5 AM 18 10 1 0 2 9 0 2 6 117 11 0 15 4 0 3 3 5 19 0 5 7 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 116 3 9 6 0 16 1 0 4 7 3 3 0 2 5 0 4 0 2 1 14 7 0 5 3 0 13 7 0 6 :0 0 AM 3 5 13 9 0 5 7 0 2 3 7 3 4 0 10 0 0 1 19 17 0 3 7 0 6 :15 AM 3 1 17 2 0 5 0 0 2 6 9 0 3 0 119 0 2 2 4 14 0 4 0 0 6 :3 0 AM 4 0 3 5 2 0 7 7 0 2 1 7 6 11 0 10 8 0 5 3 2 10 0 4 7 0 6 :4 5 AM 4 4 2 4 5 0 7 3 0 2 8 116 12 0 15 6 0 3 3 9 17 0 5 9 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 0 8 9 18 0 2 5 7 0 9 8 3 5 5 3 0 0 4 8 3 0 11 114 5 8 0 18 3 0 7 :0 0 AM 4 4 2 5 11 0 8 0 0 13 8 0 9 0 10 2 0 5 2 1 11 0 3 7 0 7 :15 AM 3 2 3 0 10 0 7 2 0 15 10 1 17 0 13 3 0 11 2 7 12 0 5 0 0 7 :3 0 AM 4 8 3 0 9 0 8 7 0 8 8 1 17 0 10 6 0 8 2 5 18 0 5 1 0 7 :4 5 AM 3 3 2 1 9 0 6 3 0 16 10 5 5 0 12 6 0 5 2 3 13 0 4 1 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 7 10 6 3 9 0 3 0 2 0 5 2 3 6 7 4 8 0 4 6 7 0 2 9 9 6 5 4 0 17 9 0 8 :0 0 AM 3 1 19 8 0 5 8 0 7 7 6 9 0 9 2 0 3 2 5 10 0 3 8 0 8 :15 AM 4 1 19 9 0 6 9 0 5 13 2 11 0 14 8 0 5 3 0 12 0 4 7 0 8 :3 0 AM 3 4 2 1 5 0 6 0 0 11 8 1 5 0 9 7 1 10 19 19 0 4 8 0 8 :4 5 AM 4 6 2 6 6 0 7 8 0 10 9 9 13 0 12 2 0 4 16 10 0 3 0 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 2 8 5 2 8 0 2 6 5 0 3 3 3 8 8 3 8 0 4 5 9 1 2 2 9 0 5 1 0 16 3 0 9 :0 0 AM 4 1 18 3 0 6 2 0 11 7 2 6 0 8 9 0 10 2 3 11 0 4 4 0 9 :15 AM 5 1 2 5 9 0 8 5 0 18 7 7 9 0 10 4 0 4 17 11 0 3 2 0 9 :3 0 AM 2 7 3 1 8 0 6 6 0 9 8 9 13 0 111 0 7 15 2 0 0 4 2 0 9 :4 5 AM 3 9 2 5 10 0 7 4 0 3 7 6 13 0 9 2 1 9 2 2 5 0 3 6 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 8 9 9 3 0 0 2 8 7 0 4 1 3 14 4 1 0 3 9 6 1 3 0 7 7 4 7 0 15 4 0 10 :0 0 AM 3 4 10 4 0 4 8 0 6 8 9 17 0 112 0 7 17 13 0 3 7 0 1 of 16 10 :15 AM 4 9 2 7 6 0 8 2 0 9 8 8 11 0 10 8 0 8 13 12 0 3 3 0 10 :3 0 AM 4 0 16 15 0 7 1 0 12 9 2 10 0 114 0 5 17 14 0 3 6 0 10 :4 5 AM 4 3 2 1 6 0 7 0 0 10 8 4 15 0 10 9 0 13 2 6 2 0 0 5 9 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 16 6 7 4 3 1 0 2 7 1 0 3 7 3 5 3 5 3 0 4 4 3 0 3 3 7 3 5 9 0 16 5 0 11:0 0 AM 4 9 16 7 0 7 2 0 11 8 4 11 0 10 6 0 12 19 12 0 4 3 0 11:15 AM 4 9 2 8 11 0 8 8 0 10 7 2 4 0 8 6 0 12 2 7 12 0 5 1 0 11:3 0 AM 5 8 3 2 8 0 9 8 0 10 7 4 18 0 10 2 0 12 18 15 0 4 5 0 11:4 5 AM 4 2 2 8 10 0 8 0 0 8 9 6 17 0 12 1 0 5 3 3 7 0 4 5 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 19 8 10 4 3 6 0 3 3 8 0 3 9 3 2 6 5 0 0 4 15 0 4 1 9 7 4 6 0 18 4 0 12 :0 0 PM 4 5 2 4 8 0 7 7 0 9 8 9 7 0 10 5 1 10 2 5 10 0 4 5 0 12 :15 PM 5 4 3 0 7 0 9 1 0 8 6 3 5 0 7 6 0 11 2 2 17 0 5 0 0 12 :3 0 PM 4 4 3 4 10 0 8 8 0 7 9 0 11 0 10 8 0 11 2 4 16 0 5 1 0 12 :4 5 PM 4 0 19 10 0 6 9 0 6 7 0 6 0 8 2 1 11 2 3 16 0 5 0 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 18 3 10 7 3 5 0 3 2 5 0 3 0 3 12 2 9 0 3 7 1 2 4 3 9 4 5 9 0 19 6 0 1:0 0 PM 3 1 2 4 3 0 5 8 0 6 10 6 2 0 0 13 2 0 13 3 2 11 0 5 6 0 1:15 PM 4 0 2 8 6 0 7 4 0 13 9 0 18 0 12 1 0 5 2 5 7 0 3 7 0 1:3 0 PM 4 4 2 1 9 0 7 4 0 5 8 9 13 0 10 7 0 14 3 1 12 0 5 7 0 1:4 5 PM 3 9 2 2 13 0 7 4 0 18 7 6 10 0 10 4 0 12 3 4 12 0 5 8 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 4 9 5 3 1 0 2 8 0 0 4 2 3 6 1 6 1 0 4 6 4 0 4 4 12 2 4 2 0 2 0 8 0 2 :0 0 PM 3 5 2 1 12 0 6 8 0 18 8 4 15 0 117 0 15 3 3 10 0 5 8 0 2 :15 PM 2 9 17 8 0 5 4 0 14 8 2 12 0 10 8 2 16 3 1 7 0 5 4 0 2 :3 0 PM 5 3 4 7 10 0 110 0 8 6 7 12 0 8 7 0 13 3 5 19 0 6 7 0 2 :4 5 PM 4 2 3 7 13 0 9 2 0 8 6 9 8 0 8 5 0 14 3 1 12 0 5 7 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 9 12 2 4 3 0 3 2 4 0 4 8 3 0 2 4 7 0 3 9 7 2 5 8 13 0 4 8 0 2 3 6 0 3 :0 0 PM 4 6 3 5 15 0 9 6 0 12 7 4 10 0 9 6 0 5 3 1 8 0 4 4 0 3 :15 PM 4 6 3 7 13 0 9 6 0 14 9 4 15 0 12 3 0 19 4 2 11 0 7 2 0 3 :3 0 PM 4 6 4 8 2 9 0 12 3 0 9 7 4 13 0 9 6 0 11 4 0 10 0 6 1 0 3 :4 5 PM 4 1 3 8 19 0 9 8 0 18 10 1 13 0 13 2 0 15 3 8 15 0 6 8 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 17 9 15 8 7 6 0 4 13 0 5 3 3 4 3 5 1 0 4 4 7 0 5 0 15 1 4 4 0 2 4 5 0 4 :0 0 PM 4 8 3 5 3 3 0 116 0 14 7 9 16 0 10 9 1 2 2 5 3 12 0 8 7 0 4 :15 PM 3 8 3 8 17 0 9 3 0 13 5 9 15 0 8 7 1 16 5 6 11 0 8 3 0 4 :3 0 PM 3 6 5 6 3 7 0 12 9 0 13 7 0 13 0 9 6 0 17 5 0 13 0 8 0 0 4 :4 5 PM 3 1 4 0 14 0 8 5 0 14 8 8 10 0 112 1 2 9 3 5 16 0 8 0 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 15 3 16 9 10 1 0 4 2 3 0 5 4 2 9 6 5 4 0 4 0 4 3 8 4 19 4 5 2 0 3 3 0 0 5 :0 0 PM 4 1 6 2 3 1 0 13 4 0 10 7 5 13 0 9 8 0 15 4 2 10 0 6 7 0 5 :15 PM 3 2 4 8 16 0 9 6 0 8 8 3 9 0 10 0 0 19 5 0 13 0 8 2 0 5 :3 0 PM 2 2 3 3 14 0 6 9 0 6 9 3 17 0 116 1 16 2 5 9 0 5 0 0 5 :4 5 PM 3 2 2 5 14 0 7 1 0 8 6 2 10 0 8 0 0 2 2 4 6 2 3 0 9 1 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 12 7 16 8 7 5 0 3 7 0 0 3 2 3 13 4 9 0 3 9 4 1 7 2 16 3 5 5 0 2 9 0 0 6 :0 0 PM 3 5 2 5 14 0 7 4 0 10 8 3 17 0 110 0 13 4 3 12 0 6 8 0 6 :15 PM 3 0 2 8 6 0 6 4 0 2 7 3 6 0 8 1 0 18 3 1 14 0 6 3 0 6 :3 0 PM 3 1 2 5 7 0 6 3 0 7 6 1 8 0 7 6 1 16 3 1 11 0 5 8 0 6 :4 5 PM 2 5 2 3 5 0 5 3 0 19 8 0 6 0 10 5 0 19 2 6 8 0 5 3 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 12 1 10 1 3 2 0 2 5 4 0 3 8 2 9 7 3 7 0 3 7 2 1 6 6 13 1 4 5 0 2 4 2 0 7 :0 0 PM 2 5 18 3 0 4 6 0 3 5 2 7 0 6 2 0 14 2 5 9 0 4 8 0 7 :15 PM 2 0 13 6 0 3 9 0 2 6 0 9 0 7 1 0 6 15 11 0 3 2 0 7 :3 0 PM 10 12 7 0 2 9 0 4 3 9 5 0 4 8 2 8 16 8 0 3 2 0 7 :4 5 PM 18 18 2 0 3 8 0 5 4 5 6 0 5 6 0 6 8 9 0 2 3 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 7 3 6 1 18 0 15 2 0 14 19 6 2 7 0 2 3 7 2 3 4 6 4 3 7 0 13 5 0 8 :0 0 PM 2 0 10 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 3 6 0 5 2 0 9 13 8 0 3 0 0 8 :15 PM 2 3 18 6 0 4 7 0 2 3 3 3 0 3 8 2 13 17 5 0 3 5 0 8 :3 0 PM 18 11 2 0 3 1 0 2 2 7 5 0 3 4 0 2 9 4 0 15 0 8 :4 5 PM 18 14 3 0 3 5 0 2 2 5 5 0 3 2 0 9 13 7 0 2 9 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 7 9 5 3 15 0 14 7 0 9 12 8 19 0 15 6 2 3 3 5 2 2 4 0 10 9 0 9 :0 0 PM 12 8 2 0 2 2 0 4 2 7 6 0 3 7 0 14 17 8 0 3 9 0 9 :15 PM 9 8 1 0 18 0 4 3 2 5 0 4 1 0 11 17 7 0 3 5 0 9 :3 0 PM 13 15 3 0 3 1 0 6 3 4 0 0 4 0 0 7 7 3 0 17 0 9 :4 5 PM 11 10 5 0 2 6 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 5 0 5 10 5 0 2 0 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 4 5 4 1 11 0 9 7 0 16 113 14 0 14 3 0 3 7 5 1 2 3 0 111 0 10 :0 0 PM 10 6 2 0 18 0 2 8 4 0 14 0 2 7 4 0 13 0 Le g 6 7 th Ave NE S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)6 7 th Ave NE D ir e c tio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d T im e R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p P e d * 2 of 16 10 :15 PM 6 3 1 0 10 0 0 13 2 0 15 0 4 8 3 0 15 0 10 :3 0 PM 3 7 1 0 11 0 1 13 6 0 2 0 0 2 5 2 0 9 0 10 :4 5 PM 6 5 0 0 11 0 2 7 1 0 10 0 4 2 1 0 7 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 5 2 1 4 0 5 0 0 5 4 1 13 0 5 9 0 12 2 2 10 0 4 4 0 11:0 0 PM 11 7 0 0 18 0 0 16 1 0 17 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 11:15 PM 7 2 2 0 11 0 2 7 1 0 10 1 1 6 1 0 8 1 11:3 0 PM 2 2 1 0 5 0 1 3 2 0 6 0 3 1 2 0 6 0 11:4 5 PM 6 3 1 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 7 3 0 13 0 Ho u r ly T o ta l 2 6 14 4 0 4 4 0 3 2 8 4 0 3 5 1 7 16 6 0 2 9 1 T o ta l 2 5 8 2 17 5 5 6 4 9 0 4 9 8 6 0 7 14 5 5 0 3 7 14 0 6 9 3 1 17 7 3 6 18 6 8 8 5 1 0 3 4 5 5 1 % Ap pr o a c h 5 1.8 %3 5 .2 %13 .0 %0 %--10 .3 %7 9 .4 %10 .3 %0 %--2 1.3 %5 4 .1%2 4 .6 %0 %-- % T o ta l 10 .6 %7 .2 %2 .7 %0 %2 0 .4 %-2 .9 %2 2 .6 %2 .9 %0 %2 8 .4 %-3 .0 %7 .7 %3 .5 %0 %14 .2 %- Mo to r c yc le s 7 4 0 0 11 -0 6 0 0 6 -0 4 3 0 7 - % Mo to r c yc le s 0 .3 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 .1%0 %0 %0 .1%-0 %0 .2 %0 .4 %0 %0 .2 %- Lig hts 2 4 4 3 17 0 2 5 7 9 0 4 7 2 4 -6 3 2 5 3 3 2 6 9 9 0 6 6 6 3 -7 19 18 0 8 8 2 2 0 3 3 4 9 - % Lig hts 9 4 .6 %9 7 .0 %8 9 .2 %0 %9 4 .7 %-8 8 .5 %9 6 .9 %9 7 .9 %0 %9 6 .1%-9 7 .7 %9 6 .8 %9 6 .6 %0 %9 6 .9 %- S in g le -Unit T r u c ks 7 2 3 8 5 6 0 16 6 -6 3 10 9 12 0 18 4 -14 4 4 13 0 7 1 - % S in g le -Unit T r u c ks 2 .8 %2 .2 %8 .6 %0 %3 .3 %-8 .8 %2 .0 %1.7 %0 %2 .7 %-1.9 %2 .4 %1.5 %0 %2 .1%- Ar tic ula te d T r u c ks 5 9 8 12 0 7 9 -16 4 7 1 0 6 4 -1 7 8 0 16 - % Ar tic ula te d T r u c ks 2 .3 %0 .5 %1.8 %0 %1.6 %-2 .2 %0 .9 %0 .1%0 %0 .9 %-0 .1%0 .4 %0 .9 %0 %0 .5 %- B u s e s 1 3 2 0 6 -3 8 2 0 13 -2 2 5 0 9 - % B u s e s 0 %0 .2 %0 .3 %0 %0 .1%-0 .4 %0 .1%0 .3 %0 %0 .2 %-0 .3 %0 .1%0 .6 %0 %0 .3 %- T r a in s 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 - % T r a in s 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %- Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 0 0 0 0 -0 1 0 0 1 -0 3 0 0 3 - % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 .2 %0 %0 %0 .1%- Pe d e s tr ia n s -----0 -----10 -----1 % Pe d e s tr ia n s -----------5 8 .8 %-----10 0 % Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----0 -----7 -----0 % Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s wa lk -----------4 1.2 %-----0 % Le g 6 7 th Ave NE S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)6 7 th Ave NE D ir e c tio n S o u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d T im e R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U Ap p P e d * *Pe d e s tr ian s an d Bicy cle s o n Cr os s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig h t , T : T hr u , U: U-T u r n 3 of 16 S R5 3 1mp 8 .5 9 _6 7 t h_Ave _NE_2 0 19 -0 7 10 - T MC We d Ju l 1 0 , 20 19 Fu ll Le n g t h (1 2 AM-12 AM (+1 )) All Clas s e s (Mo t o r cy cle s , Lig h t s , S in g le -Unit T r u cks , Ar ticu late d T r u cks , Bu s e s , T r ain s , Pe d e s tr ians , Bicy cle s o n Ro ad , Bicy cle s on Cr o s s walk) All Mo v e m e nts I D: 6 7 6 6 58 , Lo cation : 48 .1 5 1 9 0 7 , -1 2 2.14 0 5 9 , S it e Co d e : 5 31 0 0 8 5 9 -0 7 1 9 Pr ov id e d b y : Was hing ton S t at e DO T 15 70 0 Day ton Av e No r t h , MS -1 2 0, P.O . Bo x 3 3 03 1 0 , S e at tle , WA, 9 81 3 3 , US Le g Ra ilr o a d S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)Ra ilr o a d D ir e c tio n No r th e a s tb o u n d Ea s tb o u n d S o u th e a s tb o u n d T im e L Ap p P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R Ap p P e d *In t 2 0 19 -0 7 -10 12 :0 0 AM 0 0 -3 13 9 0 2 5 0 0 0 -4 4 12 :15 AM 0 0 -0 15 8 0 2 3 0 0 0 -4 1 12 :3 0 AM 0 0 -0 13 9 0 2 2 0 0 0 -3 2 12 :4 5 AM 0 0 -5 8 4 0 17 0 0 0 -3 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -8 4 9 3 0 0 8 7 0 0 0 -14 8 1:0 0 AM 0 0 -4 15 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 -4 0 1:15 AM 0 0 -0 8 9 0 17 0 0 0 -3 1 1:3 0 AM 0 0 -1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 -11 1:4 5 AM 0 0 -1 3 4 0 8 0 0 0 -17 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -6 2 9 16 0 5 1 0 0 0 -9 9 2 :0 0 AM 0 0 -1 10 7 0 18 0 0 0 -3 5 2 :15 AM 0 0 -1 5 7 0 13 0 0 0 -3 1 2 :3 0 AM 0 0 -1 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 -19 2 :4 5 AM 0 0 -1 5 5 0 11 0 0 0 -2 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -4 2 0 2 4 0 4 8 0 0 0 -112 3 :0 0 AM 0 0 -2 5 5 0 12 0 0 0 -3 9 3 :15 AM 0 0 -2 6 5 0 13 0 0 0 -5 4 3 :3 0 AM 0 0 -3 6 7 0 16 0 0 0 -4 5 3 :4 5 AM 0 0 -1 6 4 0 11 0 0 0 -5 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -8 2 3 2 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 -19 3 4 :0 0 AM 0 0 -2 8 3 0 13 0 0 0 -8 6 4 :15 AM 0 0 -0 7 2 0 9 0 0 0 -10 0 4 :3 0 AM 0 0 -0 4 11 0 15 0 0 0 -12 7 4 :4 5 AM 0 0 -1 10 12 0 2 3 0 0 0 -16 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -3 2 9 2 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 -4 7 4 5 :0 0 AM 0 0 -2 8 5 0 15 0 0 0 -14 8 5 :15 AM 0 0 -3 14 5 0 2 2 0 0 0 -16 9 5 :3 0 AM 0 0 -3 16 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 -2 2 0 5 :4 5 AM 0 0 -5 16 3 5 0 5 6 0 0 0 -2 9 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -13 5 4 6 6 0 13 3 0 0 0 -8 3 3 6 :0 0 AM 0 0 -7 3 0 2 9 0 6 6 0 0 0 -2 6 0 6 :15 AM 0 0 -7 3 4 2 7 0 6 8 0 0 0 -2 7 7 6 :3 0 AM 0 0 -5 5 4 2 5 0 8 4 0 0 0 -3 16 6 :4 5 AM 0 0 -2 3 2 3 2 0 6 6 0 0 0 -3 5 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -2 1 15 0 113 0 2 8 4 0 0 0 -12 0 7 7 :0 0 AM 0 0 -3 4 7 2 4 0 7 4 0 0 0 -2 9 3 7 :15 AM 0 0 -6 4 6 2 4 0 7 6 0 0 0 -3 3 1 7 :3 0 AM 0 0 -5 4 6 3 2 0 8 3 0 0 0 -3 2 7 7 :4 5 AM 0 0 -8 4 1 2 5 0 7 4 0 0 0 -3 0 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -2 2 18 0 10 5 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 -12 5 5 8 :0 0 AM 0 0 -11 4 5 2 8 0 8 4 0 0 0 -2 7 2 8 :15 AM 0 0 -4 3 5 2 4 0 6 3 0 0 0 -3 2 7 8 :3 0 AM 0 0 -4 4 3 3 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 -2 8 5 8 :4 5 AM 0 0 -6 5 4 3 6 0 9 6 0 0 0 -3 2 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -2 5 17 7 12 1 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 -12 10 9 :0 0 AM 0 0 -9 4 8 3 1 0 8 8 0 0 0 -2 8 3 9 :15 AM 0 0 -12 4 4 3 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 -3 0 7 9 :3 0 AM 0 0 -9 4 8 19 0 7 6 0 0 0 -2 9 5 9 :4 5 AM 0 0 -8 3 1 3 4 0 7 3 0 0 0 -2 7 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -3 8 17 1 114 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 -116 0 10 :0 0 AM 0 0 -10 5 8 19 0 8 7 0 0 0 -2 8 4 4 of 16 10 :15 AM 0 0 -11 6 5 3 8 0 114 0 0 0 -3 3 7 10 :3 0 AM 0 0 -9 5 6 4 4 0 10 9 0 0 0 -3 3 0 10 :4 5 AM 0 0 -6 6 3 4 0 0 10 9 0 0 0 -3 4 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -3 6 2 4 2 14 1 0 4 19 0 0 0 -12 9 8 11:0 0 AM 0 0 -10 8 3 4 6 0 13 9 0 0 0 -3 6 0 11:15 AM 0 0 -14 7 4 4 8 0 13 6 0 0 0 -3 6 1 11:3 0 AM 0 0 -14 5 9 4 5 0 118 0 0 0 -3 6 3 11:4 5 AM 0 0 -12 8 0 4 1 0 13 3 0 0 0 -3 7 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -5 0 2 9 6 18 0 0 5 2 6 0 0 0 -14 6 3 12 :0 0 PM 0 0 -18 6 2 4 4 0 12 4 0 0 0 -3 5 1 12 :15 PM 1 1 -16 7 1 4 1 0 12 8 0 0 0 -3 4 6 12 :3 0 PM 0 0 -8 8 3 5 4 0 14 5 0 0 0 -3 9 2 12 :4 5 PM 0 0 -6 8 9 4 7 0 14 2 0 0 0 -3 4 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 1 1 -4 8 3 0 5 18 6 0 5 3 9 0 0 0 -14 3 2 1:0 0 PM 0 0 -16 8 4 5 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 -3 9 6 1:15 PM 0 0 -12 8 6 4 8 0 14 6 0 0 0 -3 7 8 1:3 0 PM 0 0 -10 9 5 5 3 0 15 8 0 0 0 -3 9 6 1:4 5 PM 0 0 -14 8 0 6 4 0 15 8 0 0 0 -3 9 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -5 2 3 4 5 2 15 0 6 12 0 0 0 -15 6 4 2 :0 0 PM 0 0 -2 4 9 4 3 9 0 15 7 0 0 0 -4 0 0 2 :15 PM 0 0 -19 9 3 7 0 0 18 2 0 0 0 -3 9 8 2 :3 0 PM 0 0 -2 6 8 7 4 6 0 15 9 0 0 0 -4 2 3 2 :4 5 PM 0 0 -18 10 6 4 8 0 17 2 0 0 0 -4 0 6 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -8 7 3 8 0 2 0 3 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 -16 2 7 3 :0 0 PM 0 0 -18 10 0 4 6 0 16 4 0 0 0 -4 0 0 3 :15 PM 0 0 -2 3 9 9 4 4 0 16 6 0 0 0 -4 5 7 3 :3 0 PM 0 0 -2 0 13 1 5 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 -4 8 2 3 :4 5 PM 0 0 -3 0 9 1 4 8 0 16 9 0 0 0 -4 6 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -9 1 4 2 1 18 9 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 -18 0 6 4 :0 0 PM 0 0 -2 7 10 4 4 5 0 17 6 0 0 0 -4 8 8 4 :15 PM 0 0 -2 6 10 7 6 4 0 19 7 0 0 0 -4 6 0 4 :3 0 PM 0 0 -3 2 10 9 4 6 0 18 7 0 0 0 -4 9 2 4 :4 5 PM 0 0 -2 9 12 3 4 4 0 19 6 0 0 0 -4 7 3 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -114 4 4 3 19 9 0 7 5 6 0 0 0 -19 13 5 :0 0 PM 0 0 -2 4 10 3 5 0 0 17 7 0 1 1 -4 7 7 5 :15 PM 0 0 -2 0 13 2 6 7 0 2 19 0 0 0 -4 9 7 5 :3 0 PM 0 0 -14 13 0 4 7 0 19 1 0 0 0 -4 2 6 5 :4 5 PM 0 0 -2 3 114 6 2 0 19 9 0 0 0 -4 4 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -8 1 4 7 9 2 2 6 0 7 8 6 0 1 1 -18 4 1 6 :0 0 PM 0 0 -18 118 4 2 0 17 8 0 0 0 -4 3 0 6 :15 PM 0 0 -17 10 5 5 5 0 17 7 0 0 0 -3 8 5 6 :3 0 PM 0 0 -2 6 9 8 5 1 0 17 5 0 0 0 -3 7 2 6 :4 5 PM 0 0 -18 10 8 5 5 0 18 1 0 0 0 -3 9 2 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -7 9 4 2 9 2 0 3 0 7 11 0 0 0 -15 7 9 7 :0 0 PM 0 0 -14 6 1 4 5 0 12 0 0 0 0 -2 7 6 7 :15 PM 0 0 -9 9 1 4 2 0 14 2 0 0 0 -2 8 4 7 :3 0 PM 0 0 -14 8 2 3 7 0 13 3 0 0 0 -2 4 2 7 :4 5 PM 0 0 -12 7 4 3 1 0 117 0 0 0 -2 3 4 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -4 9 3 0 8 15 5 0 5 12 0 0 0 -10 3 6 8 :0 0 PM 0 0 -10 8 1 4 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 -2 4 7 8 :15 PM 0 0 -16 7 2 3 3 0 12 1 0 0 0 -2 4 1 8 :3 0 PM 0 0 -17 6 8 3 9 0 12 4 0 0 0 -2 0 4 8 :4 5 PM 0 0 -15 5 4 2 0 0 8 9 1 0 0 -18 5 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -5 8 2 7 5 13 2 0 4 6 5 1 0 0 -8 7 7 9 :0 0 PM 0 0 -5 6 1 3 0 0 9 6 1 0 0 -19 4 9 :15 PM 0 0 -6 5 5 2 8 0 8 9 0 0 0 -18 3 9 :3 0 PM 0 0 -7 2 8 2 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 -14 4 9 :4 5 PM 0 0 -11 3 6 2 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 -14 1 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -2 9 18 0 10 2 0 3 11 1 0 0 -6 6 2 10 :0 0 PM 0 0 -8 4 0 15 0 6 3 0 0 0 -10 8 Le g Ra ilr o a d S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)Ra ilr o a d D ir e c tio n No r th e a s tb o u n d Ea s tb o u n d S o u th e a s tb o u n d T im e L Ap p P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R Ap p P e d *In t 5 of 16 10 :15 PM 0 0 -6 4 0 2 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 -10 6 10 :3 0 PM 0 0 -1 19 17 0 3 7 0 0 0 -7 7 10 :4 5 PM 0 0 -3 3 2 14 0 4 9 0 0 0 -7 7 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -18 13 1 6 6 0 2 15 0 0 0 -3 6 8 11:0 0 PM 0 0 -3 2 7 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 -7 7 11:15 PM 0 0 -5 2 9 11 0 4 5 0 0 0 -7 4 11:3 0 PM 0 0 -4 16 7 0 2 7 0 0 0 -4 4 11:4 5 PM 0 0 -1 11 12 0 2 4 0 0 0 -4 9 Ho u r ly T o tal 0 0 -13 8 3 4 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 -2 4 4 T o ta l 1 1 -9 5 3 5 19 9 2 8 7 5 0 9 0 2 7 2 1 1 -2 4 4 0 1 % Ap pr o a c h 10 0 %--10 .6 %5 7 .6 %3 1.8 %0 %--10 0 %--- % T o ta l 0 %0 %-3 .9 %2 1.3 %11.8 %0 %3 7 .0 %-0 %0 %-- Mo to r c yc le s 0 0 -3 14 4 0 2 1 -0 0 -4 5 % Mo to r c yc le s 0 %0 %-0 .3 %0 .3 %0 .1%0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 %-0 .2 % Lig hts 0 0 -9 3 1 5 0 0 7 2 7 4 9 0 8 6 8 7 -0 0 -2 3 4 2 3 % Lig hts 0 %0 %-9 7 .7 %9 6 .3 %9 5 .6 %0 %9 6 .2 %-0 %0 %-9 6 .0 % S in g le -Unit T r u c ks 0 0 -13 10 7 6 3 0 18 3 -0 0 -6 0 4 % S in g le -Unit T r u c ks 0 %0 %-1.4 %2 .1%2 .2 %0 %2 .0 %-0 %0 %-2 .5 % Ar tic u la te d T r u c ks 0 0 -3 6 3 5 6 0 12 2 -0 0 -2 8 1 % Ar tic u la te d T r u c ks 0 %0 %-0 .3 %1.2 %1.9 %0 %1.4 %-0 %0 %-1.2 % B u s e s 0 0 -2 7 3 0 12 -0 0 -4 0 % B u s e s 0 %0 %-0 .2 %0 .1%0 .1%0 %0 .1%-0 %0 %-0 .2 % T r a ins 1 1 -0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -2 % T r a ins 10 0 %10 0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-10 0 %10 0 %-0 % B ic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 0 -1 1 0 0 2 -0 0 -6 % B ic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %-0 .1%0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %-0 % Pe d e s tr ia n s --0 -----2 --0 % Pe d e s tr ia n s --------10 0 %---- Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s walk --0 -----0 --0 % Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s walk --------0 %---- Le g Ra ilr o a d S R 5 3 1 (17 2 n d St NE)Ra ilr o a d D ir e c tio n No r th e a s tb o u n d Ea s tb o u n d S o u th e a s tb o u n d T im e L Ap p P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R Ap p P e d *In t *Pe d e s tr ian s an d Bicy cle s o n Cr os s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig h t , T : T hr u , U: U-T u r n 6 of 16 S R009 mp 2 6 .0 5_S R5 3 1-17 2 nd _S t _NE_RAB_2 0 19 -030 5 - T MC T ue Mar 5 , 2 019 Full Le n g th (12 AM-1 2 AM (+1)) All Clas s e s (Mot or cycle s , Lig h ts , S in g le -Unit T rucks , Ar ticulate d T rucks , Bus e s , Pe d e s tr ians , Bicycle s on Ro ad, Bicycle s on Cr os s walk) All Move m e nts I D: 6 451 35 , Locatio n: 48.1 51 649, -1 22 .1132 59 , S ite Cod e : 00 90 2605_03 19 Pr ovide d by: Was h ing to n S tate DO T 15 70 0 Dayto n Av e Nor th, MS -12 0, P.O . Bo x 330 31 0, S e attle , WA, 9 813 3, US Le g SR 9 17 2 n d St NE SR 9 SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ire c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int 2 0 19 -0 3 -0 5 12 :0 0 AM 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 0 7 0 2 1 12 :15 AM 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 6 0 11 12 :3 0 AM 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 6 2 0 11 0 17 12 :4 5 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 6 0 2 1 5 0 8 0 17 Ho u rly T o ta l 9 11 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 1 7 3 0 11 0 8 11 13 0 3 2 0 6 6 1:0 0 AM 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 6 0 12 1:15 AM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 5 0 11 1:3 0 AM 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 10 1:4 5 AM 1 5 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 13 Ho u rly T o ta l 6 10 1 0 17 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 7 0 4 9 6 0 19 0 4 6 2 :0 0 AM 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 15 2 :15 AM 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 8 2 :3 0 AM 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 16 2 :4 5 AM 2 7 1 0 10 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 5 0 2 1 2 0 5 0 2 3 Ho u rly T o ta l 5 2 1 1 0 2 7 0 1 7 0 0 8 0 0 6 6 0 12 0 7 5 3 0 15 0 6 2 3 :0 0 AM 1 8 0 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 8 2 2 0 12 0 2 6 3 :15 AM 6 12 1 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 9 3 :3 0 AM 2 3 1 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 6 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 2 2 3 :4 5 AM 6 8 0 0 14 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 7 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 3 2 Ho u rly T o ta l 15 3 1 2 0 4 8 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 13 15 0 2 8 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 0 10 9 4 :0 0 AM 10 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 6 0 12 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 4 2 4 :15 AM 8 18 1 0 2 7 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 5 8 0 13 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 5 5 4 :3 0 AM 9 2 5 0 0 3 4 0 1 15 1 0 17 0 0 9 13 0 2 2 0 5 1 2 0 8 0 8 1 4 :4 5 AM 11 2 9 0 0 4 0 0 2 15 0 0 17 0 0 12 14 0 2 6 0 8 0 3 0 11 0 9 4 Ho u rly T o ta l 3 8 8 2 1 0 12 1 0 3 4 8 1 0 5 2 0 0 3 2 4 1 0 7 3 0 18 1 7 0 2 6 0 2 7 2 5 :0 0 AM 13 4 4 0 0 5 7 0 1 19 1 0 2 1 0 1 12 14 0 2 7 0 13 1 3 0 17 0 12 2 5 :15 AM 9 2 6 1 0 3 6 0 1 10 0 0 11 0 0 14 2 2 0 3 6 0 13 1 3 0 17 0 10 0 5 :3 0 AM 14 4 7 0 0 6 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 0 2 8 3 1 0 5 9 0 2 0 1 6 0 2 7 0 17 1 5 :4 5 AM 15 5 3 1 0 6 9 0 4 19 1 0 2 4 0 0 5 3 4 7 0 10 0 0 2 0 3 5 0 2 8 0 2 2 1 Ho u rly T o ta l 5 1 17 0 2 0 2 2 3 0 7 6 9 4 0 8 0 0 1 10 7 114 0 2 2 2 0 6 6 6 17 0 8 9 0 6 14 6 :0 0 AM 13 5 7 0 0 7 0 0 1 17 6 0 2 4 0 0 3 1 3 1 0 6 2 0 2 4 1 2 0 2 7 0 18 3 6 :15 AM 14 8 2 1 0 9 7 0 3 16 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 8 4 9 0 8 7 0 2 9 3 12 0 4 4 0 2 4 8 6 :3 0 AM 11 7 4 2 0 8 7 0 5 14 8 0 2 7 0 0 6 1 7 2 0 13 3 0 3 3 2 14 0 4 9 0 2 9 6 6 :4 5 AM 2 3 6 6 4 0 9 3 0 14 14 3 0 3 1 0 0 5 9 5 9 0 118 0 2 4 8 2 4 0 5 6 0 2 9 8 Ho u rly T o ta l 6 1 2 7 9 7 0 3 4 7 0 2 3 6 1 18 0 10 2 0 0 18 9 2 11 0 4 0 0 0 110 14 5 2 0 17 6 0 10 2 5 7 :0 0 AM 2 2 5 7 2 0 8 1 0 7 18 7 0 3 2 0 1 6 5 4 7 0 113 0 3 6 2 3 0 0 6 8 0 2 9 4 7 :15 AM 3 0 7 9 6 0 115 0 17 15 4 0 3 6 0 1 8 2 6 5 0 14 8 0 4 2 6 4 1 0 8 9 0 3 8 8 7 :3 0 AM 3 5 6 0 4 0 9 9 0 16 14 7 0 3 7 0 1 7 4 5 6 0 13 1 0 4 4 2 7 2 0 118 0 3 8 5 7 :4 5 AM 4 3 8 1 5 0 12 9 0 15 15 1 0 3 1 0 1 6 8 5 9 0 12 8 0 3 1 2 4 9 0 8 2 0 3 7 0 Ho u rly T o ta l 13 0 2 7 7 17 0 4 2 4 0 5 5 6 2 19 0 13 6 0 4 2 8 9 2 2 7 0 5 2 0 0 15 3 12 19 2 0 3 5 7 0 14 3 7 8 :0 0 AM 3 6 7 2 5 0 113 0 4 11 4 0 19 0 0 4 4 5 4 0 9 8 0 3 0 6 10 0 4 6 0 2 7 6 8 :15 AM 10 6 0 3 0 7 3 0 3 16 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 8 5 2 0 110 0 2 3 6 14 0 4 3 0 2 4 6 8 :3 0 AM 14 4 6 3 0 6 3 0 13 15 2 0 3 0 0 1 4 9 4 1 0 9 1 0 2 3 8 3 2 0 6 3 0 2 4 7 8 :4 5 AM 2 2 6 7 1 0 9 0 0 12 16 0 0 2 8 0 0 7 6 4 0 0 116 0 13 6 4 7 0 6 6 0 3 0 0 Ho u rly T o ta l 8 2 2 4 5 12 0 3 3 9 0 3 2 5 8 7 0 9 7 0 1 2 2 7 18 7 0 4 15 0 8 9 2 6 10 3 0 2 18 0 10 6 9 9 :0 0 AM 4 1 8 5 10 0 13 6 0 7 19 6 0 3 2 0 1 5 6 4 3 0 10 0 0 2 7 8 2 8 0 6 3 0 3 3 1 9 :15 AM 2 6 5 6 5 0 8 7 0 2 14 0 0 16 0 0 4 9 3 9 0 8 8 0 4 0 10 14 0 6 4 0 2 5 5 9 :3 0 AM 13 3 7 3 0 5 3 0 5 9 3 0 17 0 1 5 5 5 0 0 10 6 0 2 5 11 2 2 0 5 8 0 2 3 4 9 :4 5 AM 3 0 3 3 6 0 6 9 0 7 11 6 0 2 4 0 0 5 4 4 3 0 9 7 0 2 4 7 2 6 0 5 7 0 2 4 7 Ho u rly T o ta l 110 2 11 2 4 0 3 4 5 0 2 1 5 3 15 0 8 9 0 2 2 14 17 5 0 3 9 1 0 116 3 6 9 0 0 2 4 2 0 10 6 7 10 :0 0 AM 2 0 4 1 1 0 6 2 0 2 17 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 4 5 0 9 5 0 3 1 7 15 0 5 3 0 2 3 0 10 :15 AM 2 7 4 5 3 0 7 5 0 1 6 2 0 9 0 0 4 5 4 1 0 8 6 0 3 8 13 2 0 0 7 1 0 2 4 1 10 :3 0 AM 2 1 4 7 2 0 7 0 0 6 12 1 0 19 0 0 3 8 3 3 0 7 1 0 19 12 17 0 4 8 0 2 0 8 10 :4 5 AM 19 4 5 4 0 6 8 0 5 14 2 0 2 1 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 8 2 0 3 0 11 2 2 0 6 3 0 2 3 4 Ho u rly T o ta l 8 7 17 8 10 0 2 7 5 0 14 4 9 6 0 6 9 0 1 17 4 15 9 0 3 3 4 0 118 4 3 7 4 0 2 3 5 0 9 13 11:0 0 AM 2 0 4 0 2 0 6 2 0 4 10 0 0 14 0 1 4 8 4 1 0 9 0 0 2 4 8 12 0 4 4 0 2 10 11:15 AM 17 4 6 3 0 6 6 0 7 12 0 0 19 0 0 4 4 3 3 0 7 7 0 3 5 16 18 0 6 9 0 2 3 1 11:3 0 AM 14 4 8 4 0 6 6 0 4 10 1 0 15 0 1 4 2 3 3 0 7 6 0 2 8 9 2 4 0 6 1 0 2 18 11:4 5 AM 3 1 4 2 5 0 7 8 0 4 2 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 4 1 3 9 0 8 0 0 3 4 16 2 4 0 7 4 0 2 5 7 Ho u rly T o ta l 8 2 17 6 14 0 2 7 2 0 19 5 2 2 0 7 3 0 2 17 5 14 6 0 3 2 3 0 12 1 4 9 7 8 0 2 4 8 0 9 16 12 :0 0 PM 19 4 5 7 0 7 1 0 8 11 1 0 2 0 0 2 5 6 3 8 0 9 6 0 3 3 9 18 0 6 0 0 2 4 7 12 :15 PM 2 4 4 9 6 0 7 9 0 3 12 3 0 18 0 3 5 1 4 0 0 9 4 0 3 7 2 0 2 3 0 8 0 0 2 7 1 12 :3 0 PM 3 0 6 0 6 0 9 6 0 6 12 3 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 6 1 0 2 6 13 18 0 5 7 0 2 3 5 12 :4 5 PM 2 1 4 5 3 0 6 9 0 9 10 3 0 2 2 0 0 4 1 3 5 0 7 6 0 3 7 2 3 2 2 0 8 2 0 2 4 9 Ho u rly T o ta l 9 4 19 9 2 2 0 3 15 0 2 6 4 5 10 0 8 1 0 6 17 8 14 3 0 3 2 7 0 13 3 6 5 8 1 0 2 7 9 0 10 0 2 1:0 0 PM 2 4 5 3 3 0 8 0 0 4 14 0 0 18 0 1 3 8 3 4 0 7 3 0 3 1 11 16 0 5 8 0 2 2 9 1:15 PM 2 5 4 7 7 0 7 9 0 3 5 2 0 10 0 1 4 4 4 0 0 8 5 0 3 4 16 2 8 0 7 8 0 2 5 2 1:3 0 PM 3 4 4 9 3 0 8 6 0 4 14 3 0 2 1 0 1 6 4 3 0 0 9 5 0 2 8 14 16 0 5 8 0 2 6 0 1:4 5 PM 2 3 5 9 4 0 8 6 0 5 12 2 0 19 0 0 6 1 3 7 0 9 8 0 3 5 13 3 4 0 8 2 0 2 8 5 Ho u rly T o ta l 10 6 2 0 8 17 0 3 3 1 0 16 4 5 7 0 6 8 0 3 2 0 7 14 1 0 3 5 1 0 12 8 5 4 9 4 0 2 7 6 0 10 2 6 1 of 9 2 :0 0 PM 15 6 4 3 0 8 2 0 4 8 3 0 15 0 0 5 1 4 5 0 9 6 0 3 5 13 2 7 0 7 5 0 2 6 8 2 :15 PM 2 2 6 9 5 0 9 6 0 7 8 4 0 19 0 3 5 8 4 4 0 10 5 0 4 2 10 5 4 0 10 6 0 3 2 6 2 :3 0 PM 6 1 8 1 13 0 15 5 0 3 11 0 0 14 0 2 6 5 4 9 0 116 0 5 0 2 0 3 2 0 10 2 0 3 8 7 2 :4 5 PM 6 7 8 5 19 1 17 2 0 9 15 5 0 2 9 0 3 7 5 4 5 0 12 3 0 4 7 17 3 3 0 9 7 0 4 2 1 Ho u rly T o ta l 16 5 2 9 9 4 0 1 5 0 5 0 2 3 4 2 12 0 7 7 0 8 2 4 9 18 3 0 4 4 0 0 17 4 6 0 14 6 0 3 8 0 0 14 0 2 3 :0 0 PM 3 1 6 6 10 0 10 7 0 5 12 2 0 19 0 1 8 1 4 3 1 12 6 0 5 3 18 2 5 0 9 6 0 3 4 8 3 :15 PM 2 4 6 1 7 0 9 2 0 8 10 4 0 2 2 0 3 8 1 5 2 0 13 6 0 4 6 2 5 4 0 0 111 0 3 6 1 3 :3 0 PM 3 1 8 7 14 0 13 2 0 10 12 0 0 2 2 0 1 8 6 4 9 1 13 7 0 6 4 2 3 3 6 0 12 3 0 4 14 3 :4 5 PM 4 7 7 8 11 0 13 6 0 4 17 1 0 2 2 0 6 116 4 5 0 16 7 0 4 6 2 6 3 9 0 111 0 4 3 6 Ho u rly T o ta l 13 3 2 9 2 4 2 0 4 6 7 0 2 7 5 1 7 0 8 5 0 11 3 6 4 18 9 2 5 6 6 0 2 0 9 9 2 14 0 0 4 4 1 0 15 5 9 4 :0 0 PM 2 3 8 3 15 0 12 1 0 5 17 4 0 2 6 0 1 9 6 5 6 0 15 3 0 5 7 2 2 3 1 0 110 0 4 10 4 :15 PM 2 9 9 9 6 1 13 5 0 5 13 5 0 2 3 0 1 9 8 6 9 1 16 9 0 6 7 2 4 3 8 0 12 9 0 4 5 6 4 :3 0 PM 3 3 9 2 4 0 12 9 0 5 16 0 0 2 1 0 2 9 1 5 5 0 14 8 0 6 2 2 1 3 9 0 12 2 0 4 2 0 4 :4 5 PM 19 7 5 10 0 10 4 0 4 14 1 0 19 0 4 10 0 5 7 0 16 1 0 5 4 18 3 5 0 10 7 0 3 9 1 Ho u rly T o ta l 10 4 3 4 9 3 5 1 4 8 9 0 19 6 0 10 0 8 9 0 8 3 8 5 2 3 7 1 6 3 1 0 2 4 0 8 5 14 3 0 4 6 8 0 16 7 7 5 :0 0 PM 3 0 8 6 9 0 12 5 0 5 8 4 0 17 0 1 10 1 4 2 0 14 4 0 5 5 2 1 3 2 0 10 8 0 3 9 4 5 :15 PM 3 7 9 5 8 0 14 0 0 5 10 2 0 17 0 3 10 4 5 3 0 16 0 0 5 8 2 1 2 6 0 10 5 0 4 2 2 5 :3 0 PM 3 9 8 5 9 0 13 3 0 6 5 0 0 11 0 2 7 5 6 1 0 13 8 0 5 7 2 1 4 1 0 119 0 4 0 1 5 :4 5 PM 3 8 6 9 8 0 115 0 3 12 3 0 18 0 1 8 9 5 5 0 14 5 0 4 3 2 9 3 3 0 10 5 0 3 8 3 Ho u rly T o ta l 14 4 3 3 5 3 4 0 5 13 0 19 3 5 9 0 6 3 0 7 3 6 9 2 11 0 5 8 7 0 2 13 9 2 13 2 0 4 3 7 0 16 0 0 6 :0 0 PM 2 7 5 9 8 0 9 4 0 6 6 1 0 13 0 2 9 6 4 0 0 13 8 0 3 5 3 3 3 1 0 9 9 0 3 4 4 6 :15 PM 3 7 6 0 6 0 10 3 0 2 13 3 0 18 0 1 6 1 5 6 0 118 0 3 1 2 6 2 8 0 8 5 0 3 2 4 6 :3 0 PM 3 3 5 6 6 0 9 5 0 4 4 4 0 12 0 3 5 5 3 7 0 9 5 0 3 0 2 3 2 4 0 7 7 0 2 7 9 6 :4 5 PM 2 4 4 3 7 0 7 4 0 7 13 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 5 3 5 0 8 2 0 2 8 2 3 3 2 0 8 3 0 2 5 9 Ho u rly T o ta l 12 1 2 18 2 7 0 3 6 6 0 19 3 6 8 0 6 3 0 8 2 5 7 16 8 0 4 3 3 0 12 4 10 5 115 0 3 4 4 0 12 0 6 7 :0 0 PM 2 4 4 1 5 0 7 0 0 7 8 1 0 16 0 2 4 7 2 3 0 7 2 0 3 4 19 2 7 0 8 0 0 2 3 8 7 :15 PM 18 2 8 3 0 4 9 0 2 6 1 0 9 0 2 3 4 18 0 5 4 0 2 7 11 2 7 0 6 5 0 17 7 7 :3 0 PM 13 2 4 10 0 4 7 0 1 3 2 0 6 0 2 3 1 16 0 4 9 0 2 4 2 3 15 0 6 2 0 16 4 7 :4 5 PM 13 2 2 2 0 3 7 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 3 6 12 0 4 8 0 17 13 2 5 0 5 5 0 14 9 Ho u rly T o ta l 6 8 115 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 10 2 6 4 0 4 0 0 6 14 8 6 9 0 2 2 3 0 10 2 6 6 9 4 0 2 6 2 0 7 2 8 8 :0 0 PM 15 2 7 4 0 4 6 0 0 7 2 0 9 0 0 2 4 18 0 4 2 0 2 3 16 2 1 0 6 0 0 15 7 8 :15 PM 18 3 3 3 0 5 4 0 4 2 2 0 8 0 2 18 14 0 3 4 0 2 2 8 2 6 0 5 6 0 15 2 8 :3 0 PM 8 16 5 0 2 9 0 2 5 0 0 7 0 0 2 4 15 0 3 9 0 18 10 13 0 4 1 0 116 8 :4 5 PM 9 2 9 0 0 3 8 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 1 2 6 12 0 3 9 0 14 8 11 0 3 3 0 113 Ho u rly T o ta l 5 0 10 5 12 0 16 7 0 7 16 4 0 2 7 0 3 9 2 5 9 0 15 4 0 7 7 4 2 7 1 0 19 0 0 5 3 8 9 :0 0 PM 15 2 0 2 0 3 7 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 19 4 0 2 3 0 12 13 11 0 3 6 0 9 8 9 :15 PM 18 2 1 0 0 3 9 0 1 3 1 0 5 0 1 18 9 0 2 8 0 14 14 13 0 4 1 0 113 9 :3 0 PM 4 12 5 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 11 1 0 12 0 6 9 9 0 2 4 0 6 2 9 :4 5 PM 4 9 0 0 13 0 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 10 4 0 14 0 7 9 12 0 2 8 0 6 0 Ho u rly T o ta l 4 1 6 2 7 0 110 0 2 12 3 0 17 0 1 5 8 18 0 7 7 0 3 9 4 5 4 5 0 12 9 0 3 3 3 10 :0 0 PM 3 10 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 0 2 2 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 4 4 10 :15 PM 2 10 0 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 10 1 0 11 0 8 4 5 0 17 0 4 3 10 :3 0 PM 1 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 8 0 5 2 5 0 12 0 2 9 10 :4 5 PM 4 8 1 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 0 6 0 2 3 2 0 7 0 2 7 Ho u rly T o ta l 10 3 6 2 0 4 8 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 3 2 15 0 4 7 0 19 9 16 0 4 4 0 14 3 11:0 0 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 13 0 8 0 6 0 14 0 3 0 11:15 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 5 5 0 11 0 4 4 2 0 10 0 2 6 11:3 0 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 2 3 3 0 8 0 2 1 11:4 5 PM 4 3 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 4 5 0 9 0 2 1 Ho u rly T o ta l 4 13 0 0 17 0 1 4 0 0 5 0 1 2 3 11 0 3 5 0 14 11 16 0 4 1 0 9 8 T o ta l 17 16 3 9 2 2 3 4 9 2 5 9 8 9 0 3 4 6 8 4 8 14 6 0 13 4 0 0 7 4 3 7 9 8 2 7 3 2 3 6 6 0 7 0 2 3 0 2 9 4 0 17 3 0 0 4 9 7 2 0 18 9 0 8 % App ro a c h 2 8 .7 %6 5 .5 %5 .8 %0 %--2 5 .8 %6 3 .3 %10 .9 %0 %--1.1%5 7 .5 %4 1.4 %0 %--4 6 .3 %18 .9 %3 4 .8 %0 %--- % T o ta l 9 .1%2 0 .7 %1.8 %0 %3 1.7 %-1.8 %4 .5 %0 .8 %0 %7 .1%-0 .4 %2 0 .1%14 .4 %0 %3 4 .9 %-12 .2 %5 .0 %9 .1%0 %2 6 .3 %-- Mo to rc yc le s 3 5 2 0 10 -0 3 0 0 3 -1 5 3 0 9 -0 1 3 0 4 -2 6 % Mo to rc yc le s 0 .2 %0 .1%0 .6 %0 %0 .2 %-0 %0 .4 %0 %0 %0 .2 %-1.4 %0 .1%0 .1%0 %0 .1%-0 %0 .1%0 .2 %0 %0 .1%-0 .1% Lig hts 16 6 5 3 7 4 9 3 3 8 0 5 7 5 2 -3 3 6 8 2 7 14 2 0 13 0 5 -6 9 3 6 0 2 2 5 7 1 0 6 2 4 2 -2 13 2 9 19 16 6 4 0 4 7 15 -18 0 14 % Lig hts 9 7 .0 %9 5 .6 %9 6 .8 %0 %9 6 .0 %-9 7 .1%9 7 .5 %9 7 .3 %0 %9 7 .4 %-9 3 .2 %9 4 .8 %9 4 .1%0 %9 4 .5 %-9 2 .6 %9 7 .8 %9 6 .2 %0 %9 4 .8 %-9 5 .3 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 18 10 4 4 0 12 6 -8 11 2 0 2 1 -1 9 6 10 2 2 2 0 1 -10 9 17 16 0 14 2 -4 9 0 % S ing le -Unit T ruc ks 1.0 %2 .7 %1.1%0 %2 .1%-2 .3 %1.3 %1.4 %0 %1.6 %-1.4 %2 .5 %3 .7 %6 6 .7 %3 .0 %-4 .7 %1.8 %0 .9 %0 %2 .9 %-2 .6 % Artic u la te d T ruc ks 1 4 3 1 0 4 5 -0 4 0 0 4 -1 7 6 4 0 0 117 -4 4 1 7 0 5 2 -2 18 % Artic u la te d T ruc ks 0 .1%1.1%0 .3 %0 %0 .8 %-0 %0 .5 %0 %0 %0 .3 %-1.4 %2 .0 %1.5 %0 %1.8 %-1.9 %0 .1%0 .4 %0 %1.0 %-1.2 % Bus e s 2 9 2 1 4 2 5 6 -2 3 2 0 7 -2 19 16 1 3 8 -17 2 4 0 0 5 9 -16 0 % Bus e s 1.7 %0 .5 %1.1%10 0 %0 .9 %-0 .6 %0 .4 %1.4 %0 %0 .5 %-2 .7 %0 .5 %0 .6 %3 3 .3 %0 .6 %-0 .7 %0 .2 %2 .3 %0 %1.2 %-0 .8 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 -0 % Bic yc le s o n Ro a d 0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %-0 % Pe d e s tr ia n s -----0 -----0 -----0 -----0 % Pe d e s tr ia n s ------------------------- Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s walk -----0 -----0 -----0 -----0 % Bic yc le s o n Cr o s s walk ------------------------- Le g SR 9 17 2 n d St NE SR 9 SR5 3 1 (17 2 n d S t NE) D ire c tio n So u th b o u n d We s tb o u n d No r th b o u n d Eas tb o u n d T im e R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App P e d *R T L U App Pe d *R T L U App Pe d *Int *Pe de s tr ian s and Bicycle s o n Cr os s walk. L: Le ft, R: Rig h t, T : T hr u, U: U-T ur n 2 of 9 5.0 Appendices ▪ D ▪ PM Peak Hour TM Volumes Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-6 D PM Peak Hour TM Volumes Directional Reference: Existing (2020)No Action (2040)Alt 2 (2040)Alt 2_Mitigated (2040) 1 67th Ave NE 1 67th Ave NE 1 67th Ave NE 1 67th Ave NE 188th St NE 188th St NE 188th St NE 188th St NE 47 0 45 5 62 0 61 5 69 0 64 5 72 0 63 5 110 65 39 5 10 210 16 0 44 5 15 240 18 5 49 0 15 265 21 0 49 5 15 105 15 20 285 20 30 315 20 30 275 20 30 5 1,120 0 15 1,650 5 15 1,770 5 15 1,715 5 235 125 5 625 325 5 675 345 5 555 265 5 45 33 5 15 30 45 31 0 20 50 50 31 0 15 45 50 34 0 20 50 52 5 39 5 77 5 37 5 84 0 37 5 76 5 41 0 2 I-5 SB Ramps 2 I-5 SB Ramps 2 I-5 SB Ramps 2 I-5 SB Ramps 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 58 5 51 5 68 5 80 0 68 0 82 0 69 0 82 0 1,685 29 0 5 29 0 2,185 45 5 5 22 5 2,190 45 5 5 22 0 2,185 45 5 5 23 0 515 1,910 0 800 2,530 0 820 2,555 0 820 2,550 955 3,890 1,395 1,230 4,985 1,730 1,220 4,995 1,735 1,230 5,010 1,730 1,395 440 1,770 540 0 1,760 540 0 1,770 540 0 1,245 0 0 0 1,455 0 0 0 1,440 0 0 0 1,460 44 5 0 54 5 0 54 5 0 54 5 0 3 I-5 NB Ramps 3 I-5 NB Ramps 3 I-5 NB Ramps 3 I-5 NB Ramps 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 0 86 5 0 1, 0 2 5 0 1, 0 3 0 0 1, 0 2 5 1,950 2,530 0 0 0 2,555 0 0 0 2,550 0 0 0 305 560 1,895 415 610 2,475 410 620 2,515 410 615 2,505 910 4,615 1,335 1,040 5,420 1,865 1,030 5,430 1,895 1,050 5,440 1,890 1,215 1,455 0 0 1,440 0 0 1,460 0 0 61 5 0 89 0 1,800 66 5 0 82 5 1,865 66 0 0 81 5 1,845 66 0 0 81 5 1,865 0 1, 5 0 5 0 1, 4 9 0 0 1, 4 7 5 0 1, 4 7 5 4 Smokey Point Blvd 4 Smokey Point Blvd 4 Smokey Point Blvd 4 Smokey Point Blvd 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 68 5 89 0 89 5 1, 0 9 5 90 5 1, 0 9 0 91 5 1, 0 8 5 1,775 55 31 0 22 5 15 0 2,340 55 46 5 24 0 19 0 2,385 55 48 0 23 5 19 0 2,375 55 47 5 25 0 19 0 370 105 1,125 380 185 1,375 375 195 1,395 375 195 1,400 745 4,480 845 830 5,245 1,095 815 5,260 1,110 835 5,285 1,110 1,470 300 170 1,600 335 90 1,580 335 85 1,600 335 90 56 5 41 5 22 0 5 1,120 72 5 53 0 12 0 5 1,145 74 0 52 0 12 0 5 1,130 73 5 51 5 12 0 5 1,150 69 5 1, 2 0 0 66 5 1, 3 7 5 65 5 1, 3 8 0 67 5 1, 3 7 0 5 NE 40st Ave NE 5 NE 40st Ave NE 5 NE 40st Ave NE 5 NE 40st Ave NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 0 0 22 0 35 0 22 0 35 0 22 0 35 0 1,140 1,305 11 0 10 10 0 1,325 0 11 0 10 10 0 0 1,325 0 11 0 10 10 0 0 1,045 220 115 1,290 220 115 1,310 220 115 1,310 950 2,190 1,045 745 2,780 1,070 745 2,800 1,090 865 2,920 1,090 1,020 70 1,095 130 105 1,095 130 105 1,215 130 105 95 30 980 12 5 15 35 880 12 5 15 35 880 12 5 15 35 1,000 70 12 5 24 5 17 5 24 5 17 5 24 5 17 5 Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N Directional Reference: Existing (2020)No Action (2040)Alt 2 (2040)Alt 2_Mitigated (2040) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 6 43rd Ave NE 6 43rd Ave NE 6 43rd Ave NE 6 43rd Ave NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 25 45 75 18 0 75 18 0 75 17 0 1,140 15 15 5 5 1,285 15 45 25 5 1,340 15 45 30 0 1,360 15 45 20 10 20 15 1,020 110 5 1,070 100 5 1,130 95 15 1,175 730 2,275 875 605 2,535 920 600 2,605 970 680 2,700 1,005 795 30 130 830 100 145 825 110 155 890 100 155 23 5 10 19 0 925 30 5 65 19 0 800 31 0 75 19 0 790 29 5 60 20 5 895 16 5 43 5 27 0 56 0 29 5 57 5 27 5 56 0 7 51st Ave NE 7 51st Ave NE 7 51st Ave NE 7 51st Ave NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 16 5 12 0 28 5 35 5 29 5 36 5 34 0 41 0 1,030 70 50 45 1,080 70 13 5 80 1,095 70 14 0 85 1,105 70 11 5 15 5 35 30 925 35 115 1,030 35 130 1,095 35 220 1,150 735 2,290 820 820 2,800 825 795 2,870 840 660 3,155 800 930 160 75 1,000 145 90 1,000 170 125 915 220 130 14 0 55 75 855 18 5 20 5 95 995 18 5 20 0 95 975 23 5 15 5 36 0 1,175 28 5 27 0 37 0 48 5 43 5 48 0 46 5 75 0 8 59th Ave NE 8 59th Ave NE 8 59th Ave NE 8 59th Ave NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 51 0 21 0 77 0 53 5 89 0 53 0 92 0 45 5 955 42 5 5 80 1,065 41 5 27 0 85 1,125 45 5 32 0 11 5 1,190 43 5 32 5 16 0 175 30 540 240 30 765 240 40 805 215 40 930 665 1,945 500 740 3,015 620 725 3,125 640 955 3,520 725 850 10 10 990 10 115 975 10 125 1,180 10 165 30 5 10 755 30 26 5 19 5 1,020 30 25 0 17 5 1,015 30 20 0 26 0 1,375 25 45 39 5 49 0 45 5 45 5 50 0 49 0 9 67th Ave NE 9 67th Ave NE 9 67th Ave NE 9 67th Ave NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 45 0 43 5 64 5 47 0 69 5 48 5 67 5 46 5 515 14 0 21 0 10 0 680 10 5 42 0 12 0 645 95 46 5 13 5 720 70 42 0 18 5 210 45 410 155 50 700 175 55 700 190 55 770 470 1,960 320 740 2,895 515 745 2,955 500 1,060 3,365 585 785 105 45 1,025 130 135 1,050 130 145 1,420 170 130 55 18 0 80 650 60 26 5 20 0 1,060 50 25 5 20 5 1,085 65 22 0 21 5 1,460 36 0 31 5 68 5 52 5 74 0 51 0 72 0 50 0 10 SR 9 10 SR 9 10 SR 9 10 SR 9 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 172nd St NE 49 5 56 0 76 5 63 0 79 5 63 5 72 0 69 5 405 10 5 35 0 35 5 725 13 0 53 5 10 0 715 13 0 58 5 80 760 12 5 49 5 10 0 145 20 90 155 100 435 165 95 415 235 95 455 85 1,700 60 410 2,805 320 430 2,825 315 560 3,155 355 470 240 10 885 320 15 900 305 5 1,275 480 5 5 24 0 39 0 10 130 27 5 37 5 70 580 27 0 37 5 70 580 28 0 36 5 60 720 60 5 64 5 87 0 72 0 89 5 71 5 98 0 70 5 Directional Reference: Existing (2020)No Action (2040)Alt 2 (2040)Alt 2_Mitigated (2040) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N 11 Smokey Point Blvd 11 Smokey Point Blvd 11 Smokey Point Blvd 11 Smokey Point Blvd 156th St NE 156th St NE 156th St NE 156th St NE 67 5 71 5 1, 4 2 5 1, 0 6 5 1, 4 5 0 1, 0 5 5 1, 4 2 0 1, 0 5 0 230 40 62 5 10 1,615 41 0 86 0 15 5 1,645 41 5 89 5 14 0 1,645 41 5 89 0 11 5 30 30 50 230 175 960 235 170 1,000 230 170 990 5 1,845 5 330 4,630 635 305 4,665 665 310 4,625 660 275 240 15 975 415 150 955 415 165 955 415 160 18 5 65 5 5 20 57 0 66 0 40 525 56 5 65 0 45 490 57 0 65 0 40 465 88 0 84 5 1, 4 2 5 1, 2 7 0 1, 4 7 5 1, 2 6 0 1, 4 6 5 1, 2 6 0 12 Smokey Point Blvd 12 Smokey Point Blvd 12 Smokey Point Blvd 12 Smokey Point Blvd 152nd St NE 152nd St NE 152nd St NE 152nd St NE 91 5 85 5 1, 4 3 5 1, 2 0 5 1, 4 8 5 1, 2 0 0 1, 4 7 5 1, 1 9 5 15 5 64 0 27 0 15 5 1, 2 4 5 18 5 15 5 1, 3 0 0 18 0 15 5 1, 2 9 0 18 0 10 245 350 10 310 595 10 310 610 10 310 605 5 2,035 5 5 3,125 5 5 3,185 5 5 3,165 5 25 10 100 25 10 280 25 10 295 25 10 290 5 60 0 14 0 415 5 88 5 18 0 370 5 88 0 18 0 365 5 87 5 18 0 365 75 0 74 5 1, 5 3 5 1, 0 7 0 1, 6 0 5 1, 0 6 5 1, 5 9 0 1, 0 6 0 5.0 Appendices ▪ E ▪ HCM Definitions Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-7 E HCM Definitions Highway Capacity Manual 2010/6th Edition Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control as well as provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds) during a specified time period (e.g., weekday PM peak hour). Control delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing and coordination (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection and along the corridor), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity and resulting queues. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 and 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2010 and 2016, respectively). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) General Description A £10 Free Flow B >10 – 20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 – 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >35 – 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 – 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F1 >80 Forced flow (congested and queues fail to clear) Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010 and 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2010 and 2016, respectively. 1. If the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio for a lane group exceeds 1.0 LOS F is assigned to the individual lane group. LOS for overall approach or intersection is determined solely by the control delay. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all-way stop and two-way stop control. All-way stop control intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection or by approach. Two-way stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as major-street left-turns. This approach is because major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay, a weighted average of all movements results in very low overall average delay, and this calculated low delay could mask deficiencies of minor movements. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A 0 – 10 B >10 – 15 C >15 – 25 D >25 – 35 E >35 – 50 F1 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010 and 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2010 and 2016, respectively. 1. If the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0, LOS F is assigned an individual lane group for all unsignalized intersections, or minor street approach at two-way stop-controlled intersections. Overall intersection LOS is determined solely by control delay. 5.0 Appendices ▪ F ▪ LOS Worksheets Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-8 F LOS Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC Arlington CIC EIS 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 105 5 125 5 0 15 45 335 15 10 395 65 Future Vol, veh/h 105 5 125 5 0 15 45 335 15 10 395 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 1 6 0 5 1 0 6 5 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 30 - - 105 - - 110 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 26 26 26 6 6 6 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 124 6 147 6 0 18 53 394 18 12 465 76 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1013 1014 472 1125 1081 414 542 0 0 418 0 0 Stage 1 490 490 - 515 515 - - - - - - - Stage 2 523 524 - 610 566 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.36 6.76 6.46 4.16 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.36 5.76 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.36 5.76 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.734 4.234 3.534 2.254 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 216 238 590 164 197 590 1007 - - 1141 - - Stage 1 558 547 - 501 497 - - - - - - - Stage 2 535 528 - 443 471 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 198 221 586 113 183 584 1006 - - 1134 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 198 221 - 113 183 - - - - - - - Stage 1 528 540 - 472 468 - - - - - - - Stage 2 489 497 - 323 465 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 29.8 18.2 1 0.2 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1006 - - 198 551 113 584 1134 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.053 - - 0.624 0.278 0.052 0.03 0.01 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - - 49.3 14 38.6 11.4 8.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - E B E B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 3.6 1.1 0.2 0.1 0 - - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Arlington CIC EIS 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 30 5 240 15 5 30 185 655 5 10 625 40 Future Volume (vph) 30 5 240 15 5 30 185 655 5 10 625 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 1900 1615 1805 1655 1787 3570 1770 3507 Flt Permitted 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.39 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1223 1900 1615 1434 1655 462 3570 727 3507 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 31 5 250 16 5 31 193 682 5 10 651 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 213 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 5 37 16 9 0 193 687 0 10 689 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 9.8 9.8 9.6 8.6 39.6 33.6 24.8 23.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 9.8 9.8 9.6 8.6 39.6 33.6 24.8 23.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.61 0.51 0.38 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 284 242 216 217 498 1834 291 1276 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 c0.06 0.19 0.00 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.02 0.01 0.17 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.39 0.37 0.03 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 23.7 24.2 24.0 24.8 6.9 9.6 12.7 16.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 Delay (s) 22.3 23.7 24.3 24.1 24.8 7.0 9.7 12.7 17.0 Level of Service C C C C C A A B B Approach Delay (s) 24.1 24.6 9.1 16.9 Approach LOS C C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington CIC EIS 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 5 10 100 5 245 5 600 140 270 640 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 5 10 100 5 245 5 600 140 270 640 5 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 5 10 104 5 255 5 625 146 281 667 5 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, % 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 200 79 158 458 6 311 395 861 201 453 1562 12 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 565 1131 1795 31 1571 1781 2860 667 1781 3615 27 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 0 15 104 0 260 5 388 383 281 328 344 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1696 1795 0 1602 1781 1777 1750 1781 1777 1865 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.0 8.8 0.1 11.0 11.0 5.6 7.2 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.0 8.8 0.1 11.0 11.0 5.6 7.2 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 237 458 0 317 395 535 527 453 768 806 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.82 0.01 0.72 0.73 0.62 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 534 0 331 686 0 426 733 1103 1086 557 1103 1158 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 20.8 0.0 21.1 18.6 0.0 21.7 13.6 17.6 17.6 11.6 11.1 11.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.8 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.3 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/ln 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 4.1 4.1 1.8 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 0.0 21.1 18.7 0.0 28.5 13.6 19.0 19.1 12.7 11.4 11.4 LnGrp LOS C A C B A C B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 25 364 776 953 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.0 25.7 19.0 11.8 Approach LOS C C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 22.0 8.8 12.9 5.3 29.4 5.6 16.1 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 35.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 35.0 11.0 15.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 13.0 4.7 2.4 2.1 9.2 2.3 10.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.7 0.4 0.5 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.9 13.2 6.0 10.1 3.2 16.1 11.4 10.5 3.7 1.2 0.5 6.9 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL2 SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 3.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.5 4.8 13.9 8.6 52.1 41.8 13.3 13.4 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 18.6 18.7 6.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 55.7 31.1 35.0 12.4 51.8 51.2 38.2 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 12.5 6.7 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.0 61.4 64.4 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 172.2 175.4 40.0 10.9 70.9 70.8 64.4 5.9 401.0 76.0 42.5 79.1 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 19.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 47.4 56.3 103.2 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.9 6.8 4.1 40.9 22.5 9.3 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 94.1 87.7 30.6 4.0 82.6 16.0 14.7 61.8 92.8 41.8 124.4 100.9 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.3 33.0 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 2.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 102.0 123.5 119.2 64.0 29.7 26.5 121.7 75.3 59.4 80.4 63.5 49.6 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 77.1 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.4 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.8 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 87.9 52.5 63.6 81.3 40.6 36.3 77.8 124.4 73.5 97.5 64.9 52.7 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 55.1 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.5 4.5 2.1 33.8 41.2 35.0 50.2 50.2 37.7 59.5 47.9 55.8 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 32.0 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.0 3.2 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.1 3.9 4.1 7.6 10.0 8.1 5.1 5.5 9.4 4.7 8.5 8.9 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.7 3.3 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 13.3 2.8 7.8 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.8 0.8 3.7 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 19.1 23.1 8.2 25.6 26.3 5.7 12.8 6.5 4.8 13.4 13.4 10.0 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.2 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.5 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 25.2 21.9 5.3 20.3 17.1 7.3 11.8 12.3 7.5 14.1 6.5 4.7 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.2 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 9.9 0.0 5.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.9 1.3 9.3 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.2 22.8 15.1 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 60.0 4.1 30.1 32.6 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.5 6.2 26.0 1.7 37.8 7.2 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.8 4.8 1.7 10.5 4.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 13.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 134.3 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: EB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed 33 6.2 90.6 0.8 33 I-5 SB On Ramp 2 7.5 19.6 0.1 23 I-5 NB Off Ramp 3 32.6 49.4 0.2 12 47 62.1 73.1 0.1 5 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 40.0 54.6 0.1 7 45 5.7 16.8 0.1 22 52 6.8 15.1 0.1 19 40th Ave NE 5 11.9 23.4 0.1 17 51 11.5 20.0 0.1 15 43rd Ave NE 6 30.5 42.7 0.1 10 51st Ave NE 7 119.4 177.2 0.5 10 59th Ave NE 8 53.7 102.7 0.5 18 28 27.8 67.9 0.4 21 22 10.5 14.8 0.0 10 BNSF Railway Spur 16 14.9 26.7 0.0 4 67th Ave NE 9 4.5 6.3 0.0 12 42 4.6 44.0 0.4 31 21 2.6 29.6 0.3 32 31 2.4 24.9 0.2 32 34 3.0 30.3 0.3 31 SR 9 10 3.9 14.0 0.2 40 Total 462.2 943.8 4.6 18 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: WB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed SR 9 10 10.0 23.8 0.2 23 34 1.9 24.8 0.2 23 31 0.8 28.0 0.3 34 21 1.2 23.7 0.2 33 42 1.8 28.9 0.3 33 67th Ave NE 9 41.2 78.2 0.4 17 BNSF Railway Spur 16 1.9 4.5 0.0 16 22 0.3 2.7 0.0 26 28 0.3 4.7 0.0 32 59th Ave NE 8 40.6 79.3 0.4 18 51st Ave NE 7 34.6 90.9 0.5 20 43rd Ave NE 6 14.7 64.6 0.5 27 51 1.6 13.8 0.1 30 40th Ave NE 5 4.1 12.4 0.1 24 52 1.8 13.2 0.1 30 45 0.9 9.3 0.1 31 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 64.4 74.3 0.1 5 47 5.5 16.5 0.1 22 I-5 NB On Ramp 3 34.9 45.5 0.1 9 I-5 SB Ramps 2 16.3 32.3 0.2 18 33 17.1 30.8 0.1 15 Total 295.9 702.2 3.9 20 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 89 94 34 58 55 43 32 38 25 Average Queue (ft) 37 33 3 15 17 2 3 3 1 95th Queue (ft) 67 66 19 47 48 17 17 22 10 Link Distance (ft) 670 692 7825 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 30 105 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 1 0 0 Intersection: 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB SB Directions Served T T R T T < <L R Maximum Queue (ft) 239 220 184 480 497 205 285 320 Average Queue (ft) 107 92 58 130 133 104 138 105 95th Queue (ft) 198 177 126 353 366 189 236 274 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 766 766 734 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 183 383 383 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 1 Intersection: 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 530 540 533 457 475 492 315 373 952 1002 Average Queue (ft) 244 212 221 253 272 254 156 206 457 368 95th Queue (ft) 421 437 442 410 428 448 369 335 1058 1172 Link Distance (ft) 766 766 518 518 518 1140 1140 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0 0 11 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 3 0 1 3 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 610 255 395 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 7 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 37 11 0 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B45 NB NB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T T R T L L Maximum Queue (ft) 502 516 489 436 310 331 393 453 272 37 309 368 Average Queue (ft) 462 454 369 135 160 201 232 288 50 2 299 365 95th Queue (ft) 508 555 552 354 273 308 356 424 197 30 352 376 Link Distance (ft) 449 449 449 449 448 448 448 371 Upstream Blk Time (%) 71 48 5 2 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 321 216 24 8 0 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft)393 266 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 21 31 79 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0 22 64 164 Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B46 B46 Directions Served T T R L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 2153 2100 203 225 331 409 250 54 81 Average Queue (ft) 1607 1402 79 127 121 195 188 5 7 95th Queue (ft) 2488 2438 160 212 261 399 285 77 80 Link Distance (ft) 3707 3707 366 366 1521 1521 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 160 132 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 14 2 18 2 4 28 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 31 5 21 3 11 32 Intersection: 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T TR T T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 244 231 162 198 176 74 Average Queue (ft) 84 63 56 76 62 22 95th Queue (ft) 254 222 124 154 151 61 Link Distance (ft) 527 527 373 373 430 430 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 9 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB B24 SB SB Directions Served UL T R L T TR L L TR T L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 220 546 150 225 330 199 182 177 221 217 42 65 Average Queue (ft) 45 308 10 124 109 95 98 95 123 32 8 18 95th Queue (ft) 130 594 67 208 241 193 166 162 214 222 30 48 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 2479 147 147 147 669 1920 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 0 3 3 12 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 1 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 158 217 62 109 Storage Blk Time (%) 22 1 13 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 12 75 76 0 Intersection: 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 526 1853 484 759 225 556 122 145 304 Average Queue (ft) 107 1122 81 363 154 127 49 47 114 95th Queue (ft) 420 2198 256 665 245 516 103 111 279 Link Distance (ft) 2479 2485 3018 3251 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 27 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 246 244 185 150 127 Storage Blk Time (%) 37 16 18 4 0 2 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 12 24 8 0 3 3 Intersection: 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 489 847 211 636 92 94 671 437 Average Queue (ft) 169 435 20 308 34 22 162 253 95th Queue (ft) 327 1206 101 560 78 69 757 434 Link Distance (ft) 2485 1993 988 2979 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 33 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 140 98 385 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 32 1 4 3 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 26 3 0 1 13 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 87 86 50 216 475 235 378 218 597 Average Queue (ft) 36 37 17 48 227 59 172 106 286 95th Queue (ft) 67 68 45 149 402 158 305 232 506 Link Distance (ft) 29 29 29 1914 787 7825 Upstream Blk Time (%) 50 36 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 132 94 13 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 129 155 106 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 29 0 17 5 41 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 13 0 9 16 41 Intersection: 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR UL TR ULT R Maximum Queue (ft) 154 72 78 88 56 154 30 Average Queue (ft) 56 18 33 32 12 56 4 95th Queue (ft) 115 52 64 68 43 117 22 Link Distance (ft) 702 697 1118 1173 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 585 588 800 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 61 31 140 49 52 122 117 113 60 202 185 Average Queue (ft) 21 4 66 15 22 52 44 43 6 89 86 95th Queue (ft) 53 22 112 42 47 97 96 93 36 168 163 Link Distance (ft) 824 791 1046 1046 3707 3707 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 187 185 200 211 98 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 42 39 115 131 32 176 168 190 125 137 Average Queue (ft) 9 12 51 63 4 95 86 83 43 61 95th Queue (ft) 32 36 91 105 22 151 143 145 102 111 Link Distance (ft) 124 124 260 1809 1809 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 87 133 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 8 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 5 0 Intersection: 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB B22 B22 B28 WB Directions Served T T T T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 152 149 62 169 240 459 27 Average Queue (ft) 87 102 7 27 110 138 1 95th Queue (ft) 164 169 37 105 255 879 12 Link Distance (ft) 56 56 56 164 164 1993 29 Upstream Blk Time (%) 29 32 0 0 12 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 82 0 2 46 37 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement WB WB Directions Served T T Maximum Queue (ft) 508 563 Average Queue (ft) 225 252 95th Queue (ft) 425 478 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 448 557 549 646 11 46 159 Average Queue (ft) 317 351 335 342 0 3 69 95th Queue (ft) 557 663 683 810 7 30 125 Link Distance (ft) 518 518 518 449 449 526 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 11 23 Queuing Penalty (veh) 57 67 137 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) 33 28 Queuing Penalty (veh) 148 125 Intersection: 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB Directions Served T TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 289 211 138 20 89 Average Queue (ft) 56 35 53 1 26 95th Queue (ft) 265 211 113 20 75 Link Distance (ft) 373 373 524 272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 23 15 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 204 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB B45 B45 NB Directions Served T TR T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 52 62 46 48 60 Average Queue (ft) 10 10 9 9 20 95th Queue (ft) 112 111 109 108 47 Link Distance (ft) 371 371 448 448 348 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 10 8 8 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2571 LANE LEVEL OF SERVICE Lane Level of Service Site:10 [Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Approaches IntersectionSouthEastNorthWest LOS A A A A A Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used). SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site:10 [Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance -Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 3u U 5 5.0 0.263 13.6 LOS B 1.6 41.6 0.54 0.70 0.54 34.0 3 L2 261 5.0 0.263 11.3 LOS B 1.6 41.6 0.54 0.70 0.54 33.3 8 T1 424 5.0 0.346 5.5 LOS A 2.4 62.1 0.55 0.55 0.55 35.8 18 R2 11 5.0 0.346 5.7 LOS A 2.4 62.1 0.55 0.55 0.55 34.7 Approach 701 5.0 0.346 7.7 LOS A 2.4 62.1 0.55 0.61 0.55 34.8 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 11 2.0 0.135 12.4 LOS B 0.6 14.4 0.60 0.73 0.60 35.3 6 T1 65 2.0 0.135 7.1 LOS A 0.6 14.4 0.60 0.73 0.60 35.3 16 R2 22 2.0 0.135 6.9 LOS A 0.6 14.4 0.60 0.73 0.60 34.4 Approach 98 2.0 0.135 7.6 LOS A 0.6 14.4 0.60 0.73 0.60 35.1 North: SR 9 7u U 5 4.0 0.393 13.6 LOS B 2.3 60.0 0.55 0.60 0.55 36.2 7 L2 38 4.0 0.393 11.3 LOS B 2.3 60.0 0.55 0.60 0.55 35.4 4 T1 380 4.0 0.393 5.9 LOS A 2.3 60.0 0.55 0.60 0.55 35.4 14 R2 114 4.0 0.168 6.9 LOS A 0.7 19.1 0.50 0.67 0.50 34.8 Approach 538 4.0 0.393 6.6 LOS A 2.3 60.0 0.54 0.62 0.54 35.3 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 158 5.0 0.266 12.1 LOS B 1.7 43.3 0.64 0.73 0.64 34.1 2 T1 92 5.0 0.266 6.6 LOS A 1.7 43.3 0.64 0.73 0.64 34.1 12 R2 261 5.0 0.228 6.3 LOS A 1.5 38.6 0.61 0.65 0.61 34.8 Approach 511 5.0 0.266 8.1 LOS A 1.7 43.3 0.62 0.69 0.62 34.5 All Vehicles 1848 4.6 0.393 7.5 LOS A 2.4 62.1 0.57 0.64 0.57 34.9 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Friday, July 17, 2020 1:27:39 PM Project: M:\19\1.19167.00 -Arlington MIC EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\SR 9_SR 531_172nd Street NE.sip8 HCM 6th TWSC Arlington CIC EIS 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 58.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 285 15 325 5 5 20 45 310 20 15 445 160 Future Vol, veh/h 285 15 325 5 5 20 45 310 20 15 445 160 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 1 6 0 5 1 0 6 5 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 30 - - 105 - - 110 - - 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, % 3 3 3 26 26 26 6 6 6 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 310 16 353 5 5 22 49 337 22 16 484 174 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 982 980 491 1246 1143 359 659 0 0 365 0 0 Stage 1 517 517 - 452 452 - - - - - - - Stage 2 465 463 - 794 691 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.36 6.76 6.46 4.16 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.36 5.76 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.36 5.76 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.734 4.234 3.534 2.254 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 227 249 575 134 181 635 910 - - 1194 - - Stage 1 539 532 - 543 532 - - - - - - - Stage 2 576 562 - 348 411 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 202 231 571 45 168 628 909 - - 1187 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 202 231 - 45 168 - - - - - - - Stage 1 509 525 - 511 500 - - - - - - - Stage 2 518 528 - 126 405 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 153.4 28 1.1 0.2 HCM LOS F D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 909 - - 202 536 45 406 1187 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.054 - - 1.534 0.689 0.121 0.067 0.014 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - -$ 306.3 25.3 95.7 14.5 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F D F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 19.4 5.3 0.4 0.2 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington CIC EIS 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 330 415 150 635 175 570 660 40 155 860 410 Future Volume (veh/h) 230 330 415 150 635 175 570 660 40 155 860 410 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 344 432 156 661 182 594 688 42 161 896 427 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, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 264 1026 458 182 668 184 617 1370 84 213 1009 450 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.40 0.40 0.06 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 2797 769 3483 3429 209 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 344 432 156 426 417 594 359 371 161 896 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1761 1742 1791 1848 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.9 9.8 34.1 11.0 30.6 30.6 22.0 19.5 19.6 6.0 31.3 34.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.9 9.8 34.1 11.0 30.6 30.6 22.0 19.5 19.6 6.0 31.3 34.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 264 1026 458 182 431 421 617 715 738 213 1009 450 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.34 0.94 0.86 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.50 0.50 0.76 0.89 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 1026 458 265 431 421 617 715 738 293 1013 452 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 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.6 36.7 45.4 57.4 49.2 49.2 53.0 29.3 29.3 59.9 44.5 45.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.6 0.1 28.1 12.1 40.2 41.1 26.8 0.7 0.7 4.3 9.8 29.8 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/ln 10.1 4.4 17.0 5.6 18.4 18.1 11.8 8.5 8.7 2.7 15.0 17.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 86.2 36.8 73.6 69.5 89.5 90.4 79.8 29.9 29.9 64.2 54.3 75.4 LnGrp LOS F D E E F F E C C E D E Approach Vol, veh/h 1016 999 1324 1484 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.1 86.7 52.3 61.5 Approach LOS E F D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 56.8 18.1 41.9 28.0 41.8 23.9 36.0 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 11.0 49.0 19.0 31.0 23.0 37.0 19.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 21.6 13.0 36.1 24.0 36.3 18.9 32.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.7 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington CIC EIS 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 5 10 280 5 310 5 885 180 185 1245 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 5 10 280 5 310 5 885 180 185 1245 5 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 5 10 292 5 323 5 922 188 193 1297 5 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, % 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 181 65 130 522 6 380 118 1132 231 261 1603 6 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 565 1131 1795 24 1577 1781 2940 599 1781 3631 14 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 0 15 292 0 328 5 557 553 193 635 667 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1810 0 1696 1795 0 1601 1781 1777 1763 1781 1777 1868 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 0.5 9.0 0.0 13.0 0.1 18.6 18.6 1.3 20.6 20.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.5 9.0 0.0 13.0 0.1 18.6 18.6 1.3 20.6 20.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 0 196 522 0 386 118 684 678 261 785 825 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.56 0.00 0.85 0.04 0.81 0.82 0.74 0.81 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 0 512 522 0 604 216 885 878 419 1046 1100 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 25.6 0.0 26.2 20.5 0.0 24.0 18.2 18.2 18.3 28.7 16.1 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.1 4.1 4.2 3.1 3.2 3.0 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/ln0.1 0.0 0.2 3.6 0.0 4.9 0.0 7.5 7.4 3.0 7.8 8.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 26.2 21.4 0.0 28.0 18.3 22.4 22.5 31.8 19.2 19.1 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C B C C C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 25 620 1115 1495 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 24.9 22.4 20.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.1 30.5 14.0 12.6 5.4 34.3 5.7 21.0 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), s10.0 33.0 9.0 20.0 4.0 39.0 4.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.3 20.6 11.0 2.5 2.1 22.6 2.3 15.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 6.1 5.7 5.2 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 56.7 50.1 42.8 18.0 21.9 4.7 18.7 11.4 13.4 3.2 1.8 1.0 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 21.9 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL2 SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 158.6 158.8 163.1 27.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 77.6 37.0 18.9 11.7 148.3 159.1 139.1 53.6 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.9 2.4 0.2 0.4 319.0 314.3 101.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 164.4 155.9 40.7 18.6 73.7 173.9 92.8 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 75.3 65.0 82.7 0.1 3.9 4.4 2.8 112.6 112.9 132.6 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 214.5 219.1 61.3 11.5 61.1 77.7 70.7 7.7 473.9 115.8 61.3 92.3 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 50.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 60.3 154.2 142.1 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.0 1.9 0.0 10.0 12.2 9.5 59.9 62.6 37.3 33.6 33.6 36.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 87.3 34.4 26.5 100.7 21.2 18.0 104.6 84.6 18.3 107.3 85.0 46.6 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 13.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 41.7 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 54.8 55.3 42.0 3.0 79.9 35.6 28.9 57.9 62.7 50.2 217.8 80.3 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 38.8 45.0 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 123.9 143.3 136.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 219.1 231.7 228.2 1.7 1.7 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 173.6 196.6 196.2 86.5 24.2 21.2 899.2 793.4 823.1 162.0 111.5 114.0 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 92.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 231.0 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 11.1 9.9 2.7 64.2 68.7 71.1 150.1 164.2 160.1 239.8 218.9 212.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 238.5 150.1 182.0 294.2 214.0 201.1 214.4 160.2 157.1 579.5 463.6 455.3 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 110.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 260.8 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 19.0 5.2 4.6 201.0 103.6 101.2 170.7 140.7 129.0 290.0 163.2 206.6 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 113.4 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 14.7 14.5 3.2 1.2 1.1 430.2 421.6 414.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 51.6 40.2 4.7 91.9 106.5 108.6 9.7 10.0 5.8 306.4 305.3 85.2 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 118.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 92.6 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 145.8 152.1 155.8 907.5 918.7 945.6 179.3 141.8 186.8 403.3 383.0 395.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 244.5 71.6 48.1 172.1 194.8 193.2 346.9 84.0 70.0 431.8 457.5 487.9 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 410.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 255.8 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 11.7 17.8 10.0 228.6 256.6 255.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 76.0 44.8 11.1 26.4 51.0 49.9 644.9 494.2 329.2 27.6 13.0 8.6 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 102.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 170.3 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 30.9 0.0 17.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 22.6 1.6 13.4 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 9.4 0.2 4.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 182.2 38.4 108.7 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 125.4 5.6 49.3 56.2 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 47.7 3.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 17.6 7.8 22.3 8.1 60.8 13.6 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 1.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.0 15.1 2.6 37.4 9.0 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 216.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 334.1 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: EB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed 33 182.2 269.8 0.8 12 I-5 SB On Ramp 2 77.6 91.4 0.1 5 I-5 NB Off Ramp 3 149.1 168.3 0.2 4 47 130.3 140.4 0.1 3 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 61.3 136.7 0.1 5 45 12.0 23.0 0.1 16 52 14.0 22.3 0.1 13 40th Ave NE 5 35.4 48.4 0.1 9 51 18.7 32.3 0.1 11 43rd Ave NE 6 41.0 55.6 0.1 8 51st Ave NE 7 192.5 426.3 0.5 7 59th Ave NE 8 147.0 203.6 0.5 9 28 69.7 109.7 0.4 13 22 18.5 22.8 0.0 7 BNSF Railway Spur 16 22.6 55.7 0.0 3 67th Ave NE 9 5.2 7.7 0.0 10 42 5.4 44.6 0.4 31 21 3.0 30.0 0.3 32 31 2.7 25.3 0.2 31 34 3.8 30.9 0.3 31 SR 9 10 40.2 52.9 0.2 11 Total 1232.1 1997.7 4.6 10 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: WB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed SR 9 10 106.5 134.4 0.2 5 34 3.5 27.2 0.2 21 31 1.5 28.6 0.3 33 21 1.8 24.4 0.2 32 42 4.4 31.3 0.3 30 67th Ave NE 9 103.6 140.1 0.4 10 BNSF Railway Spur 16 2.0 4.6 0.0 15 22 0.6 2.8 0.0 25 28 1.5 5.9 0.0 26 59th Ave NE 8 214.0 318.5 0.4 6 51st Ave NE 7 25.1 82.5 0.5 22 43rd Ave NE 6 34.1 83.1 0.5 21 51 9.8 22.1 0.1 19 40th Ave NE 5 21.2 40.8 0.1 10 52 3.1 14.1 0.1 29 45 1.3 9.7 0.1 30 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 70.7 83.8 0.1 5 47 6.5 17.5 0.1 20 I-5 NB On Ramp 3 40.7 51.4 0.1 8 I-5 SB Ramps 2 22.8 39.0 0.2 15 33 31.4 45.2 0.1 10 Total 706.0 1207.0 3.9 13 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 110 637 42 76 67 51 32 47 37 Average Queue (ft) 99 285 4 22 20 3 3 3 3 95th Queue (ft) 132 637 22 58 54 24 19 22 20 Link Distance (ft) 670 692 7825 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 30 105 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 52 30 2 4 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 178 86 0 0 0 0 Intersection: 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB SB Directions Served T T R T T R < <L R Maximum Queue (ft) 624 631 233 427 418 159 316 757 447 Average Queue (ft) 433 429 160 154 146 15 129 639 403 95th Queue (ft) 806 825 307 372 374 185 280 1033 583 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 766 766 766 734 Upstream Blk Time (%) 26 25 0 0 0 55 Queuing Penalty (veh) 226 221 1 2 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 183 383 383 Storage Blk Time (%) 41 0 3 3 66 Queuing Penalty (veh) 218 1 17 16 151 Intersection: 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 675 798 798 539 542 547 315 408 1195 1191 Average Queue (ft) 592 656 613 316 336 350 243 195 891 891 95th Queue (ft) 872 1020 1008 523 549 594 410 376 1538 1605 Link Distance (ft) 766 766 518 518 518 1140 1140 Upstream Blk Time (%) 30 21 1 1 3 47 52 Queuing Penalty (veh) 215 152 8 11 25 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 610 255 395 Storage Blk Time (%) 23 44 19 2 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 123 183 116 15 1 7 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B45 B45 NB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T T R T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 494 509 477 479 278 439 459 519 416 6 98 309 Average Queue (ft) 464 468 330 130 92 271 301 336 101 0 6 296 95th Queue (ft) 483 530 564 372 195 411 453 506 330 5 50 342 Link Distance (ft) 449 449 449 449 448 448 448 371 371 Upstream Blk Time (%) 83 64 15 7 0 1 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 332 255 61 29 0 2 1 14 Storage Bay Dist (ft)393 266 250 Storage Blk Time (%)1 36 32 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 66 84 Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B46 B46 Directions Served L T T R L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 368 2398 2282 128 231 404 473 250 1559 1563 Average Queue (ft) 366 1935 1560 35 160 163 432 244 1018 1130 95th Queue (ft) 374 2848 2817 103 257 369 545 303 1991 1924 Link Distance (ft) 3707 3707 366 366 1521 1521 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 3 6 81 22 40 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 15 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 160 132 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 78 2 15 31 6 2 79 Queuing Penalty (veh) 207 11 18 37 11 9 95 Intersection: 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 248 482 403 249 368 383 172 277 102 159 260 Average Queue (ft) 152 205 157 108 208 248 106 65 24 86 102 95th Queue (ft) 270 444 395 225 381 416 176 258 73 157 301 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 361 361 425 551 Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 7 5 5 6 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 39 38 23 25 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 75 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 21 17 8 11 42 1 0 16 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 79 38 44 11 21 1 0 19 10 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB B24 SB SB Directions Served UL T R L T TR L L TR T L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 252 512 62 313 881 204 207 195 223 401 39 145 Average Queue (ft) 96 262 18 122 254 143 105 103 151 110 8 57 95th Queue (ft) 220 518 49 244 718 239 190 185 245 431 33 125 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 2479 147 147 147 669 1920 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 5 4 26 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 38 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 158 217 62 109 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 27 2 29 29 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 34 14 179 175 0 Intersection: 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 526 1932 250 507 226 3066 230 218 800 Average Queue (ft) 113 1486 84 222 199 2275 84 109 306 95th Queue (ft) 429 2231 185 442 307 3773 215 222 1133 Link Distance (ft) 2479 2485 3018 3251 Upstream Blk Time (%) 9 42 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 246 244 185 150 127 Storage Blk Time (%) 50 0 6 79 18 11 15 23 Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 1 5 239 49 43 31 19 Intersection: 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB B28 B22 NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR T T L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 573 1580 283 1819 71 15 197 978 3035 460 Average Queue (ft) 394 1039 191 1310 11 1 50 694 2620 423 95th Queue (ft) 777 2154 340 2026 82 17 161 1103 3664 626 Link Distance (ft) 2485 1993 164 56 988 2979 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 5 1 0 19 61 Queuing Penalty (veh) 110 33 6 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 140 98 385 Storage Blk Time (%) 21 45 28 60 2 69 9 63 Queuing Penalty (veh) 154 108 184 69 7 21 60 53 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB B42 NB NB B18 B23 SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR T L TR T T L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 62 89 46 217 1332 122 236 820 290 151 218 2197 Average Queue (ft) 29 44 16 168 719 12 114 616 141 32 174 1247 95th Queue (ft) 54 85 43 271 1599 139 265 1003 508 181 266 2442 Link Distance (ft) 29 29 29 1914 1332 787 484 1885 7825 Upstream Blk Time (%) 58 46 12 3 27 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 198 159 40 19 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 129 155 106 Storage Blk Time (%) 46 40 3 62 49 60 Queuing Penalty (veh) 258 55 13 37 257 72 Intersection: 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R LTR L TR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 508 205 673 138 77 1232 842 Average Queue (ft) 265 37 382 55 18 1175 764 95th Queue (ft) 529 193 771 107 54 1369 1164 Link Distance (ft) 702 697 1118 1173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 19 90 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 585 588 800 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 95 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 124 1 Intersection: 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 369 839 306 242 806 308 1077 1095 178 2066 2100 Average Queue (ft) 323 608 133 165 806 302 1056 943 128 1905 1924 95th Queue (ft) 452 1086 278 326 808 370 1089 1349 231 2183 2213 Link Distance (ft) 824 791 1046 1046 3707 3707 Upstream Blk Time (%) 38 84 44 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 268 48 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 187 185 200 211 98 Storage Blk Time (%) 81 13 3 0 74 83 4 8 74 Queuing Penalty (veh) 607 85 18 0 112 275 22 35 115 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 54 54 260 280 129 1853 1850 162 260 271 Average Queue (ft) 11 15 161 195 11 1474 1462 75 113 131 95th Queue (ft) 40 43 288 311 77 2353 2362 134 225 242 Link Distance (ft) 124 124 260 1809 1809 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 12 59 53 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 87 133 Storage Blk Time (%) 9 36 93 1 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 27 102 5 6 8 Intersection: 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB B22 B22 B28 WB Directions Served T T T T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 144 153 92 136 243 801 24 Average Queue (ft) 84 118 14 26 157 390 1 95th Queue (ft) 171 150 54 102 288 1529 13 Link Distance (ft) 56 56 56 164 164 1993 29 Upstream Blk Time (%) 42 56 1 0 26 13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 142 189 4 2 134 133 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB Directions Served T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 3828 3828 583 668 Average Queue (ft) 1274 1287 437 466 95th Queue (ft) 3684 3693 626 693 Link Distance (ft) 4384 4384 591 591 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 4 0 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 4 76 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 46: Bend Movement NB NB Directions Served T T Maximum Queue (ft) 74 74 Average Queue (ft) 3 3 95th Queue (ft) 53 54 Link Distance (ft) 366 366 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 450 569 563 651 82 125 284 225 Average Queue (ft) 425 505 505 572 5 11 38 90 95th Queue (ft) 527 656 672 812 44 69 164 176 Link Distance (ft) 518 518 518 449 449 449 526 Upstream Blk Time (%) 41 43 60 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 253 264 374 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) 70 64 Queuing Penalty (veh) 281 256 Intersection: 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB Directions Served T TR L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 187 115 131 102 176 116 Average Queue (ft) 46 40 41 20 33 49 95th Queue (ft) 257 244 95 169 189 151 Link Distance (ft) 361 361 524 524 272 Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 8 2 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 35 15 15 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 204 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB B45 B45 NB Directions Served T TR T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 108 106 97 94 130 Average Queue (ft) 30 29 28 26 57 95th Queue (ft) 205 204 214 197 165 Link Distance (ft) 371 371 448 448 342 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 6 5 5 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 35 36 28 28 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 10637 LANE LEVEL OF SERVICE Lane Level of Service Site:10 [2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Approaches IntersectionSouthEastNorthWest LOS B B B B B Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used). SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site:10 [2040 No Action Weekday PM Peak Hour] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance -Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 3 L2 293 5.0 0.482 16.5 LOS B 4.0 103.6 0.92 0.99 1.04 31.3 8 T1 399 5.0 0.591 11.1 LOS B 6.4 166.0 0.99 1.00 1.19 33.7 18 R2 74 5.0 0.591 11.3 LOS B 6.4 166.0 0.99 1.00 1.19 32.7 Approach 766 5.0 0.591 13.2 LOS B 6.4 166.0 0.96 1.00 1.13 32.6 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 16 2.0 0.706 16.6 LOS B 5.5 138.8 0.87 1.03 1.18 33.6 6 T1 340 2.0 0.706 11.3 LOS B 5.5 138.8 0.87 1.03 1.18 33.6 16 R2 106 2.0 0.706 11.1 LOS B 5.5 138.8 0.87 1.03 1.18 32.7 Approach 463 2.0 0.706 11.4 LOS B 5.5 138.8 0.87 1.03 1.18 33.4 North: SR 9 7 L2 106 4.0 0.804 21.3 LOS C 11.3 290.4 0.98 1.21 1.55 31.1 4 T1 569 4.0 0.804 15.9 LOS B 11.3 290.4 0.98 1.21 1.55 31.1 14 R2 138 4.0 0.276 9.9 LOS A 1.4 35.2 0.70 0.85 0.70 33.2 Approach 814 4.0 0.804 15.6 LOS B 11.3 290.4 0.93 1.15 1.41 31.4 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 165 5.0 0.742 20.4 LOS C 10.5 273.7 1.00 1.11 1.42 31.3 2 T1 436 5.0 0.742 14.8 LOS B 10.5 273.7 1.00 1.11 1.42 31.4 12 R2 340 5.0 0.559 12.4 LOS B 5.2 134.5 0.96 1.03 1.15 32.1 Approach 941 5.0 0.742 14.9 LOS B 10.5 273.7 0.98 1.08 1.33 31.6 All Vehicles 2984 4.3 0.804 14.1 LOS B 11.3 290.4 0.95 1.07 1.28 32.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Friday, July 24, 2020 12:40:11 PM Project: M:\19\1.19167.00 -Arlington MIC EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\SR 9_SR 531_172nd Street NE.sip8 HCM 6th TWSC Arlington CIC EIS 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 88.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 315 15 345 5 5 20 50 310 15 15 490 185 Future Vol, veh/h 315 15 345 5 5 20 50 310 15 15 490 185 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 1 6 0 5 1 0 6 5 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 30 - - 105 - - 110 - - 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, % 3 3 3 26 26 26 6 6 6 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 342 16 375 5 5 22 54 337 16 16 533 201 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1038 1033 540 1326 1226 356 735 0 0 359 0 0 Stage 1 566 566 - 459 459 - - - - - - - Stage 2 472 467 - 867 767 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.36 6.76 6.46 4.16 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.13 5.53 - 6.36 5.76 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.13 5.53 - 6.36 5.76 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.734 4.234 3.534 2.254 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 208 232 540 118 161 637 852 - - 1200 - - Stage 1 507 506 - 539 528 - - - - - - - Stage 2 571 560 - 316 378 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 183 213 536 31 148 630 851 - - 1193 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 183 213 - 31 148 - - - - - - - Stage 1 475 499 - 502 492 - - - - - - - Stage 2 508 521 - 90 373 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 229.8 36.7 1.3 0.2 HCM LOS F E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 851 - - 183 504 31 382 1193 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 - - 1.871 0.776 0.175 0.071 0.014 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - -$ 455.1 32.7 144.4 15.1 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F D F C A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 25.1 7 0.5 0.2 0 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington CIC EIS 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 235 305 415 165 665 170 565 650 45 140 895 415 Future Volume (veh/h) 235 305 415 165 665 170 565 650 45 140 895 415 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 245 318 432 172 693 177 589 677 47 146 932 432 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, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 251 970 433 197 681 174 618 1395 97 198 1032 460 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3610 1610 1810 2847 727 3483 3398 236 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 245 318 432 172 439 431 589 357 367 146 932 432 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1805 1610 1810 1805 1769 1742 1791 1843 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 9.2 34.8 12.1 31.0 31.0 21.7 19.0 19.0 5.4 32.7 34.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 9.2 34.8 12.1 31.0 31.0 21.7 19.0 19.0 5.4 32.7 34.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 251 970 433 197 432 423 618 735 757 198 1032 460 V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.33 1.00 0.87 1.02 1.02 0.95 0.48 0.49 0.74 0.90 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 251 970 433 223 432 423 618 735 757 267 1042 465 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 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.6 38.0 47.4 56.9 49.3 49.3 52.8 28.1 28.1 60.2 44.2 44.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 49.5 0.1 42.7 24.9 47.8 48.5 24.9 0.6 0.6 4.2 11.0 27.1 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/ln 11.5 4.1 18.8 6.9 19.5 19.2 11.5 8.2 8.4 2.5 15.7 16.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 105.1 38.1 90.1 81.7 97.2 97.8 77.7 28.7 28.7 64.4 55.2 71.9 LnGrp LOS F D F F F F E C C E E E Approach Vol, veh/h 995 1042 1313 1510 Approach Delay, s/veh 77.1 94.9 50.7 60.9 Approach LOS E F D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 58.2 19.1 39.9 28.0 42.6 23.0 36.0 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 10.0 51.0 16.0 33.0 23.0 38.0 18.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 21.0 14.1 36.8 23.7 36.5 19.5 33.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 68.7 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington CIC EIS 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 5 10 295 5 310 5 880 180 180 1300 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 5 10 295 5 310 5 880 180 180 1300 5 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 5 10 307 5 323 5 917 188 188 1354 5 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, % 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 174 75 149 510 6 376 114 1128 231 283 1650 6 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 565 1131 1795 24 1577 1781 2937 602 1781 3631 13 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 10 0 15 307 0 328 5 555 550 188 662 697 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1810 0 1696 1795 0 1601 1781 1777 1762 1781 1777 1868 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 0.5 8.0 0.0 13.5 0.1 19.2 19.2 1.1 22.3 22.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.5 8.0 0.0 13.5 0.1 19.2 19.2 1.1 22.3 22.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.01 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 174 0 224 510 0 382 114 682 676 283 807 849 V/C Ratio(X) 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.60 0.00 0.86 0.04 0.81 0.81 0.67 0.82 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 261 0 495 510 0 560 209 907 899 381 1036 1089 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 25.7 0.0 26.1 22.2 0.0 25.0 18.8 18.9 18.9 28.8 16.3 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 6.2 0.1 3.8 3.9 2.0 3.8 3.7 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/ln0.1 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.0 5.4 0.1 7.7 7.6 2.9 8.6 9.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.7 0.0 26.1 23.6 0.0 31.2 18.9 22.7 22.8 30.8 20.1 19.9 LnGrp LOS C A C C A C B C C C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 25 635 1110 1547 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.9 27.5 22.8 21.3 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.2 31.3 13.0 14.1 5.4 36.2 5.7 21.4 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), s9.0 35.0 8.0 20.0 4.0 40.0 4.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.1 21.2 10.0 2.5 2.1 24.3 2.3 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 34.1 28.2 29.4 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 99.7 81.2 73.5 16.6 21.1 4.9 19.6 11.2 11.0 3.3 1.9 1.1 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 11.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 34.7 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL2 SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 87.0 87.0 88.0 14.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 56.9 28.8 17.4 11.9 116.5 110.5 126.0 43.9 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.1 3.1 0.2 0.4 259.8 256.2 78.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 148.2 136.4 40.2 19.0 70.3 156.7 85.6 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 57.8 43.2 46.9 7.3 3.5 4.7 3.0 292.4 282.0 305.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 213.6 214.5 46.2 10.5 75.5 72.6 64.9 7.0 541.3 82.6 45.3 82.2 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 100.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 63.0 159.5 146.6 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.2 1.4 2.4 3.9 0.6 3.9 3.8 0.7 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 77.9 20.0 12.6 64.0 20.1 15.7 67.4 56.1 8.0 61.6 55.0 21.4 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 29.8 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 53.4 55.3 25.0 3.4 78.7 32.4 21.7 59.0 48.1 37.9 76.3 34.3 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 38.0 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 202.3 179.0 191.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 267.1 266.0 276.8 0.9 0.3 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 141.5 167.0 164.8 140.1 19.9 17.3 972.0 835.1 837.3 86.7 59.5 50.0 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 117.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 227.5 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 0.9 0.0 183.3 173.9 141.5 9.8 6.6 7.9 405.7 389.4 396.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 194.0 82.9 88.3 332.8 229.0 227.8 142.3 100.9 92.2 498.5 487.5 475.9 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 164.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 240.4 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.7 0.8 0.2 3.3 3.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 18.5 5.4 4.9 315.6 188.5 200.1 172.8 162.2 154.4 379.6 222.3 295.2 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 155.5 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 3.2 1.1 1.1 506.0 511.5 514.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 79.9 63.6 7.6 77.7 72.2 72.9 9.9 9.8 5.6 307.0 309.6 90.6 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 143.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 94.9 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 0.5 2.8 4.7 2.1 2.0 10.2 9.0 8.8 1.3 0.3 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 86.1 37.7 19.4 102.9 99.8 93.3 109.7 34.8 24.7 76.8 53.5 33.3 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 64.3 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.6 1.1 4.7 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 30.7 36.2 12.9 39.7 27.9 14.5 37.3 17.8 10.6 27.8 11.7 11.8 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 17.4 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 22.0 0.0 13.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 22.7 1.7 14.6 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.5 0.2 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 93.9 39.6 65.8 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 108.1 5.5 52.3 50.1 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.6 2.2 18.8 3.1 10.1 4.4 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.9 2.5 2.6 9.8 3.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 127.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 253.8 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: EB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed 33 93.9 176.2 0.8 17 I-5 SB On Ramp 2 56.9 70.1 0.1 7 I-5 NB Off Ramp 3 133.6 153.9 0.2 4 47 109.5 119.7 0.1 3 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 46.2 99.0 0.1 6 45 3.4 14.5 0.1 26 52 3.9 12.2 0.1 24 40th Ave NE 5 20.2 31.3 0.1 13 51 5.1 13.6 0.1 22 43rd Ave NE 6 24.2 35.3 0.1 12 51st Ave NE 7 164.0 459.0 0.5 8 59th Ave NE 8 81.2 128.7 0.5 14 28 30.0 70.1 0.4 20 22 17.7 22.0 0.0 7 BNSF Railway Spur 16 22.7 46.8 0.0 3 67th Ave NE 9 5.4 7.8 0.0 10 42 5.6 44.7 0.4 31 21 3.0 30.1 0.3 31 31 3.4 25.9 0.2 30 34 19.7 46.9 0.3 20 SR 9 10 63.6 76.3 0.2 7 Total 913.3 1684.0 4.6 12 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: WB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed SR 9 10 72.2 86.4 0.2 6 34 3.4 27.2 0.2 21 31 1.4 28.6 0.3 33 21 2.6 25.2 0.2 31 42 26.3 53.1 0.3 18 67th Ave NE 9 188.5 227.7 0.4 6 BNSF Railway Spur 16 2.0 4.6 0.0 15 22 0.5 2.7 0.0 25 28 0.9 5.3 0.0 29 59th Ave NE 8 229.0 449.2 0.4 5 51st Ave NE 7 20.7 78.5 0.5 23 43rd Ave NE 6 28.6 76.8 0.5 23 51 3.6 15.1 0.1 28 40th Ave NE 5 20.1 28.8 0.1 11 52 3.1 13.9 0.1 29 45 1.2 9.6 0.1 30 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 64.9 78.2 0.1 5 47 6.6 17.6 0.1 20 I-5 NB On Ramp 3 40.1 50.8 0.1 8 I-5 SB Ramps 2 21.0 37.2 0.2 16 33 32.6 46.4 0.1 10 Total 769.3 1362.8 3.9 12 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 110 706 37 67 77 54 30 53 40 Average Queue (ft) 104 467 4 21 23 3 3 5 5 95th Queue (ft) 131 869 20 56 60 25 18 28 23 Link Distance (ft) 670 692 7825 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) 33 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 30 105 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 71 34 1 5 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 255 107 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection: 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB SB Directions Served T T R T T < <L R Maximum Queue (ft) 618 631 233 387 432 306 790 448 Average Queue (ft) 373 364 151 156 147 115 579 399 95th Queue (ft) 764 774 302 317 331 240 1037 555 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 766 766 734 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 16 45 Queuing Penalty (veh) 143 144 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 183 383 383 Storage Blk Time (%) 32 1 0 1 60 Queuing Penalty (veh) 170 4 0 3 135 Intersection: 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 675 800 790 524 526 552 315 403 1187 1191 Average Queue (ft) 599 631 589 321 347 370 248 197 870 850 95th Queue (ft) 820 1023 1005 493 528 583 410 364 1540 1639 Link Distance (ft) 766 766 518 518 518 1140 1140 Upstream Blk Time (%) 21 16 0 1 3 46 51 Queuing Penalty (veh) 153 115 4 6 23 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 610 255 395 Storage Blk Time (%) 16 41 19 3 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 86 165 116 21 0 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B45 B45 NB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T T R T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 498 509 490 411 222 427 442 498 416 28 83 309 Average Queue (ft) 465 467 335 106 89 261 292 334 113 1 4 300 95th Queue (ft) 486 520 564 304 179 390 424 481 356 22 43 348 Link Distance (ft) 449 449 449 449 448 448 448 371 371 Upstream Blk Time (%) 82 55 8 2 0 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 327 222 32 8 1 1 10 Storage Bay Dist (ft)393 266 250 Storage Blk Time (%)1 33 34 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 63 88 Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B46 B46 Directions Served L T T R L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 368 2966 2838 134 231 431 478 250 1560 1569 Average Queue (ft) 366 2410 1783 32 150 150 445 250 1243 1315 95th Queue (ft) 370 3179 3011 90 258 366 465 252 2029 1945 Link Distance (ft) 3695 3695 366 366 1521 1521 Upstream Blk Time (%)4 85 31 58 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 160 132 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 78 1 17 0 27 5 2 82 Queuing Penalty (veh) 204 10 21 0 32 9 7 97 Intersection: 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 250 521 444 244 363 383 168 215 144 171 179 Average Queue (ft) 176 217 142 89 190 234 100 31 26 86 76 95th Queue (ft) 283 438 334 189 352 403 166 129 80 150 149 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 361 361 425 551 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 3 8 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 75 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 24 11 3 12 36 0 12 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 89 23 14 12 18 0 14 5 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB B24 SB Directions Served UL T R L T TR L L TR T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 252 523 81 305 737 204 209 202 226 383 145 Average Queue (ft) 106 222 22 131 250 143 123 117 157 83 61 95th Queue (ft) 226 441 58 259 560 243 196 192 245 275 125 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 2479 147 147 147 669 1920 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 7 7 21 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 158 217 62 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 19 1 29 28 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 22 11 190 181 0 Intersection: 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 526 2072 255 386 226 3074 230 218 401 Average Queue (ft) 112 1506 143 162 220 2506 74 100 182 95th Queue (ft) 432 2049 254 322 244 3838 199 201 336 Link Distance (ft) 2479 2485 3018 3251 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 56 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 246 244 185 150 127 Storage Blk Time (%) 45 4 3 91 18 2 8 23 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 42 3 267 52 8 18 20 Intersection: 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB B28 B22 NB NB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR T T L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 632 1317 283 1792 60 16 232 866 3042 460 Average Queue (ft) 408 704 205 1342 4 1 71 496 2885 459 95th Queue (ft) 731 1453 353 1813 53 13 199 871 3453 463 Link Distance (ft) 2485 1993 164 56 988 2979 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 2 0 0 4 81 Queuing Penalty (veh) 12 11 3 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 140 98 385 Storage Blk Time (%) 26 31 40 59 3 61 0 69 Queuing Penalty (veh) 194 73 270 74 12 18 0 79 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB B42 B21 NB NB B18 B23 SB Directions Served L T R L TR T T L TR T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 77 97 62 217 1676 480 56 236 878 393 281 218 Average Queue (ft) 33 50 18 193 1159 140 6 101 692 181 67 182 95th Queue (ft) 58 91 49 270 2293 669 76 257 1042 576 315 266 Link Distance (ft) 29 29 29 1914 1332 1100 787 484 1885 Upstream Blk Time (%) 68 51 14 22 2 34 19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 238 180 49 154 15 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 129 155 106 Storage Blk Time (%) 66 40 0 67 59 Queuing Penalty (veh) 365 57 1 33 333 Intersection: 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement SB Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 2725 Average Queue (ft) 1737 95th Queue (ft) 3023 Link Distance (ft) 7825 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 60 Queuing Penalty (veh) 82 Intersection: 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB B34 B31 WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served LT R T T LTR L TR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 725 548 397 36 582 144 62 1228 842 Average Queue (ft) 415 175 143 5 279 56 18 1197 795 95th Queue (ft) 821 625 754 66 582 108 53 1249 1113 Link Distance (ft) 702 1338 1100 697 1118 1173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 2 2 96 Queuing Penalty (veh) 141 20 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 585 588 800 Storage Blk Time (%) 20 99 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 60 129 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB Directions Served L T T R L T TR L L T TR L Maximum Queue (ft) 326 374 323 274 242 680 648 259 308 698 603 120 Average Queue (ft) 207 151 106 142 196 462 441 235 269 415 311 51 95th Queue (ft) 348 361 286 241 302 773 738 298 351 900 736 103 Link Distance (ft) 806 806 785 785 1034 1034 Upstream Blk Time (%)5 4 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 5 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 187 185 200 211 211 98 Storage Blk Time (%) 24 0 0 4 4 51 23 41 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 37 1 0 7 14 85 76 134 8 6 Intersection: 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 178 604 638 250 Average Queue (ft) 124 332 335 207 95th Queue (ft) 215 536 556 318 Link Distance (ft) 3695 3695 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 98 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 52 36 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 47 73 151 40 Intersection: 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 43 56 247 269 109 300 270 215 288 308 Average Queue (ft) 11 16 156 128 8 173 136 90 118 130 95th Queue (ft) 36 44 249 248 54 281 252 159 228 240 Link Distance (ft) 118 118 254 1809 1809 1034 1034 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 87 133 Storage Blk Time (%) 21 4 0 26 2 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 68 12 0 1 14 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB B22 B22 B28 WB Directions Served T T T T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 162 160 78 202 249 994 24 Average Queue (ft) 110 123 15 61 159 235 1 95th Queue (ft) 180 157 62 177 292 943 12 Link Distance (ft) 56 56 56 164 164 1993 29 Upstream Blk Time (%) 58 54 1 6 20 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 197 181 4 30 100 24 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB Directions Served T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 2444 2445 601 682 Average Queue (ft) 673 681 454 491 95th Queue (ft) 2336 2353 609 700 Link Distance (ft) 4384 4384 591 591 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 93 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 46: Bend Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft) 39 Average Queue (ft) 0 95th Queue (ft) 0 Link Distance (ft) 366 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour_No Opt SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 450 560 562 649 56 120 249 225 Average Queue (ft) 408 480 474 526 3 7 31 96 95th Queue (ft) 553 678 705 878 30 54 138 182 Link Distance (ft) 518 518 518 449 449 449 526 Upstream Blk Time (%) 33 38 55 Queuing Penalty (veh) 205 231 337 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) 62 58 Queuing Penalty (veh) 247 232 Intersection: 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB Directions Served T TR L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 96 30 118 40 122 82 Average Queue (ft) 6 2 44 2 11 34 95th Queue (ft) 53 14 94 23 60 64 Link Distance (ft) 361 361 524 524 272 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 204 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB NB Directions Served T TR R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 36 96 Average Queue (ft) 4 2 43 95th Queue (ft) 44 27 79 Link Distance (ft) 371 371 342 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 9105 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site:10 [2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance -Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 3 L2 287 5.0 0.486 16.8 LOS B 4.1 105.6 0.93 1.00 1.05 31.2 8 T1 399 5.0 0.606 11.6 LOS B 6.7 174.6 1.00 1.02 1.22 33.5 18 R2 74 5.0 0.606 11.8 LOS B 6.7 174.6 1.00 1.02 1.22 32.5 Approach 761 5.0 0.606 13.6 LOS B 6.7 174.6 0.97 1.01 1.16 32.5 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 5 2.0 0.677 16.2 LOS B 5.0 128.0 0.85 1.01 1.14 33.8 6 T1 335 2.0 0.677 10.9 LOS B 5.0 128.0 0.85 1.01 1.14 33.8 16 R2 101 2.0 0.677 10.7 LOS B 5.0 128.0 0.85 1.01 1.14 33.0 Approach 441 2.0 0.677 10.9 LOS B 5.0 128.0 0.85 1.01 1.14 33.6 North: SR 9 7 L2 85 4.0 0.824 21.7 LOS C 12.2 314.4 0.99 1.22 1.60 31.0 4 T1 622 4.0 0.824 16.4 LOS B 12.2 314.4 0.99 1.22 1.60 31.0 14 R2 138 4.0 0.270 9.7 LOS A 1.3 34.1 0.69 0.84 0.69 33.3 Approach 846 4.0 0.824 15.8 LOS B 12.2 314.4 0.94 1.16 1.45 31.4 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 176 5.0 0.811 24.3 LOS C 13.4 347.7 1.00 1.21 1.62 29.7 2 T1 457 5.0 0.811 18.7 LOS B 13.4 347.7 1.00 1.21 1.62 29.8 12 R2 324 5.0 0.559 12.8 LOS B 5.2 134.4 0.97 1.05 1.17 31.8 Approach 957 5.0 0.811 17.7 LOS B 13.4 347.7 0.99 1.15 1.47 30.4 All Vehicles 3005 4.3 0.824 15.1 LOS B 13.4 347.7 0.95 1.10 1.34 31.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Friday, July 24, 2020 12:45:38 PM Project: M:\19\1.19167.00 -Arlington MIC EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\SR 9_SR 531_172nd Street NE.sip8 LANE LEVEL OF SERVICE Lane Level of Service Site:10 [2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Approaches IntersectionSouthEastNorthWest LOS B B B B B Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used). SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arlington CIC EIS 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 275 15 265 5 5 20 50 340 20 15 495 210 Future Volume (veh/h) 275 15 265 5 5 20 50 340 20 15 495 210 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1660 1660 1660 1355 1355 1355 1620 1620 1620 1673 1673 1673 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 299 16 288 5 5 22 54 370 22 16 538 228 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, % 3 3 3 26 26 26 6 6 6 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 490 21 377 204 61 269 79 689 41 31 710 598 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.46 0.46 0.02 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1364 75 1341 870 218 958 1543 1514 90 1594 1673 1410 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 299 0 304 5 0 27 54 0 392 16 538 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1364 0 1416 870 0 1176 1543 0 1604 1594 1673 1410 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 10.9 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 9.8 0.6 15.1 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.4 0.0 10.9 11.2 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 9.8 0.6 15.1 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 490 0 398 204 0 330 79 0 730 31 710 598 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.76 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.69 0.00 0.54 0.51 0.76 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 550 0 460 242 0 382 139 0 730 144 710 598 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 0.0 18.2 23.3 0.0 14.7 25.9 0.0 10.9 26.9 13.5 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.1 0.0 2.8 12.2 7.4 1.8 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/ln 3.4 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.3 6.0 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 0.0 24.7 23.4 0.0 14.8 36.0 0.0 13.7 39.1 21.0 12.8 LnGrp LOS C A C C A B D A B D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 603 32 446 782 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 16.1 16.4 19.0 Approach LOS C B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 29.7 20.1 7.3 28.0 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 18.0 5.0 23.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 11.8 14.4 3.9 17.1 13.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.5 HCM 6th LOS B SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 9.1 4.5 6.2 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 62.8 37.8 38.8 16.1 21.7 5.5 19.6 12.0 12.1 4.1 1.8 1.2 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 20.1 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT WBR SBL2 SBL SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 133.1 117.2 129.3 21.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 72.0 34.8 17.3 11.6 140.7 139.3 141.5 51.0 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.4 3.3 0.2 0.4 357.3 352.9 106.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 150.9 146.3 38.5 19.0 73.7 178.9 88.9 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 54.1 45.2 49.0 2.9 13.8 15.5 12.5 234.6 237.3 248.8 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 222.5 226.1 46.5 11.2 75.0 76.1 76.4 10.1 489.0 78.8 39.0 91.5 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 82.9 Total Del/Veh (s) 60.1 160.7 139.9 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.6 2.2 3.2 3.9 0.6 3.8 3.8 0.6 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 69.7 17.8 15.8 75.3 22.5 21.0 62.3 50.1 9.1 56.2 46.5 19.4 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 29.3 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 59.8 61.3 25.6 7.2 52.1 25.6 23.3 51.4 47.4 28.3 71.7 67.5 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 29.6 32.1 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.2 1.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 46.8 31.2 30.1 40.8 22.3 24.3 70.7 52.6 28.8 56.7 40.6 27.0 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 34.6 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.3 2.1 0.6 24.0 20.0 21.6 245.4 247.3 248.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 204.5 69.6 67.9 275.8 56.4 48.1 165.1 129.4 117.2 367.3 375.9 377.6 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 69.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 166.4 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 13.9 5.6 6.2 155.9 41.8 32.7 246.8 160.3 152.3 87.2 60.3 67.5 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 57.4 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.3 0.8 2.1 62.6 53.3 56.2 3.2 1.1 1.1 269.1 283.2 271.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 208.7 167.3 32.9 154.8 161.8 159.4 10.0 9.7 5.5 291.8 290.8 77.8 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 80.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 132.2 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 22.9 20.1 22.5 296.4 311.8 304.2 60.4 54.1 81.8 1.3 0.3 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 136.1 41.7 22.8 146.3 151.9 31.2 267.9 65.9 50.2 85.6 54.4 29.2 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 89.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 96.8 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.0 3.6 5.0 11.8 4.7 4.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 36.8 44.6 13.1 39.9 37.2 27.3 208.1 124.5 79.5 31.5 12.6 13.3 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 54.0 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 30.5 1.6 21.1 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 3.0 0.2 1.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 164.6 38.4 99.6 SimTraffic Performance Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 115.5 6.1 63.8 52.2 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.2 3.1 13.6 3.8 4.4 4.0 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBT NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.7 2.1 2.6 13.2 3.2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 108.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 268.5 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: EB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed 33 164.6 247.2 0.8 12 I-5 SB On Ramp 2 72.0 85.1 0.1 5 I-5 NB Off Ramp 3 142.0 162.3 0.2 4 47 119.1 129.2 0.1 3 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 46.5 101.6 0.1 6 45 2.9 14.0 0.1 26 52 2.7 11.0 0.1 26 40th Ave NE 5 18.0 29.1 0.1 14 51 3.5 11.9 0.1 25 43rd Ave NE 6 25.6 36.6 0.1 11 51st Ave NE 7 28.9 86.3 0.5 21 59th Ave NE 8 74.1 119.7 0.5 15 BNSF Railway Spur 16 26.0 66.7 0.5 25 67th Ave NE 9 5.6 7.6 0.0 10 42 60.5 96.4 0.4 14 21 134.2 160.2 0.3 6 31 184.7 206.4 0.2 4 34 300.1 325.7 0.3 3 SR 9 10 167.3 180.6 0.2 3 Total 1578.2 2077.8 4.6 8 Arterial Level of Service Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Arterial Level of Service: WB SR 531 (172nd St) Delay Travel Dist Arterial Cross Street Node (s/veh) time (s) (mi) Speed SR 9 10 161.8 228.9 0.2 3 34 3.0 26.6 0.2 21 31 0.7 27.8 0.3 34 21 0.9 23.5 0.2 34 42 1.4 28.5 0.3 33 67th Ave NE 9 41.8 79.3 0.4 17 BNSF Railway Spur 16 1.8 4.4 0.0 16 59th Ave NE 8 56.4 98.9 0.5 17 51st Ave NE 7 23.2 78.8 0.5 23 43rd Ave NE 6 21.5 69.5 0.5 25 51 4.4 15.8 0.1 26 40th Ave NE 5 22.5 32.2 0.1 10 52 3.0 13.9 0.1 29 45 2.9 11.3 0.1 26 Smokey Pt Blvd 4 76.4 100.4 0.1 4 47 7.1 18.1 0.1 20 I-5 NB On Ramp 3 38.5 49.2 0.1 8 I-5 SB Ramps 2 20.3 36.5 0.2 16 33 31.0 44.8 0.1 10 Total 518.6 988.2 3.9 15 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 1: 67th Ave NE & 188th St NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 110 594 40 88 65 52 30 42 47 Average Queue (ft) 96 246 4 23 25 5 5 4 5 95th Queue (ft) 132 582 23 64 58 29 22 23 24 Link Distance (ft) 670 692 7813 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 60 30 105 110 Storage Blk Time (%) 57 19 1 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 161 51 0 0 0 Intersection: 2: I-5 SB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) & I-5 SB Ramps Movement EB EB EB WB WB SB SB SB Directions Served T T R T T < <L R Maximum Queue (ft) 620 643 233 400 407 356 789 448 Average Queue (ft) 432 432 164 144 137 133 655 418 95th Queue (ft) 804 830 309 303 314 286 1010 559 Link Distance (ft) 591 591 766 766 734 Upstream Blk Time (%) 23 22 53 Queuing Penalty (veh) 203 197 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 183 383 383 Storage Blk Time (%) 37 1 1 2 69 Queuing Penalty (veh) 201 3 7 8 161 Intersection: 3: I-5 NB Off Ramp/I-5 NB On Ramp & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T T T T R L LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 675 799 790 525 535 550 315 382 1190 1194 Average Queue (ft) 585 658 624 320 342 367 258 184 922 914 95th Queue (ft) 848 1019 1006 504 529 582 404 350 1549 1648 Link Distance (ft) 766 766 518 518 518 1140 1140 Upstream Blk Time (%) 27 18 1 1 3 50 56 Queuing Penalty (veh) 199 133 7 10 27 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 610 255 395 Storage Blk Time (%) 19 43 19 3 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 100 175 118 20 0 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB B45 B45 NB Directions Served UL T T R UL T T T R T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 493 510 492 461 289 484 466 531 416 118 207 309 Average Queue (ft) 462 466 296 131 108 309 341 390 188 7 30 300 95th Queue (ft) 485 523 559 368 238 466 489 549 483 69 153 345 Link Distance (ft) 449 449 449 449 448 448 448 371 371 Upstream Blk Time (%) 83 63 10 3 0 2 1 9 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 332 252 41 12 0 6 5 33 0 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft)393 266 250 Storage Blk Time (%)4 46 0 34 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 90 0 87 Intersection: 4: Smokey Pt Blvd & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB B46 B46 Directions Served L T T R L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 368 2489 2306 113 231 451 478 250 1563 1570 Average Queue (ft) 366 2105 1523 33 147 214 443 250 1135 1228 95th Queue (ft) 371 2653 2637 79 251 464 461 250 2067 1988 Link Distance (ft) 3695 3695 366 366 1521 1521 Upstream Blk Time (%)9 85 28 50 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 160 132 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 78 1 16 0 27 6 1 82 Queuing Penalty (veh) 201 9 19 0 34 11 5 103 Intersection: 5: 40th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 249 406 412 249 373 379 171 211 128 168 187 Average Queue (ft) 162 162 177 114 225 261 97 31 26 79 70 95th Queue (ft) 259 347 354 223 380 404 162 131 76 143 139 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 361 361 425 551 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 15 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 75 100 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 20 7 6 17 32 1 8 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 86 15 31 17 16 1 10 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB B24 SB Directions Served UL T T R L T TR L L TR T L Maximum Queue (ft) 240 335 338 242 282 388 417 204 181 210 406 47 Average Queue (ft) 89 142 147 37 122 189 204 110 102 127 56 13 95th Queue (ft) 183 287 288 121 229 332 350 183 167 218 243 40 Link Distance (ft) 524 524 2478 2478 135 135 135 669 Upstream Blk Time (%)7 7 16 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 158 185 217 109 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 9 7 1 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 10 7 5 9 Intersection: 6: 43rd Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement SB Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 128 Average Queue (ft) 50 95th Queue (ft) 103 Link Distance (ft) 1920 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 7: 51st Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 95 370 400 185 341 358 226 918 230 218 358 Average Queue (ft) 29 179 204 74 132 162 172 249 126 127 133 95th Queue (ft) 71 338 380 146 273 304 251 697 234 218 266 Link Distance (ft) 2478 2478 2486 2486 3006 3240 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 246 244 185 150 127 Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 3 18 5 8 15 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 3 95 28 30 27 15 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 8: 59th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 526 728 708 283 721 720 232 908 3029 460 Average Queue (ft) 357 466 449 244 444 425 72 623 2777 460 95th Queue (ft) 635 883 849 340 904 877 207 1093 3639 462 Link Distance (ft) 2486 2486 2322 2322 976 2967 Upstream Blk Time (%)17 73 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 140 98 385 Storage Blk Time (%) 32 20 71 22 4 64 63 Queuing Penalty (veh) 154 43 259 37 18 19 100 Intersection: 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB B18 B23 SB Directions Served L T T R L T TR L TR T T L Maximum Queue (ft) 88 83 95 68 216 389 369 236 848 367 164 218 Average Queue (ft) 36 35 43 31 150 235 219 149 666 144 33 172 95th Queue (ft) 61 61 79 55 250 416 353 298 1017 486 226 271 Link Distance (ft) 28 28 28 28 1913 1913 775 484 1885 Upstream Blk Time (%) 62 54 58 26 33 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 222 191 205 91 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)129 155 106 Storage Blk Time (%)37 21 15 69 24 Queuing Penalty (veh)109 28 65 45 115 Intersection: 9: 67th Ave NE & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement SB Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 848 Average Queue (ft) 469 95th Queue (ft) 816 Link Distance (ft) 7813 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 50 Queuing Penalty (veh) 92 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB B34 B34 B31 B31 B21 B21 B42 B42 WB NB Directions Served LT R T T T T T T T T LTR L Maximum Queue (ft) 820 813 1451 1450 1208 1212 1439 1438 1776 1791 723 142 Average Queue (ft) 786 770 1238 1233 783 782 632 636 340 346 558 58 95th Queue (ft) 823 869 1867 1874 1641 1641 1694 1696 1305 1325 878 108 Link Distance (ft) 706 706 1338 1338 1100 1100 1332 1332 1913 1913 697 Upstream Blk Time (%) 99 43 73 73 55 55 31 31 0 0 39 Queuing Penalty (veh) 721 311 534 535 397 401 225 227 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)588 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 10: SR 9 & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement NB SB SB Directions Served TR LT R Maximum Queue (ft) 66 1229 842 Average Queue (ft) 19 1142 734 95th Queue (ft) 55 1446 1198 Link Distance (ft) 1118 1173 Upstream Blk Time (%) 82 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 800 Storage Blk Time (%) 91 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 114 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L L T TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 336 603 262 242 806 806 259 308 1074 1081 178 528 Average Queue (ft) 241 336 120 186 803 773 256 304 924 809 122 317 95th Queue (ft) 412 791 234 322 840 1020 272 329 1339 1332 212 490 Link Distance (ft) 812 791 791 1046 1046 3695 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 82 47 20 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 121 17 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 187 185 200 211 211 98 Storage Blk Time (%) 47 5 1 0 65 56 77 2 20 55 Queuing Penalty (veh) 339 32 7 2 104 181 251 10 89 63 Intersection: 11: Smokey Pt Blvd & 156th St NE Movement SB SB Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 566 250 Average Queue (ft) 323 199 95th Queue (ft) 517 315 Link Distance (ft) 3695 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 37 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 153 25 Intersection: 12: Smokey Pt Blvd & 152nd Ave NE Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 40 46 254 277 135 1125 1104 197 292 295 Average Queue (ft) 9 15 166 160 12 587 557 90 125 140 95th Queue (ft) 32 42 269 285 74 1389 1370 162 244 256 Link Distance (ft) 118 118 254 1809 1809 1046 1046 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 7 4 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 87 133 Storage Blk Time (%) 21 15 63 3 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 66 42 3 19 8 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 16: BNSF Railway Spur & SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB Directions Served T T T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 242 402 406 125 30 6 Average Queue (ft) 113 198 209 76 1 0 95th Queue (ft) 221 333 340 163 14 5 Link Distance (ft) 2322 2322 28 28 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 145 25 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 18 57 15 Queuing Penalty (veh) 35 65 202 52 Intersection: 33: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB Directions Served T T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 3479 3489 606 688 Average Queue (ft) 1210 1220 444 473 95th Queue (ft) 3374 3380 610 688 Link Distance (ft) 4384 4384 591 591 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 5 96 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 47: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB SB Directions Served T T T T T T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 450 563 563 651 78 143 262 222 Average Queue (ft) 417 494 492 549 4 10 38 105 95th Queue (ft) 543 675 693 853 37 75 161 207 Link Distance (ft) 518 518 518 449 449 449 526 Upstream Blk Time (%) 40 43 58 Queuing Penalty (veh) 247 266 359 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 350 Storage Blk Time (%) 65 60 Queuing Penalty (veh) 260 241 Queuing and Blocking Report Arlington CIC EIS 2040 Action Alternative 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour - 531 Widening SimTraffic Report Transpo Group Intersection: 51: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB Directions Served T TR L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 7 37 111 130 169 51 Average Queue (ft) 0 4 41 9 20 22 95th Queue (ft) 5 22 87 63 99 46 Link Distance (ft) 361 361 524 524 272 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 204 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 52: SR 531 (172nd St) Movement EB EB WB NB Directions Served T TR T R Maximum Queue (ft) 4 17 5 115 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 0 47 95th Queue (ft) 4 10 5 87 Link Distance (ft) 371 371 524 342 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12080 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site:10 [2040 Action Alternative 2 Mitigated Weekday PM Peak Hour ] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Movement Performance -Vehicles Demand Flows 95% Back of QueueMov ID Turn Deg. Satn Average Delay Level of Service Prop. Queued Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Average Speed Total HV Vehicles Distance veh/h %v/c sec veh ft mph South: SR 9 3 L2 298 5.0 0.734 33.0 LOS C 8.4 219.4 1.00 1.22 1.59 25.6 8 T1 388 5.0 0.821 30.8 LOS C 13.4 349.6 1.00 1.34 1.86 26.1 18 R2 64 5.0 0.821 31.0 LOS C 13.4 349.6 1.00 1.34 1.86 25.5 Approach 750 5.0 0.821 31.7 LOS C 13.4 349.6 1.00 1.29 1.76 25.8 East: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 1 L2 5 2.0 0.783 19.3 LOS B 6.9 174.9 0.92 1.12 1.40 32.3 6 T1 378 2.0 0.783 14.0 LOS B 6.9 174.9 0.92 1.12 1.40 32.3 16 R2 101 2.0 0.783 13.8 LOS B 6.9 174.9 0.92 1.12 1.40 31.6 Approach 484 2.0 0.783 14.0 LOS B 6.9 174.9 0.92 1.12 1.40 32.2 North: SR 9 7 L2 106 4.0 0.784 21.1 LOS C 10.4 268.8 0.98 1.20 1.52 31.1 4 T1 527 4.0 0.784 15.8 LOS B 10.4 268.8 0.98 1.20 1.52 31.2 14 R2 133 4.0 0.276 10.3 LOS B 1.4 35.7 0.72 0.86 0.72 33.0 Approach 766 4.0 0.784 15.6 LOS B 10.4 268.8 0.93 1.14 1.38 31.5 West: SR 531 (172nd St NE) 5 L2 250 5.0 0.979 41.3 LOS E 29.3 762.3 1.00 1.63 2.58 24.3 2 T1 596 5.0 0.979 35.7 LOS E 29.3 762.3 1.00 1.63 2.58 24.3 12 R2 511 5.0 0.776 17.9 LOS B 10.4 270.2 1.00 1.20 1.52 29.7 Approach 1356 5.0 0.979 30.0 LOS C 29.3 762.3 1.00 1.47 2.18 26.1 All Vehicles 3356 4.3 0.979 24.8 LOS C 29.3 762.3 0.97 1.30 1.79 27.9 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: THE TRANSPO GROUP | Processed: Friday, July 24, 2020 12:55:09 PM Project: M:\19\1.19167.00 -Arlington MIC EIS\Traffic Analysis\Traffic Operations\Sidra\SR 9_SR 531_172nd Street NE.sip8 LANE LEVEL OF SERVICE Lane Level of Service Site:10 [2040 Action Alternative 2 Mitigated Weekday PM Peak Hour ] SR 9/SR 531 (172nd St NE) Site Category: (None) Roundabout Approaches IntersectionSouthEastNorthWest LOS C B B C C Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used). SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. SIDRA INTERSECTION 8.0 | Copyright © 2000-2019 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com 5.0 Appendices ▪ G ▪ General Trip Distribution Arlington Manufacturing and Industrial Center Planned Action ▪ October 2020 ▪ DEIS 5-9 G General Trip Distribution !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! HWY 530 SMOKEY POINT BLVD 152ND ST NE CEMETERY RD 172NDST NE 188TH ST NE47TH AV NE 204TH ST NE 67TH AVE NE 51ST AVE NE !"`$ !"`$ ?Ô ?| ?| 63RD AVE NE Ar lingtonMunicipalAirport GleneagleGolf Course Ar lington StrawberryFieldsAthleticComplex Por tage CreekWildlife Reser ve MARYSVILLEARLINGTON Map Date: September 2020 ° CIC Alter native Trip Distribution MIC Boundary !Planned Intersection Improvements Planned Roadway Improvemen ts 0 ¼½Miles Legend Sou rce: City of Arlington, 2018; City of Marysville, 2018;BERK, 2018 3% 8% 9% 5%15% 60% *Reflects both trips that remainlocal as well as those travelingto/from the south towards Marysville. CIC General Regional Trip Distribution APPENDIX * X% G City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #8 Attachment H COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 23, 2020 SUBJECT: Community and Economic Development October Monthly Report ATTACHMENTS: Monthly Report, Resolution for a “Center of Excellence”, and illustrative map of location DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Community and Economic Development; Marc Hayes, Director 360-403-3457 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: 0 BUDGET CATEGORY: 0 BUDGETED AMOUNT: 0 LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: October monthly department report to council. HISTORY: Update of current development projects and work being conducted by the CED department, and opportunity to address any questions that Council may have. ALTERNATIVES: Information only. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Workshop; discussion only. Community and Economic Development Monthly Status Report Reporting Period: October 2020 Staffing Report: • CED has some staffing challenges to address through June of 2021, with one Permit Tech currently out on FMLA for surgery , another Permit Tech scheduled to be gone for 12 weeks starting in March on maternity leave, and our Development Services inspector being gone on FMLA for 10 weeks also beginning in March. Because of this staffing shortfall, we are contracting with NW Staffing Resources to find a Permit Tech that can fill that employee need on an interim basis. Hopefully beginning the interview process before the Thanksgiving Holiday. The Police Department has graciously allowed CED the use of Kypher Koska, a new police recruit awaiting entry into the police training academy. Kypher has been a great addition to CED for the short time he has been with us, taking on the organization of post project filing and scanning/electronic archiving of large development projects. We will certainly miss him when he finally goes into the academy. Thank you Chief Ventura, and the PD for the use of Kypher. Update on Current Contracts: • BERK contract for Planned Action EIS for the Arlington portion of the Cascade Industrial Center. The draft was presented to Planning Commission on October 6, and will be presented to Council at the 11/23 workshop, with the final plan being completed in December. • Complete Streets project (59th Ave.) Design in progress. • Blueline Group contract for the Housing Action Plan (HAP). The “draft” Housing Action Plan has been sent to the Department of Commerce for their review. A Public Hearing will be scheduled in January for the HAP to be heard at an open record hearing, with Planning Commission recommendation to follow. It will then be presented to Council for adoption in the first quarter of 2021. Challenges: Opportunities: • Nova, Ryan and I met with Perteet Engineering and their sub consultants to walk Smokey Point Blvd., discuss the corridor project, and design concepts. It allowed a great conversation between the City and the consultant, regarding how this project is much more a planning project than a roadway improvement project. There was extensive conversation as to the importance of creating a “walkable” neighborhood, that doesn’t necessitate multiple travel lanes, where traffic moves more slowly and is easily captured by the businesses that locate along the corridor and supports the residential community, and pedestrian uses, in the Mixed Use environment that has been planned for this corridor. One has to remember that if you want to move traffic and go fast, I-5 is mere blocks away, and Smokey Point Blvd. does not need to duplicate that condition. The conversation also included how vital a Community Park is in this design work, as it provides for the nucleus of a successful Mixed Use corridor and creates that desirable “sense of place”, we all recognize when visiting other locations that leave impressions upon us. • Proposed resolution for establishing a “Center of Excellence” within the Airport Business Park. This would allow the city to designate an area of land specifically for construction of facilities to support the education, training, research/development and employment support of advanced manufacturing industries. New Programs/General Information Meetings: • Met with AVS Communities and a commercial developer to discuss a proposed site development plan for the north side of 204th St, east of the new Starbucks. • Met with a development group to discuss the development potential of the surplus property at Olympic Ave. /Division St. • Met with SnoCo to discuss Arlington’s portion of the County’s Buildable Lands Report, and the progress that is being made in that work effort. • Met with WSDOT and Panattoni Development to discuss roadway improvements associated with their proposed development. • Held a GIM to discuss the potential of re-developing the property on the north side of Portage Creek, behind the Bartells store and below the Jensen St. neighborhood. An existing warehouse with several businesses is currently located on this property. • Held a GIM to discuss the building of a duplex at the corner of 5th St/Gifford Ave... • Held a GIM to discuss the proposed PUD North County Community Office, to be located at 17601 59th Ave. NE. Tentative schedule for construction of facility is 2021-2022. • Held a GIM to discuss the construction of a new office building for Reece Construction, who purchased the East Valley Sand and Gravel site on Cemetery Rd... • Held a GIM to discuss a mixed use building proposed for the vacant lot next to the Best Western Motor Inn at Smokey Point. Planning Commission: • September 15, 2020 Planning Commission Workshop a)Washington Avenue Design Review-discussion b)SMARTCAP ABP Design Review – PLN#741 c)Dungeness Gear Works Design Review-PLN#706 • October 6, 2020 Planning Commission Workshop 1. Final Draft of the Housing Action Plan 2. “Draft” Planned Acton Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 3. Letter from Planning Commission to City Council 4. Resolution for establishing a “Center of Excellence” within the Airport Business Park 5. Unique Interiors Design Review 6. Floodplain Regulations – AMC 20.64 • October 20, 2020 – continued business Council Action Items: • November 2, 2020 – Adopted ordinance amending AMC Chapter 20.64 Floodplain Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 2020 – XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON DESIGNATING AN AREA WITHIN THE AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK TO ESTABLISH A CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES DEDICATED TO THE EDUCATION TRAINING INNOVATION AND SUPPORT OF THE ADVANCED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY WHEREAS, the City of Arlington is the owner of the Arlington Municipal Airport, situated within the Cascade Industrial Center. The Airport Business Park is an area zoned to allow uses such as high technology research and development, training/educational facilities, offices, and certain manufacturing and light industrial uses, within a park-like master-planned setting; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that an area within the Airport Business Park be designated as a “Center of Excellence” to construct facilities dedicated to the education, training, research/development and long term support of advanced manufacturing industries, especially in the development of robotics, artificial intelligence, advanced materials, additive manufacturing, instrumentation and aerospace technologies ; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to establishing a satellite campus, in partnership, with a state university as the cornerstone of the “Center of Excellence”; and WHEREAS, the City will pursue partnerships, with other entities, as key stakeholders in both the development and longevity of the “Center of Excellence”; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arlington Washington do hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Arlington City Council declares that real property described on Exhibit “A” hereto, situated at the northwest corner of the Airport Business Park, located on the Arlington Municipal Airport, be designated for the sole purpose of establishing the “Center of Excellence”. APPROVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Arlington this 18th day of December, 2020. CITY OF ARLINGTON ____________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney Center For Excelle nceFuture Development Area±City of Arlington Date: File: Cartographer:Maps and GIS data are distributed “AS-IS” without warranties of any kind, either express orimplied, including but not lim ited to warranties of suitability for a particular purpose or use. M apdata are compiled from a variety of sources which may contain errors and users who rely upon theinformation do so at their own risk. Users agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City ofArlington for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from the lack of accuracy orcorrectness of the data, or the use of the data presented in the maps. Scale:Airport_Acres.5x11portrait_20 3/9 /20 20 akc 1 inch = 4 17 fe et Legend !H !H Airport Property Line BUFFER ZONE Round about and Road Extensio n (p ro posed) Round about andRoad Exten sion (prop osed) AIRPORT BLVD 43RD AVE NE 1.77acres est. 4.55acres est. 9.58acres est.6.26acresest.0.95acresest. 4.24acresest. !H Roundabout (proposed) Fire Station (proposed) Roads (proposed) Lots (pr oposed) Airport P roperty Parcels (SnoC o)Draft City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: WS #9 Attachment I General Fund Operating Statement Revenue Charts