HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PWM 9/17/2008
'.
.
.
)
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
Date:
To:
September 17,2008
Gino Grimaldi
Subject:
Greg Mott
Referral of Eugene TransPlan Amendment
Proposal
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
From:
ISSUE:
On August 22, 2008 the Development Services Department received formal referral from the City of Eugene
regarding three Type IT, site-specific TransPlan amendments initiated by the Eugene City Council on August
13,2008. Two of these amendments are located entirely within the Eugene city limits; the third extends
outside the Eugene City limits. The Springfield City Council may participate in this latter amendment upon
determination of "regional impact" and Council adoption of a motion to participate as a decision-maker.
BACKGROUND:
On August 13,2008 the Eugene City Council approved the following motion:
'.
"Move to initiate a TransPlan amendment to delete the West Eugene Parkway from the project list
and plan as part of the short-term amendments and to add the two ODOT facility projects inio the
'Constrained' project list, which are the West 11th Avenue from Terry to Greenhill and the Beltline
Highway from River Road to Delta Highway."
The Council initiated these amendments in response to a broader regional strategy to achieve consistency
between the federal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the state-mandated Regional Transportation
System Plan (RTSP). These additions/deletions to the Eugene project list in TransPlan will mirror the status of
these projects in the RTP.
Since TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan, amendments to TransPlan are also amendments to the
Metro Plan. There are several Metro Plan policies relevant to the action of the Eugene City Council including
the amendment participation and process policies in Chapter IV (codified in the implementing ordinances of
each governing body) and Policy F.9 at page ill-F-7: "Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20-
Year Capital mvestrnent Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are
not adopted as policy." Although the Council motion did not include a statement or clause describmg the
simultaneous and reciprocal amendment of the Metro Plan, such amendment is required by Metro Plan Policy
F.9.
The two ODOT projects identified in the motion above are entirely within the city limits of Eugene therefore
Springfield's only role in those amendments is as an interested party. The West Eugene Parkway is both
inside and outside the city limits therefore Springfield may participate as a decision-maker upon a
determination of regional impact and adoption of a motion to participate.
Regional impact occurs when:
The amendment will require an amendment to a jointly adopted functional plan (TransPlan, PFSP) in
order to provide the subject property with an adequate level of urban services and facilities; or
The amendment will have a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, wastewater, or
transportation facilities of the non-home city; or
The amendment affects the buildable land inventory by significantly adding to LDR, CI, LMl or HI
designations or significantly reducing MDR, HDR or CC designations.
It's an odd juxtaposition that an amendment to TransPlan is assessed for regional impact through a
determin~tion th~t it will require an amendment to TransPlan. This oddity aside, there. are three Actors about d
Type IT site-specIfic Metro Plan amendments that need to be remembered: 1. Type II &ol~lQrlAeeewe
limits shall be the sole responsibility of the home city (regional impact has no bearing on this exclusivity); 2.
Type II amendments outside of city limits always require the home city and county to particizfutep.d141'I!O[lllm-
Planner: 8J
#
)
.
.
home city may also participate; 3. Even if the non-home city makes a determination of regional impact and the
amendment is outside the city limits, the non-home city may decline to participate( no mandatory
circumstances)
These three factors explain why the City of Springfield is limited to interested party status for the two ODOT
projects within the Eugene city limits. The third amendment, removing the WEP as a transportation facility in
West Eugene, may also be a comment-only role for Springfield. The City of Springfield did participate in the
Metro Plan amendment that added the WEP to TransPlan, but that participation was triggered by the need for a
goal exception. A goal exception not related to a UGB amendment requires all three governing bodies to
participate as decision-makers because that kind of amendment is automatically a Type I amendment even if it
is site-specific.
Deleting a project, as is proposed here, does not appear to invoke the adequate level of services test; an
alternative facility added to the list does trigger the adequate level of services test but that outcome is not
identified in the Eugene Council's initiation action. It does not appear to staff that this proposal satisfies the
determination of regional impact.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Unless directed otherwise by Council, staffwill notifY the City of Eugene that the Springfield City Council has
considered this referral and has chosen not to participate based on the analysis provided elsewhere in this .
memorandum.
Date Received
SEP 11' 2008
Planner: BJ