Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Atrium Building – Sloat Room www.eugene-or.gov/hearingsofficial 99 West 10th 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. Thursday, February 22, 2018 (5:30 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONE CHANGE U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) Assessors Map: 17-03-32-31 Tax Lot: 00400 Location: 1236 Kincaid Street Request: Zone change from PL Public Land with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay to C-3 Major Commercial with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay. Applicant: University of Oregon Bookstore, Inc Applicant’s Representative: Jason Goshert, SSW Engineers Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5282 E-mail: althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us II. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REMAND OF A HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) Assessors Map: 17-04-24-10 Tax Lot: 2500 Location: Intersection of Goodpasture Island and Alexander Loop Decision: Decision from the Land Use Board of Appeals remanding the City’s decision. 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 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.  Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning ZONE CHANGE STAFF REPORT File Name (Number): U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) Applicant University of Oregon Bookstore, Inc. Applicant’s Representative: Jason Goshert, SSW Engineers Inc. Applicant’s Request: Zone change from PL Public Land with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay to C-3 Major Commercial with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay. Subject Property: Location: 1236 Kincaid Street; Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 17-03-32-31/400. Relevant Dates: Application submitted on December 15, 2017; application deemed complete January 12, 2018; public hearing scheduled for February 22, 2018. Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682-5282 Purpose of Staff Report Staff reports provide community members an opportunity to learn more about the land use request and to review staff analysis of the application. Staff reports are available seven days prior to the public hearing (see EC 9.7320). The staff report provides only preliminary recommendations, and information. The Hearings Official will also consider additional public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is generally made within 15 days following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). For reference, the quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) February 2018 1 Hearings Official Packet Page 1 How Does Zoning Work? The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is part of the City’s comprehensive plan which helps to guide land use and zoning decisions. It includes long-range policy direction for a wide variety of land use planning and legislative decision-making, as well as guidance for property-specific land use decisions such as this zone change request. In some areas, refinement plans have also been adopted which provide additional policies and land use designation maps to further guide land use in specific geographic areas within the City. Another recently adopted component of the City’s comprehensive plan is the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan which provides goals and policies intended to help guide the City in updating the Eugene Code and other regulatory documents, work programs and long range planning projects. Unlike the Metro Plan or refinement plans, the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan policies are not intended to be used in determining whether to approve or deny individual land use applications, like a zone change, unless such direction is specifically stated in the policy. In the context of a zone change application, consistency with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and any applicable adopted refinement plans for the area of the request, is a fundamental part of the decision-making process. In many cases, there can be more than one zone that implements a particular land use designation, and the relevant policy direction can help to determine what the zoning should be. In other cases, it may be that the land use designation and policy direction is so specific that only one particular zone is allowed, or that overlay zoning is also appropriate to establish particular restrictions, development standards or process for determining how a specific property can be developed. In a nutshell, zoning specifies what a particular piece of land can be used for, and what standards will apply at the time of development (e.g. height, setbacks, etc.). Background The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of East 12 th Alley and Kincaid Street (see Attachment A - Vicinity Map). A vacant building and site improvements are present on the site. The property is currently zoned PL Public Land with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overly. Properties around the site on the same block are zoned C-3 Major Commercial with /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlays (see Attachment B - Zoning Map). Referrals/Public Notice Public notice of the subject application was mailed on January 23, 2018, and posted consistent with the requirements of EC 9.7315 Public Hearing Notice. At this time no response has been received to the public notice. The Planning Division also provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group. Notice of the proposed zone change was received by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on January 17, 2018. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application are included in the application U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) February 2018 2 Hearings Official Packet Page 2 file for reference. The substance of any relevant referral comments is addressed in the context of applicable approval criteria and standards in the following evaluation. Zone Change Evaluation The Hearings Official will review the application for a zone change and consider pertinent evidence and testimony as to whether the proposed change is consistent with the criteria required for approval, shown below in bold typeface (see EC 9.7330 and EC 9.8865). Staff’s findings in response to each of the criteria are provided below, to assist the Hearings Official in making a decision on the zone change request. EC 9.8865(1): The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The applicant requests a change in the base zone of the site, but not the overlay zone. In this case, the base zone is the PL Public Land zoning and the requested change is to a base zone of C-3 Major Commercial. The applicant states that the subject site is designated on the Metro Plan diagram for commercial use, and provides an exhibit to its written statement (Exhibit E) that shows the location of the site. Staff confirms that the subject site is designated by the Metro Plan as being appropriate for Commercial. The policies that previously accompanied this designation were part of the Economic Element of the Metro Plan. As of August 24, 2017 the Economic Element of the Metro Plan no longer applies to the west side of Interstate 5 (see Ordinance No. 20584). The recently adopted Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan includes a new Economic Element (Chapter 3) that replaces the previous Economic Element of the Metro Plan, but it does not include any policies intended to be used for evaluation of this zone change request (see page I- 3). As to other policies of the Metro Plan not replaced by the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, no policies appear to be applicable or directly relevant to the current request. Based on the available evidence, and findings above, the applicant’s request for a change in the base zone from PL Public Land to C-3 Major Commercial is consistent with the Metro Plan. EC 9.8865(2): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. The subject property is within the boundaries of the West University Refinement Plan. The applicant states that the majority of the plan policies are concerned with design elements that would relate to future improvements of the site. The applicant also lists some policies it believes provide support for its application, the most relevant of which is Policy 24 from page 51 of the West University Refinement Plan:  Policy #24: “Commercially zoned property in the plan area shall be used more intensely in the future”. U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) February 2018 3 Hearings Official Packet Page 3 The other relevant policy is Policy 1 on page 49 of the West University Refinement Plan which provides that the City of Eugene will use the Land Use Diagram and policies in the plan for making decisions about land use for the area.  Policy #1: “The City of Eugene will use the Land Use Diagram and policies of this plan along with other City policies in making land use and other decisions regarding the plan area. The Land Use Diagram is a generalized map and graphic depiction of the policies and proposals of this plan and the Community Goals and Policies. It is a supplement to and a refinement of the General Plan Diagram”. The Land Use Diagram on page 58 of the plan indicates that the subject property is appropriate for commercial uses. Because the Land Use Diagram shows the subject site as being appropriate for commercial, and Policy 24 mentioned above indicates an intent to utilize commercially zoned property intensely, the applicant’s request for C-3 Major Commercial zoning is consistent with the West University Refinement Plan. EC 9.8865(3): The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Key urban facilities and services are defined in the Metro Plan as: wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, City- wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis (see Metro Plan page V-3). The applicant provides statements in its written narrative that detail the availability of each service listed above. To summarize, the site currently has the necessary services because it is located in a developed area, and has a structure on it that receives wastewater, and water service. Public Works referral comments, which are available in the application file for reference, confirm that Wastewater, Stormwater, and Streets can serve the subject property and compliance with specific standards will be ensured at the time of any future development. Based on these findings, and future permitting requirements, this criterion is met. EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (a) EC 9.2150 Commercial Zone Siting Requirements Siting requirements are provided for commercial zones at EC 9.2150. The only items listed at this section of the Eugene Code apply to the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zone, therefore this criterion is not applicable. U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) February 2018 4 Hearings Official Packet Page 4  EC 9.8865(5): In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. This criterion does not apply as the proposed zone change does not include the NR zone. Transportation Planning Rule Evaluation Goal 12 Transportation of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), must be specifically addressed as part of the requested zone change and in the context of Oregon Administrative Rules, as follows. As adopted, OAR 660-012-0060(1) states: (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3),(9), or (10) of this rule. The applicant states that it qualifies for an exception under subsection (9), as its request is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met. (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the plan map: (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and (c) The area subject to the amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660- 024-220(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. The City of Eugene’s adopted Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) serves as the City’s acknowledged local transportation system plan. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment and Evaluation, of the 2035 TSP provides: The needs assessment and resulting projects… that establish a transportation system adequate to meet the identified local transportation needs are based upon the land use designations established by the Metro Plan. Because the 2035 TSP is based on the Metro U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) February 2018 5 Hearings Official Packet Page 5  Plan land use designations, any zone allowed within the land use designation is consistent with both the Metro Plan and this 2035 TSP. The applicant states that the zoning of the subject property is consistent with the Metro Plan, therefore the zoning of the subject property is consistent with 2035 TSP. The subject property was not exempted from OAR Chapter 660, Section 12 at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment. As the applicant has not requested an amendment to the Metro Plan designation, and the proposed zoning remains consistent with the Metro Plan designation, the zone change is allowed under OAR 660-012-0060(9) and OAR 660-012-0060(1) is satisfied. Staff Recommendation Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the applicant’s request to change the zone of the subject property from PL Public Land to C-3 Major Commercial. Consistent with EC 9.7330, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days following close of the public record, the Eugene Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny this Type III application. The decision shall be based upon and be accompanied by findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, stating the facts relied upon in rendering a decision and explaining the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. Notice of the written decision will be mailed in accordance with EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date the decision is mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth in EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. Attachments The applicant’s full-size site plans, and the entire application file, are available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices. The Hearings Official will receive a full set of application materials for review prior to the public hearing. These materials will also be made available for review at the public hearing. Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Zoning Map For More Information Please contact Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5282; or by e-mail, at: althea.c.sullivan@ci.eugene.or.us U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) February 2018 6 Hearings Official Packet Page 6  U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) Attachment A Subject Property EUGENE E 11TH AVE ^ _ OLD CA MPUS LN UGB E 11TH ALY E 12TH AVE KIN CAID ST ALDER ST Subject Property E 12TH ALY E 13TH AVE E 13TH ALY 0 250 Feet 500 ´ Legend Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. Subject Property Taxlots 2/14/18 Hearings Official Packet Page 7 U of O Bookstore (Z 17-9) Attachment A 17-03-32-31-00400 Zone change from PL Public Land with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay to C‐3 Major Commercial with a /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Kincaid St E 12th Aly Zoning C-2 Community Commercial C-3 Major Commercial PL Public Land ^ Subject Site Hearings Official Packet Page 8 ´ MEMORANDUM Date: February 15, 2018 To: Virginia Gustafson-Lucker, Eugene Hearing Official From: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner Subject: Remand of Appeal for Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) ACTION REQUESTED To hold a hearing on February 22, 2018 and take action on a remand of the Eugene Hearing Official’s approval of the Alexander Loop (TIA 16-8) application on appeal. BACKGROUND In 2016 the Eugene Planning Director approved the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) application that is the subject of this appeal, and determined that the applicant for the Goodpasture Island Planned Unit Development (PUD) had satisfied Condition of Approval #3 for the final PUD approved for that development. Condition of Approval # 3 limits the number of vehicle trips the PUD is allowed to generate and specifies the methodology that must be used to count the vehicle trips. The full text of Condition of Approval #3 is provided below: “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.” Hearings Official Packet Page 9 The Planning Director’s determination that Condition of Approval #3 was satisfied was appealed to the Eugene Hearings Official, and the Hearings Official agreed with the Planning Director (see Attachment A) that the condition had been met. The Planning Director’s approval of the TIA was therefore affirmed. The Hearings Official’s decision was then appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) disagreed with the Planning Director and the Hearings Official and remanded the decision back to the City (see Attachment B). Following LUBA’s decision, the applicant requested that the City proceed with the application on remand (see Attachment C for the applicant’s written request to proceed with the remand). This request allows the City 120 days to reach a decision, and since the request was filed on November 20, 2017, the City has until March 20, 2018 to reach a final decision. REVIEW OF APPLICANT’S MATERIALS On January 15, 2018 the applicant submitted materials from Christopher M. Clemow, PE, PTOE. Clemow provides a brief statement clarifying that the materials submitted are intended to demonstrate that the first part of Condition of Approval #3 is satisfied. Clemow then provides data concluding that up to 193 apartments could be built on site (as a reminder the applicant proposes 186). Clemow’s materials are included as Attachment D. City of Eugene Public Works staff reviewed the technical aspect of the materials submitted by the applicant. The Public Works referral concurs with the analysis provided by Clemow, and concludes that up to 193 units would be allowed (see Attachment E). The applicant’s representative Michael C. Robinson also submitted a letter on February 13, 2018. The letter briefly states that the applicant believes there is evidence in the record that satisfies the requirement on remand, and further highlights the materials provided by Clemow. The letter is attached as Attachment F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The reason for LUBA’s remand of the City’s decision rests with the first part of Condition of Approval #3, see below: “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. Both the Planning Director and Hearings Official had seen the requirement above as part of Condition of Approval #3, not as a separate requirement that required analysis. LUBA found that this first portion of Condition of Approval #3 cannot be superseded by the other requirements of the condition, and requires its own analysis. Hearings Official Packet Page 10 As mentioned above, the applicant submitted a letter from Clemow that demonstrates that the first portion of Condition of Approval #3 can be met. As the Public Works referral confirms that Clemow used appropriate methods of analysis, staff recommends the Hearings Official determine that all of Condition of Approval #3 has been met. ATTACHMENTS A. Hearings Official’s Decision B. LUBA Opinion C. Request to Proceed D. Letter from Clemow E. Public Works Referral F. Letter from Robinson Hearings Official Packet Page 11  Attachment A DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON ON APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL Decision Appealed: Planning Director determination of compliance with Conditions 3 and 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD Subject Property Location: Intersection of Goodpasture Island Road and Alexander Loop (Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: 17-04-24-10-02500) Appellant: Willamette Oaks LLC Appellant’s Representative: Fredrick A. Batson Gleaves Swearingen LLP Property Owner/ Applicant: Alexander Loop, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Michael C. Robinson Perkins Coie LLP Lead City Staff: Althea Sullivan, Assistant Planner The following findings and conclusions are based upon testimony presented at the public hearing held on April 12, 2017, and all documents in the City of Eugene planning file for the Planning Director’s determination of compliance with Conditions of Approval 3 and 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD (TIA 16-8), including the file for the underlying PUD application, through the close of the record on the appeal on May 3, 2017. Conclusion: The appeal of the Planning Director’s determination of compliance with Conditions 3 and 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD (TIA 16-8) is denied and the Planning Director’s decision is affirmed. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: A. Background Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 1 Hearings Official Packet Page 12  Attachment A On November 17, 2016, the applicant, Alexander Loop LLC, filed a request for a Planning Director determination that the applicant has satisfied Condition 3 of the Goodpasture Island PUD, as approved and conditioned by the City Hearings Official on August 17, 2012. On February 1, 2017, the applicant submitted amended materials, which also sought a determination of Condition 5 of that 2012 PUD approval as well. On March 2, 2017, the Planning Director issued a decision following the City’s Type II application procedures, in which he determined that the applicant for the Goodpasture Island PUD had satisfied Conditions of Approval 3 and 5 of the Goodpasture Island PUD.1 On March 14, 2017 Willamette Oaks, LLC filed an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision. Following public notice, a public hearing on the appeal was held on April 12, 2017. The public hearing began with the hearings official’s explanation of the process and statutory and local procedural requirements for the hearing,2 after which Assistant Planner Althea Sullivan and Senior Planner Gabe Flock presented the staff’s summary of the appeal. Following the staff presentation, the appellant’s representative, Frederick Batson, presented testimony and evidence on behalf of the appellant and the applicant’s representative, Michael Robinson, testified on behalf of the applicant. There was no other public testimony. At the close of his testimony, Mr. Batson requested that the hearing record remain open for submission of additional evidence, testimony and argument. Following discussion at the close of the hearing, the hearing official stated that the record would remain open for additional evidence testimony and argument from all parties until April 19, 2017, for responses to the April 19, 2017 submittals until April 26, 2017, and for the applicant’s closing written argument until May 3, 2017. Both the appellant and the applicant submitted written supplemental evidence and testimony on April 19, 2017. On April 26, both submitted written responses; and on May 3, the applicant submitted final written argument. B. Description of Appeal Issues The appellant raised six issues in its appeal statement. The appellant’s full written statement is included in the appeal file, and attached to the city’s Staff Memorandum on the appeal, dated April 5, 2017, and each of the appeal issues is recited or summarized in the city’s Staff Memorandum. In issues 1 through 4, the appellant challenges the scope and specific information in the traffic study on which the applicant relied in establishing compliance with Condition 3. In issue 5, the appellant challenges the applicant’s interpretation of the requirements of Condition 3. Issue 6 questions the safety of an impacted intersection. None of the appellant’s issues challenge the planning director’s findings of compliance with Condition 5. C. Evaluation of Appeal 1 Additional information regarding the process leading up to the planning director’s determination are included in the planning director’s March 2, 2017 decision at pages 1-2. 2 The hearing official’s explanation included a statement that she has had no ex parte contacts regarding the application and has no personal or financial interest in the subject property. Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 2 Hearings Official Packet Page 13  Attachment A Appeal issues 1 through 4 each challenge aspects of the traffic study on which the applicant based its request for a determination of compliance with Condition 3 of the hearing officials’ August 17, 2012 Final PUD decision. However, before considering each of those issues, it is critical to determine the requirements of Condition 3. That interpretation issue is raised in Appeal Issue 5. 1. Appeal Issue 5 Appeal Issue 5 states: “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 under 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 appellant is correct that the interpretation of Condition 3 is fundamental to this appeal. However, the appellant’s statement relies on only a portion of an earlier version of Condition 3, which was in effect prior to the Hearing Official’s 2012 Final PUD decision. The currently applicable version of Condition 3 states, in its entirety: “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 eh 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 language in bold was added by the Hearing Official in 2012 as part of a Hearing Official Decision on Remand from LUBA, in response to the appellant’s argument that the applicant had Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 3 Hearings Official Packet Page 14  Attachment A not demonstrated that a proposed intensification of use conforms to the Transportation Planning Rule. In essence, and as described in the Hearings Official’s 2012 decision at pages 24-25, that hearing official agreed that the applicant had not satisfied Condition 3 as then written because the applicant had used a different ITE apartment code to demonstrate a change in use for Parcel 4 would be less than the trip cap specified in the original approval (using the 223- Mid-Rise Apartments code instead of the 220-Apartment code.) The hearing official explained “The hearings official believes the intent of condition 3 was to establish a baseline by which to compare traffic impacts of future changes of use. This comparison could not occur if the assumptions (i.e., the ITE use code) for the baseline changes. The hearings official concludes that the applicant’s update traffic analysis for its proposed modification does not demonstrate compliance with condition 3 of the Tentative PUD.” The hearings official then continued: “At the hearing, the applicant stated that it believed the trip cap would allow an increase in the number of trips from Parcel 4 at this time, because the trip cap is for the overall development, which would occur in many phases. With this approach, the applicant would need to evaluate the actual number of trips before constructing the later phases and revise the traffic analysis if necessary. The hearings official agrees that is a plausible interpretation of condition 3 and will revise condition 3 to make this clear:” The hearings official’s revision, through which he intended to make clear what Condition 3 required, is the language in bold above. Accordingly, as amended in 2012, in order to determine whether the trip cap has been satisfied, the applicant must rely on the baseline numbers stated in the ITE manual for the 220-Apartment code, and with that as a baseline, before construction of the final phase must “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.” While the appellant’s Issue 5 does not quote the actual requirement of the revised Condition 3, elsewhere in the appeal statement and in oral and written argument the appellant argues that, to the extent Condition 3 requires the actual count, that count would be in addition to anticipated trip counts using estimates from ITE trip generation manual. However, the Planning Director determined, and the hearing official agrees, that the language of the applicable 2012 revised Condition 3 does not require both. The 2012 hearing official specifically agreed that the applicant could satisfy the ‘baseline’ of the ITE manual by “evaluating the actual number of trips before constructing later phases.” That finding is reflected in his express language in the revised Condition 3, which specifically requires that “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.” The hearings official rejects the appellant’s argument that the Condition 3 should be read to require more. The hearings official agrees with the Planning Director’s determination that the applicant correctly interpreted the requirements of Condition 3 when it showed compliance with the Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 4 Hearings Official Packet Page 15  Attachment A condition by conducting 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. The appellant’s 5th issue is denied. 2. Appeal Issue 1 In accordance with the hearing official’s 2012 revised Condition 3, the applicant conducted a one day traffic study on October 25, 2016. In its first appeal issue, the applicant challenges the accuracy of the applicant’s traffic counts because they are “statistical anomalies when compared to anticipated trip counts using ITE rates”. Essentially, the appellant argues that because results of the current traffic study that counted the actual number of trips currently occurring differed from the manual’s anticipated rates, the actual counts should be rejected. This argument assumes a necessary comparison between the ITE manual’s anticipated numbers and the actual count. However, as noted above, Condition 3 does not require that comparison. In addressing the alleged anomalies in reviewing the applicant’s determination request, the City’s Public Works staff wrote “[Willamette Oak’s engineer, Access Engineering] states that most of the data used in this assessment was based on traffic counts. [Access Engineering] 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 occurring.’ Clemow and Associates [the applicant’s engineer] 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 practices in the absence of occupied uses. Access Engineering prepared trip generation from average rates. Clemow and Associates counted the actual development was required in condition #3. This is not a statistical anomaly, but rather the applicant complying with the criteria to the maximum extent possible.” (Scott Gillespie, TIA Public Works Referral Response, February 27, 2017, page 4.) Subsequent to its traffic report, and in part in response to the appellant’s arguments, the applicant determined that there were errors in its initial evaluation and, accordingly, made corrections to that report. Following additional questions regarding the accuracy of the report, on March 22, 2017, Clemow and Associates conducted a second one day traffic count in the same location. In his April 19, 2017 supplemental testimony, the applicant’s transportation engineer explained: “The trip generation identified in both October 2016 and March 2017 is consistent with some expected small variation in traffic patterns. Regardless, data on both dates shows Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 5 Hearings Official Packet Page 16  Attachment A that existing Goodpasture Island PUD development trip generation is less than estimated using ITE trip generation rates and the 186 apartment dwelling units 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. During the appeal hearing, and in subsequent written testimony and argument, the appellant’s attorney questioned the reliability of a single day traffic count, as well as the reliability of the applicant’s counts, given the corrections that the applicant provided. In addition, while initially challenging the one day study as inadequate, he also questioned the legitimacy of a supplemental study. The appellant’s attorney argues that “it is jarring to have received routinely ‘corrected’ data throughout the process and to now be receiving all new data. The reliability of the study upon which the Planning Director relied is highly in doubt, and that is probably why Applicant commissioned a whole new study and attached it to the April 19th submission.” That second count was conducted after the Planning Director’s decision and was not reviewed by either the Planning Director or the Public Works Department. Nonetheless, it is unclear why corrections and a confirming study would render the traffic engineer’s reports less, rather than more, reliable. The corrections made to the initial, October 25, 2016 study attached as TL3 – Table 1 to the Clemow April 19, 2017 testimony, and the results of the Supplemental Study, attached as Table # of the April 19, 2017, confirm the analysis and conclusions upon which the Planning Director and Public Works Department relied in their initial finding. The hearing official accepts the applicant’s studies as consistent with the Condition 3 requirement for actual trip counts, and further finds that they constitute substantial evidence of compliance with Condition 3. Appellant’s Appeal Issue #1, challenging the adequacy and accuracy of the applicant’s traffic counts, is denied. 3. Appeal Issues 2, 3 and 4 In Appeal Issue 2, the appellant asserts that the applicant’s traffic study assumed a 100% occupancy of the existing, developed apartments in Phases 1 through 3, which the appellant argues is unlikely. The appellant argues that “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.” In Appeal Issue 3, the appellant explains that the applicant used the wrong peak hour in its PM trip count analysis, and that using the correct PM peak hour, the count was closer to the trip cap. And, in Appeal Issue 4, the appellant states that the 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 speciously low trip count.” The Eugene Planning Staff’s April 5, 2017 memorandum, which summarizes the issues in this appeal, addresses each of these three appeal issues, and explains why none of those issues provides a basis to determine that the applicant has not satisfied Condition 3. The hearing official adopts the staff’s summary and evaluation of each of those issues, as supplemented below. Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 6 Hearings Official Packet Page 17  Attachment A Briefly, with regard to Issue 2, as the staff explains, evidence submitted by the applicant’s engineer on April 3, 2017 describes that the apartments in Phases 1-3 of the PUD were 93% occupied on the date of the October, 2016 traffic study. That letter concludes that “even if the apartments were 100% occupied, construction of 186 apartments . . . would not exceed the trip cap.” Table 1 confirms the occupancy rate and the conclusion. Table 3 confirms that on the date of the March, 2017 traffic counts, Phases 1-3 were 87.5% occupied, and a portion of the commercial development was occupied, and that, factored for 100% residential occupancy, the conclusion remained the same. The staff’s evaluation of the appellant’s 3rd issue acknowledges that the applicant initially used the wrong peak hour in its PM trip counts, and explains that Public Works was aware of that error and determined that, using the correct peak hour, the applicant’s evidence demonstrates that the traffic would not exceed the trip cap. In addition, Clemow and Associates’ April 4, 2017 evidence corrected that error and, as the staff explains, the corrected table “concludes that a maximum of 261 new dwelling units can be constructed before the trip cap would be exceeded.” In addition, Tables 1 and 3 both reflect the correct peak hour and support that conclusion. Finally, in response to the appellant’s argument that the applicant failed to count all the driveways along Alexander Loop, the staff correctly rely on the Public Work’s evaluation of that issue, as it was raised in the Planning Director’s initial review. Staff conclude that “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 in each phase separately.” The appellant has not provided any explanation or evidence as to how the applicant’s failure to count all driveways in any way resulted in trips not being counted. Based on the staff’s evaluation, as supplemented here, the hearing official denies Appellant’s issues 2, 3 and 4. 4. Appeal Issue 6 While not expressly enumerated in its appeal statement, the appellant also raises an additional issue regarding the safety of the southern intersection of Goodpasture Island Road and Alexander Loop. The appellant argues in its appeal statement that “this influx of vehicles [from the Phase 5 development] will make traffic problems that already exist twice as bad causing a massive bottleneck at the South end of the site that will threaten safety and make it increasingly difficult for emergency vehicles to access neighboring facilities.’ The staff questioned both the appellant’s factual conclusion and how that argument relates to compliance with either Condition 3 or Condition 5. During the hearing, and in supplemental argument, the appellant expressed concern regarding safety issues caused by increased traffic. However, the appellant does not explain how those issues relate to compliance with Conditions 3 or 5, and the hearings official finds that they are beyond the scope of the conditions that are the subject of this appeal. DECISION Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 7 Hearings Official Packet Page 18  Attachment A Based on the above analysis and findings, the hearings official denies the appeal of the Planning Director’s determination of compliance with Conditions 3 and 5 of the Alexander Loop PUD and affirms the Planning Director’s decision. Virginia Gustafson Lucker Hearings Official Dated this 15th day May, 2017. Mailed this _____ day of May, 2017. SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEMENT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Hearings Official Decision (TIA 16-8) 8 Hearings Official Packet Page 19  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 20  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 21  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 22  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 23  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 24  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 25  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 26  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 27  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 28  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 29  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 30  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 31  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 32  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 33  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 34  Attachment B Hearings Official Packet Page 35  Attachment C November 20, 2017 Michael C. Robinson MRobinson@perkinscoie.com D. +1.503.727.2264 F. +1.503.346.2264 VIA EMAIL Mr. Gabe Flock, Senior Planner Eugene Planning Division 99 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Re: Remand by Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals of Application by Alexander Loop, LLC Dear Mr. Flock: This office represents Alexander Loop, LLC (the “Applicant”). The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”) issued a final opinion and order remanding the City of Eugene’s (the “City”) approval of the Applicant’s permit application to the City on October 5, 2017. Willamette Oaks v. City of Eugene, ___ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA No. 2017-058, October 5, 2017). ORS 227.181 (enclosed) establishes the deadlines for final action by cities on remand of land use decisions by LUBA. Pursuant to ORS 227.181(2)(a), the Applicant must request in writing within one hundred eighty (180) days of the effective date of LUBA’s final order that the City proceed with the application on remand. This letter is filed after the effective date of LUBA’s final opinion and order and requests that the County proceed with the application on remand. The City has one hundred twenty (120) days from November 20, 2017 (until March 1, 2018) to make a final decision on the application on remand. The Applicant may extend the 120-day clock. The exception in ORS 227.181(4) is not applicable to this application. The Applicant will provide a revised application and findings for the City’s review pursuant to LUBA’s final opinion and order. The City’s Land Use Hearings Officer may decide this matter on remand. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Official limit the public hearing to the sole issue identified in LUBA’s final opinion and order, which is that the City must apply the first part of Condition of Approval 3. Because this matter is not the initial evidentiary hearing, no party is entitled to an automatic open record or continuation pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(a). 68855-0001/137494703.1 Hearings Official Packet Page 36  Attachment C Mr. Gabe Flock, Senior Planner November 20, 2017 Page 2 Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR:rsr cc: Ms. Althea Sullivan (via email) (w/encl.) Mr. Chris Clemow (via email) (w/encl.) 68855-0001/137494703.1 Hearings Official Packet Page 37  Attachment C Hearings Official Packet Page 38  Attachment D January 15, 2018 Perkins Coie Attention: Michael C. Robinson 1120 NW Couch Street, Suite 1000 Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon Technical Letter #5 – Supplemental Transportation Response – LUBA Remand LUBA File Number 2017-058 City of Eugene File Number TIA 16-8 C&A Project Number 20161003.00 Dear Mr. Robinson: This letter addresses the October 5, 2017 Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of the City of Eugene Hearing Official’s May 15, 2017 decision relating to the Goodpasture Island Planned Unit Development (PUD) Condition of Approval 3, requiring the applicant satisfy the first and third Condition requirements. The first requirement is the applicant demonstrate that maximum site development will not exceed the trip cap as determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The third requirement is the applicant perform a trip generation study to determine actual, existing development trip generation to ensure trips from the final phase will not exceed establish trip caps. The following materials address the first requirement of Condition 3. ITE trip generation estimates are presented for the existing Goodpasture Island PUD development on Parcels 1 through 4, and the potential number of apartments that can be constructed on Parcel 5 are identified while remaining under the established trip cap. In keeping with the LUBA interpretation of the 2012 modification of Condition 3, the following trip generation assumptions are made: ▪ All ITE Land Uses are consistent with those assumed in the applicant’s June 17, 2009 Transportation Impact Analysis (2009 TIA). This is the basis for the original trip generation estimates and established trip cap. ▪ All trip generation estimates are based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. This data was used in the 2009 TIA and was current at the time of the 2012 land use approvals. ▪ ITE Land Use 220 – Apartments is used for all unrestricted apartments. ▪ Trip generation equations (versus rates) are used for ITE Land Use 220. This is consistent with ITE recommended practice and equations were used in the 2009 TIA. ▪ Trip generation rates are used for all other ITE Land Use codes. This is consistent with ITE recommended practice and rates were used in the 2009 TIA. ▪ Pass-by and internal capture percentages are consistent with the 2009 TIA. 1582 Fetters Loop, Eugene, Oregon 97402|541-579-8315|cclemow@clemow-associates.com LEGAL125323293.1 Hearings Official Packet Page 39  Attachment D Goodpasture Island PUD – Eugene, Oregon C&A Project Number 20161003.00 January 15, 2018 Page 2 The following tables present assumptions from the 2009 TIA and the resulting calculated Goodpasture Island PUD trip generation: TABLE 1 – TRIP GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS FROM 2009 TIA (CONSISTENT WITH ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, 7TH EDITION) Land Use (ITE Code) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Apartments (220) T=0.49(X)+3.73 T=0.55(X)+17.56 Senior Adult Housing – Attached (252) 0.08 Trips/DU 0.11 Trips/DU Specialty Commercial (814) – Total 6.84 Trips/KSF 5.02 Trips/KSF Internal Capture 10% 10% Pass-By 25% 25% TABLE 2 – GOODPASTURE ISLAND PUD TRIP GENERATION Land Use (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Established Trip Cap per 2012 Land Use Approvals 287 321 Parcels 1 – 4 Actual/Constructed Non-Apartment Trip Generation Senior Adult Housing - Attached (252) 150 DU 12 17 Specialty Commercial (814) – Total 48 35 Internal Capture (10%) (5) (4) 7,011 SF Pass-By (25%) (12) (9) Primary Trips 31 22 Total External Non-Apartment Trips 55 48 Total Apartment (220) Trips within Cap [Trip Cap – Non-Apt Trips] 232 273 Total Potential Apartments (220) That Can be to Constructed 465 DU 1 232 273 Parcels 1 – 4 Actual/Constructed Apartments (220) 272 DU Remaining Apartments (220) That Can be Constructed 193 DU 2 1 The total number of apartments that can be constructed on all Parcels while remaining within the established trip cap. As illustrated in the table above, 193 apartments can potentially be constructed on Parcel 5 while still remaining under the established trip cap of 287 AM and 321 PM peak hour trips using ITE Trip Generation Manual trip generation rates. Considering these materials, and those in previous applicant-prepared analyses, the 186 apartments 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 cap. Condition of Approval 3 is fully satisfied as interpreted by LUBA. Sincerely, Christopher M. Clemow, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer Hearings Official Packet Page 40 ltr cmc tl5 Goodpasture Island PUD Response to LUBA Remand.docx  Attachment D Hearings Official Packet Page 41  Attachment E TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC WORKS REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2018 TO: ALTHEA SULLIVAN FROM: SCOTT GILLESPIE APPLICATION: TIA 16-08 ALEXANDER LOOP REVISED REFERRAL The following referral comments from Public Works staff reflect a preliminary evaluation of Technical Letter #5 prepared by Clemow and Associates dated January 15, 2018. Technical Letter #5 addresses the October 5, 2017 LUBA remand of the City of Eugene Hearing Official’s decision relating to the Goodpasture Island PUD condition of approval #3. 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. The specific issue on remand is the need to calculate the remaining dwelling units and commercial KSF available for future development under the trip cap using ITE standard trip generation methods. I agree with the approach of utilizing the 7th edition method and rates to be consisting with the means and methods for establishing the original trip cap. I agree with ITE code 220. It is unrestricted, consistent with the code used to establish the trip cap and it’s conservative compared to the other product specific multi-family use codes. I agree the standard procedure warrants the regression equation vs. the rate. The AM & PM equations are consistent with our 7th Edition. ITE code 252 descriptions and rates are consistent. ITE 814 descriptions and rates are consistent with peak hours of the generator. It’s conservative and appropriate in the absence of an AM adjacent peak hour rate. The unspecified commercial use, characteristics of the site and conservative generation rate seem consistent with a variety of expected commercial/service/retail uses. I would agree the commercial uses would qualify for internal capture and pass-by reductions for mixed use (as defined by ITE) and ITE handbook data, respectfully. Specialty retail does not have data for pass-by but the 25% is in line with other comparable retail uses, I support that assumption. 10% internal capture is consistent with internal capture rates in the Handbook, I support that assumption. PW staff concurs with the applicant’s engineering analyses and agrees that 193 dwelling units can be constructed consistent with the trip cap and is therefore consistent with the condition under remand. 1 Hearings Official Packet Page 42  Attachment F Schwabe WILLIAMSON & WYATT® February 13, 2018 Michael C. Robinson Admitted in Oregon T: 503-796-3756 C: 503-407-2578 mrobinson@schwabe.com Ms. Althea Sullivan Assistant Planner City of Eugene Planning Department 99 W 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 RE: City of Eugene File No. TIA 16-8; Alexander Loop Application on Remand to Hearings Official Dear Ms. Sullivan: This office represents the Applicant. This letter explains why substantial evidence in the whole record satisfies the requirement on remand of this application by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA:). The City of Eugene Hearings Official previously approved this application. An opponent to this application appealed the Hearings Official’s decision to LUBA. LUBA remanded the Hearing Official’s decision in Willamette Oaks LLC vs. City ofEugene,___Or LUBA--------(LUBA No. 2017-058, October 5,2017). LUBA held that Condition of Approval 3 applicable to Phase 5 of the development requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with not just the third requirement of the condition but also with the first requirement. The first requirement of the condition requires that the “trip cap” established in the 2000 Rezoning Decision demonstrate that the maximum development of all five Phases not exceed the trip cap as determined under the IPE manual. Willamette Oaks, Slip Op. 10 The Applicant’s traffic consultant submitted a letter dated October 25, 2017 that addressed the first requirement of Condition 3. The Applicant’s traffic consultant concluded that the trip cap is satisfied under the relevant ITE Trip Generation Manual trip generation rates. Scott Gillespie, City Engineer, stated in a January 17, 2018 email that he agreed that the Applicant’s traffic engineer’s report was “consistent with ITE and LUBA’s interpretation of the conditions. I support the analyses in your finding.” Based on substantial evidence in the whole record, the Hearings Official can find that the limited issue on remand is satisfied. Pacwest Center 1211 SW 5th Avenue Suite 1900 I Portland, OR | 97204 | M 503-222-9981 F 503-796-2900 Hearings Official Packet Page 43 schwabe.com I  Attachment F Ms. Althea Sullivan February 13, 2018 Page 2 Please place this letter before the Hearings Official at the public hearing scheduled for February 22, 2018 at 5:30 PM and in the official Planning Department file for the application. Very truly yours. Michael C. Robinson MCR:jes cc: Mr. Gabriel Flock (via email) Mr. Chris Clemoe (via email) PDX\132609\237630\MCR\22393148.1 schwabe.com Hearings Official Packet Page 44  Attachment F Ms. Althea Sullivan February 13, 2018 Page 3 bee: Mr. Barclay Graysen (via email) schwabe.com Hearings Official Packet Page 45