HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice DLCD 4/15/2009
--,
.
Oregon
.
Thwdort R. KJJbncPJk~ Go""l1'DI
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150
Salem. OR 9730 1-2540
(503) 373-0050
Fax (503) 378.5518
www.lcd.state.or.us
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
~
04/15/2009
TO:
Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM:
Larry French, Plan Amendment Program Specialist
SUBJECT:
City of Springfield Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 008-08
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption.
A Copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local
government office.
Appeal Procedures'
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Wednesday, April 29, 2009
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption. Pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b)
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice
of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). Please call LUBA at
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
'NOTE:
THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS
MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED
TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAT IT WAS MAILED TO DLCD. AS A
RESULT, YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAYBE EARLIER THAN THE ABOVE
DATE SPECIFIED.
Cc: Greg Mott, City of Springfield
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist
Bill Holmstrom, DLCD Transportation Planner
Ed Moore, DLCD Regional Representative
.-
<paa> Y A
Date Received
I-In< .~ fi 2009
Planner: 8J
.
! '2 DLCD
Notice of Adoption
TIllS FORM MUST BE MAILED TO DLCD
WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION
PER ORS 197.610, OAR CRAP1ER 660 - DMSION 18
Jurisdiction: City of Springfield Local file number: LRP 2008-00013
Date of Adoption: 4/6/2009 Date Mailed: 4/8/2009
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to OLCO? YesOate: 10/1512008
~ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ~ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
o Land Use Regulation Amendment 0 Zoning Map Amendment
o New Land Use Regulation 0 Other:
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached".
Moved to highway interchange improvement projects from the unfunded, future project list to the financially
constrained project list in the comprehensive plan and the transportation system plan. These same changes
were duplicated on maps showing unfunded project location and maps showing financially constrained project
location. .
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? No, no explaination is necessary
Plan Map Changed from: unfunded
Zone Map Changed from: NIA
Location: OR125@52nd; OR126@Main Street
Specify Density: Previous: Nla
Applicable statewide planning goals:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
DDDDDDDD~~~~DDDDDDD
Was an Exception Adopted? 0 YES ~ NO
. Did OLCO ~eceive a N~tice ~f propo~ed AmendmenLDate Recei\led
45-<1ays pnor to first eVidentiary heanng? . '
. If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? !\rr< ;; 2009
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediateAd,option? "
OLCO FILE #008-08(17198)[15467] t-'Ianner. BJ
to: financially constrained
to: N/A
Acres Involved: 0
New: N/A
[gJ Yes
Dyes
Dyes
DNo
DNo
DNo
.
.
OLeo file No.
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special' Districts:
ODOT, CITY OF EUGENE, LANE COUNTY
Local Contact: Greg Mott
Address: 225 Fifth Street
City: Springfield
Zip: 97477-
Phone: (541) 726-3774 Extension: 3774
Fax Number: 541-726-3689
E-mail Address: gmott@ci.springfield.or:us
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Tills form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 workin!! davs after the [mal decision
per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18.
1. Send this Form and TWO Complete CODies (documents and maps) of the Adopted Amendment to:
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 .
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540
2. Electronic Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, but you may also submit
an electronic copy, by either email or FTP. You may connect to this address to FTP proposals and
adoptions: webserver.lcd.state.or.us. To obtain our Usemame and password for FTP, call Mara Ulloa at
.503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailingmara.ulloa@State.or.us.
3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days
following the date of the final decision on the amendment
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings
and supplementary information.
5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working
days of the final decision. Appeals to LuBA may be filed within TWENTY-ONE (21) day~ of the date,
the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD.
6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notifY persons who
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision.
7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us!. Please
print on 8-1I2xlll!reen DaDer onlv. You may also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax
your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa@statAHIlk .i'f~~:d
PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST.. [lJalti "el,;~lvtj
ArK . ".2009
Planner: BJ
'.
.
i
.
"
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 lb AND MAP -APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3
OF TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT wrrn POLICY F.9 OF THE METRO PLAN; AND PLACE
THESE SAME PROJECTS IN TABLE .la AND MAP - APPENDIX A IN CHAPTER 3 OF
TRANSPLAN AND CONSISTENT wrrn: 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 oftransportanon issues and includes project lists and maps identifying financially.
constrained roadway projects and future roadway projects; and
WHEREAS, the federal RegioIial Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan ilfea was updated in November, 2007; and .
WHEREAS, state law requires TramPlan 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;tt
includes Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52Dd Street; and
WHEREAS, the current TransPlan adopted in 1986 and amended in 1989, 1992 and 2001, and
which still shows Project #27 ORl261Main Street and Project #30 ORl26152nd Street on the future
roadway projects list, is in need of amendment to comply with state law requiring consistency between
the federal RTP and the local transportation system plan; and
WHEREAS, amendments of the project lists in TransPlan require simultaneous amendment of
the same project 1ists in the Metro Plan as described by Policy F.9, Chapter ill, of the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing of the Springfield Planning Commission on February 3,
2009, the Springfield Pl~nn;ng 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
~
OrdinnnccNo. 6240 llIDending the Eugene-Springfield MctropolilBnAreaGcnecll Plan and TnmSPllm to deleteProj.G\a'~_M^^,
Proj'7' #3? ORl2&'S~ Street ftom the ~uIIIn: Rosdwny Project List and Map and add Project #27 OR126JMain Street dl.I.GliLD3~~
the FmanClally Constrained 20- Y car Capitnllnvcsttncnt Actions Roadwny Projccls List and Map; and Adopting. Scve:ability Clause.
. Page 1 of2 Mil 1 5.2009 .
. Planner: BJ
.
.
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 i. The "Transportation Element" (Chapter ill, Section F)ofthe Metro Plan is hereby
amended as follows: Delete Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street from
Table Ib Future Proiects List and map Future Roadway Proiects MaD. Appendix A; add Project#27
OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street to Table la Financiallv Constrained 20- Year
Capital Investment Actions Roadwav Proiects List and map Financiallv Constrained Roadway MaD,
Appendix A, consistent with Policy F.9. Project timing and estimated costs are. not adopted as policy.
Section 2. Chapter ill of TransPlan is hereby amended as follows: :Delete Project #27 .
OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street from Table Ib Future Proiects List and map
Future Roadway Proiects Mal'. Appendix A; add Project #27 OR126/Main Street and Project #30
OR126/52nd Street to table la Financially Constrained 20- Year CaDital Inyestment Actions Roadway
Proiects List and map Financiallv Constrained Roadwav Map. Appendix A Project tiining 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 COmlnon Council of the City of Springfield this ~ day of April
2009 by a vote of ~ ill favor ~ against .
Cquncil ~+,ea;ldent.. . .
Approved by the MaY61'ot tne City ot Springfield this 6th day of April
-
,2009.
City ReCor~ ~
I .
e -,
Ii. .f.! .
g ~lr.
c. .-J (0
D.. ~.'
'" I .
Date ReceivEij~ R ~~
At'1< '! !) 2009 ~ e ~6i .,\ ~;
>~. .' .
. IJJ U:'J' . ",
Planner: ~" . i . . .
VJ~~
.~
Council President .
ATTEST:
Ordirian.. No. ~ amending the Eugene-Springfield MeIr<!J'Otilm! Area GenClll! Plan BIId TransPlBIIIll delete Project #27 OR126!Mliin Slreet BIId
. Project #30 ORl261S2 Slreet from the Future Roadway Project List and Map BIId Illhl Project #27 ORl261Main Street and Project #30 ORI26IS2" SIn:el to
Ihe FiDancially ConstrailIed 20-Year Capital Investment Actions Roadway Pmiectll List BOd MBp; BDd Adopting. Severability Cl.IlSC. .
. Page 2 oft
\.
.
.,
Staff report and fmdings of compliance with the Metro Plan
and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statut9s and Oregon .
Administrative Rules to Adopt Text and Map Revisions to
the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan
I (TransPlan) to move the OR126 j 52nd Street I~tersectionand
the OR126jMain' Street Intersection prqjects to the
financially constrained list in TransPlan. i These same
changes will be made simultaneously to the! Metro Plan as
that document includes the maps and project lists foUnd in
TransPlan. I
I
I
,
Springfield File: LRP 2008-00013 Amend TransPlan to move the O~126/52ad Street Intersection
and the OR126/Main Street Intersection projects to the financially constrain~d list in TransP/1Ifl (projects .
30 and 27 deleted from Table Ib and added to Table la; remove the same two projects from the Future
Roadway Projects Map ilnd place them on the Financially Constrained Roadway Map, both of which are
found in Appendix A of TransPlan). . I
. I .
!
I
I
I
Applicant
City of Springfield
Nature of the Application
The proposed amendment would concurrently amend TransPllIfl and the Mefl:o PllIfl to:
1) Remove the ORl26/Main and OR126/52ad Street intersection projectsifrom TransPlan Chapter 3:
Table 1 b entitled "Future (Beyond 20-Yeaxs) Capital Investment Actions: iOadWay Projects", and from
the corresponding Future Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A); and,
2) Add the OR126/Maln and OR126/52"" Street intersection projects to TransPZan Chapter 3: Table la
entitled "Financially Constrained 20. Y ear Capital Investment Actions" and to the corresponding
Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A).
lbe proposed amendments move the two projects to the Financially Constrained List in TramP/an'
consistent with their status on the financially constrained project lit in the federal Regional
I The requireinent for financial constraint applies only to the federal RTP; state law qoes not include this .
requirement for regional or local transportation system plans. The project lists in Tro/zsPlan do differentiate.
between future (unfunded) and constrained (funded) because Tran.sPlan formerly do~bJed asboth the federa1RTP
and the state transportation system plan. In 2001 the MPO adopted the RTP separately from Tran.sPlan thereby
removing the need for federal standards remaining in TransPlan. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County did not
undertake the amendment process to "de-fed~" TramP/an because .the addition~f Coburgi'lith~ the MPO in
. . . I Uale Received
i AP ~ I fi 2009
I
,
4TT4~UUCUT ~ _ 1
Planner: BJ
.
Transportation Plan (RIP Map: Exhibit G) and in compliance with 0 660-012-0016(2) (a-b):
"When an MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that rellues to compliance with this
division, the affected local governments shall review the adopted plan or iunendment and either: (a)
Make aflnding thatthe 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) Adopt iainendments to the relevant
regional or local transportation system plans consistent with one an10ther and compliant with
applicable provisions of this divisioll. " !
Background
The OR126/52,d 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 offreight 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 crossroads that provides the
. only west bound option for motorized vehicles originating east of 58th Street ~d destined for Springfield,
Eugene and 1-5. The intersection at 52,d is the only signalized, at-grade f~cility on this limited access
expressway 3I\d is prone to delay and vehicular conflicts. . \ .
Specific planning for these two projects has been underway since 2001 as P'af.ofthe OR 126 Expressway
Management Plan (EMP). Two elements of this EMP are attached to this re!'P.rt as a demonstration of the
reasons why these projects are a priority for aD aT and the City of Springfirld: the Draft OR 126 EMP
Phase 2 Problem Statements: and Memorandum 4.2: Existinll Conditions Traffic Operations (Exhibits B
and C). Both of these documents identify current safety and operational issyes at both interchanges and
forecast worsening conditions as the surrounding vacant land within Springfield's urban growth boundary
develops at permitted, planned densities. The Jasper-Natron mixed uke nodes are identified as
development that is "expected to increase traffic at the intersection and surr~unding area" in spite of the
reduced vehicle trips associated with nodal development I :
The draft Problem Statement projects a volume over capacity ratio (v,/c) exceeding 1.0 at both
intersections by 2025 if no action is undertaken. The Oregon Highway Plan sets a v/c of .80 for its
facilities and this performance standard has already been exceeded at Or 126lMain intersection; therefore
capacity improvements will be required for both of these facilities in ot.der to operate within state
standards. . I .
In November, 2007 the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an ul1date to the federal RIP (See
Exhibit F). Among other changes, this update moved the OR126/52.d Stre~ Interchange Project and the
OR126/Main Street Interchange Project from the lllustrative Project Lisf (beyond 20-years) to the
Financially Constrained 20- Year Capital Inve>tment Actions List. 'These were not the only changes made
to the RIP; the planning horizon was adjusted out to the year 2031; sev~raI projects were added in
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 require this metropolitan area to
amend the state-mandated transportation system plan (TrdnsPlan) to be consisteht with the RIP.
. . ..' I . .
2004 lIleant a much more substantial update of TransPlan would be required. The up~ate of TransPlan was delayed
in ~ti.cipation of the much larger work tasks necessary to achieve consistency with tbe 2007 RTF update (See
~~~ '. . .
Date Received
Af'K 1 fi 2009
ATTA"'~lJ:l:'tJT ? _ ?
Planner: BJ.
.
The cities of Eugene and Springfield and LIDe 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 shaY be initiated nO later thai, 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 accordine 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 1:6, 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 frorn DIustrative to Financially
Constrained list for consistency with RTP; adjust plan horizon. The Conlmission approved the work
program without modification to these four PAP As (See Exhibit D). i
I
i
Applicable Standards and Procedur~
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
Section 5.14-110 of the Springfield Development Code provides ~ Metro Plan amendments
shall be made in accordance with the standards contained in Chapter XV of the Metro Plan and
the provisions of this code. . I
I
This application involves site specific amendments to TransPlan, a ~pecial pmpose functional
plan, which forms the basis for the Transportation Element o~ the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan. I
I.
The Metro Plan Amendment is a "Type II" amendment as defined in the Springfield
!
Development Code at SDC 5.14-115, because it: i
.1
a) involves a site specific transportation improvement project;
b) does not change the Metro Plan Urban Growth Bounda&;
c) does not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;!
d) does not require a goal exception, i
e) does not include a non-site-specific amendment of the Metro Plan text
Springfield is the "Home City;' for the proposed amendment, as proJded in SDC 5.14-115(D)
because the subject site is east ofI-5 and entirely within the city limits bfSpringfield.
I .
. I
The proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not bave a regional impact, as defined in SDC 5.14-
I
115(F) because the amendment: . I
. I
a) does not involve a change to a plan designation or a site locaBon,
. b) does not significantly expand or decrease the residential, ~ommercial or industrial
growth potential within the City beyond that which is alre~dy planned for in Metro
Plan and TransPlan, -I
I
,
j
I
I
I
Date Received
At'K
,,2009
ATTAr~U~MT ? _ ~
Planner: BJ
.
.
c) does not have a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, or
transportation facllities of the City of Eugene or Lane County.
SDC 5.14~140 provides that, "To become effective, a Metro Plan Type IT amendment inside the
city lirnitsmust 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 5.14-135 of the Springfield Development Code requires that, in reaching a decision on
proposed Metro Plan amendments, the planning commission and city council shall adopt
fuidings which demonstrate that the amendment is consistent with the relevant statewide
planning goals; and that the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan intema11y inconsistent.
TransPlan is a special purpose functional plan which forms the basis for the Transportation
Element of the Metro 'Plan. De,mbnstration of coinplianc~ with the statewide goals for this
amendment which simply involves moving the two implementation projects in TransPlan from
the Future List to the Financia1ly 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 interprt;tive rules as follows:
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Springfield has an acknowledged citizen involvement"pi:ogram and an acknowledged process for
securing citizen input on a1l proposed Metro Plan amendInents. On October IS, 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 Co=ittee for inclusion in the federal RTP m. November, 2007, and a copy of the report
that went to the Spring.field 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 (LCDC) 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 co=ent ,Mailed notice of this Planning
Commission public hearing was sent to a1l 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 Janwiry 19, 2009.
. ,
, Date Received
At't<. :; 2009
ATTAr.HM~NT ? ~ 4
Planner: 8J
.
.
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 126fMain Street interchange projects are located within the
city limi~ 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 TransPIan. These projects
are included on the TransPIan Capital Investment Actions Project List. This proposed
amendment will move the two projects from the Future ;rnvestment Actions List to the
Fmancially Constrained List in TranspIan 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, co=ercial or industrial growth potential within the City
beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TransPlan; they are necessary to .
acc<i=odate 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 TransPIan since these projects are already identified on the
Capital Investment Actions Project List and are necessary to meet identified transportation
system.needs. Additionally, GoaJ 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 ffiSTORIC 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
(I) identify such resources:
Date Received
At'Kl !l 2009
ATTACHMFNT ? - ~ .
Planner: BJ
.
e
"
(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 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, 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 llstin 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 StreetlOR 126 intersection and Main Street/OR126 intersection
~ll be further assessed .in accordance with NEPA requirements. Air quality can be
d'egraded by the degree 'of congestion that occurs at street intersections. The improvement
of these interchanges will reduce cqngestion to levels (.80 vlc 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 iliat 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 IOO-year flood hazard). The level and
significance of environmental impacts resulting from the physical improvements at the 52nd
S~et!OR 126 intersection and Main StreetlORl26 intersection will be assessed in accordance
Date Received
AP~ 1 5 Z009
ATTA~~M~MT ? _ ~
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 gove=ents to plan and provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the 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 iil the Metro Plan and TransPlan.
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE
Goal 9 requires local gove=ents to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon'sdtizens.
Adopting the proposed text and mapamendmeIits 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, co=ercial or industrial growth potential within,the City beyond that
which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and TramPlan. 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 TramPlan 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
TramPlan. 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 co=ercial and office shopping and employment opportunities. The
OR126/52iu1 Street and OR126/Main Street intersection projects are identified on the TramPlan
Date Rec.eived
AP~ I !1 2009
ATTAr.HMFNT ? - 7
Planner: BJ
.
.
I
Capital Investment Actions ProjectList 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, cOIIlID,ercial 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 traI).sportation systein." Goal 12 also sets out nunierous 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
Project 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 TransPliln, 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 contin\lt~a
substaridard performance and ultimately (by 2025) congestion 20% in excess of ODOT's
maximum standard. Adopting the proposed text and map amendments is consisteIit with all
applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0016; there are no provisions in OAR 660-012 that
require financially constrained proj ect 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 S)I:eet and OR 126/Main Street' interchange projects are identified as
implementation actions oil the TransPlanCapital Investment Actions Project List. The proposed
ATTAr.HM~MT ? _ R.
Date Received
AP~ '1 5 2009
Planner: BJ
.
r
I
federal,: state,
I
I
I
and . local energy
projects will be designed to comply .with all applicable
regulations.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION
GOALS 16-19 ~ COAST~ GOALS
These goals do not apply to the City of Springfield.
METRO PLAN CONSISTENCY
. I
The proposed amendment is consistent with applicable Metro Plan ~olicies and objectives for
the same reasons that it is consistent with the, corresponding goajs that those policies and
objectives are designed to implement Both the OR l26/52nd Street~ and OR 126/Main Street
interchange projects are identified as implementation actions OEl the TransPlan Capital
Investment Actions Project Lists, This proposed amendment will n:\ove 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. -mese projects were initially
included in TransPlan in 1986 and are an integral component of 1ibe planned transportation
system designed to support the population, employment and land use~ planned for in the Metro
Plan. In addition, the proposal is consiStent with the following provisibDS of the Metro Plan and
TransPlan: l'
The Metro Plan sets forth general planning policies and land use all cations and serves as 'the'
basis for the coordinated development of programs concerning the: use and conservation of
physical resources, fUrtherance of assets, and development aT redevelopment of the metropolitan
I '
wea. !
The Metro Plan is intended to designate a sufficient amount of wbanidable land to accom~odate
the need for fUrther wban expansion, taking into account the gro~th policy of the wea to
I Date Received
, h( Ii . ~ 2009
ATTA~HMFNT ? - ~.
Planner: BJ
.
accommodate a population of 286,000 within the UGB by the year 2015. The Metro Plan also
identifies the major public facilities required to meet the land use ndeds designated within the
UGB. Page I-I
These projects will modernize, an existing asset (OR 126) of irreplafeable significance; these
projects are necessary for the future development of Thurston'iand Jasper-Natron, two
areas that represent the single largest remaining residential in~entory in Springfield's
UGB. .
,
More specifically, the Metro Plan provides the overali framework for the following planning
,
jimctions. The Metro Plan: i '
!
1. Guides all governments and agencies in the metropolitan ~ea in development and
implementing their own activities which relate to the public pla'rming pracess.
2. Establishes the policy basis for a general, coordinated, long-range approach among
afficted agencies for the provision of ' the facilities and! 'services needed in the
metropolitan area. I
3. Makes planning information available to assist citizens to bett~r understand the basis for
public and private planning decisions and encourages theirpdrticipation in the planning
process. ' I.
, I
4. Proves the public with general guidelines for individual plannii;lg decisions. Reference to
supplemental planning documents of a more localized scope, including neighborhood
refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro Plan ro specific parcels of land
or individual tax lots. i
5. Assist citizens in measuring the progress of the community arid its officials in achieving
the Metro Plan's goals and objectives. '! '
6. Provides continuity in the planning process over an extended p~riod of time.
7. . Establishes a means for consistent and coordinated planning deCisions by all public
agencies and across jurisdictional lines. ' i ;
8. Serve~ 'as a general planning frame:vork to be augme~ted. asl needed, by more detailed
plannmg programs to meet the specific needs of the varzous local governments.
9. Provides a basis for public decisions for specific issues wheh it is determined that the
Metro Plan, without refinement, contains a sufficiimt level. bf information and policy
IO'Rdirectio,: "h . l 'nd ' .' ,n; ,.{' h . l I .1 I" d'" .
. ecognzzes" e.socra a economic eJJects 0.1 p !yS1ca p annmgpo ICles an ueclslons..
11. Identifie:; the major transportation, wastewater, stormwater, b:nq water projects needed
to serve ajUture 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. I
I
Metropolitan Goals:
Growth Management
Date Received
Ani 1 ~ 2009
ATTAr.I-IMI=t.JT ., _ 1 n
Planner: BJ
.
.e
1. Use wban, wbanizable, and rural lands efficiently. I. . .
2. Encowage orderly and efficient conversion of land .from rUTal,'to urban uses in response
to wban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewid~ goals.
3. Protect rUTaI lands best suited for non-urban uses .fr~m incompatible wban
encroachment. I
Residential Land Use and Housing I.
. .. I
. 1. Provide viable residential communities so all residents. can r;hoose sound, affordable
housing that meets individual needs. i
I
I
,
,
I
1. Broaden, improve, and diversity the metropolitan econon1Y while maintaining or
enhancing the environment. '
Economic
,
Transportation I
. ,
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that ifupports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliancf on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life. i
2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area'squaliiy of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is: i
,
,
Balanced i
Accessible I
Efficient i
Safe I
Interconnected I
Environmentally responsible I
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts andl'
Economically viable andfinancially stable
I
. Page II-B-2 I . . .
The responses to compliance with Goals 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, U and 14 preceding these citations
are applicable to these Metropolitan Goals. Two tremendously ~portant facilities on the
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
development 'of planned residential and mixed-use centers witmrl Springfield's UGB are
,
projected to create periods of congestion well in excess of the s~te's standard for
operational level of service. Additionally, the effects of this circum$tance, if not corrected,
Date Received
J.\t'rli ~ 2009
ATTACHMENT? - 11
Planner: BJ
.
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.
I
i
I
I
I
I
,
A.I0 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that u~lizes existing
infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services an~ facilities, and conserves
rural resource lands outside the UGB. I
A.li Generally locate higher density residential developrAent near employment or
commercial services, in proximity to major transporttmon systems or within
. ,f'{;' de I
transportatlon-eJJ.clent no s. I
Residential Land Supply and Demand
policies
i
1.12 Coordinate higher: density residential development Withi.t~e provision of adequate
mfrastructure and serVices, open space, and other urban amenities.
A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly devJloPing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulatifns.
I
A.35 Coordinate local residential land use al1d housing plan~ing with other elements of
this plan, including public facilities and services, and oth:er local plans, to ensure
consistency amongpolicies. Pages ill-A-7 through ill-A-13 .1 '..
. I
The succ~s of ~e Jas~er-Natron mixed-use nodal development las we~ as the rema~g
vacant resIdential land m Thurston are dependent upon a safe and efficIent transportation
system compris.ed of all modes of transportation. Even adding thJ presence of an expanded
Enu: transit system and additional employment opportunities at !Jasper-Natron, new trips
from within Springfield as well as those originating outside the p,an area will rely on these
. two interchanges for access and through movement. Operating at a level. of service in
excess of the maximum standard established by ODOT is incottsistent with these Metro
Plan policies; modernization to accommodate trips at a level of service of .80 vIe or less
promotes .the implementation of these Metro Plan policies.
. Date Received
Ai"'t< 1 5 2009
Planner: BJ
ATTAr.HMFNT , -1'
.
I
,
I
,
i
!
I
Economic Element :
I
B.6 Increase the am01:lnt of undeveloped land zoned for light industrial and commercial
uses correlating the effecttve supply in terms of suitability land availability with the
projections of demand.
I
.
B.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access
,-
to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Sprinifield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Mast~r Plan.
!
i
B.22 Reviewloeal ordinances and revise them to promore greater flex.ibilityfor
promoting appropriate commercial development in residential ifeighborhoods.
,
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 fc1r their primary uses; (b)
assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased traffic congestion.
Pages ill-B-4 through ill-B-6 - ,
,
The Jasper-Natron development area is slated for nodal devel6pment overlay district
designation in at least two locations and possibly a third. This designatipn is intended to
promote walkable communities within which a variety of housin~ 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 upo:n the OR 126 @ Main
interchange and to a lesser degree, on the -OR 126 @ 52Dd int~rchange. If these two
facilities are operating at unacceptable levels of service, the develo'pment of J asper-Natron
will certainly be delayed thereby fufluencing land supply needlessly to the detriment of
Springfield's citizens. '
Transportation Element
F.I Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land he pattern.
I
F.3 Provide for transit-oriented development along major trbnsit corridors and near
tr~it stations; medium- and high-density residential develJpment within Y. mile of
transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and
ATTAr.~U~~T ? -_1q
Date Received
AI'H 15 2009
Planner: BJ
.
development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
existing or planned transit.
F.9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20+Year Capital Investment
'Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing ar,d estimated costs are not
adopted as policy. !
I
i
F.IO Protect .and manage existing and future transportation infi1astructure.
!
F.13 Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborho;od livability.
I
,
F.14 Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, : transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, ~d the needs of emergency vehiCles when pl'pnning and constructing
roadway system improvements. '
F.15 Motor vehicle level of service policy:
,
i
a. Use motor vehicle level of service standards toimaintain acceptable and
, reliable performance on the roadway system. ' these standards shall be
usedfor: :
(J)Identifying capacity deficiencies on the ro~dway system.
(2)Evaluating the impacts on roadwa:ys of amendments to
transportation plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-
use regulations,pwsuantto theTPR (OAR 6~O"012-0060)
(3)Evaluating development applications for Consistency with the land-
use regulations of the applicable local gover1171ent jurisdiction:
,
I
b. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of
service 'under peak how traffic conditions: ~OS E within Eugene's
Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) area, ,and LOS D elsewhere.
,c. Performance standards from the om shall be hpplied on state facifities
, in the Eugene"Springfield metropolitan area. I '
F.16 Promote or develop a regional roadway system that ~eets cdmbined needs for travel
through. within, and outside the region. . I .
, I
, F.29 Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods /rlovement in the Eugene-
Springfield region. , i
F.35 Set priorities for investment' of ODOT and federal re~enues prokramm~ in the region's
Transportation ImprQvement Program (TIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on
the region's transportation system. Pages ill-F-4 through III-F-13
The two projects are critical to the transportation system that supports all land uses in East
Springfield and all freight and passenger trips which originate !roni outside the Metro Plan
'[: Date Received
Al'K 1 5 2009
I
ATTA~~M~~T ? ~1A
Planner: BJ
.
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 fondition wi,ll delay, and
may prevent the development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use nod~, a land use pattern that
supports a variety of housing by type, density and. price r.angej neighborhood 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,P-olicy #1: Nodal Development
.
Apply the nodaZ development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that hal!e
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land ilse pattern.
I
.
I
i
i
I
Land Use Policy #2: Support for Nodal De\!elopment
i
Support application of the nodal de\!elopment strategy in designated areas through
information, technical incentil!es. :
i
. I.
TSI System-Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection c!ndManagement
I
.
Protect and manage existing ane? fUture transportation infrastru~ture.
. ' I
.
I
TSI System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability .
I
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood l~ability.
, 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 estimared costs are not adopted
as policy. I
TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safetyfor all Modes
I
Address the~obility and safety needs of motorists, transit usefs, bicyclists, pedestrians,
and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system
improvements. i
Date Received
MK 1 !) 2009
ATTACHMFNT ? - 1"
Planner: BJ
.
.'
TSI Roadway 'Policy #2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS)
1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintai~ acceptable and reliOhle
perjormanc,e on the roadway sYstem. These standards shall be Fedfor:
a. IdentifYing capacity deficiencies on the roadway syst~m.
b, Evaluating the impacts on the roadways of amerl4ments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans tind land-use regulations, pursuant tb
. I
the TPR (OAR) 660-012-0060)
,
c. Evaluating development applications for consis{ency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
,
"
j
i. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by ihe 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.
,
;
3. Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan ~hall be applied on state
facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. I'
Finance Policy #3: Prioritization of State and Federal Revenue i
Set priorities for investment of Oregon Department of Trabortation (ODOT) and
federal revenues programmed in the region 's Transportatio~ Improvement Program
(I'IP) to address safety and major capacity problems on tile region's transportation
system. " 2 )'ages 10-12, Chapter 2 ! .
I
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Springfield
Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135. State law does nbt require state-mandated
I
regional or local transportation plans to distinguish projects based on financial constraint; this is
strictly a federal requirement forMPOs when adopting, updating or $lending federal regional
transportation plans. TfaflsPlan has served as both the federal RTP aiJd the state transportation
system plan since at least 1986. In 2001 the MFO adopted TransPlan Js the RTP and the elected
officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County adopted TransPlan ~ a functioIial 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 F~cia1 constraint is a requirement of the federal RTP and is defined as: "Financiaily ~onstrained or Fiscal
coilslnIint means that the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and 8m illcludes s~cient financial information
for demonstrating that projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and 8m 4an 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." (~t.loDattl,qeCeived
At't< 1 5 2009
ATTA~I-lMI=NT ? _ 11:
Planner: BJ
.
.
triennial updates of the R TP. It is only as a result of this de:fr:rral circumstance, not Oregon
Administrative Rwe, 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.
ATTA~~U~~T ? _17
Date Received
A"'~ 1 5 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
BEFORE TIrE PLANNING CO:MMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRlNGFIELD
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF TIIE
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN AND TRANSPLAN,
ADDING PROJECT #27 AND #30 TO TABLE la
FINANCIALLY CONSTRAlNED-20-YEAR
CAPITAL INVESTEMENT ACTIONS AND TO ]
MAP FINANCIALLY-CONSTRAINED ROADWAY]
PROJECTS IN APPENDIX A; AND REMOVING ]
TIIESE SAME PROJECTS FROM TABLE 1 bAND]
MAP FUTURE ROADWAY PROJECTS FROM ]
APPENDIX A
FileLRP 2008-00013
RECOMMENDATION
TO TIIE SPRINGFIELD
crTY COUNCIL
NATURE OF TIIE APPLICA nON
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 cifJected 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 (1)) Adopt amendments to the relevant
regional or 10c(I1 transportation system plans consistent with one another and compliant with applicable
provisions of this division."
The commitment to achieve this required consistencywas affirmed, respectively, on September l~, 2008 by
thejoint elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County; and on October 16, 2008 by the Land
Conservation and Deveiopment Commission wben both groups approved the TransPian update work
program which specifically identifies these projects for inclusion on the financially constrained list in
TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
1. The application was initialed 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 bearing 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 imo 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.
Date Received
API{ 1 5 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
"
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 findings 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 - Oreg~n 126 at 52"" Street onto Table la the Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment
Actions list and onto the financially Constrained Roadway Proj ects Map found in Appendix A; and remove
these same two projects from Table I b the Future Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects and from
the Fu e R cts Map found in Appendix A.
P
. ATTEST:
AYES: '7
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAlN: 0
Date Received
At'H15 2009
Planner: BJ