Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (2050)  AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 12, 2026 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE For information on public comment procedures, please see the instructions for in person and/or virtual speakers at the end of the agenda. To watch and/or listen to the public meeting online, please visit https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Town Council, the Council may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda.        REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS   MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON CURRENT EVENTS   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ON CURRENT EVENTS   ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS   CALL TO AUDIENCE – At this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Mayor and Town Council on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, individual Council Members may ask Town Staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Mayor and Council may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during “Call to Audience.” In order to speak during “Call to Audience” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.          PRESENTATIONS   1.Update on the adoption process for OV's Path Forward, the community's next 10-year action plan   2.Preview of new Community Report   CONSENT AGENDA  (Consideration and/or possible action)   A.Minutes - June 17, 2026   B.Resolution No. (R)26-38, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of September 1, 2026 to November 30, 2026   C.Resolution No. (R)26-39, authorizing and approving a license agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a ballot drop box on town property, near the Oro Valley Public Library   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-12, REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE REZONING CONDITION ONLY REGARDING THE COLOR OF SIGNAGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD AND LINDA VISTA BLVD   2.DISCUSSION AND UPDATE REGARDING OFFSITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD. BY THE TOWN AND WM GRACE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BUILDING OF A NEW SHOPPING CENTER WITH SPROUTS AS THE ANCHOR ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO 7I   3.RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-40, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY (THE "TOWN") AND THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT, LLC. (THE "RESORT")   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (The Council may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Council may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H)   ADJOURNMENT   POSTED: 8/6/26 at 5:00 p.m. by mrs The Mayor and Council may, at the discretion of the meeting chairperson, discuss any Agenda item. When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Council meeting at 229-4700. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS The Town has modified its public comment procedures for its public bodies to allow for limited remote/virtual comment via Zoom. The public may provide comments remotely only on items posted as required Public Hearings, provided the speaker registers 24 hours prior to the meeting. For all other items, the public may complete a blue speaker card to be recognized in person by the Mayor, according to all other rules and procedures. Written comments can also be emailed to Town Clerk Michael Standish at mstandish@orovalleyaz.gov for distribution to the Town Council prior to the meeting. Further instructions to speakers are noted below. INSTRUCTIONS TO IN-PERSON SPEAKERS Members of the public shall be allowed to speak on posted public hearings and during Call to Audience when attending the meeting in person. The public may be allowed to speak on other posted items on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the blue speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or, if you wish to speak during Call to Audience, please specify what you wish to discuss. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor calls on you to address the Council. 1. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. You will only be allowed to address the Council one time regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During Call to Audience, you may address the Council on any matter that is not on the agenda. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. INSTRUCTIONS TO VIRTUAL SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Members of the public may attend the meeting virtually and request to speak virtually on any agenda item that is listed as a Public Hearing. If you wish to address the Town Council virtually during any listed Public Hearing, please complete the online speaker form by clicking here https://forms.orovalleyaz.gov/forms/bluecard at least 24 hours prior to the start of the meeting. You must provide a valid email address in order to register. Town Staff will email you a link to the Zoom meeting the day of the meeting. After being recognized by the Mayor, staff will unmute your microphone access and you will have 3 minutes to address the Council. Further instructions regarding remote participation will be included in the email. Thank you for your cooperation.    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   OV's Path Forward: Phase 3 - Residents Decide Subject Update on the adoption process for OV's Path Forward, the community's next 10-year action plan  Summary The purpose of this item is to update the Town Council on the adoption process for OV's Path Forward, the community's next 10-year action plan. Also known as a General Plan, OV's Path Forward will be on the November 3, 2026, ballot for resident consideration. Phase 3: "Residents' Decide" will launch in August to raise awareness and educate residents about the plan before they vote.  Process to create and adopt the plan Beginning in 2023, residents came together to share their ideas and create a plan that reflects their values and priorities. OV's Path Forward is based on over 10,700 contributions residents provided through events, online discussions, surveys, and meetings. The number of contributions set a historical precedence for the town and the region. It also shows how dedicated OV residents are to ensuring the Town upholds their values and expectations for the future.   The first steps in the adoption process were public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council. In May, the Town Council voted to formally place the plan on the ballot for voter consideration in November. If the plan is not adopted in November, the current Your Voice, Our Future General Plan will remain in place until a new plan is passed by the voters. The Town cannot advocate but may raise awareness and educate residents about the plan. Phase 3: "Residents Decide" will start in August with a significant amount of marketing and outreach to help residents learn about the plan before they cast their vote. Phase 3: "Residents Decide" Residents participated in the BIG Community Survey, the BIG Community Review, and now it is time for the BIG Community Vote. The community engagement efforts over the past three years have all led to empowering  residents to decide on the plan. In  alignment with the Community Engagement Plan, the following methods and tools will be utilized over the next 3 months:  New signs along roadways and multi-use paths  Postcard mailers to Oro Valley households Flyers posted around the community PDF copies of the plan will be available at the library, Community & Recreation Center and Town Hall Social media posts Press releases Newsletters (Vista, OV Path Forward, and more)  Articles and ads in the Northwest Explorer and OV Style  Resident testimonials and educational videos  FAQs and voter pamphlet information  Presentations to HOA's and other organizations  More details about this awareness and educational campaign are included in Attachment 1. Additionally, OV's Path Forward will be included with the Town's broader marketing for general election information and a focal point of this year's Community Academy program. Community Academy offers residents a fun and interactive way to learn more about Town services. Each year, class topics are chosen based on community interest, the previous years' evaluations and current events.  Examples of class topics include town finances, development, traffic, water, parks, tourism, public safety and more. For the past two years, time has been dedicated to each class to discuss the plan's guiding principles, goals, policies, or actions related to the class topic. Similarly, this year will offer participants a chance to familiarize themselves with the plan and ask questions before they cast their vote. This year's class topics and tentative schedule are available HERE. Help Spread the Word The community has achieved several milestones over the past few years, but more work is needed to get the plan adopted. All interested residents are invited to become OV Path Forward ambassadors. Ambassadors will help pass out information and be empowered to discuss the plan with their neighbors, groups, and friends. An informational meeting for ambassadors will be held in August to equip them with materials, talking points, and more. If interested, residents can sign up to become an ambassador HERE. In addition to becoming ambassadors, residents are also encouraged to invite staff to their HOA or group meetings by reaching out to OVPathForward@orovalleyaz.gov. In conclusion, OV's Path Forward was created and must be approved by residents. Phase 3: "Residents Decide" will begin in August to raise awareness and help educate residents about the plan to help them make a decision in November. Residents can learn more and stay up to date by following OV Path Forward on Facebook or Instagram, signing-up to receive monthly e-newsletters, and reading the plan on OVPathForward.com.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1 - PHASE 3 MARKETING PLAN  Staff Presentation  PHASE 3 “RESIDENTS DECIDE” MARKETING AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN The outline below aims to provide guidance. The timeframes and tools may be updated as needed. Month Week Tool Purpose / Key Message July 6/29 7/6 7/13 7/20 FAQs and Voter Pamphlet Info Proposition info, overview, summary and FAQs 6/29 7/6 7/13 7/20 Social media Beat the heat: Read the 10-year plan (on ballot in Nov.) August 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Social media (2 per week) Get ready for the vote & Community Academy 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Website: OV’s Path Forward Update homepage 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 PDF of the plan Copies placed at the library, CRC and Town Hall 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Video: Professional Ad Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Newsletter: VISTA (July/Aug) 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Newsletter: OV’s Path Forward 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Social media (2 per week) Get Ready: Safety and Parks 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Social media (2 per week) Get Ready: Housing and apartments 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Roadway Signs Replace signs with Ph.3 signs 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Website: Resident blog Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Website: Resident blog Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Ambassador Info Session Provide material and info 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 Social media (2 per week) Get Ready: Growth and views 8/3 8/10 8/17 8/24 NW Explorer: 1/4-page ad*** Get Ready for the BIG Community Vote September 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Social media (2 per week) Community Academy & September Info Sessions 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: OV Edge Get Ready for the BIG Community Vote 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: OV Chamber 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: Crime Fighter 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: Rancho Vistoso 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: Sun City 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: OV Play 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: Other 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: VISTA (Aug/Sept) 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Newsletter: OV Path Forward 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Website: Resident blog 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 1 and your plan your voice 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 NW Explorer Article Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 2 and resident comments 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Flyers in the community Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Postcard 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Event: Community Academy (x2) Education about content for each class topic 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Event: 2nd Sat. at Steam Pump Promotional info (signage) to raise awareness 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Event: Community Academy (x2) Education about content for each class topic 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 3 and what residents are saying 8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 NW Explorer – ½ page ad Get ready for the BIG Community Vote October 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Social media Resident video 4 and how residents created the plan 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Event: Community Academy (x2) Education about content for each class topic 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Press Release Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Newsletter: Rancho Vistoso 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Newsletter: OV Chamber 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Newsletter: OV Play 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Newsletter: OV Path Forward 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Newsletter: Vista (Sept./Oct) Voting info (Prop. #, etc.) 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 5 and October Info sessions 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Event: Community Academy (x2) Education about content for each class topic 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 6 and resident testimonials 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 OV Style Magazine Ad (due 9/10) Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Sun City Tipster Ad (due by 9/10) – Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 NW Explorer Article Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Website: Resident blog Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Event: 2nd Sat. at Steam Pump Promotional info (signage) to raise awareness 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Event: Community Academy (x2) Education about content for each class topic 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 7 and info about voting 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Social media ad Voting info 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Event: RV Fall Fest Hand out information / answer questions 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 Other newsletters Get ready for the BIG Community Vote 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 NW Explorer – full page ad Voting info November 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Postcard Voting info 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Newsletter: Sun City Voting info 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Social media (2 per week) Resident video 8* and info about voting 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Newsletter: OV Path Forward Voting info 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Social media Voting info (Prop. #, etc.) 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Social media Voting results and next steps 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Press Release 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Website: Resident blog 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 NW Explorer Article 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 Social media Next steps 2 Town Council August 12, 2026 3 OV’s Path Forward The Plan was created by residents and must now be approved by residents. ➢Over 10,700+ resident comments contributed to creating the plan ➢May 2026: Town Council voted to place the plan on the November ballot for voter consideration ➢Now: “Phase 3: Residents Decide” The process starts and ends with residents. Resident Driven-Process Community Engagement Plan (January – Sept. 2023) •Residents helped create a brand that resonated with the community •Residents helped plan the methods and tools to engage the community Phase 1: Let’s Talk (Oct. 2023 – Dec. 2024) •Residents shared their values, priorities, and expectations for Oro Valley’s future •Residents improved the vision statement and guiding principles Phase 2: Let’s Think (Jan. 2025 – July 2026) •Residents set a specific course of action to fulfill their vision for the future •Residents reviewed multiple drafts of the Plan Phase 3: Residents Decide (Aug – Nov. 2026) •Residents will vote on the plan in November Phase 3: Residents Decide Spectrum of Resident Participation ➢Goals: ➢Empower residents to vote on the plan ➢Raise awareness ➢Educate residents about the plan ➢Marketing and outreach: ➢Roadway signs ➢Postcards and Flyers ➢PDF copies available ➢Social media ➢Press releases ➢Newsletters (Vista, OV Path Forward, OV Play, etc.) ➢Resident testimonials ➢Articles and Ads ➢Resident testimonials and educational videos ➢Presentations to HOA’s and groups 6 Phase 3: Residents Decide Community Academy Date Class Tues., September 15 Welcome: Oro Valley today and the residents’ plan for the future Thurs., September 17 Maintaining Financial Stability and Services Tues., September 22 Annexations Thurs., September 24 Oro Valley’s History and Public Art Tues., September 29 Economic Development and Tourism Thurs., October 1 Development and Roadways Thurs., October 8 Public Safety: Oro Valley Police Department & Town Courts Tues., October 13 Parks, Recreation and Trails Thurs., October 15 Water Resource Planning and Conservation Mon., October 19 Beyond Community Academy: Volunteering in Oro Valley Wed., October 21 Graduation at Town Council A fun, interactive, and free program about Town services and topics important to the community. “I believe that participation in the Community Academy has given me great insight into the Town and how it functions.” Register online at www.orovalleyaz.gov by September 9, 2026. Questions? Contact jancona@orovalleyaz.gov or 520-229-5062. 2025 graduate Invite staff to present to your HOA or group Become an OV Path Forward Ambassador Help Spread the Word! Follow, like, or share on social media #OVPathForward Receive and forward the “OV Path Forward” newsletter Read the plan and get ready for the BIG Community Vote: Visit OVPathForward.com Questions? Contact Town staff at OVPathForward@orovalleyaz.gov or 520-229 -4836    Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Preview of new Community Report Subject Preview of new Community Report   Summary Attachments No file(s) attached.    Town Council Regular Session A. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Michelle Stine, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Minutes - June 17, 2026  RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with the following changes) the June 17, 2026, minutes.   Attachments 6-17-26 Draft Minutes  D R A F T   MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR AND SPECIAL SESSION JUNE 17, 2026 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE         REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor Melanie Barrett, Vice-Mayor Harry Greene, Councilmember Joyce Jones-Ivey, Councilmember Mary Murphy, Councilmember Josh Nicolson, Councilmember Elizabeth Robb, Councilmember PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE    Mayor Winfield led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.   UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS    Town Clerk Mike Standish announced the upcoming Town meetings and events.   MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON CURRENT EVENTS    Councilmember Jones-Ivey reported that the Amphitheater School District was accepting donations for their 2027 Project Graduation Events. Councilmember Jones-Ivey provided several examples of ways citizens could donate. Councilmember Greene reported information on how citizens could be prepared for the monsoon season. Councilmember Greene thanked the Oro Valley Public Works Director and Town Engineer Paul Keesler, and his staff, for illuminating the art display along La Cholla Boulevard. 6/17/26 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 1  Mayor Winfield reported that he and several staff members had attended the Roche Quarterly Leadership meeting, where Town staff discussed collaboration possibilities with Roche.   TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ON CURRENT EVENTS    Town Manager Jeff Wilkins reported the following: Information regarding social media posts by the Town and updates to the Town's website Information on upcoming Town events   ORDER OF BUSINESS    Mayor Winfield reviewed the order of business and stated that the order would remain as posted.   INFORMATIONAL ITEMS    There were no informational items.   CALL TO AUDIENCE    TLC voiced her concerns regarding Flock transparency. Oro Valley resident Sean Glaser voiced his concerns regarding Flock surveillance.   PRESENTATIONS    There were no presentations.   ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR SESSION    Mayor Winfield adjourned the Regular Session at 6:16 p.m.   SPECIAL SESSION   CALL TO ORDER    Mayor Winfield called the Special Session to order at 6:17 p.m.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-32, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL 6/17/26 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 2  1.PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-32, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE 10-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FROM FY 2026/27 THROUGH FY 2035/36 AND THE FY 2026/27 GENERAL PAY PLAN    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. There were no comments received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Chief Financial Officer Dave Gephart presented Special Session item #1 and included the following: FY 2026/27 Final Budget FY 2026/27 Fund Balance Report Final Notes and Next Steps   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Resolution No. (R)26-32, adopting the Final Budget of the Town of Oro Valley for fiscal year 2026/27, including the FY 2026/27 General Pay Plan under the same conditions authorized with the FY 2026/27 General Pay Plan Adoption, and further MOVE to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2026/27 through FY 2035/36.    Discussion ensued among Council and staff regarding Special Session item #1. Vice Mayor Barrett requested a friendly amendment to update the original motion language regarding the "same conditions authorized with the FY 2026/27 General Pay Plan Adoption" to reflect FY2025/26 instead. Mayor Winfield accepted the friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Greene.   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene FINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: to approve Resolution No. (R)26-32, adopting the Final Budget of the Town of Oro Valley for fiscal year 2026/27, including the FY 2026/27 General Pay Plan under the same conditions authorized with the FY 2026/27 2025/26 General Pay Plan Adoption, and further MOVE to approve the Town of Oro Valley 10-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2026/27 through FY 2035/36. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   ADJOURNMENT OF THE SPECIAL SESSION    Mayor Winfield adjourned the Special Session at 6:29 p.m.   RESUME REGULAR SESSION    Mayor Winfield resumed the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m.   CONSENT AGENDA   A.Minutes - June 3, 2026   B.Resolution No. (R)26-33, approving formal acceptance of Kai Drive as a public street   6/17/26 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 3    C.Resolution No. (R)26-34, authorizing and approving a first amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) regarding joint formation and operation of specialized law enforcement teams among public agencies within Pima County   D.Resolution No. (R)26-35, authorizing an increase to the fee for processing public records requests for body-worn camera footage   E.Resolution No. (R)26-36, authorizing and approving a school resource officer Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Amphitheater Unified School District and the Town of Oro Valley for the assignment of four (4) Town of Oro Valley Police Officers to act as school resource officers (SRO) for the District   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Consent item (A) - (E). Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   REGULAR AGENDA   1.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-10, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY TAX CODE TO ADOPT A LOCAL USE TAX OF 2.5% BY DESELECTING MODEL OPTION #15, ADOPTING LOCAL OPTION HH; AND DESIGNATING AN EFFECTIVE DATE    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Chief Financial Officer Dave Gephart presented item #1 and included the following: History Use Tax - WHY Pavement Preservation vs. HURF Revenue Local Sales Tax Trend Final Notes and Next Steps   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Ordinance No.(O)26-10, amending sections 8A-270, 8A-300, 8A-415, 8A-416, 8A-417, 8A-600, 8A-610, 8A-620, 8A-630, 8A-640, 8A-650, 8A-660, and regulation 8A-115.1 of Chapter 8A of the Oro Valley Tax Code to repeal Model Option #15, Adopting Local Option HH, and establish a Use Tax of 2.5% effective on July 1, 2026. Discussion ensued among Council and staff regarding item #1.   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Harry Greene to approve Ordinance No.(O)26-10, amending sections 8A-270, 8A-300, 8A-415, 8A-416, 8A-417, 8A-600, 8A-610, 8A-620, 8A-630, 8A-640, 8A-650, 8A-660, and regulation 8A-115.1 of Chapter 8A of the Oro Valley Tax Code to repeal Model Option #15, Adopting Local Option HH, and establish a Use Tax of 2.5% effective on July 1, 2026. Vote: 4 - 3 Carried OPPOSED: Vice-Mayor Melanie Barrett  Councilmember Mary Murphy 6/17/26 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 4   Councilmember Josh Nicolson   2.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-11, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AMEND TOWN CODE CHAPTER 17, FLOODPLAIN AND EROSION HAZARD MANAGEMENT, TO ADDRESS ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE VISIT AUDIT COMMENTS    Mayor Winfield opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mayor Winfield closed the public hearing. Stormwater Utility Division Manager Dennis Roberts presented item #2 and included the following: Purpose of Agenda Item Background What the CAV Identified Overview of Revisions What did not change Why Adoption is Important Documents Provided to Mayor and Council Next Steps in the Process Questions and Feedback   Motion by Councilmember Harry Greene, seconded by Councilmember Mary Murphy to adopt Ordinance No. (O)26-11, amending Town Code Chapter 17, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management, to address Arizona Department of Water Resources Community Assistance Visit audit comments. Discussion ensued among Council and staff regarding item #2.   Motion by Councilmember Harry Greene, seconded by Councilmember Mary Murphy to adopt Ordinance No. (O)26-11, amending Town Code Chapter 17, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management, to address Arizona Department of Water Resources Community Assistance Visit audit comments. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    There were no future agenda items requested.   ADJOURNMENT   Motion by Mayor Joseph C. Winfield, seconded by Councilmember Mary Murphy to adjourn the meeting at 6:47 p.m. Vote: 7 - 0 Carried     _____________________________________ 6/17/26 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 5  _____________________________________ Michelle Stine, MMC, CPM Deputy Town Clerk I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular and special session of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 17th day of June 2026. I further certify that the meeting was called and held and that a quorum was present. ____________________________________ Michael Standish, MMC Town Clerk 6/17/26 Minutes, Oro Valley Town Council Regular and Special Session 6     Town Council Regular Session B. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)26-38, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of September 1, 2026 to November 30, 2026  RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Per the Town Council Parliamentary Rules and Procedures & Code of Conduct, the Town Council shall approve the Agenda Committee meeting assignments. Attached is the proposed Agenda Committee meeting assignment of Councilmember Greene for the period of September 1, 2026 to November 30, 2026.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE Resolution No. (R)26-38, approving the Agenda Committee assignment for the period of September 1, 2026 to November 30, 2026.  Attachments (R)26-38 Agenda Committee Assignment August 2026  RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ASSIGNING COUNCILMEMBER GREENE TO THE AGENDA COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2026; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on September 19, 2001, the Mayor and Council adopted the Town Council Parliamentary Rules & Procedures and Code of Conduct; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 5.2 (A) Town of Oro Valley Parliamentary Rules & Procedures and Code of Conduct, the Town Council shall set and approve the Agenda Committee meeting assignments; and WHEREAS, Town Council wishes to assign Councilmember Greene to the Agenda Committee for the period of September 1, 2026 through November 30, 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, as follows: SECTION 1. That Councilmember Greene is hereby assigned to the Agenda Committee for the period of September 1, 2026 through November 30, 2026. SECTION 2. That the Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Attorney, or their duly authorized officers and agents to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 12th day of August, 2026. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ___________________________ Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________________________________________ Michael Standish, Town Clerk Steven Zraick, Town Attorney Date: _______________________ Date: _____________________________    Town Council Regular Session C. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Requested by: Mike Standish Submitted By:Mike Standish, Town Clerk's Office Department:Town Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)26-39, authorizing and approving a license agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a ballot drop box on town property, near the Oro Valley Public Library  RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This agreement grants Pima County permission to install and operate a secure ballot drop box on Town property, in the west parking lot of the Oro Valley Public Library, located at 1305 W. Naranja Drive. The County will have 24/7 access for ballot retrieval, maintenance, and security. The Town will maintain the surrounding property and ensure unobstructed public access. The ballot drop box will create an additional safe and secure manor for the public to be able to cast their ballots.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley propose entering into an Irrevocable License Agreement that would allow the County to install and operate a permanent, secure ballot drop box on Town-owned property at 1305 W. Naranja Drive. The drop box location is shown in Exhibit B. Under the License, the County will maintain, secure, and service the drop box at its own expense. The drop box, all anchoring materials, and any related hardware remain the County's property. The Town will not alter, move, or impede access to the drop box without County approval. Election related activity around the site will follow A.R.S. §16-411. The County will have 24/7 access for ballot retrieval, maintenance, inspection, and security. The Town is responsible for maintaining the general property area and ensuring access routes remain unobstructed during normal public hours. The agreement begins on the date of final signatures and continues through December 31, 2031, with the option of up to five additional one-year extensions or one five-year extension. There is no fee for the use of the property.  FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the Town. Per the license agreement, Pima County will purchase, install and maintain the ballot box.  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to Approve Resolution No. (R)26-39, authorizing and approving a license agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a ballot drop box on town property, near the Oro Valley Public library.  Attachments (R)26-39 Ballot Box License Agreement  License Agreement  RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND PIMA COUNTY REGARDING THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A BALLOT DROP BOX IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY ; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-951, et seq, the Town of Oro Valley (the Town) and Pima County (the County) are authorized to contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to enter into a License Agreement with the County regarding the installation, operation and maintenance of a ballot drop box in the parking lot of the Oro Valley Public Library; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to authorize and approve the License Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, between the Town and the County in order to lay out the terms and conditions for the installation, operation and maintenance of a ballot drop box in the parking lot of the Oro Valley Public Library. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: SECTION 1. The License Agreement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, regarding the installation, operation and maintenance of a ballot drop box in the parking lot of the Oro Valley Public Library is hereby authorized and approved. SECTION 2. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Attorney, or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. SECTION 3. All Oro Valley resolutions or motions and parts of resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution, or the License Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 12th day of August, 2026. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Standish, Town Clerk Steven Zraick, Town Attorney Date: Date: 2 EXHIBIT “A” 3    Town Council Regular Session 1. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number:2601212 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-12, REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE REZONING CONDITION ONLY REGARDING THE COLOR OF SIGNAGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF ORACLE ROAD AND LINDA VISTA BLVD  RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their July 7 meeting.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property owners of the subject site are asking to remove one rezoning condition that is only related to the color of signage on their property (Attachment 1).  The rezoning condition states: "All buildings and site signage shall be consistent in design and color. All signage must be uniform in copper patina color".   The condition, related to the sign color, was part of the July 5, 2000, rezoning of the subject site. The site was rezoned from R1-144 (single family residential district) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial District). The property owners of the subject site would like to align their allowed sign colors with the Town's zoning code standards (section 28.3.C.1) which allow many colors except fluorescent or iridescent.  The subject property is located at the north-west corner of Oracle Road and Linda Vista Boulevard as outlined in yellow below.     BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:   Zoning Code Sign History:  Early 1980s: Only monochromatic sign color schemes in desert tones were allowed. Early 1990s: Changes were added that expanded the allowed sign colors to include brown, beige, copper, steel, brushed aluminum and their "oxidized (patina) finish." Mid 1990s:  Zoning code evolved to allow all sign colors (except florescent or iridescent).  Limiting the color of signage was common during the early years of the Town, when there were very few commercial sites. During those early years, a variety of sign colors were discouraged but copper patina was never designated as the only allowed sign color in the zoning code. years, a variety of sign colors were discouraged but copper patina was never designated as the only allowed sign color in the zoning code. But, as properties were developed or Planned Area Developments (PADs) were created, the copper patina sign color became a common requirement, most often due to the political directions of the time.   However, over time, the needs, importance and success of commercial businesses became more relevant and the Town's acceptance of a varied sign color palette increased. It became important to establish sign standards equally for all commercial developments. Newer commercial sites were allowed to establish a variety of sign colors and older sites have been allowed to expand their signs standards which includes (but not limited to):  Canada Crossroads (Harvest Restaurant/Subway/Desert Drifter) at La Canada and Lambert lane was originally limited to copper patina. Rooney Ranch (Target/Fry's/First Watch) at Oracle and Pusch View Lane, originally leaned heavily toward copper patina. Rancho Vistoso Center (Gaslight Music/Walgreens/Harbor Freight) at Oracle and Rancho Vistoso Blvd, originally only allowed copper patina. Mercado at Canada Hills & Canada Hills Marketplace (Fry's/Goodwill/Pets Plus) originally had limited sign colors. Placita De Oro (Ace Hardware/La Hacienda) Rancho Vistoso Blvd and 1st Ave originally had a limited sign colors.  Site History: As mentioned earlier in this report, the copper patina sign color condition was part of the July 5, 2000, rezoning of the subject site when the site was changed from single family residential to a commercial district (Attachment 2). After the subject site was rezoned in 2000 to CN, the site remained vacant for many years until the Golder Ranch Fire Department was built in 2010. The Catalina Springs Memory Care facility was built in 2014 and the Linda Vista Luxury Rentals began construction in 2022. The newest building on site is near completion which is for the Pain Institute of Southern Arizona. One vacant lot remains in the development.   Site Conditions:  Zoning is CN - Neighborhood Commercial Size: 14 acres Original name was Oracle Vista Centre Preferred name is Linda Vista Plaza Fire station built 2010 Memory Care Facility built 2014 Luxury rental homes built 2022 1 vacant lot Near completion is the building for the Pain Institute of Southern Ariziona The site currently has the following signs on site that meet the copper patina sign color rezoning condition. However, the new building and the existing business on site would like to be able to use signs with a broader color choice.  Many commercial developments, especially along Oracle Road, already have an allowed variety of sign colors and tenants are installing or planning to install updated signs.  The subject site would like equal access to the variety of colors allowed for signs as enabled by the Town's zoning code. General Plan The proposed change to sign color was reviewed for conformance with the General Plan’s Goals and Policies of 2016. Listed below are relevant policies within the General Plan relating to signage: Goal Q: A built environment that creatively integrates landscape, architecture, open space and conservation elements to increase the sense of place, community interaction and quality of life.  Policy Land Use 6: Maintain the small town, neighborly character and improve the design and safety of the built environment. Action item #125: Maintain the unique character of Oro Valley by studying and updating. Signage regulations to emphasize identification and direction over advertising goods or services to maintain compatibility and minimal intrusiveness.   The proposed amendment to the rezoning condition, to allow more sign colors, will allow businesses to be better identified to the public, while maintaining cohesive non-intrusive signage.   Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case at their July 7 meeting, which is available online, and recommended approval. Summary The request to remove the one rezoning condition related to copper patina signs will bring the Linda Vista Plaza up to the current standards of the Town's zoning code allowances.   FISCAL IMPACT: N/A  SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I MOVE to APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-12, Removing the one rezoning condition related to the copper patina sign color and allow sign colors according to the zoning code.  OR  I MOVE to DENY ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-12, Removal of the rezoning condition related to the copper patina sign color, based on a finding that it does not comply with__________________________________.  Attachments (O)26-12 Sign Color for Oracle Vista Centre  Attachment 1 Request and Letters from Owners Reps  Attachment 2 Development Plan showing note on page 2  Staff Presentation  ORDINANCE NO. (O)26-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, REMOVING A REZONING CONDITION RESTRICTING SIGN COLOR FOR THE ORACLE VISTA CENTRE AKA LINDA VISTA PLAZA, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND LINDA VISTA BLVD WHEREAS, the Oracle Vista Center AKA Linda Vista Plaza (the Property), located at the northwest corner of Oracle Rd. and Linda Vista Blvd. and identified by Pima County parcel numbers 224-31-0460, 224-31-011H, 224-31-0450, 224-31-011F, and 224-31- 0470, was rezoned from R1-144 (Single Family Residential) to Oro Valley C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) on July 5, 2000, via Ordinance (O)00-21; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of this rezoning was a restriction limiting the color of building and site signage on the Property to a copper patina color; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested removing the rezoning condition regarding signage from the Property to allow the use of other sign colors specified in the zoning code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request for removing the original rezoning sign condition complies with the Oro Valley Zoning Code and is found to be in conformance with the Town’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2026, and voted to recommend approval of the request to remove the rezoning condition regarding signage, as depicted in Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has duly considered the Applicant’s proposal for the removal of rezoning condition regarding signage. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, as follows: SECTION 1. The removal of the rezoning condition regarding signage for the Property located at the northwest corner of Oracle Rd. and Linda Vista Blvd., as depicted in the attached Exhibit “A”, is hereby authorized and approved. SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 3. All Oro Valley Ordinances, Resolutions, or Motions and parts of Ordinances, Resolutions or Motions of the Council in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. In compliance with ARS § 9-802, the exhibits to this Ordinance are on file at the Town Clerk’s Office. PASSED AND ADOPTED by Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 12th day of August, 2026. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Standish, Town Clerk Steven Zraick, Town Attorney Date: Date: ORDINANCE NO. (O)00- 21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY ZONING MAP BY CONDITIONALLY REZONING THAT PROPERTY KNOWN AS LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD/ORACLE ROAD, A PORTION OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST DESCRIBED HEREIN, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED ORO VALLEY RI-144 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO ORO VALLEY C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL), AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, that certain real property known as Linda Vista Boulevard/Oracle Road, approximately 14.3 acres in size, and further described by map in Exhibit "B" attached herewith, is currently zoned RI-144 in the Town of Oro Valley; and WHEREAS, an application requesting that the property be rezoned to Oro Valley C-N has been filed with the Town; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered said application and request at a duly noticed public hearing, in accordance with State Statute, and having made its recommendations to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Oro Valley Town Council has considered the requested rezoning at a duly noticed public hearing and finds that it is consistent with the Town's General Plan and Ordinances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1 : That certain real property, known as Linda Vista Boulevard/Oracle Road, and further described by map in Exhibit “B” attached herewith, is hereby conditionally rezoned to C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) subject to those conditions, stipulations, plan for development and all other conditions of approval established in Exhibit “A”, “Conditions for Approval of OV9- 99-115, Rezoning Request for Linda Vista Boulevard/Oracle Road From RI-144 to C-N”. SECTION 2 : That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 :That this ordinance and the various parts thereof are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, word or phrase of this ordinance is, for any treason, held to be unconstitutional, such holdings shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance. EXHIBIT “A” PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 5“ day of July, 2000. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: F:\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-115\TCRZ ORDINANCE.doc PUBLI SP:DAILT TERRITORIAI• AIIGOST I , 2 , 3 4, 2000 POSTRD:JULT 28 - AUGUST 26, 2000 lh . Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan . Dudley, Town Atto EXHIBIT "A" SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OV9-99-115 REZONING REQUEST FOR LINDA VISTA/ORACLE ROAD R1-144 TO C-N 1.All Standard Conditions for Non-PAD rezonings shall be imposed (attached). 2.The rezoning provided herein shall not be effective until such time as the owner and the Town enter into a Development Agreement (outlining water infrastructure improvements). In that agreement, the developer will aq•ree to provide the waterline to the site at no cost to the Town. The Development Agreement shall be approved by the Town Council and become effective as a matter of law. 3.All square footage references on Page 47 of the site analysis shall match those on the TDP. 4.The property owner, or their successors, shall comply with all Arizona Game and Fish regulations regarding the desert tortoise and the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl. A valid pygmy owl survey will be required at the time a Development Plan is submitted. 5.The tentative development plan shall be modified during the development plan process to preserve all saguaros and significant vegetation in-place, both in the landscape bufferyards and within the development site. This may be accomplished through changes in the layout and location of parking islands and/or modification of building location. 6.Native vegetation and understory shall be used in the landscape and bufferyard plan. 7.The developer shall be responsible for all on-site and off-site improvements associated with the development of this property. 8.The sidewalk on the north, east and south sides of the site shall be designed to meet ADA standards, and a pedestrian access easement provided. 9.The development shall dedicate 30’ right of way to the Town for Linda Vista Boulevard. This shall include improvements for a multi-use land and horse trail, as noted on the TDP. 10.The development shall improve both Linda Vista Blvd. and Desert Sky to accommodate the traffic generated from this development. 11.Page 58 top paragraph, this shall be changed that Linda Vista will be widened to the site's driveway initiall . Further widening to the west property line will occur at the time that a traffic study warrants the need. The property owner will providc financial assurances to the Town for completion of the future wideninp•. 12.The soils report that shall be prepared for the development plan must contain foundation design recommendations, and slope stability and treatment recommendations. 13.A drainage report shall be prepared for the development plan of this project. The development shall provide detention for the difference between pre & post development runoff. 14.ADOT approval of the traffic impact report shall be submitted prior to the project being scheduled for DRB. 15.ADOT approval of the improvements to Oracle Road and the access points on Oracle Road shall be submitted prior to the approval of the improvement plans for this project. 16.The developer will be required to submit a permit application for the use of ADOT right-of-way for the proposed land use. It will be the responsibility of the developer to meet any requirements for improvements within ADOT right-of-way as a result of the development. 17.Item K on page 41 and O on page 60 of the site analysis shall be revised to reflect the current understanding of the water issues associated with this property. 18.The procedural recommendations from the archaeological study report shall be added as a note to the TDP. 19.Exterior lighting shall be designed with low-pressure sodium fixtures and the poles shall be no higher than 18’. 20.All buildings shall be limited to one story, 18’ in height, in order to minimize the impact on views. 21.All building and site signage shall be consistent in design and color. All signage must be uniform in copper patina color. 22.There shall be no convenience uses, as defined in the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, permitted on this site. 23.All connections to the public sewer system shall be at the location and in the manner specified by Wastewater Management at the time of review of the development plan. 24.The following changes shall be made to the site analysis document, and a corrected file copy submitted to the Planning and Zoning Administrator: •Existing land use map on page 4 shall identify the apartments on Desert Sky. •The description of vegetation communities on page 12 shall be corrected to note the significant vegetation on site. •The viewshed statement on page 21 shall be corrected to note that views from the properties to the west will be affected by the development. •The McHarg composite map on page 46 shall be revised to include the areas of significant vegetation. •The statement regarding bicycle and pedestrian pathways on page 58 shall be expanded to describe the trail connections to the Linda Vista horse trail, to the Villa Balboa subdivision pathway, and the sidewalk system surrounding the property. 25.The property shall be developed substantially as presented in the tentative development plan included with the site analysis provided by the Planning Center on May 17. 2000 as a part of this rezonin . ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NON-P.A.D. REZONINGS Completion of the following requirements for a rezoning ordinance within the time frame specified herein from the date of approval by the Town Council: 2.Submittal of a complete hydraulic and hydrologic drainage report. 3.Approval of a development plan and/or recordation of a final plat as determined necessary by the appropriate Town Departments. 4.A suitable arrangement with Pima County Health Department or Pima County Wastewater Management for sewage disposal. 5.Recording a covenant holding the Town of Oro Valley harmless in the event of flooding. 6 Provision of development-related assurances as required by the appropriate Town departments. 7.Recording a covenant to remove only that vegetation that is necessary for building pads and accessory uses and the necessary roads and driveways and to salvage all healthy Palo Verde, Mesquite, Ironwood, Saguaros and Barrel Cacti for on-site landscaping purposes. 8.Recording any other development-related covenants as determined necessary by the appropriate Town departments. 9 Roads shall be constructed in conformance with the Town of Oro Valley standards. 10.Landscaping to consist of low water use and low pollen-producing vegetation. 11.Adherence to the Tentative Development Plan and associated conditions approved by the Oro Valley Town Council. 12.Significant change to the tentative development plan or conditions of rezoning, as defined by Sec. 3-104B, shall require re-review by the Planning Commission and Town Council in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. 13.The relocation and/or extension of utilities pursuant to the development or redevelopment of the subject parcel will be at no cost to the Town of Oro Valley. 14.Dedication of public rights-of-way through plat recordation in accordance with current Town ordinances. 15.Posting Development Opportunity Assessments (DOAs) in an approved form as determined necessary by the appropriate Town departments. 16.Submittal of a traffic impact analysis in accordance with Sec. 9-110N, unless modified by the Town Engineer and Zoning Administrator. 17.Completion of the requirements for a zoning ordinance within 2 years from the date of approval by Town Council, which shall include approval of a development plan for the project, issuance of a building permit for at least one structure on the site, and commencement of construction on that structure, or substantial completion of the watermain to serve the site . If these requirements are not met, the C-N zoning on this parcel shall expire, without further legislative action, and said zoning shall revert to its former R1-144. 18.All conditions which require revisions to the tentative development plan and/or site analysis must be completed within 30 days of the rezoning approval and copies submitted to the Planning and Zoning Administrator for the file. Rev-.11-29-89 2-21-89 1-31-90 3-28-90 4-16-90 5-13-94 Adopted by Mayor and Council Resolution No. (R)90-21 May 2, 1990 \\OV PZD\PZ1\OV\OV9\1999\9-99-115\TC EXHIBIT A.doc 1020 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Tucson AZ 85748 Phone: (520) 318-6035 | Fax: (520) 795-9953 www.pisapain.com May 19, 2026 Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 BVella@orovalleyaz.gov Attention: Planning Manager Dear Mr. Bayer Vella, As requested by Patty Hayes, I would like to submit the following letter to the Town Council to initiate a change in consideration of the rezoning condition as outlined. 29. ALL BUILDINGS AND SITE SIGNAGE SHALL BE CONSISTENT IN DESIGN AND COLOR. ALL SIGNAGE MUST BE UNIFORM IN COPPPER PATINA COLOR. Our intended outcome is to eliminate that restriction of copper patina-colored signs and allow a broader selection of colors used for signs. To facilitate the update permitting a broader selection of colors to be used for signs; owners of the development have provided the following signed approvals towards eliminating the rezoning condition. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dr. Buzz Schudy (520) 833-2598 bschudy@pisapain.com Pain Institute of Southern Arizona April 27,2026 Oro Valley Memory Associates 7420 SW Bridgeport Rd. Suite 105 Portland,OR 97224-7790 Attention:Frontier Management As a property owner in the Linda Vista development in Tucson,AZ,I very much appreciate your time and consideration towards the following request. The town of Oro Valley rezoned certain properties in 2006 within the Linda Vista development,and one of the conditions of this rezoning included provisions specific to the signage.Including our property,there are four additional lots impacted by this signage condition that we are requesting the Oro Valley Town Council to update. As one of the property owners,I would like your approval to eliminate the condition requiring that all sicinage must be uniform in copper patina color.We are only requesting that the copper patina color provision be eliminated. In order to proceed in updating this sign criteria,which would permit a selection of colors,it requires approval from all owners in the Linda Vista development.Once a signed approval from each of the Linda Vista property owners is received,I will submit it to the Town Council. Please acknowledge your approval of this request below. 0 I approve of having the copper patina color provision eliminated 0 I do not approve of having the copper patina color provision eliminated Title Date Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, John Cole,Owner’s Representative for Oro Valley Investments,LLC (520)490-4200 1020 S.Harrison,Suite 200 Tucson AZ 85748 Phone:(520)318-6035 I Fax:(520)795-9953 www.pisapain.com Public Hearing: Remove one rezoning condition related to sign color Linda Vista Plaza aka Oracle Vista Centre Town Council August 12, 2026 Purpose Remove one rezoning condition •For Linda Vista Plaza aka Oracle Vista Centre •Remove: “All buildings and site signage shall be consistence in design and color all signage must be uniform in copper patina color” •Align sign colors with the zoning code standards Discussion and decision to Town Council Request Proposal Cessna Way Airport Proposal Remove condition: “All buildings and site signage shall be consistence in design and color all signage must be uniform in copper patina color” Allow Sign colors permitted in Zoning Code Site History 14-acre site Rezoned from residential to commercial in 2000 Sign color condition added late in process 2010 Fire Station 2014 Memory Care facility 2022 Luxury Rentals 2026 Medical building near completion Locati of proposed addition Sign History Early 1980s: Only “monochromatic” sign colors in desert tones Early 1990s: Colors expanded to include brown, beige, copper, steel, brushed aluminum and copper patina Mid 1990s: Zoning code evolved to allow all colors except fluorescent or iridescent Many developments allowed to update sign colors Rooney Ranch (Target/Fry’s) Canada Crossroads (Harvest Restaurant/Desert Drifter) Rancho Vistoso Center (Harbor Freight/Walgreens/Gaslight Music) Mercado at Canada Hills (Fry’s/Goodwill/Pets Plus) Placita De Oro (Ace Hardware/La Hacienda) General Plan and Zoning Code General Plan (2016) Maintain the unique character of Oro Valley by studying and updating signage regulations to emphasize identification and direction over advertising goods and services to maintain compatibility and minimal intrusiveness Zoning Code Various sign colors shall be permitted, except fluorescent or iridescent colors Summary and Recommendation Proposal: Remove one rezoning condition limiting the color of signs to copper patina Allow colors permitted in zoning code Key Points: 1 sign color is restrictive Other developments allowed all colors Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of removing the sign color rezoning condition    Town Council Regular Session 2. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Requested by: Jeff Wilkins Submitted By:Paul Keesler, Public Works Department:Town Manager's Office SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND UPDATE REGARDING OFFSITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO RANCHO VISTOSO BLVD. BY THE TOWN AND WM GRACE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BUILDING OF A NEW SHOPPING CENTER WITH SPROUTS AS THE ANCHOR ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF RANCHO VISTOSO 7I  RECOMMENDATION: There are clear benefits to installing a signal at the entrance to the Sprouts Development/Safeway Plaza northern Ring Road RV Blvd access intersection. Not signaling as proposed and signalizing the Woodburne & RV Blvd. intersection does not provide the same traffic improvements and has the potential of either worsening traffic conditions or shutting down current access to Safeway and eliminating any practical RV Blvd access to RV 7I. Moving Woodburne slightly south to provide direct access to RV 5U, while it could substitute as a new Safeway access through RV 5U, will have detrimental impacts to the eastern portion of RV 7I. And this scenario most like would cause the Town to invoke eminent domain to obtain the land needed to facilitate this change.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 20th, 2026 staff brought before Council a study session item regarding road improvements and development related to the Vistoso Marketplace development located at the intersection of Tangerine Road and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. From that meeting and subsequent conversations, Council has traffic related questions on the following main topics:  Signal Spacing Signal Synchronization Placement of the signal at Woodburne Use of the northern section of Safeway Plaza parking lot ring road Southbound Rancho Vistoso Blvd, left turn stacking at the Tangerine Intersection Total development picture In addition, other issues discussed at this Study Session were:  Fixing localized traffic problems with or without associated development Impact of other nearby developments Moving The Woodburne and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. slightly south Who’s paying for these improvements Traffic studies conducted Woodburne Access by new development Southbound egress ability from the Horizons Neighborhood The curvature of Ranch Vistoso Blvd.  Western portion of 7-I impact to area traffic BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The following is a deep dive into the main traffic topics Council has requested from staff to fully understand the traffic functionality with or without the project: Signal Spacing As proposed by the Sprouts development, the signal spacing on RV Blvd will be:  From Tangerine & 1st/RV Blvd to the proposed signal at RV Blvd & The Safeway northern driveway perimeter road is: 850ft From RV Blvd & The Safeway Plaza's northern driveway perimeter road to RV Blvd & Arrowsmith/Moore Loop is: 3,150ft Some members of Council, as well as some residents, were concerned that the spacing between the Tangerine and the Safeway intersections on RV Blvd were too close to one another. Staff did offer that there is another functioning intersection within TOV that is closer and is functioning – that is the spacing of the 1st & Oracle ADOT signalized intersection to the 1st & Main TOV signalized intersection, which is 550ft. The reason that staff use 1st & Main as a comparable intersection is because the signal performs very well for its design function: managing conflicting traffic patterns to prevent collisions, despite the relative closeness to Oracle Rd. The overall accident ratio for the past 10 years of data is 0.2 accidents per million vehicle trips traveled through. This is a very safe functioning intersection, despite not being able to interconnect the two intersections for signal synchronization. This is five times as safe as the threshold of 1 accident per million, where we would start to analyze what is causing collisions. Signal Synchronization Via hardwiring two intersections physically and electrically connecting their traffic signal control systems so they operate as a single coordinated unit, typically using dedicated wiring, control cabinets, and interlock logic to synchronize phases and protect safety is the form of signal synchronization planned for this application. Each intersection’s signal controller is linked via physical wiring through a direct link between controllers so that one intersection’s phase changes can directly influence the others. The purpose is to provide the ability:  To monitor traffic to avoid the stopped queue of one signal backing up into the queue of another.  To provide cross-traffic breaks that optimize movements. To maintain the predominant flow passing through the area by having the signals act as one coordinated system. This does differ from the intersection at 1st & Main in that those two signals do not communicate. They do not communicate because one is within the operational control of ADOT and the other with TOV, and we do not use the same style of controller with the same controller operational logic. As such, TOV sets our signal at the intersection of 1st & Main to favor the 1st Ave. flow. This does at times cause the cross traffic to take more than one cycle to get through the intersection. But the 1st Ave. flow does not back out onto Oracle Rd. With the proposed signal at Sprouts being hard-wired with the Tangerine intersection, it will allow both signals to see each other’s queueing cross traffic, and when the main line of RV Blvd is operating at a lower volume off-peak, to react to the waiting cross traffic and let them go. Placement of the signal at Woodburne As requested by Council, staff analyzed the placement of a signal at the Woodburne & RV Blvd intersection as opposed to one placed at the Safeway northern driveway perimeter road. All parameters of the street layout remained the same as existing conditions as well as the proposed Sprouts development ingress/egress access points, without a signal when analyzing the Woodburne placement. The results of this study are attached to this communication. In summary, the level of service with the signal at the Safeway northern driveway perimeter road & RV Blvd intersection produced acceptable levels of service, C or better for nearly all traffic. By placing the signal at Woodburne & RV Blvd, some turning movements, primarily left turns exiting Safeway and Sprouts as well as right turns out of Safeway were unacceptable at an LOS of F, with one modeled turning movement taking almost 5 minutes. Even if the Woodburne & RV Blvd intersection was modified and could be moved slightly south for direct access into RV parcel 5U (the vacant parcel north of Safeway), that would only improve access to the Safeway Plaza. The east portion of RV parcel 7-I (the Sprouts Development) would either have an unacceptable LOS of F for patrons trying to exit to the north and go home in Rancho Vistoso, or would be forced to take a right out, travel south, make a U-turn at Tangerine and then head north to go back home in Rancho Vistoso. In summary, the placement of a signal at RV Blvd & Safeway northern driveway perimeter road offers an overall improvement in LOS over the placement of a signal at the RV Blvd & Woodburne intersection (whether in the existing location or modified slightly south). Use of the northern section of Safeway Plaza parking lot ring road Currently, what Council and some members of the public refer to as a “back alley” for the Safeway Plaza is technically a code defined parking lot requirement: ring road. As defined within the Oro Valley Zoning Code, Chapter 31:    Ring Road A road that typically provides unimpeded access to the parking aisles from the access drives and performs a collector function. A ring road is not primarily adjacent to the buildings except in service areas. Per Oro Valley Zoning Code, Section 27.7. Off-Street Parking, G. On-Site Circulation, 2. Ring Roads:  Ring roads shall be designed with thirty (30) MPH design standards and signed at fifteen (15) MPH.a. Ring roads shall be a minimum of twenty-eight (28) feet in width.b. Sight visibility triangles for thirty (30) MPH shall be a minimum along ring roads.c. Ring roads are required in all shopping centers generating more than five thousand (5,000) average daily trips (ADT).d. The Town Engineer shall approve any deviation from these requirements.e. Although the north quarter of this perimeter road was not designed well, creating impromptu loading zones conflicting with plaza traffic as well as significant blind spots for traffic leaving or entering at the north driveway at RV Blvd., it nonetheless functions as a needed ring road. To fix this situation, staff suggest that the ring road be shifted to the new development parcel 5U, north of Safeway during the development of that parcel:   The revised design rearranges the traffic flow between the proposed development and the existing Safeway Plaza by:  Removing general user traffic away from the “back alley” behind Rosati’s/Chinese Restaurant building and clearly redirects it on to the north RV 5U parcel, with 3 tie-in points to the Safeway plaza. This new arrangement also works with the alignment and trajectory of the ingress/egress from RV Blvd, where the new signal is being proposed by Sprouts. The “back alley” behind Rosati’s/Chinese Restaurant building will become a dedicated loading zone, with one-way traffic. It will have signage posted on the east side: Loading Zone, Authorized Vehicles only. Signage on the west side will read: Do Not Enter, Wrong Way. In addition, the pavement will be marked with arrows depicting the specified traffic direction. The “back alley” behind Rosati’s/Chinese Restaurant building will also be a fire lane, and both ends of the loading zone will be capped with fire restricted striping to also maintain the SVT’s going in and coming out against the crossing traffic movements. Lastly, the “back alley” behind Rosati’s/Chinese Restaurant building works with the existing pavement already in place. The grading will not be easy, but it is obtainable. It will require the south main building on RV 5U to have a stem wall, as grade between the two plazas will need to be made up for the entire area to work. Also, the existing drainage inlet on RV 5U will be impacted. This can all be accomplished via a rezoning condition for the proposed development. Southbound (SB) Rancho Vistoso Blvd, left turn stacking at the Tangerine Intersection Per the attached Traffic Impact Analysis, the intersection of RV Blvd & Tangerine was studied. The TIA, Figure 4 depicts the existing 95th percentile queues at the intersection. The 95th percentile queues are only exceeded 5% of the time and are generally used to determine turn lane storage requirements. Per the figure, the existing SB RV Blvd Left-Turn Lane stacking space is 540ft in length. During the peak hour vehicle queueing, traffic queues up to 219ft in the AM and 160ft in the PM. Under existing conditions, there is more than double the queueing storage capacity available than is currently used on a regular basis. This is the existing background traffic, including Safeway. When the Sprout's development is finished, the current design is shortening the existing RV Blvd SB LT lane by 120ft to accommodate the opposing NB LT lane for the proposed signal. Per Figure 15 of the TIA, the AM queue stacking is 323ft and the PM queue stacking is 292ft at the 95% rate. With the proposed design, there is 420ft available for stacking, so this additional traffic will not back out into the RV Blvd. southbound #1 lane (this is the inside lane). This traffic scenario works. This is just with the added traffic from the Sprout's development to the area. For added traffic from RV 5U and the western portion of 7-I, that is covered in the next section – Total development picture. Total development picture Staff have developed a layout that includes the four major developments in and around this proposed signalized intersection:  The Existing Safeway Shopping Center1. The proposed Sprouts Development (eastern half of RV Parcel 7-I)2. A recent layout received for RV Parcel 5-U3. A rough layout of the western section of RV Parcel 7-I: This layout is based on an intense commercial development concept received from the owner of said parcel. It consists of three medium box anchors, five sections of multiple strip shops and two drive-thru restaurants. 4.  This composite depicts all four developments that are directly impacted by the proposed placement of the new signal at the Safeway Plaza northern access point. Also please see the attached exhibit of the same for closer reference. As mentioned within the last section, we will detail the impacts of adding the traffic from the proposed RV 5U development as well as the western portion of 7-I. Since there is a preliminary proposal received by staff for RV 5U, we will add that traffic to the existing background traffic today as well as the Sprouts traffic already in place, which will render new totals and queuing requirements. This analysis reviews the two main traffic pinch points of (1) RV Blvd northbound left turn traffic at the new signal and (2) the RV Blvd southbound left turn traffic at the intersection of Rv. Blvd and Tangerine Road. These two traffic movements impact each other because they share the same median space and the dimensions from the Sprouts signal and the Tangerine signal are finite. After that, since the western portion of 7-I is not formally received as a development request, it will be approached as a future development and added over an assumed: Existing Background traffic + Sprouts traffic + RV 5U proposed development traffic. Adding in the traffic from RV 5U Assisted Living & Commercial Retail development proposal:  This proposal will generate 57 vehicle trips in the AM and 120 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours.  Since the primary access is at the Sprouts signalized intersection, making a right turn in, it has no impact to the signal’s left turn into Sprouts. The egress from this development will be primarily at the same signalized intersection, with an estimated 90% of the egress turning south. As this traffic moves south, it will utilize the RV Blvd southbound left turn lane at the Tangerine intersection. The calculations are that it will add 14 vehicles in the AM and 22 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The additional added traffic on this lane will increase the queueing from 323ft to 340ft in the AM and from 292ft to 322ft in the PM peak hour. Since there is 420ft available per the proposed design, the addition of the RV 5U traffic works. Adding in the traffic from the development of the western portion of 7-I, as depicted by the property owner as commercial or residential apartments:  This proposal will generate 638 vehicle trips in the AM and 1,237 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours for commercial. For residential apartments, using the previous rezoning request of 240 units, that would generate 98 vehicle trips in the AM and 125 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours. For this presentation, we will use the more conservative approach and larger impact of developing as commercial. There are three points of access to this development: two on Tangerine and one through the Sprouts development. The traffic distribution is being estimated to be 40% each per Tangerine access and 20% through the Sprouts development. This places 128 vehicle trips in the AM and 247 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours traveling into and through the Sprouts development. Using the exterior distribution ratios as with the Sprouts development, this places 35 vehicle trips in the AM and 49 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours to add to the traffic already present from the combined existing traffic today + Sprouts generated traffic + RV 5U generated traffic at the RV Blvd. SB LT Lane. And it adds 90 vehicle trips in the AM and 141 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours to the new signal RV Blvd. NB LT Lane. For the RV Blvd NB Lane at the new signal, with this traffic added, there are 214 vehicle Trips causing a 242ft queuing requirement in the AM and 331 vehicle trips and a 267ft queuing requirement in the PM. Both of which are larger than the proposed 150ft storage length provided. For the RV Blvd SB LT Lane, with everything added up, there 323 total vehicle trips in the AM and 282 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours, causing a queuing of 381ft in the AM and 390ft in the PM peak hours, based on the ratios of the previous modeling, which also includes signal timing protocol. Although there is 420ft of queuing available in the RV Blvd. SB Lane that could conceivably handle all the additional traffic, it will need to be reduced to 300ft in length to accommodate the needed NB LT queuing for the signal. In the end, the solution to handle the additional traffic generated by developing 7-I west would be to lengthen the NB LT Lane queue by 100ft to 250ft. Then RV Blvd at Tangerine will need to be widened to accommodate a second SB LT Lane. With two 300ft southbound turn lanes, this will provide 600ft of turning queue. This is one of the reasons there will be a general category within the upcoming Impact Fee update, in particular the Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) for a general category to cover such possibilities as a conceivable future need to widen Rancho Vistoso Blvd. at the Tangerine Rd. Of course this widening of RV Blvd will be dependent on how 7-I west will ultimately be developed. It also covers any increases in traffic generated throughout the community, such as at the OVMP, and whether there are any additional improvements needed in the future when that development traffic is realized. Other issues discussed at this Study Session  Fixing localized traffic problems with or without associated development Staff Response: This area is identified on the Town’s Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) and we intend to approach Council for signalization of the northern Safeway Ring Road access point with RV Blvd, with or without the development of Sprouts. The first step, if approved by Council is street reconfiguration per the latest design. Then afterward, request RTA Next safety monies to pay for said signalization.     Impact of other nearby developments Staff Response: When planning area traffic impacts, the industry standard is calculating future traffic volumes via the Trip Generation Manual published by the ITE – A Community of Transportation Professionals. This manual is demand-based, meaning the future uses are used to calculate the future traffic generated. This generally leads to a more conservative approach, as the numbers are generally higher than what we experience in Oro Valley after development is complete. As detailed above within sections Southbound (SB) Rancho Vistoso Blvd, left turn stacking at the Tangerine Intersection and Total development picture , we have detailed the impacts of all four developments directly contributing traffic to the proposed signal.     Moving The Woodburne and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. slightly south Staff Response: That was discussed in the section above Placement of the signal at Woodburne     Who’s paying for these improvements Staff Response: The Town is expending Transportation Impact Fees as detailed on the Town’s IIP, and the Town can request RTA Next's Safety Categorial dollars to pay for the signal.  Or, the developer can build eligible off-site road and signal improvements and be reimbursed by the Town through a development agreement.       Traffic studies conducted Staff Response: Several traffic studies have been conducted over the years. The two studies that define this design are attached to this communication.     Woodburne Access by new development Staff Response: No Woodburne access is anticipated by the proposed development or future western portion of RV 7I.     Southbound egress ability from the Horizons Neighborhood Staff Response: This is an existing problem that could benefit from traffic gaps created by another signal as being proposed.     The curvature of Ranch Vistoso Blvd. Staff Response: The RV Blvd alignment is curved with a centerline radius of 975ft, until it’s within 170ft of the center of Woodburne Ave.      FISCAL IMPACT: $650,000 of Transportation Impact Fees remain to be spent on this intersection. Without the development, staff would approach the RTA to utilize the balance needed out of the new RTA Next's Safety Categorial fund. If the development project is approved and moves forward, the Town has the additional option to finalize a development agreement to reimburse the Developer for offsite road improvements and signal.  SUGGESTED MOTION: No motion is required for this Study Session item as it will formally come back within a development proposal. However, Council may want to give direction on whether they can support this traffic concept of signalization of the Sprout's main ingress/egress, which is across Rancho Vistoso Blvd. to the Safeway Plaza North Ring Road ingress/egress. Attachments Safeway Ring Road Reconfiguration  Traffic Impact Analysis for Sprouts  Signal Placement Analysis between Safeway and Woodburne  Composite of all 4 developments impacting signal  Staff Presentation  Rancho Vistoso Boulevard/Tangerine Road Northwest Corner Traffic Impact Study PREPARED FOR January 2025 RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD/TANGERINE ROAD NORTHWEST CORNER TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Prepared For Prepared By Psomas Project No. 7WMG240101 January 2025 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION _________________________________________________________ 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS _________________________________________________ 2 2.1. EXISTING LAND USE ______________________________________________________ 2 2.2. ROADWAY NETWORK _____________________________________________________ 2 2.3. TRAFFIC VOLUMES _______________________________________________________ 2 2.4. EXISTING OPERATIONS ___________________________________________________ 4 2.5. CRASH HISTORY _________________________________________________________ 7 3. FUTURE CONDITIONS ___________________________________________________ 8 3.1. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ___________________________________________________ 8 3.2. PROPOSED PROJECT ______________________________________________________ 8 3.3. TRIP GENERATION ______________________________________________________ 12 3.4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION _____________________________________________________ 12 3.5. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ______________________________________________ 12 3.6. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS __________________________________________ 17 3.7. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS _____________________________________________ 17 4. OPENING YEAR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS _________________________________ 19 4.1. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS _____________________________________________ 19 4.2. QUEUE ANALYSIS _______________________________________________________ 22 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS __________________________________ 25 6. REFERENCES __________________________________________________________ 26 APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA APPENDIX B – SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS, EXISTING CONDITIONS APPENDIX C – CRASH DATA APPENDIX D – SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS, OPENING YEAR BACKGROUND APPENDIX E – SIMTRAFFIC REPORTS, OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION – FAST FOOD OPTION ____________________________________ 13 TABLE 2. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION – GAS STATION OPTION __________________________________ 14 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION ___________________________________________________________ 1 FIGURE 2. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ____________________________________________________ 3 FIGURE 3. EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) _______________________________________________ 5 FIGURE 4. EXISTING 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUES _______________________________________________ 6 FIGURE 5. OPENING YEAR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ___________________________________ 9 FIGURE 6. SITE PLAN – FAST FOOD OPTION ________________________________________________ 10 FIGURE 7. SITE PLAN – GAS STATION OPTION _______________________________________________ 11 FIGURE 8. PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ____________________________________________________ 15 FIGURE 9. OPENING YEAR TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ________________________________________ 16 FIGURE 10. RIGHT TURN LANE WARRANT EVALUATION – TANGERINE ROAD/WEST DRIVEWAY________ 18 FIGURE 11. PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT – TANGERINE ROAD/NORTH DRIVEWAY ________________ 18 FIGURE 12. OPENING YEAR BACKGROUND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ____________________________ 20 FIGURE 13. OPENING YEAR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) WITH PROJECT ____________________________ 21 FIGURE 14. OPENING YEAR BACKGROUND 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUES ____________________________ 23 FIGURE 15. OPENING YEAR 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUES WITH PROJECT ____________________________ 24 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION The proposed commercial project on the northwest corner of the Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Tangerine Road intersection. The proposed project will include a 23,182- square-foot (SF) grocery store, a 12,000 SF retail building, and either a gas station with convenience store or two fast food buildings, each with a drive-thru. The convenience store would be 6,000 SF, and the two fast food buildings would provide a total of 5,200 SF of space. The project is assumed to be completed in 2027. Trip generation estimates show that the gas station option would generate more trips than the fast-food option; therefore, the gas station option was evaluated in this report. The project is expected to generate 7,411 daily trips, including 643 peak hour trips. Considering pass-by traffic, the project is expected to generate 3,926 new daily trips and 333 new peak hour trips. The purpose of this report is to identify improvements to the road network required to achieve the Level of Service (LOS) targets defined by Oro Valley. The project location is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Project Location January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 2 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1. EXISTING LAND USE Under existing conditions, the land on which the project would be constructed is vacant. There are homes to the north across Woodburne Avenue, a Safeway shopping center to the east across Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, and a smaller shopping center to the south across Tangerine Road. 2.2. ROADWAY NETWORK The project will have direct access from Rancho Vistoso Boulevard (RVB) via two new driveways and from Tangerine Road via one new driveway. Information about the major roadways in the study area is provided below. Tangerine Road is a four-lane divided roadway with paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway and a two-way multi-use path on the south side. The posted speed limit is 45 mph, and the roadway is classified as a major arterial by the Town of Oro Valley1. Rancho Vistoso Boulevard (RVB)/1st Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with paved shoulder, a sidewalk along the east side of the roadway, and a two-way multi-use path along the west side. The posted speed limit is 45 mph north and south of the intersection, and both RVB and 1st Avenue are classified as minor arterials by the Town of Oro Valley. 2.3. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Turning movement counts were collected on Wednesday, April 10, 2024, by Field Data Services of Arizona from 7:00 – 9:00 AM and from 3:30 – 5:30 PM. The peak hours for the study area were found to be from 7:15 – 8:15 AM and from 3:30 – 4:30 PM, and the existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. The complete traffic volumes can be found in Appendix A. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 4 2.4. EXISTING OPERATIONS Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions in terms of travel speed (for arterials), density (for freeways and ramps), and delays (for intersections). LOS ranges from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F representing the worst. The following sections discuss the existing LOS for the facilities in the project area. LOS D is generally considered acceptable for urban and suburban intersections. The microsimulation tool SimTraffic within the traffic modeling software Synchro was used to evaluate the operations of the intersections in the study area. Figure 3 shows the LOS results for existing conditions, and the SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix B. As seen in the figure, all intersections and movements in the study area are operating at LOS D or better in both peak hours. Figure 4 shows the existing 95th percentile queues at the intersection. The 95th percentile queues are only exceeded 5% of the time and are generally used to determine turn lane storage needs. As shown, the existing turn lanes are sufficient to serve existing queues with the exception of the northeast-bound right turn at RVB and Woodburne Avenue in the AM peak hour and the southbound right turn at RVB and Tangerine Road in both peak hours. However, both movements are expected to operate with an acceptable LOS, and the existing tapers and shoulders will also help serve the longer queue should it occur. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 7 2.5. CRASH HISTORY The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Safety shows that there were 112 crashes in the study area between 2019 and 2023. A majority (81) of the crashes occurred at the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection, including the one fatal crash which occurred when a westbound motorcyclist making a left turn was hit by an eastbound driver who ran a red light. However, a majority (47) of the crashes resulted in no injury. The most common type of crash was a rear end crash (32), which is typical at a signalized intersection. Rear end crashes were followed by left turn crashes (32) and angle crashes (12). The most common violations were failing to yield the right of way/disregarding the signal (34) and speed too fast for conditions (26). There were also 11 crashes at the northern Safeway driveway, including at least 5 left turn crashes. Because this intersection will be signalized with the project, the crash history is not necessarily indicative of safety concerns which may be present in the future. Six of the crashes resulted in no injury, but there were two incapacitating injury crashes. There were 16 crashes at the RVB/Woodburne Avenue intersection during the 5-year period, 13 of which resulted in property damage only (no injury). The most common type of crash was angle crash (5), followed by left turn and rear end (3 each), then sideswipe same direction and single vehicle (2 each). There was also one bicycle crash which resulted in a possible injury. Both RVB and Tangerine Road along the project frontage as well as the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection have a Level of Service of Safety of III (3), which indicates that there is a moderate to high potential for crash reduction. One other item to note is that 1/3 of crashes involved an older driver (65+). This is somewhat higher than the Town average of 28% and considerably higher than the region average of 20% but is also consistent with the demographics in the vicinity of the project. The Town should continue to monitor the area to determine if safety improvements are needed. The crash data is included in Appendix C. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 8 3. FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Based on the limited developable land in the area and discussions with the Town, it was determined that traffic volume growth would be approximately 0.5% per year without the project. The total background traffic in the anticipated opening year is shown in Figure 5. 3.2. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project includes a 23,182-square-foot (SF) grocery store, a 12,000 SF retail building, and either a gas station with convenience store or two fast food buildings, each with a drive-thru. The convenience store would be 6,000 SF, and the two fast food buildings would provide a total of 5,200 SF of space. The project is assumed to be completed in 2027. As previously mentioned, the site will have two access points along RVB and one on Tangerine Road. The two RVB access points are expected to align with the existing Safeway shopping center driveways, although the southern project access will be right-in right-out only. It is expected that the northern access will become a signalized intersection. The third site access point, located west of RVB on Tangerine Road, is also expected to be right-in right-out only. Figure 6 shows the fast-food site plan option, and Figure 7 shows the gas station site plan option. Note that the second access point on Tangerine Road shown in both site plan figures is not expected to be constructed with this project but will be constructed with future phases of development. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 12 3.3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation for a site is typically calculated based on data for the various land uses in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual2. Based on guidance from ITE, the trip generation equations were used, where appropriate, to estimate the trips generated by the project. The pass-by rates were taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual and Trip Generation Handbook3, with adjustments to account for anticipated retail pass-by trips and AM peak hour retail pass-by trips. However, it was conservatively assumed that there would be no grocery store pass-by trips in the AM peak hour. Table 1 shows the trip generation for the fast-food project option, and Table 2 shows the trip generation for the gas station option. As shown, the gas station option is expected to generate more traffic than the fast-food option. Therefore, the gas station option was evaluated in this report as a worst-case scenario to capture the potential impact of the higher traffic volumes. As shown, the project is expected to generate nearly 4,000 new daily trips including 333 new peak hour trips. 3.4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Based on surrounding land uses and the roadway network, it was assumed that 35% of project traffic would access the site to/from the west, 20% would access the site to/from the east, 20% would access the site to/from the south, and 25% would access the site to/from the north (including 20% along RVB and 5% to/from Woodburne Avenue). The pass-by distribution is slightly different based on anticipated travel patterns. Figure 8 shows the project traffic volumes in the opening year. 3.5. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES The total traffic volumes in the project area are a combination of the background traffic and the project traffic. Figure 9 shows the total traffic volumes in the opening year of the project. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Table 1. Project Trip Generation – Fast Food Option 1,000 Square Feet 23.182 Period Trips/Unit Trips % In % Out Trips In Trips Out AM Peak 2.86 66 59% 41% 39 27 PM Peak 10.20 237 50% 50% 118 118 Daily 106.66 2,472 50% 50% 1,236 1,236 1,000 Square Feet 5.2 Period Trips/Unit Trips % In % Out Trips In Trips Out AM Peak 44.61 232 51% 49% 118 114 PM Peak 33.03 172 52% 48% 89 82 Daily 467.48 2,431 50% 50% 1,215 1,215 1,000 Square Feet 12.0 Period Trips/Unit Trips % In % Out Trips In Trips Out AM Peak 2.71 32 24% 76% 8 25 PM Peak 7.38 89 63% 37% 56 33 Daily 61.34 736 50% 50% 368 368 Period AM Peak PM Peak Daily Period AM Peak PM Peak Daily Period AM Peak PM Peak Daily ITE Land Use Code 850 - Supermarket ITE LU 934 - Fast Food with Drive Thru ITE LU 822 - Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) 331 165 166 Subtotal - Before Reductions Trips Trips In Trips Out 5,639 2,820 2,820 497 263 234 116 59 57 Pass-by Trips Trips Trips In Trips Out 2,157 1,078 1,078 160 83 77 215 106 109 TOTAL NEW TRIPS Trips Trips In Trips Out 3,483 1,741 1,741 337 180 156 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 14 Table 2. Project Trip Generation – Gas Station Option 1,000 Square Feet 23.182 Period Trips/Unit Trips % In % Out Trips In Trips Out AM Peak 2.86 66 59% 41% 39 27 PM Peak 10.20 237 50% 50% 118 118 Daily 106.66 2,472 50% 50% 1,236 1,236 1,000 Square Feet 6.0 Period Trips/Unit Trips % In % Out Trips In Trips Out AM Peak 56.52 339 51% 49% 173 166 PM Peak 54.52 327 52% 48% 170 157 Daily 700.43 4,203 50% 50% 2,101 2,101 1,000 Square Feet 12.0 Period Trips/Unit Trips % In % Out Trips In Trips Out AM Peak 2.36 28 24% 76% 7 22 PM Peak 6.59 79 63% 37% 50 29 Daily 61.34 736 50% 50% 368 368 Period AM Peak PM Peak Daily Period AM Peak PM Peak Daily Period AM Peak PM Peak Daily ITE Land Use Code 850 - Supermarket ITE LU 945 - Convenience Store/Gas Station ITE LU 822 - Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) Subtotal - Before Reductions Trips Trips In Trips Out 434 219 215 643 338 305 7,411 3,706 3,706 Pass-by Trips Trips Trips In Trips Out 258 131 126 310 161 149 3,485 1,743 1,743 TOTAL NEW TRIPS Trips Trips In Trips Out 176 87 89 333 177 155 3,926 1,963 1,963 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 17 3.6. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS As previously discussed, the project will have two access points on RVB and one on Tangerine Road. Two of the three will be right-in right-out only, while the northernmost access will be a full access. A northbound left turn lane will be added at the new north access location. Because both RVB and Tangerine Road have a raised median, there is no need to evaluate the left turn lane warrant. Figure 10 shows the right turn lane warrant evaluation at the project driveway on Tangerine Road. The warrant was not evaluated for the planned signalized intersection at the north Safeway/north project driveway on RVB because the warrant is only meant to be evaluated for uncontrolled approaches. The south driveway on RVB and Woodburne Avenue have right turn volumes below the minimum number (10 in the peak hour), so the right turn lane warrant was only evaluated for the new project driveway on Tangerine Road. As seen in Figure 10, the volumes will meet the warrant in the PM peak hour; therefore, a westbound right turn lane should be constructed with the project at the driveway located on Tangerine Road. 3.7. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices4 (MUTCD) provides nine signal warrants which are to be evaluated when considering the installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. An intersection should meet one or more of the warrants before a traffic signal is installed, but if one or more warrants are met, a traffic signal does not necessarily have to be installed. To determine when traffic signals might be warranted in the project area, the peak hour signal warrant was evaluated for the full-access project driveway on RVB. Figure 11 shows the signal warrant analysis, including the assumption that both the major street and the minor street have two or more lanes. As shown, the intersection will meet the peak hour warrant. While a full signal warrant study may be requested by the Town before construction, it was assumed in this report that a traffic signal would be constructed at the intersection of the north driveway and RVB with the project. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 18 Figure 10. Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation – Tangerine Road/West Driveway Figure 11. Peak Hour Signal Warrant – Tangerine Road/North Driveway January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 19 4. OPENING YEAR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS As with existing conditions, SimTraffic was used to evaluate the expected intersection operations in the opening year. For conditions with the project, it is assumed that the two unsignalized project driveways will operate with stop control on the driveway. There are not expected to be any changes to traffic control at the existing RVB/Woodburne Avenue or RVB/Tangerine Road intersections. 4.1. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS As seen in Figure 12, all existing intersections and movements are expected to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours without the project in the opening year. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix D. With the project, as shown in Figure 13, the existing intersections and most movements will continue to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours, as will the movements associated with the project driveways. The lone exception is the southbound left turn movement at the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection, which is shown to operate slightly over the LOS D threshold (55 seconds of delay per vehicle) with 56.9 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. However, the overall intersection is still expected to operate at LOS D. The SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 22 4.2. QUEUE ANALYSIS Figure 14 shows the 95th percentile queues in the opening year without the project. As shown in the figure, most of the queues without the project are expected to be contained within the exiting storages. The exceptions, as with existing conditions, are the northeast- bound right turn from Woodburne Avenue onto RVB in the AM peak hour and the southbound right turns from RVB onto Tangerine Road in both peak hours. With the project, shown in Figure 15, the same queues are expected to exceed the existing storage. However, as previously mentioned, delays are acceptable for those movements. In addition, the taper and/or shoulder areas provide sufficient room for those queues should they occur. New with the project, the 95th percentile eastbound left turn queue at the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection is also expected to exceed the existing storage by less than two vehicle lengths. As with the other queues, the taper is expected to contain the overflow. It should also be noted that although the southbound left turn lane at the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection will be shortened with the project, it is still expected to be sufficient to serve 95th percentile queues in both peak hours. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 25 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed commercial project on the northwest corner of the Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Tangerine Road intersection is expected to include a 23,182-square-foot (SF) grocery store, a 12,000 SF retail building, and either a gas station with convenience store or two fast food buildings, each with a drive-thru. The convenience store would be 6,000 SF, and the two fast food buildings would provide a total of 5,200 SF of space. The project is assumed to be completed in 2027. Trip generation estimates show that the gas station option would generate more trips than the fast-food option; therefore, the gas station option was evaluated in this report. The project is expected to generate 7,411 daily trips, including 643 peak hour trips. Considering pass-by traffic, the project is expected to generate 3,926 new daily trips and 333 new peak hour trips. With the project, the following improvements should be constructed: · Reconstruct the median on RVB between Woodburne Avenue and the north project/Safeway driveway to provide left turn storage in both directions along the entire segment (approximately 300 feet) · Construct a signal at the RVB/north project driveway intersection · Reconstruct the median south of the new signal to provide a 150-foot northbound left turn lane o This will result in a shorter southbound left turn lane at the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection · Construct a westbound right turn lane with the minimum storage at the project driveway located on Tangerine Road With these improvements in place, the study intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours with the project. In addition, all movements are expected to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours with the exception of the southbound left turn at RVB and Tangerine Road in the PM peak hour, which will operate at LOS E. In addition, the queues will generally be contained within the existing storage lengths. In situations where that is not the case, the extra vehicles are expected to be served within the existing tapers and/or shoulders. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Page 26 6. REFERENCES 1 Town of Oro Valley Circulation Map, May 2016. 2 Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021. 3 Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 4 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Federal Highway Administration, 2009. January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Appendix A – Traffic Volume Data Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: N-S STREET:DATE:LOCATION: E-W STREET:DAY:PROJECT# NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 69 72 0 0 109 0 1 0 55 0 0 0 306 7:15 AM 47 92 0 0 190 2 0 0 107 0 0 0 438 7:30 AM 25 115 0 0 188 1 0 0 60 0 0 0 389 7:45 AM 19 127 0 0 178 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 348 8:00 AM 12 139 0 0 141 1 0 0 30 0 0 0 323 8:15 AM 19 112 0 0 180 0 1 0 45 0 0 0 357 8:30 AM 13 122 0 0 169 1 0 0 35 0 0 0 340 8:45 AM 13 111 0 0 169 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 322 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL Volumes 217 890 0 0 1324 5 2 0 385 0 0 0 2823 Approach %19.60 80.40 0.00 0.00 99.62 0.38 0.52 0.00 99.48 ############ App/Depart 1107 /892 1329 /1709 387 /0 0 /222 715 AM PEAK Volumes 103 473 0 0 697 4 0 0 221 0 0 0 1498 Approach %17.88 82.12 0.00 0.00 99.43 0.57 0.00 0.00 100.00 ############ PEAK HR. FACTOR:0.855 32.427196, -110.962795 1-Way Stop (EB) COMMENT 1: GPS: CONTROL: 0.913 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 0.000 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.5160.954 04/10/24 Oro ValleyRancho Vistoso Blvd Woodburne Ave 24-1196-003WEDNESDAY veracity grouptraffic Intersection Turning Movement N-S STREET:DATE:LOCATION: E-W STREET:DAY:PROJECT# NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 33 188 0 0 144 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 381 3:45 PM 31 151 0 0 122 1 0 0 32 0 0 0 337 4:00 PM 27 207 0 0 127 1 2 0 26 0 0 0 390 4:15 PM 45 171 0 0 156 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 402 4:30 PM 30 179 0 0 130 2 0 0 23 0 0 0 364 4:45 PM 30 164 0 0 121 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 348 5:00 PM 28 178 0 0 151 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 377 5:15 PM 44 186 0 0 131 2 2 0 28 0 0 0 393 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL Volumes 268 1424 0 0 1082 7 4 0 207 0 0 0 2992 Approach %15.84 84.16 0.00 0.00 99.36 0.64 1.90 0.00 98.10 ############ App/Depart 1692 /1428 1089 /1289 211 /0 0 /275 330 PM PEAK Volumes 136 717 0 0 549 3 2 0 103 0 0 0 1510 Approach %15.94 84.06 0.00 0.00 99.46 0.54 1.90 0.00 98.10 ############ PEAK HR. FACTOR:0.939 GPS:32.427196, -110.962795 0.885 0.820 CONTROL:1-Way Stop (EB) COMMENT 1:0 Oro Valley PM Peak Hr Begins at: 0.000 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.911 Rancho Vistoso Blvd 04/10/24 0 Woodburne Ave WEDNESDAY 24-1196-003 veracity grouptraffic Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: N-S STREET:DATE:LOCATION: E-W STREET:DAY:PROJECT# NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 0 132 7 11 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 312 7:15 AM 0 126 3 20 277 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 439 7:30 AM 0 124 6 15 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 394 7:45 AM 0 131 0 15 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 348 8:00 AM 0 131 4 17 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 326 8:15 AM 0 120 6 20 205 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 363 8:30 AM 0 115 7 28 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 346 8:45 AM 0 107 1 19 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 323 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL Volumes 0 986 34 145 1564 0 0 0 0 1 0 121 2851 Approach %0.00 96.67 3.33 8.48 91.52 0.00 ############0.82 0.00 99.18 App/Depart 1020 /1107 1709 /1565 0 /179 122 /0 715 AM PEAK Volumes 0 512 13 67 851 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 1507 Approach %0.00 97.52 2.48 7.30 92.70 0.00 ############0.00 0.00 100.00 PEAK HR. FACTOR:0.858 32.426519, -110.961885 1-Way Stop (WB) COMMENT 1: GPS: CONTROL: 0.773 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 0.800 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.0000.972 04/10/24 Oro ValleyRancho Vistoso Blvd Northern Safeway Dwy 24-1196-002WEDNESDAY veracity grouptraffic Intersection Turning Movement N-S STREET:DATE:LOCATION: E-W STREET:DAY:PROJECT# NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 0 189 1 20 139 0 0 0 0 1 0 32 382 3:45 PM 0 149 4 24 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 340 4:00 PM 0 208 0 14 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 387 4:15 PM 0 181 7 18 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 409 4:30 PM 0 174 4 19 134 0 0 0 0 1 0 35 367 4:45 PM 0 173 6 19 135 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 355 5:00 PM 0 184 0 22 149 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 378 5:15 PM 0 193 4 20 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 393 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL Volumes 0 1451 26 156 1133 0 0 0 0 4 0 241 3011 Approach %0.00 98.24 1.76 12.10 87.90 0.00 ############1.63 0.00 98.37 App/Depart 1477 /1692 1289 /1137 0 /182 245 /0 400 PM PEAK Volumes 0 736 17 70 576 0 0 0 0 2 0 117 1518 Approach %0.00 97.74 2.26 10.84 89.16 0.00 ############1.68 0.00 98.32 PEAK HR. FACTOR:0.928 GPS:32.426519, -110.961885 0.868 0.000 CONTROL:1-Way Stop (WB) COMMENT 1:0 Oro Valley PM Peak Hr Begins at: 0.826 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.905 Rancho Vistoso Blvd 04/10/24 0 Northern Safeway Dwy WEDNESDAY 24-1196-002 veracity grouptraffic Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: N-S STREET:DATE:LOCATION: E-W STREET:DAY:PROJECT# NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 25 62 26 41 87 25 39 142 36 9 89 39 620 7:15 AM 38 65 31 75 157 45 39 163 66 22 98 32 831 7:30 AM 35 72 35 71 131 31 57 149 74 18 118 14 805 7:45 AM 29 97 37 50 104 33 40 143 66 28 103 30 760 8:00 AM 27 65 28 27 103 24 50 157 43 28 88 19 659 8:15 AM 22 98 32 26 137 43 32 151 51 31 107 15 745 8:30 AM 23 65 34 37 113 26 37 132 43 28 89 16 643 8:45 AM 28 68 26 33 121 25 35 119 38 36 106 16 651 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL Volumes 227 592 249 360 953 252 329 1156 417 200 798 181 5714 Approach %21.25 55.43 23.31 23.00 60.89 16.10 17.30 60.78 21.92 16.96 67.68 15.35 App/Depart 1068 /1102 1565 /1570 1902 /1765 1179 /1277 715 AM PEAK Volumes 129 299 131 223 495 133 186 612 249 96 407 95 3055 Approach %23.08 53.49 23.43 26.20 58.17 15.63 17.77 58.45 23.78 16.05 68.06 15.89 PEAK HR. FACTOR:0.919 32.424434, -110.961198 Signal COMMENT 1: GPS: CONTROL: 0.768 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 0.929 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.9350.857 04/10/24 Oro ValleyRancho Vistoso Blvd Tangerine Rd 24-1196-001WEDNESDAY veracity grouptraffic Intersection Turning Movement N-S STREET:DATE:LOCATION: E-W STREET:DAY:PROJECT# NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES:1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 47 128 33 34 80 26 46 96 42 50 169 35 786 3:45 PM 42 91 25 31 74 25 40 108 45 37 157 32 707 4:00 PM 34 115 27 38 72 29 47 99 27 56 164 36 744 4:15 PM 43 121 27 39 89 40 47 111 25 60 155 27 784 4:30 PM 48 114 30 47 62 26 31 88 32 70 155 32 735 4:45 PM 37 96 22 37 75 24 44 115 29 47 152 38 716 5:00 PM 45 123 32 37 91 22 40 97 28 55 168 40 778 5:15 PM 32 122 13 40 73 26 38 95 30 42 127 32 670 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL Volumes 328 910 209 303 616 218 333 809 258 417 1247 272 5920 Approach %22.67 62.89 14.44 26.65 54.18 19.17 23.79 57.79 18.43 21.54 64.41 14.05 App/Depart 1447 /1515 1137 /1291 1400 /1321 1936 /1793 330 PM PEAK Volumes 166 455 112 142 315 120 180 414 139 203 645 130 3021 Approach %22.65 62.07 15.28 24.61 54.59 20.80 24.56 56.48 18.96 20.76 65.95 13.29 PEAK HR. FACTOR:0.961 GPS:32.424434, -110.961198 0.859 0.949 CONTROL:Signal COMMENT 1:0 Oro Valley PM Peak Hr Begins at: 0.955 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 0.881 Rancho Vistoso Blvd 04/10/24 0 Tangerine Rd WEDNESDAY 24-1196-001 veracity grouptraffic January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Appendix B – SimTraffic Reports, Existing Conditions SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3867 3972 3777 3893 3917 3983 3866 Vehs Exited 3865 3973 3777 3879 3902 3981 3845 Starting Vehs 103 82 107 85 92 97 82 Ending Vehs 105 81 107 99 107 99 103 Denied Entry Before 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 Travel Distance (mi)2173 2248 2139 2194 2214 2234 2158 Travel Time (hr)93.1 98.5 90.4 93.6 93.1 97.2 91.8 Total Delay (hr)37.1 40.3 35.3 36.7 36.3 39.3 36.0 Total Stops 3206 3351 3100 3272 3221 3351 3217 Fuel Used (gal)87.0 90.9 85.2 87.9 87.9 90.2 86.8 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3888 3932 3977 3907 Vehs Exited 3886 3917 3985 3902 Starting Vehs 84 76 109 90 Ending Vehs 86 91 101 95 Denied Entry Before 0 0 1 0 Denied Entry After 0 1 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)2182 2221 2249 2201 Travel Time (hr)93.7 96.2 97.6 94.5 Total Delay (hr)37.4 38.8 39.7 37.7 Total Stops 3219 3324 3411 3264 Fuel Used (gal)87.5 89.5 90.3 88.3 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min)5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 3867 3972 3777 3893 3917 3983 3866 Vehs Exited 3865 3973 3777 3879 3902 3981 3845 Starting Vehs 103 82 107 85 92 97 82 Ending Vehs 105 81 107 99 107 99 103 Denied Entry Before 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 Travel Distance (mi)2173 2248 2139 2194 2214 2234 2158 Travel Time (hr)93.1 98.5 90.4 93.6 93.1 97.2 91.8 Total Delay (hr)37.1 40.3 35.3 36.7 36.3 39.3 36.0 Total Stops 3206 3351 3100 3272 3221 3351 3217 Fuel Used (gal)87.0 90.9 85.2 87.9 87.9 90.2 86.8 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 3888 3932 3977 3907 Vehs Exited 3886 3917 3985 3902 Starting Vehs 84 76 109 90 Ending Vehs 86 91 101 95 Denied Entry Before 0 0 1 0 Denied Entry After 0 1 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)2182 2221 2249 2201 Travel Time (hr)93.7 96.2 97.6 94.5 Total Delay (hr)37.4 38.8 39.7 37.7 Total Stops 3219 3324 3411 3264 Fuel Used (gal)87.5 89.5 90.3 88.3 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 3 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement SET SER NWU NWL NWT NER All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 2.7 Total Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.1 5.0 6.5 0.3 18.1 5.4 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 2.1 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 4.7 5.0 0.1 16.0 4.2 Total Stops 0 0 11 58 0 431 500 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.67 0.00 0.98 0.28 Travel Dist (mi)105.3 0.6 1.1 5.8 34.0 137.1 283.8 Travel Time (hr)2.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 6.9 10.9 Vehicles Entered 750 4 17 85 501 431 1788 Vehicles Exited 750 4 17 86 501 431 1789 Hourly Exit Rate 750 4 17 86 501 431 1789 Input Volume 766 4 17 86 505 425 1803 % of Volume 98 100 100 100 99 101 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Performance by movement Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWR All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 0.6 0.7 0.5 3.5 1.0 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.4 Total Stops 36 0 0 0 78 114 Stop/Veh 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.06 Travel Dist (mi)5.9 75.5 34.5 0.8 3.3 120.0 Travel Time (hr)0.4 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.3 4.2 Vehicles Entered 86 1112 556 12 79 1845 Vehicles Exited 87 1112 557 12 78 1846 Hourly Exit Rate 87 1112 557 12 78 1846 Input Volume 87 1121 559 13 80 1860 % of Volume 100 99 100 92 98 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 4 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 3.3 2.4 0.6 1.6 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s)3.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 Total Stops 55 0 0 0 55 Stop/Veh 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Travel Dist (mi)1.5 49.2 10.5 66.4 127.5 Travel Time (hr)0.1 2.0 0.5 1.7 4.3 Vehicles Entered 55 536 113 1098 1802 Vehicles Exited 55 535 113 1098 1801 Hourly Exit Rate 55 535 113 1098 1801 Input Volume 58 534 114 1105 1811 % of Volume 95 100 99 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 5 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 3.1 3.1 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 Total Delay (hr)1.7 6.3 0.8 0.9 5.0 0.2 1.3 3.7 0.4 2.3 6.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)32.1 35.4 11.1 31.4 39.1 6.4 30.6 37.8 9.1 28.1 35.9 8.1 Stop Delay (hr)1.5 5.0 0.7 0.8 4.0 0.1 1.1 3.0 0.3 2.0 5.2 0.3 Stop Del/Veh (s)27.7 27.9 9.7 27.4 31.2 4.7 26.0 30.2 7.3 24.4 28.9 6.0 Total Stops 168 445 188 93 332 71 130 248 107 243 442 127 Stop/Veh 0.86 0.69 0.71 0.88 0.72 0.70 0.86 0.69 0.67 0.83 0.68 0.76 Travel Dist (mi)18.8 61.8 25.3 24.7 106.3 23.8 20.9 49.6 22.3 22.5 50.0 13.0 Travel Time (hr)2.4 7.7 1.7 1.7 7.4 0.9 2.0 4.9 1.3 3.1 7.6 1.0 Vehicles Entered 194 637 262 105 451 101 149 352 158 290 640 166 Vehicles Exited 194 635 262 105 451 101 150 353 158 289 640 166 Hourly Exit Rate 194 635 262 105 451 101 150 353 158 289 640 166 Input Volume 198 651 265 103 438 102 150 348 152 290 643 173 % of Volume 98 98 99 102 103 99 100 101 104 100 100 96 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay (hr)0.6 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Delay (hr)29.5 Total Del/Veh (s)30.0 Stop Delay (hr)24.0 Stop Del/Veh (s)24.4 Total Stops 2594 Stop/Veh 0.73 Travel Dist (mi)439.2 Travel Time (hr)41.7 Vehicles Entered 3505 Vehicles Exited 3504 Hourly Exit Rate 3504 Input Volume 3513 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 6 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)1.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Delay (hr)36.7 Total Del/Veh (s)33.1 Stop Delay (hr)26.6 Stop Del/Veh (s)23.9 Total Stops 3264 Stop/Veh 0.82 Travel Dist (mi)2201.1 Travel Time (hr)94.5 Vehicles Entered 3907 Vehicles Exited 3902 Hourly Exit Rate 3902 Input Volume 15797 % of Volume 25 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 7 Intersection: 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement SE SE NW NE Directions Served T TR UL R Maximum Queue (ft)2 2 82 282 Average Queue (ft)0 0 35 120 95th Queue (ft)2 2 67 231 Link Distance (ft)685 685 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)105 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Movement SE SE NW SW Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)64 9 7 68 Average Queue (ft)24 0 0 27 95th Queue (ft)54 9 4 51 Link Distance (ft)302 281 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)55 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 Intersection: 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement WB NB Directions Served R TR Maximum Queue (ft)56 8 Average Queue (ft)28 0 95th Queue (ft)50 5 Link Distance (ft)138 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 8 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)240 306 282 172 134 233 214 75 160 210 170 94 Average Queue (ft)104 206 180 76 59 163 134 32 77 112 82 36 95th Queue (ft)190 289 262 138 112 217 200 60 134 185 157 72 Link Distance (ft)459 459 1242 1242 735 735 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)240 245 260 430 295 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 3 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 6 3 0 0 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)244 273 310 185 Average Queue (ft)133 160 167 68 95th Queue (ft)219 243 264 182 Link Distance (ft)388 388 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 Storage Blk Time (%)29 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)51 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 65 Actuated Signals, Observed Splits Existing 01/31/2025 AM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 9 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement(s) Served WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Maximum Green (s)10.0 37.7 16.0 31.7 14.0 33.7 14.0 33.7 Minimum Green (s)10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Recall None None None None None None None C-Min Avg. Green (s)11.4 -8.1 -3.5 10.1 -7.9 9.1 -8.5 -7.7 g/C Ratio 1.41 -1.16 -0.50 1.45 -1.13 1.29 -1.17 -1.09 Cycles Skipped (%)14 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Cycles @ Minimum (%)62 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Cycles Maxed Out (%)66 41 72 66 62 41 38 100 Cycles with Peds (%)0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 7.0 Number of Complete Cycles : 29 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3872 3891 3879 3759 4022 3821 3804 Vehs Exited 3874 3916 3889 3773 4008 3853 3805 Starting Vehs 92 96 81 100 85 116 79 Ending Vehs 90 71 71 86 99 84 78 Denied Entry Before 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 Denied Entry After 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)2146 2191 2170 2073 2233 2123 2126 Travel Time (hr)90.4 94.3 92.2 88.1 95.6 90.2 90.9 Total Delay (hr)35.6 38.5 37.1 35.0 38.6 35.8 36.5 Total Stops 3104 3197 3123 3050 3269 3101 3093 Fuel Used (gal)85.4 88.2 86.4 82.8 89.0 85.4 85.4 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3803 3892 3807 3855 Vehs Exited 3806 3886 3840 3866 Starting Vehs 91 78 101 93 Ending Vehs 88 84 68 82 Denied Entry Before 1 1 0 0 Denied Entry After 1 0 1 0 Travel Distance (mi)2126 2165 2132 2149 Travel Time (hr)90.3 90.7 90.5 91.3 Total Delay (hr)35.9 35.4 36.3 36.5 Total Stops 3127 3152 3079 3130 Fuel Used (gal)85.1 86.5 85.3 86.0 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:55 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. SimTraffic Simulation Summary Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 3872 3891 3879 3759 4022 3821 3804 Vehs Exited 3874 3916 3889 3773 4008 3853 3805 Starting Vehs 92 96 81 100 85 116 79 Ending Vehs 90 71 71 86 99 84 78 Denied Entry Before 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 Denied Entry After 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)2146 2191 2170 2073 2233 2123 2126 Travel Time (hr)90.4 94.3 92.2 88.1 95.6 90.2 90.9 Total Delay (hr)35.6 38.5 37.1 35.0 38.6 35.8 36.5 Total Stops 3104 3197 3123 3050 3269 3101 3093 Fuel Used (gal)85.4 88.2 86.4 82.8 89.0 85.4 85.4 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 3803 3892 3807 3855 Vehs Exited 3806 3886 3840 3866 Starting Vehs 91 78 101 93 Ending Vehs 88 84 68 82 Denied Entry Before 1 1 0 0 Denied Entry After 1 0 1 0 Travel Distance (mi)2126 2165 2132 2149 Travel Time (hr)90.3 90.7 90.5 91.3 Total Delay (hr)35.9 35.4 36.3 36.5 Total Stops 3127 3152 3079 3130 Fuel Used (gal)85.1 86.5 85.3 86.0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 3 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement SET SER NWU NWL NWT NEL NER All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.1 0.2 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 0.1 4.6 5.2 0.5 16.9 6.5 1.7 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 4.2 3.6 0.1 14.8 5.5 1.0 Total Stops 0 0 15 63 0 3 198 279 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.57 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.16 Travel Dist (mi)85.0 0.4 1.7 7.5 51.8 1.0 63.2 210.5 Travel Time (hr)2.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.0 2.5 6.7 Vehicles Entered 605 3 24 111 767 3 198 1711 Vehicles Exited 606 3 24 111 767 3 199 1713 Hourly Exit Rate 606 3 24 111 767 3 199 1713 Input Volume 603 3 24 115 768 4 198 1715 % of Volume 100 100 100 97 100 75 101 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Performance by movement Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)6.4 0.5 1.1 0.8 7.7 5.8 1.5 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)5.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.9 6.2 0.9 Total Stops 55 0 0 0 1 160 216 Stop/Veh 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 Travel Dist (mi)6.8 50.9 49.2 0.8 0.0 6.7 114.5 Travel Time (hr)0.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.3 Vehicles Entered 101 751 803 12 1 160 1828 Vehicles Exited 101 751 803 12 1 160 1828 Hourly Exit Rate 101 751 803 12 1 160 1828 Input Volume 99 748 805 12 1 158 1823 % of Volume 102 100 100 100 100 101 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 4 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 4.2 3.1 0.4 2.5 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)4.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 Total Stops 116 1 0 0 117 Stop/Veh 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Travel Dist (mi)3.1 66.8 11.9 45.2 127.0 Travel Time (hr)0.3 2.8 0.6 1.1 4.8 Vehicles Entered 116 724 128 752 1720 Vehicles Exited 117 726 128 751 1722 Hourly Exit Rate 117 726 128 751 1722 Input Volume 112 734 126 749 1721 % of Volume 104 99 102 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 5 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 2.6 3.0 0.4 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 Total Delay (hr)1.7 4.2 0.3 2.4 7.8 0.3 1.2 5.9 0.3 1.5 4.0 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)32.5 33.8 6.1 38.2 40.8 8.8 28.2 39.8 7.0 29.3 35.0 8.7 Stop Delay (hr)1.5 3.4 0.2 2.0 6.0 0.3 1.0 4.6 0.2 1.4 3.3 0.3 Stop Del/Veh (s)28.7 27.3 5.4 32.4 31.2 6.5 23.4 31.1 5.2 26.4 29.1 7.6 Total Stops 167 308 110 205 501 95 117 384 91 152 283 104 Stop/Veh 0.87 0.68 0.71 0.92 0.73 0.67 0.79 0.72 0.70 0.82 0.69 0.68 Travel Dist (mi)18.4 43.1 14.9 51.7 158.6 33.0 20.5 74.2 18.3 14.1 31.7 12.0 Travel Time (hr)2.3 5.2 0.8 3.9 11.4 1.4 1.9 7.6 0.9 2.0 4.7 0.9 Vehicles Entered 189 443 154 219 673 140 146 528 129 183 408 153 Vehicles Exited 189 448 154 220 678 140 147 523 129 184 406 153 Hourly Exit Rate 189 448 154 220 678 140 147 523 129 184 406 153 Input Volume 191 440 148 218 694 140 150 529 130 184 409 156 % of Volume 99 102 104 101 98 100 98 99 99 100 99 98 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay (hr)0.6 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 Total Delay (hr)29.9 Total Del/Veh (s)31.6 Stop Delay (hr)24.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)25.5 Total Stops 2517 Stop/Veh 0.74 Travel Dist (mi)490.4 Travel Time (hr)43.1 Vehicles Entered 3365 Vehicles Exited 3371 Hourly Exit Rate 3371 Input Volume 3389 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 6 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)0.8 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Delay (hr)35.6 Total Del/Veh (s)32.5 Stop Delay (hr)25.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)23.2 Total Stops 3130 Stop/Veh 0.79 Travel Dist (mi)2148.5 Travel Time (hr)91.3 Vehicles Entered 3855 Vehicles Exited 3866 Hourly Exit Rate 3866 Input Volume 15435 % of Volume 25 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 7 Intersection: 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement SE NW NW NE NE Directions Served T UL T L R Maximum Queue (ft)2 81 5 24 113 Average Queue (ft)0 34 0 3 48 95th Queue (ft)2 67 5 16 87 Link Distance (ft)685 302 1675 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)105 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Movement SE SE NW NW SW Directions Served L T T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)75 9 2 4 105 Average Queue (ft)30 0 0 0 44 95th Queue (ft)63 9 2 3 78 Link Distance (ft)302 281 281 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)55 Storage Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)9 Intersection: 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement WB NB NB Directions Served R T TR Maximum Queue (ft)81 11 14 Average Queue (ft)38 0 1 95th Queue (ft)65 8 9 Link Distance (ft)138 388 388 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 8 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)213 256 219 101 244 322 298 103 150 278 247 88 Average Queue (ft)105 145 118 44 122 205 184 41 68 178 153 28 95th Queue (ft)172 216 188 79 211 291 269 78 123 250 225 63 Link Distance (ft)459 459 1242 1242 735 735 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)240 245 260 430 295 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 0 1 4 0 0 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)198 182 202 152 Average Queue (ft)86 114 113 40 95th Queue (ft)160 174 178 107 Link Distance (ft)388 388 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 Storage Blk Time (%)13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)20 1 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 37 Actuated Signals, Observed Splits Existing 01/31/2025 PM Existing RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 9 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement(s) Served WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Maximum Green (s)10.0 37.7 16.0 31.7 14.0 33.7 14.0 33.7 Minimum Green (s)10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Recall None None None None None None None C-Min Avg. Green (s)-10.2 -8.1 -6.2 10.2 -8.3 -10.3 -9.5 -9.7 g/C Ratio -1.46 -1.16 -0.86 1.45 -1.19 -1.47 -1.26 -1.39 Cycles Skipped (%)0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 Cycles @ Minimum (%)62 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 Cycles Maxed Out (%)83 55 55 62 64 55 48 100 Cycles with Peds (%)0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 7.0 Number of Complete Cycles : 29 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Appendix C – Crash Data All Incidents by Severity Current Traffic Volumes and Congestion Safety Analysis Report Report generated on 1/30/2025 Page 1 of 6 Collision Manner by Incident Injury Severity Collision Manner Fatal Incap.Non-Incap.Possible Injury No Injury Total Left Turn 1 1 11 4 18 35 Rear End 0 1 5 6 25 37 Sideswipe Same Direction 0 0 1 0 11 12 Sideswipe Opposite Direction 0 0 0 1 0 1 Other 0 0 0 1 0 1 Unknown 0 0 0 0 1 1 Single Vehicle 0 0 0 0 4 4 Angle (Front To Side)(Other Than Left Turn)0 0 4 5 12 21 Total 1 2 21 17 71 112 Number of Incidents Person Type by Person Injury Severity Person Type Fatal Incap Non-Incap Possible Injury No Injury Unknown Total Driver 1 2 25 22 176 6 232 Passenger 0 0 6 5 84 0 95 Pedalcyclist 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 1 2 31 29 260 6 329 Number of People Collision Manner by Tavel Direction Collision Manner No r t h So u t h Ea s t We s t No r t h w e s t No r t h e a s t So u t h w e s t So u t h e a s t Un k n o w n No t Re p o r t e d Total Rear End 22%18%30%28%0%0%0%0%1%0%82 Left Turn 25%26%19%21%1%3%4%1%0%0%73 Angle (Front To Side)(Other Than Left Turn)50%9%9%23%7%2%0%0%0%0%44 Sideswipe Same Direction 33%42%17%8%0%0%0%0%0%0%24 Single Vehicle 25%25%0%0%50%0%0%0%0%0%4 Sideswipe Opposite Direction 33%33%0%33%0%0%0%0%0%0%3 Other 50%0%0%50%0%0%0%0%0%0%2 Unknown 50%50%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%2 Total 234 Number of Units Report generated on 1/30/2025 Page 2 of 6 Safety Device Count Helmet Used 1 Total 1 Number of People Safety Device (Fatal Injury Status) Road Surface Condition Count Dry 223 Wet 11 Total 234 Number of Units Road Surface Conditions Physical Condition Count No Apparent Influence 204 Unknown 24 Other 3 Alcohol 2 Multiple 1 Total 234 Number of People Physical Condition (Operator) Physical Condition Count Unknown 1 Total 1 Number of People Physical Condition (Fatal Injury Status) Report generated on 1/30/2025 Page 3 of 6 Violation Count No Improper Action 118 Failed To Yield Right Of Way 41 Speed Too Fast For Conditions 30 Unknown 10 Made Improper Turn 9 Unsafe Lane Change 9 Disregarded Traffic Signal 8 Other 4 Followed Too Closely 3 Failed To Keep In Proper Lane 2 Total 234 Number of People Violation (Operator) Traffic Control Device Count Signal 150 No Controls 57 Stop Signs 21 Other 3 Unknown 3 Total 234 Number of Units Traffic Control Device Unit Action by Unit Type Unit Action Driver Pedestrian Pedalcyclist Driverless Total Going Straight Ahead 108 0 2 0 110 Making Left Turn 48 0 0 0 48 Stopped In Trafficway 29 0 0 0 29 Making Right Turn 20 0 0 0 20 Slowing In Trafficway 10 0 0 0 10 Changing Lanes 6 0 0 0 6 Unknown 6 0 0 0 6 Making U Turn 3 0 0 1 4 Avoiding Vehicle Object Pedestrian 1 0 0 0 1 Total 231 0 2 1 234 Number of Units Report generated on 1/30/2025 Page 4 of 6 First Harmful Event Count Motor Vehicle In Transport 106 Curb 4 Pedalcycle 2 Total 112 Number of Incidents First Harmful Event Report generated on 1/30/2025 Page 5 of 6 Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data are derived from data collected by the Arizona Department of Transportation. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency or PAG. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to present and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. Report generated on 1/30/2025 Page 6 of 6 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Appendix D – SimTraffic Reports, Opening Year Background SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3979 4050 3809 3890 3994 4074 4004 Vehs Exited 3968 4062 3850 3900 3978 4070 4006 Starting Vehs 87 121 131 94 85 92 102 Ending Vehs 98 109 90 84 101 96 100 Denied Entry Before 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Travel Distance (mi)2249 2295 2144 2196 2232 2305 2254 Travel Time (hr)98.4 100.7 90.5 94.1 96.1 100.1 96.5 Total Delay (hr)40.1 41.8 35.4 37.4 38.5 40.5 38.3 Total Stops 3349 3427 3160 3284 3312 3400 3367 Fuel Used (gal)91.1 92.6 86.4 88.0 89.1 92.3 90.7 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3918 3925 3963 3963 Vehs Exited 3925 3947 3957 3968 Starting Vehs 105 111 92 100 Ending Vehs 98 89 98 93 Denied Entry Before 2 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 1 0 2 0 Travel Distance (mi)2208 2206 2220 2231 Travel Time (hr)93.8 94.0 94.4 95.9 Total Delay (hr)36.9 37.1 37.3 38.3 Total Stops 3219 3240 3288 3302 Fuel Used (gal)88.0 88.3 89.1 89.6 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min)5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 3979 4050 3809 3890 3994 4074 4004 Vehs Exited 3968 4062 3850 3900 3978 4070 4006 Starting Vehs 87 121 131 94 85 92 102 Ending Vehs 98 109 90 84 101 96 100 Denied Entry Before 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Travel Distance (mi)2249 2295 2144 2196 2232 2305 2254 Travel Time (hr)98.4 100.7 90.5 94.1 96.1 100.1 96.5 Total Delay (hr)40.1 41.8 35.4 37.4 38.5 40.5 38.3 Total Stops 3349 3427 3160 3284 3312 3400 3367 Fuel Used (gal)91.1 92.6 86.4 88.0 89.1 92.3 90.7 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 3918 3925 3963 3963 Vehs Exited 3925 3947 3957 3968 Starting Vehs 105 111 92 100 Ending Vehs 98 89 98 93 Denied Entry Before 2 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 1 0 2 0 Travel Distance (mi)2208 2206 2220 2231 Travel Time (hr)93.8 94.0 94.4 95.9 Total Delay (hr)36.9 37.1 37.3 38.3 Total Stops 3219 3240 3288 3302 Fuel Used (gal)88.0 88.3 89.1 89.6 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 3 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement SET SER NWU NWL NWT NER All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.3 2.8 Total Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.1 5.4 6.7 0.3 19.0 5.6 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 5.2 5.2 0.1 17.0 4.4 Total Stops 0 0 11 62 0 428 501 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.70 0.00 0.99 0.28 Travel Dist (mi)107.7 0.6 1.1 5.9 34.2 135.8 285.3 Travel Time (hr)2.7 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 6.9 11.0 Vehicles Entered 768 4 16 87 505 427 1807 Vehicles Exited 767 4 16 87 504 428 1806 Hourly Exit Rate 767 4 16 87 504 428 1806 Input Volume 778 4 17 87 513 431 1830 % of Volume 99 100 94 100 98 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Performance by movement Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWR All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 3.6 1.0 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.4 Total Stops 35 0 1 0 81 117 Stop/Veh 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.06 Travel Dist (mi)5.9 76.4 34.6 0.8 3.4 121.1 Travel Time (hr)0.4 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.3 4.2 Vehicles Entered 86 1125 560 12 82 1865 Vehicles Exited 86 1125 559 12 81 1863 Hourly Exit Rate 86 1125 559 12 81 1863 Input Volume 88 1138 567 13 81 1887 % of Volume 98 99 99 92 100 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 4 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 3.2 2.5 0.6 1.6 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 Total Stops 58 0 0 0 58 Stop/Veh 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Travel Dist (mi)1.5 49.2 11.0 67.0 128.7 Travel Time (hr)0.2 2.0 0.6 1.7 4.4 Vehicles Entered 58 536 119 1110 1823 Vehicles Exited 58 535 118 1110 1821 Hourly Exit Rate 58 535 118 1110 1821 Input Volume 58 541 116 1122 1837 % of Volume 100 99 102 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 5 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.2 3.0 3.1 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 Total Delay (hr)1.7 6.5 0.8 1.0 5.0 0.2 1.4 3.8 0.4 2.4 6.4 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)32.0 34.9 10.9 34.8 38.4 6.3 31.2 38.0 9.3 29.8 35.3 8.0 Stop Delay (hr)1.5 5.1 0.7 0.9 4.0 0.1 1.2 3.0 0.3 2.1 5.1 0.3 Stop Del/Veh (s)27.7 27.4 9.5 30.8 30.6 4.4 26.5 30.4 7.6 25.9 28.3 5.9 Total Stops 169 461 184 94 334 73 137 252 105 249 438 130 Stop/Veh 0.86 0.69 0.69 0.90 0.72 0.71 0.86 0.70 0.69 0.84 0.67 0.75 Travel Dist (mi)18.8 64.0 25.7 24.3 107.3 24.2 22.1 49.9 21.4 22.6 50.0 13.5 Travel Time (hr)2.4 7.9 1.8 1.7 7.4 0.9 2.2 5.0 1.2 3.3 7.5 1.0 Vehicles Entered 194 659 266 103 455 103 158 353 152 291 642 172 Vehicles Exited 194 658 266 104 454 103 158 357 152 292 644 171 Hourly Exit Rate 194 658 266 104 454 103 158 357 152 292 644 171 Input Volume 201 661 269 104 444 103 152 353 155 294 652 175 % of Volume 97 100 99 100 102 100 104 101 98 99 99 98 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay (hr)0.6 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Delay (hr)30.0 Total Del/Veh (s)30.0 Stop Delay (hr)24.3 Stop Del/Veh (s)24.4 Total Stops 2626 Stop/Veh 0.73 Travel Dist (mi)444.0 Travel Time (hr)42.3 Vehicles Entered 3548 Vehicles Exited 3553 Hourly Exit Rate 3553 Input Volume 3563 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 6 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)1.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Delay (hr)37.4 Total Del/Veh (s)33.1 Stop Delay (hr)27.0 Stop Del/Veh (s)24.0 Total Stops 3302 Stop/Veh 0.81 Travel Dist (mi)2230.7 Travel Time (hr)95.9 Vehicles Entered 3963 Vehicles Exited 3968 Hourly Exit Rate 3968 Input Volume 16025 % of Volume 25 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 7 Intersection: 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement SE NW NW NE NE Directions Served TR UL T L R Maximum Queue (ft)4 89 16 48 281 Average Queue (ft)0 37 1 2 124 95th Queue (ft)3 69 9 54 246 Link Distance (ft)685 302 1675 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)105 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 10 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Movement SE NW SW Directions Served L TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)62 8 70 Average Queue (ft)23 0 30 95th Queue (ft)53 4 56 Link Distance (ft)281 214 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)55 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)4 Intersection: 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement WB NB Directions Served R TR Maximum Queue (ft)61 8 Average Queue (ft)30 0 95th Queue (ft)53 6 Link Distance (ft)138 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 8 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)243 320 287 165 141 254 221 66 173 230 201 90 Average Queue (ft)103 211 184 76 59 163 137 31 81 113 86 35 95th Queue (ft)188 291 264 135 108 231 203 56 138 190 163 73 Link Distance (ft)459 459 1242 1242 735 735 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)240 245 260 430 295 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 3 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 5 2 0 0 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)284 259 279 185 Average Queue (ft)140 161 166 73 95th Queue (ft)239 242 256 190 Link Distance (ft)388 388 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 Storage Blk Time (%)29 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)50 1 Intersection: 5: Bend Movement WB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft)4 Average Queue (ft)0 95th Queue (ft)4 Link Distance (ft)459 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 62 Actuated Signals, Observed Splits Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 9 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement(s) Served WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Maximum Green (s)10.0 37.7 16.0 31.7 14.0 33.7 14.0 33.7 Minimum Green (s)10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Recall None None None None None None None C-Min Avg. Green (s)10.7 -8.1 -3.7 10.4 -8.2 9.3 -8.3 -7.6 g/C Ratio 1.37 -1.16 -0.53 1.49 -1.17 1.33 -1.15 -1.08 Cycles Skipped (%)10 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Cycles @ Minimum (%)72 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 Cycles Maxed Out (%)76 45 76 79 72 45 48 100 Cycles with Peds (%)0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 7.0 Number of Complete Cycles : 29 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3285 3402 3381 3268 3377 3321 3392 Vehs Exited 3288 3396 3364 3279 3358 3323 3406 Starting Vehs 74 76 65 81 77 99 95 Ending Vehs 71 82 82 70 96 97 81 Denied Entry Before 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 Denied Entry After 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 Travel Distance (mi)1869 1925 1925 1858 1921 1881 1953 Travel Time (hr)77.8 81.5 80.6 75.4 79.6 78.2 81.3 Total Delay (hr)29.0 31.4 30.6 27.0 29.5 29.1 30.2 Total Stops 2716 2848 2749 2604 2803 2770 2818 Fuel Used (gal)74.3 77.1 76.4 73.1 76.5 75.6 78.0 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 3338 3207 3351 3331 Vehs Exited 3336 3201 3348 3331 Starting Vehs 70 80 87 80 Ending Vehs 72 86 90 82 Denied Entry Before 2 1 2 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)1889 1832 1892 1894 Travel Time (hr)77.5 74.9 78.4 78.5 Total Delay (hr)28.5 27.3 28.9 29.2 Total Stops 2690 2622 2799 2740 Fuel Used (gal)74.5 72.4 75.4 75.3 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:55 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 3285 3402 3381 3268 3377 3321 3392 Vehs Exited 3288 3396 3364 3279 3358 3323 3406 Starting Vehs 74 76 65 81 77 99 95 Ending Vehs 71 82 82 70 96 97 81 Denied Entry Before 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 Denied Entry After 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 Travel Distance (mi)1869 1925 1925 1858 1921 1881 1953 Travel Time (hr)77.8 81.5 80.6 75.4 79.6 78.2 81.3 Total Delay (hr)29.0 31.4 30.6 27.0 29.5 29.1 30.2 Total Stops 2716 2848 2749 2604 2803 2770 2818 Fuel Used (gal)74.3 77.1 76.4 73.1 76.5 75.6 78.0 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 3338 3207 3351 3331 Vehs Exited 3336 3201 3348 3331 Starting Vehs 70 80 87 80 Ending Vehs 72 86 90 82 Denied Entry Before 2 1 2 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)1889 1832 1892 1894 Travel Time (hr)77.5 74.9 78.4 78.5 Total Delay (hr)28.5 27.3 28.9 29.2 Total Stops 2690 2622 2799 2740 Fuel Used (gal)74.5 72.4 75.4 75.3 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 3 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement SET SER NWU NWL NWT NEL NER All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.2 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)0.9 0.1 4.3 5.2 0.5 17.7 6.8 1.8 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 3.8 3.6 0.1 16.0 5.6 1.0 Total Stops 0 0 16 67 0 3 205 291 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.58 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.17 Travel Dist (mi)86.3 0.5 1.7 7.9 52.8 0.8 65.1 215.0 Travel Time (hr)2.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.0 2.6 6.8 Vehicles Entered 616 4 24 116 781 3 204 1748 Vehicles Exited 614 4 24 116 782 3 205 1748 Hourly Exit Rate 614 4 24 116 782 3 205 1748 Input Volume 612 3 24 117 780 4 202 1742 % of Volume 100 133 100 99 100 75 101 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Performance by movement Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 0.5 1.1 0.8 29.2 6.6 1.6 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)5.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 28.9 7.1 1.0 Total Stops 52 0 0 0 1 156 209 Stop/Veh 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.11 Travel Dist (mi)6.4 52.2 50.6 0.8 0.1 6.5 116.6 Travel Time (hr)0.4 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 4.4 Vehicles Entered 94 770 824 13 1 156 1858 Vehicles Exited 94 769 824 13 1 156 1857 Hourly Exit Rate 94 769 824 13 1 156 1857 Input Volume 100 760 818 12 1 160 1851 % of Volume 94 101 101 108 100 98 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 4 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.2 Total Del/Veh (s)5.0 4.0 3.1 0.4 2.4 Stop Delay (hr)0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)4.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 Total Stops 114 1 0 0 115 Stop/Veh 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Travel Dist (mi)3.0 69.3 12.2 46.5 131.1 Travel Time (hr)0.3 2.8 0.6 1.1 5.0 Vehicles Entered 114 754 132 770 1770 Vehicles Exited 114 752 131 771 1768 Hourly Exit Rate 114 752 131 771 1768 Input Volume 114 746 128 761 1749 % of Volume 100 101 102 101 101 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 5 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.2 3.4 2.8 0.4 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 Total Delay (hr)1.5 4.8 0.3 2.8 0.8 0.3 1.5 5.7 0.3 1.4 3.9 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)26.3 39.1 6.6 45.6 40.0 8.2 27.1 37.2 7.0 26.5 33.1 4.3 Stop Delay (hr)1.3 3.9 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.3 1.2 4.4 0.2 1.3 3.2 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s)22.6 32.2 5.9 40.7 34.5 6.8 22.0 28.6 5.2 23.7 27.3 3.1 Total Stops 140 326 119 210 53 110 156 385 90 156 282 98 Stop/Veh 0.70 0.74 0.77 0.95 0.73 0.76 0.80 0.69 0.66 0.81 0.66 0.64 Travel Dist (mi)19.1 42.0 14.9 50.9 16.9 34.0 27.0 77.0 19.0 14.8 32.8 12.1 Travel Time (hr)2.1 5.7 0.8 4.4 1.2 1.4 2.4 7.5 1.0 1.9 4.7 0.7 Vehicles Entered 197 432 154 216 72 145 192 546 135 192 419 153 Vehicles Exited 196 433 154 216 72 144 193 546 135 192 422 153 Hourly Exit Rate 196 433 154 216 72 144 193 546 135 192 422 153 Input Volume 195 447 150 222 70 142 197 537 133 187 416 158 % of Volume 101 97 103 97 103 101 98 102 102 103 101 97 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay (hr)0.7 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Delay (hr)23.5 Total Del/Veh (s)29.2 Stop Delay (hr)19.4 Stop Del/Veh (s)24.1 Total Stops 2125 Stop/Veh 0.73 Travel Dist (mi)360.6 Travel Time (hr)33.9 Vehicles Entered 2853 Vehicles Exited 2856 Hourly Exit Rate 2856 Input Volume 2854 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 6 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)0.9 Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Delay (hr)28.2 Total Del/Veh (s)29.8 Stop Delay (hr)20.7 Stop Del/Veh (s)21.8 Total Stops 2740 Stop/Veh 0.80 Travel Dist (mi)1894.5 Travel Time (hr)78.5 Vehicles Entered 3331 Vehicles Exited 3331 Hourly Exit Rate 3331 Input Volume 13908 % of Volume 24 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 7 Intersection: 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement SE NW NE NE Directions Served T UL L R Maximum Queue (ft)2 97 28 112 Average Queue (ft)0 38 2 51 95th Queue (ft)2 68 15 89 Link Distance (ft)685 1675 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)105 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Movement SE SE NW SW Directions Served L T TR LR Maximum Queue (ft)68 20 6 121 Average Queue (ft)30 1 0 47 95th Queue (ft)61 14 4 88 Link Distance (ft)302 281 214 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)55 Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)8 0 Intersection: 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement WB NB Directions Served R TR Maximum Queue (ft)76 11 Average Queue (ft)40 0 95th Queue (ft)65 7 Link Distance (ft)138 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 8 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)215 260 234 101 286 108 78 101 188 277 260 81 Average Queue (ft)102 148 125 45 136 35 20 44 88 174 152 28 95th Queue (ft)176 220 195 79 234 78 57 79 160 258 237 60 Link Distance (ft)459 459 1242 1242 735 735 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)240 245 260 430 295 300 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 0 0 0 0 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)203 196 210 160 Average Queue (ft)85 111 112 28 95th Queue (ft)156 175 180 84 Link Distance (ft)388 388 388 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 Storage Blk Time (%)13 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)21 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 32 Actuated Signals, Observed Splits Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Opening Year No Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 9 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement(s) Served WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Maximum Green (s)10.0 37.7 16.0 31.7 14.0 33.7 14.0 33.7 Minimum Green (s)10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Recall None None None None None None None C-Min Avg. Green (s)-8.8 8.3 -4.5 -9.7 -3.6 4.3 -5.9 -8.6 g/C Ratio -1.25 1.18 -0.64 -1.38 -0.51 0.55 -0.82 -1.22 Cycles Skipped (%)0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 Cycles @ Minimum (%)48 0 7 0 3 0 3 0 Cycles Maxed Out (%)79 7 31 45 55 3 34 100 Cycles with Peds (%)0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 7.0 Number of Complete Cycles : 29 January 2025 RVB/Tangerine Road Traffic Impact Study Appendix E – SimTraffic Reports, Opening Year With Project SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 4405 4461 4271 4267 4288 4301 4470 Vehs Exited 4422 4467 4258 4258 4300 4328 4465 Starting Vehs 123 120 90 114 135 135 95 Ending Vehs 106 114 103 123 123 108 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 Denied Entry After 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 Travel Distance (mi)2395 2416 2296 2310 2335 2339 2412 Travel Time (hr)113.3 115.5 106.8 108.7 112.1 112.6 113.8 Total Delay (hr)50.3 52.2 46.4 47.8 50.7 51.0 50.3 Total Stops 4332 4367 4096 4206 4234 4383 4333 Fuel Used (gal)100.0 101.8 95.9 97.3 98.2 98.7 101.5 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Start Time 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:10 End Time 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 4404 4375 4386 4363 Vehs Exited 4409 4405 4417 4375 Starting Vehs 127 130 144 115 Ending Vehs 122 100 113 107 Denied Entry Before 1 1 1 0 Denied Entry After 0 4 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)2393 2374 2367 2364 Travel Time (hr)114.9 113.0 117.0 112.8 Total Delay (hr)51.9 50.6 54.8 50.6 Total Stops 4392 4338 4318 4298 Fuel Used (gal)100.9 100.3 101.2 99.6 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 7:10 End Time 7:15 Total Time (min)5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vehs Entered 4405 4461 4271 4267 4288 4301 4470 Vehs Exited 4422 4467 4258 4258 4300 4328 4465 Starting Vehs 123 120 90 114 135 135 95 Ending Vehs 106 114 103 123 123 108 100 Denied Entry Before 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 Denied Entry After 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 Travel Distance (mi)2395 2416 2296 2310 2335 2339 2412 Travel Time (hr)113.3 115.5 106.8 108.7 112.1 112.6 113.8 Total Delay (hr)50.3 52.2 46.4 47.8 50.7 51.0 50.3 Total Stops 4332 4367 4096 4206 4234 4383 4333 Fuel Used (gal)100.0 101.8 95.9 97.3 98.2 98.7 101.5 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:15 End Time 8:15 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 8 9 10 Avg Vehs Entered 4404 4375 4386 4363 Vehs Exited 4409 4405 4417 4375 Starting Vehs 127 130 144 115 Ending Vehs 122 100 113 107 Denied Entry Before 1 1 1 0 Denied Entry After 0 4 0 0 Travel Distance (mi)2393 2374 2367 2364 Travel Time (hr)114.9 113.0 117.0 112.8 Total Delay (hr)51.9 50.6 54.8 50.6 Total Stops 4392 4338 4318 4298 Fuel Used (gal)100.9 100.3 101.2 99.6 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 3 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement SET SER NWL NWT NER All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 2.7 3.6 Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 0.5 10.3 1.2 22.1 7.0 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 2.7 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.1 8.1 0.1 19.9 5.2 Total Stops 0 0 65 0 434 499 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.98 0.27 Travel Dist (mi)110.8 0.4 6.1 36.2 137.3 290.8 Travel Time (hr)2.9 0.0 0.5 1.1 7.3 11.9 Vehicles Entered 788 3 90 527 434 1842 Vehicles Exited 790 3 90 526 435 1844 Hourly Exit Rate 790 3 90 526 435 1844 Input Volume 797 4 92 529 438 1860 % of Volume 99 75 98 99 99 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Performance by movement Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NER SWL SWR All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 4.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 3.9 2.0 31.2 4.1 2.4 27.4 8.1 25.0 3.8 6.8 Stop Delay (hr)0.2 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.8 Stop Del/Veh (s)8.8 1.4 1.2 29.8 1.2 1.3 25.3 7.5 24.8 3.9 4.6 Total Stops 60 174 17 136 88 3 44 86 17 48 673 Stop/Veh 0.66 0.16 0.26 0.95 0.16 0.23 0.90 0.83 0.94 0.84 0.31 Travel Dist (mi)5.9 68.4 4.2 9.2 34.2 0.8 2.0 4.1 0.7 2.3 131.9 Travel Time (hr)0.5 3.2 0.2 1.6 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 8.4 Vehicles Entered 90 1068 66 141 548 13 49 102 18 56 2151 Vehicles Exited 90 1069 66 142 548 13 49 103 18 57 2155 Hourly Exit Rate 90 1069 66 142 548 13 49 103 18 57 2155 Input Volume 88 1081 66 135 543 13 55 100 20 61 2162 % of Volume 102 99 100 105 101 100 89 103 90 93 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 4 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.7 1.7 Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 5.6 4.1 2.9 2.1 3.0 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Stop Del/Veh (s)8.7 5.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 Total Stops 38 54 4 0 0 96 Stop/Veh 0.97 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 Travel Dist (mi)1.0 1.4 61.4 10.9 75.8 150.5 Travel Time (hr)0.2 0.2 2.7 0.6 2.6 6.1 Vehicles Entered 39 54 670 117 1161 2041 Vehicles Exited 38 54 669 117 1161 2039 Hourly Exit Rate 38 54 669 117 1161 2039 Input Volume 38 58 654 116 1171 2037 % of Volume 100 93 102 101 99 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 5 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 3.1 3.1 0.5 3.1 2.1 0.8 2.1 Total Delay (hr)3.3 7.0 0.8 1.0 5.0 0.3 1.5 4.5 0.4 4.8 6.8 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)43.4 35.6 11.3 34.8 39.3 9.3 33.9 41.1 10.1 47.4 35.9 10.0 Stop Delay (hr)2.9 5.4 0.7 0.9 4.0 0.3 1.3 3.6 0.3 4.3 5.5 0.4 Stop Del/Veh (s)37.9 27.7 9.8 30.8 31.4 7.3 29.3 32.6 8.1 42.6 28.8 7.3 Total Stops 274 488 181 96 326 91 141 293 103 365 468 162 Stop/Veh 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.93 0.72 0.72 0.89 0.74 0.72 0.99 0.69 0.74 Travel Dist (mi)26.2 66.9 25.1 24.2 103.5 29.3 21.9 55.1 20.1 27.5 51.8 16.6 Travel Time (hr)4.2 8.5 1.8 1.7 7.3 1.2 2.3 5.8 1.2 6.0 8.2 1.4 Vehicles Entered 272 690 261 103 439 124 156 391 142 362 675 217 Vehicles Exited 272 694 261 103 441 124 157 390 142 361 678 218 Hourly Exit Rate 272 694 261 103 441 124 157 390 142 361 678 218 Input Volume 262 674 262 104 445 122 155 386 140 356 684 214 % of Volume 104 103 100 99 99 102 101 101 101 101 99 102 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay (hr)1.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0 Total Delay (hr)36.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.4 Stop Delay (hr)29.6 Stop Del/Veh (s)27.4 Total Stops 2988 Stop/Veh 0.77 Travel Dist (mi)468.2 Travel Time (hr)49.6 Vehicles Entered 3832 Vehicles Exited 3841 Hourly Exit Rate 3841 Input Volume 3804 % of Volume 101 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 6 5: Tangerine Rd & Southeast Project Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBR All Denied Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Total Delay (hr)0.4 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.1 Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 2.8 2.1 5.0 1.8 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 0.3 5.1 0.2 Total Stops 0 0 0 42 42 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.02 Travel Dist (mi)174.6 78.9 4.0 1.2 258.7 Travel Time (hr)4.4 2.9 0.2 0.1 7.7 Vehicles Entered 1214 778 38 42 2072 Vehicles Exited 1213 779 38 42 2072 Hourly Exit Rate 1213 779 38 42 2072 Input Volume 1189 777 37 40 2043 % of Volume 102 100 103 105 101 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)1.4 Denied Del/Veh (s)1.2 Total Delay (hr)49.2 Total Del/Veh (s)39.5 Stop Delay (hr)35.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)28.6 Total Stops 4298 Stop/Veh 0.96 Travel Dist (mi)2363.8 Travel Time (hr)112.8 Vehicles Entered 4363 Vehicles Exited 4375 Hourly Exit Rate 4375 Input Volume 17286 % of Volume 25 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 7 Intersection: 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement SE NW NE NE Directions Served TR UL L R Maximum Queue (ft)9 96 50 343 Average Queue (ft)0 36 2 144 95th Queue (ft)5 73 49 271 Link Distance (ft)685 283 1670 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 Storage Blk Time (%)13 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Movement SE SE SE NW NW NW NE NE SW SW Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft)82 124 116 166 114 158 87 91 54 58 Average Queue (ft)31 55 59 73 15 58 32 39 15 28 95th Queue (ft)62 103 103 140 73 128 68 72 45 53 Link Distance (ft)283 283 283 281 281 210 210 215 215 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)6 1 Intersection: 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served R R T TR T Maximum Queue (ft)74 71 31 44 7 Average Queue (ft)24 28 2 3 0 95th Queue (ft)57 55 21 21 7 Link Distance (ft)139 132 377 377 281 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 8 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)313 332 287 175 132 226 208 93 203 207 238 88 Average Queue (ft)160 224 198 75 61 160 136 42 83 97 132 34 95th Queue (ft)273 315 277 137 114 218 195 77 152 178 212 70 Link Distance (ft)462 462 1242 1242 735 735 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)240 245 260 430 295 300 Storage Blk Time (%)3 4 1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)10 11 4 0 0 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)340 339 330 185 Average Queue (ft)209 188 191 116 95th Queue (ft)323 293 294 231 Link Distance (ft)377 377 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)420 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 31 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 67 3 Intersection: 5: Tangerine Rd & Southeast Project Driveway Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)47 Average Queue (ft)20 95th Queue (ft)41 Link Distance (ft)141 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 104 Actuated Signals, Observed Splits Opening Year 01/31/2025 AM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 9 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Phase 2 4 6 8 Movement(s) Served NWTL NETL SETL SWTL Maximum Green (s)39.5 11.5 39.5 11.5 Minimum Green (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Recall C-Min None C-Min None Avg. Green (s)1.4 -4.8 1.4 -4.8 g/C Ratio 0.27 -0.92 0.27 -0.92 Cycles Skipped (%)15 15 15 15 Cycles @ Minimum (%)0 5 0 5 Cycles Maxed Out (%)85 5 85 5 Cycles with Peds (%)0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 4.5 Number of Complete Cycles : 59 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement(s) Served WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Maximum Green (s)10.0 37.7 16.0 31.7 14.0 33.7 14.0 33.7 Minimum Green (s)10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Recall None None None None None None None C-Min Avg. Green (s)10.4 -6.9 -3.9 9.6 -7.6 9.2 -9.0 -7.3 g/C Ratio 1.28 -0.99 -0.55 1.37 -1.08 1.31 -1.23 -1.05 Cycles Skipped (%)14 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Cycles @ Minimum (%)79 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Cycles Maxed Out (%)83 59 93 87 90 59 59 100 Cycles with Peds (%)0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 7.0 Number of Complete Cycles : 29 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 3 4 6 9 10 11 12 Start Time 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 4452 4544 4603 4556 4653 4560 4513 Vehs Exited 4453 4545 4613 4587 4652 4562 4520 Starting Vehs 112 121 126 133 140 102 120 Ending Vehs 111 120 116 102 141 100 113 Denied Entry Before 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 Denied Entry After 1 0 0 1 8 3 0 Travel Distance (mi)2357 2387 2414 2404 2465 2412 2349 Travel Time (hr)116.1 120.4 123.1 117.2 126.0 118.9 116.3 Total Delay (hr)54.1 57.4 59.4 53.8 61.2 55.3 54.4 Total Stops 4562 4677 4770 4581 4907 4764 4653 Fuel Used (gal)100.4 103.2 104.1 103.1 106.1 103.3 101.1 Summary of All Intervals Run Number 13 14 15 Avg Start Time 4:55 4:55 4:55 4:55 End Time 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 Total Time (min)65 65 65 65 Time Recorded (min)60 60 60 60 # of Intervals 2 2 2 2 # of Recorded Intervals 1 1 1 1 Vehs Entered 4513 4513 4468 4537 Vehs Exited 4496 4534 4468 4543 Starting Vehs 115 130 120 119 Ending Vehs 132 109 120 115 Denied Entry Before 1 2 2 0 Denied Entry After 0 1 3 0 Travel Distance (mi)2364 2380 2357 2389 Travel Time (hr)117.6 116.4 122.2 119.4 Total Delay (hr)55.1 53.7 60.2 56.5 Total Stops 4608 4590 4725 4684 Fuel Used (gal)102.0 101.8 102.4 102.7 Interval #0 Information Seeding Start Time 4:55 End Time 5:00 Total Time (min)5 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval. SimTraffic Simulation Summary Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 2 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 3 4 6 9 10 11 12 Vehs Entered 4452 4544 4603 4556 4653 4560 4513 Vehs Exited 4453 4545 4613 4587 4652 4562 4520 Starting Vehs 112 121 126 133 140 102 120 Ending Vehs 111 120 116 102 141 100 113 Denied Entry Before 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 Denied Entry After 1 0 0 1 8 3 0 Travel Distance (mi)2357 2387 2414 2404 2465 2412 2349 Travel Time (hr)116.1 120.4 123.1 117.2 126.0 118.9 116.3 Total Delay (hr)54.1 57.4 59.4 53.8 61.2 55.3 54.4 Total Stops 4562 4677 4770 4581 4907 4764 4653 Fuel Used (gal)100.4 103.2 104.1 103.1 106.1 103.3 101.1 Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 5:00 End Time 6:00 Total Time (min)60 Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors. Run Number 13 14 15 Avg Vehs Entered 4513 4513 4468 4537 Vehs Exited 4496 4534 4468 4543 Starting Vehs 115 130 120 119 Ending Vehs 132 109 120 115 Denied Entry Before 1 2 2 0 Denied Entry After 0 1 3 0 Travel Distance (mi)2364 2380 2357 2389 Travel Time (hr)117.6 116.4 122.2 119.4 Total Delay (hr)55.1 53.7 60.2 56.5 Total Stops 4608 4590 4725 4684 Fuel Used (gal)102.0 101.8 102.4 102.7 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 3 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement SET SER NWL NWT NEL NER All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.2 Total Delay (hr)0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.5 8.2 1.7 25.8 8.1 2.9 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 5.8 0.2 23.5 6.7 1.3 Total Stops 0 0 80 0 3 220 303 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.17 Travel Dist (mi)92.5 0.5 8.2 54.7 1.0 69.4 226.3 Travel Time (hr)2.3 0.0 0.6 1.9 0.1 2.8 7.7 Vehicles Entered 659 3 121 802 3 219 1807 Vehicles Exited 658 3 122 801 3 220 1807 Hourly Exit Rate 658 3 122 801 3 220 1807 Input Volume 651 3 125 810 4 219 1812 % of Volume 101 100 98 99 75 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Performance by movement Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NER SWL SWR All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.5 0.8 0.1 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 5.4 Total Del/Veh (s)17.1 4.4 2.3 23.6 6.2 4.0 28.3 6.6 24.4 5.4 8.5 Stop Delay (hr)0.4 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.7 Stop Del/Veh (s)15.5 1.7 1.4 21.7 2.0 1.9 25.9 5.9 24.1 5.5 5.8 Total Stops 82 136 34 187 181 5 65 126 26 108 950 Stop/Veh 0.80 0.20 0.33 0.92 0.23 0.42 0.86 0.78 0.87 0.81 0.42 Travel Dist (mi)6.8 44.0 6.6 13.2 48.2 0.8 3.0 6.4 1.2 5.4 135.7 Travel Time (hr)0.8 2.1 0.4 1.9 2.6 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.6 9.9 Vehicles Entered 103 673 102 204 784 12 75 160 30 133 2276 Vehicles Exited 102 673 102 203 785 12 75 160 30 133 2275 Hourly Exit Rate 102 673 102 203 785 12 75 160 30 133 2275 Input Volume 100 669 101 207 788 12 79 154 29 133 2272 % of Volume 102 101 101 98 100 100 95 104 103 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 4 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Performance by movement Movement EBR WBR NBT NBR SBT All Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr)0.1 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.4 2.3 Total Del/Veh (s)5.5 10.0 5.3 3.9 1.8 4.0 Stop Delay (hr)0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 Stop Del/Veh (s)5.3 9.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 Total Stops 45 118 13 2 0 178 Stop/Veh 1.00 0.99 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.09 Travel Dist (mi)1.2 3.0 83.9 11.3 56.6 155.9 Travel Time (hr)0.1 0.5 3.8 0.6 2.0 7.1 Vehicles Entered 45 119 913 121 862 2060 Vehicles Exited 45 118 914 122 863 2062 Hourly Exit Rate 45 118 914 122 863 2062 Input Volume 45 114 925 128 852 2064 % of Volume 100 104 99 95 101 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 5 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.3 2.6 2.9 0.6 2.9 1.2 0.4 0.9 Total Delay (hr)3.2 4.3 0.3 2.8 9.6 0.7 2.6 8.9 0.3 4.4 4.9 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)40.1 32.1 7.0 44.1 47.9 14.5 45.7 52.7 8.3 56.9 37.2 13.3 Stop Delay (hr)2.8 3.4 0.3 2.4 7.5 0.5 2.2 7.0 0.2 4.1 4.1 0.7 Stop Del/Veh (s)35.1 25.7 6.3 38.0 37.3 11.6 39.7 41.9 5.8 52.8 30.8 11.4 Total Stops 266 316 101 222 581 118 198 523 89 286 335 164 Stop/Veh 0.93 0.66 0.69 0.97 0.81 0.71 0.98 0.86 0.72 1.02 0.70 0.73 Travel Dist (mi)27.6 46.5 14.2 52.3 166.6 38.9 28.3 82.9 17.2 21.2 36.0 17.2 Travel Time (hr)4.1 5.3 0.8 4.4 13.4 1.9 3.6 10.8 0.9 5.3 5.8 1.6 Vehicles Entered 281 471 145 222 707 165 201 588 122 279 466 222 Vehicles Exited 282 472 145 225 708 165 201 587 122 277 467 221 Hourly Exit Rate 282 472 145 225 708 165 201 587 122 277 467 221 Input Volume 295 480 140 222 713 172 208 586 114 274 466 221 % of Volume 96 98 104 101 99 96 97 100 107 101 100 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Performance by movement Movement All Denied Delay (hr)0.9 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Delay (hr)42.7 Total Del/Veh (s)39.1 Stop Delay (hr)35.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)32.2 Total Stops 3199 Stop/Veh 0.81 Travel Dist (mi)548.9 Travel Time (hr)57.9 Vehicles Entered 3869 Vehicles Exited 3872 Hourly Exit Rate 3872 Input Volume 3891 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 6 5: Tangerine Rd & Southeast Project Driveway Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT WBR SBR All Denied Delay (hr)0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Total Delay (hr)0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 Total Del/Veh (s)0.6 3.8 3.3 8.7 2.6 Stop Delay (hr)0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Stop Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 0.2 8.7 0.3 Total Stops 0 1 0 53 54 Stop/Veh 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 Travel Dist (mi)118.4 112.5 6.5 1.5 239.0 Travel Time (hr)2.9 4.3 0.3 0.2 7.7 Vehicles Entered 855 1070 60 53 2038 Vehicles Exited 856 1068 60 53 2037 Hourly Exit Rate 856 1068 60 53 2037 Input Volume 876 1081 61 53 2071 % of Volume 98 99 98 100 98 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 Total Network Performance Denied Delay (hr)1.2 Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Delay (hr)55.3 Total Del/Veh (s)42.7 Stop Delay (hr)40.4 Stop Del/Veh (s)31.2 Total Stops 4684 Stop/Veh 1.01 Travel Dist (mi)2388.8 Travel Time (hr)119.4 Vehicles Entered 4537 Vehicles Exited 4543 Hourly Exit Rate 4543 Input Volume 17861 % of Volume 25 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 7 Intersection: 1: Woodburne Ave & Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement SE NW NE NE Directions Served TR UL L R Maximum Queue (ft)2 100 27 119 Average Queue (ft)0 40 3 59 95th Queue (ft)2 76 17 97 Link Distance (ft)685 283 1670 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Movement SE SE SE NW NW NW NE NE SW SW Directions Served L T TR L T TR L TR L TR Maximum Queue (ft)107 96 110 186 117 240 109 100 68 97 Average Queue (ft)40 44 52 81 21 100 45 46 22 46 95th Queue (ft)82 85 91 153 72 201 91 79 55 78 Link Distance (ft)283 283 283 281 281 210 210 215 215 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)150 Storage Blk Time (%)3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)9 0 Intersection: 3: Rancho Vistoso Blvd Movement EB WB NB NB SB Directions Served R R T TR T Maximum Queue (ft)56 111 44 90 3 Average Queue (ft)26 48 1 10 0 95th Queue (ft)50 85 23 51 3 Link Distance (ft)139 132 377 377 281 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 8 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB Directions Served L T T R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)295 248 231 105 263 360 329 141 268 316 351 69 Average Queue (ft)161 146 120 44 130 228 213 56 119 198 231 28 95th Queue (ft)254 220 191 82 222 329 312 108 220 292 323 58 Link Distance (ft)478 478 1242 1242 734 734 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)240 245 260 430 295 300 Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 1 0 2 12 1 1 2 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)319 262 264 185 Average Queue (ft)179 151 154 88 95th Queue (ft)292 232 238 181 Link Distance (ft)377 377 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft)420 100 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 21 3 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 47 7 Intersection: 5: Tangerine Rd & Southeast Project Driveway Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft)58 Average Queue (ft)25 95th Queue (ft)50 Link Distance (ft)142 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 89 Actuated Signals, Observed Splits Opening Year 01/31/2025 PM Peak Hour With Project RVB/Tangerine NW Corner SimTraffic Report DDY Page 9 Intersection: 2: Rancho Vistoso Blvd & N Safeway Driveway Phase 2 4 6 8 Movement(s) Served NWTL NETL SETL SWTL Maximum Green (s)39.5 11.5 39.5 11.5 Minimum Green (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Recall C-Min None C-Min None Avg. Green (s)-2.4 -1.7 -2.4 -1.7 g/C Ratio -0.52 -0.37 -0.52 -0.37 Cycles Skipped (%)3 3 3 3 Cycles @ Minimum (%)0 3 0 3 Cycles Maxed Out (%)97 15 97 15 Cycles with Peds (%)0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 4.5 Number of Complete Cycles : 59 Intersection: 4: 1st Ave/Rancho Vistoso Blvd & Tangerine Rd Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement(s) Served WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Maximum Green (s)11.0 40.7 14.0 29.7 19.0 32.7 12.0 31.7 Minimum Green (s)10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 Recall None None None C-Min None None None None Avg. Green (s)-11.2 -4.0 -6.7 7.2 -3.4 10.3 -9.7 10.2 g/C Ratio -1.60 -0.58 -0.95 1.03 -0.49 1.47 -1.39 1.45 Cycles Skipped (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cycles @ Minimum (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cycles Maxed Out (%)97 73 97 100 86 73 90 97 Cycles with Peds (%)0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 Controller Summary Average Cycle Length (s): 7.0 Number of Complete Cycles : 29 MEMORANDUM To: Town of Oro Valley From: Darlene Danehy Yellowhair, P.E., PTOE, RSP2I, ENV SP Date: July 30, 2026 Subject: Rancho Vistoso Boulevard/Woodburne Avenue Traffic Analysis Introduction In 2024, Psomas developed an analysis of traffic operations along Rancho Vistoso Boulevard (RVB) between Tangerine Road and Arrowsmith Drive. The work was followed with additional analysis in conjunction with the proposed development on the northwest corner of the RVB/Tangerine Road intersection. A recommended plan for RVB was developed based on the traffic analyses, safety considerations, and input from the Town and the developer (who spoke on behalf of anticipated end users). The plan, shown in Figure 1, includes construction of a traffic signal at the north Safeway driveway and construction of a two-stage left turn at RVB and Woodburne Avenue, which would allow drivers to turn from Woodburne Avenue into an acceleration lane before merging into northbound traffic in an available gap. More recently, questions have been raised about the location of a potential future traffic signal. To address a public request, this memorandum includes traffic operational analyses for two different options; the first is the originally proposed alternative (including a signal at the Safeway driveway) and the second would instead add the signal at the RVB/Woodburne Avenue intersection. This document also includes a qualitative safety evaluation of each alternative. Operational Analysis The operational analysis was completed based on the traffic volumes collected and developed in late 2024/early 2025 for the various traffic analyses. The existing traffic volumes were grown to estimate 2027 conditions, and anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development on the northwest corner of Tangerine Road and RVB (a 23,182 square foot (SF) grocery store, a 12,000 SF retail building, and either a gas station with a convenience store or two fast food buildings with drive-thrus) were added in separately. Figure 2 shows the traffic volumes used in the analyses presented in this section. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operations conditions in terms of delay (for intersections) LOS ranges from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F representing the worst. LOS D is generally considered acceptable for urban and suburban intersections. The delays were taken from simulations run using SimTraffic, the microsimulation component of Synchro. Table 1 shows the delays and LOS for each movement which will experience delays (free-flowing movements are assumed to have zero delay) for each alternative. Operations are shown for the RVB/Woodburne Avenue and RVB/North Safeway Driveway intersections, since those would be most affected by the different traffic control options which have been proposed. Figure 1. Proposed Rancho Vistoso Boulevard Improvements (2024) Page 3 of 5 July 30, 2026 Figure 2. Projected Future Traffic Volumes Page 4 of 5 July 30, 2026 Table 1. Delays and LOS for Alternatives 1 and 2 As shown in the table, all of the movements which experience delays at both study intersections would operate at LOS D or better under Alternative 1. The lone movement at LOS D is the eastbound left turn movement from Woodburne Avenue onto RVB, which includes only two vehicles. Under Alternative 2, the movements at a signalized RVB/Woodburne Avenue intersection would operate at LOS C or better in both peak hours, but movements from both the Safeway and the new commercial driveway would operate at LOS F in both peak hours. Drivers would have the opportunity to make a right turn out of either commercial site followed by a U-turn at either the Woodburne Avenue signal or the Tangerine Road signal if delays become significant. LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LOS A C A A A A Delay 0.0 16.7 6.9 LOS D A A A A A Delay 34.0 8.1 6.8 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LOS A B A A A A A Delay 0.0 12.5 9.4 3.2 9.9 4.4 8.4 LOS B A A A A A A Delay 10.7 7.4 7.2 2.3 7.8 2.7 5.4 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LOS C A A C A A B A A C A A A Delay 24.7 0.0 6.8 25.6 0.0 5.1 15.3 3.6 1.7 20.3 5.5 2.8 6.7 LOS C A A C A A C A A B A A A Delay 25.4 0.0 6.1 26.7 0.0 7.0 33.6 3.9 1.8 14.7 7.7 6.8 10.0 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LOS F A A F A F B A A A A A Delay 61.0 0.0 10.0 172.7 0.0 82.8 11.0 7.0 LOS F A B F A F A A A C A A Delay 187.3 0.0 10.4 297.1 0.0 108.1 6.0 15.1 PM Int 2 - Signal at Safeway North Safeway Driveway Rancho Vistoso Boulevard TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound AM PM AM PM Int 2 - Signal at Woodburne North Safeway Driveway Rancho Vistoso Boulevard Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound AM AM PM Int 1 - Signal at Safeway Woodburne Ave Rancho Vistoso Boulevard Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Int 1 - Signal at Woodburne Woodburne Ave Rancho Vistoso Boulevard TotalEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Page 5 of 5 July 30, 2026 Safety Evaluation In addition to providing efficient vehicular movements in the area, the Town would like to provide improvements that will also allow for safe travel through the area. Concerns about safety, particularly left turns out of the Safeway Driveway and off of Woodburne Avenue, have been raised in the past. The Safeway Driveway was altered with signage and striping to prohibit left turns out of the driveway to help address these concerns. The addition of commercial development along the west side of RVB will add traffic and the demand for left turns onto RVB. Alternative 1, which would provide a signal serving commercial developments on both sides of RVB, would address the issue of left turns exiting the driveways onto RVB by providing dedicated signal timing for those movements while stopping traffic on RVB. In addition, as shown in Figure 1, Alternative 1 would include median improvements at the RVB/Woodburne Avenue intersection. These improvements would result in the provision of an acceleration lane for drivers wishing to travel north from Woodburne Avenue on RVB. The acceleration lane would allow drivers to only be concerned with traffic from one direction on RVB at a time and would provide safe refuge until they can merge into northbound traffic on RVB. Alternative 2 would provide dedicated time for the left turns from Woodburne Avenue onto RVB, but would not include any improvements at the commercial driveways because the intersection at the commercial driveways has four legs (instead of three at Woodburne Avenue), so the two-stage left turn option shown in Figure 1 is not feasible. If left turns were allowed from the driveways onto RVB, the same existing safety concerns would be applicable. If left turns were restricted, drivers would have to travel to the nearest signal to make a U-turn and reach their ultimate destination. With Alternative 1, the signal would be located approximately 800 feet from the signal at Tangerine Road. Similar locations, including on Arizona Pavilions near Cortaro Road and on 1st Avenue west of Oracle Road, have experienced a minimal number of crashes over the last five years (2020-2024), despite being located 650 feet and 550 feet, respectively, from a signalized intersection of two major arterials. The Arizona Pavilions signal had 5 reported crashes during that period, and the 1st Avenue signal had 11 reported crashes during that period. Neither location has experienced any serious injury or fatal crashes during that time. Summary and Recommendations As detailed in this memorandum, the improvements shown in Figure 1 are expected to address existing safety concerns and provide safe and efficient circulation and operations even with the addition of the proposed commercial development on the northwest corner of Tangerine Road and RVB. The proposed traffic signal will allow shoppers to access both developments easily no matter which direction they are traveling to and from. Lastly, the proposed two-stage left turn at RVB and Woodburne Avenue will allow drivers wishing to travel north from Woodburne Avenue to turn into an acceleration lane before safety merging into northbound traffic. Rancho Vistoso Blvd. Traffic Management & Safety Improvements for Sprout’s Plaza Development Paul Keesler, Public Works Director Purpose of this item On May 20th, 2026, staff brought this to Council as a Study Session item to discuss From that meeting and subsequent conversations, Council has traffic related questions on the following main topics: Signal Spacing Signal Synchronization Placement of the signal at Woodburne Use of the northern section of Safeway Plaza parking lot ring road Southbound Rancho Vistoso Blvd, left turn stacking at the Tangerine Intersection Total development picture Purpose of this item In addition, other issues discussed at this Study Session were: Fixing localized traffic problems with or without associated development Impact of other nearby developments Moving The Woodburne and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. slightly south Who’s paying for these improvements Traffic studies conducted Woodburne Access by new development Southbound egress ability from the Horizons Neighborhood The curvature of Ranch Vistoso Blvd. Western portion of 7-I impact to area traffic This evening’s meeting, we will address each and everyone of the questions raised at the last presentation Signal Spacing From Tangerine & 1st/RV Blvd to the Safeway Plaza’s northern driveway perimeter road is: 850ft From the Safeway northern driveway perimeter road to RV Blvd & Arrowsmith/Moore Loop is: 3,150ft 1st & Main TOV signalized intersection: which is 550ft from Oracle Rd. Works well even without signal synchronizationOverall accident ratio for the past 10years of data is 0.2 accidents per million vehicle trips traveled through. Per the FHWA, the purpose of a street traffic signal is to control the flow of traffic at intersections to improve safety, efficiency, and order, for which 1st & Main excels in all categories: Favors primary flowDoes not back up into OracleSafety historyDelays limited to adjacent parking lots Signal Synchronization Physically and electrically connecting their traffic signal control systems so they operate as a single coordinated unit The purpose is to provide the ability: To monitor traffic to avoid the stopped queue of one signal backing up into the queue of another. To provide cross -traffic breaks that optimize movements. To maintain the predominant flow passing through the area by having the signals act as one coordinated system. This does differ from the intersection at 1st & Main in that those two signals do not communicate Placement of the signal at Woodburne Study Requested by Council Results: LOS at the Safeway northern driveway perimeter road produced acceptable levels of service, C or better for nearly all traffic. Woodburne & RV Blvd, some turning movements were unacceptable at an LOS of F Even if Woodburne is moved slightly south, LT’s from Sprouts still at LOS F Use of the northern section of Safeway Plaza parking lot ring road Currently functions poorly Revision to improve circulation by: Removing general user traffic away from the “back alley” Maintain 3 tie-in points to the Safeway plaza. Works with the alignment and trajectory of the ingress/egress from RV Blvd, The “back alley” becomes a dedicated loading zone and fire lane, Works with the existing pavement already in place. Ring Road: Defined in OVZC CH 31, Requirements in Section 27.7.G.2. Southbound Rancho Vistoso Blvd, left turn stacking at the Tangerine Intersection The TIA, Figure 4 depicts the existing 95th percentile queues at the intersection Existing condition: SB RV Blvd Left-Turn Lane stacking space is 540ft in length Peak hour vehicle queuing, traffic queues up to 219ft in the AM and 160ft in the PM Addition of Sprout’s Development: Shortening the existing RV Blvd SB LT lane by 120ft to accommodate the opposing NB LT lane Per Figure 15 of the TIA, the AM queue stacking is 323ft and the PM queue stacking is 292ft there is 420ft available for stacking, so this additional traffic will not back out into the RV Blvd. southbound #1 lane This traffic scenario works. Total Development Picture Four major developments in and around this proposed signalized intersection: The Existing Safeway Shopping Center The proposed Sprouts Development (eastern half of RV Parcel 7-I) A recent layout received for RV Parcel 5-U A rough layout of the western section of RV Parcel 7-I Total Development Picture Have discussed the impacts of Existing Traffic + Sprouts Traffic Impacts of Existing Traffic + Sprouts Traffic + RV 5-U Traffic: This proposal will generate 57 vehicle trips in the AM and 120 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours. has no impact to the signal’s left turn into Sprouts it will add 14 vehicles in the AM and 22 vehicles in the PM peak hour. For the RV Blvd SB LT lane, will increase the queueing from 323ft to 340ft in the AM and from 292ft to 322ft in the PM peak hour. Since there is 420ft available per the proposed design, the addition of the RV 5U traffic works. Total Development Picture Impacts of Existing Traffic + Sprouts Traffic + RV 5-U Traffic + 7-I west Traffic: This proposal will generate 638 vehicle trips in the AM and 1,237 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours for commercial. For residential apartments, using the previous rezoning request of 240 units, that would generate 98 vehicle trips in the AM and 125 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours. Traffic distribution is being estimated to be 40% each per Tangerine access and 20% through the Sprouts development. 128 vehicle trips in the AM and 247 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours traveling into and through the Sprouts development. 35 vehicle trips in the AM and 49 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours to add to the RV Blvd. SB LT Lane. And it adds 90 vehicle trips in the AM and 141 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours to the new signal RV Blvd. NB LT Lane. Total Development Picture Impacts of Existing Traffic + Sprouts Traffic + RV 5-U Traffic + 7-I west Traffic: For the RV Blvd NB Lane at the new signal, there are 214 vehicle Trips causing a 242ft queuing requirement in the AM and 331 vehicle trips and a 267ft queuing requirement in the PM. Both of which are larger than the proposed 150ft storage length provided. For the RV Blvd SB LT Lane, there 323 total vehicle trips in the AM and 282 vehicle trips in the PM peak hours, causing a queuing of 381ft in the AM and 390ft in the PM peak hours, RV Blvd. SB LT Lane will need to be reduced to 300ft in length to accommodate the needed NB LT queuing for the signal. In the end, lengthen the NB LT Lane queue by 100ft to 250ft. Then RV Blvd at Tangerine will need to be widened to accommodate a second SB LT Lane. With two 300ft southbound turn lanes, this will provide 600ft of turning queue. Other Issues Fixing localized traffic problems with or without associated development Identified on the Town’s Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) Intend to approach Council for signalization of the northern Safeway Ring Road access point with RV Blvd, with or without the development of Sprouts. Impact of other nearby developments Traffic impacts calculated by ITE Trip Generation Manual Is demand based, not surrounding based Only developments directly tied to intersection are used for calculations Who’s paying for these improvements Town is expending Transportation Impact Fees The developer can build eligible offsite improvements and be reimbursed by the Town Traffic studies conducted Several traffic studies have been conducted over the years The two studies that define this design are attached to this communication Other Issues Woodburne Access by new development No Woodburne access is anticipated by the proposed development or future western portion of RV 7I Southbound egress ability from the Horizons Neighborhood This is an existing problem that could benefit from traffic gaps created by another signal as being proposed The curvature of Ranch Vistoso Blvd. The RV Blvd alignment is curved with a centerline radius of 975ft, until it’s within 170ft of the center of Woodburne Ave. Conclusions There are clear benefits to installing a signal at the entrance to the Sprouts Development/Safeway Plaza northern Ring Road RV Blvd access intersection. Signalizing the Woodburne & RV Blvd. intersection does not provide the same traffic improvements and has the potential of either worsening traffic conditions. Moving Woodburne slightly south to provide direct access to RV 5-U: It could substitute Safeway access Will have detrimental impacts to the eastern portion of RV 7I. This scenario most like would cause the Town to invoke eminent domain to obtain the land needed to facilitate this change. Will impact existing residences that currently do not have a road behind them. Questions/Comments    Town Council Regular Session 3. Meeting Date:08/12/2026   Requested by: Paul Melcher  Submitted By:Paul Melcher, Community and Economic Development Department:Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-40, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY (THE "TOWN") AND THE WESTWARD LOOK RESORT, LLC. (THE "RESORT")  RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No.(R)26-40, as the Town Council has allocated $125,000 in the FY 26-27 Annual Budget for agreements with the two resorts in Oro Valley.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached Agreement for Services includes the following provisions with estimated support amounts derived from the FY26-27 budget: 1) Trade Show Support ($22,500) The Resort will participate in industry-specific trade shows to develop group booking leads, arrange meetings with event planners, and sign group book contracts. 2) Master Account Incentives ($25,000) Booking groups may request Master Account Incentives (credits or offsets) to finalize a contract. If the contract is lucrative enough to warrant a Master Account Incentive, the Resort may request a Master Account Incentive. The Town matches 50% of the resort's match amount with Visit Tucson. For example, if the incentive request is $2,500, the resort pays $1,250 and the DMO pays $625. 3) Familiarization Trips or Events ($15,000) The Town will participate in familiarization trips or events that provide exposure for the resort(s) and the DMO. In addition to the bed and sales taxes generated from the support, the DMO has negotiated marketing and promotional activities that result in exposure and marketing opportunities for the DMO. This is an annual agreement but includes anticipated future support since there will be contracts and events beyond FY26-27.    BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Since the Town Council created the Explore Oro Destination Marketing Organization in April 2024, the Council has allocated funding for resort agreements in each successive fiscal year budget. DMO staff have worked to create service agreements to allocate funding to the Westward Look and El Conquistador Resorts. To date, El Conquistador staff have not followed up with staff since March/April 2026 to finalize an agreement while the Westward Look Director and Sales Staff have met with staff to finalize the proposed agreement. Staff are presenting this to Town Council for review and approval based on the opinion by the Town Attorney that the unique agreements for service with the resorts require Council approval. Council approved $125,000 for resort support in the annual budget, so staff have divided this amount evenly between the Westward Look and a potential future agreement with El Conquistador Resorts.   FISCAL IMPACT: $62,500 has been allocated for this agreement.  SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to (Approve or Deny) Resolution No. (R)26-40, regarding the agreement for services between the Town of Oro Valley and the Westward Look Resort, LLC.  Attachments (R)26-40 Westward Look Resort Support Agreement  Draft Agreement  Staff Presentation  RESOLUTION NO. (R)26-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE TOWN MANAGER TO SIGN AND ENTER AN AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND WESTWARD LOOK RESORT LLC, FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM WITHIN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY; AND DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER, TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY, OR THEIR DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona vested with all associated rights, privileges and benefits and is entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-500.11, the Town may appropriate public monies for and in connection with economic development activities as long as there is adequate consideration; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to continue to promote a business environment in Oro Valley that enhances economic vitality and improves the quality of life for its residents; and WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley desires to enter into an Agreement for Services with Westward Look Resort, LLC, for the promotion of tourism within the Town of Oro Valley; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Town to authorize the Town Manager to sign and enter the Agreement for Services with Westward Look Resort, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, to promote tourism within the Town of Oro Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, that: SECTION 1. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to sign and enter the Agreement for Services between the Town of Oro Valley and Westward Look Resort, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, to promote tourism within the Town of Oro Valley. SECTION 2. The Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Attorney, or their duly authorized officers and agents are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this resolution. SECTION 3. All Oro Valley resolutions or motions and parts of resolutions or motions of the Council in conflict with the provision of this Resolution are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution, or the Agreement for Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, this 12th day of August, 2026. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Joseph C. Winfield, Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Standish, Town Clerk Steven Zraick, Town Attorney Date: Date: 2 EXHIBIT “A” 3 AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 1 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, an Arizona municipal corporation (the “Town”), and WESTWARD LOOK RESORT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Resort”). The Town and the Resort are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the “Parties,” either of which is sometimes individually referred to as a “Party.” RECITALS A. The Town has established the Explore Oro Valley destination marketing organization (“DMO”) to promote tourism, increase visitation, and enhance economic activity within the Town. B. The Town finds that supporting targeted marketing efforts through its local resorts serves a valid public purpose by directly promoting the Town as a destination for meetings and leisure travel. C. The Town finds that the cost of Town media exposure using targeted advertising efforts from available market-based providers such as social media promoters or internet service providers can exceed $7,000 per promotion. By contrast, the direct Town exposure received as consideration from the Resort in exchange for the Town’s expenditures under this Agreement will target a large number of individuals and organizations seeking to locate trade shows, group bookings, corporate meetings, and other tourism-generating events in an effort to entice them to come to the Town, thereby providing legally adequate consideration through, among other things: i. The Resort’s participation in approved trade shows to promote the Town’s DMO, ii. The Resort’s implementation of Master Account Incentives to secure group bookings, and iii. The Resort’s hosting of Familiarization (FAM) tours and events that feature Town branding, staff participation, and promotion of the Town’s tourism assets. D. The Town finds that these services will provide benefits to the Town including increased out-of-town visitors and enhanced visibility of the Town’s tourism offerings that exceed the Town’s expenditures under this Agreement. E. The Town further finds that the legally adequate consideration under this Agreement will be confirmed and enhanced by the oversight mechanisms set forth in this Agreement, which ensure transparency and accountability, including reporting requirements and audit rights. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully restated here, and the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 2 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] 1. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date of the last Party’s signature on this Agreement (the “Effective Date”) and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2027. 2. Definitions. The following definitions apply to this Agreement (including Exhibit A to this Agreement): a. Familiarization (FAM): A trip or event to showcase Oro Valley resorts and hotels, local tourism-supporting venues, the Oro Valley DMO, and associated DMO partners in the local tourism ecosystem to event and meeting planners. Familiarization (FAM) events can be done in tandem with several resorts and hotels participating or singularly based on resort booking strategies. b. Master Account: A centralized hotel billing arrangement where group booking expenses (room blocks, catering, audio-visual needs, food and beverage, meeting spaces, etc.) are charged directly to an organization or event host rather than to individual travelers. c. Master Account Incentive: A financial incentive provided by the Town’s DMO under this Agreement in support of a Master Account. d. Peak Rooms: Hotel rooms reserved or occupied during the highest-demand nights of an event or season, often associated with higher rates and maximum occupancy. e. VisitTucson Master Account Incentive: A financial incentive provided by VisitTucson in support of a Master Account. 3. Town Funding. All funding is subject to the Town’s budget appropriations. During the term of this Agreement, the Town will allocate up to $62,500 in Town tourism funding to the Resort subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the restrictions and provisions set forth in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated by this reference. 4. Future Year References. Any references to future years in Exhibit A (e.g., 2026-2029) or related provisions are intended to describe the scope of eligible activities for reimbursement during the term of this Agreement. The Town is not obligated to fund or reimburse activities occurring outside this Agreement’s term unless a subsequent agreement is executed and funding is appro - priated. 5. Reports. The Resort will provide the Town Representative with the following quarterly reports: a. Trade shows attended, including the number of leads, planner meetings, or signed agreements originating from the trade shows. b. Contracts requiring Master Account Incentives and the amount of the total incentive. c. Master Account contracts that have resulted in new net bookings because of Master Account Incentives, including the final number of room nights booked and used. d. Familiarization (FAM) tours/event metrics such as number of planners hosted, number of agreements sign, or similar performance metrics. 6. Audit and Inspection Rights. The Town shall have the right, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, to audit, examine, and make copies of any and all records, docu - ments, and materials related to the expenditure of funds provided under this Agreement. The AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 3 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] Resort agrees to maintain such records period of at least five years following the termination or expiration of this Agreement and to cooperate fully with any audit or inspection conducted by or on behalf of the Town. 7. Relationship between the Parties. In the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement, the Resort shall act solely as an independent contractor, and nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee, partnership, principal and agent, or to create a joint venture between the Town and the Resort. 8. Insurance. The Resort shall maintain insurance with the following required coverages and limits, and the Town shall be named as an additional insured on the commercial general liability insurance policy: Worker’s Compensation: Statutory Employer’s Liability: U.S. $1,000,000 Commercial General Liability: U.S. $1,000,000 per occurrence U.S. $2,000,000 aggregate 9. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, The Resort shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Town, its officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, damages, or liabilities arising out of the Resort’s performance under this Agreement. The Town shall not be required to indemnify the Resort. 10. Regulatory Compliance and Approvals. Each Party shall at its own expense comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations in connection with its obligations under this Agreement. 11. Appointment of Representatives. To further the commitment of the Parties to cooperate in the activities described in this Agreement, the Town and the Resort each shall designate and appoint a representative to act as a liaison for the Town and its various departments and the Resort. The initial representative for the Town (the “Town Representative”) shall be Paul Melcher, Community and Economic Development Director and the initial representative for Resort (the “Resort Representative”) shall be Wyatt Fee, General Manager. The Town Representative and the Resort Representative are sometimes collectively referred to as the “Parties’ Representatives.” The Parties’ Representatives shall be available at all reasonable times to discuss and review the per - formance of the Parties and their responsibilities in connection with the services to be performed under this Agreement. 12. Town Personnel. At the Town’s sole discretion, the Town may assign Town personnel to assist the Resort in performing the services described in this Agreement. The Resort may also request assistance from Town personnel with the performance of these services by contacting the Town Representative. Assistance will be provided at the Town’s sole discretion. 13. Use of Promotional Materials. The Resort grants the Town a non-exclusive, royalty free license to use any promotional materials, images, or content developed or used in in connection with trade shows, familiarization trips, or other activities reimbursed under this Agreement, for the Town’s marketing and public relations purposes. 14. Public Records. The Resort acknowledges that documents and records related to the expenditure of public funds under this Agreement may be subject to disclosure under Arizona AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 4 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] Public Records Law (A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq.). The Resort agrees to cooperate with the Town in responding to any public records request involving such documents. 15. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested; to the following addresses: If to the Town, to:TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Attn: Community and Economic Development Director 11000 N. La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Cc:TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Attn: Chief Procurement Officer 11000 N. La Cañada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 If to the Resort, to:WESTWARD LOOK RESORT, LLC Attn: General Manager 245 E. Ina Road Tucson, Arizona 85704 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties pertaining to the subject matter of the Agreement and supersedes all offers, negotia - tions, and other agreements of any kind. All prior and contemporaneous agreements, representa - tions and understandings of the Parties, oral or written, are superseded and merged in this Agree - ment. 17. Authority to Execute Agreement . The individuals executing this Agreement hereby repre - sent that they have full right, power, and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of their respective Parties. 18. Force Majeure. Notwithstanding any other term, condition or provision of this Agreement to the contrary, if any Party to this Agreement is precluded from satisfying or fulfilling any duty or obligation imposed upon it due to labor strikes, material shortages, war, civil disturbances, weather conditions, natural disasters, acts of God, pandemic or other events beyond the control of such Party, the time period provided herein for the performance by such Party of such duty or obligation shall be extended for a period equal to the delay occasioned by such events. 19. Conflict of Interest. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of A.R.S. § 38-511, which provides for termination in certain instances involving conflicts of interest. 20. Attorneys’ Fees. The prevailing Party in a civil action to enforce this Agreement shall be entitled to recover from the other Party, in addition to any relief to which such prevailing Party may be entitled, all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with that civil action. 21. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona. 22. Termination. Either Party may terminate its participation in this Agreement for any reason upon at least fifteen days’ prior written notice to the other Party. In the event of termination, the Resort shall be entitled to payment for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 5 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] termination. Any funds advanced by the Town that exceed the value of services rendered shall be refunded to the Town on a pro rata basis, calculated based on the proportion of services completed relative to the total scope of work defined in Exhibit A. The Resort shall provide a final account - ing of expenditures and services performed within 30 days of termination. 23. Enforcement; Laws and Ordinances. This Agreement shall be enforced under the laws of the State of Arizona. Each Party must comply with all applicable federal, state, county and Town laws, ordinances and regulations. The Resort shall ensure the Resort’s obligation regarding payment of all taxes, license, permits and other expenses of any nature associated with the provi - sion of services under this Agreement. The Resort shall maintain in current status all federal, state and local certifications required for the business operated by the Resort. 24. Compliance with Federal and State Laws. The Resort understands and acknowledges the applicability to it of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Drug Free Work - place Act of 1989. Under the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-4401, the Resort hereby warrants to the Town that the Resort and each of its subcontractors (“Subcontractors”) will comply with, and are contractually obligated to comply with, all Federal Immigration laws and regulations that relate to their employees and A.R.S. § 23-214(A). 25. Miscellaneous. a. This Agreement may be modified, due to an emergency or pandemic or due to changes in the scope of work. Before a modification is implemented, an amendment shall be executed by each Party. Additions to, modifications of or deletions from this Agreement may be made and the compensation to be paid to the Resort may be adjusted accordingly by mutual written agreement of the Parties. No claim for extra work by the Resort will be allowed by the Town except as provided, nor shall the Resort do any work not covered by this Agreement unless the work is authorized through an amendment and signed by both Parties PRIOR to starting any additional work. Whenever a change in the scope of work is determined to be necessary, the work will be performed in accordance with this Agreement. Before a change in the scope of work is implemented, an amendment shall be executed by the Parties. b. The captions and section numbers appearing in this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience, and do not define, limit, construe or describe the scope or intent of such sections or articles of this Agreement. c. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. d. During the term of this Agreement, the Resort shall refrain from endorsing any Town candidate for mayor or councilmember. AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 6 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this instrument below. THE “TOWN”: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, an Arizona municipal corporation By: Jeff Wilkins, Town Manager Date: Cherie Odeski, Chief Procurement Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steven Zraick, Town Attorney The “Resort”: WESTWARD LOOK RESORT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: WESTWARD LOOK ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: Its: Date: AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 7 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] EXHIBIT A A. TRADE SHOWS: ALLOCATED BUDGET OF $22,500 The Resort will participate in industry-specific trade shows to develop group booking leads, arrange meetings with event planners, and sign group book contracts. The Parties’ Representatives shall mutually agree to an approved trade show list each Town fiscal year (beginning July 1 and ending June 30 each year) this Agreement or any extension is in effect. Trade shows eligible for reimbursement include those related specifically to planning meetings or contract signings with one or more of the following hospitality or meeting sectors: 1.Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, Exhibitions/Events hospitality sector, 2.Corporate Meetings sector, and/or 3.Associations meeting sector. Reimbursements for trade shows shall be made when the Resort provides the Town Representa - tive an invoice and proof of attendance and activity after the event. In support of trade show incentives, the Resort agrees to market the Explore Oro Valley DMO website via the distribution of marketing collateral and/or videos on the booth revolving video display as is available. The benefit value to the Town of each event shall be based on the following elements: Number of visits with event planners Number of shares and engagements on Social Media platforms Number of qualified prospects and leads Number of tentative and signed agreements Estimated room nights, estimated visitor expenditures, and estimated economic impact associated with each booked agreement. The Parties’ Representatives will confer concerning the marketing and promotional value for each trade show approved, and the Town Representative will make the final determination con - cerning the Town funding to be provided. The Resort will provide post-event analysis for review prior to the trade reimbursement approval. The following represents the FY 2026-2027 prioritized target industry trade shows for the Westward Look: 1.Anthony Travel Exchange – August 2026 $4,000 a.Target Sector: Big 12 football and basketball teams and Boosters 2.TEAMS Conference & Expo: Joint support with Parks and Rec and an Explore Oro Valley DMO representative. AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 8 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] $5-7,000: Reverse Trade Show with attendees sign up for destination specific appoint- ments. Target sports events: a.Water Polo b.Tennis c.Soccer 3.Connect Sports Cost to be determined. 4.HelmsBriscoe Annual Business Conference: Reverse Trade Show Cost to be determined 5.Religious Conference Management Association (RCMA) Conference Cost to be determined The following are miscellaneous additional trade shows that could be considered based on avail- able funding and identification of estimated value or benefits of it. 1.IMEX America 2.Connect Marketplace 3.PCMA Convening Leaders 4.Sports ETA Symposium 5.American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) Annual Meeting 6.Connect Association 7.Connect Faith B. MASTER ACCOUNT INCENTIVES: ALLOCATED BUDGET OF $25,000 Booking groups may request Master Account Incentives (credits or offsets) to finalize a contract. If the contract is lucrative enough to warrant a Master Account Incentive, the Resort may request a Master Account Incentive per the requirements of this section. The Town will reimburse the Resort for 50% of Master Account expenditures used to match VisitTucson Master Account Incentives upon the Resort providing to the Town Representative proof of the Master Account grant being used to finalize an agreement. The proof shall include the appropriate signed agreement or specific pages of the agreement showing the Master Account Incentive amount. If the event for which the Master Account Incentive was approved or given does not occur or is cancelled, the Resort shall refund the Master Account Incentive to the Town within 30 days of event cancellation. This program may be used to book contracts for two or three consecutive years. 1.The credit amount of the Master Account Incentive depends on the number of Peak Rooms, with higher tiers receiving larger credits, as follows: 25-50 Peak Rooms AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 9 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] o $500 VisitTucson Credit o $250 Resort Match o $125 Town Reimbursement 51-100 Peak Rooms o $1,250 VisitTucson Credit o $625 Resort Match o $312.50 Town Reimbursement 101-200 Peak Rooms o $2,500 VisitTucson Credit o $1,250 Resort Match o $625 Town Reimbursement 201+ Peak Rooms: o $5,000 VisitTucson Credit o $2,500 Resort Match o $1,250 Town Reimbursement 2.Key Details & Terms Incentives require agreements that include Peak Rooms for a minimum of two nights. Must be booked in calendar years 2026, 2027, 2028, or 2029 and held in calendar years 2026, 2027, 2028, or 2029 to receive credit. If booking a multi-year meeting (same meeting for two or three years with one occurring in 2026, 2027, 2028, or 2029), the credit will apply for all years but the bookings need to be consecutive. The credit will be applied to the Master Account of the Resort (the booking property) based on actual room nights resulting from a contract, and will not be made via a payment directly to the booking party. The credit is not valid for groups already contracted. The credit is not valid with other offers unless mutually agreed upon by the Parties. This incentive applies to groups that meet room night criteria. The Resort, as the booking property, must send a letter of interest to the Town Represen - tative to qualify. The letter of interest must include the qualifying booking information plus the amount of incentive reimbursement requested. The Town will allocate funding in the amounts set forth in this Agreement to reimburse the Resort for eligible contracts through the term of this Agreement, and anticipates future agreements or extensions that will allocate funding to reimburse the Resort for eligible contracts through the end of calendar year 2029. AGREEMENT NO. ______X TOWN OF ORO VALLEY/WESTWARD LOOK RESORTS, LLC AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 10 [6/15/2026 3:24 PM] The Resort agrees to provide room space in the participant check-in area for the DMO QR code link to the Explore Oro Valley website and a welcome table to the DMO annually and free of charge in exchange for Master Account Incentive support (estimated value: $15,000 in marketing and social media engagement). C. FAMILIARIZATION (FAM) TRIPS/EVENTS: ALLOCATED BUDGET OF $15,000 The Town will act as the presenting sponsor Familiarization (FAM) tours or events. The Parties’ Representatives will develop a mutually agreed upon list of FAM tours and events early in the term of this Agreement. For unscheduled FAM tour or event opportunities, the Town will sponsor the event upon the Parties’ Representatives mutual agreement of the event’s purpose and cost prior to the event, with the Town Representative making the final determination concerning the Town funding to be provided. The Resort will provide post-event analysis for the Town Representative’s review prior to reimbursement. The Town will sponsor FAM tours and events including, but not limited to, the following cost generators: Air and ground transportation for event planners or affiliated similar groups Food, beverages, and local entertainment Meeting space and audio-visual equipment Other costs as agreed upon by the Parties’ Representatives. The Town will not provide funding to purchase alcoholic beverages. 1.Town sponsorship of FAM tours and events include the following: a.Recognize the Explore Oro Valley DMO b.DMO Staff with a supporting pitch c.Explore Oro Valley DMO logo and application use d.Access to meeting planners 2.The Resort will provide the Town Representative with post-event analysis for review prior to the trade reimbursement approval that includes, but is not limited to, the following: a.Number of visits with event planners b.Number of shares and engagements on Social Media platforms c.Number of leads d.Number of signed agreements. Town of Oro Valley/Westward Look Support Agreement Jeff Wilkins, Town Manager Paul Melcher, Community and Economic Development Director August 12, 2026 Provide financial and marketing support for the two resorts in Oro Valley Agreement Goal 1)Town Council commitment of support when Explore Oro Valley DMO established 2)Town Council commitment confirmed in subsequent annual budgets: $125,000 3)Support consists of the following: a)Trade Show reimbursements $45,000 b)Master Account Incentives $50,000 c)Familiarization trips or host event $30,000 Key Terms & Financial Allocation •Term: Effective from the signature date through June 30, 2027. •Total Funding: Up to $62,500 allocated from Town tourism funds. •Gift Clause compliance: Explore Oro Valley negotiated marketing and brand exposure above the value of sales and bed tax generated. Trade Shows: $22,500 Budget Breakdown (Exhibit A) Trade shows eligible for reimbursement include those related specifically to planning meetings or contract signings with one or more of the following hospitality or meeting sectors: •Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, Exhibitions/Events hospitality sector, •Corporate Meetings sector, and/or •Associations meeting sector. Master Account Incentives: $25,000 Budget Breakdown (Exhibit A) Booking groups may request Master Account Incentives (credits or offsets) to finalize a contract. If the contract is lucrative enough to warrant a Master Account Incentive, the Resort may request a Master Account Incentive per the requirements of this section. •Example match formula: Group Booking Agreement results in 25-50 Peak Rooms $500 VisitTucson Credit extended •$250 Resort Match •$125 Town Reimbursement Familiarization Events: $15,000 Budget Breakdown (Exhibit A) The Town will act as the presenting sponsor Familiarization (FAM) tours or events. Covers event costs designed to showcase the area to meeting planners such as: •Transportation •Food •Meeting space for events Final Considerations 1)First agreement for resort support 2)Significant reporting and audit provisions 3)Explore OV DMO meeting monthly with WWL for planning and implementation 4)DMO support at select trade shows for sports events 5)Explore OV DMO support with WWL membership benefits Questions