Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Lane County Public Service Building – Harris Hall www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 125 East 8th Avenue The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at (541) 682-5481. WEDNESDAY, March 1, 2017 (5:30 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) Assessors Map: 18-03-08-21 Tax Lot: 5900 Decision: Approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis for a new mixed-use commercial and residential development. Appellant: Dennis Hebert, Southeast Neighbors Association William Collinge, Friends of Amazon Creek Eben Fodor, Fodor & Associates, LLC Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail: erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us Public Hearing Format: 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application. 3. Comments or questions from interested persons who neither are proponents nor opponents of the proposal. 4. Public testimony from those in opposition to application. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at www.eugene-or.us/hearingsofficial.  99 west 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning Memorandum Date: February 22, 2017 To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division Scott Gillespie, Development Review Manager, Public Works Engineering Subject: Appeal of Amazon Corner Traffic Impact Analysis (City File TIA 16-7) ______________________________________________________________________________ ACTION REQUESTED: To hold a public hearing on March 1, 2017 and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Amazon Corner development project (TIA 16-7). BACKGROUND: On January 27, 2017, the Planning Director approved a Traffic Impact Analysis application for the Amazon Corner mixed-use project. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue (see the Vicinity Map included as Attachment A). The property is zoned C-2 Community Commercial, and is bounded by an Albertson’s grocery store to the north, single-family residences to the east, East 32nd Avenue and a medical center to the south, and Hilyard Street and City-owned park property to the west. The development includes residential apartments, ground-floor commercial space, and on-site parking areas. Although the proposed developed is permitted outright in the C-2 Community Commercial zone, approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis is required because the proposed uses (residential and commercial) are expected to generate more than 100 vehicle trips during the AM and PM “peak hours”. The Planning Director approved the subject TIA application based on the approval criteria at EC 9.8680 Traffic Impact Analysis Approval Criteria, and imposed three conditions of approval. The first two conditions require the applicant to construct an enhanced pedestrian crossing on Hilyard Street, and to channelize the eastbound approach of East 31 st Avenue to include dedicated right and left turn lanes. The third condition simply requires the applicant to construct the mitigations through the City’s Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process. 1 The Planning Director’s TIA decision is included as Attachment B. An associated Adjustment Review application (ARA 16-17) for the subject property was approved by the Planning Director on the same date. On February 8, 2017, an appeal of the TIA approval was filed by the Southeast Neighbors and Friends of Amazon Creek (the Adjustment Review approval was not appealed). The written appeal statement is included as Attachment C. Staff has also included a site plan as Attachment D. Public notice of the March 1, 2017 appeal hearing was mailed on February 9, 2017. Since the notice was sent a number of individuals submitted written public testimony; this testimony was forwarded to the Hearings Official and is available in the application record for reference. If additional testimony is received after the publishing of this memo it will be sent to the Hearings Official and added to the record. Finally, extensive background information on this appeal, including the applicant’s TIA report, is included in the full record of materials provided separately. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE: To assist the Hearings Official in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision pertaining to the Traffic Impact Analysis, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. Excerpts from the appeal statement are stated below, followed by staff comments. It is also noted that the appellant’s statement raises concerns that were already addressed in the TIA decision document (which includes staff’s response to public testimony as an attachment to the decision). Based on this fact, the majority of staff’s comments below simply reference responses that were already provided in the TIA decision. 1) First Assignment of Error: Failure by the City Traffic Engineer and the Applicant to establish an adequately large scope, or study area, for the traffic impact analysis that captures and reflects the traffic impacts that a very large development like the proposed Amazon Corner would have, as required in the purpose statement for the Traffic Impact Analysis Review in Eugene Code 9.8650, which is directly referred to in the Approval Criteria in EC 9.8680(1) and is therefore a requirement. This is also a violation of Administrative Rule R-9.8650-F(8), which lists the minimum transportation system that must be included in the TIA. Staff addressed this concern on pages 5, 17, and 18 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). To summarize, staff found that “…many of the streets and intersections in the area do not meet the threshold for analyses and inclusion in the study area (they will not see a net increase of 50 trips during the peak hour from the development). In other words, even if the City thought additional intersections should be evaluated, we cannot require this analysis because the 2 applicant’s study area was adequate according to City standards and ITE best practice” (Attachment B, page 18). 2) Second Assignment of Error: Failure to provide adequate baseline traffic data for existing conditions, including full-day hourly traffic counts (to accurately establish AM and PM peak periods) and AM peak traffic counts as required by the minimum standards for the TIA established in Administrative Rule Sections R-9.8650-F(4.1) and F(5). Staff addressed this concern on pages 3, 5 and 21 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). To summarize, Public Works Engineering staff noted that “Traffic counts were provided by the engineering consultant for all study intersections, which are located in Appendix D of the traffic study (no theoretical model data or historic counts were used). According to Public Works staff, the counts are factual, accurate and meet all industry standards, and were taken during the appropriate study periods as approved in the scope of work” (Attachment B, page 21). Staff also notes that AM traffic counts are not required, which is further explained on page 5 of the Planning Director’s Decision: “…the omission of an AM intersection analysis is due to the projected trip generation rate (57 trips) for the proposed uses during the AM peak hour of the adjacent street. Based on projected traffic to the adjacent street, the applicant’s evidence shows that the development is not projected to add 50 or more vehicle trips to any intersection during the AM peak hour, and therefore an AM intersection analysis is not required” (Attachment B, page 5). 3) Third Assignment of Error: Failure to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development during the AM peak traffic period, which is widely known to be an especially congested period in this area. Analysis and traffic counts for the morning peak periods are required by Administrative Rule Section R-9.8650-F(5.1). This is addressed under the Second Assignment of Error (see above discussion). 4) Fourth Assignment of Error: Failure to properly evaluate the contribution to AM peak traffic of trip generation from the 14,000 square feet of proposed commercial development. Applicant has claimed only “specialty retail” will locate at this development, whereas a wide range of commercial uses are possible. Applicant has made the arbitrary claim that this development will add zero trips to the AM peak without any factual evidence, as required in Administrative Rule Section R-9.8650- F(6). Staff addressed this concern on page 23 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). To summarize, staff found that “The following description of specialty retail is provided in the ITE Handbook: ‘Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retails shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods and services, such as real 3 estate offices, dance studios, florists and small restaurants.’ Based on the definition, Planning and Public Works Engineering staff finds this is a realistic and appropriate use for the commercial portion of the project. The use category considers likely uses such as restaurants and retail shops” (Attachment B, page 23). 5) Fifth Assignment of Error: Failure to adequately evaluate the impacts of southbound trips from the proposed development, as well as the impacts of westbound and eastbound trips. Trips are merely allocated to the north and south directions on Hilyard and are not allocated to the east or west. Allocated trips are not evaluated in terms or their impacts on the next immediate intersection. A more-rigorous trip allocation should reasonably be required under Administrative Rule Section R-9.8650- F(7) and –F(8). Staff addressed this concern on page 3 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). To summarize, Public Works Engineering staff found that “The study area and analysis report is consistent with City of Eugene requirements and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommended practice, and the applicant’s engineer adequately described the existing transportation system and proposed development…Trip generation was distributed and assigned to the transportation network based upon existing patterns and professional judgement. No pass-by reductions or internal capture reductions were proposed, which is consistent with residential and specialty retail uses.” (Attachment B, page 3). Public Works staff also noted that “…many of the streets and intersections in the area do not meet the threshold for analyses and inclusion in the study area (they will not see a net increase of 50 trips during the peak hour from the development). In other words, even if the City thought additional intersections should be evaluated, we cannot require this analysis because the applicant’s study area was adequate according to City standards and ITE best practice” (Attachment B, page 18). For example, the applicant’s engineer did not need to analyze intersections in the neighborhood to east because only a small number of new trips from the development would be expected to impact this area. Since a major street like Hilyard Street is adjacent to the property, the applicant’s engineer predicted that the vast majority of drivers will use Hilyard Street for access. 6) Sixth Assignment of Error: Failure to adequately consider the spillover of traffic onto neighborhood residential streets that would result from this proposed development under increased traffic conditions, as required in Eugene Code 9.8650 and Administrative Rule Section R-9.8650-F(7) and F(8). Staff addressed this concern on pages 18-19 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). As explained above, staff also concurs with the approved scope of work which did not require analysis of all streets and intersection in the vicinity, but only those that require study based on the Administrative Rule and the Eugene Code. 4 To summarize, staff found that “it is common (and reasonable) that neighbors predict traffic behaviors based upon their personal experience; however, there are transportation planning aspects such as the ‘gravity principal’ that have to be considered too. The ‘gravity principle’ finds that the easiest access to regional transportation systems and commercial/employment centers draw the most demand for vehicle use from residential development. The predicted use of Hilyard Street is consistent with that principle and the study information provided (and the development is not expected to have a significant impact on Alder Street as a result). Further, the applicant is not required to mitigate cut-through traffic with off-site improvements in this case because the levels of cut-through that might be generated from this single development is minimal according to the applicant’s TIA and review by the City’s Public Works staff with traffic engineering expertise. While staff understands cut-through traffic on streets like Alder is highly undesirable, some cut-through traffic will always occur in any neighborhood. The City will continue to improve streets and intersections throughout Eugene to minimize cut-through traffic as much as possible” (Attachment B, pages 18-19). 7) Seventh Assignment of Error: Failure to address the obvious conflict between increased southbound left turns from Hilyard onto E 32 nd and increased westbound left turns from E 32nd onto Hilyard that would occur under developed conditions, as noted in testimony from Friends of Eugene. The TIA has noted that current problems exist making left turns from 32nd onto Hilyard. This is the only route identified in the TIA for southbound trips from the proposed development. Therefore, this is a critical movement that must be analyzed in sufficient detail to establish safety and efficacy. Applicable rules include Eugene Code 9.8650 and Administrative Rule Sections R- 9.8650-F(8.1), -F(9), and -(10). Staff addressed this concern on page 21 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). Also, the applicant’s engineer found that level of service for the intersection of East 32 nd and Hilyard will exceed (i.e. perform better than) adopted minimums; therefore, no mitigation was required or conditioned. Even at the 2023 build conditions (predicted traffic in 2023 if the proposed project is built), the intersection is predicted to operate at Level of Service “C”, which is above the adopted minimum of Level of Service “D”. It is also noted in the Decision that the conditioned pedestrian crossing “…will also create northbound traffic gaps that will promote safe left turns onto Hilyard Street from East 31st Avenue” (Attachment B, page 7). Traffic gaps as result of the pedestrian crossing will also benefit users turning left from East 32nd Avenue onto Hilyard Street. 8) Eighth Assignment of Error: Failure to adequately recognize and evaluate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and safety, including the adjacent Amazon Bike Path, the nearby Alder Street Bike Route, and Safe Routes to School which uses E 32 nd Avenue and borders the southern property line of the proposed development, as required in Eugene Code 9.8650, EC 9.8670(2), and Administrative Rule Sections R-9.8650-F(10) and -G(2). 5 As a condition of approval the City required installation of a new pedestrian crossing across Hilyard Street between the subject site and the Amazon multi-use path to the west; based on this fact it would be hard to argue that pedestrian safety was not considered. Bicycle and pedestrian safety is further discussed in detail on page 17 of the Planning Director’s Decision (see Attachment B). In summary, the streets in the area are already developed to urban standards and provide safe and adequate pedestrian/bicycle facilities. 9) Ninth Assignment of Error: Failure by the Applicant to propose, and by the City Traffic Engineer to require, adequate mitigation to protect and preserve the integrity of the transportation system, to maintain public safety, and to protect the quality of neighborhoods in the area by limiting excessive through traffic, as required in Eugene Code 9.8650 and 9.8680(1) and Administrative Rule R-9.8650-F(9). Staff addressed this concern on pages 5-9 of the Planning Director’s Decision as part of the evaluation of TIA approval criterion #1 (see Attachment B). As outlined in the Planning Director’s Decision, the only intersection warranting mitigation is the intersection of East 31st Avenue and Hilyard Street; a condition of approval was imposed to ensure traffic is mitigated at this location. As discussed above under the “Eighth Assignment of Error”, a pedestrian crossing was also conditioned to improve pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Planning Director’s Decision (TIA 16-7) C. Written Appeal Statement D. Site Plan (reduced), received 12/15/16 The full record, including the applicant’s traffic impact analysis and Administrative Order No. 58-02-02-F “Standards for Traffic Impact Analyses”, has already been provided to the Hearings Official separately, and is also available on the City’s website at: http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=TIA-16-0007 A hardcopy of the complete record can also be made available for free inspection at the Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies may also be obtained at a reasonable cost. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Please contact Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at 541-682-5437 or via email at erik.berg@ci.eugene.or.us 6  Amazon Corner - Vicinity Map Attachment A KINCAID ST HUMMINGBIRD LN E 30TH AVE Albertson's ALDER ST E 31ST AVE HILYARD ST Subject Property E 32ND AVE E 32ND AVE KINCAID ST E 32ND ALY E 33RD AVE DE AL R Y AL E 33RD ALY ´ Subject Property Ft Caution: This map is based on imprecise 0 75 150 300 source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. Taxlots 2-22-17  Attachment B - Page 1 Atrium Building, 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW Applicant/File Name (Number): Amazon Corner, LLC (TIA 16-7) Applicant’s Request: Approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis for a new mixed-use commercial and residential development. Subject Property/Zoning/Location: Tax Lot 5900 of Assessor’s Map 18-03-08-21; Zoned C-2 Community Commercial; Located at the northeast corner of the Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue intersection. Lead City Staff: Erik Berg-Johansen, Associate Planner, Eugene Planning Division; Phone: (541) 682-5437 Scott Gillespie, Development Review Manager, Public Works Engineering Relevant Dates: Application submitted on November 17, 2016; deemed complete on December 15, 2016; decision granting approval issued on January 27, 2017. Background and Present Request The subject property is located on the east side of Hilyard Street, north of East 32nd Avenue and south of the Albertson’s grocery store. The approximately 1.8-acre development site is zoned Community Commercial (C-2) and is designated on the Metro Plan diagram for commercial uses. The present request is for approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to construct a mixed-use building that will support a combination of residential apartments and commercial retail uses. The development will include up to 108 apartments and approximately 14,000 square feet of commercial space. In this case, the proposal requires a Traffic Impact Analysis application pursuant to the triggers for TIA Review at Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.8670(1) because the proposed development will generate over 100 peak hour vehicle trips. The TIA application requires a Type II land use approval (a Planning Director Decision), the application procedures for which are addressed in EC 9.7200-9.7230. The purpose of Traffic Impact Analysis Review is to ensure that developments which will generate a significant amount of traffic, cause an increase in traffic that will contribute to traffic Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 1  Attachment B - Page 2 problems in the area, or result in levels of service of the roadway system in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards provide the facilities necessary to accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed development (See EC 9.8650). The applicant’s submittal includes a TIA report, which is included in the application file for reference. The applicant is also requesting adjustments to specific multi-family development standards and landscaping standards. The Adjustment Review application (City file # ARA 16-17) is evaluated in a separate decision document. Public Notice/Referrals To provide nearby property owners and residents an opportunity to review and comment on this request, public notice was mailed notice of the proposal to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property consistent with the Type II application procedures. The affected neighborhood association, the Southeast Neighbors, was also notified. Staff received a relatively large volume of public testimony in response to the subject land use applications. Much of the public testimony is focused on two central issues: Scale/height of the proposed development, and traffic/parking impacts. A summary of key issues raised followed by a staff response is provided in Attachment A. While the majority of public comment was in opposition to the proposal, staff notes that a number of residents submitted letters of support. The applicant’s response to public testimony is also included in Attachment A. The application was also referred to other appropriate City departments and public agencies for review and comment. Referral comments were received from the Public Works Engineering Division in regards to the TIA application and included as part of the following evaluation, as well as the staff response to public testimony. Traffic Impact Analysis Evaluation A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) review is required when one of the conditions at EC 9.8670 (TIA applicability) exists in a development proposal. In this case, subsection (1) applies to the subject proposal: (1) The development will generate 100 or more vehicle trips during any peak hour as determined by using the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual. In developments involving a land division, the peak hour trips shall be calculated based on the likely development that will occur on all lots resulting from the land division. The development is proposed to generate 157 AM peak hour trips and 150 PM peak hour trips. The applicant’s engineer determined trip generation rates using the most recent Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). The proposed peak hour trip generation exceeds the 100 trip threshold established by EC 9.8670(1). Therefore this subsection applies and a TIA is required. An evaluation of the other applicability criteria (which do not apply) is included the Public Works referral comments, which are available in the Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 2  Attachment B - Page 3 application file for reference. Application Requirements: Based on comments from Public Works Engineering staff, the applicant submitted traffic impact analyses in conformance with the Standards for Traffic Impact Analysis, the supplemental scoping memorandum and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) best practice. The study area includes roadways within City of Eugene jurisdiction. The study area and analysis report is consistent with City of Eugene requirements and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommended practice, and the applicant’s engineer adequately described the existing transportation system and proposed development. Traffic counts were performed at study intersections during the required peak traffic hour analyses periods to established background patterns, and trip generation was performed in accordance with the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (9th Edition). There are no in-process trips identified in the scope of work. Trip generation was distributed and assigned to the transportation network based upon existing patterns and professional judgement. No pass-by reductions or internal capture reductions were proposed, which is consistent with residential and specialty retail uses. To clarify, the following description of specialty retail is provided in the ITE Handbook: “Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retails shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods and services, such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists and small restaurants.” Based on the definition, this is a realistic and appropriate use for the commercial portion of the project. Further, a safety and crash summary was provided on all study area intersections, and volume adjustments and level of service calculations were performed in accordance with industry standards, and queuing analyses was provided. Current year, build out year, and 5-year planning horizon calculations were provided per City standards. Finally, no exceptions to the report content were proposed. Based on these findings, the applicant has provided the appropriate application materials. According to the available information and the following findings, the applicant’s traffic impact analysis also complies with all applicable approval criteria at EC 9.8680. The approval criteria are listed below in bold, with findings addressing each: EC 9.8680(1): Traffic control devices and public or private improvements as necessary to achieve the purposes listed in this section will be implemented. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, street and intersection improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes, traffic control signs and signals, parking regulation, driveway location, and street lighting. The purpose statement referenced in the above criterion is as follows: Purpose of Traffic Impact Analysis Review. The purpose of Traffic Impact Analysis Review is to ensure that developments which will generate a significant amount of traffic, cause an increase in traffic that will contribute to traffic problems in the area, or Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 3  Attachment B - Page 4 result in levels of service of the roadway system in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards provide the facilities necessary to accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed development. In addition, any Traffic Impact Analysis Review addressing streets in the jurisdiction of Lane County is also designed to ensure that cross sectional elements of streets, such as the wearing coarse or pavement, base material, soils, or storm water structures (bridges or culverts) have the adequate capacity to accommodate developments that utilize vehicles of heavy weight and associated vehicle traffic as part of their activity. The site is bounded to the west by the Hilyard Street right-of-way. Hilyard Street is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway on the adopted street classification map. It is currently developed with two travel lanes in each direction, landscaped medians with turn pockets, sidewalks, street lights, curbs and drainage controls. The posted speed of Hilyard Street is 30 mph. The Amazon multi-use path also runs adjacent and parallel to Hilyard Street, to the west of the street. The Amazon Path transitions into a wide sidewalk along Hilyard Street at approximately the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue. The site is bounded to the south by the East 32nd Avenue right-of-way. East 32nd Avenue is classified as a local street, and is currently developed with one travel lane in each direction, traffic calming measures (speed humps), sidewalks, street lights, curbs and drainage controls. The posted speed of East 32nd Avenue is 25 mph, and the intersection of East 32nd Avenue and Hilyard Street is channelized with striped left and right turn movements. In summary, all abutting streets are developed to urban standards. The site currently supports three points of access to the public street system. Two are located along Hilyard Street and one along East 32nd Avenue. The applicant proposes to keep the northerly driveway on Hilyard Street and the access to East 32nd Avenue; however the proposed driveway on Hilyard Street will be shifted slightly to the south from its current location. As shown on the applicant’s TIA site plan (Appendix A of the Sandow Engineering TIA), the applicant proposes to close the second driveway on Hilyard Street (which currently exists between East 32nd Avenue and the most northern driveway on Hilyard). The proposed driveway on Hilyard Street would be right-in, right-out operation only, created by the presence of the existing raised landscape median in Hilyard Street (and the slight shift to the south will reinforce the left turn access restriction). The traffic study did not identify any operational or safety issues with the proposed driveway location to Hilyard Street. Further, the proposed access to East 32nd Avenue is located at the extreme east side of the development site, which is the furthest distance possible from the street’s intersection with Hilyard. This proposed driveway will be full access with no restrictions, and the traffic study did not identify any operational or safety issues. Public Works Engineering staff find that the proposed driveway locations are in conformance with the access management standards established by EC 7.408 through EC 7.420. The proposed parking lot provides efficient internal circulation routes and minimizes the need to utilize the public street system for circulation. Queue lengths are not excessive and do not have Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 4  Attachment B - Page 5 a negative effect on the safety and operations of the adjacent public street system. Based on the applicant’s traffic study, the proposed development will generate 57 trips during the AM peak hour1 of the adjacent street (the portions of Hilyard and East 32nd that abut the site) and 132 trips during the PM peak hour of the adjacent street2. Accordingly, the PM peak hour of the adjacent street is the approved analyses period for the study area per the approved TIA scope of work. The applicant’s engineer provided level of service analyses for the approved study area intersections, during the approved analysis periods in accordance with the standards of Traffic Impact Analysis, ITE methodology and the Highway Capacity Manual analytics. Traffic counts, trip generation, distribution and assignment were all performed in accordance with project scoping, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards and industry standards. The AM peak hour of the generator and AM peak hour of the adjacent street trip generation was provided in a supplemental memo (dated December 26, 2016) to address the discrepancy of not including any AM analyses during the AM peak hour of the adjacent street. Staff agrees with the findings of this memo. To summarize, the omission of an AM intersection analysis is due to the projected trip generation rate (57 trips) for the proposed uses during the AM peak hour of the adjacent street. Based on projected traffic to the adjacent street, the applicant’s evidence shows that the development is not projected to add 50 or more vehicle trips to any intersection during the AM peak hour, and therefore an AM intersection analysis is not required. In turn, this means that analyses of AM level of service is not required. It is important to note that even if AM analysis was completed, the nearby intersections are most congested during the PM peak hour (this is the case for most streets and intersections all around the City). Since the applicant analyzed the PM peak hour (i.e. the “worst-case” scenario), and is mitigating impacts accordingly, there would likely be no realistic benefit to analyzing the AM peak hour even if it was required. In other words, it is highly unlikely that additional traffic mitigation would be warranted if the AM analysis was completed. The applicant’s engineer analyzed all intersections within the study area according to the scope of work approved by Public Works staff. Crash rates at all intersections were below industry standard thresholds warranting no additional analysis. However, the applicant’s engineer identified a substandard level of service (LOS “E”) at the intersection of Hilyard and East 31st Avenue during the opening year of the development. The engineer also found a substandard level of service (LOS “F”) during 2023. The following section discusses level of service (LOS). The applicant provided the following table in their report that explains the meaning of LOS A-F: 1 To determine the AM “peak hour,” vehicles are counted in 15-minute increments between the hours 7-9 AM. The four 15-minute increments that see the highest traffic counts compose the 60-minute “peak hour” that is used for analysis. The same is done for PM peak hour, but the time of measurement is between 4-6 PM. 2 “Trips during the peak hour of the adjacent street” is different than “peak hour trip generation.” Trips to the adjacent street are the figures used for analyses under the Administrative Rule and ITE best practice. Peak hour trip generation is only used for applicability of TIA under 9.8670(1) Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 5  Attachment B - Page 6 To mitigate the substandard level of service predicted for the opening year and 2023, the applicant’s engineer proposes channelizing the right and left turns at the eastbound approach of East 31st Avenue. The proposed mitigation is anticipated to bring level of service standards to background levels, which is consistent with the TIA purpose statement as the mitigation accommodates the traffic impact of the proposed development. The current and predicted level of service at East 31st Avenue is a common occurrence in developed areas where local streets intersect a higher order street with an established and appropriately spaced signalized network. Traffic volumes and the close proximity to a major signalized intersection (30th and Hilyard) create the low level of service at the intersection of 31st and Hilyard (referred to as “the intersection” for remainder of this discussion). Local intersections provide access to neighborhoods but are generally not evaluated and managed for regional mobility. The present day level of service at the intersection is below the adopted minimum level of service of “D”. Annual traffic growth is expected steadily increase and level of service is expected to steadily decrease as a result. The development generated traffic will proportionally contribute to the ongoing degradation of level of service at the intersection. Industry practice and City standard is to provide mitigations for substandard level of service. The intersection is already constructed to urban standards within a fixed right-of-way. East 31st Avenue is paved 34 feet in width with on street parking, sidewalks, landscape strips and street trees. The right-of-way is appropriate for the existing street improvements. The roadway is bounded by park lands, the Amazon Creek corridor and a developed single-family neighborhood. Hilyard Street is also fully developed at this intersection with four travel lanes, sidewalks, dedicated turn lanes and other urban standard roadway treatments as described previously. The volume of traffic on Hilyard Street and the proximity to the signal at 30th Avenue makes Hilyard Street the major (dominant) street. Volumes approaching Hilyard on East 31st are substantially smaller than the volume of the vehicles on Hilyard. The intersection of East 31st is also in close proximity to the major intersection of Hilyard at 30 th. This places the intersection Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 6  Attachment B - Page 7 of 31st and Hilyard within the intersection influence area of the signalized intersection at Hilyard and 30th. These factors, including the limitation in street width and available right-of-way severely limit the mitigation options. The applicant proposes channelizing the eastbound approach to mitigate impacts. This was the obvious and practical mitigation available given the constraints of a developed intersection. Signalization or additional traffic controls at the intersection are also infeasible due to the proximity of the traffic signal at 30th and Hilyard. It is poor practice to install traffic signals in close proximity to one another and would severely degrade traffic operations. Even if a traffic signal was possible, a mitigation of this expense would also not be proportional to the impact imposed by the proposed development (especially considering the development does not generate trips heading eastbound on East 31th Avenue towards Hilyard Street). Another option for mitigation is to restrict turning movements (i.e. right-in, right-out for vehicles approach Hilyard Street). However, this option would not be supported by Public Works for the following reasons: 1) East 31st Avenue is the only local street connection to Hilyard Street in the vicinity and serves a significant portion of the neighborhood to the west; 2) It could necessitate out of direction travel and thereby contribute to cut-through traffic in other areas; 3) It is unlikely that this mitigation would be supported by neighbors living on East 31st Avenue; and 4) It is not common practice to restrict turns from an adjacent neighborhood as a mitigation for a development that does not directly access from the same location. In summary, there is no practical mitigation to increase level of service that could be implemented at the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 31st Avenue beyond the proposed channelization. Channelization of the eastbound intersection approach is the most appropriate level of mitigation available, and will keep post-development traffic level of service at the same level that would have occurred without development. The conditioned pedestrian crossing near East 32nd Avenue (discussed below) will also create northbound traffic gaps that will promote safe left turns onto Hilyard Street from East 31st Avenue. The City agrees with the applicant’s proposed mitigation and the following condition is therefore warranted to ensure compliance:  The applicant shall channelize the eastbound approach of East 31st Avenue to include dedicated right and left turn lanes. Improvements shall include striping and legends in conformance with City of Eugene Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) standards, to be provided prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the proposed development. All other intersections, with the exception of Hilyard Street at East 31st Avenue (discussed above), are expected to operate within acceptable PM adjacent street peak hour levels of service during the opening year and the 5-year planning horizon. The applicant’s engineer also identified the need for a pedestrian crossing at Hilyard Street. The City has included a condition of approval to address this issue, which is further explained below. Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 7  Attachment B - Page 8 Pedestrian Crossing: The Amazon multi-use path, located along the west side of Hilyard Street across from the development site, is a significant, off-street north-south path that traverses Amazon Park and provides convenient, direct and safe access to nearby attractors within the Amazon Park, such as the dog park, LTD Transit Station at 29th Avenue, jogging paths, a skate park, a variety of sports fields located near 24th Avenue, the Hilyard Community Center, Amazon Pool, South Eugene High School and Roosevelt Middle School. The Amazon multi-use path also provides direct connections to many of the nearby bike routes and bike lanes. Currently, there is no enhanced pedestrian crossing that connects the Amazon multi-use path to the west side of Hilyard Street at either East 31st Avenue or at East 32nd Avenue. An enhanced pedestrian crossing near the intersection of Hilyard and East 32nd is needed to enable bicyclists and pedestrians to more safely cross Hilyard Street. It is in the public interest to have an interconnected multi-use path system that allows pedestrians and bicyclists to more safely and efficiently use alternative modes of transportation when traveling to/from the proposed development. It is also in the public’s interest to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by having an easily accessible multi- use path system that meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to use the public multi-use pathway system, together with the public transit system, as a means of travelling throughout the City. Lastly, it is in the public interest to increase the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists that are crossing multiple lanes of vehicular traffic. There is a nexus between the requirement that the applicant construct an enhanced pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue and the public interests at issue. Construction of an enhanced pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hilyard and East 32nd will provide pedestrians and bicyclists that are traveling to and from the proposed development site a more convenient and safer connection between the development’s shops and residential units and the Amazon multi-use path. An enhanced pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hilyard and East 32nd will reduce travel distance and travel time for pedestrian and bicyclists of the proposed development utilizing the Amazon path systems, thereby promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation. Lastly, an enhanced pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hilyard and East 32nd will reduce the number of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Hilyard Street outside of a designated crossing, thereby increasing the overall safety for all users of that transportation corridor. Construction of an enhanced pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hilyard and East 32nd is roughly proportional to the impact that the proposed development will have on the City’s transportation facilities. The proposed development will create approximately 14,000 square feet of ground floor commercial with up to 108 residential units. The applicant’s traffic impact analysis estimates that the proposed development will generate 132 trips during the PM peak hour (74 trips in, 58 trips out) and 57 trips during the AM peak hour (11 trips in, 46 trips out). The applicant assumes that all of these new trips will utilize Hilyard Street. Additionally, by creating 108 new residential units and approximately 14,000 square feet of specialty retail, the proposed development will increase the amount of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Hilyard Street to use the Amazon multi-use path. Based on the applicant’s development proposal of Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 8  Attachment B - Page 9 mixed residential and commercial, the proximity of the proposed development to the existing multi-use paths and the numerous nearby recreational, commercial and educational attractors, the number of daily bicycle/pedestrian trips generated from this proposed development could be significant. This traffic impact analysis application is the last opportunity that the City will have to require the applicant to construct an enhanced pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue. Therefore, the following condition of approval is warranted to ensure construction of the pedestrian crossing:  The applicant shall construct an enhanced mid-block pedestrian crossing on Hilyard Street between the intersections of East 31st and East 32nd Avenues. The enhanced crossing shall include a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB), median refuge, striping, signage, street lighting, access ramps and sidewalk to create a direct and continuous connection 8 feet in width from the existing Amazon Path to the existing sidewalk fronting the development site. Improvements shall be in conformance with City of Eugene Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) standards, to be provided prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the proposed development. Based on these findings and required mitigation, this criterion is met. EC 9.8680(2): Public improvements shall be designed and constructed to the standards specified in EC 9.6505 Improvements - Specifications. The requirement of improvements based on a traffic impact analysis does not negate the ability of the city traffic engineer to require improvements by other means specified in this code or rules or regulations adopted thereunder. The proposed mitigation at East 31st Avenue and the active pedestrian crossing are within public roadways. The required mitigations shall be designed and constructed according to EC 9.6505 Improvements – Specifications. However, the following condition is warranted to ensure compliance:  The required mitigations shall be designed and constructed according to EC 9.6505 Improvements – Specifications and will be subject to review and approval through the City of Eugene Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process. Finally, it is noted that the City of Eugene Traffic Engineer will not require any additional improvements based upon other means specified in code or rules and regulations adopted thereunder. Based on these findings, condition and future permit requirements, this criterion is met. EC 9.8680(3): In addition to the above criteria, if the Traffic Impact Analysis Review was required based on EC 9.8670(4), the improvements shall also address the structural capacity of the street in the County’s jurisdiction and address identified structural deficiencies, or reduction in the useful life of existing street structures related to the proposed development. Improvements may be needed to eliminate the Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 9  Attachment B - Page 10 identified structural deficiencies and to accommodate vehicle impacts to structures. This criterion does not apply as the TIA was not required based upon EC 9.8670(4). EC 9.8680(4): In addition to the above criteria, if the development is located within the S-WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone, any increased traffic the development would generate on streets within the Fairmount neighborhood to the south of the Walnut Station Special Area Zone shall be mitigated through the use of traffic calming strategies or other mechanisms designed to discourage such traffic. The development is not located within the S-WS Walnut Station Special Area Zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Decision Based on the available information to date, and the above findings addressing compliance with applicable approval criteria, the subject TIA application is hereby approved, subject to the conditions of approval noted below. 1. The applicant shall channelize the eastbound approach of East 31 st Avenue to include dedicated right and left turn lanes. Improvements shall include striping and legends in conformance with City of Eugene Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) standards, to be provided prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the proposed development. 2. The applicant shall construct an enhanced mid-block pedestrian crossing on Hilyard Street between the intersections of East 31st and East 32nd Avenues. The enhanced crossing shall include a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB), median refuge, striping, signage, street lighting, access ramps and sidewalk to create a direct and continuous connection 8 feet in width from the existing Amazon Path to the existing sidewalk fronting the development site. Improvements shall be in conformance with City of Eugene Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) standards, to be provided prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the proposed development. 3. The required mitigations shall be designed and constructed according to EC 9.6505 Improvements – Specifications and will be subject to review and approval through the City of Eugene Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) process. Post Approval Pursuant to EC 9.7220(4), the decision of the Planning Director is effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed, unless appealed according to the procedures in EC 9.7605. The TIA approval shall remain effective for 18 months (following the effective date of approval), in accordance with EC 9.7230. This approval does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable provisions of the Eugene Code, Oregon Revised Statutes, or any other laws which may govern the Amazon Corner (TIA 16-7) January 2017 10 Attachment B - Page 11  Attachment B - Page 12 Attachment A – Staff Response to Public Comment To address key issues raised in public testimony in response to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Adjustment Review applications, staff has prepared the following responses. As over 100 letters were received, this is not a comprehensive list of every comment received. However, staff has thoroughly reviewed all submitted testimony and provides a response with the intent of addressing the common themes and primary concerns raised by neighbors overall. The key issues identified in the testimony are in italics, followed by staff response. It is also noted that staff’s evaluation of the approval criteria for each application further addresses some of the issues highlighted below (and the decision documents constitute the City’s official evaluation of each criteria). On January 10, 2017, the applicant also submitted a response to public comment. Their response letter is included as Exhibit 1 to this attachment.  The proposed building is too tall and it is out of character with the existing neighborhood. At 62 feet in height, the property building is taller than the church that was previously on the subject property, as well as the single-family homes to the east and south of the property. As such, it represents a change to the neighborhood, and staff understands the concerns raised by neighbors. As noted in the Planning Director’s decision, the zoning of the subject property is C-2 Community Commercial, which allows buildings up to 120 feet in height. The proposed building falls well under this maximum. To address neighborhood compatibility, the land use code limits building height where commercial property abuts residential property. For instance, when C-2 zoned property abuts R-1 zoned property, the building on the C-2 property is limited to the maximum allowable height in R-1 (30 feet) within 50 feet of the R-1 zoned property. In this case, proposed building is setback approximately 60 feet from residential properties to the east, and thus is not required to be lower in height. The property owner is not requesting a special allowance or adjustment for the height of the building, nor is such a request necessary or required. The height of the building is permitted outright based on the zoning of the property. While not everyone will agree these regulations are adequate to address neighborhood compatibility, City staff are legally obligated to apply the currently adopted regulations and standards. If neighbors believe that the C-2 zone allows development that is too tall, or that the zone does not provide adequate protections for neighborhoods, then a higher level discussion far beyond this project would need to be initiated. Changes to the Eugene Code require City Council initiation, extensive community outreach, public notice and hearings, recommendation from the Planning Commission, and ultimate approval by the City Council.  Attachment B - Page 13 For background, the Metro Plan diagram, which is a central piece of the City’s long range land use plan, has designated the subject property for commercial use since at least 1982. Consistent with this designation, the subject property, as well as the property to the north (Albertson’s) and properties to the south on East Amazon Drive, are zoned C-2. The subject property has been zoned C-2 since before 1968. Put differently, the City Council made an intentional decision a long time ago to designate these properties for higher intensity commercial uses, and it is expected that over time the properties will redevelop with new commercial, office and residential uses to serve Eugene’s growing population.  108 apartment units will bring too many people into the neighborhood and they will park on neighborhood streets Staff recognizes that the proposed mixed-use building is a more intensive as compared to the previous church development, and will result in more people in the neighborhood than this previous use. As noted above, the subject property is zoned C-2, and unlike many of the other zones in the City, the C-2 zone has no maximum residential density. This means that the development standards are the only limiting factor for the number of apartment units that could be built on the subject property. In other words, as long as the development standards are met (height, setbacks, parking, etc.) and a TIA is approved (assuming a TIA is applicable), then there is no hard limit on the number of apartment units that could be built. While the applicant plans to meet future parking requirements (and on-site parking is therefore not evaluated in the land use decision), staff has provided the following information regarding parking requirements: The land use code requires 1 on-site parking space per dwelling unit; however, a 25% reduction is automatically applied as a right of development. This means that if an applicant were to construct 108 apartments, then 81 on-site spaces would be required. Many retail uses require 1 space per 330 square feet of floor area or 1 space per 660 square feet of floor area. Restaurants and delis require 1 space per 66 square feet of seating area (plus 1 space per 440 square feet of non-seating area). The purpose of this information is to illustrate that the current developer has potentially limited the size and scale of their proposal in an attempt to limit impacts to the neighborhood, and that the applicant has not requested further reductions to required on-site parking. In this case, the applicant currently proposes more than 150 on-site parking spaces, including an underground parking garage to maximize efficient use of the available space. While some may believe that the City’s code does not require sufficient on-site parking, the City Council has made deliberate policy choices to require less on-site parking for developments. The City’s policies promote bus transit, bike/pedestrian facilities, and walkable neighborhoods – promoting the construction of expansive surface parking lots is not consistent with this vision. The City’s existing supply of commercial and residential land, including redevelopment on infill  Attachment B - Page 14 sites like the subject property, is also an important component of our long-range planning efforts as part of “Envision Eugene,” and Council’s policy direction as part of that process not to expand the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate commercial and residential development over the next 20-year planning period. This means that Eugene needs to accommodate growth inside our current UGB, and multi-family apartment projects are a key component to this.  A detailed rendering of the project should be provided. Based on the application requirements at EC 9.8025 for Adjustment Review, the applicant was not required to submit a detailed 3D rendering of the proposed development (the applicant did submit elevation drawings which was sufficient for staff’s evaluation). So, unless the code is revised to explicitly require 3D renderings for adjustment review applications, staff does not have the ability to require them. That said, we agree that 3D renderings could help people to better visualize a project, and in the future staff can encourage applicants to provide this type of information when it seems appropriate.  Since underground parking might not be viable, there should be a determination by a qualified professional that below-grade underground parking is viable. The proposed development has been designed by a licensed architect who is professionally qualified to determine the feasibility of underground parking. Regardless, the viability of an underground parking area will be further assessed at the building permit stage; if for some reason the underground parking is not viable, the applicant will need to find another parking solution that complies with the Eugene Code. Also, since the applicant is not requesting an adjustment related to the underground parking area, this issue does not relate to the applicable approval criteria.  The proposed site plan does not clearly show the proposed building projections into the setback area beyond the building footprint. The site plan should be modified to show the amount of all building projections beyond the footprint. This could be accomplished with a colored dashed line, or similar indication. Building projections (i.e. where the building overhangs exist) are shown as a dashed line on the applicant’s site plan. That said, staff agrees that this could have been labeled more clearly on the plans. We appreciate when community members point out issues like this so we can refine the way we review plans, and then ultimately ensure that land use applications are as easily understandable as possible. This also highlights the importance of providing staff contact information on the public notice – our staff are always happy to talk to neighbors if they are unsure of something or have a question about a detail on the applicant’s site plans.  Attachment B - Page 15  No through movement connecting E. 32nd to Hilyard should be permitted. The applicant has requested an adjustment to allow through movement; detailed discussion regarding this request is included in the adjustment review decision document. ________________________________________________________ Traffic Impacts Potential traffic impacts from the proposed development have been noted as major concerns in the public testimony. As such, before specific comments regarding traffic are addressed, Planning and Public Works staff want to first provide a general overview of the purpose, limitations, and goals of traffic impact analyses. The stated purpose of a traffic impact analysis is to ensure that developments which will generate a significant amount of traffic, cause an increase in traffic that will contribute to traffic problems in the area, or result in levels of service of the roadway system in the vicinity of the development that do not meet adopted level of service standards provide the facilities necessary to accommodate the traffic impact of the proposed development. Traffic impact analyses are not intended to analyze every intersection and every street within a mile of a development site, but only those that receive a potentially impactful amount of traffic from the proposed development (50 or more peak hour trips from the development). If all streets and intersections had to be studied, regardless of the development’s traffic impacts, traffic impact analyses would be extremely expensive and time consuming to the point that they would be infeasible for any single developer. This is why different thresholds for analysis have been adopted – these thresholds strive to strike a balance between meaningful analysis and feasibility. As part of a traffic impact analysis, there are limitations on the mitigations that can be imposed on a single developer because new traffic from one development, especially along a more major street like Hilyard, will only be a small fraction of the existing traffic. In other words, it would not be fair to require a developer to pay for major street upgrades (i.e. street widening, traffic signals, etc.) when their development is increasing traffic on an adjacent street by only 2%. The intersection of 30th and Hilyard receives traffic from thousands of Eugene homes and businesses, and a single developer was not required to pay for the traffic lights that currently exist at the intersection (at least not directly). Instead, the City imposes System Development Charges (SDCs) on new development, which requires developers to pay fees through the permit process that are ultimately deposited into a series of funds maintained by the City. The amount of SDCs a developer pays correlates with the level of development; for example, the SDC costs to construct 100 apartments is much higher than the SDC costs to build one single-family home. The SDC funds are then used to improve roads, maintain parks, and build other necessary infrastructure to support the community. Even where a traffic impact analysis finds that  Attachment B - Page 16 mitigation is not warranted, a developer will still be paying (indirectly) for future street improvements across the City.  There should be traffic calming measures implemented along Hilyard Street, and a petition was submitted to the City some time ago but nothing has been done. The project should also provide: o median refuges for vehicles at 31st Street and Hilyard; o bike lanes on 32nd Avenue; o median refuge for cars traveling south on 32nd Avenue; o mitigation of head-on left turns at 32nd Avenue and Hilyard; o a bus stop bump-out on Hilyard in front of Amazon Corners; o creation of 8 to 12 foot sidewalks with adequate setbacks. While many of the mitigations above would provide a benefit to the neighborhood, the City cannot legally impose mitigations that are not justified in an applicant’s traffic study (assuming the City agrees with the technical findings of the study). That said, Planning staff contacted City of Eugene Transportation Planning staff to inquire about potential projects along Hilyard Street. Transportation staff note that the City intends to construct some form of a traffic calming treatment on Hilyard Street (south of the subject property near Tugman Park) as part of a bond funded project for walking and biking improvements in the area. This project will include a public process (i.e. public meetings) and is expected to occur by the end of 2018. For more information related to the City’s traffic calming program, visit: www.eugene-or.gov/trafficcalming The City also offers residents more immediate tools to address speeding on neighborhood streets including the Citizen Radar Program and Traffic Enforcement. For more information you can visit the program website (www.eugene-or.gov/2759/Citizen-Radar-Program). In the program, neighbors participate in a two-hour training in the use of radar guns and can then check them out to monitor neighborhood traffic speeds. Typically working in pairs, neighbors record the speed of the vehicles (along with the license plate and matching vehicle description). Police then issue a letter to the registered owner of the vehicle for those observed speeding egregiously. We like to hear back from people that have participated in the Citizen Radar Program to share what they learned about speeding. Also, the Eugene Police Department Traffic Enforcement Unit may be reached at 541-682-5157 to report neighborhood speeding problems for enforcement action. Neighbors have also recommended that a bus stop “bump-out” be constructed adjacent to the subject property. Bump-outs allow City buses to pull off the travel lane to drop off or pick up passengers. While bump-outs can provide traffic operation benefits on certain streets, a bump- out is not currently feasible at this location. The first issue is that the Hilyard Street right-of-way is not wide enough to accommodate a bus bump-out (the right-of-way is already consumed by four travel lanes, sidewalks, and a center median). The second issue is that LTD would need to support the request and also be involved with the planning and construction process. From  Attachment B - Page 17 experience, Public Works staff note that LTD generally support bump-outs only when they are absolutely necessary for safety or operational reasons because they degrade bus operations (once a bus pulls off the road it is common for people not to yield and let them back on). In other words, bump-outs are not preferred by the transit provider, so they are only installed on higher classification roadways (i.e. major arterials) where there are higher speed limits, a higher frequency of stops, and potential safety issues. Nonetheless, with or without a bump-out at this location, the development site has good access to transit service. The site is adjacent to a bus shelter along Hilyard Street that receives regular bus service, which promotes the use of alternative modes of travel other than automobile. The neighbors also suggest that 8-10 foot sidewalks be constructed as part of the development project. While staff agrees that in some cases wider sidewalks can improve the pedestrian experience and overall design of a project, Hilyard Street is already built to full urban standards including four travel lanes, a median, street tree landscape strips and sidewalks. East 32nd Avenue also includes sidewalks that meet City standards. Since the City does not require any development to construct public sidewalks wider than 5 feet, and sidewalks of this width already exist adjacent to the subject property, it would not be justified to require the developer to pay for construction of a wider sidewalk. As discussed above in regards to a bus bump-out, there is also no extra space within the right-of-way to build additional street improvements or wider sidewalks. In regards to bike lanes along East 32nd Avenue, local neighborhood streets do not see enough traffic to warrant bike lanes. There are other more major roads in Eugene that are in need of bike lanes, so the City’s Public Works Department is currently focused on these locations. Also, even if bike lanes were warranted at this location, the entire street would need to be reconfigured because there is not space within the right-of-way to accommodate bike lanes (i.e. the street tree landscape strip would need to be removed which may not be a desirable option). Finally, the neighbors note that it is difficult to turn left (south) on Hilyard Street from East 32nd Avenue, and therefore a vehicle refuge (i.e. center turn lane) should be placed in the right-of- way. In this case, there is an existing landscaped median between the northbound and southbound traffic lanes, and the City rarely supports removal or replacement of medians. Medians add aesthetic value to the street (landscaping, street trees), improve safety (limit left turn conflicts, create narrower visual effect which reduces traffic speeds), and provide pedestrian refuges. Center turn lanes, on the other hand, are most useful where there are frequent driveways on both sides of the street (which is not the case here), and replacing medians would have a negative effect on aesthetic value, safety and traffic operations.  The TIA study area should be expanded to include additional streets and intersections. The City of Eugene Engineering staff reviewed and concurred with the scope of the traffic study. Thresholds are adopted for establishing the extent of the study are and study area intersections  Attachment B - Page 18 based upon City standards and Institute of Engineers (ITE) best practice. For example, many of the streets and intersections in the area do not meet the threshold for analyses and inclusion in the study area (they will not see a net increase of 50 trips during the peak hour from the development). In other words, even if the City thought additional intersections should be evaluated, we cannot require this analysis because the applicant’s study area was adequate according to City standards and ITE best practice. The scope of the study also includes all streets and intersections that provide direct access to or from the development. The development site accesses Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue, and therefore the scope of work includes East 32nd and Hilyard and the intersection of Hilyard and East 32nd. All direct site access is taken at these points, which is why they are included in the analysis. The study also included the intersections of Hilyard and East 31st, and Hilyard and Amazon Parkway/East 30th. In summary, the scope of the study is consistent with the approved scope of work and does not need to be expanded.  Additional areas should be included in the study because traffic is already congested. New travel demand generated by the proposed development will seek out and utilize all available alternative routes, including neighborhood streets. In addition, existing travel demand will be displaced and forced to seek alternative routes to avoid the increased congestion. Both site-generated traffic and displaced traffic should be evaluated. The traffic study does account for displaced traffic and site-generated traffic. The traffic study identified appropriate levels of service, before and after the proposed development for the study area intersections. The traffic counts performed also captured the background volumes and patterns of the existing street system and all users on it, and therefore any alternate routes and displaced traffic patterns are included in the background counts and no-build scenario analyses. Site generated trips are assigned to the system based upon the patterns and volumes from the traffic counts; the end result is an analyses that identifies how the expected trips generated by the site will use the systems based on the observed patterns of driver behavior. The traffic study demonstrated the ability for the site-generated traffic to access the arterial and collector street system and move south and west. The traffic study also counted vehicles on East 32nd Avenue and their turning movements onto Hilyard Street – the dominant movement is vehicles turning right (north) on Hilyard. That said, it is common (and reasonable) that neighbors predict traffic behaviors based upon their personal experience; however, there are transportation planning aspects such as the “gravity principal” that have to be considered too. The “gravity principle” finds that the easiest access to regional transportation systems and commercial/employment centers draw the most demand for vehicle use from residential development. The predicted use of Hilyard Street is consistent with that principle and the study information provided (and the development is not expected to have a significant impact on Alder Street as a result). Further, the applicant is not required to mitigate cut-through traffic with off-site improvements in this case because the levels of cut-through that might be generated from this single development is minimal  Attachment B - Page 19 according to the applicant’s TIA and review by the City’s Public Works staff with traffic engineering expertise. While staff understands cut-through traffic on streets like Alder is highly undesirable, some cut-through traffic will always occur in any neighborhood. The City will continue to improve streets and intersections throughout Eugene to minimize cut-through traffic as much as possible. Also, if there are issues with speeding in a neighborhood, neighbors can request traffic calming measures such as speed bumps (see discussion above regarding the City’s traffic calming program). For example, there is an existing mitigation on Alder Street that prevents vehicles from traveling south (it allows bike and pedestrian access only); if traffic calming becomes warranted in the future, the traffic calming program could study the issue to see if additional mitigation measures are warranted along Alder Street. The different traffic scenarios highlighted by neighbors also provide a look into an infinite number of transportation options and challenges for the neighborhood. While staff agrees every neighborhood has their own traffic issues, many of the streets discussed are not within the study area or required to be analyzed in the traffic study. This is one of the limitations of traffic impact analysis that cannot be avoided unless industry standards and the Eugene Code are revised to require wider study areas and more extensive scopes of work.  Because of schools in the area there should be morning traffic counts, specifically between 7:30 and 9:30 AM. The study included trip generation1 in the AM peak hour within the study area; however, AM peak hour trips for the study analyses period are substantially lower than the PM peak hour for the study analyses period. In effect, the proposed project does not generate enough trips during the AM peak hour of the analyses period to warrant off-site Level of Service or operational analyses. The net 50 peak hour trip threshold also applies to the AM peak hour, but there are no study intersections that will receive 50 or more peak hour trips during the analyses period. Based on the reasoning above, AM peak hour analyses was not required and was therefore not included in the approved scope of work. Impacts to schools are typically analyzed when the study area abuts a school site (especially when the study area abuts the entrance to a school site). In any case, the rush hour of other uses in the area is not justification for requiring a development to analyze the impacts because developments are only required to analyze and mitigate the impacts they create. Nearby schools are all existing and developed uses outside the approved study areas, and therefore no analyses is required based upon existing impacts from other uses in the area. It is also important to note that even if AM analysis was completed, the nearby intersections are most congested during the PM peak hour (this is the case for most streets and intersections 1 Expected trip generation accounts for new traffic from the proposed development, and it establishes which intersections are studied. Traffic counts, on the other hand, establish “background” traffic that informs what is happening on the surrounding street system without the development. Expected trip generation is added to background traffic to predict traffic impacts (both figures are also used to determine level of service).  Attachment B - Page 20 all around the City). Since the applicant analyzed the PM peak hour (i.e. the “worst-case” scenario), and is mitigating impacts accordingly, there would likely be no realistic benefit to analyzing the AM peak hour even if it was required. In other words, it is highly unlikely that additional traffic mitigations would be warranted if the AM analysis was completed.  The restriping mitigation proposed at E. 31st Avenue and Hilyard Street is inadequate. This comment is thoroughly addressed beginning on page 6 of the TIA evaluation.  Traffic queuing will cause problems as the Amazon Bike Path crossing will potentially be blocked and pedestrian and bike safety could be impacted. The traffic analyses includes a queuing and blocking report for the study intersection of Hilyard Street and East 31st Avenue, and it shows that the eastbound average queue and 95th percentile ques are not expected to block the bike path crossing. Regardless, it is illegal to block a pedestrian crossing so if this becomes a problem it is solely an enforcement issue.  This intersection also needs a traffic refuge (median) so that vehicles turning north onto Hilyard from E. 31st can safely cross one side of Hilyard without having to wait for both sides to be available for crossing. A pedestrian refuge is also needed here for the same reason. There is currently a raised landscape median on Hilyard at East 31st Avenue and northbound left-turn pockets to East 31st Avenue. Despite the fact that the City (and likely many residents) would not support replacement of landscaped medians with center turn lanes, taking refuge in the intersection blocks northbound left turns and further degrades operations and safety. The intersection is also a point of speed and horizontal lane transition to the northbound left turn pocket for Amazon Parkway; taking refuge in the intersection increases the crash risk. Because of these issues, it is industry practice to limit or restrict access and unorthodox operations at roadway transitions. A sanctioned two-stage crossing at an intersections is unconventional, prohibited under Oregon law, and likely dangerous. Other potential mitigations related to East 31st Avenue are further discussed in detail beginning on page 6 of the TIA evaluation. Regarding pedestrian access, a condition of approval was imposed through the TIA decision to require a pedestrian crossing near East 32nd Avenue.  No mitigation is proposed at E. 32nd and Hilyard where vehicles making a left turn from E. 32nd onto Hilyard southbound are already having great difficulty. The TIA indicates that 17 additional southbound left turns from E. 32nd would be added to the existing level, for a total of 58 turns during the PM peak. Is this even possible? A median refuge on Hilyard at E 32nd would greatly facilitate this movement and should be evaluated as a mitigation option.  Attachment B - Page 21 The traffic analysis studied the intersection of Hilyard Street and East 32nd Avenue, and followed all industry standards and best practices. As a result of the study, the applicant’s engineer found that minimum level of service standards were met with the addition of the proposed development (and therefore no mitigation is required). Traffic impact analyses are not required to determine the maximum number of turns or the theoretical capacity of any particular turning movement, lane group or approach. The analyses indicated that 17 additional southbound left turns will not degrade the level of service below adopted minimum standards. The TIA (specifically the Highway Capacity Manual level of service analyses) does consider all turning movement conflicts (i.e. conflict between left turns), and the report did not identify any significant queuing that would affect left and right turns. The dedicated left turn lane on Hilyard at East 32nd Avenue must be maintained, but the analyses did not predict queuing that warranted elongation. And as noted previously, a vehicular median refuge at an intersection will have a negative effect on operations and safety, and a two-stage turn at an intersection is prohibited by law. The analyses did not identify a refuge as a mitigation, and the City of Eugene would not support a refuge in this case even if proposed by an applicant.  The baseline traffic data is inadequate and it is impossible to determine the source of the data for existing traffic. Actual, recent traffic counts using physical traffic counters should be collected for all study intersections. Traffic counts were provided by the engineering consultant for all study intersections, which are located in Appendix D of the traffic study (no theoretical model data or historic counts were used). According to Public Works staff, the counts are factual, accurate and meet all industry standards, and were taken during the appropriate study periods as approved in the scope of work. Also, the industry standard and Eugene’s standards allow traffic counts to be performed within 2 years of preparing the analyses – the consultant performed the counts 2 months before the analyses which is well within the acceptable time frame.  We see that a “video analysis” was used for the Hilyard and 30th intersection. Is this a completely objective, verifiable, and accurate basis for characterizing this intersection? If so, we would like the actual video and original traffic counts to be entered into the record as part of the TIA so that we may independently verify its accuracy. Video analysis is a completely objective, verifiable and accurate basis for preparing intersection counts. In fact, video is the preferred method for collecting traffic data, especially for large or complicated intersections. The reason is that video can allow traffic to be counted at a slower rate under controlled conditions, and can even be reviewed multiple times for accuracy. Manual counters, on the other hand, are live and subject to site conditions and human error. Finally, it is not a City or industry standard to provide the video and therefore the City did not require the applicant to provide it.  Attachment B - Page 22  Minimum standards for the TIA are established in Administrative Order No. 58- 02- 02-F. Section R-9.8650-F(4.1) requires actual traffic counts on an hourly and daily basis for all streets and intersections in the study area. No daily figures are provided in the TIA and we see no evidence that actual traffic counts have been collected. Section R-9.8650-F(5) requires traffic counts for morning peak periods as well as evening peaks. Administrative Order No. 58- 02- 02-F. Section R-9.8650-F(4.1) does not require actual traffic counts. Administrative Order No. 58- 02- 02-F. Section R-9.8650-F(4.1) requires “Daily and hourly traffic counts that verify traffic growth and peak hour times for the year prior to the application on each street within the study area that carries traffic to or from the proposed development.” Subsection 4 states “The information is available from the City, other impacted jurisdictions, or may be obtained in the field.” The City of Eugene’s peak hour time correspond the require AM and PM peak hour of the adjacent street. All operational performance standards are based upon peak hour turning movement volumes during the analyses periods identified in the scope of work. The City of Eugene has no Average Daily Trip (ADT) performance based measures or standards for the built transportation system. This renders an Average Daily Trip (ADT) count an irrelevant and cost prohibitive exercise. Industry standard for conversion of the peak hour count is 10% of the ADT. Traffic counts are provided for peak traffic analyses hours on the study intersections identified in the approved scope of work. The proposed development produced counts for the PM peak hour of the adjacent street as identified in the approved scope of work. The approved scope of work did not include off-site traffic counts for the other peak hours identified in 58-02-02-F R9.8650 F(5). The other peak hours identified in 58-02-02-F R9.8650 F(5) are not warranted as they do not produce enough trips (50 minimum) to warrant Level of Service Analyses per City of Eugene standards.  The diagram used to show trip distribution is an overly-simplistic diagram that is inaccurate, not to scale, and misleading. We would like to see bike paths, waterways, on-street bikeways, and safe school routes (i.e., Alder Street) clearly indicated and labeled with accurate spatial representations. The diagram presented to show trip distribution is accurate and is not required to be to scale. The diagram’s only purpose is to show the direction and volumes of vehicle trips distributed to the roadway network, and the applicant’s diagram achieves this. The diagram also clearly illustrates the assignment of vehicles to the points of distribution and the limits of the study area. In short, the diagrams provided are consistent with industry practice and effectively show trip distribution and assignment. Further, bike paths, pedestrian links, and transit links are discussed in the traffic study (and are not required to be shown on the trip distribution diagrams), and there are no on-street bike lanes in the study area. Safe routes to schools are not required to be presented or discussed in the study, and waterways are not required to be presented or discussed in the study unless specifically used as part of the primary transportation system (i.e. a ferry).  Attachment B - Page 23  The predicted trip generation is too low. The applicant uses a “specialty retail center” designation but there are many other possible commercial uses that would generate more trips. The following description of specialty retail is provided in the ITE Handbook: “Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retails shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods and services, such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists and small restaurants.“ Based on the definition, Planning and Public Works Engineering staff finds this is a realistic and appropriate use for the commercial portion of the project. The use category considers likely uses such as restaurants and retail shops. Uses like a fast food restaurant would not be realistic as there is no place on the site for a drive-through. Another use that generates a high number of trips is a convenience store; it is unlikely that a convenience store would be proposed here based on the site’s layout and proximity to a grocery store (Albertson’s) and an existing convenience store (Dairy Mart). Future uses will need to comply with the TIA approval. Attachments Exhibit 1: Applicant’s Response to Public Testimony  Attachment B - Page 24 Attachment A - Exhibit 1  Attachment B - Page 25 Attachment A - Exhibit 1  Attachment B - Page 26 Attachment A - Exhibit 1 Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment D