Resolution No. 4780 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~'We have some question whether [the state's administrative rules] require adoption of the plan described in OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c), since respondents apparently have an approved alternative VMT reduction standard. * * * "Respondents do not respond to this subassignment of error in their brief. * * * Petitioners' approach in this sub assignment of error is to fault respondents for not addressing unnamed TransPlan policies that petitioners contend must nevertheless exist * * * . ~~* * * [W]ithout some assistance from respondents, we cannot say this sub assignment of error is lacking in merit." Response and Explanation of Findings: The local governments' findings do not include analysis of the Modified Project's consistency with TransPlan policies that implement OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c)(D) because State law did not require that TransPlan contain such policies prior to the local government actions approving the modified alignment of the West Eugene Parkway-and such policies, therefore, did not exist in TransPlan at that time. As stated in the rules quoted above, there appear to be two circumstantial categories in which an area must adopt policies that implement OAR 660-0 12-0035(5)(c)(A)-(E): 1) if the MPO has not adopted a regional transportation system plan that meets the VMT reduction standard in 0035(4) and the metropolitan area does not have an approved alternative standard established pursuant to 0035(5) [OAR 660-012-055(1)(a)]; or 2) if the MPO has adopted an alternative VMT standard that is "expected to result in an increase in VMT per capita." [OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c)]. Although it is not necessary to resolve this issue to address the remand, it would appear neither of the above circumstances exists for the TransP1an jurisdictions. TransPlan is a regional transportation system plan that includes an approved alternative VMT standard established pUrsuant to OAR 660-0012-055(1)(a). Therefore, under this interpretation TransP1an is not required to include the 0035(5)(c)(A)-(E) policies under the first category. Even if required, OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c) would seem to eliminate the need for such policies. . Another interpretation would require TransPlan to include such policies under the first category. Further, for the reasons discussed below, TransPlan's alternative VMT standard is not expected to result . in an increase in VMT per capita. Therefore, it is not required to include the 0035(5)(c)(A)-(E) policies under the second category, either. Even if the provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) require an "integrated land use and transportation plan", the local governments were not required to make findings on the nonexistent TransPlan policies and the LCDC actions on TransPlan did not require inclusion of those policies prior to the local government actions remanded by LUBA. Attachment A to Resolution No. 4786 - 2