Loading...
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