Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 4/6/2009 s2 . DLCD Notice of Adoption THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED TO DLCD WITIllN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660 - DIVISION 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 DLCD? YesDate: 10/15/2008 [2] Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment [2] Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment D Land Use Regulation Amendment D Zoning Map Amendment D New Land Use Regulation D 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 fmancially 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: N/A Location: OR125@52nd; OR126@Main Street Specify Density: Previous: N/a 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 to: financially constrained to: N/A Acres Involved: 0 New: N/A Was an Exception Adopted? DYES [2] NO . Did DLCD ~eceive a Notice ~f Propo~ed AmendmenOate Received 45-days prior to first eVidentiary hearing? . If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? ArK 6 2009 If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immedi~j1d<?Etion? BJ . t'lanner: [2] Yes DYes DYes DNo DNo DNo - . . l, 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 Addwss: 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 Ibis form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 workinl!: days after the final decision per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18. 1. Send this Form and TWO Comnlete Copies (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 I 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 [mdings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption 1lVithin five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed Within TWENTY-ONE (21) days 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-l/2xll l!:reen nanero'nlv:;Y 01 ;F9~Y also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa@statllF'Vrllkn~.eo& PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIAI;IST." . UGllO n~'Yau ., t ;~,.;~.~ r'; ~':'r~ ~:.. API{ 6 2009 '.. Pllanner: 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 Ib 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 la 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 financiaUy constrained roadway projects and future roadway projects; and WHEREAS, the federal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 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;tt 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 RTP 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 Ill, 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 !ransPlan F.?~e.;Af~tr.?/';la~~g:ileL~ 2008-0~013) consistent with the status of those same projects m the fedeial RTP, to tlie Sprmgfield City CouncIl; and .dill"..; I,. ,..- 0 . . ,Ordinance .No. ! 6 24~ ~':1!~}!>e J;:ogcne-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and TransPlan to delete Project #~t~!!~g!l'~ed Project #30 ORI261~~i.. s~.M'l! th~ F,u~.Roadway Project LISt and Map and add Project #27 ORI261Main Stn:cl and ProjA:PQO OIl.l26l5i1.'"9Stn:cl to the FmanClaJIY,Constramcd :ZO;Ycar ClIpllallilvestmcot Actions Roadway Projccll; List and Map; and Adopting a Severability C~. II WU . Page I of2 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 of Springtit;ld does ordain as follows: Section 1. The "Transportation Element" (Chapter Ill, Section F) of the 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 Roadway 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 OR126/Main Street and Project #30 OR126/52nd Street from Table lb 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 Caoital 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 alllY 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 reniaining portions hereof. Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 6th day of April 2009 by a vote of ~ in favor 0 against. CQuncil~~e~den~. . Approved by theMftyeF-ot tne Llty ot Spnngtield this ~ day of April ,2009. ~ Council President I E; -, ~ -t.' . is (f ex: ftl~' o. .-J,: 0.. :-." o:! II.. . . ClS "","I (';', d:":. I. 10 a:-f.I~;;' WO" t'I;;, ~!'!'''I:'' wC~i ,:2; aJ "". 6 """ u.:...... I' g~ l.., f)~~ ATTEST: 1 ....'1" '. ~ f ,":.'\' '1';' "'1;":"_ i~ "', '.";"'~:, : t '. (h.!..:,.;'! ...... , Ordinance No. 6240 IlIIlClIding the Eugene-Springfield Mc1rtWOlilDn Area General Plan ad T;S~1i> "Rt.!ltM&n Street and . p,.oj~ #30pRI26152~ Street from the Future Roadway Project List and Map,and odd Project #27 OR , 'lfttft~.ifct 6l'GllII26152" Street to the FmanCl8lly Constnlincd 20- Year Cap.taIlnvcstment Actions Roedway Projects List and Map; and op' g. Severability Clause. ~ JtrW^- . . City Recorder U Date Received APH 6 l009 .~ ,~ "\:'C~f~,',;t~;~ . Page 2 of2 \. . . \ I Staff report and fmdings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Goals, Oregon Revised Statut~s and Oregon Administrative Rules to Adopt Text and Map Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) to move the OR126j52nd Street IJtersection and the OR126jMain. 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 projeci: lists found in , TransPlan. r , i , , Springfield File: LRP 2008-00013 Amend TransPlan to move the Of-126152nd Street Intersection and the ORI26IMain Street Intersection projects to the financially constraimid list in TramPlan (projects 30 and 27 deleted from Table I b and added to Table I a; remove the same two projects from the Future Roadway Projects Map imd place them on the Financially Constrained Roadway Map, both of which are found in Appendix A of TransPlan). . I I I Applicant City of Springfield Nature of the Application The proposed amendment would concurrently amend TransPlan and the Meh:o Plan to: I) Remove the ORI26IMain and ORI26/52nd Street intersection projectsifrom TransPlan Chapter 3: Table Ib entitled "Future (Beyond 20-Years) Capital Investment Actions: RI oadway Projects", and from the corresponding Future Roadway Projects Map (Appendix A); and, 2) Add the OR126IMaln and OR126/52nd Street intersection projects to TramPlan Chapter 3: Table la entitled "Financially Constrained 20- Y ear 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 TramP/an] consistent with their status on the fmancially constrained project It in the federal Regional 1 The requirement for financial 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 TrqmPlan do differentiate between future (unfunded) and constrained (funded) because TramPlan formerly do~bled as both the federal RTP and 1):1e state tr!llli'portation system plan. In. 200 I the MPO adopted the RTP separate)y from TramP/an thereby ..removing the neeMor.federal standards remaining in TramPlan. Eugene, Springfield and Lane County did not undertike the amendment process to "de-federalize" TransP/an because .the addition lof Coburg within the MPO in. ] , Date ReceIved APR 6 2009 ::,2i J\:..i.,:",~' '.' ~..'\'.,., :~~:~~/.. ~~ "',..' '-;.' r " , . " . 'I, ~ '" ',r".,!-" - . " I< . ,I. ATTAI"L.II1J:MT " _ 1 PIRnner: BJ . . Transportation Plan (RTP Map: Exhibit G) and in compliance with OlA..R 660-012-0016(2) (a-b): "When an MPO adopts or amends a regional transportation plan that reUztes to compliance with this division, the affected local governments shall review the adopted plan or iunendmenl and either: (a) Make a finding that the proposed regional transportation plan amendment lor update is consistent ivith 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~ther and compliant with applicable provisions of this division. " ! Background The ORI26/52nd 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 movem~nts 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 lmd 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. . : Specific planning for these two projects has been underway since 2001 as p~ of the OR 126 Expressway Management Plan (EMP). Two elements of this EMP are attached to this report as a demonstration ofthe 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 ODerations (Exhibits B and C). Both of these documents identify current safety and operational issues at both interchanges and forecast worsening conditions as the surrounding vacant land within Springfi6ld's urban growth boundary develops at permitted, planned densities. The Jasper-Natron mixed u~e nodes are identified as development that is "expected to increase traffic at the intersection and surro/unding area" in spite of the reduced vehicle trips associated with nodal development i I ' The draft Problem Statement projects a volume over capacity ratio (~Jc) exceeding' 1.0 at both intersections by 2025 if no action is undertaken. The Oregon Highway Plan sets a vlc of .80 for its facilities and this performance standard has already been exceeded at 0r126lMain intersection; therefore capacity improvements will be required for both of these facilities in oider to operate within state standards. 'I In November, 2007 the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an uHdate to the federal RTP (See Exhibit F). Among other changes, this update moved the ORI26/52nd Street Interchange Project and the OR126/Main Street Interchange Project from the Dlustrative Project List (beyond 20-years) to the Financially Constrained 20- Y ear Capital Investment Actions List. These we+ not the only changes made to the RTP; the planning horizon was adjusted out to the year 2031; sevrral 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 consistent with the RTP. . I . 2004 meant a much more substantial update of TransP/an would be required. The up1dati> of TransP~ ~~ieg~>>ll..a in anticipation ofllie much larger work tasks necessary to achieve consistency with the 2eare~'Vt:U Exhibit E). . , ,'" "', ,. APt< 6 Z009 . J ~. .j . .- ::'1\ Planner: BJ .-I'f; .....':1 ."f .-. I. ~ t.' ~ t " . ,'. ATTA~~utUT ? _ ? . I . The cities of Eugene and Springfield and Larie 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 shaU be initiated no later thab 30 days from the adoption of the RTP amendment or update and shaU be adopted no later than one y~ar from the adoption of the RTP amendment or update or accordinl! to a work 11lan a1111roved bv the commission." The cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County submitted this required work plan to 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 from! 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 that; 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. ' 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 I I The Metro Plan Amendment is a "Type II" amendment as defined m the Springfield ! Development Code at SDC 5.14-115, because it: 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 proVided in SDC 5.14-115(0) because the subject site is east ofI-5 and entirely within the city limits br Springfield. I 1 The proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not have a regional impacl as defined in SDC 5.14- 1 115(F) because the amendment: " I , I I a)' does not involve a change to a plan designation or a site location, ' t-;,b)/'does-n"dt significantly expand or decrease the residential, dommercial or industrial . ,. d 1.' . . ' . groWth potential within the City beyond that which is alre~dy planned for in Metro - ~ '. r'Rlan.:and,Tr;ansPlan, 0 R 'F,'"~;": ::i",'" ate eceived , {....'\ ~ r:'~ . '..10 ""~.' '~''\'. ....;. r'~' .'" . 'J"~' '-~", ....:,..., .... j '. l '"' , .... ~ '. . . APR 6 2009 Planner: BJ ATTA~~U~MT ry _ ~ . . 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 5.14-135 of the Springfield Development Code requires that, in reaching a decision on proposed Metro Plan amendments, the planning commission and city council shall adopt [mdings 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 amendInents. On October 15, 2008 notice of this proposed amendment was sent to t.!:le 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 iI1 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 (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 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 Januliry 19, 2009. Date Received r........#'\1 (~r'l";"~'ojo,r'~ .~':,.4.t'": f...., r :;~i_.~Z';~J~~~: ">J:.,:,,',, At'\{ 6 2009 ~iJ!j' r' ! ,', Planner: BJ i ~"'; , , , . --.. .,...... '" ..1.,,..... ....~,~ ';"'.' '-. l~ :.: .' ..-:~'; ': . ATTAr.~U~NT ? - A e e: 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 Jnvestmeni Actions List to the Fmancially 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 mSTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES Goal 5 requires local gove=ents 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: Date Received. A~\{' 6 2009 . t . . , ~ ~f:"\ti \--"l,:'~~ \ I!'"'.J ":or' L , .... . .... ., , _. t,'''' ~'\;ih"~"f ~ I._,,,j: ~l ~ r1p:;\ d Planner: BJ I C'":' \?~ ~ '., lj/- ~'f~J4"\'" " .. ':"',_4- C'\ 'I;~, ;:. . ,~(Y , . ATTACHMFNT ? - ~ . . (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 tci 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. Furt.her, 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 Metra Plan and TransPlan. The level and significance cif environmental impacts resulting fromthe physical improvements at the 52nd Street/OR 126 intersection and Main Street/OR126 intersection ~ll 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/c 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 ,outsiQe mllPp~d flood hazards zones (Zone A 100-year flood hazard). The level and ri.,., ',' . 1. l. significance of. environmental impacts resulting from the physical improvements at the 52nd Street(?!0 126 4Itersection and Main Street/OR126 intersection will be assDate fteeeiVe ;.)J ., ;':.. ~',: .....::.., . 'planAPlin6e2r7 II ATTA~~U~~T ? _ ~ ;. ~ . .' with NEPA 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 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 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 OR126JM:ain Street projects are identified on the TransPlan Capitallnvestment 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 de~ity ,as ~ell as commercial and office shopping and employment opportunities. The ; ;FN~(~::;~~s,.~~~::,:~.~~~..and OR126fMain Street intersection projects are identifiDedaOntetheRTreaCns~~ed , " \.1. fj ~~:~ (',.,,'.,-j n.....'.t. b l..~ C"\ 1"'" '1''''! ~~ f. \.\ . i ~ ~ .~:'. r. J+.' " J : APR 6 2009 ATTAr.HM~MT ? - 7 Planner: BJ . . I 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 transportation system." Goal Ii 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 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 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 cons.ervation 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 jl{e identified as . m;.pleme~tation ac~ons on the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project IIiIame R~ve l,"~',~\\.n.r}:t"-'~Cl;' ~ . ..''''1.,: ,; .. I . .",~r. "..' A/"K Ii 2009 .iJlj: \,1 , .' f. ..."',~' , ,.. -~ : ": (; ;:~'; .~~..c : \t ~ Planner: 8 ATTAr.~M~NT ? _ R . . projects will be designed to comply .with all applicable regulations. federal,: state, and local energy 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. Adop\ing the proposed text and map amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the urbanization policies of the Metro Plan. These proj ects are identified implementation action$, 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 industriallirowth potential within the City beyond that which is already planned for in the Metro Plan and T~ansPlan. I GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY j This goal is inapplicable because the subject sites are more than a niill from the nearest segment of the Willamette River Greenway boundary. . i . I , i GOAL 14-URBA}UZATION GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS These goals do not apply to the City of Springfield. METRO PLAN CONSISTENCY ! The proposed amendment is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies a.'1d objectives for the same reasons that it is consistent with the corresponding goa.js that those policies and objectives are designed to implement. Both the OR 126/52nd Street: and OR 126/Main Street , interchange projects are identified as implementation actions OIl the TransPlan Capital Investment Actions Project Lists. Ibis proposed amendment will ~ove the two projects from the Future Investment Actions List to the Financially Constrained Dist in Transplan which is consistent with the status of these two projects in the federal RTP. nese 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. ! The MetroPlan is intended to designate a sufficient amount of urbaniJable land to accommodate .. . ,theoneedJot.further urban expansion, taking into account the gro~th ~licI of rife arer;: to . .. . I Uale MeCelVed IAI'R 6 2009 ATTAr.HM~NT , - Q Pianner: 8J : ......,. . . 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 n~eds designated within the UGB. P~e~l I I These projects will modernize an existing asset (OR 126) of irreplafeable significance; these projects are necessary for the future development of Thurston ';and Jasp4:r-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 hrea 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 participation in the planning I process. : 4. Proves the public with general guidelines for individual planni~g decisions. Reference to supplemental planning documents of a more localized scope, including neighborhood refinement plans, is advisable when applying the Metro Plan ~o specific parcels of land or individual tax lots. ; 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 pbriod 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, and water projects needed to serve a future UGB population of 286,000. 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: : .: Gr~{i;th~Mariag' e~e~t ,., , '...,,-, ~ ~ .1'1' Date Receive APR 6 Z009 1\ :-". .-....,..... Planner: BJ ATTAr.I.U.II::tJT ? _1n . .: 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. j , Residential Land Use and Housing i I I . I . 1. Provide viable residential communities so all residents can :choose sound, affordable 'housing that meets individual needs. ! . I I I Economic 1. Broaden, improve, and diversity the metropolitan enhancing the environment. , I econon1Y while maintaining or , Transportation i I 1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that ~upports choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliancr on the automobile and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life. i 2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's qualiiy of life and economic opportunity by providing a transportation system that is: i , ! Jf ..." I Balanced Accessible Efficient Safe Interconnected Environmentally responsible I Supportive of responsible and sustainable development Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts andl Economically viable andfinancially 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 iIIlportant facilities on the . I state's system in this region, and integral to Springfield's successf~1 economic and housing priorities are currently experiencing safety and operational difficulties. Future ,. development 'of planned residential and mixed-use centers withirl Springfield's UGB are i. .:::. project,ed .to, cr~ate periods of congestion well in excess of the state's standard for . operation. a. J.IeveJlofservice. Additionally, the effects ofthis circumhance, ifnql,.corrected, d' "'.' '. '. i Date Hecelve I I I 1;>' . l-,;-, ;' ~:: APK 6 2009 .:;~ Jo " :.1. 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 . I 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 I I I I , A.IO Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that u#lizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services an1 facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB. I A.II Generally locate higher density residential developrAent near employment or I commercial services, in proximity to major transportqtion systems or within transportation-efficient nodes. ; , Policies i A.I2 Coordinate higher density residential development withi the provision of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities. .' j A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly dev~loping areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulatipns. I A.35 Coordinate local residential land use and housing plan~ing with other elements of this plan, including public facilities and services, and otNer local plans, to ensure consistency among policies. Pages III-A~ 7 through III-A-13 : . I The succ~s of .the Jas~er-Natron mixed-use nodal development [as we~ as the remain~ng vacant resIdential land m Thurston are dependent upon a safe and effiCIent transportation system comprised of all modes of transportation. Even adding th~ presence of an expanded Emx transit system and additional employment opportunities at !Jasper-Natron, new trips from "ithin Springfield as well as those originating outside the plan 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 inconsistent with these Metro Plan policies; modernization to accommodate trips at a level of service of .80 vlc or less promotes the implementation of these Metro Plan policies. ,I : ,"-' (\f~i,:~:;+/~", ~ ~ c<"".;~ r...n, I( '" . ......'''- ~.' :....' 'I\.~: Date ReceN :AlP I\{ ,- {iitlll., III PlaM&r: ro", ~ \-~ -:'". ;.[".' .,~. ~ , '..~ 'j :Ii. ......t 4 " ...."'.. ..1,1. .. ATTAr.HMI=t.JT ? - 1? I .1 , ! , I , I Economic Element i I . B.6 Increase the amollnt 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.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities w1ich would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan. I i B.22 Review .local ordinances and revise' them to promote greater flexibility for I promoting appropriate commercial development in residential ileighborhoods. B.23 Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under procedures which clearly define the conditions under which su~h uses shall be permitted and which.' (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for their primary uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased traffic congestion. Pages IlI-B-4 through IlI-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 designati!ln 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 needlessly to the detriment of Springfield's citizens. ' Transportation Element Fl Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land be pattern. I F3 Provide for transit-oriented development along major trbnsit corridors and near tran$it stations; medium- and high-density residential devel6pment within 14 mile of transit statfons, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and f. '.~-\1;.';- ,-,;,' ....,... i Date Received ,\ '1 .. I' ....\ r ' i APR 6 '2009 ';I'J\ r 1''''.:1 ......, "",'/'.' ....... . ~ . ". Planner: BJ : ,.'--~:., ATTAr.I-I""~NT ?_ 1>:1 i" .., , . ""'- . . 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 a~d estimated costs are not adopted as policy. i ! , F. 10 Protect .and manage existing and future transportation infr,astructure. , 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, and the needs of emergency vehicles when pl~nning and constructing roadway system improvements. . F. 15 Motor vehicle level of service policy: , , I a. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to: maintain acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be usedfor: (l)Identifying capacity deficiencies on the ro~dway system. (2)Evaluating the impacts on roadwa)!s of amendments to transportation plans, acknowledged compr~hensive plans and land- use regulations, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 6~O-012-0060) (3)Evaluating development applications for Clonsistency with the land- use regulations of the applicable local gover1ment jurisdiction , , b. Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service 'under peak hour traffic conditions: ~OS E within Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) area, iand LOS D elsewhere. c. Performance standards from the OHP shall be hpplied on state facilities 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 . , F.29 Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods frlOvement in the Eugene- Springfield region i . I F.35 Set priorities for investment of ODOT and federal revenues programmed in the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on the region's transportation system. Pages Ill-F-4 through III-F-l3 ',,~ . ~. , lhe m;o .ptoj~'cts are critical to the transportation system that supports all land use~ E~' Springfield imd all freight and passenger trips which originate froni outsi~g~IV . . . I ..JIll' i . , . . _. "',' :.. ~ L '. I MK 6 Z009 i ATTAr.~I..II::idT ? _ 1A Planner: . I .1 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 ~ondition will delay, and may prevent the development of the Jasper-Natron mixed-use nodl\, a land use pattern that supports a variety of housing by type, density and. price range; 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 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 ihrough information, technical incentives. . , i TS1 System-Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection dnd Management I , Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastru(:ture. I , I TS1 System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability , 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 estimdted costs are not adopted l. I as po Icy. I TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes I Address the ~obility and safety needs of motorists, transit usefs, bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and cons'tructing roadway system d , . improvements. . . i Date ReceIve ! - :"... .~ \-~..... . 1""- ". -r-<:" - ..b/~",.:,r;";"::" :"";' . APi{ 6 2009 ,.f]lJ' Planner: BJ' [. ~: "',~ ;,,_ I .'.i ATTACHMFNT ? - 11; "f ..,., '", . .1 I TS! Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) I I 1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintai~ acceptable and reliable performanc.e on the roadway system. These standards shall be i,Jsedfor: a. Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway syst~m. b. Evaluating the impacts on the roadways of ame~dments to transportation plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-us~ regulations, pursuant to the TPR (OAR) 660-012-0060) . : , c. Evaluating development applications for consis~ency with the land-use regulations of the applicable local governmentjurisdictton. " j 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 ~hall be applied on state facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. i Finance Policy #3: Prioritization of State and Federal Revenue i I Set priorities for investment of Oregon Department of Trafrportation (ODOr; and federal revenues programmed in the region's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on the region's transportation system. ,,2 Pages 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 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 $nending federal regional transportation plans. TransPlan has served as both the federal RTP aitd the state transportation system plan since at least 1986. In 2001 the MPO adopted TransPlan Js the RTf' 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 defined as: "Financi~ly constrained or Fiscal :. :-:c9ps,tra!nt m.eans thaf the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, and STIP includes sufjicienl financial information , "for'delnonslratingjAal projects in the metropolitan transportation plan, TIP and STIP 4an be implemented using . co~tt~d, a~~~ble,. or reasOn.a?ly a~ailable revenue sources, with reas~nable assllI1ljlce that ttnlili~llDece1Ve supported transportatIon system IS bemg adequately operated and maintamed." (CFR 450.104)aldLtas, \ I . i A~t{ 6 2009 ~" ,~, -~li~), ,.J:-. .,.-' \' '..5 r .>:..q,I '1.r 'r '.'''' , .... r~ ~ '~'" S .1 ~ ", ..'_ ":lij ATTAr.IUAi=tJT ? _11': Planner: B~ . . triennial updates of the R TP. It is only as a result of this defurral circumstance, not Oregon Administrative Rule, which has led to the need to undertake this amendment to TramPlan. 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. '., '""'t ,'" ., . :;..J' . ~ . , ' -.. ,..-', ~, 'j llTTllNII..H=t.JT ? _ 1'7 Date Received APt< 6 ZOOg Planner: BJ . . 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 1 a ] FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED 20- YEAR ] CAPITAL INVESTEMENT ACTIONS AND TO ] MAP FINANCIALLY-CONSTRAINED ROADWAY] PROJECTS IN APPENDIX A; AND REMOVING ] THESE SAME PROJECTS FROM TABLE I b AND ] MAP FUTURE ROADWAY PROJECTS FROM ] APPENDIX A File LRP 2008-00013 RECOMMENDATION TO THE SPIUNGFIELD CITY COUNCIL NA TORE 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 MFO 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 of this division. " The commitment to achieve this required consistency was affirmed, respectively, on September IS, 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 financially constrained list in TransPlan and the Metro Plan. I. The application was initiated hy the Springfield City Council on October 6, 2008, 2. Notice of this proposed action was sent to the Departroent of Land Conservation and Development on Octoher IS, 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 heen provided. 4. On February 3, 2009 the Springfield Planning Commission held a puhlic hearing accepting testimony and evidence on these proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan (pil" 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 Departroent staff, together with the testimony and submittals entered into the record {" - , ofthisheiliing by staff from the Land Conservation and Development Department and the Oregon ! '.. ' . Departnient of Transportation have been considered and are part of the record of this proceed1)ate R - ~ ~ ! " , . . :. AP,I'(' , " ~ ~. ~;~~~. .:t~.1-. Pianner: . ~:J. ; , , . . CONCLUSION On the basis of all the evidence iocluded io 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. TIlls general fmdiog is supported by the specific findiogs off act and conclusions io the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION The Planniog Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt File LRP 2008-00013 amendiog the Metro Plan and TransPlan by placiog Project #27 - Oregon 126 at Maio Street and Project #30 - Oregon 126 at 52" Street onto Table la the Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions list and onto the financially Constrained Roadway Projects 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. PI ATTEST: AYES: IJ NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 " " Date Received "rrt 6 2009 Planner: BJ " . l"~ 1'''' . -.,....'. ~'" r /::.._~ " .~ ~.'I/"l +:r" ,.':0... l'\'i~.: . r, ("..... .~... {' '_" .. . . --