Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 01 20 AIS RS DPW Code Update Project OverviewAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/20/2015 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Emma Newman and Phil Farrington/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-4585 & -3654 Estimated Time: 45 Minutes COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT (CCI) Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT OVERVIEW ACTION REQUESTED: Receive general overview of scope, timeline, and outreach methodologies for the Transportation System Plan Code Implementation project. Endorse community engagement strategy and select 1-2 Planning Commissioners to serve on the project’s Stakeholder Sounding Board. ISSUE STATEMENT: The Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) was adopted by the City Council in July 2014. The plan established goals, policies, and action items to reflect the community’s vision for Springfield’s transportation system. At the time of adoption, the Springfield Development Code was not updated to implement the goals, policies, and actions. Now that sufficient staff capacity is available, the code update and implementation portion of the TSP is moving forward. The project managers will give an overview of the code implementation project, including a summary of the project’s public involvement plan, which will include a Stakeholder Sounding Board, an inter-agency Technical Review Team, and a project webpage on the City’s website. The CCI will be asked for Planning Commission representation on the Stakeholder Sounding Board and endorsement of the proposed approach for public engagement. Since the Sounding Board is comprised chiefly of advisors who represent broad communities of interest and were integral to the development of the TSP, the CCI is not being asked to make individual appointments or conduct an interview process, but to delegate the public engagement process through staff efforts. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1: TSP Chapters 1 and 2 (Ch 2 includes goals, policies, and action items) Attachment #2: TSP Code Implementation Project Scope of Work DISCUSSION: The TSP creation and adoption process included extensive public involvement. The public contributed to the goals, policies, and action items in the final TSP. As the project moves into code implementation, the work will become more technical. The project managers developed the Scope of Work and received additional direction from the Oversight Team, which was incorporated into ATT2. The project proposes to maintain continuity between the TSP Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and this project. Project managers invited SAC members who are still able to serve to join the Stakeholder Sounding Board for the code implementation project. The intent is to involve stakeholders with diverse interests and backgrounds, while creating an efficient process to produce the code updates that implement the TSP’s relevant policies and action items. City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan City of Springfield 225 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477 July 21, 2014 Attachment 1, Page 1 of 25 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 25 Table of contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vi Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Plan overview ......................................................................................................................... 1 The City’s first TSP .................................................................................................................... 2 Regional coordination ............................................................................................ 2 Transportation project development ................................................................... 3 Public and agency involvement .......................................................................... 3 Economic development priority areas ............................................................................. 3 Planning context .................................................................................................................... 3 Transportation planning environment.................................................................. 4 Financial environment ............................................................................................ 7 Organization of the 2035 TSP ............................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Goals and policies ..................................................................................................... 9 Creating goals, policies, and action items ....................................................................... 9 2035 TSP goals, policies, and action items ........................................................................ 9 Chapter 3: Transportation System Plan process ....................................................................... 17 Existing and future needs ................................................................................................... 17 Existing conditions analyses ............................................................................................... 17 2035 forecast analysis ......................................................................................................... 18 No Build transportation system assumptions .................................................................. 19 Traffic Volume Development ............................................................................................ 19 No Build analyses ................................................................................................................. 19 Evaluation process .............................................................................................................. 20 Evaluation framework ........................................................................................... 20 Project identification and screening .................................................................. 21 Project evaluation ................................................................................................. 22 Chapter 4: Transportation planning tool box ............................................................................ 23 Tool box ................................................................................................................................. 23 Land use .................................................................................................................. 23 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 24 Enhancing and increasing non-auto travel modes ........................................ 24 Transportation demand management ............................................................. 28 Transportation system management ................................................................. 29 Neighborhood traffic management .................................................................. 31 Chapter 5: Transportation plan ................................................................................................... 33 Plan area ............................................................................................................................... 33 State and regional planning context .............................................................................. 33 Facilities .................................................................................................................... 34 Related plans and policies .................................................................................. 34 Coordination with plans and infrastructure ...................................................... 36 Guiding principles for street design and operations .................................................... 37 Functional classification of roadways ................................................................ 37 Street design standards ........................................................................................ 41 Truck routes ............................................................................................................. 41 Intersection performance standards ................................................................. 45 Access management guidelines ........................................................................ 45 iii Attachment 1, Page 3 of 25 07.21.14 Connectivity guidelines ........................................................................................ 46 Transit service .......................................................................................................... 47 Parking ..................................................................................................................... 48 Safety........................................................................................................................ 48 Multi-modal improvement projects ................................................................................. 49 20-year projects ...................................................................................................... 51 Beyond 20-year projects....................................................................................... 63 Study projects ......................................................................................................... 64 Transit projects ........................................................................................................ 65 Other travel modes................................................................................................ 66 Chapter 6: Funding and implementation ................................................................................. 77 20-year estimated revenue stream .................................................................................. 77 Cost of 20-year needs......................................................................................................... 78 Potential funding sources ..................................................................................... 78 Chapter 7: Code and policy updates ....................................................................................... 83 Tables 1 Land use estimates ................................................................................................................. 18 2 Evaluation framework ............................................................................................................ 20 3 Priority projects in the 20-year project list ........................................................................... 51 4 Opportunity projects in the 20-year project list ................................................................ 53 5 As development occurs projects in the 20-year project list ........................................... 55 6 Beyond 20-year projects ....................................................................................................... 63 7 Study projects .......................................................................................................................... 64 8 Frequent transit network projects ........................................................................................ 65 9 Springfield revenue assumptions ......................................................................................... 78 10 Project cost estimates ............................................................................................................ 78 11 Potential local funding mechanisms .................................................................................. 79 12 Potential state and federal grants ...................................................................................... 81 Figures 1 Plan area map ........................................................................................................................... 5 2 Functional classification map ............................................................................................... 39 3 Local truck routes map .......................................................................................................... 42 4 Priority projects in the 20-year project map ....................................................................... 57 5 Opportunity projects in the 20-year project map ............................................................. 59 6 As development occurs projects in the 20-year project map ....................................... 61 7 Beyond 20-year project map ................................................................................................ 67 8 Transit and study project map .............................................................................................. 69 9 Recommended frequent transit network map ................................................................. 71 10 Roadway project map ........................................................................................................... 73 11 Pedestrian and bicycle project map .................................................................................. 75 Volume 2 Appendix I Plan implementation and recommended ordinance/code language Appendix II Detailed cost estimates and funding analyses Appendix III TSP Projects on Lane County Facilities iv Attachment 1, Page 4 of 25 07.21.14 Volume 3 Appendix A Plans and policies review Appendix B Existing conditions inventory and analyses Appendix C No Build analyses Appendix D 20-year needs analyses Appendix E Alternatives evaluation process Appendix F Metro Plan map v Attachment 1, Page 5 of 25 Acknowledgements Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) The City of Springfield wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), whose guidance was critical to the development of this plan. Kenneth Hill, freight interest Brock Nelson, rail interest Phil Farrington, Springfield Chamberof Commerce Richard Hunsaker, developer interest George Grier, environmental interest Allie Camp, bike and pedestrianinterest Jim Yarnall, pedestrian interest (former) Neal Zoumboukos (former) andDave Roth, bicycle interest (former) Michael Eyster, transit interest Tim Vohs, City of Springfield Planning Commission Dave Jacobson and DianaAlldredge, Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee Bob Brew, City of Springfield CityCouncil Mike Schlosser, Springfield Public School District Lane Branch, Downtown businessinterest Sean Van Gordon, Planning Commission liaison (former) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) George Walker, Chuck Gottfried (retired), and Bill Hamann, City of Springfield Environmental ServicesDivision Richard Perry and Brian Barnett, City of Springfield Traffic Engineering Ken Vogeney City of Springfield CityEngineer Matt Stouder, City of Springfield Engineering Supervisor Linda Pauly and Jim Donovan, Cityof Springfield Development and Public Works Department Al Gerard, City of Springfield Fire andLife Safety Andrea Riner (former) and Paul Thompson, Lane Council of Governments Celia Barry, Lydia McKinney, and Sarah Wilkinson, Lane County Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene Will Mueller (retired), Sasha Luftig,and Mary Archer (former), Lane Transit District Greg Hyde and Rebecca Gershow, Willamalane Park and RecreationDistrict Chris Watchie, Point2point Solutions Ed Moore and Chris Cummings,Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development vi Attachment 1, Page 6 of 25 07.21.14 Project team City of Springfield David Reesor, Project Manager Tom Boyatt Molly Markarian Brian Conlon Len Goodwin John Tamulonis Ken Vogeney, PE Greg Mott Brian Barnett, PE, PTOE Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Savannah Crawford, Project Manager Terry Cole CH2M HILL Kristin Hull, Project Manager Darren Hippenstiel, PE Brandy Steffen Darren Muldoon, AICP Kittelson and Associates Julia Kuhn, PE Joe Bessman, PE Matt Kittelson, PE vii Attachment 1, Page 7 of 25 Acronyms and abbreviations 2035 TSP Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act COPR Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development EWEB Eugene Water and Electric Board FTN Frequent Transit Network HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program I-5 Interstate 5 LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission LID Local Improvement District LOS level of service LTD Lane Transit District Metro Plan Springfield’s current comprehensive planning document, 2004 update MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MUTCD 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices NTM Neighborhood Traffic Management ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OHP Oregon Highway Plan OR 126 Oregon State Highway 126 ORS Oregon Revised Statutes OTP Oregon Transportation Plan RRFB rectangular rapid flashing beacon RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan, currently being updated SAC Stakeholder Advisory Committee SDC Systems Development Charge SOV single-occupancy vehicle STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAP Transportation Alternatives Program TDM Transportation Demand Management viii Attachment 1, Page 8 of 25 07.21.14 TGM Transportation and Growth Management TIF Tax Increment Financing TPR Transportation Planning Rule TransPlan Joint Transportation System Plan for Eugene and Springfield, last amended in 2002 TSM Transportation System Management TSP Transportation System Plan UGB urban growth boundary UP Union Pacific Railroad v/c volume to capacity ix Attachment 1, Page 9 of 25 Chapter 1: Introduction The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) meets state requirements for a transportation system plan and is a resource for future transportation decision making. The 2035 TSP identifies the preferred future multi-modal transportation system and the City’s policies related to the transportation system. It also identifies the function, capacity, and location of future facilities, as well as planning-level costs for needed improvements to support expected development and growth and possible sources of funding. This TSP provides the City with flexibility as staff, the public, and decision makers prioritize and fund critical transportation investments. This TSP provides: A blueprint for transportation investment A tool for coordination with regional agencies and local jurisdictions Information to ensure prudent and effective land use choices Solutions to address existing and future transportation needs for bicycles, pedestrians,transit, vehicles, freight, and rail The 2035 TSP is the transportation element of and a supporting document to Springfield’s current comprehensive planning document (Metro Plan, 2004 update) as required by state law. The City updated the 2035 TSP goals and policies during the planning process and implemented the Goal 12: Transportation element of the Metro Plan. The primary purpose of the goals and policies is to guide future transportation related decisions in Springfield. Together with the Metro Plan, the Springfield 2035 TSP helps the City accommodate new growth, and maintain and rebuild infrastructure over the next 20 years consistent with a long-term vision. Plan overview This TSP identifies the recommended future multi-modal transportation system and the City’s policies related to the transportation system. The recommended set of transportation improvements contained in this Plan are divided into those projects that the City expects to construct in the 20-year planning horizon and those that may not be constructed in this time. Because of uncertainty around transportation funding and land development discussions, some longer-term priority projects could be implemented in the next 20 years. 20-year projects (the 2035 TSP planning horizon): Projects needed to serve expected transportation growth over the next 20 years. These projects have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan. - Priority projects: Higher-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally require additional right-of-way. Intersection of Gateway Street and Beltline Road 1 Attachment 1, Page 10 of 25 07.21.14 Cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians all share the public roadway - Opportunity projects: Lower-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally not require additional right-of- way and that the City could implement as opportunities arise. - As Development Occurs projects: Roadway and pedestrian/bicycle projects that the City would generally implement through a partnership between the City, other agencies, and/or private enterprise to support new development or redevelopment. Beyond 20-year projects: Projects that may be constructed beyond the 20-year planning horizon. These projects do not have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan. Study projects: Projects that need further study and refinement. These projects do not have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan. Frequent Transit Network (FTN) projects: Frequent transit projects that the City has developed through the ongoing metro-wide Regional Transportation System Plan process. The City’s first TSP In 2001, Eugene and Springfield adopted a shared TSP, TransPlan (amended 2002), which guided transportation decisions for both cities inside of a shared urban growth boundary (UGB). In 2006, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3337 requiring the two cities to develop separate UGBs. The State of Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires Springfield to develop its own TSP, within its own UGB. While the Springfield 2035 TSP is an “update” of TransPlan, it is the City’s first independent TSP. The 2035 TSP ensures the vision for the transportation system meets community needs, communicates the City’s aspirations, and conforms to state and regional policies. The City will implement this plan flexibly over time to respond to changes in economic development needs, community values, or regional, state or federal policies. The City will revisit this TSP when conditions change; many cities update their TSPs every five to seven years. Regional coordination To ensure regional consistency as Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg develop their own TSPs, the regional partners, through the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), will develop a Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP). Because mobility needs do not stop at a city border, the RTSP will consider linkages between the cities’ and Lane County’s transportation systems and ensure that the transportation networks work together. The RTSP will also focus on performance measures that address regional facilities in Springfield. The development of the RTSP, which will replace TransPlan, is in process and the MPO will complete it once Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg adopt independent TSPs. In addition to the state-required Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP), the Central Lane MPO is also responsible for maintaining a federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Central Lane MPO updates the RTP every four years and represents the region’s stated transportation investment priorities. The Springfield 2035 TSP must be consistent with the RTP. 2 2 Attachment 1, Page 11 of 25 07.21.14 Economic development priority areas Four areas – Glenwood, Gateway, Downtown, and the Main Street Corridor – represent considerable growth opportunities and significant transportation challenges. The City is focused on achieving mixed-used development and investing in a multi-modal transportation system that supports transit, walking, and biking in these areas. Throughout the process of developing the 2035 TSP, the City of Springfield coordinated with the City of Eugene, Lane County, Lane Transit District, Central Lane MPO, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Transportation project development This Plan includes projects that will support expected growth in the City. While the Plan does not prioritize projects, the City will prioritize investments through annual updates to the Capital Improvement Program. Once the City identifies a project for implementation through the Capital Improvement Program and project development begins, the City will conduct project- level planning, public involvement, and engineering to confirm the need, define the project limits and develop a design for the project. Public and agency involvement The public and staff from other partner agencies were extensively involved in the development of the 2035 TSP. Opportunities for engagement included: Project website (including web-based surveys) Seven Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings Seven Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings Two public open houses and one listening booth at the Sprout! Farmers Market Targeted outreach with local community service organizations Planning Commission, City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners publichearings, as part of the adoption process Through these public involvement activities, the City provided the citizens of Springfield with a variety of forums to identify their priorities for future transportation projects. The City’s project website (as well as an email list of interested citizens, businesses, City staff, boards/commissions, and agencies) announced public meetings, disseminated information, and solicited input and feedback from the community. In addition, City staff met with the Planning Commission and City Council at each major milestone leading up to the 2035 TSP. Planning context Opportunities and constraints provided by the physical environment, community vision, City, regional, and state policies, and the current and anticipated financial climate have shaped the Springfield 2035 TSP. The sections below describe how these characteristics may influence the implementation of the projects, programs, and policies included in the TSP. 3 3 Attachment 1, Page 12 of 25 07.21.14 Participants at the first workshop use an interactive mapping tool to list issues and concerns Transportation planning environment The City of Springfield is located within urban Lane County and is part of the Central Lane MPO area. Springfield’s current boundaries are generally defined by the McKenzie River to the north, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, the Willamette River to the south, and rural Lane County to the east. Figure 1 presents a map of the Plan area that includes the City of Springfield and sections of unincorporated Lane County that are part of the Springfield UGB. The TPR requires inclusion of these urban unincorporated areas in the 2035 TSP. The City of Springfield developed along an east-west spine between the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. Land use patterns in the City, surrounding areas, and the metro region as a whole are mostly suburban, with relatively low-density residential areas often separated from commercial areas. This development pattern results in heavy travel to and from residential areas during morning and evening rush hours. The Springfield 2035 TSP supports land use strategies to mitigate the strain on the roadways by shortening home-to-work trips, supporting transit service, and making walk/bike trips more practical for working, shopping, and other activities. With Metro Plan’s focus on more compact development, significant future residential development is likely to occur in the Glenwood Riverfront District, Jasper-Natron area, and along the Main Street corridor (see Volume 3, Appendix F: Metro Plan map). Regional and local travel within Springfield’s UGB is shaped by three primary highways: OR 126 Expressway, OR 126 Business Route (Main Street), and Interstate 5 (I-5), which forms the western boundary of the UGB. While these highways provide access to, from, and through Springfield, they also create significant barriers and constraints. ODOT operates and maintains these highways; the City has no direct operational authority over these highways or their interchange ramp areas. OR 126 Expressway and I-5 are both limited access highways. Running the length of the City, OR 126 Business Route (Main Street) provides the primary route for continuous east-west travel in Springfield providing access to hundreds of jobs and homes. Congestion is commonplace along all of these highways and recorded crash rates on OR 126 Business Route suggest potential safety-related challenges for bicyclists and pedestrians. More information is included in Volume 3, Appendix B: Existing conditions inventory and analysis. In Springfield, as in the rest of the country, officials, and community members recognize the importance of providing transportation options for local and regional travel and better management of existing facilities. Providing users with non-auto modes and managing existing facilities prior to adding new and/or costly infrastructure reduces congestion, saves money, and provides health benefits for Springfield citizens and visitors. A balanced transportation system with a range of choices that includes both demand and system management techniques can reduce the need for roadway widening projects that can have high costs or significant community impacts. 4 4 Attachment 1, Page 13 of 25 07.21.14 5 5 Attachment 1, Page 14 of 25 Attachment 1, Page 15 of 25 07.21.14 Financial environment A combination of federal, state, county, city, and private funds have traditionally supported transportation capital improvements. While this remains the case, the overall funding paradigm at both the state and national levels is currently in flux. The recent national recession, reduction or elimination of federal subsidies for timber counties, state-legislated revenue dedicated to discrete projects, the overhaul of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and Congress’ move away from federal earmarks for infrastructure have all combined to make revenue forecasting an uncertain exercise. Today, as in the past, revenue streams are insufficient to address both the backlog of maintenance and preservation needs across Oregon and the needs of future transportation investments that support the future economic, health, and well- being of its communities. Given these uncertainties, it is nearly impossible to forecast accurately how much funding is likely to be available for transportation investments and what projects or programs will receive funding. At one end of the financial spectrum, the nation could view future investments in transportation infrastructure as paramount to ensuring America’s prosperity. Under this scenario, an infusion of federal transportation funds, unseen since the freeway-building era of the 1950s, could result in a substantial increase in dollars available for state and local projects. This could allow for increased and broader investments in projects that enhance the “active” transportation network as well as those that provide new capacity on the roadway system to benefit freight and private automobile travel. Something similar, although at a much smaller scale, occurred when Oregon received one of the last federal earmarks for the specific purpose of bridge rehabilitation and replacement along the I-5 corridor. The recent Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant funding is also reflective of this approach. At the other end of the financial spectrum, the federal government could choose not to invest in transportation infrastructure. Should this be the case, funds available locally from the Highway Trust Fund and other federal funding sources will continue to diminish. This approach will materially affect the ability of state and local governments to make network and system improvements that support all modes of travel. The most likely financial future for the City, and the nation, lies between these two bookends. It is unclear whether federal, state, and local governments will find the means to reinvest in transportation infrastructure in the future consistent with the vision and priorities in the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP). The level of uncertainty faced by local planners and decision makers is unprecedented in the recent history of transportation planning. Recognizing this context, the Springfield 2035 TSP includes the City’s best thinking about potential funding sources but acknowledges that adequate funding to implement needed improvements over the next 20 years is unlikely to be available and that predicting the funding streams and types of projects that can be funded is nearly impossible. It is unlikely that the City will construct every project contained in the 2035 TSP in the next 20 years. While the 2035 TSP does prioritize planned projects, the City may choose to advance any of the identified projects as opportunities arise. These opportunities may present themselves as: changes in policy or funding at the federal, state, or local level local development priorities public-private or public-public partnerships 7 7 Attachment 1, Page 16 of 25 07.21.14 Projects are sorted into a 20-year list versus those that could occur beyond 20-years to allow the City the flexibly to make wise investments consistent with the overall vision contained in the 2035 TSP and to leverage opportunities as they arise. The TSP goals and policies can serve as a guide when making these decisions over the life of the Plan. Organization of the 2035 TSP The Springfield 2035 TSP is comprised of a main document (Volume 1) and two volumes of technical appendices (Volumes 2 and 3). A separate Executive Summary was also created. Volume 1 (this document) is the “final report” and includes items that will be of interest to the broadest audience. It is also the portion of the Plan, which is officially “adopted.” The main volume includes: Chapter 1: Provides a brief overview of the planning context for the 2035 TSP and the public process that supported its development Chapter 2: Discusses the goals and policies that express the City’s long-range vision forthe transportation system Chapter 3: Summarizes the process undertaken to develop the 2035 TSP, including the detailed analysis of existing and future conditions and the screening and evaluation of transportation strategies and projects Chapter 4: Provides a transportation planning “tool box” of principles and strategies that can guide future project implementation Chapter 5: Includes recommended policy guidelines and standards and multi-modal improvement projects to address existing and forecast transportation needs Chapter 6: Provides a summary of transportation revenues and expenses, past trends, and forecasts of potential future trends Chapter 7: Summarizes required changes in the Springfield codes and policies to needed to implement the TSP Volume 2 includes technical information that directly supplements Volume 1, including the specific implementing ordinances for the 2035 TSP and elements from related plans. Volume 3 includes the technical memoranda that were prepared in the development of the Springfield 2035 TSP as well as the detailed data and analysis used to prepare the final report. 8 8 Attachment 1, Page 17 of 25 Chapter 2: Goals and policies Creating goals, policies, and action items The 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) goals reflect the community’s vision for Springfield’s future transportation system and offer a framework for policies and action items. The goals are aspirational and are unlikely fully attained within the 20-year planning horizon. The policies, organized by goal, provide high- level direction for the City’s policy and decision-makers and for City staff. The policies will be implemented over the life of the Plan. The action items offer direction to the City about steps needed to implement recommended policies. Not all policies include action items. Rather, action items outline specific projects, standards, or courses of action for the City and/or for its partner agencies to take to implement the TSP. These action items will be updated over time and provide guidance for future decision-makers to consider. Many of the action items respond directly to the needs and deficiencies identified in the TSP (Volume 3, Appendix C: No Build analysis and Appendix D: 20-year needs analysis). Other action items reflect the need for future transportation planning efforts, such as refinement plans, updating ongoing studies, etc. The City vetted the goals, policies, and action items through an extensive engagement process. Previously adopted goals, objectives, and policies found in the joint TSP for Eugene and Springfield (TransPlan; amended 2002) were used as a foundation to begin the update. Staff also incorporated City Council and Planning Commission input from previous work sessions, as well as input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), City staff, and the public to develop goals, policies, and action items. The City revised the goals, policies, and action items several times during the planning process. Specific details of this process are in Volume 3 of this Plan. 2035 TSP goals, policies, and action items Goal 1: Community development Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use patterns. Goals Goal 1: Community development - Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use patterns. Goal 2: System management - Preserve, maintain, and enhance Springfield’s transportation system through safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation system operations and maintenance techniques for all modes. Goal 3: System design - Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to provide a complete range of transportation mode choices. Goal 4: System financing - Create and maintain a sustainable transportation funding plan that provides implementable steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision. 9 Attachment 1, Page 18 of 25 07.21.14 Policy 1.1: Manage Springfield’s street, bike, pedestrian, rail, and transit system to facilitate economic growth of existing and future businesses in Springfield. - Action 1: When evaluating needed roadway improvements, consider the economic viability of existing commercial and industrial areas. Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive features. - Action 1: Strive to reduce vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions and congestion through more sustainable street, bike, pedestrian, transit, and rail network design, location, and management. - Action 2: Coordinate the transportation network with new alternative energy infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations, natural gas, and hydrogen cell fueling stations. Policy 1.3: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that supports mixed-use areas, major employment centers, recreation, commercial, residential, and public developments, to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs). Policy 1.4: Strive to increase the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian system users by planning, designing, and managing systems to support the needs of diverse populations and types of users, including meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) needs. - Action 1: Create a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes and way-finding signage that guides users to destination points. Goal 2: System Management Preserve, maintain, and enhance Springfield’s transportation system through safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation system operations and maintenance techniques for all modes. Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity, and operationalefficiency. - Action 1: Evaluate, update, and implement access management regulations for new or modified access to the roadway system. - Action 2: Monitor and adjust signal timing along key corridors as needed to improve traffic flow and safety. - Action 3: Evaluate and adjust traffic control systems to optimize bicycle travel along strategic bicycle routes. - Action 4: Coordinate with LTD and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to provide auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connections to the transit network. Policy 2.2: Manage traffic operation systems for efficient freight and goods movement along designated freight, truck, and rail routes in Springfield. - Action 1: Adjust traffic control systems to discourage through truck traffic on residential streets.1 1 “Residential Streets” are commonly defined as those with a street classification of “local” passing through a residentially zoned area. 110 Attachment 1, Page 19 of 25 07.21.14 - Action 2: Coordinate with rail providers to upgrade at-grade rail crossing treatments to improve traffic flow and manage conflict points; create grade- separated rail crossings when possible Policy 2.3: Expand existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs related to carpooling, alternate work schedules, walking, bicycling, and transit use in order to reduce peak hour congestion and reliance on SOVs. - Action 1: Coordinate with adopted strategies in the Regional Transportation Options Plan to increase opportunities for transportation options in Springfield. - Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to implement the solutions outlined in Safe Routes to School Action Plans. Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve a safe and efficient bike and pedestrian system inSpringfield. - Action 1: Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District to maintain and preserve the off-street path system. - Action 2: Prioritize lighting in strategic areas with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Policy 2.5: Coordinate with LTD to increase the transit system’s accessibility and convenience for all users, including the transportation-disadvantaged population. - Action 1: When possible, manage traffic control systems to reduce travel time for transit and other high-occupancy vehicles along key corridors. - Action 2: Monitor and adjust bus stop locations as needed to support surrounding land uses and provide more efficient and safe service. - Action 3: Coordinate with LTD to reflect LTD’s long-range plans in Springfield’s transportation system. Policy 2.6: Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and turnover for surrounding land uses. - Action 1: Implement Springfield’s adopted July 2010 Downtown Parking Management Plan. Policy 2.7: Manage the off-street parking system to assure major activity centers meet their parking demand through a combination of shared, leased, and new off-streetparking facilities and TDM programs. - Action 1: Modify parking requirements to assure that they are appropriate for land uses. The purpose of this action is to reduce parking requirements to utilize land for economic development. - Action 2: Consider bike parking recommendations from the 2013 Regional Bike Parking Study when updating Springfield’s bike parking standards. Policy 2.8 Maximize the use and utility of existing infrastructure through efficient management of traffic control devises. Policy 2.9: Use motor vehicle LOS standards to evaluate acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used for: Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system. 111 Attachment 1, Page 20 of 25 07.21.14 Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, pursuant to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR; Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 660-12-0060). Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction. Under peak hour traffic conditions, acceptable and reliable performance is defined as LOS D. Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) shall be applied on state facilities in the Springfield metropolitan area and alternative mobility targets will be sought as necessary. Policy 2.10: The City of Springfield values a safe and efficient travel experience forbicycle, pedestrian, transit, freight, and auto travel. It is the intent of the City to balance the needs of these modes through creation of a multi-modal LOS methodology for all modes and to facilitate and encourage intermodal connections where most appropriate. Multi-modal LOS generally is reflective of the following: Transit –LOS is based on a combination of the access, waiting, and ride experience, as well as travel time, frequency, safety, and reliability. Bicycle –LOS is a combination of the bicyclists’ experiences at intersections and on-street and off-street segments in between the intersections. Safety is also aconsideration. Pedestrian –LOS is based on a combination of pedestrian experience, density of land use, and other factors including efficiency, safety, and pedestrian comfortlevel. Auto –LOS is based on a combination of travel time, delay, stops, safety, and queues. Freight –LOS is based on a combination of travel time, delay, stops, safety, andqueues. Intermodal –LOS is based on an evaluation of the frequency and convenience of connections between different travel modes. - Action 1: Develop and adopt a multi-modal LOS methodology based on stakeholder input and considerations for land use decisions. Policy 2.9 in the 2035 TSP will apply until the new standard is adopted and in areas where the evaluation of a multi-modal LOS is not necessary. - Action 2: Once developed, multi-modal LOS methodology will apply to Gateway, Glenwood, and Downtown and may apply to other specific geographic areas in the future subject to City Council review and approval. The intent of this action is to encourage diverse development types such as more mixed-use development and higher densities in these high-priority economic growth areas of Springfield and to provide a balanced approach to measuring LOS beyond just motor vehicles. - Action 3: Develop a process to allow for alternative means of meeting LOS standards as part of public project development and the land use decision-making process. 112 Attachment 1, Page 21 of 25 07.21.14 Goal 3: System Design Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to provide a complete range of transportation mode choices. Policy 3.1: Adopt and maintain a Conceptual Street Map - Action 1: Update and maintain the Conceptual Street Map to address transportation system deficiencies, goals, and policies. The Conceptual Street Map should provide flexibility in connecting destination points, while also providing assurance to adjacent property owners to the degree possible. - Action 2: The Conceptual Street Map will indicate the approximate location of planned “local” classified streets on the adopted map. These “local” streets are not intended to be adopted on the map. Rather, they are shown as reference. Streets classified as collectors and arterials will be adopted on the map and are considered part of the 2035 TSP. - Action 3: Ensure that land use decisions conform to the Conceptual Street Map. Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. - Action 1: Require bike lanes and/or adjacent paths along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. - Action 2: Provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets; provide parallel routes and bike boulevards on adjacent streets where appropriate. - Action 3: Create frequent bike and pedestrian crossings on wide or high-speed streets using approved design techniques. - Action 4: Require bike lanes and paths to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and major destinations. Connectivity should include connecting bike facilities to each other as well as to major destinations. - Action 5: Install shared-roadway facilities, markings, and/or signage for bicyclists along roadways with slow vehicular traffic. On-street pavement markings and traffic calming measures should be considered along such routes. - Action 6: Create city-wide bike parking stations in strategic locations such as along major transit routes and in Springfield’s central business district. - Action 7: Design bike transportation routes that separate bicycle traffic from large volumes of fast-moving automobile traffic. Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector, and arterials streets based upon traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and environmental impacts - Action 1: Conduct a comprehensive review and update of Springfield street standards, and develop code to address transportation system deficiencies, adopted goals, and policies. - Action 2: Consider effects of stormwater runoff in street design and reduce runoff through environmentally sensitive street designs for new and reconstructed streets. 113 Attachment 1, Page 22 of 25 07.21.14 - Action 3: Incorporate traffic calming measures into street designs and standards where appropriate, considering the needs of emergency services vehicles. Traffic calming measures should reduce vehicular speeds and bypass traffic while encouraging safe bicycle and pedestrian travel. - Action 4: Integrate pedestrian amenities into street designs that create pedestrian refuges and allow safe and continuous pedestrian travel. - Action 5: Provide mid-block pedestrian crossings where appropriate between major pedestrian destinations and along major pedestrian corridors. - Action 6: Develop criteria in which to evaluate alternative street design concepts. Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel. - Action 1: Design new streets to provide a connected grid network, including alleyways, when technically feasible. - Action 2: Construct sidewalks or other suitable pedestrian facilities along local streets and along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except freeways. Policy 3.5: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements. - Action 1: Ensure that current design standards address mobility needs and meet ADA standards. Policy 3.6: Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements that are identified for future transportation-related uses. Policy 3.7: Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing barriers when possible. - Action 1: Update and maintain the ADA Transition Plan to address deficiencies in the existing system and to assist in planning for new system improvements. - Action 2: Utilize safety studies such as the Main Street Safety Study and the City of Springfield Safety Study to improve pedestrian conditions along major pedestrian corridors. Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local, regional, and state agencies. - Action 1: Work with ODOT, Lane County, and LTD to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along state highways and major transit routes where appropriate. - Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities near schools to ensure safe, convenient, and well-connected routes to schools. 114 Attachment 1, Page 23 of 25 07.21.14 - Action 3: Partner with LTD to provide frequent transit network2 connections along major corridors. Frequent transit network should connect to local neighborhood bus service and major activity centers to provide viable alternatives to vehicle trips. - Action 4: Coordinate existing and planned transportation system and land uses with LTD to expand the park-and-ride system where appropriate within Springfield. - Action 5: Coordinate with the Willamalane Park and Recreation District to address bicycle and pedestrian system deficiencies and address new transportation system goals and policies in the Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan, including providing improved connectivity to parks and open space areas. - Action 6: Develop and implement criteria that trigger jurisdictional phasing and transfer of roads, highways, and other applicable transportation facilities. - Action 7: Coordinate with Lane County to ensure transition between rural and urban transportation facilities within the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). - Action 8: Coordinate with ODOT and the City of Eugene to ensure regional transportation system connectivity. Policy 3.9: Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as part of the Cascadia High-Speed Rail Corridor project. - Action 1: In coordination with agency partners, develop a Passenger Rail Plan in support of Springfield’s Downtown District Urban Design Plan. Areas in Springfield outside of Downtown should be considered, as appropriate. - Action 2: Further consider regional high speed passenger rail needs coordinated with the Springfield Downtown District Urban Design Plan and implementation strategy. 2 The Frequent Transit Network (FTN) represents the highest orders of transit service within the region. The FTN represents corridors where transit service would be provided, but does not presume specific street alignments. Street alignments will be determined in future studies. FTN stops will be located closest to the highest density development within the corridor. FTN Corridors will have the following characteristics: •Enables a well-connected network that provides regional circulation•Compatible with and supportive of adjacent urban design goals •Operates seven days a week in select corridors•Service hours are appropriate for the economic and social context of the area served•Coverage consists of at least 16 hours a day and area riders trip origins or destinations are within ¼ of a mile-straight line distance•Frequency is at least every 10-15 minutes in peak travel times •Speed is no less than 40 percent of the roadway speed limit •Coverage throughout the region is geographically equitable and serves Title VI protected populations•Transit service is reliable and runs on schedule•Transit vehicles are branded•Transit stations are of high quality with amenities, including bicycle and pedestrian connections to stations and end-of-trip facilities, such as bike parking. Park and rides are provided at key termini. 115 Attachment 1, Page 24 of 25 07.21.14 Policy 3.10: When a project includes planning, reconstructing, or constructing new intersections, all intersection control types are to be evaluated including statutory control, sign control, geometric control, and signal control. The City’s recommendedalternative will be selected primarily on safety and operational efficiency in the context of mobility needs for all users, adjacent existing and planned land uses, access considerations, site constraints, availability of right-of-way, environmental factors, phasing, future needs, safety, construction, and operational costs. - Action 1: When analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or reconstructed intersection, the City will consider the needs consistent with policy 3.10. Goal 4: System Financing: Create and maintain a sustainable transportation-funding plan that provides implementable steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision. Policy 4.1: Support development of a stable and flexible transportation finance systemthat provides adequate resources for transportation needs identified in the Springfield 2035 TSP. - Action 1: Develop criteria that support adopted 2035 TSP goals and policies and that help prioritize transportation maintenance, preservation, and construction projects. - Action 2: Give funding priority to bicycle and pedestrian projects that address significant gaps in the network and that provide key linkages to other transportation modes. - Action 3: Give funding priority to safety actions and operations to maximize use and utility of existing system. - Action 4: Provide financial incentives, improvements and programs at discretion of City to new and existing local businesses that encourage multi-modal transportation options to employees and/or customers. - Action 5: Require that new development pay for its proportional capacity impact on the transportation system through ongoing rate updates of Springfield’s system development charge and through proportional exactions as part of the land development process. 116 Attachment 1, Page 25 of 25 Scope of Work Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 23, 2015 Emma Newman and Phil Farrington Attachment 2, Page 1 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 Project Description and Background: The Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) was jointly adopted by the City of Springfield and Lane County in March, 2014. The City of Springfield completed a planning process to look at how the transportation system is currently used and how it should change to meet the long-term (20-year) needs of Springfield’s residents, businesses, and visitors. Through coordination with community members and affected public agencies, the City of Springfield developed a TSP for improvements of all modes of transportation in Springfield, including the roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, transit, and rail networks. The plan also includes a transportation improvement and financing plan. Now that the TSP is adopted, the Springfield Development Code (SDC) must be updated to fully implement the TSP. Chapter 2 of the Plan contains Goals, Policies and Action Items to provide direction for the next 20 years. The TSP Goals reflect the community’s vision for Springfield’s future transportation system and offer a framework for policies and action items. The policies, organized by goal, provide high-level direction for the City’s policy and decision-makers and for City staff. The policies will be implemented over the life of the Plan. Specifically, many of these policies are implemented through the Springfield Development Code. These newly updated policies will provide baseline direction for revisions and updates to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). This Project will cover the entire City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. Coordination with other Projects: Project Manager will coordinate this Project other relevant Projects, including but not limited to: 2030 Comprehensive Plan City Street Standards Project Main Street Visioning / Main Street TGM Zoning Project Main-McVay Transit Study Franklin Boulevard Phase I Downtown Design Standards Project TASKS, DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULE Task 1: Project Management This project management task includes work required to manage the project, coordination with Project Core Team, monitoring of progress, and direct quality control activities. Project Manager shall: Outline and coordinate Project Core Team work Attachment 2, Page 2 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 Communicate regularly with Project Oversight Team and coordinate management level reviews of works-in-progress and final products Prepare and monitor work plans and schedule Maintain project files Coordinate production and quality control efforts 1.1. Project Core, Oversight and Technical Review Teams The purpose of the Core Team is to conduct overall project tasks throughout the duration of the Project. This Team will be a small but well-coordinated group of key staff to complete the project tasks. Recommended Core Team Staff: Project Co-Managers: o Phil Farrington, AICP, Senior Planner o Emma Newman, Transportation Planner Project Staff: o Michael Liebler, PE, Transportation Planning Engineer o Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney’s Office The purpose of the Oversight Team is to conduct high-level review and input of products at key milestones. This Team will also serve as a communication link between upper-management in the City and Project Core Team staff. Recommended Oversight Team Staff: Tom Boyatt, Community Development Manager Brian Barnett, PE, PTOE, City Traffic Engineer Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor Greg Mott, Planning Manager Jeff Paschall, PE, City Engineer Matthew Ruettgers, Building and Land Development Manager The Project Technical Review Team purpose is to review a rough draft and final draft version of the Code updates. This Team is a large list of people who will be emailed copies of the rough draft Code updates and final draft Code updates for comments. This list for the Technical Review Team was finalized with the input of the Core Team and Oversight Team. Additional organizations and individuals may be sought for input on specific issues or areas of expertise. Draft Technical Review Team Members are recommended as follows: Becky Taylor, Lane County Transportation Planning David Reesor, Oregon Department of Transportation Attachment 2, Page 3 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 Matthew Crall, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Ed Moore, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene Transportation Planning Steve Gallup, City of Eugene Transportation Engineering Gilbert Gordon, Eugene-Springfield Fire Department Paul Thompson, Lane Council of Governments Sasha Luftig, Lane Transit District Vincent Martorello, Willamalane Park and Recreation District Additional City Staff, including staff from City Manager’s office, Current Planning, Long- Range Planning, Fire & Life Safety, and Operations & Maintenance 1.2. Project Kick-off Meeting Project Manager shall facilitate an approximate 90 minute internal kick-off meeting with Project Core Team and Oversight Team staff to provide an overview of the project, review the final draft Scope of Work (including timeline and composition of Technical Review Team and Stakeholder Sounding Board), and establish protocols for project communications. Project Managers shall prepare an agenda for the meeting. Deliverables: 1A: Kick-off Meeting Agenda 1B: Project Communication Protocols 1C: Scope of Work/confirm project Core Team, Oversight Team and Technical Review Team members Recommended meeting participants include: Phil Farrington, AICP, Senior Planner Emma Newman, Transportation Planner Tom Boyatt, Community Development Manager Brian Barnett, PE, City Traffic Engineer Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor Greg Mott, Planning Manager Matthew Ruettgers, Building and Land Development Manager Jeff Paschall, PE, City Engineer Michael Liebler, PE, Transportation Engineer Attachment 2, Page 4 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 Task 2: Public, Stakeholder and Technical Team Involvement The purpose of the public and stakeholder involvement task is to provide proper and adequate coordination with relevant stakeholders and the public throughout the duration of the project, and to obtain stakeholder input at key milestones. Public and stakeholder involvement activities must be conducted in parallel with other project tasks. 2.1 Present to the Committee for Citizen Involvement Outline project scope, timeline, and outreach methodologies to the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) for review and approval. 2.2 Stakeholder Sounding Board A Stakeholder Sounding Board (SSB) shall be established to provide feedback at 3 key points during the Project: (1) Project Initiation, (2) Mid-point Code Revision Draft, and (3) Final Code Draft. SSB input will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council will be briefed on SSB input throughout the project. Diverse perspectives, backgrounds, interests and geographies are desired for the SSB. Final selection of participants will be based on availability and interest, as well as approval by Springfield’s Committee for Citizen Involvement as required to comply with the City’s adopted Citizen Involvement Program and Goal 1. Members from the Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) will be asked to serve on the SSB. Draft Stakeholder Sounding Board members are recommended as follows: Richard Hunsaker, developer interest George Grier, environmental interest Allison Camp, bike/ped interest (BPAC member) Mike Eyster, transit interest Dave Jacobson, general interest (former MPO CAC member) Mike Schlosser, Springfield Public Schools Lane Branch, downtown business interest Ed McMahon, Homebuilder’s Association of Lane County Vonnie Mikkelsen, Springfield Chamber of Commerce * Tim Vohs, Springfield Planning Commission Hillary Wylie, Springfield City Council* ** Kenneth Hill, freight interest Mike Elliason, rail interest* ** BPAC representative *=Replacing former TSP SAC member Attachment 2, Page 5 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 **= Request to participate pending ~ = vacant or proposed position Deliverables: 2A: SSB Meeting Agendas 2B: SSB Meeting Facilitation 2C: SSB Meeting Materials 2.3 General Public The Springfield TSP Goals and Policies will guide this Project. Significant public outreach occurred during the TSP update that contributed to the Goals and Policies which were eventually adopted and now being used for the basis of this SDC update. Specific to this SDC update, general public input opportunities will be provided through the City’s website at two points during the Project: (1) Mid-point Code Revision Draft, and (2) Final Code Draft. Draft Code changes will be posted for 2 weeks during each of these project milestones for public comments. Deliverables: 2D: Website Updates 2.4 Technical Review Team Involvement An informal Technical Review Team will be established for input and review of the SDC updates. Project Team staff will use a similar list of reviewers that has been used in the past for SDC updates. This list will include numerous City of Springfield staff as well as well as key staff from other partner agencies such as Willamalane. The Springfield Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) will also be asked to provide input and review. Similar to the public and stakeholder input, Project staff will request review and input from the Technical Review Team during two points during the Project: (1) Mid-point Code Revision Draft, and (2) Final Code Draft. Deliverables: 2E: Provide written information to Technical Review Team and respond to questions, concerns and comments. Task 3: Technical Review and Written Updates to the Springfield Development Code This task will use the recommended changes noted in TSP Volume 2, Appendix I as a starting point for the SDC update. The Project Core Team will further review the Springfield 2035 TSP Goal and Policy chapter in comparison to the existing SDC to assure proper sections of the Code are flagged for Attachment 2, Page 6 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 updating. The Project Core Team will also use the Technical Review Team and Stakeholder Sounding Board to assist in flagging any necessary Code changes. Once a final outline of Code sections are determined, Project Core Team staff will make written modifications. These will be vetted through the Stakeholder Sounding Board, the Technical Review Team, and through general public outreach on the City’s webpage. Deliverables: 3A: Draft Code Changes Task 4: Adoption Process The adoption process will include a work session review by both the Planning Commission and the City Council followed by formal public hearings. Similar to other SDC updates, public hearings will provide one last additional time for public input on the proposed Code changes. Deliverables: 4A: Planning Commission Work Session and Public Hearing 4B: City Council Work Session and Public Hearing Attachment 2, Page 7 of 8 Springfield TSP Code Implementation Project December 17, 2015 PROJECT TIMELINE: = Meeting = Duration of Task Attachment 2, Page 8 of 8