Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/17 City Council Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 6, 2017 5:30 p.m. */).4 05",)# (%!2).' /& %5'%.% #)49 #/5.#), !.$ ,!.% #/5.49 "/!2$ /& #/--)33)/.%23 ( ±±¨² ( ««Ǿ ΐΑΔ % ²³ ΗAvenue th %´¦¤­¤Ǿ /±¤¦®­ ΘΖΓΏΐ -¤¤³¨­¦ ®¥ - ±¢§ ΕǾ ΑΏΐΖǿ (¤± (®­®± - ¸®± ,´¢¸ 6¨­¨² 0±¤²¨£¨­¦ Councilors !« ­ :¤«¤­ª Ǿ 0±¤²¨£¤­³-¨ª¤ #« ±ªǾ 6¨¢¤ 0±¤²¨£¤­³ '¤®±¦¤ 0®«¨­¦ '±¤¦ %µ ­² %¬¨«¸ 3¤¬¯«¤#§±¨² 0±¸®± #« ¨±¤ 3¸±¤³³ "¤³³¸ 4 ¸«®± ΔȀΒΏ ¯ȁ¬ȁ */).4 05",)# (%!2).' /& %5'%.% #)49 #/5.#), !.$ ,!.% #/5.49 "/!2$ /& #/--)33)/.%23 ( ±±¨² ( ««Ǿ ΐΑΔ % ²³ ΗAvenue th A.05",)# (%!2).' !­ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ #®­¢¤±­¨­¦ ,®­¦ 2 ­¦¤ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­­¨­¦ǿ !£®¯³¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ ΑΏΒΔ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ǿ !¬¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ Eugene-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ !±¤  '¤­¤± « 0« ­ Ȩ-¤³±® 0« ­ȩǿ !¬¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ !±¤  4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­ Ȩ4± ­²0« ­ȩǿ !¬¤­£¨­¦ 3¤¢³¨®­² ΘȁΏΔΏǾ ΘȁΗΏΐΏǾ ΘȁΘΕΔΏ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐǿ !¬¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ 3³±¤¤³ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ - ¯ǿ !¬¤­£¨­¦ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ .®ȁ ΑΏΔΑΗ Ȩ³® $¤«¤³¤ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΕΖȩǿ 2¤¯¤ «¨­¦ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΘΔΑΔ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐǾ 2¤¯¤ «¨­¦ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ .®ȁ ΑΏΒΑΑ ȨΑΏΏΒ #¤­³± « !±¤  4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3³´£¸ȩǿ  ­£ 0±®µ¨£¨­¦ ¥®±  ­ %¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ $ ³¤. 4§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¶¤«¢®¬¤² ¸®´± ¨­³¤±¤²³ ¨­ ³§¤²¤  ¦¤­£  ¨³¤¬²ȁ 4§¨² ¬¤¤³¨­¦ «®¢ ³¨®­ ¨² ¶§¤¤«¢§ ¨±-  ¢¢¤²²¨¡«¤ȁ &®± ³§¤ §¤ ±¨­¦ ¨¬¯ ¨±¤£Ǿ  ­ ¨­³¤±¯±¤³¤± ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¶¨³§ ΓΗ §®´±²͒ ­®³¨¢¤ ¯±¨®± ³® ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨­¦ȁ Spanish-« ­¦´ ¦¤ ¨­³¤±¯±¤³ ³¨®­ ¶¨««  «²® ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¶¨³§ ΓΗ §®´±²͒ ­®³¨¢¤ȁ 4®  ±± ­¦¤ ¥®± ³§¤²¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤²Ǿ ¢®­³ ¢³ ³§¤ ±¤¢¤¯³¨®­¨²³  ³ ΔΓΐ-682-ΔΏΐΏȁ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¬¤¤³¨­¦²  ±¤ ³¤«¤¢ ²³ «¨µ¤ ®­ -¤³±® 4¤«¤µ¨²¨®­Ǿ #®¬¢ ²³ ¢§ ­­¤« ΑΐǾ  ­£ ±¤¡±® £¢ ²³ « ³¤± ¨­ ³§¤ ¶¤¤ªȁ %« ¢®­²¤©® £¤ «  #¨´£ £ £¤ %´¦¤­¤  ¦± £¤¢¤ ²´ ¨­³¤±Î² ¤­ ¤²³®²  ²´­³®² £¤ «   ¦¤­£ ȁ %« «´¦ ± £¤ «  ±¤´­¨ô­ ³¨¤­¤  ¢¢¤²® ¯ ±  ²¨«« ² £¤ ±´¤£ ²ȁ 3¤ ¯´¤£¤ ¯±®µ¤¤±   ´­ ¨­³Î±¯±¤³¤ ¯ ±  « ² ¯¤±²®­ ² ¢®­ £¨²¢ ¯ ¢¨£ £  ´£¨³¨µ  ²¨  µ¨²  ¢®­ ΓΗ §®± ² £¤  ­³¨¢¨¯ ¢¨ô­ȁ 4 ¬¡¨Î­ ²¤ ¯´¤£¤ ¯±®µ¤¤± ¨­³¤±¯±¤³ ¢¨ô­ ¯ ±  ¤²¯ ð®« ²¨  µ¨²  ¢®­ ΓΗ §®± ² £¤  ­³¨¢¨¯ ¢¨ô­ȁ 0 ±  ±¤²¤±µ ± ¤²³®² ²¤±µ¨¢¨®² «« ¬¤  « ΔΓΐ-682-ΔΏΐΏȁ , ² ±¤´­¨®­¤² £¤« ¢®­²¤©® £¤ «  ¢¨´£ £ ²¤ ³± ­²¬¨³¤­ ¤­ µ¨µ® ¯®± -¤³±® 4¤«¤µ¨²¨®­Ǿ # ­ « Αΐ £¤ #®¬¢ ²³ ¸ ²®­ ±¤³± ­²¬¨³¨£ ² £´± ­³¤ «  semana. &®± ¬®±¤ ¨­¥®±¬ ³¨®­Ǿ ¢®­³ ¢³ ³§¤ #®´­¢¨« #®®±£¨­ ³®±  ³ 541-682-5010, ®± µ¨²¨³ ´² ®­«¨­¤  ³ www.eugene-or.gov. AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY #¨³¸ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤  ­£ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ *®¨­³ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨­¦Ȁ !­ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ #®­¢¤±­¨­¦ ,®­¦ 2 ­¦¤ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­­¨­¦ǿ A£®¯³¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ ΑΏΒΔ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ǿ A¬¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ !±¤  '¤­¤± « 0« ­ Ȩ-¤³±® 0« ­ȩǿ A¬¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ !±¤  4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­ Ȩ4± ­²0« ­ȩǿ A¬¤­£¨­¦ 3¤¢³¨®­² ΘȁΏΔΏǾ ΘȁΗΏΐΏǾ ΘȁΘΕΔΏ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐǿ A¬¤­£¨­¦ ³§¤ 3³±¤¤³ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ - ¯ǿ A¬¤­£¨­¦ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ .®ȁ ΑΏΔΑΗ Ȩ³® D¤«¤³¤ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΕΖȩǿ R¤¯¤ «¨­¦ 3¤¢³¨®­ ΘȁΘΔΑΔ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐǾ R¤¯¤ «¨­¦ /±£¨­ ­¢¤ .®ȁ ΑΏΒΑΑ ȨΑΏΏΒ #¤­³± « !±¤  4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3³´£¸ȩǿ  ­£ P±®µ¨£¨­¦ ¥®±  ­ E¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ Date. -¤¤³¨­¦ $ ³¤Ȁ - ±¢§ ΕǾ ΑΏΐΖ )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨² ¨²   ©®¨­³ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«  ­£ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ "® ±£ ®¥ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­¤±² ±¤¦ ±£¨­¦ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ ΑΏΒΔ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ Ȩ ΕΓΖΘ TSP ȩ  ­£ ¢®±±¤²¯®­£¨­¦  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ³® ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ !±¤  -¤³±®¯®«¨³ ­ !±¤  '¤­¤± « 0« ­ (-¤³±® 0« ­ȩ  ­£ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­ Ȩ TransPlan ȩȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨« ¶¨«« ¡¤  «²® ¡¤ ¢®­²¨£¤±¨­¦ ¢®­¢´±±¤­³  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ³® ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤Ǿ  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ³® %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² 3³±¤¤³ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ - ¯Ǿ  ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ ³® /±£¨­ ­¢¤ .®ȁ ΑΏΔΑΗ  ­£ ±¤¯¤ « ®¥ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² #¤­³± « !±¤  4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3³´£¸ Ȩ#!43ȩȁ 4§¤²¤  ££¨³¨®­ «  ¢³¨®­²  ±¤ ­®³ ¡¤¨­¦ ¢®­²¨£¤±¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ "® ±£ ®¥ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­¤±²ȁ BACKGROUND 5­³¨« ­®¶Ǿ TransPlan Ǿ  £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ %´¦¤­¤Ǿ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£  ­£ , ­¤ #®´­³¸  ²   ¥´­¢³¨®­ « ¯« ­ ³® ³§¤ -¤³±® 0« ­Ǿ § ² ²¤±µ¤£  ² %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ±¤¦¨®­ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¯« ­Ǿ «®¢ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¯« ­Ǿ  ­£ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­  ­£ ¡¨¢¸¢«¤ ¬ ²³¤± ¯« ­ȁ 7§¨«¤ TransPlan ¶¨«« ¢®­³¨­´¤ ³® ²¤±µ¤  ² ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ±¤¦¨®­ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¯« ­Ǿ ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430¶¨«« ²¤±µ¤  ² %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² «®¢ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¯« ­ȁ ,¨ª¤ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£Ȍ² «®¢ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¯« ­ Ȩ¢®- £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ ¨­ ΑΏΐΓȩǾ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¥®± ¢®- £®¯³¨®­ ¡¸ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ ¥®±  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ ´±¡ ­ ³± ­²¨³¨®­  ±¤  «®¢ ³¤£ ®´³²¨£¤ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ «¨¬¨³²Ǿ ¡´³ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ ´±¡ ­ ¦±®¶³§ ¡®´­£ ±¸  ±¤ ȁ &®± %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¯« ­­¨­¦  ±¤ Ǿ ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ´¯£ ³¤²  ­£ ±¤¯« ¢¤² TransPlan Ȍ² ȨΑΏΏΑȩ ¦® «²Ǿ ¯®«¨¢¨¤²Ǿ  ­£ «¨²³ ®¥ ¯±®©¤¢³² ³§ ³ £¤²¢±¨¡¤ §®¶ «®¢ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ­¤³¶®±ª² ²§®´«£ ¢§ ­¦¤ ³®  ¢¢®¬¬®£ ³¤ ¦±®¶³§Ǿ ¨¬¯±®µ¤ «¨µ ¡¨«¨³¸Ǿ  ­£ ²´¯¯®±³ ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ µ¨³ «¨³¸ ¶¨³§¨­ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ ´±¡ ­  ­£  ¨±¯®±³  ±¤ ²ȁ 4§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ¨² ¢®®±£¨­ ³¤£  ­£ ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ !¨±¯®±³ - ²³¤± 0« ­Ǿ , ­¤ 4± ­²¨³ $¨²³±¨¢³Ȍ² ,®­¦ 2 ­¦¤ 4± ­²¨³ 0« ­Ǿ ³§¤ 2¤¦¨®­ « 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ /¯³¨®­² 0« ­Ǿ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£Ȍ² 430Ǿ , ­¤ #®´­³¸Ȍ² 430 ´¯£ ³¤Ǿ ³§¤ /±¤¦®­ (¨¦§¶ ¸ 0« ­Ǿ ³§¤ #¤­³± « , ­¤ -0/ 2¤¦¨®­ « 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­,  ­£ ®³§¤± ¯« ­²ȁ #¨³¸  ­£ #®´­³¸ ²³ ¥¥ ¢®®±£¨­ ³¤£ ¢«®²¤«¸ ³§±®´¦§®´³ ³§¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¯±®¢¤²²Ǿ ¶¨³§ #®´­³¸ ²³ ¥¥  ¢³¨­¦  ²   ¬¤¬¡¤± ®¥ ³§¤ ¨­³¤±­ « ²³ ¥¥ ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³¤ ¬  ­£ ¯ ±³¨¢¨¯ ³¨­¦ ¨­  «« ®¯¤­ §®´²¤²  ­£ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¬¤¤³¨­¦²ȁ ! 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ 2¤²®´±¢¤ '±®´¯ Ȩ4#2'ȩ ¶ ² ¢±¤ ³¤£ ³® ¨­µ¨³¤ ¯ ±³¨¢¨¯ ³¨®­ ¥±®¬ ¬ ­¸ ®¥ ³§¤ ®±¨¦¨­ « ¬¤¬¡¤±² ®¥ ³§¤ %­µ¨²¨®­ %´¦¤­¤ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ 2¤²®´±¢¤ '±®´¯Ǿ ³§¤ 0¤£¤²³±¨ ­  ­£ "¨¢¸¢«¤ - ²³¤± 0« ­ ¯±®©¤¢³  £µ¨²®±¸ ¢®¬¬¨³³¤¤Ǿ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ² ²³ ­£¨­¦ !¢³¨µ¤ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ Ȩ!4#ȩǾ   ¬´«³¨- ¦¤­¢¸ 4¤¢§­¨¢ « !£µ¨²®±¸ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤Ǿ  ­£ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢  ³-« ±¦¤ȁ 4§¤ 4#2' ²¯¤­³ ¸¤ ±² ²³´£¸¨­¦  ­£ ¯±®µ¨£¨­¦  £µ¨¢¤ ³® ²³ ¥¥ ®­ « ­£ ´²¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦Ǿ ¡¨¢¸¢«¤  ­£ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ­ ¯« ­­¨­¦Ǿ ³± ­²¨³ ¯« ­­¨­¦Ǿ £¤¬ ­£ ¬ ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ ³¤¢§­¨°´¤²Ǿ ²³±¤¤³ £¤²¨¦­Ǿ ³± ¥¥¨¢ ¢®­¦¤²³¨®­Ǿ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡¨«¨³¸Ǿ ¤¥¥®±³² ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ¦±¤¤­§®´²¤ ¦ ² ¤¬¨²²¨®­²Ǿ  ­£ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¥´­£¨­¦ȁ 4§¤ 4#2' ¶ ² ¨­²³±´¬¤­³ « ¨­ ¢±¤ ³¨­¦ ³§¤ ¦® «²Ǿ ¯®«¨¢¨¤²Ǿ ¯®³¤­³¨ «  ¢³¨®­ ¨³¤¬²Ǿ  ­£ ¯±®©¤¢³ «¨²³² ¥®± ³§¤ £± ¥³ 430ȁ 4§¤ %´¦¤­¤  ­£ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­² §¤«£   ©®¨­³ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ ®­ *´­¤ ΑΐǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ ¶§¤±¤ ³§¤¸ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ¡®³§ ²¯®ª¤­  ­£ ¶±¨³³¤­ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¢®¬¬¤­³ȁ !³ ³§¤ ¢«®²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­² µ®³¤£ ³® §®«£ ³§¤ ±¤¢®±£ ®¯¤­ ´­³¨« *´«¸ ΗǾ ΑΏΐΕȁ 4§¤ %´¦¤­¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ £¤«¨¡¤± ³¤£ ®­ *´«¸ ΐΗ  ­£ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± Δȁ /­ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΐΑ, ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ §¤«£ ¥¨­ « £¤«¨¡¤± ³¨®­²  ­£ µ®³¤£ Ε-ΐ ³® ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«  £®¯³   ±¤µ¨²¤£ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ȁ 4§¤ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ £¤«¨¡¤± ³¤£ ®­ *´«¸ ΐΘȁ /­ * ­´ ±¸ ΒǾ ΑΏΐΖǾ ³§¤ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ §¤«£ ¥¨­ « £¤«¨¡¤± ³¨®­²  ­£ µ®³¤£ ´­ ­¨¬®´²«¸ ³® ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ "® ±£ ®¥ #®´­³¸ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­¤±²  £®¯³ ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ¶¨³§ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­Ȍ² ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ ±¤µ¨²¨®­ ¯«´² ³¶®  ££¨³¨®­ « ±¤µ¨²¨®­²ȁ 4§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ³§ ³ ¨² ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ®¥ ³§¤ - ±¢§ Ε ©®¨­³ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ ¨­¢®±¯®± ³¤²  «« ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤µ¨²¨®­² ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤  ­£ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­²ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 4§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ¨² ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² «®­¦-± ­¦¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ £®¢´¬¤­³ ³§ ³ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤²   ²¸²³¤¬ ®¥ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­  ­£ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ³§ ³ ¶¨«« ¬¤¤³ ³§¤ ¨£¤­³¨¥¨¤£ ­¤¤£² ®¥ ³§¤ c¨³¸ ®µ¤± ³§¤ ­¤·³ ΑΏ ¸¤ ±²ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ § ²  £®¯³¤£   ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ¯« ­²Ǿ ¬ ­´ «²Ǿ  ­£  £¬¨­¨²³± ³¨µ¤ ±´«¤² ³§ ³ ±¤« ³¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ®¥ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤² ³® ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ȁ 4§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ¢´±±¤­³ transportation-±¤« ³¤£ ¯« ­²Ǿ ¬ ­´ «²Ǿ  ­£  £¬¨­¨²³± ³¨µ¤ ±´«¤²Ǿ ¨­¢«´£¤ Ȩ¡´³  ±¤ ­®³ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³®ȩȀ 3³±¤¤³ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ - ¯ǿ 3³±¤¤³ 2¨¦§³-of-7 ¸ - ¯ǿ $¤²¨¦­ 3³ ­£ ±£²  ­£ '´¨£¤«¨­¤² ¥®± %´¦¤­¤ 3³±¤¤³²Ǿ 3¨£¤¶ «ª²Ǿ "¨ª¤¶ ¸² lj !¢¢¤²²¶ ¸²ǿ 0´¡«¨¢ )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³ $¤²¨¦­ 3³ ­£ ±£² - ­´ «ǿ 5³¨«¨³¸  ­£ 2¨¦§³-of-7 ¸ 0¤±¬¨³²Ǿ #®­²³±´¢³¨®­ 7¨³§¨­  ­£ 5²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ 7 ¸Ǿ 0®«¨¢¨¤²  ­£ 0±®¢¤£´±¤² - ­´ «ǿ ΑΏΐΏ !¨±¯®±³ - ²³¤± 0« ­ǿ 3³ ­£ ±£² ¥®± 4± ¥¥¨¢ )¬¯ ¢³ !­ «¸²¨² 2¤µ¨¤¶ǿ  ­£ 3³ ­£ ±£² ¥®± 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ $¤¬ ­£ - ­ ¦¤¬¤­³ 0±®¦± ¬ȁ 4§¤±¤  ±¤ ®³§¤± #¨³¸- £®¯³¤£ ¯« ­²  ­£ ¯®«¨¢¨¤² ³§ ³Ǿ ¶§¨«¤ ­®³ ²®«¤«¸ ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­ ®¥ transpor³ ³¨®­ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤² ³® ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢Ǿ ­¤µ¤±³§¤«¤²² ¯« ¸  ­ ¨¬¯®±³ ­³ ±®«¤ ¨­ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² «®­¦-± ­¦¤ ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¯« ­­¨­¦ȁ 3®¬¤ ®¥ ³§®²¤ ®³§¤± ¯« ­²  ­£ ¯®«¨¢¨¤²Ǿ ²´¢§  ² ³§¤ #«¨¬ ³¤ 2¤¢®µ¤±¸ /±£¨­ ­¢¤  ­£ ³§¤ 4±¨¯«¤ "®³³®¬ ,¨­¤ ¥± ¬¤¶®±ªǾ  ±¤ ¤·¯«¨¢¨³«¸ £¨²¢´²²¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430ȁ !«²® ±¤¢®¦­¨¹¤£  ­£ ¨­¢®±¯®± ³¤£ ¨­³® ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430 ¨² ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«Ȍ²  £®¯³¨®­ ®¥ 2¤²®«´³¨®­ .®ȁ ΔΐΓΒ ¶§¨¢§ ²¤³²  ² ®¥¥¨¢¨ « ¯®«¨¢¸ ¥®± ³§¤ #¨³¸ ³§¤ 6¨²¨®­ :¤±® ¦® « ³§ ³ ­® «®²² ®¥ «¨¥¤ ®± ²¤±¨®´² ¨­©´±¸ ®­ ®´± ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ²¸²³¤¬ ¨²  ¢¢¤¯³ ¡«¤ȁ )­  ££¨³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ¬´«³¨-©´±¨²£¨¢³¨®­ ««¸  £®¯³¤£ %´¦¤­¤-3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ (TransPlan)Ǿ ³§¤±¤  ±¤   ­´¬¡¤± ®¥ ±¤¦¨®­ « ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¯« ­­¨­¦ £®¢´¬¤­³²  ­£ ¯« ­­¨­¦ £®¢´¬¤­³²  £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ ®­¤ ®¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ¦®µ¤±­¬¤­³ « ¯ ±³­¤±² ³§ ³ ¨­¥®±¬Ǿ ¦´¨£¤Ǿ  ­£Ǿ ¨­ ²®¬¤ ¢ ²¤²Ǿ § µ¤ ±¤¦´« ³®±¸ ²¨¦­¨¥¨¢ ­¢¤ ³® ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¤¥¥®±³²ȁ 4§®²¤ ®³§¤± ³± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ ¯« ­­¨­¦ £®¢´¬¤­³² ¨­¢«´£¤ Ȩ¡´³  ±¤ ­®³ «¨¬¨³¤£ ³®ȩȀ #¤­³± « , ­¤ -0/ 2¤¦¨®­ « 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­ Ȩ240ȩǿ , ­¤ #®´­³¸ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ǿ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£ ΑΏΒΔ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ǿ /±¤¦®­ (¨¦§¶ ¸ 0« ­ǿ 2¤¦¨®­ « 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ /¯³¨®­² 0« ­ǿ  ­£ ,4$ ,®­¦ 2 ­¦¤ 4± ­²¨³ 0« ­ȁ !00,)#!",% !002/6!, #2)4%2)! !£®¯³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ΕΓΖΘ 430  ­£ ³§¤ ¢®±±¤²¯®­£¨­¦  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ³® ³§¤ -¤³±® 0« ­  ­£ 4± ­²0« ­  ±¤  «« ¦®µ¤±­¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ -¤³±® 0« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³²  ¯¯±®µ « ¢±¨³¤±¨ ȁ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤ ΘȁΖΖΒΔ ¯±®µ¨£¤²Ȁ ȁ 4§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ²§ «« ¡¤ -¤³±® 0« ­ !¬¤­£¬¤­³² – #±¨³¤±¨  ¥®± !¯¯±®µ «  ¯¯«¨¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¢®´­¢¨« ¨­  ¯¯±®µ¨­¦ ®± £¤­¸¨­¦   -¤³±® 0« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­Ȁ (1) 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ is ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ±¤«¤µ ­³ 3³ ³¤¶¨£¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ '® «²ǿ  ­£ (2) 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ does ­®³ ¬ ª¤ ³§¤ -¤³±® 0« ­ ¨­³¤±­ ««¸ ¨­¢®­²¨²³¤­³ȁ (3) 7§¤­ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸-²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ «®¢ « ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­  «²®  ¯¯«¨¤²Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ ¨² ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸-²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ «®¢ « ¢®¬¯±¤§¤­²¨µ¤ ¯« ­ȁ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ²  ¯¯±®µ « ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¥®± 2¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ 0« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ¨² ²¤³ ¥®±³§ ¨­ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤ ΘȁΗΓΑΓȀ 9.8424 2¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ 0« ­ !¬¤­£¬¤­³ !¯¯±®µ « #±¨³¤±¨ . 4§¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¢®¬¬¨²²¨®­ ²§ «« ¤µ «´ ³¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ³§¤ ¢±¨³¤±¨  ²¤³ ¥®±³§ ¡¤«®¶Ǿ  ­£ ¥®±¶ ±£   ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­ ³® ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¢®´­¢¨«ȁ 4§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¢®´­¢¨« ²§ «« £¤¢¨£¤ ¶§¤³§¤± ³®  ¢³ ®­ ³§¤  ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨®­ȁ )¥ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¢®´­¢¨« £¤¢¨£¤² ³®  ¢³Ǿ ¨³ ²§ ««  ¯¯±®µ¤Ǿ  ¯¯±®µ¤ ¶¨³§ ¬®£¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­² ®± £¤­¸   ¯±®¯®²¤£ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ȁ !¯¯±®µ «Ǿ ®±  ¯¯±®µ « ¶¨³§ ¬®£¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­² ²§ «« ¡¤ ¡ ²¤£ ®­ ¢®¬¯«¨ ­¢¤ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ ¢±¨³¤±¨ Ȁ (1) 4§¤ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ ¨² ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§  «« ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦Ȁ (a) 3³ ³¤¶¨£¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «²ȁ (b) !¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ -¤³±® 0« ­. (c) 2¤¬ ¨­¨­¦ ¯®±³¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­ȁ (2) 4§¤ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³  ££±¤²²¤² ®­¤ ®± ¬®±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦Ȁ (a) !­ ¤±±®± ¨­ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ³¨®­ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­ȁ (b) .¤¶ ¨­µ¤­³®±¸ ¬ ³¤±¨ « ¶§¨¢§ ±¤« ³¤² ³®   ²³ ³¤¶¨£¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «ȁ (c) .¤¶ ®±  ¬¤­£¤£ ¢®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¯®«¨¢¨¤²ȁ (d) .¤¶ ®±  ¬¤­£¤£ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­² ¨­   ¥¤£¤± « « ¶ ®± ±¤¦´« ³¨®­Ǿ ²³ ³¤ ²³ ³´³¤Ǿ ²³ ³¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®­Ǿ ²³ ³¤¶¨£¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «Ǿ ®± ²³ ³¤  ¦¤­¢¸ « ­£ ´²¤ ¯« ­ȁ (e) ! ¢§ ­¦¤ ®¥ ¢¨±¢´¬²³ ­¢¤² ¨­   ²´¡²³ ­³¨ « ¬ ­­¤± ³§ ³ ¶ ² ­®³  ­³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£  ³ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ³§¤ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­ ¶ ²  £®¯³¤£ȁ %´¦¤­¤Ȍ²  ¯¯±®µ « ¢±¨³¤±¨  ¥®± ¢®£¤  ¬¤­£¬¤­³² ¨² ²¤³ ¥®±³§ ¨­ %# ΘȁΗΏΕΔȁ ΘȁΗΏΕΔ #®£¤ !¬¤­£¬¤­³ !¯¯±®µ « #±¨³¤±¨ . )¥ ³§¤ ¢¨³¸ ¢®´­¢¨« ¤«¤¢³² ³®  ¢³Ǿ ¨³ ¬ ¸Ǿ ¡¸ ®±£¨­ ­¢¤Ǿ  £®¯³  ­  ¬¤­£¬¤­³ ³® ³§¨² « ­£ ´²¤ ¢®£¤ ³§ ³Ȁ (1) Is ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§  ¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤ ²³ ³¤¶¨£¤ ¯« ­­¨­¦ ¦® «²  ²  £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ , ­£ #®­²¤±µ ³¨®­  ­£ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤­³ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ȁ (2) )² ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§  ¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®­² ®¥ ³§¤ -¤³±® 0« ­ ­£  ¯¯«¨¢ ¡«¤  £®¯³¤£ ±¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ ¯« ­²ȁ (3) )­ ³§¤ ¢ ²¤ ®¥ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤­³ ®¥   ²¯¤¢¨ «  ±¤  ¹®­¤Ǿ ¨² ¢®­²¨²³¤­³ ¶¨³§ %# ΘȁΒΏΑΏ #±¨³¤±¨  ¥®± %²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤­³ ®¥  ­ 3 3¯¤¢¨ « !±¤  :®­¤. #/5.#), /04)/.3 4§¨² ¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ȁ .®  ¢³¨®­ ¨² ­¤¤£¤£  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3 2%#/--%.$!4)/. 4§¨² ¨²   ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ȁ .® ±¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­ ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. 4§¨² ¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨­¦ȁ .®  ¢³¨®­ ¨² ­¤¤£¤£  ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ȁ ATTACHMENTS A.0±®¯®²¤£ /±£¨­ ­¢¤  ­£ %·§¨¡¨³² ! – $ a.%·§¨¡¨³ ! –Findings b.%·§¨¡¨³ " –ΕΓΖΘ 430 6®ΐȁ ΐǾ  ³³ ¢§¬¤­³² ³® 6®«ȁ ΐǾ  ­£ 6®«ȁ Α* - ¯ ΘȁΗΏΐΏ ®¥ %´¦¤­¤ #®£¤ c. d.3³±¤¤³ ¢« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®­ ¬ ¯ B.0´¡«¨¢ ³¤²³¨¬®­¸ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ¡¸ ­®®­ ®­ -®­£ ¸Ǿ &¤¡±´ ±¸ ΑΖǾ ΑΏΐΖ ȴ4§¤ ¥´«« ³¤·³ ®¥ ³§¤ ΑΏΒΔ %´¦¤­¤ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 3¸²³¤¬ 0« ­ ¢ ­ ¡¤ ¥®´­£  ³ ³§¤ ¥®««®¶¨­¦ websiteȀ http://www.EugeneTSP.org &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®­³ ¢³Ȁ 2®¡ )­¤±¥¤«£ 4¤«¤¯§®­¤Ȁ 541-682-5343 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: rob.inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us !$$)4)/.!, ).&/2-!4)/.Ȁ 4§¤ %´¦¤­¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ !¦¤­£  )³¤¬ 3´¬¬ ±¨¤² £ ³¤£ *´­¤ ΑΐǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ *´«¸ ΐΗǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ 3¤¯³¤¬¡¤± ΑΕǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΔǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ  ­£ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΐΑǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ  ­£ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ³¤²³¨¬®­¸ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ³® ³§¤ 0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ § µ¤ ¡¤¤­ ¡®´­£ ¨­   ­®³¤¡®®ª « ¡¤«¤£ ȏ0« ­­¨­¦ #®¬¬¨²²¨®­ 2¤¢®±£ &®± /±£¨­ ­¢¤ #®­¢¤±­¨­¦ ,®­¦ 2 ­¦¤ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ 0« ­­¨­¦ǾȐ  ±¤  µ ¨« ¡«¤ ¥®± ±¤µ¨¤¶  ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ­ ¦¤±Ȍ² /¥¥¨¢¤  ­£  ±¤ §¤±¤¡¸ ¤·¯±¤²²«¸ ¨­¢®±¯®± ³¤£ ¨­³® ³§¤ ±¤¢®±£ ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´­¢¨«ȁ Ordinance No. ___________ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; ADOPTING THE EUGENE 2035 TRANPSORTATION SYSTEM PLAN; AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN; AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN); AMENDING SECTIONS 9.0500, 9.8010, 9.9650 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AMENDING THE STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 20528 (TO DELETE SECTION 67); REPEALING SECTION 9.9515 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971, REPEALING ORIDINANCE NO. 20322 (2003 CENTRAL AREA TRANSPORTAITON STUDY) AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Volume I and Appendices A D of Volume II of the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan, attached to this Ordinance as part of Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted as part of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to serve as Section 2. The Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is amended to add an Appendix E to the list of Appendices in The following Metro Plan appendix is available at the City of Eugene Planning and Development Department: Appendix E Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan Section 3. The Transportation Element at Section III.F. of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is amended as described in Subsections A, B and C of this Section. A. A new bullet entitle Land Use Transportation Demand Management Transportation System Improvements hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ tğŭĻ Њ System-Wide Roadways Transit Bicycle Pedestrian Goods Movement Other Modes Finance Eugene Transportation System Plan B. Subsection b. of Policy F.15 is amended as follows: b.Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service under peak hour traffic conditions: (1)Within \[L\]level of \[S\]service \[ Area\]set forth in the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan; (2) T Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt Area; and (\[3\]2) Level of Service D elsewhere. C. A new topic and policy are added after Policy F.38 as follows: Eugene Transportation System Plan Policy F.39 The Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan, not including the system plan and is included as Appendix E to the Metro Plan. Section 4. Subsection 2 of TSI Roadway Policy #2 of the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan), is amended to provide as follows: TSI Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service 2.Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service under peak hour traffic conditions: a. \[L\]level of \[S\]service \[ Area\]set forth in the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan; hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ tğŭĻ Ћ b. Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt Area; and (\[c\]b) Level of Service D elsewhere. Section 5. Chapter 3, page 39 of the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan), is amended to provide as follows: \[TransPlan serves as the bicycle plan for Eugene.\]The Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan serves as the pedestrian and bicycle master plan for Eugene. The Springfield Bicycle Plan (1998) serves as the bicycle master plan for Springfield. To the extent that the cities of Eugene and Springfield wish to adopt, amend, or maintain bicycle master plans, those plans must be consistent with TransPlan. All bikeways and other bicycle system improvements will be designed to meet standards specified in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (1995), whenever possible. Section 6. Definition of Refinement Plan in Section 9.0500 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: Refinement Plan . A detailed examination of the service needs and land use issues of a specific area, topic, or public facility. Refinement plans of the Metro Plan can include specific neighborhood plans, special area plans, or functional plans (such as the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan and TransPlan) that address a specific Metro Plan element or sub- element on a city-wide or regional basis. Section 7. Subsection (3)(i) of Section 9.4930 of Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: (i) Construction of paved pathways of no more than 6 feet in width for passive recreation within the conservation area for Category A, B, or C streams or Category A wetlands, and no more than 12 feet for bike paths identified in the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan or TransPlan. Subject to EC 9.4980 /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone Development Standards (2) through (6) and (11). Section 8 . Table 9.8010 of Section 9.8010 of Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.8010 List of Adopted Plans. The documents listed in the following Table 9.8010, including any adopted amendments, are the currently effective adopted plans that may be applicable to a particular land use application. The plans and adopted policies are hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ tğŭĻ Ќ more particularly set forth beginning at EC 9.9500, and the boundaries for each are depicted on Map 9.8010 Adopted Plans. Table 9.8010 List of Adopted Plans Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan (Phase II)River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Bethel-Danebo Refinement PlanRiverfrontPark Study Comprehensive Stormwater Management PlanSouth Hills Study Downtown Riverfront Specific Area PlanSouth Willamette Subarea Study Eugene Commercial Lands StudyTransPlan (Metro Area Transportation Plan) Eugene Downtown PlanWalnut Station Specific Area Plan Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General West University Refinement Plan Plan (Metro Plan) Eugene 2035 Transportation System PlanWestside Neighborhood Plan Fairmount/U of O Special Area Study Whiteaker Plan Jefferson/Far West Refinement PlanWillakenzie Area Plan Laurel Hill Neighborhood PlanWillow Creek Special Area Study 19 th and Agate Special Area Study Section 9. Map 9.8010 of Eugene Code, 1971, is amended as shown on Exhibit C attached to this Ordinance. Section 10. Section 9.9515, Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Policies, of Eugene Code, 1971, is deleted in its entirety. Section 11. Subsection (3)(b) of Section 9.9650 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.9650 TransPlan Policies. (3) Transportation System Improvements: Roadways. Motor vehicle level of service policy: (b) Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service under peak hour traffic conditions: (1) transportation planning area, the \[L\]level of \[S\]service \[ Exempt Area\]set forth in the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan; hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ tğŭĻ Ѝ (2) Transporta Downtown Traffic Impact Analysis Exempt Area; and (\[3\]2) Level of Service D elsewhere. Section 12. The City of Eugene Street Classification Mapadopted by Ordinance No. 20181 on November 22, 1999, andsubsequently amended by Ordinance No. 20423 and Ordinance No. 20429, is hereby amended as depicted in Exhibit D attached to this Ordinance to reflect the streets constructed since 1999 and to change the classification of the streets described in the chart below: Northwest Expressway (UGB to River Road)Minor Arterial to Major Arterial st 1Avenue(Seneca Rd to Bertlesen Rd) Major Collector to Minor Arterial West Amazon Drive (Hilyard Street to Fox Hollow Road)Minor Arterial to Major Collector thth Olive Street (13Avenue to 18Avenue)Major Collector to Neighborhood Collector Kinsrow Avenue (MLK Blvd to Commons Drive)Neighborhood Collector to Major Collector Commons Drive (Kinsrow Avenue to South Garden Way) Willakenzie Road (Bogart Lane to Kingston Way)Local Street to Neighborhood Collector Spectrum Avenue (Coburg Road to Shadow View) Shadow View Drive (Spectrum Avenue to Chad Drive) Section 13 . Ordinance No. 20322 (May 24, 2004), adopting the policies in the 2003 Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, is repealed. Resolution No. 4369 and the Central Lane Eugene Parking and Traffic Circulation Plan adopted therein, which were repealed by Ordinance No. 20322, remain repealed. Section 14. The limitation on the use of the land (trip cap) set forth in Section 67 of Ordinance No. 20528 is hereby repealed. Section 15. The legislative findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A are adopted in support of this Ordinance. hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ tğŭĻ Ў Section 16. Effective Date: A. Except as otherwise delayed pursuant to Subsection C of this Section, for purposes of its application to land located inside the city limits of the City of Eugene, the provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. B. Except as otherwise delayed pursuant to Subsection C of this Section, for purposes of their application to land located outside the city limits of the City of Eugene, the provisions of Sections 1 through 5 of this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date the Lane County Board of Commissioners has adopted an ordinance containing provisions substantially identical to those in Sections 1 through 5 of this Ordinance, whichever is later. C. The change to motor vehicle levels of service for the ODOT facilities described at Table 4.1 of the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan and the repeal of the trip cap described in Section 14 o written acceptance of the changed levels of service for the ODOT facilities described in Table 4.1 of the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan. Such written acceptance may, but is not required to, take the form of an action of the Oregon Highway Commission that amends the Oregon Highway Plan to change levels of service for the ODOT facilities to those described in Table 4.1. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ____ day of ______________, 2016 _____ day of ___________, 2016 ____________________________________________________________________ City Recorder Mayor hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ tğŭĻ Џ ExhibitAtoOrd. Findings in Support of An Ordinance Concerning Long-Range Transportation Planning (Adopting the Eugene 2035 TSP; Amending the Metro Plan, TransPlan, Eugene Code Chapter 9, Ordinance No. 20528, and the Eugene Street Classification Map; and Repealing the 2003 Central Area Transportation Study) Overview For decades the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area had a shared regional comprehensive plan and regional transportation system plan, known as the Metro Plan and TransPlan. These plans guided transportation decisions for both Eugene and Springfield inside a shared urban growth boundary. For both cities, TransPlan functioned as the Local Transportation System Plan and the Regional Transportation System Plan. In 2007, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3337, which required Eugene and Springfield to develop separate urban growth boundaries. As a result, Eugene began the Envision Eugene project, including Eugene-specific transportation planning. Additionally, in October Land Conservation and Development Commission approved a regional work plan to prepare and adopt a TransPlan update to address federally mandated regional transportation planning regional TransPlan update, the cities of Eugene, Springfield and Coburg undertook local transportation planning efforts in advance of the TransPlan update. Within the last few years the cities of Springfield and Coburg have adopted their local transportation system plans (both co-adopted by Lane County); once the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) TransPlan update will move forward. The 2035 TSP meets state requirements for a local transportation system plan and is a resource for future transportation decision making within the City of Eugene. The 2035 TSP identifies the preferred future multi-modal transportation system and articulates the City goals and policies related to this transportation system. It also identifies the function, capacity, and location of future facilities, and identifies planning-level costs for improvements needed to support expected development and growth, and possible sources of system funding. The 2035 TSP is intended to provide the City with flexibility as critical transportation investments are prioritized and funded. The 2035 TSP ensures the vision for the transportation system meets community needs, communicates the City aspirations, conforms to state and regional policies, and provides an infrastructure and program plan to meet these community, regional, and state needs. The 2035 TSP includes a total of 6 chapters, including: Chapter 1 Introduction; Chapter 2 Goals, Policies, and Actions; Chapter 3 Needs Assessment and Evaluation; Chapter 4 Creating Multimodal Systems; Chapter 5 Transportation Priorities and Project Categories; and Chapter 6 Transportation Funding and Implementation. 2035 TSP is a component of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and is being adopted as part of the Metro Plan. The findings that follow demonstrate that the 2035 TSP, and the entire 2035 TSP adoption package, is consistent with applicable approval criteria. The 2035 TSP adoption package consists of: 1.The Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan 2.Conforming amendments to the Metro Plan 3.Conforming amendments to TransPlan Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 1 of 63 4.Conforming amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 9 5.Amendment to Eugene Ordinance No. 20528 to delete section 67 (to remove the limitation on trips) 6.Repeal of Eugene 2003 Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) 7.Eugene Street Classification Map amendments. I.aĻƷƩƚ tƌğƓ Amendments, ƩğƓƭtƌğƓ Amendments and ЋЉЌЎ {t Adoption Amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan and adoption of the 2035 TSP are all governed by the Metro Plan amendment approval criteria. Eugene and Lane County have identical approval criteria for Metro Plan amendments (below), set forth in Eugene Code 9.7735 and Lane Code 12.225. (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals; and (2) The proposed amendment does not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. (3) When the city-specific local comprehensive plan also applies, the proposed amendment is consistent with the city-specific local comprehensive plan. Throughout the findings set forth below, the 2035 TSP and the conforming Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments are collectively referred to the 2035 TSP ΛЊΜ ŷĻ ğƒĻƓķƒĻƓƷ źƭ ĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ ǞźƷŷ ğƦƦƌźĭğĬƌĻ ƭƷğƷĻǞźķĻ ƦƌğƓƓźƓŭ ŭƚğƌƭ ğķƚƦƷĻķ ĬǤ ƷŷĻ \[ğƓķ /ƚƓƭĻƩǝğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ /ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓ͵ Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City of Eugene and Lane County have acknowledged citizen involvement programs and acknowledged processes for securing citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments. The govern be held prior to adoption. Notification of the proposed amendments and opportunities for public participation in these amendments were consistent with the acknowledged citizen involvement programs. This goal was met through an extensive public involvement process. A Community Involvement Strategy for the update of the Eugene Transportation System Plan was developed in preparation of the project. This Program was reviewed and endorsed by the Eugene Planning Commission, which acts as the Committee for Citizen Involvement. The program outlined the information, outreach methods, and involvement opportunities available to the citizens during the process. Information was distributed and input solicited throughout the process. Opportunities for engagement included: a project website (including web-based surveys); targeted outreach with local community service organizations and Planning Commission, Sustainability Commission, and City Council. During preparation of the draft TSP, a Transportation Community Resource Group (TCRG) was created to invite participation from many of the original members of the Envision Eugene Community Resource Group (CRG) Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 2 of 63 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), a multi-agency Technical Advisory Committee, staff from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lane County staff, and the public at large. The TCRG spent years studying and providing advice to staff on land use planning, bicycle and pedestrian planning, transit planning, demand management techniques, street design, traffic congestion, sustainability, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation funding. The TCRG was instrumental in creating the goals, policies, potential action items, and project lists for the draft TSP. The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions public hearing on the proposal was duly noticed to all neighborhood organizations, community groups and individuals who have requested notice, as well as to the City of Springfield. Additionally, notice was set to each individual that received notice of Eugene Ordinance No. 20528 and to everyone that owns property on a street that is proposed to be reclassified. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Register Guard. The Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners joint public hearing to consider approval, modification, or denial of the amendments was duly noticed. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. As a result of this extensive public involvement process, the proposed amendments meet the requirements of Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals, and again after periodic review in 2004. This amendment to the Metro Plan is undertaken to adopt the 2035 TSP in a manner consistent with current conditions and citizen values. The amendment to the Metro Plan to recognize the 2035 TSP is being processed as a Type II procedure, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, Metro regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances be addressed as part of the decision-making process. Upon adoption, the 2035 TSP will replace TransPlan as local TSP. Because TransPlan remains a refinement to the Metro Plan and will continue to serve as the Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP) until the RTSP is updated (per an LCDC work plan), the adopted performance measure in TransPlan are still applicable. These findings and the record show that there is an adequate factual base for the decision concerning the amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the adopting governmental bodies engage in an exchange, or invite such an exchange, between the adopting bodies and any affected governmental unit and when the adopting bodies use the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the two jurisdictions coordinated the review of these amendments with all affected governmental units. Notice of the proposed amendments and information about where the materials would be available for review was mailed to all parties that had requested such notice. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 3 of 63 There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands. The statewide planning goals relate to agricultural lands in Oregon and is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands. The statewide planning goal relate to forest lands in Oregon and is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. OAR 660-023-0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a)The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b)The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c)The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. These amendments do not create or amend provision adopted to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water provide for clean air, water or land resources. The 2035 TSP was developed following the rules and guidance found in Oregon Revised Statute 660-012 and the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Both outline strategies for decreasing vehicle miles traveled and single- occupancy vehicle trips, which are intended to help improve air quality in the Central Lane MPO Area. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 4 of 63 The 2035 TSP contains policies related to development along key multi-modal corridors, transportation demand management and the encouragement of transportation without reliance on automobiles, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrian travel. The 2035 TSP incorporates the Eugene Climate Recovery Ordinance goal of by year 2030 reducing community-wide use of fossil fuels by 50 percent compared to 2010 usage. This goal and policies are related to the need to maintain and improve the air quality in the metropolitan area. Projects identified in the 2035 TSP will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Additionally, from 2013 to mid-2015 the City participated in a scenario planning process led by the Central Lane MPO. The scenario planning process examined how transportation policies might affect equity, public health, economic vitality, and greenhouse gas emissions in the region. The state required the project partners to examine at least one scenario that would achieve a 20 percent reduction (below 2005 emissions levels) in greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles. Generally, the 20 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction target of the scenario planning study is consistent with the goal of the Climate Recovery Ordinance. While the preferred scenario selected by the Central Lane MPO is not a statement of regional policy and the strategies are not intended to be directive or regulatory, the 2035 TSP incorporates and advances many of the strategies identified by the Central Lane MPO as a way of achieving the preferred scenario. Some specific examples of how the 2035 TSP advances the preferred scenario strategies are as follows: 1.The 2035 TSP plans for significant investment in active transportation over the next 20 years. (Active transportation strategies #1 & #2) Of the 264 projects planned in the 2035 TSP to be built over the next 20 years (excluding those to be built upon development), 239 of the projects are entirely pedestrian and bicycle projects; those projects include 89 neighborhood greenways, 22 on-street bike lanes, 18 shared use paths, 12 protected bike lanes, and 85 separated path/sidewalk projects. Six of the 264 projects are transit projects, which include improving frequent transit service and multimodal travel along numerous transit corridors. These 245 bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects represent 51% of the total transportation dollars that are planned to be spent over the next 20 years. Of the 19 remaining projects, 6 of the projects are complete street upgrades to existing roadways; all 6 of these projects have a significant bicycle and pedestrian component. These complete street projects represent an additional 10% of the total transportation dollars. Not counting the three rail projects (which amount for 6% of the total transportation dollars), only three projects planned for the next 20 years have no explicit bicycle, pedestrian, or transit component contained in their project descriptions. These three projects represent approximately 8% of the total transportation dollars that are planned to be spent over the next 20 years. 2.Establishment of a bike share program is currently underway and is one of the 2035 TSP bicycle policies. (Active transportation strategy #3) 3.Identified potential action items for meeting 2035 TSP policy objectives include providing education and awareness programs, such as SmartTrips and school-based transportation options (including Safe Routes to School) to improve safety for all travelers and providing support for Safe Route to School programs and other programs that create safe walking Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 5 of 63 conditions between residences and schools and other neighborhood destinations. (Active transportation strategy #5, Education and marketing strategy #1). 4.A system-wide policy of the 2035 TSP is fostering neighborhoods where Eugene residents can meet most of their basic daily needs without an automobile by providing streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and access to transit in an inviting environment where all travelers feel safe and secure. The related potential action item is the creation of a strategy to facilitate 90 percent of Eugene residences to be within 20-minute neighborhoods. (Active transportation strategy #6) 5.The 2035 TSP policies promote improved transit services that are integrated through context specific multimodal planning for all Key Corridors. One of the four transit policies in the 2035 TSP is to collaborate with Lane Transit District to provide a network of high capacity, frequent, and reliable transit se Transit Plan. Additionally, the 2035 TSP includes $171.4 million in transit projects that support the transit policies and the identified transit needs. (Transit strategies #3 and #4). 6.The six multimodal/transit projects planned for the next 20 years include the improvement of frequent transit service and multimodal travel along Coburg Road, River Road, Highway 99, 30 th Avenue and Amazon Parkway, new transfer stations, and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Additionally, an identified potential action item is to review City Code and amend it if needed to enable additional opportunities to provide bikeways and improved pedestrian connections between key destinations, transit stops, and residential areas with new development and redevelopment. (Transit strategies #5 and #7). 7.nd use and parking regulating to encourage walking, biking, and use of public transit and periodically reviewing parking needs in the downtown, Federal Courthouse, and riverfront districts and balance supply with other objectives, such as economic vitality; support for transit, walking, and biking; reduced consumption of fossil fuels; and human-scaled urban form. Additionally, for more than 10 years the City has had in place Standards for Transportation Demand Management Programs that provide a mechanism to vary the number of required off-street parking spaces by providing a strategy for reducing vehicle use and parking demand and using benchmarks to measure program effectiveness. (Parking management strategy #2) 8.The 2035 TSP recognizes the Regional Transportation Options Plan (RTOP) adopted by the Central Lane MPO as the regional guidance for programs that reduce reliance on single- occupancy vehicles and identifies seven key programs and services, including: SmartTrips individualized marketing programs to encourage active transportation choices; School-Based Transportation Options: Build off existing Safe Routes to School programs to include coordinated program with ridesharing and transit promotion and expand the program to middle (Education and marketing strategies #1, 3, and #6) As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance with Goal 6. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 6 of 63 Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. al disasters and hazards. Further, the amendments do not allow for new development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not apply. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. Goal 8 also allows, but does not require, the City to create an inventory of recreational needs. The amendments do not affect the current provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities, nor will the amendments affect access to existing or future recreational facilities. Further, the amendments do not change the Metro Plan and TransPlan policies that support access to recreational facilities with the Metropolitan area and to recreations opportunities outside the area or delete any planned transportation projects that would make recreational facilities more available. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 8. Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of Goal 9 requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial and industrial land relative to community economic objectives. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 types, location, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan -009-0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-0025 requires that cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR 660-009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Commercial Lands Study (1992) is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and the corresponding Administrative Rule. The adoption of the amendments will not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands and will not change or conflict with the economic policies of Metro Plan. The amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies directed toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene-Springfield area by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation system that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable. The amendments seek to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 7 of 63 community and accommodate economic growth, within projected revenues, into the future. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lanes and Housing Study (1999) is acknowledged for compliance with Goal 10. The adoption of the amendments will not impact the supply of residential lands and will not result in any change or conflict with the housing policies of the Metro Plan. The amendments seeks to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating its housing needs. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 10. Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area is currently in compliance with Goal 11 through its acknowledged Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), Comprehensive Plan, and adopted Transportation System Plan, TransPlan. The amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, PFSP, or TransPlan. The proposed amendments will update the transportation element of the Metro Plan by replacing TransPlan as the locally adopted TSP. As a result, the amendments are in compliance with Goal 11. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The proposed amendments are consistent with all applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0010. Further, the amendments are consistent with, and a further step toward fulfillment of the Regional Transportation Work Plan approved pursuant to OAR 660-012- 0016(2)(b) by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on October 16, 2008. The amendments adopt the 2035 TSP, which was completed following the rules outlined in the Transportation Planning Rule. The TPR states that when amendments to a functional plan would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. The 2035 TSP provides an updated, balanced transportation system with amended functions and capacity of the roadways system that will accommodate growth and land uses envisioned by the acknowledged Metro Plan. For the reasons set forth below, the proposed amendments are in compliance with Goal 12. The table below (Findings Table A) provides specific findings discussing compliance with individual sections of the TPR. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 8 of 63 Findings Table A Compliance TPR Requirements OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans 3) Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and Chapter 3 and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) amend local TSPs for lands within their document the existing conditions inventory and planning jurisdiction in compliance with this analysis. These outline all of the identified needs division: well as those intersections and streets not meeting (a) Local TSPs shall establish a system of applicable operating standards. transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local transportation needs Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build) document the No and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and Build analysis. These outline all of the identified year adopted elements of the state TSP; 2035 needs assuming no additional infrastructure needs as well as intersection and streets not meeting applicable standards are noted. Appendix C (20 year Needs Analysis) and Chapters 4 and 5 document the Build analysis. These outline the identified facilities and services needed to meet the identified transportation needs by mode. The 2035 TSP was prepared in collaboration with ODOT to ensure consistency with the Oregon Highway Plan, with Lane County to ensure consistency with the County TSP, and with LCOG to ensure consistency with TransPlan and the Central Lane RTP. The 2035 TSP has the same horizon year as the federally required Central Lane RTP. Even though the 2035 TSP and TransPlan have different horizon years (2035 for the local TSP and 2027 for the regional TSP), there is no conflict between the population and employment numbers. Table B, below, details the consistency between the 2035 TSP and TransPlan. Additionally, because the transportation policies in the Metro Plan are taken verbatim from TransPlan, the findings of consistency between the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and the 2035 TSP further demonstrate consistency between the 2035 TSP and TransPlan. (b) Where the regional TSP or elements of the Not applicable. Applicable regional and state plans Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 9 of 63 state TSP have not been adopted, the city or have been adopted. Future updates of the RTSP and county shall coordinate the preparation of the RTP are being coordinated with this TSP update with local TSP with the regional transportation ODOT and the Central Lane MPO. planning body and ODOT to assure that regional and state transportation needs are accommodated. (4) Cities and counties shall adopt regional and The 2035 TSP is being adopted as part of the Metro local TSPs required by this division as part of Plan. The Metro Plan is being amended to add the their comprehensive plans. Transportation following Policy F.39 to the Transportation Element: financing programs required by OAR 660-012- Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan, not 0040 may be adopted as a supporting including the transportation financing program, is the document to the comprehensive plan. included as Appendix E to the Metro Plan (5) The preparations of TSPs shall be The Project Management Team (PMT), Technical coordinated with affected state and federal Advisory Committee (TAC), and Transportation agencies, local governments, special districts Community Resource Group (TCRG), as described in and private providers of transportation Chapter 1 of the TSP, included representatives of Lane services. County, Lane MPO, ODOT, ODOT Rail, DLCD, City of Springfield, Lane Transit District, Northwest Natural Gas, Union Pacific Railroad, and Eugene Airport and were part of the TSP development for all required coordination. The Lane ACT, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, University of Oregon, private freight interests, Eugene-Springfield Fire/EMS, Eugene Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the Bethel and 4J public school districts were consulted on multiple occasions during TSP preparation. (6) Mass transit, transportation, airport and Eugene does not have a port. The Airport Master Plan port districts shall participate in the was previously adopted by Eugene and Lane County as development of TSPs for those transportation part of the Metro Plan; it is adopted and incorporated facilities and services they provide. These by reference in the 2035 TSP. Management staff from districts shall prepare and adopt plans for the Airport was involved as a TSP Technical Advisory transportation facilities and services they Team member. Lane Transit District, Lane County provide. Such plans shall be consistent with and transit district, was a member of the TSP Technical adequate to carry out relevant portions of Advisory Team and a regular participant in the applicable regional and local TSPs. Cooperative Transportation Community Resource Group (TCRG) agreements executed under ORS 197.185(2) public advisory group. City transportation planners, shall include the requirement that mass transit, including the TSP project manager, participated transportation, airport and port districts adopt a plan consistent with the requirements of this Plan. The concepts and definitions of Frequent transit section. networks (FTN) were coordinated so that the policy Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 10 of 63 corridor planning needs of the TSP and LRTP are being simultaneously implemented by the co-City/LTD managed MovingAhead project. LTD has participated policies and potential actions. OAR 660-012-0016 Coordination with Federally-Required Regional Transportation Plans in Metropolitan Areas (1) In metropolitan areas, local governments Eugene, as a member of the Central Lane MPO, has shall prepare, adopt, amend and update transportation system plans required by this (RTP) update process. The 2035 TSP has been division in coordination with regional prepared and coordinated with TransPlan and the transportation plans (RTPs) prepared by MPOs Central Lane RTP. The 2035 TSP replaces TransPlan as required by federal law. Insofar as possible, TransPlan will continue to serve as regional transportation system plans for metropolitan areas shall be accomplished developed and adopted. The Central Lane MPO has a through a single coordinated process that work plan approved by LCDC for updating its RTSP. complies with the applicable requirements of The local TSPs of the individual Central Lane MPO federal law and this division. Nothing in this agencies are intended to form the basis of the updated rule is intended to make adoption or 2035 TSP is the last amendment of a regional transportation plan local TSP adopted for the Central Lane MPO area. by a metropolitan planning organization a land use decision under Oregon law. OAR 660-012-0020 Elements of TSPs (1) A TSP shall establish a coordinated network Chapter 3 and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) of transportation facilities adequate to serve document the Existing Conditions Inventory and state, regional and local transportation needs. Analysis. These outline all of the identified needs (2) The TSP shall include the following well as those intersections and streets not meeting elements: applicable operating standards. (a)Determination of transportation needs as provided in OAR 660-012-0030 Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build Analysis) document the No Build analysis. These outline all of the identified year 2035 needs assuming no additional infrastructure beyond that currently funded is added. streets not meeting applicable standards are noted. Appendix C (20-year Needs Analysis) and Chapters 4 and 5 document the Build analysis. These outline the identified facilities and services needed to meet the identified transportation needs by mode. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 11 of 63 (b)A road plan for a system of arterials Chapter 4 of the 2035 TSP sets forth and collectors and standards for the layout of functional classifications for streets. local streets and other important non-collector d Design Standards and Guidelines street connections. Functional classifications for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and of roads in regional and local TSP's shall be Accessways (1999) set forth how existing streets can consistent with functional classifications of be modified and new streets can be constructed to roads in state and regional TSP's and shall accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, provide for continuity between adjacent riding bicycles, riding transit, walking, driving jurisdictions. The standards for the layout of automobiles and moving freight. local streets shall provide for safe and convenient bike and pedestrian circulation In the past, most street design standards were necessary to carry out OAR 660-012- primarily oriented toward moving vehicular traffic, 0045(3)(b). New connections to arterials and providing rudimentary bike lanes and sidewalks for state highways shall be consistent with pedestrians. The 1999 Design Standards and designated access management categories. Guidelines for Eugene Street, Sidewalks, Bikeways and The intent of this requirement is to provide Accessways, set forth in Appendix H (Volume 2), serves guidance on the spacing of future extensions mandatory design standards and and connections along existing and future advisory guidelines for arterial, collector, and local streets which are needed to provide streets, and provide for safe and convenient bike and reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. These Design Standards and pedestrian travel. Guidelines will need to be updated to incorporate the 2035 TSP newer guidance on best practices for bicycle The standards for the layout of local streets and pedestrian facilities. The policies and action items shall address: in 2035 TSP provide guidance for future updates to (A) Extensions of existing streets; street standards. (B) Connections to existing or planned As part of the needs analysis, streets, including arterials and collectors; and Classification Map was reviewed in light of the classifications shown in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), and the (C) Connections to neighborhood criteria set forth in the Eugene Arterial and Collector destinations. Street Plan (ACSP). This review identified a number of streets that needed a change in classification to ensure consistency between the various plans governing and providing guidance to the operation and construction All streets within the UGB need to be class criteria. Attachment B to the 2035 TSP is the 2016 Street Classification Map that updates the street classification map adopted by the City Council in 1999. In addition to the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways & Accessways and the adopted Street Classification Map, the City has previously adopted the following documents that further satisfy this requirement: Street Right-of-Way Map; Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 12 of 63 Public Improvement Design Standards Manual; Utility and Right-of-way Permits, Construction Within the Use of the Public Way, Policies and Procedures Manual. ACSP, adopted as findings in support of the Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidwalks, Bikeways & Accessways, illustrate the extensions of existing streets, connections to existing and planned streets, including arterials and collectors, and connections to neighborhood destinations. Consistent with this previously adopted plan, connections to arterials and state highways remain consistent with designated access management categories. Eugene Code Chapter 9 includes street connectivity requirements to ensure that all of the following are met: (a) Streets are designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles. (b) The layout of a street system does not create excessive travel lengths. (c) The function of a local street is readily apparent to the user through its appearance and design in order to reduce non-local traffic on local residential streets. (d) Streets are interconnected to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, and provide for more even dispersal of traffic. (e) New streets are designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking and bicycling as transportation modes. (f) The street circulation pattern provides connections to and from activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers, and other major attractors. (g) Street design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to water-related resources and wildlife corridors. (h) Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of adjacent collector streets or arterial streets which are designed to accommodate heavy traffic. (i) Streets identified as future transit routes should be designed to safely and efficiently accommodate transit Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 13 of 63 vehicles, thus encouraging the use of public transit as a transportation mode. (j) Where appropriate, the street system and its infrastructure should be utilized as an opportunity to convey and treat storm water runoff. Policies contained in Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP address extensions of existing streets; connections to existing or planned streets, including arterials and collectors, as well as connections to neighborhood destinations. The pedestrian and bicycle projects noted in Chapters 4 and 5 also provide connections to neighborhood destinations. Chapter 5 of the TSP includes the planned roadway facilities and associated costs. The identified roadway facility projects and roadway plan are consistent with state and regional transportation plans. (c)A public transportation plan which: Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP includes transit-specific policies and potential action items for transit policies. (A) Describes public transportation Appendix J of the 2035 TSP sets forth the Lane Transit services for the transportation District Long Range Transit Plan disadvantaged and identifies service transit-related needs, policies and projects were in inadequacies; large part identified. Additionally, Appendix G of the 2035 TSP sets forth On the Move: Regional (B) Describes intercity bus and Transportation Option Plan. passenger rail service and identifies the location of terminals; Chapter 3 of the 2035 TSP and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) outline the existing public transportation services and identifies service deficiencies. They also (C) For areas within an urban growth describe existing transit routes, transit ways, terminals boundary which have public transit and major transfer stations, stops and park-and-ride service, identifies existing and planned stations. In addition, they describe intercity bus and transit trunk routes, exclusive transit passenger rail service and the location of stations and ways, terminals and major transfer transfer stations. stations, major transit stops, and park- and-ride stations. Designation of stop Chapter 4 presents the transit modal element. Based or station locations may allow for minor on the needs analysis, the 2035 TSP focuses on adjustments in the location of stops to collaboration with LTD to provide service provide for efficient transit or traffic enhancements, capital improvements, and policies operation or to provide convenient that support: pedestrian access to adjacent or nearby uses. Changes to streets and intersections to facilitate bus movement; Frequent and reliable transit service, including Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 14 of 63 bus rapid transit (e.g.-style of transit service) along Key Corridors; Amenities that also serve pedestrians and people on bikes, and intermodal connections to transit; Car share and bike share programs that can extend the first and last mile of transit trips; and Refinements to transit routes and schedules. Additionally, the 2035 TSP supports Lane Transit the Lane Transit District Long Range Transit Plan, as a regional initiative to better connect areas of more active development to transit. Chapter 5 of the 2035 TSP sets forth planned transit facilities and major improvements, including associated costs for all corridor projects. (d)A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a On March 12, 2012, the Eugene City Council accepted network of bicycle and pedestrian routes the 2012 Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan throughout the planning area. The network (PBMP) and directed the City Manager to integrate the and list of facility improvements shall be PBMP into the 2035 TSP. The 2012 PBMP is set forth consistent with the requirements of ORS in Appendix F (Volume 2 of the 2035 TSP). Consistent 366.514. transportation system plans include a bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes and that transportation system plans be designed to increase transportation choices and reduce reliance on the y policies, and projects are woven throughout the 2035 TSP and function as an integral part to making walking and cycling highly convenient. As such, in addition to the 2035 TSP system plan, the 2035 TSP also s bicycle and pedestrian master plan. Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP includes bicycle-specific and pedestrian-specific policies and potential action items for both the bicycle and pedestrian policies. Chapter 3 and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) document the Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis. Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build analysis) document the No Build analysis. These outline all of Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 15 of 63 the identified year 2035 needs assuming no additional infrastructure beyond that currently funded is added. These outline all of the identified needs associated for pedestrians and bicyclists. Chapter 4 of the 2035 TSP includes a plan for the bicycle and pedestrian networks. Chapter 5 of the 2035 TSP includes the planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities and major improvements and associated costs. (e)An air, rail, water and pipeline Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP includes rail, freight, transportation plan which identifies where pipeline and air transportation policies and potential public use airports, mainline and branchline action items for those policies. Additionally, the 2035 railroads and railroad facilities, port facilities, TSP explicitly recognizes the Eugene Airport Master and major regional pipelines and terminals are Plan (adopted by Eugene and Lane County as part of located or planned within the planning area. the Metro Plan) as the guiding policy document for For airports, the planning area shall include all airport property development, services, and support areas within airport imaginary surfaces and infrastructure. The Eugene Airport Master Plan is set other areas covered by state or federal forth in Appendix L. regulations; Chapter 3 and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) document the Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis. These outline the identified needs associated pipelines. Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build analysis) document the No Build analysis. These outline all of the identified year 2035 needs assuming no additional infrastructure beyond that currently funded is added. Chapter 4 of the TSP includes a plan for the air, rail, water, and pipeline networks. (f)For areas within an urban area In 2005, the City adopted Strategies for Transportation containing a population greater than 25,000 System Management and Operations. The adopted persons a plan for transportation system TDM standards are set forth in Appendix K (Volume 2 management and demand management; of the 2035 TSP). These standards provide a mechanism to vary the number of required off-street parking spaces by providing a strategy for reducing vehicle use and parking demand and using benchmarks to measure program effectiveness. The 2035 TSP expands the use of TDM and TSMO practices beyond parking to help address traffic congestion, fossil fuel Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 16 of 63 reduction goals, safety, and the financial burden of travel on individuals. Further, the 2035 TSP includes a policy to romote transportation demand management programs along the Key Corridors, in downtown, and near the University of Oregon to coordinate the needs and travel options of multiple businesses and residences for purposes of reducing automobile and freight demand at times of peak congestion. These programs could be staffed by either a public agency, a business association, or by training individuals within the affected businesses and housing to perform this work. Chapter 4 of the TSP includes a Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) plan and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. Eugene, in collaboration with the Central Lane MPO, LTD/ Point2point, and the City of Springfield identified the key programs and services through the Regional Transportation Options Plan (RTOP). The 2035 TSP recognizes the RTOP as the regional guidance for programs that reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Further details of TSMO and TDM strategies that support the 2035 TSP are provided in the Regional Transportation Options Plan, which is set forth as Appendix G (Volume 2). (g)Parking plan as provided in OAR 660- Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP includes parking policies and 012-0045(5)(c). potential action items for the parking policies. Chapter 4 of the TSP outlines a parking plan. The City of Eugene implemented a parking plan after the adoption of TransPlan. That implementation measure including updating the Eugene Code towards accomplish the following: (A) Achieve per capita a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces over the planning period through a combination of restrictions on development of new parking spaces, allowing shared spaces, and allowing some existing parking spaces to be redeveloped to other uses; (B) Aids in achieving the measurable standards set in TransPlan (per OAR 660-012-0035(4)), such as reducing the percentage of non-auto trips, increasing Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 17 of 63 transit ridership on congested corridors, and parking requirements for transit-oriented development within nodal development areas; (C) Providing land use and subdivision regulations setting minimum and maximum parking requirements in appropriate locations, and eliminating off-street parking requirements for automobiles in the downtown core; and (D) Is consistent with demand management programs, transit-oriented development requirements and planned transit service. This 2035 TSP contains policies encouraging frequent review and updates to existing parking standards (updated per TransPlan, 2002) to reflect improved alternatives to driving single-occupant vehicles as these alternatives become available, such as improved transit service, bike facilities, car- and bike-share programs, improved neighborhood walkability, and transportation Demand Management programs. (h)Policies and land use regulations for The 2035 TSP adoption package include amendments implementing the TSP as provided in OAR 660- that are needed for the 012-0045. 2035 TSP transportation system plan and to adopt new levels of . Additionally, the policies and potential actions for implementing the TSP that are set forth in Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP identify amendments that could be made to the land use code to further the policies set forth in 2035 TSP. (i)Transportation financing program as Chapter 6 of the TSP includes the transportation provided in OAR 660-012-0040. financing plan, including existing and potential new funding sources and a summary of improvement costs by modal category. Chapter 5 of the TSP provides a detailed listing of cost for each individual improvement project, by mode. (3) Each element identified in subsections (2)(b) Chapter 3 and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) (d) of this rule shall contain: document the Existing Conditions Inventory and (a)An inventory and general assessment Analysis and describe the existing and committed of existing and committed transportation facilities and services by function, type and condition Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 18 of 63 facilities and services by function, type, for each mode. These outline all of the identified capacity and condition. s conditions for each (A) The transportation capacity analysis mode as well as those intersections and streets not shall include information on: meeting applicable operating standards. (i) The capacities of existing and committed facilities; Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build analysis) (ii) The degree to which those document the No Build analysis. These outline all of capacities have been reached or the identified year 2035 needs assuming no additional surpassed on existing facilities; and infrastructure beyond that currently funded is added. (iii) The assumptions upon which These present a transportation capacity analysis of the these capacities are based. existing and committed roadway system, including (B) For state and regional facilities, the streets and intersections consistent with existing city, transportation capacity analysis shall be county, and state standards; in some instances state consistent with standards of facility adoption of alternative mobility standards will be performance considered acceptable by the requested through an OHP amendment. This affected state or regional transportation operational analysis describes the degree to which agency; those capacities have been reached or surpassed on (C) The transportation facility condition existing facilities, and the assumptions upon which analysis shall describe the general physical and these capacities are based. operational condition of each transportation facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very Chapter 4 summarizes the proposed system of existing poor). and planned transportation facilities, services and major improvements, by functional classification, planned capacities and performance standards. The (b)A system of planned transportation City maintains a separate inventory of street physical facilities, services and major improvements. conditions. Concurrent with the adoption of the 2035 The system shall include a description of the TSP are amendments to the Street Classification Map. type or functional classification of planned Chapter 5 of the 2035 TSP sets forth a system of facilities and services and their planned planned transportation facilities, services and major capacities and performance standards. improvements, including the type or functional classification of the planned facilities and services. OAR 660-012-0025 Complying with Goals in Preparing TSPs (1) Adoption of a TSP shall constitute a land use This will happen automatically upon adoption. This decision regarding the need for transportation requirement is also included in local regulations. facilities, services and major improvements and their function, mode and general location. (2) Findings of compliance with applicable These findings demonstrate compliance with the statewide planning goals and acknowledged applicable statewide planning goals, acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use comprehensive plan and land use regulations. regulations shall be developed in conjunction with the adoption of the TSP. The City may defer decisions regarding There are three actions that may be considered a Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 19 of 63 function, general location and mode of a deferral of a decision regarding function and general refinement plan if findings are adopted that: location of improvements: the Randy Papé Beltline Facility Plan, future studies for improved access across (a) Identify the transportation need for the Willamette River, and multimodal studies of the which decisions regarding function, general Key Corridors. location or mode are being deferred. (b) Demonstrate why information required The Randy Papé Beltline Facility Plan identifies to make final determination cannot be made probable improvements that warrant further analysis available within time for TSP preparation. through the NEPA process. The 2035 TSP adopts the (c) Explain how deferral does not invalidate facility plan, as noted in Chapter 5, and incorporates the assumptions upon which the TSP is based reasonable outcomes for purposes of project costs and ore preclude implementation of the remainder financing projections. Construction of the largest of the TSP. component of this project, a new local arterial bridge, (d) Describe the nature of the findings cannot commence until the NEPA analysis is which will be needed to resolve issues deferred completed and the project is adopted by the City to a refinement plan; and, Council. The NEPA process cannot be completed (e) Set a deadline for adoption of a within the timeframe of the TSP, in part because the refinement plan prior to initiation of the Facility Plan must be adopted in the TSP before the periodic review following adoption of the TSP. NEPA analysis may commence. Improved crossings of the Willamette River were identified as a potentially desirable solution to several needs (e.g., seismic upgrades, improved connectivity, and congestion relief). Completion of such a study could not be completed within the timeframe of the 2035 TSP because of the large study area, environmental sensitivity of the riverine environment, need for robust public engagement, and need to gather funding for such a large undertaking. The 2035 TSP assumptions about traffic function did not rely on any additional river crossings; hence the deferral of a decision about additional river crossings does not invalidate the assumptions upon which the 2035 TPS is based or preclude implementation of the remainder of the 2035 TPS. The 2035 TSP identifies a desire to complete detailed land use and multimodal transportation studies for Eugene Vision Statement (2012). Such a planning process was begun as a joint project by the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District, dubbed are substantial: the development corridors along Highway 99, River Road, Coburg Road, mid- Willamette/30 th Avenue, and others. Completion of these studies could not be completed within the timeframe of the TSP. The TSP used estimations for Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 20 of 63 corridor performances and costs based on realistic, previously completed corridors with enhances transit service; therefore, the deferral of a decision on specific corridor improvements does not invalidate the assumptions upon which the TSP is based or preclude implementation of the remainder of the TSP. No new findings will be needed to resolve issues deferred to these studies. There is no need to set a deadline for adoption of a plan amendment based on the outcome of these studies because the 2035 TSP is self-sufficient without the results of these studies. OAR 660-012-0030 Determination of Transportation Needs (1) The TSP shall identify transportation needs Chapter 3 and Appendix A (Existing Conditions) relevant to the planning area and the scale of document the Existing Conditions Inventory and the transportation network being planned Analysis. These outline all of the identified needs including: (a)State, regional and local transportation well as those intersections and streets not meeting needs applicable operating standards. (b)Needs of the transportation disadvantaged Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build analysis) (c) Needs for movement of goods and document the No Build analysis. These outline all of services to support industrial and commercial the identified year 2035 needs assuming no additional development planned for, pursuant to Goal 9. infrastructure beyond that currently funded is added. not meeting applicable standards are noted. Chapter 3 and Appendices A and B include a determination of the transportation needs, by mode, related to state, regional and local transportation needs, needs of transportation disadvantaged, and needs for goods movement to support industrial and commercial development. Representatives of ODOT, DLCD, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, the transportation disadvantaged, Eugene Human Rights Commission, homebuilders, rail, air travel, and freight participated in the creation of the 2035 TSP. (2) Local governments preparing local TSPs The TSP has been coordinated with the analyses shall rely on the analyses of state and regional included in applicable state plans, the Metro Plan, transportation needs in adopted elements of TransPlan, and the RTP. the state TSP and adopted regional TSPs. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 21 of 63 (3) Within UGBs, the determination of local and Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build Analysis) include regional transportation needs shall be based population and employment forecasts consistent with upon: the Metro Plan and coordinated with the Lane MPO for year 2035. (a)Population and employment forecasts and distributions that are consistent The 2035 TSP addresses the projects, programs, and with acknowledged com plan. policies needed to support growth in population and Forecasts and distributions shall be for jobs within the Eugene UGB between now and the 20 years and, if desired, for longer year 2035. The 2035 TSP defines the transportation periods; and, established by the Metro Plan. The needs assessment and resulting projects (set forth in Chapter 4 of the 2035 TSP) establish a transportation system adequate to meet the identified local transportation needs based upon the land use designations established by the Metro Plan. Because the 2035 TSP is based on the Metro Plan land use designations, any zone allowed within the land use designation is consistent with both the Metro Plan and this 2035 TSP. Regarding the population and employment forecasts, the determination of t City will continue to see growth in employment and population between now and the year 2035 in a manner consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations, within the existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and consistent with the growth forecast adopted into the Metro Plan. Regarding the population and employment distributions, Staff from the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County and Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) worked collaboratively to identify where the estimated year 2035 population and employment growth might occur within the region as well as within individual areas of each city. This interagency collaboration ensures that the needs analyses for Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg start with the same fundamental assumptions and that the population and employment forecasts are transportation and land use planning requirements. This growth was allocated to developable areas within the current UGB consistent with the land use designations shown in the adopted Metro Plan. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 22 of 63 (b)Measures adopted pursuant to OAR OAR 660-012-0045(1) requires local government to 660-012-0045 to encourage reduced amend its land use regulations to implement the TSP. reliance on the automobile. comply with this rule after TransPlan was adopted in 2002. The 2035 TSP retains those measures and encourages incremental changes to strengthen their effectiveness over time as new travel options become available. Modal Targets are identified in the goals contained in Chapter 2; they triple the percentage of trips made by non-auto modes. Many of the goals, policies, and implementing actions contained in Chapter 2 will help reduce reliance on the automobile. The modal plans, TDM and TSMO plans contained in Chapter 4 and the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvement projects contained in Chapter 5 will help reduce reliance on the automobile. (4) In MPO areas, calculation of local and As discussed in more detail under 0035(4), the 2035 regional transportation needs also shall be TSP supports and advances the alternative based on accomplishment of the requirement performance standards approved by LCDC in 2001 and in OAR 660-012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on adopted as part of TransPlan. In furthering the goals the automobile. of the 2001 standards, the 2035 TSP builds upon the lessons learned since 2001, and recognizes that there are new, innovative ways to decrease vehicle miles of travel. Embedded in the needs analysis for the 2035 TSP that will reduce reliance on the automobile. The 2035 TSP facilities and provide multiple transportation options for local and regional travel. These priorities are based on the premise that the City can reduce congestion, save money, and provide health benefits for the entire community by providing alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel and by making existing streets safer and more efficient without costly increases to automobile-oriented infrastructure. The 2035 TSP supports the land use strategies defined in the 2012 Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032 and prioritizes recommendations that mitigate the strain on roadways by supporting transit service Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 23 of 63 and making walking and bicycling trips more practical for working, shopping, and other daily activities; managing congestion; and improving safety. The 2035 TSP goals, policies, projects, and potential implementing actions are based on analysis by, and input received from, the community, City of Eugene staff, partner agency staff, and City policy-makers. Their review included analysis of, among other things, a multi- (economy, social equity, and natural environment) that included considerations of how possible system improvements will meet the transportation needs for all modes, address the needs of the transportation disadvantaged, and address the need for movement of goods and services to support industrial and commercial development. OAR 660-012-0035 Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives (1) The TSP shall be based on evaluation of The multimodal system improvements were assessed potential impacts of system alternatives that against the goals and policies in Chapter 2 and the can reasonably be expected to meet the evaluation criteria in Chapter 3 to ensure that needs identified transportation needs in a safe are met with a safe and reasonable manner with manner and at a reasonable cost with available available technology. technology. The following shall be evaluated as components of system alternatives. Improvements to existing facilities and services are the (a)Improvements to existing facilities or fundamental basis and highest priority of the TSP services; goals, policies and project lists. As iterated in the policies in Chapter 2, the C system efficiency, safety and management and re- purpose existing rights-of-way to include high-quality facilities for non-auto users before widening streets to expand capacity for motorized vehicles. Specifically, the 2035 TSP Cost Effectiveness and Finance Policy 2, states: Maintain transportation performance and improve safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity for automobiles to the transportation system by using the following priorities for developing the Eugene Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Eugene projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP): a.Protect the existing system. The highest Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 24 of 63 priority is to preserve or improve the functionality of the existing transportation system by means such as access management, transportation demand management, improved traffic operations, ptions not previously present, and keeping roads well maintained to avoid reconstruction. b.Improve the efficiency and safety of existing facilities. The second priority is to make minor improvements to existing streets, such as adding turning lanes at intersections, providing and enhancing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, and extending or connecting streets pursuant to existing plans. c.Add capacity to the existing system. The third priority is to make major improvements to existing transportation facilities such as adding general purpose lanes and making alignment corrections to accommodate legal-sized vehicles. d.Add new facilities to the system. The lowest priority is to add new transportation facilities for motorized vehicles, such as new roadways. New streets that are needed and planned for connectivity are a higher priority, as noted in (b), above. In accordance with Appendices A (Existing Conditions), B (No Build), and C (20-year Needs Analysis), improvements to the existing facilities and services were examined through the existing conditions study, scenario that explored improvements and additions to the existing system. Technological and TSMO improvements to the efficiency of the existing system are recommended by the TSP. (b)New facilities and services, including All new facilities identified in Chapters 4 and 5 were different modes or combinations of modes evaluated in their ability that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs. transportation choices, reduce reliance on the Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 25 of 63 automobile, and improve safety. The reasonableness of proposed projects were verified by the following selection criteria (Chapter 3): 1.Is it technically feasible to build this project? 2.Could the project be funded? 3.Could the project receive necessary environmental permits? Potential projects failing these criteria were dropped from the TSP or deferred for future study (i.e., the Randy Papé Beltline Facility Plan, which had already been deemed reasonably feasible). (c)Transportation system management The Transportation System Management and measures; Operations (TSMO) Plan, contained in Chapter 4, focuses on increasing the safety and efficiency of the existing street system, promoting safety for all users, Climate Recovery Ordinance. (d)Demand management measures; and The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, contained in Chapter 4, in coordination with the Regional Transportation Options Plan (RTOP), focus on providing greater travel choices to enhance mobility and accessibility and maximize transportation investments. Transportation Demand Management is a tool already integrated into the Eugene Land Use Code for reducing demand on a facility, reliance on single- occupant motorized vehicles, and parking supply. Further, the city has set targets to triple the percentage of trips made by trips other than the automobile by 2035. (e) A no-build system alternative required Chapter 3 and Appendix B (No Build) document the No by the NEPA or other laws. Build system alternative and associated transportation needs in the year 2035. (3) The following standards shall be used to Chapter 3 and Appendix D (Alternatives Evaluation evaluate and select alternatives: Process) document the alternatives evaluation and selection process. Goals and policies are included in Chapter 2 and guided the process. The evaluation framework developed for the TSP referenced the Sustainable Transportation Analysis and Rating System sustainability triple bottom line. The STARS evaluation Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 26 of 63 framework, although more robust, satisfies the TPR requirements as noted below. (TSP Table 3.2) (a)The transportation system shall The 2035 TSP modeling and needs analysis is based on support urban and rural development by the Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the providing types and levels of transportation Metro Plan within the existing UGB and consistent facilities and services appropriate to serve the with the growth forecast adopted into the Metro Plan. land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; Modeling for the 2035 TSP used the same land use Eugene buildable lands inventory. Because the Metro Plan land use designation map was adopted at a relatively large scale (small geographic representation) of 1:1,500, and no file is maintained by the City of known plan-split lots as is the case for zoning districts, the land use designation layer was created by enlarging the Metro Plan map and applying a set of rules to resolve split designations on taxlots. A process was used to identify those lots having a substantive portion in two or more differing plan designations versus those that have only a minor portion in an adjoining plan designation. Those lots not identified as candidate split lots were considered designated according to the plan designation found at the geometric center of the lot. Chapter 3 and Appendices B (No Build) and C (20 year Needs Analysis) document the anticipated land uses and the 2035 TSP projects (types and levels of service) needed to support the land uses depicted on the land use designation layer described above. The TSP supports urban growth as planned for the Eugene UGB area in the acknowledged comprehensive plan (the Metro Plan) and regional travel, and restricts facility extension that might encourage inappropriate growth on rural lands. Comparable STARS criteria: Ensure consistency between transportation investments and all relevant adopted and accepted local plans. Support redevelopment priorities by promoting compatible transportation investments along key corridors and in core commercial areas, including downtown. Increase access to employment centers via foot, bike, and transit, while improving the Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 27 of 63 quality of the traveling experience. (b)The transportation system shall be Three of the eight STARS evaluation criteria reference consistent with state and federal standards for air quality, protection of land and water quality. All protection of air, land and water quality; alternatives considered were evaluated against adopted state and federal standards. Sample STARS criteria that promote consistency with state and federal standards for protection of air, land and water quality: Support the reduction in quantities of harmful airborne pollutants associated with transportation. (c)The transportation system shall The alternatives analysis summarized in Chapter 3 and minimize adverse economic, social, Appendix D (Alternatives Evaluation Process) include environmental and energy consequences; an evaluation of adverse economic, social, environmental and energy consequences. Many of the eight evaluation criteria reference these issues. Further, the goals and policies included in Chapter 2 highlight the importance of minimizing these consequences. Example STARS criteria that minimize adverse economic, social, environmental and energy consequences: Use future transportation investments to reduce or eliminate disparities between neighborhoods in access, economic benefits, safety, and health. Encourage infrastructure and programs that allow residents to reduce expenditures on fuel and vehicle use. Focus on transportation programs and projects that help to: reduce total community-wide fossil fuel o use by 50% by 2030 reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita o by 10% by the year 2020 reduce community-wide greenhouse gas o emissions 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 Triple Bottom Line (abbreviated as TBL) is an accounting framework with three parts: social, environmental, and financial. The 2035 TSP integrated Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 28 of 63 TBL sustainability principles in every step of its development. The criteria that were used to prioritize potential projects and programs in this plan were broadened to include public health and safety, community context and neighborhood character, climate and energy, and cost effectiveness to ensure that the plan adequately addresses the many aspects of the economy-equity-environment triple bottom line. The 2035 TSP supports equity and social prosperities in several ways. This plan supports the provision of complete transportation networks that serve all travelers of all ages, abilities, and incomes. Everybody should have safe and efficient access to employment, education, services, and recreation. The 2035 TSP promotes the services and projects that will result in sufficient options to meet these needs. This plan also calls for assurances that costs and benefits of transportation improvements are shared equitably over time, both geographically throughout the city and among populations of different economic strata, races, and ethnicities. The 2035 TSP supports the continued growth and vitality of the local and regional economy. Transportation infrastructure investments on key corridors will support the projected employment base and freight movements as well as improve multimodal access to the airport and train station. The 2035 TSP removes a barrier to planned growth by adjusting Levels of Service for traffic to more realistic levels, levels that reduce reliance on automobile travel and permit levels of development desired by the comprehensive land use plan. (d)The transportation system shall The alternatives analysis summarized in Chapter 3 and minimize conflicts and facilitate connections Appendix D (Alternatives Evaluation Process) include between modes of transportation; and an evaluation of the potential for intermodal connections and minimization of conflicts. Further, the goals and policies included in Chapter 2 are focused on creating a complete, connected transportation system that meets the needs and safety of travelers of all ages, abilities, races, ethnicities and incomes. Sample STARS criteria that minimize conflicts and facilitate connections between modes of transportation: Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 29 of 63 Support redevelopment priorities by promoting compatible transportation investments along key corridors and in core commercial areas, including downtown. Foster neighborhoods where 90 percent of Eugene residents can meet most daily needs without relying heavily on an automobile. Improve the comfort and convenience of travel, especially for walking, bicycling, carpooling, and riding transit. Maintain a network of Emergency Response Streets to facilitate prompt emergency response. (e) The transportation system shall avoid The alternatives analysis summarized in Chapter 3 and principal reliance on any one mode of Appendix D (Alternatives Evaluation Process) is transportation by increasing transportation fundamentally based on the need to decrease reliance choices to reduce principal reliance on the on the automobile (see sample criteria, above). Most automobile. Select transportation alternatives of the eight STARS evaluation criteria reference this that meet the requirements in section (4) of critical need. Further, the goals and policies included in the rule. Chapter 2 highlight the importance of tripling the percentage of trips made by transit, cycling and walking by 2035 and increasing transportation choices for all users. The 2035 TSP plans for significant investment in active transportation over the next 20 years. Of the 276 projects planned in the 2035 TSP to be built over the next 20 years, 253 of the projects are entirely pedestrian and bicycle projects; those projects include 89 neighborhood greenway projects, 17 shared use paths, 10 protected bike lane projects, and 89 separated path/sidewalk projects. Six of the 276 projects are transit projects, which include improving frequent transit service and multimodal travel along numerous transit corridors. The 2035 TSP will affect how all streets will be planned and maintained in the future. By making streets more inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists, especially for short trips, the City will gain more efficient use of limited available space within the street rights-of-way, provide a healthier environment in neighborhoods, and support the higher density, mixed use Key Corridors championed by the Envision Eugene, A Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 30 of 63 Community Vision for 2032. Improvements to the sidewalk, bicycle, and transit networks make many more travel options available, financial situation, and location. In furtherance of the goal to increase the number of people choosing active transportation as their travel option, as noted above, there are 245 bicycle, pedestrian and transit projects planned for the next 20 years; these projects representing over 51% of the total transportation dollars that the City plans to spend over the next 20 years. By planning for the active transportation infrastructure that will make active modes of travel more safe and convenient, the 2035 TSP is designed to achieve its goal of greatly increasing the number of trips made by transit, bicycling and walking. With the 245 bicycle, pedestrian and transit projects (as well as the six complete street projects) planned for the next 20 years, the 2035 TSP hopes to (at least) triple the number of trips made by transit, bicycling or walking by 2035. (4) In MPO area, regional and local TSPs shall The 2035 TSP supports and advances the alternative be designed to achieve adopted standards for performance standards approved by LCDC in 2001 and increasing transportation choices and reducing adopted as part of TransPlan. The Transportation reliance on the automobile. Adopted standards Demand Management Plan, contained in Chapter 4, in are intended as means of measuring progress coordination with the Regional Transportation Options of metropolitan areas towards developing and Plan, focuses on providing greater travel choices to implementing transportation systems and land enhance mobility and accessibility and maximize use plans that increase transportation choices transportation investments. Further, the City has set and reduce reliance on the automobile. It is targets to triple the percentage of trips made by trips anticipated that metropolitan areas will other than the automobile by 2035, as iterated in the accomplish reduced reliance by changing land goals and policies included in Chapter 2 and the use patterns and transportation systems so evaluation criteria included in Chapter 3. that walking, cycling, and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance, In furthering the goals of the 2001 standards, the 2035 people need to and are likely to drive less than TSP builds upon the lessons learned since 2001, and they do today. recognizes that there are new, innovative ways to decrease vehicle miles of travel. To that end, the 2035 TSP uses terminology that, at times, slightly differs from the terminology adopted in 2001, but nevertheless advances the achievement of the standards approved by LCDC in 2001. For example, the its land use and transportation planning efforts. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 31 of 63 - terminology, the underlying concept, goals, and benefits of nodal development remains unchanged; providing land use patterns so that walking, cycling, and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance, people need to and are likely to drive less than they do today. Most importantly, the 2035 TSP is designed to increase transportation choices and reduce reliance on the automobile. The 2035 TSP supports and advances the alternative performance standards approved by LCDC in 2001 and adopted as part of TransPlan in the following way: % Non-Auto Trips. The 2035 TSP has goals of tripling trips by walking, biking, and transit and reducing fossil fuel consumption. Of the 264 projects planned in the 2035 TSP to be built over the next 20 years, 239 of the projects are entirely pedestrian and bicycle projects; those projects include 89 neighborhood greenway projects, 18 shared use paths, 12 protected bike lane projects, and 85 separated path/sidewalk projects. Six of the 264 projects are transit project, which include improving frequent transit service and multimodal travel along numerous transit corridors. These 245 bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects represent 51% of the total transportation dollars that are planned to be spent over the next 20 years. Of the 19 remaining projects, six of the projects are complete street upgrades to existing roadways; all six of these projects have a significant bicycle and pedestrian component. These complete street projects represent an additional 10% of the total transportation dollars. Establishment of a bike share program is currently underway and is one of the 2035 TSP The 2035 TSP has a policy to encourage walking as the most attractive mode of transportation for short trips (e.g., within .5 miles) within and to activity centers, downtown, key corridors, and major destinations, and as a means of accessing transit. A related policy of the 2035 TSP is to ensure that there are safe, accessible, comfortable, and direct sidewalk connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops and to continually improve walking comfort, safety, and accessibility through design, operations, retrofits, and maintenance. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 32 of 63 % Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors. The 2035 TSP has a goal of tripling trips by walking, biking, and transit, and policies that promote planning and improving multimodal access along the Key Corridors (EE Vision) and (the same) Frequent Transit Networks (LTD Long Range Transit Plan). The 2035 TSP policies promote improved transit services that are integrated through context specific multimodal planning for all Key Corridors. One of the four transit policies in the 2035 TSP is to collaborate with Lane Transit District to provide a network of high capacity, frequent, and reliable transit services, including consideration of Bus Rapid Transit, to the Range Transit Plan. Additionally, the 2035 TSP includes $171.4 million in transit projects that support the transit policies and the identified transit needs. The six multimodal/transit projects planned for the next 20 years include the improvement of frequent transit service and multimodal travel along Coburg Road, River Road, Highway 99, 30 th Avenue and Amazon Parkway, new transfer stations, and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Additionally, an identified potential action item is to review City Code and amend it if needed to enable additional opportunities to provide bikeways and improved pedestrian connections between key destinations, transit stops, and residential areas with new development and redevelopment. Priority Bikeway Miles. Pprojects are defined in TransPlan Bike projects located along an essential core route on which the overall bicycle system depends; and (one of the following): 1. Fills in a critical gap in the existing bicycle system; or 2. Overcomes a barrier where no other nearby existing or programmed bikeway alternatives exist; or, 3. corridor. The 2035 TSP sets benchmarks constructing new projects that meet TransPlan Priority Bikeway Miles. The 2035 TSP promotes a complete network of various context sensitive bikeways throughout the community (including cycle tracks, bike boulevards, and protected bikeways). As discussed above, of the 264 projects planned in the Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 33 of 63 2035 TSP to be built over the next 20 years, 245 of the projects are entirely pedestrian and bicycle projects; those projects include 89 neighborhood greenway projects, 22 on-street bike lanes, 18 shared use paths, 12 protected bike lane projects, and 85 separated path/sidewalk projects. These 245 bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects represent 51% of the total transportation dollars that are planned to be spent over the next 20 years. One of the 2035 TSP evelop a well-connected and comfortable bikeway network. Ensure that there are safe, comfortable, and direct bikeway connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops and provide secure bicycle parking facilities at these destinations. Maintain a map and project list for desired improvements to the bicycle network within the life of this plan. Provide priorities among these projects, yet provide flexibility among priorities to respond to unforeseen opportunities and development. The list of bicycle projects in support of the policies and the identified needs are shown in Chapter 5. The 2035 TSP providing projects and policies that will create a network of bicycle and pedestrian-friendly routes throughout the planning area. While the map of all potential bicycle system improvements may include some on local streets, only improvements on collector and arterial streets were considered for the 2035 TSP project list and cost estimates. Acres of zoned nodal development TransPlan - used, pedestrian friendly land use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be 2035 TSP promotes the completion of safe, comfortable, and direct sidewalk and bikeway networks between key destinations, transit stops, and residential areas, which supports nodal development. Specifically, the 2035 TSP does not change the zoning of nodal development areas. Further, the 2035 TSP sets benchmarks for increasing the number of acres that meet TransPlan Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 34 of 63 definition of nodal development, i.e., mixed use centers, Key Transit Corridors, and 20-minute neighborhoods. % of dwelling units built in nodes. This TSP promotes neighborhoods where 90 percent of Eugene residents can meet most daily needs without relying heavily on an automobile. A system-wide policy of the 2035 TSP is fostering neighborhoods where Eugene residents can meet most of their basic daily needs without an automobile by providing streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and access to transit in an inviting environment where all travelers feel safe and secure. The related potential action item is the creation of a strategy to facilitate 90 percent of Eugene residences to be within 20-minute neighborhoods. Further, the 2035 TSP sets benchmarks for increasing the percentage of new dwelling units built in areas that meet definition of nodal development, i.e., % of new dwelling units built in mixed use centers, 20-Minute Neighborhoods, and along Key Transit Corridors. . The TSP supports employment in nodes by increasing access to employment centers via foot, bike, and transit, and promoting compatible transportation investments along key corridors and in core commercial areas, including downtown.Identified potential action items regulating to encourage walking, biking, and use of public transit and periodically reviewing parking needs in the downtown, Federal Courthouse, and riverfront districts and balance supply with other objectives, such as economic vitality; support for transit, walking, and biking; reduced consumption of fossil fuels; and human-scaled urban form. Additionally, for more than 10 years the City has had in place Standards for Transportation Demand Management Programs that provide a mechanism to vary the number of required off-street parking spaces by providing a strategy for reducing vehicle use and parking demand and using benchmarks to measure program effectiveness. Further, the 2035 TSP sets aggressive goals for the percentage of new employment located within areas that meet TransPlan development, i.e., % of new employment in mixed use centers, 20 Minute Neighborhoods, and along Key Transit Corridors. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 35 of 63 Internal VMT. Vehicle Miles Travelled have been on the decline in Eugene. Policies cited above that promote alternatives to driving, mixed use neighborhoods, and reduced consumption of fossil fuels will help reduce VMT. Goal 1 of the 2035 TSP is to reate an integrated transportation system that is safe and efficient; supports the Metro Plan diagram and Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032 (2012) percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and other City land use and economic development goals; reduces reliance on single-occupancy automobiles; and VMT/Capita. Per capita VMT has been on the decline in Eugene. Policies cited above that promote alternatives to driving, mixed use neighborhoods, education, and reduced consumption of fossil fuels will help reduce per capita VMT. The 2035 TSP choices and reduce reliance on the automobile will most likely advance any new regional standards that are adopted as part of the RTSP update, however, if needed, the 2035 TSP will be amended to address the new regional standards. (7) Regional and local TSPs shall include As discussed above, OAR 660-012-0035(5) requires benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress that MPO areas adopt standards for approval by the towards meeting the approved standard or Land Conservation and Development Commission standards adopted pursuant to this rule at (LCDC). The 0035(5) standards developed by the regular intervals over the planning period. Eugene-Springfield MPO for TransPlan were approved MPOs and local governments shall evaluate by LCDC in 2001, and adopted as part of TransPlan in progress in meeting benchmarks at each 2002. Because TransPlan re update of the regional transportation plan. regional transportation system plan, the standards Where benchmarks are not met, the relevant adopted by LDCD in 2001 are still in effect, and TSP shall be amended to include new or applicable, today. additional efforts adequate to meet the requirements of this rule. Therefore, the Eugene 2035 TSP retains the LCDC- approved standards as required by the TPR and sets forth benchmarks that advance progress towards increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile, and better reflect local targets for bicycle, walking, and transit travel and achieving the land use patterns promoted by Envision Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 36 of 63 Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032. Attachment D to the 2035 TSP sets forth benchmarks to assure that the City is making satisfactory progress towards meeting the standards approved by LCDC in 2001. The benchmarks in Attachment D include regular intervals over the 2035 TSP-year planning for the City to evaluate its progress toward meeting the Alternatives Performance Measures approved by LCDC in 2001 for the Eugene-Springfield MPO. 10) Transportation uses or improvements ( The 2035 TSP includes Project No. MM- listed in OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d) to (g) and (o) local arterial bridge over the Willamette River to the and located in an urban fringe may be included north of the Beltline Highway, connecting Division in a TSP only if the improvement project Avenue to Green Acres Road; construct operational identified in the Transportation System Plan as improvements to existing Randy Papé Beltline described in section (12) of this rule, will not Highway/Delta Highway ramps consistent with the significantly reduce peak hour travel time for Beltline Highway Facility Plan the route as determined pursuant to section Randy Papé Beltline Facility Plan is adopted as part of (11) of this rule, or the jurisdiction determines the 2035 TSP (Attachment C). The Facility Plan includes that the following alternatives can not recommended improvements to the Randy Papé reasonably satisfy the purpose of the Beltline Highway, Delta Highway and adjacent arterial improvement project: street system to improve safety and the long-term operations of the highway between River Road and (a) Improvements to transportation facilities Coburg Road. This Facility Plan is a precursor to the and services within the urban growth National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for boundary; the implementation of future Randy Papé Beltline (b) Transportation system management Highway projects. The NEPA analysis will include more measures that do not significantly increase detailed and rigorous analysis of project impacts and capacity; or result in a determination as to whether or not one or (c) Transportation demand management more of the improvements options can be constructed measures. The jurisdiction needs only to and, potentially, result in a recommended preferred consider alternatives that are safe and project that is eligible for federal funding. effective, consistent with applicable standards and that can be implemented at a reasonable If the outcome of the NEPA analysis is that one or cost using available technology. more of the improvement options can be constructed, the project description and costs estimates for Project MM-3 will be updated to reflect the improvement option ultimately selected. The City recognizes that construction outside of the urban growth boundary may require a goal exception or UGB amendment. Those land use issues will be resolved together with Lane County. Nevertheless, MM-3 (which may include construction within the urban fringe) can be included in the 2035 TSP because the project is authorized by provisions of OAR 660-012-0065 other than (3)(d) to (g) and (o). OAR 660-012-0040 Transportation Financing Program Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 37 of 63 (1) For areas within an urban growth boundary Cost estimates for all of the planned facilities and containing a population greater than 2,500 luded in persons, the TSP shall include a transportation Chapter 5. Chapter 6 contains a summary of all project financing program. costs, by prioritization category, a projection of revenue and a financing and implementation plan. (2) A transportation financing program shall The TSP contains all the required components of the - include the items listed in (a)-(d): 0040(2) finance plan: (d) policies to guide selection of transportation facility and improvement projects for funding in the (6). The policies, contained in Chapter 2, consider and include facilities friendly development and increased use of alternative (non-automobile) modes of transportation. (a) A list of planned transportation facilities and Chapter 5 lists all of the planned transportation major improvements; facilities and major improvements, by mode. (b) A general estimate of the timing for planned All of the planned transportation facilities and major transportation facilities and major improvements are contained in Chapter 5 and are improvements; prioritized in the following categories for general timing: projects within 20 years, projects to complete upon development of adjacent lands, projects that could be completed beyond the 20-year planning horizon if conditions change and the TSP is amended, and projects requiring further study prior to establishing a timing for funding and implementation. (c) A determination of rough cost estimates for Chapter 5 lists all of the planned transportation the transportation facilities and major facilities and major improvements, by mode and their improvements identified in the TSP; and associated cost estimates. (d) In metropolitan areas, policies to guide The 2035 TSP articulates policies and actions that selection of transportation facility and explicitly prioritize facilities and improvements that improvement projects for funding in the short-support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, term to meet the standards and benchmarks increase use of active modes of transportation, and established pursuant to 0035(4)-(6). Such reduce reliance on travel by single-occupant policies shall consider, and shall include among automobile. These priorities include improved the priorities, facilities and improvements that convenience and safety for walking, biking, and support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly connections to transit stops; improved transit service Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 38 of 63 development and increased use of alternative in Key Corridors; bikeway improvements near the modes. University of Oregon, downtown Eugene, and on streets connecting residential areas to schools and commercial hubs; a railroad quiet zone in the downtown and Whiteaker areas; investments that facilitate job growth in high priority employment opportunity sites; and priority parking and reduced parking fees for non-gasoline powered vehicles. Goal 1 of the 2035 TSP states: Create an integrated transportation system that is safe and efficient; supports the Metro Plan Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032 (2012), in fossil fuel consumption, and other City land use and economic development goals; reduces reliance on single-occupancy automobiles; and enhances community livability. The 2035 TSP contains many policies that prioritize facilities and improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development and increased use of alternative modes, including the following: Design, construct, maintain, and operate all streets to provide comprehensive and integrated transportation networks that serve people of all ages and abilities, promote commerce, and support the comprehensive land use planvision for growth and development in a responsible and efficient automobiles and emergency responders, bicycles, walking, transit, and freight. In addition to fulfilling a access to properties, streets and sidewalks should be designed to be attractive, safe, accessible, sustainable, and healthy components of the City's environment. Pedestrian Policy 1: Encourage walking as the most attractive mode of transportation for short trips (e.g., within .5 miles) within and to activity centers, downtown, key corridors, and major destinations, and as a means of accessing transit. PCoordinate improvements to complement and improve the systems proposed in the Eugene Trails Plan and connections to regional trails. Develop a well-connected and Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 39 of 63 comfortable bikeway network. Ensure that there are safe, comfortable, and direct bikeway connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops and provide secure bicycle parking facilities at these destinations (3) The determination of rough cost estimates Chapter 5 lists all of the planned transportation is intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal facilities and major improvements, by mode and their requirements to support the land uses in the associated cost estimates. Chapter 6 includes a acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow summary of cost estimates, by prioritization category, jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing a forecast of revenue based on existing funding and possible alternative funding mechanisms. mechanisms and potential new mechanisms, and a In addition to including rough cost estimates plan for implementation. Additionally, Chapter 2 for each transportation facility and major includes policies and potential action items specific to improvement, the transportation financing plan cost effectiveness and finance. shall include a discussion of the facility provider's existing funding mechanisms and the The planning level cost estimates provided in Chapter ability of these and possible new mechanisms 5 of the 2035 TSP provide an estimate of the fiscal to fund the development of each requirements to support the land uses in the transportation facility and major improvement. acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow the These funding mechanisms may also be assessment of the adequacy of existing and alternative described in terms of general guidelines or local funding mechanisms. The transportation financing policies. plan (Chapter 6) includes a discussion of the facility provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each transportation facility and major improvement. (5) The transportation financing program shall The planned transportation facilities and major provide for phasing of major improvements to improvements identified in Chapter 5 prioritize encourage infill and redevelopment of urban pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements in Key lands prior to facilities and improvements Corridors that encourage infill and redevelopment. A which would cause premature development of system-wide policy of the 2035 TSP is fostering urbanizable lands or conversion of rural lands neighborhoods where Eugene residents can meet to urban uses. most of their basic daily needs without an automobile by providing streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and access to transit in an inviting environment where all travelers feel safe and secure. The related potential action item is the creation of a strategy to facilitate 90 percent of Eugene residences to be within 20-minute neighborhoods. The 2035 TSP also supports the land use strategies defined in the 2012 Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032 and prioritizes recommendations that mitigate the strain on roadways by supporting transit service and making walking and bicycling trips more Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 40 of 63 practical for working, shopping, and other daily activities; managing congestion; and improving safety. One primary focus of both the Metro Plan and Envision Eugene is on more compact development. As such, significant future residential development is likely to Volume 2, Appendix E), including: Willamette Street, W 11th Avenue, Highway 99N, River Road, Coburg Road, and Franklin Boulevard. The 2035 TSP includes projects and programs, and identifies financial resources, that support the growth anticipated over the next 20 years along these key corridors. The transportation financing program (Chapters 5 and 6) provides for phasing of major improvements to encourage infill and redevelopment of urban lands prior to facilities and improvements which would cause premature development of urbanizable lands or conversion of rural lands to urban uses. The 2035 TSP does not promote extension of streets outside the UGB that would promote urbanization of rural lands. OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an As part of the 2035 TSP adoption package, section 67 acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land of Ordinance No. 20528 will be deleted, thereby lifting use regulation (including a zoning map) would the trip cap imposed on the properties rezoned by that significantly affect an existing or planned ordinance. transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as Ordinance No. 20528 was adopted in May, 2014, as an provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the Envision Eugene efficiency measure. Ordinance No. amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or 20528 created a new E-2 Mixed Used Employment (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation zone in West Eugene and converted I-1 Campus amendment significantly affects a Industrial zone to the E-1 Campus Employment zone in transportation facility if it would: three areas of the City. Section 67 of Ordinance No. (a) Change the functional classification of an 20528 imposed a trip cap on all of the properties that existing or planned transportation facility are subject to a code amendment or zone change that (exclusive of correction of map errors in an would allow uses that would generate more traffic adopted plan); than is currently allowed on those properties. (b) Change standards implementing a Specifically, the City imposed trip caps on all of the functional classification system; or properties where the currently allowed uses will be (c) Result in any of the effects listed in expanded, either as a result of the newly-named E-1 paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection zone or a zone change to C-2 or E-2. With the based on projected conditions measured at the proposed trip caps, traffic generated from the subject end of the planning period identified in the properties after the code amendments and zone adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected changes could not have exceed the amount of traffic conditions, the amount of traffic projected to that could be generated from these properties prior to be generated within the area of the adoption of the code amendments and zone changes. amendment may be reduced if the amendment The trip cap was imposed on a corridor-level, and the Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 41 of 63 includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement trip cap numbers were aggregate for all the affected that would demonstrably limit traffic lots. The aggregate vehicular trip cap within the West generation, including, but not limited to, Eugene study area is 4,960 trips. The aggregate transportation demand management. This vehicular trip cap for the three discrete E-1 Campus reduction may diminish or completely Employment zoned areas are as follows: Greenhill eliminate the significant effect of the Technology Park 1250, Willow Creek 1270, and amendment. Chad Drive 1370. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of As discussed above, in determinin an existing or planned transportation facility; transportation needs the 2035 TSP modeling assumed (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or that the City will continue to see growth in planned transportation facility such that it employment and population between now and the would not meet the performance standards year 2035 in a manner consistent with the existing identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or Comprehensive Plan land use designations, within the (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and consistent planned transportation facility that is otherwise with the growth forecast adopted into the Metro projected to not meet the performance Plan. Regarding the population and employment standards identified in the TSP or distributions, Staff from the cities of Eugene and comprehensive plan. Springfield, Lane County and Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) worked collaboratively to identify where the estimated year 2035 population and employment growth might occur within the region as well as within individual areas of each city. Based on these estimates of future job and household growth and distribution, LCOG developed traffic street system, using an emme travel demand model. To reflect the efficiency measures adopted by Ordinance No. 20528, the growth and distribution forecasts that served as the basis for the travel demand model included a higher distribution of the employment growth to the newly created E-2 Mixed Used Employment zone in West Eugene and the three areas of the City where I-1 Campus Industrial zone was converted to the E-1 Campus Employment zone. Based on the modeling, to address the increased travel demand resulting, in part, by the higher distribution of employment growth in the newly created E-2 Mixed Used Employment zone in West Eugene and the three areas of the City where I-1 Campus Industrial zone was converted to the E-1 Campus Employment zone, the 2035 TSP includes the following: 1. Citywide LOS E 2. 1.0 v/c for specified ODOT facilities, including West 11th Avenue from Ed Cone east into Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 42 of 63 downtown, Coburg Road in the vicinity of the Beltline Highway interchange as well as from Harlow Road to downtown, Randy Papé Beltline/W 11th Avenue. 3. MM-3, Construct local arterial bridge over the Willamette River to the north of the Beltline Highway, connecting Division Avenue to Green Acres Road; construct operational improvements to existing Randy Papé Beltline Highway/Delta Highway ramps consistent with the Beltline Highway Facility Plan. 4. MM-4, Improve I-5/Randy Papé Beltline Highway interchange (project is currently funded and underway). 5. MM-6, Improve frequent transit service and multimodal travel along Coburg Road and transit connections to Springfield. 6. MM-9, West Eugene EmX extension along W 6th, 7th, and 11th Avenues, Garfield and Charnelton Streets (project is currently funded and under construction) 7. MM-14, Upgrade W 11th Avenue consistent with major arterial standards, including provision of four travel lanes, center median, bike lanes, sidewalks on both sides of the road, and planting strips 8. MM-20, Add lanes on the Randy Papé Beltline Highway and provide intersection improvements at the Randy Papé Beltline Highway/W 11th Avenue and Randy Papé Beltline Highway/Roosevelt Boulevard intersections. Because the 2035 TSP proposed transportation system recognizes and addresses the increased travel demand anticipated by the newly created E-2 Mixed Used Employment zone in West Eugene and the three areas of the City where I-1 Campus Industrial zone was converted to the E-1 Campus Employment zone, the trip caps imposed by Ordinance No. 20528 can be lifted. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 43 of 63 (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a The needs assessment and resulting projects (set forth local government may find that an amendment in Chapter 4) that establish a transportation system to a zoning map does not significantly affect an adequate to meet the identified local transportation existing or planned transportation facility if all needs are based upon the land use designations of the following requirements are met. established by the Metro Plan. Because the 2035 TSP is based on the Metro Plan land use designations, any (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with zone allowed within the land use designation is the existing comprehensive plan map consistent with both the Metro Plan and this 2035 TSP. designation and the amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map; Looking ahead, when the City adopts a new (b) The local government has an comprehensive plan, unless the new comprehensive acknowledged TSP and the proposed plan changes the current Metro Plan land use zoning is consistent with the TSP; and designations, a zone allowed within the land use (c) The area subject to the zoning map designation will be consistent with both the new amendment was not exempted from this comprehensive plan and this 2035 TSP. If adoption of rule at the time of an urban growth the new comprehensive plan includes an expansion of boundary amendment as permitted in OAR the UGB, any amendments to the 2035 TSP that are 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was necessary to address the expansion area will be exempted from this rule but the local adopted currently with the UGB amendment. government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 13 does not apply. Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The City is currently in compliance with Goal 14. The amendments will not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan provisions adopted to preserve the distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and programs that provide for more efficient urban uses within the UGB, thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. While the City is in the midst of creating a comprehensive land use plan for 2035 that may include future UGB expansion areas, these amendments are for the existing Eugene UGB and do not address any future UGB expansion areas that may occur. If expansion areas are eventually approved, the 2035 TSP will need to be updated to include those areas.The amendment updates the transportation section of the Metro Plan through incorporating the 2035 TSP. The 2035 TSP ensures compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012, which governs transportation system development in the state and requires conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan. The adoption of these amendments does not alter the City compliance with Goal 14. The amendment is consistent with this goal. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 44 of 63 Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The Willamette River Greenway area with the Urban Growth Boundary is governed by existing local provisions that have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those provisions will be unchanged by the amendments. The amendments will not change TransPlan and the Metro Plan provisions related to the protection and maintenance of the scenic, historical, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River. Further, the amendments will not affect TransPlanMetro Plan Nearly all of projects in the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan are located outside of the Willamette River Greenway area. Individual transportation projects that are located in the Willamette River Greenway are required to conduct an individual analysis of Goal 15 compliance during the project development phase of work. This proposed amendment is consistent with this goal. Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property effected by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. ΛЋΜ ŷĻ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ ğƒĻƓķƒĻƓƷ ķƚĻƭ ƓƚƷ ƒğƉĻ ƷŷĻ aĻƷƩƚ tƌğƓ źƓƷĻƩƓğƌƌǤ źƓĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ͵ Until now, TransPlan, adopted as a functional plan to the Metro Plan transportation system plan (RTSP), local transportation system plan, and pedestrian and bicycle master plan. While TransPlan 2035 TSP will serve as the Cit local transportation system and Because TransPlan will continue to serve as the RTSP for Eugene, Springfield, and Metropolitan Lane County until a new RTSP is adopted, TransPlan remains a functional plan of the Metro Plan. The 2035 TSP, also adopted as part of the Metro Plan, must be consistent with TransPlan. In addition to the findings set forth in Table A (OAR 660-012-0015) and the findings set forth regarding the consistency between the 2035 TSP and the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan (which are incorporated herein by reference), the findings set forth below demonstrate that the 2035 TSP (and corresponding Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments) are consistent with both TransPlan and the Metro Plan and will not make the documents internally inconsistent. ƩğƓƭtƌğƓ The 2035 TSP is consistent with TransPlan goals and policies. The following table (Findings Table B) provides a comparison and consistency evaluation between the goals and policies contained in TransPlan and the 2035 TSP. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 45 of 63 Findings Table B ƩğƓƭtƌğƓ and ЋЉЌЎ {t Consistency ƩğƓƭtƌğƓ Goals Complimentary ЋЉЌЎ {t Goals Provide an integrated transportation and land Create an integrated transportation system that is use system that supports choices in modes of safe and efficient; supports the Metro Plan travel and development patterns that will diagram and Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for reduce reliance on the auto and enhance 2032 livability, economic opportunity, and the quality percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and of life. other City land use and economic development goals; reduces reliance on single-occupancy automobiles; and enhances community livability. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan Advance regional sustainability by providing a transportation system that improves economic by providing a transportation system that is: vitality, environmental health, social equity, and a) Balanced, overall well-being. b) Accessible, Strengthen community resilience to changes in c) Efficient, climate, increases in fossil fuel prices, and economic d) Safe, fluctuations by making the transportation networks e) Interconnected, diverse, adaptable, and not reliant on any single f) Environmentally responsible, mode. g) Supportive of responsible and sustainable development, Address the transportation needs and safety of all h) Responsive to community needs and travelers, including people of all ages, abilities, races, neighborhood impacts, and ethnicities, and incomes. Through transportation i) Economically viable and financially stable. investments, respond to the needs of system users, be context sensitive, and distribute the benefits and impacts of transportation decisions fairly throughout the city. By the year 2035 triple the percentage of trips made on foot, by bicycle, and by transit from 2014 levels. \[Note: Eugene used the Triple Bottom Line standard for sustainable planning.\] ƩğƓƭtƌğƓ Policy Topic Areas Complimentary 9ǒŭĻƓĻ {t Policy, action summary Land Use / Nodal Development Key Corridor Planning, Services Transit-Supportive land use patterns Key Corridor Planning, Services Multi-modal improvements Multi-modal improvements, Complete Streets policy Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management/TSMO Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 46 of 63 Congestion Management TDM, ITS, and new LOS standards Parking Management Parking Management, code review Transportation Infrastructure Protection Transportation Infrastructure Protection, maintenance Intermodal connectivity Intermodal connectivity Corridor preservation Rights-of-way preservation, reuse Neighborhood livability Walkable neighborhoods, inviting environment, neighborhood context, neighborhood safety, equity between neighborhoods, community engagement, community health Mobility, LOS Mobility, travel time reliability, updated LOS Safety Emergency Response Emergency response as important component of a Complete Street Coordinated roadway network Complete Streets, connectivity, connections between modes Access management, Efficiency Improved circulation, ITS Note: Since TransPlan Eugene has adopted and enforces an updated access management program Improved transit, BRT, HOV priority, park & ride Improved transit (goal of doubling ridership), BRT, frequent transit networks and Key Corridors. Park and ride facility is in project list. Note: Since TransPlan Eugene has adopted an updated code to address park and ride facilities. Support for bike systems on roadways, Support for complete bike network, improved especially arterial and collector roadways signage, protections from vehicles, bike share program, bike parking. Note: 2035 TSP incorporates key components of the 2012 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Bikeway connections to new development Bikeway connections to new development Pedestrian environment that is safe, comfortable, continuous and direct and direct sidewalk connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops. Continually improve walking comfort, safety, and accessibility through design, operations, retrofits, and maintenance. Provide landscaped setback sidewalks of ample width and safe street crossings to Note: 2035 TSP incorporates key components of the 2012 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan reasonable and reliable travel times for freight Travel time reliability, recognition of designated Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 47 of 63 Supports Cascadia High Speed Rail Corridor Supports Cascadia High Speed Rail Corridor Supports Eugene airport, Airport Master Plan Supports Eugene airport, Airport Master Plan Supports rail bus connections Supports all intermodal connections Support adequate funding Supports funding transportation improvements, encourages continued public involvement and support for transportation improvements. Project list is fundable given current funding projections. Operate and maintain transportation facilities Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a in a way that reduces the need for more way that reduces the need for more expensive future expensive future repair. repair. Set priorities for investment of Oregon and Priorities are set by policies. federal revenues Maintain transportation performance and Maintain transportation performance and improve improve safety by improving system efficiency safety by improving system efficiency and and management before adding capacity to the management before adding capacity for automobiles transportation system to the transportation system by using the following priorities for developing the Eugene Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Eugene projects in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP): Protect the existing system. The highest priority is to preserve or improve the functionality of the existing transportation system by means such as access management, transportation demand management, improved traffic operations, technologies, previously present, and keeping roads well maintained to avoid reconstruction. Improve the efficiency and safety of existing facilities. The second priority is to make minor improvements to existing streets, such as adding turning lanes at intersections, providing and enhancing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, and extending or connecting streets pursuant to existing plans. Add capacity to the existing system. The third priority is to make major improvements to existing transportation facilities such as adding general purpose lanes and making alignment corrections to accommodate legal-sized vehicles. Add new facilities to the system. The lowest priority is to add new transportation facilities for motorized vehicles, such as new roadways. New streets that are needed and planned for connectivity are a higher priority, as noted in (b), above. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 48 of 63 Implement higher priority measures first unless a lower priority measure is demonstrated to be more cost-effective or better supports safety, growth management, or other livability and economic considerations. Provide justification for using lower priority measures before higher priority measures. The manner in which the 2035 TSP supports and advances the alternative performance standards approved by LCDC in 2001 and adopted as part of TransPlan are set forth above in the Goal 12 findings (Findings Table A). Those detailed findings are incorporated herein by reference. aĻƷƩƚ tƌğƓ Chapter III of the Metro Plan contains eleven specific elements that address a comprehensive list of topics, including (A) Residential Land Use and Housing Element (B) Economic Element (C) Environmental Resources Element (D) Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element (E) Environmental Design Element (F) Transportation Element (G) Public Facilities and Services Element, and (H) Parks and Recreation Facilities Element. Findings for relevant policies from each element are contained in this report. Applicable Metro Plan policies are italicized. The following policies from the Metro Plan (identified below in italics) are applicable to these amendments. Based on the findings provided below, the amendments are consistent with and supported by the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. A. Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element The 2035 TSP is based on the Metro Plan projections inherent in that plan. The 2035 TSP does not change the Metro Plan This Residential Land Use and Housing Element and Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis contains the following relevant housing policies related to the 2035 TSP. A.7 Endeavor to provide key urban services and facilities required to maintain a five-year supply of serviced, buildable residential land. A.8 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of extending public services and infrastructure. The cities shall examine ways to provide subsidies or incentives for providing infrastructure that support affordable housing and/or higher density housing. A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB. The 2035 TSP contains multiple goals and polices that support the above stated housing policies and land use efficiency measures. These TSP goals and policies include, but are not limited to: Goal 1: Create an integrated transportation system that is safe and efficient; supports the Metro Plan and Envision Eugene, A Community Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 49 of 63 fuel consumption, and other City land use and economic development goals; reduces reliance on single-occupancy automobiles; and enhances community livability. Policy: Prioritize improved transit service in Key Corridors and other areas with sufficient employment, activities, or residential density that best support transit service and transit services that connect residents to employment centers. If operational funding is sufficient, extend transit to support higher density housing and employment development planned for other areas. Policy: Foster neighborhoods where Eugene residents could meet most of their basic daily needs without an automobile by providing streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and access to transit in an inviting environment where all travelers feel safe and secure. The above stated TSP goal and policies are examples of consistency between the Eugene 2035 TSP and relevant Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing policies. The proposed amendments will further support and enhance the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element through strengthening multi-modal connections, enhancing bike, pedestrian and transit facilities and target multi-modal infrastructure in higher density, mixed use areas throughout Eugene. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. B. Metro Plan Economic Element The Economic Element of the Metro Plan addresses the economic needs of current and future residents of the metropolitan area. The overarching economic goal of the Metro Plan Element is to, Broaden, improve, and diversify the metropolitan economy while maintaining or enhancing the environment. The Economic Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant economic policies related to the Eugene 2035 TSP: distribution, trade, health, and service center. B.14 Continue efforts to keep the Eugene and Springfield central business districts as vital centers of the metropolitan area. B.17 Improve land availability for industries dependent on rail access. 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-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan. B.19 Local jurisdictions will encourage the allocation of funds to improve transportation access to key industrial sites or areas through capital budgets and priorities. B.28 Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 50 of 63 The 2035 TSP does not modify the industrial designation of any lands. The 2035 TSP contains the goals and polices that support the Metro Plan economic policies: Goal 2: Advance regional sustainability by providing a transportation system that improves economic vitality, environmental health, social equity, and overall well-being. Policy: Prioritize improved transit service in Key Corridors and other areas with sufficient employment, activities, or residential density that best support transit service and transit services that connect residents to employment centers. If operational funding is sufficient, extend transit to support higher density housing and employment development planned for other areas. Improve travel time reliability between key origins and destinations for transit, regional freight movement, and other trips for which on-time arrivals are important. Facilitate efficient access for goods, employees, and customers to and from employment, commercial, and industrial lands, including freight access to designated freight routes, highways, rail yard, and the Eugene Airport. Increase multimodal access for employees to employment centers. Support ODO efficiency, improved safety, and improved connections for people travelling by foot, bike, and bus. The Beltline Highway: Coburg Road to River Road Facility Plan is incorporated into this TSP, contained in Volume 2. The City of Eugene supports completion of the NEPA review, and implementation of the resultant recommended improvements. Encourage walking as the most attractive mode of transportation for short trips (e.g., within .5 miles) within and to activity centers, downtown, key corridors, and major destinations, and as a means of accessing transit. Promote the efficiency with which freight and deliveries are transported without worsening impacts to the environment, social Encourage public and private partnerships with the freight transport industry to develop mutually beneficial strategies and initiatives Encourage the use of rail for movement of freight and long distance passenger trips. Support the Eugene Airport as a regional transportation facility. Use transportation investments to support industries and employment sectors targeted by City and regional adopted economic development strategies. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 51 of 63 The above stated 2035 TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the 2035 TSP and relevant Metro Plan economic policies. The TSP will provide a greater range of transportation options for businesses and employees. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. C. Environmental Resources Element The Environmental Resources Element addresses the natural assets and hazards in the metropolitan area. The policies of this element emphasize reducing urban impacts on wetlands throughout the metropolitan area and planning for the natural assets and constraints on undeveloped lands on the urban fringe. The Environmental Resources Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant goal and policies related to the Eugene 2035 TSP (policies related to forest lands, agricultural lands, and mineral and aggregate resources were omitted because there are no subject lands within the Eugene UGB): Goal: Provide a healthy and attractive environment, including clean air and water, for the metropolitan population. C.22 Design of new street, highway, and transit facilities shall consider noise mitigation measures where appropriate. C.23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing and future streets and highways with potential to exceed general highway noise levels shall include consideration of mitigating measures, such as acoustical building modifications, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning. The application of these mitigating measures must be balanced with other design considerations and housing costs. C.24 Local governments shall continue to monitor, to plan for, and to enforce applicable noise standards and shall cooperate in meeting applicable federal and state noise standards. The City of Eugene has previously adopted Goal 5 habitat resource protections, stormwater protection measures, and open space plans, none of which will change as a result of this TSP amendment. The 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these environmental policies, including, but not limited to the following: Goal 2: Advance regional sustainability by providing a transportation system that improves economic vitality, environmental health, social equity, and overall well-being. Goal 3: Strengthen community resilience to changes in climate, increases in fossil fuel prices, and economic fluctuations by making the transportation networks diverse, adaptable, and not reliant on any single mode. Create a railroad quiet zone throughout the City. Prioritize implementation of a quiet zone in the downtown and Whiteaker areas. Avoid, protect, and enhance habitat in transportation projects where possible. Minimize and Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 52 of 63 mitigate impacts when needed. Support the use of more highly fuel efficient vehicles including electric, hydrogen fuel cell, and non-motorized vehicles. Create a strategy that advances the goal of having an integrated transportation system that reduces fossil fuel consumption by 50 percent and reduces reliance on single-occupancy automobiles. Prioritize capital projects and programs that will facilitate the achievement of the pedestrian, bicycle and transit policies. Continue work to identify possible transportation infrastructure improvements that will make walking, bicycling and the use of transit safe and highly convenient. Protect, and enhance habitat in transportation projects where possible. Minimize and mitigate impacts of transportation projects when needed. Provide leadership in regional and environmental policies. The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Eugene 2035 TSP and relevant Metro Plan environmental policies. The proposed amendments will support and enhance the Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element through strengthening environmentally sound transportation options and an overall more sustainable transportation system. The 2035 TSP strives to reduce vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions and look at alternative energy infrastructure. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. D. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element The Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element address these specific natural assets in the metropolitan area. The policies of this element emphasize reducing urban impacts on these resources throughout the metropolitan area. The Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element of the Metro Plan contain the following relevant policies related to the Eugene 2035 TSP: D.2 Land use regulations and acquisition programs along river corridors and waterways shall take into account all the concerns and needs of the community, including recreation, resource, and wildlife protection; enhancement of river corridor and waterway environments; potential for supporting non- automobile transportation; opportunities for residential development; and other compatible uses. D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the Willamette River Greenway. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 53 of 63 D.11 The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water-dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback. As described in the text of the 2035 TSP transportation system but riverine travel is not a functioning mode of transportation in modern times. Eugene enjoys a substantial pedestrian-bicycle shared-use path system parallel to the Willamette River. Although the pathway system is extensive, existing needs are related to the width of pathways (the busier sections are too narrow to comfortably accommodate all of the users), lack of connections to some adjacent neighborhoods, and the lack of consistent and regular pathway lighting. An estimation of future traffic conditions found that all four Willamette River motor vehicle bridge crossings could experience vehicular congestion and long queues at traffic signals. The 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways policies. These include, but are not limited to: Goal: Advance regional sustainability by providing a transportation system that improves economic vitality, environmental health, social equity, and overall well-being. em efficiency, improved safety, and improved connections for people travelling by foot, bike, and bus. The Beltline Highway: Coburg Road to River Road Facility Plan is incorporated into this TSP, contained in Volume 2. The City of Eugene supports completion of the NEPA review, and implementation of the resultant recommended improvements. In addition to the Randy Papé Beltline Highway study referenced in the policy above, the 2035 TSP proposes several potential improvements to the shared use paths within the Willamette Greenway and several studies for potential street or crossing improvements. The Eugene Code contains provisions for protecting the Willamette Greenway in a manner consistent with the Metro Plan (EC 9.8800-9.8825). Should any of the potential projects be moved to the design stage, they must meet the conditions of the Eugene Code before they could proceed further. The above stated 2035 TSP goal and policies and Eugene Code protections are examples of consistency between the Eugene 2035 TSP and relevant Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways policies. The proposed amendment will support and enhance the Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element through by providing improved access to waterways. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. E. Environmental Design Element The Environmental Design Element is concerned with that broad process which molds the various components of the urban area into a distinctive, livable form that promotes a high quality of life. This Element is concerned with how people perceive and interact with their surroundings. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 54 of 63 The Environmental Design Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant policies related to the Eugene 2035 TSP: E.3 and E.4. E.3 The planting of street trees shall be strongly encouraged, especially for all new developments and redeveloping areas (where feasible) and new streets and reconstruction of major arterials within the UGB. E.4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity. The Eugene 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these Environmental Design policies. These include, but are not limited to: Goal 4: Address the transportation needs and safety of all travelers, including people of all ages, abilities, races, ethnicities, and incomes. Through transportation investments, respond to the needs of system users, be context sensitive, and distribute the benefits and impacts of transportation decisions fairly throughout the city. Enhance the tree canopy along streets. Provide stormwater facilities within street construction projects by incorporating low impact development and green infrastructure practices. Design, construct, maintain, and operate all streets to provide comprehensive and integrated transportation networks that serve people of all ages and abilities, promote commerce, and support the comprehensive land use planvision for growth and travel for automobiles and emergency responders, bicycles, walking, transit, and g access to properties, streets and sidewalks should be designed to be attractive, safe, accessible, sustainable, and healthy components of the City's environment. The above stated 2035 TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the 2035 TSP and relevant Environmental Design policies. The proposed amendments will further support and enhance the Metro Plan Environmental Design Element by providing greater flexibility in future street design. The 2035 TSP will also enhance the bicycle and pedestrian environment for new and redeveloped properties, creating a more liveable community. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. F. Transportation Element The Metro Plan Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan area. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the basis for surface transportation. The goals and policies in the Metro Plan Transportation Element are identical to those in TransPlan, as TransPlan serves as the functional plan for transportation issues in the Metro Area. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 55 of 63 Policies in the Metro Plan Transportation Element are organized by the following four topics related to transportation: Land Use, Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Improvements, and Finance. While all of the Metro Plan Transportation Element goals and policies are relevant to the 2035 TSP, specific Metro Plan policies are highlighted in this Finding to illustrate consistency between Metro Plan policies and those of the Eugene 2035 TSP. Metro Plan Land Use Policy F.4: Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit residential development. 2035 TSP Policies: o to provide comprehensive and integrated transportation networks that serve people of all ages and abilities, promote commerce, and support the automobiles and emergency responders, bicycles, walking, transit, and freight. In additio access to properties, streets and sidewalks should be designed to be attractive, safe, accessible, sustainable, and healthy components of the City's environment. Facilitate efficient access for goods, employees, and customers to and from o employment, commercial, and industrial lands, including freight access to designated freight routes, highways, rail yard, and the Eugene Airport. Increase multimodal access for employees to employment centers. Encourage walking as the most attractive mode of transportation for o short trips (e.g., within .5 miles) within and to activity centers, downtown, key corridors, and major destinations, and as a means of accessing transit. Create conditions that make bicycling more attractive than driving for o most trips of two miles or less. 2035 TSP Potential Action Items: Articulate a process for implementing the complete streets policy, including o responsibilities for decision making, public review, opportunities for appeals of decisions, the means of documenting and justifying decisions, and the collection and reporting of data that allows monitoring the effects of street design changes over time. Update the Eugene Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, o Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways . . . . Metro Plan TDM Policy F.8: Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at congested locations. 2035 TSP Potential Action Items: Periodically review and update the City Code and administrative rules in the o Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 56 of 63 downtown area, neighborhoods near the University of Oregon, mixed-use centers, and in areas experiencing changing conditions, such as where a transit corridor study has been completed, transit routes changed, or major bicycle facilities completed. Examples of possible changes to the code and policies may include: Requiring or allowing fewer parking spaces where conditions would o allow less driving. o rent. Aligning metered parking prices with demand. o Facilitating conversion of on-street automobile parking spaces to o bicycle lanes, bike parking, or expanded pedestrian and ground- level business amenities. Aligning land use and design standards at major transit stops to o support transit ridership. Requiring ongoing transportation demand management (TDM) for o large attractions and employment centers at times and locations where such measures are necessary to reduce congestion or optimize limited parking. Metro Plan, Transportation System Improvement: System Wide Policy F.11: Develop or promote intermodal linkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all transportation modes. 2035 TSP Policy Promote connections between modes of transportation to make each mode o more efficient, such as by connecting bicycle routes and bus, train, and airport services to each other; and connections to transportation facilities extending outside the Cit Ensure that there are safe, accessible, comfortable, and direct sidewalk o connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops. Continually improve walking comfort, safety, and accessibility through design, operations, retrofits, and maintenance. Provide landscaped setback sidewalks of ample width and safe street crossings to encourage people to walk. Coordinate improvements to complement and improve the systems o proposed in the Eugene Trails Plan and connections to regional trails. Develop a well-connected and comfortable bikeway network. Ensure that o there are safe, comfortable, and direct bikeway connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops and provide secure bicycle parking facilities at these destinations. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 57 of 63 o development to include review of walking and biking improvements and connections to nearby networks. Metro Plan, Roadway System F.14: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements. 2035 TSP Policies: Consider safety first when making transportation decisions. Strive for zero o transportation-related fatalities by reducing the number and severity of crashes through design, operations, maintenance, education, and enforcement. Prioritize safety improvements for people who walk, bike and use mobility devices because no loss of life or serious injury on our streets is acceptable. Facilitate prompt emergency responses. Ensure that fire and emergency o response routes remain passable by design. Plan for, design and construct or reconstruct streets to achieve consistency o 2035 TSP Potential Action Items With Lane County Public Health Department, identify mutual objectives and o opportunities to collaboratively promote bicycle and pedestrian activities, reduce injury crashes and fatalities, integrate health considerations into transportation decisions, and improve emergency medical systems. Update city design standards, as necessary, to address emergency vehicle o passage on officially recognized emergency response routes and consider accommodations for Fire Department Ladder Operations where tall buildings exist or are planned. Involve emergency responders in changes to street designs. Metro Plan, Transportation System Improvement: Transit System F.18: Improve transit service and facilities to increase the systems accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged population. Promote the use of public transit and the continued development of o an integrated, reliable, regional public transportation system. Prioritize improved transit service in Key Corridors and other areas o with sufficient employment, activities, or residential density that best support transit service and transit services that connect residents to employment centers. If operational funding is sufficient, extend transit to support higher density housing and employment development planned for other areas. Metro Plan, Transportation System Improvement: Bicycle System F.22: Construct and improve the region bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. 2035 TSP Policies: Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 58 of 63 Create conditions that make bicycling more attractive than driving for most trips o of two miles or less. Develop a well-connected and comfortable bikeway network. Ensure that there o are safe, comfortable, and direct bikeway connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops and provide secure bicycle parking facilities at these destinations. Continually improve the comfort and safety of bicycling through design, o bikeways to attract new cyclists. Metro Plan, Transit System Improvement: Pedestrian System F.26: Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking. 2035 TSP Policy: Ensure that there are safe, accessible, comfortable, and direct sidewalk o connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops. Continually improve walking comfort, safety, and accessibility through design, operations, retrofits, and maintenance. Provide landscaped setback sidewalks of ample width and safe street crossings to encourage people to walk. Promote connections between modes of transportation to make each mode o more efficient, such as by connecting bicycle routes and bus, train, and airport services to each other; and connections to transportation facilities extending . 2035 TSP Potential Action Items: Amend the Eugene Code (e.g., EC 9.6505) and policies to consistently require o sidewalk installation throughout newly divided and developed lands, such as by requiring sidewalk construction concurrent with street improvements or by bonding for completion of the sidewalks if development on individual lots does not fill in the system in a reasonable amount of time. Maintain a sidewalk infill and improvement program that considers new o funding sources, credits and loans, and expanded development requirements to complete missing sidewalk segments, to avoid creating gaps in sidewalk networks in new development areas and to upgrade existing sidewalks in high traffic areas to provide needed width, landscaping, removal of barriers, and to Metro Plan Finance Policy F.34: Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need for more expensive future repair. 2035 TSP Policy: Establish, improve, and maintain transportation facilities in ways that o costeffectively provide desired levels of service, consider facilities lifecycle costs, and maintain the Citys longterm financial sustainability. Favor Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 59 of 63 transportation systems that move people and goods at lesser total life-cycle cost to the City and its residents. Improve system efficiency, safety, and management and re-purpose existing o rights-of-way to include high-quality facilities for transit, walking, and bicycling before widening streets to expand capacity for motorized vehicles. Metro Plan Policy F.15: Motor Vehicle Level of Service. The Levels of Service targets for Eugene will be amended in TransPlan and the o Metro Plan concurrently with adoption of the 2035 TSP to maintain policy consistency between the documents. The above stated Metro Plan and 2035 TSP policy sets are examples of the overall consistency between the Eugene 2035 TSP and the Metro Plan Transportation Element policies. The proposed amendment will further support multi-modal transportation and its nexus to mixed use development as promoted by the Metro Plan and TransPlan. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. G. Public Facilities and Services Element This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services Plan provide guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. Transportation findings and policies are not part of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan, but rather are located in TransPlan and 2035 TSP. The 2035 TSP supports the public facilities policies of this element with Reduce stormwater pollution and minimize runoff from streets and multi-Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Other relevant Metro Plan policies are discussed in the previous Transportation Element section. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. H. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element This Metro Plan Element addresses Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Metro Area. There are no transportation-specific Parks and Recreation Facilities Element policies in the Metro Plan that directly relate to the 2035 Eugene Transportation System Plan. However, some TSP multiuse path projects overlap with recreational needs and were coordinated with City parks planners. One example of consistency between this Eugene 2035 TSP and the Metro Plan Parks and Recreation Facilities Elements are these policies that recognize and support recreational use of the transportation : system Improve community health by designing streets and paths to encourage increased physical activity by the public. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 60 of 63 Promote connections between modes of transportation to make each mode more efficient, such as by connecting bicycle routes and bus, train, and airport services to each other; and . Coordinate improvements to complement and improve the systems proposed in the Eugene Trails Plan and connections to regional trails. The amendments do not alter compliance with, and are consistent with, the Parks and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan. I. Historic Preservation Element This Element of the Metro Plan is written to preserve historic structures in the Metro area. There are no transportation specific Historic preservation Element policies in the Metro Plan that directly relate to the 2035 Eugene Transportation System Plan. However, individual projects in the TSP that use Federal funding must go through a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process during project development. The NEPA process includes requirements for historic preservation that the City will adhere to. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. J. Energy Element The Energy Element of the Metro Plan deals with the conservation and efficient use of energy in the metropolitan area and is meant to provide a long-range guide to energy-related decisions concerning physical development and land uses. The Energy Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant policies related to the Eugene 2035 TSP: J.2 Carefully control, through the use of operating techniques and other methods, energy related actions, such as automobile use, in order to minimize adverse air quality impacts. Trade-offs between air quality and energy actions shall be made with the best possible understanding of how one process affects the other. J.7 Encourage medium- and high-density residential uses when balanced with other planning policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all forms of energy. The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of space heating and cooling and transportation. For example, the highest relative densities of residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest extent possible in areas that are or can be well served by mass transit, paratransit, and foot and bicycle paths. J.8 Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the greatest extent possible, balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize potential on-site energy generation. The Eugene 2035 TSP contains goals and polices that support these Energy Element policies. These include, but are not limited to: Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 61 of 63 Goal 1: Create an integrated transportation system that is safe and efficient; supports the Metro Plan fossil fuel consumption, and other City land use and economic development goals; reduces reliance on single-occupancy automobiles; and enhances community livability. Goal 3: Strengthen community resilience to changes in climate, increases in fossil fuel prices, and economic fluctuations by making the transportation networks diverse, adaptable, and not reliant on any single mode. Policy: Support the use of more highly fuel efficient and electric, hydrogen cell, and non- motorized vehicles. The proposed amendment will further support and enhance the Metro Plan Energy Element by considering environmental impacts and energy usage when planning and implementing transportation system. The 2035 TSP also supports higher densities for new and redeveloped properties, creating a more livable community and supporting frequent transit service. The proposed amendment are consistent with this Metro Plan Element. K. Citizen Involvement Element The Citizen Involvement Element of the Metro Plan recognizes that active, on-going, and meaningful citizen involvement is an essential ingredient to the development and implementation of any successful planning program. A Public Involvement Program for the update of the 2035 Eugene Transportation System Plan was developed in preparation of the project. This program was reviewed and endorsed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (i.e. the Eugene Planning Commission). The program outlined the information, outreach methods, and involvement opportunities available to the citizens during the process. Details of the process are included in the Statewide Planning Goal 1 finding of this report. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan Element. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, the proposed Metro Plan amendments, TransPlan amendments and 2035 TSP adoption are all consistent with EC 9.7730 and Lane Code 12.225. II.Repeal of the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Ordinance No. 20322 (May 24, 2004), adopted the policies in the 2003 Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The adoption of the CAT CATS was intended to further refine TransPlan for a specific geographic boundary within Eugene. The 2035 TSP updates and replaces the policies and proposed implementation strategies set forth in CATS. With an up-to-date Eugene-specific transportation system plan, CATS is no longer needed and should be repealed. 9.8424: 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall decide whether to act on the Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 62 of 63 application. If the city council decides to act, it shall approve, approve with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a) Statewide planning goals. (b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. (c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan. (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. As demonstrated by the findings set forth above, the adoption of the 2035 TSP, which renders CATS unnecessary, is consistent with the statewide planning goals, applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and TransPlan. Those findings are incorporated herein by reference as the basis for repealing CATS. The repeal of CATS is intended to recognize the new community policies set forth in the 2035 TSP. In 2004, when the City adopted CATS, the City did not have a Eugene-specific local transportation plan; the adoption of the 2035 TSP renders CATS unnecessary. III.Amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 9 Conforming amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 9 are needed to reflect the adoption of the 2035 TSP TransPlan policies set forth in Chapter 9 that are being concurrently amended through the proposed ordinance. 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. As demonstrated by the findings set forth above, the amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan and the adoption of the 2035 TSP are consistent with the statewide planning goals and are consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and TransPlan. Those findings are incorporated herein by reference as the basis for adopting the conforming amendments to Chapter 9. Exhibit A to an Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning Page 63 of 63 ExhibitCtoOrd. Map 9.8010 Adopted Plans 5 Irv ing to n D r 15 Irvin g R d 5 Crescent Ave M axw ell Rd B ar ge r D r 14 16 C al Yo u ng R d Royal Ave Harlow Rd Ro os ev el t B lvd 105 105 105 13 19 17 2 W 7 th Av e 1 3 12 7 W 1 1t h A ve 5 W 13 th Av e 11 4 6 18 5 10 8 9 Legend on adjoining page Miles 00.51 Map: 4/22/13 Map 9.8010 Adopted Plans Legend 1 Eugene Downtown Plan 2 EWEB Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan !!!!! !!!!! !!!!! 3 Riverfront Park Study Area 4 West University Refinement Plan 5 19th & Agate Special Area Study 6 Fairmount/University Special Area Plan 7 Walnut Station Specific Area Plan 8 Laurel Hill Plan 9 South Hills Study 10 South Willamette Subarea Study Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan 11 12 Westside Neighborhood Plan Whiteaker Plan 13 Willakenzie Area Plan 14 River Road -Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 15 Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan 16 Bethel-Danebo Neighborhood Refinement Plan, Phase II, West Eugene Industrial Study 17 Willow Creek Special Area Study 18 West Eugene Wetlands Plan 19 City or Metropolitan Area Plans Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan = City Limits (not shown) Eugene Commercial Lands Study = UGB Eugene Parks & Recreation Plan = UGB Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan = UGB + Airport Master Plan Area (not shown) Metro Plan = Metro Area This map is intended as general reference for TransPlan = Metro Area the boundaries of plans adopted by the Eugene City Council. For specific boundaries, please refer to the plan. Map prepared by Eugene Planning and Development Department. (Some plans have overlapping boundaries.) 5/2/16 Exhibit D to Ordinance City of Eugene Bea con Dr Aw brey Ln Sprin g Creek D r r D k o ro b n n Ly R iver Loop 2 E E nid R d Irvi ngton Dr Wilke Figure 60 s Dr Airpo rt Rd Blackfoot Ave Barstow Ave River Loop 1 Street Avengale Dr Cle arlake Rd Ashberry Dr Irving Rd Huns aker L n A yr e s R d n Ave Divisio Classification Randy Pa pe Beltline Lakeview Dr e Av ver Ri P arkvie w Dr Spe ctru m Gree n Ac res Rd Map Crecsent Ave p L e ur t s a p d o o G M axwe ll Rd How ard A ve C h a Randy Pape _ Beltlin ed D Barger r Dr Legend Goo dpasture Island Rd Jep pesen Ac res Rd Mind Ha Dr Cornwaorn L ll Aven Willake nzie Rd A valon S t Ca l Young Rd Major Arterial Ma rshall AvePark Ave B ailey L n Royal Av e Minor Arterial Ha rlow Rd El mira Rd Roosevelt Blvd Major Collector C o u n t r y C l u b IR -d 1 0 5 r D Martin Luther King Blvdns o Avem W 1stm o C 1st Ave Neighbor Collector W Shelton Kinsrow Ave W 2nd AveL e McMurphey Blvd o E 3rd AveH a r r i s E 4rd Ave P 5th Ave k w y W 6th AveW 5th Av e lvd B ne o d C E W 7th Ave Local 7th A ve W 11th Ave W 11th Ave E 11th Ave Future Major Collector W 13t h Ave W 13th Ave E 13th Ave W 13t h Ave Future Neighbor Collector W 18th Ave W 1 8th A venue E 1 9th Ave Kevingt on Ave Specific route to be Willow Creek R d E 24th Ave 25th Ave W 24th Ave determined later A m a z o n P Eugene UGB k w W 29t h Ave y W in t e rc re e k D r E 30th Ave © E 33rd A ve oop d L rlan Fi 9th Ave W 3 E 4 0th A ve E 43r d Ave ve A d 3r 4 E Sne ll St 01,5003,0006,000 Feet L orane Hwy M c B e t h R d City of Eugene PWE Info Team Adhoc 2014-1704 May 2016 AttachmentBtoAISforMarch6,2017,jointpublic hearingonanordinanceconcerninglongrange transportationplanning. PublictestimonyreceivedbynoononMonday,February 27,2017. From:INERFELD Rob To:CLARKE Kelly A Subject:FW: 2035 Transportation System Plan Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:01:54 PM Attachments:2035 TSP Yeiter 1.jpeg From: Kurt.Yeiter \[mailto:kurt.yeiter@comcast.net\] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 2:36 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us>; TAYLOR Becky <Becky.TAYLOR@co.lane.or.us>; MCKINNEY Lydia <Lydia.S.MCKINNEY@co.lane.or.us>; REESOR David R <David.REESOR@co.lane.or.us>; HOSTICK Robin A <Robin.A.Hostick@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: 2035 Transportation System Plan Please accept the attached letter into the public record for the 2035 Transportation System Plan. Thank you. From:William Collinge, PhD To:INERFELD Rob Subject:Attn: City Council Date:Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:25:40 PM Dear City Council: I oppose the downgrading of city-wide road congestion standards from D to E. I believe this would be a major degradation of the character of our neighborhoods and city in general. William Collinge William Collinge, PhD, LCSW 540Willamette Street, Suite 207D Eugene, OR 97401 Tel (541)632-3502 Fax (207)510-8060 Webwww.Collinge.org --- Sent via my faster-than-Wi-Fi and totally safe HARD-WIRED internet connection From:Emily Fox To:INERFELD Rob Subject:TSP Date:Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:54:10 PM EmilyFox 455E.31stAVE EugeneOR,974 Feb.232017 Dearmayorandcitycouncil IurgeyoutovoteagainstthepartoftheTSPthatwoulddowngradethelevelofservicefromDtoE.Trafficis alreadycongested inEugene-alloverEugeneatmanyhours.IhavelivedinEugenefor45yearsandhavewatchedthischangeoccur. SanctioninganEleveloftrafficwouldjustpromotemoredevelopmentwhichwouldproducemoretraffic.Contrary toEugeneCodeandEnvisionEugene,thiswouldnotaddtothelivabilityofthecity.Sincerely EmilyFox From:dennis hebert To:INERFELD Rob;TAYLOR Becky;*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Transportation System Plan Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 9:29:49 AM Hello to all, I strongly urge you to please take another look at the TSP. As a citizen of Eugene, i do not see how downgrading the TSP from a Level of Service D to an E will improve the traffic in Eugene. Its will only make things worse to the disadvantage of the drivers and users of the roads and streets. The blanket use of this devise to side step doing needed improvement and poor planning in traffic flow is just a measure to put off the inevitable. Please do your public service duty and do the right thing to reassess this issue in order to do what should be done for the streets and the people that use them. Sincerely, Dennis Hebert 850 E. 38 Ave. Eugene, OR 97405 From:Carole Bennett To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager;INERFELD Rob;TAYLOR Becky Subject:Transportation Service Planning Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 10:32:57 AM Hello, I am writing to ask you to vote against reducing the transportation Level of Service from 'D' to 'E'. I am very concerned about traffic flow or the lack of it in South Eugene as I've experienced a noticeable increase in wait time over the last five year at intersections due to more cars in the area. Please consider engaging in Smart Growth thinking in Eugene instead of willy-nilly, one size fits all planning. Eugeneans like to think we are unique, compassionate, thinking outside the box who enjoy moving about the streets with relatively little congestion. Smart traffic planning in other cities does not necessarily fit our unique Eugene. Thankfully, we have city workers who respect and listen to the public needs, please vote against downgrading the Level of Service. Thank you. My best, Carole Bennett 3390 Kincaid Street Eugene 97405 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From:JJNeu To:INERFELD Rob Subject:Fwd: TSP Workshop Discussion Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 1:50:00 PM Mr. Inerfeld, Please include this as public testimony for consideration by City Council and the Board of Commissioners at the March 6 meeting. Thank you, Jim Neu Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: Subject:TSP Workshop Discussion Mayor, City Council, Board of Commissioners, City government has the greatest influence on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) with city council decisions and direction to staff and planners effecting how the citizens will travel our streets for the next 50 years. Considering thirty percent of the city's greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation and the city has committed to reduce community-wide fossil fuel emissions fifty percent by 2030 and 7.6 percent annually, there needs to be a mobile split in transportation in Eugene. The most funding in the TSP goes to the study of motorized travel which is the largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. Bicycle and pedestrian projects in the TSP have the shortest distances and consume the least amount of funding. Currently, scenario planning shows 7.6 % bike, 7.6% walk and 4% ride public transportation. In order to reach the goals of the TSP, three times as many trips need to take place; 23% biking and walking, and 12% riding public transportation. According to the TSP, significant new investments in active transportation, biking, pedestrian, and public transit, will be necessary to reduce community- wide fossil fuel use to desired levels. Council should ask staff to list options to fund bike/pedestrian projects and ask the street review panel for options to fund more bike/ pedestrian projects. Level of service measurements are for private car trips and this should be reduced in order to meet CRO goals. Council should ask staff how the performance of the TSP is measured today and if there are other methods of measuring performances in the future. Staff should have to report annually on multiple measures of TSP performance to include bicycle, pedestrian and public transit. Auto and light duty truck emissions could be drastically reduced if emission standards were enforced at time of vehicle registration renewal. Staff should investigate implementation of this regulation as it is the low hanging fruit in carbon dioxide reduction measures. Council has discussed this in the past and should revisit this topic. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a program to inform the public about bicycle, public transit, and carpooling. Little is devoted to the TDM in the TSP and the city operates a small number of programs which have proven successful. Council should ask staff how much is spent on TDM each year compared to infrastructure and TDM should be implemented city wide. They should show reports of TDM alternatives before road widening projects are considered. The proposed Beltline/ Delta Highway Project will be one of the largest transportation projects constructed in Eugene with an immense effect on future carbon emissions in north Eugene. GHG emission estimates must be determined before a decision is made to proceed with this project and to date no analysis has been conducted on how improvements would comply with the CRO goals. The Sustainability Commission in its advisory role to council and the city manager has discussed this project and will make a similar recommendation to council. Council should ask city staff to evaluate and project GHG emissions associated with this project during the construction phase and during the operational life of the facility for the next fifty years. The results of these analysis should be provided for public discussion, review and comment before the city, county or state sign off on this. Have TDM tools been used to reduce congestion on this segment of highway and what amount was spent on this approach? I urge City Council and the Board of Commissioners to consider these items in your discussion at the March 6 TSP workshop. Thank you for your time. Jim Neu Eugene, Or. Ward 7 Sent from my iPad From:Danika Esden-Tempska To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager;INERFELD Rob;TAYLOR Becky Subject:TSP 2035 comments for the public record Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 2:47:36 PM Dear City Transportation Planning Staff, County Commissioners, Mayor, City Councilors & City Manager, I'm writing in regards to your proposal within the TSP, to downgrade the Level of Service from a “D” rating (very bad but repairable) to an “E” rating (failing grade and unrepairable) citywide on all streets. This is unacceptable, do not lower the Level of Service from D. There are already serious traffic congestion and gridlock issues in Eugene and by downgrading you're making it a permanent negative feature of the city without the required possibility of repair. Your job as city planners is to keep the city in working order through feedback from the community. The ability to drive throughout Eugene without serious traffic congestion and gridlock is very important to the functioning of the city. The traffic has only gotten worse over the last couple years with the narrowing of streets. I have lived in Eugene for over 29 years and for most of that time, driving through town has been relatively trouble free and efficient. The increase in the number of residents arriving from other locations has had a dramatic impact on the style of driving and the congestion in the city. People seem to be more aggressive and reckless when they drive, there is no police ticketing oversight to regulate the driving speed, so people feel emboldened to drive really fast, over the speed limit. The city’s push for densification has only added to this traffic problem and it will continue to increase if you continue to push for massive complexes of housing/retail that bring a large number of people. People do have cars. Currently the Developer and City are trying to allow the building of Amazon Corner at Hilyard St & 32nd Ave without an adequate Traffic Impact Analysis. Negative traffic impact should not be permitted without any option to appeal. This proposed TSP change with a LOS of E would eliminate an appeal option. The existing high traffic areas, like the Hilyard St & 30th Ave area would have no remedy of mitigation. We must not let density increase beyond reasonable growth that is respectful of the existing character of neighborhoods. All developers and city planners need to be respectful towards the existing community and help them resolve traffic problems. Driving around Eugene will be intolerable with Level “E” traffic congestion which is a failing grade. Downgrading to failing by the city transportation staff shows a lack of care and skill in dealing with traffic issues. Please DO NOT downgrade the LOS (Level of Service) from a “D” to an “E”. Eugene deserves clear passage without failing gridlock. I do not want to start seeing road rage either. The city believes that making the traffic worse will force people to take the bus or ride bikes. This has not been the case at all, bad traffic just makes bad traffic. In 2016 the city added a bus line to W 29th Ave running past my house. I see and hear the bus going by every half hour, and the bus is almost always completely empty. Same for the fight over bike lanes going down Willamette St, the Arriving by Bike shop on Willamette St was insistent that they were necessary. Now that the bike lanes are in place we can see how few people are using them, a negligible amount of bicyclists. Without the two additional traffic lanes, driving down Willamette St has become increasingly problematic. It is now impossible to exit a business parking lot to re-enter the street, it was once a non-issue with the two lanes on both sides. Many people really hate the change that has been made to Willamette St. Chris Henry has not been running proper traffic study analysis on the surrounding streets, he seems happy to just call it good as is and move on. This is not a proper or acceptable study at all and many of the residents in the area are quite aware of this. Please do your jobs and collect data to show what is actually going on, include W 29th Ave which has become the alternate route. The traffic is visibly worse and there is no enforcement to discourage bad driving. Also, changes are being made for people with wishful, "fantasy" thinking that everyone will ride a bicycle or take the bus, but people are not adapting to these changes so the traffic continues to become worse. Please recognize this reality and that cars are becoming cleaner, more energy Do not downgrade the street rating to a Level of Service “E” efficient. . Work on ticketing bad drivers to reduce bad conduct. Lack of enforcement by the Police department is a big issue and needs to be addressed. It is the city’s responsibility to ensure safety and enforcement of existing laws. Please abide by the Envision Eugene pillar, "Protect, Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability." TSP's LOS E would violate this pillar. Please place my email in the public record concerning TSP. Sincerely, a concerned long-time resident of Eugene, Danika Esden-Tempski 2909 Charnelton St Eugene, Oregon From:Ron-Janet Bevirt To:INERFELD Rob;TAYLOR Becky;*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Proposed TSP 2035 Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 3:14:21 PM 2/24/17 Dear City Transportation Planning Staff, County Commissioners, Mayor, City Councilors & City Manager, Envision Eugene and TSP 2035 are big picture plans for the future. Here’s Eugene, pretty nice place to live, we’ve got mostly clean air and plenty of water. One problem, common to many cities, is that the size and layout of the streets, which were created in the past, are no longer quite right-sized and configured for present and projected future needs. How do we accommodate more people trying to use inadequately sized and laid out streets? We have a nice mid-sized city, but growing. Growth does seem inevitable and maybe seeking growth is desirable. Back in time, our best thinking was “let’s preserve our precious farm and forest land, so draw an urban growth boundary and limit the extent of city spread.” Now the big push is to grow upward, because we’re supposedly filling the contained urban growth boundary (UGB) space, yet we have a 50 year land reserve. Now, our idea is: we’ll build more high-rises along transportation corridors. The proposed solution to how all those extra people living in those high-rises will move around is that they will ride in busses and on bicycles, because we’re going to have too many people to be in cars. It is possible to imagine some delightful future, in which most people ride public transit and bicycles, but we are still some distance from that point so let’s not create problems for automobile traffic, based on such a fantasy belief. Let’s zoom toward a macro view, Portland is booming. They’re building taller buildings everywhere possible, moving density into their residential neighborhoods. Seattle is booming and growing, cramming in more people. San Francisco, the Bay Area, Silicon Valley cities are growing as fast as possible. There is an ongoing fight in those cities between jam in versus fight against more density. In Copenhagen they’ve gotten 85 percent of the population riding bicycles. In Beijing and other big cities the air is killing people. In Manhattan they are jamming in more and more high-rises. Depending on your point of view, living in a “mosh pit” is either “vibrant” or “hellish”. In big cities, the movement of people on streets is a problem. There is the competition among private cars, Uber/taxis, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. In many cities they have underground mass-transit. So what we see in the macro view is, somehow a given place is desirable. There is apparently sufficient existing work, and work being created there, that more and more people are flocking there; housing is expensive because people are arriving faster than new housing is being created. Demand for something in short supply leads to ever-increasing prices. Rents are unaffordable and traffic is congested. Meanwhile, back in Eugene we are thinking about the future with Envision Eugene and TSP 2035. Developers appear ready to build high-rise housing. They freely state that they are building “high-end” i.e. expensive housing. They are confident that investing capital is going to give them a profitable return on their investment. Investors and developers are focussed on making a profit. In many cities, land prices and construction costs lead to high-rent housing. These expensive housing costs are driving out people working in the local economy, because they can’t afford housing prices. We have a growing “unhoused” population problem. On one hand, we have people living in desirable neighborhoods that residents want to preserve, protect, and enhance. Many of these neighborhoods contain the most “affordable” “workforce” housing in Eugene. On the other hand, we have folks like WE CAN that want to change residential zoning so that more housing can be fit into existing neighborhoods. They see a lack of the “missing middle” of cluster housing, row houses, and townhouses. WE CAN is a coalition of developers, architects, city interests, renters and property owners and not neighborhoods working in tandem. The renters believe that if sufficient surplus housing can be created then rent prices will come down. This is a fantasy that will never be realized, because investors are never going to build more housing than there is demand for, or build inexpensive rental price housing, because that is contrary to their best interest, which is to make the largest possible return on their investment. The developers want to change residential zoning because they can make money from apartments built on that valuable space, which is now tied up by smaller affordable houses with yards. It is called gentrification and will only increase our unhoused population. Do we choose to preserve, enhance, and protect the desirable qualities of neighborhoods, by integrating change thoughtfully? Or do we cram multi-story housing in C2 zoning, like Amazon Corners, adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood greatly compounding the existing traffic problems on Hilyard St & 32nd/30th Ave, the main transportation corridors? Large new projects proposed for the Coburg Road area will make traffic problems in that area worse than they are already. Allowing commercial projects to use the streets, which are the public commons, for parking and increased traffic, to benefit their profit is bad public policy and it is socially immoral. Those who favored the South Willamette Special Area Zone cannot tolerate thoughtful examination of planning solutions for the area, as would be done under a refinement plan for the South Willamette business corridor. These opponents of the proposed refinement plan are determined to force zoning change into the surrounding residential areas. I believe that looking at what greatly increased density has done in other cities should give support to thoughtful planning that is sensitive to what we presently value about our city. The “happy talk” language in Envision Eugene and in TSP 2035 makes it seem that Eugene City Planning is giving consideration to neighborhood livability, but the recent approval of the Amazon Corners project (yes, C2, good to go, but the traffic impact analysis that was done clearly overlooks the effects of this project on the surrounding neighborhood.) Do we need to embed neighborhood residents in the Planning Department to provide “common sense” to Planning decisions? It is difficult to get beyond the belief that “special interests” have more input at the Planning Department than does the “public interest”. Lowering the Level of Service (LOS) to grade E for all of Eugene (see Table 4.1) in TSP 2035 intentionally creates and encourages traffic congestion, which gives cover to mindless densification. I encourage decision-makers to reject city-wide downgrading the level of service (LOS) to grade E and to support citizen-led efforts to thoughtfully plan for the future. It is fairly easy so see the difference between decisions that are made in the “public interest” versus those made to benefit “special interests.” Another TSP 2035 issue is seeking to make all Eugene streets “complete streets.” The terrain of some locations is incompatible with becoming complete streets. One size fits all is foolish. There needs to be room in these planning goals for “common sense”. Intermingling bicycles and automobiles everywhere is less desirable than seeking ways to serve bicycle traffic as safely as possible, with bike lanes. We have space problems on our existing streets, but having bikes riding directly adjacent to autos is not the most safe or desirable planning decision. Greater input from the public will lead to better solutions. The recent report by Chris Henry to the City Council about how wonderfully the re- striping experiment is working on South Willamette Street is flawed, because no traffic measurements were done on surrounding streets, previous to the experiment, and thus no comparison can be made between then and now. Large amounts of traffic is now diverted onto surrounding neighborhood streets like W 29th Avenue. The same situation now exists on streets adjacent to Hilyard St and will be exacerbated by the Amazon Corners development. Despite the “happy talk” in Planning documents, the “public interest” is not being served by the Planning Department. This is clearly seen in public meetings by the outrage expressed by neighborhood residents in opposition to Planning Department proposals and decisions. An example of Planning Department malfeasance is the large amount of money spent by Planning and their clear manipulation of neighborhood intentions for the improvement of the South Willamette business corridor by the Friendly Area Neighborhood that was transformed (at great expense) into the SW-SAZ that sought to change residential zoning. The City of Eugene is not controlled by authoritarian rule. Decision makers need to hear the voice of the public, not the voice of special interests. Planning expresses the intention for Downtown to have the tallest buildings. Why, for example, did the new Whole Foods store get built as one-story, not with many floors of residential housing above the store? The on-going City Hall fiasco is another demonstration of the incompetence of City government. Urban renewal for downtown and the City budget is hidden from public view as are other issues that demonstrate the malfunctioning City government. We need “common sense” decisions that enjoy public support, not authoritarianism throwing out manipulative handfuls of candy to the gullible. To recap, do not lower the TSP Level of Service from D to E. Also do not require all streets be complete streets within Eugene. Please include my remarks in the Public Record and thank you for your attention. Best Regards, Ron Bevirt From:Hans U. Tschersich To:INERFELD Rob Cc:Vic Hariton Subject:Transportation Plan, Improvements for Biking in South Hills Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 3:15:46 PM Dear Mr. Inerfeld and Members of the Committee, In 1976 my family moved into a house at the upper reaches of Crest Drive. I worked downtown as a radiologist at the old Eugene Hospital and Clinic at 11th and Willamette. Every day, summer and winter, I rode my bike to work and I continue this today at age 76, though it gets harder making it up the steep grades. I welcomed the improvement of the road conditions on Crest Drive and Storey Bvd. and did not mind the lack of a bike path since the new type of road construction slowed the car traffic. While Crest Drive and Storey Blvd. have very steep sections, Lorane Highway has a much gentler grade for bicycling. When Lorane was recently upgraded, I was hoping that an uphill bike lane and/or sidewalk would be included. To my great disappointment, this did not happen and no speed bumps were installed on this curvy road, an invitation for recklessly driving motorists. In view of the stated goal of having no serious or fatal accidents for non-motorized users, how, in good conscience, can one build such a road? And then I read in the TSP 2035, table 5.5, that any further bike-friendly improvements on Lorane Hwy. have been pushed back till after the year 2035. How can one hope that within 20 years the personal car will not be the dominant mode of transportation when such ideal roads will not bemade available much sooner for non-motorized traffic? Lorane Highway should be the main corridor for bike and pedestrian traffic on the way up and over the south hills since all other streets (South Willamette, Crest, Storey, Chambers and City View) are too steep and will be shunned by all potential non-motorized users, except younger athletes and rare older bikers like I. I strongly recommend making Lorane Highway your top priority for non-motorized improvements as soon as possible. Since I am at it, I want to make a suggestion to designate and build a bike path from the top of Lorane Hwy via Honda and Mesa through the small and scenic park above Crest Drive School (Crest Hights Park) leading into Courtney Place and to Crest Drive. This route would run along more gentle grades and be ideal for bicycling. The whole area of the south hills has no public transportation and nearly everybody relies on personal cars. Creating bike paths and lanes with a gentler grade may invite more people to use their bicycles. Thank you for your consideration, Hans U Tschersich, MD 888 Crest Drive xrayhans@yahoo.com 541.686.0167 (home), 541.525.8098 (mobile) CLARKE Kelly A From:Mark Robinowitz <mark@oilempire.us> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2017 4:40 PM To:INERFELD Rob Subject:Re: Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan -- Upcoming Public Hearing -- March 6, 2017 Attachments:peak-traffic.pdf; oregon-highways.pdf; what the frack.pdf for the record - for what it's worth USA domestic oil peaked in 1970, the mid-2000s energy shortage was only postponed by the acceleration of Canadian tar sands and domestic fracking for oil and gas. But fracking was a short term boom and bust, now past its peak for oil and gas due to debt and depletion. Richard Heinberg’s Post Carbon Institute has done the best technical work on this, but they have had a hard time getting anyone to listen ... even the environmental groups don’t want to hear it. The downslope of fracking is likely to accelerate in the Trump / Pence years, and a reason I think they were allowed to steal the “election.” Unlike 1973, this time the gas lines will likely be a permanent situation. Car sharing and bicycles will be more practical than buying a Prius. Texas oil has a similar curve (but the EIA graph maker program doesn’t have the full data). Texas peaked in 1972, declined by three fourths by the mid 2000s (the “uh-oh” decade) and fracking brought oil extraction back up to the 1972 levels -- briefly. Texas fracking is also now in decline. see also the attached PDF file 1 www.peakchoice.org/peak-frack.html What the Frack? scraping the bottom of the barrel is not good to the last drop www.postcarbon.org Richard Heinberg has lots of articles about this, also recommended are technical reports from David Hughes, a Canadian geologist who has looked in detail at the drilling records of the fracking wells "geology is science, too!" the rise and fall of fracking fracking delayed energy rationing a decade, but now it's starting to subside practical logistics will be more needed than protests or civil disobediance tearing up lawns for food production is more radical than shutting down systems that keep us fed 2 3 4 http://www.artberman.com/the-days-of-cheap-natural-gas-are-over/ On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:42 AM Feb 24, INERFELD Rob wrote: > Dear people interested in transportation planning in Eugene, 5 > > For the last several years, the City of Eugene along with our partner agencies and many members of the public have been working to develop the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP). A final draft of the plan is now available and can be found at www.EugeneTSP.org. We greatly appreciate the time that many people have contributed to this plan as well as people’s patience with the length of this planning process. > > We are now entering the final phase of the Eugene 2035 TSP adoption process which includes an update to the Eugene City Council, a public hearing before both the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and potential adoption by both the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. > > The City Council work session will take place Monday, February 27 at 5:30 PM in Harris Hall located at 125 East 8th Avenue. > > The joint public hearing will take place on Monday, March 6 at 5:30 PM also in Harris Hall. > > Meeting materials for the March 6 public hearing may be found here: Council Bill 5172 - Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning (large pdf). The meeting agenda and access to a live webcast may be found HERE (note: this is not yet posted). The staff report to the City Council and Board of Commissioners will also be available for viewing by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 2017, at the Eugene Planning and Development Department, First Floor Reception, 99 West 10th Avenue, and at Eugene Public Works Engineering Reception, 99 East Broadway, 4th floor between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and on the Eugene City Council webpage. > > To submit testimony for consideration by the City Council and Board of Commissioners, you may testify at the public hearing, email me your testimony by noon on March 6, or submit written testimony to me at Eugene Public Works Engineering, 99 E. Broadway, Suite 400, Eugene, OR 97401. > > The City of Eugene and Lane County comply with state and federal laws and regulations relating to discrimination, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21 and rebroadcast later in the week. > > Thank you for your continued interest in local transportation planning. > Rob Inerfeld, 541 > Rob > > Rob Inerfeld, AICP > Transportation Planning Manager > Public Works Engineering – City of Eugene > Desk: 541-682-5343 > Cell: 541-556-6124 > Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us >https://www.eugene-or.gov/Transportation >https://www.facebook.com/eugenetransportation/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.oilempire.us/trump.html Trumped-up Democracy Donald Trump and Peak Blame Exit polls for Clinton, voting machines for Trump Obama's gift to Trump: a supersized NSA anagram: alternative facts = an evil statecraft "Make America Grateful Again!" (not Trump's slogan) Some of the electricity for this computer was generated with solar panels, and this email was transmitted to the internet with strip mined coal, fracked natural gas, aging dams, leaking nukes and some wind. 6 www.ForestClimate.org Clearcutting the Climate - Forest Biofuels - Restoration www.JFKMOON.org Kennedy's 1963 plan to convert the Moon race to global cooperation www.OilEmpire.US A Political Map: Connected Dots Limited Hang Outs - Best Evidence - Disinformation www.PeakChoice.org Peak Choice: Cooperation or Collapse An Uncensored Guide: Earth, Energy and Money Fractal Permaculture: Local, Bioregional, Global www.PeakTraffic.org Peaked Traffic and Transportation Triage: a legal strategy to cancel trillion dollar highway plans and prepare for post peak travel www.SustainEugene.org Greenwash is Sustain-a-Bull www.oilempire.us/nsa911.html NSA's warning systems not used during 9/11 to warn the President Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 7 EAK RAFFIC AND RANSPORTATION RIAGE Mark Robinowitz ¥ PeakTraffic.org The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates a "Supplemental" Environmental Impact Whether you focus on Peak Energy, Climate Chaos or Statement must be prepared if there are "new what is euphemistically called the ÅGreat Recession,Æ each circumstances" not anticipated when the scoping of these aspects of reaching the limits to growth mandate process was conducted. Surely reaching the global an end to highway expansion. We cannot afford to built peak of petroleum production is relevant for a more roads when we cannot maintain what we already transportation project allegedly designed for travel have. The transition from cheap, abundant oil to long past the peak. expensive, hard to get oil is reducing the amount that If the Federal Highway Administration included people drive and damaging the economic system that Peak Energy in environmental analyses, this would be requires endless growth to function. Peak Energy is a seismic shift in transportation planning across the starting to reduce the physical ability to grow traffic levels, United States. Realistic plans need to consider regardless of economic circumstances. Burning fossil fuels energy depletion and the limits to growth on a finite pollutes the thin film of the atmosphere, with health planet. There are several ways this shift could happen: a consequences and environmental impacts, including successful Federal lawsuit forces FHWA to include Peak global warming. Ecology, energy and money are Energy, the start of gasoline rationing makes interconnected and inseparable, and each require a transportation planners consider alternatives, or a change holistic integration with the others to address any of them.in national policies. Energy depletion is not merely about personal Peak Energy and Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled are transportation. Driving less will be uncomfortable, but Ånew circumstancesÆ relevant for proposed eating less would be far more difficult. Most food eaten in transportation projects. the US crosses time zones, some travels across international borders. As fossil fuels decline we need to Council on Environmental Quality regulations grow food where it is eaten. Relocalizing food production, 40 CFR 1502.9: growing food in cities, community gardens, suburban "food Draft, final and supplemental statements. not lawn" efforts, and protection of farmland from asphalt (c) Agencies: and concrete are all needed to cope with oil depletion. (1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final George H.W. Bush's highway law - the 1991 environmental impact statements if: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the (ISTEA) - requires Federal aid highway plans to be proposed action that are relevant to environmental designed for traffic conditions two decades in the concerns; or future, not current traffic congestion. It's anyone's guess (ii) There are significant new circumstances or what energy (and therefore, traffic) levels will be in the information relevant to environmental concerns 2030s, but under any physically possible scenario the flow and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. rates of petroleum and other fuels will be considerably less than they are today, since conventional fossil fuels have Federal Highway Administration regulations peaked globally. There will be oil extraction in the 2030s 23 CFR 771.130: but at levels less than current rates. Future fuels will be Supplemental environmental impact statements. the dirtier, more expensive, difficult to extract Åbottom of (a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be the barrelÆ supplies. Hyper efficient cars, public transit, supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented car sharing, and relocalization could mitigate these whenever the Administration determines that: impacts but not prevent them. (1) Changes to the proposed action would result in Transportation planning needs to focus on significant environmental impacts that were not maintaining the enormous road networks already evaluated in the EIS; or built, not expanding them further for travel demand (2)New information or circumstances relevant to that will not materialize on the energy downslope. environmental concerns and bearings on the The investments euphemistically called proposed action or its impacts would result in "modernization" should be dedicated toward quality significant environmental impacts not evaluated in train service, not super wide superhighways.the EIS. Å These forty million \[poor\] people are invisible because America is so affluent, so rich; because our expressways carry us away from the ghetto, we don't see the poor.Æ Ä Martin Luther King, "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution" March 31, 1968 (five days before his assassination) OHP REGON IGHWAY LANS www.PeakTraffic.org/oregon.html In 2008, Governor Kulongoski's Transportation Vision Committee report called for $18 billion in new and widened state highways. An updated estimate might be over $20 billion. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Oregon Environmental Council, and Environment Oregon were part of this committee, but they were window dressing to show all points of view were supposedly considered. If these groups had a minority report to dissent from the highway promotion, they kept it very quiet. National highway plans include over a trillion dollars in expansions. Details at PeakTraffic.org "Transportation Vision Report" - no longer on line archived: www.sustaineugene.org/tvreport_final.pdf a few highlights: $4.2 billion: Columbia River Crossing, wider I-5, up to 16 lanes on Vancouver, WA side approved December 2011, not under construction Oregon legislature appropriated $450 million 2013 $1 billion: Sunrise freeway, Clackamas County approved December 2010, $130 million available to build a segment, construction started 2013 $1.3 billion: I-5 / I-84 reconstruction, Portland $2.1 billion: I-5 to Hwy 99, Tualatin-Sherwood part of stopped Portland Western Bypass in 1990s $2 billion: I-5 widening south of Portland $600 million: I-5 widening, Salem to OR 34 Albany-Jefferson widening now slated at $500 m. $670 million: Salem Willamette River bridge $250 million: Beltline widening, Eugene $550 million: Newberg Dundee bypass widen Beltline to 11 lanes at the Willamette river paves farmland, approved June 2010 construction of $262 million segment started 2013 $375 million: Route 62 freeway bypass, Medford approved May 2013, $450 million, only about $100 $100 million: North Corvallis Bypass million appropriated to build a segment OR 34 to north Corvallis, including new river bridge $870 million: US 97 upgrades, Bend-Redmond $200 million: Route 126 upgrade, Springfield wider mainline, interchanges at 52nd & Main Street) WF? HAT THE RACK Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel is Not Good to the Last Drop production, with enormous implications for social US natural gas peaked 1973, Exaggerated estimates: cohesion as it declines. Two of the three top declined sharply since 2000, fracked oil in California fracked gas regions have peaked, due to depletion. Fracking for gas and oil delayed rationing. fracked gas peaking nowdownsized more than 99% Without fracking, Obama would only have lasted Fracking is not only toxic, it also has been CaliforniaÈs oil industry claims fracking in the one term, since most voters do not like the exaggerated in the resource size.ÅMonterey ShaleÆ could extract 15 billion barrels, consequences of economic contraction. Conventional ÅnaturalÆ gas extraction peaked in two years of US combustion. This could pose As depletion becomes more obvious, the the US in 1973. The sharp decline of nat. gas since severe threats to water quality in drought zones, but economic impacts are likely to be extremely 2000 is the reason for the shale gas fracking boom. the other half of the story is the oil is not there. profound. Our society is completely unprepared for Fracked gas keeps cold cities heated in the winter Post Carbon Institute looked at the geological the downslope in terms of logistics or psychology. and now runs a major part of the electric grids.evidence, documenting that these estimates were Fracking should be banned but this would In 2014, fracked gas surpassed conventional wildly exaggerated. details: PostCarbon.org have an enormous cost, which is why a ban gas. But fracked gas is either near or at its peak In 2014, the Energy Information Administration probably wonÈt happen before depletion. conceded the estimates were bogus and downsized estimates to 600 million barrels. In 2015, the US Geological Survey further downsized the estimate to 21 million barrels, less than one percent of the original claim. Fracking was a boom and bust. Monterey Shale chart of fracked oil details: www.PeakChoice.org/peak-frack.html estimates from PostCarbon.org conventional nat. gas peaked 1973 A A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Peak Blame and the decline US coal peaked in 1999 Powder River Basin producers finding it more costly to get to coal reserves of concentrated energydue to depletion www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/washington/ The reason we use fossil fuels is they are more Coal depletion is why ÅexportÆ of coal through power-river-basin-producers-finding-it-more- concentrated and easier to use than sunlight and the Northwest is unlikely in large amounts. wind. It would be nice to have simple replacements costly-21402408 Coal that only exists in exaggerated estimates for this stored energy, but our growth based ÅÇThereÈs very little low ratio coal out there cannot be exported. economy requires ever increasing use of resources. anymore,È said Al Elser, BLMÈs assistant district details: www.PeakChoice.org/peak-coal.html Now that the easy to extract fossil fuels are in manager for solid minerals in Casper, Wyoming.Æ decline, replaced by difficult to extract energy, our economy is having increased difficulty sustaining Geology and Markets, not EPA, Waging continued growth. comment from http://ricefarmer.blogspot.com War on Coal Economic impacts of energy decline are leading Powder River Basin coal is some of the cheapest in to increased instability, with social chaos that can cleanenergyaction.org/2014/06/04/geology-and- the world. But as this article shows, the Åeasy be as challenging as the ecological damage. markets-not-epa-waging-war-on-coal/ coalÆ is pretty much gone. That of course Financial hardships lead to demagogues Ä the The EPA is not waging a war on coal. This isnÈt means rising prices, and declining net energy. classic example is 1930s Germany. Trump is to say that a war on coal would be a bad idea, but As with oil, coal is not going to literally Årun indicative of the blaming likely to happen on the energy downslope. rather that itÈs mostly unnecessary. Coal in the US out,Æ but price increases will create an Energy literacy about energy decline could be a is dying off on its own, and at most what weÈre increasing drag onthe economy. ItÈs all downhill partial antidote for scapegoating, but would require doing is equivalent to taking it off life support. Our from here. admitting we have reached the limits to growth task is to manage thegraceful transition to a much on an abundant, round, finite planet. lower carbon energy system. Using solar panels for a quarter century taught The proposed EPA carbon regulations are just me living on our solar budget will power a much smaller, steady state economy no longer based the first baby steps we need to take down the path on exponential growth. of avoiding catastrophic warming. The EPA, the Moving beyond fossil fuels is not about electric state legislatures and regulatory cars, but relocalizing food production, since solar bodies, and (someday) the US panels cannot power long distance food shipments. Congress are all going to have do do Breeding plant varieties for changing climates will probably be the most important adaptation a whole lot more workin the years to to changing climates. come, working together to transform US oil - 1920 to 2014 - peaked 1970 Ä Mark Robinowitz, PeakChoice.org our energy system much faster and much more profoundly than these regulations alone can. A 4 4 Because thereÈs so much more 4 4 work to do, it is important that we do 4 4 4 not allow the EPA and the Obama administration to be made into scapegoats for the decline of the coal industry. We must not allow this kind of work to remain Alaska oil peaked 1988 politically poisonous, or weÈll never North Dakota fracked oil, peaking now build thekind of momentum we need to finish the job. From:Ron-Janet Bevirt To:INERFELD Rob;TAYLOR Becky;*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:The Proposed 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 4:40:04 PM Attachments:22417 Proposed TSP 2035.pdf Re: The Proposed 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) 2/24/17 To All It Should Concern: Please reject the proposal to reduce the LOS (Level of Service) citywide on all streets from level "D" down to level “E”. This would allow for even more traffic congestion and gridlock which is unacceptable. No traffic impact analysis would be required, no mitigation would be required for negative traffic impact, and there would be no option to address traffic issues or no appeals would be permitted. Presently the Developer and City are trying to allow Amazon Corner at Hilyard St & 32nd Ave without an adequate Traffic Impact Analysis. It's very undesirable for density to increase unchecked, beyond reasonable growth that is respectful of existing neighborhoods. All Developers and the City need to be responsible towards the community and mitigate traffic problems. It's really deplorable to think that with Level "E" the City will not need to make necessary improvements required under State law for mitigation of congestion. Travel will be intolerable with Level "E" and businesses will suffer with people unwilling to venture forth. I now avoid Willamette St with the narrowed street and line of cars that make it unpleasant to shop in the area. The city has flawed thinking that this will force people to use buses, to bike or walk. It will have people leaving the area, create a reputation of problem commuting so people won't move here and anger drivers. The job of the city's Traffic Planners should be to make our city's traffic flow better. Please do your jobs and keep Eugene's traffic reasonable and in fact improve it, keep the LOS at "D" at least. Do not reduce the LOS to "E" to avoid it's undesirable consequences, this is poor traffic planning. I love Eugene and it is smart to avoid, not strive for, a failing Level of Service. "Protect, Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability.” No on LOS “E”, it is irresponsible towards the well being of Eugene! The City "thinks" the TSP will cost a certain amount, check out the pages of proposed bike paths and sidewalks to make complete streets citywide with old 2014 Cost Estimates, the Beltline Project, the Study Projects, etc. Some proposals just do not work within the proposed area for example, Lorane Highway which has been fought repeatedly for years. Those of us who have lived in South Eugene are very familiar with PB-29: Lorane Highway, Chambers St to W 29th Ave, 1.35 mile Bike Lane proposal and PB-323 Lorane Highway, Chambers St to Crest Dr, Northside, 0.14 miles Sidewalk proposal. These projects were first proposed in the 1970s (stopped by a petition), resurrected in 1983 (stopped by a property owners remonstrance), again in 1990, and again in 1994 (stopped when then Public Works Director, Christine Andersen, finally agreed with affected residents that the plan was a bad idea). One of the reasons the plan failed was because in places the road surface is 15' wide, which after striping for a 6' bike lane, would leave a total of 9' to accommodate two vehicle travel lanes of 4.5' each. The location of the road leaves little room for widening without such drastic measures as building retaining walls and the destruction of hundreds of trees. (Hopefully these two Lorane Highway projects will be removed from the TSP, following the staff’s recommendations.) Completing flat maps is very different from dealing with the real topography of land, one is on a flat plane of paper, while the ground is dimensional with nature's limitations. All of the proposed complete streets can not possibly work citywide. Also PB-256, Lincoln St accessway, W 30th Ave to W 31st Ave, 0.08 miles, $66,000 cost estimate from 2014 is too expensive and a ridiculously steep location. The police department has said at a Southeast Neighbors meeting that accessways bring more crime into the neighborhood, and therefore more problems into Wayne Morse Family Farm. Another aspect of the proposed street projects that needs to be considered is the potential of assessments to the owners whose properties abut projects on "unimproved" streets. These assessments often run into thousands of dollars per property, causing a major financial hardship. Also property owners are responsible for sidewalk installation and maintenance which cost about $100 a linear foot, creating more of a financial hardship. No on Complete Streets in all of Eugene, it’s unworkable and ridiculously expensive! Kurt Yeiter said, the TSP planning team met 12 times over a few years. Were any businesses on South Willamette St asked to have input besides "Arriving by Bike" about the bike lanes? PB-31: Willamette Street, 24th to 30th Ave, .85 miles, $115,000 from old 2014 Cost Estimates. It is currently being “tested” (not really) with restriping with bike lanes, so the TSP should not include South Willamette Street with bike lanes in their plan. Businesses may not be doing well because of this change. (That data is questionable, no businesses I’ve asked are providing financial info.) Maybe they should embrace Oak & Willamette together regarding bike lanes so they become more of a supportive shopping area with bike lanes on Oak Street. PB-31, adding bike lanes to South Willamette St is being pushed and promoted by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). Were any property owners that are directly affected by PB-31 invited to be part of the TSP planning team? I wasn't and my property is on W 29th Ave, which now has increased traffic from automobiles avoiding the congested South Willamette St with reduced lanes and bicyclists now traveling in both directions on both sides of the street, using the bike paths and sidewalks. Aren't the sidewalks supposed to be for pedestrians to have safe walking? What was the point of adding bike lanes if the bicyclists can ride on the sidewalks? Bi-Mart and the Quarry were both invited to be part of the TSP planning team regarding truck transportation and shipping, and the latter will make quite a profit with the Beltline development need for gravel. From Kurt Yeiter's 6/15/16 Council of Southwest Neighbors (CSEN) TSP discussion, "No one is thrilled with the plan, there were lots of tradeoffs, but the City is aiming for the best balance. The City has heard that they did not do enough outreach." I agree the balance still is not there and the TSP still needs work. The City with BPAC's help did a survey, http://www.centrallanertsp.org/sites/default/files/EugeneSpringfieldTravelBarriersBenefitsSurvey.pdf The findings include: The Most Important Issues local government leaders should address: 1. Poverty/homelessness, 2. Road infrastructure, 3. Jobs/unemployment, 4./5. Education funding/Education-general, 6. Wasteful spending/inappropriate use of funds by government, 7. Crime and 8. Traffic. (Note #1 Income is needed to get out of Poverty and affordable housing is needed to get out of Homelessness, not more new expensive housing densification.) The Transportation Issues that local government leaders should address: 1. Improved road conditions, 2. Expanding bus transportation systems, 3. Improve traffic congestion, 4. Increasing bike accessible areas/bike lanes, 5. Cancel the EmX planning, 6. Improve mass transit 7. Bike safety. (Note #3 People would like to improve the current traffic congestion, not accept or make traffic congestion worse. People want to get rid of EmX and their concern for bike safety is down to #7 on the survey.) The TSP plan changes the ‘Level of Service’ (LOS) for Eugene streets citywide with a downgrade from a ‘D’ below average to an ‘E’ which is a failing level of congestion, one level above the total gridlock of ‘F’. Lowering the LOS to ‘E’ allows for more traffic congestion on all streets. This allows for lowered acceptable street standards and less system development charges for developers and supports more densification. System development charges should go to reimburse sidewalk repair and installation. Street and bike paths are built with system development charges and taxes, sidewalks should also be supported in this way. A lowered LOS to ‘E’ will result in slower responses from police, fire and emergency medical services. Since we already have enough buildable land within the Urban Growth Boundary (per Teri Harding 4/21/16 FAN meeting) to satisfy a 34,000 added population forecast over 20 years. Why would we downgrade all streets in Eugene from ‘D’ to ‘E’ LOS which, according to Oregon State Law, may allow for more density (i.e. housing) particularly along main corridors, when we do not need to reclassify streets (or all streets) at this time? There is growth and infill happening currently at a natural and slower pace than a massive rezoning or boom scenario would promote. Kurt Yeiter said, "The city is looking for what we missed in the TSP plan that we could do to keep traffic flowing." Do not lower the LOS citywide and stop creating traffic congestion. Do not lower the LOS, this does not improve traffic congestion, it supports more. West 29th Ave has congestion with stopped traffic between the Lincoln St and Woodfield Station traffic lights. The noise, congestion and pollution from added cars dodging the restriping test on South Willamette St has created difficulty with renting my properties for the first time in 26 years. It’s now so unpleasant to walk on W 29th Ave, thus leading to a decrease in pedestrian traffic and walkability. Remove “Parking In-Lieu Fees” from the TSP. Parking in-lieu fees are developer fees paid if they cannot or do not want to provide on-site parking for the development. The idea behind these fees is to decrease the amount of off-street, private parking and consolidating parking supplies on-street or in parking garages as a way to decrease parking demand on the development site. Parking in-lieu fees may benefit developers by reducing costs and allowingmore intensive development on a site. This does not benefit the existing neighborhoods. For example, not requiring on-site parking and the effects of Cascade Manor’s employees on-street parking on 30th Ave, Portland, Olive and Charnelton Streets is an issue for my neighborhood. Kurt Yeiter also mentioned the Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO) included in the TSP. The CRO wants a 50% reduction in CO2 and automobiles using the road by 2030. This is unrealistic to the extreme. The TSP Complete Streets want to narrow streets and eliminate street parking to create congestion to eliminate automobiles. In reality there will be more congestion, not less cars. I have seen no decrease in car traffic, you are creating more of a problem, not solving one. In the context of the CRO, increasing capacity on Beltline does not make sense while at the same time strangling the city’s traffic. If Vision Zero is part of TSP, bike helmets should be mandatory to support the policy of zero injuries and deaths. Also bike registration should be required to provide education for bicyclists, (like automobile drivers), and to provide ID for bikes in case of theft. There appears to be no age limit with kids riding bikes along busy streets, even if they are not in control of a bike yet, this is unsafe and irresponsible, remember Vision Zero goals. Skateboards and bikes can ride in any direction on the sidewalks of South Willamette Street. Skateboards can ride in the bike lanes if going in the correct direction. (Downtown and other places have limits, this should be looked into since it seems automobiles will be at fault in an accident, there needs to be some protections from irresponsible behavior in the bike lanes or on the sidewalks.) (Ex. The first week of the restriping 2 kids were racing south to north full speed, one in the bike path and the other on the sidewalk.) (Ex. My daughter had a skateboarder lose control in front of her, the skateboard went under her bike wheel, she flew off her bike in Amazon Park, did a complete flip over the handle bars, landing on her butt, she was lucky she didn’t hit her head on the cement bike path. This accident was no fault of her own, she was glad to be wearing a helmet, as she always does for safety.) What if this accident had happened on South Willamette Street with pedestrians, bikes and cars present, how safe would all these people be and how big would this accident have become? Instead of aiming to remove 50% of motor vehicles from the roads re the CRO, vehicles that meet a fuel efficient standard should be rewarded through tax incentives and gas guzzlers should be penalized. Motor vehicles should be tested for pollution with exhaust standards to get them fixed or off the road like in other states. Maybe the Federal government, State or auto dealers with hybrid/electric vehicles would give incentives to support the CRO efforts. We are so close to having fully electric cars priced affordably for most people to purchase and drive, it makes no sense to change the city to accommodate bicyclists as a priority. Fully electric cars are driving the streets of Eugene right now. The South Willamette Concept Plan originally aspired to Portland's development, and now we know the mistakes that density has caused to their neighborhoods and community with over development, expensive high rent development and traffic congestion in Portland. Can we learn from Portland’s mistakes and not repeat their traffic/densification problems? South Willamette is supposed to be a template for all of Eugene, as well as Coburg Road, River Road and the other proposed special area zones, 15 in all, the people in the special area zones need to understand the implications of this TSP Plan in Eugene. I see no efforts from the city to reach out and truly inform the public about these changes to these neighborhoods. The TSP is creating multimodal corridors so densification can be created in proposed special area zones, like the South Willamette-Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ). How can the TSP justify the expansion of Beltline to increase the flow of traffic while they are trying to stifle all car traffic within the city. How can you make sense of those two opposing actions in the context of CRO? What will the TSP implementation really cost the taxpayers and the functionality of Eugene’s transportation system? Traffic signal system The TSP will cost more than the Page 98 Estimates from 2014. “ improvements. The costs are in 2014 dollars and include right-of-way, design engineering, and construction costs. A summary of costs for the 20 year system is shown in Table 6.2. Capital funding for transit is not included in the cost and funding analysis. Given that a community process will be required to determine the types of improvements necessary to support transit in identified multimodal corridors, the transit corridor capital costs were consolidated, assuming a mix of bus rapid transit (EmX), enhanced corridor, and frequent bus service. Transit projects are estimated to Table 6.2: 20 year system cost, cost a total of $171.4 million for all corridor improvements. Project category, Cost ($ 2014).Projects within 20 Years : Roadway and multimodal projects $150,600,000. Complete streets upgrades to existing streets $45,600,000. Rail projects $28,400,000. Pedestrian and bicycle projects $72,000,000. Transit projects in multimodal corridors (multimodal Upon Development Projects: corridor bundle) $171,400,000. $135,900,000 (total) / $67,950,000 Total 20 Year System Cost: (city-funded). Traffic Signal System Improvements $21,200,000. $625,100,000. Total ODOT and City-Funded Cost (excluding transit and 50% of upon development projects) $385,750,000. Note: (1) City-funded share of ‘upon development’ project costs is an estimate for use in comparing costs to forecast revenues. Assessments for development will be developed separately. (2) Often, operational projects are not included in system plans. Some are included in this funding estimate, however, due to the reliance on operational improvements to address system performance needs.” How much more of a drain on the city budget will the TSP really be? Pedestrian and bicycle projects were estimated at $72,000,000 in 2014. Would we want the TSP projects to turn into another version of the City Hall project,with no end of costs in sight? RememberThe Most Important Issues local government leaders should address: Wasteful spending and inappropriate use of funds by government. (One example is the consideration of 4 million in funds for an airport car wash for rental cars.) Please place my written testimony in the Public Record. Respectfully, Janet Bevirt 2915 Charnelton St Eugene Re: The Proposed 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) 2/24/17 To All It Should Concern: Please reject the proposal to reduce the LOS (Level of Service) citywide on all streets from level "D" down to level ÅEÆ. This would allow for even more trafÐc congestion and gridlock which is unacceptable. No trafÐc impact analysis would be required, no mitigation would be required for negative trafÐc impact, and there would be no option to address trafÐc issues or no appeals would be permitted. Presently the Developer and City are trying to allow Amazon Corner at Hilyard St & 32nd Ave without an adequate TrafÐc Impact Analysis. It's very undesirable for density to increase unchecked, beyond reasonable growth that is respectful of existing neighborhoods. All Developers and the City need to be responsible towards the community and mitigate trafÐc problems. It's really deplorable to think that with Level "E" the City will not need to make necessary improvements required under State law for mitigation of congestion. Travel will be intolerable with Level "E" and businesses will suffer with people unwilling to venture forth. I now avoid Willamette St with the narrowed street and line of cars that make it unpleasant to shop in the area. The city has Ñawed thinking that this will force people to use buses, to bike or walk. It will have people leaving the area, create a reputation of problem commuting so people won't move here and anger drivers. The job of the city's TrafÐc Planners should be to make our city's trafÐc Ñow better. Please do your jobs and keep Eugene's trafÐc reasonable and in fact improve it, keep the LOS at "D" at least. Do not reduce the LOS to "E" to avoid it's undesirable consequences, this is poor trafÐc planning. I love Eugene and it is smart to avoid, not strive for, a failing Level of Service. "Protect, Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability.Æ No on LOS ÅEÆ, it is irresponsible towards the well being of Eugene! The City "thinks" the TSP will cost a certain amount, check out the pages of proposed bike paths and sidewalks to make complete streets citywide with old 2014 Cost Estimates, the Beltline Project, the Study Projects, etc. Some proposals just do not work within the proposed area for example, Lorane Highway which has been fought repeatedly for years. Those of us who have lived in South Eugene are very familiar with PB-29: Lorane Highway, Chambers St to W 29th Ave, 1.35 mile Bike Lane proposal and PB-323 Lorane Highway, Chambers St to Crest Dr, Northside, 0.14 miles Sidewalk proposal. These projects were Ðrst proposed in the 1970s (stopped by a petition), resurrected in 1983 (stopped by a property owners remonstrance), again in 1990, and again in 1994 (stopped when then Public Works Director, Christine Andersen, Ðnally agreed with affected residents that the plan was a bad idea). One of the reasons the plan failed was because in places the road surface is 15' wide, which after striping 1 for a 6' bike lane, would leave a total of 9' to accommodate two vehicle travel lanes of 4.5' each. The location of the road leaves little room for widening without such drastic measures as building retaining walls and the destruction of hundreds of trees. (Hopefully these two Lorane Highway projects will be removed from the TSP, following the staffÈs recommendations.) Completing Ñat maps is very different from dealing with the real topography of land, one is on a Ñat plane of paper, while the ground is dimensional with nature's limitations. All of the proposed complete streets can not possibly work citywide. Also PB-256, Lincoln St accessway, W 30th Ave to W 31st Ave, 0.08 miles, $66,000 cost estimate from 2014 is too expensive and a ridiculously steep location. The police department has said at a Southeast Neighbors meeting that accessways bring more crime into the neighborhood, and therefore more problems into Wayne Morse Family Farm. Another aspect of the proposed street projects that needs to be considered is the potential of assessments to the owners whose properties abut projects on "unimproved" streets. These assessments often run into thousands of dollars per property, causing a major Ðnancial hardship. Also property owners are responsible for sidewalk installation and maintenance which cost about $100 a linear foot, creating more of a Ðnancial hardship. No on Complete Streets in all of Eugene, itÈs unworkable and ridiculously expensive! Kurt Yeiter said, the TSP planning team met 12 times over a few years. Were any businesses on South Willamette St asked to have input besides "Arriving by Bike" about the bike lanes? PB-31: Willamette Street, 24th to 30th Ave, .85 miles, $115,000 from old 2014 Cost Estimates. It is currently being ÅtestedÆ (not really) with restriping with bike lanes, so the TSP should not include South Willamette Street with bike lanes in their plan. Businesses may not be doing well because of this change. (That data is questionable, no businesses IÈve asked are providing Ðnancial info.) Maybe they should embrace Oak & Willamette together regarding bike lanes so they become more of a supportive shopping area with bike lanes on Oak Street. PB-31, adding bike lanes to South Willamette St is being pushed and promoted by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). Were any property owners that are directly affected by PB-31 invited to be part of the TSP planning team? I wasn't and my property is on W 29th Ave, which now has increased trafÐc from automobiles avoiding the congested South Willamette St with reduced lanes and bicyclists now traveling in both directions on both sides of the street, using the bike paths and sidewalks. Aren't the sidewalks supposed to be for pedestrians to have safe walking? What was the point of adding bike lanes if the bicyclists can ride on the sidewalks? Bi-Mart and the Quarry were both invited to be part of the TSP planning team regarding truck transportation and shipping, and the latter will make quite a proÐt with the Beltline development need for gravel. From Kurt Yeiter's 6/15/16 Council of Southwest Neighbors (CSEN) TSP discussion, "No one is thrilled with the plan, there were lots of tradeoffs, but the City is aiming for the best balance. The City has heard that they did not do enough outreach." I agree the balance still is not there and the TSP still needs work. The City with BPAC's help did a survey, http://www.centrallanertsp.org/sites/default/Ðles/ EugeneSpringÐeldTravelBarriersBeneÐtsSurvey.pdf The Ðndings include: 2 The Most Important Issues local government leaders should address: 1. Poverty/ homelessness, 2. Road infrastructure, 3. Jobs/unemployment, 4./5. Education funding/ Education-general, 6. Wasteful spending/inappropriate use of funds by government, 7. Crime and 8. TrafÐc. (Note #1 Income is needed to get out of Poverty and affordable housing is needed to get out of Homelessness, not more new expensive housing densiÐcation.) The Transportation Issues that local government leaders should address: 1. Improved road conditions, 2. Expanding bus transportation systems, 3. Improve trafÐc congestion, 4. Increasing bike accessible areas/bike lanes, 5. Cancel the EmX planning, 6. Improve mass transit 7. Bike safety. (Note #3 People would like to improve the current trafÐc congestion, not accept or make trafÐc congestion worse. People want to get rid of EmX and their concern for bike safety is down to #7 on the survey.) The TSP plan changes the ÇLevel of ServiceÈ (LOS) for Eugene streets citywide with a downgrade from a ÇDÈ below average to an ÇEÈ which is a failing level of congestion, one level above the total gridlock of ÇFÈ. Lowering the LOS to ÇEÈ allows for more trafÐc congestion on all streets. This allows for lowered acceptable street standards and less system development charges for developers and supports more densiÐcation. System development charges should go to reimburse sidewalk repair and installation. Street and bike paths are built with system development charges and taxes, sidewalks should also be supported in this way. A lowered LOS to ÇEÈ will result in slower responses from police, Ðre and emergency medical services. Since we already have enough buildable land within the Urban Growth Boundary (per Teri Harding 4/21/16 FAN meeting) to satisfy a 34,000 added population forecast over 20 years. Why would we downgrade all streets in Eugene from ÇDÈ to ÇEÈ LOS which, according to Oregon State Law, may allow for more density (i.e. housing) particularly along main corridors, when we do not need to reclassify streets (or all streets) at this time? There is growth and inÐll happening currently at a natural and slower pace than a massive rezoning or boom scenario would promote. Kurt Yeiter said, "The city is looking for what we missed in the TSP plan that we could do to keep trafÐc Ñowing." Do not lower the LOS citywide and stop creating trafÐc congestion. Do not lower the LOS, this does not improve trafÐc congestion, it supports more. West 29th Ave has congestion with stopped trafÐc between the Lincoln St and WoodÐeld Station trafÐc lights. The noise, congestion and pollution from added cars dodging the restriping test on South Willamette St has created difÐculty with renting my properties for the Ðrst time in 26 years. ItÈs now so unpleasant to walk on W 29th Ave, thus leading to a decrease in pedestrian trafÐc and walkability. Remove ÅParking In-Lieu FeesÆ from the TSP. Parking in-lieu fees are developer fees paid if they cannot or do not want to provide on-site parking for the development. The idea behind these fees is to decrease the amount of off-street, private parking and consolidating parking supplies on-street or in parking garages as a way to decrease parking demand on the development site. Parking in-lieu fees may beneÐt developers by reducing costs and allowing more intensive development on a site. This does not beneÐt the existing neighborhoods. For example, not requiring on-site parking and the effects of Cascade ManorÈs employees on-street parking on 30th Ave, Portland, Olive and Charnelton Streets is an issue for my neighborhood. 3 Kurt Yeiter also mentioned the Climate Recovery Ordinance (CRO) included in the TSP. The CRO wants a 50% reduction in CO2 and automobiles using the road by 2030. This is unrealistic to the extreme. The TSP Complete Streets want to narrow streets and eliminate street parking to create congestion to eliminate automobiles. In reality there will be more congestion, not less cars. I have seen no decrease in car trafÐc, you are creating more of a problem, not solving one. In the context of the CRO, increasing capacity on Beltline does not make sense while at the same time strangling the cityÈs trafÐc. If Vision Zero is part of TSP, bike helmets should be mandatory to support the policy of zero injuries and deaths. Also bike registration should be required to provide education for bicyclists, (like automobile drivers), and to provide ID for bikes in case of theft. There appears to be no age limit with kids riding bikes along busy streets, even if they are not in control of a bike yet, this is unsafe and irresponsible, remember Vision Zero goals. Skateboards and bikes can ride in any direction on the sidewalks of South Willamette Street. Skateboards can ride in the bike lanes if going in the correct direction. (Downtown and other places have limits, this should be looked into since it seems automobiles will be at fault in an accident, there needs to be some protections from irresponsible behavior in the bike lanes or on the sidewalks.) (Ex. The Ðrst week of the restriping 2 kids were racing south to north full speed, one in the bike path and the other on the sidewalk.) (Ex. My daughter had a skateboarder lose control in front of her, the skateboard went under her bike wheel, she Ñew off her bike in Amazon Park, did a complete Ñip over the handle bars, landing on her butt, she was lucky she didnÈt hit her head on the cement bike path. This accident was no fault of her own, she was glad to be wearing a helmet, as she always does for safety.) What if this accident had happened on South Willamette Street with pedestrians, bikes and cars present, how safe would all these people be and how big would this accident have become? Instead of aiming to remove 50% of motor vehicles from the roads re the CRO, vehicles that meet a fuel efÐcient standard should be rewarded through tax incentives and gas guzzlers should be penalized. Motor vehicles should be tested for pollution with exhaust standards to get them Ðxed or off the road like in other states. Maybe the Federal government, State or auto dealers with hybrid/electric vehicles would give incentives to support the CRO efforts. We are so close to having fully electric cars priced affordably for most people to purchase and drive, it makes no sense to change the city to accommodate bicyclists as a priority. Fully electric cars are driving the streets of Eugene right now. The South Willamette Concept Plan originally aspired to Portland's development, and now we know the mistakes that density has caused to their neighborhoods and community with over development, expensive high rent development and trafÐc congestion in Portland. Can we learn from PortlandÈs mistakes and not repeat their trafÐc/densiÐcation problems? South Willamette is supposed to be a template for all of Eugene, as well as Coburg Road, River Road and the other proposed special area zones, 15 in all, the people in the special area zones need to understand the implications of this TSP Plan in Eugene. I see no efforts from the city to reach out and truly inform the public about these changes to these neighborhoods. The TSP is creating multimodal corridors so densiÐcation can be created in proposed special area zones, like the South Willamette-Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ). 4 How can the TSP justify the expansion of Beltline to increase the Ñow of trafÐc while they are trying to stiÑe all car trafÐc within the city. How can you make sense of those two opposing actions in the context of CRO? What will the TSP implementation really cost the taxpayers and the functionality of EugeneÈs transportation system? The TSP will cost more than the Page 98 Estimates from 2014. Å TrafÐc signal system improvements. The costs are in 2014 dollars and include rightofway, design engineering, and construction costs. A summary of costs for the 20 year system is shown in Table 6.2. Capital funding for transit is not included in the cost and funding analysis. Given that a community process will be required to determine the types of improvements necessary to support transit in identiÐed multimodal corridors, the transit corridor capital costs were consolidated, assuming a mix of bus rapid transit (EmX), enhanced corridor, and frequent bus service. Transit projects are estimated to cost a total of $171.4 million for all corridor improvements. Table 6.2: 20 year system cost, Project category, Cost ($ 2014). Projects within 20 Years: Roadway and multimodal projects $150,600,000. Complete streets upgrades to existing streets $45,600,000. Rail projects $28,400,000. Pedestrian and bicycle projects $72,000,000. Transit projects in multimodal corridors (multimodal corridor bundle) $171,400,000. Upon Development Projects: $135,900,000 (total) / $67,950,000 (city-funded). TrafÐc Signal System Improvements $21,200,000. Total 20 Year System Cost: $625,100,000. Total ODOT and City-Funded Cost (excluding transit and 50% of upon development projects) $385,750,000. Note: (1) Cityfunded share of Çupon developmentÈ project costs is an estimate for use in comparing costs to forecast revenues. Assessments for development will be developed separately. (2) Often, operational projects are not included in system plans. Some are included in this funding estimate, however, due to the reliance on operational improvements to address system performance needs.Æ How much more of a drain on the city budget will the TSP really be? Pedestrian and bicycle projects were estimated at $72,000,000 in 2014. Would we want the TSP projects to turn into another version of the City Hall project, with no end of costs in sight? Remember The Most Important Issues local government leaders should address: Wasteful spending and inappropriate use of funds by government. (One example is the consideration of 4 million in funds for an airport car wash for rental cars.) Please place my written testimony in the Public Record. Respectfully, Janet Bevirt 2915 Charnelton St Eugene 5 From:Cindy Allen To:INERFELD Rob Subject:Transportation System Plan (Public Record) Date:Friday, February 24, 2017 7:28:24 PM I am very surprised that the changing of our Eugene streets from a D ( a very low rating) to an even lower rating of E would even be considered. Appropriate traffic studies are one of the residents main assurances that new development will ruin our neighborhoods, devalue our homes, and put our streets in gridlock. Often the developers are from out of the area and have no vested interest in what happens to our city. The traffic standards will be much lower with the E rating. I feel very concerned about this and do not feel that this is wanted by the majority of Eugene residents and I would suggest that the is very important issue be put to a public vote. Cindy Allen 858 Fox Glenn Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97405