Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Sloat Room, Atrium Building www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in this agenda item. 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, APRIL 12, 2017 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DECISION ALEXANDER LOOP (TIA 16-8) Decision: Appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s determination that Conditions of Approval #3 and #5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD had been met. Location: Intersection of Goodpasture Island Road and Alexander Loop (Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 17-04-24-10-02500 Appellant: Willamette Oaks LLC/ Frederick A. Batson, Gleaves Swearingen LLP Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5282 E-mail:althea.c.sullivan@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 neutral parties. 4. Testimony from opponents. 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 MEMORANDUM Date: April 5, 2017 To: Virginia Gustafson-Lucker, Eugene Hearing Official From: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner Subject: Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision for Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) ACTION REQUESTED To hold a public hearing on April 12, 2017 and take action on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s approval of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which determined that Conditions of Approval #3 and #5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD were met. BACKGROUND On March 2, 2017 the Planning Director issued a decision following the City’s Type II application procedures confirming that the applicant had satisfied Conditions of Approval #3, and #5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD. Following the approval, an appeal was filed which raises issues with the traffic study provided by the applicant (see Attachment A). For additional background, see the Planning Director’s decision which is attached to this memorandum as Attachment B. Public notice of the April 12, 2017 appeal hearing was correctly mailed on March 23, 2017. Staff notes that a notice was sent earlier in the same week, however, it appeared that some addresses had been missed. To remedy the issue, the March 23, 2017 notice was sent. As of the date of this memorandum, a letter was received from the applicant which was written by Christopher M. Clemow, the applicant’s traffic engineer. The letter addresses errors and information which was unclear in the original traffic study provided by the applicant (see Attachment C). An email was also received which appears to express concerns about the area of the Goodpasture Island PUD, however, it is not specifically related to the appeal or conditions of approval (see Attachment D). The relevant testimony is further discussed as it relates to the appeal issues, below. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE The substance of the majority of the issues raised by the appellant were previously addressed by Public Works staff as part of the Planning Director’s decision. To assist the Hearings Official in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision pertaining to the applicant’s traffic study which determined Conditions of Approval #3 and #5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD were met, staff has identified relevant record information and Page 1 considerations below as this information relates to each specific issue raised by the appellant. Staff identified 5 specific issues included in the appellant’s written statement (included as Attachment A in its entirety). Appeal Issue 1. The Applicant’s traffic counts are strangely depressed. For example, the Applicant’s report attributes only 101 peak hour trips in the AM and 63 peak hour trips for the 272 apartments contained in Phases 1-3. These count totals are statistical anomalies when compared to anticipated trip counts using ITE rates for 272 apartments using the ITE 220 apartment code. In fact, the PM peak hour count is lower than any single data point shown in the data conglomeration provided by the ITE manual. Using the ITE rates, one would expect 139 AM peak hour trips (+38 trips; trip cap exceeded by 12 trips) and 169 PM peak hour trips (+106 trips; trip cap exceeded by 25 trips). As noted, these figures would exceed the trip caps in both the AM and PM. Public Works provides a response to the alleged anomalies on page 4 of Attachment A of the Planning Director’s decision. The salient point of the Public Works comment is that while using ITE rates would be best practice in most scenarios, in this case, Condition of Approval #3 required a count of actual trips occurring. As actual trips measure something that is currently occurring, in a specific scenario it makes sense that using the ITE rates would generate a different answer. Public Works confirmed that the applicant’s study and method correctly determined the number of trips occurring, and that the trip cap would not be exceeded. Appeal Issue 2. The Applicant’s traffic study incorrectly assumes 100% occupancy in the 272 apartments contained in Phases 1-3. Evidence strongly suggests that occupancy rates in the Greenleaf Riverwalk Apartments that constitute Phase 1-3 of the PUD are not 100%, as expressly assumed by the Applicant’s traffic report. This likely explains some of the bizarrely low trip counts described above in Issue #1. Once accurate occupancy rates are accounted for, and additional trips are added to the trip count to properly account for 100% occupancy in Phase 1-3, the trip caps will likely be exceeded even using the Applicant’s own traffic data. The letter from Clemow, addresses the substance of the above statement (see Attachment C). Clemow states that the apartments were 93% occupied at the time of the traffic study, and the remaining 7% were unoccupied as a result of turn-over, repairs, etc. Clemow highlights the fact that while actual trip generation may be lower than estimated trip generation using generic data from the ITE, the field data accurately represents existing conditions. On page 4 of Clemow’s letter a statement is made which concludes that even if the apartments were 100% occupied, construction of 186 apartments (the approval the applicant requests) would not exceed the trip cap. Page 2  Appeal Issue 3. Applicant’s traffic study used the wrong peak hour in its PM trip count analysis, incorrectly asserting that the trip count was 190 during the PM peal hour when in fact, based on their own data, the PM peak hour count was 210, moving them closer to the trip cap. Public Works provided a response related to the above statement on page 4 of Attachment A to the Planning Director’s decision. Public Works staff notes that while Access Engineering identified that Clemow and associates erred in Table 1 by using a 4:30-5:30 peak hour, even using the correct 4:15-5:15 peak hour, the applicant still provides evidence which demonstrates it will not exceed the trip cap. Additionally, testimony provided by the applicant on April 4, 2017 includes a letter from Clemow which addresses the substance of the appeal issue above. Clemow provides a corrected Table, and concludes that a maximum of 261 new dwelling units can be constructed before the trip cap would be exceeded. The applicant only proposes to construct 186 dwelling units, well below the 261 which could occur without exceeding the trip cap (see page 1 –2 of Attachment C). Appeal Issue 4. Applicant’s traffic study was deficient in that it failed to count all driveways along Alexander Loop, specifically omitting to count driveways in Phases 1-3, the same apartments that generated a suspiciously low trip count. Public Works provides a response related to the applicant’s method of conducting its traffic study which did not involve counting all driveways (see page 4 of Attachment A to the Planning Director’s decision). Public Works notes that because Alexander Loop intersects Goodpasture Island Road at only two intersections, and the only way to leave the Alexander Loop area is at one of the intersections counted, the applicant’s traffic study did not miss trips by not counting the driveways of each phase separately. Appeal Issue 5. There is a fundamental misinterpretation regarding exactly what Condition #3 requires. Applicant is operating under the assumption that an actual traffic count is all that is necessary to comply with Condition #3 (assuming the trips come in underneath the caps). However, Condition #3 also requires that “the development on the site shall be limited so that it would not produce more than 287 trips in the AM peak hour and 321 trips during the PM peak hour as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual…” Thus, if the ITE Trip Generation Manual anticipates more trips than the cap allows, which in this case it does, development on the site must be further restricted or a revised traffic impact analysis must be performed. The above statement provides only a portion of the full text of Condition of Approval #3. While the excerpted language is relevant, it is important to read the entire condition to understand the process provided by the condition for the applicant to obtain approval to construct the final Page 3 phase. For ease of reference, the full text of Condition of Approval #3 is provided below (in bold): “Prior to executing the performance agreement, the applicant shall revise the final site plan to add the following note: “The maximum development on the site shall be limited so that it would not produce more than 287 trips in the AM peak hour and 321 trips during the PM peak hour as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, using code 220-Apartments-for all unrestricted residential apartments on the development site. The city may allow development intensity beyond this maximum number of peak hour vehicle trips only if the applicant submits to the city and ODOT a traffic impact analysis that demonstrates that the proposed intensification of use would be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060. The applicant shall seek and the city shall consider such approval using the city’s Type II land use application procedure. Prior to construction of the final phase, the applicant shall conduct a current traffic study that counts the actual number of trips currently occurring to determine if the final phase would require a revised traffic impact analysis and additional improvements to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. The city shall not issue building permits for the final phase until the applicant has received approval of the revised traffic impact analysis.” The above condition provides a specific trip cap for the development site, timing for evaluation of the development to determine if completion of the final phase would exceed the trip cap, and a process for completing the project in the event the trip cap would be exceeded by the final phase. The applicant’s traffic study provides evidence which the Planning Director used to determine that the trip cap would not be exceeded if the final phase is completed, negating the need for the applicant to move through the process specified in the event the trip cap would be exceeded by the final phase. Appeal Issue 6. Safety of the southern intersection of Goodpasture Island Road and Alexander Loop. The appellant also argues that almost all of the traffic from Phase 5 will affect the south intersection of Goodpasture Island Road and Alexander Loop, causing a massive bottleneck which will threaten life and safety. Staff is not entirely clear about how the appellant reached this conclusion, moreover, where a particular vehicle leaves Alexander Loop to travel on Goodpasture Island Road is not related to either condition of approval the Planning Director determined to be met. ATTACHMENTS A. Written Appeal Statement B. Planning Director’s Decision C. Testimony from the Applicant dated April 3, 2017 D. Testimony dated March 26, 2017 Page 4 Attachment A Page 5 Attachment A Page 6 Attachment A Page 7 Attachment A Page 8 Attachment A Page 9  Attachment A PLANNING RECEIPT DATE 2017 3/ 6/ City of Eugene Planning Method of Payment Customer Information Cash Name Gleaves Swearingen D Check Address Visa/MC 1 Project TIA 16-8 Alexander Loop Amount Received 250.00 Page 10  Attachment A 1. DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF EUGENE BUILDING & PERMIT SERVICE 99 WEST 10TH AVE 682-5086 3- REG- R001392 0 ECEIPT: Mar 14 2017 CASHIER: CMM Appeal of Planning App De $ 250.00 tia 16-8 TOTAL DUE: $ 250.00 RECEIVED FROM: GLEAVES SWEARINGEN Check: $ 250.00 Total tendered: $ 250.00 f, Change due: $. 00 r bldgpermittracking or. www. g e ugene- ov/ our customer survey at: Please take COEPermitSurvey com/ www. surveymonkey./` DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT Page 11 Attachment A Page 12  Attachment B Atrium Building, 99 West 10`h Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 i Phone: 541- 5377 682- WPlanning Fax: 541- 5572 682- planning or. www.g e ugene- ov/ FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL FOR ALEXANDER LOOP (TIA 16-8) Application Summary: Request to determine,through a Type II process, that Conditions of Approval # 3 and # 5 associated with the Goodpasture Island PUD have been met. Owner/Applicant: Alexander Loop, LLC (Owner/ Applicant) Michael C. Robinson, Perkins Coie LLP. ( Applicant's Representative) Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, ( 541)682-5282 Subject Property: Vacant, located on Alexander Loop; Assessors Map 24- 17- 1 00,Tax Lot 2500 4- Zoning: R- WR/ 3 P D/ ( Limited High-Density Residential with Water Resource and Planned Unit Development Overlays) Background On August 17, 2012 the Eugene Hearings Official granted a final decision regarding the Goodpasture Island PUD. The Goodpasture Island PUD had previously been granted tentative Planned Unit Development approval for a project which included multi- family development, an age- restricted and assisted living building, residential clubhouses, a neighborhood commercial building, open space, and associated infrastructure (see PDT 09-1,TIA 09-4,and ARA 09-6). The Hearings Official' s decision included a revised version of Condition of Approval #3 from the previous applications, and carried over Condition of Approval # 5 from the previous applications. Both conditions are noted as requirements on the applicant's final approved plans which are an exhibit to the Performance Agreement executed between the applicant and the City, as part of the project's final PUD approval (also see PDF 10-3). These conditions of approval relate to an established "trip cap"for the project and associated traffic studies required of the applicant for development of Phase 5,the final phase of development for the overall mixed- multi- u f amily/ se development. Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) March 2, 2017 1 Page 13  Attachment B On November 17, 2016 the City received an application which requested that the Planning Director determine, through a Type II process, that the applicant has satisfied Condition of Approval #3 as provided by the Eugene Hearings Official. The City sent a Notice of Land Use Application (the "First Notice")on December 12, 2016. In response to the First Notice the City received letters from Eric Eason, and Frederick A. Batson of Gleaves Swearingen LLP. The letter from Batson stated that the First Notice was postmarked on December 19, 2016 making the comment period less than 14 days as required by Eugene Code (EC)9. 7210. The letter also asserted that while the applicant's request was couched as merely a determination that it satisfied Condition of Approval # 3 of the Goodpasture Island PUD, a hidden request to increase the density of development was included. In response to the Batson letter,the applicant notified City staff that amended application 5,and requested materials would be submitted which would also address Condition of Approval # the City provide a new notice of the application after the materials were received (see email dated January 7,2017, included in the application file for reference).The applicant also extended the 120-day period until March 3,2017 to accommodate the request for additional notice. The City received amended materials from the applicant on February 1, 2017, and per the applicant's request sent a Notice of Land Use Application (the "Second Notice") on February 3, 2017. In response to the Second Notice, the City received comments from Beverly D. Andrews, Nancy Durflinger, Gregory McPherson, and Frederick A. Batson of Gleaves Swearingen LLP. The applicant requested that a determination be made through a Type II process, moreover both conditions (fully listed in the Findings of Compliance section of this decision) indicate that a Type II process is appropriate. For both of the previously mentioned reasons staff has determined that the conditions will be evaluated according to the Type II land use application procedures which are 7200 through 9. primarily addressed at EC 9. 7230. To the extent that the public testimony received by the City to date is relevant to the applicant's specific request to find the conditions of approval have been met, and is related to the conditions of approval, the substance of that testimony is further addressed below in the following evaluation. All of the written testimony received by the City is included as part of the record and available in the application file,for reference. Referral comments were also received from Public Works staff, which are included as Attachment A to this decision. Particularly relevant aspects of the referral comments are also noted in the following Findings of Compliance section of this decision. Findings of Compliance As mentioned above, the Planning Director's decision on this application is made in accordance 7200. For this particular application, with the City's Type II Application Procedures, starting at EC 9. no Application Requirements or Approval Criteria are specifically listed by Table EC 9. 7205, or anywhere else in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code. For this reason, the conditions of approval which the applicant has requested the Planning Director find to be met will serve as the approval criteria and are provided below (in bold).Following each condition of approval, the decision provides findings of compliance which evaluate all relevant evidence available to the City as part of the Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) March 2, 2017 Page 14  Attachment B record to date for this application. Condition of Approval 3 Prior to executing the performance agreement,the applicant shall revise the final site plan to add the following note: " The maximum development on the site shall be limited so that it would not produce more than 287 trips in the AM peak hour and 321 trips during the PM peak hour as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, using code for 220- Apartments- all unrestricted residential apartments on the development site.The city may allow development intensity beyond this maximum number of peak hour vehicle trips only if the applicant submits to the city and ODOT a traffic impact analysis that demonstrates that the proposed intensification of use would be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule TPR)at OAR 660- 0060. 012-The applicant shall seek and the city shall consider such approval using the city's Type II land use application procedure. Prior to construction of the final phase, the applicant shall conduct a current traffic study that counts the actual number of trips currently occurring to determine if the final phase would require a revised traffic impact analysis and additional improvements to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule.The city shall not issue building permits for the final phase until the applicant has received approval of the revised traffic impact analysis." The applicant provided a letter dated January 18, 2017 from Oregon Registered Professional Engineer Chris Clemow. The applicant notes that Mr.Clemow followed Type II land use application procedures for a traffic impact analysis, including coordination with the City Engineer on the letter's preparation. The applicant notes that the materials from Mr. Clemow demonstrate that as many as 237 dwelling units could be constructed, however, no modification is sought to increase the number beyond the previously approved 186 units associated with Phase 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD. The applicant concludes that no revised traffic impact analysis or additional requirements to satisfy the Transportation Planning Rule are needed because the actual trips do not exceed the anticipated maximum, and having satisfied Condition of Approval # 3 they are entitled to apply for a building permit for 186 dwelling units. Testimony in response to the First Notice included a letter from Frederick A. Batson of Gleaves Swearingen LLP claiming that an increase in density from 186 to 195 units was requested by the applicant. Based on the applicant's statement noted above, staff finds that no such request has been made. A letter was also received from Eric Eason which included an aerial photograph of the intersection of Goodpasture Island Road and Goodpasture Loop, and a statement of opposition to further development in the Goodpasture Island Road community. The statements raised several concerns about traffic in the area and called for revision of the posted speeds, and more pedestrian crossings. Staff finds that the above condition of approval provides no way to address the concerns expressed by Mr. Eason in this specific case. Additionally, the intersection referenced is not directly adjacent to Phase 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD with which the conditions of approval are associated. Testimony in response to the Second Notice included additional requests for stoplights and pedestrian crossings, as well as concerns about access, traffic, and parking on Alexander Loop. While the testimony raises understandable neighborhood concerns, staff again notes that the above condition of approval provides no way to address the concerns in this specific case. Additionally, referral comments from Public Works staff note that Alexander Loop is designed to Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) March 2,2017 3 Page 15  Attachment B City of Eugene Standards which use narrower street width and on street parking for built in traffic calming. As the traffic calming function is intentional, drivers waiting for other cars to pass, and driving slowly are indications that the street is functioning as desired. The Batson letter in response to the Second Notice included a letter from Oregon Registered Professional Engineer Michael Weishar. The letter raises issues with the methodology used by Mr. Clemow and references the materials prepared by Mr.Weishar. The focus of the second Batson letter is that Mr. Clemow incorrectly calculated the trips and that if calculated as done by Mr. Weishar, completion of Phase 5 would exceed the trip caps set by the Final Decision. Additionally the letter points to safety issues, access of emergency vehicles along Alexander Loop, and congestion as critical reasons for correctly calculating the trip cap and ensuring it is not exceeded. Referral comments from Public Works staff walk through the technical details of the information provided by Mr.Clemow and Mr. Weishar, a.nd the full referral is included as part of this decision as Attachment A. While both Mr.Clemow, and Mr. Weishar's reports can reasonably be understood as representing expert opinions, the study prepared by Mr. Clemow provides reliable evidence which demonstrates that the above condition of approval has been met. Perhaps the most salient point of the Public Works referral is that Mr.Clemow conducted a traffic study which counted the actual number of trips occurring, while Mr. Weishar used the ITE trip Generation Manual to estimate trips. In this case, the condition above specifies that a count of the actual number of trips occurring is the method necessary to determine if the condition is met. The attached referral otherwise responds to and resolves staff's concern over a few discrepancies and minor errors called out by Mr. Weishar, with regard to the applicant's analysis provided by Mr. Clemow. The referral further clarifies that Mr.Clemow's analysis demonstrates that the trip cap will not be exceed, and the appropriate methodology, as specified by the above condition, was utilized to reach this conclusion. Having weighed the evidence and available information received to date, including the Batson letter and associated analysis providedby Mr. Weishar, and the response provided by the City's own traffic experts in the Public Works Department, Planning staff concludes that the above condition is met.Therefore, the applicant can move forward with submitting building permits for the construction of Phase 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD. Condition of Approval 5 The applicant's proposed mitigation measure # 5,for the installation of a traffic signal at the existing (southerly)intersection of Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road, shall be omitted from the applicant's TIA Packet. The final PUD plans shall note that the applicant shall conduct a traffic study prior to construction of the final phase of PUD development to determine if any mitigation is necessary to ensure pedestrian safety at the crosswalk at the southerly intersection of Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road.The traffic study shall focus on pedestrian safety and shall address possible safety improvements at the intersection including, but not limited to,pedestrian activated signals and pedestrian activated warning beacons. The traffic study shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the City's Type II land use application procedures for Traffic Impact Analysis review,but be limited to consideration of potential pedestrian safety improvements. The applicant shall provide necessary mitigation prior to occupancy of the final PUD Phase." Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) March 2, 2017 4 Page 16  Attachment B The applicant states that the above condition requires a traffic study to determine if any mitigation is necessary to ensure pedestrian safety at the crosswalk at the southerly intersection of Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road. The applicant provided a letter from Mr. Clemow dated January 30, 2017) which describes low pedestrian volumes and the City constructed pedestrian improvement at the previously mentioned intersection (see pages 4 and 5 of the letter).Mr.Clemow concludes on page 5 of his January 30, 2017 letter that the existing enhanced improvements are adequate to assure pedestrian safety and no additional safety improvements need to be constructed. Testimony from Eric Eason raised concerns about pedestrian safety, and was focused on the intersection of Goodpasture Loop and Goodpasture Island Road. The testimony from Gregory McPherson provided a request for traffic lights including one at the intersection mentioned above. McPherson also provided PowerPoint slides with a photograph of the above intersection captioned "Protected pedestrian walkway is helpful at intersection, but makes going left more difficult".Referral comments from Public Works staff confirm the applicant's statement that an adequate pedestrian crossing already exists at the location referenced by the above condition. Additionally, Public Works staff concurred with Mr.Clemow, noting that no deficiencies or additional pedestrian enhancements are warranted. Staff finds that the testimony raises reasonable concerns at first glance, however, the data provided by Mr.Clemow represents an expert opinion which is supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Clemow's counts indicated low levels of pedestrian activity across Goodpasture Island Road only 2 pedestrians crossing in the PM peak hour).Based on evidence provided by the applicant, testimony, and the referral comments from Public Works staff,the staff concludes that the above condition of approval has been satisfied and no additional mitigation is necessary to ensure pedestrian safety. Decision Based on the available information, evidence, and referral comments, the Planning Director concludes that the applicant has satisfied the conditions of approval listed in this decision, and therefore grants approval of the applicant's request. Post Approval Pursuant to EC 9. 4), 7220( the Planning Director's decision regarding this Type II application is effective on the 13tt' day after notice of the decision is mailed, unless appealed according to the procedures in EC 9. 7605. This approval does not relieve the applicant of complying with other applicable code provisions or Oregon Revised Statutes, which may otherwise govern the development of the subject property. Approval Date: 3 (Z- (l -7 Approved By: Gabriel Flock, Senior Planner, for Eugene Planning Director Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) March 2, 2017 Page 17  Attachment B Attachment A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC WORKS REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: FEBRUARY 27,2017 To: ALTHEA SULLIVAN FROM: SCOTT GILLESPIE APPLICATION: TIA 16-08 ALEXANDER LOOP REFERRAL The following referral comments from Public Works staff reflect a preliminary evaluation of compliance with conditions of approval # 3 and # 5 associated with a Planned Unit Development, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Adjustment Review known as Goodpasture Island PUD. These referral comments include draft findings and recommendations, as well as related informational items, relevant to,surveying, engineering, transportation, and maintenance issues identified by Public Works staff in the context of conditions of approval # 3 and #5. These referral comments are intended for review by Planning staff, for incorporation into the City's written decision on the subject application, however, they do not represent a final determination of compliance with the applicable approval standards and criteria. It is acknowledged that these referral comments are subject to revision upon further coordination. Staff recommends approval of this application without conditions as noted herein. Goodpasture Island Final PUD PDF- 3 10-Approval Condition # 3 Prior to executing the performance agreement, the applicant shall revise the final site plan to add the following note: "The maximum development on the site shall be limited so that it would not produce more than 287 trips in the AMpeak hour and 321 trips during the PMpeak hour as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, using code 220- forApartments-all unrestricted residential apartments on the development site. The City may allow development intensity beyond this maximum number ofpeak hour vehicle trips only if the applicants submits to the city and ODOT a traffic impact analysis that demonstrates that the proposed intensifications of use would be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)at OAR 660- 012- 0060. The applicant shall seek and the city shall consider such approval using the City's type II land use application procedure. Prior to construction of the final phase, the applicant shall conduct a current traffic study that counts the actual number of trips currently occurring to determine if the final phase would require a revised traffic impact analysis and additional improvements to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. The city shall not issue building permits for the final phase until the applicant has received approval of the revised traffic impact analysis. " Page 18  L- J 17J Attachment B Attachment A The applicant has submitted a Type II land use application, subject to Planning Director approval, to satisfy condition of approval #3 in the final PUD approval. The applicant submitted a written statement with supplemental professional engineering analysis addressing the specific criteria set forth in condition of approval #3 of the Goodpasture Island Final PUD approval. The Goodpasture Island PUD was proposed and approved with 5 distinct phases. The first 4 phases of the development have been issued building permits, have completed construction and have been issued certificates of occupancy. The applicant is proposing to apply for building permits for the final phase of the project. The applicant needs to 3 and #5. address final PUD conditions of approval # The Goodpasture Island PUD is a mixed use development that consists of congregate family residential uses. Phases 1-4,currently constructed, care, commercial and multi- include the congregate care, commercial and multi-family uses. The final phase of the family residential uses. The applicant has PUD (Phase 5)will only include multi- proposed to construct multi-family uses consistent with the original PUD approval and 3. The applicant not exercise their ability to intensify the use as allowed in condition # has provided written testimony and of engineering analyses support the proposed in multi-family use consistent with the original PUD approval. 3 is provided below: Condition of approval # Prior to executing the performance agreement, the applicant shall revise the final site plan to add the following note: "The maximum development on the site shall be limited so that it would not produce more than 287 trips in the AM peak hour and 321 trips during the PMpeak hour as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, using code 220- for Apartments-all unrestricted residential apartments on the development site. Prior to construction of the final phase, the applicant shall conduct a current traffic study that counts the actual number of trips currently occurring to determine if the final phase would require a revised traffic impact analysis and additional improvements to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. The city shall not issue building permits for the final phase until the applicant has received approval of the revised traffic impact analysis. " The applicants engineer conducted a current traffic study and prepared a report addressing the specific condition of the project. The report was prepared by a licensed Oregon Engineer with specific training and experience in traffic engineering. The applicants engineer evaluated phases 1-4 of the PUD and established what uses were constructed versus occupied. While not specifically required in the condition, this practice is the most conservative approach to capture the trip generation impacts from constructed spaces that have yet to be occupied. The condition of approval clearly states the applicant shall perform a current traffic study that counts the actual number of trips currently occurring. The applicants engineer 2 Page 19  Attachment B Attachment A performed vehicle counts at the intersections of Goodpasture Island Road @ Alexander Loop (East)and Goodpasture Island Road @ Alexander Loop (West).The counts were performed during the AM and PM peak hours of the adjacent street. The counts at the intersection represents all vehicular traffic that enters and exists the PUD. It should be noted that the vehicle traffic also includes traffic from Willamette Oaks and the Avamere. The applicant is not required to account for vehicle trips form Willamette Oaks of Avamere when evaluating the trip cap for Goodpasture Island PUD. A common system peak hour was identified to coordinate peak hour impact from all driveways and correlate their impacts on the surrounding street system. The applicant's engineer performed vehicle counts on site driveways on Alexander Loop. The applicant's engineer prepared trip generation to estimate the future impacts from the unoccupied uses in the buildings. This is Institute of Transportation Engineers and Industry best practice. The consultant subtracted vehicle trips counted from Willamette Oaks and Avamere based upon counts at their respective driveways. Willamette Oaks and Avemere have dedicated driveways that only serve their specific uses. This enables the applicants engineer to specifically distinguish between trips generated from the PUD and trips from Willamette Oak and Avamere. The applicant's engineer also performed trip generation to account for constructed but not occupied uses within the PUD. The applicant's engineer applied pass-by and internal reductions consistent with those shown in the original PUD. This is the most conservative approach in addition to ITE best practice. The applicants engineer prepared a matrix that illustrates overall trip cap, current total counted trips from the area, trips to be subtracted from Willamette Oak and Avemere and trips generated from unoccupied buildings in phase 1-4. The matrix identifies the total number of trips remaining for new development on Phase 5. The total number of trips remaining under the caps available for development on phase 5 is 121 AM peak hour trips and 196 trips in the PM peak hour. The applicant's engineer applied the appropriate trip generation rate for apartments (Use code 220- Apartments) as specifically identified in the condition of approval to determine the maximum number of apartment units allowable in Phase 5 while still remaining under the trip cap and in conformance with Condition # 3.The total number of apartment units that can be constructed is 237 in the AM peak Hour and 316 in the PM peak hour. The AM peak hour is most restrictive and establishes the total number of apartments allowable for phase 5 at 237 dwelling units. Phase 5 of Goodpasture Island PUD is approved for 186 units of apartments. The approved Phase 5 unit count of 186 units is below the allowable threshold for the established trip cap and is therefore consistent with 3 of the final PUD. Condition # Access En ingeerieg s Study Willamette Oaks submitted written testimony and an engineering report in opposition of the applicant materials. This is an evaluation of the opponents engineering study in comparison to the applicants study. 3 Page 20  Attachment B Attachment A Mr. Batson & Access Engineering state that most of the data used in this assessment was based on traffic counts. Mr. Batson also asserts a number of statistical anomalies and nonconformance with the ITE trip generation manual. Access Engineering approached the estimation of trips, and any discrepancies as a result, from the traditional ITE Trip generation perspective. This would be best practice under most circumstances for applications without specific approval criteria. The Goodpasture Island Final PUD Condition # 3 includes very specific and explicit criteria for quantifying trips. Condition 3 states that "the applicant shall conduct a current traffic study that counts the actual number of trips currently occurring".Clemow and Associates followed this specific criteria in preparation of their vehicular trip generation report. Access Engineering's methodology did not follow this criteria and it is not unexpected that their calculation would vary from Clemow and Associates. The scope of work prepared for the application reflected the specific counting requirement in the condition and was approved by staff as a result. Public Works agrees that Clemow and Associates methodology is most consistent with the specific and explicit approval criteria and followed conservative ITE best practice in the absence of occupied uses. Access Engineering prepared trip generation from average rates. Clemow and Associates counted the actual development as required in condition #3. This is not a statistical anomaly, but rather the applicant complying with the criteria to the maximum extent possible. Access Engineering identified that not all driveways were counted. This is correct but not relevant considering the applicant's approach to counting trips. Clemow and associated counted the only 2 access points to the entire development areas. Goodpasture @ Alexander (east)and Goodpasture @ Alexander (west).This results in an accurate count of all trips entering or exiting the larger area. Clemow and Associates counted the driveways for Willamette Oaks and Avemere. They have exclusive driveways, therefore can be counted independently of Goodpasture Island PUD. Clemow and associates subtracted the Willamette Oaks and Avemere trips from the total area trips. This results in the total number of trips from Goodpasture Island PUD without counting every driveway on the site. PW finds this method to be statistically valid and appropriate. Access Engineering identified that Clemow and associates errored in Table 1 by using the wrong peak hour of 4: 30 instead of 4: 30 - 5: 15 - 15. Figure 2 of Clemow and 5: Associates report indicated the system peak hour as 4: 5:5- Clemow and Associates 15. identified the total PM peak hour trips from the study area as 190 trips. Access engineering asserts the correct total PM peak hour trips from the study area is 210 trips based upon this discrepancy. PW staff agrees that Clemow and associates trips counts totals did not correspond to the system peak hours identified in their report. PW staff finds that total study area trips in the PM peak hours are 210 trips based upon their traffic counts shown in exhibit 2. This corresponds to 176 total PM peak hour trips available for development on Phase 5. This would correspond to a reduced number of available units in the PM Peak hour or 283 units. This is lower than the PM peak hour allowable 316 units identified in the Clemow and Associates report. The PM peak total is lower but still has no effect on the proposed developments ability to stay within the trip cap. The AM peak hour max unit count of 237 still controls since it is the lower of the two. The 4 Page 21  Attachment B Attachment A approved Phase 5 density of 186 units is still well below both trip caps and is still in conformance with Condition # 3. The discrepancy is a technical oversight and has no significant effect on the result. Access Engineering identified that using ITE trip Generations Manual to estimate trips will result in a higher trip count than shown in Table 1. This is correct but inconsistent with the specific and explicit requirement in Condition # 3 to perform actual vehicular counts on Phases 1- 4 as discussed above. The trip generation manual provides average rates from a wide variety of apartment types and locations. It is expected that trip counts at a real site will vary from trip generation rates produces from published data. Clemow and Associates used trip generation rates in the absence of the data that could not be counted at the time of the study. Public Works staff finds that the Clemow and Associates study complies with the specific condition of approval to maximum extent possible and conservative ITE best practice was used in the absence of occupied uses. Claudia Norton's testimony Claudia Norton submitted written testimony in opposition of the applicant materials. This is an evaluation of the opponent's testimony in comparison to adopted street design standards and engineering principles. Alexander Loop is designed and constructed to City of Eugene Standards. All street horizontal and vertical curves meet City design speed standards. The City of Eugene's street design standard's have adopted a "queuing street"standard. This uses narrower street width an on street parking for built in traffic calming. Behaviors such as driving slowly and having to pause and wait for another car to pass before proceeding are all intentional effect s of built in traffic claiming. Goodpasture Island Final PUD PDF- 3 10-Approval Condition # S The applicant's proposed mitigation measure #S,for the installation of a traffic signal at the existing ( southerly)intersection of Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road, shall be omitted from the applicants TIA Packet. The final PUD plans shall note that the applicant shall conduct a traffic study prior to construction of the final phase of PUD development to determine is any mitigation is necessary to ensure pedestrian safety at the crosswalk at the southerly intersection of Alexander Loop and Goodpasture Island Road. The traffic study shall focus on pedestrian safety and shall address possible safety improvements at the intersection including, but not limited to, pedestrian activated signals and pedestrian activated warning beacons. The traffic study shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the City's Type II land use applications procedures for Traffic Impact Analyses Review, but be limited to consideration of potential pedestrian safety improvements. The applicant shall provide necessary mitigations prior to occupancy of the final PUD phase> " The applicants engineer performed a pedestrian count at the intersection of Goodpasture Island and Alexander Loop (southerly). Counts indicated very low levels of pedestrian 5 Page 22  Attachment B Attachment A activity across Goodpasture Island. Only 2 pedestrians crossed Goodpasture Island Road in the PM peak hour. 0 pedestrians crossing in the AM peak hour. The report also identified that a City project had previously constructed a protected and striped pedestrian crossing at this location. The report indicated no deficiencies in the areas and no additional pedestrian enhancements were warranted. PW concurs with this recommendation. 6 Page 23  Attachment C April 3, 2017 Perkins Coie LLP Attention: Michael C. Robinson 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, Oregon 97209-4128 Re: Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon Technical Letter #2 – Response to Public Record Comments City of Eugene File Nos. PDF 10-3, ST 10-5, MDA 10-4 C&A Project Number 20161003.00 Dear Mr. Robinson: This letter addresses written comments received into the public record as of March 29, 2017 for the subject land use applications for the Goodpasture Island Planned Unit Development (PUD) specific to transportation. The following items are specifically addressed: 1. Development Trip Generation 2. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 Trip Generation 3. Occupancy and Trip Generation 4. Alexander Loop Road Design and Operations 5. Summary 1. DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION As correctly identified in the February 17, 2017 Access Engineering letter (Page 1, 1 st paragraph), there is an error in Table 1 regarding total PM peak hour development trips. In fact, there are several additional errors in the table not noted regarding Willamette Oaks and Waterford Grand trip generation. 1582 Fetters Loop, Eugene, Oregon 97402|541-579-8315|cclemow@clemow-associates.com LEGAL125323293.1 Page 24  Attachment C Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon C&A Project Number 20161003.00 April 3, 2017 Page 2 The following revised and corrected table presents detailed development trip generation. TL2 – TABLE 1 – DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Development Area (All Uses - based on October 25, 2016 Traffic Counts) Avamere 20 1 21 21 34 55 Willamette Oaks 14 8 22 16 22 38 Waterford Grand (87% Occupied per Architect) 13 7 20 19 29 48 Residential and Commercial (Noting Commercial is Not- 21 68 89 30 39 69 yet-Occupied) Total Development Trips 68 84 152 86 124 210 Total Goodpasture Island PUD Trip Generation Allowed per Land Use Approvals 287 321 Existing Goodpasture Island PUD (Total Minus Avamere and Willamette Oaks) (109) (117) Remaining Trips Not-yet-Used 178 204 Committed Trips (Constructed Buildings but Not-Yet-Occupied) Restaurant Total High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (ITE 932) – 2,500 SF 27 25 (Minus 10% internal capture per PUD TIA; and 21% AM Pass-By and 43% PM (5) (10) Pass-By per ITE) Primary Restaurant Trips 22 15 Specialty Retail Total Specialty Retail (ITE 826) – 4,500 SF 31 12 (Minus 10% Internal Capture and 25% Pass-By per PUD TIA) (11) (4) Primary Specialty Retail 20 8 Primary Commercial (Restaurant and Specialty Retail) 42 23 Waterford Grand (13% Not-Yet-Occupied per Architect; Trip Gen Based on 3 7 Existing) Total Primary Committed Trips (45) (30) Remaining Trips for New Development 133 174 Potential Parcel 5 Apartments (Assuming ITE 220 per Land Use Approvals) ITE Trip Generation Rates - 0.51 trips/DU (AM), 0.62 trips/DU (PM) 261 281 As identified in the table, there are 133 AM peak hour and 174 PM peak hour trips remaining for new development. Based on ITE apartment trip generation rates, a maximum of 261 new dwelling units can be constructed before the remaining AM trip generation cap is exceeded. Therefore, the 186 apartment dwelling units as contemplated in the Parcel 5 PUD land use approvals can be constructed and the total PUD development trip generation will remain under the established trip caps. Further, the applicant does not intend to construct more than 186 dwelling units. C:\Users\cclemow36\Documents\Chris Files\20161003 Goodpasture Island PUD - Eugene\ltr cmc tl2 Goodpasture Island PUD Response to Comments.docx Page 25  Attachment C Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon C&A Project Number 20161003.00 April 3, 2017 Page 3 2. PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 TRIP GENERATION As correctly identified in the February 17, 2017 Access Engineering letter (Page 1, 2 nd paragraph), trip generation for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 appears to be low. It is also correctly identified that traffic count data was not specifically obtained for these parcels, nor is it required to satisfy Conditions of Approval 3 and 5. Rather, trip generation was identified for the entire development area, and specific trip generation for the Avamere, Willamette Oaks, and Waterford Grand (Parcel 4) properties was subtracted to determine the aggregate trip generation for Parcels 1, 2 and 3. The existing traffic count (intersection turning movement volume) data for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians was obtained at multiple locations during the AM and PM peak hour periods on a mid-week day, October 25, 2016. On this date school was in session, there were no adverse weather conditions affecting vehicles, pedestrians or bicyclists, and there were no on-site or near-by street construction projects affecting normal traffic volumes or patterns at the study intersections or nearby intersections on Goodpasture Island Road. Overall, traffic data collection was performed consistent with recommended transportation engineering practice, is consistent with City Engineer instructions, and based on a review of the data, trip generation for all development along Alexander Loop is consistent with expectations. The Applicant has confirmed Parcels 1, 2 and 3 were developed as contemplated in the approved Illustrative Development Plan (i.e., there are a total of 272 apartments), and the apartments were functionally fully occupied on October 25, 2016. Specifically, the apartments were 93% occupied, and the remaining 7% were unoccupied as a result of turn-over, repairs, etc. And while actual development trip generation may be lower than estimated trip generation using generic data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, the field data accurately represents existing PUD conditions. Possible reasons for lower motor vehicle trip generation include, but are not limited to:  The constructed apartments on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 have a higher unit mix of studio and 1 bedroom units than the surveyed facilities in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.  Based on observed apartment tenancy and the Eugene market, the apartments can be characterized as high-end, luxury apartments, with an older/senior occupancy resulting in lower trip generation. Regardless of the reason, comprehensive field data collection substantiates the apartment trip generation for Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Even if existing PUD apartment trip generation was equal to ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates, it would simply indicate existing PUD trip generation is consistent with the original 2009 PUD Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) estimates and that trip generation from the proposed Parcel 5 construction of 186 apartments remains consistent with approved assumptions. C:\Users\cclemow36\Documents\Chris Files\20161003 Goodpasture Island PUD - Eugene\ltr cmc tl2 Goodpasture Island PUD Response to Comments.docx Page 26  Attachment C Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon C&A Project Number 20161003.00 April 3, 2017 Page 4 3. OCCUPANCY AND TRIP GENERATION The development apartments were at 93% occupancy (7% vacancy) on the October 25, 2016 data collection date. Occupancy rates for the subject development (Green Leaf Riverwalk Apartments) and comparable apartments in the Eugene area are illustrated in the following graphic for reference. As illustrated in the previous graphic, the subject development occupancy is similar to other Eugene developments. Further, even if existing development apartment trip generation (89 residential and commercial – 42 primary commercial = 47 AM trips and 69 residential and commercial – 23 primary commercial = 46 PM trips) at 93% occupancy were factored to assume 100% occupancy (47 / 0.93 = 51 AM trips and 46 / 0.93 = 49 PM trips), there are still sufficient trips remaining for new residential development to construct the 186 apartment dwelling units as contemplated in the Parcel 5 PUD land use approvals. C:\Users\cclemow36\Documents\Chris Files\20161003 Goodpasture Island PUD - Eugene\ltr cmc tl2 Goodpasture Island PUD Response to Comments.docx Page 27  Attachment C Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon C&A Project Number 20161003.00 April 3, 2017 Page 5 4. ALEXANDER LOOP ROAD DESIGN AND OPERATIONS The February 16, 2013 (assumed 2017) letter from Claudia Norton, Willamette Oaks manager, states concern about the constructed width of Alexander Loop and allowed parking, and the additional traffic generated by PUD Parcel 5 development. As also correctly identified, the eastern portion of Alexander Loop has a constructed curb-to-curb width of 28 feet and parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway. Alexander Loop was designed and constructed consistent with development approvals. Further, as identified in materials contained in the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, appropriate levels of on-street parking should be provided on certain streets to support on-street traffic calming efforts by introducing “friction” and narrowing perceived street width. Transportation impacts resulting from Parcel 5 development were contemplated in the approved 2009 PUD TIA and are accounted for in the subsequent land use approvals. In any event, these issues are irrelevant to satisfying Conditions 3 and 5 of the August 17, 2012 Eugene Land Use Hearings Officer approved final PUD decision. 5. SUMMARY Development trip generation identified in Table 1 has been revised and corrected. The findings remain the same and the 186 apartment dwelling units and a clubhouse as contemplated in the Parcel 5 PUD land use approvals can be constructed and the total PUD development trip generation will remain under the established trip caps. The applicant does not intend to construct more than 186 dwelling units. Comprehensive field data collection substantiates the apartment trip generation for Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Even if existing PUD apartment trip generation was equal to ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates, it would simply indicate existing PUD trip generation is consistent original 2009 PUD Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) estimates and that trip generation from the proposed Parcel 5 construction of 186 apartments remains consistent with approved assumptions. Alexander Loop was designed and constructed consistent with development approvals and no additional transportation analysis is necessary or required to address Conditions 3 and 5 of the August 17, 2012 Eugene Land Use Hearings Officer approved final PUD decision. Sincerely, Christopher M. Clemow, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer C:\Users\cclemow36\Documents\Chris Files\20161003 Goodpasture Island PUD - Eugene\ltr cmc tl2 Goodpasture Island PUD Response to Comments.docx Page 28  Attachment D SULLIVAN Althea C From: Marv <janmarv@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 12:18 PM To: SULLIVAN Althea C Subject: blemPUD Goodpasture Island I am a 5 year resident at Willamette Oaks and drive out from here every day. Happy to give you my thoughts about this project. First off I think it will be a good thing to have that patch developed. Two things I would comment on. The first pertains to the Goodpasture and Alexander south intersection. Counting cars at this intersection is good but tells only part of the story. Turning right from Alexander is no problem. Turning to the left is a problem primarily due to the location of the pedestrian island. Preparing to turn left you look to the right which is impaired because the road curves then looking to the left requires a slow sharp turn around the island- Not a chance of a safe glide onto Goodpasture. A dangerous situation I would say. The other comment not related to this intersection but to the street that fronts the project lot and Willamette Oaks. I fail to see how egress from the project to Alexander can be safely executed to this very narrow street unless there is no parking on both sides off the street, starting from the East boundary of the project to the first entrance to the Waterford Grand lot. Now for a years long aggravation. A tench was dug across Alexander near the Goodpasture when the first phase was started and it was never properly paved. My vocabulary of bad words is depleted when I rattle across this defect. Could the city help by correcting this paving oversight? 1 Page 29