HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6240 04/06/2009
ORDINANCE NO. 6240
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM PLAN (TRANSPLAN) BY REMOVING PROJECT #27 OR126/MAIN STREET AND
PROJECT #30 OR126/52ND STREET FROM TABLE 1b AND MAP - APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3
OF TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH POLICY F.9 OF THE METRO PLAN; AND PLACE
THESE SAME PROJECTS IN TABLE 1a AND MAP - APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3 OF
TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH POLICY F.9 OF THE METRO PLAN; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by
the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation
Plan (TransPlan) as a special purpose functional plan which forms the basis for the Transportation
Element of the Metro Plan and is therefore subject to the same amendment procedures as the Metro
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the TransPlan serves the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro Plan by
addressing a variety of transportation issues and includes project lists and maps identifying financially
constrained roadway projects and future roadway projects; and
WHEREAS, the federal Regional Transportation Plan (R TP) for the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area was updated in November, 2007; and
WHEREAS, state law requires TransPlan to be consistent with the RTP, including the list of
regionally significant roadway projects; and
WHEREAS, the recently updated RTP includes a financially constrained project list th;lt
includes Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street; and
WHEREAS, the current TransPlan adopted in 1986 and amended in 1989, 1992 and 2001, and
which still shows Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street on the future
roadway projects list, is in need of amendment to comply with state law requiring consistency between
the federal R TP and the local transportation system plan; and
WHEREAS, amendments of the project lists in TransPlan require simultaneous amendment of
the same project lists in the Metro Plan as described by Policy F.9, Chapter III, of the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing of the Springfield Planning Commission on February 3,
2009, the Springfield Planning Commission recommended amendments to the project lists and maps in
TransPlan and the Metro Plan (File LRP 2008-00013) consistent with the status of those same projects
in the federal RTP, to the Springfield City Council; and
(...
Ordinance No. 6240 amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and TransPlan to delete Project #27 OR126/Main Street and
Project #30 OR126152nd Street from the Future Roadway Project List and Map and add Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street to
the Financially Constrained 20- Year Capitallnvestrnent Actions Roadway Projects List and Map; and Adopting a Severability Clause.
Page lof2
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing and is now ready to take action
based upon the above recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as
the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing held in the matter of adopting amendments to
the project lists and maps in TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City ofSpringfi~ld does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The "Transportation Element" (Chapter III, Section F) ofthe Metro Plan IS hereby
amended as follows: Delete Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street from
Table 1 b Future Projects List and map Future Roadway Projects Map, Appendix A; add Project #27
OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street to Table la Financially Constrained 20-Year
Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects List and map Financially Constrained Roadwav Map,
Appendix A, consistent with Policy F.9. Project timing and estimated costs are. not adopted as policy.
Section 2. Chapter III of TransPlan is hereby amended as follows: · Delete Project #27
ORl26/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street from Table 1 b Future Projects List and map
Future Roadway Projects Map, Appendix A; add Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30
OR126/52nd Street to Table 1 a Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions Roadway
Proiects List and map Financially Constrained Roadway Map, Appendix A. Project timing and
estimated costs are not adopted as policy.
Section 3. The Springfield City Council adopts the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached
Exhibit "A" in support of this action.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions hereof.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ~ day of April
2009 by a vote of ~ in favor ~ against.
CQuncil~~e~den~. .
Approved by the-Mayer01 tne CIty 01 Spnngfield this ~ day of April
,2009.
City ReCO=O ~
I
~
G t! .
u. ~
~ J[~
I!b-
~ . .
oa :?~I~; .
ra a:-f.!-i i..
IW 0 7 t'\. ;...-
~~<<:'i t..;
:> e t f", i ~>
U,1 Y.:j .
(t,b <; i '
fj~ fJM;i
~ Council President
ATTEST:
Ordinance No. 6240 amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and TransPlan to delete Project #27 OR126/Main Street and
Project #30 OR126152od Street from the Future Roadway Project List and Map and add Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street to
the Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects List and Map; and Adopting a Severability Clause.
Page 2 of2
t.
Staff report and findings of compliance with lhe Metro Plan
and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statut~s and Oregon
Administrative Rules to Adopt Text and Map Revisions to
the Eugene-Springfield Transportation pystem Plan
(TransPlan) to move the OR126/ 52nd Street I~tersection and
the OR126/Main Street Intersection prqjects to the
financially constrained list in TransPlan.! These same
changes will be made simultaneously to the! Metro Plan as
that document includes the maps and project lists found in
I
TransPlan. I
,
Springfield File: LRP 2008-00013 Amend TransPlan to move the O~126/52nd Street Intersection
and the OR126/Main Street Intersection projects to the financially constrained list in TransPlan (Projects
30 and 27 deleted from Table 1b and added to Table 1a; remove the same two projects from the Future
Roadway Projects Map and place them on the Financially Constrained Roadway Map, both of which are
found in Appendix A of TransPlan). I
i
I
I
Applicant
City of Springfield
Nature of the Application
The proposed amendment would concurrently amend TransPlan and the MetJ:'o Plan to:
1) Remove the OR126/Main and OR126/52nd Street intersection projects] from TransPlan Chapter 3:
Table Ib entitled "Future (Beyond 20-Years) Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects", and from
the corresponding Future Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A); and, I
2) Add the OR126/Main and OR126/52nd Street intersection projects to TransPlan Chapter 3: Table 1a
entitled "Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions" and to the corresponding
Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A).
The proposed amendments move the two projects to the Financially Constrained List in TransPlanl
consistent with their status on the financially constrained project It in the federal Regional
1 The requirement for [mancial constraint applies only to the federal RTP; state law does not include this
requirement for regional or local transportation system plans. The project lists in TrdnsPlan do differentiate
between future (unfunded) and constrained (funded) because TransPlan formerly dOl:lbled as both the federal RTP
. I
and the state transportatIOn system plan. In 2001 the MPO adopted the RTP separately from TransPlan thereby
removing the need for federal standards remaining in TransPlan. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County did not
I
undertake the amendment process to "de-federalize" TransPlan because the addition iof Coburg within the MPO in
!
I
,
I
ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
Transportation Plan (RTP Map: Exhibit G) and in compliance with OAR 660-012-0016(2) (a-b):
"When an MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that rel~tes to compliance with this
division, the affected local governments shall review the adopted plan or hmendment and either: (a)
Make afinding that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment lor update is consistent with
the applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and comprehensive
plan and compliant with applicable provisions of this division; or (b) Adoptiamendments to the relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one an;other and compliant with
applicable provisions of this division. " I
Background
The OR126/52nd Street and the OR126/Main Street Intersection Improvement Projects have been included
in TransPlan since 1986 (See Exhibit A: OR 126 at Main Street InterchangJ Improvements). OR 126 is
a critically important, limited access expressway that allows through movembnts of freight and passenger
vehicles to by-pass 8 miles of local access urban uses along Main Strek this is an indispensible,
irreplaceable facility. The intersection at Main Street is a highly traveled ~rossroads that provides the
only west bound option for motorized vehicles originating east of 58th Street ~nd destined for Springfield,
Eugene and 1-5. The intersection at 52nd is the only signalized, at-grade f~cility on this limited access
expressway and is prone to delay and vehicular conflicts. i
I
I
Specific planning for these two projects has been underway since 2001 as Paf of the OR 126 Expressway
Management Plan (EMP). Two elements of this EMP are attached to this repprt as a demonstration of the
reasons why these projects are a priority for ODOT and the City of Springfi~ld: the Draft OR 126 EMP
Phase 2 Problem Statements; and Memorandum 4.2: Existing Conditions Traffic Operations (Exhibits B
and C). Both of these documents identify current safety and operational issues at both interchanges and
I
forecast worsening conditions as the surrounding vacant land within Springfi~ld's urban growth boundary
develops at pennitted, planned densities. The Jasper-Natron mixed u~e nodes are identified as
development that is "expected to increase traffic at the intersection and surr9unding area" in spite of the
reduced vehicle trips associated with nodal development. i
I
The draft Problem Statement projects a volume over capacity ratio (~/c) exceeding 1.0 at both
intersections by 2025 if no action is undertaken. The Oregon Highway pilan sets a v/c of .80 for its
facilities and this perfonnance standard has already been exceeded at 0r126(Main intersection; therefore
capacity improvements will be required for both of these facilities in otder to operate within state
I
standards. I
In November, 2007 the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an u1=!date to the federal RTP (See
Exhibit F). Among other changes, this update moved the OR126/52nd Stree~ Interchange Project and the
ORl26/Main Street Interchange Project from the Illustrative Project List (beyond 20-years) to the
Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Investment Actions List. These wete not the only changes made
to the RTP; the planning horizon was adjusted out to the year 2031; sevbral projects were added in
I
Eugene; and the boundary of the Plan was increased to include Coburg (Exhipit E). The state determined
that these changes were sufficient to trigger OAR 660-012-0016 and requ~re this metropolitan area to
amend the state-mandated transportation system plan (TrdnsPlan) to be consistent with the RTP.
I
. I
2004 meant a much more substantial update of TransPlan would be required. The upidate of TransPlan was delayed
in anticipation of the much larger work tasks necessary to achieve consistency with tHe 2007 RTP update (See
Exhibit E).
ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
The cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County could not complete all of these required
amendments within one year as specified in OAR 660-012-0016(2) (b), therefore the state imposed the
following provision of the rule: "amendments shall be initiated no later than 30 days from the adoption
of the RTP amendment or update and shall be adopted no later than one y~ar from the adoption of the
RTP amendment or update or accordinf! to a work plan approved bv the commission." The cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted this required work plan t6 the Land Conservation and
Development Commission in September for consideration at their October 116, 2008 meeting. The work
program included, as a first step, the following Post-acknowledgment Plan Amendments (PAPAs):
Remove completed projects; remove WEP; move ODOT projects fromi Illustrative to Financially
Constrained list for consistency with RTP; adjust plan horizon. The Commission approved the work
program without modification to these four PAPAs (See Exhibit D).
i
Applicable Standards and Procedure~
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
Section 5.14-110 of the Springfield Development Code provides thati Metro Plan amendments
shall be made in accordance with the standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and
the provisions of this code. j
I
I
This application involves site specific amendments to TransPlan, a ~pecial purpose functional
plan, which forms the basis for the Transportation Element of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan. i
1
I
The Metro Plan Amendment is a "Type II" amendment as de:fined In the Springfield
Development Code at SDC 5.14-115, because it: I
I
i
a) involves a site specific transportation improvement project;
b) does not change the Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary;
c) does not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;i
d) does not require a goal exception, i
e) does not include a non-site-specific amendment of the Metro Plan text.
I
Springfield is the "Home City" for the proposed amendment, as proviided in SDC 5.14-1l5(D)
because the subject site is east ofI-5 and entirely within the city limits ~f Springfield.
1
1
The proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not have a regional impact, as defined in SDC 5.14-
1
115(F) because the amendment: I
I
a) does not involve a change to a plan designation or a site location,
b) does not significantly expand or decrease the residential, dommercial or industrial
growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in Metro
Plan and TransPlan,
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
c) does not have a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, or
transportation facilities of the City of Eugene or Lane County.
SDC 5.14~140 provides that, "To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the
city limits must be approved by the Home City." The subject amendment is a site-specific Type
II amendment involving land that is entirely within the city limits of the City of Springfield.
Accordingly, it requires only approval by the governing body of the City of Springfield to
become effective.
STATEWIDE GOAL CONSISTENCY:
Section 5.14-13 5 of the Springfield Development Code requires that, in reaching a decision on
proposed Metro Plan amendments, the planning commission and city council shall adopt
findings which demonstrate that the amendment is consistent with the relevant statewide
planning goals; and that the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
TransPlan is a special purpose functional plan which forms the basis for the Transportation
Element of the Metro Plan. Demonstration of compliance with the statewide goals for this
amendment which simply involves moving the two implementation projects in TransPlan from
the Future List to the Financially Constrained List is address in a manner that explains why this
action was not contrary to the goals.
The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable goals and interpretive rules as follows:
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Springfield has an acknowledged citizen involvement"program and an acknowledged process for
securing citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments. On October 15,2008 notice of
this proposed amendment was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD). That notice included copies of the proposal previously approved by the Metropolitan
Policy Committee for inclusion in the federal RTP in November, 2007, and a copy of the report
that went to the Springfield City Council for the October 6, 2008 initiation of this amendment.
The identical proposal was reviewed and approved by the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on September 15, 2008 prior to being submitted to the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCD C) in October as part of the proposed work
program for the update of TransPlan. Each of these and activities and meetings were noticed
and included opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. Mailed notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to all property addresses and owner addresses within 300
feet of both interchanges on January 13,2009, and published notice of the hearing was placed in
the Eugene Register Guard on January 19,2009.
ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING
Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans to be consistent with statewide land use goals;
that local comprehensive plans are internally consistent; and that implementing ordinances are
consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans.
Both the OR 126/52nd Street and OR 126/Main Street interchange projects are located within the
city limits of the City of Springfield. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not
result in any change or conflict with the policies of Metro Plan or TransPlan. These projects
are included on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project List. This proposed
amendment will move the two projects from the Future ~nvestment Actions List to the
Financially Constrained List in Transplan which means that they are anticipated to be
constructed within the next 20-year time frame. These projects were initially included in
TransPlan in 1986 as an integral component of the transportation system needed to support the
population, employment and land uses planned for in the Metro Plan. These amendments will
not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial growth potential within the City
beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan; they are necessary to
accommodate existing, planned UGB development.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs. Additionally, Goal 3 is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural
lands and the proposed projects are within an acknowledged urban growth boundary. (See OAR
660-15-000(3 )
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs. Both project sites are located within Springfield's UGB therefore Goal 4 does not
apply. (See OAR 660-06-0020)
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic, historic, and natural
resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR 660 Division 16, require planning
jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to
(1) identify such resources:
ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
(2) determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) identify conflicting uses:
(4) examine the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences that
could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the conflicting uses, and
(5) develop programs to resolve the conflicts.
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs. The proposed text amenchnents will not expand or decrease the residential,
commercial or industrial growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned
for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan. There are no inventoried Goal 5 resources within the
existing ODOT right of way therefore Goal 5 does not apply to this proposal. Any use of federal
funds to construct improvements to these interchanges will require compliance with the
provisions of NEP A; the NEP A process includes an assessment of actual and potential impacts
on all identified natural resources in the vicinity of the project area.
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
Placing these two projects on the constrained list in TransPlan does not preempt actual
construction from standards or rules in place at the time of construction: all new construction
must comply with applicable state and federal air and water quality standards. Adopting the
proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the
policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system needs to service the land uses identified in the Metro Plan. Further, these text
amendments will not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial growth
potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and
TransPlan. The level and significance of environmental impacts resulting from-the physical
improvements at the 52nd Street/OR 126 intersection and Main Street/OR126 intersection
will be further assessed in accordance with NEPA requirements. Air quality can be
degraded by the degree of congestion that occurs at street intersections. The improvement
of these interchanges will reduce congestion to levels (.80 v /e or less) that comply with
Oregon Highway Plan standards. Improved level of service reduces congestion thereby
reducing vehicular contributions to degraded air quality.
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss of life not be
planned or located in known areas of natural hazards and disasters without appropriate
safeguards. The goal also requires that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural
disaster and hazards. Both sites are flat (not within areas subject to rapidly moving landslides)
and outside mapped flood hazards zones (Zone A 100-year flood hazard). The level and
significance of environmental impacts resulting from the physical improvements at the 52nd
Street/OR 126 intersection and Main Street/OR126 intersection will be assessed in accordance
ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
with NEP A requirements. All construction associated with these proposed projects will be
designed to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS
Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens ofthe state and visitors." Adopting the
proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the
recreational land use policies of the Metro Plan or the Willamalane Park and Recreation
Plan. There are no existing or planned park facilities nearby these two sites therefore
construction at these two sites will not create a negative impact on the recreational needs
of the community. These text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential,
commercial or industrial growth potential within the City beyond that which is already'
planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan.
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE
Goal 9 requires local governments to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with
the economic policies of Metro Plan. Further, these text amendments will not expand or
decrease the residential, commercial or industrial growth potential within the City beyond that
which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan. The Oregon Transportation Plan
recognizes that goods movement of all types makes a significant contribution to the region's
economy and wealth and contributes to residents' quality of life. OR 126 is a designated Truck
Route. As these facilities become more congested, freight movement is influenced negatively
through delays and spent fuel. Successful development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use site will
rely on a transportation system that can efficiently accommodate the variety of trips coming and
going from this area. The OR126/52nd Street and OR126/Main Street projects are identified on
the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project List and will support economic development
opportunities in the City.
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
LCDC's Housing Goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
needed housing to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Adopting the proposed
text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the housing policies of
the Metro Plan. These text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential growth
potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and
TransPlan. However, as stated in the Background section of this report, the Jasper-Natron area
is a large, undeveloped mixed-use site that is intended to provide a broad choice in housing type
and density as well as commercial and office shopping and employment opportunities. The
OR126/52nd Street and OR126/Main Street intersection projects are identified on the TransPlan
ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
Capital Investment Actions Project List as necessary to service planned land uses including this
important development site. Reducing congestion in the immediate vicinity of this future
development will make it a more attractive place to live and work and will improve the quality of
life for existing and future residents in East Springfield.
GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
This goal requires the provision of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilIties
and services. Goal 11 does not apply to these proposed text amendments, since these
amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the Public Facilities and Services Plan,
a functional plan of the Metro Plan that does not contain transportation system improvements.
These text amendments will not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial
growth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and
TransPlan.
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation Goal requires the city to plan and provide for "a safe, convenient, and
economic tr3l).sportation system." Goal 12 also sets out numerous requirements for the content
of local transportation plans. Both the OR 126/52nd Street and OR 126/Main Street interchange
projects are identified as implementation actions on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions
Pr~ject List. This proposed amendment will move the two projects from the Future Investment
Actions List to the Financially Constrained List in Transplan consistent with the status of these
same two projects in the federal RTP .as adopted in November 2007. These projects were
initially included in TransPlan in 1986 as an integral component of the planned transportation
system needed to support the population, employment and land uses planned for in the Metro
Plan. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict
with the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan, nor is this action being taken in response to a
land use amendment. The preliminary analysis of the current and future, operational
characteristics of these two interchanges, as documented in the OR 126 EMP, is continued
substandard performance and ultimately (by 2025) congestion 20% in excess of ODOT's
maximum standard. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments is consistent with all
applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0016; there are no provisions in OAR 660-012 that
require financially constrained project lists.
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION
The Energy Goal is a general planning goal that calls for land and uses developed on the land to
be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based
upon sound economic principles. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments will not
result in any change or conflict with the energy policies of the Metro Plan. Reducing congestion,
which is one of the cornerstones of project need, will save energy and improve air quality. Both
the OR 126/52nd Street and OR 126/Main Street interchange projects are identified as
implementation actions on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project List. The proposed
ATTACHMENT 2 - 8
I
projects will be designed to comply with all applicable federal,: state, and local energy
regulations. I
I
i
I
I
i
The subject sites are within the Metro Area UGB and within the city limits of Springfield
therefore Goal 14 has no direct applicability to this proposal. Adopting the proposed text and
map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the u'rbanization policies of the
Metro Plan. These projects are identified implementation actions, necessary to meet the
transportation system needs of the planned land uses in the Metro Plan. These text amendments
will not expand or decrease the residential, commercial or industrial growth potential within the
City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and T~ansPlan.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION
I
,
GOAL '15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY I
This goal is inapplicable because the subject sites are more than a mill from the nearest segment
of the Willamette River Greenway boundary. i
I
GOALS 16-19-COASTAL GOALS i
I
,
These goals do not apply to the City of Springfield.
METRO PLAN CONSISTENCY
!
The proposed amendment is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and objectives for
the same reasons that it is consistent with the corresponding goals that those policies and
objectives are designed to implement. Both the OR 126/52nd Street! and OR l26/Main Street
interchange projects are identified as implementation actions on. the TransPlan Capital
Investment Actions Project Lists. This proposed amendment will move the two projects from
the Future Investment Actions List to the Financially Constrained rJist in Transplan which is
consistent with the status of these two projects in the federal RTP. These projects were initially
included in TransPlan in 1986 and are an integral component of the planned transportation
system designed to support the population, employment and land usek planned for in the Metro
Plan. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the following provisibns of the Metro Plan and
TransPlan:
The Metro Plan sets forth general planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the
basis for the coordinated development of programs concerning the: use and conservation of
physical resources, furtherance of assets, and development or redevelqpment of the metropolitan
area. I
I
The Metro Plan is intended to designate a sufficient amount of urbaniJable land to accommodate
I
the need for further urban expansion, taking into account the gro1:Vth policy of the area to
I
I
I
i
ATTACHMENT 2 - 9
accommodate a population of 286,000 within the UGB by the year 2rJ15. The Metro Plan also
identifies the major public facilities required to meet the land use nJeds designated within the
UGB. Page I-I I
I
These projects will modernize an existing asset (OR 126) of irrepla~eable significance; these
projects are necessary for the future development of Thurstoniand Jasper-Natron, two
areas that represent the single largest remaining residential in~entory in Springfield's
UGB.
More specifically, the Metro Plan provides the overall framework for the following planning
functions. The Metro Plan: :
,
1. Guides all governments and agencies in the metropolitan area in development and
implementing their own activities which relate to the public planning process.
2. Establishes the policy basis for a general, coordinated, long-range approach among
affected agencies for the provision of the facilities and; services needed in the
metropolitan area. !
3. Makes planning information available to assist citizens to bett~r understand the basis for
public and private planning decisions and encourages their pa'rticipation in the planning
I
process. :
4. Proves the public with general guidelines for individual planniJ:zg decisions. Reference to
supplemental planning documents of a more localized scope, including neighborhood
refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro Plan to specific parcels of land
or individual tax lots. I
5. Assist citizens in measuring the progress of the community an'd its officials in achieving
the Metro Plan's goals and objectives. I
6. Provides continuity in the planning process over an extended period of time.
7. Establishes a means for consistent and coordinated planning decisions by all public
agencies and across jurisdictional lines. i,
8. Serves as a general planning framework to be augmented, asl needed, by more detailed
planning programs to meet the specific needs of the various local governments.
9. Provides a basis for public decisions for specific issues wheh it is determined that the
Metro Plan, without refinement, contains a sufficient level. bf information and policy
direction. '. . I
10. Recognizes the social and economic effects of physical planning policies and decisions.
11. Identifies the major transportation, wastewater, stormwater, cmd water projects needed
to serve afuture UGB population of286,000. Page 1-2
The responses to compliance with Goals 1,2, 9, 10, 12 and 14 preceding these citations are
equally applicable to the Metro Plan's framework functions. !
Metropolitan Goals:
Growth Management
ATTACHMENT 2 -10
1. Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently. i
2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewid~ goals.
3. Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban
I
encroachment.
Economic
1. Broaden, improve, and diversity the metropolitan econonJy while maintaining or
enhancing the environment. I
Transportation
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that tupports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliancf on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life.
2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
Balanced
Accessible
Efficient
Safe
Interconnected
Environmentally responsible
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development I
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts and!
Economically viable and financially stable I
I
Page II-B-2 I
The responses to compliance with Goals 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 preceding these citations
are applicable to these Metropolitan Goals. Two tremendously itttportant facilities on the
. I
state's system in this region, and integral to Springfield's successf*-l economic and housing
priorities are currently experiencing safety and operational difficulties. Future
I
development of planned residential and mixed-use centers within Springfield's UGB are
I
projected to create periods of congestion well in excess of the state's standard for
operational level of service. Additionally, the effects of this circum~tance, if not corrected,
ATTACHMENT 2 -11
i
will diminish the economic vitality and livability associated with ah efficient transportation
system. Although modernization of existing roadways is only a p~rt of an integrated land
use and transportation plan, there is no substitute or viable alternative for freight and
through movements in this part of Springfield, particularly ~here the largest vacant
development site in the city awaits development as a mixed-use ce~ter.
Residential Land Supply and Demand
Policies
A.IO Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that u~ilizes existing
infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services an1 facilities, and conserves
rural resource lands outside the UGB. I
I
A.II Generally locate higher density residential developrAent near employment or
I
commercial services, in proximity to major transportqtion systems or within
I
transportation-efficient nodes. I
i
I
A.I2 Coordinate higher density residential development with: the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amen~ties.
,
i
A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly dev~loping areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulatihns.
I
,
,
A.35 Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other elements of
this plan, including public facilities and services, and oth'er local plans, to ensure
consistency among policies. Pages III-A-7 through III-A-13 I
i
The success of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use nodal development :as well as the remaining
vacant residential land in Thurston are dependent upon a safe and efficient transportation
system comprised of all modes of transportation. Even adding thJ presence of an expanded
Emx transit system and additional employment opportunities at !Jasper-Natron, new trips
from within Springfield as well as those originating outside the plan area will rely on these
two interchanges for access and through movement. Operatin~ at a level of service in
excess of the maximum standard established by ODOT is inconsistent with these Metro
I
Plan policies; modernization to accommodate trips at a level ofl service of .80 vlc or less
promotes the implementation of these Metro Plan policies.. I
,
i
I
,
i
I
,
ATTACHMENT 2 - 12
Economic Element
I .
B. 6 Increase the amOlmt of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial
uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability land availability with the
projections of demand. ,
I
B.i8 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access
I
to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (FransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan.
I
B. 22 Review .local ordinances and revise them to promote greater flexibility for
I
promoting appropriate commercial development in residential r:zeighborhoods.
B.23 Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under
procedures which clearly define the conditions under which sUfh uses shall be permitted
and which: (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas fQr their primary uses; (b)
assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased traffic congestion.
Pages III-B-4 through III-B-6 '
,
The Jasper-Natron development area is slated for nodal development overlay district
designation in at least two locations and possibly a third. This designati9n is intended to
promote walkable communities within which a variety of housing types and densities are
available; a variety of commercial goods and services are availa~le; additional non-retail
employment opportunities are available; a major transit facility is present; and includes a
series of interconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Notwithstanding these techniques
at reducing use of and reliance on automobiles, auto trips will b~ generated 'where none
currently exist (vacant land). These trips will rely heavily upon the OR 126 @ Main
interchange and to a lesser degree, on the OR 126 @ 52nd int~rchange. If these two
facilities are operating at unacceptable levels of service, the development of Jasper-Natron
will certainly be delayed thereby influencing land supply needle~sly to the detriment of
Springfield's citizens.
I
Transportation Element I
F.i Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by Jach jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land Lse pattern.
I
F.3 Provide for transit-oriented development along major trbnsit corridors and near
I
tran,$it stations; medium- and high-density residential development within % mile of
transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and
ATTACHMENT 2 - 13
vl- Z IN3WHOVIIV .
I
uVlcl O.l}o]f ;}qJ ;}P!sJno ~O.lJ ;}JRU!~!.I0 qJ!qA\ sd!.IJ .I;}~U;}SSRd pUR Jq~P.lJ IlR pUR PI;}~u!.IdS
JSR:[ U! S;}Sn PURl IlR SJ.liddns JRqJ W;}JSAS UO!JRJ.lOdSUR.lJ ;}qJ OJ IRJH!.IJ ;}.IR Sp;}fO.ld OMJ ;}q.r
I f I - .1- III l[73no.Iql '!7-.1 - III S;}73Bd oUlaJsAs uOJjlJJJodsuv.lj s, uo!2aJ alfJ
uo sw.aJqoJd rfJpvdlJ:J JO[lJUl puv rfJafvs ssaJpplJ OJ (cfID UllJ.J20Jcf JuaUlattOJdUlI uOJ}vJJodsUVJ.L
s, uo!2aJ alfJ U! paUlw.vJ20Jd sanuatlaJ IVJapaj puv .Loao fo JuaUlJsatlU! JOf saJ}!Jo!Jd JaS ~['d
I
I
! Ouo!2aJ Pla'!%u!Jds
-aua2n;g alfJ U! Juaw.atloUt. spo02jJlf2!o.lj JOf saUlJj ZOtllJ.lj aJqv!laJ puv aJqvuosvaJ JJoddns 6Z'd
I ,
! Ouo!2aJ alfJ ap!SmO puv 'Ullf11M '112no./lfJ
latlvJJ ./oj spa au paU!qUlp:J S}aaUl JVlfJ w.oJstCs AlJMpVOJ Ivuo!2a./ v dOlotloP JO aJoUlo./cf 9r'd
! .
I "l)()JlJ uVJ!]OdOJJoUl Plo'!%U!JdS-ouoZn;g alfJ Ul
somlPvj oJVJS uo pa!lddv, aq lllJlfS cfHO alfJ UlO.lj sp./lJpuvJs a:JuvUlJofJacf O:J
'oJolfMoSlo a S07 puvi 'VoJlJ (S.LV:J) ApnJS uOJjvJJodsUVJ.L lJoJV IlJ.ljua:J
S, aUo2n;g uJlfnM ;g so'], :suoJJJpuo:J :JtjJlJ.lj Jnolf 1fvad Jopun. o:J!tUas
jo sZOtlol 2ulMo/lof olfJ Aq pouifap Sl a:JulJUlJofJad alqv!loJ putJ aJqVJda:J:JV oq
OUOlPlPSlJn! JUoUl~./otl02 IV:Jol oJqv:J!lddlJ alfJ jo suoJjvln2oJ osn
-PUVI alfJ lfnM A:JUoJS!SUOD JOf suoJjv:J!lddv JuaUldolatlop 2uJjvnllJtl;g([)
(0900-Z [0-099 ([VO) H cfL olfJ OJ JUlJns./nd 'suoJ}vln2aJ asn
-puvl puv suvld otllSUalff./dUlo:J pa2palM.owf.:Jv 'suvld uOJjvJJodsulJ.lj
OJ sJuowpuawv jo S{.vMplJO./ uo SPlJdUl! olfJ 2uJjvnlVtl;g(Z)
oWoJSAS tCVMpVOJ olfJ uo sopuapifap rfJplJdv:J 2Ultf!JjUopI(r)
.' :JOf pasn
oq lZVlfs sp./vpUlJJs asalf.1 oUlaJsAs AVM.pVOJ alfJ uo a:JuvUlJofJad aJqv!laJ
puv oJqvJda:J:Jv UlVJUlVW.: OJ SpJlJpuvJs a:J!tlJas jo /Otlal apllfotl JOJOUl aSfl ov
:A:J!lod a:J!tUas fo latlal ap!lfatl JOJoW ~ rOd
oSJuaUlatloJdUll UlaJsAs tWMpVOJ
2uJ}:JnJJsuo:J pUV 2u!UUVld ualfM. sapllfatl A:Jua2./owa fo spaau alfJ puv 'sulJ!.ljsapad
'SmpA:J!q 's./asn nSUV.lj. 'sJS!./OJOUl fo spaau rfJajvs PUlJ rfJmqoUl alfJ SsaJpPV fr rOd
I
orfJmqVtl!l PO,OlfJoqlf2!au a:JUlJlfua JVlfJ sal2aJv.ljs uOJjvJ./odsuv.lj JJoddns [r 'd
oa./npnJJSv'4Ul uOJjlJJJodsulJ.lj aJnJnj pUV 2uJjs!xa a2vuvUl PUlJ paJo./cf 0 rOd
, oA:J!lod sv paJdopv
JOU aJV SJSO:J paJVUlJ}sa p~v 2UlUlJj pa!OJcf oUlJlcfSUlJJ.L Ul poU!vJuo:J sJs!l pa!oJd SUO!PV
JuawJsotluI Ivndv:J JVo.J'+OZ alfJ 'uvlc! O.ljaw alfJ fo J./vd sv 'a:JuaJafaJ Aq JdopV 6'd
OnSUlJJJ pauuvld ./0 2u!lSlxo
tCq patl./as /laM aq Plno:J JO oJV JVlfJ SlJaJlJ paJvu2lSap U! JuaUldOlotlapaJ pUV JuaUldOlatlap
boundaries. OR 126 @ Main Street frequently experiences LO~ F and is projected to
worsen by 2025. This service level does not comply with the Metr~ Plan's LOS D nor does
it comply with ODOT's service level of .80 vIe. Such substandard condition will delay, and
may prevent the development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use node, a land use pattern that
supports a variety of housing by type, density and price range; ne~ghborhood appropriate
commercial and employment uses; presence of alternative modes of travel; and a more
compact urban form. Modernization of these two interchanges '(ultimately) will reduce
congestion and improve air quality in and around highly developed neighborhoods thus
improving at least two elements that are essential to livability.
TransPlan
Land Use Policy #1: Nodal Development
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land Use pattern.
i
Land Use Policy #2: Supportfor Nodal Development
i
Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical incentives.
,
TSI System-Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection and Management
i
I
Protect and manage existing anq future transportation infrastructure.
TSI System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability I
i
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood liJability.
TSI System-Wide Policy #5: TransPlan Project Lists
Adopt by reference as part of the Metro Plan the 20-Year Capital Investment Actions
project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted
as policy.
TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit use s, bicyclists, pedestrians,
and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements. I
ATTACHMENT 2 - 15
TSI Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) I
I
1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptable and reliable
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used for:
a. Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway syst~m.
b. Evaluating the impacts on the roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-us~ regulations, pursuant to
the TPR (OAR) 660-012-0060) ,
I
c. Evaluating development applications for consis~ency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
2. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service under
peak hour traffic conditions: Level of Service E within! Eugene's Central area
Transportation Study (CATS) area, .and Level of Service D elsewhere.
I
3. Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan shall be applied on state
facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Finance Policy #3: Prioritization of State and Federal Revenue
Set priorities for investment of Oregon Department of Traflsportation (ODOT) and
federal revenues programmed in the region's Transportation Improvement Program
(FIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on th'e region's transportation
system. " 2 Pages 10-12, Chapter 2
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Springfield
Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135. State law does n?t require state-mandated
regional or local transportation plans to distinguish projects based on financial constraint; this is
strictly a federal requirement for MPOs when adopting, updating or amending federal regional
transportation plans. TransPlan has served as both the federal RTP and the state transportation
system plan since at least 1986. In 2001 the MPO adopted TransPlan Js the RTP and the elected
officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County adopted TransPlan Js a functional plan to the
Metro Plan; however, this latter action occurred without removing the federal standards that had
always co-habited TransPlan. This audit/edit was deferred to a later date to coincide with future
I
I
2 Financial constraint is a requirement of the federal RTP and is defmed as: "Financi~lly constrained or Fiscal
constraint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes suf;ficient financial information
for demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and STIP ~an be implemented using
committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources, with reasonable assurance that the federally
supported transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained." (CFR 450.104 Definitions)
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT 2 - 16 I
triennial updates of the R TP. It is only as a result of this deferral circumstance, not Oregon
Administrative Rule, which has led to the need to undertake this amendment to TransPlan.
Notwithstanding this situation, the proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions in
the Springfield Development Code and policies in the Metro Plan and TransPlan for Metro Plan
amendment.
ATTACHMENT 2 -17
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN AND TRANSPLAN,
ADDING PROJECT #27 AND #30 TO TABLE 1a
FINANCIALL Y CONSTRAINED 20- YEAR
]
]
]
]
]
CAPITAL INVESTEMENT ACTIONS AND TO ]
MAP FINANCIALLY-CONSTRAINED ROADWAY]
PROJECTS IN APPENDIX A; AND REMOVING ]
THESE SAME PROJECTS FROM TABLE 1 bAND ]
MAP FUTURE ROADWAY PROJECTS FROM ]
APPENDIX A
File LRP 2008-00013
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
This proposal moves two transportation facilities improvement projects from the future list to the financially
constrained list in the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Metropolitan Area
Transportation System Plan (TransPlan). These amendments are consistent with the same amendments
adopted into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in November, 2007. Oregon Administrative Rule
(OAR) 660-012-0016(2) requires consistency between these plans:
"When an MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that relates to compliance with this
division, the affected local governments shall review the adopted plan or amendment and either: (a) Make
afinding that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment or update is consistent with the
applicable provisions of adopted regional and local transportation system plan and comprehensive plan
and compliant with applicable provisions of this division; or (b) Adopt amendments to the relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one another and compliant with applicable
provisions afthis division. "
The commitment to achieve this required consistency was affirmed, respectively, on September 15,2008 by
the joint elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County; and on October 16,2008 by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission when both groups approved the TransPlan update work
program which specifically identifies these projects for inclusion on the fmancially constrained list in
TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
1. The application was initiated by the Springfield City Council on October 6, 2008.
2. Notice of this proposed action was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development on October 15,2008 in accordance with the provisions ofORS 197.610.
3. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Chapter 5, Section 5.2-115 of the
Springfield Development Code, has been provided.
4. On February 3, 2009 the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing accepting
testimony and evidence on these proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan (File LRP 2008-
00013). At the conclusion of this meeting, the Springfield Planning Commission forwarded a
recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council. The staff notes and recommendation of the
Development Services Department staff, together with the testimony and submittals entered into the record
of this hearing by staff from the Land Conservation and Development Department and the Oregon
Department of Transportation have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding.
ATTACHMENT 3 - 1
CONCLUSION
On the basis of all the evidence included in this record, the proposed amendment application, File LRP
2008-00013 is consistent with the criteria of Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135 of the Springfield Development
Code. This general finding is supported by the specific [mdings of fact and conclusions in the attached staff
report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt File LRP 2008-00013
amending the Metro Plan and TransPlan by placing Project #27 - Oregon 126 at Main Street and Project
#30 - Oregon 126 at 52nd Street onto Table I a the Financially Constrained 20- Y ear Capital Investment
Actions list and onto the financially Constrained Roadway Projects Map found in Appendix A; and remove
these same two projects from Table 1 b the Future Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects and from
the Future Roadway Projects Map found in Appendix A.
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTACHMENT 3 - 2