The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAP032416CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City Council Meeting Agenda March 24, 2016 Next Res. 1446 Next Ord. 2026 I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER – 7:00 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES – Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization. V. SPECIAL PRESENTATION – Police Officer Swearing In VI. CONSENT AGENDA Page 2 - 11 A. Approval of March 10, 2016 Council Minutes 12 - 13 B. Approval of Art4Joy OLCC Application (Address Change) 14 - 15 C. Approval of Fair City Market OLCC Application 16 - 22 D. Approval of 2016 City Surplus List 23 - 26 E. Acceptance of 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA VIII. PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS 28 - 291 A. Resolution No. _________, A Resolution Affirming the Planning Commission Decision Adopted as Resolution No. 827 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Development of a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and Fuel Facility on 18.28 Acres within the M-1 zoning District – Appellant Martin (Holtey) 293 - 310 B. Resolution No. ________, A Resolution Affirming the Planning Commission Decision Adopted as Resolution No. 827 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Development of a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and Fuel Facility on 18.28 Acres within the M-1 zoning District – Appellant Smith (Holtey) Central Point City Hall 541-664-3321 City Council Mayor Hank Williams Ward I Bruce Dingler Ward II Michael Quilty Ward III Brandon Thueson Ward IV Allen Broderick At Large Rick Samuelson Taneea Browning Administration Chris Clayton, City Manager Deanna Casey, City Recorder Community Development Tom Humphrey, Director Finance Bev Adams, Director Human Resources Elizabeth Simas, Director Parks and Public Works Matt Samitore, Director Jennifer Boardman, Manager Police Kris Allison Chief 312 - 315 C. Resolution No. ________, A Resolution Amending the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Central Point and Jackson County for Municipal Court Services (Adams) 317 - 326 D. Resolution No. _________, Authorizing a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Central Point and the Oregon Department of Transportation to Construct I-5: Exit 33 Off-Ramp Improvements (Humphrey) IX. BUSINESS 328 - 331 A. Approval of additional Parks Maintenance Worker (Boardman) X. MAYOR’S REPORT XI. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT XII. COUNCIL REPORTS XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - ORS 192.660(2)(h) Legal Counsel The City Council may adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (2)(h) Legal Counsel. Under the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, the proceedings of an executive session are not for publication or broadcast. XV. ADJOURNMENT Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: Deanna.casey@centralpointoregon.gov . Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201 Consent Agenda CAP032416 Page 1 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City Council Meeting Minutes March 10, 2016 I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL: Mayor: Hank Williams Council Members: Allen Broderick, Bruce Dingler, Brandon Thueson, Taneea Browning, Rick Samuelson, and Mike Quilty were present. City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer; Police Chief Kris Allison; Community Development Director Tom Humphrey; Community Planner Stephanie Holtey; Finance Director Bev Adams; Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore; Police Captain Dave Croft; and City Recorder Deanna Casey were also present. IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None V. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Fire District No. 3 Annual Report – Captain Dan Peterson presented the 2015 Annual Report. He explained response times, and the Fire Wise Program they have implemented for rural areas. They have received a grant to build a simulation house that can be used by 26 partner agencies. The structure has movable walls, can simulate scenarios for training of police departments and fire departments. This will be a great learning tool for the agencies in our area. VI. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of February 11, 2016 City Council Minutes Mike Quilty moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Taneea Browning seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved. VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None VIII. CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Williams read the rules governing this appeal hearing. The hearing consists of two consolidated appeals filed by L. Calvin Martin and David J. Smith regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a membership warehouse and a fuel facility on property within the M-1 zoning district. The council will make a determination based on CAP032416 Page 2 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 2 evidence and issues that were submitted in the record. No new evidence may be submitted. Arguments are limited to those issues that were raised in the proceedings with the Planning Commission and in any notice of appeal. He explained the amount of time the appellants and the applicant will have to present their case and there will be time allowed for the public to be heard regarding the issues on the record. Mayor Williams explained Conflict of Interest and Ex parte contact. No City Council members had a Conflict of Interest. Mayor Williams stated that on November 28, 2015 he attended a Memorial Service for Georges St. Laurent III at the St. Laurent ranch east of Eagle Point, Oregon. At that service both Georges St Laurent and Williams St Laurent were in attendance. When asked about the Costco project he told them that He had not seen the proposal and had no opinion about it. Council Members Allen Broderick, Taneea Browning, Brandon Thueson stated that they had talked with various citizens regarding the project, but did not learn anything that was not already included in the record. Most of the Council members have driven by the site on regular day to day travels. City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer explained how the hearing would proceed. Any concern about the appeal must be brought forward at this meeting. Mayor Williams opened the public hearing. A. City Staff Report Community Planner Stephanie Holtey presented the staff report. This meeting is in regards to two appeals of the Planning Commission decision regarding a Costco Project on the corner of Table Rock and Hamrick. In 2009 the Planning Commission approved membership warehouse clubs as similar to other uses permitted in the M-1 zone as a conditional use. After the State appealed that decision the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s similar use determination. The Council decision was not appealed further. Costco Wholesale submitted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in 2015, to develop a membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres in the M-1 zone. On February 2, 2016 the Planning Commission, in accordance with CPMC 17.76, approved the CUP application. L. Calvin Martin and David J. Smith filed appeals on February 16, 2016. Both appeals raise similar issues alleging that the Planning Commission erred in approving the application based upon the following issues: Martin Appeal: • Use is not compatible • Not consistent with the development ordinance • Traffic impacts far reaching • Heavy vehicle/freight route conflicts • Airport/Biddle Road intersection congestion • Vilas & Crater Lake Highway CAP032416 Page 3 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 3 • Statement of Values Conflicts Smith Appeal: • Applicant’s Traffic Impact Study is flawed • Heavy vehicle/freight route conflicts • No evidence that I-5 NB Off-ramp project has been funded and scheduled. • Approval of the Costco CUP requires further study • Statement of values conflict The Council’s consideration must be based on the evidence and issues that were presented to the Planning Commission and are in the record. The Council must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission decision, or whether the Planning Commission erred as a matter of law. Staff has reviewed the issues raised in both appeals and the evidence in the record in the context of the standards and criteria that apply to Conditional Use Permits per CPMC 17.76. There are no issues raised that have not already been addressed by the Planning Commission as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In an appeal of a Type III land use decision the City Council has four options: 1. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. If the Council does so, it must specify the basis for its decision; 2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. If the Council reverses the decision they must specify the reasons for the reversal; 3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission and specify the reasons for the modification; or 4. Remand the decision to the Planning Commission with an explanation of the error and the action necessary to rectify the error. Given the constraints of the 120-day rule, this is not an option unless the applicant concurs and agrees to extend the 120 day limit. Mrs. Holtey presented the CUP Approval Criteria set forth in CMPC 17.76.040. 1. Site is adequate to accommodate the use and meet all development requirements. 2. Site has adequate access to public street/highway. 3. Establishment, operation and maintenance of the use has no significant adverse effect on abutting property. 4. The use will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. 5. Any conditions required for approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. She presented the appeal issues and evidence in the record for each concern. CAP032416 Page 4 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 4 Martin Appeal: • Use is not compatible with M-1 zone; Not consistent with the development ordinance – Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use under the City’s 2009 similar use determination. The application was processed as a conditional use. • Traffic – Planning Commission relied on the TIA, agency comments and testimony, no other expert testimony or analysis was submitted into the record; based on the evidence in the record, the proposal complies with the CUP criteria as conditioned and traffic impacts will be funded or mitigated prior to opening. • Statement of Values Conflicts – Planning Commission applied the standards and criteria in CPMC 17.76. The Mission statement does not serve as a standard or criteria. Smith Appeal: • Applicant’s Traffic Impact Study is flawed – The TIA was reviewed by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineers and other agencies including City, ODOT, Jackson County and Medford. Trip distribution pattern developed using zip code data from current memberships at the existing Costco on Hwy 62. • Airport Master Plan not identified in the TIA – The evidence in the record is limited to the TIA and agency comments. The Airport was included in the noticing but did not submit comment for the record. • Heavy vehicle/freight route conflicts – Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA, there were no problems identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles. • Requires further study – There have been no further traffic studies or testimony submitted by a traffic engineer or other traffic expert refuting the substance of the TIA. Staff recommends the City Council affirm the Planning Commission decision for both appeals. B. Testimony of Appellant L. Calvin Martin regarding Planning Commission approval of Costco Conditional Use Permit Mr. Martin stated that it sounded like everything was in order and thought through but he doesn’t agree with the outcome. He read a statement into the record and asked why we would have a difference between industrial and commercial zones. He explained the reason for traffic impact studies. Why does the City allow conditional use permits and why do we separate commercial zone by intensity. Traffic is different for the industrial zones versus the commercial zones, and zoning rules should try and keep traffic separate. In 2009 the city decided that they wanted to have a Costco type business located in Central Point and found a way to justify the use of a warehouse membership store to fit in an M-1 zoning. This type of store creates a lot of traffic that Central Point cannot handle. Does the City really believe they can mitigate their way to accepting this type of traffic? Costco is not an industrial use, the number of CAP032416 Page 5 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 5 parking spaces allowed shows that the city realizes there will be an intense amount of traffic coming to this location. Costco is rushing the timeline because they want to get a new store up and running right away. The findings of fact will make the city liable for any loss of life because of traffic accidents. If you approve the application as is, there will be accidents and the city will be liable for allowing it to go in. When the building is finished and opened the traffic will get worse because other businesses will want to build in the area. No other Costco in the state has been approved in an industrial zone, they need a commercial zone. He stated that he plans to file with LUBA and beyond if necessary if the city continues in this zoning. There were no questions from the Council. C. Testimony of Appellant David J. Smith regarding Planning Commission Decision of Costco Conditional Use Permit Mr. David J. Smith stated that the cost of the Planning Commission appeal was too high. He researched many other cities and the City of Central Point fees are high in comparison. It should not be so hard to bring an item to the City Council. They are the decision makers and the citizens should have access to them. Mr. Smith stated that the traffic study was done by a firm hired by Costco. That in itself makes it in favor of Costco. This is the same firm that designated Exit 33 as a freight corridor many years ago. He doesn’t agree with how the traffic study was done. People don’t travel according to their zip code. A survey should have been done by the current members at the Hwy 62 Costco asking how they would be traveling to the new site. There is no evidence showing that members will go one way or another. One newspaper article stated that other traffic studies were done, but none were used. City staff has indicated that at one time this zoning was designated as residential but was switched to industrial to match the other side of Table Rock Road. He quoted CPMC 17.64 where it refers to Warehouse buildings and says that parking spaces are decided by square footage or number of employees. He pointed out the tables in the code book in regards to warehouses and industrial buildings. The amount of parking spaces approved exceeds the code requirements. Issues regarding the traffic caused by a Costco in this location are very concerning. Costco members are not going to want to share the traffic lanes with the commercial trucks. There are no funds currently available to complete the traffic mitigation at the I-5 off ramp and many other areas of concern. He hopes that the Council takes their time to seriously think about the impact this will have on Central Point Citizens. He has talked with the manager of the Airport and Mr. Case is not happy with the idea of all the traffic that will be competing with travelers. There are several things that didn’t get considered in regards to this application. He feels the CAP032416 Page 6 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 6 application was rushed through because they want to have a new building soon. The application should go back to the drawing board to reconsider many things. There were no questions from the Council. COSTCO representatives Peter Kahn, Wayne Kittelson, and David Petersen. Mr. Cahn believes that the Planning Commission acted appropriately. The appeals are exaggerations. The appellant’s record lacks any facts or evidence that this decision should not be approved. Costco’s studies were done legally and with the community in mind. Wayne Kittelson from Kittelson and Associates had a slide presentation explaining the traffic study and mitigation planned in regards to the Costco Application. The traffic study was done using zip codes of current Costco members and the area’s population. Land use and road characteristics were taken into consideration for the study. The mitigation that was approved will work for this site. The Airport Master Plan is from 2001. There is no mitigation identified in the master plan that pertains to the Biddle/Airport Road intersection. The assertion that the development will cause a traffic disaster is erroneous. The truck traffic is 5 to 10% of all total traffic. Table Rock Road will be upgraded to take care of any issues. The Pine Street Interchange upgrades are scheduled for 2023, ODOT will be working to upgrade at the earliest possible date. Costco Attorney David Petersen stated that the evidence the Council can use is what was available to the Planning Commission. None of the traffic speculation is fact. There is no evidence that says the mitigation proposed will not work for this project. He reviewed what happened in 2009 when the City Council agreed with the Planning Commission decision to allow Membership Warehouses as a Conditional Use in the M-1 Zone. The state appealed the PC decision but did not go further after the Council decision. Mayor Williams opened the hearing to the audience. Brad Bennington, Jacksonville City Council Mr. Bennington stated that Central Point has done a great job of approving growth for the good of the community. Our County is growing and we are all responsible for helping to keep the growth manageable. He agrees that the traffic impacts will need to be improved and has confidence that the area will manage well. The Planning Commission has done a good job of reviewing the rules and laws regarding land use and applied them appropriately. The City of Central Point has smart, educated people and the Council should listen to their experts. Mark Haneberg, Ashland Resident Mr. Haneberg explained the findings of fact and conclusions of law on page 192 state that the intersection of Table Rock and Airport Road is currently at LOS F and states that a lower level of service is acceptable. He explained that Planning Commissions must decide if the site has adequate access to traffic. Lowering the level of service is not adequate access. CAP032416 Page 7 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 7 Linda Borum, Central Point East Resident Mrs. Borum stated that she uses Table Rock Road all the time and sees all the semi-trucks and smaller cars fighting for a lane. Costco is not a storage warehouse and belongs on a highway not a small road like Table Rock. Charles Bolen Mr. Bolen stated that he represents property owners in the area. Staff has made a lot of work and found good evidence in the record. There is no contrary evidence in the record. The only contrary comments are opinions of the appellants. Findings of Fact are in the record, and those who have done the research are qualified people. The Council should rely on their experts. Beverly Cone, Old Stage Road Resident Mrs. Cone stated that she is a property owner and travels the roads in question. If the staff is competent enough to do their jobs the Council should listen to their advice. REBUTTAL: Mr. Martin reminded the Council of the impact of the decision that was done in 2009 and the traffic issue that will happen because of the appeal and decision made by the Council. The project is going to cost the city because of the rushed improvements to the intersections and traffic mitigation. There are no plans set up yet. Some of the items were agreed upon the day before the Planning Commission meeting. He is not criticizing the city or staff members but he feels that the final decisions were rushed. No one knows what the final plan will be or what the cost will be to the city. He is suggesting that the project be delayed until the road improvements are done. The construction and traffic for Costco will be a mess. The city should not inconvenience everyone because they want to push the project forward. This is a huge undertaking and the council will be putting people at risk. It is not the right fit. Mr. Smith stated that the parking spaces allowed are more in line for a commercial property than for a warehouse in the M-1 zone. The parking spaces allowed are targeted more towards retail space than industrial. The city is allowing spot zoning with this application, not a conditional use. The City Council should use their common sense. There is still a lot to be considered with this application. He understands the enthusiasm to begin the project but it was not reviewed according to the zoning. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey explained that Kittelson has worked on several traffic studies in the area but has not worked for the City of Central Point on a study. The project for Table Rock Road was scoped for improvements for the 2015-18 budget years by the County. The application process was not rushed, extra time was given to other jurisdictions in order to review the Traffic Study and provide comments and concerns. He explained the positive effect of growth with this project as the city generates revenue from new CAP032416 Page 8 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 8 growth we can begin work on new projects and maintain the streets that we currently have. Mrs. Holtey explained that when the Planning Commission and Council considered allowing this use in the M-1 zone they took into consideration available parking. Costco submitted a parking demand analysis to justify the requested spaces. The Planning Commission found that the request was justified. If this were judged on retail space they would have been allowed more spaces than they are asking for. Council Member Mike Quilty asked if the state funding through ODOT for the improvements qualify for the mitigation proposal on Exit 33. Staff answered that they do qualify. Mayor Williams closed the public hearing. Bruce Dingler moved to affirm the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution 827 and direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the application for a Coscto Wholesale Membership Warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district as per the staff reports as Exhibits A and B hereto and the draft findings at exhibit C-2 for the Council’s next meeting on March 24, 2016. Rick Samuelson seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved. Bruce Dingler moved to affirm the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution 827 and direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the application for a Costco Wholesale membership Warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district as per the staff reports as Exhibits A and B hereto and the draft findings at exhibit D-2 for the Council’s next meeting on March 24, 2016. Mike Quilty seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved. IX. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Williams reported that: • He attended two Medford Water Commission Meetings • He attended the Medford Rod and Custom Show and presented the Mayor’s Choice Award. • He attended the RVMPO meeting in place of Council Member Mike Quilty. They discussed the future of fuel. X. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Chris Clayton reported that: • he will be sending video footage of the Greenway clean up. CAP032416 Page 9 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 9 • They received the CPIU Information today. The CPI is 1.4 for the General Services Union Employees. • Staff has been working with the Super 8 Managers and we are hopeful they will be able to rectify their tax issues with the city. • He has been working on parking issues between the Senior Center and RVCOG. • Mrs. Holtey has done a great job in the Planning Department and wanted to thank her publically for the great work. XI. COUNCIL REPORTS Council Member Allen Broderick reported that he attended: • The Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. • The Study Session. • His health issues are on the mend thanks to the Mayo Clinic in AZ. The infrastructure in AZ is amazing and so clean. Council Member Taneea Browning reported that she attended the Fire District Board meeting, and participated on in the brainstorming session for streetscapes. Staff did a great job on the appeal process and explaining the rules. Council Member Bruce Dingler had no report. Council Member Rick Samuelson reported that: • He attended the Study Session. • He attended an RVCOG Board meeting. The Options Counseling is a great program, and they are discussing the idea of a Convention Center in the area. • RCC is looking for a new President and will be seeking a bond for a new building. Council Member Brandon Thueson reported that he attended the Study Session and the Crater Board meeting. He will be out of town for the March Study Session and the March 24th Council Meeting. Council Member Mike Quilty reported that: • He is very thankful that the Mayor was able to attend the RVMPO meeting in his place, evidently he has been appointed as Chair. • He will be attending several transportation meetings in Salem next week. XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that the Sutton Wall is complete. We received word that the Table Rock right-of-way and Twin Creeks Engineering have gotten through the Department of Justice reviews. We should be scheduling kick off meetings in the next week or so. Police Chief Kris Allison stated that they will be swearing in new officers at the next Council meeting. CAP032416 Page 10 City of Central Point City Council Minutes March 10, 2016 Page 10 Community Development Director Tom Humphrey stated that Stephanie Holtey has done a great job as a Community Planner. He is very lucky to have qualified people working in his department right now. She has done a great job in the application process with Costco and other applications that are in the works. Explained the benefits generated by the SDC’s by projects like the Costco. City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer explained the process and time line if the decision tonight and the final order gets appealed to LUBA. She directed the Council to limit their opinions on the decision. She also commented that Mrs. Holtey has done a great job for Central Point she is one of the best planners in the valley and she is very gifted at presenting the details. Community Planner Stephanie Holtey stated that she is thankful for all the teachings from Community Development Director Tom Humphrey and Planning Manager Don Burt. They have done a great job of mentoring her. XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - None XIV. ADJOURNMENT Mike Quilty moved to adjourn, Brandon Thueson seconded, all said “aye” and the Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the March 10, 2016, Council meeting were approved by the City Council at its meeting of March 24, 2016. Dated: _________________________ Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: __________________________ City Recorder CAP032416 Page 11 155 South Second Street . Central Point, OR 97502 Kristine AIIison Ph: (541 ) 664-5578 . Fax: (541 ) 664-27 05 . www.centralpointoregon.gov Date: 0311012016 From: Chief Kristine AllisonTo: Honorable Mayor Williams Subject: Request for OLCC License RE: Art 4 Joy / Persons associated therewith Files of the Central Point Police Department contain no information pertinent to the request. Chief Central Point Police Department " 2r,/,bot/ 6 ,9"rnø", Conruttt/ 6 f*"//",to""CAP032416 Page 12 w OREGON LIQUOR OON IROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION TI Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) Off-Premises Sales ($ 1 00/yr) !with Fuel Pumps Brewery Public House ($252.60) Winery ($2sOly4 Other: gO.DAY AUTHORITY ! Cne* here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority APPLYING AS: lt-imiteo Icorporation !t-imiteoLiability ffitndividualsPartnership Company E Full On-Premises Sales ($a02.6O/yr) ACTIONS Aoolication is being made for: LICENSE TYPES Change Ownership New Outlet Greater Privilege Additional Privilege Other Commercial Establishment Caterer Passenger Carrier Other Public Location Private Club CITYAND COUNTY Date application received: USE ONLYzlql¡l" The G Gou lor Com lssron: (name of city or recommends that this license be: E Granted fl Denied By (sig F (date) Name OLCC USE ONLY Application Rec'd by: Date 90-day authority: tr Yes tr No 1. Entity or lndividuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] o q @ Ø \,{rr"vr\rprl \l .T..\rìrrru lorz, @J 2.Trade Name (dba) 3. Business Locatíon (number, street, rural route)(city) (county) (state)(ZlP code)cft%) 4. Business Mailing Address:Q,n nrf U- (Þó-oıx, number, street, rural route) 5. Business Numbers t.-rQ\- cìSr- qı)1,, (city)(state)(ZlP code) (phone) 6. ls the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? ClYes 7. lf yes to whom ofrl/a , (fax) o B. Former Business Name 9. Will you have a manager Yes Oruo Name: an lndividual History form 10. What is the local governing body where you .J (name of city or county) 11 . Contact person for this application \c\ (phone numbe(s))-¿tJqr*4 c\-Ì'ì (address)(fax nu ber)(e-mail address) I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application. (man ll r business is located?ôl Aei h..nF @ Date Appl sig s) and Date: @ Date CAP032416 Page 13 OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) Off-Premises Sales ($1 00/yr) Ewilh FuelPumps Brewery Public House ($252.60) Winery ($2soly4 gO.DAYAUTHORITY Q Cneck here lf you are applying for a change of ownership at a business that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority APPLYING A$ -E!¡miteo Icorporation Eqmiteo Liabitity ItndividuatsPartnershiP I \ Gompany trtrtr FullOn-Premises Sales ($a02.60/yr) ACTIONS Aoplicationls loeing made for: LICENSE TYPES Change Ownership New Outlet Greater Privilege Commercial Establishment Caterer Passenger Carrier Other Public Location Prlvate Club CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY Date application received: The Glty Gouncilor Gounty Gommission: (name of city or county) recommends that this license be: fl Granted E Denied T¡tte: [V\û-,g.ô f .) /\) v- ----7-T- (date) 3-rrl.- tt¿ By 90-day authority: tr Yes oLcc 1. Entity or o @ 1 of the Guidel @ 2. Trade Name 3. Business "1f +h (number, street, rural route) 4. Business Mailing (PO box, number, street, + o 7r (ZlP code) q J -'L code) (city) (county) b (c tv) .hI 5. Business N 5 -0 (phone) 6. ls the business at location cunentlv I by OLCC?ENo 7. lf yes to 4nu"of 8. Former Business 9. Willyou have a managerZ Pes Eltto Name (fax) 5 must out an tltL form) 10.What is the local governing body where your business is located? 11. Contact person forthis application t't, (name) ^7 q7i-à Y (name of city or rt4)f7 0 I 2016 '"JHËG,EIVI understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny Appllca @ and Date: oat" Slzhu @ Date @ CONTROL COMMISSION OFFICE@ 1-800452-OLCC (6522) . www.oregon.gov/olcc (rov.0€/2011)CAP032416 Page 14 155 South Second Street. Central Point, OR 97502 Kristine AIIison . ¡\i . .lr'\,r j \r Ph: (541) 664-5578 . Fax: (541) 664-2705. t¡vww.centralpointoregon.gov Date: 0311512016 From: Chief Kristine AllisonTo: Honorable Mayor Williams Subject: Request for OLCC License RE: HAM Markets, Inc. DBA: Fair City Market & Deli / Persons associated therewith Files of the Central Point Police Department contain no information pertinent to the request. Chief Kristine Allison Central Point Police Department Ghief " 2o/*otu/ 6 ,9"r"rb", Connt'ttø/ 6 fr,ae//e,oo" " CAP032416 Page 15 Parks & Public Works Department Matt Samitore, Director 140 South 3rd Street | Central Point, OR 97502 | 541.664.7602 | www.centralpointoregon.gov STAFF REPORT March 16, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: The City would like to surplus the following items STAFF SOURCE: Matt Samitore, Director SUMMARY: Attached is the list of surplus from new purchases and consolidations across all departments from March of 2015 through March 1, 2016. Several items that are no longer in use are being requested to be donated to the School District. The rest will either go to auction or to Restore for recycling. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends approving the surplus list. RECOMMENDATION Approve the surplus property list. CAP032416 Page 16 Item #Qty Make/Model Description Serial #Dept Reason Method of Disp.Value 3102 1 Stihl cut saw 163627031 PW replaced School District $300 1 Milwaukee electric sawzall PW not used School District $100 2 EZ Go golf cart 2181817 PW not used School District $1,000 3112 Graco Ultra 395 airless sprayer BA06204 PW replaced School District $200 1001 Chevy Colorado pickup PW replaced School District $5,000 2 bags CEP oil absorbing pads PW not used School District $100 3109 1 MQ portable concrete mixer 240705816 PW not used School District $500 3188 Hyster forklift C6D41471 PW not used Auction $6,000 3196 1 Ingersoll Rand P100DWD towable air compressor 1990 186586U90198 PW not worth repair Auction $2,000 3100 1 Target walk behind saw 443646 PW replaced Auction $3,000 3104 1 Stihl chainsaw winch 38392517 PW not used Auction $500 3113 Nova SPX airless sprayer 3571 PW replaced Auction $150 1 Vermeer 3" pneumatic mole piercing tool PW not used Auction $1,000 1 Craftsman auto scroll saw PW not used Auction 1 Delta 6" bench grinder PW not used Auction 1 Rockwell electric sawzall PW not used Auction Humbolt concrete testing equipment H-3638 & H-3640 PW not used Auction 3 Cen-Tech digital multi-meters PW not used Auction 13 SAIT Stud King 16" chop saw wheels PW not used Auction 1 can Lilly Miller Moss Out 4 lbs PW not used Auction 1 roll 36" chicken wire PW not used Auction 1 box Allegro cooling products PW not used Auction 2 boxes EAR Ultrafit ear plugs PW not used Auction 1 box Elvex Quattro ear plugs PW not used Auction 16 Genesis safety replacement lenses PW not used Auction 3 pkg Yaktrax Pro shoe chains PW not used Auction 3 boxes Sweetheart cups 4.5 oz conical cups PW not used Auction 5 Igloo conical cup holder 6 & 8 oz PW not used Auction 1 Igloo conical cup holder 4.5 oz PW not used Auction 1 Westbend 36 cup coffee pot PW not used Auction 1 box Willson T01O100 respirator filters PW not used Auction 1 box Willson LP100 respirator filters w/ respirator PW not used Auction SURPLUS LIST 2016 C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 1 7 Item #Qty Make/Model Description Serial #Dept Reason Method of Disp.Value 1 Willson respirator full face with filters PW not used Auction 2 Willson half face respirator PW not used Auction 1 MSA half face respirator PW not used Auction 1 box Survivair respirator filters PW not used Auction 2 boxes MSA shortstack respirator filters PW not used Auction 4 Splash Master faceshield lenses PW not used Auction 2 Lab Safety faceshield lenses PW not used Auction 12 MSA helmet faceshields PW not used Auction 4 Wilson faceshields PW not used Auction 1 box lenses for sandblaster hood PW not used Auction 2 boxes 3M-1836 Off the face comfort surgical mask PW not used Auction 1 case Rayovac 6 volt HD batteries PW not used Auction 1 bucket grading whiskers PW not used Restore 1 pr Onguard rubber boots PW not used Restore 1 Oasis CPFD canteen PW not used Auction 4 "oversize load" banners PW not used Auction 3 "wide load" banners PW not used Auction 1 Lufkin survey tape PW not used Auction 2 light covers PW not used Auction 2 bags CEP oil absorbent pads PW not used Auction 2 boxes gloves (leather & cotton)PW not used Restore 2 old grade rod wood LIETZ PW not used Auction 1 Waterloo 3-drawer tool box PW not used Auction 1 Blue Point 12 volt jump starter PW not used Auction 1 7-range AC volt-ammeter PW not used Auction 1 80-90 wt gear oil caddy PW not used Auction 2 NEW tire chains PW not used Auction 14 boxes 2'x2'x5/8 ceiling panels- 16 per box PW not used Restore 1 Lithonic 4' light fixture PW not used Restore 1 bag seat covers PW replaced Auction 1 pr clear goggles PW not used Restore 2 Kodak Easy Share digital camera and charger PW not used Restore 3 boxes Durawear coveralls PW not used Auction 3 doors PW replaced Restore 2+ cases Prime Source toilet seat covers PW not used Auction C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 1 8 Item #Qty Make/Model Description Serial #Dept Reason Method of Disp.Value 4 lanyards PW not used Auction 1 Saf-T-Climb rope climber PW not used Auction 2 2x3' white grease board PW not used Auction 3 monitor stands and hardware PW not used Restore 1 Harper torch cart PW not used Auction 1 water defuser PW not used Auction 7 cans Rectorseal pipe thread sealant PW not used Auction 8 Philips 3' TL70 light bulbs PW not used Auction 2 CR Laurence 18" convex mirror PW not used Auction 1 Stanley hand planer PW not used Auction 1 Propane hose and regulator PW not used Auction Husky & Stihl hard hats with mesh screen PW not used Auction 15+street stencils PW not used School District 50 Apex 4"x4" white reflectors 50 ct PW not used Auction 450 white type A ceramic round markers PW not used Auction Rap-I-Form round snap ties PW not used Restore misc chalk PW not used Restore 6 rechargable spot lights PW not used Auction Cannon SureShot 35mm camera PW not used Restore 1 shower stall PW not sure Restore 3 rubberized ash trays PW not used Auction 1 popcorn popper Parks replaced Auction 1 drill Parks not used Auction 1 floor buffer Parks not used Auction buffer pads Parks not used Auction golf clubs Parks not used Auction irrigation heads Parks not used Restore 9 toilet paper receptacles Parks replaced Restore PVC pipe connectors Parks not used Restore 1 wood A-frame sign Parks not used Restore 1 vintage gold sofa Parks replaced Restore 1 Ariston mini hot water heater Parks not used Auction 1 Stanley 2' magnetic level PW not used Auction 1 Stanley 3' 42-360 level PW not used Auction 1 Stanley 4' 42-480 level (missing bubble)PW not used Auction C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 1 9 Item #Qty Make/Model Description Serial #Dept Reason Method of Disp.Value 1 Logan Inc emergency folding stretcher PW not used Auction 1 Rubbermaid 24"x11" plastic tool box PW not used Auction 1 DuraBull 24"x11" plastic tool box PW not used Auction 2 16"x4" plastic tool boxes PW not used Auction 1 truck mirror head PW not used Auction 25 Omni Marker yellow/gas sound locating balls PW not used Auction 1 Hydromatic Pumps/OSP 33M1 2" submersible pump PW not used Auction 1 portable spotlight PW not used Auction 1 ABL bolt-on 6" work light PW not used Auction 1 Coleman/5368A718 portable spotlight PW not used Auction 2 8' car socket plug extensions PW not used Auction 4 Crisco 1.5 qt vegetable oil PW not used Auction 1 detectable marking tape for water PW not used Auction 2 detectable marking tape for sewer PW not used Auction 3 non-detectable tape for electrical PW not used Auction 1 Dayton/10939 2" electric fan PW not used Auction 1 Cadweld cathodic protection kit, dies, tips, etc PW not used Auction 2 COB Industries Qwik-Freezer CO2 water pipe bag 1/2"-3/4"PW not used Auction 2 COB Industries Qwik-Freezer CO2 water pipe bag 3/4"-1 1/2"PW not used Auction 2 COB Industries Qwik-Freezer CO2 water pipe bag 1 1/2"-3"PW not used Auction 1 3000 psi connector hose for above bags 1/4"PW not used Auction 1 30g plastic water tank PW not used Auction 2 3M/80-6101-5458-7 25 ct direct-bury wire splice kits PW not used Auction 1 DeWalt nylon zippered tool bag PW not used Restore 1 4 drawer plastic 16"x12"x25"PW not used Auction 2 CH Hanson Co caution tape dispenser PW not used Auction 4 Blackjack tubes black roof cement PW not used Restore 1 redhead Epcon A7 fast curing acrylic PW not used Restore 2 Sunnyside gallon cans Mineral Spirits PW not used Restore 1 Rodda gallon Elastomeric paint-gray PW not used Restore 4 Gold Coast Coatings gallon industrial high gloss bright grn PW not used Restore 4 Insl-X Coatings Insl-Thane enamel royal blue PW not used Restore 1 DAS curb markers, adhesive, etc- kit PW not used Dispose 64 A-Tag 1 1/2" plastic water pipe markers PW not used Dispose 24 Repnet 7" surface mount water pipe markers PW not used Dispose C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 2 0 Item #Qty Make/Model Description Serial #Dept Reason Method of Disp.Value 1 Wrangler/TR48-17 bucket seat cover-brown PW replaced Auction 1 Worcester pipe clamp hand tool PW not used Auction 1 Hydromatic Pumps 1.5" submersible pump PW not used Auction 1 Dickson pressure chart recorder - in blue box PW not used Auction 1 5' custom steel truck tool rack PW not used Auction 1 partial roll 4.5' clear insulation sheet PW not used Auction 1 aluminum shoring rams 24"-36"PW not used Auction 1 aluminum shoring rams 28"-46"PW not used Auction 1 36" heavy duty handheld clamp PW not used Auction 1 50' roll of 3/8" cable-new PW not used Auction 2 25' roll of 3/8" cable-used PW not used Auction random hydraulic hoses for hyd pump PW not used Auction 1 Toshiba DVD player- silver Parks not used Restore 2 Toshiba DVD/VHS combo TV Parks not used Restore 1 Magnavox DVD player Parks not used Restore 1 Magnavox DVD/VHS combo TV Parks not used Restore 2 leather desk chairs Parks not used Restore 1 Hoover vacuum Parks not used Restore 1 small refridgerator- dorm size Parks not used Auction 1 white cloth office chair Parks not used Restore 1 Toshiba DVD player - black Parks not used Restore 1 Whirlpool washing machine- hot water not work Parks not used Restore 1 drafting table PW not used Auction 4 Roebic Root Killer PW not used Restore 2 brown tables Not sure not used Auction 1 wooden bookshelf Not sure not used Restore 3 sets of 2 speakers (2 blk, 1 white)Not sure not used Auction 2 4 drawer metal file cabinets Not sure not used Auction tyvex coveralls PW not used Auction 1 oven - City Hall lunchroom CH replaced Restore 2 set Infinity computer speakers Not sure not used Restore 1 APC power supply Not sure not used Restore 1 box phone wire Not sure not used Restore 1 Emerson TV w/ VHS built in PW not used Restore 1 American Audio Sound mixer Parks not used Auction C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 2 1 Item #Qty Make/Model Description Serial #Dept Reason Method of Disp.Value 1 Ionic Breeze Air purifier Not sure not used Restore 20 Solar barricade lights PW not used Auction 1 Brother Fax machine PW not used Restore 1 Blow up jump house Parks not used Auction 1 2 drawer wide cabinet Not sure not used Restore 1 Broan Ceramic heater Not sure not used Restore 1 box AudioWire Sound equipment Parks not sure Auction 3 boxes Garbage bags Parks not used Auction 2 boxes Plastic jars Parks not used Auction 1 Plastic tool tray Not sure not used Restore 1 Plastic tool box Not sure not used Restore 1 Plastic bin w/lid Not sure not used Restore 2 5# weights Not sure not used Auction 1 Metal toolbox w/tray Not sure not used Auction 1 Yellow chair Not sure not used Restore 1 Green tub Not sure not used Auction 4 Scooter boards Not sure not used Auction 2 Mountain bike tires Not sure not used Auction 1 Black water bowl Not sure not used Auction 6 Office chairs Not surenot used Restore 17 Metal folding chairs Not sure not used Restore 1 White cabinet w/shelves Not sure not used Restore 1 White 3 shelf bookcase PW not used Recycle 1 Brown chair Not sure not used Restore 1 Tall round café table Not sure not used Auction 2 Solar LED lights Not sure not used Auction 1 Small 4 drawer file cabinet Not sure not used Restore 2 Office partitions PW not used Restore 1 Plans file cabinet PW not used Restore C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 2 2 To: Mayor & Council From: Bev Adams, Finance Director Date: March 24, 2016 Subject: June 30, 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Background: The City of Central Point’s June 30, 2015 financial statements and supporting schedules are now complete. Therefore we request Council adoption of the June 30, 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This June 30, 2015 final report has been submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for consideration for the national “Certificate of Achievement” award; a copy sent to the State of Oregon as required by budget law, and an electronic copy posted to the City’s website for public information and review. We believe that we have met all GFOA conditions to qualify for the award - making this the 7th consecutive year for the City to receive this prestigious award. The City’s auditor, Paul Neilson of Isler CPA’s reported on the audited financial statements at the November 12th Council meeting. As you may remember, Mr. Neilson reported no significant findings, difficulties or misstatements encountered during the audit, giving the City an “unqualified opinion” which is auditor language for a “passing grade”. At the November council meeting, the financial statement portion of the audit had been completed. However, the final work needed on the additional schedules required to apply for the GFOA award were not complete. Due to changes required by the implementation of GASB 68, it took additional time to complete the financial part of the audit, pushing out the final schedules beyond our goal of a November completion date. A copy of the Independent Auditors Report is attached. Recommended Action: That Council, by Motion, adopt the June 30, 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Staff Report Finance Department Bev Adams, Finance Director CAP032416 Page 23 CAP032416 Page 24 CAP032416 Page 25 CAP032416 Page 26 Resolutions Staff Report for Costco CUP Appeals CAP032416 Page 27 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov STAFF REPORT March 24, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 15022 Consideration of two appeals from a Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of a 161,992 square foot Costco membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock Road. The project site is within the Federal Way Business Park subdivision in the Industrial (M-1) zoning district, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 213, 214, 215, and 216. Applicant: Costco Wholesale; Agent: Steve Bullock, MG2. STAFF SOURCE: Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II BACKGROUND: On March 10, 2016, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to consider timely appeals received by L. Calvin Martin (“Martin Appeal”) and David J. Smith (“Smith Appeal”) contesting the Planning Commission Decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit approving development of a Costco Wholesale on 18.28 acres in the M-1 zone (Resolution No. 827). The Martin Appeal and the Smith Appeal raised similar issues alleging that the Planning Commission erred in its approval of the application based upon the several issues, which are summarized below: • The use is not compatible; • The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the Applicant is flawed; • The use will generate significant traffic; and, • The decision conflicts with the City’s Statement of Values for Growth and Transportation. The Council’s scope of review for each appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record before the Planning Commission as per CPMC 17.05.400(F)(3). After considering the evidence in the record and hearing testimony from staff, the appellants, the applicant and members of the public, the public hearing was closed and the City Council found that there is substantial evidence in the record to affirm the Planning Commission Decision. Per a duly seconded motion the City Council directed staff to prepare a final resolution and findings affirming the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution No. 827 for each appeal for final action at the March 24, 2016 City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment “A” – Resolution – Martin Appeal, including exhibits thereto Attachment “B” – Resolution – Smith Appeal, including exhibits thereto ACTION: Final consideration of the Martin Appeal and the Smith Appeal contesting the Planning Commission Decision adopted per Resolution No.827. In an appeal of a land use decision, the City Council has four options: Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director CAP032416 Page 28 1. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission based on the findings of fact prepared by staff as directed per a duly seconded motion at the March 10, 2016 City Council Meeting; 2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. If Council does so, it must specify the reasons for the reversal. 3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission and specify the reasons for the modification; or, 4. Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission with an explanation of the error and the action necessary to rectify the error. Given the constraints of the 120-day rule, this is not an option unless the applicant concurs and agrees to extend the 120-day limit. RECOMMENDATION: There are two appeals before Council requiring separate action. With regard to each appeal, staff recommends the following: Martin Appeal Move to approve Resolution No. ___ affirming the Planning Commission Decision as adopted in Resolution No. 827 for a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and Fuel Facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district based on the evidence in the record, the findings attached hereto as Exhibit “A – City Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” incorporated herein by reference and Exhibit “B - Staff Report dated March 10, 2016” including Attachments “A” “B” and “C-2” incorporated herein by reference. Smith Appeal Move to approve Resolution No. ___ affirming the Planning Commission Decision as adopted in Resolution No. 827 for a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and Fuel Facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district based on the evidence in the record, the findings attached hereto as Exhibit “A – City Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” incorporated herein by reference and Exhibit “B - Staff Report dated March 10, 2016” including Attachments “A” “B” and “D-2” incorporated herein by reference. CAP032416 Page 29 Resolution Affirming the PC Decision – Martin Appeal CAP032416 Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. ____________ A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ADOPTED AS RESOLUTION NO. 827 APPROVINGA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE AND FUEL FACILITY ON 18.28 ACRES WITHIN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT – APPELLANT MARTIN (File No: 15022) WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016 the Planning Commission approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) application for development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse on 18.28 acres in the M-1 zone; WHEREAS, on February 16, 2016, the City of Central Point received from L. Calvin Martin a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the CUP application. The appeal alleged that the Planning Commission erred in its approval of the application based on several issues related to land use, traffic and the City’s Statement of Values for Growth; WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point City Council considered the issues raised on appeal and heard testimony and comments on the appeal; WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale is a Membership Warehouse Club, a conditional use in the M-1 zone per Planning Commission Resolution No. 764 and City Council Resolution No. 1217; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s decision to approve of the Costco Wholesale CUP was based on the standards and criteria applicable to Conditional Use Permits set forth in Section 17.76.040 of the Central Point Municipal Code and written and oral testimony received by the City; and, WHEREAS, after duly considering the appeal and the evidence in the record, the City Council found that there was substantial evidence in the record to affirm the Planning Commission Decision and that the Planning Commission did not err as a matter of law and, per a duly seconded motion, directed staff to prepare a final resolution and findings affirming the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution No. 827 per the Staff Report dated March 10, 2016 and specifically including Attachments “A”, “B,” and “C-2” therein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The City of Central Point City Council affirms the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution No. 827. This decision is based on the Council’s determination that there was evidence in the record to approve the CUP application and that the Planning Commission did not err as a matter of law and is supported by the evidence in the record, the findings attached hereto as Exhibit “A – City Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” incorporated herein by reference, and Exhibit “B – Attachment A CAP032416 Page 31 Staff Report dated March 10, 2016” including Attachments “A” and “B” and “C-2” incorporated herein by reference PASSED by the City Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 24th day of March, 2016. __________________________________ Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: _______________________________ City Representative Approved by me this ______ day of __________, 2016. __________________________________ Mayor Hank Williams CAP032416 Page 32 Page 1 of 11 City Council Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Costco Wholesale Conditional Use Permit File No. 15022 March 24, 2016 Appellant: L. Calvin Martin ) Findings of Fact P.O. Box 442 ) and Jacksonville, OR 97530 ) Conclusions of Law PART 1 – INTRODUCTION On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. On February 16, 2016, L. Calvin Martin filed an appeal contesting the Planning Commission’s decision on the basis that the City of Central Point Planning Department and Planning Commission committed an error when approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Costco Store (“Martin Appeal”). The Martin Appeal addressed several issues that focused on legitimacy of a commercial/retail use in the M-1 zone and traffic related concerns, which are addressed below. The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record before the Planning Commission as per CPMC. 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed. Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and Conditions for Conditional Use Permits. CAP032416 Page 33 Page 2 of 11 PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES There were seventeen (17) issues raised in the Martin Appeal. Though some of these issues overlap, staff has attempted to lay each issue out separately for Council consideration. The following is a summary of each issue presented in the Martin Appeal including the draft findings and conclusion pertinent to each issue. 1. Planning Commission Abuse of Discretion. “The City Planning Commission has abused their discretion in allowing such a use in the industrial zone and at this location.” Finding 1: Membership warehouses, per Section 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, are allowed as a conditional use in the M-1 district per Planning Commission Resolution No. 764 and City Council Resolution No. 1217. As such, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Costco Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in accordance with the conditional use permit standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. Per the Applicant’s Findings (“Applicant’s Findings” and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental Findings”) and testimony provided in the record, evidence was submitted into the record as to each criterion under 17.76.040 and was found to comply with all such standards and criteria. Conclusion 1: The Council concludes that the Planning Commission did not err in finding that membership warehouses are permitted subject to a conditional use application under CPMC 17.76 and/or that there was substantial evidence in the record to find that all such standards and criteria were met under 17.76.040.. 2. Traffic Impacts. Traffic generated by Costco on a daily basis is substantially more than is generated by the entire Rogue Valley Mall. Finding 2: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) into the record prepared by Kittelson and Associates for the subject property. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Testimony from opponents was limited to opinions as to the amount of traffic that would be generated by the subject application. There was no other traffic analysis in the record to contradict the Applicant’s TIA, nor does the record contain any traffic analysis as to the amount of traffic at the Rogue Valley Mall.. Conclusion 2: The Council concludes there is not substantial evidence in the record to find that traffic at the Rogue Valley Mall is relevant to this application, n or is there sufficient evidence in the record to substantiate the amount of traffic generated by the mall. 3. Development Ordinance. – “You are required to follow the rules laid out in your development ordinance when approving such an application.” Finding 3: The Planning Commission’s considered the subject application as a CUP under the City’s authorization of membership warehouses as a conditional use in the M-1 zone as discussed CAP032416 Page 34 Page 3 of 11 in Finding 1 above, and Finding 17.48.040(A) of the Planning Department Supplemental Findings in the record. The Planning Commission considered and approved the Conditional Use Permit for Costco Wholesale based on the application’s demonstrated compliance with the standards and criteria for conditional use permits per CPMC 17.76 as set forth in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (See Resolution No. 827 and attachments thereto). Conclusion 3: The Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the Planning Commission applied the relevant standards and criteria under Resolution Nos. 764 and 1217, and CPMC 17.76 to approve a membership warehouse and fuel facility and applied the evidence in the record to find such standards and criteria were met. 4. Statement of Values. - “Your STATEMENT OF VALUES regarding growth…stated that, “We value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere.” This project does not fit that statement.” Finding 4: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Conclusion 4: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the City’s general Mission Statement. The Council finds the Planning Commission did not err applying the Standards and Criteria of CPMC 17.76. 5. Accessory Use. – “One of the issues is that the zone that the store is to be located in is Industrial. The reason that retail/commercial activities are allowed in those zones with restrictions, and not outright, and that they go through the Conditional Use Permit process is that they are not the primary use but an accessory use to the primary.” Finding 5: The Planning Commission found that membership warehouses were adopted by the City as conditional uses in 2009 as set forth in Finding 17.48.040(A) of the Planning Department Supplemental Findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found that as a result of the similar use determination, membership warehouses are not considered accessory uses but are permitted subject to the standards and criteria for Conditional Use Permits per CPMC 17.76. Conclusion 5: The Council concludes that the Planning Commission’s consideration of membership warehouses as a conditional use and not as an accessory use is in conformance with the City’s similar use authorization per CPMC 17.48.020(W) and CPMC 17.60.140. See also Planning Commission Resolution 764 and City Council Resolution 1217. CAP032416 Page 35 Page 4 of 11 6. Semantics. – “When a store like Costco is placed in that zone you have to play, and indeed did so, a very significant semantic game with what you call the store. In calling it a warehouse store the project might just seem like a fit. With that said, it is certain that the management of Costco is under no illusions, whatsoever, that they are the largest retailer in the area.” Finding 6: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP to develop a membership warehouse and fuel facility is based on the City’s similar use authorization for membership warehouses in the M-1 zoning district per Finding 17.48.040(A) in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings and Finding 1 above. Conclusion 6: Membership warehouse clubs, such as Costco Wholesale, are allowed in the M-1 district subject to the standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76, Conditional Use Permit. 7. Not a Fit in the Zone. – “As I previously stated, Costco generates more traffic than the Rogue Valley Mall and they are about one fifth of their building footprint. Just consider the number of parking spaces that they are illustrating in their plan. It is obvious that they don’t fit this zone. They are not a complimentary service and supply provider that is allowed in this zone. A store of this size and magnitude should not be in an industrial zone. If they are allowed to develop on this site it will become a traffic disaster.” Finding 7: As noted in findings 5 and 6, membership warehouses were approved in 2009 as a conditional use in the M-1 zone. With regard to traffic, CPMC 17.76 requires consideration of the following: A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; CAP032416 Page 36 Page 5 of 11 E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include: 2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use, 3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the proposed use, 4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, *** 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, The findings adopted by the Planning Commission reviewed the criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in CPMC 17.76 and made findings that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; the site has adequate access to a public street or highway; the proposed use will not have adverse effects to abutting properties or permitted uses thereof; that the use will not be detrimental to the health safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or the community; and that the conditions imposed are deemed necessary and sufficient to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. See the Supplemental and Applicant’s findings in the record below. More particularly, the only traffic impact analysis or other expert evidence submitted into the record is the TIA submitted by the Applicant, and comments from the City of Central Point Public Works Department, City of Medford, ODOT and the Jackson County Roads. The Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval pursuant to the TIA and comments from other jurisdictions for traffic impact mitigation. No expert testimony was received into the record countering the TIA or agency recommendations for traffic impact mitigations. (See Finding 2 addressing traffic generated by Costco compared to the Rogue Valley Mall). All other evidence as to traffic was conjecture or speculation. As demonstrated in Finding 17.76.040(C) in the record below, the Planning Commission considered the proposal’s impacts to abutting properties, including an evaluation of the location of proposed site improvement; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; building height; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting and signs. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is typical of site development within the M-1 zone and that the site development standards for permitted uses in combination with the conditions of approval relative to ingress and egress per Finding 17.76.040(B) in the record below are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts to abutting properties or permitted uses thereof. As demonstrated in Finding 17.76.040(D) in the record below, the Planning Commission considered the issue of safety and found that there is sufficient evidence in the Applicant’s CAP032416 Page 37 Page 6 of 11 findings to demonstrate, in conjunction with the building code and fire district regulations, that the proposed use will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore not be a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods. Conclusion 7: The proposed membership warehouse and fuel facility was evaluated against the standards and criteria for conditional use permits and found to comply. There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning commission to find that the use is compatible with the zone. 8. Traffic Effects Far Reaching. – “The traffic issues have far reaching effects of congestion and cost on Central Point, Jackson County, and the City of Medford as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation. Of course, that means the tax payers who support those entities. In other words, all of us will be paying a huge price for the location of a store that is not an appropriate fit. It is not a code fit and it is not a size and traffic fit all in one. Once Costco goes in there will be no way to fix this problem.” Finding 8: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate 10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and 4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1). Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing Interstate 5 NB Off-Ramp Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio is exceeded. Enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to develop and construct dual right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9. Prior to building permit issuance Table Rock/Hamrick Road Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road. Prior to certificate of occupancy. Table Rock/Airport Road Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is Jackson County has funding to construct improvements on Table Rock Road that includes Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement CAP032416 Page 38 Page 7 of 11 aggravated by additional traffic generated by the proposed use. signalization of the intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim mitigation is necessary. Project commences in 2017. Airport/Biddle Road Traffic generated by Costco causes left turn delays which results in a decline in the LOS from C to E. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a signal at the intersection. Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Traffic generated by Costco aggravates an existing left turn delay at the intersection. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below). Conclusion 8: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find that as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that traffic impacts from the project will funded or constructed at the time of development. 9. Heavy Vehicle Conflicts. - “Traffic congestion around the Costco store will be a mix of heavy trucks and light vehicles. Table Rock Road will see the bulk of traffic and the measures that have been suggested will only assist but not solve the problems related to this location.” Finding 9: The Council incorporates Finding 8 as if fully set forth herein. Conclusion 9: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned. 10. Additional Traffic Impacts on Table Rock Road. - “Additional traffic on Table Rock Road will soon find that it is not designed to handle the load further south of this store and people will soon move their preferred approach to Biddle Road and Table Rock Road north of the site. They will start using the freeway to enter Central Point from the North and the South. This will add congestion on the freeway off-ramps north and south and a loading on Pine Street all the way to the intersection with Hamrick and Pine and Table Rock Road and Pine/Biddle Road.” CAP032416 Page 39 Page 8 of 11 Finding 10: The TIA did not identify any issues south of the project site on Table Rock Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford submitted comments on December 24, 2016 and January 5, 2016 indicating that the intersection of Table Rock Road at Morningside Street would be adversely impacted due to left turn delays and associated safety concerns. Per the City of Medford’s request, the Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring financial contribution for the applicant’s proportional share of traffic mitigation to the intersection prior to building permit issuance. Conclusion 10: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find that the Applicant will improve, or make financial contributions toward traffic mitigation, that is roughly proportional to the impacts of this development. 11. Improvement Timing. - “The improvements required in the Traffic Impact Study indicate a resultant congestion from construction that is not to be completed for as much as two years. In reality, some of these items, such as an I-5 off-ramp improvement, are not scheduled by ODOT until 2023. There is no definitive evidence that the schedule has been modified. There are no engineering studies or drawings that would support a timely upgrade of that facility. There is no indication, other than verbal at the hearing of January 6th, 2016 that some concession might be made. There is no evidence that the improvements along Table Rock Road are funded or that the requisite imminent domain takings of additional land for widening and intersections have been done.” Finding 11: There was evidence in the record that identifies traffic impacts and mitigation measures and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such traffic mitigation which includes the TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments received from affected agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Jackson County Roads, City of Central Point Public Works Department, and City of Medford. Evidence in the record addressing traffic impacts and the timing of improvements is as follows: - Table Rock Road Improvement Project. The traffic impact analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates took into account planned roadway improvements, including the Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement project, which is scheduled to be constructed in 2017 (See TIA, Page 32). - Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements. As conditioned, Costco will be required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to opening day of the subject development as possible: a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT, construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and CAP032416 Page 40 Page 9 of 11 Mitigation Item No. 4) b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible. Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15). Conclusion 11: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions. 12. Biddle Road and Airport Road Intersection. - “The intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road has not been fully vetted. This intersection is important for travelers using the airport. Congestion will create difficulties for them.” Finding 12: The applicant’s TIA indicates that the westbound approach of Airport and Biddle Road exceeds the level of service standard for the City of Medford. In a letter dated January 5, 2016, the City of Medford requested a condition that requires the developer to pay a proportional share toward a future traffic signal at this intersection. The estimated project cost is $450,000, including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10% of the traffic at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed its proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to exceed $45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit issuance. Conclusion 12: As conditioned, facility adequacy at this intersection is met by the Planning Commission’s requirement that the Applicant contribute its pro rata share of the signalization improvements per the City of Medford Comments dated January 5, 2016. 13. Traffic Impacts Not Easily Solved, if at all. - “The impact on all these roads is significant and not easily solved if at all.” Finding 13: Traffic impacts and mitigations are identified in the TIA and by the City of Medford, ODOT relative to the intersections of Biddle and Airport Road and Table Rock and Morningside Street. The Planning Commission’s decision to approve the CUP is subject to conditions of approval assuring timely completion of the mitigation actions outlined in the TIA and requested by the affected agencies. See also Finding 8 incorporated herein by reference. Conclusion 13: There is substantial evidence in the record that as conditioned, the project will mitigate its proportionate traffic impacts caused by this project and that such conditions are feasible. 14. Cost of Improvements. - “The costs for all of the improvements needed to place this major retailer in an industrial zone along Table Rock Road more than eclipses the cost of the store itself by a factor of five. Estimates for the widening of the freeway overpass on Table Rock Road CAP032416 Page 41 Page 10 of 11 exceeds 20 million dollars. Further south of the overpass are single family residences that need to back out onto Table rock Road to exit their properties. The estimate for acquiring these properties for road widening does not exist, but would be very high.” Finding 14: There is no evidence in the record from affected agencies or traffic experts or engineers to demonstrate that the Interstate 5 overpass on Table Rock Road warrants replacement or that Table Rock Road improvements south of Interstate 5 are required, other than required mitigation at the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street, which was addressed. See also Finding No. 8, incorporated herein by reference. Conclusion 14: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and that such conditions are feasible. 15. Freight Route, Traffic Conflicts. - “Table Rock Road is designated as a freight route in the overall traffic master plan and this enormous retailer with its accompanying vehicle traffic is not an appropriate mix with the truck traffic in that area.” Finding 15: Heavy vehicle impacts were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and LOS/VC ratios (See Synchro Reports in the TIA Appendices). No other expert testimony was presented as to the mix of vehicle traffic. Conclusion 15: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find that the mix of light and heavy vehicles does not create problems that would warrant further traffic mitigation or denial of this application. 16. Vehicle and Truck Accidents. - “Vehicle and truck accidents will undoubtedly increase and serious injuries will occur when Costco’s large number of senior drivers are forced to mix with large truck traffic.” Finding 16: Heavy vehicle impacts were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume (See Synchro Reports in the TIA Appendices) nor was there evidence in the record from experts as to the “large number of senior drivers.” Conclusion 16: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and safety concerns do not exist as a result of this project. 17. Vilas and Crater Lake Highway. - “The intersection of Vilas and Crater Lake Highway has been the scene of horrendous accidents and many deaths and this location and traffic load creates at least four intersections with that type of potential.” CAP032416 Page 42 Page 11 of 11 Finding 14: A crash analysis was conducted as part of the TIA at all study area intersections (TIA Page 28) to document crash types, trends and severity. The TIA found that there were no fatality crashes and the most common crashes were turning movement and rear-end crashes accounting for approximately 82% of all crashes. There is no expert evidence in the record substantiating this allegation. Conclusion 14: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and safety concerns do not exist as a result of this project. PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Martin appeal. The Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. CAP032416 Page 43 Community Development STAFF REPORT Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director STAFF REPORT March 10, 2016 ITEM Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of a 161,992 square foot Costco membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock Road. The project site is within the Federal Way Business Park subdivision in the Industrial (M-1) zoning district, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 213, 214, 215, and 216. Applicant: Costco Wholesale; Agent: Steve Bullock, MG2 STAFF SOURCE Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II BACKGROUND In 2009, based on the authority for similar use authorizations provided in CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, the Planning Commission approved membership warehouse clubs, such as Costco Wholesale, as similar to other uses permitted in the M-1 zone and approved such uses as conditional uses (Planning Commission Resolution No. 764). As a conditional use, the City has more discretion in determining the compatibility of the use with other permitted uses. Upon appeal, the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission’s similar use determination and authorization of membership warehouse clubs as a conditional use (City Council Resolution No. 1217). In 2015, Costco Wholesale submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres in the M-1 zone (Attachment “A”). On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission, in accordance with CPMC 17.76, approved the CUP application (Resolution No. 827). The Planning Commission’s decision considered testimony received by the applicants, proponents and opponents at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, including the period that the record was left open (Attachment “B”). After the final decision, appeals were filed by L. Calvin Martin (“Martin Appeal” - Attachment “C-1”) and David J. Smith (“Smith Appeal” – Attachment D-1”) on February 16, 2016. The Martin Appeal and the Smith Appeal raise similar issues alleging the Planning Commission erred in approving the application based upon the following issues which are summarized as follows: • The use is not compatible; • The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the Applicant is flawed; • The use will generate significate traffic; and • The decision conflicts with the City’s Statement of Values for Growth and Transportation. Upon appeal, the Council’s consideration is based upon the evidence and issues presented in the record before the Planning Commission. Based upon that record, the Council must determine whether there is substantial evidence in CAP032416 Page 44 the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision, or whether the Planning Commission erred as a matter of law. Staff has reviewed the issues raised in the Martin Appeal and the Smith Appeal and the evidence in the record in the context of the standards and criteria that apply to Conditional Use Permits per CPMC 17.76. There are no issues raised that have not already been addressed by the Planning Commission as evidenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Martin Appeal (Attachment “C-2) and the Smith Appeal (Attachment “D-2”). COUNCIL OPTIONS In an appeal of a Type III land use decision, the Council has four options: 1) Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. If the Council does so, it must specify the basis for its decision; 2) Reverse the Decision of the Planning Commission. If the Council does so, it must specify the reasons for the reversal; 3) Modify the decision of the Planning Commission and specify the reasons for the modification; or 4) Remand the decision back to the Planning Commission with an explanation of the error and the action necessary to rectify the error. Given the constraints of the 120-day rule, this is not an option unless the applicant concurs and agrees to extend the 120-day limit. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS There are two appeals before Council. Though the hearings have been consolidated, the Council will need to make separate motions as to each appeal at the close of the public hearing. With regard to each appeal: Martin Appeal: Staff recommends the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission on the basis that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the application complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in CPMC 17.76. Attached hereto as Exhibit C-2 are draft Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law the Council may adopt in its motion to affirm the Planning Commission. Smith Appeal: Staff recommends the Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission on the basis that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the application complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in CPMC 17.76. Attached hereto as Exhibit D-2 are draft Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law the Council may adopt in its motion to affirm the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS Attachment “A” – Planning Commission Resolution No. 827 including all exhibits thereto Attachment “B” – Staff Report dated February 2, 2016 (with Exhibits 1 – 14; Exhibit 15 is the Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 included in Attachment “A”) Attachment “C-1” - Notice of Appeal – L. Calvin Martin dated February 16, 2016 Attachment “C-2” – Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Martin Appeal Attachment “D-1” – Notice of Appeal – David J. Smith dated February 16, 2016 Attachment “D-2” – Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Smith Appeal CAP032416 Page 45 ACTION Consider the appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit allowing development of a membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district and 1) affirm the decision; 2) modify the decision; 3) reverse the decision; or 4) remand the decision to take further action. RECOMMENDATION – SUGGESTED MOTION Martin Appeal: I move to affirm the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution 827 and direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the application for a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district as per the staff reports at Exhibits A and B hereto and the draft findings at exhibit C-2 attached hereto, for the Council’s next meeting on March 24, 2016. Smith Appeal: I move to affirm the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution 827 and direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the application for a Costco Wholesale Membership Warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district as per the staff reports at Exhibits A and B hereto and the draft findings at exhibit D-2 attached hereto, for the Council’s next meeting on March 24, 2016. CAP032416 Page 46 CAP032416 Page 47 CAP032416 Page 48 CAP032416 Page 49 CAP032416 Page 50 CAP032416 Page 51 CAP032416 Page 52 CAP032416 Page 53 CAP032416 Page 54 CAP032416 Page 55 CAP032416 Page 56 CAP032416 Page 57 CAP032416 Page 58 CAP032416 Page 59 CAP032416 Page 60 CAP032416 Page 61 CAP032416 Page 62 CAP032416 Page 63 CAP032416 Page 64 CAP032416 Page 65 CAP032416 Page 66 CAP032416 Page 67 CAP032416 Page 68 CAP032416 Page 69 CAP032416 Page 70 CAP032416 Page 71 CAP032416 Page 72 CAP032416 Page 73 CAP032416 Page 74 CAP032416 Page 75 CAP032416 Page 76 CAP032416 Page 77 CAP032416 Page 78 CAP032416 Page 79 CAP032416 Page 80 CAP032416 Page 81 CAP032416 Page 82 CAP032416 Page 83 CAP032416 Page 84 CAP032416 Page 85 CAP032416 Page 86 CAP032416 Page 87 CAP032416 Page 88 CAP032416 Page 89 CAP032416 Page 90 CAP032416 Page 91 CAP032416 Page 92 CAP032416 Page 93 CAP032416 Page 94 CAP032416 Page 95 CAP032416 Page 96 CAP032416 Page 97 CAP032416 Page 98 CAP032416 Page 99 CAP032416 Page 100 CAP032416 Page 101 CAP032416 Page 102 CAP032416 Page 103 CAP032416 Page 104 CAP032416 Page 105 CAP032416 Page 106 CAP032416 Page 107 CAP032416 Page 108 CAP032416 Page 109 CAP032416 Page 110 CAP032416 Page 111 CAP032416 Page 112 CAP032416 Page 113 CAP032416 Page 114 CAP032416 Page 115 CAP032416 Page 116 CAP032416 Page 117 CAP032416 Page 118 CAP032416 Page 119 CAP032416 Page 120 CAP032416 Page 121 CAP032416 Page 122 CAP032416 Page 123 CAP032416 Page 124 CAP032416 Page 125 CAP032416 Page 126 CAP032416 Page 127 CAP032416 Page 128 CAP032416 Page 129 CAP032416 Page 130 CAP032416 Page 131 CAP032416 Page 132 CAP032416 Page 133 CAP032416 Page 134 CAP032416 Page 135 CAP032416 Page 136 CAP032416 Page 137 CAP032416 Page 138 CAP032416 Page 139 CAP032416 Page 140 CAP032416 Page 141 CAP032416 Page 142 CAP032416 Page 143 CAP032416 Page 144 CAP032416 Page 145 CAP032416 Page 146 CAP032416 Page 147 CAP032416 Page 148 CAP032416 Page 149 CAP032416 Page 150 CAP032416 Page 151 CAP032416 Page 152 CAP032416 Page 153 CAP032416 Page 154 CAP032416 Page 155 CAP032416 Page 156 CAP032416 Page 157 CAP032416 Page 158 CAP032416 Page 159 CAP032416 Page 160 CAP032416 Page 161 CAP032416 Page 162 CAP032416 Page 163 CAP032416 Page 164 CAP032416 Page 165 CAP032416 Page 166 CAP032416 Page 167 CAP032416 Page 168 CAP032416 Page 169 CAP032416 Page 170 CAP032416 Page 171 CAP032416 Page 172 CAP032416 Page 173 CAP032416 Page 174 CAP032416 Page 175 CAP032416 Page 176 CAP032416 Page 177 CAP032416 Page 178 CAP032416 Page 179 CAP032416 Page 180 CAP032416 Page 181 CAP032416 Page 182 CAP032416 Page 183 CAP032416 Page 184 CAP032416 Page 185 CAP032416 Page 186 CAP032416 Page 187 CAP032416 Page 188 CAP032416 Page 189 CAP032416 Page 190 CAP032416 Page 191 CAP032416 Page 192 CAP032416 Page 193 CAP032416 Page 194 CAP032416 Page 195 CAP032416 Page 196 CAP032416 Page 197 CAP032416 Page 198 CAP032416 Page 199 CAP032416 Page 200 CAP032416 Page 201 CAP032416 Page 202 CAP032416 Page 203 CAP032416 Page 204 CAP032416 Page 205 CAP032416 Page 206 CAP032416 Page 207 CAP032416 Page 208 CAP032416 Page 209 CAP032416 Page 210 CAP032416 Page 211 CAP032416 Page 212 CAP032416 Page 213 CAP032416 Page 214 CAP032416 Page 215 CAP032416 Page 216 CAP032416 Page 217 CAP032416 Page 218 CAP032416 Page 219 CAP032416 Page 220 CAP032416 Page 221 CAP032416 Page 222 CAP032416 Page 223 CAP032416 Page 224 CAP032416 Page 225 CAP032416 Page 226 CAP032416 Page 227 CAP032416 Page 228 CAP032416 Page 229 CAP032416 Page 230 CAP032416 Page 231 CAP032416 Page 232 CAP032416 Page 233 Community Development STAFF REPORT Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director STAFF REPORT February 2, 2016 ITEM Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application for the construction of a 161,992 square foot Costco membership warehouse and fuel facility on an 18.28 acre site at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock Road. The project site is within the Federal Way Business Park subdivision in the Industrial (M-1) zoning district, and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 213, 214, 215, and 216. Applicant: Costco Wholesale; Agent: Steve Bullock, MG2 STAFF SOURCE Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner II BACKGROUND Costco Wholesale (“Applicant”) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to develop a 161,992 square foot membership warehouse on 18.28 acres in the M-1, Industrial zone. The Conditional Use Permit application was considered at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. At that time staff presented an evaluation of the proposal relative to its compliance with the conditional use approval criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76.040. Based on the evidence submitted, the proposal was found to comply with the applicable review criteria as conditioned. The Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant, and proponents and opponents of the application. Due to the timing of revised comments and conditions from the City of Medford on January 5, 2016, the applicant requested that the record remain open for seven (7) days following closure of the public hearing; including a seven (7) day rebuttal period. The public hearing was closed and, per a duly seconded motion, the request to leave the record open was granted with written comments to be submitted as follows: • Open record period – January 12, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.; • Applicant’s rebuttal period – January 19, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. On January 19, 2016 the applicant submitted their written rebuttal (Exhibit “14”) to the City of Medford’s January 5, 2016 revised conditions and comments. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal and finds that the previously written conditions 3 and 4 in the Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 adequately address the situation and do not need to be modified. ISSUES During the open record period, thirteen (13) letters were received with six (6) in favor, five (5) in opposition, and CAP032416 Page 234 two (2) neutral. The applicant responded to opposing testimony with timely rebuttal. It should be noted that some of the issues were anecdotal and beyond the scope of the conditional use approval criteria in CPMC 17.76.040 (i.e. Costco’s business policies, impacts to local businesses and associated internship and scholarship opportunities). A summary of the written comments received during the open record are: 1. Opposition. Testimony received in opposition to the proposed use primarily focused on traffic issues and includes three broad categories: 1) concerns about the TIA assumptions; 2) operations/safety; and 3) mitigation sufficiency/cost allocation. Due to the volume of the traffic generated by Costco, there is a perception that additional mitigation actions are necessary to ease operational and safety concerns. Emphasis was given to Table Rock Road widening, impacts of heavy truck traffic, and the need for the applicant to bear the cost of improvements (See Exhibits “1” through “5”). The Applicant’s Rebuttal (Exhibit “14”) and the TIA (Exhibit “15”) address the testimony opposing the proposed use on the following basis: a. The TIA was prepared and reviewed by affected agencies and Southern Oregon Transportation Engineers, LLC. The analysis relied on assumptions including Costco’s market demographics, area-wide population, employment, land use, and transportation system information including heavy trucks/ vehicles (See TIA, Exhibit “15”); b. Per the conditions of approval, mitigation measure address safety and operational impacts necessary to provide adequate transportation services. c. Costco’s cost share for the improvements are proportional to the impact generated by the proposed use and therefore sufficient to mitigate the financial cost of off-site impacts. 2. Support. Testimony in support of the proposed use counters concerns about adverse impacts to local business and further asserted support for the proposed location due to community benefits associated with economic growth stimulus and improved property values. It is further emphasized that traffic impacts have been adequately addressed and that the concerns about heavy truck traffic conflicts and congestion on Biddle/Pine Street have been adequately addressed and mitigated (See Exhibits “6” through “11”). Based on evidence in the record and the applicant’s rebuttal, the testimony received during the open record period has been adequately addressed (See Exhibits “14” and “15”). EXHIBITS Exhibit “1” – Letter from L. Calvin Martin, received January 12, 2016 Exhibit “2” – Letter from David Smith, received January 12, 2016. Exhibit “3” – Letter from Tanya Wilkerson, received January 12, 2016 Exhibit “4” – Letter from Kathy and Ray Wilkerson Exhibit “5” – Letter from Dennis Burt, received January 12, 2016 Exhibit “6” – Letter from Wayne and Hattie King, received January 12, 2016 Exhibit “7” – Letter from Kimberly Little, received January 11, 2016 Exhibit “8” – Letter from John Batzer, received January 11, 2016 Exhibit “9” – Letter from Glen Finley, received January 11, 2016 CAP032416 Page 235 Exhibit “10” – Letter from Laura Vaughn, received January 8, 2016 Exhibit “11” – Letter from Pulver & Leever, received January 8, 2016 Exhibit “12” – Letter from Vic Agnifili, received January 12, 2016 Exhibit “13” – Letter from Vic Agnifili, received January 12, 2016 Exhibit “14” – Applicant’s Rebuttal, received January 19, 2016 Exhibit “15” – Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 ACTION Consider the Conditional Use Permit application and either 1) approve; 2) approve with conditions; or 3) deny the application. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Conditional Use Permit per the Revised Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 and all conditions therein. CAP032416 Page 236 CAP032416 Page 237 CAP032416 Page 238 CAP032416 Page 239 CAP032416 Page 240 CAP032416 Page 241 CAP032416 Page 242 CAP032416 Page 243 CAP032416 Page 244 CAP032416 Page 245 CAP032416 Page 246 CAP032416 Page 247 CAP032416 Page 248 CAP032416 Page 249 CAP032416 Page 250 CAP032416 Page 251 CAP032416 Page 252 January 19, 2016 Project #: 19046.0 Planning Commission City of Central Point 155 S. 2nd Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Chairman Piland and members of the Planning Commission: This letter responds to transportation-related issues raised in written comments submitted to the City of Central Point on or before January 12, 2016 and referencing the Conditional Use Permit Application by Costco Wholesale for a warehouse and fuel facility near the Hamrick Road/Table Rock Road intersection in Central Point, Oregon. 1. Comment: “Costco’s traffic study is flawed in that it does not identify the routes its members use to access the existing Medford store; information which is necessary to accurately predict how those members will re-route to the proposed location.” January 12, 2016 letter from David Smith. Response: To assure that the traffic analysis was based on reasonably worst-case conditions, none of the traffic associated with the existing Costco warehouse on Crater Lake Highway was subtracted from the estimated existing and future background traffic volumes, nor was any of it re-routed to the proposed new warehouse location. Instead, current market demographics were used along with area-wide population, employment, land use, and transportation system information to estimate the likely trip distribution and routing characteristics of the entirely new vehicle traffic that was assumed to be generated by the proposed new Costco warehouse. This additional traffic was then superimposed on existing and anticipated future background traffic volumes, resulting in a conservatively high estimate of the total amount of traffic the transportation system will need to be able to accommodate at all key intersections. 2. Comment: “It makes no sense to add 10,670 more vehicles traveling through a construction zone, for an undetermined period, which will create an additional problem which has not been addressed.” January 12, 2016 letter from David Smith. Response: As is normal practice in almost all road construction projects, a traffic management plan will be established and implemented for the duration of the road construction period for the benefit of both vehicles and workers. 3. Comment: “Costco generates more traffic to its ‘warehouse’ of 130,000 square foot store in Medford than the nearly 700,000 square foot Rogue Valley Mall.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. CAP032416 Page 253 Response: We are not aware of recent traffic counts at the Rogue Valley Mall. However, a traffic analysis of a shopping center containing 700,000 square feet would be based on an assumption of near-full occupancy and would result in an estimate of about 25,000 average weekday trip ends. 4. Comment: “[sic] Kittleson Consultants have made many assumptions that can and should be examined, at the very least, by a neutral consultant.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The traffic analysis and associated report that was initially prepared by Kittelson & Associates has been critically reviewed by transportation planning and engineering staff at the City of Central Point; Jackson County; City of Medford; and Oregon Department of Transportation. Additionally, the City of Central Point hired Southern Oregon Transportation Engineers, LLC to conduct a thorough review and provide comments of the transportation impact analysis. Staff from the public review agencies also participated from the outset in defining the scope and scale of the traffic analysis that was ultimately performed. The results of the critical reviews conducted by these agencies have been incorporated into the final report and the follow- up letters and technical memoranda that are part of the record. 5. Comment: “Table Rock Road…needs to be widened all the way to its intersection with Merriman Road.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: Jackson County has jurisdiction over Table Rock Road in this area and has made the decision on the begin and end points of this particular widening project based on a multitude of factors that fall beyond the scope of this Conditional Use Permit Application. With respect to the adequacy of the transportation system to accommodate the proposed new Costco warehouse, the traffic analysis demonstrates that adequate transportation services can be provided without extending the Table Rock Road improvement project beyond its current boundary limits. 6. Comment: “The bridge crossing the I-5 [on Table Rock Road] is old and very narrow. The increased traffic…will require that it be replaced with a stronger and wider (at least four lanes) bridge.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The proposed new Costco warehouse does not cause the need for this bridge to be replaced or widened in order to maintain adequate transportation services. 7. Comment: “The proposed location of Costco will create a very dangerous mix of large heavy trucks (including triples) from adjacent and nearby businesses (Knife River Concrete and Aggregates, FedEx Ground and others).” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates was reviewed by appropriate City, County, and State agencies and explicitly considered the safety as well as the operational effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse. The mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval have been found sufficient to maintain adequate transportation services with respect to both operations and safety. CAP032416 Page 254 8. Comment: “The mix of senior drivers with congestion and heavy trucks is not appropriate or desirable and could have disastrous results.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates was reviewed by appropriate City, County, and State agencies and explicitly considered the safety as well as the operational effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse. The mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval have been found sufficient to maintain adequate transportation services with respect to both operations and safety. 9. Comment: “The land around the proposed Costco has not been developed to its potential, particularly to the North and West. When that land develops the intersections will be even more stressed.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The projected future background traffic volumes used in the traffic analysis are based on estimates of future population and employment for Central Point and the surrounding urban areas, and therefore anticipate that growth will continue to occur throughout the urban area. Additionally, separate traffic analyses will be required of all nearby specific development applications that are expected to generate significant volumes of additional vehicular traffic. All such development applications will need to provide, as part of their own approval process, whatever mitigation is identified as being necessary to assure continued adequate transportation services in the area. 10. Comment: “The mitigation measures proposed create difficult driving and congestion all through Central Point’s downtown area.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The mitigation measures set forth as conditions of approval were developed in collaboration with City, County, and State engineers and planners. They have been found to adequately mitigate the off-site transportation impacts associated with the proposed new Costco warehouse without creating unacceptable side-effects elsewhere. 11. Comment: “The expenses, of this first set of mitigations, are likely to be much more than what has been projected by the applicant’s consultant and others.” January 11, 2016 letter from L. Calvin Martin. Response: The construction cost estimates associated with each condition of approval were developed and reviewed by registered professional engineers and are based on the most recent available unit prices from similar and/or nearby construction projects. 12. Comment: “I assume that the roads around it will be widened somehow and traffic lights will be added. Who will be paying for this?” January 12, 2016 printed email letter from Kathy and Ray Wilkerson. Response: Costco has agreed to pay its proportionate share of each mitigation measure identified in the conditions of approval, which means it will fully mitigate the financial costs of the off-site impacts associated with the proposed new Costco warehouse. See also the response to Comment #1 above: the fact that Costco’s traffic analysis has conservatively overestimated the CAP032416 Page 255 facility’s off-site traffic impacts gives further assurance that Costco is fully contributing its proportionate financial share of each mitigation measure identified in the conditions of approval. 13. Comment: “I don’t have, nor remember, the exact numbers but it was somewhere in the realm of 13,000 cars a day, on average, were passing by the intersection of Wilson and Table Rock Road”. January 11, 2016 letter from Dennis Burt. Response: Traffic data available from Jackson County indicates that in 2008 the average daily traffic volume on Table Rock Road in the vicinity of Wilson Road was about 17,000 vehicles per day. The traffic analysis estimates the proposed new Costco warehouse will generate about 90 additional vehicle trips (45 in each direction) on Table Rock Road in the vicinity of Wilson Road during a typical weekday evening peak hour. 14. Comment: “Table Rock Rd. and Villas Rd. will become, more than ever, a safety and logistics nightmare for the people who live there.” January 11, 2016 letter from Dennis Burt. Response: The traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates was reviewed by appropriate City, County, and State agencies and explicitly considered the safety as well as the operational effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse. The mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval have been found sufficient to maintain adequate transportation services with respect to both operations and safety. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these responses. Sincerely, Wayne Kittelson, P.E. Brett Korporaal Principal Associate CAP032416 Page 256 MEMORANDUM Date: January 19, 2016 Project #: 19046.0 To: Stephanie Holtey City of Central Point 140 South Third Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 From: Brett Korporaal and Wayne Kittelson, PE Project: Central Point Costco TIA Subject: Response to City of Medford Comments dated January 5, 2015 This memorandum responds to comments submitted by staff from the City of Medford related to the Central Point Costco Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Each comment from the letter dated January 5, 2016 is summarized below and then followed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc.’s (KAI) response. COMMENT 1 FROM CITY OF MEDFORD We understand the Rogue Valley International Airport is opposed to a median at the intersection of Biddle Rd and Airport Rd, as described in Condition No. 3. We recommend a condition that requires the developer to pay a proportional share towards a future traffic signal at this intersection. The City of Medford estimates the total cost for a traffic sign at this location to be $450,000 including design, construction, and inspection. We estimate the development’s contribution at 10% from the additional traffic at this intersection shown in the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated October 2015, prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. This results in a $45,000 contribution from the developer to this future project. RESPONSE 1 FROM KAI Costco Wholesale and the traffic engineers it has retained respectfully disagree that signalization is the most appropriate mitigation at the Airport Road/Biddle Road intersection. We believe there are good reasons to route trucks to the airport and Airport Road via Biddle Road. Biddle Road is currently a five lane road with a jug handle connection from Interstate 5, SR 62, SR 99, and SR 238 to the south of the airport. Biddle Road also provides a direct connection to E Pine Street, which provides access to Table Rock Road and I-5 for trucks access north of the airport. KAI would need truck origin and CAP032416 Page 257 destination data to determine optimum truck routing into and out of the airport. However, it is clear from information already available that a raised median can be constructed that will still allow trucks to make left- and right-turns onto Airport Road via Biddle Road. With a median at the Airport Road/Biddle Road intersection trucks would be able to make right-outs onto Biddle Road or a left- turn out of the airport can be accommodated at the O’Hare Parkway/Biddle Road intersection, which is roughly a quarter-mile south of the Airport Road/Biddle Road intersection and therefore does not require out-of-direction travel. Based on the low volumes on Airport Road, Costco’s traffic engineers also question whether a traffic signal would be able to meet official installation warrants. A traffic signal will disrupt and add delay to all vehicles approaching the intersection whereas a raised median will re-route only a small number of vehicles – and it will re-route them in a way that does not add travel distance or create additional safety or operational problems. For these reasons, we believe that a raised median is the most effective and most appropriate measure to mitigate the effects of the proposed new Costco warehouse at this location. A planning level cost estimate has been prepared for a raised median at this intersection, resulting in an estimated total construction cost of $35,000. Attachment A contains KAI’s planning level cost estimation spreadsheet for a raised median at the Airport Road/Biddle Road intersection. COMMENT 2 FROM CITY OF MEDFORD At the intersection of Table Rock Rd and Morningside St we recommend a condition that requires the developer to pay a proportional share towards a future left turn lane at this intersection. See attached accident history showing an existing pattern of northbound rear-end collisions at this intersection. Per our December 24, 2015 letter, this development will increase PM peak hour trips through the intersection by 20%. The City of Medford estimates the total cost for a left-turn lane at this location to be $300,000 including design, construction, and inspection. A 20% contribution would result in a $60,000 contribution from the developer to this future project. RESPONSE 2 FROM KAI The City of Medford provided KAI with crash data at the Table Rock Road/Morningside Street intersection dated 2010 through 2014. In the City of Medford’s letter to the City of Central Point dated December 24, 2015, the noted concerns were focused specifically on northbound rear-end crashes. However, a review of the crash data provided by the City reveals that the total number of reported crashes has declined each year since 2010, and only one rear-end northbound crash has been reported in the past three years at this location. These observations cause KAI to question whether there is an ongoing significant northbound rear-end crash problem that warrants mitigation. Even if the City of Medford believes an intersection improvement is needed at this location, neither KAI nor Costco sees a nexus between the relatively small amount of net new site-generated traffic expected to travel through the intersection and the concern about northbound rear-end crashes: CAP032416 Page 258 • To the extent a problem requiring correction exists, it was created by a combination of traffic volume, roadway design, and environmental factors that Costco did not affect. • To the extent a problem requiring correction exists at this intersection, it is created by northbound vehicles on Table Rock Road turning left onto Morningside Street, and this is a movement to which Costco is expected to add no additional traffic. • The City of Medford has thus far provided insufficient information to confirm the northbound rear-end crash problem, to the extent such crashes are an ongoing significant problem, can be attributed primarily to the volume of through traffic on Table Rock Road. More specifically, it is impossible at this time to rule out the possibilities that approach speed and/or intersection visibility are the primary contributing factors to a northbound rear-end crash problem. • Given that the vehicle fleet is rapidly evolving into vehicles with forward-looking radar and automated braking capabilities, it is likely that the rear-end crash problem at this intersection (to the extent it exists) will naturally decline in significance and incidence over time, simply because of the new vehicle technology that is already being deployed. The City of Medford states that Costco’s proportional share for constructing a separate left turn lane should be 20%, based on the volume of additional traffic that is expected to pass through the intersection because of the presence of the Costco warehouse during a typical weekday evening peak hour. However, the City’s computations do not recognize that when analyzing crash data transportation engineers use average daily traffic (ADT) data on the approaches at the intersection rather than peak hour volumes. The City of Medford provided 2014 ADT data at this location, which totals 15,416 vehicles per day. Daily site-generated trips accessing the proposed site via Table Rock Road from the south is estimated to equal 20% of total site-generated traffic. This would add an additional 2,134 daily trips to Table Rock Road south of the site for a total of 17,550 ADT when the site opens in 2016. When performed on the basis of average daily traffic, therefore, the City’s computations would result in a proportionate share estimate of 12% and not 20%. In summary, neither Costco nor the traffic engineers it has retained sees a nexus between the site’s generated trips and the possible need for a northbound left-turn lane on Table Rock Road at its intersection with Morningside Street. As well, Costco and its traffic engineers believe the need for and appropriateness of a northbound left-turn lane at this intersection has not yet been established, and that further investigation could reasonably conclude that traffic volume on Table Rock Road, while a contributing factor, is not the primary or the only factor contributing to northbound rear-end crashes at this intersection. Attachment B includes the crash data summary and ADT at the Table Rock Road/Morningside Road intersection. CAP032416 Page 259 SUMMARY Costco Wholesale believes that a contribution of $35,000 will allow construction and implementation of roadway improvements in Medford appropriate to mitigate the off-site transportation impacts anticipated within the City of Medford and attributable to the proposed new Central Point Costco warehouse. Even so, Costco Wholesale is prepared to contribute up to $70,000 to the City of Medford in order to assure that sufficient funds are provided to fully mitigate the proposed Costco warehouse’s off-site transportation impacts within the Medford’s jurisdictional boundaries. CAP032416 Page 260 Attachment A Raised Median Cost Estimate at Airport Rd/Biddle Rd CAP032416 Page 261 Airport Rd. & Biddle Rd. Intersection Costco Wholesale This Estimate has a Rating of:3C (See rating scale guide below.) ITEM UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL (00200) 1 Mobilization (00210)LS ALL $4,000.00 $4,000.00 2 Temporary Protection & Direction of Traffic (00225)LS ALL $2,000.00 $2,000.00 3 Erosion Control (00280)LS ALL $2,000.00 $2,000.00 MOBILIZATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL 8,000$ ROADWORK (00300) 4 Removal of Structures and Obstructions (00310) LS ALL $3,000.00 $3,000.00 5 Clearing and Grubbing (00320) LS ALL $2,000.00 $2,000.00 6 General Earthworks (00330) CY 200 $25.00 $5,000.00 7 Subgrade Geotextile (00350) SY 80 $1.00 $80.00 ROADWORK SUBTOTAL 10,080$ BASES (00600) 8 Aggregate Base (00641)CY 48 $40.00 $1,920.00 BASES SUBTOTAL 1,920$ WEARING SURFACES (00700) 9 Level 3, 1/2 inch Dense HMAC (00744)TONS 36 $70.00 $2,520.00 10 Concrete Curbs, Standard Curb and Gutter (00759)LF 150 $15.00 $2,250.00 11 Concrete Curbs, Traffic Separator (00759)LF 250 $15.00 $3,750.00 12 Concrete Islands (00759)SF 170 $10.00 $1,700.00 13 Concrete Walks (00759)SF 900 $5.00 $4,500.00 14 Truncated Domes (00759)EA 3 $450.00 $1,350.00 WEARING SURFACES SUBTOTAL 16,070$ PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES (00800) 15 Pavement Markings, Complete LS ALL 1,000.00$ $1,000.00 PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL AND GUIDANCE DEVICES SUBTOTAL 1,000$ RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT (01000) 16 Permanent Landscaping (01030)SF 900 $2.50 $2,250.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEVELOPMENT SUBTOTAL 2,250$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 21,285$ ENGINEERING SUPPORT 17 Engineering & Construction Management LS 15% 21,285$ $3,200.00 18 City Construction Management LS 10% 24,485$ $2,500.00 ENGINEERING SUPPORT SUBTOTAL 5,700$ TOTAL PROJECT SUBTOTAL 26,985$ 30% Contingency 8,100$ TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 35,085$ Central Point Costco Public Improvements Engineer's Estimate ‐ Conceptual Prepared By: Fred Wismer, PE & Charles Radosta, PE Date: January 11, 2016 Page 1 of 2CAP032416Page 262 Airport Rd. & Biddle Rd. Intersection Costco Wholesale This Estimate has a Rating of:3C (See rating scale guide below.) ITEM UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST Central Point Costco Public Improvements Engineer's Estimate ‐ Conceptual Prepared By: Fred Wismer, PE & Charles Radosta, PE Date: January 11, 2016 Scope Accuracy: Engineering Effort: Level C: No engineering performed. Educated guesstimating. Limited technical information available and/or analysis performed. Project Development and Construction Contingencies should be selected appropriately by Project Manager. Contingency may range up to 50%. Level 1: Project scope well understood and well defined. Level 2: Project scope conceptual. Scope lacks detail due to potential permit requirements; Unknown project conditions; limited knowledge of external impacts. Level 3: Project scope is a "vision" with limited detail. Level A: Preliminary engineering performed. Technical information is available, engineering calculations have been performed; clear understanding of the materials size and quantities needed to execute job. Schedule understood; staff and permitting is fairly clear, (however this element may still need refining). Project Development & Construction Contingencies ranges between 10%-20%. Level B: Conceptual engineering performed. Technical information is available, rough engineering calculations may have been performed, or similar information from previous similar work is compared and used. Project Development Contingencies ranges between 15% to 25% and Construction Contingencies ranges between 20% to 30%. Page 2 of 2CAP032416Page 263 Attachment B Crash Data Summary & ADT at Table Rock Rd/Morningside St CAP032416 Page 264 C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 2 6 5 C A P 0 3 2 4 1 6 P a g e 2 6 6 Page 1 Site Code: 338Station ID: Latitude: 0' 0.0000 South CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION24 Hr Average Weekday TRAFFIC VOLUME Start 28-Jul-14 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Week Average Time Direction 1 Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction12:00 AM * *33 52 31 69 * ** ** ** *32 6001:00 **30 50 26 37 ********28 4402:00 * *16 19 13 39 * ** ** ** *14 29 03:00 **53 34 40 32 ********46 3304:00 * *136 33 127 54 * ** ** ** *132 4405:00 **258 118 208 177 ********233 14806:00 * *287 197 199 280 * ** ** ** *243 238 07:00 **414 244 253 407 ********334 32608:00 * *323 280 194 400 * ** ** ** *258 34009:00 252 277 284 273 188 337 ********241 296 10:00 318 271 259 310 194 399 * ** ** ** *257 327 11:00 275 332 314 357 186 363 ********258 351 12:00 PM 293 368 367 402 * ** ** ** ** *330 385 01:00 364 387 456 439 **********410 41302:00 311 417 345 476 * ** ** ** ** *328 44603:00 376 519 295 569 **********336 544 04:00 372 542 259 625 * ** ** ** ** *316 58405:00 370 520 298 587 **********334 554 06:00 295 304 205 341 * ** ** ** ** *250 32207:00 197 249 159 260 **********178 25408:00 176 180 115 232 * ** ** ** ** *146 20609:00 142 175 111 205 **********126 190 10:00 100 135 84 134 * ** ** ** ** *92 13411:00 46 71 58 101 **********52 86Lane3887474751596338165925940000000049746354Day8634114974253000011328 AM Peak 10:00 11:00 07:00 11:00 07:00 07:00 - - - - - - - - 07:00 11:00Vol. 318 332 414 357 253 407 - - - - - - - - 334 351PM Peak 15:00 16:00 13:00 16:00 ----------13:00 16:00Vol. 376 542 456 625 - - - - - - - - - - 410 584 Comb.Total 8634 11497 4253 0 0 0 0 11328 ADT ADT 11,327 AADT 11,327 CAP032416 Page 267 Page 1 Site Code: 000000009742Station ID: Latitude: 0' 0.0000 South CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION24 Hr Average Weekday TRAFFIC VOLUME Start 28-Jul-14 Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Week Average Time Direction 1 Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction Direction12:00 AM * *10 17 9 15 * ** ** ** *10 1601:00 **9 23 12 23 ********10 2302:00 * *3 9 3 6 * ** ** ** *3 8 03:00 **18 12 13 9 ********16 1004:00 * *44 11 48 11 * ** ** ** *46 1105:00 **97 29 100 30 ********98 3006:00 * *124 39 133 33 * ** ** ** *128 36 07:00 **191 59 175 60 ********183 6008:00 * *146 53 128 65 * ** ** ** *137 5909:00 **112 77 98 95 ********105 86 10:00 * *95 88 121 92 * ** ** ** *108 9011:00 **105 117 106 120 ********106 118 12:00 PM * *114 140 102 140 * ** ** ** *108 14001:00 **98 141 126 138 ********112 14002:00 * *111 138 108 158 * ** ** ** *110 14803:00 **114 198 109 222 ********112 210 04:00 111 217 111 236 116 248 * ** ** ** *113 23405:00 127 260 124 243 133 253 ********128 25206:00 102 171 91 158 2 5 * ** ** ** *65 111 07:00 78 139 89 139 0 0 ********56 9308:00 67 100 54 103 * ** ** ** ** *60 10209:00 52 95 49 102 **********50 9810:00 33 77 28 55 * ** ** ** ** *30 6611:00 19 30 17 44 **********18 37Lane589108919542231164217230000000019122178Day16784185336500004090AM Peak - - 07:00 11:00 07:00 11:00 - - - - - - - - 07:00 11:00Vol. - - 191 117 175 120 - - - - - - - - 183 118PM Peak 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 --------17:00 17:00Vol. 127 260 124 243 133 253 - - - - - - - - 128 252 Comb.Total 1678 4185 3365 0 0 0 0 4090 ADT ADT 4,089 AADT 4,089 CAP032416 Page 268 CAP032416 Page 269 CAP032416 Page 270 CAP032416 Page 271 Page 1 of 11 COSTCO WHOLESALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW L. Calvin Martin Filing Date: February 16, 2016 File No. 15022 City Council Appeal Hearing March 10, 2016 PART 1 – INTRODUCTION On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. On February 16, 2016, L. Calvin Martin filed an appeal contesting the Planning Commission’s decision on the basis that the City of Central Point Planning Department and Planning Commission committed an error when approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Costco Store (“Martin Appeal”). The Martin Appeal addressed several issues that focused on legitimacy of a commercial/retail use in the M-1 zone and traffic related concerns, which are addressed below. The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record before the Planning Commission as per CPMC. 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed. Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and Conditions for Conditional Use Permits. PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES There were seventeen (17) issues raised in the Martin Appeal. Though some of these issues overlap, staff has attempted to lay each issue out separately for Council consideration. The following is a summary of each issue presented in the Martin Appeal including the draft findings and conclusion pertinent to each issue. CAP032416 Page 272 Page 2 of 11 1. Planning Commission Abuse of Discretion. “The City Planning Commission has abused their discretion in allowing such a use in the industrial zone and at this location.” Finding 1: Membership warehouses, per Section 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, are allowed as a conditional use in the M-1 district per Planning Commission Resolution No. 764 and City Council Resolution No. 1217. As such, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Costco Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application in accordance with the conditional use permit standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. Per the Applicant’s Findings (“Applicant’s Findings” and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental Findings”) and testimony provided in the record, evidence was submitted into the record as to each criterion under 17.76.040 and was found to comply with all such standards and criteria. Conclusion 1: The Council concludes that the Planning Commission did not err in finding that membership warehouses are permitted subject to a conditional use application under CPMC 17.76 and/or that there was substantial evidence in the record to find that all such standards and criteria were met under 17.76.040.. 2. Traffic Impacts. Traffic generated by Costco on a daily basis is substantially more than is generated by the entire Rogue Valley Mall. Finding 2: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) into the record prepared by Kittelson and Associates for the subject property. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Testimony from opponents was limited to opinions as to the amount of traffic that would be generated by the subject application. There was no other traffic analysis in the record to contradict the Applicant’s TIA, nor does the record contain any traffic analysis as to the amount of traffic at the Rogue Valley Mall.. Conclusion 2: The Council concludes there is not substantial evidence in the record to find that traffic at the Rogue Valley Mall is relevant to this application, n or is there sufficient evidence in the record to substantiate the amount of traffic generated by the mall. 3. Development Ordinance. – “You are required to follow the rules laid out in your development ordinance when approving such an application.” Finding 3: The Planning Commission’s considered the subject application as a CUP under the City’s authorization of membership warehouses as a conditional use in the M-1 zone as discussed in Finding 1 above, and Finding 17.48.040(A) of the Planning Department Supplemental Findings in the record. The Planning Commission considered and approved the Conditional Use Permit for Costco Wholesale based on the application’s demonstrated compliance with the standards and criteria for conditional use permits per CPMC 17.76 as set forth in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (See Resolution No. 827 and attachments thereto). CAP032416 Page 273 Page 3 of 11 Conclusion 3: The Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the Planning Commission applied the relevant standards and criteria under Resolution Nos. 764 and 1217, and CPMC 17.76 to approve a membership warehouse and fuel facility and applied the evidence in the record to find such standards and criteria were met. 4. Statement of Values. - “Your STATEMENT OF VALUES regarding growth…stated that, “We value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere.” This project does not fit that statement.” Finding 4: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Conclusion 4: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the City’s general Mission Statement. The Council finds the Planning Commission did not err applying the Standards and Criteria of CPMC 17.76. 5. Accessory Use. – “One of the issues is that the zone that the store is to be located in is Industrial. The reason that retail/commercial activities are allowed in those zones with restrictions, and not outright, and that they go through the Conditional Use Permit process is that they are not the primary use but an accessory use to the primary.” Finding 5: The Planning Commission found that membership warehouses were adopted by the City as conditional uses in 2009 as set forth in Finding 17.48.040(A) of the Planning Department Supplemental Findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found that as a result of the similar use determination, membership warehouses are not considered accessory uses but are permitted subject to the standards and criteria for Conditional Use Permits per CPMC 17.76. Conclusion 5: The Council concludes that the Planning Commission’s consideration of membership warehouses as a conditional use and not as an accessory use is in conformance with the City’s similar use authorization per CPMC 17.48.020(W) and CPMC 17.60.140. See also Planning Commission Resolution 764 and City Council Resolution 1217. 6. Semantics. – “When a store like Costco is placed in that zone you have to play, and indeed did so, a very significant semantic game with what you call the store. In calling it a warehouse store the project might just seem like a fit. With that said, it is certain that the management of Costco is under no illusions, whatsoever, that they are the largest retailer in the area.” Finding 6: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP to develop a membership warehouse and fuel facility is based on the City’s similar use authorization for CAP032416 Page 274 Page 4 of 11 membership warehouses in the M-1 zoning district per Finding 17.48.040(A) in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings and Finding 1 above.. Conclusion 6: Membership warehouse clubs, such as Costco Wholesale, are allowed in the M-1 district subject to the standards and criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76, Conditional Use Permit. 7. Not a Fit in the Zone. – “As I previously stated, Costco generates more traffic than the Rogue Valley Mall and they are about one fifth of their building footprint. Just consider the number of parking spaces that they are illustrating in their plan. It is obvious that they don’t fit this zone. They are not a complimentary service and supply provider that is allowed in this zone. A store of this size and magnitude should not be in an industrial zone. If they are allowed to develop on this site it will become a traffic disaster.” Finding 7: As noted in findings 5 and 6, membership warehouses were approved in 2009 as a conditional use in the M-1 zone. With regard to traffic, CPMC 17.76 requires consideration of the following: A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings and structures; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include: 2. Increasing street widths, modifications in street designs or addition of street signs or traffic signals to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use, CAP032416 Page 275 Page 5 of 11 3. Adjustments to off-street parking requirements in accordance with any unique characteristics of the proposed use, 4. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, *** 11. Such other conditions that are found to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, The findings adopted by the Planning Commission reviewed the criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in CPMC 17.76 and made findings that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; the site has adequate access to a public street or highway; the proposed use will not have adverse effects to abutting properties or permitted uses thereof; that the use will not be detrimental to the health safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or the community; and that the conditions imposed are deemed necessary and sufficient to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. See the Supplemental and Applicant’s findings in the record below. More particularly, the only traffic impact analysis or other expert evidence submitted into the record is the TIA submitted by the Applicant, and comments from the City, City of Medford, ODOT and the Airport. The Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval pursuant to the TIA and comments from other jurisdictions for traffic impact mitigation. No expert testimony was received into the record countering the TIA or agency recommendations for traffic impact mitigations. (See Finding 2 addressing traffic generated by Costco compared to the Rogue Valley Mall). All other evidence as to traffic was conjecture or speculation. As demonstrated in Finding 17.76.040(C) in the record below, the Planning Commission considered the proposal’s impacts to abutting properties, including an evaluation of the location of proposed site improvement; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; building height; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting and signs. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is typical of site development within the M-1 zone and that the site development standards for permitted uses in combination with the conditions of approval relative to ingress and egress per Finding 17.76.040(B) in the record below are sufficient to avoid adverse impacts to abutting properties or permitted uses thereof. As demonstrated in Finding 17.76.040(D) in the record below, the Planning Commission considered the issue of safety and found that there is sufficient evidence in the Applicant’s findings to demonstrate, in conjunction with the building code and fire district regulations, that the proposed use will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore not be a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods. Conclusion 7: The proposed membership warehouse and fuel facility was evaluated against the standards and criteria for conditional use permits and found to comply. There is substantial CAP032416 Page 276 Page 6 of 11 evidence in the record for the Planning commission to find that the use is compatible with the zone. 8. Traffic Effects Far Reaching. – “The traffic issues have far reaching effects of congestion and cost on Central Point, Jackson County, and the City of Medford as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation. Of course, that means the tax payers who support those entities. In other words, all of us will be paying a huge price for the location of a store that is not an appropriate fit. It is not a code fit and it is not a size and traffic fit all in one. Once Costco goes in there will be no way to fix this problem.” Finding 8: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate 10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and 4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1). Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing Interstate 5 NB Off-Ramp Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio is exceeded. Enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to develop and construct dual right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9. Prior to building permit issuance Table Rock/Hamrick Road Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road. Prior to certificate of occupancy. Table Rock/Airport Road Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is aggravated by additional traffic generated by the proposed use. Jackson County has funding to construct improvements on Table Rock Road that includes signalization of the intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim mitigation is necessary. Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement Project commences in 2017. Airport/Biddle Road Traffic generated by Costco causes left turn delays which Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, Proof of payment CAP032416 Page 277 Page 7 of 11 results in a decline in the LOS from C to E. 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a signal at the intersection. prior to building permit issuance. Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Traffic generated by Costco aggravates an existing left turn delay at the intersection. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below). Conclusion 8: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find that as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that traffic impacts from the project will funded or constructed at the time of development. 9. Heavy Vehicle Conflicts. - “Traffic congestion around the Costco store will be a mix of heavy trucks and light vehicles. Table Rock Road will see the bulk of traffic and the measures that have been suggested will only assist but not solve the problems related to this location.” Finding 9: The Council incorporates Finding 8 as if fully set forth herein. Conclusion 9: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned. 10. Additional Traffic Impacts on Table Rock Road. - “Additional traffic on Table Rock Road will soon find that it is not designed to handle the load further south of this store and people will soon move their preferred approach to Biddle Road and Table Rock Road north of the site. They will start using the freeway to enter Central Point from the North and the South. This will add congestion on the freeway off-ramps north and south and a loading on Pine Street all the way to the intersection with Hamrick and Pine and Table Rock Road and Pine/Biddle Road.” Finding 10: The TIA did not identify any issues south of the project site on Table Rock Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford submitted comments on December 24, 2016 and January 5, 2016 indicating that the intersection of Table Rock Road at Morningside Street would be adversely impacted due to left turn delays and associated safety concerns. Per the City of Medford’s request, the Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring financial contribution for the applicant’s proportional share of traffic mitigation to the intersection prior to building permit issuance. CAP032416 Page 278 Page 8 of 11 Conclusion 10: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find that the Applicant will improve, or make financial contributions toward traffic mitigation, that is roughly proportional to the impacts of this development. 11. Improvement Timing. - “The improvements required in the Traffic Impact Study indicate a resultant congestion from construction that is not to be completed for as much as two years. In reality, some of these items, such as an I-5 off-ramp improvement, are not scheduled by ODOT until 2023. There is no definitive evidence that the schedule has been modified. There are no engineering studies or drawings that would support a timely upgrade of that facility. There is no indication, other than verbal at the hearing of January 6th, 2016 that some concession might be made. There is no evidence that the improvements along Table Rock Road are funded or that the requisite imminent domain takings of additional land for widening and intersections have been done.” Finding 11: There was evidence in the record that identifies traffic impacts and mitigation measures and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such traffic mitigation which includes the TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments received from affected agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Jackson County Roads, City of Central Point Public Works Department, and City of Medford. Evidence in the record addressing traffic impacts and the timing of improvements is as follows: - Table Rock Road Improvement Project. The traffic impact analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates took into account planned roadway improvements, including the Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement project, which is scheduled to be constructed in 2017 (See TIA, Page 32). - Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements. As conditioned, Costco will be required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to opening day of the subject development as possible: a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT, construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Item No. 4) b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible. Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15). CAP032416 Page 279 Page 9 of 11 Conclusion 11: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions. 12. Biddle Road and Airport Road Intersection. - “The intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road has not been fully vetted. This intersection is important for travelers using the airport. Congestion will create difficulties for them.” Finding 12: The applicant’s TIA indicates that the westbound approach of Airport and Biddle Road exceeds the level of service standard for the City of Medford. In a letter dated January 5, 2016, the City of Medford requested a condition that requires the developer to pay a proportional share toward a future traffic signal at this intersection. The estimated project cost is $450,000, including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10% of the traffic at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed its proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to exceed $45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit issuance. Conclusion 12: As conditioned, facility adequacy at this intersection is met by the Planning Commission’s requirement that the Applicant contribute its pro rata share of the signalization improvements per the City of Medford Comments dated January 5, 2016. 13. Traffic Impacts Not Easily Solved, if at all. - “The impact on all these roads is significant and not easily solved if at all.” Finding 13: Traffic impacts and mitigations are identified in the TIA and by the City of Medford, ODOT relative to the intersections of Biddle and Airport Road and Table Rock and Morningside Street. The Planning Commission’s decision to approve the CUP is subject to conditions of approval assuring timely completion of the mitigation actions outlined in the TIA and requested by the affected agencies. See also Finding 8 incorporated herein by reference. Conclusion 13: There is substantial evidence in the record that as conditioned, the project will mitigate its proportionate traffic impacts caused by this project and that such conditions are feasible. 14. Cost of Improvements. - “The costs for all of the improvements needed to place this major retailer in an industrial zone along Table Rock Road more than eclipses the cost of the store itself by a factor of five. Estimates for the widening of the freeway overpass on Table Rock Road exceeds 20 million dollars. Further south of the overpass are single family residences that need to back out onto Table rock Road to exit their properties. The estimate for acquiring these properties for road widening does not exist, but would be very high.” Finding 14: There is no evidence in the record from affected agencies or traffic experts or engineers to demonstrate that the Interstate 5 overpass on Table Rock Road warrants replacement or that Table Rock Road improvements south of Interstate 5 are required, other than CAP032416 Page 280 Page 10 of 11 required mitigation at the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street, which was addressed. See also Finding No. 8, incorporated herein by reference. Conclusion 14: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and that such conditions are feasible. 15. Freight Route, Traffic Conflicts. - “Table Rock Road is designated as a freight route in the overall traffic master plan and this enormous retailer with its accompanying vehicle traffic is not an appropriate mix with the truck traffic in that area.” Finding 15: Heavy vehicle impacts were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and LOS/VC ratios (See Synchro Reports in the TIA Appendices). No other expert testimony was presented as to the mix of vehicle traffic. Conclusion 15: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find that the mix of light and heavy vehicles does not create problems that would warrant further traffic mitigation or denial of this application. 16. Vehicle and Truck Accidents. - “Vehicle and truck accidents will undoubtedly increase and serious injuries will occur when Costco’s large number of senior drivers are forced to mix with large truck traffic.” Finding 16: Heavy vehicle impacts were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume (See Synchro Reports in the TIA Appendices) nor was there evidence in the record from experts as to the “large number of senior drivers.” Conclusion 16: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and safety concerns do not exist as a result of this project. 17. Vilas and Crater Lake Highway. - “The intersection of Vilas and Crater Lake Highway has been the scene of horrendous accidents and many deaths and this location and traffic load creates at least four intersections with that type of potential.” Finding 14: A crash analysis was conducted as part of the TIA at all study area intersections (TIA Page 28) to document crash types, trends and severity. The TIA found that there were no fatality crashes and the most common crashes were turning movement and rear-end crashes accounting for approximately 82% of all crashes. There is no expert evidence in the record substantiating this allegation. Conclusion 14: There is substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find CAP032416 Page 281 Page 11 of 11 traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and safety concerns do not exist as a result of this project. PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Martin appeal. The Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. CAP032416 Page 282 CAP032416 Page 283 CAP032416 Page 284 CAP032416 Page 285 Page 1 of 6 COSTCO WHOLESALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant: David J. Smith Notice of Appeal Date: February 16, 2016 File No. 15022 City Council Appeal Hearing March 10, 2016 PART 1 – INTRODUCTION On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. On February 16, 2016, David J. Smith filed an appeal (“Smith Appeal”) contesting the Planning Commission’s decision on grounds that the Planning Commission erred in approving the application as: 1. Costco’s traffic study is flawed because it does not accurately identify trip distribution patterns. 2. Costco’s traffic study does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into consideration. 3. Site access on an ODOT designated Fright Corridor will mix existing and future high volume truck traffic with Costco generated traffic. 4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. 5. As a result of specific issues identified above, approval of the Costco CUP without further study will create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards. 6. Approval of the CUP is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values relative to growth and transportation. The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record before the Planning Commission as per CPMC 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council CAP032416 Page 286 Page 2 of 6 review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed. Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and Conditions for Conditional Use Permits. PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES There were six (6) issues raised in the Smith Appeal. The following is a summary of each issue in the Smith Appeal, including the findings and conclusions pertinent to each issue. 1. Traffic Study Flawed. - “Costco’s traffic study is flawed in that it does not identify the present traffic patterns for Costco’s members to the present store and, without that information, it is impossible to predict the route choices of Costco members to the proposed site. The use of general population statistics in inadequate to assign predicted distribution of the 10,670 daily trips by Costco Members.” Finding 1: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) by Kittelson and Associates for the subject property into the record. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA from City staff. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record, by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. According to the TIA, “the trip distribution pattern for site generated trips was developed using zip code data from current memberships at the existing Costco warehouse located on OR 62 (Crater Lake Highway) in Medford, Oregon, as well as from the existing traffic patterns and major trip origins and destinations within the study area.”1 Trip distribution was verified by regional travel demand models provided by ODOT for the base year (2006) and future year (2038). There was no traffic analysis supporting the allegation that the trip distribution methodology utilized in the TIA is flawed. Conclusion 1: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the TIA is valid and contained adequate trip distribution methodology for the subject property. 2. Costco’s traffic study indicates that there will be heavy traffic added to Biddle Road at the entrances to the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, but does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into consideration in the traffic study. Finding 2: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP application relied upon the Applicant’s TIA and agency comments (i.e. the City of Medford) relative to the identified traffic impacts and mitigation measures at the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road (See 1 Traffic Impact Analysis: Central Point Costco Development, Central Point, Oregon. Kittelson & Associates. October 2015. Page 37. CAP032416 Page 287 Page 3 of 6 Finding 17.76.040(B)(4) in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental Findings” in the record below.) The airport was identified as an agency entitled to notice, but did not submit comments into the record requiring additional traffic mitigation. The TIA identified impacts to the intersection. The City of Medford recommended a condition of approval to include a median to resolve the impact. In a letter dated January 5, 2016, the City of Medford indicated that the airport was opposed to the proposed mitigation measure because it was in conflict with the airport master plan. As an alternative, the City of Medford requested a condition that requires the applicant to pay a proportional share toward a future traffic signal at this intersection in conformance with the airport master plan. The City of Medford indicated this contribution would be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this project. The estimated project cost is $450,000, including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10% of the traffic at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed its proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to exceed $45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit issuance. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Conclusion 2: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find that, as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that the applicant will have contributed its proportional share toward traffic mitigation to the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road at the time of development. The Council further concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record to determine that the airport did not request any mitigation for the airport master plan, but that consideration to such master plan was given. 3. The access points for the proposed Costco site are on roads which ODOT has master planned as a freight corridor. ODOT’s freight Profile identifies Table Rock Road as one of the local roads that “experience high volumes and of freight traffic.” The proposed location is in the midst of existing freight terminals, with more planned for the future, which will mix high volume truck traffic with 10,670 Costco member daily automobile trips. Finding 3: Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the Applicant’s TIA at all study intersection and site driveways, including Table Rock Road. No problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicle traffic based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. An ODOT representative was present at the January 5, 2016 hearing and did not identify safety concerns during his testimony.(Audio Recording at 1:26). The Planning Commission considered in Finding 17.76.040(B) and 17.76.040(C)(2) the operational and safety conditions of ingress and egress on Table Rock Road, as well as all study intersections. Per the TIA and agency comments, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring access restriction and mitigation measures to resolve traffic impacts associated with ingress and egress on Table Rock Road. No other traffic reports or analysis was prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Conclusion 3: The Council concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Planning CAP032416 Page 288 Page 4 of 6 Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and that the mix of truck traffic with the proposed development will not create additional safety concerns requiring further mitigation, except at identified and conditioned herein.. 4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. Without that confirmation that the improvements will be completed soon after the store opens is total speculation. Finding 4: Evidence in the record addressing traffic impacts and the timing of the Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements, and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such traffic mitigation includes the TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). As conditioned, Costco will be required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to opening day of the subject development as possible: a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT, construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Item No. 4) b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible. Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15). Conclusion 4: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions. 5. Without further study, Costco has the potential to create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards. Finding 5: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate 10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and 4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1 below). CAP032416 Page 289 Page 5 of 6 Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing Interstate 5 NB Off-Ramp Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio is exceeded. Enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to develop and construct dual right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9. Prior to building permit issuance Table Rock/Hamrick Road Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road. Prior to certificate of occupancy. Table Rock/Airport Road Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is aggravated by additional traffic generated by the proposed use. Jackson County has funding to construct improvements on Table Rock Road that includes signalization of the intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim mitigation is necessary. Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement Project commences in 2017. Airport/Biddle Road Traffic generated by Costco causes left turn delays which results in a decline in the LOS from C to E. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a signal at the intersection. Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Traffic generated by Costco aggravates an existing left turn delay at the intersection. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Per the TIA, conditions of approval were established to address identified traffic impacts as set forth in Finding 17.76.040(B), 17.76.040(C)(2), and 17.76.040(E)(2) in the record below. No other traffic studies or testimony from a traffic engineer or other traffic expert was received as to the substance of the TIA. As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below). CAP032416 Page 290 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion 5: The City Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision that, as conditioned, the project will mitigate the traffic impacts generated by this project. 6. The placement of Costco in the proposed location is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values: “Growth: We Value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere,” and “Transportation: We value a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient and sensitive to the environment.” Finding 6: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Conclusion 6: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the City’s general Mission Statement. The Planning Commission did not err in applying the Standards and Criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. t. PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Smith appeal. The Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. CAP032416 Page 291 Resolution Affirming the PC Decision – Smith Appeal CAP032416 Page 292 RESOLUTION NO. ____________ A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ADOPTED AS RESOLUTION NO. 827 APPROVINGA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE AND FUEL FACILITY ON 18.28 ACRES WITHIN THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT –APPELANT SMITH (File No: 15022) WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016 the Planning Commission approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) application for development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse on 18.28 acres in the M-1 zone; WHEREAS, on February 16, 2016, the City of Central Point received from David J. Smith a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the CUP application. The appeal alleged that the Planning Commission erred in its approval of the application based on several issues related to the traffic impact analysis, traffic mitigation funding and timing, heavy vehicle conflicts and the City’s Statement of Values for Growth; WHEREAS, on March 10, 2016, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point City Council considered the issues raised on appeal and heard testimony and comments on the appeal; WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale is a Membership Warehouse Club, a conditional use in the M-1 zone per Planning Commission Resolution No. 764 and City Council Resolution No.1217; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s decision to approve of the Costco Wholesale CUP was based on the standards and criteria applicable to Conditional Use Permits set forth in Section 17.76.040 of the Central Point Municipal Code and written and oral testimony received by the City; and, WHEREAS, after duly considering the appeal and the evidence in the record, the City Council found that there was substantial evidence in the record to affirm the Planning Commission Decision and that the Planning Commission did not err as a matter of law and, per a duly seconded motion, directed staff to prepare a final resolution and findings affirming the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution No. 827 per the Staff Report dated March 10, 2016 and specifically including Attachments “A”, “B,” and “D-2” therein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The City of Central Point City Council affirms the Planning Commission Decision adopted as Resolution No. 827. This decision is based on the Council’s determination that there was evidence in the record to approve the CUP application and that the Planning Commission did not err as a matter of law and is supported by the evidence in the record, the findings attached hereto as Exhibit “A – City Council Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” incorporated herein by reference, and Exhibit “B – ATTACHMENT B CAP032416 Page 293 Staff Report dated March 10, 2016” including Attachments “A” and “B” and “D-2” incorporated herein by reference PASSED by the City Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 24th day of March, 2016. __________________________________ Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: _______________________________ City Representative Approved by me this ______ day of __________, 2016. __________________________________ Mayor Hank Williams CAP032416 Page 294 Page 1 of 6 City Council Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Costco Wholesale Conditional Use Permit File No. 15022 March 24, 2016 Appellant: David J. Smith ) Findings of Fact 241 Saginaw Drive ) and Medford, OR 97504 ) Conclusions of Law PART 1 – INTRODUCTION On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. On February 16, 2016, David J. Smith filed an appeal (“Smith Appeal”) contesting the Planning Commission’s decision on grounds that the Planning Commission erred in approving the application as: 1. Costco’s traffic study is flawed because it does not accurately identify trip distribution patterns. 2. Costco’s traffic study does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into consideration. 3. Site access on an ODOT designated Fright Corridor will mix existing and future high volume truck traffic with Costco generated traffic. 4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. 5. As a result of specific issues identified above, approval of the Costco CUP without further study will create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards. 6. Approval of the CUP is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values relative to growth and transportation. CAP032416 Page 295 Page 2 of 6 The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record before the Planning Commission as per CPMC 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed. Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and Conditions for Conditional Use Permits. PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES There were six (6) issues raised in the Smith Appeal. The following is a summary of each issue in the Smith Appeal, including the findings and conclusions pertinent to each issue. 1. Traffic Study Flawed. - “Costco’s traffic study is flawed in that it does not identify the present traffic patterns for Costco’s members to the present store and, without that information, it is impossible to predict the route choices of Costco members to the proposed site. The use of general population statistics in inadequate to assign predicted distribution of the 10,670 daily trips by Costco Members.” Finding 1: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) by Kittelson and Associates for the subject property into the record. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA from City staff. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record, by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. According to the TIA, “the trip distribution pattern for site generated trips was developed using zip code data from current memberships at the existing Costco warehouse located on OR 62 (Crater Lake Highway) in Medford, Oregon, as well as from the existing traffic patterns and major trip origins and destinations within the study area.”1 Trip distribution was verified by regional travel demand models provided by ODOT for the base year (2006) and future year (2038). There was no traffic analysis supporting the allegation that the trip distribution methodology utilized in the TIA is flawed. Conclusion 1: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the TIA is valid and contained adequate trip distribution methodology for the subject property. 2. Costco’s traffic study indicates that there will be heavy traffic added to Biddle Road at the entrances to the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, but does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into consideration in the traffic study. 1 Traffic Impact Analysis: Central Point Costco Development, Central Point, Oregon. Kittelson & Associates. October 2015. Page 37. CAP032416 Page 296 Page 3 of 6 Finding 2: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP application relied upon the Applicant’s TIA and agency comments (i.e. the City of Medford) relative to the identified traffic impacts and mitigation measures at the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road (See Finding 17.76.040(B)(4) in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental Findings” in the record below.) The airport was identified as an agency entitled to notice, but did not submit comments into the record requiring additional traffic mitigation. The TIA identified impacts to the intersection. The City of Medford recommended a condition of approval to include a median to resolve the impact. In a letter dated January 5, 2016, the City of Medford indicated that the airport was opposed to the proposed mitigation measure because it was in conflict with the airport master plan. As an alternative, the City of Medford requested a condition that requires the applicant to pay a proportional share toward a future traffic signal at this intersection in conformance with the airport master plan. The City of Medford indicated this contribution would be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this project. The estimated project cost is $450,000, including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10% of the traffic at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed its proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to exceed $45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit issuance. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Conclusion 2: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find that, as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that the applicant will have contributed its proportional share toward traffic mitigation to the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road at the time of development. The Council further concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record to determine that the airport did not request any mitigation for the airport master plan, but that consideration to such master plan was given. 3. The access points for the proposed Costco site are on roads which ODOT has master planned as a freight corridor. ODOT’s freight Profile identifies Table Rock Road as one of the local roads that “experience high volumes and of freight traffic.” The proposed location is in the midst of existing freight terminals, with more planned for the future, which will mix high volume truck traffic with 10,670 Costco member daily automobile trips. Finding 3: Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the Applicant’s TIA at all study intersection and site driveways, including Table Rock Road. No problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicle traffic based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. An ODOT representative was present at the January 5, 2016 hearing and did not identify safety concerns during his testimony.(Audio Recording at 1:26). The Planning Commission considered in Finding 17.76.040(B) and 17.76.040(C)(2) the operational and safety conditions of ingress and egress on Table Rock Road, as well as all study intersections. Per the TIA and agency comments, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring access restriction and mitigation measures to resolve traffic impacts associated with ingress and egress on Table Rock Road. No other traffic reports or analysis was CAP032416 Page 297 Page 4 of 6 prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Conclusion 3: The Council concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and that the mix of truck traffic with the proposed development will not create additional safety concerns requiring further mitigation, except at identified and conditioned herein.. 4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. Without that confirmation that the improvements will be completed soon after the store opens is total speculation. Finding 4: Evidence in the record addressing traffic impacts and the timing of the Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements, and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such traffic mitigation includes the TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). As conditioned, Costco will be required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to opening day of the subject development as possible: a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT, construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Item No. 4) b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible. Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15). Conclusion 4: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions. 5. Without further study, Costco has the potential to create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards. Finding 5: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate 10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and 4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street CAP032416 Page 298 Page 5 of 6 south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1 below). Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing Interstate 5 NB Off-Ramp Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio is exceeded. Enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to develop and construct dual right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9. Prior to building permit issuance Table Rock/Hamrick Road Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road. Prior to certificate of occupancy. Table Rock/Airport Road Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is aggravated by additional traffic generated by the proposed use. Jackson County has funding to construct improvements on Table Rock Road that includes signalization of the intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim mitigation is necessary. Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement Project commences in 2017. Airport/Biddle Road Traffic generated by Costco causes left turn delays which results in a decline in the LOS from C to E. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a signal at the intersection. Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Traffic generated by Costco aggravates an existing left turn delay at the intersection. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Per the TIA, conditions of approval were established to address identified traffic impacts as set forth in Finding 17.76.040(B), 17.76.040(C)(2), and 17.76.040(E)(2) in the record below. No other traffic studies or testimony from a traffic engineer or other traffic expert was received as to the substance of the TIA. CAP032416 Page 299 Page 6 of 6 As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below). Conclusion 5: The City Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision that, as conditioned, the project will mitigate the traffic impacts generated by this project. 6. The placement of Costco in the proposed location is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values: “Growth: We Value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere,” and “Transportation: We value a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient and sensitive to the environment.” Finding 6: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Conclusion 6: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the City’s general Mission Statement. The Planning Commission did not err in applying the Standards and Criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. t. PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Smith appeal. The Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. CAP032416 Page 300 Exhibit B For publishing purposes only See Exhibit B – Staff report dated March 10, 2016 of the previous Resolution A full copy of this resolution can be provided by the City Recorder. CAP032416 Page 301 CAP032416 Page 302 CAP032416 Page 303 CAP032416 Page 304 Page 1 of 6 COSTCO WHOLESALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant: David J. Smith Notice of Appeal Date: February 16, 2016 File No. 15022 City Council Appeal Hearing March 10, 2016 PART 1 – INTRODUCTION On February 2, 2016, the Planning Commission in accordance with CPMC 17.76 approved a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the development of a Costco Wholesale membership warehouse and fuel facility on 18.28 acres within the M-1 zoning district (“Costco Application”). The project site is located on the eastern edge of Central Point city limits at the southwest corner of Hamrick and Table Rock road. The site also has frontage on Federal Way, a local street. Surrounding properties include developed and undeveloped industrial lands, including the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. On February 16, 2016, David J. Smith filed an appeal (“Smith Appeal”) contesting the Planning Commission’s decision on grounds that the Planning Commission erred in approving the application as: 1. Costco’s traffic study is flawed because it does not accurately identify trip distribution patterns. 2. Costco’s traffic study does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into consideration. 3. Site access on an ODOT designated Fright Corridor will mix existing and future high volume truck traffic with Costco generated traffic. 4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. 5. As a result of specific issues identified above, approval of the Costco CUP without further study will create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards. 6. Approval of the CUP is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values relative to growth and transportation. The Council’s scope of review on this appeal is limited to the issues and evidence presented in the record before the Planning Commission as per CPMC 17.05.400(F)(3). As this appeal is on the record the City Council may not consider new evidence or issues that were not preserved in the record below. Council CAP032416 Page 305 Page 2 of 6 review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of the Planning Commission; or whether errors of law were committed. Membership warehouses are permitted as a conditional use per the City’s 2009 similar use determination under CPMC 17.48.020(W) and 17.60.140, which was adopted by the Planning Commission as Resolution No.764, and affirmed by the Council on Appeal as Resolution No. 1217. The applicable approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are set forth under CPMC 17.76.040, Findings and Conditions for Conditional Use Permits. PART 2 – APPEAL ISSUES There were six (6) issues raised in the Smith Appeal. The following is a summary of each issue in the Smith Appeal, including the findings and conclusions pertinent to each issue. 1. Traffic Study Flawed. - “Costco’s traffic study is flawed in that it does not identify the present traffic patterns for Costco’s members to the present store and, without that information, it is impossible to predict the route choices of Costco members to the proposed site. The use of general population statistics in inadequate to assign predicted distribution of the 10,670 daily trips by Costco Members.” Finding 1: The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) by Kittelson and Associates for the subject property into the record. City staff reviewed the TIA and there is testimony in the record as to the substance of the TIA from City staff. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record, by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. According to the TIA, “the trip distribution pattern for site generated trips was developed using zip code data from current memberships at the existing Costco warehouse located on OR 62 (Crater Lake Highway) in Medford, Oregon, as well as from the existing traffic patterns and major trip origins and destinations within the study area.”1 Trip distribution was verified by regional travel demand models provided by ODOT for the base year (2006) and future year (2038). There was no traffic analysis supporting the allegation that the trip distribution methodology utilized in the TIA is flawed. Conclusion 1: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the TIA is valid and contained adequate trip distribution methodology for the subject property. 2. Costco’s traffic study indicates that there will be heavy traffic added to Biddle Road at the entrances to the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, but does not indicate that the airport master plan has been taken into consideration in the traffic study. Finding 2: The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Costco CUP application relied upon the Applicant’s TIA and agency comments (i.e. the City of Medford) relative to the identified traffic impacts and mitigation measures at the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road (See 1 Traffic Impact Analysis: Central Point Costco Development, Central Point, Oregon. Kittelson & Associates. October 2015. Page 37. CAP032416 Page 306 Page 3 of 6 Finding 17.76.040(B)(4) in the Planning Department Supplemental Findings (“Supplemental Findings” in the record below.) The airport was identified as an agency entitled to notice, but did not submit comments into the record requiring additional traffic mitigation. The TIA identified impacts to the intersection. The City of Medford recommended a condition of approval to include a median to resolve the impact. In a letter dated January 5, 2016, the City of Medford indicated that the airport was opposed to the proposed mitigation measure because it was in conflict with the airport master plan. As an alternative, the City of Medford requested a condition that requires the applicant to pay a proportional share toward a future traffic signal at this intersection in conformance with the airport master plan. The City of Medford indicated this contribution would be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of this project. The estimated project cost is $450,000, including design, construction and inspection. Per the TIA, Costco contributes 10% of the traffic at this intersection. As conditioned, Costco shall provide evidence it has contributed its proportionate share of the construction of signalization improvements in an amount not to exceed $45,000, which shall be payable to the City of Medford prior to building permit issuance. No other traffic reports or analysis were prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Conclusion 2: The City Council concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to find that, as conditioned, the application complies with CPMC 17.76 and that the applicant will have contributed its proportional share toward traffic mitigation to the intersection of Biddle Road and Airport Road at the time of development. The Council further concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record to determine that the airport did not request any mitigation for the airport master plan, but that consideration to such master plan was given. 3. The access points for the proposed Costco site are on roads which ODOT has master planned as a freight corridor. ODOT’s freight Profile identifies Table Rock Road as one of the local roads that “experience high volumes and of freight traffic.” The proposed location is in the midst of existing freight terminals, with more planned for the future, which will mix high volume truck traffic with 10,670 Costco member daily automobile trips. Finding 3: Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the Applicant’s TIA at all study intersection and site driveways, including Table Rock Road. No problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicle traffic based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. An ODOT representative was present at the January 5, 2016 hearing and did not identify safety concerns during his testimony.(Audio Recording at 1:26). The Planning Commission considered in Finding 17.76.040(B) and 17.76.040(C)(2) the operational and safety conditions of ingress and egress on Table Rock Road, as well as all study intersections. Per the TIA and agency comments, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring access restriction and mitigation measures to resolve traffic impacts associated with ingress and egress on Table Rock Road. No other traffic reports or analysis was prepared or submitted into the record by traffic engineers or other traffic experts. Conclusion 3: The Council concludes there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Planning CAP032416 Page 307 Page 4 of 6 Commission to find traffic mitigation required by this project has been satisfied as conditioned and that the mix of truck traffic with the proposed development will not create additional safety concerns requiring further mitigation, except at identified and conditioned herein.. 4. There is nothing in the record to verify that ODOT has funded and scheduled construction of the improvements relied upon to support the Costco application. Without that confirmation that the improvements will be completed soon after the store opens is total speculation. Finding 4: Evidence in the record addressing traffic impacts and the timing of the Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Exit 33 Improvements, and the feasibility of imposing conditions for such traffic mitigation includes the TIA prepared by Kittelson & Associates, as well as comments received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). As conditioned, Costco will be required to enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and pay its proportional share of the improvement cost prior to building permit issuance (See Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016, Condition No. 1). Evidence in the record establishes that the improvements are planned to be expedited such that they will be constructed as close to opening day of the subject development as possible: a. The Revised Public Works Staff Report dated January 5, 2016 states that, “Per ODOT, construction will commence at the earliest possible date.” (See Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Item No. 4) b. During staff’s presentation at the January 5, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, during a discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation (26:05), staff stated that ODOT agreed to expedite construction of the off-ramp improvements as close to opening day as possible. Don Morehouse, ODOT Planner, concurred with the staff presentation and stated that he had nothing further to add. (Audio Recording. at 1:26:15). Conclusion 4: There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision as to the feasibility and timing of the traffic mitigation conditions. 5. Without further study, Costco has the potential to create immediate and future traffic congestion and hazards. Finding 5: Per the TIA, the proposed Costco Wholesale and fuel facility is expected to generate 10,670 new daily trips. Heavy vehicles were evaluated in the TIA and no problems were identified with the mix of light and heavy vehicles based on volume and impacts to LOS/VC. On the day of opening traffic impacts were identified at four (4) intersections: 1) Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp; 2) Table Rock and Hamrick Road; 3) Table Rock and Airport Road; and 4) Airport and Biddle Road. Although not identified in the TIA, the City of Medford provided crash data and comments in a letter dated January 5, 2016 indicating that traffic generated by Costco would negatively impact the intersection of Table Rock Road and Morningside Street south of the project site. In accordance with the TIA and comments received from affected agencies, the Planning Commission imposed conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the traffic impacts caused by the proposed Costco Wholesale (See Table 1 below). CAP032416 Page 308 Page 5 of 6 Table 1. Traffic Impact Mitigation Summary Intersection Impact Mitigation Timing Interstate 5 NB Off-Ramp Volume to Capacity (v/c) Ratio is exceeded. Enter into a Cooperative Improvement Agreement with ODOT and the City to develop and construct dual right turn lanes per IAMP Project No. 9. Prior to building permit issuance Table Rock/Hamrick Road Intersection Failure due to left turn delays Construct center turn lane and refuge within existing Table Rock Road right-of-way at Hamrick Road. Prior to certificate of occupancy. Table Rock/Airport Road Existing left turn delays cause the intersection to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F. The existing status is aggravated by additional traffic generated by the proposed use. Jackson County has funding to construct improvements on Table Rock Road that includes signalization of the intersection. The County has indicated that construction of the improvements will begin in 2017; therefore, no interim mitigation is necessary. Jackson County Table Rock Road Improvement Project commences in 2017. Airport/Biddle Road Traffic generated by Costco causes left turn delays which results in a decline in the LOS from C to E. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a signal at the intersection. Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Traffic generated by Costco aggravates an existing left turn delay at the intersection. Per the City of Medford in a letter dated January 5, 2016, the applicant shall contribute its pro-rata share toward construction of a center left turn lane and refuge on Table Rock Road at Morningside Street Proof of payment prior to building permit issuance. Per the TIA, conditions of approval were established to address identified traffic impacts as set forth in Finding 17.76.040(B), 17.76.040(C)(2), and 17.76.040(E)(2) in the record below. No other traffic studies or testimony from a traffic engineer or other traffic expert was received as to the substance of the TIA. As demonstrated in the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the Planning Commission found the project as conditioned is adequate to accommodate the use (See Planning Commission Findings for 17.76.040 in the record below). CAP032416 Page 309 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion 5: The City Council concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Commission’s decision that, as conditioned, the project will mitigate the traffic impacts generated by this project. 6. The placement of Costco in the proposed location is contrary to the Central Point Statement of Values: “Growth: We Value planned growth that will retain our small town atmosphere,” and “Transportation: We value a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient and sensitive to the environment.” Finding 6: In considering the Conditional Use Application for the proposed Membership Warehouse and fuel facility, the Planning Commission was required to render a decision based on the proposal’s demonstrated compliance with Standards and Criteria for Conditional Use Permits set forth in Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Conclusion 6: The mission statement is not part of the Municipal Code nor Comprehensive Plan. It does not serve as a standard or criteria and is merely aspirational language under the City’s general Mission Statement. The Planning Commission did not err in applying the Standards and Criteria set forth in CPMC 17.76. t. PART 3 – SUMMARY CONCLUSION Council has reviewed the evidence and issues in the record and the issues raised in the Smith appeal. The Council concludes that there was substantial evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to approve the application, and the Commission did not commit errors of law. This Conclusion is based upon the findings herein, and the evidence in the record including the Applicant’s findings and the Planning Staff Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. CAP032416 Page 310 Resolution Amending the IGA for Jackson County Court Services CAP032416 Page 311 Staff Report CENTRAI ll¡arce osPaftment POINT Bev Adams, Finance Director O¡'eq<llr To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor & Council Bev Adams, Finance Director March 24, zot6 Jackson County Justice Court IGA Amendment Background: ln July zor3 the City of Central Point entered into an agreement for municipal court services with Jackson County's Justice Court. The original agreement with JACO is for citations issued on July 1, 2013 and beyond. All existing citations previous to that July r't agreement have been retained, maintained and administered by the City of Central Poi nt's finance department. Lingering issues with retaining this portion of the municipalcourt activity has been stafftime, storage and retention, and cost of annual maintenance for a database containing the old citations that is rarely utilized. After considering the efticiency of the above issues, it was determined to be in the best interest of the City of Central Point that the remaining citations be transferred to the Jackson County Justice Court. The amendment to the original agreement with JACO includes: r) all "old" citations issued prior to the July 1,, 2oL3 agreement; and z) an increase fromt/2\/oto3/',o/o of the interest collected on these citations. Attached to this staff report: !. Resolution prepared by stafffor Council consideration2. Amendment No. r prepared by Jackson County counsel Recommended Action: That Council approves the amendment to the municipal court agreement with Jackson County Justice Court and adopt the attached resolution authorizing signing of amendment. CAP032416 Page 312 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND JACKSON COUNTY FOR MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES RECITALS: A. Effective July 1, 2013 the City Council of the City of Central Point entered into an agreement with Jackson County for the provision of judicial services delegating alljudicialjurisdiction, authority, powers, functions, and duties of the City of Central Point Municipal Court and Municipal Judge with respect to all or any violations of the city charter and ordinances and to appoint Jackson County Justice of the Peace to administer judicial services on behalf of the City of Central Point. B. Citations issued by the City of Central Point prior to July 1,2013 were maintained and administration of same citations remained the responsibility of the City of Central Point finance department. C. For more efficient use of staff time and most effective resolution of old citations, the City of Central Point, with the approval of Jackson County, has determined that all citations may best be administered by Jackson County Justice Court. The City of Central Point resolyes.' Section 1. The attached "Amendment No. 1" amends the intergovernmental agreement between Jackson County and the City of Central Point for the provision of judicial services by the Jackson County Justice Court and the Justice of the Peace to include all citations held by the City and issued prior to July 1 ,2013. Section 2. The City shall receive one half (112) of all fines and forfeited bail collected, after assessments; and three quarters (314) of all remaining interest collected on citations issued prior to July 1 ,2013. The Mayor and City Manager of Central Point are authorized to sign the attached agreement on behalf of the City of Central Point. Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage ffirc 24th day óf March, 2016. Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: City Recorder CAP032416 Page 313 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT DATED MAY 29,2013 WITH CITY OF CENTRAL POINT This AMENDMENT No. I to the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Contract") dated MAY 29,2013, by and between Jackson County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "County," and CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, hereinafter called uCity," is hereby made and entered into. For consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the pafties agree as follows: The Contract is hereby amended as follows: a.Paragraph 3.0 on Page 2 which reads: 3.0 The City shall receive one half (l/2) of all fines and forfeited bail collected, after assessments, on convictions andjudgments entered in the Justice Court arising from a City Charter or Ordinance violation or any violation offense cited into the Justice Court by a City officer for an act committed within the City of Central Point city limits; the County shall receive the other one half (ll2) of all fines and forfeited bail collected, after assessments, on such convictions and judgments. The Justice Court shall retain any collected court imposed costs or fees on all such judgments. The Justice Court shall provide a monthly accounting to the City for all sums collected on judgments for offenses cited by City Offrcers. Shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the followlng: 'l 3,0 The City shall receive onehalf (l12) of all fines and forfeited bail collected, after assessments, on convictions and judgments entered in the Justice Court arising from a City Charter or Ordinance violation or any violation offense cited into the Justice Court by a City officer for an act committed within the City of Central Point city limits; the County shall receive the other one half (l/2) of all fines and forfeited bail collected, after assessments, on such convictions and judgments. The Justice Court shall ietain any collected court imposed costs or fees on all such judgments. The Justice Court shall provide a monthly accounting to the City for all sums collected on judgn,ents for offenses cited by City Officers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, when the principal amount of a judgment has Page L of 2 CAP032416 Page 314 ,; r. iri i,tìr '' .t''! r', already been paid but there is additional unpaid interest, (a) the City shall receive three quarters (3/4) of all remaining interest collected, and (b) the County shall receive the other one quarter Qþ of all remaining interest collected. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, and all prior Amendments, if any, all terms and conditions of the Contract remain in full force and effect. This Amendment is effective the date on which this Amendment is fully executed by the parties and fully approved as required by applicable statutes and rules. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT:JACKSON COUNTY: B By: Date 2 J Danny Jordan County Administrator Date Title: i Page2 of 2 CAP032416 Page 315 Resolution Authorization Agreement between City and ODOT for Exit 33 Improvements CAP032416 Page 316 STAFF REPORT March 24, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Authorizing a Cooperative Improvement Agreement between the City of Central Point and the Oregon Department of Transportation to Construct I-5: Exit 33 Off-Ramp Improvements STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: As part of the approval for the Costco Membership Warehouse and Fuel Facility, the applicant agreed to participate in certain infrastructure improvements as set forth in their Conditional Use Permit approval and in the I-5, Exit 33 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP). The actual condition reads as follows: Northbound I-5 Off- Ramp (ODOT). On the opening date for Costco, the NB I-5 off-ramp will exceed the allowable volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, triggering the need for dual right turn lanes (IAMP 33 Project No. 9). The estimated project cost is $1.3M. The project cost sharing shall be as follows: ODOT: $800,000 Costco: $377,000 (Not to exceed) City: $123,000 (Not to exceed) Per ODOT, construction will commence at the earliest possible date. The applicant’s proportional share will be payable to the City of Central Point prior to the issuance of a building permit and is not SDC eligible. Attachment A is a Resolution that includes a draft Cooperative Improvement Agreement as “Exhibit A”. The general scope of the Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney who has no changes to recommend. ISSUES: There are no real issues with this item however ODOT has stated that the draft still needs to be reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and State Procurement. City staff is satisfied with the language and has returned the agreement to the ODOT Agreements Coordinator for processing. The City Manager is seeking the Council’s authorization to sign the agreement once it returns from ODOT’s review. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment “A” – Resolution No. ____ A Resolution Authorizing an Agreement Between the City of Central Point and the Oregon Department of Transportation to Construct I-5: Exit 33 Off-Ramp Improvements Page 1 of 2 CAP032416 Page 317 ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. ___ A Resolution Adopting an Agreement Between Twin Creeks Development CO., LLC and the City of Central Point. Page 2 of 2 CAP032416 Page 318 RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONSTRUCT I-5: EXIT 33 OFF-RAMP IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City amended its Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 2015 to incorporate the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for I-5, Exit 33; and WHEREAS, said amendment identified the I-5 and East Pine Street Northbound Ramp Terminal as a transportation project; and WHEREAS, the City approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Costco Membership Warehouse in March 2016, the traffic from which will trigger the need for dual right turn lanes at the Northbound Ramp Terminal; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the Costco Membership Warehouse approval, the applicant is required to pay their proportional share to the City who is facilitating the cost share distribution to the state ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Central Point deems that the necessity, convenience and the general welfare of the public will benefit by this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS, to enter into an agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the manner stated in said agreement which is Exhibit “A”. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to consummate the agreement (Exhibit “A”) following the adoption of this resolution. PASSED by the City Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ______day of __________, 2016. ___________________________________ Mayor Hank Williams ATTEST: ___________________________________ City Recorder City Council Resolution No. __________________ (3/24/2016) CAP032416 Page 319 Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 31190 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT I-5: Exit 33 Off-Ramp Improvements THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State;” and the City of Central Point, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency,” both herein referred to individually or collectively as “Party” or “Parties.” RECITALS 1. Interstate 5 (Pacific Highway No. 1, I-5) Exit 33, is a part of the state highway system under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 3. By the authority granted in ORS 366.425, State may accept deposits of money or an irrevocable letter of credit from any county, city, road district, person, firm, or corporation for the performance of work on any public highway within the State. When said money or a letter of credit is deposited, State shall proceed with the Project. Money so deposited shall be disbursed for the purpose for which it was deposited. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Under such authority, State and Agency agree State shall design and construct improvements to I-5, Exit 33, hereinafter referred to as “Project”. The Project includes a dual right-turn lane at the I-5, Exit 33 northbound off-ramp. The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. The Project will be financed at an estimated cost of $1,300,000 in federal, state and agency funds. The estimate for the total Project cost is subject to change. State shall be responsible for any nonparticipating costs, and Project costs beyond the estimate. 3. This Agreement shall become effective on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall remain in effect for the purpose of ongoing maintenance Key No. 06-30-15 CAP032416 Page 320 Agency/State Agreement No. 31190 responsibilities for the useful life of the facilities constructed as part of the Project. The useful life is defined as twenty (20) calendar years. The Project shall be completed within ten (10) calendar years following the date of final execution of this Agreement by both Parties. AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 1. Agency shall upon receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement and upon a subsequent letter of request from State, forward to State an advance deposit or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $500,000 for the Project. Depending upon the timing of portions of the Project to which the advance deposit contributes, it may be requested by State prior to Preliminary Engineering, purchase of right of way, or approximately 4-6 weeks prior to Project bid opening. 2. All employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers’ Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Employers Liability insurance with coverage limits of not less than $500,000 must be included. Agency shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements. 3. Agency shall perform the service under this Agreement as an independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers’ compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings. 4. Agency acknowledges and agrees that State, the Oregon Secretary of State's Office, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of Agency which are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of six (6) years after final payment (or completion of Project -- if applicable.) Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by State. 5. Agency shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520, 279C.530 and 279B.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agency expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 2 CAP032416 Page 321 Agency/State Agreement No. 31190 6. Agency certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Agency, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or representatives, and to legally bind Agency. 7. Agency’s Project Manager for this Project is Chris Clayton, City Manager, City of Central Point, 140 South 3rd Street, Central point, OR 975002, 541-423-1018, Chris.Clayton@centralointoregon.gov, or assigned designee upon individual’s absence. Agency shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. STATE OBLIGATIONS 1. State certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within State's current appropriation or limitation of the current biennial budget. 2. State shall, upon execution of the agreement, forward to Agency a letter of request for an advance deposit or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $500,000 for payment of the Project. 3. State, or its consultant, shall conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations, preliminary engineering and design work required to produce and provide final plans, specifications and cost estimates for the highway Project; identify and obtain all required permits; perform all construction engineering, including all required materials testing and quality documentation; prepare all bid and contract documents; advertise for construction bid proposals; award all contracts; pay all contractor costs, provide technical inspection, project management services and other necessary functions for sole administration of the construction contract entered into for this Project. 4. State shall cause to be relocated or reconstructed, all privately or publicly owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind and nature where such relocation or reconstruction is made necessary by the plans of the Project in order to conform the utilities and other facilities with the plans and the ultimate requirements for the portions of the Project which are on I-5, Exit 33. 5. State’s Project Manager for this Project is Richard Randleman, Project Manager, 100 Antelope Road, White City, OR 97503, 541-864-8828, Richard.randleman@odot.state.or.us, or assigned designee upon individual’s absence. State shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both Parties. 3 CAP032416 Page 322 Agency/State Agreement No. 31190 2. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 4. If any third party makes any claim or brings any action, suit or proceeding alleging a tort as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260 ("Third Party Claim") against State or Agency with respect to which the other Party may have liability, the notified Party must promptly notify the other Party in writing of the Third Party Claim and deliver to the other Party a copy of the claim, process, and all legal pleadings with respect to the Third Party Claim. Each Party is entitled to participate in the defense of a Third Party Claim, and to defend a Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing. Receipt by a Party of the notice and copies required in this paragraph and meaningful opportunity for the Party to participate in the investigation, defense and settlement of the Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing are conditions precedent to that Party's liability with respect to the Third Party Claim. 5. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which State is jointly liable with Agency (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), State shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by Agency in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant 4 CAP032416 Page 323 Agency/State Agreement No. 31190 equitable considerations. The relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. State’s contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if State had sole liability in the proceeding. 6. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which Agency is jointly liable with State (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), Agency shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by State in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of Agency on the one hand and of State on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of Agency on the one hand and of State on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. Agency's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if it had sole liability in the proceeding. 7. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement. In addition, the Parties may agree to utilize a jointly selected mediator or arbitrator (for non-binding arbitration) to resolve the dispute short of litigation. 8. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 9. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. 5 CAP032416 Page 324 Agency/State Agreement No. 31190 This Project is in the 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), (Key # ) that was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on December 18, 2014 (or subsequently by amendment to the STIP). CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, by and through elected officials By _______________________________ Date _____________________________ By _______________________________ Date _____________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By _________________________________ Counsel Date _____________________________ Agency Contact: Chris Clayton City Manager 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 541-423-1018 Chris.Clayton@centralpointoregon.gov State Contact: Art Anderson District 8 Area Manager 100 Antelope Road White City, OR 97503 541-774-6383 Arthur.h.anderson@odot.state.or.us STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation By ____________________________ Highway Division Administrator Date __________________________ APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By ____________________________ Region 3 Manager Date __________________________ By ____________________________ District 8 Area Manager Date___________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By____________________________ Assistant Attorney General Date__________________________ 6 CAP032416 Page 325 Agency/State Agreement No. 31190 EXHIBIT A – Project Location Map Project Location 7 CAP032416 Page 326 Business Authorization of Parks Maintenance Worker CAP032416 Page 327 Parks & Public Works Department Matt Samitore, Director 140 South 3rd Street | Central Point, OR 97502 | 541.664.7602 | www.centralpointoregon.gov March 11, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks & Public Works Director SUJECT: New Parks Maintenance Worker PURPOSE: Transfer of funds from Parks Contract Services to Salary for hiring of new parks maintenance worker. SUMMARY: The City Parks Division uses a combination of staff and private contracts to maintain our park system. During the recession to this past year the cost to privatize the parks system maintenance was highly competitive and was in the City’s best interest to utilize contractors to do the work. This past winter the City sent out a new competitive bid for maintenance and the costs for privatization were substantially more than what was budgeted. In order to meet the City‘s maintenance needs Parks Management would like to transfer money from the contract line item to salary and benefits for the hiring of a Parks Maintenance worker. The City will still utilize private contracts for maintenance of Twin Creeks and Don Jones Park, but all the smaller parks will be maintained by city staff. This would normally be done as part of a budget process, but because of the two-year budget, a motion is needed to create the new position. There will be no budget adjustments increases needed to facility this new position. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the creation of a new parks maintenance worker, by transferring money from the Parks contract services line item to Parks Salary and Benefits. CAP032416 Page 328 CAP032416 Page 329 CAP032416 Page 330 CAP032416 Page 331