Loading...
Agenda - 05/07/2001 AGENDA ~VOODBUR~ CITY COUNCIL MA Y 7~ 2001 - 7.'00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING 270 Montgomemy $l~eet ~ ~ Woodburn~ Oregon 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS Continuation of hearing: Supplemental Review of Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04 (Woodburn Company Stores Phases 2 and 3). Recommended action: By motion, authorize staff to prepare an ordinance adopting supplemental findings to substantiate your decision in Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04. 0 GENERAL BUSINESS A. Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis and Land Suitability Study. Recommended action: Accept Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis prepared by ECONorthwest and provide appropriate policy direction. 5. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 - Agenda, May 7, 2001 Special Council Meeting CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: May 7, 2001 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development/~//~ / From: F. Subject: Supplemental Review of Annexation 98-03, Com~)rehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04 (Woodburn Company Stores) This item was originally scheduled for the City Council meeting of April 9, 2001 which was not held due to lack of a quorum. RECOMMENDATION: In regard to this request, the City Council has the following options: (1) Adopt supplemental findings which support approval of Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04. (2) Adopt supplemental findings which support denial of Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04 and conclude the applicant failed to carry the burden of proof to approve the applications. It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate your decision. REQUEST: The applicant for this proposal requests supplemental review of specific approval criteria for Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04. This request is made in response to the State Land Use Board of Appeal's (LUBA) final Opinion and Order No. 99-135 which remanded the City of Woodburn's decision to approve said applications. The applications relate to a proposal by Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC for annexation, comprehensive plan map and zoning map approval on 8.0 acres for Phases 2 and 3 of the Woodburn Company Stores. The site is located north of the existing Woodburn Company Store's project and west of Arney Road. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: There are no applicable city of Woodburn Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan provisions relevant to this supplemental review. The only applicable approval criteria are OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2), part of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. The Transportation Planning Rule is an administrative rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The following approval criteria apply to the issues specified in LUBA's final opinion and order: Whether the application has a "significant affect" on the Woodburn I-5 interchange as that term is defined in OAR 660-012-0060(2). If there is a significant affect, then the City must determine whether any new and improved transportation facilities anticipated by the City's adopted and acknowledged Transportation System Plan will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by Phases 2 and 3 of the Woodburn Company Stores or, if not, whether one or more of the strategies in OAR 660-012- 0060(1) must be adopted to make the application consistent with the "identified function, capacity and level of service of the [affected] facility." Any conditions of approval or interpretations necessary to address the above- referenced criteria. BACKGROUND: On July 26, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2240 approving Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 98-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 98-04. The ordinance approved annexation of 8.0 acres on the north side of the existing Woodburn Company Stores site, changed the comprehensive plan map designation for the site from High Density Residential to Commercial, and changed the zoning designation for the site from Urban Transition Farm to Commercial Retail. The Council's decision to approve these land use applications was subsequently appealed to LUBA by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and DLCD. On February 2, 2001, LUBA issued its Final Opinion and Order No. 99-135 remanding the city's decision for further review of several issues. DISCUSSION: LUBA's Final Opinion and Order states: In the present case, the relevant inquiry under OAR 660-012-0060(2) is whether the proposed amendment would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. The city must first determine whether the city"s existing transportation facilities are adequate to handle, throughout the relevant planning period, any additional traffic that the proposed amendment will generate. If the answer to that question is yes, then the proposed amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility for the purposes of OAR 660-012-0060(1), and no further analysis is necessary. If the answer is no, then the city must consider whether any new and improved facilities anticipated by the TSP will generate sufficient additional capacity, and will be built or improved on a schedule that 2 will accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed amendment. If the answer to that question is yes, then, again, the proposal will not significantly affect a transportation facility. If, however, the answer is no, then the city must adopt one or more of the strategies set out in OAR 660-012-0060(1) to make the proposed amendment consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the [affected] facility. Also, LUBA made it clear that the Council may use the existing Transportation System Plan (TSP) to determine whether approval of the development will significantly affect a transportation facility and that it is appropriate to consider whether one of the four TSP alternatives for the interchange improvement will provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional vehicle trips caused by the development. In this regard, the LUBA decision states: (N)othing precludes the city from considering whether one of the four TSP alternatives will be sufficient to accommodate the unanticipated additional vehicle trips that will be generated by the challenged decision without causing a decrease in the applicable level of service. If, however, the four alternatives identified in the TSP will not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate those additional vehicle trips, then the city must adopt one or more of the measures prescribed in OAR 660-012-0060(1). To address these issues, the applicant has provided supplemental information and findings prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc., dated March 23, 2001 (ref. Exhibit "B"). City staff have reviewed the applicant's supplemental information and findings and believe that they adequately address the issues raised by LUBA. In addition, the applicant and City staff have recently met with ODOT representatives to work out a condition of approval that will satisfy ODOT's and DLCD's concerns in regard to the Council's decision to approve this project. This condition of approval requires that the applicant pay its proportional share of a portion of the improvement costs for the I-5 Interchange and has been deemed acceptable by City staff, ODOT and the applicant. The proposed condition reads as follows: The Applicant shall pay its proportional share of a portion of the estimated cost of the Eastbound OR 219-to- Southbound I-5 and Westbound OR 214-to-Northbound I-5 improvements. Applicant shall enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODO T that will require that the money be placed into an interest- bearing account prior to any occupancy for Phase IlL This interest-bearing account will be held by the State of Oregon for use only on development and/or construction of Improvements to the Woodbum Interchange. The amount shown below is the maximum amount regardless of the scope of the improvements. The estimated cost of the Eastbound OR 219-to-Southbound I-5 improvement, consisting exclusively of a 425 foot long by 12 foot wide asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper, is $217,940. The estimated cost of the Westbound OR 214-to-Northbound I-5 improvement, consisting exclusively of a 425 foot long by 12 foot wide asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper, is $363,850. The Applicant's proportional share of the Eastbound OR 219-to-Southbound I-5 improvement, consisting exclusively of a 425 foot long by 12 foot wide asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper, is calculated to be 6. 7 percent and the Applicant's proportional share of the Westbound OR 214-to-Northbound I-5 improvement, consisting exclusively of a 425 foot long by 12 foot wide asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper, is calculated to be 5.9 percent. Therefore, the Applicant's proportional share of the Eastbound OR 219-to-Southbound I-5 improvement, consisting exclusively of a 425 foot long by 12 foot wide asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper, is calculated to be $14,600, and the Applicant's proportional share of the Westbound OR 214-to-Northbound I-5 improvement, consisting exclusively of a 425 foot long by 12 foot wide asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper, is calculated to be $21,470, for a total of $36,070. The Applicant's total contribution shall not exceed $36,070. The formulae used to calculated these figures are as follows: Eastbound OR 219-to-Southbound 1-5 Improvement (425' x 12' asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper) a) Year 2003 weekday p.m. peak hour background, volume/capacity ratio (without traffic from Phases II and Iff)': = O. 90 b) Year 2003 weekday p.m. peak hour total volume/capacity ratio (including traffic from Phases II and III)~: = 0.96 c) Net proportional effect of traffic from Phases II and IIh [0.96 - 0.90]/0.90 = .06/.90 = 0.067 d) Estimated improvement cost: $217, 94O e) Total proportional dollar contribution due from Phases II and II1: .067 x $217,940 = $14,600 Westbound OR 214-to-Northbound 1-5 improvement (425' x 12' asphalt vehicle travel lane plus taper) a) Year 2003 weekday p.m. peak hour background volume/capacity ratio (without traffic from Phases II and III)~: = 0.85 b) Year 2003 weekday p.m. peak hour total volume/capacity ratio (including traffic from Phases II and III)~: = 0.90 c) Net proportional effect of traffic from Phases II and IIh [0.90- 0.85]/0.85 = .05/.85 = 0.059 d) Estimated improvement cost: $363,850 e) Totalproportionaldollarcontribution due fromPhasesllandlll: .059 x $363,850 = $21,470 Total proportional dollar contribution due from Phases fl and I!1: $36,070 If no construction contract is in place for both improvements by December 31, 2009, the fund's principal and interest shall be returned to Craig Realty Group--Woodbum LL C. If Craig Realty Group--Woodburn LL C no longer exists as a bona fide business entity, then the fund's principal and interest shall be returned to Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. If neither Craig Realty Group~Woodbum LLC nor Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. exists as a bona fide business entity, then the fund's principal and interest shall be returned to Steven L. Craig. ~Transportation Impact Analysis: Woodburn Factory Stores- Phases Ill/fi. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (December 1998) This agenda item has been noticed as a public hearing and the notice states that the City Council will accept written or oral testimony pertaining only to the project's compliance with 4 the specific approval criteria specified above. Testimony relating to other approval criteria should not be accepted. Attachments: Exhibit A: Letter from Michael Robinson, dated March 26, 2001 (previously provided to City Council) Exhibit B: Supplemental Information and Findings, prepared by Kittelson and Associates, dated March23,2001 (previously provided to City Council) Exhibit C: Council Ordinance No. 2240 (previously provided to City Council) Exhibit D: LUBA Final Opinion and Order No. 99-135 (previously provided to City Council) Exhibit E: Letter from ODOT, dated April 5, 2001 Exhibit F: Letter from Michael Robinson, dated April 9, 2001, responding to ODOT letter STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(505)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD (503)221-1045 Internet: www. stoel.com Exhibit "A" March 26, 2001 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 email merobinson@stoel.com Mr. James P. Mulder, Director City of Woodbum Community Development Department 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Re: Craig Realty Group v. City of Woodburn, LUBA No. 99-135 Dear Mr. Mulder: This office represents Craig Realty Group-Woodbum LLC. Enclosed please find a letter dated March 23, 2001 from Paul Ryus of Kittelson & Associates. The letter responds to the issues identified by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in its decision remanding the City's approval of Phases 2 and 3 of the Woodburn Company Stores back to the Woodburn City Council. Please place this letter and the enclosure in the official Woodburn Planning Department file for this application and before the Woodburn City Council at its public hearing on April 9, 2001. Mr. Ryus' letter concludes that based on the acknowledged Woodbum Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), there will be sufficient capacity at the I-5/Highway 214 interchange to accommodate the additional trips from Phases 2 and 3. PotOud i-20683'/0.1 002'/080-00001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER, WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASItlNGTON, D.C. STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. James P. Mulder, Director March 26, 2001 Page 2 Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about this letter. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR: ipc Enclosure CC: Mr. Steve Craig (via U.S. Mail) (w/encl.) Mr. N. Robert Shields (via U.S. Mail) (w/encl.) Mr. Gary Katsion (via facsimile) (w/o encl.) Mr. Paul Ryus (via facsimile) (w/o encl.) Ms. Kathy Lincoln (via U.S. Mail) (w/encl.) Ms. Lynne Perry (via U.S. Mail) (w/encl.) Porth~dl-2068370.1 0027080-00001 Exhibit "B" KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 sw ALDER, SUITE 700 · PORTLAND. OR 97205 · (503) 228-5230 · FAX (503) 273-8169 March 23, 2001 Project #: 3383.3 Steve Craig Craig Realty Group---Woodbum LLC 1500 Quail St., Suite 510 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Woodburn Factory Stores, Phases H & III--LUBA Remand Dear Steve: At your request, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals on ODOT's and DLCD's appeal of the City of Woodbum's approval of Phases II & Ill of the Woodburn Factory Stores (LUBA 99-135). This letter reviews the relevant pans of the LUBA decision and shows how material in the Woodbum Transportation System Plan ("TSP") and Woodbum Factory Stores Phase II and Ill Transportation Impact Analysis ("December 1998 TIA") satisfy the issues that resulted in LUBA's remand. LUBA Decision The portions of the appeal that were sustained address whether the proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amendment required to build Phases II and m of the Woodbum Factory Stores will "significantly affect," as that term is used in the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060(2)), the 1-5 Woodbum interchange. On page 5 of its decision, LUBA identified three steps for determining whether an amendment "significantly affects" a facility: 1. Does the proposed amendment reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP? If existing facilities can accommodate the additional traffic the proposed amendment will generate, throughout the TSP planning period, them is no significant effect; if not, step 2 applies. 2. Will new or improved facilities anticipated by the TSP generate sufficient additional capacity, and will they be built or improved on a schedule that will accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed amendment? If the answer is yes, the proposed amendment will not significantly affect the facility; otherwise, there is a significant effect and step 3 applies. 3. Can any of the actions outlined in OAR 660-012-0060(1) be implemented? If yes, then the impacts of the proposed amendment can be mitigated. HAprojflle\3383\Phase 3\s0030901 Itr. cloc Woodburn Factory Stores, Phases II & III--LUBA Remand March 23, 2001 Project #: 3383.3 Page: 2 On Page 7 of its decision, LUBA determined that the City of Woodburn "may use its existing TSP to determine whether the proposed expansion will significantly affect a transportation facility, and may rely on the anticipated increase in capacity at the Woodburn Interchange to accommodate additional trips generated by the proposal." Further, on Page 8, LUBA said that "nothing precludes the city from considering whether one of the four TSP [interchange] alternatives will be sufficient to accommodate the unanticipated additional vehicle trips that will be generated by the challenged decision without causing a decrease in the applicable level of service. If however, the four alternatives identified in the TSP will not provide sufficient capacity to accommodate those additional vehicle trips, then the city must adopt one or more of the measures prescribed in OAR 660-012-0060(1)." The remainder of this letter identifies where in the record the information exists to address LUBA's issues with the City's original decision. Woodburn TSP Review The Woodburn TSP, which the City adopted in June 1996, looked at four alternatives for the Woodburn Interchange. These alternatives are listed in Section 5 of the TSP; a copy of this section is included as Appendix A to this letter: 1. Adding capacity to the existing diamond interchange by constructing additional turn lanes at the ramp terminals. 2. A split-diamond interchange, with the north half connecting to Highway 214, and the south half connecting to a new south arterial. 3. A second 1-5 interchange at Butteville Road, in conjunction with a new south arterial. 4. Converting the existing diamond interchange into a partial cloverleaf configuration. The TSP found that all of the alternatives could meet the City's standard of LOS "E" or better during the 2015 weekday p.m. peak period (Table 6, p. 41). Woodburn Factory Stores Phase II & III TIA Review Section 7 of the December 1998 TIA presents a year 2015 analysis of traffic conditions at the Woodburn interchange, with and without the proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amendment. This section is attached to this letter as Appendix B. The year 2015 was selected because it is the planning horizon of the Woodburn TSP, which was a 20-year period from 1996 to 2015. Because the Woodburn Interchange Alternatives Analysis project had not yet started at the time the TIA was prepared, a partial cloverleaf interchange configuration was evaluated. This configuration was selected for several reasons: (1) consistency with a 1991 ODOT conceptual plan for the interchange, (2) consistency with one of the TSP alternatives, and (3) of the four alternatives presented in the TSP, it approximated a worst case in terms of interchange operations (mitigating the existing diamond interchange had similar, but marginally worse operations). Klttel$on & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Woodbum Factory S~ore$, Phases II & III--LUEI~ Remand Project #: 3383°3 March 23, 2001 Page: 3 The December 1998 TIA found (p. 44) that under 2015 background conditions (i.e., without the proposed amendment), additional mitigation would be needed for the ODOT partial cloverleaf design in order to meet applicable traffic operations standards. This mitigation consisted of additional turn lanes at the northbound ramp terminal, and lengthening the eastbound right-turn lane at the southbound ramp terminal. The December 1998 TIA estimated the additional trip generation resulting from the proposed amendment, if the land use were to change from the multi-family zoning assumed in the TSP to the proposed factory outlet mall (Table 9, p. 45). When this additional traffic was factored into the analysis, the TIA found (p. 48) that no further mitigation would be required beyond that needed to accommodate 2015 traffic volumes without the proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amendment. Therefore, it can be concluded the proposed amendment would not significantly affect the partial cloverleaf alternative presented in the TSP. Although not studied specifically in the December 1998 TIA, it can be inferred from the TSP's analysis of the interchange alternatives that the other three interchange alternatives would have similar or better operations, and therefore would also accommodate the proposed amendment (see Table 6, p. 41 in the TSP, and Table 10, p. 45 in the TIA). This is a result of the partial cloverleaf alternative approximating the worst-case alternative--two of the other interchange alternatives provided an new "south arterial" route for traffic to approach the interchange area, which reduced the turning volumes at the I-5 Northbound Ramps/Highway 219 and I-5 Southbound Ramps/Highway 214 intersections, and thus improved the level of service. Woodburn Factory Stores Trip Generation Follow-Up Study Kittelson & Associates, Inc. prepared a report for Craig Realty Group in July 2000 comparing actual trip generation rates at the Woodburn Factory Stores, based on development of Phase I, to those rates estimated in the December 1998 TIA for Phases II and llI. This report is attached to this letter as Appendix C. The study incorporated weekly traffic counts at the center between September 1999 and June 2000, used to evaluate seasonal differences in traffic and the effects of major store openings (i.e., Gap and Banana Republic) during that period, as well as detailed driveway turning counts in May 2000 during mid-week, Saturday, and Sunday peak periods. The report found that the trip generation rates measured at the site were comparable to the estimates used in the March 1998 TIA for Phase I. The report concluded the trip generation estimates used in the December 1998 TIA for Phases II and III would represent worst-case conditions, and that "...it could be reasonably concluded that the transportation impacts on the surrounding areas would be less than described in the December 1998 report." Klttelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Orego~ ~ Woodburn Factory Stores, Phases II & III--LUBA Remand Project #.. 3383.3 March 23, 2001 Page: 4 Findings Applying LUBA's tests for determining whether the proposed amendment "significantly affects" the Woodburn Interchange results in the following findings: 1. Can existing facilities accommodate the additional traffic the proposed antendment will generate ? The TSP identifies that the existing interchange cannot accommodate year 2015 traffic, under the existing zoning. The December 1998 TIA identifies that the proposed amendment will generate more traffic than was assumed in the TSP. Therefore, existing facilities cannot accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed amendment, and the second test is required. 2. Will new or improved facilities anticipated by the TSP generate sufficient additional capacity, and will they be built or improved on a schedule that will accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed amendment ? The December 1998 TIA identifies that the partial cloverleaf interchange alternative will generate sufficient additional capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed amendment. The TSP identifies that the interchange reconstruction is not required until sometime during the last 10 years of the TSP's planning period. The December 1998 TIA identifies that the shorter-term mitigation measures at the interchange recommended for the proposed development will satisfy traffic operations standards in the interim. Therefore, because at least one interchange reconstruction alternative anticipated by the TSP generates sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed amendment, and because it can be built on a schedule that will accommodate the additional traffic, the proposed amendment does not "significantly affect" the Woodburn Interchange. Further, although not required under the LUBA test, it can be inferred from the analysis results presented in the TSP and the December 1998 TIA that, in fact, all four interchange alternatives presented in the TSP would accommodate the proposed amendment. With regard to the three issues that LUBA remanded to the City, the following demonstrates how revised findings can be adopted by the City to address those issues: 1. It is not clear whether the City reviewed the applicant's traffic impact study and the City's TSP to determine whether the proposed amendment would generate sufficient additional traffic such that the interchange's capacity would be exceeded by the end of the TSP planning period, even with the additional capacity provided by one or more of the TSP's interchange alternatives. As demonstrated above, the December 1998 TIA's analysis specifically shows that one of the TSP's interchange alternatives provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed amendment. Although not required by LUBA, it can be inferred from the analysis results given in the TSP and the December 1998 TIA that all four interchange alternatives would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed amendment. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Woodbum Factory Stores, Phases II & III--I. UBA Remand Project #: 3383.3 March 23, 2001 Page: 5 2. The City should have considered the full TSP planning period (through 2015) when making its findings, rather than determining simply "that the proposal currently does not significantly affect a transportation facility." Section 7 of the December 1998 TIA considers the full TSP planning period and demonstrates that the proposed amendment will not "significantly affect" the Woodburn Interchange. 3. LUBA could not determine from the City's findings whether (1) the proposed amendment would not significantly affect transportation facilities, (2) the proposed antendment would significantly affect transportation facilities, but that those impacts could be mitigated by the development, or (3) a determination of traffic impacts should be deferred to the site plan review process. If one of the interchange alternatives identified in the TSP is constructed by the end of the TSP's planning horizon (year 2015), an assumption allowed under the LUBA ruling, the December 1998 TIA demonstrates that the proposed amendment will not "significantly affect" the interchange. The interim interchange improvements that are described in the December 1998 TIA, which the City should condition of the proposed development, will ensure that traffic operations standards are met in the short term. We trust this letter resolves the issues identified by LUBA and will allow the City ~f Woodburn to adopt revised findings to address those issues. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Gary Katsion or me at (503) 228-5230. Sincerely, K1TTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul Ryus, P.E. Senior Engineer Attachments: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Woodburn TSP--Alternatives Analysis December 1998 Woodbum Factory Stores TIA--2015 Conditions Analysis July 2000 Woodburn Factory Stores Trip Generation Report Klttel$on & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Appendix A Woodburn TSP Alternatives Analysis Wooclburn Transportation System Plan 5.0 Roadway System Altemaffves Anal~ I I t I I I 1 [ l l 1 [ I 5.0 ROadway System Alternatives ANalysis $.1 Methodology In this phase of the transportation system plan development, future travel demand (year 2015) was tested on four different roadway systems. The analysis period was the weekday PM peak hour. To forecast future travel patterns, a year 2015 weekday PM peak hour travel demand model was developed and future traffic volumes were assigned to each of the roadway system alternatives (described below). Following the assignment, an operations analysis was per- formed to evaluate the effectiveness of each of'the alternative roadway improvement systems. This analysis is summarized below. $.2 Travel Demand Model Development As part of the roadway systems analysis, a year 2015 EMME/2 travel demand model was developed (see Appendix B for a description of the travel demand model). This model reflects future population and employment projections as provided by the City of Woodburn Commu- nity Development Department and was used to forecast future weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes. By the year 2015, it is anticipated that the population of Woodburn will grow from the current 15,000 to about 30,000. It is also projected that employment will grow from the current 5,000 employees to 14,000 employees. The population and employment projections include some development areas outside the existing Woodburn Urban Growth Bo.bndary (UGB) with the expectation that the UGB will need to be expanded before year 2015 to h~ndle anticipated growth. 5.3 Roadway System Evaluation Criteria Several, evaluation criteria for the rOadway system alternatives analysis were established: Traffic Operations Average Daily Traffic (ADT), which is the forecast 24 hour traffic volume at a specific location on a given road. The model forecasts ADT for all roads on the network. With ADT, it is possible to compare 24 hour traffic volumes on the same road under different transportation alternatives. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which is the forecast total number of vehicle miles traveled on the road system over a 24 hour period. For example, if the model. forecasts that over a 24 hour period, 1,000 vehicles will travel on the road system and there are 20 miles of roads, the VMT is equal to 20,000 (1000 multiplied by 20). The lower the VMT the better, as this implies people do not have to travel as far for different trip purposes and thus less fuel is consumed and less pollution is created. Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT), which is the forecast number of hours that people spend traveling from their trip origin to their destination and back. For example, if, over a 24 hour period, there are 1,000 vehicles traveling on the road system and the model shows that it would take on average 30 hours for one vehicle to travel from its origin to its destination and back, the forecast VHT is equal to 30,000 (l,000 multiplied Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 27 5.0 Roadway System A/tema~/ves Arm/y~s June 1996 Woodburn Transportation ,System Plan by 30). VHT is a measure of system wide road congestion. The higher the VHT, the more congestion there is, as it takes vehicles longer to travel from their origins to their destinations. · Lane Miles Over Capacity, which is the forecast number of lane miles operating over capacity. For example, if there is one four lane segment of road operating over capacity and that section of road is two miles long, the forecast lane miles over capacity is eight (two lane miles over capacity multiplied by four lanes). The fewer lane miles over capacity the less road congestion exists on the network. In addition, on a microscopic level, the intersection traffic operations were evaluated based on a forecast weekday PM peak traffic level of service analysis. Land Use Impact The general land use impact of each alternative reflects the impact of roadway improvements to guide the location of and serve added development in the Woodburn .area in the future. Critical to this analysis was the ability to develop roadway improvements within the existing ' Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. This impact assessment also addressed right-of-way acquisition needs. Environmental Impact The general environmental impact of each roadway system alternative involves an assessment of how roadway improvements might impact environmentally sensitive areas, such as Wetland and habitat areas. Cost The general cost of constructing the major roadway system improvements in each alternative was identified. The cost 'estimates are very conceptual and are based on assumed costs per mile for different types of facility improvements. Cost estimates are in 1995 dollars. 5.4 Description of Roadway System Alternatives Traffic operations under four roadway alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are: No-Build Alternative: In this alternative future traffic volumes are assigned to the existing roadway system. 1~o substantial roadway improvements would be made. Alternative #1: I-5 Split Diamond Interchange with South Arterial The major features of this alternative, shown in Figure 12, include converting the existing l-5/Highway 214 interchange to a split diamond interchange, extending Woodland Road south to connect with the south end of'the new split diamond interchange, constructing a South Arterial to connect with the new interchange, and developing a frontage road on the east side of Interstate 5.' · Kittelson & Associates, Inc. I I I X x 'II II Il Il I _! 5,0 Roadway System Alternatives Analysis Woodburn Transportation System Plan Also shown in Figure 12 is an alternative to extend the South Arterial east of Highway 99E to connect with Highway 214. Alternative #2: Second I-5 Interchange with South Arterial In this alternative, shown in Figure 13, a new Interstate 5 interchange would be constructed south of the existing Urban Growth Boundary just north of the existing Butteville Road over-crossing, with a South Arterial developed as an extension of Butteville Road to the east to connect with Highway 99E. Also in this alternative Woodland Road would be extended south to Butteville Road to connect with the interchange, with a frontage roadconstructed on the east side of 1-5 between Highway 214 and the South Arterial. Associated with this alternative'is a possible extension of the South Arterial east of Highway 99E to connect with Highway-214. Alternative #3: Improve Existing I-5 Interchange and W~den Highway 214/ South Arterial with I-5 overpass This' alternative is.shown in Figure 14 and does not include a new -I-5 interchange. Instead in thi~ alternative, the existing interchange would, be improved by widening Highway 214 over Interstate 5, from Woodland Drive on the west to Highway 99E. In addition, a South Arterial would be constructed within the Urban Growth Boundary extending from Woodland Drive on th& west tq'Highway 99E on the east, with an overpass of 1-5. Similar to ,61ternatives gl and #2, shown in Figures 12 and 13, the South Arterial could be extended east from Highway 99E to connect with Highway 214. This alternative was analyzed for two improvement options to the existing 1-5 Highway 214 interchange: 1. Improvements to the existing diamond configuration and, 2. Conversion to partial cloverleaf configuration. .~ 5.5 Evaluation of Alternatives 5.5.1 Transportation System Performance Following the development of three alternatives, and the incorporation of these alternatives (separately) into the travel demand model, the alternatives were evaluated using the previously described performance measures. Table 2 compares forecast average daily traffic (ADT) volumes at specific locations for the different roadway system alternatives (Appendix C presents year 2015 traffic flow maps for each alternative). As shown in the table, if no improvements were made to the road system, 2015 traffic volumes on Highway 214 east of the northbound Interstate 5 ramps would increase to 39,000 vehicles per day. This volume would decrease under each of the alternative road systems. Similarly at Highway 214 east of Settlemier Av. enue, West Hayes Street west of Settlemier Avenue, and Young Street west of Highway 99E, the 2015 traffic volumes under any of the Build Alternatives would be less than the No-Build Alternative. This is not true on Highway 99E south of Lincoln Streetl At this Klttelson & Associates, Inc. I I X X X .I I I I I ! I x X x I I II w Woodburn Transportation ~ys~ern Plan ~.0 Roadway ~y~tem Al~em~tive~ Analysis Table 2 Year 2015 Average Weekday Traffic for Roadway System Alternatives Alternative Hwy. 214 East of Hwy. 214 East of West Hayes Hwy. 99E Young Street NB I-5 Ramp Settlemler West of Settlemler South of Lincoln West of Hwy. 99E 2015 N o-Build 39,000 26,000 12,000 23,000 10,000 2015 Alternative if 1 ° 30,000 20,000 5,000 18,000 6,000 2015 Alternative #2° 27,000 17,000 5,000 22,000 7,000 2015 Altemative #3' 34,000 20,0000 6,000 26,000 9,000 · South Bypass or Parr Road extension east to Highway 9gE. location, under Alternative gl forecast, daily tragic volumes decrease relative to the No-Build Alternative; under Alternative #2 the forecast traffic volumes remain essentially the same relative to the No-Build Alternative; and under Alternative #3 the forecast traffic volumes increase relative to the No-Build Alternative. In Table 3, lane m/les over capacity (weekday p.m. peak hour), weekday vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and weekday' vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for each of the. three study alternatives are compared. These measures are interrelated and are thus besi evaluated together rather than individually. As shown in this table, daily VIvIT', VI-IT, and the number of lane miles,over capacity would increase dramatically between now and year 2015. V1VIT would inarease approximately 80 percent, and VI-IT wouldinerease approximately 185 percent. This dramatic increase in VHT relates directly to the increase of lane miles over capacity. Under existing conditions, there are no lane miles operating over capacity; however in the future,.if no road improvements were made, there would be 1.1 lanes miles of road over capacity. The over-ca- pacity roads would be: Table 3 Summary of Traffic Operations Performance Measures Scenario Lane Miles Over CapacitY Weekday Weekday (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour) Vehicle Hrs. of Travel Vehicle Miles of Travel (VET) (VMT) Existing 0 8,955 406,255 No-Build 1.1 25,625 730,260 Alternative #1A' 0.26 24,035 717,120 Alternative #1 B'* 0.26 23,995 718,055 ·-Alternative if2A* 0.52 23,730 715,360 Alternative #2B·· 0.52 23,745 714,815 ... Alternative #3A· 0.50 24,665 707,840 Alternative #3B'* 0.70 24,680 I ; 707,300 South Arterial east to Highway 99E. South Arterial east to Highway 214. Kittel$on & Associates, Inc. 33 ' June 1996 5.0 Roadway System AtternalYves Analysis Woodburn Transportation System Plan * Highway 214 between the northbound ~nterstate 5 ramps, and Evergreen Road, · Evergreen Road between Highway 214 and its terminus, and · Settlemier Avenue just south of West Hayes Street. Figures 15 through 18 show which roadway segments are under, near, or over capacity for the no-build condition and roadway system alternatives gl, #2, and #3. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, Alternative gl (I-5 Split Diamond Interchange with South Arterial) would have the lowest number of lane miles over capacity of all three alternatives. In this alternative only 0.26 lade miles of Woodburn roads would be operating over capacity. This would be Woodland Road just north of Highway 219, which is likely a result of restricting the Arney Road access to High;,vay 219 to right-in, right-out only move- ments. Also, in this alternative Highway 214 would be operating near capacity for almost its entire length between Interstate 5 and Settlemier Avenue. Alternative #2 has the greatest effect of reducing congestion on Highway 214; however, it does have more lane miles over capacity than either Alternative gl or #3. Congestion would, occur on Parr Road in the vicinity of Interstate 5. On a daily basis, VHT is the lowest in Alternative #2. VMT is most significantly reduced, relative to the No'-Build alternative, by implementing. Alternative #3 (South Arterial; Interstate $ over crossing). However, both of these, alternatives introduce more traffic congestion than Alternative #1 (1-5 Split Diamond Interchange).. 5.5.2 Major Intersection Improvement Needs An initial year 2015 level of service (LOS) analysis, was performed at five major intersections assuming no improvements to the City of the Woodburn street system in the future. The critical intersections, are southbound I-5/Highway .214, northbound I-5/Highway '.214, Highway 214/Settlemier Avenue, Highway 214/99E and Highway 99E/Young Street. A new signal was assumed at the northbound 1-5 ramp intersection. As shown in Table 4, under the No-Build Table 4 Summary of Level of Service Analysis Intersection Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service 2015' 2015 Alt. #1' Alt. #2* Alt. #3* No-Build No-Build (1-5 Split (2nd I-5 (Impr. Existing Mitigated Diamond Interchange) Interchange/ Interchange) Hwy. 214) "'SB I-5/Hwy 214 F E D c D NB I-5/Hwy 214 F C C A B Hwy 2~4/Settlemier Avenue F E D D D Hwy 214/Hwy 99E F E E E E Hwy 99E/Young Street F D C D C With South Arterial extension to Highway 99E f 1 i ! i I i ;I ;! ! 1 ! I ! ! i 34 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I June 1996 Woodburn Transportation System Plan 5.0 Roadway System Alternatives Anal3~is alternative, futur~ PM peak hour traffic level of service degrades to LOS F at all five intersections. LOS E is the typical minimum acceptable level of service at signalised intersec- tions in an urban area such as Woodburn ("A" iepresenting the best and "F" the worst level of service). Thus, all five identified intersections have an unacceptable level of service. Given these unacceptable levels of service, a mitigation analysis was performed on the'2015 PM peak hour No-Build scenario in order to determine what intersection improvements at the five critical intersections would be necessary to restore acceptable.operating conditions. The necessary improvements are as follows: * Southbound I-5/I-Iighway 214: Add a second left turn and right turn lane on the southbound I-5 ramp; re-stripe the eastbound intersection approach to include a through lane and a right turn lane; add a second left turn lane to the westbound approach. · Northbound I-5/I-Iighway 214: Signalize; add a second right turn lane on the north- bound I-5 ramp; add a second left turn l'ane to the eastbound intersection approach; add a second through lane to the westbound approach. · Highway 214/Settlemier Avenue: Optimize the signal timing to minimize delay; add a second left turn lane at the northbound approach; and restripe the southbound approach to the'intersection to include one left turn, one right, turn, and one through lane. · Highway 214/I-Iighway 99E:. Add a second left turn lane to the eastbound intersection approach; rest. ripe the west'bound intersection approach to include one left turn lane, one through lane and one right turn lane; add a second left turn lane to the' northbound approach to the intersection. · Highway 99E/Young Street: Construct an exclusive right turn lane f~)r vehicles to turn from westbound Young Street. to northbound Highway 99E. With these improvements all of the critical intersections Will operate at LOS E or better in the future PM peak hour. Next a PM peak hour traffic level of service analysis was performed on each of the identified road system alternatives..The intersection improvements identified above were included in this. analysis. Under Alternative gl, the above mitigations will 'provide for acceptable operating conditions at all of the study intersections except the intersection of soutthbound Interstate 5/Highway 214. At this intersection'it is necessary to add a second right turn lane to the southbound approach to the intersection. As shown in Table 4, in Alternative #2 and#3 the above mitigation measures developed for ~he no-build alternative level of service analysis are sufficient to provide acceptable intersection operations in the future. 5.5.3 Operations Analysis of I-5 Interchange Alternatives . An additional analysis of year 2015 traffic conditions related to the various I-5 access alternatives under consideration in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan was undertaken. Appendix D identifies the traffic volumes and lane configurations assflmed in the analysis to improve the I-5/Woodburn interchange operation. Klttelson & Associates. Inc. 39 June 1996 6.0 Roadway System Alternatives Analysis Woodbum Transportation System Plan Freeway Operation The purpose of this evaluation was to develop a comparison of the expected freeway opera- tion/level of service between the three interchange alternatives considered in the roadway system alternatives analysis. The three alternatives include: · Existing diamond interchange; · Split diamond interchange; and · Two interchanges, with new interchange in the vicinity of the existing Butteville Road overcrossing.. A partial cloverleaf configuration at the existing Highway 214 interchange was also analyzed primarily to determine the benefits which might be achieved in' the operation of Highway 214 through the sig'nalized interseeti0ns. The results of this analysis along with the three alterna- fives are shown in Table 5. Table 5 · Southbound I-5 Freeway Operation - 2015 Weekday PM.Peak Hour Interchange Configuration Condition/Criteria Two Interchanges Partial Cloverleaf Diamond Split I Diamond Butteville I Highway First Second RoadI 214 Ramp Ramp Diverge Ramp Volume (vph) 960 960 400 590 960 Freeway Volume (Lane 1,2)l(vph)2 3,578 3,578 3,379' 3,490 3,578 Level of service D D C D D Density3 29 29 27 28 29 Speed (mph) 56 56 56 56' 56 Merge Ramp Volume (vph) 1 ,PP0 1,220 790 460 840 380 Freeway Volume (Lane 1,2)l(vph)2 3,968 3,968 3,769 3,352 3,534 3,579 Level of Service D D D C D D Density3 32 32 30 27 29 29 Speed (mph) 54 54 55 56 55 56 1 lanes 1 and 2 are two right-most lanes on freeway 2 vph - vehicles per hour 3 density - vehicles per mile per lane 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes were used for this analysis, as this period was considered the highest overall traffic period and most appropriate for design purposes. T~he PM peak hour volumes were derived from the daily EMME/2 model traffic projections by applying existing peak hour and intersection turning movement percentages. Southbound 1,5 operations were analyzed as this represents the peak direction of traffic on I-5 during the PM peak hour.. 40 KIttelson & Associates, Inc. June 1996 Woodbum Transportation System P/an 5.0 Roadway System Alternatives Analysh The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures ~'or freeway merge/diVerge operation was applied for this analysis. This particular operational analysis procedure on I-5 represents a merge/diverge condition on the freeway rather than a weave since no added lanes between interchanges is proposed by any of the alternate interchange configurations. ~ As shown in Table 5, although there is a measurable change in calculated freeway/ramp junction level of service, there is no measurable change in the lane density or the operating speed Of the freeway. This alone should not be used as criteria to select one alternative design over another. Interchange Operation The 2015.PM peak traffic volume/turn mov6ment was assigned to the interchange configura- tions under consideration. A level of service analysis was performed for ~ach ramp terminal with the cross street using the $IGCAP procedure, with a determination of the lane requirements 'at each intersection location to provide a balanced roadway section with adjacent intersections. The results of this analysis is shown in Table 6. This provides a comparison of the volume to capacity ratio and level of se .r3'iee calculated for each alternative. Table 6 I-$ Inter¢l~nge Ramp Terminal Operation - 2015 Weekday PM Peak Hour Interchange Intersection LOS VIC Configuration ....... Northbound Off/On-Ramp E-F 98% Diamond Southbound Off/On-Ramp E 96% North Off-Ramp (Hwy 214) C-D 75% r Split South Off. Ramp (South Arterial) D-E 87% Diamond North On-Ramp (Hwy 214) D 82% · South On-Ramp (South Arterial) D-E 88% Parr Road/Butteville Road Northbound Off/On-Ramp D 84% Two Southbound Off/On-Ramp · D 81% Interchanges~ Highway 214 Northbound Off/On-Ramp C-D 75% D 77% Southbound Off/On-Ramp - '. Northbound Off/On-Ramp E 97% Partial Cloverleaf Southbound Off/On. Ramp E 94% The analysis revealed that the best intersection level of service would be provided with the two interchange configuration, due to the dispersal of traffic. With this cot{figuration, a three-lane section on the South Arterial at the interchange would be adequate. ~ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 41 5.0 Roadway System A/ternattves Analysis June 1996 Woodburn Transporlalion System Plan The mitigation required at the south ramp terminals of the split diamond interchange is to provide a five-lane roadway section in the vicinity of the interchange. The extremely poor level of service forecast for the diamond interchange includes separate fight turn lanes on Highway 214 as well as double left turn lanes from Highway 214 to the on-ramps. This would represent the maximum possible "build" for a diamond interchange design. Even with this configuration, it is very likely that the level of service will be significantly worse since it would be difficult to achieve the lane balance assumed in the analysis because of the influence of the upstream and downstream signalized intersections. Possible variation to the diamond interchange design is to construct of a partial cloverleaf at Highway 214. A very important consideration in any interchange design is the potential lane balance which will be accommodated by the design. Lane balance is determined by evaluating the design to ensure traffic is distributed equally in all lanes as assumed by the intersection analysis program or to make the appropriate adjustment in the calculation to reflect the influence of the upstream .and downstream traffic signal and roadway. Analysis of the year 2015 PM peak hour westbound traffic volumes on Highway 214. reveals that 1900 vehicles per hoUr will apProach I-5 in the westbound direction. This traffic would pass through the Evergreen Road traffic signal which is located 800 feet east of the northbound I-5 ramp termi-nal. In order to accommodate the 1900 vehicles per hour through the Evergreen traffic signal, the two westbound lanes must equally share the total, westbound traffic. This is equivalent to 950 vehicles per hour per lane in order to access either i-5 northbound or I-5 southbound. Since the location is no greater than 800 feet east of I-5, all the traffic to northbound I-5 and a majority of the traffic must' be in the right lane. Even with a right turn lane, traffic will not be able to move out of the through lane until the platoon approaches the traffic signal and if this traffic is provided signal progression, which is required to minimize the queu6 on this approach, only 470 vehicles of the .840 vehicles desiring to enter I-5 southbound can be in the right lane at the northbound ramp terminal. This requires a total of nearly 400 vehicles to shift two lanes immediately after passing through the northbound ramp terminal signal and prior to entering the loop ramp to I-5 southbound. Similar conditions will be created for eastbound traffic approaching the southbound ramp terminal traffic signal. The total volume of' 1450 vehicles per hour would leave the Woodland/High- way 214 traffic signal. With the southbound on-ramp followed by a northbound.on:ramp to I-5,930 of the 1450 vehicles per hour must be in the right lane to avoid lane shifts on the I-5 structure. When these conditions of poor lane balance occur downstream of a signalized, intersection, the assumed lane balance as provided with the intersection level of service calculation will not be achieved. If lane balance is achieved as assumed in the calculation, congestion will occur downstream of [he traffic signal, at the diverge point resulting in delay and safety problems extending back to the adjacent intersection. ThiSlane balance may be alleviated somewhat by increasing the distance between the adjacent traffic signal and the downstream diverge point. Conclusions Based on the freeway and ramp intersection operations analysis conduc~ted for the different I-5 interchange alternatives, the following conclusions can be drawn: 42 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. June 1996 VVoodburn Transportation System Plan 5.0 Roadway System Alternatives Analysis 1. All of the alternatives would have similar operating characteristics on I-5, ranging from level of service C to D. 2. The proximity of a second interchange at Butteville Road would not have an ad.'".verse impact on Highway 214 interchange ramp operations, and vice versa. ~.. 3. The existing diamond interchange would experience very poor level of service B to F at the ramp terminal intersections, even with added through and left turn lanes at the northbohnd and southbound ramp intersections. The overall cross-section of Highway 214'would be a 6-7 lane roadway. 4. The split diamond interchange would improve level of service at the Highway 214 ramp intersection from C to D, with only five lanes required on the I-5 overpass structure. At the south interchange, five lanes on the South Arterial would be required to provide level of service D or better. 5. The best intersection, ramp terminal level of service (C-D) is achieved with two interchanges, due to the dispersal of traffic with this configuration. However, Itighway 214 would still have to widen to a five-lane section on the I-5 overpass. The South Arterial could operate as a three-lane facility at the south interchange. 6. The. partial cloverleaf interchange would operate very similarly to the diamond interchange or the split diamond interchange for freeway mergeddive.rge eon'dfti6ns. Analysis of the ramp intersection level of service as shown in Table 6, reveals the overall operation' very similar to the diamond interchange. This is due to the extremely~oor lane balance which would result at the interchange traffic signals because of the lane balance required at the adjacent signalized intersections at Woodland Road.and Evergreen Road to achieve level of service D. Ktttelson & Associates, Inc. 43 June 1996 5.0 Roadway System AlternaOves Analysis Woodburn Transportation Sy~.tern Plan 5.5.4 Land Use/Environmental/Cost Impacts " Table 7 summarizes the general land use, environmental and cost impacts of the highway system alternatives. A discussion of each impact area follows. Table ? Summary of Land Use/Environmental/Cost Impacts ** Roadway System Alternative Impact Category Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 No-Build I-5 Split Diamond 2nd I-5 Improve Existing Interchange Interchange Interchange Land Use Serves Overall Development in -- + -- 0 Area Promotes Development Inside 0 + _ + Current UGB Right-of-Way Requirements + -- -- 0 Environmental Wetiands/Envimnmentally -i- -I- + Sensitive Areas Air Quality -- -t- + ' 0 Coat. + _ _ _ + Positive Impact 0 Minimal Impact or not applicable - Negative impact Land Use The no-build and three roadway system improvement alternatives would have different impacts on future land development patterns within the Woodburn area. The no-build alternative would severely limit added development potential in the City, as most of the current undeveloped area within the existing Urban Growth Boundary is in the southwest portion of the City, which has virtually no street system currently developed. The absence of improved 1-5 access and a South Arterial facility under this alternative would limit the ability to develop this area in the future, withOut having significant traffic infiltration impacts through the senior Estates area south of Highway 214. ? The development of an I-5 split diamond interchange with a northerly South Arterial alignment would improve access to the undeveloped southwest portion of the City, but the South'Arterial facility east of 1-5 would bisect the proposed Woodburn Crossing mixed-use development area and potentially have a negative impact on the master plan for this development. The develop- ment of a second I-5 interchange in the vicinity of Butteville Road, with a southerly South Arterial alignment, would provide the best overall access to the southwest portion of the City, but could stimulate development pressures outside the existing Urban Growth Boundary, as the new interchange and a portion of the South Arterial would be located outside the UGB. With a northerly South Arterial option, the road could be developed entirely withi~ the existing urban growth boundary. , 44 Klttel$on & Associates, Inc. June 1996 Woodburn Transportation System Plan 5.0 Roadway System Alternatives Analysi,, Finally, the alternative to improve the existing I-5/Highway 214 interchange without a direct connection to the South Arterial (which would have a separate overpass of I-5 under this alternative) would provide only limited improved access to the southwes~ portion of the City. This alternative (assuming a partial cloverleaf ramp improvement were developed) would also require the taking of some existing businesses in the northwest and southeast quadrants of the interchange. The other interchange build alternatives would be developed in existing undevel- oped areas and not have as great an impact on existing businesses. Also the widening of Highway 219/21'4 under this alternative would probably require significant right-of-way from existing businesses along this roadway. Under any of the build alternatives, other collector and local street extensions and widening would result in some right-of-way.acquisition thus impacting adjacent development to some extent. Environmental Under any of the build highway system alternatives, the potential alignments for new inter- change and street construction appear to result in limited impact on environmentally-sensitive areas in the Woodburn area. The South Arterial could be aligned south of the small reservoir on the south side of the City, and be potentially located around the south side of the sewage. lagoon east of Highway 99E if eventually connected to Highway 214. The difference in cost of the different highway system alternatives is primarily associated' with the different I-5 interchange configurations. The I-5 split diamond interchange configuration is estimated to cost as much as $15 million, while a second I-5 interchange at Buttevflle Road- could cost as much as $20 million. (pending the final location .of the I-5 over-crossing and the extent of frontage road development between the existing Highway 214 interchange to the north and the new interchange). Improvements to the existing interchange (assuming conversion to a partial cloverleaf configuration with a new bridge) could be up to $10 million, and possibly more pending the level of I-5 frontage road development south of Highway 214. The South Arterial improvement cost (from Highway 219 to Highway .99E) would probably range from $5-10 million for the split diamond/new interchange alternatives, being of lesser cost with the second I-5 interchange at Butteville Road'due to the shorter length of new.-roadway to be Constructed. The cost of other street improvements .in each highway system alternative would be' similar, with the possible exception of street improvements in the current'undeveloped southwest portion of. the City, whose configuration will be dependent on a final master Plan for that area as well as the eventual I-5 interchange/South Arterial improvement configuration. Im- provements to arterial and collector streets could total up to $40 million. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Appendix B December 1998 Woodburn Factory Stores TIA--2015 Conditions Analysis December 1998 Year 2015 Transportation System Ana/ysis Woodbum Factor/Stores---Phases fi/Ill Year 2015 TranspOrtation SYstem Analysis t An evaluation of the proposed site's impacts on the adopted City of Woodburn .transportation syStem plan (TSP) is a requirement of the development application. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) applies to amendments to comprehensive plans in the State of Oregon. The TPR re- quires that the adopted transpOrtation system remain consistent in terms of identified function, capacity andlevel of service with a proposed land use as compared to the existing land use. The City of Woodbum adopted'its TSP in June 1996 and the TSP was prepared with the subject property being expected to developed'under its existing high density residential use. The TSP identified a number of improvements to be made over'the next.twenty years' in the study area being investigated' for this development proposal. These improvements included: Within the next five years - l. 1-5 Interchange reconnaissance study 2~ Realign Arney Road to intersect Woodland Avenue 3. Arney Road between Highway. 219 and UGB 4.' Add signal at I-5 northbound ramp and Highway 214 5. Add signal at Woodland 'AvenUe and Highway 219 6. Signal coordination on Highway 214/2!9 between W.o'odland Avenue and Cascade Drive 7. Intersection channelization at 1-5 'interchange with Highway 214/219 Next six to ten years - 8. 'I-5 interchange design/environmental 'studies 9.. Widen Highway 214 Woodland Avenue to Cascade Drive Next 11-20 years 10.1-5 interchange · Of the ten projects identified in the TSP within the study area, six of them (Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,1and 7) are already completed or will be completed by the Summer of 1999 in conjunction with the construction of the Woodburn Factory Stores - Phase I and the Waremart Distribution Center. In addition, the planning, conceptual design and environmental studies required to 'determine the preferred alternative for the Highway 214 Widening project (No. 9) is currently being conducted and is scheduled for completion in the summer of 1999. The conceptual design and environmental studies associated with the reconfiguration of the I-5]I-Iighway 214/219 interchange has not been started as of the writing of this report. However, for the purposes of analyzing the future operations in the interchange area, we utilized a concep- tual interchange improvement plans prepared by ODOT in February 1991. This ODOT concept consisted of modifying the existing diamond interchange to a partial clover leaf interchange, in- eluding loop ramps for the westbound to southbound and eastbound to northbound movements. Figure 15 illustrates the Year 2015 lane configurations and traffic controls that have been used in this analysis. Kitfelson & Associates, Inc. 4u j ~ N33BOB3A3 r'~ ~ I -It- Ava{, AV MOgqlM 3991A3.LI. nB Oecemt~er 1998 Year 2015 Transportation System Analysis Woodbum Facton/ Stores--Phases IIIIII i I I I I I. I I I I I I ! i.: It is reCognize~ that the I-5 interchange solution that ultimately results frorri ODOT's detailed planning, design and environmental study may be different from this previouslY developed con- cept. However, the ultimate geometric configuration will have to, at a minimum, meet the year 201 $ travel demands in the Highway 214/219 corridor that were identified during the develop- ment of the TSP. Background Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Year 2015 background traffic conditions were established from thc daily traffic volume projec- tions identified in the'TSP for the roadways in the study area. The Year 2015 traffic volumes identified in the TSP were'developed with the assumption that the land now occupied: by the W0odbum Factory Stores - Phase I development would be predominantly residential. Therefore, the volumes in the area to the west of I-5 have been adjusted to reflect the traffic generatedby the Woodbum Factory Stores - Phase I. The 2015 weekday p.m. peak hour background traffic vol- umes are shown in Figure 16. All volumes have been rounded to the nearest five vehicles per hour. The level of service 'for Year 201 $ background conditions are listed in Table 8 for the weekday p.m. peak hour. For signalized intersections,'the delay, volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, and LOS are shown. For unsignalized intersections, the critical approach, volUme-to-capacity rat. io of the critical approach, average delay of the critical approach, and corresponding LOS are shown. Table 8 Year 2015 'Baokground Leve!s of Service Signalized ' Unsignalized Average Average Delay- Crltioal Detay Interseotlon V/C (seo/veh) LOS Movement V/C (seo/veh) LOS ~.,o=,~.day P.M. Peak Hour Butteville Road/Highway 219 NB/LT 0.10 1.4 B Woodland'Ave./Highway 2t9 0.73 29.0 D WB 1,03 54.7 F Amey Road[Woodland Ave. NB/SB 0.62 4,8 C Mitigated Arney Road/Highway 219. SB 0,15 0.3 B I-5 SB Ramps/Highway 2i9 0.92 12.5 B I-5 NB Ramps/Highway 214 1.27 >60 F Mitigated 0,79 10.2 B Evergreen Road/Highway 214 0.99 39.2 D Mitigated 0.85 24,1 C Oregon Way/Highway 214 0.76 12,9 B Crosby Road/Arney Road NB 0.04 0,8 A Note: NB/LT = northbound left-turn; VIC = volume-to-capacity ratio As shown in Table 8, two of the intersections, I-5 northbound ramps at Highway 214 and Wood- land Avenue/Arney Road, do not meet level of service requirements. In addition, the I-5 south- bound ramps at Highway 219 and the Highway 214/Evergreen intersections do not meet the Il Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 4Z 0~1N33BO~I3A3 AY AV MOTIIM ~ ~4 aB 3lllA311flB December ;998 · · Year 2015 Transportation System Analysis Woodburn Fecton/ Stores. Phases II1111 ODOT VIC ratiO'requirement. The remainder of the intersections are expected to operate at ac- ceptable levels of service during the peak hours. Section H of thc Technical Appendix contains the Year 2015 background conditions LOS worksheets. Recommended Mitigation The following measures are recommended to mitigate the traffic impacts of the year 2015 back- ground conditions: Arney'Road/Woodland Avenue. This intersection should be modified by placing thc stop sign. control on thc northbound and southbound approaches. This modification will allow the predominant westbound to southbound movement to flow through'the intersec- tion without stoPPing. Under this type of control thc level-of-service'improves to C dur- ing both the Friday and Saturday conditions; · I-5 Northbound Ramps/Highway 214. To provide thc required level of service, a sec- ond right mm. lane is required on thc northbound approach and an exclusive westbound right turn lane is required. · 1-5 Southbound Ramps/Highway 219. To' provide thc required volume to capacity ra- tio, the eastbound to southbound exclusive lane needs at least 425 feet of clear storage plus a'taper. This would allow thc fight mining vehicles to flow directly onto thc ramp and thus increase the capacity of thc intersection. · 'Evergreen'Road/Highway 214. To provide thc required volume to capacity ratio, the northbound approach needs to be widened to three lanes, including an exclusive left turn lane,-a shared left/through lane, *and an exclusive right mm' lane. The signal phasing ' would need to be modified to allow split phasing on the northbound and southbound ap- proaches. These mitigation measures are typical int'ersection turn lane improvements that resPOnd to heavy mm mo~,ements infully developed urban areas. These improvements would likely be identified in the detailed 1-5 interchange and Highway 214 corridor studies. TRIP GENERATION Estimates' of Friday p.m. and Saturday vehicle trip ends for thc Phase II and III factory outlet stores were compared against the trip generation characteristics of an apartment complex that could be typical built on thc eight acre site under the existing zoning. Table 9 presents the trip generation comparison for the two land use scenarios. Klttelson & Associates, Inc. 44 December 1998 Woodburn Factory Stores---Phases IIIIII Year 2015 Transportation 5'ystem Analysis Table 9 Trip Generation Comparison New Peak Hour Trip,= Daily I Diverted Land Use Size Total Inbound Outbound Total Trips Total P.M. Peak Hour P.M. ~ak Hour SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS Figure 17 shows the net change of p.m.'peak hour traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway system between'the proposed expansion o'f thc Wo0dbum Factory Stores and the existing high density residential use. The retail use will generate higher'volUmes at the interchange and to the West. The residential use. would be expected to produce higher, volumes to the east of thc inter- change as those trips tend to be more local in nature - Work trips, shopping, school, etc. 2015 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The net site-generated traffic volumes shown in Figure 17 were added to the background traffic 'vol- umes shown in Figure 16 to develop the 2015 total .traffic volumes for the weekday p.m. peak hour shown in Figure 18. Table 10 lists the intersection LOS following build-out of the Phases Irand III fac- -tory stores. Section I of the Technical 3;ppendix Contains the 2015 total traffic LOS worksheets. Table 10 Year 201 ~ Total Levels of Servioe Signalized Unsignalizad Average Average Delay Critioal Delay Inierseotion V/C (seo/veh) LOS Movement V/© (seo/veh) LOS · Weekday P.M. Peak Hour :Butteville Road/Highway 219 NB/IT 0.28 1.4 B Woodland Ave./·Highway 219 0.79 30.4 D Arney Road/Woodland Ave. WB 1.20 >60 F Mitigated NB/SB 0.74 6.0 C Arney Road/Highway 219. SB 0.18 0.3 B I-5 SB Ramps/Highway 219 0.93 13.4 B I-5 NB Ramps/Highway 214 1.26 >60 F Mitigated 0.83 11.2 B · Evergreen Road/Highway 214 0.99 38.3 D Mitigated 0.85 24.0 C Oregon Way/Highway 214 0.75 12.9 B Crosby Road/Amey Road NB 0.04 0.8 A Notc: NB/LT = northbound left-turn; VIC = volume-to-capacity ratio i Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 45 I I I I ! ! ! I ! o OB N33BOB3^3 AV MO991M ~ ~991A~ I IIgB 0 OB N33BOB3^3 AY MO'lllM 3991A31119B Decemt~er 1998 Wooclburn Factory Stores--Phases II/ti Year 20;5 Transportation System Analysis As shown in TaBle 10; the same two intersections, I-5 northbound ramps at Highway 214 and Woodland Av~nue/Amey Road, do not meet level of service requirements. In addition; the I-5 southbound ramps at Highway 219 and the Highway 214/Eveigreen intersections do not meet the ODOT VIC ratio requirement. The remainder of the intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. Recommended Mitigation The same measures are recommended to mitigate the traffic impacts of the year 20.15 total condi- tions as were presented'above for thc year 20 ! 5 background conditions. Based upon the intersec- tion capacity 'analyses for the year 2015 conditions, the proposed expansion of the Woodburn Factory Stores meets the requirements of thc T?R since the same transportation system improve- ments would be required with either land usc scenario.'The proposed development does not alter 'the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facilities in the study area. ' K/t/e/son & Associates, In°. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE Section 660-12-060 of the Transpi)rtation Planning Rule (TRP) sets forth the relative criteria for evaluating plan'and land use regulation amendments. Specifically, the section reads as follows ( the language of the TPR is highlighted in italics and .our responses are presented in standard tyPe): (I) /lmendment to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regula- tions which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent'with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be acc'omplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity, and level-of- service of the transportation facility; Response: The adopted City of W0. odburn TSP identifies the need for capacity and Safety improvements in the Highway 219/214 corridor and at the I-5 interchange to. accommo- date the existing land uses in the City's comprehensive Plan. The analysis' indicates that some additional intersection widenings will be necessary to accommodate either the ex- isting land use designation (high density residential) or the proposed land use designation (commercial). The identified intersection improvements are consistent the planned func- tion, capacity and level of service for the transportation facilities in the study area. b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of Ibis division; or Response: The adopted TSP does not need to be amended to accommodate these minor intersection widening improvements that are required under either land use scenario. (2) A plan or landuse regulation amendmentsignificantly affects a transportation facility if it: (a) Changes the functional classification o fan existing of planned transportation facility; 48 December 1998 Woodbum Factory Stores--.Phases IIIIII Year 2015 Transpo~lation System Analysis Response: The proposed rezone/development will not require or result in any changes to the functional classification of any transportation facility in the vicinity of the site. Crite- ria (a) is not met. (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; Response: The proposed rezone/development will not require or result in any changes to the standards that implement the functional classification system. Criteria (b) is not met. ©Allows types of land uses whiCh would result in l. evel of travel or access which are inconsistent with the transportation facility; Response: The level of travel under the existing and proposed zoning designations are consistent with the functional classification of the facilities in the study area. Criteria © not met. · (d) Wouldreduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable [eve/of service identified in th'e TSP. Response: As indicated in previous responses, the proposed re-zone/development will not result in 'a degradation'in level of service in the Highway 219/214 corridor' and at the I-5 interchange ramps witl~ development under the current or proposed zoning scenarios. Criteria (d) is not met. " (3) Determinations .under ~ubsections (I) and (2) of this section shall be coordinated with af-. fected transportation facilitiesa nd service providers and other affected local governments. Response: ODOT, Marion County and the City of Woodburn have been working together through the development and implementation of transportation system improvements. identified in the TSP. The three jurisdictions are coordinating efforts on the Highway 2!4 Corridor study that is currently being conducted to identify future improvements-in the study area. (4) The presence of a transportation facility of improvement shall not be a basis for an excep- tion to allow residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial development on rural lands under this division of OAE 660-04-022 and 028. Response: Not applicable to this rezone/development application. KJttelson & Associates, Inc. 49 Appendix C July 2000 Woodburn Factory Stores Trip Generation Report KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SWALDER. SUITE 700 - PORTLAND, OR 97205 · (503) 228-5230 - FAX (503) 273-8169 July 17, 2000 Project #: 3383.2 Steven L. Craig Craig Realty Group 1500 Quail Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Woodburn Company Stores - Existing Trip Generation Analysis Dear Steve: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has completed a study to determine the existing trip generation rates (Weekday p.m. and Saturday mid-day peak hours) at the Woodbum Company Stores in Woodbum, Oregon. The actual trip generation rates were then compared with the estimated trip generation rates used in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed expansion of the retail center (Phases Il and Ill). This comparison of trip generation rates would then help determine whether the transportation system impacts described in the TIA for Phases Il and Ill are still valid. Phase I construction of The Woodbum Company Stores was completed in August 1999 and since then the retail center has been open for business. During December 1998 while Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores was under construction, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. completed a traffic impact study for Phases II and Ill. The trip generation estimates used in the traffic impact analysis for Phases II and Ill were based on the standard reference manual, "Trip Generation", 6th Edition as published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), and a study of two Oregon factory outlet malls conducted for ODOT by JRH transportation Engineering. This study was conducted to compare the trip generation rates as used in the traffic impact study for Phase II and Ill with actual rates experienced during the first year of operations at the Woodburn Company Store. Summary of Previous Work The floor areas and trip generation rates that were assumed in the two previous impacts studies are summarized in Table 1. The same peak hour trip generation rate was used for all three construction phases for the center and was based on the average observed rate at other similar developments as described in the 1TE "Trip Generation" Report. The relevant pages from the previous studies are attached in Attachment A. Woodburn Company Stores- Trip Generation Survey JuO/ ~ 7, 2000 Prolect: ~.s.~s_2 Page: 2_ Table 1: Summary of Floor Areas and Trip ~eneration Rates used in Impact Studies Gross Floor Area Trip Generation in Peak Hour Phase (TIA Date) (square feet) Weekda, p.m. hour Saturday peak hour Trip Rate Total Trips Trip Rate Total Trips I (March 1998) 252,000 2.30 575 3.78 955 II (December 1998) 62,395 2.30 145 3.78 235 III (December 1998) 91,190 2.30 210 3.78 345 It should be noted that using the same trip generation rate for the entire center resulted in a conservative estimate. Examination of the 1TE data for factory outlet stores (Code No. 823), as well as retail shopping centers (Code No. 820), shows that as the size of the retail centers increase the trip generation rates decrease. An adjustment to the trip generation rate based upon the increasing size of the Woodbum Company Stores for Phases II and II will be discussed later in this report. Actual Trip Generation Rates for Phase I Development The actual trip generation rates for the Woodbum Company Stores were calculated using the weekday and Saturday midday peak hour traffic counts taken at the center and the actual square footage of the center constructed in Phase I. Since the traffic counts were taken in May 2000, the traffic volumes experienced at the center since opening in August 1999 were reviewed to determine whether a seasonal adjustment was appropriate. The details of the traffic counts and the seasonal adjustment analysis are discussed in the following sections. Traffic Data Collection Manual traffic counts were taken during the weekday p.m. and Saturday mid-day periods. R was determined through discussions with the management staff at the center that the Saturday mid-day peak period typically occurs between 1:30 and 3:30 pm. Traffic counts were taken at the existing access driveways for the parking areas of the Woodburn Company Stores on Saturday, May 13th from 1:30 to 3:30pm and on Wednesday, May 17th from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. There are a total of seven access driveways serving the parking areas around the Woodburn Company Stores. Three of these driveways are off the southern access road, which also provides access to the neighboring Hersburger Car Dealership and a single residential unit. Based on the traffic survey conducted, the following can be reported (The detailed survey results are included in Attachment B): The Saturday peak hour (2:15-3:15 p.m.) trip generation at the Woodbum Company Stores was 1,051 vehicles; almost double the 533 peak hour (4:15-5:15 p.m.) volume recorded for Wednesday. K/He/son & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Woodburn Company Stores- Trip Generat/on Survey Jul), 1~ 2000 Project #338.'~ 2 Page~.-t_ On Saturday, 57 percent of the generated traffic entered or exited at the driveways along the South Access Road, another 37 percent used the central driveway on Amey Road, while only sax percent used the northern access on Arney Road. During the Wednesday peak hour (4:15-5:15 PM), 68 percent entered or exited via the South Access Road, 30 percent at the central access intersection on Amey Road, while only two percent used the northern access on Amey Road. On Saturday, 97 percent of the site traffic entered/exited from/to the south (the direction of Route 214 and I-5) while only 3 percent (34 vehicles) did so from the north. On Wednesday, 93 percent of the site traffic entered/exited from/to the south while seven percent (35 vehicles) did so from the north. During the Saturday peak hour it was estimated that the Hersburger Car Dealership contributed 33 vehicles to the traffic on the southern access road. During the Wednesday p.m. peak hour, the Hersburger Car Dealership contributed 35 vehicles to the traffic on the southern access road. The "background" through trips on Amey Road during the Saturday peak hour is estimated at 15 southbound and 20 northbound vehicles. Deducting the current tracking activity to the nearby construction site it was estimated that during the Wednesday peak hour there were 25 southbound and 25 northbound "background" through trips on Amey Road, unrelated to the Woodburn Company Stores. Seasonal Adjustment Analysis Based upon our experiences at other large retail centers, the actual trip generation rates during the first four to six months following the grand opening are generally inflated by as much as tWenty-five percent as shoppers want to experience the new stores. After the initial surge of curiosity shoppers, the normal level of shoppers generated by the retail center stabilizes. The first year's experience at the Woodburn Company Stores follows this pattern as evidenced by the monthly traffic counts taken at the center (see Table 2). In addition, to the customer surge experienced during the grand opening of the store, another surge was experienced with the opening of the Banana Republic and Gap stores during February and March 2000. This is also evident from the traffic volumes as counted during February and March 2000 as summarized in Table 2. K/He/son & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Woodburn Company Stores- Trip Generation Survey Ju~/ ~ 7, 2000 Project: #3383 2 PaEle~ 4 Table 2: Average Weekly Traffic Volumes by Month Month Average/Week September '99 25,505 October '99 24,167 November '99 29,275 December '99 27,547 January '00 18,000 February '00 (Adjusted) 22,414 (18,414) March '00 (Adjusted) 22,970 (20,970) April '00 20,660 May '00 20,210 June '00 21,550 Average per week (inflated by events) 23,500 Estimated average after adjusting for opening of stores (January to June) 20,000 From the average weekly volumes as summarized in Table 2, the effects of the initial store opening (September - October 1999), the effects of the opening of Gap and Banana Republic Stores (February 2000) and Christmas Holiday Season are evident (November- December 1999). These events go along with considerable marketing efforts and attract significantly more customers than during the rest of the year. In Table 2, two averages are shown. The fa'st average (23,500 vehicles per week) is a simple average of all the weeks and is inflated by the grand opening, the holiday season as well as the opening of Gap and the Banana Republic stores in February and March. To estimate a representative average weekly traffic volume (20,000), the effects of these events have been excluded. This was done by computing the average traffic based on only the first six months of the year 2000 and adjusting the volumes for the months of February and March as shown in Table 2. These adjustments were based on estimates provided by the Woodbum Company Stores. Based on the adjusted average weekly traffic, it is clear that the trip generation count survey was conducted during an average month and that the results of the survey should reflect conditions during an average week. Therefore, no seasonal adjustments to the observed data were deemed necessary. Trip Generation Rates The total number of trips that were observed during the peak hours on Saturday and Wednesday together with the data on occupancy were then used to determine the existing trip generation rate of the Woodburn Company Stores. The trip generation rates as summarized in Table 3 were based on the number of trips per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA). Table 3 also includes a comparison with the rates as used in the standard reference manual, "Trip Generation", 6th Edition as published by ITE, combined with other studies conducted for the Oregon Department of Transportation by JRH Transportation Engineering. K/rte/son & ~ssoc/ate$, /nc. Port/and, Oregon Woodburn Company Stores - T#p Generation Survey July 1Xe 2000 Profect: #3383 2 Page~ : , (I) Trips per Table 3: Comparison of Trip Generation Rates (Actual vs. Phase I TIA) Observed - Phase 1 Estimated - Phase I TIA Peak (May 2000) (March 1998) Hour Area Trips Trip Trip Area Trips (square ft) (veh/hr) Rate°) Rate0) (square ft) (veh/hr) Saturday 1051 4.29 3.79 955 245,060 252,000 Weekday 533 2.17 2.28 575 r I OD0 ~mt-~ f~., From Table 3 it can be concluded that the observed trip generates rates are very comparable to what was used in the Phase I TIA. The observed average weekday p.m. peak hour rate is about five percent lower than the rate used in the original TIA, while the Saturday mid-day peak hour rate of 4.29 trips per 1,000 square feet is approximately 13 percent higher than what was previously used. Adjustments for Phase II and HI Trip Generation Rates As previously described, the trip generation rates for factory outlet centers and general shopping centers found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual exhibit a reduction in the rate as the size of the centers increase. With the proposed Phase II and Ill expansion of the Woodburn Company Stores (as described in detail in the TIA - December 1998), it is reasonable to assume that the trip generation rates for both the weekday p.m. and Saturday mid-day periods would decrease from the rate experienced under the Phase I development conditions. Therefore, we have calculated an adjusted trip generation rate for the Phase II and Ill development scenarios. Table 4 illustrates the results of the trip generation adjustments for both time periods. Table 4: Com' ~arison of Trip Generation Rates for Phases II and III Observed/Adjusted Estimated - TIA Peak (May 2000) (December 1998) Hour Area Trip Trips Trips Area Trips (square fl) Rate(k) (veh/hr) (veh/hr) (square fl) Rate°) 3.~1 Saturday :2~°) .z140- 580 3.78 151,640 (2) 153,585 Weekday 1~1~a) 225 355 2.31 (1) Trips per 1.000 square feet (2) Total for Phases II and III (3) Trip rates reduce with an increase in size and the Woodbum Company Stores is proposed to increase in size from 245,060 to 399,700 square feet. According to the data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual - 6~ Edition, this size increase is expected to result in a 32 percent reduction in the trip ra~es. As the results in Table 4 indicate, the trip generation rates used in the Phases II and ffI TIA for both the weekday p.m. and Saturday mid-day peak periods were very conservative. The use of trip rates based upon the actual trip generation rates (measured at the Woodbnm Company Stores) and the retail center size adjustment would result in a reduction of the peak hour trip estimates expected to be generated with the Phases II and Ill expansion. Klttel$on & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon Woodburn Company Stores- Trip Generation Survey Project: #3383 2 Ju~/17~ 2000 Page~ 6 It should also be noted that the current comprehensive plan map designation and zoning for the land that is being proposed for the Phases II and III of the Woodbum Company Stores would allow the construction of 192 apartment units. As described in the December 1998 TIA report, the 192 apartment units would be expected to generate about 120 p.m. peak hour trips on the surrounding street network. Findings and Conclusions This trip generation study conducted for Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores development found that the trip generation rates measured at the site in May 2000 were comparable to those used in the original TIA (March 1998). We also found that by comparing data in the 1TE Trip Generation Report- 6~ Edition, the trip generation estimates used in the December 1998 TIA study for Phases II and Il/expansion of the Woodbum Company Stores are very conservative. The trip generation rates for factory outlet centers, as well as general shopping centers, reduce as the size of the centers increase. Since the trip generation rates that served as the basis of the December 1998 TIA report for the Phases II and Ill expansion of the Woodbum Company Stores are very conservative, the conclusions and recommendations reported in the report would represent worst-case conditions. Based upon this trip generation analysis, it could be reasonably concluded that the transportation impacts on the surrounding area would be less than described in the December 1998 report. The TIA for the Phases Il and III expansion of the Woodbum Company Stores described the minor street improvements that would be required to meet the City of Woodbum and ODOT intersection level of service standards in the year 2001 (expected completion of Phase 11) and year 2003 (Completion of Phase m). The TIA also described how the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requirements were met by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change needed to allow construction of the proposed Phases Il and Ill expansion. Based upon this trip generation analysis, the findings and recommendations described in the TIA are still valid. We trust the methodology and results of the survey documented in this letter adequately address the concerns raised by the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the trip generation characteristics of the Woodburn Company Stores. Please call us at (503) 228-5230 if you have any questions. Sincerely, SSOCIATES, INC. ~scheepers, Ph.D., Pr. Eng. //Senior Engineer Attachment A: Copies of trip generation pages from previous TIA's. Attachment B: Traffic Counts Kittel$on & Associates,/nc. Portland, Oregon Attachment "A" Data from Previous TIA's March 7998 Woodburn Factory Stores Traffic Impact Analys analysis assumed that 90% of the site's diverted trips would come from I-5 and 10% from Highway 214/219, based on a comparison of the number of diverted trips to existing traffic volumes on Highway 214/219. Table 4 presents the trip generation assumptions used in this analysis for a 252,000-square-foot factory outlet mall. The site will generate approximately 6,700 trips on Fridays, 575 of which will occur during the p.m. peak hour. The site will generate approximately 8,705 trips on Saturdays, 745 df which will occur during the afternoon peak hour. SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS Table 4 Estimated Site Trip Generation New Peak Hour Trips I I Diverted Land Use Size ITE Code DailyTotal inbound Outbound Total Trips Total Friday P.M. Peak Hour Factory Outlet Ma~ 252,000 823' 6,700 160 185 345 230 575 sq. ff Saturda~ Peak Hour. Factory Outlet Mall 252,000 823° · 10,325 290 285 575 380 955 sq. ft * See Appendix B for trip generation calculation methodology Thc distribution of site-generated trips onto the study area's roadway system was estimated by evaluating the relative populations of the areas served by Highways 214 and 219 with the areas served by I-5, taking into account the relative distances to population centers. Figure 8 depicts the distribution pattern of new trips assumed for this a~alysis (representing 60% of the site's total trips). Assignments of site-generated traffic to the study area roadways were prepared using this trip distribution pattern and the diverted trip pattern described previously. Based On the conditions of approval for the previous factory store application, it was assumed that the Arney Road/High- way 219 intersection will be limited to right-in and right-out movements for southbound traffic and that Arney Road will be extended to Woodland Avenue. Figures 9 and 10 show the assignments of site-generated traffic during the summer Friday p.m. and Saturday peak hours, respectively. 2~OO3 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The site-generated traffic volumes shown in Figures 9 and 10 were added to the background traffic volumes shown in Figures 6 and 7 to develop the 2003 total traffic volumes for the summer Friday p.m.- and Saturday peak hours shown in Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Table 5 lists the intersection LOS following build-out of the factory stores. Section E of the Technical Appendix contains the 2003 total traffic LOS worksheets. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 24 December 19<28 Woodburn Factory Stores-Phases IIIIII Phase II Traff[c Impact Analy about 243,000 square feet, the trip generation calculations for the proposed Phase II building size has been adjusted from about 71,000 square feet to 62,000 square feet. The Phase II site will generate approximately 1,660 trips on Fridays, 145 of which will occur during the p.m. peak hour. The site will generate approximately 2,555 trips on Saturdays, 235 of which will occur during the afternoon peak hour. Table 3 Estimated Site Trip Generation - Phase II New peak Hour trips Dally I I Diverted Land Use Size Total Inbound Outbound Total Trips Total Friday P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS The distribution of Site~generated trips onto the study area's roadway system was estimated by evaluating the relative populations of the areas served by Highways 214 and 219 with the areas served by I-5, taking into account the relative' distances to population centers. The same distribu- tion percentages used in the Phase I a.nalysis were utilized in this analysis. Assignments of site-generated traffic to the study area roadways were prepared using this trip distribution pattern and the diverted trip pattern described previously. Based on the roadway im- provements that will occur with the opening of the Woodburn Factory Stores - Phase I and the Waremart Distribution Center, the Arney Road/Highway 219 intersection will be limited to right-in and right-out movements for southbound traffic and the Arney Road extension to Wood- land Avenue is completed. Figures 5 and 6 show the assignments of site-generated traffic during the summer Friday p.m. and Saturday peak hours, respectively. 2001 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The site-generated traffic volumes shown in Figures 5 and 6 were added to the background traffic volumes shown in Figures 3 and 4 to develop the 2001 total traffic volumes for the summer Friday p.m. and Saturday peak hours shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Table 4 lists the in- tersection LOS following build-out of the Phase II factory stores. Section E of the Technical Ap- pendix contains the 2001 total traffic LOS worksheets.' Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 19 December Igg8 Woodburn Factory Stores---Phases IIIIII Phase III Traffic Impact Anely~.. Phase III Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic impact analysis evaluated traffic conditions in the study area in the year 2003 follow- ing build-out of the proposed Phase III development and accounting for the background traffic growth described in Section 5. The traffic impacts generated, by the proposed factory outlet stores during the summer Friday p.m. and Saturday peak hours were analyzed as follows: · The total number of future Friday p.m. and Saturday peak hour trips were estimated for build-out of the proposed Phase III development. · This site-generated traffic was added to the background traffic developed in Section 5 to determine future traffic operations at the study area intersections. · A queuing analysis was conducted at key study area intersections. · Deficiencies and potential mitigation measures were identified. The methodology summarized above and the results of the analysis are presented in detail in the remainder of this section. SITE TRIP GENERATION EStimates of Friday p.m. and Saturday vehicle trip ends for the Phase III factory outlet stores were developed using the same methodology described in Section 4. Table 6 presents the trip generation assumptions used in this analysis for the proposed Phase III expansion'ofthe factory outlet mall. The proposed Phase III building size has been estimated at about 91,000 square feet. The Phase III site will generate approximately 2,445 trips on Fridays, 210 of which will occur during the p.m. peak hour. The site will generate approximately 3,735 trips on Saturdays, 345 of which will occur during the afternoon peak hour. Table 6 Estimated Site Trip Generation - Phase III Land Use Size Dally New Peak Hour Trips Diverted Total Total 'Inbound I Outbound I Total Trips Friday P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS The same trip distribution percentages used in the Phase II analysis were utilized in this analysis. Assignments of site-generated traffic to the'study area roadways were prepared using this trip distribution pattern and the diverted trip pattern described previously in Section 4. Figures 11 and 12 show the assignments of site-generated traffic during the summer Friday p.m. and Satur- day peak hours, respectively. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 32 Attachment "B " Traffic Counts TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PROJECT ~.3383 WOODBURN COMPANY STORES WOODBURN, OR 1:30- 3:30 PM 5/13,/2000 (SA'r) 15-MIN · INTO STORE DRNEWAYS 'OUT OF STORE DRIVEWAYS GRAND · PERIOD sOUTH. CEN .NORTH TOTAL SOUTH CEN NORTH TOTAL TOTAL 1:30- 1:45 05 '52 '1 118 67 25 3 95 213 1:45-- 2:00 70 60 2 141 73 29 14 116 257 2'.00- 2:15. 59 64 I 114 92 19 ' 10 121 236 2:15- 2:30 82 56 3 141. 67 43 11 121'.' 262 2i30- 2:45 71 58 I 130. 75 37 14 126 · 256 2:45- 3:00 09 55 3 '127 ' 85 39 i4 138 265 3:00- 3:15 .-' · 46 61 I 108 100 38 22 160 268 :3:15- 3:30 ' 57 60 3 120 102 22 ' . ' 17 141 261. SATURDAY PEAK HOUR.TRIP .RATES P'ER 1,0(X) sQUARE FEET 243,6 ROAD PH 1.10 ' 0.94 0.03 2.08 · .1.34 .. 0.64 0.25 .. 2.24. ' 4.31 · SITE PH 1.10 0.94 '0.03 · · 2.08 .1,34 0.64 0.25 2.24 .4.31 .. ~TURDAY S.FFE'TRIP GENERATION HOURLY TOTALS· 1':30. -2:30 285 ~ 7 .514. · ~ 116 38" - '453 967 1:45 -2;45 29'~. ' ~28 7 520 307' 128 .49 484 101.0. 2:00 -3:00 .' 281 223 .- 8 .512 319 .138. 49 t 506 1018 · 2;15 -3:15 268 230- .. 8 500' 327.'. 157 61' 545 i' 1051 2:30 -3:30 243 · 234 8' 485 .362 138 67 .565 1050 TRIP GENERATION suMMARY PROJECT. # '3,383' . WOODBURN COMPA.NY· STORES .. WOODBURN,-OR .... 4:00 - 6:00. PM 5/17/2000 (WED) 15-MIN 'INTO ~'I'ORE DRIVEWAYS OUT OF STORE' DRIVEWAYS .GRAND PERIOD SOUTH CEN NORTH TOTAL SOUTH 'CEN 'NORTH'TOTAL' TOTAL 4!00 4:15' 43 - 22 ' 0 '05 60. 1.1 '3 64 129 4:15 4:30"' 33 32 '. 0 65 .55 16 · ~ .1 ~ 72 137 '4:30 .4:45 32 30 0 62 56 7 '. - 1' " 64 126 .4:45 5:00 45 25 ! 74 53 10 ." '2 · -65 1'39. 5:00 5:15. 30 ' 21' ' 0 51 '57 20 " 3 80 .1'31 '5:15 5:30 · 42 . 18 1' 61 47 · 12 ' 0 . 59 120 · 5:30 '5:45.. ..26. · 19 0 .45 50 ' 11 I . 62 '107 5:45 6:00 27 27 1 55 36 ' 14' ~3 53'' 108 WEEKDAY PEA,K' HOUR TRIP RATES PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET 243.6 ROADPH '1 .0.60 0,44 0.00. %03I 0.91 .0,22 0,03 -1.1sI .2,10 SITE 'PH' 0.59 0.44 0.00, 1.03 0.91 0.22 '0.03.1.15 2.19 WEEKDAY SITE TRIP. GENERATION HOURLY TOTALS 243.6 .. 4:00 ;5:00 ' 156 109' I 266 214 44 7 ' ' 265' · 531 4:15 -5:15 143 i08 '1 '252 221 53 7 281 , 533 4:30 -5:30 152. 04 2 245 213 49 · 6 268 516 - 4:45 . -5:45 '140 83 2 231 ' 207 53 0 .266 497 '5:00 -6:00. 125 .85 -2 · 212 190 57 7 254 466 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR "KA · 3383 ARNEY RD & W'BURN STORES SOUTH RD WOODBURN, OR 5/13/2000 (GAT) I PM PEAK HOUR I 235 I M, CUNNEEN SB PHF* 0.884 . 9 226 0 WB PHF* NA 'SB HV 0.4% WB HV NA SB BIKES ' 0 I I I WB BIKES NA SB PEDS 0 <- v -> WB PEDS. NA 8 --I PHF '0.869 * I-- 0 TEV, 1057 346 0 > HV 0.6% <---:' 0 0 · Weighted Average V <_ A. _:> V I I .I-' .'. EB PHF* 0.821 ' NB PHF* 0.897 · EB HV 0.3% 282 194 0 . NB HV · 0.8% 'EB BIKES 0. NB BIKES 0 · · EB PEDS 0 476 ' NB PEDS 0 15-MIN . EASTi~:~JND WEStbOUND. NORTHBOUND · SOUTHBOUND ci1~ ~:30 C~R 0 -0 . 71 0 0 0 70' .47 0 0 · ~ ! 224 HV o 0 o 0 0 0 · 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 :* TOT ' O 0 * 71 ' 0 0 0 70 47 0 ' 0 35 I 224 1:45 C~q 2 0 ?5 0. O . 0 64 4~ . 0 '0 63 I ~!.1 . HV 0 0.' I O ~ 0 0 0 I 0 0 O 0 ' · TOT . 2 0 76. ' 0 ~) 0 84 47' 0 0 53' 1 .200 ~ ' 3 0 g3 0 . . .0' 0 ~2 .-40.. . 0 q 32 1 h'V 0 0 . 0 0 0" '0 I * . .1 0 0 0 0 2 TOT ;3 0. 83* 0 '0 0 63 50 . ' 0 0 ' 32 :1 242 ~-15 GAR * 4 0 eg 0 O' - *0 82 47.* 0 , ,' . 0 E3 .. 4 HV 0 0'. O! 0 '0 ' 0 : 0 ' 0 0 0 - 0 '0 0 ,. - TOT 4 0 68 0 0 , 0 82 47 - 0 0 'E3 .4 · 25g. 2.30 CAR 0 ',* 0 - 81 0 0 0 78 dig 0 0 E"/. 0 TOT 0 0 81 .0 0 0 . 78. 50 0 '0 ' * ' 58 2 269 24~ CAi:[ 2 0 ' a5 0 O O I72 4~ · 0 0 E2 2 HV 0. 0 I 0 0 . O: . O' 1 O., 0 0 0 TOT 2 ' ' 0 58 0 0 0 72 46 0 0 ~ 32 2 260 :~00 ~ ;~ 0 . i02 0 0 0 r30 4g 0 0 e3 HI/ (] 0 0 0 O 0 0 . ~ 0 0 · 0 0 - · TOT 2 0 102 · 0 0' 0 50' 51 0 0 · '63 '1 269 3;16 ~ 3 0 , 101 0 '* O. 0 ,68 44 ' 0 0 * 41 HV o o' I o o 0 I I (3 (~ 0 0 . TOT 3 0 't02 0 0 0 · ~9' * 4~ 0 .0 . .41 2 .252 AREA 'PEAK HOUR AREA ~'I~.c 0,50 NA 0,~3 NA · NA NA · 0,~ . 0,~5' NA ' NA 0,80 0,66 ' 0,98 :I~H I lB 0 338I 0 .. 0 0I ~S2.- 194 OI 0. 225 OI 1067 AREA PEAK HOUR HEAVY VEHICl F~'-TRUCKS~ BUSES~ & H~U VEHICLES., :0 '' TRUCI~' 0 O "I 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 2'· 0 0 0 ~IJSE8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 ' .0 0 0 REC VEHS 0 '' 0 0 0 O 00 2 0 0 I O. .3 TOTHV 0 0 I 0 0 0 . 0 4 .0 0 1 0 e I-IV'/, 0,0 NA 0.3 ' .NA NA NA o.0 2_1 NA NA 0.4 0,0 o.e 8TBU8 o 'o o o 0., o o o o o o. o, o~ BI(~,pED~ I:fi. o .NA° o . . o NA° o o NA.~ . · O" 0 NA° · o NA'° HOURLY TOTAJ..~ 1:30 -2'.30 9 0 80~ 0' ', 0 0 '~ ~n~ lB1 0 0 173 7 888 1:45 -2:45 '9 0. 819 ' 0 '0 0 807 194 0 0 18~ 6 .t0~ 2:00 ~3!00 8 0 329 '. '0 0 0 . 295 193 0 0 195 ' 9 1030 t2:15 -~:15 6 0 838 0 * O' 0 282 194 '0 0 ~26' 8 1067 2:50 -,~:~:) 7 0 371 0 0 0 259 192 0 O 214 7 1050 INTERSEu~ON TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR KA # 3383 SB PHF* 0,746 3 82 0 WB PHF* 0,792' SB HV 1.2% VVB HV 0.0% SB BIKES 0 I I I WB BIKES 0 SB PEDS 0 <~- v . -> WB PEDS 80 4 --I ' PHF 0.834 * I-- 0 ' TEV 459 134. ' 12 ,, > I HV .1.1% <-- 3 38 · Weighted Average V (- ' ^ ~:> V ' '1 I I · EB PHF*" 0.898 . NB PHF* 0.837 · EB HV 0.0% 146 31 26 NB HV 2.0% EB BIKES 0 NB BIKES' 0 EB PEDS . 30 '202 .· '~ NB PEDS 120 15-MIN EASTBOUND · WES l uOUNO NORTHBOUND. SCXJTHBOUND 1:30 ~ 2. g 23 0 o. . 0 - 30 4 ~ - 0 13 HV .-0 0 0 o' 0 0 ' - .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 2 9 23 . 0 0 0 38 4 5~' 0 '13 . '1 HV o o: O' o o -. o ,o o ;I 0 o .0 1 'rOT I '4 21 · 7 I 0 33 * '0 ' 10 0 '2~ '1.110 '. HV 0 . . .0 0 · 0 - 0 0 *0 0 I O 0 O, 1 TOT 0 8 18 . I .0 0 39 g 5 I ' 14 0 ; 95 HV . 0 0 . 0 0 0 OI 0 · 0 0 ~ 0. O, .'o .TOT I 6 ' 31 11 I .0 41. .~7 .3. 0 -15 0 .1.16 .HV 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 1'. O 0 I O " 2 TOT b 3 28 9 0 0 35 '~ .7 8 ' 0 23 O 1 2:4& CAJq 2 0 30 7 I ' ' 0 ~ g. ' 3 0 17 2 106 HV O 0 0 O' 0 0 1 0 0 0 0" 0 1 TOT. . 2 0 30. · 7 I 0 38 g 3 0 17' 2 107, 3c00 -CAR I ' .' 3 2~ ' 8. 1' 0 32 7 12 0 27. 1 121 ~.ro~ ° 0 0 . 0 0 0 ... I ,-1 0 0 0 .' 0 · I 3' 29 - 8 I ' 0 '33 - 8 12 '0 27 I 123 3:1E' O,a~ 0 0 10 3 I 0 30 E ' 3 0 ~ ' ' 0 91 HV 0 . o 0 o o '0 0,. 1. .0 O o. 0 TOT 0 "0 t9 :~ t 0 59. e . 8 '0 · 2t o' 82 AREA PEAK HOUR · (2:15-3:15) . AREA PHF 0.50 0.50 .0.05 0.80 0.75 NA 0.88 0.86 0.54 NA- 0.76 0.~8 0.9,3 AREA PEAK HOUR HEAVY. VEHICLES -.TRUCKS,-BIJ._~E_~ & REC VEHICi FR TRUCKS 0 0 ' O. . 0 · 0 0 ' 2 · 0 '0 '0 0 0 -2 BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 O' 0 0 RE(~ VEHS '0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 · I 0 TOTHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 5. HV % 0.0 0,0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 1.4 . 5.5 "0.0 NA '.1.2 ' 0.0 1.1 GT BU9 o o o . o o - o o o o ' 0 o o o EgGYGLES o o o o . o o o o o o o . o o HOURLY TOTALS 1:35 -2:30~ 4 27 ' 95 19 2 0 ' 151· 26 23 1. 68 2 415 1:45 -2:45 2 P_I 90 28 2 .0 148 E9 26 1 78 1 2:00 .,3:00! 3 .. 17 107 28 2 · 0 151 82 ' 19 I 69 2 .4,.,~i 2:.15 ~:15i 4 12 . ' 118 35 3 . O' ' t45 31 .26 0 82 3 459 2:50 .3:30 8 8 100 27 3 0 ~45 ~:~. 20 O' 88 3 455 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR KA ,IP 3383 ARNEY RD & W'BURN STORES NO DRWY WOODBURN, OR * S/13/2(XX) (SA.T} i PM PEAK HOUR I 34 I M. C~..~ I SB PHF* 0.710 5 29 0 WB PHF* HA SB HV 2.9% WB HV NA SB BIKES 0 I ~ I I WB BIKES HA SB PEDS 0 <- · v. -> WB PEDS HA 5 --I PHF 0.721 * !-- Q TEV 131 '62 I . > HV 2.3% I ,< :: 0 0 : * Weighted Average 66 '~-I ' L. I--:- 0 I I I EB PHF* 0.657' , NB PHF* 0..84.5 EB I-IV 0.0~ 3 32 0 NB HV · ..' EB BIKE~ 0 ~ . NB BIKES .0 · EB PEDS O. . 35 NB PEDS 0 . 15-MIN EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND , SOUTHBOUND 'QIR ~-~_.;..:'~o · 'u~ 1t.i I~LT U=T 'n'l ~ '1...~- ~ 1~3T I:J='l' 'n-r ' R~'r TOT ~:~). ~ o o 3 ..o ,o .o ' 1 6 .o o '~1 o HV .- 0 0 ' O 0 O 0 0 0 O, 0 0 0 O' _- TOT~ 0 O' 8 0 0 "0 1 · §'" 0 0 11 '- 0 20 1:46 ~ ! 0 ' 13 0' ' .1 0 1 O 0 : 0 14 I ~'7 'I'IV .0 0 ' ' 0 O O O O 0 · 0 O 0 O 0 TOT " I 0 13 0 .. 1. 0 1 .'e · ' .0 0 14 2:00 'Cdi~l I o · o o o o o o o HV 'O 0.. 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 "TOT I 0 ... 9 O' 0 0 0 g. 0 '0"' ' 6 I '26 ~"IE ' ~ I '1 10 0 '0 '0 I 7 00 HV 0 '0 0 -0 0 · 0'; 0 ' 0 0 ' 0' ' 0 (3 0 ~ ~ I O 1;~ 0 0 0 . 0. ~ 0 0 9 I . O. O, 0 0'. I 0 0 I 0 HVi ' o o. . .o TOT 1 ', (~ '13 0 ' O' 0 ~ 0 7 0 0 10 1 32 2:4~ ~ . 2 0 12 O '. 0 0 - ~, g O 0 7 - I 8;3 I-IV . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ."0 0 0 'TOT 2 0 · 12 '0 0 0 ' 2. · g .. O, 0 7 1' 3:00 'C,N:I I 0 21 0 0 0 -0 .. 8 - 0 , 0. 7 HV 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 1 -TOT I 0 - 21 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 7 ' I · 3:!6 ~ 2 0 · 161 ~0 0 ~ 0: I 4 0 0 6 .2; ~0' 'HV 0 . 0 0 "0 0 0 0 1' 0 0 O O 1 TOT 2 0 1§ 0 0 0 I .1]. ' 0 0 e 2 31 AREA PEAK HOUR {2:15-,3;15) '1 o .o o1''. s o1' o AREA P~,,F ' 0,63 0,26- 0.67 NA NA NA 0,88 0,89 . NA NA 0,73 0,63 0,84. IF~ . IAREA PEAK HOUR .HEAVY VEHIO_;=~ - TRUCKS, BUSES, & REC V ICLES -. TRUCK8 '0 0 0 0 0 ...0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0" 0 0 0 0 0 RECVEHS 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 2 . , 0 0 I 0 · TOT HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 HV %. 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA ' 0.0 6.3 NA NA 3.4 0.0 2.3 BT BU~ o o o o . o o o o o o o O o ~_,~r:.q o o o o o 6 · o o o .. o o o o ~' ,. NA H'OIJRLY TOTAL6 1.'~0 ~.:30 3 I . 35 0 I 0 3 27' 0 - 0 ~ 4 110 2:00 -~:00 5 .1 .44 0 0 0 3 82 0 0 26 5. 111] 2:15 4:16 6 t 56 0 0 0 3 32. 0 0 '29 5 19i' :~:~0 -~:30 e 0 .. 61 0 0 0 E, aC) O_ ___0 8o B 185 IN ~ t=hSEGTiON TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR KA # 33~3' ARNEY RD & W'BURN .STORES NO DRWY WOODBURN, OR 5/17/2000 (WED) I PM PEAK HOUR I 66 I M, CUNNEEN SB PHF* ' 0.716 I 55 0 WB PHF* NA SB HV 28.6% WB I-IV NA SB BIKES 0 .. I I I WB BIKES NA SB PEDS 0 <- v -> WB PEDS NA 4 '--.I ; PHF 0:735 * I-- 0 TEV 118 . 5 0 ' > HV 28.0% <-- 0 ' 2 · Weighted Average V <:_ . A _~. V EB PHF*. 0.450 NB PHF* 0,809 '. ERHV. 0.0% 0 65 0 NB ~ m EB BIKES 0 NB BIKES . 0 EB P. EDS- ..' I 55 NB PEDS 'O.'- 15-MIN EASTBOUND . WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 4:00 CAR I 0 2 . 0 O. 0 : · .0 . ' '6 ' 0 0 .' 2 0 10 HV 0 '. 0 0 * 0" 0 ''. 0 0 3 0 O. ¢ 4 '. 0 7 TOT I 0 2 0 '0 ' 0 '0 . 8 - 0 0 6 0 4:1E ~ 1 0. . 0 0 0 O 0 8 0 .0 :14 0 .HV 0 ~' _0 o~ o o o 0 4 0 o' 5. oj 9 TOT; I 0 0 0 0 0 '0 12 ' .0 0 '19 0 ' 32 4:80 CAR O 0 I 0 O' , 0 O . 7 0 -' 0 8 ' 0 16. HV. O. 0 0 .0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4. 0 TOT. " 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 · 12 0 r 0 12. 0 25 4:46 CAR · 2 · . .0 0 0 0 0 0 12 .0 0 - 9 1 .HV 0 ..' 0 0 0 0 .0 ... 0 6 : . 0 . 0 . 4 0 g TOT 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 - ' 0 17 - 0 O' 13 = 1 6:00 CAll I 0 . 0 a 0 0 0 11 0 .0 8 HV 0 0 .O 0 0 0 - 0 3 0 0 3 O 6 TOT I 0 0 2 0 O' 0 14 "0 O, 11 0 28 EI~ CA~ 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 8 0 0 11 HV 0 0 0 .. 0 0 : 0 0 3 0 0 ' 0 -0 TOT 0 0 .0 0 0.0' O. '11 - 0 '0'. 11 I .' 23 E:30 CAR 1. ' 0 0 0 ' 0 : 0 .0 .~ 6' 0 0 4 0 !1 HV 0 0 0 0 0 '. 0 ' 0 4 0 0 · 0 ' 7 TOT -1 .. 0 0 - 0'- 0 0 0 10 0 0 7 0 18 6;46 ~ 2 0 . I 0 0 0 I .. 7 . 0 0 . 8 0 10 .HV. 0. .- 0 . 0 0' 0 0 0 4 '0 0 R 0 TOT 2 ' 0 1 0 '0 0 I 1t 0 · 0 '10 0 25 AREA PEAK HOUR (4:15-5:1b-') AREA PHF 0,50 ~ NA 0,25 0,25, NA NA, ' NA 0,81. NA NA . 0,72 0,25 0,89 ~,E.A pEAK HOUR HEAVY VEHICt. ES- TRtJCKSI BUSES, & REC VEHICJ I=.q TRUCKS' 0 ' 0 0 0 0 ... 0 0 17 0 0 . 16 '0 ' BUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 REC VEHS 0 O o o 0 0 O' · o o o ' o o o TOT HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 16 0 33 HV% o.o NA 0,0 * 0.0 NA NA NA 30,9 NA NA 29,1 0.o 25,0 ST BUS · o o o 0 o o o o o 'o o o o ' BICYCLES o ~ o o o o o o . o o o o o PEDS 1 ·. ,~, ... . o o r.,K~URLY TOTALS 4:00 .-6:00 4 0 3 0 0 0 O' 4,9. 0 0 50 I 107' 4:15 -5:15 4 0 I 2' 0 0 0 55 0 0 55 . .1 . 118 4:ao -5:30 3 0 I 2 '0 0 0 54 0 0 47 2 109 4:45 -6:45 4 0 O, 2 0 0 '0 52 0 0 42 2 t0~ 5:00 -6:00 4 0 I 2. 0 0 I 46 0 0 : 89 I 94 INTERSE'~ON TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR KA # AflNEY RD & W'BURN STORES OEN DRWY WOODBURN, OR 5/17/2000 (WED) I PM PEAK. HOUR '1' 55 SB PHF* 0.780 6 52 0 WB PHF* 0.500 SB HV 27.6% WB HV 0.0% SB BIKES 0 I I I WB BIKES 0 SB PEDS .0 <;- v -> WB PEDS 0 · 5 mi PHF 0.745 * - : 0 , TEV 2'14 .- ' ~ -* Weighted Average - V <-- ' ^ -->' V I I I EB ~"HF* ' 0.~9 " · NB PHF* 0.758 ' · EB I'IV. '. 2.0% 60 .50 3 NB I'iV 17.6% "' EB BIKES' 0' ' NB BIKES 0 " EB PEDS 2 103 - NB PEDS -. 0 15-MIN EASZBOUND - W~.-~ i uOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND. . .~'m ..... 'IH I:IGT .. LFT TH ROT TOT. 4.*(i0 ~ I 0 10 0 I 0 .t4 4 2 O' :'4" 0 . HV · O' 0 ' ' 0 '0. 0 .0 0 3 '0 0 4 0 . 7 TOT 1 0 . 1.0 0 I O.14 7" 2 0 .8 ' 0 4-3 4:16' C~q 0 0 16 I 0 . .0 12 6 0 0 11 ~, 60 HV O o o o.. o o 1 4 o o 6 o lO! · TOT '..0: O- 15 1 0 0 13 i2 0 0 16 I.N': *0 0 0 0 0 O 0 6 O 0 4 0 . O TOT. 1 -0 6 0 0 0 17 -11 '~' 1 0 12 I 49 HV 0 O I O' ' 0 . 0 0 '6 O 0 4 0 . 10 &,'O0 C4M~ . 3' O' 16 ¶ 0 0 ~ 8 . I · O, 8. .2 * 47 HV 0 0 '0 0 0 · El . 0 :~ 0 0 3 O . 6 · I-IV . 0 O. 0 0 0 0 :' ' 0 3 0 ' 0 0 0 HV O O O O . '0 0 0 4 , 0 ' 0 3- 0 7 TOT I . 0 10 0 '.. 0 0 12 ' 8 .0 0 · 6 1 .. ~9. 6:45 GAR I '0 13 '. · 0 0 0 1~ 7 0 · 0 ' 7 2 46 HI/ 0 .O "0 0 0 O . .0 4 - O O, 2 0 6 TOT. :1 0 13 0 0 .0 le AREA PEAK HOUR (4:15.5:15} /dm I. ~ o 4o1' ~ o-- ol so so AREA PHF 0,42. NA · 0;72 O, O0 NA NA 0;74 0;70 ' 0,75 ' NA 0,61 :. 0,5o 0,8~ /s~. PEAK HOUR HEAVY VEHICI_I:~- TRUC f,.BLI~ &.F'~ V.'"' IG1.ES TRUCKS 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 17 0 · 0 16 0 BUSE6 0 0 0 0 ' .0 0 0, .0 0 O' 0 0 0 REC. VEHS 0 0 1 q 0 '0 * ! 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTHV 0 '0 '1 0 0 0 . 1 .= 17 O 0 16 0 35. Hr% 0.0 -NA 2,2 0.0 - NA . NA 2.0 34.0 0,0 NA 30,8 0.0 16.4 BT Bt,lO o o o o o o o o o o o o o BI~YC~ I::~ o o *o o o o o o o o o o o 31=r~L~' 2 0 o : 'o 2 . HOURLY TOTALS i 4.130..-5:00 3 0 4d I I '0 5~ 48 4 0 49 4 204 4:1~ -5:15 5 0 48 2 0 0 50 50 8 0 52 6 214 4.'~0 .5:50 ,6 0 42 1" O' 0 44 48 4 0 44. 6 . 195 4:46 -6:45 6. 0 48 1 0 0 39 48' 8 0 38 6 185 5:00 '-8:00 6 0 EO 1 0 0 43 41 2 0 84 '8 · 185 IN'I I:RSE~i ION TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR ' KA # 3383 ARNEY RD & W'BURN STORES SOUTH RD WOODBURN, OR · · 5/17/2000 (WED) . I PM pEAK HOURI .1",, I SB PHF* 0.790' 9 91 0 WB PHF* NA SB HV 11.0% WBHV. · NA · SB BIKES 0 I I I WB BIKES NA SB PEDS 0 <' v > WB PEDS NA 10 --I · PHF 0.872 .* I-- 0 241 0 ' ~> !1 HV 5.2% i <-- 0 0 · Welghted Average I V '~'-- ^ --> V I I I · EB PHF*. 0.964 ' · NR PHF* o.815. EB HV 1.2% 1~8 93' 0 N~BH~. 6.8%' " " EB BIKES 0 NB BIKES 0 EB PEDS I 251 NB PEDS - 0 · I~MIN EA~ I UOUND wEsTBOUND ~ND SOUTHBOUND cnR ~ LFT 'IH RGT LF~ TH RGT LFT ' 'ltl RGT LFT 'IH FIGT TOT 4.'(30 'HV 0 0 0 O '0 0 I 3'",' 'rOT . '3 0 61 ' 0 0 '~ ' 0 48 ' 20 0 0 16 2 140 I-N o o .o O. ' (] 0 O. 6 ., 0 0 ~ o 10 TOT. 4 0 56 0 '0 0 .' 37' .- 21 . 00 :~B 4 150 HI/'- 1 o '1 o O' 0 .0 4" 0 ' 0 4 · 0 10 TOT -, :2 0 58 0 0 0 a(l' 27 0 0 15 3141 4:46 ~ '0 0 . .ET . 0 0 .0 48. 24 . 0 0 ' 16 2 146 HV 0 0 - 1' .0 '0. 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 11- '.' TOT 0 0 58 " '0 0 048 29 0 0 20 2 157 5;(30 - TOT 4 '0 59 0 0 0 37 · 18 ' O' 0 -28' 0 ' 144' 6:16 ~ 2 0 . 48 '0 0 0 44 . 13 0 O' 10 0 .121S: HV O- 0 0 0". 0 0 0 3 0 O' ' 0 0 TOT 2 O' '48 0 0 .'0 44' 18 · ' 0 0 19 0 129 5:30 · ~ 0 0 64 0 O. 0 29 t7 0 0 11 2 113 -. ' T 0 0 54 0 0 0 80 21 0 0 14 2121 6:46; ~ 0 0 . 38 0 0 0 ' 2g 23 0 0 18 I .0 O - '0 ' 0 4 0 0'. ' 2 ' 0 ' 7 ' TOT O. 0 ~9 0 ' 0 -0 ' E9 ' 27' 0 0 ' lll~Jl~.r,1, 0,~3 N~ 0.98 NA NA NA 0.62 0.80 · NA NA 0.81 0.58 ~ 0.94 BUSE8.0 0 REC VEHS 0 0 0 O. 0 - 0 0 1 o o ' 1 o 2 TOT HV 1 0 HV % 10.0 NA 0,8 iNA NA NA 0.0 18.3 NA NA 12.1 '0.0 8.2 8T BUS o o o · o o o o o o o o o · 'o BICYCl ~ o o o o o o o o o o · o o o · - HOURLY TOTAL~ 4:00 -5:00, 9 0 223 0 0 0 '169 87 0 0 78 · 11 688 4:15 ~:15 10 0 231' 0 0 0 158 g3 0 0 gl g 582 4:;}0 -6:;~10 8 0 223 0 0 0 165 88 0 ' 0 82 5 571 4:45 -~:45 e O. 219 0 O' 0 150 82, 0 0 '81 '4 65t 5:00 -~:00 8 0 200 0 0 0 .140 .'80 ' '0 _,0 81 4 511 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC COUNT CLEAR KA P 3363 ARNEY RD CONSTRUG"rlON TRUCK TRAFFIC WOODBURN~ 'OR 5/17/2000 (WED) SB PHF* ERR 0 15 0 WB ~HI~* NA SB HV 100.0% WB Hy · NA SB BIKES 0 I I I WB. BIKES NA SB PEDS '0 <- v -> WB PEDS NA 0 ~1 PHF ERR * .I - ' 0 TEV 30 0 0 ,> HV 100.0% <-- 0 0 .* Weighted. Average EB PHF~ E.RR · NB PHF* E.RR EBHV .... 0.0% 0 15 .0 NBHV 100.0% . · EB BIKES 0 NB BIKES'. 0 · EB PE.DS 0 '15 NB PED8 0 16-MIN , · EA81'BOUND · W~_~'i-~eOUND NORTHBOUND ~THBOUND 4.'00 ' CAR 0 .. 0 ~ 0 ~ ' 0 0 .0 0 ~) ~. 0 0 0 HV 0 0 .0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~, 0 0 TOT 0 0 " 0 0 0 " · 0 .. 0 ~ 0 0 ' HV 0 0 .0. O . 0 0 '0 4 ..0 0 4 0 TOT; o, ' ' 0 0 0 0 " ' 0 0 4 0 :' 0 ' -4 0 8 ~ rMq:l O. ' O .- O 0 O' .oJ - o o o o . , o o .. o I"IV o o o o .. 0 o o .4 o o 4 o 8 '*TOT .. 0 0 · 0 · 0 0 O 0 4 0 0 4 .0 8 '4:46 OAR 0 0 O! 0 0 o 0 . 0 · O .0 0 * 0 . O*l .HV 0 · 0... O 0 0 O 0 ' 4 .. 0 0 :*. 4 0 '8 · . TOT ,0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 '". 4 . 0 0 · 4 0 8 · .'O0 CAR 0 O' 0 O O ' 0 0 O - 0 0 ' 0 0 . 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 0· 0 3' 0 0 TOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 3 0 0 5.'16 OAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 . 0. 0 O 0 0 HV 0 O '0 0 0 0 . O * $ " 0 0" 2 .- 0 6 TOT 0 O. 0 '.0 0 Oi. 0 3 : 0 0 2 0 '. $ 6.'~0 CAR : 0 O O 0 0 * O O 0 0 0 ' 0 01 O HV 0 O* 0 0 0 ..0 : 0 4 0 0 · 8 0! . 7 TOT 0 O' O' 0 0 0 0 4 · 0 '0 :3 0 ? 6:45. CAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 .0 .0 0 0 HV o o o o 0 o o 4' o o a o · ToT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 * 0 . AREA PEAK HOUR '~4:15-6.16) AP.' I o o .ol o .o' ol o ~6 ol o .16 o1'~o ~ PHF ERR ~ .; ERR .IdA ~ NA ERR. 0~4 · NA' ' ' NA . · 0.~4 ERR 0,g4 ~ ~ HOUR (4:1Q,'6~115) . AREA PEAK HOUR HEAW VEHIOLE8 - TRUCKS; BL~F..8, & REO VEHIOLE8 TRUCK8 ' 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 O. 15 Oi 0:. 10 0 '~0 BUgF.9 ' 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 O' O. 0 0 0 0 0 REO VEH$ , 0 O' 00 '0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTHV 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 " 0 16 '0 0 16 0 HV% . 'ERR NA ERR NA NA NA ERR 100 NA NA 100.0 ERR! 100.0 STBU~' 0 0 0 : O 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 BiOy_nt F~ 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o- o 'o o HOURLY TOTAL8 4.00 -6:00" 0 O' 0 * 0 0 O! .0 ' 16 0 0 16 '0 4:16 -6.16 0 0 0 0 0 *. O 0 16 0 0 16 .0 4.'80 -6.'30 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 13 0 4 45 -6:46 o o 0 o o o 0 14 0 o 12 0 6.'00 -6.00 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 O. 0 10 0 24 INTERSE~¥iON COUNT DEDUCTING CONSiRUCTiON TRAFFIC KA # 3383 ARNEY RD & W'BURN STORES CEN DRWY WOODBURN, OR ' 6/17/2000 (WED) I PM PEAK HOUR SB PHF* 0.733 8 37 0 WB PHF* 0.500 SB I-IV 2.3% . WB HV 0.0% SB BIKES 0 I I I WB BIKES 0 SB PEDS · 0 <- v -> WB PEDS 0 · TEV 184 · §1 0 > HV 2.7% <--' 0 2 · Weighted AVerage V ~_. A ? · EB PHF* 0.689 . NB PHF* 0.733 EB HV 2.0% 50 35 3 NB HV 3,4% EB BIKES' 0 NB'BIK~:S" 0 ' EB PEDS 2 -. 88 ' ' NB pEDS 0 I~M-'N EA.~I'BOUND WE~TI~NO PEF~30 .t~'T . ~.1 RQT LFT 'tH . RGT LFT 'IH RGT LFT 'IH RGT TOT IdV ' O. 0 O O 0 .O 0 ~ .O 0 1 01 TOT I 0 t0 0 · I 0 . t4 4 TOT 0 0 ' '16 I , 0 0 I 18 8'. 0 0 12 3 62 4:30 CAR - . I : 0 .O 0 O . O 17 6 I O 8 I 40 f'N 0 · 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 I 0~ 0 0 0 1 TOT I 0 6. 0 0 0 17. 7 * t 0 8 '1 ' 4'1 TOT I 0 $ 0 .0. 0 12 12 ' ' I 0 9 0 44 6:00 ~ 3 0 16 I 0 0 8 8 ! 0 '8 . 21 47 HV o. o 0 o o 0 ' o 0 0 O 0 0 0 TOT -3 0 18 I 0 .-. 0 8 8 '- 1 . 0 8 2 47 - HV 0 0 0 O' 0 O . 0 . .. '0 0 0 0 0 . O TOT I .o ' 11 6:30 CAR 1 O 10 ' 0 0 0 12 HV o o o o -o o o 0 -o o 0 o o TOT I 0 ' t0 0 0 0 12 6 . 0 0 6~ds C.,q~ 1 o la o o o . lO ? o o ? g ,m HV o o' o o o a o 0 o o O. "o o TOT '1 0 13 0 0 0 ..' AREA PEAK HOUR (4:165:16) AREA' PHF 0,42 NA . 0.72 0.60 NA ' NA 0,74 . 0~73. '0,76 NA 0.77 . 0,.60 0~88 AREA PEAK' HOUR HEAVY VEHIC.,LE8 - TRUCKS, BUSES, & RE~ VEHI(~F..~ . : . TRUCK9 0 0 O' '0 O. 0 0 2 0 O' t 0 BUSES 0 0 o 0. o. 0 o 0 0 0 o, 0 0 REO VEH$ 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 o · 0 0 * 0 2 TOT HV o . 0 I o o o 1 'IV % 0.0 NA 2.2 0.0 NA NA 2.0 6.7' ' 0.0 NA. 2.7 0.0 2.7 8~ BUS o o o o: o o o o o o o o o BIOYOJ. E8 . o ' o. o o o o o 0 0 O. O 0 0 PED~ 2 o o o HOURLY TOTAL8 4.00 .-6:00 3 0 40 I 1 '0 66 31 4 o ~4 4 144 4:t6 -6:16 .6 . · ~) 4~ 2 0 0 - 60 85 3 0 37 8 164 4:~0 .6:30 e . 0 42 I 0 0 44 34 4 0 31 8 168 4:45 .6:46 6 0 40 I 0 0 89 32 3 0 ' 26 e 158 6.'00..~.'00 6 O 50 I 0 0 ,4~ 27 ' 2 0 24 8 161 }NTERSECTION COUNT DEDUCTING CONSTRUCTION TRAFF.IC KA # 3383 ARNEY RD & W'BURN ,~TORES. NO DRWY W ,OODBURN~ OR 5/17/'2000 ~WED) I PM PEAK HOUR I I CUNN N I SB PHF* 0.657 I 40 0 WB PHF* NA SB HV 2.4% WB HV NA SB BIKES 0 I I I WB BIKES . NA SB PEDS. 0 <- v -> WB PEDS 4 ~1~ PHF 0,681 * I-=- 0 5 0 ........ > HV 3.4% < .0 2 · We. ighted Average I --I. I-- 2 V <_ A _>. V .. I I I EB PHF* 0.450 , NB PHF* ' 0.769 EB HV 0.0%" 0 40 0 NB HV 5.0% '.. EB BIKES '0 NB BIKES 0 EB PEDS I 40 NB P, EDS 0 1 .57MIN EASIISOUND W~:S~ND NORTHBOUND , SOUTHBOUND QIR PE~K)O LFT TH RQT I. FT. 1H' ~ u~r' TH RGT LFT 1H ' RGT TOT 4:QO ' ~ I 0 2 '-' 0 0 O. 0 .6. ' 0 ' 0 2 0 10 .' .'IN 0 O- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 TOT I 0 '2 0 0 0 O' 5 0 O. 3 .'0 11 4'16 C,,4R 1 ." 0 0 0 0 ' O ' 0 8 -.-. ~N' 0 0 - 0 ' 0 0 0 '4) 0 ' 0 . 0 I , 0 ' 1' TOT i' 0 0 ' 0 '"0 O 0 8 0 0 ' '15 0 24 4.30 . CAR 0 . 0 - - I 0 0 O 0 .7 0 O' 8 O. 16 I'N . 0 0 0 . 0 0 O . .' 0 . .1 , 0 ' ' 0 0.' 0 I TOT 0 O I O - 0 .. 0 ' 0 ' · 8 O 0 8 0 17' 4:46 ~ 2 0 0 . O. ... 0 '0 0.. ... '1~' O O. . O I ' '~4 .1'~ 0 0 '. 0 0 0 0 ' '0 1' ' ' .0 0 Q 0 , t TOT 2 0 - 0 0 0 · 'O .0 ~13 O' " 0 g · I 25 6.'00 CAR I 0 0 · 0 ' 0 -0 11 .0 0 8 0 22 HV 0 0 '0 0 0 . B 0 0 0 0 0 G. 0 TOT 1 0 0:' 2. 0 '. .0 0 11 0 0 8 0 22 6:16 ~ ' ' 0 0 0 0 . 0 O. O. ' 8 O O. ' O ' 1 18 HV .0~ 0 0 0 . ' 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOT' · 0 0 .0 0 0 ' 0 0' 6' 0 .0' 9 I 16 6:30 CAR I ' 0 '. · 0 0 0 0 O .O 00 ' 4 0I1 'lw o' o o o o '0 o o .o' 'o o o o TOT " I 0 0 .0 '0 :0 0 'e '. 0 O. · 4. 0 1'1 ~:46 ~ 2 0 ' I .0 0 0 ' 1 7 0 0 8 ' 0 ' 19 HV ' 0 '. . 0 O O. ,0 O 0 .0 0 O 0 0 0 · TOT 2 '0 '~ 1'. - '13 0 0 I 7 · 0 "0 · 8'. 0 19 · AREA ~ HOUR {4:15.6;15) .N H I 4.. o' 11 2 '0- o l 0 --40 , ol 0 .'40 AREA PHF - 0,50 ' ' NA 0,25 · 0,25 NA NA ' NA 0,77 ICA NA 0.67 0.25 0,88 · · - - ~ ~ HOUFI (4:1~:16) · ' . 4 o' 1I · o '- oI· ' o 40,,-.,,~;~I'[K~-~,O 40 I I 86 IAREA PEAK HOUR HEAVY. VEHICLES. TRUCK8~ BUSES~ & REC i 0 0 '0 0 ~0 0 0 2 '0 O' I 0 BUSE8 0 0 00 !0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 00 REC .VEHS 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOT Hr' 0 0 .0 0 O O 0 - 2 0 . O I 0 8 I-IV % 0,0 NA · 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA 6.0 NA NA 2.5 0.0 8.4 8TBU8 o o o o o o o o . o o o o Ol BICYCt. E5 o o o o o - o 'o o o ,o o o o PE~6 ~ HOURLY TOTAU~ · 4:00 -6:00 4' 0 3 0 0 ~. 0 0 34 0 O. 35 I 77 4:15 .-5:15 4 0 I 2 0 0 0 40 0 .-0 40 1 68 4:~0 -6:30 ;9. 0 I 2 0 0 0 40 0 0 4:45 ..5:45 4 "0 0 2 0. 0 O' 38 0 0 30 ~ 76' 5:00 -8:00 4 0 I 2 0 . 0 I 82 0 0 29 I 70 INTERSEC ii iON COUNT DEDUG I.ING CONu'i HUCTION TRAFFIC KA. # 3383 ARN RD W BU N STO ;S SOU , WOODBURN, OR I PM PE K HOUR I 86 I M. CUNNS=. I SB PHF* 0.767 9 76 0 WB PHF* NA SB HV 1.2% WB HV NA SB BIKES 0 I I I WB BIKES NA SB PEDS 0 <- v' -> WB PEDS NA ' I 10 --I ~ PHF 0,869 * I-- 0 TEV 562 241 0 > l-IV 1,1% <-- 0 0 · Weighted Average 231 - --I I-- 0· .. v <"~ ^ ~-:> .¢~ v I I I' . ·:EB PHF* 0,964. NB PHF* 0,809 EB I-IV. - · 1.2% 158 78 0 NB HV. 0.8% . · E.B BIKES 0 NB BIKES 0' EB PEDS I .236 . NB PEDS . 0 · 15-MIN EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND I=~a~30 *LFT · 'IH . . RGT LFT 'IH, ' RaT LFT 11-1 · RaT '* * LFT * *TH RGT* TOT 4.'00 C~ ~ . 0 .~1 0 - 0 0 47 12' 0 0 . la I 132 HV O O. O 0-~ 0 0 '1 O' 0 -0 0 I '*' 2 · TOT .8 0 51 '0 0 Cf 45 17 0 ' ' 0 " 1~ . 2 1~34 4.'16 C,NR ' 4 0 EO . 0 0 0 ~7' ' . 1~ Oi 0 23 . .4 ' 140 · I't%' 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 I O: 0 '1 0 2 TOT 4 0 58 0 ' 0 0 87 17 0 0 24 ' 4 142 4:30 CjI, R I O ' 6'7 0 0 O. 38. 23 Q 0 11 ~ , '181 · h'V I 0 I 'O '0 0 0 . 0 0 O' · O. 0 TOT 2 0 58 0 0 0 86 '23 0 .. 0 '*il ' - 3 1~33 4:46 :C,~I 0 0 . 67 0 0 0 48 ~ 24 O 0 t5 . 2i 146 Nv ' o . . -. o ~ o .. 'o o o ' .1 o o 1 o: ' a TOT' 0 0 . 58 0 0 0 '48 25 .0 0 16 2 '*' 148 r).'oo CAR · 4 0 . r~ 0 0 0 37. 13 .j' 0 0 ... 26 O 138 .~v o o o ,o o o o .o o o .o o · , TOT 4 0 58 0 0 0 37 1:3 0 0 2150 I r'ii; ~ 2 0 48 ; 0 0 0 44 .13 .0 ' '0 17 "124 HV 0 O ' '0 0 0 0 .O ' 0 O O ..0 0 .OI TOT 2 0 48 0 · 0, 0 44 1{~ '0 . 0 17 0 124 '6.-30 '~ 0 . 0 ~ ' 64 0 0 · 0 ~ 17 0 0 11 2' ~ . 0 0 O; ~ '*0 0 O ;. I 0 ~, 0 0 . · 0 '*.0 .1' TOT '0 0 54 0 O. 0 ;80 17' . - 0 0 ' 11 ' 2 11'4 6:46 CAR 0 0 35 0 . 0 0 2g ~3- 0 O' 18 2 !10 ~ 0t O' - I . '0 '*. 0 0 O~ 0 0 . *0 O* 0 · TOT 0 O' 39 ' O. 0 0 29 . 23- ' O. 0 18 2 111 AREA PEAK HOUR (4:15-5:1~) APR. I .~o o ~-I o o "o'1 ~ ?. ol o-- ?. AREA PHF 0.63 .NA 0,88 NA 'NA NA 0,82 0.78 NA NA 0.79 0,58. 0.84 I lo. o =1' o o o l .la .' '" ' oi o - °1 AREA PEAK HOUR· HEAVY VEHICLES - TRUCKS, BU~F_.G, & I:~C VEHICL~ .. ~ I O' '2 '0 0 0 0 I 0 0 ' 0 0 4 BUSES ' 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 REC VEl'IS 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 O I 0 2 TOTHV 1 0. 2 0 0 ' 0 0 ~ 0 0 i 0 8 I-N'% 10.0 NA 0.8 NA NA NA 0.0 2.8 NA NA 1.3' ' 0.0 · 1.1 8TBU8 o o 'o o ' o o o o. o o o o o ~-'YCLE~ o o o 0 o o o* o .o 0 o 0 , 0 I"I:I,.R~' . I 0 .. O' O *. HOURLY TOTAL~ 4:00 -5:00 8 0 ~r~-~ 0 · 0 0 168 - 82 0 0 "64' 11 .658 4:15, -5:15 ~10 0 2al 0 0 O. 158 178 0 O, 76 9 582 ~1:~0 -5:~:) 8 0 22~ 0 0 0 165 74 0 0 69 6 544 4:45 -5:45 6 0 219 0 0 0 ' 159 88 0 0 59 4 525 5:00 -8.'00 · 8 0 200 0 ,0 0 140 66 0 0 71 4 487 COUNCH., BH.,L NO. 1977 Exhibit "C" OI?J)INANCE NO. 2>'40 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ANNEXATION 98-03; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 98-02; ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 98-04; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASES H AND HI OF A FACTORY OUTLET CENTER; ATI'ACHING CERTAIN CONDITIONS THERETO; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have established certain land uses within the City of Woodbum's Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, the Woodbum City Council has reviewed the record in Annexation Case 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map 98-02, and Zone Map Amendment 98-04, and considered all public testimony previously presented; NOW, THEREFORE, Tme~ CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. The land use applications before the City Council are as follows: A request for annexation to the City of Woodbum of Tax lot 101 consisting of 8.0 acres that is within the Woodbum Urban Growth Boundary. Bo A Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" on Tax lot 101. Co A Zoning Map Amendment in conformance with the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Map designation from Urban Transition Farm to Commercial Retail. Section 2. The applicant and owner of the Tax Lot 101 is Craig Realty Group - Woodburn, LLC. Section 3. The property which is subject to the land use applications is Tax Lot 101, which is legally described in Attachment "A". Section 4. The property legally described in Attachment "^" is annexed to the City of Woodbum, based upon the findings and conclusions contained in Attachment "B." Section 5. That the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" and a Zoning Map Amendment from Urban Transition Farm ("UTF") to Commercial Retail ("CR") in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation on the Tax Lot 101, which is legally described in Attachment "A", is approved based Page 1 - Council Bill No. 1977 Ordinance No. 2240 upon the findings and conclusions contained in Attachment "B." section 6. That the land use approvals herein are subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment "B", which the City Council finds reasonable. Section 7. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate re peace, -~, .--. ,~,,, ~cai,jy ~s aeciarecl to ex~st and this ordinance shall take e~Fec~1 health and safety ,,, ~'"er .....'- ~ , -- · P servation of the ub ic immediately upon passage by the Approved as to form..L~"~f) .~°un~r°val by the May°r' City Attorney Date Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office oftheRt~ tRe~er ~ ATTEST: ~ City o£Woodburn, Oregon APPROVED:-R/~, ~~YOR July 26, 1999 July 27, 1999 _ July 27, 1999 _ July 27, 1999 Page 2 - Council Bill No. 1977 Ordinance No. 2240 PACIFIC 8405 $.W. Nimbus Avenue Bcaverlon, OR 9'/005-? 120 LEGAL DES_C. RIPTION EXHIBIT d Page ,/ of A TRACT OF LAND LOCA _T}~__ IN THE WIIIIAM DARST DONATION LAND CLAIM NUMBER 60, IN SECTION 12 OF TOWNSHIP 5 SOUI'H, RANGE 2 WEST OF TI-rE WILLAMETTE MF-R. IDIAN, CITY OF WOODBURN, MARION COUNTY, OREGON, MORE PARTICULARLY DE,SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH. AT TRACT CONVEYED TO RAY STAMP~Y IR. AND CECILIA M. STAMI:~LEY BY DEED RECO~ ON MAY 19, 1977 ON REEL NUMB~ 81, ON PAGE 1629 OF THE MARION COUNTy. DF. ED RECORDS. SAID POINT BEnqG AT THE IN'I'F.R~CTION OF THE NORTH ! JNE OF SAID STAM~LEY TRACT AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ARlqEY ROAD (COUNTY ROAD NUlv[B~ 511, 30 FEET IN WIDTH); 'rHlhYNCE SOLr'rI-I 08'32'29' WEST, ALONG ~ WEST RIGH'~-OF-WAY LINE OF AR.NEY ROAD, 623.94 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH $9°23'14- WEST ALONG THE SOUTI-I LINE OF SA1]3 STA.MI~LEY 'IR. ACT 711.27 FEET; THENCE LEAVING' SAID SOUTH LllqE NORTH 40"55'22" EAST, 308.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14'44'51' EAST 397.53 FE2ET TO TI-IE NORTH LINE OF S3_ _I~ STA.M~LEY TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 89'06'00" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH IJNF.., 500.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT CONTAINS 8.00 ACRES MORE OK LESS. RENEWAL.; ATT^OHMENT~ ~ Page_ I of. ~:x~Sz- - BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON In the Matter of a Request to approve an ) Annexation of approximately 8.0 acres within ) the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, to ) Approve a Comprehensive Plan Map ) Amendment from "High Density Residential" ) to "Commercial" on 8.0 acres and to Approve ) a Zoning Map Amendment in Conformance ) with the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Map ) Designation of "Commercial" on 8.0 acres ) from "Urban Transition Farm" to "Commercial Retail" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CITY. OF WOODBURN FILE NOS. ANNEXATION 98-03, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMI~MT 98-02 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 98434 I. APPLICATION INFORMATION. A. AppHcati0n Descriotion. This application includes three (3) requests: (1) An annexation of Tax Lot 101 consisting of 8.0 acres that is within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary ('UGB"). (2) A request for an amendment to the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan map from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" on Tax Lot 101 (3) A zoning map amendment in conformance with the requested Woodburn Comprehensive Plan map designation from "Urban Transition Farm" to "Commercial Retail" B. Site Description. This site is located northwest of the intersection of State Highway 214/219 and Interstate Highway 5. The application affects one lot of record, Tax LOt 101. This site is flat with relatively little elevation change. Vegetation on the site consists of native grass. Two drainage swales exist on the property. Adjacent to the site on the south and east is the area of Woodburn Company Stores Phase I approved in 1998. Tax Lot 101 will accommodate Woodburn Company Stores, Phases II and III. Page 1 - Findings and Conclusions A'VI'ACHMENT, ~. Page .~. of Ce Ad_iacent and On-Site Iand Use. Comorehensive Plan Map and Zoning_ Map Designations and Utilitle~, (1) Adjacent Comprehensive Plan Map Designations. Woodburn Company Stores Phase I to the south and east is designated "Commercial" on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") map. To the north of this site is the Urban Growth Boundary which is designated Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") on the Marion County Comprehensive Plan map. Land directly to the west of Tax Lot 101 is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and is designated "High Density Residential" on the City's Plan map. (2) Adjacent Zoning Map Designations. Adjacent property inside the City is zoned CR. Adjacent property outside of the City but within the UGB is zoned UTF. Adjacent property outside of the UGB is zoned EFU. (3) Land Use on Adjacent Properties. The property to the north in Marion County is in farm use. The property to the east within the Urban Growth Boundary contains a single-family residence. The property to the south and east within the City limits is under development as Phase I of Woodburn Company Stores. (4) On-Site Land Use. Tax Lot 101 is vacant. (5) Utilities. Public utilities (water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage) are available to the site's boundaries. There will be no difficulty in connecting these existing public utilities and providing public utilities to the site. The applicant is responsible for all on-site public facility improvements. The City of Woodbum ("City") found in 1992 and 1998 that it had sufficient water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage capacity to serve the Phase I retail development. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. The Applicant submitted this application on September 18, 1998. After timely notice of a public hearing as required by the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, the Woodburn Planning Commission heard the application at a public hearing on February 11, 1999. No party requested that the hearing be continued or that the record remain open. The Planning Page 2 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT. Page ~'5 of Commission tentatively approved the application at the conclusion of the public hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a final order recommending that the Woodburn City Council approve the application on February 25, 1999. The City of Woodburn provided timely notice of the City Council's hearing on May 10, 1999. The City had previously provided the required 45-day written notice to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for this post-acknowledgment amendment. The Mayor opened the public hearing and read the announcements required by ORS 197.763(5). No party objected to the City Council's jurisdiction. The City Council heard testimony from the applicant and the Oregon Department of Transportation. ODOT requested that the record remain open. However, the City Council chose not to keep the record open pursuant to ORS 197.763(4)(1>). This section provides additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the local government may allow continuance or leave the record open to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. The City Council finds that this statute provides it with the discretion as to whether to keep the record open. In this case, the application has not changed since the February 11, 1999 Planning Commission hearing and ODOT had the opportunity to place a letter into the record concerning the application. Moreover, ODOT did not object to the City Council's denial of its request that the record remain open. The City Council also notes that ODOT did not request an opportunity to rebut any additional evidence presented at the hearing but had a full and fair opportunity to make its case during its testimony. The City Council placed no time limits on ODOT's testimony. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Council tentatively approved the application with a motion by Councilor Figley seconded by Councilor Pugh on a vote of 5-1 (Councilor Bjelland opposed). The City Council directed the applicant's attorney to prepare findings for review by city staff and adoption by the City Council at its meeting on June 14, 1999. The City Council decided not to impose a condition, which was recommended by the Planning Commission, that traffic impact be determined based upon an additional Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be paid for and obtained by the applicant. However, the City Council added a condition that the City address the issue of required traffic impact mitigation at the time of site plan review. The applicant's attorney proposed findings and submitted them to the City Attorney. After the findings were reviewed by city staff, certain revisions were made and condition IV-6 was added, as follows: 'That any additional traffic impact mitigation would be required at the site plan stage, if necessary.' Page 3 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT Page ~. of A disagreement arose between city staff and the applicant's attorney as to whether the City Council intended to include condition IV-6 as part of the findings. At its meeting on July 12, 1999, the City Council was presented the proposed findings and discussed the inclusion of Condition IV-6. ' The City Council then clarified its intent through a motion by Councilor Figley. Councilor Figley's motion, seconded by Councilor Pugh, was a follows: I would move that item IV, sub 6 b6 amended to say that no additional traffic impact study be required of applicant; that the issue of traffic impact mitigation be required at the site plan stage, and no "if necessary." ...I made that motion...someone would second it so we could discuss ..... The motion passed 5-0. A second motion was then made at the July 12, 1999 meeti.ng to direct city staff to revise the Findings and Conclusions to be consistent with the inclusion of Condition IV-6, as amended, and to present the revised Council Bill for approval at the following City Council meeting. This motion passed 5-0. IH. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA. The City Council herein adopts these findings approving this application. The City Council expressly incorporates by reference the findings as to the applicable approval criteria contained in the applicant's submittal dated September 18, 1998. Where there is a conflict between these findings and that submittal, these findings shall control. A. Annexation. (1) Relevant A_oproval Criteria. a. Statewide Plannin_~ Goals ¢"Goal~"). (i) Goal I, "Citizen Involvement," "To develop a citizen involvement program and insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." FINDING: The City of Woodburn has established a land use notification and hearings procedures to assure citizen involvement. Page 4 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT Page. ,,~7- of. (ii) Goal 2. "Land Use Planning." "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." This Goal requires that the City coordinate Plan amendments, including annexations, with affected governmental units. The City has coordinated this application with Marion County, the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), and the Department Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD"). (iii) Goal 5, "Natural Resources. Scenic and Historic Areas, and _Open Spaces," "To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces." No Goal 5 resource exists on Tax Lot 101. (iv) Goal 6. "Air, Water and l~_nd Resources Ouality." "To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." State agencies play a key role in achieving this goal. At the time of development, the Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") is responsible for administering permits for drainage and for air Quality ("DEQ") with respect to large parking facilities. The Division of State Lands ("DSL") is responsible for administering wetlands. (v) Goal 7. "Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards," "To protect life and property from natural disasters." Page 5 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACI;IMENT ~C~ Page (n of o?~ There are no hazards associated with the subject property. (vi) Goal 8, "Recreational Ne~d$," "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts." The Subject property has not been identified by the City as a potential park site for any type of recreational facility. (vii) Goal 9, 'Economic Development. "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." The subject property provides the opportunity to reinforce the activity of the existing factory outlet center. There is no other site in the Urban Growth Area with the same locational characteristics. The opportunity for expansion of the factory outlet center to an abutting parcel will better serve the existing market area and expand the market area, thereby creating more jobs and local payrolls. (viii) Goal 10, 'Housing." "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state." The City of Woodburn has provided for a variety of housing types and densities in its Plan and implementing ordinances, consistent with the Guidelines for implementing Goal 9. The available inventory of residential land within the UGB exceeds the amount needed to serve future population needs. Page 6 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT Page ~ of ~ As documented on page 39 of the Plan, there is sufficient land designated for residential use in the Plan to accommodate a population of 28,000, plus a surplus that includes approximately 100 acres of both the Low Density and High Density Plan designations. This analysis is based on the carrying capacity of the two (2) residential categories in the plan in relation to the densities permitted in the underlying zoning. The capacity of the Low Density Residential designation is six (6) dwelling units per gross acre. The capacity of the High Density designation is conservatively indexed at a density of twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre, where the corresponding zoning allows densities ranging up to twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre. (ix) Goal 11, "Public Facilities and Service,," "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." The subject property is well positioned for the further extension of public facilities constructed to serve Phase I development of the factory outlet center. (x) Goal 12. "TransportafiQn," "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.' This Goal is implemented by the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"). The City of Woodbum has implemented the Goal 12 and the TPR through the adoption of an acknowledged Transportation System Plan ("TSP") in 1996, Ordinance 2170. The TSP accounts for the development of all the land within the Urban Growth Boundary as provided for the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The TSP fulfills the Goal 12 through facility plans for streets, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit; implementation priorities and a financing program. The City has established a TSP that reflects the annexation and urbanization of the subject property. Additional findings demonstrating compliance with the TPR are found below. (xi) Goal 13, "Energy Conservation," "To conserve energy." Page 7 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT ~ Page ~ o! ._---~ ,4 The development of the subject property will assist in conserving the energy used for shopping by encouraging one stop shopping due to the aggregation of a wide range of goods at a single location. The buildings in the center will all conform with required energy conservation codes. (xii) Goal 14. "Urbanization.' "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.' Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Tax Lot 101 is "urbanizable" and not "rural" since it is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Urbanizable lands are defined as lands with the UGB which are determined to be necessary and suitable for future urban uses, can be served by urban services and facilities and are needed for the expansion of an urban area. The 8.0 acre annexation is an appropriate parcel to be included within the City. Since the property abuts the existing factory outlet center, it is a logical location for expansion'of the center. The public need for this particular land use at this particular location was documented in the City's 1992 and 1998 annexation land use approvals of the factory outlet centex. As a facility with a regional market area, the annexation provides thc opportunity for the factory outlet center to increase its market penetration by expanding in a location that has previously been selected and improved for the purpose. The annexation fulfills the City's need to grow incrementally and to provide for mutually supporting uses. (xiii) Goals 3.4.15 and 16 through 19. The following goals are inapplicable to this proposal: Goal 3, Agricultural Lands; Goal 4, Forest Lands; Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; and Goals 16 through 19, the Coastal Goals. b. Woodburn Comorehen~iv¢ Plan, (i) Commercial Development Poliqies · Plan Policy B-1. The CitY should at all times have sufficient land to accommodate the retail needs of the City and the surrounding market area. The Page 8 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACI-JMENT ~ Page._~._. of ~,,,t City presently has four major commercial areas: 99E, I-5 Interchange, the downtown area and the 214/219/99E four comers intersection area. No new areas should be established. ' Plan page 14 identifies the special market area considerations for commercial uses at this location: "This area serves as an interstate service center. It is a freeway oriented service center. This area also has a more regional retail orientation than the rest of Woodburn." Consequently, the need for commercial land in this area is independent of other commercial sites in the City. There are no comparable sites in the area available for commercial use. The proposed (a factory outlet center) use can only be served at the proposed location. A factory outlet center is appropriately located at this location because of its location relative to transportation facilities PP.I~. Lands for high traffic generating uses (shopping centers, malls, restaurants, ere) should be located on well improved arterials. The use should provide the necessary traffic control devices needed to ameliorate their impact on the arterial streets. The subject property is located on Arney Road, which is classified as a "Service Collector." Arney Road has been improved to essentially the same standards as a "Minor Arterial," except that the turn refuge lane is two (2) feet narrower. Arney Road has direct access to Highway 214, which is classified as a "Major Arterial." The appropriate traffic control requirements along Arney Road have been identified as part of the traffic impact analysis. ' (ii) Annexation Policies Plan Policy D-1. While it is important that enough land is available for the necessary development anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also essential to prevent too much land from being included in the city limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling development. The City should ensure that there is a five (5) year supply of vacant land within the City. Services should be provided to the land during the five (5) year period. Page 9 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT Page jo of As found in Commercial Development Policy (V.D.l.a. above), the I-5 Interchange location of the subject property has special, regional market characteristics and therefore is not directly competitive with other commercial sites within Woodburn. In addition there is virtually no other vacant commercial land available at the interchange at present. Therefore the subject property satisfies this policy. Plan Policy D-2. Prior to the approval of Site Plan, Subdivision or Planned Unit Developments for land annexed to the city west of Interstate 5, a detailed Transportation Impact Study with the Department of Transportation involvement will be required. This process allows the City to condition development with transportation improvement requirements that are "roughly proportional" to the traffic impacts that are generated by the development. A Traffic Impact (TIS) Study was completed by the applicant and is contained in the record. The City finds that this policy is satisfied for the purposes of this application and will not require the applicant to prepare an additional traffic impact study for Woodburn Company Stores, Phases H and HI. However, the City reserves its right to address any future traffic mitigation issues when a Site Plan review application is submitted on the subject property. Plan Policy M-4. The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the urban growth area until such lands are annexed by the City. The urban growth area has been identified by the City as urbanizable and is considered to be available, over' time, for urban development. Based on the on-going needs of the community to accommodate growth and the specific commitment to construct Phase I of the factory outlet center, it is timely to allow urbanization of the subject property. Plan Policy M-6. Upon receipt of an annexation request or the initiation of annexation proceedings by the City, the City shall forward information regarding the request (including any proposed zone change) to the County for comments and recommendations. The County shall have twenty days to respond unless they request and the City allows additional time to submit comments before the City makes a decision on the annexation proposal. Page 10 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT_ The City notified Marion County of the proposed annexation by letter in November 1998. The County Public Works Department responded December 13, 1998 for the Land Use and Transportation Divisions. The comments indicated the need for a copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis for Woodbum Company Stores Phases II & III, dated December 1998 which was subsequently provided. In addition the County requested a site plan addressing access, including the abutting property to the west of the subject property. Plan Poli~y M-7. All land use actions within the urban growth boundary and outside the city limits shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and County's land use regulations. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Plan because it is a proposal to permit the urbanization of the subject Property' subject to a concurrent Plan map amendment. There are no County regulations that preclude the proposed annexation. Plan Policy M-11. Conversion of land within the boundary to urban uses be based on consideration of [the following five (5) factors]: Orderly, economic provision of public facilities and services; All the public facilities necessary to develop the abutting property for the same use have been provided. Access to these public facilities therefore only requires minor extensions. be Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to ensure choices in the marketplace; The proposed annexation is required to provide the opportunity for future expansion of a specific regional commercial use in the only site within the City that is appropriate. c. LCDC Goals; The LCDC Statewide Goals are addressed above. Page 11 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT:, Page ~ of ~ Encouragement of in-filling development within developed areas before conversion of urbanizable areas; and As a site to expand a specific existing use there arc no in-fill locations that are suitable for this purpose. Applicable provision of thc Marion County and City comprehensive plans. The proposed annexation is found to be consistent with the applicable portions of the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan as indicated in section V.D. The proposal is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan in that the County Plan establishes the Urban Growth Boundary as the area specifically set aside for urbanization after annexation to the City. d. Transportation System Plan · Functional Classification of Streets. The proposed Plan amendment does not warrant any change in the functional classification of streets as shown on TSP Figure 29. TSP Figure 29 indicates a potential street connection along the north boundary of the subject property. Marion County has also indicated this need (Attachment A). The appropriate facility to fulfill this need will be addressed at the time of site plan review for Phases H and HI. Improvement Projects. Development of a commercial use will cause thc need for transportation facility improvements as described in the TIA. These improvements are consistent with those described in the TSP. B. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Page 12 -Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT,, P~ge /~ (1) Proposgl. The proposal is to change the Plan map designation for this site from "High Density Residential" to 'Commercial." (2) Relevant AvprOval Criteo_'~. Plan Amendment Criteria, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.050: "a. Compliance with Statewide Goals. "b. Compliance with Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies"- 'c. Demonstrated Public Need for the Plan Map Amendment. "d. Proposal Best Satisfies the Need. be Burden of Proof, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.080(b) · ComoHance with Statewide Plannlne Goaln. The findings regarding compliance with applicable statewide planning goals are found above and are expressly incorporated herein by reference. · Compliance with Woodburn C0mprehensiv¢ Plan Goals and Policien. The findings regarding compliance with applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are found above and are expressly incorporated herein by reference. · Dem0n~rated Public Need for the Plan Map Amcndmenl. The proposed change in the Plan map from "High Density Residential" fulfills a demonstrated public need. It represents a change from the way the Plan was originally mapped but was accounted for in the goals and policies of Plan. Consistency with the intent of the Plan demonstrates that the public need is served by the change. As time passes, there is a public need to weigh issues and opportunities and recognize that incremental changes to the Plan map benefit the community. In this instance, there is demonstrated public need to accommodate an opportunity to Page 13 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT_ Page I? of..,.o~ strengthen the economy, consistent with Goal 9. Goal 9 states that the Plan shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location and service levels for a variety of commercial uses consistent with plan policies. Currently the Plan is lacking a adequate supply of suitably located property that can be used to bolster the regional shopping function at the Woodburn Interchange. The subject change is needed to achieve the full potential of the interchange, particularly the existing factory outlet center. The public need is served by expanded employment opportunities and desirable mix of land uses for a freestanding community. The Statewide Guidelines for Economic Development address the public's need to accommodate expansion of commercial use. The Statewide Guidelines state that: 'Plans should strongly emphasize the expansion of and increased productivity from existing f'Lrms as a means to strengthen local and regional economic development". The subject change in the Plan designation is needed to be consistent with this guideline. The Plan change augments the supply of suitable sites. The proposal is the only available site that not only accounts for market forces, market location, and key public facilities, but that is readily adaptable to expansion of the existing mall layout. The, proposal maximizes the use of the existing facilities and the location advantages provided by freeway visibility and access and complementary commercial uses. The proposal is consistent with the w°°dburn commercial land use policies. Part of the public need is to exercise the Plan in away that recognizes change and positive growth opportunities that build a strong, liveable community. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. This consistency is demonstrated in section V.D. above. Key considerations in reviewing the need for the change include the fact that it concentrates commercial activity in a priority commercial area. Concentrating commercial provides the benefit of cumulative attraction which in turn enhances market share and reduces overall shopping trips. And significantly, the map change takes advantage of existing public and private investment. · Proposal Best Satisfies the Need. The need for additional commercial land to support the expansion of the existing factory outlet center is best served by this property. This reinforces the policy of concentrating commercial development. It strengthens the shopping pattern for existing commercial uses and avoids the proliferation of commercial uses in a dispersed pattern that lacks the mutual support of like uses. In this specific instance a commitment has already been made in this location to Page 14 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT,, Page /~ of_ establish a special shopping area that serves a regional market area. This is the only location in Woodburn that has the visibility, the access and an existing commercial use of this type. The subject property is the only site within the community that can accommodate the expansion of the existing factory outlet center. The previous actions by the City in 1992 and 1998 clearly have set the stage that there is a community need for this type of commercial use. Based on the public and private commitments and investments, the location characteristics and the conformance with commercial land use policy the subject property best satisfies the need for the expansion of the factory outer center. · Burden of Proof. (I) first criterion is to prove that the original Plan was in error. Conditions have changed since the Comprehensive Plan was originally drafted and first adopted in 1978. In that context there are errors in the forecasts as well as the assumptions about the composition of uses in land use categories. Such errors reflect changes in circumstance that warrant amending the Plan map. The second criterion requires showing how the community has changed since the original Plan was adopted The 1992 and 1998 decisions to approve the site for the retail center found that the actual population growth in Woodburn substantially exceeded the population forecast used to formulate the original Plan. This increased rate of population is found to demonstrate a change for the predicted patterns of growth since those apparent when the Plan was adopted. The findings of the previous decision also describe how multi-family land needs were over estimated in the original plan and that the interchange location is a less than optimum location for a large concentration of multi-family residential use. Present circumstances confirm that finding. In addition, the exposure and access provided by the interchange location has resulted in the development of the factory outlet retail center, a use which has a regional market. Commercial development with a regional market was not anticipated or accounted for in the original plan. The commercial activity with this broad market does not supplant local commercial uses but rather adds to the commercial land needs of the City. Page 15 - Findings and Conclusions (iii) ATTAOHMI~I~*/' ~ Page ~/~ of ~- The ordinance provides the alternative to address either the second or third criterion. Having addressed the second criterion, above there is no requirement.to address the third criterion. C. Zonlnll May Amendment. (1) Relevant Aporoval Criteria. Initiation of a Zone Change by Petition, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 15.030 · Burden of Proof, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.080(b) · Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (2) W0odburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Findings on these criteria are addressed in above, and are incorporation herein by reference. The City Council finds that the Commercial Plan map designations implemented by the CR zoning district. D. Response to Issues llal~axl bv the Oregon Dena _r~ment of Transportation. The Oregon Department of Transportation ('ODOT*) submitted two letters into the record dated February 4, 1999 and May 5, 1999. The May 5, 1999 letter states that it is intended to update comments contained in the February 4, 1999 letter. This portion of the decision responds to issues raised by OD(Yr. As noted with respect to Goal 2, the City is required to give notice of this application to ODOT, to allow ODOT an opportunity to comment on the application and to consider the comments as much as possible. The City is not required, however, to agree with all of ODOT's comments or to adopt them. (1) The City Council finds that the I-5/Highway 214/219 Interchange will be improved with sufficient capacity consistent with the adopted City-of Woodburn Transportation System Plan ("TSP"). ODOT argues that the applicant's transportation impact study ("TIS") is flawed because it is: *Based on the assumption that a major improvement to the I-5 Interchange will be completed. Such an improvement is not, however, included in the City's TSP or the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the TSP contains Goal 2, Policy 2, which states: *Develop a strategy for providing improved access to 1-5 Page 16 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT PaGe 1"7 of from the Woodburn area, through either improvements of the existing Highway 214 Interchange and/or a new interchange in the Woodburn vicinity (with supporting local roadway improvements). This strategy will be developed following a refinement study as outlined in the Transportation Planning Rule. ' The City Council finds that the applicant has satisfied OAR 660-12-060(1) because the application has no present 'significant affecff on a transportation facility. Further, the administrative rule provides that the City may approve the application subject to conditions of approval which mitigate a significant affect. The City Council finds that Condition IV-6, requiring that the traffic mitigation issues by addressed by the City at the time of site plan review, serves to mitigate any potential significant affect. The City Council finds that the applicant's TIS demonstrates that the application will not have a significant affect on the transportation facility identified as the I- 5/Highway 214/219 Interchange. Table 4 of the TIS prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. CKAID shows that in the year 2001, I-5 will operate during a Friday p.m. peak hour at level of service ('LOS~) HC' or better, with minor improvements. TIS at pages 24-25. TIS Table 5 shows that in the year 2003, the interchange will operate at LOS 'D' or better. The City Council finds nothing in the TPR requires it to look at the year 2015. In order to determine whether the application has a present significant affect on the application, the City Council finds that Tables 4 and 5 demonstrate that the application will cause the interchange to operate at acceptable LOS through at least the next four (4) years. In the whereas clauses adopted by the City Council for the TSP, a number of findings demonstrate that the TSP, with its required refinement study, will satisfy the capacity requirements of the TPR at this interchange. The City Council notes that neither ODOT nor the Oregon Department of I_and Conservation and Development CDLCD") appealed the City Council's adoption of its TSP. One whereas clause adopted by the City Council for the TSP found: ~The City Council finds that the transportation system plan adopted herein complies with OAR 660-12-060(1)(b) for the affected transportation facilities, including but not limited to the Highway 214/I-5 Interchange/Parr Road area." Further, incorporated in the staff report for the TSP were several findings relevant to the TPR. The City Council adopted findings regarding OAR 660-12-025(1). This section of the TPR provides ~except as provided in Section (3) in this rUle, adoption of a TSP shall constitute the land use decision regarding the need for transportation facilities, services and Page 17 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT /~ Page,,~ ,~, of,O'/- major improvements in their function, mode and general location. # Section 0) of the administrative rule provides that a local government may defer decisions regarding function, general location and mode of a refinement plan if the necessary findings are adopted. Pursuant to the administrative rule, the city did defer certain significant decisions. The City decided to defer the decision regarding the mode of improvements to the existing 1-5 interchange and make this decision after completion of a refinement plan. Three options were evaluated in the TSP but there are other potential alternatives. The information as to mode of interchange improvement could not be arrived at because Marion County had not completed its plan and further evaluation of the area was needed. However, the city's deferral did not invalidate any of the TSP assumptions because the need for an interchange improvement will still be addressed and local improvements to aid traffic flow will still be addressed. Delay of this decision did not, and should not, preclude implementation of the remainder of the TSP and consideration of the present application. The result of the refinement study, which will include a detailed, technical evaluation of the three current alternatives, plus others, will be an interchange alternative which is precisely defined. Additionally, the City Council found that the TSP satisfied OAR 660-12-030. The City Council found: "The TSP identifies the City's transportation needs including those of the transportation disadvantaged, and support of industrial and commercial development. These needs were based on a 20-year forecast in population and employment within the acknowledged comprehensive plan." Further, the City Council adopted findings regarding OAR 660-12-060(1). The City Council found: "That the transportation system plan adopted here complies with OAR 660-12-060(1)Co) for the affected transportation facility, including but not limited to the Highway 214/I-5 Interchange/Parr Road area." The TSP adopted by the City Council adopted three (3) I-5 access alternatives (see TSP at page 1). The TSP states: "An element of the TSP is an improvement to existing I-5/214 Interchange" and "a reconfiguration of the interchanges proposed." (TSP at page 89.) The City Council also notes that Table 6 (TSP at page 41) shows that at least one of the options (the two interchange options) would result in LOS "D" or better in the year 2015. The TSP contains a section entitled "Required Street Upgrades." The portion of this section dealing with freeways states: "In the longer-term, reconfiguration of the interchange is proposed. A specific improvement (improve existing interchange, split diamond interchange or second interchange at Butteville Road) will be identified through a follow-up interchange Page 18 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACJ-I_M ENT.. ~ Page io} of ~4. refinement study of the TSP." (TSP at page 89.) The City Council finds that while it has not completed the refinement study, it is unnecessary to do so in order for it to determine that OAR 660-12-060(1)(b) is satisfied for the purposes of granting this application. With the TSP and required refinement study, a solution to the long-term capacity needs of the interchange will .be provided. In fact, the TSP transportation financing plan contains a proposed roadway system capacity improvement for the 1-5 interchange. (See TSP at page 115; Table 17.) Thus, not only has the City Council determined to improve the interchange, it has provided some estimated costs for the improvement in the TSP long-term financing plan. The City Council f'mds that it need not complete the ref'mement study prior to this application. Because the TSP is part of the City's acknowledged plan and because the TSP states that a solution will be identified, the TSP has determined that the interchange will be upgraded. The City Council finds that under Goal 2, Policy 2 of the TSP a strategy will be developed following a refinement study as outlined in the TPR. OAR 660-12-025(3)(e) says that deferral of a solution to a refinement plan is allowed if it does not invalidate the TSP. In this case, the refinement plan carries out the TSP's acknowledged strategies without invalidating them. For these reasons, the City Council finds that the lack of refinement study is not an impediment.to a conclusion that the I-5 has sufficient capacity in the short term, as required by the TPR, and in the long term sufficient capacity will be provided through a solution identified in a refinement study. The City Council declined to impose a condition, which was recommended by the Planning Commission, that traffic impact be determined based upon an additional Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be paid for and obtained by the applicant. Instead, The City Council imposed a condition that the City address the issue of required traffic impact mitigation at the time of site plan review. (2) The City_ Council finds that KAI's TIS correctly analyzes the level of service at the time of this a_~Dlication, ODOT argued that the TIS does not adequately analyze the plan amendment impacts. ODOT requested that the TIS be revised to reflect a "worst ease analysis," meaning an analysis of the highest traffic generating land use permitted in the commercial retail ("CR") zoning district. The City Council finds that this issue is not required to be reached because a condition Page 19 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACi;IMENT ~ Page oq...~., of of approval requires that the site be limited to a factory outlet center. This is consistent with the City Council's 1992 and 1998 decisions regarding Phase I of the Woodbum Company Stores. Thus, a worst case scenario for the highest traffic generator in the CR zoning district is unnecessary since, in the event the Woodbum Company Stores Phase II and III is not constructed, the property owner will be required to amend this condition of approval which will require an amendment to this decision. (3) OAR 660-124~5 is {Jr can be satisfied. ODOT argues that because the City of Woodbum has not implemented the requirements of OAR 660-12-055(2), that it must address the applicable provisions of OAR 660-12-045(3),(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d). The City Council agrees with ODOT. · OAR 660-12-045(3)(a). This section requires bicycle parking facilities as part of new retail developments. The City Council finds that it is feasible, at the site development review stage, for the application to provide bicycle parking given the size of the facility (8.0 acres). The finding of feasibility is based on the similar Phase I development. · OAR 660-12-045(3)(b). This criterion requires on-site facilities accommodating safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within new shopping centers to adjacent residential areas and transit stops. It also requires that pedestrian circulation through parking lots generally be provided in the form of access ways. The City Council finds that it is feasible to satisfy this requirement. As with bicycle parking facilities, Phase I of the Woodbum Company Stores has demonstrated that it is feasible to meet both of these requirements. Therefore, the City Council finds that this criterion can be satisfied. · OAR 660-12-045(3)(c). The City Council finds that it is feasible to require off-site road improvements that would include facilities accommodating convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel. The City Council has required the applicant, in the approval of Phase I of Woodbum Company Stores, to provide a bicycle lane and sidewalks along Amey Road. · OAR 660-12-045(3)(e). This criterion requires that internal pedestrian circulation within commercial developments be provided through the location of buildings, construction of accessways, Page 20 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT '~ Page ~,,I of','~ ,4 walk'ways and similar techniques. The City Council finds that because the applicant satisfied this requirement in Phase I, it is feasible to satisfy this requirement in Phases II and III. · OAR 660-12-045(4)(a). The City Council finds that it is feasible to require this applicant to provide transit facilities designed to support transit use through the provision of bus stops, pullouts and shelters, optimum road geometries, on-road parking restrictions and similar facilities as appropriate. · oAR 660- 2-045(4) ). This criterion requires that retail development at or near major transit stops provide for convenient pedestrian access to the transit stop. The City Council finds that there is no major transit stop as that term is defined near this. site. · OAR 660-12-045(4)(c). The City Council finds that this criterion is inapplicable since a pedestrian district has not been established in this area. · OAR 660-12-045(4)(d). The City Council finds that it is feasible to require employee parking in Phases H and III to provide for preferential car pool and van pool parking. The City Council makes this finding based on its approval of Phase I. · OAR 660-12-045(4)(e). This criterion is inapplicable since it applies to existing development. · OAR 660-12--045(5)(d). The City Council finds that it is feasible to satisfy this criterion by providing a transit stop along Arney Road or providing a conriection to a transit stop if the transit operator requires such an improvement. The City Council makes this finding based on its approval of Phase I of Woodburn Company Stores. For these reasons, the City Council finds that the issues raised by ODOT have been satisfied and are not a basis for denial of this application. Response to issues raised by De_oartment of Ia_nd Conservation and Development in March 22, 1999 Letter, Page 21 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT. Pe8e ~ of o~ (1) Statewide Plannin~ Goal 10. "Housing". Is Satisfied. DLCD argues that the City must adopt an updated buildable lands needs analysis to satisfy Goal 10. Only at that point, DLCD suggests, is it possible for the City to assess whether conversion of 8.0 acres from a multi-family designation to a commercial designation satisfies Goal 10. The City Council rejects this argument. This application is subject to compliance with the Goals and the acknowledged Plan. ORS 197.175(2). Goal 10 simply requires the City to provide for housing needs. The City has done this. The findings at the outset of this decision state the housing needs of the City of Woodburn have been satisfied through the year 2014. The acknowledged Plan states that there are 688 acres of high density residential designation. Of this, ~J7 acres are undeveloped and 188 acres are underdeveloped. (Plan at pages 15 and 16.) The Plan further notes that the City has 238 surplus acres designated for multi-family land uses. (Plan at page 38.) This allows, at 12 dwelling units per acre, an additional 2,353 dwelling units. ~_~ Table 9 of the Plan at page 39 shows that the City has a surplus of 1,305 multi-family dwelling units through the year 2014. The Council notes that the Plan has recently been amended in March 1996 and in August 1997. Moreover, assuming that this eight (8.0) acres can accommodate twice the 12 dwelling units per acre figure, this area would accommodate 192 dwelling units. Removal of this site from the High Density Residential designation would still leave 1,013 surplus multi-family dwelling units by the year 2014. The City Council finds that the acknowledged Plan's determination of a surplus of multi-family housing units is a sufficient basis for it to determine that this application will allow the City to continue to meet the housing needs of its citizens. There is no legal requirement that the City defer this determination until the periodic review is completed as suggested by DLCD..DLCD's assertion that the City's acknowledged Plan contains an 'out- of-date buildable lands inventory' does not mean that the City cannot rely on its acknowledged Plan. (2) Statewide Planning Goal 9 Is Satisfied. DLCD argues that the City must satisfy the administrative rule implementing Statewide Planning Goal 9; OAR Chapter 660, Division 9. The City Council finds that this administrative rule applies only at periodic review. OAR 660-09-10(2). However, assuming that the administrative rule applies to non-periodic review decisions, the City Council finds, as it did in 1992 and in 1998 that this application satisfies the administrative rule for the following reasons. Page 22 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT Page~ of First, this application results in eight (8.0) acres of commercial development which will increase the amount of the City's property taxes. Increased property taxes provide additional revenue to the City. Secondly, an eight (8.0) acre commercial development provides additional jobs for city and area residents. Finally, consistent with the Plan, approval of this application further encourages the development of the I-5 commercial area. The acknowledged plan has long anticipated that this area will be developed for commercial uses. (3) The City Has Coordinated with QDOT, DLCD and Marion County. DLCD argues that ORS 197.015 provides that a Plan is coordinated when the needs of all levels of government have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. DLCD argues that ODOT's needs have not been satisfied since that agency requested a refinement study. For the reasons described above, the City Council finds that a refinement study is not necessary now. Moreover, the City Council has considered ODOT's request that a refinement study be prepared before this application is approved but has rejected this request as explained above. Nothing requires the City Council to agree with ODOT in order to satisfy its coordination requirement under state law. Finally, DLCD suggests that the City ought to defer this decision until the City's periodic review has been completed. However, nothing in state law requires deferral of an annexation, plan map amendment or zoning map amendment for completion of a periodic review work task.~ (4) The Application does not Conflict With Periodic Review. The City Council rejects DLCD's argument that the Plan amendment must be deferred until the City has completed its periodic review work tasks. DLCD cites no legal basis for requiring deferral until the periodic review work tasks are satisfied. (5) The City Has Satisfied the 45-Day Post Acknowledgment Amendments. The City caused notice of the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission hearing to be timely mailed prior to that hearing. However, the "final hearing on adoption" of these amendments was the May 10, 1999 City Council hearing. Thus, both ODOT and DLCD had ~ ODOT and DLCD's comments are directed at the comprehensive plan map amendment and not at the annexation or zoning map amendment. Because ODOT and DLCD have not raised an issue with the respect to the annexation, there would be no basis for the Land Use Board of Appeals to remand or reverse the annexation decision. The City Council finds that ODOT and DLCD raised issues related only to the Plan map amendment and not to the annexation amendment. Consistent with ORS 197.763(1), these agencies did not raise issues with sufficient specificity as to the annexation and the zoning map amendment. Page 23 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT /~ Page ~ of ~,'-/ more than 45 days notice of the City's final hearing on adoption which is required by OAR Chapter 660, Division 18. Moreover, to the extent DLCD's comment raises a procedural error, the City Council f'mds that the agency's substantial right to a full and fair hearing and an opportunity to make its case have not been prejudiced. ODOT and DLCD placed letters into the record and ODOT's representative appeared at the May 10, 1999 City Council hearing. Thus, both agencies had a full and fair opportunity to make their case? IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CONDmONS. The City Council finds for the reasons contained herein to approve this application subject to the following conditions of approval. (1) The access improvements required along the north line of the property shall be determined at the time of Site Plan Review. (2) The delineation of the wetlands and the required mitigation measures approved by the Division of State Lands shall be required at the time of Site Plan Review. (3) This approval is limited to a factory outlet center. (4) That there be no development of Phase II until construction of improvements which were required for Phase I as conditions of approval for Phase I are completed satisfactorily. (5) That the site plan review application shall satisfy OAR 660-12-045. (6) That the applicant shall not be required to submit an additional traffic impact study but that traffic mitigation shall be addressed at the time of site plan review. 20DOT requested that the City Council record remain open at the May 10, 1999 hearing. ORS 197.763(4)(b) provides that a City Council may continue a hearing when it is not the initial evidentiary hearing. The initial evidentiary hearing in these applications was the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission hearing. The City Council notes that ODOT's representative did not object to the City Council's denial of his request that the record remain open. Page 24 - Findings and Conclusions 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Exhibit "D" BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CRAIG REALTY GROUP-WOODBURN, LLC, Petitioner, VS. 02F£B~01 ~t'ff1:28 t~ ~,~ CITY OF WOODBURN, Respondent. LUBA No. 99-131 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Petitioners, VS. CITY OF WOODBURN, Respondent. LUBA No. 99-135 FINAL OPINION AND ORDER Appeal from City of Woodbum. Michael C. Robinson, Portland, filed a petition for review md a response brief, and argued on behalf of petitioner Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC. Will~ o~f was Stoel Rives LLP. Kathryn A. Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, Salem and Lynne A. Perry, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed a petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioner~ Oregon Department of Transportation and Department of Land Conservation and Development. N. Robert Shields, City Attorney, Woodburn, filed a response brief and argued on behalf of respondent. BRIGGS, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member; HOLSTUN, Board Member, participated in the decision. REMANDED 02/02/01 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 I Opinion by Briggs. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 In LUBA No. 99-135, petitioners challenge a city decision that approves an expansion 4 of a factory outlet center. In LUBA No. 99-131, petitioner appeals a condition of approval 5 that is contained in the decision appealed in LUBA No. 99-135. 6 FACTS 7 Petitioner Craig Realty Group-Woodbum, LLC (Craig Realty) first began developing 8 a factory outlet center near the State Highway 214 (Highway 214) and Interstate Highway 5 9 (I-5) interchange in 1992. The outlet center, as first proposed, included 250,000 square feet of 10 retail space, to be developed in three phases. At that time, -petitioner Oregon Department of 11 Transportation (ODOT) requested that certain conditions be included in the decision that 12 approved the factory outlet center, including a condition that limited access to I-5. Petitioner 13 Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) also requested that the city 14 include conditions requiring that the city adopt a Transportation System Plan (TSP) before it 15 approved the final phase of the factory outlet center and that the city rezone 27 acres of 16 developable land for high-density residential use. The rezoned 27 acres would replace high- ,''~shd senon~$~ r.-- 17 v ll~l~i~:~id.eatial land that was rezoned to commercial uses to accommodate the factory 18 outlet center. The city adopted petitioners' recommendations as conditions of approval for 19 the development. 20 Since the time the original concept was approved, the city has added 30.6 acres of 21 high-density residential zoned land to its buildable land inventory. In addition, in 1996, the 22 city adopted a TSP as part of its comprehensive plan. The area of the I-5/Highway 214 23 interchange (Woodbum Interchange) is identified in the TSP as a major city and regional 24 transportation facility. The TSP recognizes that the traffic using the interchange will exceed 25 . its design capacity in the relatively near future, and proposes three different, mutually 26 exclusive alternatives to address the problem. The TSP also notes that the Woodburn Page 2 1 Interchange will be the subject of a future refinement plan to identify the chosen alternative 2 to address the interchange transportation problem. 3 In 1998, Craig Realty proposed to annex the subject eight acres to the city and 4 develop the final phase of the factory outlet center. Petitioner's 1998 proposal included the 5 annexation request, a comprehensive plan map amendment bom High Density Residential to 6 Commercial and a corresponding zone change from Urban Transition Farm to Commercial 7 Retail. At the heatings on the applications, ODOT personnel testified that the proposed 8 addition violates Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements. DLCD personnel 9 testified that the proposed amendments and annexation were inconsistent with Statewide 10 Land Use Planning Goals 9 (Economic Development), 10 (Housing) and 12 (Transportation) 11 and failed to address the impact that approval of the application would have on the city's 12 periodic review work program. 13 The city approved the applications, and these appeals followed. 14 LUBA NO. 99-131 15 In its appeal, Craig Realty has a single, two-sentence assignment of 16 "The City's decision imposes a condition of approval requLrin~ an~d'c~tional ! 7 traffic study. Petitioner di~rees with this condition of approval." ?¢tition for 18 Review 2. 19 The city's decision does not impose an additional traffic study as a condition of 20 approval. Petitioner's argument provides no basis for reversal or remand. 21 Craig Realty's assignment of error is denied. 22 LUBA NO. 99-135 23 Petitioners ODOT and DLCD submitted a joint petition for review in LUBA No. 99- · 24 135. The city and Craig Realty each submitted a response brief) Where it is appropriate we 25 refer to the city and Craig Realty jointly as respondents. 'Because no party questions whether petitioner Craig Realty may properly file a response brief in LUBA No. 99-135, without filing a motion to intervene in the appeal on the side of respondent, we do not consider that question. Page 3 1 FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 2 In the first three assignments of error, petitioners challenge the city's conclusions that 3 the proposed expansion will not "significantly affect" a transportation facility, as that term is 4 used in OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2).: According to petitioners, the rule requires that the 5 city analyze the impact of the proposed amendments over the planning period of the TSP, and 6 if the impacts are analyzed in that manner, the challenged decision will significantly affect 7 the Woodbum Interchange. Petitioners also argue that the city cannot rely on its TSP to 8 approve the expansion, because the TSP defers to an unadopted refinement plan to select the 9 solution to the transportation problems associated with the Woodbum Interchange. 2OAR 660-012-0060(1)( 1998) provides: "Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land USe regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either. "(a) "(c) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; or Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes." OAR 660-012-0060(2X! 998) provides: "A plan "(a) "(c) or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility'if it: Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or "(d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP." Page 4 I A. Introduction 2 Under the TPR, the TSP is the city's plan for ensuring that its existing transportation 3 facilities will be improved or supplemented to allow them to operate at an acceptable level of 4 service throughout a 20-year planning period. OAR 660-012-0015(3) and (4); OAR 660-012- 5 0030(3). For the City of Woodbum, the TSP is based on the comprehensive planning and 6 zoning that was in effect in 1995, when the TSP was first developed, and is intended to 7 address transportation needs to 2015. City of Woodbum Transportation System Plan 1. 8 Where a loc. al government changes the planning and zoning upon which the TSP was based, 9 it must ensure that the amendments comply with OAR 660-012-0060. An amendment 10 complies with OAR 660-012-0060 where it does not "significantly affect" a transportation 11 .facility in any of the ways described in OAR 660-012-0060(2) or, if it does significantly 12 affect a facility, where the local government takes one or more of the steps prescribed in 13 OAR 660-012-0060(1). 14 In the present case, the relevant inquiry under OAR 660-012-0060(2) is whether the 15 proposed amendment "would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum 16 acceptable leyel identified in the TSP." The city must first determine whether the city's 17 existing transportation facilities are adequate to handle, throughout the relevant planning 18 period, any additional traffic that the proposed amendment will generate. If the answer to that 19 question is yes, then the proposed amendment .will not significantly affect a transportation 20 facility for the purposes of OAR 660-012-0060(1), and no further analysis is necessary. If the 21 answer is no, then the city must consider whether any new and improved facilities anticipated 22 by the TSP will generate sufficient additional capacity, and will be built or improved on a 23 schedule that will accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed 24 amendment. If the answer to that question is yes, then, again, the proposal will not 25 significantly affect a transportation facility. If, however, the answer is no, then the city must 26 adopt one or more of the strategies set out in OAR 660-012-0060(1) to make the proposed Page 5 I amendment consistent with "the identified function, capacity and level of service of the 2 [affected] facility." 3 B. The City's Decision 4 1. Effect of the Proposed Amendment Over the Planning Period 5 The city's decision takes the position that OAR 660-012-0060(2) does not require 6 more than a determination that the proposal currently does not significantly affect a 7 transportation facility. As we explained above, this position is inconsistent with the 8 fi, amework for transportation planning set out in the TPIL Under respondents' reading of 9 OAR 660-012-0060, the facilities that are identified in the TSP and intended to be adequate 10 to ensure that desired service levels will be maintained throughout the planning period could 11 quickly be rendered inadequate by a series of amendments that, viewed individually, might 12 not have the immediate effect of making any existing facilities fail. Requiring that the 13 . questions posed by OAR 660-012~0060(2) be asked and answered for the' TSP planning 14 period avoids that result and is consistent with the language of the rule. 15 2. The City's Determination of"No Significant Effect" 16 In their third assignment of error, petitioners argue that the city failed to determine 17 whether the proposed expansion-would significantly-affect a transportation facility. 18 According to petitioners, the city relies on unspecified mitigation measures to conclude that 19 the proposal will not significantly affect a transportation facility. In doing so, petitioners 20 contend, the city failed to follow the process set out in OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2), which 21 requires a determination of significance prior to the consideration of mitigation measures 22 outlined in OAR 660-012-0060(1) to address those impacts, gee n 2. 23 As we stated in DLCD v. City of Warrenton, 37 Or LUBA 933,941-42 (2000): 24 "* * * OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2) contemplate that mitigation necessary to 25 ensure that land uses allowed by amendments remain consistent with a 26 facility's function, capacity and performance standards is considered once the 27 local government has determined that the amendment significantly affects that 28 facility. It is inconsistent with that scheme to consider such mitigation as a Page 6 I means of avoiding the conclusion that an amendment significantly affects a 2 transportation facility." 3 In the present case, the city's findings state: 4 "The City Council finds that the applicant's [Transportation Impact Study 5 (TIS)] demonstrates that the application will not have a significant [e]ffect on 6 the transportation facility identified as the I-5/Highway 214/[Highway] 219 7 Interchange. Table 4 of the TIS prepared by Kittelson and Associates * * * 8 shows that in the year 2001, I-5 will operate during a Friday p.m. peak hour at 9 level of service ('LOS') 'C' or better, with minor improvements. * * * TIS I0 Table 5 shows that in the year 2003, the interchange will operate at LOS 'D' 11 or better. * * * In order to determine whether the application has a present 12 significant [e]ffect * * * the City Council finds that Tables 4 and 5 13 demonstrate that the application will cause the interchange to operate at 14 acceptable LOS through at least the next four (4) years." Record 21. 15 "The City Council declined to impose a condition, which was recommended 16 by the Planning Commission, that traffic impact be determined based upon an 17 additional [TIS] to be paid for and obtained by the applicant. Instead, the City 18 Council imposed a condition that the City address the issue of required traffic 19 impact mitigation at the time of site plan review." Record 23. 20 We cannot tell from the city's fmdings whether the city determined that (1) the 21 proposed development will not have a significant impact on transportation facilities; (2) the 22 proposed development will have a significant impact, but that impact will be minimi?ed by 23 mitigation measures to be imposed on the development; or (3) it is appropriate to defer its 24 determination oftraftic impact to the site plan review stage. 25 3. Design Alternatives and Refinement Plans 26 Contrary to petitioners' arguments, we believe the city may use its existing TSP to 27 determine whether the proposed expansion will significantly affect a transportation facility, 28 and may rely on the anticipated increase in capacity at the Woodbum Interchange to 29 accommodate additional trips generated by the proposal. OAR 660-012-0025(3) permits a 30 local government to defer decisions regarding "function, general location and mode [to] a 31 refinement plan," provided the city adopts findings which: 32 "(a) Identify the transportation need for which decisions regarding 33 function, general location or mode are being deferred; Page 7 1 "~o) 2 Demo..nstrat¢ WI3~.Y information requir~ to make final determinations regarding mnction, general location, or mode cannot reasonably be 3 made available within the time allowed for preparation of the TSP; 4 "(c) Explain how deferral does not invalidate the assumptions upon which 5 the TSP is based or preclude implementation of the remainder of the 6 TSP; 7 "(d) Describe the nature of the findings which will be neexted to resolve 8 issues deferred to a refinement plan; and 9 "(e) Demonstrate that the refinement effort will be completed within three 10 years or prior to initiation of the periodic review following adoption of 11 the TSP." 12 The city adopted the required findings in its ordinance approving the TSP. Those 13 findings specify four alternative improvements, any one of which will solve anticipated 14 capacity problems at the Woodbum Interchange. Presumably, at the time the.city's TSP was 15 established, the city had the requisite information to identify the problems that were likely to 16 occur at the intersection over the 20-year planning period, including projected vehicle trips, 17 and used that information to develop alternatives that would address those problems. If that is 18 the case, then nothing precludes the city from considering whether one of the four TSP 19 alternatives will be sufficient to accommodate the unanticipated additional vehicle trips that 20 will be generated by the challenged decision without causing a decrease in the applicable 21 level of service. If, however, the four alternatives identified in the TSP will not provide 22 sufficient capacity to accommodate those additional vehicle trips, then the city must adopt 23 one or more of the measures Prescribed in OAR 660-012-0060(1). 24 Neither party points to evidence in the record to show whether the city reviewed the 25 TIS and the TSP to determine whether the proposed amendment will generate additional 26 traffic that, when viewed with additional traffic that is expected during the TSP planning 27 period, will exceed the capacity that the alternatives contemplated in the TSP will provide. 28 As explained above, the city failed to address the correct planning period in applying 29 OAR 660-012-0060. In addition, it is not clear to us whether the city is improperly relying on 30 unspecified future mitigation to avoid applying OAR 660-012-0060(I). Page 8 I The first assignment of error is sustained, in part. The second and third assignments 2 of error are sustained. 3 FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4 Petitioners challenge the city's conclusion that the proposal will satisfy Goal 10 and 5 the administrative rules implementing Goal 10.3 6 A. Consistency with Goal 10 7 In their first subassignment of error, petitioners argue the city's housing inventory is 8 outdated and should not be used to evaluate whether the proposed amendments are consistent 9 with Goal 10. Petitioners contend that the housing inventory in the city's comprehensive plan 10 fails to provide an adequate projection of housing needs based on the anticipated financial 11 capabilities of its citizens. Petitioners further contend that the city's findings rely on a 12 definition of"redevelopment" contained in the city's plan that is substantially broader than 13 that found in the Goal 1'0 rules, and therefore the city cannot rely on projections for 14 redevelopment densities-to establish that the proposed amendments will not affect the city's 15 compliance with Goal 10.4 According to petitioners, there is no evidence in the record to 16 demonstrate that the land the city assumes will be developed at multi-family densities is 17 actually likely to be so developed? Petitioners also argue that the city fails to demonstrate 18 that it will continue to comply with Goal 10 after the challenged decision, - because the 3Goal 10 requires that local governments adopt plans that "provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state." 4Respondents argue that petitioners failed to raise arguments below regarding compliance with the Goal 10 rule. At Record ! 36, DLCD staff provided testimony that questions whether the city's existing plan sufficiently complied with Goal 10. In that testimony, DLCD opined that the city would have to adopt a buildable lands inventory that complies with Goal 10. Since the requirements for a buildable lands inventory are contained in the Goal 10 rule, we believe the issue was raised with sufficient specificity to afford the city an opportunity to respond. SOAR 660-008-0005(12), the administrative rule in question, defines "redevelopable land" as "land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market fore, es, there exists the strong likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period.' Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 decision fails to consider any post-acknowledgement plan amendments that may have already affected the supply of developable multi-family residential land. Petitioners contend that it is error to rely on an outdated document, without assessing the impact subsequent decisions may have on the inventory. We disagree with petitioners that the city cannot rely on assumptions and data provided for in its acknowledged plan in order to determine that the proposed amendments are consistent with goal provisions. Indeed, it must do so. In D.S. Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro, 165 Or App 1, 22, 994 P2d 1205 (2000), the Court of Appeals interpreted Statewide Planning Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) to require that land use actions be consistent with comprehensive plans and that those comprehensive plans be the basis for specific implementation measures. The court concluded that Metro could not rely on a drat~ report that calculated land needed to be included in urban reserves because that draft report was not related to or incorporated into an applicable planning document. As a result, Metro was required to either use population and land need projections included in its acknowledged planning documents, or amend its acknowledged planning documents to incorporate the draft report before relying on that report as a basis for designating urban reserve areas. We believe a similar principle applies here. Based on the population projections and the supply of buildable land designated for multi-family development in its acknowledged comprehensive plan, the city .found that rezoning the subject property to allow for commercial uses would not result in a violation of Goal 10. That conclusion is based on the city's f'mding that the supply of land designated for multi-family residential use is more than adequate to meet projected needs.6 6The city's findings regarding Goal !0 state: "The City of Woodbum has provided for a variety of housing types and densities in its [Comprehensive] Plan and implementing ordinances, consistent with the Guidelines for implementing Goal [ 10]. The available inventory of residential land within the [urban growth boundary COGB)] exceeds the amount needed to serve future population needs. Page 10 I With respect to petitioners' argument that the city should have considered plan 2 amendments that affected the amount of land designated for multi-family housing, 3 respondents explain that the only post-1994 rezoning decision involving the city's multi- 4 family housing inventory was the city's decision to rezone 30.6 acres of land to multi-family 5 use, as a result of the city's 1992 approval of the first phase of the factory outlet center 6 development. 7 We agree with respondents that the evidence in the record is adequate to show that 8 recent amendments have not decreased the multi-family land supply so as to implicate the 9 city's compliance with Goal 10. Petitioners' first subassignment of error is denied. 10 B. Inadequate Findings and Lack of Substantial Evidence 11 Petitioners' remaining two subassignments of error are premised on their belief that 12 the city may not use the provisions of its acknowledged plan to determine that the challenged "As documented on Page 39 of the Plan, there is sufficient land designated for residential use in the Plan to accommodate a population of 28,000, plus a surplus that includes approximately 100 acres of both the Low Density and High Density Plan designations. This analysis is based on the carrying capacity of the two (2) residential categories in the plan in relation to the densities permitted in the underlying zoning. The capacity of the Low Density Residential designation is six (6) dwelling units per gross acre. The capacity of the High D.ens,ty.des~gnat~on ~s conservattvely mde..c_ ,. a dc.s~t3 oftx~elve (IL. umts to. .. uss acre, where the correspo,n, ding zoning allows densities ranging up to tweniy-five '(25) dwellin?~ units per gross acre. ' Record 3940. "This application is subject to compliance with the Goals and the acknowledged Plan. ORS 197.175(2). Goal 10 simply requh'es the City to provide for housing needs. The City has done this. The findings at the outset of this decision state the housing needs of the City of Woodburn have been satisfied through the year 2014. The acknowledged Plan states that there are 688 acres of high density residential designation. Of this, 57 acres are undeveloped and 188 acres are underdeveloped. (Plan at pages 15 and 16.) "The Plan further notes that the City has 238 surplus acres designated for multi-family land uses· (Plan at page 38.) This allows, at 12 dwelling units per acre, an additional 2,353 dwelling units. (Id.) Table 9 of the Plan at page 39 shows that the City has a surplus of 1,305 multi-family dwelling units through the year 2014. * * * "Moreover, assuming that [these] eight (8.0) acres can accommodate twice the 12 dwelling units per acre figure, this area would accommodate 192 dwelling units. Removal of this site from the High Density Residential designation would still leave 1,013 surplus multi-family dwelling units by the year 2014. "The City Council finds that the acknowledged Plan's determination of a surplus of multi- family housing units is a sufficient basis for it to determine that this application will allow the · . . . .. ~ C~ty to continue to meet the housing needs oftts c,t~zens. Record 55. Page 11 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 decision is consistent with Goal 10 and that no reasonable person would use outdated information when a new inventory is being developed. For the reasons explained in our discussion of the first subassignment of error, we disagree with that premise. The findings adequately describe the relevant provisions of the comprehensive plan, and explain why the city believes it has an adequate inventory of multi-family designated land, and those findings are supported by substantial evidence. The second and third subassignments of error are denied. The fifth assignment of error is denied. The city's decision is remanded.7 ?At oral argument, petitioners withdrew theft fourth assignment of error. Therefore, we do not address it. Page 12 04/05/01 TEU 12:02 FAX 503 986 2840 ODOT REGION 2 April 5, 2001 Department of Transportation Region 2 455 Airport Rd. SE, Bldg B Salem OR 97301-5395 (503) 986-2600 FAX (503) 986-2630 FILE CODE: Mr. 3im Hulder, Community Development Director Oty of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OP, 97071 SUB.]ECT: Remand Hearing - Annexation 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Hap Amendment 98-02t Zoning Map Amendment 98-04 (Craig Realty Group - Woodburn, LLC) The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has received the information submitted to the City on behalf of Craig Realty Group in response to remand of the approval of the subject actions by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). ODOT staff have reviewed the information submitted induding a response to the issues of the LUBA remand prepared by KJttelson and Associates (IC4~) dated March 23, 2001. Our response to this information follows. ODOT concurs with the KAZ analysis as it evaluates impacts in 2015 at the Woodbum I-5 interchange. Based on the KAZ analysis and the LUBA derision, we believe the City should make a finding that the project may have a significant impact in 2015, but that impact is mitigated by proposed projects contained in the TSP. The LUBA derision, however, did not limit itself to significant affects to the I-5 Woodburn Interchange in 2015t as is implied in the K/~ analysis. LUBA found that the City's findings were unclear in determining whether significant impacts to "transportation facilities" occurred (Oregon Department of Transportation an.d Department of Land Conservation and Development vs. City of Woodburn, LUBA NO. 99-135, Page 7 beginning at Une 20). While the KAl analysis is generally adequate in its response to issues spedfically directed to impacts to the I-5 interchange, assumptions regarding future interchange improvements, and the assessment of impacts in 2015, it does not spedfically address interim year impacts and impacts to other"transportation facilities" that serve the project, ODOT contends the project may have a significant impact on t~ansportation fadlifies and the informaUon in support of that conclusion is contained in the December 1998 Transportation [mpact Analysis ('l'r,A) prepared for the project. [n fact, the TIA proposes miUgation measures that are necessary to ensure the transportation system operates at appropriate levels with development of Phase D! of the project. One of these measures, phased development of an eastbound to southbound dedicated right-turn lane on OR 219 to the southbound !-5 on-ramp, is already in place. r~rn 734.1867A (2-~) ~ t~r..~m I~otde. r C~ o~ Woodbum ,Oage 2 ors A second measure, construction of a dedicated right-turn lane on westtx)und OR 214 to the northbound ][-5 on-ramp, is Identif'~cl as project mitigation in the 2003 analysis for Phase rrt of the project. According to the TI/k, at page 38, this improvement is recommended to provide the required volume to capadty ratio. This improvement has not been identified in the City's TSP. We believe It necessary this identified mitigation measure is Included in the project approval, consistent with the requirement of the Transportation Planning Rule. This conclusion is supported by the KAt analysis at Page 5: "The/nteffm Interchange improvement~ O~at am desc#bed in b~e December l PP8 ~ whirl1 the City s~ould cond/Eon of the proposed development ~fll enmre t~at b-alffc operab'ons standard~ are met In b~e ~ort term. ~ ODOT believes the mitigation improvement described above is necessary to mitigate the impacts of the Company Stores project. The drat'c 2002-2005 Statewide Transportation Vnprovement Program (STJP) includes $4.2 million for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of an, as yet, undefined improvement at OR 2:[4 and Z-5. The draft ST/P indicates design and right-of-way acquisition beginning in 2002 and construction in 2005. ODOT has no desire to require construddon of mitigation that may be removed for a larger, permanent fix. In order to resolve the issues of this LUBA remand and achieve our mutual goals for improving traffic flow in the area of the Woodburn ][-5 interchange, ODOT recommends the following: The City should lndude a finding that the project may have a significant impact on the Woodburn [-5 interchange in 2015, but these impacts are mitigated by. the improvements contained in the Woodburn TSP. The City include a finding that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and Phase ~ development may have a significant impact on traffic and drculafion at the Woodbum I-5 interchange and OR 214 in 2003, as described at pages 32-38 of the -F[A; and The City require the applicant/developer to place in an escrow account to be held by the City, money equal to the amount necessary for right-of-way acquisition and construction of a dedicated Hght-tum lane on westbound OR 2:L4 to the [-5 northbound on-ramp, as described in the TtA at page 38. This money will be used to supplement funding for the project identified in the DraE 2002-2005 S'I'JP. The applicant and ODOT will jointly develop and agree on the amount. The money should be placed in the escrow account prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy (or the City's equivalent) for Phase ILl; or In the event that #3 above is not acceptable, ODOT requests that the applicant be required to design and construct, to ODOT standards, the westbound right- tum Fane on OP, 214 to the [-5 northbound on-ramp as identified as project C~y o~ Woodburn · ~p#! ~, 2001 ~a~ 3 miUgation in the TLR and the KAt analysis dated March 23, 2001. All design, right-of-way acquisiUon, and construction costs shall be borne by the applicant/developer. This improvement shall be installed prior to the issuance of a cerUficate of use and occupancy (or tile Ob/'s equivalent) for Phase TTT. [mplementaUon of these recommendations will satisfy ODOTs concerns and resolve the issues of the LUBA remand. We believe implementation of items 2. and 3. is the superior approach to address the interim year impacls and mitigation in that it ensures that a "throw away" improvement is not constructed and the money is directed at an improvement package that will begin to address the transportation issues at the interchange. It will also ensure that impacts of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment are mitigated to acceptable levels. This letter should be included in the record as ODOT t~sldmony. ODOT should be considered a party to the hearing and be entitled to notices of future hearings~ or hearing continuances or extensions. Please provide me with a copy of the Qb/'s derision, including findings and conditions of approval. Please contact me at 503-986- 2663 if you have any questions about the contents of this letter. Sincerely, Senior Transportation Planner DM=: CC: Tom Lauer, ODOT Region 2 Interim Manager Dave Bishop, ODOT Mid-Willamette Valley Area Manager Don 3ordan, ODOT District 3 Manager Tony Martin, ODOT Region 2 Access Management Engineer Kathy Lincoln, DO.¥General Counsel Division Mike Robinson, Stoel Rives Gary Katsion, Kittelson & Associates 02:48PM FROt&-$TOEL RIVES LLP 5032202480 STOEL RIVES ATTORNEYS April g, 2001 T-372 P.02/15 F-376 "F" VIA FACSEVI~F. Mr. James P. Mukler, Director City of Woodbum Collmaunity Development Department 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Re-- AppUcation by Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC; April 5, 2001 Letter From Oregon Department of Transportation Dear 3'ira: This letter responds to the Oregon Department of T~n~ortation's CODOT") April 5, 2001 letter regarding the application by Craig Realty Group-Woodbum, LLC ("Craig") before the Woodbum City Council on April 9, 2001. Please place this letter in rite official Woodbum Pl.u. nning Department file and before the Woodburn City Council. Please provide me with a copy of the notice of decision by the Woodbum City Council. ODOT's letter recommends that the City impose a new condition of approval requiring Craig to pay for the right-of-way acquisition and construction of a right-mm lane on westbound Oregon Highway 9-14 to northbound I-5. For the reasons explained below, ODOT's comment is not within the scope of the remand by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LLT~A"), is not neees~ry to satisfy OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2) and should have been raised ha the firs~ appeal in th/s matter, LUBA Nos. 99-131 and 99-135. 1. LUBA'$ deeision..add~__~ ~d the Woadbttrn interehnnEe. ODOT argues That LUBA's decision did not limit itself to significmu affects to the I-5 Woodbum Interchange in 2015. Not only is ODOT incorrect about LUBA's decision but, as explained below, no parry, including ODOT, raised any issue with respect to transportation impacts beyond the Woodbum Interchange. }'g,~q~4 i-gQT01{3,1 00T/OgO. O(X~I 04-00-01 02:48PM FROM-STOEL RIVES LLP 6032202460 STOEL RIVES ,,, T-372 P.03/15 F-378 Mr. James P. Mulder, Director April O, 2OOl Pa~e 2 The fact statement in LUBA's opinion describes the transportation facility with which it was concerned in the first appeal in this case. LUBA's review is not about the City's decision but is rather about the parties' arguments concerning the City's decision. Neighbors For Livabili _ty v. Ci_ty of..Beaverton, 168 Or App 501,507, 4 P3d 765 (2001) (LUBA reviews the arguments the parties make about the land use decision). Accordingly, thc-. scope of the remand is governed by the issues raised by petitioners in the first phase of this appeal and LUBA's understanding of those issues. As the City Council can see, LUBA was concerned with the Woodbum Interchange, which includes Highway 214. LUBA's factual staxement described the Woodbum Interchange: "The area of the I- 5/I-Iighway 214 interchange (the Woodbum Interchange) is idenfifmct in the TSP as a major city and regional translmrtation facility. The TSP recoffni?es that the traffic using the interchange will exceed its design capacity in the relatively near future, and proposes three different, mutually exclusive alternatives m address the problem. The TSP also notes that the Woodbum Interchange will be the subject of a future refinement plan to identi~ rahe chosen alternative to address the interchange n'ap~ortadon problem." In characterizing ODOT's first, second and third assignments of error, LUBA said: "According to petitioners, the rule [TPR] requires that the City analyze the impac[s of the proposed amendments over the planning period of the TSP, and if the impacts are analyzed in that manner, the cbafllenged decision will significantly affect the Woodbum Interchange." (emphasis added). LUBA further said ``petitioners alto argue that the Cit~ cannot rely on its TSP to approve the expansion, because the TSP defers to an unadopted relinement plan to select the solution to the transportation problems associated with the Wooat~urn Interchange." (emphasis added). LUBA then considered the parties' argument. LUBA held first that the relevant planning period is the period contained in the acknowledged City of Woodbum TSP until the year 2015. LUBA held that the questions posed by OAR 660-012-0060(2) must be "asked and an-~wered" for this planning period. LUBA then held that the City may use its existing, acknowledged 'rsP to determine whether the application will significantly affect a transportation facility "and may rely on the anticipated increase in capacity at the Woodbum Inter~a~ge to accommodate additional trips generated by the proposal." Further, LUBA held "the City adopted the required findings in its ordinance approving the TSP. Those findings specified four alternative intpmvements, any of which will solve anticipatext capacity problems at the Woodbum Interchange.' LUBA concluded its response to these assignments of error by requiring the City m determine whether the proposal would have a significant affect on the described transportation facilities and whether the acknowledged TSP would provide adequate capacity for that additional traffic during the TSP period. 04-09-01 02:49PM FROi,4-$TO~L RIVES LLP 6032:'02480 STOEL RIVES L~ T-3?Z P.04/15 F-376 Mr. James P. Mulder, Director ^pril 9, 2001 Page 3 The City Council should fred fl~t the issue raised by petitioners in the first appeal was the adequacy of transportation facilities at the Woodbum Interchange. I have attached a copy of petitioners' Petition for Review (Exhibit 1) to show that petitioners did not raise adequacy of transportation facilities other t_b~ the Woodbum Interchange. Because petitioners could have, but did not raise the issue of aflequacy of u'm-,sportalion facilities other than the Woodburn Imeg~e in the first appeal, th~ are ban'ed from doing so now. ORS 197.763(1); Jackson CounW Cifizens..L~gqe v. Jackson County, 38 Or LUBA 37 (2000). The City Council can fred that the Woodbum Intev'-h8nge includes the reqaested improvement but, if it does not, ODOT's issue has been waived. 2. Respouse to four ODOT recommendations, at pages 2 and 3 of A_O _.ri1_5_._2001 le~er. A. Response to Recognition 1. Craig agrees that the City should include a fi~.ding that the application may have a significant affect as tl~ term is used in OAR 660-012-0060(2) with respect m the Woodburn Interchange but that ~ impact will be mitigated by the improvements contained in the acknowledged Woodbum TSP. Additio~a!ly, tl~ City Council should find that the Woodbum Interchange is the area of the I-S/Highway 214 Interchange. In other words, the acknowledged Woodbum TSP included recommendations for improving fl~e Woodbum I-5 in~rchange which necessatily include improvements to Oregon State Highway 214. (Exhibit 2, page 89 of TSP describing Woodbum InTerchange improvements). B. The City need not include a separate finding on Phase 3 of the development. The application pending before the City is an annexation, comprehensive plan map and zoning ma? amendment. No site review application is proposed. Notwithstanding rbar_ Craig's traffic study recommended a certain improvement in the year 2003 for Ph~e 3 of the development, the City Council should reject ODOT Recommendation 2 for three reasons. First, the I-S/Oregon 214 improvement described in tl',e traffic impact analysis and requested by ODOT will be included as pan of the alternatives identified in the TSP that will address the interclmuge transportation problem. No party previously raised an issue with respect to the I-5/Oregon 214 Interchange separate from the Woodbum Interchange. In fact, ODOT could have readily done so since the transpo~on impact analysis was in the record in the first phase of the appeal. Craig Real _ty Grqgp:Woodbum, [-[-C v. City of Woodbum, ~ Or LUBA ~ (LUBA Nos. 99-131 and 99-135, February 2, 2001), Record Page 331 Secondly, ODOT may not change its position now. In its fn'st Petition for Review, ODOT argued that the correct analysis was the TSP plannirtg period through the year 2015. ODOT now argues that ~he City Council must make a separate fmding for an interim pla~!ng period year 2003. However, not only is this contrary to ODOT's original argument and thus a waiver of this issue, this argumem is also contrary to LUBA's holding. LUBA expressly said l~m~li-21Y/O~33, i (X~708040001 04-Og-O1 OZ:4gP~ FRO~$TO~L RIVES LLP STOEL RIVES T-372 P.05/15 F-378 t Mr. James P. Mulder, Director April 9, 2001 Page 4 that the determination of significant impact in OAR 660-012-0060(1) is for the TSP planning period through the year 2015. No requirement in LUBA's opinion ha this case requires the City to make a fmd!ng with respect m an imerim year. Fi~.a!!y, the City Council can fred that the requested improvement is part of the Woodbum Interchange improvement provided for in the acknowledged TSP. Based on LUBA's holding in this case, the applicant and the City need only show that any significant aI'ti~ct on the Woodbum Interchange will be mitigated by the TSP in the planning period. The City Council is not required to show an interim improvement is necessary and the City Council can find that the re. quested improvement is part of the Woodbum Inrerch:aj,ge. C. Tho_ City Council _qhnuld reject ODOT Recommendations 3 and 4. ODOT requests that the applicant either pledge funds necessary for the right-of-way acquisition and comm'uction of a dedicated right-mm lane on westbound Oregon Highway 214 to northbound I-5 to supplement funding Iht this project or that thc applicator consLmct the impmvemem. ODOT's letter states that the draft Stmewide Transportation Impmvenumt Program ("STIP") includes $ 4.3 million for the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the as yet undetined improvement ar dais intersection and that the project will rake three years. Significantly, ODOT also crams "ODOT hag no desire u} require construction of mitigation that may be removed for a larger, permanent fix.' This statement aclmowledges that ODOT recognizes that the requested improvement is parr of the Woodbum Interchange impmvemem provided for in the TSP. ODOT's recommendation should be rejected for two reasons. First, ODOT's recommendation would require the City Council to show that it has met the burden of pmol' in Dolan_v._Ci~__o.f Tigard, 512 US 374, 114 S Ct 2309, 129 L Ed 2d 304 (1994) requiring that there be a "rough proportionality" between the impacts of an application and the proposed condition of approval sufficient to impose this significant burden on Craig alone. Nothing in ODOT's letter shows that Craig's application is principally responsible for the need for this improYemem. Yet, ODOT expects Craig to bear a $4.2 million improvement. For this reason alone, the City CouneiI should fred that the proposed recommendation is unconstitutional and it should be rejected. Secondly, the City Corlncfl should reject this proposed condition because it is ~_mnecessary to meet the requtremems of OAR 6600-012-00600) and (2). As noted above, the City's requirement by LUBA is to demonstrate that any significam affect will be mitigated by the acknowledged TSP through the planning period ending in 2015. ODOT's recommendation ignores this requirement and seeks to impose an interim requirement. Nol only did ODOT fail to raise this issue below, but it is inconsistent with the decision on remand. 04-09-01 02:49PM FROM"STOEL RIVES LLP 5032202480 T-372 P.06/15 F-376 ' STOEL RIVES Mr. James P. Mulder, Director April 9, 200! Page 5 Further, the Ciq/Council should remember That such an improvement will disrupt adjacen~ property owners. The $4.2 mi_!!ioa cost for uhis project probably does not include the cos~ of eminent domain proceedings or affecaxl property owners' challen4~in$ the state's taking of Their properS. This massive and costly impmvemem project is clearly on~ that should be bom by th~ public ax large as opposed tn au imiividual property owne~. 3. Conclusion. ODOT has agreed with the u'affic impact analysis prepared by Kinelson ~ Associates dated March 23, 2001. Unfortunately, ODOT has misread LUBA's holding in this case. The City Council should follow Recommendation 1 but should reject Recommendations 2-4. On behalf of Craig Realty Oroup-Woodbum LLC, I respectfully request that the City Council approve this application, reject th~ three unju~fied ODOT recorr~l~ons and direc~ the applicant to prepare findings supporting the decision for review by the City Attorney and adoption by the City Council. Very u'uly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR:kls Enclosures cc: Mr. Steve Craig (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. Gary Katsion (via facsimile) (w/encls.) Mr. N. Robert Shields (via facsimile) (w/enels.) Mr. Daniel L. Frieke (via facsimile) (w/encls,) Ms. Kathy Lincoln (via facsimile) (w/enels.) 04-09-01 02:49PM FR'OM'STOEL RIVES LLP 5032ZOZ460 T-372 P.07/15 F-378 1 Argument 2 First Assignment of Error 3 The city council did not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1)(b) when it 4 relied upon transportation facilities that are not part of its Transportmion System Plan to 5 support the proposed development. 6 In September of 1998, the TPR provided three alternatives for the cky to assure that the 7 proposed plan amendments would be consistent with the identified fimction, capacity, and level 8 of service of the Woodbum Interchange: 9 1. Limiting allowed land uses xo be consistent with the plannea function, capaciw, and level of service of the transportation facility; 10 2. Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support 11 the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of the division; or 12 3. Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through oth~ raodes. 13 14 Although declaring first that the proposed amendments would not have a significant 15 affect on the tran-qportafion system, the Woodbum City Council were on in depth to explain why 16 any impact would be minimal because there were provisions in the city's TSP for changes to the 17 Ig 19 Interchange. In the wherea~ clauses adopted by the'City Council for the TSP, a number of findings demonstrate that the TSP, with its required refinement sm¢ly, will satisfy · e capacity requirements of the TPR at this interchange. Rec. 21. 20 21 22 /H The City Council finds that it need not complete the refinement study prior m this application. Because the TSP is part of the City's acknowledged plan and because the TSP ~tates that a solution will be identified, the TSP has determined that the interchange will be upgraded. Rec. 23 23 111 Page 4 - PETITION FOR REVIEW KAL:rar~GEN6$?o4 EXI-I1]BIT 1 1162 ¢ou~$~eetNE (503) 37s.6oo3 Od-OO'OI 02:$01~ FI~A-'$T(~L RIVES LLP 6032202480 T-372 P.08/16 F-378 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 For these reasons, the Ci~ Council finds that the lack of refinement study is not an impediment to a conclusion that the I-5 (sic) has sufficient capac~y in the short term, as required by the TPR, and in the long team sufficient capacfiy will be provided through a solution identified in a refinement study. Rec. 23 The city council is relying upon an uncompleted, nonspecific refinement plan to support the infrastructure for tr~_~..c That the city has not even analyzed! The transportation planning for this 240,000 square foot commercial developmem is non-existem. The city's TSP, completed in 1996, acknowledged the need for an improvement at the I- 5/Highway 214 interchange: "In the longer-term, recottflguration of the interchange is proposed. A specific improvement (improve existing interchange, split diamond interchange or second interchange at Buneville Road) will be identified through a follow-up interchange Goal 2, Policy 2, which states. 2. Develop a strategy for providing improved access to I-5 ~om the Woodbum area, through either improvements to the existing highway 214 interchange and/or a new interchange in the Woodbum vicinity (with supporting local roadway improvements). This strategy will be developed folk,wing a refinement study as outlined in the Transportation Planning Rule. Rec. 129. The TPR allows a local government to "defer decisions regarding function, general location and mode of a refinemem plan" if certain findings are adopted in the TSP. OAR. 660- 012-0025(3). However, the findings are very general and are not based upon a specific analysis of the traffic anticipated from the affected property. One ofthe findings required by the rule is to show why information requested to make a final determination regarding function, general location or mode cannot reasonably be made available. OAR 660-012-002:5(3)(b). The city was not in a position to purpose a solution for the acknowledged need at the 21,a/I-5 interchange. /// Page 5 - PETITION FOR REVIEW KAL:ra~GEN65'~04 l~artmem of Jualica S~lem. OR. ~"1301,4096 (503) 378-6005 04-0O-01 02:SOPII FROM-$TOEL RIVES LLP 503ZZ02480 T-372 P.0g/15 F-378 1 ODOT was no~ prepared to eudorse an~ of the proposals for the interchange 2 improvement,t Any one of'the proposals, or any olheu' that migh~ be preferable, will greatly'~ 3 affect In:erstate 5, a major ODOT facility. P,.ec. 110-111. 4 The city csnnot rely on its TSP to suppor~ the proposed land use change, when the "I'SP $ has not yet been amended to provide the necessary facility upon which the zone change and 6 comprehensive plan amendments are dependent. 7 As LUBA pointed om in Bicycle Transportation Alliance v. MZaxhiagton Co., 26 Or 8 LUBA 265, 276 (1993): 9 OAK 660-12-010(2) speeifically envisions that a local government may designam existing "plans or programs" as pan or all of ks TSP. However, as the last two 10 sentences of OAR 660-12-010(2) make elear, some reasonably deftnite and ' specific action by the local government To designate or incorporate :hose "plans or 11 programs" as pan or all of its TSP is contemplated by the TPR_ In th. is way, it can be determined when the local government adopts its TSP and which documents 12 constitute the TSP and implementing measures. 13 Clearly, the future refinement plan is not yet a pan o£Woodbum's TSP. 14 The decision of the city of Woodburn should be reversed since ir is based upon 15 transportation facilities that have not been adopted as part o£~e city's TSP. 16 Second Assignment of Error 17 The city council misconstrued the applicable law in OAR 660-012-0060 and 660-012- 18 0030(3) when it failed to consider evidence of the impact of:he development on the 19 transportation system within the rime period of the city's TSP. 20 OAR 660, Division 12, The Transportation Planning Pule, was adopzed by the DLCD to 21 implemem Goal I2 by, among other things, guiding; various governmems ~n the preparation of a 22 23 ~ Ia fact, omc or'thc proposals w~ for tm ~ntirely new int~r2mag¢ at Bum'vine Axil, some ~ism~,ce sou~ of the pr~ tmercMuge, and outsid~ the Woodbum UOB. R~c. 11. Pag~ 6 - PETrrlON FOR REVIEW KA.L:ramGEN6$70~ D~parurmnt os' luatice i 162 Court S;rcc~ NI; SaLem, OR 99301-4096 ($03) 198-6003 04-00-01 02:$0P~ FRO~..STOEL RIVES LLP 6032202480 T-372 P.10/15 F-378 1 TSP and establishing crkeria for amendments m plans and land use regulm~ons. OAR 660-12- 2 010 (1), 1000 Frierds of Oregon v. Or2 of North Plains, 27 LUBA 372, (] 994). The TSP developed by the governmem entky, in this case the city, must identify the 4 transportation needs of the city." In order to determine the future needs of the city for 5 transportation facihties, the city must do population and employment forecasts and distributions. 6 "Forecasts and distributions shall be for 20 years, and if desired, for longer periods." OAR 660- 7 12-030(3)(a). 8 An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must fit into the same planning horizon as the 9 existing Plan, or ir doesn't make any sense. Ir would not make sense to forecast and plan the 10 needs for the city's transportation system over a period of 20 years, yet for each amendment to 11 that plan, address only the currem population and employment situation, or those projected for a 12 small portion of the total planning horizon. The long term efficacy of the plan could be 13 completely stymied by constantly chipping away at it with amendments based upon current ort 14 short term projections. 15 However, the Woodbum city council found as follows: I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 The Cky council finds that the applicant's TIS demonstrates that the application will not have a significant affect on the transportation facility identified as the I- S/Highway 214/219 Interchange. Table 4 of the TIS prepared by Kktelson & Associates, Inc. ("KAl") shows that in the year 2001, I-5 will operate during a Friday p.m. peak hour at level of service ("LOS") "C' or better, with minor improvements. TIS at pages 24-:15. TIS Table 5 shows that in the year 2003, the interchange will operate at LOS "D" or better. The City Council finds nothing in the TPP. requires it to look at the year 2015. In order to determine whether the application has a present significant affect on the application (sic). the City Council finds that Tables 4 and 5 demonstrate that the application will cause the interchange to operate at acceptable LOS through at least the next four (4) years. Rec. 21. 23 a The TiP replaces the um~orration elememT of the "facility pl~a" required as pan of every jurisdiction's comprehensive ph.. by Goal 11. Page 7 - PETITION FOR REVIEW KAL:ranGEN6$704 Departmenl of Justice 116o Court ~ee~ NE 04-00-01 02:51PM FRffi"STOEL RIVES LLP 6032202480 T-372 P.11/16 F'376 1 The city council misconstrued the law, when it found that it did not need to consider the 2 effect of increased traffic on the local transportation facility for the same planning period as its 3 Comprehensive Plan/TSP. The council i~self, in a finding on the next page of its decision. 4 acknowledges the 20 year planning period: 5 The TSP identifies the City's transportation needs includhag those of the transportation disadvantaged, and support of industrial and commercial 6 development. 'These needs were based on a 20-year forecast in population and employment within the a¢lmowledged comprehensive plan. l~c. 22 7 9 year planning period, and in another finding regarding amending that TSP, assert that there is no I 0 need to base an amendment on the same planning period.3 11 The whole purpose of planning and allocating land uses to various purposes is to assure that 12 the public facilities are available to serve the anticipated growth in a community. In making this 13 determination the city needs to consider the impacts to the transportation facilkies at the ~ime the plan 14 amendmem is adopted plus the impacts of the plan amendment over the planning period of the TSP. 15 The planning period of the city's TSP extends to 2015. This is critical because even 16 though a plan amendment may not significantly affect a facility at the time it is adopted, it may 17 have a significant impact irt the future. The city is required.to consider The existing land uses 18 and provided transportation facilities sufficient to serve these uses for the next 15 years. Ifa I9 plan amendment such as this is approved that allows more intense u~es, i.e, a use that generates 20 more traffic, this capacity will be gobbled up. As a result, the transportation facility will no 21 longer be able to function at an acceptable level of service for the entire 15 year period. 22 23 3 In this ease ~ince the TSP was adopted in 1996, the relevant pla-ning p~od ¢~te~d$ to 2015, or 15 years from the ~te of thc proposed amm'dment Page S - PETITION FOP, REVIEW KAL-rarXGEN6$70¢ l162Cca~t~e~N£ ~em, OR 97~01-4096 04-Og-OI OZ:51PM FROt~-STOEL RIVES LLP 6032202480 T-372 P.12/16 F-378 1 2 3 $ ? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Therefore, the decision of the city should be remanded so the city coancil can consider the effect of the proposed plan amendment based upon a projection ofthe Ira/~ic from the newly zoned area for the remaining planning period of the city's comprehensive plan, or until 2015. ?~'~!~;~¢~,~ ~'.',s~l~mt,-~-~,~'~.~,t~,~'v ','~'t~',"i~'~'~:~;.~,'~ ~.~2;~'~¥.~ ~'~ ~ T'V~'~,;, x~!-.,::-.?: ~ ~-~r.. ~;.~.~-.?~,..-; .~,'~,~Z;~?~,-'~j.r'..~)t~..~,',~,~;.. Third Assignment of Error The city council failed to make a determination of whether the proposed land use actions "significantly affect" The state transportation facility, as required by OAR 660-12- 0a00). At the time the application was submitted, the TPtL section 0060(1) said: Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly afl'cci a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with ~he identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. Under this section, it is incumbent upon the decision-maker to first determine whether the proposed amendments will have a "significant a.fleet" upon a transportation facilky, before figuring in any mitigation. However, the city failed to make that finding. Its finding indicates a misunderstanding of the TPK: Further, the administrative rule provides tha~ the City may approve the application subject to conditions of approval which mitigate a significant affect. The City Council finds that Condition 1W-6,~ requiring that the traffic mitigation issues by (sic) addressed by the City at the time of site plan review, serves to mitigate any potential significant affect. Rec. 21. III 2I 22 Condition IV-6 reads: "That the applicant shall not be required to subnut an additional waffle impac~ study but that u'affic mi~g~tion ~h~n be addressed at the time of site plan review." In addition to ~¢ fac~ rha~ the fi.~lmg does 23 no~ meet the requiremen~ at ~e TPR, Condition IV-6 does not require any spec~c ~u~on -~er ~ discussed in the ~aff~¢ impact study, nor the proposed refinement plan facilities. Without any speeifiecl midga~or~ tile city's finding that any affect will be mitig~k'xl is completely illusory. Page 9 - PETITION FOR REVIEW KA.E.:ranGEN65704 I:~ 116~ C~urt Sm~'t lqE 5~lem. OR (503) 04-00-01 02:51PM FROi,4'-$TOEL RIVES LLP 5032202480 T-372 P.13/16 F-378 1 2 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 9_3 This issue was recently addressed in the LUBA decision of D£C.D ,,. City of YF~rrertton, Or LUBA (LUB A No. 99-152, March 17, 2000). The city of Warrenton made a similar finding that a proposed zone change and plan amendment would not significantly impact Highway 101, because the traffic impact study had included various unpla~med improvements to the highway. The Board found that the city erred by finding that: [Als mitigated by various potential improvements, the retail uses allowed by the amendment will not 'significantly affect' the relevant transportation facilities. Remand is necessary for the city to consider whether those uses, considered without potential mitigation, significantly affect any transportation facility. If so, then the city must consider which mitigations under OAR. 660-12-0060(1) are necessary to ensure that the allowed uses are coraistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of affected facilities. Warrenton, p.g, 9. As LLTBA said in Citizens for Florence vs. City of Florence .....Or LUBA~ (I_.UBA No. 98-029, October 21, 1998), the city has reversed two disfi~act inquiries (1) whether the amendment significantly affects a transportation facility; and (2) if'so, whether mitigatory measures can aa~ure that the land uses allowed by the amendment are consistent with the function, capacity and level of service of the facility. The existence of possible mitigatory measure~ has no bearing on and does not obviate the first inquiry, whether the amendment signifimatly affects a transportation facility. P. 12 and The city's approach, ro decide first and plan later, undermines the primacy of planning, and allows the city to make decisions allowing significant impacts on or requiring significant changes to transportation facilities, without first assuring that those impacts and changes have a basis in and are consistent with tl;e TSP. p. 11. The city's decision should be remanded to determine if the proposed plan amendment and zone change have a significant affect on the state's transportation facility without the surmised potential mitigation. /// Iit /// Page 10 - PETITION FOP, REVIEW KAJ.,:rarXGEN657o4 116:l Court Sue~ NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 04-00"01 5032202460 T-37Z P.14/15 F-378 9.0 Tra.n. sportalJ'on ..~/~er'n Plan 9.2.2 Street Standards Figure 30 presents typical cross sections for the different street functional classifications. The cross sections reflect the desire to develop multi-modal roadway facilities in Woodburn in the future, incorporating sidewalks and bike lanes where possible. The identified cross sections are intended for planning and design purposes for new road construction, and where it is physically and econom/cally feasible to improve existing streets. Thc typical street sections present standards for both traditiona] subdivision width local residential streets, as well as "skinny" streets with restricted width. A developer would have the prerogative of developing skinny streets in their development to reduce cost and provide more of a pedestrian environment, particularly applicable to more compact residential areas (often referred to as nee-traditional development). Skinny street sections also could serve as a deterrent to through or speeding traffic on local streets. The identified skinny street sections ate consistent with similar standards adopted by the City of Pordand ;md Washington County. The widest road sections are associated with major and minor arterials, with five u'avel lanes desirable on new or improved major arterials (two through lanes in each direction plus a center left turn lane), and three lanes on minor arterials (one through lane in each direction plus a center left turn lane). These roads could have raised median development in lieu of a center left turn lane in certain locations, per final access management plans developed for such facilities. A service collector could have either two or three lanes, while all access streets would be two lane facilities. On-street parking would be discouraged on arterial and service collector streets, but allowed on access streets. Bike lanes would be an integral part ofa~l new arterial and service collector streets. Sidewalks on bo~h sides of all new arterial and collector streets will be required. Major reconstruction of existing arterials and collectors will include side- walks and bikeways if tight-of-way conditions permit. 9.2.3 Requ;red Street Upgrades Freeways An element of the TSP is an improvement to the existing I-5/Highway 214 interchange. In thc short-term, the following improvements are required: Southbound I-S RamplI-Iighway 2i4 Intersection: Add a second left turn and right turn lane on the southbound I-5 off-ramp; restripe the eastbound intersection approach to include a through lane and a right turn lane; add a second left turn lane to the westbound approach. Northbound I-5 Ramp/Highway 214 Intersection: Signalize; add a second right mm lane on the nor-ffibound I-5 off-ramp; add a second lefz turn lane to the eastbound approach; add a second Uhrough Iane to the westbound approach. In the longer-term, a reconfiguration of r_he interchange is'proposed. A specific improvement-- (including but not limited to the following: improve existing interchange, split diamond interchange or second interchange at Butteville Road) will be identified through a follow-up interchange refinement study to ~he TSP. The specific alignment for the western portion of the South Arterial will also be identified in this study. The South Arterial will have a grade separation wi~ I-5, and have a direct connection to I-5 .un.der either the st,lit diamond or second Kirtelson & Assoclare=, Inc. 04"00"01 02:52PM FROt~I-STOEL RIVES LLP 9.0 Transportation System Plan 5032202480 T-372 P.15/!5 F-3?8 Woodbum Transporm~ion ~ystern Plan interchange alternatives. The alignment of thc South Arterial will need to be coordinated with site development plans on both sides of I-5. For the purposes of illustrating how the South Arterial and connecting roadways would tie into the overall street, transit, pedestrian, bieyele, and golf cart facilities, the existing interchange with a northerly alignment for the South Arterial is used to illustrate the functional classification and associated pcd¢.strian and bicycle facilities along this roadway and connecting streets. The I-5 split diamond interchange option (with a north alignment for the South Arterial) and the second plan configurations with I~5 interchange (with a sottth alignment for the south alignment for the South Arterial are shown as plan insets). Major Arterials Highway 219/214 Highway 214 is proposed to be widened to a five-lane facility from Woodland Avenue on thc west to Highway 99E on the east, with the potential for such widerLing extending east of Highway 99E to the east city limits. A final access management plan for this roadway should be developed associated with futLt~e project development studies for stroh improvements, based on the access management concepts identified in the access management ana]y$i$ conducted as part of the Woodburn TSP development. Improved signal coordination along this roadway is also proposed. In addition to the before-mentioned improvements to the I-$ ramp intersections, there aze two other major intersection improvements required along Highway 214 in the short-term, irrespec- tive of this roadway being widened to five lanes. These improvements include: Highway 214/Settlemier Avenue--Optimize the signal tin:dng ~o minimize delay; add a second left turn lane on the northbound approach; and restdpe the southbound approach to the intersection to include one left tuna, one right mm, and one through lane. Highway 214/I-Iighway 99Ig Add a second left turn lane to the eastbound intersection approach; restripe the westbound intersection approach.to include one left rum lane, one through lane and one right turn lane; and add a second left turn lane to the northbound intersection approach. Hi~lhway OOE Highway 99E would remain a five-lane facility, with access management and sidewalk improvements on the section south of Lincoln Street. A final access management plan should be developed for this section as part of future project development studies, based on the acdcess management concepts developed as part of the Woodburn TSP study. As for Highway 214, improved signal coordination on this roadway is proposed. At the Highway 99E/Young Street intersection, the reconfiDaration of the east approach to the intersection is required, in particular realigning Cannery and George S~reers away from the intersection. A westbound right turn lane on this approach is also requir~:d. 90 Kitte~On & A~sociate$, I~o. 11:32^M FRO~'STOEL RIVES T-150 P.OZ/03 ;-216 MZCLL,~.~/- C. RuBINSO> Dirrc~ Diaz ~503) 29~9194 cx.a-~ m~robhason/~.~Toe! cum Mayor Richarct Jennmgs C~y of Woodbum 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Re: Woodburn Company Stores' Applkat~on Dear Mayor ]ennings: This office represems Crmg Realty Group-Woodbum, LLC {,"Craig"). I am writing about the proposed condition of approval concerning transportation improvements. As you know, me Oregon Deparunem of Transportaxion cODOT") submitted a leaer dated April 5, 2001 to thc City Council.. That leuer suggested that ODOT would not further oppose this application if the City Council imposed a condition of approval requiring Craig to pay as proportional share of certain transportation improvements. Following The cancelled Woodburn City Council hearing on April 9, 2001, the City Manager, Ctry Attorney and my cliem met to draft a proposed condition of approval. We snared that condmon of approval wtth ODOT representatives on April 11, 2001. Since That meeting, ODOT, City staff and Craig have made several minor changes ro the proposed condition. The condition of appro,~al [hat is included in Mr. Mulder's May 7, 2001 staff eeport i~ acceptable lo Craig, ODOT and thc City. My cliem supports the proposed condition of approval as it is worded in the May 7, 2001 staff repOrt The purpose of this condiuon of approval is m satisf~ all of my client'~ obligations WiTh respect to transportation improvements for Phases 2 and 3 of the Woodbum Company Stores. My understanding from discussion with City and ODOT stal'f is that th~s condition of approval plan approvals for Phases 2 and 3 will nat accomplishes this purpose. In other words, site provided tha~ they do not exceed the square require additional rransporuafion improvements, 05-07-01 11:33^M FROM-'STOEL RIVES T'150 P.05/03 F-216 STOEL RIVES Mr. Richard Jennings May 7, 2001 Page 2 motage contained m the December 1998 Kittelson and Associates Traffic Impact Analysis ("TI^"). As you know, my client has done more m nuprove the I-5/Otegon Highways 211 and 214 interchange then any other party m recent memory. My client reconstructed Arney Road and ~at road not only successfully serves his property but other properties as well. This approval is specifically this condition of approval should be the end of my client's obligations for transporauion improvements as long as the size of Phases 2 and 3 do not exceed that contained in the 1999 TIA. On behalf of my client, i request that you approve this application, incorporate this condition of approval as well as other condations of approval from the remanded decision and allow the applicant to draft findings for review by your staff and adoption by the City Council at the May 14, 2001 Woodbum City Council meeting- Very truly yours, Michael C, Robinson MCR:kls cc: Mr- Steve Craig (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Mr. Jim Mulder (via facsimile) Mr. Gary Katsion (via facsimile) Mr. N. Robert Shields (via facsimile) Ms. Kathy Lincoln (via facsimile) Pom~a 1 .?~-~,.343.100T/t~804~(ll