CCRP Central Meadow Infrastructure Study - Pierce County Parks

OVERLOOK/ PICNIC SHELTER PICNIC SHELTER PICNIC SHELTER

STAGE

Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Infrastructure Study FINAL REPORT December 2019 Pierce County Parks & Recreation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Client Team Pierce County Parks & Recreation, unless noted otherwise.

Benjamin Barrett, Capital Projects Manager Kimberly Feeman, Resource Stewardship Superintendent Scott Hall, Deputy Director NeSha Thomas-Schadt, Parks & Recreation Manager Brett Burgess, Parks Specialist Stefan Kamieniecki, Landscape Architect/ Systems Planning Professional Robert Vogel, Project Engineer Lonnie Hyde, Landscape Supervisor (Kemper Sports)

Consultant Team ORA - Architecture Owen Richards, Principal Architect Virginia Bosworth, Architectural Designer Groundswell - Landscape Architecture Chris Jones, Principal Landscape Architect Fehr and Peers - Transportation Daniel Dye, EIT Senior Transportation Engineer Stantec - Acoustics Michael R. Yantis, Principal Tres West - Electrical James Chong, P.E. Enviroissues - Public Relations and Communications Alayna Linde, Associate AHBL - Civil David Nason, PE Associate Principal KO Projects - Strategic Planning Katie Oman, Principal CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 1

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 2

December 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(pages)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5-11 Overview Community Engagement Overview Market Analysis Overview Site Studies Overview Other Findings and Considerations Next Steps SECTIONS 1: Existing Conditions 12-13 2: Community Engagement 14-21 3: Market Analysis 22 4: Traffic Study 23 5: Parking and Access Study 24 6: Acoustic Study 25 7: Stage Study 26-31 8: Findings 32-35 APPENDICES A: Public Outreach Data B: Market Analysis C: Event Traffic Management Plan D: Acoustical Analysis

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 4

December 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW The Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Stage Study was initiated in March 2019 by Pierce County Parks and Recreation Department (Parks) with a grant from the Pierce County Lodging Tax Program (LTAC). The study assesses the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of integrating an events stage within the Central Meadow and identifies the best locations for other public amenities. This report details the existing conditions, feasibility study process, community engagement process, and resulting recommendations.

Chambers Creek Park is one of the region’s most significant public open spaces, renowned for its natural beauty, walking trails, generous open space, iconic relics, and breathtaking views. It is also a point of convergence - a place where diverse users enjoy community activities ranging from family gatherings to regional celebrations such as the Kite Festival and Easter Egg Hunt. A full discussion of existing conditions can be found in Section 1. This study explored how improvements such as an event stage, picnic shelters, and electrical facilities could support more diverse community uses. The study also examined key community concerns regarding a possible stage, most notably acoustics, parking, traffic management, and protections of Chambers Creek Park’s unique beauty and identity. The Stage Study goals and objectives summarized below were identified early in the community engagement process, and will guide Pierce County Parks as it evaluates community input and possible future implementation of an events stage, picnic shelters and related enhancements to Chambers Creek Meadow. The timing of this study was necessary to determine power supply requirements and identify locations for electrical improvements for the best short- and long-term uses of the site.

The site plan below presents the preferred location of a potential events stage along the south edge of the existing Meadow, with possible future picnic shelters situated along the north side of the meadow. The south stage location was preferred in public meetings and on-line surveys since it provides good solar orientation, minimizes impact to the Central Meadow, takes advantage of existing natural slopes, and provides good event stage access without conflicting with the central meadow. Strong public interest was expressed for picnic shelters as a means to provide shade and accommodate family gatherings and smaller events. The following pages provide a summary of the public outreach, acoustical, parking and traffic analyses, stage options, and other community concerns identified and analyzed during this study.

PROJECT GOALS • Enhance the Central Meadow to Broaden Public Uses at the Site • Study Feasibility and Gather Public Input for a Stage to Support Regional Events and Activities • Protect the Unique Beauty and Identity of the Site • Site electrical improvements PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS • • • •

Market Analysis to Guide Appropriate Improvements Evaluate Acoustical and Noise Control Considerations Evaluate Existing Parking Capacity Evaluate Traffic Management for Events

December 2019

Preferred Site Plan

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW The Community engagement process for this project included in-person and online opportunities. The in-person engagement was conducted through three public open houses that were held on weekdays 6-8 pm, at the Environmental Services Building. Each public open house included interactive boards, a design presentation, a Q& A session, and meet and greet opportunities before and after the presentation. The public open houses were advertised through mailers, print and social media, and banners and flyers posted around the park.

First public open house: May 21, 2019 Second public open house: June 27, 2019 Third public open house: August 6, 2019 Attendees at public meetings provided constructive feedback that guided the stage study’s progression and helped to determine the content for subsequent public meetings. Feedback received during the public open houses is outlined in Section 2: Community Engagement.

The primary online engagement was received through two online surveys that were sent out after the second and third public open house meetings. The feedback received from these surveys along with e-mailed comments also shaped the stage study. Feedback from online participation can be found in Appendix A: Public Outreach Data.

MARKET ANALYSIS OVERVIEW A Market Analysis Study was conducted to assess the Central Meadow’s potential for hosting events. The analysis used statistics, market trends, and interviews with promoters to assess the site.

The analysis revealed that the optimal capacity for summer concerts or other events would be in the 3,000-5,000 person range. The character of those events is not covered, only the logistical requirements related to their size and scale. A summary of the analysis is included in Section 3: Market Analysis, and the full analysis is provided as Appendix B.

Photos from public open houses.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 6

December 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SITE STUDIES OVERVIEW The stage study analyzed several key site considerations; access to and from the site and proposed stage locations, acoustics, parking, traffic and local and regional market factors. In order to fully explore these considerations, multiple means of engagement and analysis were utilized in developing the stage study. The public open houses and online surveys identified support for an event stage, however there were significant community concerns, including traffic, parking, acoustics, and possible impacts to current park uses.

The 3,000-5,000 person range for events was factored into an event Traffic Management Plan (TMP), included as Appendix C, which evaluated current traffic conditions and analyzed the worst case scenario of a weekday event during the school year. The TMP proposed traffic management strategies to minimize traffic congestion for events with up to 5,000 attendees. The TMP illustrates that prior to events, the incoming event traffic is distributed over a larger timeframe caused by early arrivers to late arrivers. This would have a smaller effect on the background traffic. After an event, the clearing would happen all at once and require approximatly 1.5 hours to clear. Note, the clearing would happen in the 9:00pm to 10:00pm range when the background traffic would be at its lowest. Key recommendations included placing entrance and exit locations to facilitate traffic flow and minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Further recommendations included event traffic notice signs and traffic control officers at intersections to help distribute traffic and minimize congestion. Further discussion of Traffic can be found in Section 4.

Event parking would be accommodated by the new Event Lawn, recently completed as part of a separate project to accommodate sporting events. It is projected to accommodate up to 1,400 parking spaces in a temporary onlawn configuration. Details can be found in Section 5: Parking and Access.

An acoustical analysis assessed existing acoustical levels, and the projected noise contour map for an event stage at the west and south locations. Further discussion of this information can be found in Section 6 and the full acoustical analysis report can be found as Appendix D of this report. The analysis of the existing acoustical events suggested that a stage located toward the western end of the central meadow would be heavily impacted by train noise, while the south location would be significantly less impacted. The noise contour maps suggested that the south stage location would direct less sound toward the neighboring residences than a stage located at the west end location.

Traffic and acoustics were noted in the public meetings and on-line surveys as the most significant community concerns and would require more detailed study if the project proceeds to a design phase.

December 2019

Photo from the annual kite festival.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OTHER FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Stage Size and Configuration The stage study, detailed in Section 7 focused on defining the location, size, and basic requirements for a flexible stage that would meet diverse performance and community needs. The study also developed preliminary three-dimensional renderings to demonstrate potential stage configurations for community input and review.

The optimal stage size is forty feet deep by sixty feet wide with 2,400 square feet of stage platform area. It should be arranged to provide backstage entry positions and be fully ADA accessible. This stage size allows for a range of performance types and necessary support equipment. The stage is proposed to face north, giving both performers and audience optimal solar orientation/visibility.

Options for permanent or seasonal roof structures were presented for community input, with most respondents preferring an adjustable or fully removable roof structure. A removable or movable roof canopy could allow the stage area to accommodate both performance and nonperformance uses by adjusting the height or character of the overhead structure as demonstrated in the images below.

Picnic Shelters Picnic shelters were envisioned to be multifunctional, primarily used for everyday activities, while also serving as focal points for larger events, offering opportunities for formal or informal gathering areas for members of the community. The picnic shelters would be approximately twenty five feet deep by thirty feet wide.

Electrical Improvements A valuable step in broadening public uses of the site would be creating electrical capabilities in the meadow to serve existing and potential future events and activities.

PERMANENT STAGE WITH ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT ROOF CANOPY

PERFORMANCE USE

PASSIVE / RECREATIONAL USE

ATTRIBUTES:

The intent of these amenities, detailed in Section 8: Findings, is to enhance event capabilities, while also supporting existing events, passive use activities, and the unique character of Chambers Creek Central Meadow now and in the future.

A Preferred Site Plan, including the locations for a stage and picnic shelters can be found on page 9.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Telescoping columns allow entire roof structure to be lowered for smaller scale uses.

• Lowered roof height matches scale of picnic shelters, thus allowing the stage to have a smaller visual presence.

• Moveable backdrop can open up for non-event uses.

AERIAL VIEW

SIMILAR STAGE EXAMPLE

STUDY CHAMBERS CREEKshowing CENTRAL MEADOW STAGEoption STUDY -number PUBLIC MEETING ASTAGE page from the 3third public open house slide show, stage study three. #3 PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION | ORA + GROUNDSWELL

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 8

August 6, 2019 Page 33

December 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREFERRED SITE PLAN

Chambers Bay Golf Course Relics Su m

Material Stockpile

e

Winter Sols tice

Parking Lot 129 Stalls 6 ADA

Overlook

mer Sols tic

y

A

Beach

Swing Set

B

To Grandview Dr.

PICNIC SHELTER, TYP.

BNSF

Railw a

Puget Sound

C

S CRE 2A

Parking Lot

Overlook SUBGRADE PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY STAGE

Pedestrian Overpass

Restroom

New grass & gravel pathways to Event Parking

Stormwater Basin SOUTH STAGE

Golf Practice Facility

POTENTIAL STAGING AREA

Caddie Lot Parking

Event Lawn/ Event Parking

Preferred Stage and Picnic Shelter Locations December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NEXT STEPS This study met the goals of the LTAC grant. Through a robust public process, a preferred stage style and size were determined, as were preferred picnic shelter locations and the placement of electrical facilities. While the driving force of this study was the stage, impacts of hosting events in the Central Meadow were included. An electrical service is being constructed in early 2020 which will accommodate potential future picnic shelters and support smaller events which may include art or music. Parks could seek opportunities to fund, design and construct other amenities to encourage the public to enjoy the meadow in new ways. Picnic shelters offer community gathering spaces and would allow the public to gather, seek shade and enjoy the meadow in all types of weather. Any construction would be consistent with the 2014 Chambers Creek Master Plan Update and would follow the Update’s adopted design standards.

For picnic shelters to be constructed in the short-term, the next steps are necessary: 1.

Identify funding 2.

Finalize conceptual design and invite public input, approximate cost $20,000* 3.

Design and permitting, approximate cost $30,000* 4.

Construction, approximate cost $175,000* for all three shelters For the Chamber Creek Meadow Stage to become an eventual reality, the next steps and approximate timelines would be necessary: 1.

Identify and obtain funding 2.

Finalize public outreach on events at the Central Meadow – 8-12 months, approximate cost $60,000* 3.

Issue a Request for Proposals for a public-private partnership with an event promoter 4.

Develop an agreement with promoter regarding event details

(number of events/year, site security, parking fees and collection, site control, public access and openness during events, etc.) - Steps 2 and 3 combined - 8-12 months 5.

Schematic design of stage and outreach with promoter – 8 months, approximate cost $71,800* * All cost shown in 2019 dollars 6.

Complete design and permitting of stage – 1 year, approximate cost $133,400* escalation will be required for 7.

Construction, approximate cost $2,050,000* implementation in future years.

Aerial photo of the central meadow.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 10

December 2019

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS The Central Meadow is a unique and well-loved feature within Chambers Creek Regional Park, a regional facility with public and private capacity, unique amenities, visitorship and cost-recovery expectations in addition to daily uses. The Central Meadow is host to spectacular views, beautiful open fields, mining relics, and various, well-used walking trails. The project team began their site analysis by identifying the natural and built features that define the unique character of the Central Meadow.

The Central Meadow has a microclimate that is characterized by prevailing winds from the north and south and a solar orientation featuring the harshest glare coming from the west in the summer season. The topography of the Central Meadow is relatively flat, but contains various gentle slopes in the western and central bowl areas. One of the most striking natural features of the site are the views out to the Puget Sound and islands beyond.

The Park’s trail system is well used throughout the year, going around and beyond the Central Meadow, giving access to a bridge to the beach and passage through the golf course. The mining relics are also key features beloved by park visitors. The relic located at the west end of the Central Meadow has been nicknamed “the swing set”.

Chambers Bay Golf Course Soundview Trail (2 Miles)

Relics

Su m

Overlook Beach

Central Meadow Outer Loop Trail (3 Laps = 2 Miles)

Parking Lot To Grandview Dr.

ay Railw

BNSF

e

Winter Sols tice

Material Stockpile

Puget Sound

mer Sols tic

Swing Set Central Meadow

Central Meadow Inner Loop Trail (Approx. 1/2 Mile)

Overlook Restroom

Off-Leash Dog Park

Stormwater Basin

Parking Lot

Golf Practice Facility

Pedestrian Overpass

Overflow Parking

Site diagram highlighting the trail systems around the Central Meadow.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 12

December 2019

The BNSF Railway in the western edge of the site contributes to the sight lines and sound-scape of the Central Meadow. The trains run approximately every twenty to thirty minutes and give off enough noise to be audible throughout the meadow.

The only building open to the public is the restroom building located at the east end of the central meadow.

HISTORY Chambers Creek Regional Park encompasses a total of nine hundred and thirty acres. From around 1890, parts of the current park were occupied by two large gravel mines. Chambers Bay Golf course and Central Meadow areas were gravel mining sites. In 1992, the two mining operations merged to become the largest producer of gravel and sand in the nation. Large scale mining continued in the area until 2003, when the reclamation of the Chambers Creek Properties began.

CURRENT USES The Central Meadow is currently host to various public events, put on by Pierce County Parks, such as the Egg Hunt and Kite Festival. In 2015, the site hosted the U.S. Open Golf tournament.

Chambers Bay Golf Course Su m

Prevailing Winds

mer Sols tic

e

Relics Winter Sols tice

Material Stockpile Parking Lot 129 Stalls 6 ADA

Fence

Overlook Beach

Underground Tunnel

Views

Vehicular Circulation, typ.

ay

Swing Set

BNSF

McNeil Island

To Grandview Dr.

Railw

d

lan

x Is

Fo

Puget Sound

6’ Asphalt Trail

2% 10%

Central Meadow 2%

Views

Overlook

ADA Parking

Restroom

Parking Lot

Pedestrian Circulation, typ.

Off-Leash Dog Park Prevailing Winds

Stormwater Basin

Golf Practice Facility

Pedestrian Overpass

Overflow Parking

Site diagram highlighting key feature of Chamber Creek Central Meadow.

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 13

EXISTING CONDITIONS

SECTION 2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The project team actively engaged the community throughout the Stage Study, with three public open houses, on-line communications, and two on-line surveys. The extensive outreach and community dialogue enabled the team to integrate community preferences and to focus on particular areas of community concern in more detail as the study progressed.

Each Phase of the study built upon comments and insights that the project team received during the public open house and related on-line survey. Any comments given after the completion of the public meetings would be assessed and incorporated where possible in the Design phase. The key messages and community input from each open house and on-line survey are summarized in the following community engagement section.

Photos from public open houses.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 14

December 2019

Public Open House #1 May 21, 2019 To gauge public interest and solicit feedback prior to developing concept studies, the project team hosted an open house on Tuesday, May 21, from six to eight p.m. at the Environmental Services Building, 9850 64th Street W, University Place, WA 98467.

Summary of Community Feedback: Location Preferences Attendees noted that a stage close to the train tracks would be impacted more by the train noise. Other attendees noted that they would not like the stage locations to impact the trail system and open expansive character of the park.

Precedent Preferences Several attendees noted that stages with fixed overhead components would be less desirable because they visually impact the open nature of the park and visually compete with the historic relics. There was some interest shown in small stage structures that could serve as picnic shelters or amenities to the general public when events were not taking place.

Public Comments and Concerns

Regarding notification methods, open house attendees suggested:

•Engaging a larger mailing area

•Handing out and posting flyers in the park

•Sending out an e-mail through Connie Ladenburg’s newsletter

•Submitting an article to University Place’s newsletter

Attendees expressed a few concerns around building a stage, including:

•Increased congestion from the cumulative impact of both resort & events

•Decreased parking availability

•Decreased visibility around the stage as a safety concern

•Concern that sound from events at the stage would impact the adjacent houses

For future events in Central Meadow, attendees suggested:

•Installing a Bocce ball court

•Providing access to the new event lawn under construction.

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 15

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Public Open House #2 June 27, 2019 To gauge public interest and solicit feedback on early stage concepts from the study, the project team hosted an open house on Thursday, June 27, 2019, from six to eight p.m. at the Environmental Services Building (9850 64th Street W, University Place, WA) and hosted an online survey on the project website from June 27 – July 12.

Summary of Community Feedback In-person feedback: the open house drew twenty three attendees. Project staff invited questions and comments following the presentation and encouraged attendees to share their feedback by commenting directly on boards around the room or completing paper surveys.

Interactive Board Comments: Open house attendees were invited to provide project feedback directly on meeting display boards by indicating preferences with stickers, and through direct dialogue with project team members. Most participants preferred the South Stage Option in the Central Meadow (twelve stickers posted on boards for South option, with one sticker each for the North and West options).

In terms of stage roof options, there was greatest interest in a permanent stage with a removable or seasonal overhead structure (eight responses) with the second-highest group indicating a preference for infrastructure only (three responses).

For potential future events, the top three suggestions were summer concert series (12), food truck festival (8), and art market / festivals (8).

Other suggestions included a 5K run, bocce ball court, concessions/food before and during events, and OGO balls (as used at Roundtop Mountain Resort in PA). Attendees also indicated support for picnic shelters in the Grand Central Meadow (13 responses in favor).

Presentation Q&A: attendees shared questions and comments on the following topics: Parking:

•Parking capacity, access and fees associated with event parking •Coordination of parking needs with Chambers Bay Resort

Events: •Types and frequency of events

•Impacts during events on neighbors and regular park uses •Opportunity for regional performance space

Access and Operations: •Traffic management and access during events

• Staffing for event sales, operations, and set up •Partial park closures during events

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 16

December 2019

Public Open House #2 (continued) Process: •Park’s reasons for evaluating an event stage and whether any decisions have already been made

•Financial gains, if any, from having an event stage

•Funding sources and tax impacts for residents •Community outreach process

Other:

•Location suggestions and feedback

•Potential impacts to nesting birds

Survey responses The community provided over fifty survey responses. This included eight paper surveys from in-person meeting attendees on June 27; 25 complete responses to the online survey; and over twenty partially completed online responses. Both surveys included the same questions.

Stage Options 69% of responders expressed support (strong support or somewhat support) for the South stage location in the Central Meadow; 25% said they were opposed (somewhat oppose or strongly oppose); and 6% responded neutral or no opinion. Write-in comments included discussion of the pros and cons of the three sites proposed as well as alternative location suggestions.

Topics of Concern When asked about issues of most importance in considering a potential event stage in the Central Meadow, the top three responses were managing additional traffic (76%), ease of finding parking (71%), and compatibility with current park uses (55%). Respondents were able to select more than one issue. Several write-in comments noted concerns about affecting existing trails or the dog park.

Potential Future Events: Participants indicated the greatest interest in summer concert series (81%), arts and crafts markets / festivals (72%), food truck festivals (67%), theater and dance performances (56%), and brewers festivals (53%).

Stage Roof: Approximately one third of respondents said they support a permanent stage with a removable or seasonal overhead structure. Other respondents were interested in either a full permanent stage with permanent overhead structure (23%) or infrastructure only to support a non-permanent stage (23%). Several write-in comments requested the design blend with the site and be as unobtrusive to views as possible.

Others voiced opposition to any type of stage on the site.

Picnic Shelters: Over 80% of respondents said they would support the addition of picnic shelters to the park.

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 17

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Public Open House #3 August 6, 2019 Overview The project team hosted a third project open house on Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2019, from six to eight p.m. at the Environmental Services Building (9850 64th Street W, University Place, WA) and hosted an online survey on the project website from Aug. 7-19.

Project team members greeted open house attendees and invited them to sign in, view project displays, and ask questions. Project Manager Benjamin Barrett and members of the consultant team gave a presentation about the goals of the feasibility study, feedback from public outreach to date, the preferred stage concept, and findings from the initial traffic analysis.

Notifications: the community were informed about the open house and online open house through:

•Postcards sent to over six hundred and seventy five residences within approximately a quarter mile of Chambers Creek Regional Park

•Updates to the Pierce County’s Chambers Creek Regional Park website

•Notices in the park: flyers in kiosks and a banner on the pathway to the Central Meadow

•Social media posts on the Parks Instagram and Facebook sites

•Targeted emails or Facebook messages to community groups and previous attendees or on-line survey participants

•A press release and announcements/ads/community calendar postings in local media outlets, including:

Tacoma News Tribune | The Suburban Times | Tacoma Daily Index | Town of Steilacoom monthly newsletter | City of DuPont online news| City of University Place online news | District four Councilmember Connie Ladenburg’s newsletter

•Nearby residents used NextDoor to share the online survey with their neighbors

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 18

December 2019

Public Open House #3 (continued) Summary of Community Feedback Open House Feedback: The open house drew approximately thirty attendees. Project staff invited questions and comments during the presentation and encouraged attendees to share their feedback by completing a paper survey at the meeting or completing the survey online.

Presentation Q&A: Attendees shared questions and comments on the following topics: Stage •Permanent versus temporary stage / roof canopy

•Base design on utility, projected cost for construction, operations and maintenance

•Interest in arched structure

•Preferred concept site location well liked - less obtrusive to other park uses

•Several attendees requested that Parks consider locating stage in golf practice area

Events •General park access during Central Meadow events

•Types and frequency of events •Noise

•Event operation responsibilities between Pierce County and promoters Parking

•Fees associated with parking: preserve free parking for general park-users during events •Capacity, particularly during events •Event parking strategies: Off site parking / shuttles; Carpooling incentives •Group event parking based on destination to enable ordered departure

Traffic

•Congestion, traffic patterns, and impacts to surrounding neighborhoods during events •Routing traffic /assuming higher southbound egress through Steilacoom following events •Traffic control: roundabouts versus signals, use of traffic officers •Pedestrian safety; police assistance with pedestrian crossings during events •Cumulative impact of resort development changes and potential stage •Requests for additional traffic and parking analyses

Other

•Encourage broader community outreach process

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 19

Photos from third open house.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Public Open House #3 (continued) Surveys: The project team received one hundred complete responses to the online survey; eighty partially completed online responses; and nine paper surveys from in-person meeting attendees on Aug. 6. The online and in-person surveys included the same questions.

Preferred Concept Support: When asked whether they supported the preferred concept plan as the basis for moving forward, 40% of respondents answered no, 37% responded yes, and 23% said they were undecided. Themes from write-in comments explaining participant’s responses are summarized in subsequent sections below.

Stage Roof Options: Participants were asked to share their level of support for four potential stage roof canopy options: permanent stage with permanent roof canopy, permanent stage with permanent structure and movable roof canopy, permanent stage with adjustable height roof canopy, and permanent stage with removable roof canopy. The option with the highest support was the permanent stage with permanent roof canopy (40%). The permanent stage with removable roof canopy was the only option with over 50% opposition (55% somewhat oppose or strongly oppose). “Neutral or no opinion” answers ranged from 14-23% of responses for each option.

Comment Themes: concerns among commenters included:

•Impacts to neighborhoods and regular park-goers: noise, traffic congestion, reduced park access

•Limited public awareness of the proposed project and impacts, especially among residents near the park

•Proposed scale and number of annual events (several people noted they would support a stage for smaller-scale & less frequent events)

•Desire to preserve the open space and existing character of the park

•Impacts to current park uses, including dog park at the preferred stage site

•Cumulative impacts between the Chambers Bay Resort project and a potential Central Meadow stage

Other concerns included project funding, crime, litter, pollution, and higher area cost of living.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 20

December 2019

Public Open House #3 (continued) Ideas for Refinement & Consideration

•Expand bathroom facilities in the Central Meadow

•Add other facilities to complement stage: picnic tables, trees for shade, lighting, trash receptacles

•Coordinate event schedules with other large regional events

•Utilize off-site parking shuttles

•Take proper steps to relieve traffic congestion

•Analyze walkability and bike access in addition to car traffic

•Include drop-off area or paved path from parking to stage for people using wheelchairs, strollers

•Partner with local businesses such as restaurants to encourage local spending from event patrons

•Avoid events with fireworks

•Use biodegradable packaging for all products sold on park grounds

•Negotiate with golf course to consider site below Environmental Services Building

Demographics: Respondents were asked to provide their zip code and age. Most respondents were from University Place (87% responded with 98466 or 98467), with several other zip codes from elsewhere in Pierce County, including Tacoma and Steilacoom. More than 50% of respondents were over fifty five, with the largest percentage between responding their age as 55-64 (25%).

Summary of Community Engagement and Input: The public meetings and on-line surveys demonstrated strong interest in a potential events stage, picnic shelters, and related enhancements. The community concerns noted in the third public open house would require careful study and further evaluation if Parks decides to move ahead to the next stage of study.

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 21

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

SECTION 3: MARKET ANALYSIS A Market Analysis was conducted by KO Projects as part of the Stage Study. The Market Analysis Study demonstrated that potential promoters viewed the Central Meadow as a highly attractive location to host a summer concert series. The key considerations identified in the analysis are as follows:

• Chambers Creek would be an optimal location for moderate scale concerts and festivals in South Puget Sound; the area is distinct

from the Seattle/Bellevue marketplace.

• In the market area, there is little direct competition for concerts with 3,000-5,000 attendees. This event size was confirmed as a

concert ‘sweet spot’.

• The most mutually beneficial and cost effective model would be to create a public-private partnership between Pierce County

Parks and a concert/ festival promoter.

• The Promoter/Partner would promote and manage eight to ten events per year.

• Pierce County’s revenue from the events would be used to help offset the ongoing maintenance and preservation costs for

Chambers Creek Regional Park.

• Events are consistent with the park’s regional classification, regional user-base and the Master Plan for the site.

CHATEAU STE. MICHELLE

Concerts | Picnics | Wine tasting | Event capacity: 4,300 | Parking is offsite

CHATEAU STE. MICHELLE

MARYMOOR PARK

Concerts | Movies | Cirque du Soleil | Event capacity: 5,000 | Parking: 1,274

WOODLAND PARK ZOO

LES SCHWAB AMPHITHEATER

LES SCHWAB AMPHITHEATER

MARYMOOR PARK

WOODLAND PARK ZOO

Concerts | Brewfest | Event capacity: 8,000

Concerts | Conservation events | Zootunes capacity: 5,000 | Parking for 803

CHAMBERS CREEK CENTRAL MEADOW MAP

CHAMBERS CREEK CENTRAL MEADOW MAP

(scale matches maps above&below)

(scale matches maps above&below)

The images above are four similar sized venues to the proposed event size and stage in the central meadow, each has an image of their stage view and site plan. There is also a site plan, at the same scale, of chambers creek central meadow.

MARKET ANALYSIS

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 22

December 2019

SECTION 4: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS To understand event-related traffic, Fehr & Peers was engaged to develop an analysis of existing traffic conditions and methods to manage traffic during events. An Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) was developed and presented in the third public meeting. The full Traffic Management Plan is attached as an appendix to this report.

The Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) includes information on data collection, analysis of traffic operations at key study intersections, Creek TMP and potential management strategies for trafficChambers before and after an event. Event traffic was analyzed for the worst-case scenario, a weekday September 19,likely 2019 occur during the summer, on weekends. Event generated traffic is expected event during the school year. However, most events would to increase pre-event southbound travel times by about twelve minutes on Grandview Drive, from Cirque Drive to 64th Street/Chambers Creek Road. Less delay is expected for westbound Chambers Creek Road traffic between Bridgeport Way and the event entrance.

Figure 1: Event Traffic Control

Existing baseline traffic volumes are much lower for post-event departure times because events would let out around ten PM. Adjacent roadways are expected to be heavily congested immediately following each event. Because all event traffic must exit from one access point, effects on existing neighborhood traffic and nearby intersections are expected to be minor.

Event traffic is expected to clear within one and a half hours of event completion.

Figure 1 shows recommended traffic control practices to be used before and after events. Event traffic notice signs placed in key areas would notify local traffic of events, so they could seek alternate routes. Traffic control officers at intersections near the event parking entrance/exit would work together to distribute traffic and assign right-of-way.

Figure 1: Event Traffic Control

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PARKING & ACCESS

December 2019

PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION

Page 23

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

SECTION 5: PARKING & ACCESS Current Parking and Access to The Central Meadow General visitors to Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow typically enter off of a roundabout at Grandview Dr W & 62nd St Ct W. From that access point, they drive down hill and can park for free at the Central Meadow lot located north east of the meadow. There is also pedestrian access to the park via The Grandview Trail, that connects from just north of the main entrance roundabout, down to the Central Meadow. Golf visitors also typically enter off of Grandview Dr W, and can drive to three golf affiliated parking areas; the golf club lot near the top of the hill, the driving range lot behind the restroom building, or the Caddie lot behind the storm water basin. These parking areas are typically only for golf patrons.

Access and Parking During a Central Meadow Event: Parking for an event located in the Central Meadow would not be accommodated with the parking lots currently located in the Park. The Event lawn would be used as a temporary parking lot able to accommodate 1490 stalls. The Event lawn’s primary use during the year is a sports event space, and its secondary use would be as a parking lot during a Central Meadow event.

Attendees would enter from the south from Chambers Creek Road and pass around the Chamber Creek Wastewater Plant to park in the event lawn area, as shown in the adjacent image. After parking, the attendees would proceed via a broad grass pathway from the event lawn into the Central Meadow.

The Central Meadow lot would be left open for general park users during central meadow events. The main park entrance off of Grandview Dr W would remain open for general park users.

PARKING & ACCESS

CENTRAL MEADOW LOT

129 NON-ADA STALLS, 6 ADA STALLS TOTAL CAPACITY: 135

DRIVING RANGE LOT 57 NON-ADA STALLS

GOLF CLUB LOT

166 NON-ADA STALLS, 5 ADA STALLS TOTAL CAPACITY: 171

CADDIE LOT

38,250 ft2 TOTAL CAPACITY: 95

EVENT LAWN—LAWN 10 ACRES TOTAL CAPACITY: 1,090

EVENT LAWN—GRAVEL Potential Overflow Parking 160,000 ft2 TOTAL CAPACITY: 400

ESB/PLAYFIELD LOTS

223 NON-ADA STALLS, 7 ADA STALLS TOTAL CAPACITY: 230

PARKING CAPACITY GRAND TOTAL: 2,178

AMOUNT WHICH COULD BE DEDICATED FOR CENTRAL MEADOW EVENTS : 1,490

Parking and Access Diagram - areas colored light orange are the event lawn areas.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 24

December 2019

SECTION 6: ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS An Acoustical Analysis was conducted as part of the Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Stage Study. The analysis consisted of taking noise measurements at three locations in the meadow, P1, P2, &P3, for a three hour period of time, see figure 1.

The following is a summary of the effects that the current noise levels in the meadow would have during potential events at each of the three points. An audience located at P1 would be problematic. Measured noise levels exceeded 80 dBA and they would compete with the sound from a music event. Sound levels at P2 & P3 would be compatible with an amplified music event. Sound levels from the music would be expected to be in the 80’s dBA and although a helicopter fly over or train pass-by would be audible, they would not overshadow the music. The northbound freight train would be the longest event. The trains are long and they arrive from the south, being visible and audible for some time prior to arriving in front of the park.

Figure 1. Location of perimeter receivers in relation to the proposed stage sites (South, West).

Figures 2 & 3 look at the noise impact that a concert event would have from the south stage location, figure 2, and a west stage location, figure 3.

South stage with Bandshell 2 loudspeakers at 8’ left and right of stage

West stage with Bandshell 2 loudspeakers at 8’ left and right of stage

Figure 2. Noise Contour Map at Chambers Creek Park with the proposed South Stage.

December 2019

Figure 3. Noise Contour Map at Chambers Creek Park with the proposed West Stage.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 25

ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS

SECTION 7: STAGE STUDY

1

STAGE CONFIGURATION OPTIONS The stage size would be approximately forty feet by sixty feet and ADA accessible.

The character and type of roof canopy was explored with the public to gain an understanding of community preferences and establish a basis for exploration of future roof design options.

Precedent images showing alternative roof types were shown during the first and second open houses, as a method of assessing what stage forms the public would have a positive response to. The online survey that followed the second public open house, specifically asked out of four choices “ which type of stage design would you prefer?”, the results were:

1

33.3% favor a permanent stage with removable or seasonal overhead structure

2

23.3% favor a permanent stage with permanent overhead structure

3

23.3% favor infrastructure only (power/water) for a non-permanent movable

2

stage

20.0% favor none of these

3

The final design and selection will consider these factors: public preference, producer preference, cost, maintenance and operations and risk assessment.

The three images above are stage examples.

STAGE STUDY

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 26

December 2019

PERMANENT STAGE WITH PERMANENT ROOF CANOPY

1 STAGE CONFIGURATION OPTIONS Based on the online survey results, with the majority wanting a permanent stage with removable or seasonal overhead structure, the team then took this general stage type and created four stage three-dimensional interpretations:

PERMANENT STAGE WITH PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE USE

PASSIVE / R

2

1 Permanent stage with permanent roof canopy

2 Permanent stage with permanent structure and moveable roof canopy

3 Permanent stage with adjustable height roof canopy AERIAL VIEW

4 Permanent stage with removable roof canopy

SIMILAR STAGE EXAMPLES

STAGE STUDYSTAGE 1 CHAMBERS CREEK CENTRAL PERMANENT WITH ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT ROOF CAM

PIERCE COU

PERFORMANCE USE

The team then created rendered images that represent the four structure types, with multiple views to depict how they would have movable or removable elements depending on performance or non performance uses.

The four images to the right are the three-dimensional interpretations.

PASSIVE / R

3

AERIAL VIEW

SIMILAR STAGE EXAMPLE

STAGE STUDYSTAGE 2 CHAMBERS CREEK CENTRAL M PERMANENT WITH REMOVABLE ROOF CANOPY

PIERCE COU

PERFORMANCE USE

PASSIVE / R

4

AERIAL VIEW

STAGE STUDY 3

SIMILAR STAGE EXAMPLE

CHAMBERS CREEK CENTRAL M

PERFORMANCE USEfour three-dimensional interpretations Above are the

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 27

STAGE STUDY

PIERCE COU PASSIVE /

STAGE STYLE - OPTION 1 PERMANENT STAGE WITH PERMANENT ROOF CANOPY • Permanent year-round stage & covered space.

• The design responds to the existing architecture & relics around the park.

• Integral planting on rear wall blend structure with landscape.

• Permanent roof allows integration of permanent lighting and sound system infrastructure.

Aerial view.

Roof: Canopy roof over the stage has a minimalistic slatted shed like structure.

Back wall: The back wall of the stage is semi-opaque, providing performers with a backdrop while also not completely obscuring the view to the landscape beyond. The back wall also has the ability to become a green wall.

Stage: The stage floor would be a concrete slab on grade and incorporate a ramp to allow for accessibility. The stage area is show as forty by sixty feet.

Similar stage examples.

Performance use.

STAGE STUDY

Non-performance use.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 28

December 2019

STAGE STYLE - OPTION 2 PERMANENT STAGE WITH PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND MOVEABLE ROOF CANOPY • Moveable canvas canopy allows lower height for smaller scale uses.

• Moveable backdrop can open up for non-event uses.

• The open roof frame echoes the swing set structure providing optimal visibility to views and complementing the open character of the central meadow.

• Permanent roof frame allows for integral permanent lighting.

Roof: Canopy roof structure is frame like allowing for an overhead covering to be placed higher during performances and than lowered for non-performance uses. Lowering the overhead covering allows the space to feel more welcoming to smaller gatherings and community events.

Aerial view.

Back wall: The back wall of the stage is movable allowing it to stretch the entire length of the stage during performances, and then be pushed back to covering half the stage length during non-performance uses.

Stage: The stage floor would be a concrete slab on grade and incorporate a ramp to allow for accessibility. The stage area is show as forty by sixty feet.

Performance use.

December 2019

Similar stage examples.

Non-performance use.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 29

STAGE STUDY

STAGE STYLE - OPTION 3 PERMANENT STAGE WITH ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT ROOF CANOPY • Telescoping columns allow entire roof structure to be lowered for smaller scale uses.

• Lowered roof height matches scale of picnic shelters, thus allowing the stage to have a smaller visual presence.

• Moveable backdrop can open up for non-event uses.

Roof: Canopy roof structure is supported by four telescoping columns that allow the structure to be higher for performances, and lowered for non-performance uses. Lowering the canopy allows the space to feel more welcoming to smaller gatherings and community events.

Aerial view.

Back wall: The back wall of the stage is movable allowing it to stretch the entire length of the stage during performances, and then be pushed back to covering half the stage length during nonperformance uses.

Stage: The stage floor would be a concrete slab on grade and incorporate a ramp to allow for accessibility. The stage area is show as forty by sixty feet.

Performance use.

STAGE STUDY

Similar stage examples.

Non-performance use.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 30

December 2019

STAGE STYLE - OPTION 4 PERMANENT STAGE WITH REMOVABLE ROOF CANOPY • The temporary roof canopy and structure would be set up at the beginning of the summer and then disassembled at the end of the summer.

• The permanent stage platform could be used by various events/ groups year-round.

Roof: The canopy roof structure would be brought in for the event season and its aesthetics may not relate to Chambers Creek Regional Park, the overhead component would be permanent for the entire event season.

Aerial view.

Back wall: The back wall component would also be brought in by the promoter, it would likely be a solid component and stay up a during the entire event season.

Stage: The stage floor would be a concrete slab on grade and incorporate a ramp to allow for accessibility. The stage area is show as forty by sixty feet.

Similar stage examples.

Performance use.

December 2019

Non-performance use.

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 31

STAGE STUDY

Having identified existing conditions and considering site studies and public input, the team explored various possible stage locations. After Chambers Bay the first public open house, number of possible locations was narrowed down to three. All three locations presented pros and cons, as Golfthe Course seen below. Each location endeavored to incorporate the new event stage into the Central Meadow in a meaningful way to enhance the surrounding landscape. The north and south locations place thee stage outside the central loop, in response to the public’s wish that the Su m Relics m Sols tic meadow remain open and that the trails be maintained. Theer West explored the interest in “the swing set” relic as a backdrop and the bowllike terrain in that area.

Winter Sols tice

Overlook

The public was asked for feedback on the Parking Lot three stage location options during the second public open house and subsequent online survey.

The second pubic open house had129 anStalls interactive board that contained a graphic, of the north, south, and west options, with the question 6 ADA “which stage location do you prefer?”, 85% of participants voted for the south stage option. The Online survey asked “ what do you think of Chambers Bay and 25% opposed. an event stage at the south option location?”, 69% voted in support of the south option Golf Course

The south stage location was deemed to be the most ideal location, solar orientation, To Grandview Dr. because of its minimal disruption of sight lines, goodRelics S e mer Sols tic minimal regrading, and optimal access. The west Relics stage option/”swing set” has long been thought to be wellumsuited for an event stage, but Material the location has a poor solar orientation, negative acoustical condition due to its proximity to the train, and would negatively impact the view Material Winter Sols tice out to the water. The north stageStockpile option would need extensive regrading, has limited staging and set upStockpile capabilities, and would also slightly impact views within the meadow.

Parking Lot S RE AC

Overlook

BNSF

SOUTH OPTION Overlook

POTENTIAL STAGING AREA

Overlook

Swing To Grandview Dr. Set

LIMITED STAGING AREA/ DIFFICULT ACCESS

Overlook Caddie Lot Parking

Restroom

Pedestrian Overpass

Pros: • Good Solar Orientation • Outside Meadow Pathways New • Stage Backdrop is Desirable grass pathway from Event • Existing Slope Lawn

Stormwater Basin

Cons:

Away from Stage / Poor Sight lines

• Limited Stage Access/Support

• Drainage Upgrades Necessary • Stage Backdrop Not Optimal (view to Treatment Plant)

Event Lawn/ Event Parking

2 ACRES

Parking Lot WEST OPTION

West Stage Option:

North Stage Option:

• Would Require Extensive Regrading of Central

• Off leash Dog Area may need to be reconfigured

FINDINGS

Golf Practice Facility

Stormwater Basin

Event South Lawn/ Stage Option: Pros: Event Parking • Good Solar Orientation • Outside Meadow Pathways • Existing Slope Provides Optimal Sight lines / Needs Minimal Regrading • Optimal Stage Access/Support Cons:

Puget Sound S CRE 2A

New grass pathway from Event Lawn

Swing Set

Railw ay

Puget Sound

Restroom

129 Stalls 6 ADA Beach

NORTH Parking OPTION Lot

Railw ay

Beach

POTENTIAL STAGING AREA

BNSF

2

g

SECTION 8: FINDINGS

Pedestrian Overpass Meadow

Caddie Lot Parking

Pros: Golf Good Sight lines / No Regrading • Existing Slope Provides Practice Needed New • Stage BackdropFacility Desirable Cons: • Proximity to Train Noise

grass pathway from Event Lawn

• Solar Orientation Poor for Evening Use (Audience View into Sun) • Awkward Stage Access / Limited Support Area near Stage Event • Covered Stage would Impact ViewsLawn/ to Sound Event Parking

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 32

December 2019

Chamb Golf C

Chambers Bay Golf Course

STAGE STUDY - RECOMMENDED OPTION

Chambers Bay Golf Course The south stage option is located south of the central meadow loop, lining up horizontally with the center of the meadow. After selected the Relics Sum site plan e on the left. The stage south stage option was rotated Relicsslightly to improve its solar and acoustical orientation, as shown in the smaller mer Sols tic facing north is ideal for its solar orientation, with the audience facing south and the performers north, both can avoid the worst of the sun’s glare during the summer, typically the most active time for the park. Material This orientation is also ideal for acoustics, by facing the stage away from Material the residential area to the east, the sound is less likely to disturb theStockpile surrounding community to the east.

Winter Sols tice Stockpile Parking Parking Lot POTENTIAL STAGING AREA 129 Sta Left; site plan showing all three stage location 129 Stalls NORTH 6 ADA 6 ADAOverlook options with the preferred south option circled Overlook OPTION A and labeled.

2

Beach

S RE AC

S CRE 2A

Railw a

y

Puget Sound

BNSF

Swing Set

Swing Set

2 ACRES

Below: grading site plan of adjusted south stage option.

B To Grandview Dr. PICNIC SHELTER, TYP.

LIMITED STAGING AREA/ DIFFICULT ACCESS

S CRE 2A

Overlook Restroom

WEST OPTION

Parking Lot

PREFERRED OPTION New grass pathway from Event Lawn

Stormwater Basin

SOUTH OPTION Pedestrian Overpass

December 2019

POTENTIAL STAGING AREA

New grass & gravel pathways to Event Parking

Caddie Lot Parking

Lawn/ Event Lawn/ CHAMBERSEvent CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT Event Parking Event Parking PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 33

C

Golf Practice Facility

SOUTH STAGE

Stormwate Basin POTENTIAL STAGING AREA

Caddie Lot Parking

FINDINGS

PICNIC SHELTERS Adding Picnic Shelters to the Central Meadow was presented to the community. During the second open house the public was asked, with an interactive board, if they would like to see picnic shelters in the central meadow; 100% of respondents said yes, they would like to see Bay asked “out of picnic shelters in the central meadow. The Online survey that followed the open house, presented the image to Chambers the right and Course the 5 locations A, B, C, D, and E, where would you want there to be a picnic shelter, pick all the locations that youGolf would like”. 71% voted for location A, 78% for location B, 78% for location C, 57% for location D, and 43% for location E. Relics

Based on these results, locations A, B, and C were chosen as the preferred picnic shelter locations.

All three locations are along the north side of the meadow and are shown with green labels in the image on the right.

Material Stockpile

m

Win

PREFERRED OPTIONS

Parking Lot 129 Stalls 6 ADA

Overlook

A Swing Set

B

C

To G

PICNIC PAVILION, TYP.

BNSF

Railw a

y

Beach Puget Sound

Su m

Overlook Restroom

Parking Lot

D E Above: picture taken of the interactive board used during the second open house, the stickers indicate Pedestrian votes by community members Overpass

Caddie Lot Parking

Right: site diagram with all five of the proposed picnic shelter locations.

FINDINGS

New grass pathway from Event Lawn

Pr F

Stormwater Basin

Event Lawn/ Event Parking

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 34

December 2019

PREFERRED SITE PLAN Overlook

mer Sols tic

e

Winter Sols tice

Parking Lot 129 Stalls 6 ADA

Railw a

y

A

Swing Set

PICNIC SHELTER, TYP.

BNSF

h

Su m

Material Stockpile

To Grandview Dr.

B C

S CRE 2A

Restroom

New grass & gravel pathways to Event Parking

destrian verpass

Stormwater Basin SOUTH STAGE

Parking Lot

Golf Practice Facility

POTENTIAL STAGING AREA

Caddie Lot Parking

Event Lawn/ Event Parking The overall site plan above reflects the summary of the preferred site plan and the preferred picnic shelter locations. The stage is located in the south location and three picnic shelters are located along the north edge of the Central Meadow.

December 2019

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 35

FINDINGS

APPENDICES A.

Public Outreach Data

B.

Market Study: Opportunities & Constraints Study

C. Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) D.

Acoustic Study: Sound Level Measurements

CHAMBERS CREEK REGIONAL PARK CENTRAL MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY - FINAL REPORT PIERCE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION Page 36

December 2019

Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Infrastructure Study APPENDICES December 2019 Pierce County Parks & Recreation

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES A: Public Outreach Data B: Market Analysis C: Event Traffic Management Plan D: Acoustical Analysis

Public Outreach Data

Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Infrastructure Study

Pierce County Parks & Recreation

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Stage Study Pierce County Parks & Recreation

Open House 1: Outreach Summary Overview Pierce County Parks and Recreation is beginning a feasibility study for an event stage in the Central Meadow at Chambers Creek Regional Park. To gauge public interest and solicit feedback, Pierce County Parks and Recreation hosted an open house on Tuesday, May 21, from 6-8 p.m. at the Environmental Services Building, 9850 64th Street W, University Place, WA 98467.

The open house included informational displays arranged around the room, with refreshments provided. Project team members greeted attendees at the door where they could sign in. Attendees could peruse the boards, ask project staff any questions they had about the study, and provide feedback via conversations with staff, comment forms, and directly on the boards.

Notifications People were informed about the open house through:     

Flyers Placed in kiosks around the park 157postcards sent to residences located within 300 feet of Chambers Creek Regional Park Two Instagram and Facebook posts shared two weeks before the open house One update to Pierce County’s Chambers Creek Regional Park website Two posts in the Tacoma News Tribune.

Participation

The open house drew four attendees. Attendees were encouraged to share their feedback mostly through one-on-one conversation with project team members.

6/7/2019

Page 1 of 2

Open House 1 Outreach Summary

Summary of Community Feedback Location Preferences Of the potential stage locations presented, attendees noted: Some attendees noted that a stage close to the train tracks would be impacted more by the train noise.

Other attendees noted that they would not like the stage locations to impact the trail system and open expansive character of the park.

Precedent Likes and Dislikes Several attendees noted that stages with fixed overhead components would be less desirable because they visually impact the open nature of the park and visually compete with the historic relics.

There was some interest shown in small stage structures that could serve as picnic shelters or amenities to the general public when events were not taking place.

Public Comments and Concerns Regarding notification methods, open house attendees suggested:    

Engaging a larger mailing area Handing out and posting flyers in the park Sending out an email through Connie Ladenburg’s newsletter Submitting an article to University Place’s newsletter

Attendees expressed a few concerns around building a stage, including:    

Increased congestion from the cumulative impact of both resort customers and events Decreased parking availability Decreased visibility around the stage as a safety concern Concern that sound from events at the stage would impact the adjacent houses

For future events in Central Meadow, attendees suggested:  

Installing a Bocce ball court Providing access to the new event lawn under construction.

Next steps The project team intentionally did not begin developing concept studies until after this first public meeting. The team will develop concept studies and present them at the next open house on June 27th.

The public will have an opportunity to provide input on each concept during that open house. Based on community feedback, the project team will select and develop a preferred concept which they will present at the final open house in August.

6/7/2019

Page 2 of 2

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Stage Study Pierce County Parks & Recreation

Open House 2 Outreach Summary Overview Pierce County Parks and Recreation (PCPR) is conducting a feasibility study for an event stage in the Central Meadow at Chambers Creek Regional Park. To gauge public interest and solicit feedback on early stage concepts from the study, project staff hosted an open house on Thursday, June 27, 2019, from 6-8 p.m. at the Environmental Services Building (9850 64th Street W, University Place, WA) and hosted an online survey on the project website from June 27 – July 12.

At the open house, project team members greeted attendees and invited them to sign in, peruse project displays, and ask questions of project staff. Project Manager Benjamin Barrett and members of the consultant team gave a presentation about the goals of the feasibility study, early concepts of three potential stage locations (North, South, West), and findings from their initial analysis. They also shared that PCPR is interested in building potential picnic shelters surrounding the Central Meadow.

Notifications People were informed about the open house through:      

Postcards sent to over 675 residences within approximately a quarter mile of Chambers Creek Regional Park Updates to the Pierce County’s Chambers Creek Regional Park website Notices in the park, including flyers in kiosks, a banner next to the pathway leading down to the Central Meadow, and A-frame signs along the Grandview Trail Social media posts on the PCPR Instagram and Facebook Targeted emails or Facebook messages to community groups including SunDogs, Chambers Creek Foundation, and Steilacoom Kiwanis Club A press release and announcements/ads/community calendar postings in local media outlets, including: o Tacoma News Tribune o The Suburban Times o Tacoma Daily Index o Town of Steilacoom monthly newsletter o City of DuPont online news o City of University Place online news

7/15/2019

Page 1 of 4

Open House 2 Outreach Summary

Summary of Community Feedback In-person feedback The open house drew 23 attendees. Project staff invited questions and comments following the presentation and encouraged attendees to share their feedback by commenting directly on boards around the room or completing paper surveys.

Presentation Q&A Following the presentation, attendees shared questions and comments on the following topics: Parking

Events

Access and operations Process and transparency

Other

               

Parking capacity and access, particularly during events Fees associated with event parking Coordination of parking needs with the planned Chambers Bay Resort Impacts to neighbors and regular park uses Types and frequency of events Ticketed versus free events Opportunity for regional performance space Partial park closures during events Traffic management and access during events Staffing for event sales, operations, and set up PCPR’s reasons for evaluating an event stage and whether any decisions have already been made Financial gains, if any, from having an event stage Funding sources and tax impacts for residents Community outreach process Location suggestions and feedback Potential impacts to nesting birds

Interactive board comments With stickers and markers, open house attendees were invited to provide project feedback directly on meeting display boards. Most participants preferred the South Option for the location of a potential stage in the Central Meadow (12 responses, versus 1 response each for the North and West options).

In terms of stage design, there was greatest interest in a permanent stage with a removable or seasonal overhead structure (8 responses) with the second-highest group indicating a preference for infrastructure only (3 responses).

For potential future events, the top three suggestions were summer concert series (12), food truck festival (8), and art market / festivals (8). Other suggestions included a 5K run, bocce ball court, concessions/food before and during events, and OGO balls (as used at Roundtop Mountain Resort in

7/15/2019

Page 2 of 4

Open House 2 Outreach Summary PA). Attendees also indicated support for picnic shelters in the Grand Central Meadow (13 responses in favor).

Survey responses The project team received over 30 survey responses. This included 8 paper surveys from in-person meeting attendees on June 27 and 25 complete responses to the online survey (and over 20 partially completed online responses). Both surveys included the same questions.

Stage support and location When asked to indicate their support for an event stage at the South Option location in the Central Meadow, 69% of respondents answered with support (somewhat support or strongly support) and 25% said they opposed (somewhat oppose or strongly oppose) with 6% responding neutral or no opinion.

Write-in comments included pros and cons of the three sites proposed and alternative location suggestions.

Topics of concern When asked about issues of most importance when considering a potential event stage in the Central Meadow, the top three responses were managing additional traffic (76%), ease of finding parking (71%), and compatibility with current park uses (55%). Respondents were able to select more than one issue.

Several write-in comments noted concerns about affecting existing trails or the dog park.

Potential future events In terms of potential future events or activities, participants indicated the greatest interest in summer concert series (81%), arts and crafts markets / festivals (72%), food truck festivals (67%), theater and dance performances (56%), and brewers festivals (53%). Respondents were able to select more than one event type.

Stage design One third of respondents said they support a permanent stage with a removable or seasonal overhead structure. Other respondents were interested in either a full permanent stage with permanent overhead structure (23%) or infrastructure only to promote a non-permanent stage (23%). Several write-in comments requested the design blend with the site and be as unobtrusive to views as possible while others voiced opposition to any type of stage on the site.

Picnic shelters Over 80% of respondents said they would support the addition of picnic shelters to the park.

Emailed comments PCPR staff also received 4 emails during this outreach period with comments from community members about the project. Email comment topics included cost of constructing an event stage, frequency and affordability of events, and consideration of not building an event stage or if so, a temporary one.

7/15/2019

Page 3 of 4

Open House 2 Outreach Summary

Next steps Based on community feedback, the project team will select and develop a preferred concept which they will present at the final open house on August 6. The team will also present findings from their analysis of traffic and parking management strategies during events.

7/15/2019

Page 4 of 4

Public Survey Report from Open House #2

Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Infrastructure Study

Pierce County Parks & Recreation

Report for Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Stage Study Response Counts C o mpletio n Rate:

6 1.2% Complete

30

Partial

19 T o tals : 49

1. What do you like about current events in the Central Meadow? See list of existing programmed events below:Cinema on the Sound Family Bingo Night Family Campout Kidz Kraze Children’s Festival Kite Festival Pitch in for Parks Santa Mystery Brunch Spring Egg Hunt Summer Yoga Series Support the T rails 5K

1

ResponseID Response 51

Kite Festival could become iconic as it develops Cinema on the Sound is a g ood family activity

52

Cinema on the Sound Family Campout Kidz Kraze Children's Festival Kite Festival Pitch in for Parks Spring Eg g Hunt Summer Yog a Series Support the T rails 5K

53

Cinema on the Sound Kidz Kraze Children's Festival Kite Festival Pitch in for Parks Spring Eg g Hunt Support the T rails 5K

54

T hey are family friendly.

55

Support the T rails 5K

56

Summer Yog a Series Kidz Kraze Children's Festival Family Campout

58

Sug g estion: Fourth of July celebration

59

Kite Festival Spring Eg g Hunt Summer Yog a Series Support the T rails 5K

60

Cinema on the Sound Kidz Kraze Children's Festival Kite Festival Support the T rails 5K Current events are just fine

61

Kite festival - would enjoy some local concerts

62

spring eg g hunt kite festival summer yog a support the trails 5 k

64

family camp out, kite festival, spring eg g hunt, support the trails 5K summer yog a series

66

Cinema on the sound. Kite festival. 5K run. Summer yog a series. Spring eg g hunt.

Pitching for parks. Kid kraze.

74

I haven't actually participated in any of these, but the Kite Festival and Family Campout have always sounded fun!

75

I like the kite festival and summer yog a series.

78

Support the 5k trail run

79

We like all the family events.

80

T hey cater to families and are an inexpensive way for them to have lots of fun.

88

kite festazal

91

I just like walking the site and trails or having a picnic or hang ing with friends in the open area. Or, sometimes using the dog park.

2

2. What types of events and activities would you like to see in the future? (Check all that apply) 100

Percent

75

50

25

) ec

ify

al s tiv

sp se

/f er

Ar ts

an

d

O

cr af

ts

th

m ar ke

(p le a

ts

rfo pe e nc da

d an er at

es

rm an

ce

ni on re u Fa m ily Th e

Value

s

s

s di ng W ed

er ie s er ts

m m er

co

nc

fe Su

Br ew er s

Fo o

d

tru

ck

fe

st

st

iva

iva

ls

ls

0

Percent

Responses

Food truck festivals

65.6%

21

Brewers festivals

50 .0 %

16

Summer concert series

81.3%

26

Wedding s

28.1%

9

Family reunions

21.9%

7

T heater and dance performances

62.5%

20

Arts and crafts markets / festivals

78.1%

25

Other (please specify)

25.0 %

8

3

Other (please specify)

Count

Wine tasting events

2

Don't want this to interfere with the other Park activities such as hiking , walking , picnicking , dog park.

1

Public Speaker Series

1

See comment above!

1

Summer concert series maybe if low volume (noise and crowds)

1

farmers market

1

T otals

7

3. What issues are most important to you when considering a potential event stage in the Central Meadow?

80

Percent

60

40

20

0 Noise from events

Ease of finding parking

ADA accessibility

Managing additional traffic

Compatibility with current park uses, e.g., trails, dog park (please specify)

Other (please specify)

4

Value

Percent Responses

Noise from events

44.1%

15

Ease of finding parking

70 .6%

24

ADA accessibility

17.6%

6

Manag ing additional traffic

76.5%

26

Compatibility with current park uses, e.g ., trails, dog park (please specify)

61.8%

21

Other (please specify)

17.6%

6

Compatibility with current park uses, e.g., trails, dog park (please specify)

Count

T rails

2

Concerned with any elimination of what is already here

1

Do not meet with trails please

1

Dog park is needed.

1

Move dog park to South Meadow

1

Not limiting g eneral access.

1

Walking and dog park

1

Walking trails shouldn't be limited access during events.

1

Will there be a charg e for parking ?

1

need for closing the park for events

1

trails and dog park

1

T otals

12

5

Other (please specify)

Count

Constant shutting off access to trails with larg e g roups of people. T he Villas are bad enoug h without a big event center

1

Crime control

1

Garbag e from events including picnics.

1

crime control

1

drug and alcohol use

1

neg atively impacting current family uses and potential for having the park closed to the public for concert/event set-up and take-down

1

T otals

6

4. What do you think of an event stage at the South Option location in the Central Meadow?

16% Strongly oppose

39% Strongly support 13% Somewhat oppose

7% Neutral or no opinion

26% Somewhat support

6

Value

Percent

Responses

Strong ly support

38.7%

12

Somewhat support

25.8%

8

6.5%

2

Somewhat oppose

12.9%

4

Strong ly oppose

16.1%

5

Neutral or no opinion

T o tals : 31

5. T he two other stage options are shown below. Do you have comments or questions about the other locations considered, or a different location you think we should consider for a stage?

ResponseID Response 50

T here is more potential for traffic cong estion issues at the south option.

51

A west stag e for big events could be built integ ral with the existing concrete structure and not take up any additional space. T he backdrop of the water and mountains would be incredible. T he South option could be fine for smaller events but am concerned the stag ing area cuts off potential new parking access from the current park access road. If new parking to the south is developed and accessed thru the treatment plant, that could insure adequate parking .

52

No to Western option. Protect osprey area!

53

I do not see the slope your g roup describes for South Stag e location.

56

Where would the dog park g o? Who would pay for it?

58

T here will definitely be a need for additional restrooms.

59

Affect of our tax base?

60

Don't like the other 2 choices!! T he North messes up the Central Meadow by doing g rading !

61

Prefer south option

7

ResponseID Response 64

I feel the best location would be below the east slope trail where the current driving rang e is. Pros: 1) amphitheater faces east for g ood solar orientation 2) existing slope for limited reg rading 3) traffic would be routed away from the 2 park entrances 4) delineation between concert attendees and park users (park would not need to be closed off to the public use of the central meadow and trails) 5) better acoustics for the music and less noise impact on the neig hborhood, 6) easier to pass security screening .

Cons: 1) relocate driving rang e and dog park

66

the West option would interfere with the views of the sound and also mig ht disrupt the ospreys and their nests with babies.

73

Do not put any stag e at Chambers Creek Central Meadow. Unnecessary. Our community has the T acoma Dome for concerts with ample parking . Inappropriate for a residential zone.

74

Nothing that is built should impact the views of the swing set or the sound. I like the idea of tucking the stag e back into the south corner where it will have the least impact on the views.

75

I don't think an event stag e is compatible with the current park activities, and will bring too much noise and traffic.

79

Seems like access would be very difficult, and disruptive for the g olfers.

80

Better option: use the g olf practice area below the hill by trail. Face into the hill. Sound would not carry as easily to neig hbors, central meadow would not be neg atively impacted.

90

T his survey doesnt work on mobile. Imag es not available

91

South area that is not yet opened.

95

Make sure stag e is ADA accessible.

6. Which type of stage design would you prefer?

8

22% None of these / no opinion

19% A permanent stage with permanent overhead structure

26% Infrastructure only (power/water) for a nonpermanent movable stage

Value

33% A permanent stage with a removable or seasonal overhead structure

Percent

Responses

A permanent stag e with permanent overhead structure

18.5%

5

A permanent stag e with a removable or seasonal overhead structure

33.3%

9

Infrastructure only (power/water) for a non-permanent movable stag e

25.9%

7

None of these / no opinion

22.2%

6 T o tals : 27

7. Which examples do you think are most relevant or appealing?

9

ResponseID Response 50

Ability to re-locate the venue if unexpected issues arise.

51

T he last 2 with the removable overhead structure.

54

I love the idea of an adjustable, overhang above stag e.

55

A nice event structure that blends into the site.

60

South Choice

61

Examples would not load

64

We oppose any permanent stag e in the central meadow. If the event stag e were to be constructed for the east slope we support a permanent state with a removable overhead structure

66

T he open stag es are g ood. If you have to make a stag e make it small and unobtrusive as possible.

74

Prefer built stag e and covered area or built stag e and removable canopy.

77

None of them as I do not think we need an event center at the Park

79

T his could be used for family picnic's, wedding s, etc. Seems like a more multi use structure would be more advantag es in the long run. Without have to set-up, tear-down and store.

80

seasonal overhead structure

95

Overhead structure is needed.

8. What do you dislike and why?

10

ResponseID Response 52

Don't obstruct any views of water or relics.

54

I would prefer not to look at water treatment.

55

T he control the resort has.

56

North Stag e - best one!

60

T he South choice doesn't destroy the view by the Swing Set.

61

Examples would not load

64

We dislike building an event structure in the central meadow as the unique openness of the meadow is what Chambers Bay Reg ional Park represents. Please explore other options

66

Don't like the larg er ones with big tops or backdrops. Without the examples to see in front of me I can't make comments about the different ones in the different cities.

74

I don't want to see anything too larg e or imposing .

77

I dislike the fact that first the developer and the county council are g oing to disrupt and spoil a perfectly beautiful park with their g randiose money making actions and the park department is considering a larg e event center making thing s even worse!

78

Want Chambers Bay to stay as is without any new structures

80

Structure will only be used in g ood weather...why have something permanent when use will only be a few months of the year?

91

Chambers is a wonderful community asset for Pierce County. I don't think the space should be 'over prog rammed'

9. Any additional comments on stage design?

11

ResponseID Response 52

Least obtrusive, least visible.

54

If West Stag e, you could use a shaded, but see throug h backdrop, like the Gorg e.

55

Make it very portable.

58

I wondered about costs for the various stag e options. Costs? What is the timeline for the project? How will it be funded? Where will the revenue from the Central Meadow event g o? (U.P.? Lakewood, Pierce County?)

60

As short (low) as possible - not hug e!!! Option (South-facing Waste Water T reatment plant is my choice.

61

No examples

66

Put in power electricity and possibly a webcam for the osprey nest. :-) as far as the stag e g oes make it non permanent or at the very least semi-permanent. Please, under no circumstances put in a permanent stag e!!

74

N/A

77

No Just don't do anything

78

No stag e

10. What do you think of adding one or more picnic shelters in the park?

12

19% No, do not add any picnic shelters

82% Yes, please add picnic shelters

Value

Percent

Responses

Yes, please add picnic shelters

81.5%

22

No, do not add any picnic shelters

18.5%

5 T o tals : 27

11. Where would you like to see picnic shelters (letters refer to labels on the map above)? (Check all that apply)

13

80

Percent

60

40

20

0 A

Value

B

C

D

E

Percent

Responses

A

71.4%

10

B

78.6%

11

C

78.6%

11

D

57.1%

8

E

42.9%

6

12. Please provide your name and email address if you would like to sign up for project updates.

Name

14

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Stage Study Pierce County Parks & Recreation

Open House 3 Outreach Summary Overview Pierce County Parks and Recreation (PCPR) is conducting a feasibility study for an event stage in the Central Meadow at Chambers Creek Regional Park. To gauge public interest and solicit feedback on a preferred stage concept from the study, project staff hosted a third project open house on Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2019, from 6-8 p.m. at the Environmental Services Building (9850 64th Street W, University Place, WA) and hosted an online survey on the project website from Aug. 7 – 19.

Project team members greeted open house attendees and invited them to sign in, view project displays, and ask questions. Project Manager Benjamin Barrett and members of the consultant team gave a presentation about the goals of the feasibility study, feedback from public outreach to date, the preferred stage concept, and findings from the initial traffic analysis. Benjamin shared that a final feasibility study report, including summary of feedback from this event, will be presented to Pierce County leadership to determine if and when a stage in the Central Meadow will move forward.

Notifications People were informed about the open house and online open house through:      



Postcards sent to over 675 residences within approximately a quarter mile of Chambers Creek Regional Park Updates to the Pierce County’s Chambers Creek Regional Park website Notices in the park: flyers in kiosks and a banner on the pathway to the Central Meadow Social media posts on the PCPR Instagram and Facebook Targeted emails or Facebook messages to community groups including previous project attendees, SunDogs, Chambers Creek Foundation, and Steilacoom Kiwanis Club A press release and announcements/ads/community calendar postings in local media outlets, including: o Tacoma News Tribune o The Suburban Times o Tacoma Daily Index o Town of Steilacoom monthly newsletter o City of DuPont online news o City of University Place online news o District 4 Councilmember Connie Ladenburg’s newsletter Nearby residents used NextDoor to share the online survey with their neighbors

8/28/2019

Page 1 of 5

Open House 3 Outreach Summary

Summary of Community Feedback In-person feedback The open house drew approximately 30 attendees. Project staff invited questions and comments during the presentation and encouraged attendees to share their feedback by completing a paper survey at the meeting or completing the survey online.

Presentation Q&A Attendees shared questions and comments on the following topics: Traffic analysis

 

Parking

      

Stage





Events

Other

8/28/2019

    

Congestion, traffic patterns, and impacts to surrounding neighborhoods during events Routing traffic /assuming higher southbound egress through Steilacoom following events o Inconvenient routes would increase travel times, depending on origin of attendees o Easy to get lost; speed laws strictly enforced o Consult with Steilacoom regarding proposed event flow o Assume greater northbound volumes, delay Traffic control: roundabouts versus signals, use of traffic officers Pedestrian safety; police assistance with pedestrian crossings during events Cumulative impact of resort development changes and potential stage Requests for additional traffic and parking analyses Fees associated with event parking; how free parking would be preserved for general park-goers during events Capacity, particularly during events Event parking strategies o Offsite parking, shuttles o Carpooling incentives o Group event parking based on destination to enable ordered departure Design: o Permanent versus temporary stage, roof canopy o Base design on utility, projected cost for construction, operations and maintenance o Interest in arched structure Location: o Preferred concept site less obtrusive to other park use o Use golf practice course General park access during Central Meadow events Types and frequency of events Noise Event operation responsibilities between Pierce County, promoters Encourage broader community outreach process

Page 2 of 5

Open House 3 Outreach Summary

Survey responses The project team received over 100 survey responses. This included nearly 100 complete responses to the online survey (and 80 partially completed online responses) and 9 paper surveys from in-person meeting attendees on Aug. 6. The online and in-person surveys included the same questions.

Preferred concept support When asked whether they supported the preferred concept plan (see image below) as the basis for moving forward, 40% of respondents answered no, 37% responded yes, and 23% said they were undecided. Themes from write-in comments explaining participant’s responses are summarized in subsequent sections below.

Stage roof canopy options Participants were asked to share their level of support for four potential stage roof canopy options: permanent stage with permanent roof canopy, permanent stage with permanent structure and movable roof canopy, permanent stage with adjustable height roof canopy, and permanent stage with removable roof canopy. All options received less than 50% support (strongly support or somewhat support responses), but the option with the highest support was the permanent stage with permanent roof canopy (40%). The permanent stage with removable roof canopy was the only option with over 50% opposition (55% somewhat oppose or strongly oppose). “Neutral or no opinion� answers ranged from 14-23% of responses for each option.

Comment themes: Topics of concern

8/28/2019

Page 3 of 5

Open House 3 Outreach Summary Top concerns among commenters included:       

Event traffic volumes being Impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods and regular park-goers (such as noise, congestion, limited park access during events) Limited public awareness of the proposed project and impacts, especially among residents near the park Proposed scale and number of annual events (several people noted they would be more supportive of a stage for smaller-scale or less frequent events) Desire to preserve the open space and existing character of the park Impacts to current park uses, including dog park at the preferred stage site Cumulative impacts between the Chambers Bay Resort project and a potential Central Meadow stage

Other concerns included project funding, crime, litter, pollution, and higher area cost of living.

Comment themes: Ideas for refinement Several comments voiced direct support for an event stage. Other comments included suggestions and requests for consideration, such as:           

Expand bathroom facilities in the Central Meadow Add other facilities to complement stage: picnic tables, trees for shade, lighting, trash receptacles Coordinate event schedules with regional graduations or large sporting events Utilize off-site parking shuttles Take proper steps to relieve traffic congestion Analyze walkability and bike access in addition to car traffic Include drop-off area or paved path from parking to stage for people using wheelchairs, strollers Partner with local businesses such as restaurants to encourage local spending from event patrons Avoid events with fireworks Use biodegradable packaging for all products sold on park grounds Negotiate with golf course to consider stage site below Environmental Services Building

Demographics Respondents were asked to provide their zip code and age. Most respondents were from University Place (87% responded with 98466 or 98467), with several other zip codes from elsewhere in Pierce County, including Tacoma and Steilacoom. More than 50% of respondents were over 55, with the largest percentage between responding their age as 55-64 (25%).

8/28/2019

Page 4 of 5

Open House 3 Outreach Summary

Next Steps The project team will complete the final feasibility study report this fall. Pierce County decision makers will review the project report and public input to date to determine if and when to invest in an event stage in the Central Meadow at Chambers Creek Regional Park. If the project is selected to continue, PCPR will continue public engagement to gather input on more detailed design.

Meeting attendees following the presentation on Aug. 6

8/28/2019

Page 5 of 5

Public Survey Report from Open House #3

Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow Infrastructure Study

Pierce County Parks & Recreation

Report for Central Meadow Stage Study Chambers Creek Regional Park Response Counts C o mpletio n Rate:

56 .9 % Complete

10 7

Partial

81 T o tals : 18 8

1. Do you support the preferred concept plan as the basis for moving forward?

23% Undecided

37% Yes

40% No

Value

Percent

Responses

Yes

36.5%

50

No

40 .1%

55

Undecided

23.4%

32 T o tals : 137

2. Add comments to explain your answer (optional).

ResponseID Response 25

As Pierce County continues to g row at it's current unwelcome pace, unspoiled, uncrowded places such as this park will become increasing ly rare. T he very idea of 50 0 0 people converg ing on the beautiful Central Meadow is horrifying . Having it happen weekly, all summer long -- is nig htmarish. Part of the wild beauty of Chambers is the fact the park isn't being "loved to death." Yet. (Just take a look at the cong estion that is happening in Yellowstone.) Chambers Creek Park was NOT created to be a larg e concert venue. At least that is not what this taxpayer was lead to believe. It was quite disturbing to hear about concert promoters, much less those proposing 7-8 concerts a season. T here are only that number of weeks in a summer. So WEEKLY, for an entire summer, reg ardless of the day of the week, 50 0 0 people will descend upon University Place to g et to our our beautiful county park. T hey will be there not to walk the trails, not to enjoy the beach and spectacular views as was intended, not

26

I g uess--- it would be g ood to know what other options you considered and did not pursue.

31

Bring in quality acts that would perform at Chateau St Michelle and Marymoor

35

T he area cannot easily handle all the traffic that would come with having multiple summer events here.

36

T his proposal would have a sig nificant neg ative impact on the adjacent residential neig hborhoods, in terms of traffic and noise. Also, events would be affected by frequent noise from the trains. I witnessed the Judy Collins concert years ag o, from the top path along Grandview. Her voice carried clearly up the hill but was drowned out when the trains went throug h. I fear that this opportunity for public input is just a formality and the county will g o ahead and do what it wants, just like the hotel plan with its additional 190 "casas", not in the orig inal plan, was approved in spite of sig nificant local opposition.

37

T he adjacent residential neig hborhoods would be neg atively affected by traffic and noise. T he cost is not justifiable for something we don't even want.

ResponseID Response 38

T here is not enoug h roadway infrastructure to support the additional traffic in the area without severely impacting residents in the surrounding areas. I'd also like to add, our household has not heard of this project until now, why is that? I live near Curtis and would be directly impacted by the results of this.

39

We need services at Chambers Creek. A sundry Store is g reatly needed

40

I do not wish to have an event stag e built at this site at all. T he increased traffic will make the park much less desirable to visit.

43

I'm very concerned about traffic & parking

45

I have g rave concerns about the impact of 10 0 0 cars driving down Grandview on the safety of those living in that area

46

Leave as is -- no event stag e needed! In fact, no "resort" needed! Outreach on this is non-existent! No mailed notices to area residents, just onesey-twosey notices posted on bulletin board.

47

I do not support the proposed concept plan because the proposed venue size and attendance population is T OO BIG and will have an incredibly neg ative impact, esp. with reg ard to unacceptable influx of traffic and cong estion, possible noise pollution, etc. on those who live off and around any of the main streets/avenues that lead to Chamber's Bay. UNLESS... T hose attending events would be bussed in from other location, T CC for example, as was the case with the g olf tournament. Also, it is rig ht in front of the dog park.

49

T oo much traffic. What about noise to houses to the east? We hear soccer matches with no amplification. Can't imag ine what a noisy stag e would be like!

50

Our roads cannot handle the influx of traffic this will create. What about the additional noise it will bring into our neig hborhoods and pollution

51

Hmmm. isn't this where the dog park was promised (and never delivered)...

54

Will this location for an event stag e eliminate the current dog park? Will it chang e the two dog parks at all?

55

T raffic, air quality, noise pollution, loss of walking trails, loss of g reen space that people currently enjoy, park being closed during events.

57

Absolutely NO! Building all of this stuff is ruining our city. Where is all the infrastructure to support all of the additional traffic, the noise, and the livability of everyone that owns homes in the area? Money isn't everything .

61

T raffic noise, pollution, overcrowding of small streets, parking issues. Lived here 30 + yrs. Horrible idea.

ResponseID Response 62

I think it could be a g reat addition to the community BUT only with smaller numbers.

50 0 0 visitors per event is too many for our smaller residential streets.

63

It is too soon to plan for this type of project. Any new Hotel and resort housing needs to be completed and operational BEFORE any additional, permanent Central Meadow projects are planned and approved.

64

I live rig ht off of Grandview and close to the g olf course and do not look forward to the cong estion. Maybe I would be in favor if it was 1-2 events each summer. But then their is the sporting events as well

65

Chambers Bay Survey I am oppose to the plan for the following reasons: 1. T he surface roads weren't desig ned to handle the 150 0 expected vehicles for the 8-10 summer events planned. In reality that is 30 0 0 vehicles (back and forth trips) traveling those roads on event day. T he traffic would have a major impact the residents of University Place and the Steilacoom. Evening cong estion if it fall on a work day, traffic noise at the end of the concert for homes along the major arterial. 2. How will you insure that residential streets will not be impacted by event g oers parking in the nearby neig hborhoods. 3. It was mentioned that closing certain areas of the park of event days may occur. Summer is a hig h use season for the parks and walking trails. 4. T he way the stag e is desig n noise will travel to the neig hborhoods along Grandview. I know this from experience. When Judy Collins performed in 20 0 8 in the Central Meadow we could here the entire concert in our backyard (which

67

We are neig hbors on Grandview Drive just 2 blocks north of Chambers Park, and WE DID NOT RECEIVE NOT ICE OF T HE 3 COMMUNIT Y MEET ING DAT ES

68

For this of us that basically only have Chambers Lane rd for ing ress and eg ress coming from the west or south, without using Steilacoom, I believe there would be too much traffic to g et into our own neig hborhood of Woodlake. I would like to see proposals for shuttling patrons similar to what took place during the U.S. Open.

70

We are University Place residents because it is quiet and safe. Bring ing an event stag e will only increase traffic cong estion, which is already a problem and potentially heig hten the crime rate. All before even mentioning that this will take up a g reat deal of our lovely park. We do not need the cost of living to g o up. We do not need to increase roadway cong estion. We do not need the increased crime rate that comes with event venues. We do not need this event stag e.

71

I'm extremely concerned about the neg ative impacts on the health of our residents, wildlife, and the environment as a direct result of 150 0 cars idling while waiting to park, and leave, an event; the amount of g arbag e that's bound to be left behind; the noise level; potential for increased crime. I don't think Grandview or the driveway to the park, supports the traffic level that will exist with a larg e event.

72

Are you planning to remove the only place we have for dog s to run? For stag e/outside events it seems a g ated area for dog s would be needed even more.

74

T hey need to talk to the residents that live around Chambers.

ResponseID Response

77

Concerned about the Event Stag e. Sounds like a g reat idea, but if crowds g et too larg e it would be too much of a g ood thing . Auburn White River Ampitheater is an example of a g ood idea g one bad for traffic and the residents of the area. Please proceed with caution here.

78

I'm sorry many people don't favor g rowth to our community. I find that in the long run we will be a rejuvenated University Place pulling in revenue.

79

Events should be somewhat limited in scope so as to minimize neg ative impact on local traffic and additional safety/security concerns. On site parking should be sufficient to accommodate event attendees who do not walk.

80

T oo much traffic in our area.

81

I've never seen the meadow "full" so I like the idea of adding features like a stag e to it to increase usability. I don't see the existing dog parks in the concept plan. Can those still be kept?

82

I would support something smaller, like Steilacoom has, or Fircrest.

83

T his would be g reat!

86

I support the idea however I think an alternate location on the property needs to be evaluated.

88

T he park is a reg ional attraction and this would be an opportunity for the public and the entertainers.

89

What access would I have to walking trails and beach during events? How far would the noise carry?

94

Not interested in paying for event stag es and their upkeep. T here are ample places for events throug hout our area. If they want to do an event there, the event itself can put in a stag e temporarily. Open spaces are important.

96

Concerned about the traffic and people flow it will being to our quiet community.

98

T he area can only be approached from three directions north, south and east. T his puts tremendous pressure on the infrastructure to g et to and from the proposed venue.

Additionally, the park is a g em as is it is and has a hig h traffic rate as it is. Move forward with this project and it's like saying to the locals, "welcome to T acomafornia"!

99

Noise from concert, less space for the g eneral public, less time for public usag e during the summer due to traffic and set-up.T raffic impacting our bedroom community would be undesirable.

ResponseID Response 10 0

Not enoug h information. Not adequate parking currently. Affect on neig hborhood. I live very near there, just off Chambers Creek Road. How will it be paid for?

10 3

With focus and attention to environmental impact to neig hborhood and wildlife

10 7

T o where will the dog parks be relocated?

10 9

We do not support an amphitheater in your chosen location.

111

My family and I love chambers park because of the quiet, beautiful, uncrowded park, sounds like a traffic, parking nig htmare, the park will be ruined!

115

Prefer moving location to "practice g olf area"

117

Having a stag e in our nice, quiet area is outrag eous. We've been patient and ag reeable with all of the building and restructuring in our community, including small events such as walkathons, wedding s and g olf events but T HIS takes the cake! Not no, but hell no. We are tired of those in charg e not listening to the PEOPLE, remember, you work for us!

118

I live on Grandview and think all the extra event traffic will be detrimental to living here.

122

Ft Steilacoom recently improved their event stag e, 2 similar facilities are not needed in such close proximity. Parking and paving property so close to the shoreline should require extensive stormwater treatment with oil / water separation that would deg rade the shoreline. It's another seasonal use rather than a facility that provides stable year round employment.

133

Worried about drifters and loiterers, parking , but like the idea of an event area.

136

If there will be an investment in attracting more users, please add more permanent, structured facilities to complement this effort, such as restrooms, picnic tables, trees for shade, lig hting , trash receptacles, etc. what will be done to manag e traffic cong estion at Chambers Creek Rd? Will the sing le lane roundabout be sufficient to effectively and timely handle the surg e of visitors for events? Will a T raffic Impact Study, level of service, and warrant analysis be performed?

137

Such a beautiful spot for people to enjoy events.

139

Something is needed to g enerate income and this plan mig ht do that

153

Parking is already horrible there on a decently nice day. People like playing in the g rass there and flying kites, and I don't see that being an option anymore. T he playg round up top is already not maintained, so I'm worried the same for down below.

158

Just found out about this today

159

T here is no need for permanent event stag e.

ResponseID Response 170

Moved into the area because it is quiet and has low traffic, quiet in the evening especially, the wildlife, th natural sounds of nature's. My preference is to focus on building the natural landscape for local habit to thrive and a space to enjoy and teach.

Living next to a music venue offers no endearing benefits to the residents.

173

What would impact of public use of the park be

176

T oo noisy. Park should never be closed for events. T raffic g oing to be a problem.

178

T he roads to and from Chambers Bay do not support any kind of extra traffic. It will be a nig htmare. Plan ahead next time and make big g er streets in the area.

180

Like that it has an event stag e,g o for it.l've been promoting concerts at Chambers since inception with always a positive response to all the benefits creative cultural events bring to a aready wonderful community.

181

T his is ridiculous! SO MISLEADING!!! NO ONE GOT ANY POST CARDS! You did NOT sent them out to us. We live very close to this. T he roads cannot handle the traffic - you are placing all of us at risk! T he area cannot handle this type of traffic or number of people. WHAT REIMBURSEMENT ARE YOU GOING T O PROVIDE US FOR T HOSE WIT HING 1/2 MILE - YOU ARE DISRUPT ING OUR LIVES AND SAFET Y AND PUT T ING US AT RISK.

184

Beautiful place for an entertainment venue.

186

I oppose any type of stag e that would bring hug e amounts of traffic to our area.

187

T oo much potential traffic/disruption of normal life for those living in the area. Coupled with potential villa construction, those of us who live locally will be impacted for years.

Leave the park as it is. It's paid for by all of Pierce county, whether they g olf or not. Most in the county don't g et to enjoy it, yet they still pay.

191

T his will cause vehicle cong estion that will cripple University place. T raffic must be addressed first.

195

Hope they do not remove the dog park.

20 0

Not enoug h information about what type of events, traffic impact, costs, cost to local residents, times of events, how much tickets will be, environmental impact on the sound!

20 1

An events stag e would be wonderful for Chambers. A g reat location for live music, as long as there is room for sufficient parking and traffic solutions throug h our neig hborhoods.

20 5

Is this peice county taxes paying for this or UP?

3. What are your thoughts on the stage roof canopy options?

Permanent stag e with permanent roof canopy Count Row % Permanent stag e with permanent structure and movable roof canopy Count Row % Permanent stag e with adjustable heig ht roof canopy Count Row % Permanent stag e with removable roof canopy Count Row %

Neutral Strongly Somewhat or no support support opinion

Somewhat Strongly oppose oppose Responses

27 24.1%

18 16.1%

16 14.3%

14 12.5%

37 33.0 %

112

12 10 .9%

26 23.6%

18 16.4%

16 14.5%

38 34.5%

110

10 9.3%

24 22.2%

25 23.1%

9 8.3%

40 37.0 %

10 8

15 13.5%

12 10 .8%

22 19.8%

23 20 .7%

39 35.1%

111

T otals T otal Responses

112

4. What are your thoughts about the traffic analysis?

ResponseID Response 25

See my previous comments about traffic impacts on the cities of University Place and Steilacoom.

26

Parking has been a hug e problem at the g olf course and I am confused about why you have not been more proactive. You need to add more parking at the course and off site for these events. PLUS more parking for the hotel/restaurant debacle. You could shuttle people from the local schools, unless events coincide with the school day. Really, it is very disappointing that parking has been an after-thoug ht for the county.

ResponseID Response 29

T raffic-On a recent busy warm weekend the traffic on Grandview at the circle into the g olf entrance was completely blocked for more than 5 minutes as folks entering stopped just inside the entrance. T herefore I sug g est will need another way to keep traffic moving in that area with an increased flow of cars.--Having two lanes around a main circle would work. Side Note- Canopy on the stag e--Why is it shown as flat? Seems it wouldn't be acoustically appropriate? I have loved seeing the water traffic behind the Shakespearean scenes at Bard on the Beach stag e, Vancouver BC each summer.

Leaving the back of the stag e open rather than covered leaves more options.

33

Include money for paved path from overflow lot so wheelchairs/ strollers can have a drop off/ pick up area and can access the park/meadow during events more easily.

34

you have underestimated the cong estion issues that will be caused by the roundabouts...

35

Multiple summer events would cause too much traffic cong estion for the area.

36

1.5 hours to clear traffic? A nig htmare for local residents who need to have ing ress/eg ress to their homes.

37

1.5 hours to clear traffic after an event is totally unacceptable. Residents off Grandview, Cirque and Chambers Bay Rd need access to and from their homes.

39

With this type of g rowth, traffic will increase

40

I don't wish to have an additional 1,50 0 vehicles driving in my neig hborhood to utilize this event space that is proposed.

42

I think the traffic will neg atively impact the neig hborhood and the environment.

43

I have experienced increased traffic and the noise at my home. My home has a small g reen belt between my home and Cirque Drive. We are 3 blocks from Grandview.

Unfortunately, the city choose not to extend sidewalks, crosswalks or other pedestrian safety measures along our stretch of Cirque. I am EXT REMELY opposed to the idea of increased traffic unless T he City of U.P. or someone else does something to mitig ate the impact of the traffic.

44

Still concerns about g etting out of my subdivision off of Grandview with added traffic.

People parking on side streets and walking in.

45

T his does not address the issue of people parking along Grandview or in the surrounding neig hborhoods or the difficulty residents are g oing to have g etting to and from their homes during events.

46

Bog us! T raffic will flow on Chambers Rd to 64th just as it does now. UP shut down that traffic for the US Open g olf a few years ag o 'cause it was so bad. T his is insane idea!!!

ResponseID Response 47

T he proposed venue size and attendance population is T OO BIG and will have an incredibly neg ative impact, esp. with reg ard to unacceptable influx of traffic and cong estion, on those who live off and around any of the main streets/avenues, not just Grandview, that lead to Chamber's Bay. T he side streets perpendicular to Grandview will be also severely impacted; people will not be able to g et in and out of their own streets and quality of life will be impacted. T hose attending events should be bussed in from another location, T CC for example, as was the case with the g olf tournament. Or, larg e venues like this should not be even discussed AT ALL when in residential neig hborhoods.

48

I think the first two traffic countermeasures listed are appropriate (traffic notice sig ns & traffic control officers). I think both would help ease the cong estion to residents near the site. I do not think that the other measures would be as effective.

49

We hear traffic on Chambers. Assuming an event lasts till eig ht or nine or ten PM, another hour and a half could put noise to nearly midnig ht. Plus, people are sloppy and throw bottles, cans, and cups out of the windows. Who's g oing to pick up the extra trash?

50

T his is our city and we pay heavy taxes to live here. We really do not have any input on this

51

living rig ht off Cirque and Grandview, the traffic is my main concern. I think off site shuttles should be heavily marketed and made to be the primary mode of transportation to the event

54

T his event stag e will create too many traffic issues for local residents!

55

"Event traffic notice sig ns encourag ing local drivers to seek alternate routes" really?!? So now neig hborhood streets that are g enerally quiet will become an alternate route. What a hug e blow to current homeowners in the vicinity and a major deterrent for in the market buyers.

57

It sucks... All of it. We put up with enoug h uncontrollable traffic on Grandview. Now we have to find alternate routes home? Put up with even more inconveniences so out of area folks can g o to events? Devalue our property values? NO on all the plans for Chambers Bay building !

61

Forg et it! Ruining our city!

62

Maybe if University place had the proper number of police to monitor and police the increase in traffic that could help me feel better about the number throug h traffic. I'm concerned about the neg ative impact on residents and the small community.

ResponseID Response 63

Having driven Grandview, 40 th St, Cirque Dr and Bridg eport for over ten (10 ) years now, across variable weather, years of School events, weekdays, weekends, Orchard Concerts, local Estate sales, g arag e sales, National Nig ht Out events and Duck Daze parades, I would disag ree with the "traffic study" analysis of travel time. In addition, citing only travel time on Grandview from Cirque is wholly inadequate. All routes to the event entrance will be compromised. T his brief T raffic Analysis seems to focus only on the Cirque Drive connection to Grandview when if fact, ALL of Grandview Dr W, 64th St W and Chambers Creek Rd will be cong ested coming and g oing to events. It is too soon to plan for this type of project. Any new Hotel and resort housing needs to be completed and operational BEFORE any additional, permanent Central Meadow projects are planned and approved.

64

All of these measures were in place during the US Open and I thoug ht it did really help.

My thoug hts at the time were this was not bad but that was 1 event. T he thoug ht of all that g oing on all summer does not set well with me at all

65

Chambers Bay Survey I am oppose to the plan for the following reasons: 1. T he surface roads weren't desig ned to handle the 150 0 expected vehicles for the 8-10 summer events planned. In reality that is 30 0 0 vehicles (back and forth trips) traveling those roads on event day. T he traffic would have a major impact the residents of University Place and the Steilacoom. Evening cong estion if it fall on a work day, traffic noise at the end of the concert for homes along the major arterial. 2. How will you insure that residential streets will not be impacted by event g oers parking in the nearby neig hborhoods. 3. It was mentioned that closing certain areas of the park of event days may occur. Summer is a hig h use season for the parks and walking trails. 4. T he way the stag e is desig n noise will travel to the neig hborhoods along Grandview. I know this from experience. When Judy Collins performed in 20 0 8 in the Central Meadow we could here the entire concert in our backyard (which

67

If it is a ticketed event charg e a hig her rate for onsite parking (don't miss out on fee collection from willing contributors) and when that is sold out all other ticket holders have passes for "free parking with shuttle". Add parking enforcement for illeg al parking that will occur in nearby residential streets within walking distance of the venue. Before the venue is constructed have the city install more speed limit sig nag e and parking /no parking sig nag e on the traffic sensitive side streets and arterials.

68

T here should be a dedicated closed to local residents only lane during the peak traffic cong estion. If you leave off of Chambers Lane or Grandview it would be too much disruption and we would be sing led out for receiving the brunt of the cong estion vs residents north of us with more ing ress and eg ress options.

69

Pur streets are not built to sustain such amount of traffic on reg ular basis. UP residents will end up paying more for road maintenance, streets and neig hbourhoods will be less safe, and there will be more crime in the area.

ResponseID Response 70

T his traffic analysis is much too little. Our city is simply not set up to accomidate 1,50 0 cars. As a University Place resident it is deeply concerning that our leaders can think this is a feasable option. You mention "Incentives for event patrons to carpool, arrive early, and/or depart late." One of my main concerns is the increased noise and crime this will bring . So our city proposes people stay later? Spend more time being loud on chambers creek road. Loitering in our parks and community. I find it desterbing indeed that University Place leadership would propose such a thing .

71

I'm extremely concerned about the neg ative environmental and health impacts on residents from having 150 0 cars idling along Grandview. We'll likely see an increase in cancers and health issues associated with pollution, and we'll see the natural beauty of our area (wildlife, flowers and shrubs) g reatly diminish. I think if this is g oing to g o throug h, reg ardless of the concerns from long time residents, traffic needs to be routed toward Bridg eport only, not Cirque.

72

It would be a nig htmare. It's much easier to g et in and out of Chambers Bay where the playg round is.

77

Sounds like a decent study was done, but I question whether this is a g ood idea in the first place. I'm really unsure about the whole thing .

78

It was well thoug ht out. I believe we have enoug h arterials to handle the flow of traffic.

79

Sounds reasonable. Was on-street parking considered (pro and con)?

80

T oo much traffic in our neig hborhood.

81

I just hope the city g ets the $$ from the event parking .

82

It reveals that you are planning big events, which I do not support.

83

T raffic happens.

84

T raffic control offers could double as patrols for both car prowls and illeg ally parked vehicles.

86

Get rid of the roundabouts and that will alleviate traffic.

88

Encourag ing the use of Chambers Creek Rd. seems best to me. Food trucks could help stag g er incoming traffic.

89

Do we need this as an event venue?

90

It depends on how often the additional traffic will occur I suppose...

94

T he road infrastructure is insufficient for current usag e. T otally overwhelmed for events.

ResponseID Response 97

T raffic and parking will definitely be an issue. Maybe a shuttle type idea to bus in from somewhere on Bridg eport?

98

So if this is accurate is no one concerned that the infrastructure can't handle it? Ag ain, you are proposing a venue that only has three directional access and traffic will be much worse than predicted. For instance traffic will clear within 1.5 hours following an event Is that an averag e 1.5 hours? It seems to me it would depend upon the attraction value of the entertainer and you could run into situations where traffic clearing could be two or three hours because the existing cannot handle this many people, in one location, at one time. T his is not to mention the security vulnerabilities of the location

10 0

T his is a residential neig hborhood. Not a g ood place for a concert facility.

10 3

Needs more study but in g eneral, this work to date was appreciated and helpful. Really support shuttle services and carpool discounts.

10 5

Attended both 5/21 & 8/6 meeting s, It does not appear that there was adequate study on parking and traffic considerations reg ardless of how the people presenting prog ram claimed use of traffic use. At 8/6/ meeting there was confusion on whether where public could park if they were using park but not attending an event.

10 7

Event manag ement must be in tandem with local schools (Curtis and Charles Wrig ht) so as to make sure not avoid doubling up with same day events. Probably only impacts early fall and late spring but especially avoiding g raduation/sports seasons larg e events.

Glad I sold my house across from Chambers Bay as I imag ine noise and traffic to neg atively impact. Win over those locals with early info/ concert discounts or something .

I hope County will partner with local restaurants etc to promote them with concert g oers so UP can benefit unlike the g olf tournaments. With increased business people will be more willing to accept neg atives like slow drives. Also White River Ampitheatre offers sig nag e several says in advance along main thoroug hfares so as to alert reg ulars to expect delays. No one likes traffic delays but much happier to know it is coming then be surprised.

10 9

T raffic analysis was a waste of tax payers money. T o think that 35% of the traffic could be funneled throug h Steilacoom when the analysts had never driven throug h Steilacoom showed a lack of fact finding .

110

Parking shuttles should be offered to cut down on traffic. Many attendees would take Cirque which lacks sidewalks to protect local residents who may walk to the event. T he curves on Cirque near Beckonridg e are particularly dang erous and have lead to numerous accidents with inattentive drivers. An analysis of traffic routes and walkability or bike friendliness should be carried out.

111

T his sounds like a horrible, there is only one ways roads to g et into to the park, this will cause horrible traffic and parking issues for all surrounding neig hborhoods

113

Need to use Bridg eport exit more.

ResponseID Response 114

Use zip codes to assig n parking so all cars in each lot are to use same departure route.

115

Off site parking with shuttles for larg e portion of cars.

116

I would prefer incentives and shuttles except where would parking for shuttle riders be located? Puyallup like the US Open-No

117

No room for traffic now with all YOUR poorly desig ned roundabouts and removing lanes for bike paths

122

Sug g estion is for people to arrive early or leave late but there are no services in the area. Improve the club house before building more facilities.

127

Shuttles and incentives to carpool, arrive early, & leave late I think would be the best options. For those of us who live in Grandview, it could be a complete nig htmare to g et to or from our houses during those event arrival/departure times.

130

Projections too low on traffic

131

It will be a nig htmare

133

Always issues with port a potties, g arbag e and theft. Must have sig ns and alternative parking desig nations. Required, someone directing traffic.

134

Sounds g reat.

136

1.5 hours is not acceptable for an event to be cleared. Grandview and Chambers Creek Rd are not sufficient to channel out 1,50 0 cars. T he impact on the immediate neig hborhoods will be impacted g reatly. In addition to unacceptable levels of cong estion, there will be indirect neg ative impacts, such as increased trash on these roads, speeding , etc. Unless University Place budg ets and allocates much more funding for permanent police officers (more FT Es, not just emphasis patrol or overtime), the impacts will g o unchecked and have a neg ative effect on adjacent neig hborhoods.

137

T raffic will be a problem. Not a lot of parking . Need another lot.

139

Any eve.t-shirt, anywhere, will impact local traffic for some time. Life with it, or have no events. Any other solution complicates matters, adds costs

142

Residents will adjust over time, especially if the primary ing ress and eg ress routes are routinely used by event g oers.

155

All of those thing s are needed for residents living in the area to be able to leave their neig hborhoods for reasons other than the events.

ResponseID Response 159

T errible. Estimates should account for double the cars to planned parking spaces. T he estimate should then account for additional vehicles attempting to park in local neig hborhoods and along sides of roads. T his is an optimistic estimate that ig nores many variables: how many people attended the US Open (20 15) at Chambers Bay?

166

T raffic and noise are my main concerns. I live in walking distance so parking is also a g rave concern. My condo had to put g uards on our parking lot during the g olf tournament.

168

I support countermeasure options 2 and 4.

170

Didn't move here to have to use alternate routes. Pollution and noise not a healthy ing redient for residents. T raffic and nose will lower home values. T raffic and noise will kill and hinder the natural wildlife. T here are plenty of examples.

176

I like the fact that people and their cars are routed around the south side instead of being able to g o down to the central Meadow.

178

T he roads to and from Chambers do not allow for any events.

180

Fine the Us open proved capacity capacities

181

NO WAY! KEEP T RAFFIC OUT OF T HIS AREA - PERIOD! T HE GOLF T HING WAS A NIGHT MARE! HOW ARE YOU REIMBURSING US FOR T HE INCONVENIENCE? 30 RESPONSES IS NOT CONCLUSIVE NOR REPRESENT AT IVE OF T HE AREA - PIERCE COUNT Y HUGE FAIL!

184

T he ideas of shuttles and traffic police are g ood

186

I think 1.5 hours for traffic to clear is utterly ridiculous and that it will create cong estion throug hout our city. No thanks.

187

Grandview...one lane. Cirque...one lane. Chambers creek...one lane. 67th...one lane. It's already difficult for locals in U.P. to g et around during weekday evening s. Add event traffic to roads which aren't built for it, and it becomes a nig htmare. Once in a year, no problem. Multiple events monthly, and it becomes a sig nificant disruption to normal life for those of us living in the area. How will I be compensated for the neg ative impact?? I won't receive a tax break even thoug h U.P. will make money on tax revenue.

188

Unrealistic expectations.

191

1.5 hours of traffic on a weeknig ht and expecting local traffic who use the park or use the back way to g et to post to find another way is unreasonable.

195

No opinion

196

shuttles work well. but would depend on the size of the event.

ResponseID Response 20 0

T o much traffic for this city.

20 1

I like the shuttle idea, and the incentives to arrive early and depart late. What are the incentives? Where would parking be if people were shuttled?

20 2

Like it. Events will g enerate tax revenue

20 4

Way too much traffic.

20 5

I want to know if this will increase my property taxes

20 7

Seems the same as now when there are current events

5. Are there any other ideas or items you'd like Pierce County leadership to consider?

ResponseID Response 25

Only smaller venues with lower caps on attendance. See my previous remarks

26

Mainly, after the GLA debacle, I am very disappointed that the county leadership, and I am not sure that your "public comment" options are even worth the time of residents to respond. I wish county leadership were more responsive to the thoug hts of the residents.

29

What surface will be used for the stag e itself? will a temporary flooring be able to be used on top of it? T hink more about how the stag e could be used year round for many types of g athering s & prepare the site for such usag e

33

I would like to see the structure have more of a tunnel or concave look possibly with layered back walls. Even with "windows" (like at construction sites) so at the times it's not being used it becomes a view spot to the foreg round or backg round.

37

I witnessed the Judy Collins concert years ag o from the upper trail above the meadow. It was a disaster. Her voice carried clearly up the hill but was drowned out every time a train came throug h. And it rained.

39

I am very disappointed to know the g olf course & Chambers Creek property is $35 million dollars in debt. We need more services there to decrease the debt and provide much needed services to patrons.

42

Please leave the park as is.

43

Consider safety measures along Cirque Drive between Bristonwood Dr. and the existing sidewalks.

ResponseID Response 44

Consideration to future vandalism of stag e...how is that g oing to be controlled or deterred.

45

Adding access throug h the industrial park on the Steilacoom side to reduce the traffic on what is essentially a residential street.

46

Abandon this and the corrupt development of "resort" idea in this park. Only developers will benefit, not UP voters.

47

DO NOT build a stag e that will host larg e events for 1,50 0 and upwards. T his is SO disrespectful to the residents in the surrounding area.

48

Expanding bathroom facility at Central meadow.

49

None of the stag es presented has a closed back, so noise will funnel east, even if all amps face west. Where are the audio reports? What will be the noise impact on houses in the area?

54

Get a g ood restaurant on site before anything else is added to this park!

55

Lol

61

Sounds to me like you've already made up your minds.

62

Please for once take input from residents seriously. T his could be a g ood thing for our community if done correctly. Don't destroy UP for financial g ain. T ake the proper steps to relieve traffic cong estion.

63

I'd like them to be patient and finish one major project, T he Chambers Bay Hotel resort and housing , before approving any plans for the Central Meadow.

64

I selected that I did not approve any of the current stag e desig ns because I think the current structure in the central meadow should be incorporated in the desig n. T he structure that has the Osprey nest. I have always imag ined that being a stag e and it fits perfectly with the other structures that have been left from the Gravel Company

65

Keep in mind the residents who live in the surrounding neig hborhoods and the impact it will have on them beyond traffic and noise. Look at the carbon footprint it will leave on such a beautiful park and surrounding areas. Living near the g ravel pit wasn't bad at all.

John Ladenburg has the foresig ht to create a beautiful park for all the people - g olfers and non g olfers. Please do not take away from the park and trails and disrupt or inconvenience residents who have lived there for years. You have already made it a hig h price Elitist residential park by allowing the extended housing condos to be built. T he park was meant for everyone. You have taken park of the park away to allow for the upper class to enjoy.

ResponseID Response 67

All events should end at 9:30 . Yes, even in the summer, especially when your experts have estimated that it will take 1.5 hours to evacuate traffic. T here should never be any acoustics that include or imitate fireworks displays. T raffic enforcement should be actively writing tickets during any event. Sometimes that is the only way motorists learn how to follow the lawful use of the roads.

68

T hey should offer discounts to performances for Pierce County residents since we pay for the park.

69

T here is no clear community benefit for this project, it's done without taking into the account the impacts of this project on the quality of life for residents of UP.

70

University Place is not T acoma, nor Seattle, nor Bellevue. Stop trying to make it an event hub. Stop trying to innovate us out of house and home. If we wanted to live by event venues we would live in one of the aforementioned cities. But we dont. We want what we have; a quiet, safe community. Our taxes are already throug h the roof. Not all UP residents can afford yet another development project in UP.

71

I completely understand the financial situation the city finds itself in with this g olf course and park and long term sustainability, and I respect the leadership's efforts in trying to fig ure out a way to earn profit to manag e the lands and course and keep the natural beauty of this area available to residents. I could support using the park for events, but the level at which it is being considered seems extremely damag ing and in poor conscience. Is there an option for smaller events to be held there and still be profitable? I haven't received any notices about any of these meeting s, other than on the Nextdoor App after the fact (I'll hold my judg ment about the lack of resident notification), so I admit I'm lacking on information about what led to our current situation.

72

Consider better public outreach/announcements. I take my dog there all the time and had to learn about this from nextdoor. T he idea is g ood. I enjoy the concerts at Curran orchard. It's the log istics that I'm curious about.

77

Not beyond what I've already stated. T hanks for doing this survey.

78

Will we be able to use the park on the other end while this other space is being used?

79

How will the cost of construction and maintenance be addressed?

80

No

82

Yes - A smaller stag e, and not-for-profit concerts only.

83

I think development is g reat.

84

T he positive impact that a venue could provide at this g em of a park is priceless. Pierce County/UP/T acoma would have the opportunity to bring top-level talent and events to our community.

ResponseID Response 86

Cutting property taxes 2nd g olf course at Chambers Hotel at Chambers

88

Because the meadow is pretty flat, the stag e should be hig h enoug h so people in back have decent sig ht lines.

89

It seems that Chambers is becoming a multi-use, please everyone and no one destination. How will this g el with your plans for on-site housing ? Future plans for a marina, etc?

92

Picnic shelters around the park. Summertime spray park similar to T itlow.

94

I'd like them to consider stopping the extended stay housing on Chambers Bay.

98

Listen to the people and don't make a cash g rab. We don't want T acomafornia!!!

10 1

I'm concerned that the public will be kept out of their public park when paid concerts are g oing on. Seems like a conflict of uses.

10 3

Neg otiate with g olf course to move stag e to area directly below the ESB in the valley stag e facing SW.

10 5

At 8/6 meeting there was sug g estion of putting structure at foot of hill beneath ESB building and that sug g estion makes esthetic sense g iven g eog raphic features of part. It would require dealing with the hotel promotion g roup but it mig ht make their facility more attractive

10 7

If UP must deal with the neg atives please g ive opportunity for local UP businesses and residents to benefit from revenues

10 9

Consider leaving the park in a natural state for everyone to enjoy. Consider how the 810 events during the summer will conflict with the 90 day exclusive use by Chambers Bay Resort. T his has been broug ht up in 2 meeting s and not acknowledg ed by the PC Park Department.

111

Don't cause more traffic! We already have to deal with surrounding areas being over crowded, don't ruin chambers park also

114

All county employees are represented by a labor union. T he employees of the public partnership must also be so represented.

116

I live 2 miles from the park. Why was I not notified of the meeting s?

117

Move to another area

122

Investment in the surrounding areas is needed before money is spent on entertainment facilities or the event space will only be a drain on our community. It will create traffic, pollute our air and water, increase trash and disrupt our wildlife. All that makes university place special will be threatened. Make it worth it.

ResponseID Response 127

Make sure that you're listening to what the majority of the residents around this area are saying . Whether it be for or ag ainst the plans for a permanent stag e. It will impact our lives in either neg ative or positive the most.

133

Lig hting .

136

Would Pierce County consider partnering with University Place to fund a shuttle service from the Environmental Services building lot to help alleviate some of the expected event cong estion at the 62nd St roundabout? If funding for permanent structures (picnic tables, shade trees, trash receptacles, lig hts, restrooms-not portapotties) was secured and included in the desig n and project, as well as more comprehensive, well articulated plans to mitig ate event cong estion and lessen the impact on immediate neig hborhoods, this could be a g reat project.

137

If course more bathrooms and water fountains will be needed. Maybe a small structure for a concession stand.

139

Whatever makes this"exclusive" fancy g olf fiasco pay for itself and g et it off the public support roles!!

142

Better public outreach. T he two public meeting s were not well advertised within University Place where residents will be g reatly impacted.

155

T raffic is the big g est consideration. one lane road for in and out creates many potential problems.

159

Not commercializing this area any more than it needs to. T his is a larg ely and primarily residential area.

168

Issues around manag ing trash disposal around the platform

170

Look towards preserving and increasing the natural beauty of our area.

174

Leaving as much of the area untouched as possible. It's a park, not a development!

176

No rap concerts!!!

177

Bus shuttle service from T CC

178

4 lane streets. All of the "beautification" medians literally allow for and encourag e attacks on drivers. Do you not know what is happening on Emerson near Orchard? Literally the most ig norant desig n of streets anywhere I have been.

180

How's the time to put UP on the map and Chambers Bay a destination spot

181

JUST DON'T DO IT ! NOT A GOOD IDEA! ST OP RUINING T HE AMBIANCE OF T HE AREA!

ResponseID Response 184

None

20 0

My road has needed repaired for over 10 years yet the county wants to spend money on an event stag e. I want my taxes to fix my street!

20 5

I do not want to pay more tax on my property or city tax to pay for this if it's all of pierce county I would be for it

20 7

Grass in the larg e dog park

6. What topics are most important to you relating to this project? We've heard community interest in managing additional traffic, ease of finding parking, and compatibility with current park uses.

ResponseID Response 25

Current park use and neig hborhood impact should not be usurped by promoters trying to g et 50 0 0 paying customers to their new venue.

26

I am very unhappy with the villas and the hotel. T he walkway behind the current building will be moved and, in that new position, the views will be hampered for walkers. I am unhappy that people will be essentially living on public land in the villas. T hat option is not appropriate for county land.

29

Maintaining g ood walking paths since those are used 365 days a year. Also increase parking for a larg e dog park area off the central meadow.

33

I like that even when wedding s or other events are g oing on that the park stays open for people to walk. T his must continue.

35

T raffic and not damag ing the beautiful park area.

36

T raffic, noise, use compatibility and cost are all important. And reasons. What is the g oal; is it to produce income? I value Chambers Bay for its nature, peace and quiet, and walking . T his proposal seems to conflict with all of that.

ResponseID Response 37

Noise, traffic and compatibility with current used are all important. I value Chambers Bay for the nature, peace and quiet, and walking . T his proposal conflicts with all of these. I feel like this opportunity for public input is just a formality and the county will g o ahead and do what it wants, just like it did with the hotel project with its 190 "casas" that were not included in the orig inal plan, even thoug h there was sig nificant local opposition.

Althoug h public meeting s have been held about this proposal, there are still many people in the affected area that are unaware of it. I have not been able to attend 6:0 0 meeting s, so do not know what the estimated cost of this proposal is, or the amount that has been already spent on the study, drawing s, etc. And do not know the purpose. Is it to g enerate income?

39

A store where patrons can buy candy, bottled water, snacks, etc

40

Manag ing traffic is a big deal to me and my family. We moved to this area because there was not a lot of traffic.

43

T raffic

44

When there are activities at the stag e area, will the trail areas (above and below) still be accessible? My big g est concerns are heavy traffic, more vandalism of vehicles on Grandview during events, and cong estion on side streets for those of us who live off of Grandview.

45

T raffic and safety for residents in the area are my big g est concerns

46

T his infring ement on current Chambers park usag e is pushed by g reedy developers and corrupt politicians. Back off and leave this unique UP jewel alone.

47

T raffic cong estion and neg ative impact on homeowners who live on or off of any streets/avenues in area, whether Grandview, the main streets that run perpendicular, even Bridg eport.

48

Creating a first class facility that will add to the quality of life for Pierce County residents.

One that will be able to host live music and other events and be a real cultural asset to our community.

49

NOISE, traffic, traffic noise, litter, g eneral annoyance. T his is a nice field where we can fly kites, walk dog s, let the kids run.

51

parking /traffic is my main concern. Also, the damag e to the Central Meadow g rass that would occur after each event.

54

All of the concerns you mention here are major.

ResponseID Response 55

Keeping event traffic off side streets, do not take away the current availability of the park to people that use it daily in the evening hours. Also are you aware that the sewer plants reeks on the daily somewhere between the hours of 7p-11p? Not sure how well event g oers would enjoy that. Additionally, what about the noise pollution? Have you considered how that will effect people that live in the vicinity of Chambers park?

61

T he fact that you would consider something this intrusive in that area. Leave it the open space it was meant to be!

63

T raffic cong estion and subsequent increased traffic flow throug h strictly residential, nonevent routes will increase. Worse, sig nificant increase in non-residents, not interested in actual events but rather interested in crowds will navig ate neig hborhoods and the potential for increased car and home prowling will increase g reatly.

64

I've been a resident of UP for 40 years and it's very hard to see what is happening to Chambers Bay already with the plans of adding a resort. I love walking around the g olf course and enjoying the shore and the meadows. Bring ing in more and more people will chang e the peacefulness and serenity

65

As listed above I would like to see how the county will mitig ate traffic, include the City of Steilacoom in the traffic discussions, ensure that there will be no parking on neig hborhood street like was done for the US Open, the the current use of the parks and trails will not be affect by these events. Summer is the most used time for the residents of Pierce County to use the park. T he events are truly beneficial to the developer of Chambers Bay Resorts with the restaurant and hotel and Pierce County is helping line the developer pocket. It took me a while to fig ure it out.

67

T raffic will clearly increase during event hours. Roadway safety to the neig hboring residents use of their personal property is of hig h priority. In and out of our driveways and/or emerg ency services access. All products, food and drink sold on park g rounds should only be available in biodeg radable packag ing . YEAR ROUND Set an example of forward thinking and responsibility to our future on this earth. (You will g enerate ALOT of g reat press)

68

T raffic and noise. I have always said myself that it would be a beautiful place for concerts and more festival type places. Would be g reat for University Place to have its own 4th of July there.

69

How does University Place benefit from this?

70

Everything . T he cost, safety, traffic, the quiet way of life in UP. T his is all under attack. Our leaders obviously does not understand what it means to be a UP resident, what WE want. People live here. We dont want a major event venue in our back yard. Respect that.

ResponseID Response 71

Environmental and health impacts. If these could be manag ed in a way that protects all the residents of this area (animal, bird, and fish included), I could possibly support a smaller-scale events plan. I would love to hear that using only sustainable, recyclable, or compostable food and drink packag ing is required; that keeping the neig hborhood clean is a top priority; that cars will be directed toward Bridg eport instead of Cirque. I'm curious if any environmental impact studies have been conducted? If so, I'd like to sug g est making these public on neig hborhood and social media platforms.

72

T raffic and the dog park. Please consider keeping the g ated area for dog s.

77

My concerns are the same as those stated above.

78

Use of space for those who don't attend concerts. Up Bus Yard May be impacted by the flow of traffic since they still have field trips in the summer.

79

Possible increase in property safety/security (home/automobile). Conflict with g olf or other events.

81

I would support other features in the meadow. T hat area is hug e and is never fully used.

Can an additional play structure be added to match the one at the north end? Also MORE T REES PLEASE. T here is almost no shade in the whole meadow and the afternoon/evening sun beats rig ht down on that place. It makes my family think twice about visiting .

82

T raffic and parking problems take away from the local use of the park, so let's keep it local, and not try to make it a big concert venue. We already built a g olf course for rich people only, so let's keep the rest of it as a local park.

83

Making sure there is enoug h parking spots available.

84

Additional parking in the park area

86

Manag ing traffic

88

Don't let the NIMBYs g et you down.

89

Pierce County needs to set standards and adhere to them. I.e., people now consider Chambers a destination to take their dog s, but the County has not provided adequate sig nag e desig nating leash and off-leash areas. Nor has the county enforced the leash requirements. Also, the County allowed the placement of locks all over the bridg e to become an expectation and defacto rig ht. T he rusting locks make the bridg e an eyesore. What other practices will you allow to become a standard set by a few who want to do them?

90

Compatibility with current park uses (i.e. dog park)

94

Overcrowding of park T raffic Residential housing on public lands Corruption

ResponseID Response 97

T raffic is my big g est concern

98

T acomafornia

10 1

Make sure park users (walkers) can access the trails during events!! T roy came up with a stag e place under the ESB building - this is g ood only if it doesn't impact the east slope trail!

10 2

Compatible with park users.

10 3

Stag e location, traffic

10 5

As stated above there is not adequate consideration of parking at events and the exit of traffic after an event. T he consultants had no knowledg e of complexity of travelling throug h Steilacom later in evening

10 7

Do not close down the walking trails! T his is the best and most used and appreciated opportunity in UP. Please keep this in mind. It is a g reat asset and people are willing to pay to keep it.

10 9

T he traffic study did not take into consideration how the Chambers Bay Resort Hotel and Villas will impact extra parking and traffic. T he Villas alone will have an additional 180 parking spaces plus over 20 0 more for the hotel/restaurant. An overlay of the Chambers Bay Resort was never combined in any of your display boards. We are also concerned about the consumption of alcohol and drug s at the concerts and/or events.

110

I am most concerned about manag ing traffic and neg atively affecting the current natural setting of the park.

113

T raffic problems

114

Non-profit community g roups should have no fee use of facility.

115

Location, traffic, parking , compatibility with current users.

116

Parking is hug e! I do not want current park uses to be disrupted or chang ed in any way.

117

Sounds, traffic and safety

122

Stormwater manag ement

130

What type of events will this support? Local? Well known artists?

133

Garbag e containers and port o potties required.

134

T his project sounds fantastic. It will provide a boost to the local University Place economy and a venue to host events with a g reater capacity than the Apple Orchard

ResponseID Response 135

All of the above. Althoug h I can see the benefit I think as a UP resident it will take away from my ability in using the park.

136

Event traffic cong estion mitig ation, permanent structures to support the influx of visitors, law enforcement to check speeding on Grandview and Chambers Creek

139

Generate income rather than cost for the county.

142

Cost, ong oing maintenance costs, what off site parking options are there.

155

T he traffic problems

159

T raffic, noise, noise curfew, profits use, additional taxes for maintenance tha will be levied from home owners.

166

Noise T raffic Illeg al parking in neig hborhoods

174

Parking , traffic volumes, noise, loss of free space for people.

175

T he traffic situation and parking

176

I don't want this stag e with concerts along with the hotel and people living at the park to overwhelm the place and chang e it from what most of us love and cherish.

177

T raffic flow and parking areas with bus shuttle from T CC. Additional restrooms are needed not just port a potties. Water fountains for drinking .

178

Clean the bathrooms at chambers. Start with that.

180

Don't g ive up and work it out it's our g ift to share .Lang uag e is the most important thing and Chambers Bay direction and distance sig ns are an excellent example and similar sig ns could help with parking and alternative routes.

181

HOW ARE YOU GOING T O REIMBURSE US FOR T HE INCONVENIENCE? HOW ARE YOU PROVIDING ADDIT IONAL SAFET Y? HAVE YOU DONE A ST UDY ON T HE CRIME T HE INCREASE WOULD BRING? YOU ARE T ALKING ABOUT NIGHT T IME - WHAT A DISAST ER WAIT ING T O HAPPEN

184

Manag ing traffic

187

T raffic. Inability to use the park during times of events. Noise for those living close.

191

All the above

20 0

Your priorities are in the wrong place! Fix our roads!

8. What is your zip code?

ResponseID

Response

26

98466

29

98466-1425

31

98466

33

98466

34

98424

35

98467

37

98466

39

98467

40

98466

42

98466

43

98467

44

98467

45

98467

46

98467

47

98466

48

98467

49

98467

51

98466

54

98466

55

98467

57

97466

61

98466

ResponseID

Response

62

98466

63

98466

64

98466

65

98467

67

98464 mailing

68

98467

69

98467

70

98466

71

98467

72

98466

73

98466

77

98467

78

98466

79

98467

80

98466

81

98467

82

98467

83

98498

84

98467

86

98498

88

98465

89

98467

90

98467

ResponseID

Response

92

98466

94

98388

95

98467

97

98466

98

98455

10 0

98467

10 1

98467

10 2

98467

10 3

98466

10 5

98467

10 7

98466

10 9

98466

110

98467

111

98388

113

98467

114

9840 5

115

98466

116

98467

117

98467

118

98466

119

98466

122

98467

124

98466

127

98466

ResponseID

Response

130

98466

131

98466

133

98467

134

98466

135

98466

136

98467

137

98466

139

98466

142

98466

145

98466

155

98467

158

98466

159

98467

166

98466

168

9840 6

174

98467

175

98466

176

98467

177

98466

178

98466

180

98466

181

98467

183

98466

184

98498

ResponseID

Response

186

98466

187

98467

188

98464

191

98466

20 0

98466

20 1

98466

20 3

98466

20 4

98467

20 5

98467

20 7

98466

9. What is your current age?

8% 75+

1% 19-24 9% 25-34

18% 35-44

23% 65-74

16% 45-54

25% 55-64

Value

Percent

Responses

19-24

1.0 %

1

25-34

8.7%

9

35-44

18.4%

19

45-54

15.5%

16

55-64

25.2%

26

65-74

23.3%

24

7.8%

8

75+

T o tals : 10 3

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report 10 June 2019

Executive Summary The objective of this study was to identify key opportunities and constraints for hosting concerts and festivals at the Central Meadow in Pierce County’s Chambers Creek Regional Park. The consulting team interviewed ten regional promoters and experts in hosting concerts and events in public venues, yielding the findings summarized in this report.

Market Area The primary market is within an hour’s drive from the site, encompassing a population of more than 1.6 million and growing as young creatives and families flock to the south sound both for the cultural scene and more affordable housing. Promoters see abundant opportunity for concert programming in this marketplace, and noted it is distinct from the Seattle/Eastside marketplace (important for concert/talent routing between market areas). What’s more, there is little direct competition for events of 3,000-5,000 attendees in the immediate area. Interviewees were, by and large, extremely enthusiastic about the possibilities for developing a new venue at CCRP.

Programming Programming at CCRP would continue to include community-oriented programming ranging from the Kite Festival to the Summer Yoga Series (all produced by Parks). Parks could elect to enter into an exclusive contract with a music promoter to produce a series of concerts. A concert series might begin with 8-10 events per year, with the possibility of growth if the series is popular (to a possible maximum of 15-18 events). Other festivals or multi-day events could be scheduled around the concert series, through close collaboration between the music promoter and Parks.

Infrastructure The most important infrastructure requirements for concerts and larger-scale events at the site are electrical power, water, and internet. Capacity and distribution of these three utilities are critical to the success of increased activity at the Central Meadow. Interviewees were divided on the placement of a future stage, and the need (or not) for it to be a permanent structure, and expressed a desire to visit the site and review the options. However, interviewees agreed that with the train noise, the east end of the Meadow would likely be the preferable location.

Parking and traffic capacity is one of the limiting factors in concert attendance. 1,625 spaces available for concert/event use would support 3,500-5,000 attendees, in line with what concert promoters thought would be a viable concert attendance target for this market area. Multi-day events where traffic and parking are more spread out could welcome more attendees. We understand neighborhood traffic capacity for access to and egress from the site is being examined concurrently with this study.

Restrooms, access for trucks and loading, and perimeter control were also discussed as important elements of hosting large-scale ticketed events at CCRP.

10 June 2019

1

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

Challenges and Opportunities The main challenges identified by interviewees were: -

-

Managing public sentiment and building a close relationship with the surrounding neighborhoods so new concert/event activity is seen as an amenity.

Right-sizing expectations around net revenue from new concert and event activity, which may support ongoing park upkeep but is unlikely to yield a substantial new net revenue stream for the County.

Building the regional identity of a new venue and investing in marketing to draw audiences to an unfamiliar location.

At the same time, interviewees see the site as an exciting opportunity to: -

Develop a successful public-private partnership between Pierce County and a concert/festival promoter and other program providers.

Sustain the site through concert and event activity that can help support park upkeep and increase the public value of the site’s amenities.

Bring more people to this location, unique in the Puget Sound area with wide open space, incredible views, and the right infrastructure for large-scale evens.

Next Steps This preliminary study confirmed the market potential of a new concert/event venue at CCRP and identified key considerations for infrastructure planning. We recommend that the County undertake several key tasks as the project moves ahead: 1) Affirm the County’s goals for new programming at CCRP to form the basis for partnerships and inform programming and financial decisions.

2) Solicit and document public opinion to affirm neighborhood support for expanded programming and gather feedback on the type and frequency of planned programming.

3) Coordinate with (at least) Public Safety and Chambers Bay Golf Course to review programming plans, identify relevant constraints and opportunities for mutual benefit.

4) Study exemplar venues, including but not limited to Marymoor Park, Chateau St. Michelle and Spokane Riverfront Park to understand programming, programming gagreements, level of municipal service, costs, revenues, and attendance.

5) Develop RFQ for programming partner to engage them as soon as possible during the design process.

10 June 2019

2

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

Study Background & Methodology A design team led by ORA was retained by the Pierce County Parks and Recreation Services Department (Parks) to undertake a comprehensive design study to identify options for constructing event stages and related infrastructure in the Central Meadow at Chambers Creek Regional Park Central Meadow (CCRP). The 930-acre park hosts a variety of free public programming presented by Parks, including family activities, festivals, athletic events, and more, with attendance of up to 5,000. The site has also hosted several larger-scale events in the past, and Parks wishes to consider the possibilities for infrastructure investments that might draw more large festivals, concerts, and other programming to the park.

To inform the park improvement design scenarios, we undertook a compact study to identify key opportunities and constraints for hosting large events and festivals at CCRP. We conducted a demographic market context review and competitive venue scan, and conducted structured interviews with ten regional promoters and experts in hosting concerts and events in public venues. We discussed market potential, programming typologies, needed infrastructure, trends, challenges, and opportunities.

This report summarizes our key findings.1

Interviewees Tom Alexander, Booking Manager, Tacoma Venues & Events, City of Tacoma Kim Bedier, Director, City of Tacoma Venues & Events Mike Combs, Consultant, Past Director of Tacoma Dome Marc Jones, Director of Marketing & Business Development, Seattle Center, City of Seattle Lance Miller, Campus Manager, Seattle Center, City of Seattle Phil O'Sullivan, Partner & General Manager, Artist Home Ryan Schroeder, Director of Event Operations, Festivals, Inc. Rob Thomas, Vice President of Pacific Northwest, AEG Live Jeff Trisler, Vice President, LiveNation Adam Zacks, Chief Programming Officer, Seattle Theatre Group2

Market Context Interviewees agreed that the primary market area for large-scale concerts and festivals at CCRP is within an hour’s drive from the site. On the north end, this includes south Kitsap County, Federal Way, Kent, and Auburn, and to the south it captures Olympia, Shelton, and the surrounding areas. This area has a population of 1.624 million people and is projected to grow to 1.736 million by 2023, an annual growth rate of 1.34% vs 0.83% for the US as a whole.

1

See Appendix A for information and questions provided to most interviewees.

2

See Appendix B for interviewee contact information.

10 June 2019

3

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report Site Map

CCRP 98467, University Place, Washington

Drive Time (Fri 6:00 PM):minute 60 minute radii CCRP Primary Market Area – 60 drive time

(c) KO Projects, LLC Latitude: 47.19565 Longitude: -122.57623

source: Esri/ArcGIS

Although behavioral Market Potential Indices3 that indicate people’s likelihood to attend concerts are on the low side compared to Washington State, they are slightly above the national average.4 Anecdotal evidence also suggests that young creatives are flocking to the Tacoma area due to its blossoming arts scene and affordable housing.5 May 31, 2019

Interviewees agreed that the South Sound represents a significant market opportunity for concerts and festivals, and saw the area as distinct from the Seattle/Bellevue marketplace. Most affirmed that the distance would allow concerts to be routed from Seattle and Eastside venues, including Chateau Ste. Michelle and Marymoor Park, without competing for audiences. ©2019 Esri

Page 1 of 1

In the market area, there is little direct competition for concerts in with 3,000-5,000 attendees.6 This event size was confirmed as a concert ‘sweet spot’ by most of the promoters we interviewed. At this scale, there are enough excellent artists available for affordable fees, whereas big names are needed to fill larger venues, which carries more expense and risk. 3,000-5,000 seats is also large enough for a concert series to ‘pencil out’ from a business perspective. Both larger and smaller venues exist, but the only nearby outdoor venues – Auburn’s White River Amphitheatre and the Puyallup Fairgrounds – not 3

An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the people in the specified area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S.; an MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average. Relevant MPIs are Attended country music performance in last 12 months (MPI = 102) and Attended rock music performance in last 12 months (MPI = 108).

These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition.

Usage data were collected by GfK MRI in a nationally representative survey of U.S. households. Source: Esri/ArcGIS.

4

See Appendix C for a detailed Arts Market Overview including behavioral Market Potential Indices.

5

Elliott, Gwendolyn. “Seattle Artists and Tacoma’s Homegrown Creatives Are Growing a Buzzworthy South Sound Arts Scene.”

Seattle Magazine. July 2, 2018. Mudede, Charles. “Tacoma Is Positioned to Displace Seattle as the Region’s Center for the Arts.”

Slog - The Stranger. May 8 2019.

6

3k – 5k is the concert capacity that could be served by planned parking at CCRP.

10 June 2019

4

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

only lack CCRP’s spectacular waterside location, but are constrained by poor traffic access and fairground activities respectively.

Venue Tacoma Dome White River Amphitheatre WA State Fair Events Center Grandstand ShoWare Center Emerald Queen Casino (fall 2019)

City Tacoma Auburn Puyallup Kent Tacoma

Type Indoor Outdoor Outdoor Sports Casino

Capacity 23,000 16,000 10,368 2,500–7,600 2,000

Promoters we interviewed all expressed enthusiasm about being contacted for this study, and a strong desire to be kept in the loop as program planning moves ahead. They confirmed that, given the right program plan, site infrastructure, and agreement with the County, CCRP is an extremely desirable location and the timing is right for developing a new concert and festival venue for the South Sound.

Programming Current Activity The community-oriented programming currently produced by Pierce County Parks and Recreation Services are anticipated to continue even as a concert and/or festival series was developed. These events include: Kite Festival Cinema on the Sound Santa Mystery Brunch Support the Trails 5k Family Campout

Spring Egg Hunt Family Bingo Night Kidz Kraze Children’s Festival Pitch in for Parks Summer Yoga Series

Concert Series Most interviewees suggested that a concert series at CCRP might start out with 8-10 events per year, with the possibility of growing to 12-15 events annually if the venue is successful. Most thought that 20+ events would be too much for the residential neighborhood and for the area market demand (Marymoor Park hosts 19-22 concerts per summer). Concert promoters suggested that artistic content could include a blend of classic rock, emerging artists, and contemporary stars. The idea of multi-day music festivals was discussed, and could be a possibility, particularly if the County believes that a series of concerts is too much programming for this park.

Several promoters noted the possible limitation of neighborhood noise ordinances and curfews. They suggested a reasonable limit is 100-105dBA and a curfew of 11pm are standard, and that 10pm would be workable but limiting.

Promoters agreed that the most desirable contractual arrangement would be to have an exclusive agreement to promote music at CCRP. Broadly, the promoter would control the calendar and take on the risk associated with ticket sales; Parks would be responsible for supplying the venue and its upkeep.

Other Festivals & Events The concert promoters we spoke with all acknowledged the possibility of welcoming non-concert festivals and events, even within an exclusive music-promotion contract. These could include food events, community gatherings, charity events, etc., which could bring people to the Park who might not be 10 June 2019

5

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

interested in concert programming. The partnership arrangement for these events would need to be carefully considered by Parks in the context of its arrangement with a selected concert promoter.

Site Infrastructure Power, Water, and Internet Access to electrical power, water, high-speed internet were the highest priority infrastructure requirements cited by interviewees. Those with technical expertise suggested 2 to 3 legs of 3-phase power (to separate lighting and audio power) within 100 feet of the main stage area. Many noted that total power demand for concerts is changing rapidly due to the introduction of LED lighting to the industry. Power recommendations for each disconnect ranged from 200A to 400A, and should be confirmed by the engineering team. Large-scale events of any kind need water and possibly sewer, and food-related festivals require more comprehensive water distribution. Interviewees noted the need for water-bottle filling stations especially. Most noted that current concert and festival technology relies on high-speed internet connectivity and recommended running fiber to the site if possible.

For festivals and other events with multiple stages, interviewees strongly suggested power distribution to the perimeter of the Central Meadow, or at least a system of open conduit through which power cables could be pulled as-needed. Concert promoters also emphasized the desire for open conduit to a mid-field sound mix location, to avoid routing audio and lighting control cabling across open audience areas.

Project engineers should consider the separation of lighting and audio cables for this location.

Stage & Audience Area Initially, most interviewees envisioned a stage area at the west end of the Central Meadow, overlooking the Sound. However, upon being given information about train noise, limited vehicular access, and possible evening glare, all agreed that the east end of the Meadow would be a more desirable stage location. Some interviewees considered the southeast area of the Meadow as a possible location, but noted that vehicular access to this area would need to be improved. All indicated a desire to visit the site to assess the possibilities.

While festival promoters were especially interested in CCRP because it is a large, flat space that could easily accommodate a variety of setups, concert promoters underscored the desirability of sloped or bermed audience seating areas. They all recommended keeping it simple – sloped lawn without tiered hardscaping – since complex outdoor seating arrangements can limit seating capacity. One promoter also mentioned the “beer test” – if a cup of beer tips over when you set it on the lawn, it’s too steep!

Interviewees were divided on whether Parks should invest in a permanent stage structure for CCRP. Some promoters suggested that because such a large capital expense would be impossible to recoup, a simple concrete pad would be more than enough for a concert series (promoters would assemble temporary staging). Others strongly recommended ‘doing it right’ and making the investment in attractive stage and support spaces. A few interviewees suggested a middle ground: invest in simple infrastructure in the near term, and build the site’s reputation as an event venue. Then consider future investments based on the priority needs that emerge during the early years of the site’s operations.

Parking & Traffic Design team analyses show a total of 2,178 parking spaces at CCRP, of which 1,625 could be made available exclusively to a concert promoter. This suggests that a feasible capacity for concerts (where 10 June 2019

6

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

everyone arrives, parks, and leaves around the same time) is in the range of 3,500 to 5,000 people. For multi-day events or festivals where access and parking are more spread out, attendance targets could increase.

CCRP Parking Availability (per design team) Lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Parking Area Central Meadow Lot Golf Club Lot Driving Range Lot Caddie Lot (by pond) ESB/Playfield Lots Event Lawn (on lawn) Event Lawn (Gravel)

Parking Stalls 129 166 57

ADA Stalls 6 5 0

223

7

or Approx Area

38,250 sf

10 acres 160,000 sf Grand Total Capacity @ 3 people per car Capacity @ 2.6 people per car Capacity @ 2.2 people per car

Total Parking 135 171 57 95 230 1,090 400 2,178 6,534 5,663 4,792

Exclusive to promoter y

y y 1,625 4,875 4,225 3,575

Many interviewees expressed a desire to understand traffic capacity into and out of the site, particularly for concerts. Auburn’s White River Amphitheatre has had substantial problems with traffic jams before and after concerts, and had to reduce its target seating capacity from 20,000 to 16,000.7 We understand the design team is currently studying ingress and egress to the site for concert conditions.

Other Infrastructure Other site infrastructure and amenities that rose to the top were access to bathrooms and good truck/trailer access. Interviewees were divided on the wisdom of making substantial investments in restrooms, but noted that audiences always prefer something other than a port-a-potty. Support buildings for box office and concessions were considered nice-to-have and not a high priority. Back of house support spaces like dressing rooms are often covered by trailers for outdoor concert series.

Finally, we discussed the need for perimeter control and fencing for ticketed events. Most promoters said they would have to visit the site to make an informed assessment, but also noted that with the Sound to the west, the golf course to the north, and the water treatment plan to the south, the likelihood of large numbers of people ‘sneaking in’ is low. Most suggested that access control and good wayfinding at the east end would be the most important.

Challenges and Opportunities Interviewees’ responses were quite consistent regarding the main challenges and opportunities associated with expanding the level of concert and festival activity at CCRP:

Challenges •

Managing neighborhood and public sentiment Interviewees all underscored the importance of a positive and close relationship with the surrounding neighborhood throughout program planning and implementation. Concert and festival activity would bring noise, traffic, alcohol and other impacts to the nearby neighborhood, and promoters cited expectations management in this area as an important key to success.

7

Markovich, Matt. “Large Crowds Crippling Traffic near Auburn Concert Venue.” KOMO. June 19, 2015.

10 June 2019

7

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

•

Right-sizing expectations around net revenue The first question many interviewees asked was “what is the County’s goal in bringing this activity to the site?” They wanted to know if the primary goal is to ‘make money’ vs. bringing activity and vibrancy to a public place. Promoters and public entities alike underscored the importance of understanding that, on average, concerts and festivals in public venues are unlikely to yield substantial net revenue. A promoter with an exclusive arrangement would likely pay Parks a flat rental fee, or have an agreement about a base fee with a percentage of sales beyond a certain threshold. The promoter will be taking the programming risk, and some concerts will make money, others will lose money. While the revenue to Parks from concerts and festivals will help sustain CCRP’s upkeep, it is unlikely to be a substantial net revenue driver for the County, at least in the near term.

•

Building the identity of a new venue While great enthusiasm exists around the possibilities for a new concert/festival venue at CCRP, most promoters identified building the brand identity and marketing reach for a new venue would be a significant near-term challenge. Each suggested partnering with the County to fund the development of a unique identity across all programming, and to expand awareness about the venue during project implementation.

Opportunities •

Developing a successful public-private partnership The site and its market context represent a perfect opportunity for Pierce County to establish a robust partnership with a concert/festival promoter and other program providers. This partnership is ideally positioned to create value for both parties, as well as others that may be engaged for one-off events.

•

Sustaining the site through concert and event activity Although substantial net revenue from a concert/festival series is not something to count on, revenues from a partnership with a concert promoter would yield revenues that would support annual grounds upkeep and general maintenance at this important public amenity. More line-ofbusiness analysis is needed, but it is possible that the concert series revenue could offset certain current costs associated with free public programming.

•

Bringing more people to this unique location Interviewees were enthusiastic about bringing this unique site into the public consciousness and helping more people to enjoy it. The open space, views, and accessibility are unmatched in the Puget Sound area, and it represents an extraordinary opportunity to create public value by increasing activity.

•

Serving the growing South Sound audience market Each of the promoters we spoke with were enthusiastic about the marketplace and had been informally thinking about an outdoor venue in the South Sound. As the region’s creative centerof-gravity continues to move south, the opportunities to serve this market grow broader and broader. Interviewees agreed that the timing is right to develop a venue to serve this marketplace.

10 June 2019

8

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

Next Steps This preliminary study indicates strong potential for developing a new concert/festival venue at CCRP. In addition to continuing design efforts around site infrastructure, we recommend the County undertake the following tasks in parallel, with the objective of engaging a programming partner prior to the completion of design:

1) Affirm the County’s Goals for CCRP When asked about key next steps, most promoters suggested that the County would need to clearly define its goals for bringing concert or festival activity to CCRP. These goals would form the basis for soliciting programming partnerships, and would inform the type(s) of programming planned for the site, as well as the agreement with a programming partner. Key questions include: -

What does the County hope to achieve by expanding programming at CCRP? How might the project serve the County’s goals of improving vibrancy and quality of life?

Does the County have specific revenue goals for the project?

What kinds of new programming does the County envision at CCRP?

2) Solicit and Document Public Opinion We understand there is a public engagement process associated with the design effort already under way, and it’s possible this will be sufficient to document public opinion about the project. However, we recommend that extra efforts to engage the local neighborhood be undertaken, both to assess general support and to solicit feedback about the type and frequency of programming planned. Promoters all indicated a desire for solid, well-documented neighborhood buy-in as part of developing programming.

3) Coordinate with Relevant Entities An expansion in activity will require, at minimum, coordination with Public Safety during concert events, and with Chambers Bay Golf Course and the nearby planned resort. We recommend engaging these groups (and any other relevant County agencies) soon to solicit feedback about program planning and identify any relevant constraints.

4) Study Exemplar Venues Through this study process, a number of comparable venues have been identified. We recommend more in-depth studies of these outdoor venues (and perhaps others) including level and type of programming, programming agreements, level of municipal service, costs, revenues, and attendance. These studies would inform the development of an RFQ/RFP for a program partner, help support the County’s position during contract development, and help flesh out what this “line of business” could do for the County.

Comparator venues could include, but may not be limited to Marymoor Park, Chateau St. Michelle, and Spokane Riverfront Park.

5) Develop RFQ for Programming Partner Based on the results of the tasks above, the County should prioritize issuing an RFQ (or RFP) for a program partner. It would be ideal to engage this partner during the design process so their expertise can help inform key decisions. Even if a full partnership agreement is not executed during design, a mutuallyagreeable letter-of-intent could facilitate a partner’s involvement as the contract and programming details are being worked out. Inviting prospective program partners to visit the site would be a near-term way to move this task ahead.

10 June 2019

9

Chambers Creek Regional Park – Central Meadow Opportunities & Constraints Study Summary Report

___ Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this exciting project!

Appendices A. Outline provided to interviewees B. Interviewee contact information C. Arts Market Overview (60m drive time from CCRP, Pierce County, WA State and USA)

10 June 2019

10

Interview Outline Project: Re:

Chambers Creek Regional Park: Opportunities & Constraints Study Producer/Promoter Interviews

Project Background We have been asked by Pierce County Parks and Recreation to study options for event infrastructure at Chambers Creek Regional Park, directly adjacent to Chambers Bay Golf Course (the site of the 2015 US Open).

The 930-acre park has a view of Puget Sound and a large, mostly flat lawn known as the Great Meadow. They currently hosts a variety of free public programming, including family activities, festivals, athletic events, and more, with attendance of up to 8,500.

The site has also hosted several larger-scale events in the past, and Parks wishes to consider the possibilities for infrastructure investments that might draw more large festivals, concerts, and other programming to the park.

An event promoter would have exclusive control over 3 lots with a total of 1625 spaces – an additional 550 spaces would be held for general park use. We anticipate this parking works for 3500-4500 attendees. Vehicular access is being studied by a traffic engineer concurrently with this study. At present, there is no fence/perimeter control, nor installed stages or power. Pierce County Parks is considering substantial investments in infrastructure to support concert and festival uses.

Thank you in advance for considering the questions below - we look forward discussing them during our call.

Questions Would promoters be interested in a new venue in this market area? Why? What types and scale of events might be right for this venue? How often might they occur?

What site amenities/ features/ infrastructure would have to be in place vs nice to have? E.g.: -

Power disconnects Parking spaces Perimeter control / fence Permanent stage(s) Permanent bathrooms

-

Concessions & other support buildings Nearby lodging Good traffic ingress/egress Truck access / loading What else?

What might the typical arrangement with the Parks department look like? Risk? Services? Fees?

What challenges do you see for Parks in this effort? For promoters?

What opportunities do you see at this site?

What major questions would have to be addressed before considering this further?

Chambers Creek Regional Park Interviewee Contact Information

Kim Bedier Tom Alexander Director Booking Manager kbedier@tacomavenues.org talexander@tacomavenues.org Tacoma Venues & Events, City of Tacoma Tacoma Venues & Events, City of Tacoma https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/tacoma_venues___events Mike Combs Consultant, Past Director of Tacoma Dome Mcee2009@hotmail.com

Phil O'Sullivan Partner & General Manager phil@artisthome.org Artist Home http://artisthome.org/

Marc Jones Director of Marketing & Business Development Marc.Jones@seattle.gov Seattle Center, City of Seattle http://www.seattlecenter.com/

Lance Miller Campus Manager Lance.Miller@seattle.gov Seattle Center, City of Seattle http://www.seattlecenter.com/

Ryan Schroeder Director of Event Operations RyanS@festivals-inc.com Festivals, Inc. https://www.festivals-inc.com/

Rob Thomas Vice President of Pacific Northwest rthomas@aegpresents.com AEG Live https://www.aegworldwide.com/divisions/music

Jeff Trisler Vice President JeffTrisler@livenation.com LiveNation https://www.livenation.com

Adam Zacks Chief Programming Officer adamz@stgpresents.org Seattle Theatre Group https://www.stgpresents.org/

Arts Market Overview CCRP Drive Time (Fri 6:00 PM): 60 minute radius

Demographic Summary Population Households Median Household Income Median Net Worth

2018 1,623,910 606,750 $67,443 $122,096

Net Worth Index

2023 1,735,550 646,100 $78,252

118

Educational Attainment

Number of Adults

Percent

Bachelor's Degree

204,487

18.52%

Graduate/Professional Degree

111,887

10.13%

Total Age

632,748

29%

2018

2017%

2023

2022%

102,743 102,102 101,671 98,819 Total <20 114,137 124,348 116,006 109,166 98,382 100,852 104,999 111,181 101,066 Total <65 85,451 60,232 39,624 25,152 27,978 Total 65+

6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1% 25.0% 7.0% 7.7% 7.1% 6.7% 6.1% 6.2% 6.5% 6.9% 6.2% 60.4% 5.3% 3.7% 2.4% 1.6% 1.7% 14.7%

109,825 106,552 107,753 103,757

6.33% 6.14% 6.21% 5.98%

109,251 122,794 132,237 121,908 112,965 99,372 102,616 104,603 108,405

6.29% 7.08% 7.62% 7.02% 6.51% 5.73% 5.91% 6.03% 6.25%

97,544 77,935 54,820 32,650 30,563

5.62% 4.49% 3.16% 1.88% 1.76%

Adults

Percent

MPI

Attended classical music/opera performance/12 mo

45,577

3.62%

97

Attended dance performance in last 12 months

53,128

4.22%

99

149,170

11.84%

102

Went to museum in last 12 months

168,023

13.34%

103

Went to art gallery in last 12 months

100,061

7.94%

100

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Product/Consumer Behavior Performing Arts

Went to live theater in last 12 months Museum/Fine Arts

Popular Music Attended country music performance in last 12 mo Attended rock music performance in last 12 months

84,426

6.70%

102

128,001

10.16%

108

Arts Participation Played musical instrument in last 12 months Did painting/drawing in last 12 months Danced/went dancing in last 12 months

95,604

7.59%

101

101,189

8.03%

106

96,487

7.66%

101

Data note: An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the adults or households in the specified trade area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average. These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition. Usage data were collected by GfK MRI in a nationally representative survey of U.S. households. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022.

May 16, 2019

Arts Market Overview Pierce County, WA Geography: County

Demographic Summary Population Households Median Household Income Median Net Worth

2018 883,364 327,745 $67,418 $123,103

Net Worth Index

2023 945,414 349,807 $78,218

119

Educational Attainment Bachelor's Degree Graduate/Professional Degree Total Age

Number of Adults

Percent

106,686

17.89%

57,792

9.69%

328,956

28%

2018

2017%

2023

2022%

57,419 57,101 56,386 54,189 Total <20 62,015 67,754 62,876 59,313 53,985 55,316 57,553 60,050 53,909 Total <65 45,072 31,704 20,995 13,360 14,367 Total 65+

6.5% 6.5% 6.4% 6.1% 25.5% 7.0% 7.7% 7.1% 6.7% 6.1% 6.3% 6.5% 6.8% 6.1% 60.3% 5.1% 3.6% 2.4% 1.5% 1.6% 14.2%

61,521 59,799 59,846 57,025

6.51% 6.33% 6.33% 6.03%

59,492 67,326 72,773 66,319 61,361 54,019 55,984 56,856 58,305

6.29% 7.12% 7.70% 7.01% 6.49% 5.71% 5.92% 6.01% 6.17%

51,887 40,986 28,845 17,211 15,859

5.49% 4.34% 3.05% 1.82% 1.68%

Adults

Percent

MPI

Attended classical music/opera performance/12 mo

24,595

3.61%

96

Attended dance performance in last 12 months

28,418

4.17%

98

Went to live theater in last 12 months

80,712

11.86%

102

Went to museum in last 12 months

91,594

13.45%

104

Went to art gallery in last 12 months

54,437

8.00%

101

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Product/Consumer Behavior Performing Arts

Museum/Fine Arts

Popular Music Attended country music performance in last 12 mo

45,857

6.74%

103

Attended rock music performance in last 12 months

70,343

10.33%

110

Arts Participation Played musical instrument in last 12 months

52,386

7.69%

103

Did painting/drawing in last 12 months

55,085

8.09%

106

Danced/went dancing in last 12 months

52,408

7.70%

101

Data note: An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the adults or households in the specified trade area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average. These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition. Usage data were collected by GfK MRI in a nationally representative survey of U.S. households. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022.

June 03, 2019

Arts Market Overview Washington Geography: State

Demographic Summary Population Households Median Household Income Median Net Worth

2018 7,452,102 2,874,133 $68,734 $132,368

Net Worth Index

2023 7,950,929 3,060,684 $79,382

128

Educational Attainment

Number of Adults

Bachelor's Degree Graduate/Professional Degree Total Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Product/Consumer Behavior Performing Arts

Percent

1,146,702

22.36%

696,906

13.59%

3,687,216

36%

2018

2017%

2023

2022%

447,845 454,728 460,269 455,549 Total <20 504,389 542,472 518,508 499,279 458,100 468,851 483,257 514,144 479,110 Total <65 415,373 294,434 192,193 122,174 141,427 Total 65+

6.0% 6.1% 6.2% 6.1% 24.4% 6.8% 7.3% 7.0% 6.7% 6.2% 6.3% 6.5% 6.9% 6.4% 60.0% 5.6% 4.0% 2.6% 1.6% 1.9% 15.6%

476,026 470,066 481,251 477,434

5.99% 5.91% 6.05% 6.00%

491,176 545,032 587,618 545,933 516,371 463,174 481,204 486,942 507,649

6.18% 6.85% 7.39% 6.87% 6.49% 5.83% 6.05% 6.12% 6.38%

466,897 379,263 264,316 158,116 152,461

5.87% 4.77% 3.32% 1.99% 1.92%

Adults

Percent

MPI

Attended classical music/opera performance/12 mo

246,168

4.22%

113

Attended dance performance in last 12 months

269,328

4.62%

109

Went to live theater in last 12 months

752,335

12.91%

111

Went to museum in last 12 months

844,443

14.49%

112

Went to art gallery in last 12 months

523,696

8.99%

114

Museum/Fine Arts

Popular Music Attended country music performance in last 12 mo

408,144

7.00%

107

Attended rock music performance in last 12 months

608,192

10.44%

111

Arts Participation Played musical instrument in last 12 months

469,453

8.06%

107

Did painting/drawing in last 12 months

481,405

8.26%

109

Danced/went dancing in last 12 months

462,626

7.94%

104

Data note: An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the adults or households in the specified trade area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average. These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition. Usage data were collected by GfK MRI in a nationally representative survey of U.S. households. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022.

June 03, 2019

Arts Market Overview USA Geography: USA

Demographic Summary Population Households Median Household Income Median Net Worth

2018 330,088,686 124,110,001 $58,100 $103,616

Net Worth Index

2023 343,954,683 129,076,036 $65,727

100

Educational Attainment

Number of Adults

Percent

Bachelor's Degree

44,100,485

19.60%

Graduate/Professional Degree

27,408,827

12.18%

Total Age 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Product/Consumer Behavior Performing Arts Attended classical music/opera performance/12 mo

143,018,624

32%

2018

2017%

2023

2022%

19,968,445 20,460,473 20,877,164 21,084,688 Total <20 22,646,440 23,557,337 22,355,094 21,419,362 19,879,801 20,736,487 21,395,762 22,375,085 20,552,366 Total <65 17,874,849 13,196,470 9,064,776 6,007,164 6,636,923 Total 65+

6.1% 6.2% 6.3% 6.4% 25.0% 6.9% 7.1% 6.8% 6.5% 6.0% 6.3% 6.5% 6.8% 6.2% 59.1% 5.4% 4.0% 2.8% 1.8% 2.0% 16.0%

20,712,703 20,686,037 21,356,683 21,696,066

6.02% 6.01% 6.21% 6.31%

21,612,571 22,724,609 24,574,306 23,129,515 21,944,713 19,928,478 20,822,718 21,014,806 21,745,623

6.28% 6.61% 7.14% 6.72% 6.38% 5.79% 6.05% 6.11% 6.32%

19,744,824 16,251,664 11,695,481 7,323,303 6,990,583

5.74% 4.72% 3.40% 2.13% 2.03%

Adults

Percent

MPI

9,619,247

3.75%

100

Attended dance performance in last 12 months

10,888,626

4.24%

100

Went to live theater in last 12 months

29,788,293

11.60%

100

Went to museum in last 12 months

33,180,189

12.92%

100

Went to art gallery in last 12 months

20,317,582

7.91%

100

Attended country music performance in last 12 mo

16,836,100

6.56%

100

Attended rock music performance in last 12 months

24,182,199

9.42%

100

Played musical instrument in last 12 months

19,243,676

7.49%

100

Did painting/drawing in last 12 months

19,548,943

7.61%

100

Danced/went dancing in last 12 months

19,565,770

7.62%

100

Museum/Fine Arts

Popular Music

Arts Participation

Data note: An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the adults or households in the specified trade area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100 represents the U.S. average. These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition. Usage data were collected by GfK MRI in a nationally representative survey of U.S. households. Esri forecasts for 2017 and 2022.

June 03, 2019

Chambers Creek Stage & Event Traffic Management Plan Prepared for: Pierce County Parks & Recreation Owen Richards Architects (ORA)

September 19, 2019

SE19-0675

Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Study Area....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Chambers Bay Resort Hotel ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Analysis Periods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................... 6

Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 8 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 LOS Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................11

Event Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 15 Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................................................15 Trip Generation ...........................................................................................................................................................................15 Trip Distribution and Assignment .......................................................................................................................................16 Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................................................................................21 LOS & Delay .........................................................................................................................................................................21 Travel Time ...........................................................................................................................................................................22 Summary of Results ..........................................................................................................................................................25

Traffic Management Strategies ................................................................................................. 26 Proposed Event Traffic Control .............................................................................................................................................26 Travel Demand Management Strategies ..........................................................................................................................26

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 29

Appendices Appendix A: Central Meadow Site Plan Appendix B: Baseline Traffic Operations Reports Appendix C: Event Traffic Operations Reports

List of Figures Figure 1: Event Traffic Control ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Event Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Pre-Event Baseline Traffic Volumes (6-7PM) .......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Post-Event Baseline Traffic Volumes (9-10PM) ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Baseline Pre-Event Travel Time Estimates ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6: Baseline Post-Event Travel Times Estimates ........................................................................................................ 14 Figure 7: Pre-Event Traffic Distribution Percentages ........................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Post-Event Traffic Distribution Percentages ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 9: Pre-Event Traffic Volumes (6-7PM) ......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 10: Post-Event Traffic Volumes (9-10PM) .................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 11: Travel Time Estimates for Pre-Event with Traffic Control Officers at Intersections 4 and 5 (67PM)............................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 12: Travel Time Estimates for Post-Event with Traffic Control Officers at Intersections 4 and 5 (910PM) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 13: Event Traffic Control Options .................................................................................................................................. 28

List of Tables Table 1: Level of Service Descriptions .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Weekday Evening Baseline Pre-Event (6-7PM) and Post-Event (9-10PM) Intersection Level of Service Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Weekday Evening Event Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 15 Table 4: Weekday Evening Baseline Plus Event Stage Intersection Level of Service Summary .......................... 22

1

Photo by Jeff Lefferts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffleff/)

Executive Summary Pierce County Parks and Recreation is conducting a feasibility study for an event stage in the Central Meadow of Chambers Creek Regional Park. Fehr & Peers evaluated the traffic management options and plans for any resulting events. This report details the traffic management plan and possible traffic mitigation options for events at Chambers Creek Regional Park.

This Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) includes information on data collection, analysis of traffic

operations at key study intersections, and potential management strategies for traffic before and after an event. Event traffic was analyzed for the worst-case scenario, a weekday event during the school year.

However, most events will likely occur during the summer and on weekends. Event generated traffic is expected to increase pre-event southbound travel times by about 12 minutes on Grandview Drive, from Cirque Drive to 64th Street/Chambers Creek Road. Less delay is expected for westbound Chambers Creek Road traffic between Bridgeport Way and the event entrance. Existing baseline traffic volumes are much lower for post-event departure times because events would let out around 10PM. Adjacent roadways are expected to be heavily congested immediately following each event. Because all event traffic must exit from one access point, effects on existing neighborhood traffic and nearby intersections are expected to be minor. Event traffic is expected to clear within 1.5 hours of event completion. Figure 1 shows recommended traffic control practices to be used before and after events. Event traffic notice signs placed in key areas will notify local traffic of events so they can seek alternate routes. Traffic control officers at intersections near the event parking entrance/exit will work together to distribute traffic and assign rightof-way.

1

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 1: Event Traffic Control

2

2

Introduction

Pierce County Parks and Recreation is studying the feasibility of an event stage in the Central Meadow at Chambers Creek Regional Park. The event stage would attract visitors from the region and increase traffic volumes during the hours before events (5-7 PM) and after events (8-10 PM). This report analyzes existing capacity of the roadways leading to the park, potential transportation impacts generated by an event and evaluates measures to mitigate these impacts.

Project Description Chambers Creek Regional Park is a 930-acre site located at 6320 Grandview Drive W in University Place, approximately 20 minutes west of Interstate 5 and immediately north of the Town of Steilacoom. The Central Meadow area of the park attracts many visitors for the views of the Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains, extensive trails, large lawn area, dog park, and bridge to access the beach.

This study focuses on the installation of an event stage in the Central Meadow, directly west of the Chambers Bay Golf Course. The event stage would support community events, festivals, concerts, and various activities. The Central Meadow site plan in Appendix A shows the location of the proposed event stage.

Attendees of events at the Central Meadow Stage would be instructed to enter/exit the park from Chambers Creek Road via a single access point at the Chambers Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. Event parking access would be restricted to the private access road and prohibited from the entrance at Grandview Drive and 62nd Street Court W, preventing conflicts between event traffic and traffic from non-event park patrons. Event parking would be provided to the south of the Central Meadow on the Event Lawn lots as shown in Figure 2. Parking in the Central Meadow Lot, located on the northern side of the meadow, will be limited to ADA accessible parking.

3

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 2: Event Parking

4

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Study Area Chambers Creek Regional Park is located in the southwest region of University Place, WA. The Central Meadow portion of the park is located between the Puget Sound to the west and Grandview Drive to the east. The study intersections were chosen in consultation with University Place Public Works staff and are listed below: 1.

Grandview Drive W/Cirque Drive W

2.

Grandview Drive W/56th Street W

3.

Grandview Drive W/62nd Street Court W

4.

Chambers Creek Road/64th Street W

5.

Chambers Creek Road/Wastewater Treatment Plant Access Road

6.

Bridgeport Way W/Chambers Lane W

7.

Bridgeport Way W/67th Avenue W

8.

Chambers Creek Road W/Chambers Lane W

Chambers Bay Resort Hotel The Chambers Bay Resort Hotel is a planned new development within Chambers Creek Regional Park. The plans include the construction of an 80-room hotel, event/meeting space, spa, 200-seat restaurant and bar and 80 golf villas. The resort has yet to begin construction. Resort traffic was included in existing baseline traffic volumes to provide an analysis of existing conditions as if the resort was already completed. Forecasted traffic volumes generated specifically by the resort are found in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Chambers Bay Resort Hotel, prepared by SCJ Alliance (February 2017).

Analysis Periods Weekday peak hours for the pre-event (6-7 PM) and post-event (9-10 PM) were chosen as the analysis periods for this study. Weekday evening concerts were studied because they correspond to the highest peak period on the adjacent streets. This period also represents the time when event generated traffic will be highest. The analysis of impacts during this period will yield the highest impact scenario for a given study intersection.

Chambers Creek TMP

5

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Analysis Methodology Level of Service (LOS) describes the operating performance of an intersection or roadway. LOS is measured quantitatively and reported on a scale from A to F, representing the least and greatest delay respectively.

LOS was evaluated using Synchro 10 software and HCM 6th Edition methodology for each signalized or stop-controlled study intersection. This methodology has different quantitative evaluations for different types of intersections: for signalized, roundabouts, and all-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS is provided for the overall intersection (weighted average of all approach delays); whereas only the worst movement delay is reported for two- or one-way stop-controlled intersections. SIDRA 8 software was used to analyze roundabout controlled study intersection LOS. Table 1 provides a brief description of each LOS letter designation and an accompanying average delay per vehicle for both signalized and unsignalized intersections.

6

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Table 1: Level of Service Descriptions Signalized Intersections

Unsignalized Intersections

Avg. Delay (Sec/Veh)

Avg. Delay (Sec/Veh)

LOS

Description

A

Free Flow / Insignificant Delay Extremely favorable progression. Individual users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream.

< 10

< 10

B

Stable Operations / Minimum Delays Good progression. The presence of other users in the traffic stream becomes noticeable.

> 10 to 20

> 10 to 15

C

Stable Operations / Acceptable Delays Fair progression. The operation of individual users is affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream

> 20 to 35

> 15 to 25

D

Approaching Unstable Flows / Tolerable Delays Marginal progression. Operating conditions are noticeably more constrained.

> 35 to 55

> 25 to 35

E

Unstable Operations / Significant Delays Can Occur Poor progression. Operating conditions are at or near capacity.

> 55 to 80

> 35 to 50

F

Forced, Unpredictable Flows / Excessive Delays Unacceptable progression with forced or breakdown of operating conditions.

> 80

> 50

Source: Fehr & Peers descriptions, based on 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual, 2019.

Synchro and Sidra LOS analyses are the standard best practices for measuring impacts at stop controlled/signalized and roundabout intersections respectively. However, these methodologies do not consider delay from downstream intersections or metering of upstream intersections. For this analysis, it is expected that downstream queues created by vehicles entering the site pre-event would create impacts not captured by the LOS analysis. Additionally, in post-event conditions, the limited number of exits from the site will meter how quickly traffic is able to leave the site and arrive at the study intersections. To better understand these impacts, SimTraffic was used to evaluate travel time. SimTraffic is a microsimulation model included within the Synchro suite that can consider these variables. Travel time was averaged over five statistically valid runs and compared the baseline with event traffic. Changes in travel time can be a better indicator of the experience users can expect regarding how much longer it takes them to travel along the adjacent streets with and without park events.

Chambers Creek TMP

7

3 Existing Conditions Purpose The existing conditions analysis is conducted to study the intersections as they operate today without an event. If any of the study intersections have existing operational deficiencies, they would be identified here.

Traffic Volumes Vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle counts were collected for study intersections 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;6 while local schools were in session on June 13, 2019. Both pre-event and post-event times were collected. These counts captured typical park, commuting, and resident travel patterns on a date with favorable weather. Study intersections 7 and 8 were added to the analysis later, counts were collected on June 27th, 2019. Projected traffic volumes for the Chambers Bay Resort Hotel were added to the collected counts to estimate future background traffic conditions when an event may be taking place at the park. Baseline traffic volumes are shown Figure 3 and Figure 4.

8

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 3: Pre-Event Baseline Traffic Volumes (6-7PM)

Chambers Creek TMP

9

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 4: Post-Event Baseline Traffic Volumes (9-10PM)

10

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

LOS Analysis The baseline considers the existing traffic volumes on the adjacent roadway with the addition of the resort traffic expected to be generated. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 2 (see Appendix B for the detailed LOS reports). All study intersections operate with minimal delay for the weekday pre- and post-event peak hour under existing conditions. No study intersections fall below the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standard of LOS C.

Table 2: Weekday Evening Baseline Pre-Event (6-7PM) and Post-Event (9-10PM) Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Plus Resort Baseline

Intersection ID 1 2

Pre-Event (6-7PM)

Post-Event (9-10PM)

Location

Control1

LOS/Delay2

LOS/Delay2

Grandview Drive/Cirque Drive

Roundabout

A/3

A/3

Street

Roundabout

A/2

A/1

Street Court W

Roundabout

A/3

A/4

Grandview

Drive/56th

3

Grandview

4

Chambers Creek Road/64th Street W

TWSC

C/20

B/12

5

Chambers Creek Road/WWTP3 Access

TWSC

B/14

A/<10

6

Bridgeport Way/Chambers Lane

Signal

A/9

A/7

Signal4

C/23

B/17

TWSC

C/15

B/12

7 8

Drive/62nd

Bridgeport

Way/67th

Avenue

Chambers Lane/Chambers Creek Road

1. AWSC= All Way Stop Control, TWSC=Two Way Stop Control 2. Delay in seconds per vehicle 3. WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant 4. Analyzed using HCM 2000 Methodology due to non-standard phasing.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019

The Synchro and Sidra LOS analysis is the standard best practice for measuring impacts at stop controlled/signalized and roundabout intersections. However, under these conditions, they may not capture the full impacts expected during the peak conditions, pre and post event. To better understand these impacts, SimTraffic was used to evaluate the change in travel times between the baseline and the baseline with event traffic conditions. This evaluates the experience users can expect as far as a difference in travel time with and without events.

SimTraffic analysis was completed using baseline traffic volumes (existing plus resort generated) and travel times were estimated. For pre-event analysis period baseline conditions, travel time between Grandview/Cirque to the event entrance in the southbound direction was found to be approximately six minutes. For the post-event baseline conditions, the northbound travel time from the event exit to

Chambers Creek TMP

11

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Grandview/Cirque was also found to be approximately six minutes. This indicates that under both preand post-event baseline conditions, congestion along the corridor in the peak travel direction is minimal.

Travel times for baseline conditions for pre- and post-event analysis period are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

12

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 5: Baseline Pre-Event Travel Time Estimates

Chambers Creek TMP

13

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 6: Baseline Post-Event Travel Times Estimates

14

5 Event Conditions Purpose The event conditions are analyzed to determine transportation impacts of events on the surrounding transportation network, as well as inform traffic management strategies.

Trip Generation Vehicle trip generation was calculated based on available parking stalls. From the Chambers Creek Stage Parking Analysis completed previously by Fehr and Peers, 1,500 parking stalls were designated as available for event parking at the Central Meadow Stage. The parking constraint also setâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the maximum trip generation for an event as 1,500 trips to and from the park. For events starting at 7PM, it was assumed that approximately 2/3rds of attendees will arrive from 6-7PM, the pre-event analysis period. For the Post-event, it is expected that all attendees will depart within the hour of 9-10PM following the conclusion of an event. Trip generation estimates used are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Weekday Evening Event Trip Generation Unit

Total Trips

Pre-Event Peak Hour Trips (6-7PM)

Post-Event Peak Hour Trips (9-10PM)

Vehicles

1,500

1,000

1,500

Source: Fehr & Peers Chambers Creek Stage Parking Analysis Memorandum, 2019

15

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Trip Distribution and Assignment The total weekday Pre-Event Peak-Hour trips generated were assigned to the roadway network using a trip distribution developed from a travel demand model for Pierce County, event travel patterns, and local knowledge of traffic patterns. The trip distributions for the study intersections are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 as the percentage of inbound and outbound trips generated by the event travelling through each intersection. The traffic volumes analyzed for the pre- and post-event traffic are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

16

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 7: Pre-Event Traffic Distribution Percentages

Chambers Creek TMP

17

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 8: Post-Event Traffic Distribution Percentages

18

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 9: Pre-Event Traffic Volumes (6-7PM)

Chambers Creek TMP

19

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 10: Post-Event Traffic Volumes (9-10PM)

20

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Impact Analysis Traffic for event conditions was modeled using Synchro/SimTraffic. Modeling the existing conditions plus event traffic with no changes to the current traffic control demonstrated that traffic would be congested during the pre-event and post-event periods, and in some locations gridlocked. For example, traffic on the northbound and westbound legs of intersection four were completely stopped due the large number of event traffic vehicles turning eastbound right. In order to combat the congestion modeled with the current traffic control, a mitigation strategy was developed through an iterative process to determine the level of traffic control that would result in delayed but acceptable conditions. The below analysis was modeled with the following proposed mitigations: •

Chambers Creek Road/64th Street would include a traffic control officer during the pre-event and post-event period. In Synchro, this was modeled as a traffic signal as officers assign right-of-way in a similar manner to an actuated traffic signal.

•

Chambers Creek Road/Wastewater Treatment Plant Access Road would also include a traffic control officer to assign right-of-way and was modeled as a traffic signal.

•

Wastewater Treatment Plant Access Road was converted to a two-lane one-way instead of the existing two-way configuration to allow for increased roadway capacity. The Access Road was modeled as an inbound one-way for pre-event times to allow arriving attendees to use both lanes. Then for post-event times the direction of the one-way is switched to outbound to allow exiting attendees to use both lanes.

LOS & Delay In order to understand the impact of event traffic, pre- and post-event peak hour LOS was evaluated with the addition of event traffic.

During the pre-event peak hour, two intersections are degraded below the City standard of LOS C. The Chambers Creek Road/64th Street W intersection is degraded from LOS C to F, while the Chambers Lane/Chambers Creek Road is degraded from LOS C to D. During the post-event period all intersections continue to operate at or above LOS C. LOS and delay results are shown in Table 4. Appendix C has LOS reports for study intersections from Sidra and Synchro.

Chambers Creek TMP

21

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Table 4: Weekday Evening Baseline Plus Event Stage Intersection Level of Service Summary Baseline Plus Event Generated

Intersection ID

Pre-Event (6-7PM)

Post-Event (9-10PM)

Location

Control1

LOS/Delay2

LOS/Delay2

1

Grandview Drive/Cirque Drive

Roundabout

A/7

A/2

2

Grandview Drive/56th Street

Roundabout

A/2

A/2

3

Grandview Drive/62nd Street Court W

Roundabout

A/4

A/3

4

Chambers Creek Road/64th Street W

Signal

F/131

B/20

Signal4

C/23

B/15

B/11

A/7

5

Chambers Creek

Road/WWTP3

Access

6

Bridgeport Way/Chambers Lane

Signal4

7

Bridgeport Way/67th Avenue

Signal5

C/25

C/23

8

Chambers Lane/Chambers Creek Road

TWSC

D/35

C/19

1. AWSC= All Way Stop Control, TWSC=Two Way Stop Control 2. Delay in seconds per vehicle 3. WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant 4. Modeled as actuated uncoordinated signal = traffic officer 5. Analyzed using HCM 2000 Methodology due to non-standard phasing.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019

Travel Time Travel time results for the pre-event period indicate that under Event conditions, congestion in the southbound direction from Grandview/Cirque to the Event Entrance would result in a travel time of approximately 18 minutes. This corresponds to a 12-minute increase in travel time from the baseline conditions.

During the post-event period with event generated traffic, travel time remains similar to the baseline conditions. Travel time from the Event Entrance to Grandview/Cirque was found to be approximately seven minutes, a one-minute increase from baseline conditions.

Travel time estimates modeled with traffic officers at intersections Chambers Creek Road/64 th Street and Chambers Creek Road/WWTP Access Road are shown for pre- and post-event periods in Figure 11 and Figure 12.

22

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 11: Travel Time Estimates for Pre-Event with Traffic Control Officers at Intersections 4 and 5 (6-7PM)

Chambers Creek TMP

23

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 12: Travel Time Estimates for Post-Event with Traffic Control Officers at Intersections 4 and 5 (9-10PM)

24

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Summary of Results Pre- and post-event traffic was modeled with two traffic control officers stationed at the critical intersections. For the pre-event arrival time (6-7PM) it was estimated there would be an increased travel time from event traffic on Grandview Drive and Chambers Creek Road. Travel time on Grandview Drive from Cirque Drive to 64th Street/Chambers Creek Road is expected to increase to about 18 minutes. About 2-3 minutes of travel time is expected on Chambers Creek Road from Bridgeport Way to Chambers Creek Road/64th Street. Because of the faster travel times, traffic may rebalance to allow for more equal delay across each route to the event parking areas.

Post-event departure times (9-10PM) had much lower existing/background traffic volumes than pre-event arrival times. SimTraffic modeling showed a negligible increase in travel times between baseline and event conditions. Because all event traffic must exit from one access point, effects on existing neighborhood traffic and nearby intersections are expected to be minor as traffic will be metered out of the event by traffic control officers. Congestion and delay following an event will be present on the park roadway system, between parking lots and the event exit at Chambers Creek Road. Event traffic is expected to clear within 1.5 hours of event end.

Chambers Creek TMP

25

5 Traffic Management Strategies Proposed Event Traffic Control Based on the iterative process described in Section 4, a management strategy was produced for weekday evening events. Traffic control officers would work together to distribute traffic and assign right-of-way at two critical intersections (shown in Figure 13): â&#x20AC;˘

Intersection 4: Chambers Creek Road/64th Street W

â&#x20AC;˘

Intersection 5: Chambers Creek Road/Wastewater Treatment Plant Access Road

We recommend that traffic control officers control these intersections for approximately 1-2 hours pre-

event and 1-2 hours post-event. This timeframe should cover most event attendees pre-event, and traffic officers can end their control of each intersection once queued traffic has left the area.

Travel Demand Management Strategies The level of mitigation practices used by event organizers may depend on specific characteristics of an event. Typical operational characteristics of a planned special event are event time of occurrence, event time and duration, event type, expected attendance, and audience accommodations. Each of these characteristics are variables that influence the potential impacts on the adjacent roadway network and the type of traffic management practices required of the event organizers by Pierce County. The County will need to consider the specifics of each event when determining how to mitigate event traffic impacts. The recommendation of intersection traffic control officers was based on analysis of a weekday evening concert event with maximum attendance. Other practices may be needed to counter the impacts of event

26

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

traffic on adjacent roadways or to improve the travel experience for neighbors and event attendees, depending on the characteristics of the event.

These are some strategies that should be considered when planning event traffic management solutions.

•

Event traffic notice signs (electronic or temporary) to notify local traffic of event traffic so they can seek alternative routes. Possible locations for event traffic notice signs are shown in Figure 13.

This strategy is relatively low cost and is recommended for every event.

•

Provide incentives to attendees to stagger their arrivals or departures from events to reduce the surge of traffic near the park. This could be done by organizing pre-event and/or post-event activities or offering discounted parking fees for attendees who arrive early.

•

Provide incentives to arrive via shared or alternative modes of transportation such as transit or TNCs during ticket purchase.

•

Offer carpool parking discounts and/or preferential parking locations. These discounts would likely be targeted to 3+ or 4+ occupant vehicles as most event attendees will already arrive with two or more people per vehicle.

•

Communicate event related traffic and optimal routes to attendees and local residences through event and park related publications, such as on-line forums, e-mail blasts, and websites. This would allow residents of the area to avoid routes used by attendees, thus reducing background traffic and minimizing inconveniences.

Chambers Creek TMP

27

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Figure 13: Event Traffic Control Options

28

Chambers Creek TMP September 19, 2019

Conclusion The proposed Central Meadow Stage will increase traffic and delay around Chambers Creek Regional Park during events. Events at the stage are expected to mainly increase travel times before the event and cause congestion (mostly for event attendees) immediately following the event. Event generated traffic is expected to increase pre-event southbound travel times to about 18 minutes on Grandview Drive, between Cirque Drive and 64th Street/Chambers Creek Road. Less delay is expected for westbound Chambers Creek Road traffic between Bridgeport Way and the event entrance. Event traffic is expected to clear within 1.5 hours of event completion. To mitigate the impacts of traffic from events it is recommended that event traffic notice signs and traffic control officers are used to distribute traffic and reduce delay at critical intersections.

Chambers Creek TMP

29

Appendix A: Central Meadow Site Plan

Appendix B: Baseline Traffic Operations Reports

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1_PM [Point-1_Pre-Event] Grandview Dr/Cirque Dr Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

8

T1

278

0.6

0.275

1.2

LOS A

2.0

50.5

0.14

0.20

0.14

25.2

18

R2

99

0.7

0.275

1.7

LOS A

2.0

50.5

0.14

0.20

0.14

24.7

377

0.6

0.275

1.3

LOS A

2.0

50.5

0.14

0.20

0.14

25.1

Approach East: Cirque Dr W 1

L2

136

0.4

0.155

7.2

LOS A

0.9

22.9

0.49

0.59

0.49

24.2

16

R2

32

0.7

0.155

3.3

LOS A

0.9

22.9

0.49

0.59

0.49

23.5

168

0.4

0.155

6.4

LOS A

0.9

22.9

0.49

0.59

0.49

24.1

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7

L2

18

1.1

0.229

6.4

LOS A

1.6

39.3

0.40

0.31

0.40

25.0

4

T1

260

0.6

0.229

2.0

LOS A

1.6

39.3

0.40

0.31

0.40

24.8

Approach

278

0.6

0.229

2.3

LOS A

1.6

39.3

0.40

0.31

0.40

24.8

All Vehicles

823

0.6

0.275

2.7

LOS A

2.0

50.5

0.30

0.32

0.30

24.8

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Monday, August 19, 2019 2:56:05 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Base\CC-Roundabouts_Existing-Baseline.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2_PM [Point-2_Pre-Event] Grandview Dr/56th St W Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

8

T1

348

0.7

0.281

1.3

LOS A

1.9

47.9

0.17

0.19

0.17

25.2

18

R2

33

0.9

0.281

1.8

LOS A

1.9

47.9

0.17

0.19

0.17

24.7

381

0.7

0.281

1.3

LOS A

1.9

47.9

0.17

0.19

0.17

25.1

Approach East: 56th St W 1

L2

9

0.0

0.018

7.4

LOS A

0.1

2.5

0.50

0.51

0.50

24.5

16

R2

9

0.0

0.018

3.4

LOS A

0.1

2.5

0.50

0.51

0.50

23.8

19

0.0

0.018

5.4

LOS A

0.1

2.5

0.50

0.51

0.50

24.1

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

5

0.0

0.281

7.0

LOS A

2.2

53.9

0.10

0.20

0.10

26.0

7

L2

24

0.0

0.281

5.6

LOS A

2.2

53.9

0.10

0.20

0.10

25.5

4

T1

362

0.0

0.281

1.1

LOS A

2.2

53.9

0.10

0.20

0.10

25.2

Approach

391

0.0

0.281

1.5

LOS A

2.2

53.9

0.10

0.20

0.10

25.2

All Vehicles

791

0.3

0.281

1.5

LOS A

2.2

53.9

0.14

0.20

0.14

25.2

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Monday, August 19, 2019 2:56:49 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Base\CC-Roundabouts_Existing-Baseline.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 3_PM [Point-3_Pre-Event] Grandview Dr/62nd St Ct Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3

L2

90

0.3

0.294

6.4

LOS A

2.1

52.2

0.40

0.38

0.40

8

T1

256

0.6

0.294

2.0

LOS A

2.1

52.2

0.40

0.38

0.40

24.6

18

R2

13

2.5

0.294

2.5

LOS A

2.1

52.2

0.40

0.38

0.40

24.1

360

0.6

0.294

3.1

LOS A

2.1

52.2

0.40

0.38

0.40

24.7

L2

4

0.0

0.014

7.4

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.52

0.53

26.1

6

T1

4

0.0

0.014

6.4

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.52

0.53

30.5

16

R2

4

0.0

0.014

3.6

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.52

0.53

25.1

13

0.0

0.014

5.8

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.52

0.53

27.1

Approach

24.9

East: 62nd St Ct W 1

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7

L2

22

0.2

0.278

6.2

LOS A

2.0

49.2

0.35

0.31

0.35

26.6

4

T1

229

0.5

0.278

1.3

LOS A

2.0

49.2

0.35

0.31

0.35

26.2

14

R2

Approach

99

0.3

0.278

4.9

LOS A

2.0

49.2

0.35

0.31

0.35

25.5

351

0.5

0.278

2.6

LOS A

2.0

49.2

0.35

0.31

0.35

26.0 24.8

West: Grandview Dr W 5

L2

99

0.0

0.161

6.7

LOS A

0.9

22.6

0.44

0.51

0.44

2

T1

4

0.0

0.161

1.8

LOS A

0.9

22.6

0.44

0.51

0.44

24.5

12

R2

84

0.0

0.161

2.2

LOS A

0.9

22.6

0.44

0.51

0.44

24.0

Approach

188

0.0

0.161

4.6

LOS A

0.9

22.6

0.44

0.51

0.44

24.4

All Vehicles

911

0.4

0.294

3.3

LOS A

2.1

52.2

0.39

0.38

0.39

25.2

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Monday, August 19, 2019 3:01:04 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Base\CC-Roundabouts_Existing-Baseline.sip8

HCM 6th TWSC 4: Chambers Creek Rd & 64th St W

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

10.2

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 126 149 200 122 182 272 Future Vol, veh/h 126 149 200 122 182 272 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 10 10 0 2 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 200 - 100 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 130 154 206 126 188 280 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS

EB 0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Existing Plus Resort 6-7PM

Major2 0 294 - 4.11 - 2.209 - 1273 - 1261 -

Minor1 0 757 - 217 - 540 6.4 5.4 5.4 3.5 - 378 - 824 - 588 - 313 - 313 - 816 - 491

WB 5.2

NB 20 C

NBLn1 NBLn2 313 820 0.599 0.342 32.3 11.7 D B 3.6 1.5

217 6.2 3.3 828 820 -

EBT EBR WBL WBT - 1261 - 0.164 8.4 A 0.6 -

HCM 6th TWSC 5: Chambers Creek Rd/Chambers Creel Rd & Driveway

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

0.2

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 522 345 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 5 522 345 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 5 5 555 367 5 Major/Minor Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 935 Stage 1 370 Stage 2 565 Critical Hdwy 6.4 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 297 Stage 1 703 Stage 2 573 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 295 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 295 Stage 1 699 Stage 2 573 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS

Major1 370 372 6.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 680 1198 680 1198 -

Major2 0 -

NB 0.1

SB 0

EB 14 B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Existing Plus Resort 6-7PM

NBL 1198 0.004 8 A 0

NBT EBLn1 - 411 - 0.026 0 14 A B 0.1

0 -

SBT SBR -

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Bridgeport Way W & Chambers Ln W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBU

SBT

SBR

222 222 0 1.00 1.00 No 1900 227 0.98 0 309 0.17 1810 227 1810 6.0 6.0 1.00 309 0.73 669 1.00 1.00 19.7 3.4 0.0 2.5

85 85 0 1.00 1.00

217 217 0 1.00 1.00

600 600 0

0 0

572 572 0

230 230 0 0.99 1.00

1900 87 0.98 0 275 0.17 1610 87 1610 2.4 2.4 1.00 275 0.32 595 1.00 1.00 18.2 0.7 0.0 0.8

1885 221 0.98 1 565 0.10 1795 221 1795 2.7 2.7 1.00 565 0.39 752 1.00 1.00 5.1 0.4 0.0 0.7

23.1 C 314 21.9 C

18.8 B

5.6 A

1 8.8 4.0 10.0 4.7 0.3

2 28.2 4.5 18.5 7.1 3.7

Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Existing Plus Resort 6-7PM

9.1 A

1.00 No 1885 612 0.98 1 2326 0.65 3676 612 1791 3.6 3.6

1.00 No 1885 584 0.98 1 1696 0.47 3676 584 1791 5.1 5.1

2326 0.26 2326 1.00 1.00 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.8

1696 0.34 1696 1.00 1.00 8.3 0.6 0.0 1.7

4.0 A 833 4.4 A

8.8 A 819 9.0 A

4 13.1 4.5 18.5 8.0 0.7

6 37.0 4.5 32.5 5.6 4.5

1885 235 0.98 1 751 0.47 1586 235 1586 4.6 4.6 1.00 751 0.31 751 1.00 1.00 8.1 1.1 0.0 1.4 9.2 A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 67th Ave W & Bridgeport Way W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

92 92 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1804 0.29 559 0.95 97 0 97 3

508 508 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3602 1.00 3602 0.95 535 1 542

8 8 1900

60 60 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.42 806 0.95 63 0 63

576 576 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3610 1.00 3610 0.95 606 0 606

0% pm+pt 5 2 42.2 42.2 0.51 4.0 3.0 417 c0.02 0.09 0.23 11.3 1.00 0.3 11.6 B

0% NA 2

0%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Existing Plus Resort 6-7PM

0.95 8 0 0

33.3 33.3 0.40 4.5 3.0 1443 0.15 0.38 17.6 1.00 0.2 17.7 B 16.8 B 22.7 0.46 83.1 49.9% 15

0% pm+pt 1 6 35.8 35.8 0.43 4.0 3.0 415 0.01 0.05 0.15 14.0 1.00 0.2 14.1 B

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

260 260 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1571 1.00 1571 0.95 274 164 110 3 2 0% 0% NA custom 6 2 30.1 33.3 30.1 33.3 0.36 0.40 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 1307 629 c0.17 0.07 0.46 0.17 20.3 16.0 1.00 1.00 0.3 0.1 20.6 16.2 C B 18.9 B

8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.95 8 0 8

104 104 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1.00 1900 0.95 109 0 109

76 76 1900 4.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.95 80 71 9 1

288 288 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1715 0.95 1715 0.95 303 0 197 1

92 92 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1759 0.97 1759 0.95 97 0 203

100 100 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 105 94 11

0% Split 4

0% 0% NA custom 4 5 9.9 8.9 9.9 8.9 0.12 0.11 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 226 170 c0.06 0.01 0.48 0.05 34.2 33.3 1.00 1.00 1.6 0.1 35.8 33.4 D C 34.7 C

0% Split 3

0% NA 3

0% Over 5

16.7 16.7 0.20 4.5 3.0 344 0.11

16.7 16.7 0.20 4.5 3.0 353 c0.12

8.9 8.9 0.11 4.0 3.0 172 0.01

0.57 30.0 1.00 2.3 32.3 C

0.58 30.0 1.00 2.3 32.3 C 32.5 C

0.07 33.4 1.00 0.2 33.5 C

9.9 9.9 0.12 4.5 3.0 215 0.00 0.04 32.4 1.00 0.1 32.5 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

C 17.5 A

HCM 6th TWSC 8: Chambers Creek Rd & Chambers Ln W

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

3.1

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 156 156 5 276 140 12 Future Vol, veh/h 156 156 5 276 140 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 163 163 5 288 146 13 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS

Major2 0 326 4.1 2.2 - 1245 - 1245 -

Minor1 0 543 - 245 - 298 6.4 5.4 5.4 3.5 - 504 - 800 - 758 - 502 - 502 - 800 - 755

WB 0.1

NB 15 C

EB 0

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Existing Plus Resort 6-7PM

NBLn1 517 0.306 15 C 1.3

245 6.2 3.3 799 799 -

EBT EBR WBL WBT - 1245 - 0.004 7.9 A 0 -

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1_PM2 [Point-1_Post-Event] Grandview Dr/Cirque Dr Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

2

0.0

0.161

7.2

LOS A

1.0

25.0

0.18

0.22

0.18

26.0

8

T1

151

0.0

0.161

1.3

LOS A

1.0

25.0

0.18

0.22

0.18

25.1

18

R2

Approach

63

0.0

0.161

1.8

LOS A

1.0

25.0

0.18

0.22

0.18

24.6

217

0.0

0.161

1.5

LOS A

1.0

25.0

0.18

0.22

0.18

25.0

East: Cirque Dr W 1

L2

66

0.0

0.074

6.4

LOS A

0.4

10.3

0.35

0.51

0.35

24.4

16

R2

23

0.0

0.074

2.4

LOS A

0.4

10.3

0.35

0.51

0.35

23.7

89

0.0

0.074

5.3

LOS A

0.4

10.3

0.35

0.51

0.35

24.2

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

4

0.0

0.158

7.4

LOS A

1.0

24.8

0.25

0.29

0.25

25.7

7

L2

35

0.0

0.158

5.9

LOS A

1.0

24.8

0.25

0.29

0.25

25.1

4

T1

167

0.0

0.158

1.5

LOS A

1.0

24.8

0.25

0.29

0.25

24.9

Approach

206

0.0

0.158

2.4

LOS A

1.0

24.8

0.25

0.29

0.25

24.9

All Vehicles

512

0.0

0.161

2.5

LOS A

1.0

25.0

0.24

0.30

0.24

24.8

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:24:00 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\CC-Roundabouts_Existing-Baseline.sip8

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2_PM2 [Point-2_Post-Event] Grandview Dr/56th St W Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

4

0.0

0.185

7.1

LOS A

1.1

28.0

0.13

0.19

0.13

26.1

8

T1

239

0.0

0.185

1.2

LOS A

1.1

28.0

0.13

0.19

0.13

25.2

18

R2

Approach

11

0.0

0.185

1.7

LOS A

1.1

28.0

0.13

0.19

0.13

24.7

254

0.0

0.185

1.3

LOS A

1.1

28.0

0.13

0.19

0.13

25.2

3

0.0

0.003

2.8

LOS A

0.0

0.3

0.42

0.34

0.42

24.3

3

0.0

0.003

2.8

LOS A

0.0

0.3

0.42

0.34

0.42

24.3 26.1

East: 56th St W 16

R2

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

13

0.0

0.198

7.0

LOS A

1.3

31.3

0.05

0.20

0.05

7

L2

9

0.0

0.198

5.5

LOS A

1.3

31.3

0.05

0.20

0.05

25.6

4

T1

256

0.0

0.198

1.1

LOS A

1.3

31.3

0.05

0.20

0.05

25.3

Approach

277

0.0

0.198

1.5

LOS A

1.3

31.3

0.05

0.20

0.05

25.3

All Vehicles

534

0.0

0.198

1.4

LOS A

1.3

31.3

0.09

0.19

0.09

25.3

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:25:39 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\CC-Roundabouts_Existing-Baseline.sip8

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 3_PM [Point-3_Post-Event] Grandview Dr/62nd St Ct Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

1

0.0

0.143

7.7

LOS A

0.9

21.4

0.34

0.41

0.34

25.5

3

L2

73

0.0

0.143

6.2

LOS A

0.9

21.4

0.34

0.41

0.34

24.8

8

T1

100

0.0

0.143

1.8

LOS A

0.9

21.4

0.34

0.41

0.34

24.5

18

R2

2

0.0

0.143

2.3

LOS A

0.9

21.4

0.34

0.41

0.34

24.0

177

0.0

0.143

3.7

LOS A

0.9

21.4

0.34

0.41

0.34

24.6

Approach East: 62nd St Ct W 1

L2

2

0.0

0.004

6.7

LOS A

0.0

0.5

0.41

0.45

0.41

24.8

16

R2

2

0.0

0.004

2.8

LOS A

0.0

0.5

0.41

0.45

0.41

23.8

4

0.0

0.004

4.7

LOS A

0.0

0.5

0.41

0.45

0.41

24.3

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

3

0.0

0.152

7.4

LOS A

0.9

23.7

0.27

0.30

0.27

27.8

7

L2

2

0.0

0.152

5.9

LOS A

0.9

23.7

0.27

0.30

0.27

27.2

4

T1

117

0.0

0.152

1.0

LOS A

0.9

23.7

0.27

0.30

0.27

26.8

14

R2

75

0.0

0.152

4.6

LOS A

0.9

23.7

0.27

0.30

0.27

26.1

198

0.0

0.152

2.6

LOS A

0.9

23.7

0.27

0.30

0.27

26.6

Approach

West: Grandview Dr W 5

L2

117

0.0

0.160

6.1

LOS A

0.9

21.9

0.30

0.45

0.30

24.9

2

T1

1

0.0

0.160

1.2

LOS A

0.9

21.9

0.30

0.45

0.30

24.6

12

R2

89

0.0

0.160

1.6

LOS A

0.9

21.9

0.30

0.45

0.30

24.1

Approach

208

0.0

0.160

4.1

LOS A

0.9

21.9

0.30

0.45

0.30

24.5

All Vehicles

587

0.0

0.160

3.5

LOS A

0.9

23.7

0.30

0.39

0.30

25.2

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:26:57 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\CC-Roundabouts_Existing-Baseline.sip8

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

HCM 6th TWSC 4: Chambers Creek Rd & 64th St W/Chambers Creek Rd W

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

4

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 116 78 78 94 51 61 Future Vol, veh/h 116 78 78 94 51 61 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 200 - 100 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mvmt Flow 147 99 99 119 65 77 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Existing_8-10PM

EB 0

Major2 0 249 4.1 2.2 - 1328 - 1324 WB 3.6

NBLn1 NBLn2 479 841 0.135 0.092 13.7 9.7 B A 0.5 0.3

Minor1 0 517 200 - 200 - 317 - 6.41 6.21 - 5.41 - 5.41 - 3.509 3.309 - 520 843 - 836 - 741 - 479 841 - 479 - 833 - 685 NB 11.5 B EBT EBR WBL WBT - 1324 - 0.075 7.9 A 0.2 -

HCM 6th TWSC 5: Driveway & Chambers Creek Rd

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

0.5

Movement NBL NBT SBT SBR NEL NER Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 105 155 5 5 5 Future Vol, veh/h 5 105 155 5 5 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 121 178 6 6 6 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 184 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.1 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1403 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1403 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Existing_8-10PM

NB 0.3

Major2 0 -

Minor2 0 314 - 181 - 133 6.4 5.4 5.4 3.5 - 683 - 855 - 898 - 680 - 680 - 851 - 898

SB 0

NE 9.8 A

NELn1 NBL 762 1403 0.015 0.004 9.8 7.6 A A 0 0

NBT 0 A -

181 6.2 3.3 867 867 -

SBT SBR -

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Bridgeport Way W & Chambers Ln W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBU

SBT

SBR

83 83 0 1.00 1.00 No 1900 85 0.98 0 181 0.10 1810 85 1810 2.0 2.0 1.00 181 0.47 726 1.00 1.00 19.6 1.9 0.0 0.9

96 96 0 1.00 1.00

121 121 0 1.00 1.00

322 322 0

5 5

274 274 0

96 96 0 0.99 1.00

1900 98 0.98 0 161 0.10 1610 98 1610 2.7 2.7 1.00 161 0.61 646 1.00 1.00 19.9 3.7 0.0 1.1

1885 141 0.86 1 762 0.06 1795 141 1795 1.3 1.3 1.00 762 0.19 1037 1.00 1.00 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

21.5 C 183 22.6 C

23.5 C

3.2 A

1 6.9 4.0 10.0 3.3 0.2

2 30.1 4.5 18.5 4.0 2.1

Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Existing_8-10PM

6.8 A

1.00 No 1885 374 0.86 1 2524 0.70 3676 374 1791 1.6 1.6

1.00 No 1885 319 0.86 1 1986 0.55 3676 319 1791 2.0 2.0

2524 0.15 2524 1.00 1.00 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.2

1986 0.16 1986 1.00 1.00 5.0 0.2 0.0 0.5

2.4 A 515 2.6 A

5.2 A 431 5.2 A

4 9.1 4.5 18.5 4.7 0.4

6 37.0 4.5 32.5 3.6 2.6

1885 112 0.86 1 880 0.55 1588 112 1588 1.6 1.6 1.00 880 0.13 880 1.00 1.00 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.2 A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 67th Ave W & Bridgeport Way W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

67 67 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.47 876 0.92 73 0 73 1 1% pm+pt 5 2 34.1 34.1 0.52 4.0 3.0 540 c0.01 0.06 0.14 7.9 1.00 0.1 8.0 A

299 299 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3561 1.00 3561 0.92 325 2 330

6 6 1900

42 42 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1785 0.55 1036 0.92 46 0 46 2 1% pm+pt 1 6 29.1 29.1 0.44 4.0 3.0 501 0.01 0.04 0.09 10.4 1.00 0.1 10.5 B

355 355 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.92 386 0 386

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Existing_8-10PM

1% NA 2

0.92 7 0 0 2 1%

28.0 28.0 0.43 4.5 3.0 1522 0.09 0.22 11.8 1.00 0.1 11.9 B 11.2 B 16.6 0.33 65.5 41.3% 15

WBR

NBL

NBT

140 140 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1565 1.00 1565 0.92 152 87 65 1 1% 1% NA custom 6 2 25.5 28.0 25.5 28.0 0.39 0.43 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 1391 669 c0.11 0.04 0.28 0.10 13.7 11.2 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 13.8 11.3 B B 12.9 B

8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.92 9 0 9 2 0% Split 4

45 45 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1.00 1900 0.92 49 0 49

5.9 5.9 0.09 4.5 3.0 162 0.00 0.06 27.3 1.00 0.1 27.4 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

52 52 1900 4.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1585 1.00 1585 0.92 57 52 5 2 0% 0% NA custom 4 5 5.9 6.1 5.9 6.1 0.09 0.09 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 171 147 c0.03 0.00 0.29 0.04 27.8 27.0 1.00 1.00 0.9 0.1 28.8 27.1 C C 27.8 C

156 156 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.92 170 0 170 2 0% Split 3

57 57 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1783 1.00 1783 0.92 62 3 64 0% NA 3

48 48 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1534 1.00 1534 0.92 52 43 4 2 0% Over 5

10.5 10.5 0.16 4.5 3.0 289 c0.09

10.5 10.5 0.16 4.5 3.0 285 0.04

6.1 6.1 0.09 4.0 3.0 142 0.00

0.59 25.5 1.00 3.0 28.5 C

0.22 23.9 1.00 0.4 24.3 C 27.3 C

0.03 27.0 1.00 0.1 27.1 C

B 17.5 A

HCM 6th TWSC 8: Chambers Creek Rd & Chambers Ln W

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

1.8

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 147 80 6 172 59 6 Future Vol, veh/h 147 80 6 172 59 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 171 93 7 200 69 7 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Existing_8-10PM

Major2 0 264 4.1 2.2 - 1312 - 1312 -

Minor1 0 432 - 218 - 214 6.4 5.4 5.4 3.5 - 584 - 823 - 826 - 581 - 581 - 823 - 822

WB 0.3

NB 11.9 B

EB 0

NBLn1 597 0.127 11.9 B 0.4

218 6.2 3.3 827 827 -

EBT EBR WBL WBT - 1312 - 0.005 7.8 A 0 -

Appendix C: Event Traffic Operations Reports

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1_PM [Point-1_Pre-Event] Grandview Dr/Cirque Dr Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

8

T1

278

0.6

0.277

1.2

LOS A

2.4

58.9

0.16

0.20

0.16

25.2

18

R2

99

0.7

0.277

1.7

LOS A

2.4

58.9

0.16

0.20

0.16

24.7

377

0.6

0.277

1.3

LOS A

2.4

58.9

0.16

0.20

0.16

25.0

Approach East: Cirque Dr W 1

L2

641

0.1

0.624

9.0

LOS A

6.2

155.7

0.74

0.74

0.79

23.7

16

R2

32

0.7

0.624

5.1

LOS A

6.2

155.7

0.74

0.74

0.79

23.0

674

0.1

0.624

8.8

LOS A

6.2

155.7

0.74

0.74

0.79

23.7

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7

L2

18

1.1

0.573

13.7

LOS B

5.8

144.2

0.95

1.02

1.15

23.5

4

T1

386

0.4

0.573

9.2

LOS A

5.8

144.2

0.95

1.02

1.15

23.3

405

0.4

0.573

9.4

LOS A

5.8

144.2

0.95

1.02

1.15

23.3

1455

0.3

0.624

7.0

LOS A

6.2

155.7

0.65

0.68

0.73

23.9

Approach All Vehicles

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:04:02 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Plus_Project\CC-Roundabouts_Existing_PlusProject.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2_PM [Point-2_Pre-Event] Grandview Dr/56th St W Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

6

0.0

0.284

7.2

LOS A

2.0

51.3

0.16

0.20

0.16

8

T1

348

0.7

0.284

1.2

LOS A

2.0

51.3

0.16

0.20

0.16

25.2

18

R2

33

0.9

0.284

1.7

LOS A

2.0

51.3

0.16

0.20

0.16

24.6

387

0.7

0.284

1.4

LOS A

2.0

51.3

0.16

0.20

0.16

25.1

9

0.0

0.018

7.4

LOS A

0.1

2.5

0.50

0.51

0.50

24.5

Approach

26.0

East: 56th St W 1

L2

16

R2

Approach

9

0.0

0.018

3.4

LOS A

0.1

2.5

0.50

0.51

0.50

23.8

19

0.0

0.018

5.4

LOS A

0.1

2.5

0.50

0.51

0.50

24.1

North: Grandview Dr W 7

L2

24

0.0

0.747

5.8

LOS A

13.1

327.3

0.29

0.20

0.29

25.3

4

T1

1009

0.0

0.747

1.4

LOS A

13.1

327.3

0.29

0.20

0.29

25.0

Approach

1033

0.0

0.747

1.5

LOS A

13.1

327.3

0.29

0.20

0.29

25.0

All Vehicles

1439

0.2

0.747

1.5

LOS A

13.1

327.3

0.26

0.20

0.26

25.0

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:07:19 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Plus_Project\CC-Roundabouts_Existing_PlusProject.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 3_PM [Point-3_Pre-Event] Grandview Dr/62nd St Ct Site Category: Existing Plus Project Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3

L2

90

0.3

0.301

6.5

LOS A

2.3

57.3

0.44

0.38

0.44

8

T1

256

0.6

0.301

2.0

LOS A

2.3

57.3

0.44

0.38

0.44

24.6

18

R2

13

2.5

0.301

2.5

LOS A

2.3

57.3

0.44

0.38

0.44

24.0

360

0.6

0.301

3.2

LOS A

2.3

57.3

0.44

0.38

0.44

24.6

L2

4

0.0

0.014

7.5

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.53

0.53

26.1

6

T1

4

0.0

0.014

6.4

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.53

0.53

30.5

16

R2

4

0.0

0.014

3.6

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.53

0.53

25.1

13

0.0

0.014

5.8

LOS A

0.1

1.8

0.53

0.53

0.53

27.0

Approach

24.8

East: 62nd St Ct W 1

Approach

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

6

0.0

0.774

8.7

LOS A

11.8

294.8

0.73

0.38

0.73

25.7

7

L2

22

0.2

0.774

7.2

LOS A

11.8

294.8

0.73

0.38

0.73

25.2

4

T1

847

0.1

0.774

2.3

LOS A

11.8

294.8

0.73

0.38

0.73

24.9

14

R2

99

0.3

0.774

5.9

LOS A

11.8

294.8

0.73

0.38

0.73

24.2

974

0.2

0.774

2.8

LOS A

11.8

294.8

0.73

0.38

0.73

24.8 23.6

Approach

West: Grandview Dr W 5

L2

99

0.0

0.319

11.7

LOS B

2.4

60.1

0.92

0.89

0.92

2

T1

4

0.0

0.319

6.8

LOS A

2.4

60.1

0.92

0.89

0.92

23.4

12

R2

84

0.0

0.319

7.3

LOS A

2.4

60.1

0.92

0.89

0.92

22.9

188

0.0

0.319

9.6

LOS A

2.4

60.1

0.92

0.89

0.92

23.3

1535

0.3

0.774

3.8

LOS A

11.8

294.8

0.69

0.44

0.69

24.6

Approach All Vehicles

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:08:40 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Plus_Project\CC-Roundabouts_Existing_PlusProject.sip8

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Chambers Creek Rd & 64th St W

Movement EBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 Future Volume (veh/h) 126 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 Cap, veh/h 101 Arrive On Green 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 243 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 LnGrp LOS A Approach Vol, veh/h 851 Approach Delay, s/veh 183.1 Approach LOS F Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

Baseline Plus Project (6-7PM)

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

699 699 0 0.97 1.00

585 585 0 1.00 1.00

122 122 0

272 272 0 1.00 1.00

1885 721 0.97 1 558 0.41 1346 851 1589 57.5 57.5 0.85 659 1.29 659 1.00 1.00 40.6 142.5 0.0 48.2

1885 603 0.97 1 624 0.35 1795 603 1795 45.8 45.8 1.00 624 0.97 641 1.00 1.00 44.5 27.0 0.0 24.9

1498 0.08 1515 1.00 1.00 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.7

182 182 0 1.00 1.00 No 1900 188 0.97 0 254 0.14 1810 188 1810 13.8 13.8 1.00 254 0.74 254 1.00 1.00 57.2 10.8 0.0 7.1

183.1 F

71.4 E

3.2 A 729 59.6 E

68.0 E 468 145.9 F

2 24.0 4.5 19.5 21.5 0.0

3 52.7 4.5 49.5 47.8 0.5

4 62.0 4.5 57.5 59.5 0.0

130.7 F

1.00 No 1885 126 0.97 1 1498 0.79 1885 126 1885 2.0 2.0

1900 280 0.97 0 226 0.14 1610 280 1610 19.5 19.5 1.00 226 1.24 226 1.00 1.00 59.6 138.6 0.0 16.7 198.2 F

8 114.7 4.5 111.5 4.0 0.8

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: Driveway & Chambers Creek Rd/Chambers Creel Rd

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

Baseline Plus Project (6-7PM)

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

NEL

NER

165 165 0 1.00 1.00

454 454 0

345 345 0

0 0

0 0

1.00 No 1900 483 0.94 0 477 0.89 538 0 0 0.0 0.0

1.00 No 1870 367 0.94 2 389 0.89 438 0 0 0.0 0.0

935 935 0 0.98 1.00

0 0.00 0 1.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0.00 0 1.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 A 659 40.0 D

0.0 A 1362 14.2 B

1900 176 0.94 0 193 0.89 89 659 627 12.4 35.5 0.27 670 0.98 670 1.00 1.00 9.1 30.9 0.0 9.3 40.0 D

2 40.0 4.5 35.5 37.5 0.0

1870 995 0.94 2 1055 0.89 1189 1362 1627 23.1 23.1 0.73 1444 0.94 1444 1.00 1.00 1.6 12.6 0.0 5.1 14.2 B

6 40.0 4.5 35.5 25.1 8.5 22.6 C

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Bridgeport Way W & Chambers Ln W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBU

SBT

SBR

222 222 0 1.00 1.00 No 1900 227 0.98 0 309 0.17 1810 227 1810 6.0 6.0 1.00 309 0.73 669 1.00 1.00 19.7 3.4 0.0 2.5

85 85 0 1.00 1.00

437 437 0 1.00 1.00

600 600 0

0 0

572 572 0

340 340 0 0.99 1.00

1900 87 0.98 0 275 0.17 1610 87 1610 2.4 2.4 1.00 275 0.32 595 1.00 1.00 18.2 0.7 0.0 0.8

1885 446 0.98 1 624 0.17 1795 446 1795 6.5 6.5 1.00 624 0.71 671 1.00 1.00 7.2 3.3 0.0 2.1

23.1 C 314 21.9 C

18.8 B

10.5 B

1 12.7 4.0 10.0 8.5 0.3

2 24.3 4.5 18.5 10.5 3.3

Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Baseline Plus Project (6-7PM)

11.4 B

1.00 No 1885 612 0.98 1 2326 0.65 3676 612 1791 3.6 3.6

1.00 No 1885 584 0.98 1 1416 0.40 3676 584 1791 5.9 5.9

2326 0.26 2326 1.00 1.00 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.8

1416 0.41 1416 1.00 1.00 10.9 0.9 0.0 2.1

4.0 A 1058 6.7 A

11.8 B 931 13.1 B

4 13.1 4.5 18.5 8.0 0.7

6 37.0 4.5 32.5 5.6 4.5

1885 347 0.98 1 626 0.40 1583 347 1583 8.5 8.5 1.00 626 0.55 626 1.00 1.00 11.7 3.5 0.0 3.1 15.2 B

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 67th Ave W & Bridgeport Way W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

92 92 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.20 371 0.95 97 0 97 3

508 508 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3602 1.00 3602 0.95 535 1 542

8 8 1900

60 60 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.42 801 0.95 63 0 63

796 796 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3610 1.00 3610 0.95 838 0 838

0% pm+pt 5 2 48.4 48.4 0.53 4.0 3.0 334 c0.03 0.12 0.29 12.6 1.00 0.5 13.1 B

0% NA 2

0%

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Baseline Plus Project (6-7PM)

0.95 8 0 0

39.5 39.5 0.43 4.5 3.0 1549 0.15 0.35 17.5 1.00 0.1 17.7 B 17.0 B 24.8 0.56 91.8 56.9% 15

0% pm+pt 1 6 42.2 42.2 0.46 4.0 3.0 431 0.01 0.06 0.15 13.9 1.00 0.2 14.1 B

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

260 260 1900 4.5 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1570 1.00 1570 0.95 274 154 120 3 2 0% 0% NA custom 6 2 36.4 39.5 36.4 39.5 0.40 0.43 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 1431 675 c0.23 0.08 0.59 0.18 21.8 16.1 1.00 1.00 0.6 0.1 22.4 16.3 C B 20.5 C

8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.95 8 0 8

104 104 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1.00 1900 0.95 109 0 109

76 76 1900 4.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1591 1.00 1591 0.95 80 72 8 1

288 288 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1715 0.95 1715 0.95 303 0 224 1

147 147 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1775 0.98 1775 0.95 155 0 234

100 100 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 0.95 105 95 10

0% Split 4

0% 0% NA custom 4 5 10.4 8.9 10.4 8.9 0.11 0.10 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 215 154 c0.06 0.00 0.51 0.05 38.3 37.6 1.00 1.00 1.9 0.1 40.2 37.8 D D 39.0 D

0% Split 3

0% NA 3

0% Over 5

18.6 18.6 0.20 4.5 3.0 347 0.13

18.6 18.6 0.20 4.5 3.0 359 c0.13

8.9 8.9 0.10 4.0 3.0 156 0.01

0.65 33.6 1.00 4.1 37.7 D

0.65 33.6 1.00 4.2 37.8 D 37.8 D

0.07 37.7 1.00 0.2 37.8 D

10.4 10.4 0.11 4.5 3.0 204 0.00 0.04 36.3 1.00 0.1 36.3 D

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

C 17.5 B

HCM 6th TWSC 8: Chambers Creek Rd & Chambers Ln W

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

6.4

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 156 156 5 606 195 12 Future Vol, veh/h 156 156 5 606 195 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 163 163 5 631 203 13 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Major2 0 326 4.1 2.2 - 1245 - 1245 -

Minor1 0 886 - 245 - 641 6.4 5.4 5.4 3.5 - 318 - 800 - 528 - 317 - 317 - 800 - 526

WB 0.1

NB 34.7 D

EB 0

NBLn1 328 0.657 34.7 D 4.4

Baseline Plus Project (6-7PM)

245 6.2 3.3 799 799 -

EBT EBR WBL WBT - 1245 - 0.004 7.9 A 0 -

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 1_PM2 [Point-1_Post-Event] Grandview Dr/Cirque Dr Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

2

0.0

0.595

7.5

LOS A

6.7

167.9

0.33

0.28

0.33

25.8

8

T1

346

0.0

0.595

1.6

LOS A

6.7

167.9

0.33

0.28

0.33

24.9

18

R2

454

0.0

0.595

2.0

LOS A

6.7

167.9

0.33

0.28

0.33

24.4

802

0.0

0.595

1.9

LOS A

6.7

167.9

0.33

0.28

0.33

24.6

66

0.0

0.088

7.5

LOS A

0.5

12.9

0.54

0.59

0.54

24.2

Approach East: Cirque Dr W 1

L2

16

R2

Approach

23

0.0

0.088

3.6

LOS A

0.5

12.9

0.54

0.59

0.54

23.5

89

0.0

0.088

6.5

LOS A

0.5

12.9

0.54

0.59

0.54

24.0

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

4

0.0

0.158

7.4

LOS A

1.0

26.0

0.27

0.29

0.27

25.6

7

L2

35

0.0

0.158

5.9

LOS A

1.0

26.0

0.27

0.29

0.27

25.1

4

T1

167

0.0

0.158

1.5

LOS A

1.0

26.0

0.27

0.29

0.27

24.8

206

0.0

0.158

2.4

LOS A

1.0

26.0

0.27

0.29

0.27

24.9

1098

0.0

0.595

2.3

LOS A

6.7

167.9

0.33

0.31

0.33

24.6

Approach All Vehicles

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:27:13 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Plus_Project\CC-Roundabouts_Existing_PlusProject.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 2_PM2 [Point-2_Post-Event] Grandview Dr/56th St W Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

4

0.0

0.685

7.3

LOS A

9.3

231.6

0.27

0.20

0.27

8

T1

924

0.0

0.685

1.4

LOS A

9.3

231.6

0.27

0.20

0.27

25.0

18

R2

11

0.0

0.685

1.9

LOS A

9.3

231.6

0.27

0.20

0.27

24.5

940

0.0

0.685

1.5

LOS A

9.3

231.6

0.27

0.20

0.27

25.0

6

0.0

0.022

12.7

LOS B

0.1

3.6

0.82

0.67

0.82

26.8

Approach

25.8

East: 56th St W 1

L2

16

R2

Approach

7

0.0

0.022

8.8

LOS A

0.1

3.6

0.82

0.67

0.82

22.6

13

0.0

0.022

10.5

LOS B

0.1

3.6

0.82

0.67

0.82

24.3 26.0

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

13

0.0

0.199

7.0

LOS A

1.4

34.8

0.09

0.20

0.09

7

L2

9

0.0

0.199

5.6

LOS A

1.4

34.8

0.09

0.20

0.09

25.5

4

T1

256

0.0

0.199

1.1

LOS A

1.4

34.8

0.09

0.20

0.09

25.2

277

0.0

0.199

1.5

LOS A

1.4

34.8

0.09

0.20

0.09

25.3

1230

0.0

0.685

1.6

LOS A

9.3

231.6

0.24

0.21

0.24

25.1

Approach All Vehicles

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:30:36 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Plus_Project\CC-Roundabouts_Existing_PlusProject.sip8

MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 3_PM [Point-3_Post-Event] Grandview Dr/62nd St Ct Site Category: Existing Baseline Roundabout

Movement Performance - Vehicles Mov ID

Turn

Demand Flows Total HV veh/h % South: Grandview Dr W

Deg. Satn v/c

Average Delay sec

Level of Service

95% Back of Queue Vehicles Distance veh ft

Prop.

Effective Aver. No. Average Queued Stop Rate Cycles Speed mph

3u

U

1

0.0

0.588

8.4

LOS A

5.8

145.9

0.57

0.40

0.57

3

L2

73

0.0

0.588

7.0

LOS A

5.8

145.9

0.57

0.40

0.57

24.8

8

T1

639

0.0

0.588

2.5

LOS A

5.8

145.9

0.57

0.40

0.57

24.5

18

R2

Approach

25.4

6

0.0

0.588

3.0

LOS A

5.8

145.9

0.57

0.40

0.57

24.0

719

0.0

0.588

3.0

LOS A

5.8

145.9

0.57

0.40

0.57

24.5

East: 62nd St Ct W 1

L2

6

0.0

0.026

10.4

LOS B

0.2

4.0

0.77

0.66

0.77

25.4

6

T1

6

0.0

0.026

9.4

LOS A

0.2

4.0

0.77

0.66

0.77

29.5

16

R2

Approach

6

0.0

0.026

6.5

LOS A

0.2

4.0

0.77

0.66

0.77

24.4

17

0.0

0.026

8.8

LOS A

0.2

4.0

0.77

0.66

0.77

26.2

0.0

0.158

7.5

LOS A

1.0

25.6

0.30

0.31

0.30

27.7

North: Grandview Dr W 7u

U

3

7

L2

6

0.0

0.158

6.0

LOS A

1.0

25.6

0.30

0.31

0.30

27.1

4

T1

117

0.0

0.158

1.1

LOS A

1.0

25.6

0.30

0.31

0.30

26.7

14

R2

Approach

75

0.0

0.158

4.7

LOS A

1.0

25.6

0.30

0.31

0.30

26.0

201

0.0

0.158

2.7

LOS A

1.0

25.6

0.30

0.31

0.30

26.5

West: Grandview Dr W 5

L2

117

0.0

0.166

6.1

LOS A

0.9

23.0

0.32

0.45

0.32

24.9

2

T1

7

0.0

0.166

1.2

LOS A

0.9

23.0

0.32

0.45

0.32

24.6

12

R2

Approach All Vehicles

89

0.0

0.166

1.7

LOS A

0.9

23.0

0.32

0.45

0.32

24.1

213

0.0

0.166

4.1

LOS A

0.9

23.0

0.32

0.45

0.32

24.6

1151

0.0

0.588

3.2

LOS A

5.8

145.9

0.48

0.40

0.48

24.9

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: FEHR AND PEERS | Processed: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:35:08 PM Project: \\fpse03\Data2\2019Projects\SE19-0675_ChambersCreekParking\Analysis\Sidra\Existing_Plus_Project\CC-Roundabouts_Existing_PlusProject.sip8

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: Chambers Creek Rd & 64th St W/Chambers Creek Rd W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

Existing Plus Project 9-10PM

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

NBL

NBR

116 116 0

78 78 0 0.99 1.00

78 78 0 1.00 1.00

94 94 0

621 621 0 1.00 1.00

1900 99 0.79 0 176 0.25 711 246 1767 6.8 6.8 0.40 436 0.56 570 1.00 1.00 18.4 1.1 0.0 2.6

1900 99 0.79 0 273 0.25 1148 99 1148 4.6 11.4 1.00 273 0.36 360 1.00 1.00 23.4 0.8 0.0 1.2

469 0.25 613 1.00 1.00 16.9 0.3 0.0 1.2

531 531 0 1.00 1.00 No 1885 672 0.79 1 1062 0.59 1795 672 1795 13.6 13.6 1.00 1062 0.63 1062 1.00 1.00 7.4 2.9 0.0 4.5

19.5 B

24.2 C

17.2 B 218 20.3 C

10.3 B 1458 14.2 B

1.00 No 1900 147 0.79 0 261 0.25 1056 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0 1.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 246 19.5 B

2 37.5 4.5 33.0 24.0 4.2

1.00 No 1900 119 0.79 0 469 0.25 1900 119 1900 2.8 2.8

4 18.3 4.5 18.0 8.8 0.9 15.6 B

1885 786 0.79 1 945 0.59 1598 786 1598 22.0 22.0 1.00 945 0.83 945 1.00 1.00 9.1 8.4 0.0 7.5 17.6 B

8 18.3 4.5 18.0 13.4 0.4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Chambers Creek Rd & Driveway

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

1040 1040 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.87 1195 0 1195

560 560 1900 4.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1582 1.00 1582 0.87 644 0 644 1 0% Free

0 0 1900

105 105 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1.00 1900 0.87 121 0 121

155 155 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1.00 1900 0.87 178 0 178

0 0 1900

0% NA 2

0% NA 6

0%

13.1 13.1 0.15 4.5 3.0 293 0.06

13.1 13.1 0.15 4.5 3.0 293 c0.09

0.41 32.3 1.00 0.9 33.3 C 33.3 C

0.61 33.4 1.00 3.5 36.9 D 36.9 D

0% Prot 4 62.6 62.6 0.74 4.5 3.0 1334 c0.66 0.90 8.5 1.00 9.6 18.2 B 12.1 B

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Existing Plus Project 9-10PM

0.87 0 0 0 0%

Free 84.7 84.7 1.00

1582 0.41 0.41 0.0 1.00 0.8 0.8 A

15.3 0.85 84.7 73.3% 15

0.87 0 0 0

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

B 9.0 D

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Bridgeport Way W & Chambers Ln W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBU

SBT

SBR

83 83 0 1.00 1.00 No 1900 85 0.98 0 181 0.10 1810 85 1810 2.0 2.0 1.00 181 0.47 726 1.00 1.00 19.6 1.9 0.0 0.9

96 96 0 1.00 1.00

121 121 0 1.00 1.00

322 322 0

5 5

274 274 0

96 96 0 0.99 1.00

1900 98 0.98 0 161 0.10 1610 98 1610 2.7 2.7 1.00 161 0.61 646 1.00 1.00 19.9 3.7 0.0 1.1

1885 141 0.86 1 762 0.06 1795 141 1795 1.3 1.3 1.00 762 0.19 1037 1.00 1.00 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

21.5 C 183 22.6 C

23.5 C

3.2 A

1 6.9 4.0 10.0 3.3 0.2

2 30.1 4.5 18.5 4.0 2.1

Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Existing Plus Project 9-10PM

6.8 A

1.00 No 1885 374 0.86 1 2524 0.70 3676 374 1791 1.6 1.6

1.00 No 1885 319 0.86 1 1986 0.55 3676 319 1791 2.0 2.0

2524 0.15 2524 1.00 1.00 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.2

1986 0.16 1986 1.00 1.00 5.0 0.2 0.0 0.5

2.4 A 515 2.6 A

5.2 A 431 5.2 A

4 9.1 4.5 18.5 4.7 0.4

6 37.0 4.5 32.5 3.6 2.6

1885 112 0.86 1 880 0.55 1588 112 1588 1.6 1.6 1.00 880 0.13 880 1.00 1.00 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.2 A

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: 67th Ave W & Bridgeport Way W

Movement Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

67 67 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.43 808 0.92 73 0 73 1 1% pm+pt 5 2 30.3 30.3 0.41 4.0 3.0 408 c0.01 0.06 0.18 13.8 1.00 0.2 14.0 B

459 459 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3566 1.00 3566 0.92 499 1 505

6 6 1900

42 42 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1786 0.42 797 0.92 46 0 46 2 1% pm+pt 1 6 25.9 25.9 0.35 4.0 3.0 327 0.01 0.04 0.14 16.3 1.00 0.2 16.5 B

355 355 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3574 1.00 3574 0.92 386 0 386

Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

Existing Plus Project 9-10PM

1% NA 2

0.92 7 0 0 2 1%

24.3 24.3 0.33 4.5 3.0 1164 c0.14 0.43 19.7 1.00 0.3 19.9 B 19.2 B 22.5 0.48 74.4 52.3% 15

WBR

NBL

NBT

140 140 1900 4.5 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1564 1.00 1564 0.92 152 102 50 1 1% 1% NA custom 6 2 22.1 24.3 22.1 24.3 0.30 0.33 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 1061 510 0.11 0.03 0.36 0.10 20.6 17.4 1.00 1.00 0.2 0.1 20.8 17.5 C B 19.6 B

8 8 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.92 9 0 9 2 0% Split 4

205 205 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1.00 1900 0.92 223 0 223

14.9 14.9 0.20 4.5 3.0 361 0.00 0.02 23.9 1.00 0.0 23.9 C

HCM 2000 Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

52 52 1900 4.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1584 1.00 1584 0.92 57 52 5 2 0% 0% NA custom 4 5 14.9 6.0 14.9 6.0 0.20 0.08 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 380 127 c0.12 0.00 0.59 0.04 27.0 31.5 1.00 1.00 2.3 0.1 29.3 31.7 C C 29.6 C

156 156 1900 4.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.92 170 0 170 2 0% Split 3

57 57 1900 4.5 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1783 1.00 1783 0.92 62 3 64 0% NA 3

48 48 1900 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1534 1.00 1534 0.92 52 43 4 2 0% Over 5

13.9 13.9 0.19 4.5 3.0 337 c0.09

13.9 13.9 0.19 4.5 3.0 333 0.04

6.0 6.0 0.08 4.0 3.0 123 0.00

0.50 27.2 1.00 1.2 28.3 C

0.19 25.5 1.00 0.3 25.8 C 28.3 C

0.03 31.5 1.00 0.1 31.6 C

C 17.5 A

HCM 6th TWSC 8: Chambers Creek Rd & Chambers Ln W

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh

1.5

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 147 80 6 572 59 6 Future Vol, veh/h 147 80 6 572 59 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 200 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 171 93 7 665 69 7 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)

Major2 0 264 4.1 2.2 - 1312 - 1312 -

Minor1 0 897 - 218 - 679 6.4 5.4 5.4 3.5 - 313 - 823 - 507 - 311 - 311 - 823 - 504

WB 0.1

NB 19.1 C

EB 0

NBLn1 330 0.229 19.1 C 0.9

Existing Plus Project 9-10PM

218 6.2 3.3 827 827 -

EBT EBR WBL WBT - 1312 - 0.005 7.8 A 0 -

Memo To:

Owen Richards

From:

Owen Richards Architects File:

Chambers Creek Park Bandstand with Noise Impact Predictions

Michael Yantis and Mary Hofbeck Stantec

Date:

August 5, 2019

Reference: Site Sound Level Measurements This memo serves as an executive summary of measurements that were conducted at the Chambers Creek Regional Park located on Grandview Drive West in University Place, Washington. The goal of this analysis is to determine the noise sources in the current environment and to determine the potential impact that a new stage on the site would have at perimeter locations specific to the adjacent Chambers Bay Golf Course and the new Chambers Bay Resort Development.

• •

•

•

•

Noise measurements were taken at three locations in the park for a three-hour period (measurement positions shown in Figure 1 as P1, P2, P3). Notable events included train pass-byes, helicopter flyovers and plane flyovers. These events are captured and reported in the table.

Of the three locations measured, the location most close to the railroad tracks (P1) was approximately 500 feet east of the tracks. The middle location (P2) was roughly 1,000 feet from the tracks and was close to the center of the park. The rear location (P3) was roughly 1,500 feet from the tracks, about the same distance as the beginning of the parking lot to the north There were several noise sources identified as events at this site.

• Train Noise • Airplane • Helicopters • Military Helicopters A summary of the most significant events is given in the table below:

Forward

Middle

Rear

Event/Time

Lmax

Lmax

Lmax

Helicopter/10:08

70

70

74

Airplane/10:48

65

43

44

Amtrak Southbound/10:57

83

41

44

Helicopter/11:00

65

61

60

Airplane/11:03

63

53

52

Amtrak Northbound/11:05

75

69

60

Military Helicopter/11:46

74

44

47

Freight Train Northbound 11:56

N/A

68

55

An audience location that would include the forward measurement location would be problematic.

Measured noise levels exceeded 80 dBA and they would compete with the sound from a music event.

ym v:\2048\active\204821113\design\z_acoustics\measurements\2019-04-24 measurements\analysis\chambers creek park acoustics report.docx

August 5, 2019 Owen Richards Page 2 of 5 Reference:

•

Site Sound Level Measurements

Sound levels at the other two locations would be compatible with an amplified music event. Sound levels from the music would be expected to be in the 80’s dBA and although a helicopter flyover or train pass-by would be audible, they would not overshadow the music. The northbound freight train would be the longest event. The trains are long and they arrive from the south, being visible and audible for some time prior to arriving in front of the park.

Proposed Stage Noise Impact Predictions (SoundPLAN) Project Layout and Assumptions Figure 1 below shows the layout of the park and the adjacent receiver locations. It also shows the 2 locations of proposed stage sites.

• The site elevations were acquired using Google Earth.

• Ground is assumed to be mostly grass or vegetation less than 2 feet tall. Occasional larger vegetation does not affect the predictions.

• Chambers Bay Resort Buildings & Environmental Services Buildings (ESB) reflections taken into consideration • Source assumptions: o Genelec-1029A loudspeakers with the specifications shown in Figure 2.

▪ 2 loudspeakers per stage ▪ Mounted on poles height of 8 feet above the stage platform.

▪ One located front stage left and one located front stage right.

Figure 1. Location of perimeter receivers in relation to the proposed stage sites (South, West).

ym v:\2048\active\204821113\design\z_acoustics\measurements\2019-04-24 measurements\analysis\chambers creek park acoustics report.docx

August 5, 2019 Owen Richards Page 3 of 5 Reference:

Site Sound Level Measurements

Figure 2. Loudspeaker data inputs to SoundPLAN; Sound Power Levels and Directivity.

Predicted Results At the west edge of the new Chambers Bay Resort Development, the predicted levels range between 49-53 dBA which is greater than the current background level of 48-50 dBA. The background noise levels (referenced here) were also part of the site noise measurements take on May 4, 2019. Music coming from the stage will be easily audible in the midst of the background noise, whether the West or the South proposed stage locations are chosen. It will seem like the dominant part of the noise environment even though its level

ym v:\2048\active\204821113\design\z_acoustics\measurements\2019-04-24 measurements\analysis\chambers creek park acoustics report.docx

August 5, 2019 Owen Richards Page 4 of 5 Reference:

Site Sound Level Measurements

is not that much more than the existing background noise. Noise Contour Maps are provided in detail to show the noise predictions around the site for the two different proposed stage locations (Figures 3-4).

Figure 3. Noise Contour Map at Chambers Creek Park with the proposed South Stage.

ym v:\2048\active\204821113\design\z_acoustics\measurements\2019-04-24 measurements\analysis\chambers creek park acoustics report.docx

August 5, 2019 Owen Richards Page 5 of 5 Reference:

Site Sound Level Measurements

Figure 4. Noise Contour Map at Chambers Creek Park with the proposed West Stage.

ym v:\2048\active\204821113\design\z_acoustics\measurements\2019-04-24 measurements\analysis\chambers creek park acoustics report.docx