HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Agenda 04-17-17
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 17, 2017
5:30 p.m. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of April 17, 2017;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Alan Zelenka, President Mike Clark, Vice President Emile Semple Greg Evans Claire Syrett Chris Pryor Betty Taylor
5:30 p.m. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
A. PUBLIC HEARING
An Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning;
Adopting the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan; Amending
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan); Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan); Amending Sections 9.050, 9.8010,
9.9650 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending the Street Classification Map; Amending Ordinance No. 20528 (to Delete Section 67); Repealing Section 9.9525 of the Eugene Code, 1971, Repealing Ordinance No. 20322 (2003 Central Area Transportation Study); and Providing for an Effective Date. Manager: Introduces topic, presents background information.
Mayor opens the public hearing: Those wishing to speak during the Public Hearing must submit a completed “Request to Speak” form to the information desk, prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. When you
come to the podium, please give your name, city of residence, and, for
Eugene residents, your ward if known; you will have three minutes to
comment. There are lights on the timer; the red light indicates the end of
three minutes.
Mayor: Closes the public hearing.
The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. 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. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010, or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City of Eugene and Lane County Joint Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning; adopting the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan; amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan); amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan); amending Sections 9.050, 9.8010, 9.9650 of the Eugene Code, 1971; amending the Street Classification Map; amending Ordinance No. 20528 (to delete Section 67); repealing Section 9.9525 of the Eugene Code, 1971, repealing Ordinance No. 20322 (2003 Central Area Transportation Study); and providing for an effective date. Meeting Date: April 17, 2017
ISSUE STATEMENT This is the second joint public hearing with the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) and corresponding amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Area Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Eugene-Springfield Transportation Plan (TransPlan). The first public hearing took place on March 6, 2017. The City Council will be also be considering concurrent amendments to the Eugene Code, amendments to Eugene’s Street Classification Map, an amendment to Ordinance No. 20528 and repeal of Eugene’s Central Area Transportation Study (CATS). These additional actions are not being considered by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND Until now, TransPlan, adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County as a functional plan to the Metro Plan, has served as Eugene’s regional transportation system plan, local transportation system plan, and pedestrian and bicycle master plan. While TransPlan will continue to serve as the City’s regional transportation system plan, the 2035 TSP will serve as Eugene’s local transportation system plan. Like Springfield’s local transportation system plan (co-adopted by Lane County in 2014), the Eugene 2035 TSP is proposed for co-adoption by Lane County for application within the urban transition area located outside the city limits, but within the Eugene urban growth boundary area. For Eugene’s transportation planning area, the 2035 TSP updates and replaces TransPlan’s (2002) goals, policies, and list of projects that describe how local transportation networks should change to accommodate growth, improve livability, and support economic vitality within the Eugene urban and airport areas. The 2035 TSP is coordinated and consistent with the Airport Master Plan,
Lane Transit District’s Long Range Transit Plan, the Regional Transportation Options Plan, Springfield’s TSP, Lane County’s TSP update, the Oregon Highway Plan, the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan and other plans. City and County staff coordinated closely throughout the planning process, with County staff acting as a member of the internal staff review team and participating in all open houses and public meetings. A Transportation Community Resource Group (TCRG) was created to invite participation from many of the original members of the Envision Eugene Community Resource Group, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan project advisory committee, Eugene’s standing Active Transportation Committee (ATC), a multi-agency Technical Advisory Committee, 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 held a joint public hearing on June 21, 2016, where they received both spoken and written public comment. At the close of the public hearing the Planning Commissions voted to hold the record open until July 8, 2016. The Eugene Planning Commission deliberated on July 18 and December 5. On December 12 the Eugene Planning Commission held final deliberations and voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council adopt a revised 2035 TSP. The Lane County Planning Commission deliberated on July 19. On January 3, 2017, the Lane County Planning Commission held final deliberations and voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the 2035 TSP with the Eugene Planning Commission’s recommended revision plus two additional revisions. The 2035 TSP that is the subject of the April 17 joint public hearing incorporates all of the revisions recommended by the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions. Subsequent to the first joint public hearing on the 2035 TSP held by the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on March 6, 2017, staff have taken the following steps to publicize the April 17 public hearing:
• Mailed a written notice to the interested parties list for the 2035 TSP which includes all people who submitted testimony to the joint planning commission public hearing;
• Sent an email notice to a larger interested parties list of about 170 people;
• Published a lead article in the City’s monthly InMotion e-newsletter that is sent to over 3,000 people;
• Published an article in the City’s weekly Community Bulletin e-newsletter;
• Published an article in the Envision Eugene e-newsletter;
• Sent an email notice via the Human Services Network to around 130 people representing social services agencies in Lane County;
• Distributed a news release to media outlets in the Eugene-Springfield area; and
• Emailed a notice to neighborhood association leaders.
RELATED CITY POLICIES The 2035 TSP is the City’s long-range planning document that establishes a system of transportation and services that will meet the identified needs of the City over the next 20 years. In addition to the 2035 TSP, the City has adopted a number of plans, manuals, and administrative rules that relate to the provision of transportation facilities to the public. The City’s current transportation-related plans, manuals, and administrative rules, include (but are not limited to): • Street Classification Map; • Street Right-of-Way Map; • Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways & Accessways; • Public Improvement Design Standards Manual; • Utility and Right-of-Way Permits, Construction Within and Use of the Public Way, Policies and Procedures Manual; • 2010 Airport Master Plan; • Standards for Traffic Impact Analysis Review; and • Standards for Transportation Demand Management Program. There are other City-adopted plans and policies that, while not solely related to the provision of transportation facilities to the public, nevertheless play an important role in the City’s long-range transportation planning. Some of those other plans and policies, such as the Climate Recovery Ordinance and the Triple Bottom Line framework, are explicitly discussed in the 2035 TSP. Also recognized and incorporated into the 2035 TSP is the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 5143 which sets as official policy for the City the Vision Zero goal that no loss of life or serious injury on our transportation system is acceptable. In addition to the multi-jurisdictionally adopted Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan), there are a number of regional transportation planning documents and planning documents adopted by one of the City’s governmental partners that inform, guide, and, in some cases, have regulatory significance to the City’s transportation planning efforts. Those other transportation planning documents include (but are not limited to):
Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);
Lane County Transportation System Plan;
Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan;
Oregon Highway Plan;
Regional Transportation Options Plan; and
LTD Long Range Transit Plan.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA Adoption of the 2035 TSP and the corresponding amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan are all governed by the Metro Plan amendments approval criteria. Eugene Code 9.7735 provides: Metro Plan Amendments – Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: (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. Eugene’s approval criteria for Refinement Plan amendments is set forth in Eugene Code 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 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. Eugene’s approval criteria for code amendments is set forth in EC 9.8065. 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.
COUNCIL OPTIONS This is public hearing. No action is needed at this time. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION This is a public hearing. No recommendation is proposed at this time.
SUGGESTED MOTION This is public hearing. No action is needed at this time.
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld Telephone: 541-682-5343 Staff E-Mail: rob.inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us ATTACHMENTS A. Public testimony received between noon on Wednesday, March 1, 2017, and noon on Monday, April 10, 2017. The following attachments were provided in the AIS for the first public hearing: A. Proposed Ordinance and Exhibits A – D a. Exhibit A – Findings b. Exhibit B – 2035 TSP Vo1. 1, attachments to Vol. 1, and Vol. 2 c. Map 9.8010 of Eugene Code d. Street classification map B. Public testimony received by noon on Monday, February 27, 2017. Except for Attachment A.b. all other attachments from the first public hearing AIS can be found here: http://eugene.ompnetwork.org/shows/eugene-city-council-and-lane-county-commissioners-joint-public-hearing-march-6-2017. Attachment A.b. which is the 2035 TSP Vol. 1, attachments to Vol. 1, and Vol. 2 can be found at www.EugeneTSP.org.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Eugene Planning Commission Agenda Item Summaries dated June 21, 2016, July 18, 2016, September 26, 2016, December 5, 2016, and December 12, 2016, and the public testimony submitted to the Planning Commission have been bound in a notebook labeled “Planning Commission Record For Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning,” are available for review at the City Manager’s Office and are hereby expressly incorporated into the record before the City Council.
Joint Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Long Range Transportation Planning
Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: PW-ENG Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5343
Public testimony received March 1, 2017 through April 10, 2017.
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:50 AM
To:CLARKE Kelly A
Subject:FW: Transportation Plan comment
From: earthspirits@comcast.net [mailto:earthspirits@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 11:16 AM
To: INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Transportation Plan comment
Hello Rob;
I would like to submit comment on the Transportation Plan currently in process with the City of
Eugene.
I urge the city to focus on increasing the ease of public transport. The city is in a catch 22 situation at
present it seems.
Ridership is often light and so schedules are cut back, and sparse scheduling creates disincentive for
people to use the bus system. I suggest putting significant energy to changing our system from an octopus style to one that has
multiple connections that eliminate the need to go to the central station for most connections.
I applaud the senior pass for our system and at the same time we live in a frequently cold, wet
environment. Waiting for 30-60 minutes outside can be challenging. Having hourly or no buses from
downtown to outlying areas after 8 or 9 at night is a further disincentive to take public transport for evening events etc.
I am opposed to spending significant resources on widening the Beltline. We must move away from
GHG emitting forms of transport as much as possible and create viable attractive alternatives. We
have a Climate Recovery Ordinance on the books that supports and demands that approach. The traffic on West 18th has increased multifold in the past 6-8 years. From 3pm to 7pm there are continuous creeping cars and trucks. This is not viable into the future.
EMX on west 11th is a positive step. I suggest a focus on infill of businesses at the front of the
enormous and overly large parking lots. This would create an atmosphere of walkability and
encourage better land use modeling. Further: any expansion into the outer areas of Eugene should be multi unit housing with public transport conveniently available.
It is within our power to create an attractive and livable city for the future. Transportation plays an
important role in economic growth on a scale that is valued by citizens and will make Eugene a city that people want to live and work in. I realize some of these suggestions are more related to land use, however the two are and must be
considered together.
Thank you for listening and considering my comments.
Linda Kelley
Ward 1
2
1830 Arthur St. Eugene, OR 97405
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:FODOR Eben (SMTP) <eben@fodorandassociates.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 4:34 PM
To:INERFELD Rob
Subject:Testimony on Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan for 3/6/17 Hearing
Dear Planning Commissioners (c/o Rob Inerfeld),
Perhaps the single most significant change in the current Draft Transportation System Plan can be
found on page 49, in Table 4.1. Here, in a single line, the entire City of Eugene’s transportation
system will have its Level-of-Service standard changed from the current level of “D” to “E.”
Table 4.1: City of Eugene Vehicular Performance Measures
City Citywide (unless otherwise specified) LOS E
This is a very significant change and has received very little public outreach or public input and was
not the result of any research effort evaluating the need or the effects of such a radical change to our transportation system.
Please vote to restore the LOS to D in the TSP.
Thank you, Eben Fodor
Eugene
541-345-8246
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:Teresa Bishow <teresa@bishowconsulting.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 4:53 PM
To:INERFELD Rob
Cc:Teresa Bishow
Subject:TPS Testimony for Eugene Council and Lane County Board Hearing
Attachments:ECC LC Brd TSP Testimony 03 06 2017.pdf; Shadow View Dr Photos From Crescent
Village Association.pdf
Hi Rob,
Attached is an advance copy of written testimony I will be presenting at the joint hearing tonight.
I will bring 20 copies to distribute to elected officials and staff.
At this point we do not believe the change in classification is warranted and there are no written assurances that City
staff will not exercise the authority allowed in the code to change the physical character and design of the street. The
developer dedicated the ROW, designed and constructed the street all in compliance with the PUD. We are not
objecting to the extension of the street for connectivity. We are objecting strongly to change in classification.
Thanks for your consideration.
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Crescent Village Association Asset Manager
Office: 2911 Tennyson Ave, Suite 202 Eugene, OR
Mail: P.O. Box 50721 Eugene, OR 97405
teresa@bishowconsulting.com
541‐514‐1029 (cell)
Crescent Village Association Key Points
•Keep Shadow View Drive as a Local Street
•Preserve Existing 25 MPH Speed Limit and On Street Parking
•Preserve Wide Sidewalks and Pedestrian Amenities
•Continue to Allow Bicyclists to Share the Road
•Prevent Changes in Street Character and Design
•Enhance Sense of Place –Use Public ROW for Special Events
•Stimulate Economic Vitality and Safety of Crescent Village
•No Changes to Street Design Without Owner Agreements and City Increase in Maintenance and Safety Improvements.
Shadow View Drive North of Crescent Avenue
Shadow View and Tennyson Plaza
The Tennyson Apts at Crescent Village
Movies Under the Stars
Business Events and Classic Car Shows
Pacific Northwest Marathon –Start/Finish on
Shadow View near Tennyson
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:Ron-Janet Bevirt <beznys@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 06, 2017 4:55 PM
To:INERFELD Rob
Subject:Provide to the Planning Commissioners re the TSP & LOS
Rob Inerfeld please provide this submittal to the Planning Commissioners.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The most significant change in the currently drafted Transportation System Plan (TSP) is found on
page 49, within Table 4.1.
The entire City of Eugene’s transportation system will have its Level-of-Service (LOS) standard
changed from the current level of “D” to “E.”
Table 4.1: City of Eugene Vehicular Performance Measures
City Citywide (unless otherwise specified) LOS E
This is a very significant change with many consequences of allowable congestion.
It has received very little public outreach or public input.
It was not the result of any research effort evaluating the need or the effects of such a radical change to Eugene's
transportation system.
Please vote to restore the LOS to D in the TSP!
Thank you,
Janet Bevirt
2915 Charelton St
2
beznys@gmail.com
541-345-6766
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:Marc Schlossberg <schlossb@uoregon.edu>
Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:30 AM
To:INERFELD Rob
Subject:Testimony for the TSP
Attachments:TSP_Schlossberg_Comments.pdf
Rob‐
Attached is testimony I would like included in the official record regarding the TSP. Thank you for all your help on this
important work.
‐ Marc
Marc Schlossberg, PhD
Co‐Director, Sustainable Cities Initiative (SCI)
Professor, Planning, Public Policy & Management (PPPM)
University of Oregon
schlossb@uoregon.edu — 541.346.2046 — sci.uoregon.edu
TSP
Testimony
by
Marc
Schlossberg
1
Testimony
on
the
Transportation
System
Plan
March
7,
2017
By
Marc
Schlossberg
Thank
you
Mayor,
City
Councilors,
and
County
Commissioners
for
this
opportunity
to
share
about
the
Transportation
System
Plan.
My
name
is
Marc
Schlossberg
and
I
live
in
South
Eugene.
As
I
was
preparing
this
testimony,
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
which
of
my
transportation
hats
might
resonate
most
with
you.
I
started
with
the
fact
that
I
have
lived
in
Eugene
since
2001,
have
3
kids,
purposefully
chose
to
live
somewhere
so
that
my
kids
could
walk
and
bike
to
school,
and
yet
am
continually
astounded
that
even
in
the
most
bikeable
part
of
town,
it
is
not
possible
to
bike
to
Eugene’s
fantastic
public
library
comfortably,
directly,
and
safely.
Think
about
that
–
there
is
no
way
for
children
in
our
community
to
be
able
to
bike
to
their
public
library
and
home
in
a
way
that
is
safe
and
comfortable.
Then
I
thought
I’d
mention
to
you
that
I
own
four
cars
so
that
you
wouldn’t
pigeonhole
me
into
some
unrepresentative
South
Eugene
resident
who
lives
in
some
anti-‐car
bubble
trying
to
impose
an
unrealistic
lifestyle
on
others.
But
then
I
decided
that
what
would
benefit
you
the
most
are
the
insights
from
an
expert.
I
am
a
Professor
of
city
planning
with
a
focus
on
transportation
at
the
University
of
Oregon,
considered
a
national
expert
on
how
to
re-‐design
communities
so
that
more
people
can
walk,
bike,
and
take
transit
more
of
the
time,
and
am
one
of
the
nation’s
only
two
time
Fulbright
Scholar
awardees.
I
say
these
things
not
to
brag
as
I
almost
never
mention
this
in
public,
but
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
that
my
comments
come
from
a
place
of
science
and
from
experience
paying
attention
to
what
communities
are
doing
all
across
the
country
(and
world)
and
thinking
about
what
is
possible
for
our
community.
First
–
I
fully
appreciate
the
ambitious
targets
in
this
TSP
that
call
for
tripling
the
walking,
biking
and
transit
mode
shares.
This
is
the
type
of
ambition
we
ought
to
be
pursuing
and
the
truth
is
that
such
numbers
are
entirely
achievable,
but
only
if
you
commit
to
implementing
and
prioritizing
what
is
necessary
to
achieve
these
targets.
Here
are
a
few
things
to
keep
in
mind
when
you
face
the
inevitable
trade-‐offs
inherent
in
making
decisions
that
support
this
TSP:
1. Research
shows
that
millenials
and
retiring
baby
boomers
are
preferring
to
live
in
parts
of
town
that
are
not
car
dependent
–this
is
a
societal
wide
shift
that
we
must
meet
or
we
lose
out
on
both
groups.
2. These
millenials
are
the
talent
that
companies
are
always
on
the
look
out
for.
So,
implementing
practices
that
support
the
TSP
goals
is
a
way
to
attract
and
retain
the
employers
and
workforce
necessary
to
grow
and
diversify
our
local
economy.
TSP
Testimony
by
Marc
Schlossberg
2
3. Biking
–
research
shows
that
over
50%
of
the
population
want
to
use
a
bike
at
least
some
of
the
time
and
would
do
so
if
simple
bike
lanes
were
buffered
or
protected
with
a
physical
barrier
of
some
kind.
Only
about
7%
of
the
population
will
use
a
bike
with
our
current
system
of
simple
bike
lanes.
We
need
to
aggressively
modernize
how
we
build
bikeways
here.
4. Please
do
not
base
transportation
decisions
solely
on
the
commute
to
work
trip.
We
make
more
non-‐work
trips
than
work
trips,
and
these
non-‐work
trips
tend
to
be
shorter
in
distance
and
the
ones
most
amenable
to
walking
and
biking
trips.
So,
do
not
get
caught
up
in
congestion
levels
during
commute
time
–
at
max
that
represents
only
7.5
out
of
168
hours
per
week.
No
one
likes
to
sit
in
traffic,
but
it
does
not
make
sense
to
concentrate
undo
resources
for
such
a
small
window
of
road
usage.
5. Our
streets
are
a
limited
public
resource
and
we
ought
to
allocate
that
space
that
uses
space
efficiently.
Each
year
I
have
students
watch
cars
for
2
hours
and
count
the
number
of
empty
seats
that
drive
past
them.
Try
this
sometime
(maybe
just
for
10
minutes).
Stand
on
the
side
of
the
road
and
count
how
many
cars
go
by
with
only
one
person
in
it.
It
will
amaze
you.
Between
vehicles
with
few
occupants
and
the
enormous
amount
of
public
road
space
allocated
for
storing
private
vehicles,
we
have
ceded
too
much
right
of
way
to
inefficiency.
6. Our
weather
does
support
extremely
high
bike
ridership
numbers,
so
please
ignore
anyone
who
ignorantly
claims
our
weather
is
inconsistent
with
bike
riding.
Copenhagen,
a
city
that
has
the
same
or
slightly
worse
weather
than
Eugene
and
has
large
roads
like
we
have
here
sees
56%
of
its
population
biking
for
some
utilitarian
reason
every
day.
They’ve
achieved
that
with
a
40-‐year
commitment
to
build
protected
bikeways
on
all
of
their
main
streets,
not
because
there
is
something
magical
in
Scandinavian
water.
7. Research
in
the
U.S.
also
shows
that
“Build
It
and
They
Will
Come”
is
actually
true
when
it
comes
to
biking.
The
key
is
to
build
the
right
thing
–
a
connected
system
of
protected
bikeways
on
our
main
streets
that
help
people
feel
safe
and
comfortable.
Two
other
related
policy
connections
to
the
TSP:
1. Please
keep
in
mind
that
the
two
overwhelming
aspects
of
household
affordability
are
actually
the
housing
itself
and
transportation
costs.
Creating
opportunities
for
households
to
have
fewer
vehicles
is
an
investment
in
overall
housing
affordability.
2. The
best
transportation
plan
is
actually
a
great
land
use
plan,
bringing
the
places
we
want
to
go
closer
to
us.
The
absolute
key,
however,
is
that
there
must
be
a
safe
and
connected
way
to
get
there
by
foot
or
bike
if
we
are
serious
about
increasing
uses
of
those
transportation
modes.
Cities
of
all
political
orientations
across
the
country
are
moving
aggressively
to
be
more
bike
friendly.
They
are
doing
this
for
economic,
sustainability,
and
general
quality
of
life
reasons.
Eugene
needs
to
compete
in
this
space
if
we
are
going
to
compete
economically
and
meet
our
climate
goals.
We
have
the
bones
here
to
be
amazing
–
world
class
–
but,
we
need
the
political
leadership
to
let
staff
know
they
can
go
for
it.
Here
are
a
few
suggestions
along
those
lines:
TSP
Testimony
by
Marc
Schlossberg
3
1. Frontload
bicycle
projects
implementation
so
that
we
can
create
a
connected
network
or
safe
and
comfortable
protected
bikeways
throughout
our
community.
We
will
get
the
most
bang
for
our
buck
in
terms
of
congestion
relief,
CO2
reductions,
and
quality
of
life
improvements
from
this
approach.
2. Face
your
trade-‐offs
and
stay
strong.
With
limited
money,
do
you
think
it
wiser
to
make
it
easier
for
single
occupancy
vehicles
to
have
a
small
amount
of
traffic
relief
for
a
limited
number
of
hours
by
building
a
bridge
over
the
Willamette
for
$82
million
or
to
allocate
those
funds
to
build
out
the
entire
network
of
needs
for
the
pedestrian
and
bicycle
infrastructure?
And
still
have
$10
million
left
to
spend?
When
dense
housing
is
proposed
exactly
where
Envision
Eugene
says
it
should
go,
such
as
the
Amazon
Corners
project,
will
you
stand
up
or
back
down
because
a
few
neighbors
complain
that
car
traffic
during
the
few
commute
hours
per
week
may
be
impacted?
3. Insert
some
measurable
objectives
into
the
TSP
rather
than
general
platitudes
about
desired
goals
and
hold
yourselves
accountable.
Here’s
an
easy
one:
“Eugene
will
double
the
number
of
miles
of
protected
bikeways
each
year
for
the
first
5
years
of
this
TSP.”
Thank
you
for
your
public
service.
I
know
it’s
not
easy
to
balance
multiple
demands
and
perspectives
from
the
community,
but
we
have
elected
you
to
make
those
decisions.
There
is
no
mystery
in
how
to
achieve
the
appropriate
and
ambitious
multi-‐modal
transportation
targets
in
this
TSP
–
what
we
need
is
leadership
and
commitment
to
see
it
through.
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:Eric T Jones <erictjones@oregonmuse.us>
Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 8:19 AM
To:INERFELD Rob
Cc:eric.t.jones@oregonstate.edu
Subject:RE: Eugene Transportation System Plan comments
Attachments:Friendly Neighborhood One-Way Street Proposal v032717.pdf
Hi Rob - Thanks for the reply. I'll try again just to you. Let me know if it works. If not, I'll try from my OSU
account. Thanks
At 3/8/2017, INERFELD Rob wrote:
Hello Eric,
No, we did not receive the attachment. Kurt Yeiter is no longer with the city, so please try emailing it directly to me once more. Thanks.
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/
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric T Jones [ mailto:erictjones@oregonmuse.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:06 PM
To: Kurt.M.Yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us Cc: INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Re: Eugene Transportation System Plan comments
Hello. I tried to submit comments with a file attachment (pdf) but it bounced. I'm testing to see if you get this
email without an attachment. At 3/7/2017, Eric T Jones wrote:
>Dear Mr. Yeiter,
>
>Please find attached my request for one-way residential streets in >Eugene, Oregon. I believe Friendly neighborhood would be an ideal pilot >for the experiment. Please enter the attached .pdf in the record.
>
2
>Kind regards, >
>Eric
>
> >------------
CURRENT SCENARIO
• 34’ - 60’ wide streets
• On-street parking
• Sidewalks are intermittently present and
cover property owner's land
PROPOSED
• 38’ wide streets
• On-street parking both sides of street
• Two-way 7.5' bike lane one side of street
• Bike lane extends street width in fire emergencies
• Two-way 5' sidewalk on one side of the street.
PA
R
K
E
D
PA
R
K
E
D
PA
R
K
E
D
PA
R
K
E
D
PA
R
K
E
D
PA
R
K
E
D
PA
R
K
E
D
DR
I
V
I
N
G
D
R
I
V
I
N
G
DR
I
V
I
N
G
DR
I
V
I
N
G
Road width 34’ - 60’ depending on sidewalk style
Road width 38’
INITIAL PROPOSAL for a ONE-WAY STREET
EXPERIMENT in FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD
5’ 6’ 7.5 7.5’ 12’
Fire Lane
This proposal makes more efficient use of city street residential space. It's based on European
models used in cities like Copenhagen, Denmark. By converting two-way streets to one way streets,
property owners lower their costs to build and maintain sidewalks and reduce their carbon
footprint. The design affords a sidewalk and bike lane on every residential thoroughfare and retains
on street parking for residents. One way streets slow traffic down under this design. The overall cost
to build and maintain one-way residential streets is lower than two-way streets.
Proposal by: Dr. Eric T. Jones
erict.t.jones@oregonmuse.us
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:Brian Flick <Brian.Flick@bethel.k12.or.us>
Sent:Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:55 PM
To:INERFELD Rob
Subject:Bethel Letter
Attachments:2035 TSP.DOCX
Hi Rob,
Attached is a letter from Bethel School District regarding the Transportation Plan.
Thanks,
Brian
4640 Barger Drive, Eugene, OR 97402 Phone: (541) 689‐3280 Fax: (541) 689‐0719
www.bethel.k12.or.us
April 3, 2017
Eugene City Council & Lane County Board of Commissioners
c/o Rob Inerfeld
Eugene Public Works Engineering
99 E. Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
The Bethel School District appreciates and would like to acknowledge the work done by staff, stakeholders and
partners in creating the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan. We recognize the importance and complexity of
factors that must be considered for our transportation system’s future.
As a school district, we have children who walk, bike and roll to and from school. We have students who ride public
and school district buses. We have parents and employees driving their personal vehicles and staff who operate district
vehicles for business. We believe all transportation users are important.
Bethel School District asks that strong consideration be given to improving transportation safety around our schools.
We seek to ensure that our students have safe options while going to and from school. Our district offers Pedestrian
Safety Education training for second graders and Bicycle Safety Education classes for fifth graders. We have
encouragement activities to promote walking, rolling and biking to school. We are committed to providing our students
with the knowledge and skills needed to fully utilize our transportation system, but our neighborhood’s walking and
biking networks need to be completed.
Our district schools and the associated neighborhoods would benefit greatly from infrastructure improvements,
especially within one mile of our schools. A connected network of pedestrian and bicycle transportation choices that
link schools and parks with residential areas, shopping opportunities and public services would enhance the quality of
life for Bethel residents. We have a need for sidewalks, marked crossings, traffic calming devices and radar speed‐
readers around our schools. Beyond providing an education for our students, we have a desire for their safe passage to
and from their schools.
Thank you for your consideration on behalf of Bethel School District and all Bethel transportation users.
Sincerely,
Director of Teaching and Learning
Bethel School District
1
CLARKE Kelly A
From:INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us>
Sent:Monday, April 10, 2017 3:41 PM
To:CLARKE Kelly A
Subject:FW: Bike Lanes and bike travel
Here is the other email I received. I double check to see if there are any more.
From: Dana Furgerson [mailto:danafurgerson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:08 PM
To: INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Bike Lanes and bike travel
Transportation System Plan: Comments Regarding Bike Lanes
As a lifetime bicycle rider and now old bicycle rider cycling around Eugene, I appreciate the addition of bike
lanes to Willamette and other major streets. I try to be as safe as I can while biking. Because of my concerns for
safety, before the lanes were marked, I have sometimes accessed Willamette to frequent a business and then biked back to a block off Willamette to travel to my next destination. But just adding the bike lanes isn't enough. In addition, I would like to see safer bike lanes. Cars have often
wandered back and forth over the painted line into the bike lane in front of me, oblivious to the danger they are
causing. They have swerved and turned into a business in front of me without signalling and without regard for
the my safety. I would suggest any or all of these solutions: the addition of bump technology to the painted line dividing the car lane from the bike lane, wider and more clearly differentiated bike lanes, more widely distributed low-stress
bike lanes, more signs (are there any at all on South Willamette now?) indicating that the marked off lane IS a
bike lane and that cars don't belong in it, and targeted enforcement of the bike lane as a bike lane by ticketing
cars crossing into it illegally. Thank you for reading my comments, Dana Furgerson
125 West 36th AV
Eugene, OR
From:Edith Kerbaugh
To:INERFELD Rob
Subject:testimony for March 06 hearing
Date:Wednesday, March 01, 2017 3:49:26 PM
Attachments:testimony for TSP 2035.odt
Attached find testimony concerning two provisions of the TSP2035 which call for a bike laneand sidewalk on Lorane Highway between Chambers and Storey (Crest).
Arlen and Edith Kerbaugh
1017 Lorane Highway541 343-1544
Testimony Before the Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Supervisors
My husband and I have lived at 1017 Lorane Highway for almost 11 years. Our house is located on the
stretch of highway designated in the 2035 TSP to have sidewalks and a bike lane.
If the two provisions covering these changes to the highway remain in the document to be
implemented, many of the homes located along this stretch of highway (Chambers to Friendly/Storey?)
will be adversely effected. In order to accommodate the sidewalk and bike lane, some part of our
properties fronting Lorane Highway will have to be ceded to the city to complete the project.
The terrain here is steep and the road has few straight-aways. The road is narrow and the setbacks for
the houses are often minimal. Thus the project would cause many of us living along Lorane Highway a
needless reduction in the quality of life.
If any of you here tonight are unfamiliar with with the area along Lorane Highway mentioned in the
provisions in the TSP 2035, we invite you to visit us up here and see for yourselves.
Submitted by Arlen and Edith Kerbaugh
From:john faville
To:INERFELD Rob
Cc:Kevin Reed; JAWORSKI John (SMTP)
Subject:Northeast Neighbors statement for 3/6/17 Public Hearing
Date:Sunday, March 05, 2017 8:27:23 PM
Attachments:NeN TSP 2035 POV 3-5-2017.pdf
Rob,
Here is Northeast Neighbors written statement for submission to the City Council for the
March 6 Public Hearing.
Thanks again for your accessibility and your consideration for our p-o-v throughout the
process.
I watched the work session, by the way, and your performance in it was impressive. Lotta
pressure well handled.
John Faville
John Faville
Ward 5
2216 Marie Lane, Eugene 97408
City Council members, I am submitting this point-of-view on behalf of the Northeast Neighbors Board and neighbors.
1. We appreciate the process of involvement. Our points-of-view have been taken seriously. Projects
have been created or given priority to meet our needs. Rob Inerfeld and others from the City and
from ODOT have come to our meetings, answered our questions, and listened to us.
2. The needs expressed are a cry for help. In the City Council work-session, three neighborhoods
were singled out for their active participation in the process: River Road, Santa Clara, and
Northeast Neighbors. Not surprising. We are areas on the fringe of the city that experience directly
the problems on Beltline and have seen rapid development without a corresponding investment in transportation infrastructure.
In the Northeast area in particular, the years 2013 through 2017 will have seen over 1100 3-story
multi-family units built and over 350 single-family residences built or approved. Spending on
infrastructure has been nearly non-existent. To put it bluntly, SDC revenues are raised in development here and then spent in other areas of the city. As a result, we have streets without sidewalks or bike lanes and overcrowded intersections. (Yes. At times you do wait through two
cycles at a signalized intersection.)
3. The City Council work-session on TSP 2035 seemed detached from these local concerns. The
Council discussion focused entirely on city-wide objectives, in particular the Climate Recovery Ordinance, to the neglect of the neighborhood needs voiced in the outreach process.
The sentiment in the work-session, reinforced in an opinion piece in today’s Register Guard, was
to make climate recovery the dominant priority for TSP 2035, and to make TSP 2035 the chief tool
for achieving that goal.
4. “Fixing” TSP 2035 won’t single-handedly meet the goal of the Climate Recovery Ordinance. Doing
so will also require stronger City Council actions guiding where people live and work and get their
services.
The right policies have been articulated by the City: density along transit corridors,
walkable/bikeable 20-minute neighborhoods. But the guiding hand of City planning seems to falter
when it comes to acting on those policies. Single-story buildings are allowed to be built along
those corridors. Plans for density clustered around services are allowed to be derailed by
neighborhood resistance. Yes. South Willamette. 5. South Willamette’s impasse through outsiders’ eyes. The plan seemed a perfect expression of
Envision Eugene. Multi-family housing density clustered around services and located on a major
corridor. But it seemed to run into a “neighborhood veto.” Sure. A plan may reemerge from the
current negotiations, though presumably in watered-down form.
What’s been missing throughout is City Council’s assertion of the importance of the objective
behind clustered density. The first major sign of resistance and the City backs down. That’s how it
appears, anyway.
6. The City needs aggressive land-use planning that guides where we live and shop and work. Stand
firm on efforts to create density. Set minimum heights along key sections of major corridors.
The TSP articulates goals that support the climate initiatives: encouraging non-auto trips, multi-
modal access on congested corridors, nodal development, bikeways, etc. Proactive land-use planning needs to work actively in tandem with that transportation planning.
7. Is TSP 2035 being asked to fill the gap left by this irresolution on fostering density?
The same dynamic exists in both arenas. A city-wide goal runs afoul of local needs and desires. South Willamette wants its neighborhood character to stay the same. (Who doesn’t want that?)
The Climate Recovery Ordinance sets strong CO2 goals, but River Road and Santa Clara and
Northeast want relief from the nightmare of Beltline congestion and we want streets and sidewalks
and bike routes that keep up with development.
Same dynamic of overall objective vs local needs. But the City does not seem to be approaching
these planning issues with equal conviction.
8. We’re asking that density planning be given the same priority as transportation planning in trying to meet climate impact goals. I don’t recall that the Climate Recovery Ordinance was put to a
plebiscite, but, it would probably have passed. We tend to sign up for what’s right until it starts
impinging on our own lifestyles.
The City needs to strike a balance between its broad objectives and local needs. To do so, it
needs to be balanced in how it uses the planning tools at its disposal. Putting the whole burden on transportation planning is going to leave both the broad objective and the local needs unmet.
From:BROTHERTON Kathryn
To:INERFELD Rob; CLARKE Kelly A
Subject:FW: Transportation System Plan -- my thoughts & encouragement!
Date:Monday, March 06, 2017 11:50:21 AM
From: j rodgers [mailto:j_rdgrs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 11:12 AM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Transportation System Plan -- my thoughts & encouragement!
Hello members of City Council,
Thank you for your service and efforts to improve our fine city. I wanted to share my
thoughts on the TSP plan being discussed tonight. Let me tell you a little about my
story...
I grew up in Michigan and very purposefully moved to Eugene about 17 years ago for
the natural environment and progressive culture found here. As a graduate student, I
imprinted on biking all around, in part because parking on campus is so hard (not a
bad thing!), in part because I was trying to live more lightly (and still do).
Now I have two kids in the 4J school system. There isn't a day that I am not aware of
how fortunate we are to call this place home and that my kids do not face issues of
food insecurity or homelessness. That's a problem faced by many others, of course.
However, there is a topic that could improve our lives--and that of everyone else's--
and that has to do with transportation. The benefits of improving the ease and safety
of traveling by bike and foot are so numerous but just in case it helps to reflect, let me
list my favorites:
1. not creating more carbon and pollution...a small act to address the big issue of
climate change;
2. exercise -- sometimes biking to work is all the exercise I get but 8 miles is
definitely helping me to improve my health now and lessen my health problems later
(assuming the pollution I breathe in from all the vehicles on my commute doesn't
catch up to me, first);
3. connection to my community (human and otherwise). I have helped people in
need while on a bike--in part because it's more possible, in part because I was at
"human-speed" and able to see the need. You also SEE and SMELL and HEAR
beautiful & interesting things that otherwise go unnoticed from an insulated, speedy
car;
4. it's fun (usually) and if there was a critical mass of non-vehicular commuters, it
would be even more fun.
Like it or not, Eugene is seen as setting the "progressive bar" by many in our country.
It's our reputation. It's why many people move here and stay here. It's also kind of
scary as we have so far to go to be truly "sustainable" and "trend-setting" on
the global spectrum.
So my advice for RIGHT NOW:
** beef up and make the TSP match the needs of our times! As in: Figure out how
we decarbonize our transporation system to levels that match the need. Get your
staff to come up with how other places have done this to many orders of magnitude
larger than we currently aspire to.
** make it possible for non-single vehicle trips to become less the norm--make it easy,
safe, and expected that people bike, walk, bus to where they are going. Consider the
cost of one car bridge VS. many meaningful non-vehicle improvements. Don't settle
for token projects!
** TMD needs to be top of list of how we prioritize and plan
Listen to folks like Matt McRae and Shane MacRhodes--two very dedicated, smart
and informed people who know concrete ways to help the City of Eugene become a
true hero in this race to save our planet. I wish that was an exaggeration but it's not.
Thanks so much for your time. Good luck and please do all you can to think long-
term more than short term. Many, many of us support you if you do so!
My best,
Jo
Jo Rodgers
541-220-6912
2145 Garfield St., Eugene, 97405
From:INERFELD Rob
To:CLARKE Kelly A; TAYLOR Becky
Subject:FW: Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan
Date:Monday, March 06, 2017 1:21:06 PM
Here’s one more.
From: Jan Spencer [mailto:janrspencer@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 1:18 PM
To: INERFELD Rob <Rob.Inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan
Hi Rob,
I just found out about the chance to offer brief comments about the Transportation System
Plan.
I believe Eugene will be best served by transforming our favorite town so we maximize
accessibility rather than mobility.
These discussions have been taking place in Eugene and elsewhere for decades. With climate
change, resource shocks certain to take place, social cohesion eroding, an economic systemthat is ever deeper in debt, we are way past due for Eugene and its citizens [the rest of the
world, too] to live within our economic and environmental means.
Continuing to indulge the automobile is totally contrary to our best interests.
Yes, maintain highways already built but to build more automobile infrastructure serves onlythe narrow interests of those with products to sell that do not fit a far more constrained future.
My suggestions
1] The city focus on developing neighborhood commercial zones [various incentives] where
important needs are within walking or biking distance
2] The city begin to advocate "Block Planning" as an alternative form of economic
development that actually serves many positive social, economic and environmental benefitsinstead of low density suburbia that will only make all the negative trends worse.
3] Develop bike, pedestrian and bus infrastructure.
4] The city does not build more streets and highways
Thanks Rob.
Jan Spencer
Resident of River Roadwww.suburbanpermaculture.org