Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance No. 20258
ORDINANCE NO~ 20258 AN ORDINANCE AM[ENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN) TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE WEST EUGENE PA~WAY WITHIN THE 20-YEAR FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED ROADWAY PROJECT LIST AND TO MAKE RELATED AMENDMENTS; AMENDING THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT EXCEPTIONS TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 3, 4~ 11 AND 14; ADOPTING A SEVE1L4BILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures fbr amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Eugene are implemented by Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971. B. The Metro Plan identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) as a special purpose or ~hnctional plan which £brms the basis £br the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area. C. The City Cotmcil adopted TransPlan by Ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April 28, 1986, and amended by Ordinance No. 19584, enacted on November 28, 1988, Ordinance No. 19857, enacted on June 8, 1992, Ordinance No. 19872, enacted on September 9, 1992, Ordinance No~ 19887 enacted on November 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 20186 enacted on February 14, 2000, and Ordinance No. 20234 enacted on September 10, 2001, adopting a revised Transportation Element o£the Metro Plan and adopting revisions to TransPlan. D~ Following a joint public hearing with the Lane County and Springfield Plarming Commissions and the Lane Co~mty Roads Advisory Committee on February 20, 2002, the Eugene Planning Commission met on March 18, April 8 and April 15, 2002 and recommended to the Eugene City Council that the amendments to TransPlan to include the entire West Eugene Parkway within the 20-year financially constrained roadway project list, and related amendments, not be adopted (motion to adop~ failed, 1:5) and that the amendments to the Metro Plan to adopt exceptions to Statew4de Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 not be adopted (motion to adopt failed, 0:6). E. On May 29, 2002, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing with the Lane County Board of Corm'nissioners, Springfield City Council, and Lane Transit District Board of Directors on these amendments, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony' presented at the public hearings held on adopting revisions to TransPlan and to the Metro Plan. Ordinance- 1 Substantial evidence exists within the record that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, t 971 and the requirements of applicable state and local law as described in the findings adopted in support of this Ordinance. NOW~ THEREFORE~ THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES O~AIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TransPlan, adopted by Ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April 28, 1986, and m~ended by Ordinance No. 19584, enacted on November 28, 1988, Ordinance No. 19857, enacted on June 8, 1992, Ordinance No. 19872, enacted on September 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 19887 enacted on November 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 20186 enacted on February 14, 2000, and Ordinance No. 20234, enacted on September 10, 2001 is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. The revisions to the 20-Year Financially-Constrained prqiect lists included in Exhibit A are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the Metro Plan, as required by Metro Plan Policy F-9, page III-F-7. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy. ~ection 3_. Because a portion of the West Eugene Parkway is to be sited between the urban growth boundary and the Metro Plan Boundary, the Metro Plan is hereby amended to include the map and list of affected tax lots as set o-ut in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by this reference, and to include the findings supporting "reasons" exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4; 11 and 14, as described and set out in Exhibit "C' attached and incorporated herein by this reference. SectiOn 4. The City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit C in support of this action. S_ection ~. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, p?krase or portion of this Ordinance is fbr any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent j mqsdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 1976, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners adopt provisions identical to those contained in Exhibits A, B, and C. Passed by the City Council this 8ta day of July, 2002 Approved by the Mayor this 8ta day of July~ 2002 City RecOrder Ordinance - 2 May~ Exhibit A SUMMARY LIST OF WEP-RELATED AMENDMENTS TO TRANSPLAN (Based on December 2001 Adopted TransPlan) The following list presents all proposed amendments to the adopted December 2001 TransPlan resulting from full inclusion of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). The amendments are identified by chapter and page number, and then presented, where possible, in legislative format. Amendments to certain sections of TransPlan (for example, the project lists and Chapter 4) are extensive. In these cases, the summary below references the amended section, which is then attached to this list reprinted in its entirety. In some cases, it is not practical to present an amendment in legislative format (for example, maps and financial summary tables). In these cases both the original version adopted in December 2001 and the draft proposed amended version are attached to this list. Page 2 , there will also be: ~ 8 percent less vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, c> 22 20.. 5 percent more trips under one mile in length, ~> 7 percent fewer drive alone trips, ¢ 29 percent more non-auto trips, and ~> 11 percent less carbon monoxide emissions. Page 5 Because TransPlan serves as both the federally required Regional TransportatiOn Plan for the Eugene~Spdngfield area and as the Transportation Functional Plan for Metro Plan, mo planning horizons are referred to in the document- 2015 and 20201. The 2015 planning horizon is used to be consistent with the 2015 Me~ro Plan planning horizon. In particular, forecasted regional land use allocations use Metro Plan's 2015 land uses as a basis. The 2015 planning horizon is used in c~njunction with the Performance Measures contained in ChaPter 4 that are a requirement of L ' Rule, CDC s Transportation Planning A 2020_1 planning horizon has been developed to meet federal requirements for a 20-year financial constraint and air u ' determination , : q ally conformit . Bemuse there is no official land use allocation beyond 20~Y5, the Exhibit A- Page 1 Tra"~P1 an Amendments 20291_ forecasts represent an extrapolation of 2015 population and employment. Revenue and Cost estimates used in TransPlan are for 20291_. Page 14, Land Use Finding #10 10. Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting Mode/results, an overall outcome of nodal development implementation will be that the percentage of person trips Under one mile can be increased to approximatelypercent of all trips; and, on a regional basis, that trip lengths will be slightly longer in 2015 than under existing conditions, but this will be offset, in part, by reduced trip lengths within nodal development areas. Page 39, Finance Finding #2 2. TransPlan estimates that operations, maintenance, and preservation of the metropolitan transportation system will cost $ billion in 1997 dollars to maintain at current levels to the year 20291_, while revenues for this purpose, including a regularly increasing state gas tax and federal forest receipts at current non-guaranteed levels after the guarantee expires, are estimated at $ m_billion, leaving a conservative estimated shortfall of about $ million the planning period before the implementation of fiscal constraint strategies, over Page 1 i, Table Summary of Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects (Both odgina! adopted and proposed amended tab/es are at~ached) Pages 14-33, Tables la & lb (Constrained & Future Roadway Projects) (Amended tab/es in legislative format are attached) Pages 40-54, Tables 3a & 3b (Constrained & Future Bicycle Projects) (Amended tables in legislative format are attached) Page 57 Total roadway costs for the planning horizon through Fiscal year 20201 are estimated to be approximately $ billion. For details ~ : - been included in this total se,, ~,-, r,__: .... bp.ut which capital pro'ects hay page 3-11. , ,- -,,~ ~,~p~a~ investment Action project lists l~eginningCn Page 67 Table 4 shows that under current TransPlan assumptions about standards, priorities, and timing, the region faces a $ million revenue shortfall over the planning horizon through Fiscal year 20201_. The entire shortfall occurs in two areas~OM&P in general, and ODOT System Improvements. Pages 69 & 70, Tables 4 & 5 (Unconstrained & Constrained Costs & Revenues) (Both o~cJinal adopted and proposed amended tables are attached) TEXhib~t A ~ Page 2 ranSPlan Amendments Page 73 Springfield ~' Overatl maintenance service ~evels are assumed to decrease by an amount equal to 10 percent of the shortfall, or apProximately $2.7- 2.8 million. Page 73 The above strategy packages will result in a planning horizon tl~rOugh Fiscal year 20201. financially constrained TransP/an over the ~ Transit activities, local system improvements, and most bike and pedestr~n projects are not financially constrained and can be funded at the full level Projected~ OM ' be reduced somewhat, but s: . _ &P in the city and state s stem till meet a IIca · ,. Y s PP bie policy standards. The c~tles will also implement a new locally controlled source of revenue to raise additional OM&P revenues. State system improvement projects will be built on a priority basis as revenues allow, with the remaining unfunded improvement projects placed on a future projects list pending additional revenues. Page 75 The conformity analysis will be prepared based on a 20-year forecast (to 20201_) of population, employment, and traffic. The analysis will use the TransPlan Financially Constrained Project Lists in development of the future year networks. ~x~ensive amendments to the text, tables and graphics are presented in the attached legislative format copy of the entire Chapter. Amend seven of the nine maps as shown below (proposed amended maps are attached): Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects Remove project #312 Remove project #333 Remove project #506 Limit extent of project #151 to extension of third lane over Willamette River Bridge to fill in gap Remove project #60 Add "Unprogrammed Study" project on Beltline, River Road to Coburg Road (project # 555) ~, Add WEP Phases lB, 2A & 2B - projects #337, #338 & #339 Future Roadway Projects Add project #312 Add project #333 Add project #506 EXhibit A ~ Page 3 TranSplan ~en~ments Add southern extent of project #151 - southbound to westbound ~-105 off- ramp to 7m Avenue Add project #60 Add new project - Franklin Blvd. "Urban Standards" project in Glenwood Area, from Jenkins Drive to Mill Street (project # 839) Federa#y Designated Roadway Functional C/ass/fica#on Add WEP Phases 18, 2A & 2B, designated as "Proposed ArteriaF Financia#Y-Constra/ned Bikeway System Projects Remove project ¢411 Remove project #333 Remove project #60 Add WEP Phases lB & 2A - projects #337 & #338 (2 components) Pdo#ty Bikeway System Projects Remove project #-411 Remove project #60 Add WEP Phases lB & 2A Future Bikeway Projects ~ Add project #411 · Add project #333 e Add project #60 GOods Movement and tnte~oda/ Fac#ities e Add WEP Phases lB, 2A & 2B, designated as "Proposed NHS" pages 5 & 13, Modi~ Findings 10 & 43 as shown above under amendments to EXhibit A ~ Page 4 Amenaments ODOT EUGENE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Exhibit A - Page 5 TransPl an Amendments Chapter 3: Table Ia_Fi)mncialO;, Constrabted Geographic Name L~mits Description Est/mated Project Cate or: ~ y New Arterial Link or I~tterchat~ge Status: Programmed Jasper Road Mom Street to Jasper E×tenslon Roao Terry Streel Construct 4-lane arterial pr~aslng to be determined 'reprove RR X-ing at Jas 3er Rd: at grade interim ~mprovement- grade separation long-range improvement Lane County $10,400,000 Royal Avenue to 32 66 Construct new 2 to 3-lane Eugene Roosevelt Boulevara urban facility $1 .~ 16.000 044 487 Wes[ Eugene Seneca Roao to Beltline W 11th - Garfield: 44one ParKway, (lA Road ODOT new construction~ $17.283,000 1 3 336 Statlis Sub- Total $28, 799, 000 Status: U~Drogrammed ~ ~ ~ oo,uuu,uuu 0.5 930 TransP!an-.~-Jomt Adopting Off/clots Revisions Exh~bSt A - Page 6 TransP]an Amendments ~~J a n u ar_~2 00_24- Chapter 3, Page 14 Name L~m~ts Description . ated st Leastl'~ Numbe P~oneer Parkwa FI ~ r ~ . Y arlow Road to Belthne 4-5 lane minor a~erial Sprm field ~xtenslon Road g W 11t ..... ~- $8,500.000 I 768 ....... _ r ..... : ODOT West Eu ene West 11 ~e ~34,231 000_ 1.3 337 P~ ODOT $3CL49~0~ Z56 338 339 roject Category Sub-Total TransPlan---JointAdopting O~cialsRe~isions Exhibit A - Page 7 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 3, Page 15 L~rmts Descriptioa Jurisdiction Cost Length N~mber ct Category: Added Freeway Lanes or 3 ajor Status: Programmed Beltline Highway Royal Avenue to Overcrossing at Royal, ODOT ROOsevelt BOulevarri continue wide~ng to 4 lanes $14,699.0~2 south to railroad structure, construct Roeseveff extension from Belt~me to Danebo, full at grade signal controlled intersection of Ba~tline and ROOsevelt (ODQT: W. 11th N. city limits stage 2) _ Delta/Beltline Interchange Status: Unjprogrammed OOOT $__1,250,000 Interim/safety improvements; Lane County $5,500,000 replaceRevise existing ramps; widen Delta Highway bridge to 5 lanes Status Sub-Total $21,449,000 0 o ~8 4O9 @ Belttine Highway Reconstruct interchange and I-5, upgrade Beltline Road East to 5 lane urban facility, and construct i-5 bike and pedestrian bridge. ODOT $53,300,000 o 606 TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit g - Page 8 TransP1 an Amendments 2002& Chapter 3, ?itge T6 N~me Lm~ts Description J~risdiction Cost Len th N~mber bridge to 6th Ave exit~ P~oject Ca~ego~ ~b~ To~al TransPlan--Jo~t Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 9 TransPlan Amendments Cl~apter 3, Page ect Catego .. ..... aciw Im Status: Programmed Safet~ improvements 800mberg ODOT $1,746,000 0 ~7 McVay H~ghway ~o 3~h Modifi~fion of ~ ~ne Coun~ $500 000 0 4 Z97 Con~or Aven~ of McVay Highway to 30th ~venue ODOT Statt~$ Sub-Totat $2,246,000 Status: U~programmed 42nd Street @ Marcoia Road Traffic ~.mtrol improvements Spdn 6th/Tth tnters~ o gfJ d 2 ]m~ovement Washi~toNJeffemon as addJ~al turn Iaaa Str~ s and Eugene 133 signa~ improvements; Jn{erse~ions ~nclude 6~7th Avenues at: Gate,d, Chamber. Wash~n~on/Jeffer~n Be~ H~g~ay ~ ~bu~ Road ~nst~ romp a~ signal ODOT ~mprovements $500,~0 0 ~e~ Tm~c ~ntro{ improvemen~ Spdn~eM _ _ $200.000 0 927 Centenn~a~ Pr~ ~ne to Mil~ Re~nstm~ se~i~ to ~u~eva~ Road ~a~ Spd~eM $1,000,000 0,3 818 Eug~e-Spd~e~d ~ Moha~ B~levard ~d la $250,000 0.68 821 Had~ R~d ~ Phea~n~ Boulevard Tra~c ~n~ol ~mprovemen~ Spd~eld $200,000 0 7~ ~ Road ~ NW Gans~o~h en~an~ to ~r~s~y praide R~d NW s~ Expressway ~e~a~ and o~r~ne ~unty $2,000,00~ 0.3 5~ ..... ~ilroad, ~ig~lize ~ss s~de. Main S~t et Traffic ~n dn~eld $200.000 o 69 TransPbn---Joint Adopting Officials Revisions xhibit A - Page 10 ransPlan Amendments 20025 Chap~r 3, Pkge T8 Main Stree~ @ Moun~aingate Drive Traffic controJ ~mprovements Sprin¢ie~d $200,000 75 Q S~ ~ P~n~r Pa~y Tra~c ~ntrol ~mprovem~t~ $200,000 0 ~4 S 42~ S~reet ~ Daisy S~r~t Signa~ improvemen~ ODOT~ Tra~c Control . , . $2oo, ooo o . ._ . upgrades, turn pockets, etc. Project Categoo, TrarmPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 11 TransPlan AmenOments 2002~ Chapter 3, P~ge ~9 Name Limits Description Estimated Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Status** U~programmed 19th Street Yolanda Avenue to Extend existing Street as Nayden Bridge Road 2qane collector 30~h Street Mai~ Stree~ 1o Ce~enolal N~ ~le~ s~et ~outevard 36th Str~ Yolanda Avenue to E~end existing street as Marcia Road 2qane coll~or per Lo~l Street 54th Strut Main Street to Daisy New 2-lane Street 7~h Strut Main Street to Thu~ton New 2 to Read Avalon Street Greenhill Road to Terry New major collector Street Eugene $810,000 Cardinal Way Game Farm Road to MDR Upgrade 2 to 3qane urban north-south connector facility SPringfield $1,242,000 Daisy Stree~ ~ens~on 46th Street to 48th Street New 2 to 3-lane urban ' .facility, traffic cOntrol Springfield $929,000 0.27 Future Collector A Gilharn to County Farm New neighborhood cOllector Road @ Locke Street Eugene $1,890,000 0.7 n Springfield $1,350,000 0.5 Future Collector C2 Jasper Road - New 2 to 3qane urban Springfield Mountaingate collector $3,510,000 1.3 Future Collector C3 Jasper Road Extension - New 2 to 3qane urban EaSt Natron Springfield $%890,0O0 O.7 Future Collector 04 ~st*west in Mid-Natron New 2 to 3-lane urban site Springfield cOllector $1,820,000 Future Collector 05 Loop Rd in South Natron New 2 to :%lane urban Site SPringfield cOllector $2,700,000 Future Collector C8 Mt Vernon Road - Jasper New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield collector $2,700,000 Springfield $891,000 0.33 703 Springfield $904,500 0.87 915 Springfield $1,701,000 0.83 709 Springfield $756,000 0.28 87 Spdngfield $1,000,O00 0.37 18 0.3 432 0.46 721 65t 33 36 39 42 45 48 TransPlan~Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 12 TransPlan Amendments 200_21- Chapter 3~ P~tge 50 Future ColleCtor C7 North-south in m~d-Natmr~ New 2 to 3-lane u~an Spdn~e~d site ~lemor $1,512,000 0.56 5I Future C~le~or E ~ailey Hil~ Road ~o New major $~,7~,000 1 318 Fu~re Collector F Royal Avenue to Terry New major colleCtor Street Eugene Future Collector H Future Co]lector g to New major colleCtor Eugene FUture Collector J Awbrey Lane to Enid New major co~lect~r Road Eugene Street ne ghbort~od col ector Eugene FUture Co~Jector p Avalon Street to Future Collector F New neighborhood collector Eugene Glader Drive 55th Street to 48~h Street Develop new, 24ane urban g~enwood 1-5 to Laurel Hill Drive New collector Extension Eugene Hyacinth ,Street r~ew neignbomood collector Kinsrow Avenue Cen{er~al Soulevard to New neJghbod~md collector Eugene Ga~fen Way Lakeview/Parkview Gilham Road to County New neighborhood collector Eugene Legacy Street Sarger Ddve to Avalon New major collector Street Eugene McKen;de*gateway With n MDR site New 2 to MDR__Loop Col ect~r into MDR3'lanesite collector SprirCeld MDR Site North-south within MDR ConstnJct new ;3-lane site north-south collector Springfield Mountaingate Drive Main Street to South 58th New 3qane collector . = Street SprtrCeld Mt Vernon Road Jasper Road E~ension to Extend existing s~reet as Springfield Mountaingate gdve 2-lane co{lec~or V Street 31st Street to MarcoJa New 2 to 3-lane collector Road SPringfield Vera gdve/Hayden 15~h Street to 20~ Street New 2 to 34ane ~rban Spd~eld Tr~nsPlan~oint Adopting Officials Revisions $1,890,000 0.7 $1,350,000 0,5 429 435 $2,160,000 0.8 441 $1,800,000 0.5 447 $4,500,000 1.11 449 Spdn911eld $1,840,000 0.92 57 $2~565,000 0.95 254 $600,000 0.16 537 $800,000 0,2 659 $1,755,000 0.65 844 $800,000 0.2 445 $2,160,000 O. 8 75~ $1,440,000 0.4 762 $2,430,000 0~9 78 $540,000 0.2 81 $1,755,000 0.65 777 $918,000 0~34 780 EXhibit A - Page 13 TransPlan Amendments 2002~ Chap~r3, Phge~l Y~a~a Avenue 31s~ S~r~ ~o ~ S~ E~d e~s~9 s~ree~ as ~or Spring,eld $~0,000 0~2 783 Project Category Sub- Total TransPlan--Joint Adopting O~cials Revisions Exhibit A - Page I4 TPansPlan AmenJments 20023 ' ' v. Lost Length Number ct Ca fy: Urban Standards Status: Programmed 18th Avenue Bertelsen Road to Willow Creek Road Upgrade to 2qane urban faOlity Ayres Road Delta HiGhway to Gi~ham Upgrade to 2 to 2Pla~-'~ urban Ber~elsen Road 18th Avenue to Bailey Hill Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban Road facility Coburg Road Kinney LOop to Armitage Reconstruct to 3qane urban Park facility to UGB, turn lane @ Delta Highway Ayres Road to Belt~ine Road Upgrade to 3qane uman fa~lity 43rd Street to Garnet Upgrade to 2-tane urban Fox Hollow Road DOnald Street to UGB Upgrade to 24ane urban facility S sta % . to UPgrade to 2 f~} 34ane urban ~..en[ennial Boulevard ~dlity Eugene G~dpastum island Road Del~ Hrghway to Happy Upgrade to 2qane urban La ne faOlity Eu~ne Gr~nh II Road No~h BOu~a~ of Ai~od Cl~ing of existi~ road and Lane County, to AJr~d R~d realig~eot of e~t Eugene ~u~da~ of ai~d prope~ ~i~ton Road River Road to Praide Road UPg~de to 2 to ~lane u~an ~ ~unty fadlity P~ide Road Lane to I~in¢on Re~ns~ to 34ane urban Ddve ~ne County Royal Avenue Te~ SDeet to G~nhill U~de to ~lane u~an Road fadli~ Lane County, Euqere S he~to n-McMurphey Un~lo SL to Pea ri St, O~rade to u~an fad ~ Eugen: Semrd SL Wayside to Manor ~n~ion U~mde to sta~ards Spdn~eld Gateway/Nadow Gateway/Hadow lnterse~ion Inter.tine improvements Spdnreld Eugene, Lane $3,085,000 0.71 County 303 Eugene $1.262.000 0.52 803 Eugene $L035,000 0.6 315 Lane County $2.380,000 1.19 625 EUGene $900,000 0.91 635 Eugene $450.000 0.34 233 Eugene. Lane $841,000 0~5 245 County, $3,715,008 0.75 657 $413.000 0.19 664 $3,000.000 2.06 486 $2.880,000 1,44 533 0,35 472 $825,000 $2.880.000 1.01 481 $~1,495.000 E4 450 $40.000 0.25 787 $3,300,000 0.5 785 TransPlant--Joint Adoptiag Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 15 TransP1 an Amendments 20024 Chapter 3, P~e ~3 Gateway/Game Farm Rd, East Gateway/Game Farm Rd. East intersection Intersection improvements SpdnCield ~tatc¢$ ¢u/~ Total $400,000 0.25 786 TmnsPlan----Joint Adopting Officials Revisions ?hibit A - Page 16 ransplan Amendments 20024- 28th S~reet Mair~ Street to Centennial Wider~provide sidewa ks Boulevard and bi~e lanes; provide 3~ S~ Hayde~ B~dge Road ~ U U~rade to 2 ~o ~a~ u~n Springfield $1.050~000 35~ ~reet Commeroial Avenue to UPgrade to 34ane urban Olympic S~reet facility Maro~a Road to Railroad 48th Street Main Street to G Street 52nd Street G Street to Main Street to Thurston Road Recor~struct to 34ane urban Lane County $1,275,000 0.85 765 Springfield $920,000 $2,080,000 0.46 918 I~03 713 Springfield UPgrade to 2qane urban Spdr~gfield facility $720,000 0.48 3 Upgrade to 2* ane urban Spd~4field facility $300,000 0.2 5 Widen on east side of Spring, eld roadway $840,000 0.56 15 Agate Street 30th Avenue to Black Oak UPgrade to 2-lane ud;,an Eugene $585,000 0.39 215 Aspen Street West D S~eet to ReconstnJCt to 2 to 3-lane Cer~tenn~al BOulevard urban fac-JIRy Lane County, $750,000 0.5 Springfield 809 ~ ~-~ 7 ~he end of dedicated 15 8ethel Drive Roosevelt Boulevard to UPgrade to 24ane urban Eugene $2,500,000 1~68 414 Centennial Btvd. March Chase to ik5 Upgrade to urban fadli~ Eugene (north side) $400,000 0.4 697 Commerdai Street _ 35~ S~eet to 42nd Street Upgrade to 3-lane urban Spdngfield $L620,000 0.8~ 933 County Farm Loop North-to-South Section Upgrade to 34ane urban facility Lane County, $825,000 0.55 631 Eugene County Farm Loop West-to-East Sect¢on Upgrade to 2-lane urban L~ne County, ugene $795,000 0.53 632 Deadrnond Ferry Baldy View Lane to Upgrade to urban standards Springfield Road McKertTje River $1,095,000 0.73 724 ' Elmira Road 8ertelsen Read to UPgrade to 2-lane urban Exhibit A - Page 17 TransPlanAmenSments Eugene Eugene $1,720,000 0.86 509 $1,8~5,000 1.2~ 420 Descri-ti- Estivaated Cost Le-~ ~ $~ ~h N~ber 48th Street lo 52r~ Strut ~Pg~de to 24a~ urban faci{ity Sprin~e{d $465,000 0.31 Game Farm Road ~ R~d to PS Nodh Upgrade ~o 2 to 3qa~ urban Court,Eugene' ~ne $2,150,000 1 ~3 G~me Farm Road Game Fa~ Road East to Upgrade to 2qane urban L~e County, South Ha~ ~oad raciiJty $1,395,000 0~93 737 Spdn~eM Gi~m R~d mmos~ New Upg~de to 2-ia~ urban Eugene $690~000 0.46 562 Gr~nhil] Road Be[gar Drive to West 11th Upgrade 1o 2 to 3qane u~an Avenue facility Lane County, $5,000,000 2~5 4~ Eugene Gr~nh~fl Road Ba~er Ddve to Ai~ Ruml ~den~ and ~tions Lane County $2,~0,000 2 485 Hayden B~dge Yo]a~a Avenue to Re~ns~ru~ to 2qane urban ~ne ~unty R~d Mar~M R~d faci]i~ $2,3~ 0,000 1.~ 747 B~ver Str~t Roa~ ~ o z-rune u~an Lane County 1.14 527 $L710,000 - u~an Eu~ne $525~000 0.35 670 Ha~ Read fadlity Spdn~eld $800,000 0.4 750 Maple Strut R~sevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to 24ane urban Eugene Old Coburg Read Game Farm Road to Chad Upgrade to 3-lane urban Ddve Eugene fadlity $525,000 0.35 pdve~ uge~e River Road Cadhage Avenue to Widen to 3-lane urban Beacon Ddve facility S. 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Upgrade to 3qane urban S. 32nd S~reet Main Street to Railroad Upgrade to 3qane urban fadlity S~ 42nd Street Main Street to Jasper Reconstruct to 2 e 3 I~ Lane County $900,000 0,38 545 Springfield $2,000,000 0.67 945 SPringfield $800,000 0.4 948 ODOT urban facility; curbs, ike anes TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 18 TransPlan Amendments 2002~ Chapter 3, P~tge ~6 Geographic eri-tion . Est[mated umber tion est Thumton Road 72n~ Street to UGB ' Up.ado ~o 3-lane U~an Spdn~eld - ' - $1220,000 0.61 98 Van Duyn Road Western Ddm to Had~ R~s~u~ ~ 24a~ u~an Road Eugene fa~i~ty $375,000 0.25 ~kes Drive ver Road to Ri~ L~p U~mde to ~a~ u~an ~ne ~u~ty $1,365,~0 0.91 5~ Willow Creek Road 18th Avenue to UGg Upg~de to 24a~ ur~n Facility E~ene $1.590,000 1.06 Dillard Road Ga~t to UGB U~rade to u~n fadli(y E~ene $2 000,0~ t0 ~,~ ~re~t to UGB U~rade to u~an facility E~e $400 0~ 0 2 Summit Ddve Fa~nt to Roml Hill Dr. U~mde B u~n facility E~ene Services for New Various Locations Development to address problems residential streets, irmludin9 collectors .New Public streets ar~ Eugene $4,000.000 ~mprovements to exis~n9 Streets ~02 initiated by pdvate devei~oment ted reject Category Sub- Total TransPh~--Joint Adopting OfficJa~ Revisions Exhibit A = Page 19 TransPlan Amendments 2002& cha r 3, P ge 57 1-5 @ Beltline @ lnter~amje Projec~ development w~rk ODOT $3,375.000 - Status: Unprogrammed F5 tnterchar~e ¢~51la~ette River m~h Compmhens~n s ye study of f-5 ODOT $750 000 A ...... Corridor Study to dete~i~ = ~etmement Plan ~ $250,000 t08 139 lmprovemen~sS~ Bank Strut M~J~ SCoot to HiJyard Strut Develop reticent plan for Eu~ne, $250,000 sCoot s~tem ODOT Stree~on A ~ to dete~ine venue . E~ene arkway/Pa~erson P vements $ 50,~0 5 55 ~7 ~s~ ma~gement plan ODOT/S~n~e~d $100 000 6 0 35 Main St a~ 52nd 5~d to Main Into Status Sub-Total= Project Catego~ Sub-Total TransPlan--Jobt Adopting O~cials Revbions Exhibit A - Page 20 TransPl an Amendments 0024- Chapter 3, P~ge 38 Geographic Name LJraj~s Descr~pdoa ~ ~ . Es~a~ed Implementation P~annmg Vanous Planning for implementation Eugene/Springfield $5,000,000 ~tions Of N~a{ Development zoning Eugene N~al Vadous Differential N~al Development Development Loeabens Infrastructure Funding Infrastructure Cost Eugene $2,000,000 _ Status Sub-Total Project Category Sub-Total Total Capital Projects: Roadway Projects For the Royal and Chase Gardens nodal development areas, allocate $2,g00,000 for differential nodal development infrastructure costs, Sources of funding include a mix of ~ocal discretion STP, SDCs, "locally controlled revenue source," and other fundir~ s~urces. The amoant required for differential ncmial development infrastructure costs will be vastly more 'when all the Eugene priority nodal development areas are included in this line item. Amend this line item at the first update to list the estimated differential cost of nodal development infrastructure for the pdodty nodal development areas Over the entire fiscally constrained planning pedod. Springfield will use the next three years of experience to develop an estimate of costs uniquely assodated with nodal development in SpdnCeld on those nodes that are selected and protected pursuant to LCDC's approval of alternative performance measures. This estimate would be included in the first update of the plan, subject to available funding. TransPlan-~Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 21 TransPlan Amendments 20024. Chapter 3} page ~9 Chapter 3: Table lb-Future (Beyond 20-I/ears) Capttal Investment Actions: Roadway Projects Geographic Name Desert .... E~timated puon Jur~sdkt~on Cost Length Number Beaver Street Hur~saker Lane to Wilkes Artedal Drive Eugene-Springfield at Main Street R.O.W Acquisition. General Lane County construction. $1,700,000 0.84 503 Highway (SR-128) Construct interchange Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver New frontage road w/ ODOT $9,000,000 0 27 fY' $4,005,000 0.89 512 Construct {nterchange ODOT $9 000 000 0 30 Status Sub- Project Category Sub-Total TransPlan~Joint Adopting O£ficials Revisions Exhibit A ~ Page 22 TransPl an Amendments oo~ Chapter 3, page 3 0 c~-~p~lon Juriscl~ction Cost Length Number Project Category: Added Freeway Lanes r Major 0 Interchange Improvements ,~tatus: Future F5 30th Avenue/McVay interchange reconstruction ODOT Highway to improve operations and safety, reconstruct ramps and bridges to modem standards, and provide for 6 J~105 WashingtoWJefferson Add lane to NB on-ramp ODOT $15,000,000 257 Street Bddge from 6th Ave, extend third NB lane over bddge to Delta Highway exit ramp I-5 to MOhawk Boulevard Widen to 6 lanes $5,805,000 0.75 154 Spdngfield Eugene-Springfield Pioneer Parkway/Q Street Intemhange improvements ODOT $20,124,000 2.6 728 Delta Highway to Coburg Widen to 6 lanes ODOT ODOT $15,000,000 $9,210,600 OOOT 0 727 %19 647 TransPlan~Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 23 TransPl an Amendments 200~& Chapter 3, Page 31 I Geographic Name L~mRs Description ~ ~ . Estimated 1-105 ~o H~ghway 58 Widen remain~ s~ions ~o ODOT (Goshen) 6 lanes $35,000,0~ 5.68 260 I-5 @ Glenwood Interchange Reconfigum interchange, address weaving, provide 6 lanes on freeway ODOT $10,000,000 256 @ Willamette River/Franklin Boulevard interchange Interchange reconstruction [o create one fu~l interchange to improve operations and safety, reconstruct ramps and bridges to modem standards, and provide for 6 lanes on ODOT $25,000,000 150 th Project Category Sub-Total TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 24 Transplan Amendments oo~-~ C~apter 3, Page 32 TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A ~ Page 25 TransPlan Amendments 200g, Chapter 3, Page 33 Geographic Name Desc-:-~' Estimated 48m St~reet Main Street to Daisy Street Jasper Road 57~'/58m intersection Upgrade to urban facility Springfield $300,000 Intersection improvements Springfield 901, $200,000 0.5 100 Highway99 Roosevelt BOulevard to Upgrade to urban facility Garfield Street ODOT $4,955,500 1.14 148 McVay Highway I-5 to Franklin Boulevard Upgrade to 3Rune urban ,facii~/; intersection ODOT $6,500,000 1.5 833 Improvements at I-5 and Franklin Boulevard Project Category Sub-Total Total Future Capital Projects: Roadway TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 26 TransPlan Amendments 2002~ Chapter 3, Page 34 Chapter 3: TaMe 3a-Fi'nancially Constrained 20-Fear Capita! Investment Actions: Bicycle Projects Geographic Name L~m[ts Estimated Status: Programmed 42~ Skee~ Pathway Mar~ta Road to Railroad Mufti-Use Pa~ Tra~s Springfield $615,000 1,10 795 Eas[ Bank Tra~i Owosee Bridge ~o Muffi~Use Path Fern Ridge Path #2 Gmenway 13dd_ ge Terry Street to Green Hill Road Eugene $1,500,000 2.02 Multi-Use Path Eugene $2,600,000 2.01 641 423 Route, Multi-Use Path Eugene $36,000 127 Status: Unprogrammed 5th Avenue Garfield Street to Chambers Skeet 0.21 5th Avenue Connector GarfieM Street to (WEP) Mc_K~inley Street Multi-Use Path ODOT $205,000 0.36 130 Avalon Street (A) Candlelight Drive to MultFUse Path/Route Beltline Path Eugene $74,500 0.36 403 Booth KeJiy Road 28th Street to Weyerbauser Truck Road Multi-Use Path Springfield $245,000 2.14 921 By Gully Extension Mill Street to 5th Street Multi-Use Path Springfield, $80,000 0.11 Willamalane 812 Delta Ponds Path East Bank Trail to Robin Multi-Use Path and Bddge Eugene $1,372,000 1.06 637 Hood Lane Garden Way / Canoe Canal to N. Bank Mu~tFUse Path Knickerbocker Bridge Trail Eugene $205,000 Connector 0.14 660 I-5 Path Hadow Road to Chad Multi-Use Path Eugene $716,000 0.89 668 McKenzie River Path 42nd Skeet to 52nd Street Multi-Use Path and Striped SpdngfieM Lane $2,620,000 1.55 753 Millrace Path (Eu9.) (C) Moss Skeet to Rail Multi-Use Path underpass Eugene $933,000 051 169 Millrace Paih (__Spt.) 28th Street to 32nd Street MultFUse Path Sp__fingfieJd $150,000 0.40 859 TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 27 TransPlan Amendments 2002~4~ Chapter 3, Page 40 Name L~m~ts ~DescHption Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Oakmonl Pa~ Oakway Road ~o Coburg Rou~e, MuRi~Use Pa[h Eugene $67,000 0.27 678 Road Q Stme~ Channe~ Centennia~ L~p Garden Way Path Multi-Use Pa~ Eugene $565,200 1.42 682 Spdng Bouleva~ (B) 29th Avenue ~o 3~h Avenue Multi-Use Path Eugene $205,000 0.22 281 Va~ey R~ve~ Way ~o Nodh MuffFUse Path Bank Trail Eugene $102,000 0.12 692 Fillmore Street ~o Taylor Muffi-Use Path Street Eugene $102,000 0.41 181 Valtey River Connector Westmoreland Park Path Project Category Sub-Total $10,017, 7o0 $14,732,700 Trat~sPlan - Joint Adopting O£ficials Revisions Exhibit A ~ Page 28 TransPlan Amendments apter 3, Page Geographic Estimated . Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Status: Programmed West Eugene Parkway Beltline Road to Seneca Multi-Use Path Path (lA) Road ODOT $0 1.65 340 Status Sub- Total $o Status: Unprogrammed {-5 Bike Bridge Wiliakenzie Road to Postal Bridge Way ODOT $0 0.15 666 Status Sub-Total Project Category Sub-Total $0 TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 29 TransPl an Amendments 20O_2_,; Chapter 3, Page 42 Name Limits StatUS: Programmed 1 l th Avenue Terw Street to Danebo Striped Lane Avenue ODOT $0 0.49 398 18th Avenue Bertelaen Road to Willow Stdped Lane Creek Road Eugene, Lane $0 County 0.85 303 Ayres Road Oel~a Highway to Gilham Striped Lane Road Eugene $0 0.52 803 Beaver Street Arterial Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes Striped Lane Ddve Lane County $0 0.92 503 Bedelsen Road 18th Avenue to Baiiey Hill Stdped Lane Road Eugene $0 0.80 315 Coburg Read Kinky Loop to Armitage Stdped Lane/Shoulder Bridge Lane County $0 0.87 625 Delta Highway Ayres Road to Green Striped Lane Acres Road Eugene $0 0.68 835 Dillard Road 43rd Street to Garnet SMped Lane Street Eugene Division Avenue $0 0.39 233 Delta Highway to Beaver Striped Lane Street (new frontage r~oad) Lane County $0 047 512 Fox Hollow Road Donald Street to Cline Stdped Lane Road Eugene, Lane $0 0~50 County 245 ~pasture Island Del~ Highway to Happy Striped Lane Road Lam Eugene $0 0.33 884 Irvingtee Road River Road to P~aide Road Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.44 533 Prairie Road Carol Lane to kvington Striped Lane Drive Lane County $0 0.38 472 Roosevelt Boulevard Beltiine Road to Deeebo Striped Lane Avenue ODOT $0 0.24 475 Royal Avenue Temy Street to Greenhill Striped Lane Road Lane County, $0 1.01 Eugene 481 West Eugene Parkway Seneca Road to Beltline (lA) Striped Lane Road ODOT $0 1,65 336 Status Sub-Total $0 TransPlan - Joint Adopting O~cials Revisions 20024 Chapter 3, Page ~3 Exhibit A ~ Page 30 TransPlan Amendments Springfield $0 0.70 909 31st Street Hayden Bddge to U Street Stdped Lane Lane County $0 0.57 765 35~h Street Commercial Avenue to Striped Lane ~O~ympic Street Springfield $0 0.57 918 51sU52nd Street Main Street to High Banks Route, Striped Lane Road Name Limits ~'o~ Cost Length Number Status: Unprogrammed 26th Street Main Street to Centennial Striped Lane BOulevard 89th Street Springfield $0 1.20 Aspen Street Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Road Springfield $0 0,55 15 West D Street to Menlo Striped Lane Loop Lane County, Sp_ dngfield Gateway Street to Game Striped Lane Farm Road ODOT Belfline Road East Bethel Drive R~sevelt Boulevard to Striped Lane or Route $0 0,58 $0 0.70 809 718 Commercial Street Eugene $0 1~89 414 Highway 99 35th Street to 42nd Street Striped Lane Sp_ ~ringfieid $0 0.70 933 County Farm Loop West-to-East section SMped Lane Lane County, $0 0.56 Eugene 632 County Farm Loop Nodh4o-Seeth section Striped lane Lane County, $0 0.53 Eugene 631 Daisy Street 46th Street to 48th Street Stdped Lane Sp____ringfield $0 0.06 24 Eknka Road Bedelsen Road to Route Highway 99 Eugene ~ -'~ $0 1.21 420 Future Collector H Future Co~ect0r G to SMped Lane or Route Royal Avenue Eugene $0 0.47 435 Future Collector O Barter Ddve to Future Striped Lane or Route Co~lector G Eugene $0 0.49 447 Game Farm Road N5 to Crescent Avenue North Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.01 606 Game Fan~ Road Coburg Road to Crescent Stdped Lane North Avenue Lane County $0 1.30 654 Game Farm Road Beltline Road to Hadow Stdped Lane South Road Lane County, $0 0.90 737 S_ pfingfield Gi~ham Road Honey-wood Street to Tort Striped Lane or Route Avenue Eugene $0 1.03 662 Glenwood Boulevacd Judkins to Striped Lane GJennwood Ddve Springfield $0 0.42 827 TransPlan - Joint Adopting O~ficials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 31 TransPl an Amendments 2002_4~ Chapter 3, Page 44 __Eugene 2.74 454 Hoyden Bridge ROad Yoianda Avenue to Stdped Lane Marcola Road Lane County $0 1.30 747 Hoyden Bridge Read Yotanda Avenue to Marcola Road Striped Lane Lane Count,/ $0 0.54 796 Hunsaker Lane / Division Avenue to River Striped Lane Nan~e Limits ~eseripti°n Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Greenhil~ Roaa Bar, er Drive ~o W. ~ l~h SMped Lane Lane C~nty $0 Avenue Beaver Street Road Lane County $0 1.11 527 Lakeview/Parkview Githam Road to County Stdped Lane or Route Farm Road Eugene $0 0.79 844 Laura Street Scotts Glen Drive to Striped Lane Hadow Road Springfield $0 0.40 750 Maple Street Elmira Avenue to Route Roosevelt Boulevard Eugene $0 0.15 469 Old Coburg Road Game Farm Road to Chad Striped Lane or Route Ddve Eugene $0 0,34 680 River Avenue River Road to Division Striped Lane Avenue Eugene $0 0.85 542 S, 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Striped Lane Spt_ ~ingfield $0 0.51 945 $, 32nd Street Main Street to Railroad Striped Lane Crossi_ ng Springfield $0 0.39 948 Main Street to Jasper ODOT Western Drive to Hadow $0 0.80 954 S. 42nd Street Stdped Lane Van Duyn Road Route Road Eugene $0 0.25 696 County Weyerhauser Haul 48th Street to 57th Street Striped Lane Spdngfield Road Wilkcs Drive River Road to River Loop 1 Striped Lane Lane County $0 0,91 0.99 57 554 Status Sub- Total Project Category 5%b-Total TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 32 TransPlan Amendments $0 2OO24 Chapter 3, Page ~5 28th Street 58th Street Thurston Road Springfield $0 0.17 9 71.h Avenue Bailey Hill Road to McKinley Street Stdped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.90 306 Bailey HiJl Road 5th Avenue to W. 11th Striped Lane Avenue Eugene $0 0.27 309 Centennial Boulevard 5th Street to 28th Street Striped Lane Sp?~ngfield $0 1.63 815 McKinley Street 5~ Avenue to 7th Avenue Route Eugene $0 0.19 163 Mohawk Boulevard G Street to Marcola Road Stdped Lane Sp~dngfield $0 0.96 843 Roosevelt Boulevard Danebe Avenue to Terry Striped Lane Street Eugene $0 0.51 478 Name L~rmts roject Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes Vithout Road roject ~tatus: Dragrammed 14th Street S. A Street to G Street Striped Lane S.__~_Pdngfield $0 0.55 803 Centennial Boulevard to Striped Lane _~Olympic Street Springfield $0 0.26 912 High Banks Road to Striped Lane Status Sub- Total Status: Unl~rogrammed 10th Avenue Lincoln Street to High Striped Lane Street Eugene $0 0,45 103 1 lth Avenue Chambers Street to Stdped Lane Lincoln Street Eugene $30,000 1.04 106 13th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane Lawrence Street Eugene $30,000 0.96 109 18th Avenue Alder Street to Agate Street Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.73 115 1st Avenue Bedelsen Road to Seneca Striped Lane or Route Road Eugene $0 1.12 491 21st Street Main Street to Olympic Striped Lane Street Springfield $0 0.92 906 24th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane or Route Jefferson Street Eugene $60,000 0.82 121 28th Avenue Fdendly Street to Tyler Striped Lane Street Eugene $0 0.70 203 TmnsPlan - Joint Adopting O~ciats Revisions Exhibit A ~ Page 33 TransPlan Amendments 200~& Chapter3, Page 46 Description Jt~risdiction Cost Length Number 291h Avenue Pearl Street ~o Poland Striped Lane Eu ne · ~o,000 0.15 206 2nd Avenue 30th Avenue / Amazon Parkway 33rd Avenue 3rd/4th Connector 42nd Street 5th Street 661h Street Augusta Street Candtetight Ddve / Danube Avenue Centennial Boulevard Overpass Poik Street to Van Buren Route Street Eugene $0 0.25 124 Agate Street to 29th Striped Lane Avenue Eugene $528,000 0.91 209 Wi~lame[ta Street to Striped Lane or Route Hi_~yard Street Eugene $0 0.55 212 Lincoln Street to High Striped Lane or Route Street Eugene $0 043 180 Marcx~la Road to Railroad Striped Lane Tracks Springfield $0 1,10 713 Centennial Boutevard to G Striped Lane Street SPringfield $0 0.35 806 Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Road Springfield $0 0~55 12 I-5 Ramp to Flora~ Hil~ Striped Lane or Route Drive Eugene $0 0.98 218 Bacger Avenue to Royal Route Avenue Eugene $0 1.01 417 ~;ntennial boulevard @ Add sidewalk to bddge and ODOT, $50,000 approaches, modify Eugene, 0.00 610 guardrai ngfield Chambers Street 24th Avenue to 28th Avenue Stdped Lane Eugene $0 0.42 Clinton Drive / Debdck Cai Young R~ ~o Road Route Wiilagil~espie Road Eugene 224 $0 0.51 816 Dillard Road Garnet Street to UGB Stdped Lane ~Eugene $570,000 1.83 234 Donald Street 39th Avenue to Fox Route Hollow Road Eugene $0 0.62 238 East/West Amazon Hilyard Street to Fox Drive Hollow Road/Dillard Road Emerald Street/29th 24t,h Avenue to Route Stdped Lane Eugene $0 1.08 239 Avenue Franktin Boulevard Friendly Street G Street Laurelwood Golf Course Eugene $0 0.82 ~nd U~_n!versity Street Glenwood Boulevard to Spr~ingfield Bddges 18th Avenue to 28th Avenue 5th Street to 28th Street Striped Lane 242 Eugene, $264,000 0.54 ODOT 824 0.98 1 S[dped Lane or Route Eugene $40,000 Stdped Lane or Route S__pdngfield $9,500 251 899 TransPl~ - Joint Adopting O~cials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 34 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 3, Page 47 Name Limits mated Description Jurisdiction Cos~ Length Number Game Farm South Beltline to Deadmond Striped Lane Ferry Road Springfield $0 0.12 738 Garfield Street Roosevelt Boulevard to Sthped Lane 14th Avenue Eugene $132,000 1.29 145 Golden Gardens Jessen Ddve to Barger Route Drive Eugene $0 0.50 451 Greenhitl Road Barger Ddve to Airport Shoulder Road Lane County $209,000 1.47 457 Greenhill Road Crow Road to W. 11th Avenue Striped Lane/Shoulder Lane County $38,000 0.26 453 Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard Striped Lane or Route Avenue Lane County $0 0.16 515 High Street 3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.25 185 Hilliard Lane N. Park Avenue to W. Route Bank Trail Lane County $0 1.09 518 Horn Lane N. Park Avenue to River Stdped Lane or Route Road Lane County $144,000 0.75 521 Howard Avenue River Road to N. Park Sthped Lane or Route Avenue Lane Count,/ $0 0.96 524 Ivy Street 67th Street to 70th Street Route ~Spdngfield $0 0.30 99 Kinsrow Avenue Centennial Boulevard to Route the East Eugene $0 0.30 672 Lake Ddve / N. Park Maxwell Road to Striped Lane or Route Lane County Avenue Northwest Expressway $171,000 0.91 538 Lincoln $¢eet / 5th Avenue to 18th Route, Striped Lane La~ence Street Avenue Eugene $0 1.14 160 Main Street and S. A Springfield Bridges to Striped Lane Street East UGB ODOT, $0 8.50 830 S__pdngfield McVay Highway I-5 to 30th Avenue Mill Street 10th to 15th Avenue Mill Street S. A Street to Fairview Drive Minda Drive/Sally Way Norkenzie Road to Stdped Lane ODOT $114,000 0.71 834 Route Eugene $400,000 0.38 168 Sthped Lane Spdngfield $0 0.99 837 Norwood Street Route Eugene $0 0.51 874 Monroe 1st Avenue to Fern Ridge Striped Lane or Route Street/Fairgrounds Path Eugene $75,000 1.16 172 N. 38th Street Main Street to Commercial Striped Lane or Route Street Springfield $100,000 0.30 939 TransPlan - Joint Adopting O~cials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 35 TransPlan Amendments 200_2~. Chapter 3, Page 48 Name Lm~s ma~ed ii, Park Avenue Maxwell Road to Horn Lane Sldped Lane or Roule Lane County $190,000 Nugget, 15ih, 17ih, 19~ 1 ~02 539 ia G~ea~ Route Springfield $0 1.58 845 Oakmont Way Oakway Road [o Coburg Striped Lane or Route Road Eugene $0 0.30 676 Otymp~ Street (A) 21st S~eet to Mohawk Striped Lane Boulevard Springfield $0 0.26 942 Polk Street 8th Avenue to 24th Avenue Striped Lane Eugene $400,000 1.39 175 Porto Hill Summit Lenrh of Potato Hill route Route Route (in future subdivision) SPringfield $0 1.52 84 P~ide Road Maxwell Road to Highway Striped Lane 99 Eugene $58,000 0.15 495 Rainbow Ddve Wes~ "D" Strut to Striped Lane Centennial Boulevard Springfield $0 0.55 848 S~ 67~h Street ?y SIree~ to Main Skeet S~iped Lane or Route Spd~gfiefd $42,000 0.30 92 S. 70th Street Main Street to ivy Street S~iped Lane Springfield $115,000 0.60 94 Seavey L~p Road / Coast Fo~ of Willamette - Franklin Boulevard River to Route or ShouMer Lane County $0 2.44 957 Seneca Road W.11th Avenue to 7th Stdped Lane Place EUgene $0 0.27 324 Silver Lane Grove Street to River Road Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.89 548 Spring Boulevard (A) Fairmount Boulevard to Route 29th Avenue Eugene $0 1.07 278 Spdnreld 8ddges Franklin Boulevard to Mill Stdped Lane Street ODOT $0 0.68 857 Summit Street Faicmount Boulevard to Route Floral Hill Ddve Eugene $0 0.31 287 Tandy Turn / Ladat Cobu~ Road to Oakway Route Meadows Road Eugene $0 0.48 686 Thurston Road Billings Road to Highway Route or Shoulder 126 Lane County $0 1.61 96 To~ Avenue Gilham Road to Locke Striped Lane or Route Road Eugene $0 0.66 688 Tyler Street 24th Avenue to 28th Route Avenue Eugene $0 0.37 290 TransPl~ - Joint Adopting O~cials Revisions Exhibit g ~ Page 36 TransPlan Amendments 2002~4- Chapter 3, Page 49 Nanle L~s Valley River Way (A) Valley River Ddve to Striped Lane Eugene Valley River Connector $200,000 0.23 694 Van Duyn Road / Western Drive to Route Bogart Road Willakenzie Road Eugene $0 0.61 698 Walnut Avenue 15th Avenue to Fairmont Route Boulevard Eugene $0 0.36 295 Weyerhaeuser Haul Booth Kelly Road to Main Striped Lane Road Street Springfie~d $0 0.46 90 Willamette Street 18th Avenue to 32nd Striped Lane Avenue Eugene $396,000 1.30 296 Willamette Street 11th Avenue to 18th Striped Lane Avenue Eugene $0 0.76 184 Yolanda Avenue 31st Street to Hayden Striped Lane Bddge Road Springfield $0 0.80 784 Project Category Sub-Total Total CalJital Projects: Bicycle Projects $4,455,500 $4,455,500 $]9,188,200 TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 37 TransP1 an Amendments 2002~4- Chapter 3, Page 50 Chapter 3: Table 3b-Future (Beyond 20-Years) Capital Investment Actions:Bir[vcle Prqjects Geographic Name Limits Estimated Xtat~x: F~tare 16th Avenue Fern Ridge Path to Multi-Use Path Connector Jefferson Street Eugene $37.000 0.09 112 Augusta Street Path Laurel Hill Park to 30th Multi-Use Path Avenue Eugene $933,000 0,79 221 Coast Fork Harbor Drive to Multi-Use Path Willamette path Cleanczater Park Willamalane $0 3,39 21 Deedrail Path Sundance Street to 35ih Multi-Use Path, Route Avenue Eugene $0 1,85 230 Delta Highway Path Goodpasture Island Road Multi-Use Path to Wiltagiftespie Road Eugene $1.719,000 0.47 636 EWEB Path 31si Street to Marcola Multi-Use Path Extension Road Willama one $0 0.72 Fern Ridge Path #3 Royal Avenue to Fern Springfield 731 Ridge Reservoir Multi-Use Path Lane County $5,565,000 091 426 Game Bird Park Path Flamingo Avenue to N. Multi-Use Path Cloverleaf Loop Willamalane $500,000 0.10 734 Jessen Path Green Hilt Road to Beltline Multi Use Path Road Eugene $0 1.81 463 McKenzie-Gateway Game Farm Road S. to Mulfi-Use Path Springfield Path Deadmond Ferry Road $0 1.70 759 South Bank Trail (A) t-5 to Springfield Bridges Multi-Use Path Springfield $1,800.000 1.22 851 South Bank Trail (B) Springfield Bridges to Multi-Use Path Seavey Loop Road Springfield $2.480,000 1.59 854 South Hills Trail Bailey Hill Road to Multi-Use Path Willamette Street Eugene $0 Springfield-Mt. Jasper Road to Buford Route, Multi-Use Path, Willamatane, $0 Pisgah Connector Park Road Bridge _Springfield Upper Amazon Path Hilyard Street to Canyon Multi-Use Path Drive Eugene $590,000 West Bank Trail (B) Beltline to Hileman Co. Multi-Use Path Park Eugene $0 Willamette McKenzie Belfiine Road to Armitage Multi-Use Path Trail Park Eugene, Lane $0 County Meadowview Bike Meadowview School to Multi-Use Path Path Fern Ridge Path Eugene $0 5.47 327 2.78 960 1.95 293 3~75 551 4~99 699 496 Status Sub- Total Project Category Sub-Total TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 38 TransPlan Amendments $13,624,000 $~3,624,000 ~Jan:uarv 200~4- Chapter 3, Page 51 Description Jurisdictiou Cost Length Number _project Categom~:Mu~,: ~T__ ~ ~ . ~ -~ ~,--~se rams With Road Pro ~ Status: Future OD T Status Sub-Total Project Category Sub-Total $0 TransPlan--Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A ~ Page 39 TransP1 an Amendments 200;~-~ Chapter 3, Page 52 t Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Status: Future Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver Striped Lane Street (new frontage road) Lane County $0 0.47 512 Beaver Street Aderial Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes Striped Lane -- Drive Lane County $0 0.92 5O3 McVay Highway I-5 to Franklin Boulevard Striped Lane ODOT ~~---~igNwa~.p,9~ ........ $0 150 833 ODOT Status Sub- Total Project Category Sub-Total $0 TransPlan---Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 40 TransPlan Amendments ~-~200~4 [ Chapter 3, Page $3 Its ~]stimated Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes }~/ithout Road Prelect Statt~$: Future Bethel Connector Rikhoff to Park Avenue Broadway / Franklin Mill Street to East of Multi-Use Path Eugene $0 0.15 490 Boulevard Jefferson Street Jefferson Street Striped Lane Eugene 13th Avenue to 18th Striped Lane Avenue Eugene $0 1.91 $93,000 182 0.35 263 Lorane Highway (A) Portland Street t 27th Avenue Spyglass Drive 18th Avenue to 28th Striped Lane Avenue Eugene Bailey Hilt Road to Shoulder Chambers Street Lane County Willamette Street to 29th Route Avenue Eugene Cai Young Road to Route Accessway Eugene Oakway Road $238,000 0189 157 $0 4.32 321 $89,000 0.89 275 W. 11th Avenue $155,000 1.00 684 Jefferson/ Washington Chambers Street to Striped Lane Danebo Avenue Eugene, ODOT 5It' to 13th Striped Lane Eugene $0 $100,000 3.00 0.53 334 Status Sub- Total Project Category Sub- Total Total Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $6 75, 000 $675,000 $14,299,000 TransPlan--Joint Adopting O~cials Revisions Exhibit A - Page 41 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 3~ Page 54 EXhibit A ~ Page 42 TransP1 an Amendments Exhibit A ~ Page 43 TransPlan Amendments Exhibit A ~ Page 44 TransPlan Amendments Exhibit A - Page 45 TransP1 an Amendments TransPlan Table o£ Contents introduction.. Chapter 4: Plan Performance ImplementaOon Monitoring and Part One: Context for Assessment of Plan Performance 1 Part Two: Projected Plan P~rformance .................................................................. 42 Traffic Congestion Measures ................................................................................. 7 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trip Length Measures .,. Mode Choice Measures ......... ' ...................................................... '8 Environmental Meas~.~res ............. Land Use Measures ..................... i'i ............................................................................................ 12 Transportation System Measures ..................... S~ Assessment ...... ' ................................................................ 12 Backgrotmd on LCDC Approval .................................................................... 17 Development of TransPlan's Alt;~l}~'~,;'~';~'~';'~;I ........................................................ 17 Pad Fo~Plan Implementation Monitoring ..................................................................................... 26 Plan Monitoring Process .............................................................................26 Pad Five: TransPlan Update Cycle ......... - ............................ 27 Introduction Tiffs chapter describes how Trans?lan is projected to perform and sets forth a monitoring program to assess how ~e plan perfom~s over time. The monitoring program ties plan goals, objectives, and ~licies presented in ChaPter Two to the implementation of actions presented in Chapter Three. The program also aids in tracking the plan~s performance in meeting federal and state requirements. Findings that result from analysis of these Performance measures will allow for informed decisions to be made as to how best implement the plan. For example, priorities or emphasis for implementation actions may be adjusted, policies may be mended, and additional policies or implementation actions may be recommended due to performance measure outcomes. FindS~qgs may also influence budgeting and the type and phasing of capital projects included in th ' , Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). e region s The remainder of this chapter prov/des a context for the performance assessment, a presentation of the performance of the plan, and an overview of the proposed program for monitoring the impacts of plan implementation. This includes a presentation of the TPR alternative performance measures approved by LCDC.. Exhibit A - Page 46 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 4, page 1 Part One: Context for Assessment of Plan Performance Regional transportation planning has been carried out in the Eugene~SprngSeId ~ea s~nce ~e m~d ~968s ~g~qg ~ ~e Engene-Sp~g~eid ~ea T~spo~ation Study (ESATS) ~ ~ 967. T- 2~ in ~978 ~d Tra~Ptan ~ ~986 followed ESATS. Belden the t~e ESATS was compFted ~d ~e c~nt u~ate of TransP&n, ~ere has been ~ evolution in what is expected kom m~on's ~spormtion . redinn's ~spo~tion ~~ ~_~t~ly ~ ¢~ decision m~g for a * -~--un nas mcmdeo the following shi~s: ~d content of~e ~m: Emph~is nn me~ ~d ~ ~ suppoa of prong ~po~fion system ~provemenm. To: ~proved ~fo~ation on a wide-ranging set of ~pacB for a w~de v~eW of capi~L operational, pricing, lifesWle, ~d l~d-use strategies. From: A focus on ~e e~c~ency of~ghway nem~or~ ~d co=espon~g levels of se~Sce (speed and ~avel time). To: Mnk~o~l syste~ operation and broad Pe~o~ce me~ement. From: A focus on how to get ~om point A to po~t B. To: A broader context of ~po~tinn~s role ~ a com~¢. ~d ~ the global, naronal, s~te, ~d local econo~c market. From: Acceptance of land use patterns as a given and not part of the solutions set. To: Use of land use strategies in connection as a major strategy, with corresponding transportation policies From: A focus on transportation system user benefits and costs. To: Broader concern for the equitable distribution ofbenefiks and costs w~thin the These changes have led to consideration ora more complex set of relationships, which rrmkes it ~rnpo~t to consider a wide range of performance measures. The monitoring program prov/des for assessment of multiple perfommace measures to address the comprehensive, somet/mes conflicting goals, objectives, and policies and to facilitate a broad discussion of issues among diverse users. Performance measures are the primary tools £br quantitatively'assessing the kmpacts and achievements of plan ~lementafion and are key criteria by which progress towards the plan goals can be assessed. The Performance measures pro;qde a framework within which data that are generated and collected can be presented in a mearfingfal way. Exhibit A ~ Page 47 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 4, page 2 The performance measures are results-or/ented, meaning they are focused on assessing the outcomes or effectiveness of transportation havestments and other knplementation actions. Results from the ongohag plan pert~rmance and implementation mort/toting program w/Il be compiled and presented to decision makers as the plan is implemented~ When makhag comp~sons between plan costs and the plan Performance presented/n th/s chapter, care should be taken to consider only the costs beyond those associated with the operation and maintenance of the ex/sting transportation system. The hacrease in costs for added roadway capacity,/reproved transit service, and improvements to the bicycle and pedesthan systems is a relatively small proportion of the total plan cost. The overall cost for the F/nancially Constrained 20-Year Plan Presented/m Chapter 3 is billion. Of th~s total, 69 percent is associated with the operation and maLntenance of the exJst~g transportation system. T~s leaves 31 percent or approx/mately m/Ilion associated with system knprovements. Exhibit A ~ Page 48 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 4, Page 3 Part Tw : Projected Plan Performance The combination of land use, transportation demand management (TDM), and transportation system improvement (TSI) progr~ and capital investments included in TransPlan is the result of a comprehensive evaluation of alternative scenarios. This technical analysis provided a process to determine the relative significance of alternative scenarios and the desirability of one scenario over another. The main fbcus of reviewing the performance of the plan is to assess how the proposed investments and actions are either: 1) Improving existing conditions, or 2) Avoiding undeskable conditions that would be present without the plarmed investments and actions. Table 6 shows data for existing conditions and projections for two future scenarios: Ex~sl~g Conditions 1995, shows systern performance as of 1995. The first future scermrio, 2015 Trends, shows system performance for 1995 conditions extended into the year 2015. This scenario shows projections of what is expected to happen by 2015 under business as usual trends~ The second fi~ture scenario, 2015 Financially Constrained Trat, sPlan, shows projected draft TransPian performance for the year 2015 under conditions of financial consent. Like the second scenario, it ~sumes implementation of land use and TDM strategies. Transit, bicycte, and roadway capital actions are limited to financial resources expected to be available to the region as discussed in Chapter 3. Capital actions identified as Future in Chapter 3 are not included in this scenario. For each future scmnario presented in Table 6, the amount for each performance measure is listed along v,4th the percentage change in that performance measure from 1995 conditions. In the descriptions of performance measures that follow, except where explickly noted, comparisons are drawn between 1995 Existing Conditions and the 2015 Financially Constrained Trans?lam ~han~ to ~aeyfo~ance megsures resultin~ from the_West Eugene Parkwag-related amendment to ~ransPlg¢~ are prese_ntedin [his ~h~pter i~-'~e~slafive format, ~ general, implementation of the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan is projected to serve the region's fumm traveI needs for people and goods, while turning the transportation system and the service it provides in a more deskable direction than existing trends. The proposed plan reflects a set of tradeoffs among the communities' goals and objectives. A comprehensive set of transportation system performance measures provides the framework for a meaningful compahson of the scenarios. Exhibit A ~ Page 49 TransP1 an Amendments CkaptCr 4; Page 4 EXhibit A ~ Page 50 TransP1 an Amendments o Exhibit A ~ Page 51 Transp1 an Amendments The ~ta presented in Us chapter stem bom extensive computer modeling analyses of different combinations °f land use, TDM, and TS! pr°grins ~d capitol investmentS~ T~e analysis ckmws on recent su~eys of mmpomtion patte~ behavior in the Eugene~Sp~gfield region. Readem shOUld inte~mt the ~m as indicat~g the ma~mde and general dkeCtion of change, and shOUld not a~Ch ~at si~fi~ce to the apparent precision of the figures. Traffic Congestion Measures Population Employment C~nge~ed M/I~ of Travel Roadway Congestion Index Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Transit on Congested ConSdors 84 81% 115% 189% lll2015Trends ~2015Fkmnciall¥ConstraLnedTransPlan~o ] PM I: Congested ~{iles of Travel This measure represents congested miles of travel as a percentage of total vehicle m/les traveled. High levels of congested m/les of travel can indicate that the system is not operating efficiently. The evaluation of future plan alternatives shows that, regardless of the strategies employed, congestion vdll increase significantly over existing conditions. One objective of the planning effort is to minimize the increase in congested miles of travel Under the Financially Cons~hT~ed TransPlan, congested miles of travel is ~ 5.~ percent of total miles traveled~ an increase of--84 9f81_ percent over 1995 conditions. PM 2: Roadway Congestion Index The Roadway Congestion Index (RCi) is a measure of congestion on the region's freeways and arterials. This measure ~s based on a method developed to estimate relative regional congestion for urbanLzed areas kt the U.S. It is a measure of the regional system of freeways and arterials that does not account for specific bottlenecks~ An index value greater than 1 indicates generally congested conditions area~w/de. A value less than one means that, while congestion may occur TransPlan Exhibit A - Page 52 TransPlan Amendments uarv~ 2002 Chapter 4, Page 7 during certain periods on specific facilities, on average, the freeways and arterials are relatively uncongested. The objective is to avoid area-wide congestion represented by values of 1 or greater. A lower hadex value relative to the trend indicates that the plan will have a poskive impact on managing congestion. The Financially Constrained TransPlan RCI of.4~g. 96 is less than 1 and thus ind/cates that while cOngestiOn might occur at peak traffic times, on average, congestion would remain relatively low on freeways and arterials. In compafisor~ the region's 2015 RCI is below Portland's 1994 value of 1.11. PM 3: Daily 'Vehicle Hours of Delay Daily veh/cle hours of delay prov/des another measure of the level ofcongestion~ Very s/milar to congested m~es of travel~ it is expected to increase significantly in the future. However, as expressed earlier, wlfile congestion will increase over existing conditions~ the investments proposed in the Financially Constrained TransPlan ~e the increase in vehicle hours of delay over what would be experienced under trend condkions. W?~le Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay ~s expected to increase by 98- 1 t5 percent over 1995 conditions, tb2s is approxknately ov, e ha~ B¥O_ ~ of what is expected under trend conditions. PM 4: % Transit Mode share on Congested Corridors The % Transit Mode Share on Congested corridors is the ratio of transit person trips to total person trips on congested facilities during PM peak hour. An increase in this measure is a direct ~dication of reduced reliance on the automobile. I~creasing transit mode share on the congested corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a sigrgficant shif~ in reliance on the automobile. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trip Length Measures PM 5: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per CaI~ita PM 5a is a measure of the total daily VMT by trips made within the metropolitan area by area residents (internal trips) and PM 5b presents VMT divided by the region's population. Under the Fh~anc~ally Constrained Trans?lan, VMT per capita decreases slightly showhqg no increase over the 20~year period. The Transportation Planrfing Rule (TPR) seeks no increase m VMT per cap~ta over ten years and a 5 percent reduction over 20 years. Reasons for not meeting th~s ¥2vlT reduction target include a high proportion of growth in the outly~g parts ofthe urban growth boundary (UGB), and few and small contiguous areas of higher density. Growth Lq outly~g parts ofthe UGB has the effect of increasing average ~p lengths ha these areas~ Lkrrfited areas of higher density lknits the effectiveness oftmnsit and alternative mode strategies. The region's model estimates tt~at ~ps to and from these growth areas are 21 percent longer than the regional average trip length. TransPlan Exhibit A ~ Page 53 TransPl an Amendments Chapter 4, Page 8 Percent Change 10% 2~/,~ 41~ - 52% 10.~A to the TPR require areas not meeting the VMT reduction target to seek approval from the Land and Development Commission (LCDC) for the use of alternative measures in demonstrating reduced reliance on the automobile. This process is discussed further in Part Three: TPR Alternate Perform~ce Measures of this chapter.. P31 6 and P~IT: Average Trip Length and Percentage of Person Trips Under I Mile Shorter trip distance is one factor that contributes to making the use of alternative modes more attractive. As presented in Table 6, trip length reflects the average distance for trips taken within the region by all modes and does not include trips made through the region. The objective is to reduce average trip length. Percentage of person trips under 1 mile provides a measure of the plan's specific impact on short trips. The objective here is to increase the pementage of trips under i mile. Average trip length is projected to decrease slightly from 3.7 m/les to 3.6 miles under the Financially Constrained Trans?lam As discttssed render PM 5, an explanation for why this change is not greater lies in the fact that a large amount of growth over the planning period that is taking place on the edges of existing development in the region. The percentage of trips under 1 mile is expected to increase to 16.1 percent. This reflects the impact of the plan's proposed nodal development strateg?. Mode Choice Measures PM8: )~lode Shares (All Trips) This measure shows the relative share of the region's trips taken by each mode of transportation. The objective is to reduce drive-alone auto trips while increasing the number of trips taken by other modes. Mea~sures PM 8a through PM 8e indicate the relative pementage share for walk, TransPlan Chapter 4, Page 9 Exhibit A - Page 54 TransPlan Amendments bike, bus, shared-fide auto, and drive-alone auto trips. The most significant changes are the 48:6 ~ percent increase in transit mode share and the ~ 9,1 percent decline h~ drive-alone trps. The--.d~ecline in bkke mode share is due in large part to the--~igrfificant improvements in transit provided by Bus R~apid Transit. As shown in PM 8f, there is an overall increase in the use of alternative modes render the Financially Constrained TransPlan. PM 8lis the sum of all non-auto (walk, b~e, and bus) trips. Model analysis indicates that non~ auto mode shares kncrease by about 18 pement under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. PM 8g provides an aggregate esthnate of the region's reliance on the auto. Total person tr~ps taken in the region are dNided by the total number of auto trps. The objective is to increase the overall number of person trips taken relative to total auto trips. Model results suggest that person trps per auto trip will increase by approximately 7 percent under the FinanciaIty Constrained TransPlam Population Walk B~ke Transit Shared Pride (2 or more) Drive Alone % Non ~ Auto Trips Person Trips per Auto Trip Percent Chat~ge h~ Mode Share Measures ~ All Tr~p~ 41% 41% ~7.0% 4~ 49~2% TransPlan Exhibit A - Page 55 TransPl an Amendments Chal~ter 4, Page Environmental Measures PM 9: Average Furl Economy (Miles per Gallon) Th~s measure provides an estimate of fuel use under the three scenarios. The objective is to increase fuel economy, Fuel economy is directly related to levels of congestion. Higher levels of congestion result in more fuel use and lower fuel economy. The Financially Constrained Z OhS.Plan s lower fuel economy is a result of increased congestmn over exmtmg condltmns. HoweVers the fuel economy achieved by the Financially ConStrained Trans?lan (s bSgher than that achieved under the trend condition~ PM lO: Vehicle Emissions (Annual Tons of Carbon Monoxide) Vehicle emissions is a measure of plan air quality impact. The Eugene-Springfield area is to meet National Ambient Ak Quali~ Standards for various pollutants. Of primary concern to the transportation system are the standards for carbon monoxide. The region is currently in compliance with the standards for this pollutant, The region will continue to be in compliance with the carbon monoxide standard in the future. Vehicle fleet tumover and stricter emission controls on newer vehicles are factors that contribute to lower emissions in future scenarios. *20% Population Employment Avg Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal0 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) (% change from 1995) Percentage Change ~2~5% 4A44 ~ 0.7% q0.7% .4A}~lllllll ~15 Trends ffi 2015 Fin~cially Cons--min~ 34% 34% 43% 43% TmnsPlan Exhibit A - Page 56 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 4~ Page 11 Land Use Measures The three plan measures related to nodal development- Acres of Zoned Nodal Development, Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes- are all o£plan hnplementafion. They are measures directly intended "to result in a significantincrease m the share of trips made by alternative modes. The Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes measures are both market response measures Lq that they reflect the development sector response to the public POlicies proposed fbr nodal development. They reflect the benefits com/~ng from changes Lq develop~ne~t antiCipated for nodal developme~[ These measures are defi~ned below. PM 1J: Acres of Zoned Nodal Development The number of acres zoned for nodal development Lq the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area PM 12: % of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes The p of new dwellhqg un/ts in Eugene-Springfield permitted for construction with~ an area designated for nodal development PM 13: % of New Total Employment in Nodes The percentage of new e hq Eugene*Springfield located v~4th~ art area desi~ated for nodal development. Calculation of the measure excludes employment that would not lkely locate in a nodal ar&a (e.g., heaw industrial). portat[on System Measures The followhqg set of measures provides hqformation on changes to various parts of the region's mlx>mt/on system~ Where the prev/ous sets of performance measures reflected changes m and knpacts of the region s for transportation, ~e measure described below reflect~ changes in and/mpacts of the reg/On~s of transportation. Investments hq non-auto systems ~crease the conven/ence and practicality of their use, thereby knproving travel choices. Investments in the roadway system to address safety and congestion issues ali~>w all modes to fimcfion more effectively and e Pgf I4: Percentage of Roadway Miles with Sidewalks T~s measure knd~cates the percentage of the total roadway system (local collector and arterial, excluding freeways) on wh/ch there are sidewalks on at least one side~ T?fis percentage has been mcreasmg over several years as new development occurs and roads are built to current city c~des. Projects that raise ex/sting collectors and arterials to urban standards (addk~g curb~ gutter, s~dewalks, and bkkeways) are another factor explaining the h~creases. TransPlan Exhibit A - Page 57 TransPlan Amendments Cl~a~ter 4, Page 12 Trat~ % E~ w/A~mss ~) 1~ Trai~ S~ ~31~A ~ 543% 2glIPA ~ 75.0% 73°4 PM ][5: Ratio of Bikeway miles to Arterial and Collector Miles Ks measttre [ndicates the pementage of total bkkeway m~les (both on- and off-street) compared to total at~fial and COllector roadways (excluding freeways). Because of the proposed addition of several m/les of off;street bikeways, additional new and reconstructed roadway m/les with Trat~qPlan Chapter 4, Page 13 Exhibit A - Page 58 TransPlan Amendments bikeways, and the proposed striping of several miles of existing roadway, this ratio is expected to increase substantially from 44 percent today to g2- 81 percent in 2{)15. PM 16: Percentage of Roadways in Fair or Better Condition This measure provides a summary of the overall pavement condition of the region's roadways. Currently, 85 pement of the region's roadways are in fair or better condition. The ob~ectiv~ is to mainta~ at least 80 percent of ~he roadwaYs ~ fair or better condition. The ability to maintain that standard is dependent upon tS~,ancial prio~fies idemified duhng the dm~t TransP[an review~ Makntaining the roadway condafion at this level helps ~e ~e cost of future system. PM- i 7: Percentage of Households Within ~ Mile of a Transit Stop This measure provides an indication of the geographic coverage of Lane Transit District's service~ Currently,. . ~. 92 Percent of the households in the region are wihh/n ¼ mile of a trap, sit stop. The objective is to maintain that level of coverage. Given the transit system's maturity and extensive geographic coVerage, focus is not on achie¼ng 100 percent coverage but on knproving the cor~ven/ence of existhxg service. Phi 18: Transit Service Hours per Capita Tiffs measure shows the amount of annual transit service (in hours) per person in the region. The objective in the plan is to increase Wansi~ service hours, ideally in terms of the frequen~y of servSce (e~g, change from service every 15 minutes to service every ten rrdnutes). The increases ~ service hours projected for the Trend condition are necessary to offset delays caused by increased traffic congestion. They assume no increases in service frequency, but are necegs~ to maintain e~sting fre~luency of se~ce. The 2015 Fhnanciatly Constra~ed ~ranxplan increases (to 1 ~99 service hor~rs p~r cap~ta) reflect substantial increases in service frequency with the knplementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). 'M i9. Percentage of Households with Access to Ten-3~rinute Transit Service Frequency of se~ice is one of the key factors in malting public transportation more attractive. The frequency of service prOposed ~ the extensive neighborhood feeder system and hatercounected ~ lines of the BRT system ks one of the pm~ reasons explainin~ the 48.6 percent increase in ~it mode shares. PM19 presents the percentage of householcLs in ~he reg/on ~th acCeSs to ten- m~ute transit serv/ce frequencies. The proposed BRT system would/ncrease the percentage of households with access to ten-minute service frequencies from 23 percent under ex/sting conditions to 88 percent ~r, 2015 under the F~nancially Constrained TransPlam This represents an inCrease of aPproX/matelY 282 percent. PM 20: Percentage of Employment with Access to Ten-Minute Transit Service S~lar to PM19, PM20 presents the percentage of employment in the region with access to ten~ te ser~4ce frequency. The Propt~sed BR~ system Wc~ld ~ncrease th~ percentage of employment with access to ten-ink'ute service fi2equencies from 52 percen~ under e~cisting Tra~Plar~ 2002 Chapter 4~ Page Exhibit A ~ Page 59 TransPl an Amendments conditions to 91 percent in 2015 under the Financially Constrained TransPlam This represents an increase of approximately 75 pement. PM 21: Bikeway k~iles Th/s measure indicates the additional bikeway miles and percentage change ~n b/&eway miles anticipated over the plarmhag period. As described Under PM 15, ~ddifior~ to the off-Skeet system and Striping of existing roadways result ha a significant/ncrease in bikeway miles (t 03 percent over existing conditions). ~ 22. Artertal and Collector Miles This measure indicates the additional roadway centerline miles and percentage change ha roadway centerl~e miles anticiPated over the pl period. Total m~les ofcollectgr and a~terials are prOPosed to hacrease by g- 9.3 percer~t from 325.6 to S544) 355.8. P][~ 23: Arterial and Collector Miles (excluding freeways) Th~s measure is sknilar to PM19a except that it excludes freeway miles. Total miles of collector and ~fials, exclud~g freeWays~ are proposed to ~ncrease by gt~out ¢-10 pement from 290.5 to Summary Assessment This section provides an overall assessment of the plan~s performance. A more detailed assessment of the plan's COmpliance with Transportation Platming Rule (TPR) requ/rements is provided in Part Three: TPR Alternative Performance Measures. Over the past 25 years, growth ha the region ?ms been fairly compact~ This is in part due to the limitations put on partitioning of parcels outside of city l~ts and altowhag development to occur o~y with the extension ofpubtic facilities. Thus, ~nfill and redevelopment have been mkSng place over time and, as a reset, a large portion of fi~ture development Mil occur M~ the UGB on the edges of existing development. As demonstrated above, grov,~h on the edges leads to longer overall ~p len~, which/n turn~ makes non-auto modes less attractive. Th~s makes it difficult to achieve VMT reductions w/ttfin the plannkng period. However~ the Financially Constmkned TransPlan has been shown to perform much better than trend conditions ha ng ~ncreases kt congested miles oftraveI, and m~hag area-wide congestion. An overall outcome st from implementation of nodal development ~s that the region is able to/ncrease the percentage of Person ~Ps less than one mile in length to approxknately 16 percent. Invesunents h~ non-auto modes ~arficularly BRT) and knplementation of nodal development strategies kn, prove choices available for tr~vel and contfil~nte to the F/nanc~ally Constrained Tran$Plan ~s abiliW to kmrease levels of non-auto mode share of all trips over existing conditions (hacrease from 14.1% to 17%). IncreaSes ~ the percentage ofhouseholds and emPl%~ent with access to te te ~it service are the basis for the 48.6 percent hacrease ha transit mode share~ The Financially Constrahaed TransPlan also calls for kmrenses ~n the percentage of TransPlan Chapter 4, Page 15 Exhibit A - Page 60 TransPlan Amendments roadway miles with sidewalks and a significant increase in the number of bikeway miles. As noted above, investments in alternative modes increase their convenience and practicality. This improves the transportation choices available to the region% residents. ~7te > make improvements to the roadway system. Limited factor to the reductions in the drive alone general effect of making the in : proportion than the shifts to the increase in use of alternative modes are dkectly in each alternative mode. Continued development of the region's TDM pro~ provides incentives that also make use of alternative mode~ mom attractive. TDM alsc; provides a loW-cost means of helping to address tm~por~fion demand in specific areas surrounding congested facilities. Overall, the performance measures presented in this chapter clearly point to a reduced reliance on the automobile. A longer timeframe than the planning period is rec~u}red to aCcomplish the full benefits of several aspects of the proposed plato Nodal developmem rrmy take 30 to 40 years before its full benefits are realized in the region. BRT will be imPlemen{ed incrementally over the pl period and will require additional Rime for its full behests to be realized, tt is i~nportant to pursue the balanced set of strategies in the Proposed plan to set the stage for furore benefits. TransPlan Exhibit A ~ Page 61 TransP1 an Amendments Chapter 4, Page 16 t Three: TPR Alternative Performance Measures Background on LCDC Approval Oregon's Transpor~tion Plannhag Rule ~PR) requires that TransPlan comply with certaha performance measUres (either a Velficle Miles TrTaveled per capita target or ~ltemative ~easures). As described in Table 6 (Chapter 4, Page 5), vMT per ca3ita is expected to remain v~lly unchanged through 5015 (1-percer~t de;rease). As a result, th~ region w~ll not meet the reduction in ~T per c~pka Called ?or ha the TPR. ~he TPR provides th~t, should a plan not meet the VMT reduction targets, alternative measures can be developed to demonstrate compliance w/th the TPR. The alternative measures must demo~tmte that: (A) A the alternative standard will result ha a reduction in reliance on automobiles; (B) Actfiev/ng the alternative standard will accomplish a sigrhficant increase in the availability or conven~ence of alternative modes of transportation; (C) the alternative standard is tLkely to result ha a sigrfificant increase ha the share of ~ps made by modes, including walldng, bicycling, fidesharhag and transit; (D) VMT per capita is unl/kely to hacrease by more than 5 pement; and, (E) The alternative standard is measurable and reasonably related to ach/evhag the goal of reduced reliance on the automobile as described in OAR 660-012-0000. Alternafi,~e Performance Measures were developed to address th/s requkement. While these me s have been ~ucorporated kuto Table 6, ~ more detailed description of the measures and related harem ben are Presented ha T&ble 7. These measure~ were approved by LCDC on MaY 4th, 2001. Tbe CommissiOn Order approving the measures is attached as Appencl~ G. Based on/ts review, the Comm/ssion approved the proposed alternative standard with the followhag concht/ons: 1. Assure that the methodology for calculathag non-auto mode split is adjusted to acex>unt for knproved com~ng of non-ant~ trips to assure ~ resul[s ~u ach/evhag th/s standard are not the result of fiuproved counthag of non-auto trips. 2. Develop a deflation of qualifyhag dwelling un/ts and employment ha nodes that /ncludes only those dwell/rig un/ts and employment that are Clearly consistent wSth Lmplementhag the nodal development strategy. Revise the "haterLm benchmarks" for dwellhags and employment ha nodes to be clearly consistent wSth achievhag the 20-year performance standard. TrarmPlan ~.~ ~ ~ .... Exhibit A - Page 62 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 4, Page 17 The first condition will be addressed by adjusting both base year and future year model ou~ut. will g~ssUre that changes in future year forecasts are not the result of imProvementS in t~e model. The second cond/fion will be addressed by uskng TPR definition of "m~xed-use,,p edestfi ~endly' development contained k~ TPR Section 0060 (7)(a)-(b) dealing with Plan and Lmad Use ~egUl~tion Ame~adments. This Section of the TPR iden~/h~ t~ follov g characteristics of mixed-use, pedestr/an-fiSendly' development- A concenmfion of a met3, of land uses kn a well~£med area, including the follow~ng: (i) mechum to tfigh density residential development (12 or more milts per acre); (fi) offices or office bnildmgs; (~) retail stores and services; (iV) reStammnts; and~ (v) public open space or private open space which is available for park or plaza. (B) Generally ~nclude cMc or culml uses; (C) A core commercial area where multi-story buildings are perm/tted; (D) Bu~ld~ngs and bu/ld/ng enl~ances oriented to Streets; (E) Street public use, such as a safe and conveniently accessible (F) street cross~gs~ street trees, (G) (H) Lhnk or do ~ or land ex~nsive uses, such as most mdus~Sal uses, and drive-through services. The thkd cond/fion Lnvolved resta~mg the interkn benchmarks for dwelling units and employment in nodes such that the pementages are of an interkn total rather than the ulfirnate total. Table 7 provides these performance measures calculated in both ways~ Development of TransPlan's Alternative Performance Measures Multiple objectives are set forth in the TPR for demonstrating compliance ~ reduced reliance on the a~to, ~n~rease Lq the availability or convenience of altern~iive ~odes, and hncrease ~ the use of alternative s~ The strongest way to measure cOmPliance with the TPR is through a framework of multiple perfonnance measures. As well, the complex knterrelationsh/p among the p an s set of goals, objechves, pohc~es, and suggested nnplementatmn measures calls for consideration of multiple performance measures in assessing plan progress. An lng p~se of the TPR is to promote the development of plans that lead to a reduced rel~ance On the automobile. The alternative performance measures are meant to provide an objective k~dic~tor of the ~Pmvement ~n th~ transportation system ackdeved through hnplementafion of the plan. In particular, k is knportant to measure the knptementafion of and TransPlan ~4~m~ Chapter 4~ Page 18 xhibit A - Page 63 ransPlan Amendments response to those elements of the plan that most directly contribute to reduced reliance on the automobile. FOr example, Bu~s R~pid Transit and Nodal Development are key elements of TransPlan that cOntribUte to reduced reliance on the automobile. The framework of alternative measures should therefore include performance measures that e both the supply (plan ~lementation) and demand (travel or ~et response) for ~nsportation in thee E~ne-Sp~gfield, area. In addition~ ~here possible, thes~ mea;ures should provide a dkect indication of the regions progress ha imPlementin-g ke~y elements h~ the plan that contribute to reduced reliance on the auto. ~s approac~ ties the ~lan S kmplementation effort to expected reSUlts. Table 7 Pro¼des an indication ff~} each measUr~ as to its ~e (plan irr~plementation or trave t responSe). Summary Assessment of TransPlants TPR Compliance a~ve One of the maha challenge~ present ha deVelop~nt of~tternative ~aeasures is demons~ating why ~ how a p~cular target rePresents a "significanf' change ha reliance on the auto. The term s gmficant ~s haherently subjective. What m s~gmficant from one perspective can well be s~gmficant from another perspective. gone to on the anto. The more (triplhag) m gas tax;)to restrictions on These alternative plan concepts were presented to the region's plarming commissions and elected. officials ~ the form of a Decision Package. The feedback from these groups had/cared that there was considerable interest in an overall a~proach that integrated land ~se, s~stem knprovements~ and de managemenL They focused on sUpport ofno~lal development, bus raPid transit and expanded vol TDM as key strategies to be pursued ha TransPlan. However, there was no policy4evel support for TDM pricing measures, constra~g development, or mandatory TDM techniques. pe proposed alternative performance measures assessed below rely heavily on the lementation of the key strategies identified in the prOCess desc~bed abo;ce. TransPlan Exhibit A - Page 64 TransPlan Amendments Chapter 4~ Page 19 B. Elements of TransPlan Directly Contributing to Reduced Reliance on the Auto: Achieving a reduction in automobile reliance is dependent on the success of implementing the followin~ key elements of TransPlan and the degree to which each option is d~etoped. ~s mentioned above, four key elements identified b~ TransP1an policy ;fficials includ Nodal Development, Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Demand m~ag~ment and Priority Bikeway Miles. The diagram to the left depicts the synergistic relationship that exists between each of the proposed elements mad their combined ability to reduce automobile dependency. The effect of comb~g TSI, TDM and t~and Use policies, programs and services is relative to e degree in which auto dependency is d~she& As residential, retail and commercial densities increase in specific areas, urban design features can be implemented that give more emphasis to the mobility of pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. The addition of park~g constraints within a limited area further affects the use of the automobile. Cormecting nodal developments with a fixed, frequent transit ser-dce provides competition for s~lar trips that wOUld have originally been made using an automobile. Through TDM, providing comprehensive ~formation about alternative transpor~tion pro~s, serviCes and facilities to ~esid~}ats and emplOYees in nodal developments h~ures that options other than driving can begin to be considere& The more robust the implementation of TSI, TDM and Land Use, the greater the effect the combination will have ~:educing automobile reliance. ~ The integrated rmtare of the plan elements means that changes in any of the individual elements will affect the outcome of the alternative Performance measures. For example, while nodal development and. BRT have a pr~ affect on reducing Percent Non-Auto Trips, changes in TDM, bikeway and other plan strategies also contribute to the reduction. Nodal Development - By design, nodal development reduces the need for individual trips made by automobile ~thin the node. The proximity of ~esidential clusters to retail and commercial services, coUPled with at-grade pedes~an and bicycle facilities, fosters movement by alternative s withL4 the node. A ~ange ;f design~s exist that can directly affect the amount of driv~e alone traffic that occurs wihhJn and thrOu~ the node. As the integration of designs for pedestrian, bicycle and mit are enhanced, the accessibility and movement of the automobile tJtrough this environment starts to ~s~h. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - BRT provides a frequent and highly reliable source of transportation that can compete Mth the automobile. The more frequent and reliable transit service becomes, the easier it is for patrons to board and use the service. People have a tendency to avoid using transit because it cannot COmpete with the ease and conVenience their own automobile affords th~m As TransPlan Chapter 4, page 20 xhibit A - Page 6.5 ransPlan Amendments proposed in TransPlan the service will Provide a quick and easy transportation solution for a whole variety of trip pu~oses and will compete Well with the travel time of the automobile along major corrid~>rs. A~ s~ch, the service will start to attract mom riders. As the time between buses uS~g the BRT corridor diminishes, so to does the need for using a schedule. Connecting viable nodes along the BRT co~dor creates the ability for mom ride~ to use the service to g~t to and from the destinations they Want to go to. Transportation Demand Management (TD3,0 ~ TDM is the essential management of information that can be provided to prOspective users of alternative means of transportation to diminish their reliance on driving to and from destinations Via their own automohiles~ An essential component in establiSh~g TDM programs is marketing. The more attractive TDM options become, the easier they are to use; however, in order to be used the public needs to be made aware that various prOgrams, facilities and ser~4ces exist. Nodal development coupled with TDM marketing and serVices effectively reduces the reliance of single occupancy automobile trips. Priori~~ Bikeway Miles - Priority bikeway projects consist of those projects that are along an essential core route on which the overall s~te~ depends, fill in a critic~I gap in the existing bicycle system, or overcome a barrier Wh~re no other nearby existing or p~:o~ammed bikeway alternatives ex~st (e.g., river~ major street, highway), or si~ficantly improve bicycle users safety in a gNen corridor..As such, theY are the ke~ additions to ~e bikev ay S~stem that support nodal development and an increase in the use of this altematNe mode~ C. Analysm The assessment of compliance below focuses on the five objectives listed in the TPR. ective A: Achieving the alternative standard will result in a reduction in reliance on automobiles. The plan's perforrnance on this objective can be measured using the Travel Response performance measures. In general, the travel response described below relies on irnplementatmn of the nodal development, Bus Rapid Transit, and expanded TDM strategies set forth in TranSplan, and the Priority Bikeway Miles. ;a9 region's auto. An increase The Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors measure also directly indicates reduced reliance on the automoNle. The target of increasing transit mode share on the congested corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a si~ficant ~ in reliance on tthe automoNle. The fact that this target specifically calls for reduced reliance on the automobile in the areas of greatest TrarmPlan Exhibit A - Page 66 TransPlan Amendments ChaPter 4, Page 21 congestion is also of significance. By doing so, the measure targets reduced reliance on the aut(j~obile in those ar~s where the ~npaci will be the greatest. ective B: Achieving the alternative standard will accomplish a significant increase in the a~ailabitity or convenience of alternative modes q£ transport~tion. The p an s performance on this objectwe can be measured using Plan Implementation and other measures. These measures reflect the implementation effort made by the adopting agencies in nodal development, TDM, and alternative modes imprOvements (e.~., additk~nal ~r~rity Bikeway miles, etc.). use the total · direct measure of the reliance on the auto and increasing the and the Percent Non-Auto Trips reasorls more service along its corridors. a critical one for transit service because it is considered to be the level ~s one of the ma~n Tl~s is part of an percent. TPR Obiective C: Achieving the alternative standard is likely to result in a significant increaS~ in the share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling, ridesharing and transii. mually all of the plan s s~x performance measures are relevant to this object~ve. As already described above, the 72 pement increase in TranSit Mode Share on Congested Corridors a~d the 1 ~ percent increase in N~n-Auto Trips both show a si~ficant increase i~ the share of trips made b) }Itemat~ve modes as a result ofi~plementation actions in the plan. Also akeady described above is the direct relationship between the Priority Bikeway Miles measure anal the likely result of additional bike trips. The three plan measures related to nodal development- Acres o,~Zoned,, Nodal Development, perCent o~CDwelling Units Built in NOdes and ~ercent of New Tota,! Employment ih Nodes are all inc~cators aiblan, implementation measures directly intended to reJult in a significant TransPlan Chapter 4, Page 22 Exhibit A - Page 67 TransPlan Amenaments increase in the share o~f trips made by alternative modes". The Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes m~d Percent Of N~w "Total" Employment in Nodes' measures are both market response measures in that they r~flect the developn~n~ semtor response to the public policies pr°posed for ~1 development. They reflect the benefits coming frt}m changes i~ devei}>pment ~t~;ipatea fbr nodal develOPment. The Very definition of nodal development included in TransPlan states that: Nodal development is a m~ed-use pedestrian-friendly land u~se pattern that seeks to incre~e conCentrations of ~pUlafion ~md ern~loment i~ welt- defmed areas with good transit se~i~e, a mix ofdiv~rs~ and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. (em)basiS adc[ed) The TransPlan de£mition of nodes and nodal development continues~ stating m part that: Fundamental characteristics of Nodal Development re,_quire: Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage mit Use, wang and bicycling; * A transit stOp which is within walk~g distance (generally 1/4 mile) of anywhere in the node; * Mixed uses so that services are available w~thin walldr~g distance These requirements are directly related to increasing the use of alternative modes. ~l~.e nodal development measures and their integration into the overall TransPlan Strategy are the basis for the increase in perCent Non-Auto Tri~s and the Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors. Noel de elopment ha TransPlan also plays a s~gmficant role m allowmg the regmn s VMT Per caPita tO remain vh-lmlly ed over the plug horizon. _TPR Objective D: ~*~MT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5 percent. As indicated in Table 6, VMT per capita in the Eugene-Springfield area is expected to remah~ x4mmlly Unchanged through 2015 (1 percent decrease). : The alternative standard is measurable and reasonably related to achieving the goal q£reduced reliance on the aUtOmobile as described in OAR 660-012-0000. The measurability of each of the performance measures weighed heavily in the MPC subconmuttee s selectmn pro ess. The relatmnstfip of these measures to reduced rehance on the automobile is referenced in the assessment of other objectives. The table below summarizes the measurability of each of the proposed mea~mres. While each measure relies on different dam, the region currently maintains all of the underlying information required tO track these measures. odel relies on current data o~-~e existing transportation system hip, roadway speeds, etc.) and travel behavior data (typically through firnates are as reliable as the model being used. The model ~s most on an updated travel surve2~ and current s_Tstem data. Tra~:~Plan Exhibit A - Page 68 TranSplan Amendments Chapter 4, Page 23 Traffic volumes are updated r Very Percent of New ~Total' Employment iu NOdes equ r s ta mg employment files and cleaning them to establish correct address (geographic location), GIS is then used to estimate new empl%m~ent in nodes, This is ~i~ll~ done on a, regular basis (every two years). Fairly r~lia~ble. Need to define ~' exclu&d" employment to equat~ to S~mda~l employment codes used in the state emplpTment files, The process employed for the development of Trar~sPlan considered a wide range of strategies to reduce reliance on the aUtomobile, The strategies identified by the adopting officials fbr inclusion in Trans?lan represent a sig~fificant comment to the objectives of the TPR. The process used in developing the measures represents an extensive effort on the part of local policy officmls o ~dentli~ the measures that would document the region s ~mplementatmn ofkey strategies in TransPlan which achieve state and local goals. TmnsPlan Exhibit A ~ Page 69 TransPlan Amendments O02 Chapter 4, Page 24 Table 7 Alternative TPR Performance Measures for the Eugene-SPringfield MPO (approved by D m LC C on May4 , 2001) I~easure [ Key Plan Element Modes % Non-Auto T ps ~ransit Mode Share Congested Co~do~ Plan Implementation or Trave~arket ~nse Travel Response - Travel -- Response Plan Implementation Response Response 1995 2005 15% 6.8% 2010 Walk=8.93% Bike=3 Bus=l.83% 5.8% 5.9% in 1999 2,305,779 11 15 miles 1,000 acres 2.5% 5.6% 10% 18.1% 16% 8.0% 45 miles 1,500 acres 14~5% 20 ~4% 25% 32.6 2015 17% Walk=10% Bike4% Bus=3% 10.0% 74 miles 2,000 acres zoned for nodal 23~3% of new Dlls 45% 3,224,037 10.9 Note that % of dwelling m~its and employment in nodes are expresseA first as a percentage of the plaming horizon total and as an interim year total (e.g., the % of dwelling ~ts in nOdes in 20052005).is 2.5% of the 2015 total new dwelling units and 5.6% of the new dwelling units built by TransPlan Exhibit A ~ Page 70 TransPl an Amendments 11 Ctmpter 4, Page 25 art Four.Plan Implementatmn Monitoring collection and analyses for progress of the policies and actions in plan is and need to be taken to of Plan Monitoring Process The ongoing plan monitor~g process includes the following components: 1. Review of trends~ assumptions~ and new oppommities; ~ of actions taken to implement TransPlan policies; sis of transportation system performance using the performance measures presented above; and 4. Recommended actions and corrective steps, including potential plan amendments durkLg the next update cycle~ The second component of the plan monitoring process involves tracking how local jurisdictions and regional and state agenCies are apply~g TransPlan policies. Implementation of Plug and ~o~ Actions and Capital Investr[a~nt ActiOns from ~hapter 3 will be summarized. assess The need may become apparent to and making In many cases, these policies and implementation policies and plan will most Often be made during be TransPlan Transplan Update Process TramPlan Chapter 4, Page 26 Exhibit A - Page 71 TransPlan Amendments Part FNe: TransPlan Update Cycle To keep the plan relevant to current conditions, federal legislation requires an update of the plan everY t~zree ~ears. Specifically, the federal guiaelines sta~ that the plan: ':..shall be reviewed and updated triennially...to confirm its validiO, and its consistency with ~rrent and fo(ec, asted transportation and land use conditions and ~rendx and to exten'd the Jorecast period. The plmg process envisioned in the Transportation Equity Act fbr the 21 st Century (TEA 21) is a dyn~c activity that effectively integrates current operational and preservation considerations with longer term mobility, environmental, and development concerns. This more freqUent update requirement reflects the perspeCtive that the function of the TSP is mov~g from a documentation of system development to contemPorary decision tool. The three-year update cycle maintains the techrfical utilit~ of the plan anc~ its a¢ility to serve the needs of iocal decision makers. The table below shows the proposed update process, with TransPlan adoption in rind-2001. M~or UPdates would exten~ arid adjust fore~asts of land uses and the trar~sPortation system and update priofities. A major update wilt add a review of policies, priorities, and major projects. Air quality conform~ analysis and fmancial constraint analysis would be prepared for each update as required by federal legislation. Schedule for TransPlan Updates Year Update 200 2002i -Minor 200 1 2005 2006 2007 Major 2008 - 2OO9 2 o__ ~r TransPlan xhibit A ~ Page 72 ransPl an Amendments Chapter 4, Page 27 Exh~b~ B Proposed Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3~ 4~ 11 and 14 for the West Eugene Parkway Modified Projeet Alignment 252 1002 253 ]004 E~b[t B Page 1 of 2 269, Proposed E×ceptions to Statewide Planning for the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project List of Effected Tax Lots* Map 17 04 30: Tax Lot 1402 Tax Lot 1406 Tax Lot 1410 Tax Lot 1600 Tax Lot 1800 Tax Lot 1801 Tax Lot 1900 Tax Lot 2201 Tax Lot 2202 Tax Lot 2204 Tax Lot 2400 Map 17 04 31: Tax Lot 1100 Tax Lot 100 Tax Lot 101 Tax Lot 200 Map 17 05 25: Tax Lot 2400 * Generally, only a portion of the tax lot is effected. The map on page 1 of this Exhibit shows the general location of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment. Exhibit B Page 2 of 2 © © ~ 0 ~+~ ~o~ Exhib~ C mdmgs of Consistency of TransP]an Amendments and Me~ro P~an Amendments wRh Cr~eri~ for Refineraen~ P~an Amendments and Me~ro Plan Amendments Plan Amendmen~ and Refinemen~ P~an Amendmen~ Criteria The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) was adopted as a refinement plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro P1an) by the Eugene and Springfield city councils, Lane County Board of Commissioners and Lane Transit Dish4ct Board in 1986. TransPlan was revised and adopted by these adopting officials in 2001, November 30, 2001. The revisions are incorporated in the December 2001 TransPlan. The criteria fbr amendmem to the Eugene-Springfield Metropol/tan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) are in Section 9.7730(3) of the Eugene Code, Springfield Development Code (SDC) 7.070(3), and Lane Code 12.225(2). These criteria, which are identical, are: (a) the amendment must be consistent w/th the relevant statew/de planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; mad (b) adoption of the amendments must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Section 9.8424 of the Eugene Land USe Code and Section 9.145(2) of the Lane Code Urbanizable Area Land Use and Zoning list the criteria for refinement plan amendments. The Eugene Land Use Code applies w/thin the Eugene City limits; the Lane Code Urban/zable Area LaUd Use and ~ning applies within the area between the Eugene city l~mks and the urban gro~ bo~md~. In tbe findings below, text from the Eugene Land Use Code is printed in bold; text from the Lane Code Urbarfizable Area Land Use and Zoning (where there is comparable text) is printed directly under the Eugene Land Use Code text and is underlined. The findings below demonstrate consistency of the amendments to the December 2001 Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) and to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) with the criteria for Metro Plan amendments and refinement plan amendments. Consistency w/th the statew/de plauning goals and w/th the Metro Plan are criteria for approval of both Metro Plan amendments and refinement pl~ mendments. Therefore, the findings below, although organized by refinement plan amendment criteria, demonstrate compliance w/th both Metro Plan amendment and refinement plan arnendment criteria. Section 9,8424 (I) The plan amendment is consiStent wRh all of the follow~ng: ~.lhe. proposed c_h~ eels consistent w/th M~mval criteri_a Transplart and Metro Plan Amendments E~b~t C -- Find/rigs Page 1 (~a) S~a~ew[de ?lann~ng Goals LC_~m~able re amendment criterion not included in Lane C Area Se aad Zonin_n_~. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is a local comprehensive plan ac~owledged by the s~te's Land Conservation and Development Commission, and the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area TranspOrtation System Plan (TransPlan) is an adopted refinement plan to the Metro Plan. Several amendments to the text and maps of the December 2001 TransPtan are proposed to include the entire West Eugene Parkway in the 20-Year Financially-Constrained roadway project list. In addition, amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and Lane County R:ural Comprehensive Plan to take exceptions to Statewqde Planning Go~s 3, 4, i 1 and 14 for property within the West Eugene Parkway aligvanent and outside the Urban Growth Boundary are required in conjunction with adoption of the TransPlan amendments. FindSngs supporting exceptions to State*~de Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 for the West Eugene Parkway Modified Pr~ect and demonstrat~g project consistency w4th other applicable Statewide Plann~g Go~s, prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation, are incorporated by reference in this docament and attached as Exhibits "C-1 ,' "C-2,' and "C-3 .' The Exhibit 1 f' "C-2,' and C-3' findkngs address only that portion of the West Eugene Parkway that is west of Belttine, as portions east of Beltline have already been acknowledged as consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. ~a[d; ,Citize, n [nvolvemen_ t To deve[o~v a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning ~vrocess. Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 establishes procedures for Metro Plan and refinement plan arr~endments. Under the August 1, 2001 Land Use Code, notice requirements for refinement plan amendments exceed the notice requirements for Metro Plan amendments. On January 4, 2002, notice of the proposed amendments to TransPlan, the Metro Plan and the Lane County Rural Cornprehens~ve Plan and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was delivered to the Depart~nent of Land Conservation and Development. An amended nofice, including revised date of final being, wa~s delivered to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on Februms, 1, 2002. Section 9.7520 of the August 1, 2001 Eugene Code requires that w~tten notice of the refinement plan amendment heating and the nature of the request be mailed at least 30 days before the pl~ng commission public heating to the Lane County and Springfield planning directors, all neighborhood groups officially recognized by the c~ty council and community OhS that have submitted written requests for notification. On January 18, 2002, wx/tten notice of the February 20, 2002 joint public heating of the Eugene, Lane Count>, and Springfield plarmSng co~issions and the Lane County Roads Advisow Committee (LCRAC) was mailed to a consolidated list of interested parties provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation (West Eugene Parkway list), Lane Council of Governments (TransPlan testimony list) and TransPlan and Metro plan Amendments Exhibit C ~- Findings P~e2 Eugene staff (West Eugene Wetlands Plan agency list and other interested parties). Approximately 1,500 notices were mailed. The Eugene Code also requires that a legal ad be published at least 20 days in advance of the public hearing. The legal ad was published in the Eugene Register~Guard on Jan~ 30, 2002. In addition, the city has developed a West Eugene Parkway web site. The public hearing notice and maps and the staff report were published on the web site. This notification exceeds the requirements of the Eugene Code. The Metro Plan and refinement plan amendment process includes two public heatings: the first before the planning commissions and roads adviso~ committee and the second before the adopting officials. Those who provided their mailing address Mth their vnStten or oral testimony to the planning commis- sions and LCR~C received written notice of the joint adopting officials public heating. These beings pro~qde ample opportunity for public involvement consistent with Goal 1~ Therefore, these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan comply wSth Goal 1. Goal 2: La~d Ltse,,,Planni, n__g Goal 2, Land Use Ptanrfing includes two p~s. Part I, Planning, addresses general planning and coordination requirements; Part II, Exceptions, addresses exceptions to statew~de plying goals. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated w/th the plans of affected governmental units and that s be provided fbr review and comment by affected govemxnental units. The Goal defines ~'Affected Governmental Urfits' as "those local governments, state and federal agencies and special districts which have programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities v~4th~n the area included ~n the plan." To comply wkh the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the adoption of these amendments wSth all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was ma~led to: Lane County, Springfield and Lane Transit District, whSch are parties to the dec~sion; the Lane Council of Governments; the folloMng Federal agencies: Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and WSldl]fe Service, Enviroranental Protection Agency, National Marine F~shefies Service, National Park Service, Federal Aviation Administration, and Depart_xnent of Housing and Urban Development; and the folloMng state agencies: Department of Transportation, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Division of State LancLs, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and State Historic Preservation Office. Findings demonstrating an adequate factual base supporting the sh~ft in West Eugene Parkway ~om the 1990 Approved Design to the Modified Project and justi~ing exceptions to Statew~de Plarming Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 are set forth in the follo~4ng documents provided by the Oregon Depamnent of Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by th/s reference: Exhibk "C-l": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project -- Consistency with the Statew~de Pl~kng Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared fbr ODOT by Mark J. Greev25eld. Exhibit "C-i': Alternatives Considered ~ West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay McRae, CH2M Hill Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT Tr~sPl~ and Me~o plan Amendments E~b[t C ~- F[nd~gs Page 3 by Sheryl Chfistensen Therefbre, the amendments comply with Goal 2. u[tural.Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Findings justi~ing ~ exception to Goal 3 for the portion of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment located omside the urb~ growth boundary are set forth in the following provided by the Oregon Dep~ent of Transportation, attached and k~corporated herein by this reference: Exh~bk "C-l": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project -- Consistency Mth the Storewide Plar~ng Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Exhibk "C-2": Alternatives Considered West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay' McRae, CH2M Hill Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT by Sheryl Chfistensen God. d: To conserve forest lands... justi~ing ~ exception to Goal 4 for the portion of the West Eugene Pa~:kway Modified Project alignment located outside the urban growth boundary are set forth in the folloMng documents provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: Exlfibk "C-I~: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project ~ Consistency Mth the StateMde Planning Go~s and Transportation Planning Rule~ prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Exh~bk "C-2~': Akematives Considered -- West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay McRae, CH2M Hill Exhibit "C-3'~: Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT by Sheryl Chfistensen ~oal_&. Op_.._e.n and Areas. and Natural dreas To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The Go~ 5 natural resource inventory for the Eugene-Springfield Metropo!itan Area General PI~ acknowledged [n 1982 is shown on Map 3, Me~opolitan Area General Plan Background Report, Natural Features & Airport Limitation Areas. Follow~ng acknowledgment of the Metro Plan, in 1992~ Eugene and Lane County adopted the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (~WP), wl~ch the wetlands inventory for this area. The WEWP was subsequently amended in t995, 1998, 1999 and 2000. The West Eugene Parkway does not effect any of the area's inventoried significant Goal 5 TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments Exhibit C ~. F~ndh~gs Page 4 reso~ces~ The West Eugene Parkway crosses over areas that were once included on that inventory, but all of those areas were later included in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, which superseded the invento~ for its plan area. Nevertheless~ due to the testimony calling for Goal 5 analysis, such analysis is provided by incorporation of the Exhibit "C-1 ~ findings. The West Eugene Wetlands Plan is an approved wetland conservation plan as defined in ORS 196:800(15). Approval for the plan as a Wetland Conservation Plan was originally granted by ~e Oregon D~v~sion of State Lands in September 1994 and was mended by Final Order 9%003 ~n September 1997. In 1999, as required by ORS 196.684, DSL conducted a five-year review of plan implementation and issued Modified Final Order 99-003. On April 18, 2002, Division of State Lands Final Order 02~001 approved the amended West Eugene Wetlands Plan (November 2000), Mth conditions, ~ a Wetland Conservation Plan under ORS 196.678 to ORS 196.684. Generally, condkions relate to Plan reporting and implementation; additional conditions related to Plan amendment and five-year DSL review cite ORS 196.684 requirements. ORS 196.684(8)specifies the relationship between Wetland Conservation Plan approval and compliance vAth Goal 5: "Wetland conservation plans approved by the Director of the Division of State Lands pursuant to ORS 196.668 to 196.692 shall be deemed to comply wk~h the requirements of any statew~de planning goals related to wetlands, other than estuarine wetlands, for those areas, uses and activities which are regulated by the planJ' [See also, ORS 197.279~ Approval of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) as provided by law, satisfies all the requirements of any applicable stateMde plarming goal related to wetlands (including Goal 5) for those areas, uses and activities which are regulated by the plan. ~[~e findings of goal compliance made as part of in/rial adoption of the WEWP and of adoption of subsequent mendments remain essentially unaffected by these amendmems. The fimdamental program developed for Goal 5 compliance essentially remains unchanged. The policies and criteria of~e ~WP operate as a tool to further Goal 5 compliance by assisting in determi~ng the s~gn~ficance of wetland resources, the conflicts and the economic, social, environmental and energy values involved in protecting the resource. That analysis approaches the wetlands of West Eugene as part of an interconnected natural system rather than as separate, d~screte sites. The focus remains inside the West Eugene Wetlands Plan bonndary, keeping in m~nd that the larger system of wlSch these wetlands are a part extends beyond tkfis and other political bound~es. The We~ Eugene Wetlands Plan was developed in coordination wSth several key state and federal agencies involved in wetlands regulation and planning: Division of State Lands (DSL), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)~ The Plan was also coordinated wSth local offices of other applicable local, state and federal agencies. ODOT has requested corrnnents from these Tins?lan and Me~o Plan Amendments Exhibit C ~- F~nd~ngs P~e5 agencies on the August 1997 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West EUgene Parkway. In 2000, the Bureau of Land Management was offered cooperator stares in preparation of the Supplemental Final Envimmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway. In October 2000 BLM accepted formal cooperator status and has submitted comments on the August 1997 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Additional findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment with Goal 5 are set for in Exhibit "C4" provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated hereN by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Project-- Consistency w~th the Storewide Planning Goals and Transportation Pl~ng Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Therefore, the amendments to TransPlan are consistent 'with Goal 5. Air.,._ Water esourc To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Findings demo compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment with Goal 6 are set forth in Exhibit "C-I" provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, and incorporated heroin by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project COnsistency Mth the StateMde Planning Goals and Transportation Plamqing Rule, prepared ibr ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. _Goal7:,4 bj_gct to .gnd Hazard_~$ To protect IO~e and property from natural disasters and hazards. Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment Mth Goal 7 are set for ~n E~bit "C-I" provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and inco¢orated here~n by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project -- Co~stency with the Statew~de Planning Goals and Transportation Plarafing Rule~ prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Goal ational Ne~ 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. In July 2001, the Bureau of Land Management approved the Recreation, Access, and Env]ronmentaI Education Plan for the West Eugene Wetlands. Tiffs Plan was prepared jointly by the Bureau of Land Managemem~ C~ty of Eugene and Lane Council of Governments. Follow]ng page 5 o£the Planis a map entitled "AtI Proposed Facilities.' The West Eugene Parkway is shorn on th~s map ~ "Planned Parkway Alignment." The West Eugene Parkway Modified ?roject alignment ~s also sho~ on the map entitled "Management Areas" ~bllowing page 20 of the Plan~ ~'Planned West Eugene Parkway." TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments E~b~t C ,. F~d~gs Page 6 page 20 of the re~rt states: "In the event that the West Eugene ~Vetland Plan is aruended in the futura to allow for new or Plied roadways or Other projects, the m~agement ~eas Map would be refined accordingly," Therefore, although the Plied Transportation Condor wetland designation had not been applied to the MOdified project alignment at the time the Recreation~ Access~ and EnViromental ~ucation Plan for the West Eugene Wetlands was approved, this plan ac~oWIedg~ the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project aligment as a pl~ed project and provided for ~er refinement of the Plan folloMng mendment to the West Eugene wetlands plan to apply ~e Planned Transportation Condor Wetland designation. Additional findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project aligmq~ent with Goal 8 are set forth in Exhibk "C~I ~ provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Pad, way Modified Project ~ Consistency Mth the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Plarming Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Therefore~ these amenchments comply with Goal .Goal 9: .Eco~omiC. D~velop~ ment 7b Provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of Oregon '$ citizens. The primary purposes of the West Eugene Parkway, as stated in the Supplemental Environmental lmPact Statement(August I997), include: Provide a major access~controlled east-west connecting arterial for intra- and inter- regional:and cit~wvide travel through the western half of the City of Eugene~ between Highway 126 to the west and the I-5£i-I05 corridor to the east~ Improve access m the West Eugene industrial area via dire~ct connections with only strategic cmssroads~ thereby supporting orderly and planned gro~. Better !~ West Eugene residential areas with downtown, thereby supporting orderly and pl~ed growth. Relieve congestion and improve safety on West 11th Avenue, by removing most intra- and inter-regional and some local traffic from the busiest and most hazardous section of West 1 tth Avenue. As documented in the SE!S and s~zed on page 1-I, "These improvements are needed because of deficiencies in the east-west roadway systems which is failing to support efficient and safe local, ciWwide, and regional movement of ~ople, goods and se~ices ~ough West Eugene. West 11th Avenue from the O~ H~ll area and as far east as Ga~eld Street includes numerous features that impede safe and efficient travel, including: Numerous signals and intersections Extensive con~merci~ development with direct access to the facility * A complicated connector between West 11th Avenue and the 6t~ and 7th Avenue Couplet by way of Garfield Street, including two signals and two 90~degree tums Hig~Y congested conditions, especially d~ng peak traffic hours Transp!an ~d Metro P1an Amendments E~b~t C - F~d~ngs Page 7 Presently, existing access linkage to the West Eugene industrial area is circ~tous. Access problems also apPlY to li~ between existing and developing residential areas in West Eugene and - domto~ Eugene. The West Eugene Parkway Mil replace West 11th Avenue as the western portion of State Highway 126 t~Ough Eugene. Adding this new limited-access roadway to the regional roadway system will facilitate economic develOPment. Fk~dings demonstrating comvliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment v,4th Goal 9 are Set forth in Exhibit "C ~ ' -1 provided by the Oregon Depamnent of Transportation, attached and inco¢orated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project -- COnsistency Mth the StateMde Planrfing Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Themfbre, these amendments comply with Goal 9. Goa! I0: Hous~ To PrOvide fbr the housing needs of citizens qf the state. The WeSt Eugene Parkway does not d~rectly impact any area identified for housing. Therefore, these amendments do not affect compliance with Goal 10. Public Facilities and Services To Plan and deVelop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to se~e aa' a framewOrk for urban and rural development Findings d g compliance of the West Eugene Parkway modified project located inside the urb~ grovah mad justifying an exception to Goal 1 t for the portion of the West Modified Project alignment boated outside the urban gro~ bour~dary are set forth inthe follow/ng documents provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation~ attached and inco¢orated here~n by this reference: Ex~h[bk "C-I": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project ~ Consistency with the Statew/de Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Exhibit "C-2'~: Alternatives Considered -- West Eugene Parkway, prepared fbr ODOT by Jay McRae, CH2M Hill E~bit "C~3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT by Shew1 Chfistensen GOal 12: Transt~ortation To proVide and encourage a sqfe, convenient and economic transportation system. and State Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12. The West EUgene Parkway was first proposed as the "6th/7th Extension" in the T-2000 Plan TransPlan and Me~o plan Amendments Page 8 adopted in 1978 by Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the Lane Transit District. The public reviewed and commented on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) t%r the project in 1985-8& That process determined the general route of the proposed 4-lane roadway, Which was remamedthe West Eugene Parkway. Under the provision of the City Charter that requires a vote on a limited-access throughway, the City Council placed a measure on the ballot in November 1986 ~king whether or not the West Eugene ParkWay should be constracted along the east-west route preferred by the City Council. The voters approved the measure. The project was included in the 1986 TransPlan, which superseded the T-2000 Plan. Although a final EIS was issued in 1990~ subsequent fhnding constraints and environ_mental concerns resulted in phasing the project in four distinct ph~es~ and additional environmental studies to augment the o~ginal EIS work. A draft supplemental ElS was issued for public comment in I997~ and the final supplemental EIS is pending. On December 2000, Eugene received a letter from ODOT speci~ing land use actions necessary to move forward with the conclusion of the final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ~br the West Eugene Parkway and construction of Unit 1-A of that project. Although state strative rules do not require completion of land use actions fbr future phases of a project prior to ~ssuance of~ Envirommental Impact Statement, both the federal Bureau of Land ement (BLM) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had submitted letters to ODOT stating that all land use actions must be completed prior to issuance of the final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway. In November 2001~ Eugene voters approved a ballot measure directing the City "to pursue ~3anding m~d transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway." Findings demonstrating consistency of the December 2001 revised Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation System PI~ (TransPlan) w/th the Transportation Ptarming Rule were provided a an exhibit to the local jurisdiction ordinances adopting TransPtan. Findings to support the proposed amendments are based, in large part, on the changes to the December 200I TransPlan roadway and bikeway system networks and TransPlan performance meaures resulting from the proposed amendments. The following provides a summ~ of proposed revisions to the roadway and bikeway system networks resulting from the proposed amendments. The shifts in road:way projects result in an increase in Arterial and Collector Miles from 351.9 in the December 200! TransPlan to 355.8 wi~ the proposed amendments in Arterial and Collector Miles (excluding freeways) from 315.7 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 319.6 with the proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of 3.9 miles. These shiRs in roadway projects also require corresponding shifts to the Bikeway project lists: the West Eugene Parkway phases lB and 2A are added to the 20-Year Financially~Constrained Bikeway SYstem list and the following projects are deferred to the Future Bikeway System list: TranSplan and Me~o Plan Amendments EXhibit C '~ F~nd~gs Page 9 Beltline, Roosevelt to West 11t~ (#411); West 11t~, Terry Street to Green Hill Road (#333) and Jasper Road, S 42"d Street to Mt. Vernon Road (#60). Altogether, these changes result in an increase in Total Bikeway Miles from 257.6 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 257.8 with the proposed amendments avid an increase in Priority Bikeway Miles from 74 in the .December 2001 TransPlan to 75~3 with the proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of .2 Total Bikeway Miles and an increase of 1.3 Priority Bikeway Miles. The revised roadway and bikeway networks were used to model the effects of the proposed amendments on TransPlan Performance Measures included in Chapter 4 of TransPlan~ All of the measures that are determined by model output show change, but most of the Changes would be considered minon Of the changes shown in the table below only one is to an Alternative Performance Measure approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission -- Priority Bikeway Miles~ Although the network changes result ~n a 1.3 m~le increase in the 2015 vrfites, no change is proposed to the Alternative Performance Measure. The LCDC~approved 20t5 target and ~nterim benchmarks will remain as approved by the Commission and adopting o~icials. The following provides a su~a~q/of the changes based on roadway and bikeway network changes and model results: Category Key Description 2015 Financially- Constrained TransPlan (12/01) 2015 Financially- Constrained TransPlan (w/Amendments Internal VMT (no commercial vehicles) Congestion PMt Congested Miles of Travel (percent 5.1% 5.0% of total VMT) Pi~ Roadway Congestion Index 97.9% 96% PM3 Network Vehicle Hours of Delay 19,416 18~924 (Daily) PM5a 3,224,037 3,232,977 Vehicle Miles Traveled & Trip Len~h 10.87 10.90 16.1% 15.9% MOde Shares, All Trips PM5b Internal VMT/Capita PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile PMga Walk 9.63 9.52 I PMgc Transit 2.72 2.73 PMge Drive Alone 39.48 39.57 Envkonmental PM9 18.9 19.2 111.8 111.I Average Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal) PM10 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) TransPtan and Metro Plan Amendments E~ibit C -~ Find~gs Page 10 System PMI 5 Ratio of Bikeway to Arterial and 82% 81% Characteristics Collector Miles (PM24) PM21 Bikeway Miles 257.6 257.8 PM22 74 75.3 Priority Bikeway Miles * PM23 Arterial and Collector Miles PM24 Arterial and Collector Miles (excluding freeways) · LCd,ApproVed Alternative Performance Measure 351.9 315.7 355.8 3t9.6 These mendmems to TransPlan MI1 allow completion of the final supplemental Enviromental Impact Smement for the West Eugene parkway while resulting in only minor revisions to the 2015 FinanciallY,Constrained perforrnance measures. ance with OAR 660-0t2-0060: Under ORS 660-0!20-0060(!), amendments m acknoMedged comprehensive plans and land use reg~ations which "si~ficantly affecf' a transportation facility must "assure that allowed land roes are consistem M~ the idemified ~nction~ capaci~i and perfomance s~d~ds (e.g., level ofse~ieei v°Ime t° CapaCity ratio, etci) ofthe facility. If there is no significant effect~ OAR 660-0!2-0060 does not apply, Under OAR 660-012-0060(2), a plan or land use regulation amen~em !~significan~ly affects" a transportation facility if it (a) changes the ac~owledged functional classification of an existing or Planned transportation facility; (b) changes standards ming ~e functional ctasification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would resuk in levels of/ravel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of the facility; or (d)reduces the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. None of the roadway amendments fhlt within-items (a) through ¢) above~ To determine if any of the amendments m the 20~Year Financially Cons~ained Roadway project list mducethe performance standards of the facility below the minim~m'i acceptable level identified inthe TSP, the 20t5 pm peak horn level of service for the ~P-related amendment package was compared with the 2015 pm peak hour level of service for the December 2001 TransPlan. Seventeen (t7)locations were analyzed. Baed on the level of service analysis, projected level of service at all I°¢atiom except two either stays the s~e or improves under the WEP.related mendment package, ~e two exceptions are: Beltline, River Road-Delta, where the 2015 pm peak'hour level of service decreases from LOS D to LOS E eastbound and from LOS E to LOS F westbound; and Bekline~ no~ of West 11a Avenue, where the 2015 pm peak hour level of services decreases for LOS C or better to LOS D eastbound. OAR 660-012~0060(!) provides fo~ remedies when a proposed Plan arnendrnent "significantly affects a transportation facility," any one of which is sufficient to address the Transportation Rule requirement~ For the TransPlan amendments, the relevant remedy is (I)¢)which sates: "Am-lending the TSP to provide tranSportation facilities adequate to support the proposed Traris?l~ and Metro plan ~endments E~ibit C ~: F~dings page 11 land uses consistent with the requirements of this division." The package of TransPt~ roadway amendments includes moving the Beltline, River Road-Delta project and the Beltline, Stage 3 (Roosevelt to West 11th) project from the 20-Year Financially C°ns~ned to'Way project list to the Future roadway project list. Both the 20-Year Financially~C°nstrained project list and the Furore project list are included in Chapter 3 of Tr~Pl~ the TransP°rtati°n System Plan, and are considered part of the Transpor~mtion System Plan Under the Transportation Planxting RUle. The requirement for adoption of a 20-Year Financially Constrained project list is a federal rather than a state requirement. Although the FUrore Project list is not adOPted by reference as pa~ of the Metro Plan, the. Beltline, River Road- Delta prQect will rem~n a Part of TransPlan in compliance Mth 660~012~0060(t)(b)~ If the Bettl~ne, River Road~Delta pro~ect were proposed for removal from both the 20-Year and Future lists in TranSplan, this remedy would not be met and other remedies would be required for compliance with the OAR 660~012-0060. As demo~trated by the findings a~ve, while the package of TransPlan mendments will result in a reduction in the 2015 pm peak hour level of service at two of the seventeen locations ev~uated; ret~ning the Beltline, River Road~Delta project and the Beltline, Stage 3 (Roosevelt to West I ith) project on the TransPlan Future list meets the requiremenm of OAR 660-012-0060(1). Additional findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project aI~gmem with Goat 12 and the Transpo~ation Plying Rule are set forth in Exhibit "C-1' bythe Oregon Dep~ment of Transportation~ attached and incorporated herein by this m : West Eugene Parkway Modified Project - Consistency with the StateMde Plying Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared fbr ODOT by Mark J~ Greenfiel& these amendments comply with Goal 12. ervation To comerve energy. Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment x¼th Goal !3 are set forth in Exhibit "C-1" provided by the Oregon Depment of TranspOrtation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkw</ Modified Project ~ Consistency w4th the StateMde Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared ~br ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. ization_ To proVide for an orderly and efficient transition f~om rural to urban land use. Findings ~ng compliance with Goal 14 for the ~rtion of the West Eugene Parkway Project alignment located within the urban growth boundary and justifying an nm Goal 14 for the portion of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project !ocated outside the urban growth bound~ are set forth in the follov~4ng documents provided by TransP!~ ~d Me~o Plan Amendments E>r&~bit C .~ F~d~gs Page 12 the Oregon Department of Trans~rtation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: xh~b~t C-1 : West EUgene Parkway Modified Project--Consistency with the Statewide Pl~ng Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield. Exhibit "C-2": Alternatives Considered -- West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay McRae, CH2M Hill Exhibit "C~3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the ~P Project Area, prepared for ODOT by Shewl Christensen cea %ese goals do not apply. Applicable provisions of ~he ~etr~ Pla~ amen~ent is cOns~stem Wi~h the Metropolitan Area General Plan_~ The Me~o~litan Plan contains the following policies which are applicable to the proposed ~en~ents: EcOnomic Element Policy 18, page III-B~5: "Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to indus~iat and co~ercial areas and improve freight movemem capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield MetroPolitan ~ea Transportation Plan (TransPlan)..." Transportation POlicy F-16, page tlI-F-9: "Promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region." Tr~sportation Policy F~29, page III-F-11: "Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods movement in the Eugene-Springfield region. The primary purposes of the West Eugene Parkway, as stated in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (August 1997), include: Provide a major access-controlled east-west connecting arterial for intra~ and inter-regional and cit~yavide travel through the western half of the City of Eugene, between Highway 126 to the west and the I-5/I-105 condor to the east. Improve access to the West Eugene industrial area via direct connections witch only strategic crossroads, thereby supporting orderly and planned gro~. Better link West Eugene residential areas with downtown, thereby supporting orderly and planned growtN Relieve congestion and improve safety on West 1 lth Avenue, by removing most TransPl~ ~d Me~o plan Amen~ents ~ Find~gs P~el3 intra, and imer~mgional and some local traffic from t~he busiest and most h~dous section of West 11 ~ Avenue. As documented in the SEIS and summarized on page 1-1, "These improvement~ are needed because of deficiencies in the east~west roadway system, which is failing to support effmiem and safe local, ciWwide, and regional movement of people, goods and serviceS through West Eugene~ West I 1th Avenue from the Oak Hill area and as far east ~ Garfield Street includes numerous features that impede safe and efficient travel, including: Numerous signals and intersections Extensive commercial development with direct access to the facility A complicated comnector between West 11 ~ Avenue and the 6t~ and 7t~ Avenue Couplet by way of G~field Street, including two signals and two 90-degree tums Highly congested conditions, especially during peak traffic hours Presently, existing access linage to the West Eugene ind~trial area is circuitous. Access prOblems ~so apply to li~s between existing and developing residential areas in West Eugene and downtown Eugene." The West Eugene P~kway will replace West 11th Avenue as the western potion of State Highway 126 t~ough EUgene. Adding this new limited-access roadway to the regional roadway system will implement these Metro Plan policies. Environ~nemal Reso~ces Policy 28, page. III-C-10: "Local gove~ents shall protect endangered ~d threatened Plant and w~ldlife species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notlce and Opport~ity for public input." Findings in quotations were provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation: "The Approved Design for the West Eugene Parkway was selected in the 1990 Record of Decision (ROD)after completion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. Subsequent to issuance of the FEIS in 1990, new inventory information was developed, and regulatory provisions codified~ regarding wetlands and rare plant species in West Eugene. Specifically, it berne apparem that the Approved Design co~d result in substanti~ impacts to rare wetlands and to "endangered" or ~eatened~' plant species that are concentrated ~ the west end of the project and south of tl:vo raikoad tracks. ~laese new circmstances prompted the need to reevaluate the WEP alignment west of Terry Street to the Highway 126 connection." To ad.ess ~s new informatio~ and other issues related to tr~c operations, a Modified Pr~eCt was developed, ~e Modified Project was evaluated through a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement published in 1997. ~ Mo&fled ProJect was selected as the Preferred Alternative over the Approved Design for the following reasons: TranSP!~ ~d Metro plan ~endments Ex~hib~t C ;: F~d~gs Page 14 The Modified Project h~ less impacts on state and federally listed species. The APproved DeSign Would have required rem°ring 22 plants of the W}llamette valley Daisy and 17 clumps With 2;200 stems of the White-topped aster. The Modified Project will require removal of no Willamette Valley daisies and 3 clumps with 517 stems of the White-topped aster. The Modified Project is "likely m adversely affect" Fender's blue butterfly because of the possibility of incidental takes resulting from butterfly impacts with vehicles using the facility. The ApprOved Design would have had similar or greater impacts to the butterfly since the alignment ofthat alternative is closer to the nearest population of Kincaid~s lupine know~ to be serving as a host to the butterfly.' "Three species found in the ~ea of the West Eugene Parkway were federally listed as threatened or end--gered under the En~ger~d Species Act on Jan~ 25~ 2000, after release ofthe Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Staternent: Fender's blue butterfly~ ks host plant Kincaid's lupine, and the Willamette Valley Daisy~ "A B' ' mlogm~ Assessment was prepared in 1996 to evaluate project impacts to the edemlly lasted Bradshaw s lomatiUm, ~e Willamette Valley daisy (which was proposed for listing atffmt time)~ and ~ite~topped aster (a species of concern). ODOT initiated in~bmal consulmion with U~S. F~sh and Wildlige Service (USFWS) and received COherence from USFWS that the project would have no effect on those species in a le~er dated March 26~ 199T "OD©T prepared a Biological Assessment of project impacts to Fender*s blue butterfly and Kincaid~s lupine and initiated formal consultation with USFWS in December 1999~ prior rathe formal listing of those species. USFWS prepared a Biological Opinion (June 6, 2000) which concurred with ODOT~s determination that the project would have no effect°n ~s lupine and was likely to adversely affect, bm not jeopardize Fender~s blue butterfly. The Biological Opinion reiterated USFWS's early concurrence that the [Modified]project would have no effect on Bradshaw's lomatium, the Willamette Valley daisy', or White-topped aster." Under these mendmen~ the majofi~ of~o~ populations of listed rare plants in the plan area would be protected d ' an Fender s blue butterfly, while likely to be adversely affeCted~ MI1 not be jeopardized. Therefore, these amendments are conSistent Mth this pOlicy~ Tr~sportation POlicy F~38, page III-F-14: "~e CiW of Eugene will maintain ~anspormtion perfbm~ce and improve safew by improving system efficiency and management before adding capaci~¢ to the transportation system under Eugene's jurisdiction. (Eugene-Specific finance POlicY) Addition of~e remaining phases of the West Eugene Parkway to the 20-Year FinanCiallY~C°nsmined roadway project list will add capaci~ to the ~ansportation system. Since the West Eugene parkway is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon TranSPl~ ~d Me~o P1an Amendments E~ibit C ~ Find~gs Page t5 Depa~mnent of Transportation, this policy does not apply. If it did apply, however, passage by the voters of Eugene of Ballot M~ure 20,54, directing the City to p~sue ~ding and ~anSpo~tion and land me approvals to facilitate cons~ction of the West Eugene parkway~ would provide the justification to add this new facility to the system before using the higher-priority measures outlined in the Policy Definltio~ntent statement accompanying this policy. (c) Remaining potions of the refinement plan. ~ The is consistent ~th the remai ions of the refi~emen~ A dete~ination of co~istency of the proposed amendments with remaining portions of the refinement plan is baSed on review of the net changes to the roadway and bikeway system networks and Changes to the TransPlan performance meaSures. The following provides a summary of proposed revisions to the roadway and bikeway system networ~ resulting from the proposed amendments. The shifts in roadway projects result in an increaSe in Arterial and Collector M~les from 351.9 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 355.8 with the proposed amendments in Arterial and Collector Miles, excluding freeways) from 315.7 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 319.6 with the proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of 3.9 miles. These shifts in roadway projects also require corresponding s?fifts to the Bikeway project lists: the west Eugene Parkway phases lB and 2A are added to the 20-Year Financially-Constrained Bikeway System hst and the following projects are deferred to the Future Bikeway System list: Beltline~ Roosevelt to West 11th (#411); West 11% Terry Street to Green Hill Road (#333) and Jasper Road, S 42~a Street to Mt. Vernon Road (#60). Altogether, these changes result in an increase in Total Bikeway Miles from 257.6 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 25T8 with the proposed amendments and an increase in Priority Bikeway Miles from 74 in the December 200 TransPlan to 75.3 with the proposed amendments. The net change is an increaSe of .2 Total Bikeway Miles and an increase of 1.3 Priority Bikeway Miles. The revised roadway and bikeway networks were used to model the effects of the proposed mnendments on TransPlan Performance Measures included in Chapter 4 of TransPlan. Ail of the measures that are determined by model output show change, but most of the changes would be considered minor~ Of the changes shown in the table below, only one is to an Alternative Performance Measure approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission Priority Bikeway Miles. Although the network changes result in a 1.3 m~le increaSe in the 2015 miles, no Change is proposed to the Alternative Performance Measure. The LCDC-approved 2015 target and interim benchmarks will remain as approved by the Commission. The following provides a summary of the changes based on roadway and bikeway network changes and model results: Tr~sP!~ and Me~O ?1ma Amendments E~bR C ~ F~d~gs Page 16 Category COngestion Vehicle Miles Traveled & Trip Len~ Key Description PM1 Congested Miles of Travel (percent of total VMT) Network Vehicle Hours of Delay (Daily) 2015 Financially- Constrained TransPlan (I2/O1) 2015 Financially~ Constrained TransPlan (w/Amendments 5.1% 5 JE~; PM2 Roadway Congestion Index 9Z9% 96% PM3 19,416 18,924 Internal VMT (no commercial vehicles) 3,232,977 3,224,037 PM5a PM5b Internal VMT/Capita PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile Mode Shares, PMSa Walk All Trips PMSc Transit PMSe Drive Alone 10.87 10~90 16.1% t5.9% 9.63 9.52 2.72 I 2.73 39.48 / 39.57 PM24 ~ Arterial and Collector Miles (excluding freeways) * LCDC;ApproVed Alternative Performance Measure EnvirOnmental PM9 Average Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal) t 8.9 19.2 PM10 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) 111 ~8 111~ 1 System PM 15 Ratio of Bikeway to Arterial and 82% 8 I% CharaCteristics Collector Miles (PM24) __ PtkL21 Bikeway Miles 25Z6 257.8 PM22 ~ Priority Bikeway Miles * 74 75.3 PM23 i Arterial and Collector Miles 351.9 355.8 315.7 319.6 he evaluation provided above demonstrates that the proposed amendments are consistent w4th the remaining portions of TransPlan. Section 9;8424(2) The plan amendment ~s found to address one or more of the follOw~ng: _~endmentSs found to address one or more~..of_ the fbl[~.~in~ (a) An error in the publication of the plan. Tr~SPlan ~d Me~o plan Amendments Page 17 This criterion is not applicable. (b) New inYentory material Which relates to a storewide planning goal. ~ ti°n i n of new invento_w_matefial Which relates to a stateMde_g_Q.a!: or This criterion is not applicable. (e) New or amended communi~ policies ~ A:chan c~ The I986 TransPlan provided for development of the West Eugene parkway along the route of the ApProved DeSign selecmd in the 1990 Record of Decision of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. ~e SUbSequem m~evaluation of the Approved Design rome resulted in a SupPlemental EnVironmental Impact Statement and selection of the Modified Project route as the prefe~ed alternative. !n December 2000, Eugene received a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation specifying land use actions necess~ to move forward Mth the conclusion of the final suppl Env Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway and construction of 'Unit I~A o£thm projeet~ Although state administrative rules do not require completion of land use actions for ~ture ptmses of a project Prior to iss~ce of an Environmental Impact Statement, bO~ the federal Bureau of land Management (BLM) and the Federal Highway Admi~stration (FHWA) had submitted lettem to ODOT stating that ~1 land use actions must be completed prior to issu~ce of the final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene P~kway~ On December i t and 13, 2000~ the Eugene Ciw Council considered a request by ODOT to i~fiate I~d use actions and amend TransPlan (still in d~ fo~ at that time) to comply Mth the BLM and FHWA requirements, On December 13, 2000, the Council directed the City Manager not to initiate the Plan amendments. In August 200 l, City Council passed Resolution No. 4678, calling a special election for November 6, 2001. That resolmion placed two measures concerning transportation alternatives for West Eugene on the NOvember ballot. Measure 20-53 "Transpor~t~on* Improvements in West EUgene, Not Including the West Eugene Parkway" ~ked: "Shall CiW work with gove~ent pruners to pursue comprehensive 2anspormtion and land use strategies and projects for west E ugene. Measure 20~54 "West Eugene Parkway-" asked voters: "Shall City purs~ ~ding and ~anspo~ation and land ~e approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway?" In adopting TranSPlan follo~g the Aught 2001 decision to call a special election bm prior to the November 6i 2001 election, the Tr~P!~ adopting officials recognized that amendments to Transpl~ would need to be considered if either of the ballot measures passed. On November 6~ 2001, Eugene voters approved Ballot Meas~e 20-54; Ballot Measure 20-53 failed; AlthoUgh the voters had already approved the route of the West Eugene Parkway in Transpl~ ~d Metro Plan Amendments Exhibit C ~ F~dings Page 18 November 1986, the November 2001 ballot measure asked whether the City should pursue funding and transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway. As such, the November 2001 ballot measure was a refinement of the November 1986 ballot measure and represents an "amended community policy" or "change in public policy." On November 28, 2001, the Eugene City Council passed Resolution No. 4694, initiating nts to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkwa~v. This action by the City Council was in direct response to the November 6, 2001 -vote approving Ballot Measure 20-54. ~ending Trax~sPl~ to include the entire West Eugene Parkway in the 20-Year Fin~cially COns~ained roadway prQect list md allow conclusion of the final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement addresses this refinement plan amendment criterion. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute~ state regulation, s~ateWide Planning goall or state agency land use plan. e re~fine ~n amendment" cri.~erion not included in Lane Code ..~baniza_b!e Area This criterion does not apply. (e) A change of circttmstances in a substantial manner not anticipated ~n the plan;'~ anceMn_a .substantial.manner not antic~ted in the~ T3fis criterion does not apply. ccOrdTransPlanExhC7102fnl.wpd TransPl~ and Me~o Plan Amendments Exh~b~i C :~ F~d~ngs Page 19 EXH)B)T Cd TECHNICAL ~EMORANDUM West Eugene Parkway Modified Pro eot - J --Consistency with the tatew de Planning Goals and Transportation PREPARED FOR: Jay McRae PREPARED BY: Mark J. GreenfieJd DATE: October 7, 1999 ntroductlon This technic~al memorandum addresses how the Modified West Eugene Parkway Project (also called the "Northern Al ' - ternat~ve, and referred to in this document as the edified ProJect ) complies with applicable State of Oregon land use planning goal requirements, including requirements in the Transpo~tion Planning Rule (TPR), OAR 660, Division i2.1 It provides findings and reasons to suppo~ exceptions to storewide planning goals 3, 4, 1 l, and 14 for the Modified Project and to demonstrate project consistency wkh Other applicable statewide planning goals.2 Projects like the Modified West Eugene Parkway Project that rely in part on federal funding must comply both with applicable federal and state requirements. While there is substantial overlap between federal regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ~EPA) and state requirements set out in Oregon statutes and the storewide planning goals and administrative rules adopted by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), there are also differences that may confuse a reader who is familiar only with the federal requirements. Some of these differences are readily apparent, while others may be more subtle. For example, while federal standards require that ~e Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) identify specific mitigation measures that will be imposed to mitigate adverse impacts, the state standards generally require only that an applicant demonstrate that it is feasible, through approval conditions, to meet identified requirements, without yet committing to specific measures. The terns used throughout th~s memorandum generally reflect state rather than federal requirements. Compliance with federaI Standards is set out in other documents prepared in support of the SFEIS. The West Eugene Parkway~ (WEP) is a proposed approximately 5.8-mile, fourdane limited access roadway wi~ bike lanes extending between Highway 99W and Garfield Street in the City of Eugene and the Oak Hills area west of Eugene in rural Lane County.4 As provided for in the achnowledged Eugene-Springfield and Lane County comprehensive plans,S the WEP follows what is commonly 1 This technical memorandum focuses only on that portion of the West Eugene Parkway projec~ extending westward from Be!tline Highway to the terminus along West 11 th Avenue. 2 Although the info~ation and analys!s contained in this memorandum is not atypical of information and anal a land use consultant in matters of this nature, some of' ' ' upon bY ODOT. ShoUld ODOT need o w~n~ ~,_L ¥ it m~ght be considered lega] adVi~ To fh~ ....... ,., .yms p. ro?ded by the Oregon gepa~en( of Justin. -~ m~s document, ~ must obtain that advi~ from 3 The ~p ~s aiso k~own as ~he Wes~ ~ l~h Avenue-Ga~e~ Street, FJomn~-Eugene Highway Proje~. 4 see Land U~ Techni~ Re~ (June 1997) Fi um 5Th " g sland2. ~ ~ C~es of Eugene and Springfield t~e~her hay ~ . , . The fo~al t~le of (he la : ; e~dop(edajomt~m mhe ' ~ ; ~ p n ~s ~he Eu~ne-Spdn eld - P .~ve Pla~ ~venng the me~ Metro Ama s a~nowl ... . ~ Metm~li~an A~a Gan . _~. ; .. ~ : opol~an mg~on. edged ~mprehenmve plan am to thiS p~an ~m emi P/an~9[em~ m m~s ~ocument to the _ , mon~ known ~ the "Metro ~an" E)CHIBffCd-FINDINGS WEST EU~NE PARKWAY MO~F~EO PROJECT~-CONS~STENCY W;TH TH~ STATEWDE PLANNIN .~__G~ES AND r~NSPORTAT~ON PEANN~NG RUlE refe~ed to as the "Approved Design" alignment. This is the same alignment that was selected in a 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement. The CiW of Eugene and Lane County, in coordination with the amgen Department ofl[¥ansportation (OD©T) and affected federal and state agencies, now are considering shifting the alignment northward from the ApprOved Design~ primarily to reduce biological impactsfi The new alignment is the Modified Project. Because the rural area affected by the Modified Project has not previously been approved for this Wpe of use, a new goal exception is required to allow this facility at that location. However, the Modified Project would not amend or modify project need~ mode~ and functional classification as ~dentified in the acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene comprehensive plans~ While this memorandum provides inibrmation and explanation necessary to support goal exceptions~ k is not itself the "exception" required by OAR 660~012~0070. Under ORS 197.732(8), an exception is a comprehensive plan prov~Sion, including an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. To satisfy applicable TPR requirements, Lane County and/or the Cky of Eugene would need to follow their local comprehensive plan amendment processes and amend their plans to incorporate the goal exceptions discussed herein. Background The West Eugene Parkway has a long history~ As explained in the West Eugene ?arkway Su~v~lemental Needs Analysis (September 1994) ~"~ ~ up~iemenmlNeedsAnalysis'),theconceptofan east~west thoroughfare through West Eugene dates back to at least 1951, when a Franklin Boulevard connector to Highway I26 at Green H~ll Road was contemplamd. Cky of Eugene comprehensive plans adopted ~n 1959 (1959 Development Plan)~ t 972 (i 990 Plan) and 1987 (Eugene~Spfingfield Metropolkan Area Comprehensive Plan) all ~ncluded an east~west l~mked access fac~liBy through the area of West Eugene~ The h~sto~ of these plans and the development of the West Eugene P~kway (WEP) project described in abundant de~l ~n the Su~[emen~a~ Needx Anal ~is an ' Re~ort (June 1997), theSu leto ; ..,;~ ~ ~ Cmthe WEP ~nd ~e Te&nical ~P ental Drqfl Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) (August 1997), and the Alternatives Considered~IYEp Technical Memorandum (October 1999) t mr ernat~ves g~emorandum'). That h~sto~ ~s not repeated here, except as relevant to the goal exceptions process. in 1990 a Final Env~ronmen~l Impact Statement w~ released identifying the "Approved D * estgn as the selected alignment akemative for the West Eugene Parkway. As described in the SDZTS beginning at page 2. l~ the Approved Design is an approximately 5.5-m~le extension of the 6th and 7th Avenue Couplet. It ~s a four l~e, limked access hc~l~W wkh shouldem~ke lanes. The western po~iOn of the Approved Design extends wesm, ard from Beltl[ne H~ghway beyond Eugene,s cky l~mits ~d/he Eugeae~Spfingfield Urban Graph Bounda~ (UGB) at Green Hill Road to a point west of the intersection of Highway 126 and Gable Lane near Oak H~ll (see F~gure 1). From Beltl~ne H~ghwa% the a!~gnment crosses Danebo Avenue, then sh~ffs raw,ds the Cen~al Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks, head~ng west to the south of those ~acks to Green Hill Road. From Green Hill Road wes~d to approximately West 1 l/h Avenue, the roadway alignment cam[hues to parallel the railroad s~uth of the tracks. 6 New !~fo~atjon gathered subsequen~ to FEIS issuance in I mental D~ Envzmnmen g nt ~een To Stre.t . ' m~ ~mpact Statement at 1 ~. L u~ T~hn~-, ~ a~ t~e w~!em le~m~s. See S~ /e~ , end ........... ~ Re~ at 80; A~omaEvos Memo~ndum at ~.. E~B~T C~1 - FINDINGS 2 WE~T EUGENE P~AY ~D{F(ED PROJECT._CONSl$~N~ ~m TH?~$TATEW{DE PLANN(NG GOALS AND TRANSPORTAT)ON PLANNING RULE Outside the UGB, hhe Approved Design coincides w~th the area for which ~e Coun~ previously approved s~tewide planning goal exceptions to authorize construction of the WEP. In 1986, both the Lane County Board otCommiss~oners and the Eugene C~ Council enacted ordinances authorizing the WER Because the WEP extended outside the region's urban gro~h boundary, Lane County adopted "re~ons' exceptions to Goals 3, 4, and 5 ~n suppo~ of ks action. The exceptions were not challenged and are deemed acknowledged.7 The WEP Approved Design alignment alternative remains an element of both Lane C ' Eugene-~rin~eM ~etropolitan Area General Plan ("Me~o Plan" .~ t oun[y s and the CiW of Eugene's acknowledged comprehensive plans. It is recognized and provided for ~n the . Me~opoIitan Area Tram~ortation Plan ~"~ .... } ,, _ ~ ). he Eugene Sprin~eM [ ~ rar~'rtan ), the Lane Count, Rural Comprehensive Plan, and the West Eugene [Yetland~. Plan ("WEWP')fi all o ' fwhmh have been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Comm~ss[onfi But for the proposed change [n alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project, no fu~her review for statew~de planning goal compliance wou Id be required. Review is required only because the Modified PrQect shags the location of the new fac~HW outside the ~ea for which goal exceptions previously were approved, thereby requ~fing plan amendment. The M~ified Prqjec~ l~ke the Approved Des[gn~ is a four-lane limimd access hc~lib,. The wesmrn po~ion of the Modified PrQect co,nc[des with the Approved Design ~om Beltline H~ghway wesVward to a point e~t of Te~ Street, where ~e Modified Project crosses over the Amgen Channel and the Cenml Oregon and Pacific railroad ~acks on a grade-separated crossing, then essentially parallels the ~ac~ along ~eir no~h side to a connection wkh Highway 126 te~inafing approximately 1~300 feet fa~er to the west than the Approved Design (see Figure 1). Unlike the Approved Design, the Modified Project would eliminate the d~mct connection be~een Highway 126 and West 1 lth Avenue~ thereby mduc~ng potential for induced l~d uses on adjacent and he,by rural lands. The standards for t~[ng goal exceptions to authorize a new roadway faciHW of th~s nature on rural lands are set out ~n the TPR at OAR 660-012-0070. Because the comprehensive plans of Lane CounLv and the Ci~~ of Eugene already address the need, function and mode of the WEP~ and because these plans are acknowl~ged, the question ~ses whether the subsections of OAR 660-012-0070 addressing ne~ function and mode even apply to ~ 7 See Lane Coun~ Ordinance Ne PA 9~, adopted Apd123 1986 L; ~Metm. Plan ma ~me~o~P!an Which ~s supplemented BY more detail ~i~} ?an~: ~fi~ ~ns:~.~?ne~egt ~l~n~: Re~nement plans include adOPted the ~ as a refinement Plan to the Metro Plan ~. [u m~ mut¢o ~an. m 1992 Lane county and the Cie of Eugene 9 ~e ~p ~ officiafly ~entified in ~he 1988 TransPlam as Sho~ Range Proje~ ~ 07. PARKWAY MO~F[ED P SISTENC¥ WiTH T~__E STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS~D TRANSPORTATION PLAN Figure E~(BIT C-1 - F)ND(NGS 4 amendment to modify the facility's location, given that this amendment does not change those provisions. While the answer may well be "no,mo these provisions of the rule nevertheless are addressed herein in an exemise of caution. However, to the extent this analysis is unnecessary and thus would constitute "surplussage," it should be considered as such. Clearly, the TPR exceptions provisions applicable to the location of the facility apply because the Modified Project involves a location outside of the corridor approved in the 1986 exception. Pursuant to those requirements, exceptions are addressed herein for Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands), 4 (Forest ]2ads) 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and 14 (Urbanization) for that portion of the Modified Project to be located outside the UGB. While most of the affected rural land is agricultural, a very small portion either directly or indirectly affected is designated by Lane County as Forest Land. See Land Use TechnicalReport, Figure 7; SDEI& Figure 3-4. Accordingly, Goal 4 must be addressed. Scope of Analysis and Applicable Statewide Planning Goa Standards As stated above, the WEP has been included in the acknowledged Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan mad the Metro Plan for many years. It is authorized in the Trak?lam Because the ~p is acknowledged, it should not be necessary for the City or County to readdress goal compliance for the project in iris entirety. However, goal compliance mt~t be demonstrated for th~se ch an~es requiring mendments to the acknowledged plans. This analysis addresses goal compliance issues arising from the shift in the alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project in "Unk 2" of the project~ i.e. that portion of the WEP located between Beldine Highway and the western terminus of the project. See SDEIS, Figure 2~2~ ~is is the portion of the project that requires goal exceptions and analysis of alternatives under the TPR. Alignment modifications occurring in Unit 1 of the project generally are beyond the scope of th~s analysis. The land use standards applicable to the Modified Project include the storewide planning goals and OAR 660~012~0060, 660-012-0065, and 660-012-0070~ Because goal exceptions take the form of plan amendments, the Modified Project also must be shown to comply with relevant unamended provisions of the acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene comprehensive plans. Further, the project must comply with e ' - th ODOT s Oregon H~ghway Plan. This technical memorandum addresses only the Modified ProjecFs compliance with the identified TPR requirements and storewide planning goals. Compliance with the Oregon Highway Plan and applicable comprehensive plans policies is discussed at pages 58~ t 05 of the Larwl Use Technical Report. ~ ~ omp]mnce with the Statew]de Planning Goals Th[s section addresses compliance with Statewide Planning Goals l-t4. Because the Modified Project does not affect the Willamette River Greenway or coastal resources, Goals 15 through 19 do not apply~ Th~ ~ a ~ega] question ~o be addressed by the Department of Justice. The. Lane ,Cou?cit of. Governments (LCOG) Lane County and the c~ies of Eu en apanng ~eg~ona~ and ~ca~ ~ransportation svste-* ~ ~n~ rr~,~ .~, g e and Spnngf~e~d are m [he process of _ ~ .... ~I_.,_ t~ors) as ,,~ uired b the amendmen~ addressed in this d · ~ ,q ., ~__ Transportation P~annin Rule The ocument w~, be adopted ser~arat~v ~mm ~ ---- *, ........ ~ aoopt~on process. EXHIBIT C~i - F(NDINGS 5 ISTENCY '~"~' ......... lin 1973, the Oregon Legislature created the Land Conservation and Development Commission and directed it to adopt goals for use by loCal governments, state agencies and special districts in preparing, adopting, amending and implementing existing and future comprehensive plans. Over the next several years LCDC adopted 19 storewide planning goals, most of which have since been amended. As shown below, these goals address a broad range of topics, ranging fkom conservation of agricultural and forest lands and coastal and natural resoumes to urbanization and development concernsCr}ncerns includingSUCh as housing, jobs, public facilities and transportation~ The goals also addres~ procedural citizen involvement and coordination with affected local government entities and state and federal agencies, and they include an "exceptions" process under which a local government or agency ma5' be able to justify an action that the goals otherwise would prohibit. OVer time, LCDC goalshaS adoptedare satisfied.numer°us administrative roles interpreting its goals and providing guidance on how the Since the goals were adopted, all cities and counties in Oregon have adopted comprehensive plans and land use regulations (such as zoning ordinances or development codes) to comply with the goals. These plans an~ regulations underwent Formal review by LCI~C for goal compliance, and were either "acknowledged'* as in compliance with the goals or sent back for additional work. Today, all local governments in Oregon have acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations~ By state law, once the plan and regulations are acknowledged, then it is the plan and regulations, and not the goals~ that apply to land use decisions, unless the land use proceeding before the local government is for a comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendment or the adoption ora new land use regulation. Here~ because plan amendments are required~ the statewide planning goals apply. Goal (Citizen Involvement) Goal I requires oppertunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Already, through developmenti of the 3DEI$, there has been substantial oppem~nity for citizen involvement through public information meetings and open houses, workshops, newsletters, business/communky group briefings, WEP subcommittee meetings and other activities that were open to the public. See progmmSDEJ& Chapterfor purposes6' Theseof sa~isfying°Pp°rtunitieSGoalCan, t~ be considered as part of the overall citizen involvement dditionally,Goal I is met during the plan amendment ity of Eug~ae compliance with ~he plan amendment requir~ementsad°pti°n procesS,in oP, sthr°ughl 9T~ 10LanethroughC°untY0Rs and 197.625 and their acknowledged plan or land use ordinance procedures governing the adoption of plan or land use regulation amendments. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Goal 2, Land Use Plann~ng, consists of two parts. Part 1 (?lann~ng) addresses general planuing and coordination requkements. Part ~I (Exceptions) addresses goal exceptions. L~ke actions taken pursuant to NEPA, Goal 2 Part I (Planning) requires that local government comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments be (1) coordinated with affected state and federal government agencies; (2) consistent with applicable city, county and regional comprehensive plans; and (3) supported by an adequate factual bas~. As described in Chapter 6 of the SDEIS and elsewhere, there have been substantial coordination effor~ between the City of Eugene, Lane County, and a wide vade of · affected federal and st~ ~;~,~: - . .. _ ty affected or tentiall .... ~ ...... ~mcludm bur no ' ' po y g, t ~m~ted to, the federal Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps EX, lEgIT C~1 - FINDINGS 6 STATEWIDE Pt.ANN{ --'- - NG GOALS AND TRANS .~ PORTAT~ of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wild ~ife Service; and the Oregon Department of Transportation, Division of State l~nds, Department of Agriculture, and De conse uence oft : . partment ofFish an ' q hese coordmatmn effb _ . d Wddhfe. As a rts, numerous alternatives were carefully studied for their impacts and viability. The Modified Project is the result of that coordination, reflecting in particular, and accommodating as much as possible, the identified interests and threatened and ~n ofproteetin hi her valu dangered T&E . ~ g g e wetlands . . ( ) plant and ammal s ecie 12 - . statewide trans ortat :~ p s whale meetm re lo p ion and econo ~ __ . g g hal and . . m~u develo m * Thru coordma ' . . pent needs and highwa des~ tion effort is consm -, ~.,:,~ --- ...... . Y gn and safety standard te,t w~tn ~no satlsnes ~soal 2 reqmremenN, s The Modified Project also satisfies Goal 2 consistency requirements as it is consistent with acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene comprehensive plan provisions providing for a four- lane limited access highway extending westerly from Beltline Hi Goble ~e Consistent-- 2:~= ..... x ghway to Hi hwa 126 w - ~y w~m omer specinc L~itv and C . ._ g! Y es[of -~ ounty plan prov~sions m demonstrated at pages 58 through 105 of the Lam/Use Technical Report, incorporated herein by this reference. Inconsistent provisions associated with the Approved Design ~ill be eliminate~l thrOugh the amendments to the relevant City and County comprehensive lan shown for the Modified PrOie~ . ~-' :' mapP changes,S'taken to relocate, the alii! nment. ~ ct Those amendm,~,ts tnclude alignment desc~gi:ptions the goal exceptions described below. An adequate factual base supporting the al ignment shift from the Approved Design to the Modified Project, including exception~ to Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14, is set out in ~ variety of documents contained in the recOrd of this matter, including but not limited to the SDEI& the Land Use Technical Report, the Supplemental Needs Analysis, the Alternatives Memorandum, the Compatibility with Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses in the WEP Project Area Technical Memorandum (August 1999) ?C°.~R?tibilitY Memorandum"), the 1999 Oregon Highw Plan and t for Hi hw 126 ~ ' . ~ , he Interim Corri ; g. ay est (April, 1998). Testimony from ODOT an ' ~ . der. Strategy m consider lan nme . . d ~ts consultant at the ub P ndments modi ~ ' p hc hearm s Pr ' ' fy ng the alignment from the A rove;~' - g eject also wdl nrovia~ ..~:~: ........ PP d Des~ n to the Mod flea v ,~,~ ~,mm,na~ evmence to support the alignment shift to th~ Modified D~Jsign. A policy choice to construct a four-lane limited access '*West Eugene Parkway" was previously made and remains a part of the acknowledged County and Metro area comprehensive plans. The decision m alter the alignment does not affect that ultimate policy choice. For alt of these reasons, this plan amendment complies with Goal 2 Part 1. Goal 2 Part I~ The Goal 2 exceptions standards apply in circumstances where a land use decision would otherwise violate one or more goals. Under Goal 2 and ORS 197.732(1), "A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when: ( ) The following standards are met: "(1) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply; "(2) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use; 12 As used in th~s ~morandum. T&E species inClude sensitive s the C~' of Eu one s cu · peCles and species under ' - ~ ~ .. .~ g ~nt po~my amendments ~he C' . ~ . ~?~demt~on for I~stm ~ a~ of ap~am m some of the dooamen~ re~ren~d ~n th~ memgra~fa, Hemage Pr~ram dataSase. The te~ "rare" a,so EXHIBIT C-1 - F)ND)NGS 7 '~(3) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce ad impacts are not si ni . verse g ficanfly more adverse than would typmally result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site; and "(4) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts." As explained below in the discussion of compliance with Transportation Planning Rule requirements~ unless exempted under OAR 660-012-0065, the location of a new transportation facility outside an urban growth boundary requires goal exceptions. Because the Modified Project would constitute an urban use that falls outside the listed exemptions, and because the facility would pass through rural lands designated for agricultural and forest uses, exceptions to Goals 3~ 4, 1 L and 14 The applicable oal e:~ ~ ~ are re uked .. g ceptmn standards for transportation projects are set out in OAR 660}~12~0070. gecanse those standards axe met for the reasons set out in detail below and incorporated herein by this reference~ the Modified Project complies with Goal 2 Part IL Goa[ 3 ( grlcu tural Lands) Goal 3 requires counties to preserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm uses. Counties must w~thinvent°rYO~ agricultural~i5.203 e~. seq.lands and protect them by adopting exclusive farm use (EFU) zones consi stent The Modified Project crosses agricultural lands that are zoned for exclusive farm use. ORS 215.213(1) and (2) identify a variety of transportation uses that are perm itted on agricultural lands ~h~sh:~tthee; ~seeesd ~cr~onr?xce~ption to Goal 3fi3 However~ ~he Modified Project does not fail among ' . . dingly, a Goal 3 exception is required. See ORS 215.213(10)(a). The justification for an excepfi~h tO Goal 3 is included belo~~ in the analysis ofcomplia~ with the T?R. Goal 4 (Forest Lands) Goal 4 requires counties to conserve forest lands by maintaining the ~brest land base and protecting the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest ractm implemented through LC~'s admi~;2*-*: ...... P i es. Goal 4 is ,,~um~ve rme on eorest bands, OAR 660, Division 6 The Modified Project crosses over or near a small area of land designated by Lane County as forest land. However, under OAR 660 Division 6, the WEP is not among the uses perrnitted on forest land~ Accordingly, a Goal 4 exception is required. The justification for an exception to Goal 4 {s kmluded below in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) Goal 5, amended in 1996, requires local govermnents to adopt programs to protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic and open space resoumes for resen in ' . . . p t and future generations as provided LCDC s Goal 5 admmmtrattve rule, OAR 660, Division 23 When Lane County amended its comprehensive plan in 1986 to authorize the .took an exception to Goal 5 ~4 The County to^t~ *~. ............... Approved Design~ it - ~j ,~,~ ill, ~xc~puon oecause me proiect would ~m between 7.8 to 10.7 acres of wetlands ,qu~ ....... :~:c~ ~_~_~ ~; ~7~ pact . ~ ~-~-,~ ~,~um~ nummi. ~owever, me exception noted that ~3 ORS ~5.2~3 appl~s ~o ~ma~inal ~nds' mun~es ~ Coun~ ~ a ~ma inal lands' 2 * ue ne~ ~ot ~, an~ ~ not addmss~ as a~ of ~his * P- , 2 al ¢ ar~ ~ppmpdate or ne~ssa~. ~hou~d ~ ~nsider~ by ~ ~Pa~nt of Jus~i~ ana~ s. Should the ~su~ later a~e, ~ ~s a ~gal ma~er that ~XHIBIT C-~ - FINDINGS 8 the approved project avoided impacts to Stewart Pond and the Bertel Area, which it deemed the most s'~, ' _ . ~ sen Slough Natural Resoume ~mficant natural ~esources m the area. Subsequent to adoption of the West Eugene Parkway exception, the County and City discovered that the. wetlands~ resoume in the West Eugene area was much lar~er than was previously recognized. Because, in addition to the WEP, the ~cknOwledged Metro P~an ~denfified th~s area for e~tensive industrial developmen~ the Ci~ and County, toge~er w~th LCOG and ~n coordination w~th sram and federal agencies, embarked on ~ major unde~king m develop a wetlands conse~,afion plan to ~denfi~ ~e~ for protection and areas for future d~velopmen~ ~$ Th~s comn~ ' expensNe effo~ culminated ~n ~0o~ -.:~ i~ - ~ 3~. 2 ~-~-wex, extensive and ye e~geo e~ement otthe Metro Pl~.m , hmh ~s The approved WE~'P includes a corridor south of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks to accommodate the West Eugene Parkway project along the Approved Design. However, federal omc~als held off on apPro~;ing mat ele~eht ;f the ~WP pen~[ng fi~her }xam~nation of alternatives that m~ght reduce ~mpacts to high value wetlands and threatened and endangered sp~es ~7 Through fu~her study, it has now been detem~ned that the Modified Project would have subsmnfi~lly less adverse ~mpac[s on h~gh value wetlands and T&E species ~an the Approved Design, thereby providing those Goal 5 resources wkh be~er protection. Mod~f35ng the WEP to sh~ the alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project will requke an amendment to the ~EWP. Th~s could require a new analysis of economic, social, env~ronmenmI and energy (ESEE) consequences under Goat 5 if the modific '~ d~ffemnt ~m ac · ~ atmn would resul p ts from those prevmusty cons~dered~ Because of the similar nature of~e ~m a~t}~br the Approved Design and the M~ified Project, and because the P Modified Project reduces the overall level of adverse ~mpac~, ~t may be that no new ESEE analys~s ~s require& However, [n ~ abund~ce ofcaufion~ ESEE considerations are addressed herein. To the ement th~s analys~s exceeds what [s requked to demonstrate Goal 5 compliance, [t should be considered su¢lussage. Economic Consequences As illustrat~ on the Comprehensive Plan Designations map at Figure 3-3 of the SDEI& all areas inside the UGB that m affected by ~e M~ified Project am designated for industrial development, except ~br a small po~ion of low densi~, residential land west of Te~ Street. As showm on t~e Existing ~nd Use map at Figure 3~1 of the SDEIS, these lands are predominantly vacant or used ~ open space. Because ~e WEP is already a pa~ of~e Metro Area's and County's acknowledged comprehensive plus, realignment of the WEP from just south of the raiIroad, tojust no~h of~e railroad will haCe no signi~Cant adverse economic impac~ ~he chane in ah n Hi hwa wOu .... ' g ~g merit west of B ~ g y Id cause no additional mdus~al or commemial displacement . . elthne _ s. As explained m the SDEIS pu~ose, and need s~tement, the WEP ~mproves access to the West Eugene ~ndustrial ~ea and would [el~;ve congestion along W~st 1 I~ Aven~e, thereby provid~ne economic benefiL Th~s economm benefit is lost without the WEP. ~ - Outside the UGB, most of the affected land is zoned for agricultural use. However. for reasons explained in more derail in the ComPatibili~ Memorandum, inco~orated herein b3 reference, much of the adjoining a~icultuml l~d is being used as open space for wetland mitigation or to protect 158 . ee A~ematives Mem~a~dum at 3~5 16 In 1994, the DMs~o~ o~ State Lands, US A~y Co~s of Eng~neem and the Env~mnmenta Pro~e~on Agen~ approved the ~w~h ~nd~ions~ Subsequently, over $7 m~l~ion in fedemJ s~ing has been invested Jn the ~s~demb~e ~nves~nt ~ p~ate pm~ ~nem ~*~ ~ & ...... ~ ... ; . ~ to date, p us and south of the .-, ,~ ,, u~ men west et ~emme H~ hwa ~ntm~Om o~andPa '~ * 9 Y no~hofWest 11fhA g ~c ra~koad tm~s · . venue presage pro e~s for . P~ate mves~ent was made nood fa~ P development as shown m ~he ~an . .~. ~ ~ th that ~he p~a~ would 17 A~emat~ves Memomndum at 4 P ~ See Agemat~s Memom~um at ~. EXHIBIT ~l - FiNDiNGS 9 threatened and endangered species. See Figure 2: see also Compatibility Memorandum at Figure 1 . In terms of impacts on c.;mmer~cial farm enteCriSes~, the no result in any aCrea e loss of _ rthward realignment of the g the four lar e ~ ~ ~ WEP does not to the Approved Design it ~ ..... ~ g comme.mml farms ~n the project vicini In ~ . ~ o-., ~uu~ uuverse im ty~ act, compared fac~hty farther f?om the luree cattle 0222: p~?~ !o~ comme2ml farm operations b movin o v,-~tmn south of W Y g the est l lth Avenue. West of Goble Lane, the facility essentially occupies the same area as the Approved Design, rendering no real impact project differences from }hat alignment. EXcept for these pl}ces, there a~'e ~o Commg~cial farms in the vicinity. Instead, this are~ is checkere~l with a pm~m of hobby farms that do not contribute significantly to the commercial agricultural en~erPrlse. The M~dified Project EXHIBrT C~I - FINDINGS ..... ~ lED PROJECT--~8~STEN~ W TH THE STATE~ru: ~ .................... crates no new parcels outside the UGB, and it should not incre~e the ~tential for encroachment beyond that ~s~ated w[~ the Approved Design. Social Consequences WEW?, ~he induced of affected lands inside the UGB, and this area as provided in the impacts are reduced by the fact that the designated lands near Terry Street) instead of being located closer in proximity to residential and °th~ developed areas. See Map 3 ~f the WEwp' I~weVer, in C°mpa~son to ~ no-bUild, the Modified Project does have significant visual impacts, as some may deem a roadway facility crossing open sp~;e to be unsightly. Still, others may consider it a visual benefit, rovidin o open space. Overall,_ the social' consequences-- ofalluwm~ ' the' WEP- P g pportunity to view. the resource, are not sianificantlv ri;fl .... ~ ,.--- . .g. i ~ , as opposed to fhlly protectm the ..... ; 7 ~ ~ -..r ~, ....... .. oome people w~ll find the Modified Pro' g ooJectmname t~ its ye ~ject socially y ry nature, where full preservation of the resource would no However others w ' t have this result , ouId find that th e tm roved m . . P obth rovt adveme vmual ~mnacts of the .~.-,..;~. ~-4 .~_ _ ~' p ~ .ded by the~VEP socially outwetghs ~ ~,~j,~v, ~,u m~ preservanon o~ the acres ot~ wetlands otherwise lost. Outside t~he UGB, social impacts aga~n would be minor Indeed, the level of that reSultin fro . . : pact ~s reduced over g m the Approved Destgn. As described m the Compatibility Memora~dura, access to four private properties on Goble Lane could be affected, but alternative access will be provided. The proximity o~:th~ facility to the railroad tracks and West t lth Avenue should Preclude ~y adverse ~:ommunky cohesion c~nsequences. Three residences will be impacted visually, but impacts are reduced for three other residences as a result of the alignment modification. Noise impacts could potentially increase for six properpz, owners, compared to eight for the Armroved Desigm ~oise iml~cts are not expe~ed to ~e significant ~/~ ~ However~ Because of WE~4r? and zoning limitations and the proximity of Fern Ridge Reservoir to the west, oP~li fm°_raicn~UwCeodulddervelo?rn_e.n~ is not high.~S Of course, with full protection of the resource, noLhee [' esult. St~ll, many rural residents surveyed v~ew the WEP as a social benefit. Environmenta Consequences The prim~ reason for shifting the roadway location from the Approved Design to the Modified Pr°J&t rein[es t° environment~i ~mpacts associated with wetland~ and threater;;d and endangered pla~t and animal resources. As the *Land [ke Technical Report explains, the extent to w endangered and/or threatened s,,ecies ......~-~ ~- ...... ~- -: ~ - i hich d~stin~kaishing the ~pl~;o,~ed I~}gn r~.ect, ea~ Is one o~the most ~mportant criterion much reate; ro~c~i; men l~roject, with the Modified Project resultin in . g . , p . n. S~milarly, the Modified Project wt~uld result ~ ~uu~mmaa""~' ..... -'-' tess; a5 g ~mpacts to desi note ' ' .. .. Y averse ~ g d bmlogmally sensitive areas and cmmal natural vegetation and habitat th Approved Design. It is noted that wetland rae,,,~ ............... ; i mn the fr- ' ~ . ¥~ . . ~ ..... , ....Jttena vtrtuatly me entire leu of the om just west o~ L~aneoo Avenue to near Goble Lane, outside the UGB.20 gth 'WEP ~8 Analysis of no~se impacts for s~ate land use purposes is no~ the same as for federal NEPA purposes. e~e~ devetepmen~ ~s addressed m mom de,mi m ~he d=scussion under OAR 660~O~ 2--0070(8), incorporated herein by ~his 20 see maps a~f~ched ~o f;he C~rnpab'b#ity Memorandum. EXHIBrT C-1 - FINDINGS 12 TH THE STATE~ ,~ Table 4 of the ,4[te,~eJtive$ Memorandum quantifies these impacts to natural resources Regarding wetlands, while the Modified project Over~lI would take mor~ Wetland acreage than the A roved Design (14.4 hectares versus 13 ~} bec 21 , . , . tares t * . PP , . . ), he Modified p h~gh value wet rm roject affects onl 6 __ , ~ ne wetlands, corn are _ . y .39 hectares of threate . p d to 11.27 hectares fo ~ ned ann endangered, sp ec~e s .. the Mod~fi' ,,d" Pro ' ect' h r. the Approved. Des~ g n. 22 Regardm' g rapped Aster an - ~J as cons~derabl les d W~Jlamet~e Dam y s ~mpact on the Wh~ . . ythantheA roy ~ - does no pp ed Desi n and u t ehm~nate West .... g , nhke the A roy .. em Pond Turtle habitat. Th - Pp ed Design, object,ye to protect natural resources 23 e result m a program that furthers the Goal 5 The environmental impacts of allowing the Modified Project were considered during development of the WEWP. Through that process, it wis agreed by the v~ious governments and ag~hcies in(~olved to provide a corridor ?or the ~p. ~he adve;se environmental impacts of building th; Modified Project ~e minimized through the requirement for wetlands m~tigation for those acres ~>f wetland that am develoPed. Without ~y West Eugene Parkway, there wc~ld be ~mpact on threatened or enda . . additional w~tland rotectio are subs~anfiall I ngered sp. ec~es~ With the Modified Project, those ~m p n and no . y ess adverse than the ~m acts . .. ~ priers occur, but the Design.24 P already permitted by the acknowledged Approved Y Energy Consequences Because the WEP is a highway facility, cars using it will bum gasoline. Other than th~s impact, there are no adverse energy consequences associated with the Modified Project. Without the WEP~ including its Modified Project alignment, adverse ener im acts and signlficant, deterioration, oft~e roadwa s stem a gY P .W~oUld be increased due to the rap~d the key mtersectmns wout,~ ...... ~ ~--- ~!Y y - long West 1 Itu Avenue. At ~eak hour~ ~-~ .... c ,~ ,.-~,,~cu capacity, resulting in delays that waste fuel. ESEE Conclusions Modified Project impacts w~l[ occur, all to and within the West Eugene indus~al area. Not and T&E impacts, but create major traffic congestion Interstate 5. Th~s warrants allowing the conflicting use. of traffic between the coast and In effect, the: program, to achieve Goal 5 has. already been determined through the acknowledged a~lhe~hnPj?~v .t_~e WEP wh~le o. therwise substantially reducirt the amou ~t rmgene~ By relocating the fac~h fr - Modified Pro. i ' : ty om .~e Approved Design corridor to the ~Ject locatmn, adverse Goal 5 resource impacts are substantially reduced, fi2~hering the 21 One hectare ~s apprex{mately 2.47 acres~ 22 These acreage numbers d~er from those contained in the SDEI$ and Land Uae Techn~a! Report Because of the con~ained~nc°nsistency'in th~furtherdocumentrevh;WareWaStheUndertakencorrect one,bY the consultant According to both the COnsu~ant and ~[~OT~ the nur~bers 23 llf the resource occupied Dy the Modified Project were protected fu~y, then the ~mpac[s from the Approved Design would st~li result, as that project, woU~d remain part of the acknowledged plans. ~rding~y, ~ A proPe~to C~;; the ~<~ a~gr~nts ' W~th no project, ~bvioUslY a~l of the ~esources wou~d toe protected, 24 A~ddltional information comparing the envirenmen~al impacts of the roved be~ow m the d~scussion addressing= com,q~ ,,~.,,~ ....... ,,m~'~ ~^~ ~ ~u;'~ ~' '- App . Desigr~ and the. Modified Pr_,_,,~o~e~ ~, ~t'~" ou~ ~12~0070(7), incorporated hereto by this reference EXHIBIT Co~ - FiNDiNGS 13 ~d0~tedPurp°sest°°fachieVeG°al 5.GoalThis 5.result is consistent with the intent and purposes of~e WEWP, which was Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land R esources Quality) Goal 6 addresses the quality ofa~r, water and land resources. A local government complies with Goal 6 by showing that plat;ned development, when combined with existing development~ ~ill not violate or ~reaten m v~olate applicable environmen~l laws. These environm ~ and s~dards governing a~r ~llufion, Water pollution and no~se~ earl laws ~nclude regulations The WEP compl~es wkh Goal 6 because it can and will meet applicable water and a~r quali~ and no~se s~nd~d~ As explained beginning at page 4-2 of~e tentia ~soc~ated w~th con ' ,, ~ ~ I wa~r ual~ s~ctmn of the · q ty problems WEP should be relatively e~y to ~n~ol' by following the ~qu~remen~ ~n erosion consol plans that ~e covered by NPDES pl~s and corn ' ' P ~. Throu h ske ~ phan~ ~ w~th ORS Chapter 468 ~ ~q~,,;~d m' ~e ~e ~ g m~agement ~ ect ~cat~on ~ ~ . ~,. ~on ~e~ent o Trans o ~ ~ s for Hi h~ ' . . ~ ~ rtafion . . g ~ Cons~uctwn . . consmetmn activities can be cnnt~ ~_._. (19vo~, sod erosion and se&inPUt pollmmn ~om ~e ~-[ ....ed. Comphan~ me,ods am ~aenfified at page 6 pollu~nts on the ~ns ~d other best managemem to 4-6 to &7 main~in water quali~ ~e listed at pages Report, ~d negative ~mpac~ ~om channels flint biofil~afion swales and ~ns~acting sto~ Highway cons~uction and operational activities also ~n~ibute to ~r pollution. To~I da~ly emissions of ~O, ~O~ and P~culate ~a~er increase with hc~lifies of th~s k~nd. Compared to the A3proved Des[~, air qual~¢ ~mPacts from the M~ified Project w~ll be lower due to ore,Il lower ~hicle miles ~v~led for ~he }~od~fied project, mwever, ~ou~h implemen~fion of miff ~demified in ~e gatmn measures West Eugene (199T~ ~n ~,~[.~_:. [ .'.. ~'Westlltblvenue~ St. SFEIS--AirOu itvR~,c~t mbient ak qual¢¢~ s~d~ds.2~ re~eren~, e~er absent c~ ~mply wi~ all ~te and federal No residences would ~ noise*impacted by ~e Modifi~ PrQect. Goal 7 protec~ life and pro~ ~om natml dis~ters and h~ds In" d~s~sters ~d h ' d ' . ; ~ ,, ~ ~ . · ~o~ am~ of natural of ~:t~' ~---' ~ s,. t~e g~l pm~b~ developmen~ subject m dina e or ma mc umess a r . g t could result m loss pp oprmte s~eguards am a he . pp d. ~e~ of natural h~d flooding, e~quake, l~dslide we u ~ .... ~.: .... . . . s include ~e~ subject to ~ a ..... -uauun ~m~s, erosion and ~e l~ke. selection,F°r ~spo~afionat ~e des[gnfacilitieS's~gedemiledRemgniz~nC°nsiderati°n~is rac°f' Goal 7 impacts ~cally~. occurs a~er co~idor . . ' g ~ce ~e T ' ' . , P , PR dmtm rashes be~ee ~s o~tton s st , . g n P y empl~nm ~d ~s o ' g p ~tmn ro eot d . . P ~ evelo ment ~d e gove~en~ to address Goal 7 ~ ' . . p - P ~ts local ssues m ~e proj~t development stage.26 See OAR 660-012-0050(3) 25 Land Use Technical Report at 6280, 97-98; SDE[$ at 4-53 to 4-55. 26 Nevetthe~,~, for ~ a~em~s ~uidng plan a~~ ~em mu ~e~on ~ areas ~ ma ~ sub'~ : ~ ~ ~ ~, at ~ ~or ~a~in s~ e at ~a .. Y ~ tona~m{d~ste . . g g, stan p~n pr~mo~ and ~d use.~u~ulat~o~ ~- ...... ~,~*~ ....... ~u ua~'a~ b~s. and a d~emma~on tha~ m m P~on. EY~B~ C~i - FINDINGS i4 D PROJECT-q2ONSISTENCY WiTH THE STATEWIr~c p~ ~,~ ~ Ne~ the railroad in ~e viciniw ofTe~ StreeK the Modified Pr ' the Aragon Ch OJect would eros anneL However the -. . s the flood lam of . ~ , facth~ would nm ~ P The M~fied. Proiect, c~ ~d wn.a~um oe~ ~e ~ ' ~' mpact, the Aragon. Creek or loss of life Structures will ho ~ }s.~ed to utilize ?nstmct~on techm ues that ay ' ~ e ' " .... ~ ~vnstmcted t ' ~ ~ o~d dam g o budge floo~ways, burners would be installed for protection from steep slo~s, and tem~m~ and pemanent ~affic consol features such as signs, s~ping, tempom~ concrete ba~iem ~d raised pavement markers would be used to enhan~ public sa~. Goal 8 provides for l~ai governments to meet ~e recreational need M~ified Pro:~t fu~he .... s of the ckizens of Or ~ m thts ob ect~ve b ~ ' , egon. The the ~ y reproving access to ~cm t Om on co~t t a renal destmat~ . g , he Om on C~cad ~ - . on g es, and Fern R~d e Rese~mr sarong and wildlife vieWing deminmi°nj;ust -~2-*,~=~ m ~ugene.~r ~ ~ , a well knom and popular local Goa 9 (Economic Goal 9 requires local governments to adopt comprehensive Plans an .~ sNble and hmlth ,, ~ d policies which co y econom For . nt~bute to Y. urban ~e~ corn . , . , pmhenslve 1 the ~mmnm . .. p nas must 1 include .. W s economm aae ..... ( ) an ~al s~s of . . p ms. potentmlmes, ~a ' · . Y a~ressmg e~nom~c op o~nities: ( " ' ~ks and aet~c~encms; (2) contain policies si . P . O) provide for at least aa ade uate ~s, types, l~atloas, ~d semite levels fo~ - .... ; ........ q . supply of sims of stumble with . . ,, . , ..... m~ry or maustria~ ana com plan ohc~es ' ~d ' . mercml uses cons' P , (4) l~m~t uses on or nea . . intent r s~tes zoned for s to those that ~e . . pec~fic mdustrml or co ~mpatthle wtth proposed uses. mmemml uses West Eugene in the viciniW of the Modified Project is designamd primarily fbr industrial development. West ofBetfline H~ghway to Gre~ Hill Road, ~e ~ea be~ the WEP is desi at · . . een West 1 lth Av gn ed ne~ly eat~rel for m ' enue and Y dustrml and o en s ace us along West 11~ Avenue, mdus~ial ~d nm~o:-, --~ P - p . ~ es. East from Bekhne H~ghwa c ....... ~,~1 uses pr~ommare. Y As the Ci~ of Eugene h~ gro~ in population, ~affic along the West 1 lth Ave incr~e& m~iin .... ~ i~2 ...... ; ~. hue comdor has $ auu m~pact ~alysls $~ows that, even wi ' protection in ~is ~e~ ;,a.~;2~ ~ .... ~ . . ~ significant wetlands ~ ~n=u=~,~m ~evempment will continue to exp~d, and ~affic congestion at all major inte~ections will a~in Level of - , ,, capaci~. Sen, me (LOS} F, where traffic volumes ex,ed roadway BY relieves the offofWest 1 lth Avenue, the enhance and satisfy Goal 9. existing Further, the location ofthe r development under the in West Eugene. These results and commercial development in West Eugene Goal t0 requires local governments to do their fair share to provide ~r the housing ne,,eds of people of all income ievels. Undgr Goal I0, cities and counties must i~ventorv ' buildable la~ds for residential use and encourag© the availabili~ of adequate nUmbers of needed l~ousing units at rice rent levels that are commensurate ;,h ,~2 e. .... : .... 2 . P ranges and w ....... ~ mtm~cmi eapaNlkies of Oregon households. "Buildable EXHIBff O~l - FINDINGS 15 lEO PROJECT--~ONS~$TENC, Y WITH THE STATE?~r~ ands are defined in Goal 10 as lands inside urban growth boundaries that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. Hence, Goal I0 does not apply to affected unincorporated areas. The Modified Project does not directly impact any area identified for housing. Accord[ngly, Goal 10 is inapplicable to this land use proceeding. p Goa ( ubhc Facilities and Services) Goal 11 requires local governments to plan and develop a timel orde public facilities and seN' - y, fly and efficient a ~ces. The oal ro rrangementof g P wdes that urban and rural - - supported by types and levels of services ....... :_ ~ ~- ., ?eve?pment be guided and ,~tvla~upna[e ~r, trot limited to, the needs and requirements of the urban~ Urbanizable and rural areas to ~ s;rved, doal 11 is implemented by the Public Facilities Planing Rule, OAR 660, DivisiOn 11. Inside the urban growth boundary, the level of service provided b th appropriate to serVe urba . y e Modtfied Pro'ect wo n needs. Therefore, within th~ ~ ~,~ ..... - . -. ~J u be ~ u~Jr~, mrs alignment sattsfies Goal 1 I. Outside the UGB, the level of service provided by the Modified Project would exceed that appropriate for and needed to serVe the rural area. Accordin~l , a Goa JustificatiOn for an exce~tio~ +^ ~--~ ....... ~, Y: I 11 exceptmn is required. The TPR. ~, - ~u ~J~m ~ ~ ~s inCluded below in the analysis of compliance With the Goa 12 (Transportation) Goal 12 requires local governments to "provide and encourage a safe, conveni transportation system ' Goal 12 ;~ ;~-/ ....... ~ ~ ent and economic ~.. - ~,~ m~mcmeo through [he 'Frans o ' ' Dry,sion 12 p rtatmn Planning Rule, OAR 660, As noted above, the WEP is already a part of the acknowledged Metro Plan, TransPlan~ and Lane County Rural Comprehensive Pla~. Inside the UGB, merely modifying the location of the facility ~?°m t~e Approvec~ Design to the Modified Project Should ~ot im 1ica[; G would brin the ro' . . P oal 12 in an wa t g p ~Ject out of corn hah . Y y hat . . p ce w~th the goal. The Modified mode or functmn of the facd' . . . o ~ . P{oject does not alter the ~ty or increase ~ts ~,lanned capamty. The Modified Project does not result in a 10wedng of performance standards at affected intersections as compared to the Approved Design. Further, the ~vlo~ified Project is not a new use not already authorized ir~ the acknowledged transportation plans. ~m~o_d~!Qcat~on of the location of the V~q~P results in the conversion of u~ ~w nvnresource purposes Because use of the forest lands fo : ' affected a ricul r hlghwa u ses ' g rural and y p r~ was not prewousl a must he y pproved against the oals o taken ursuant to ' . . . g ~ g al exce tions P the exce tlon . P .. . p s provisions m the Trans rtatmn P ' - facthty, at those locations. By demonstratm', eom 1' . _ ~ po .. lanmng Rule to just~fyths · . . ~ pmnce w~th those roms ' 12 m achieved. Thejust~fication fo . .~ . P. runs, compliance w~th Goal below ...... r goal exceptmns in accordance w~th TPR mu' m me sec[mn analyzing eompl'~ance w~th' the~ ~'~'~ rye. q ~rements ~s set out Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) Goal 13 directs cities and counties to manage and control land and uses develo maximize the conservation of all r .... ,~ 7 . . ped on the land · u,n, menergy, oasea on sound economic principles so as to Highways are not generally synonymous with the notion of energy conservation. However, Goal 13 do~s not prohibit v~w higl~W~ys o~ ~mprovements to exist~g hi~h~,'ays. Indeed. such an ~n~erpretation WOuld c0hfiict with provisions in Goai 12 and the TPR au~;rlding h~ghway facilities and improvements as p~ of an overall multi-modal transportation pla~. EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS 16 ~ST E~NE PARKWAY ~{~:~F~ED PROJECT--COflS~STENCY ~TH THE STATE~r~ ~., .................. ......... ~,~m~ ~J~L~ A~L~ ~P~NSPORTAT~ON P~NN~NG F~ULE The WEP, with the Modified Project alignment, is intended to improve access to the West Eugene industrial area and to relieve the substantial traffic congestion along West l lth Avenue~ which will only deteriorate further in the absence of the WEP. Providing safe and convenient travel to an area deficient in its roadway system, and facilitating the efficient movement of people, goods and services in such an area, serves the growth needs and objectives of the region and follows sound economic principles. Facilitating the smooth flow of traffic at acceptable levels of service also helps conserve fuel by avoiding the wasteful burning of fuel at intersections already above capacity or expected to exceed capacity during the planning period. Goal 14 (Urbanization) Goal 14 requires local governments to establish urban growth boundaries in accordance with seven factors listed in the goal in order to separate urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands. Goal 14 also mandates the orderly and efficient conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses. Pursuant to Goal 14, Lane Count5, and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield have established an urban gro~ boundary for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region. Under Goal 14, urban and urbanizable lands are available for urban uses. However, Goal 14 prohibits urban uses on rural lands. To locate urban uses on rural lands, local governments either must expand the UGB to include the subject prope~ or take a Goal 14 exception setting forth reasons Why urbar~ development should be allowed on rural land and explaining why the urban use cannot reasonably be located inside the UGB. A fbur-lane limited access highway facility is considered art urban use, as it serves transportation needs well beyond those of the affected rural area. This causes no problem inside the UGB, where urban uses are authorized. Hence, the Modified Project inside the UGB complies with Goal 14. However, outside the UGB, the Modified Project violates the Goal by placing an urban use on rural land. This is permitted only through an exception to Goal 14. The justification for an exception to Goal 14 is included below in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Overall Conclusions Regarding Goal Compliance For all of the reasons set out above, approval of the Modified Project complies with statewide planning goals 1 through 14, except as those goals require goal exceptions. For all of the reasons set out below, approval of the Modified Project complies with the applicable standards for exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 in the Transportation Planning Rule and Goal 2 Part omphance with Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Ru e General Information The Modified Project modifies the West Eugene Parkway by shitting northward the westernmost portion of the project from approximately Terry Street to the project terminus on Highway 126. This modificati e ' fleet the ed~ mode pr clas e he ~ and m r~ From Beltline Highway, the Modified Project follows the Approved Design alignment past Danebo Avenue towards Terry Street.27 Just before Terry Street, the Modified Project leaves the Approved Design aligmnent, shifting northward over the Cenltal Oregon and Pacific Railroad rand then 27 The ~odif'~ed Project crosses Danebo Avenue on an overcrossing, There is no direct access to or from Denebo Avenue. FINDINGS '~7 WEST E Y ~F~ED PROJECT--CONSISTENCy ~ THE ~TAT~, ................... ~ v ~, ~mu~: ~m~r~ ~; AND TP~NSPORTAT~O~ PLANNING RULE proceeding westward next to and parallel with the railroad tracks past Green Hill Road (the UGB) and Goble Lane to its intersection with Highway 126 and its terminus east of Richmond Street (see Figure Inside the urban growth boundary, existing land uses westward from Beltline Highway along the Modified Project alignment consist almost exclusively of vacant and open space lands. SDEI& Figure 3-3. While these properties are designated mostly for industrial use, with a small amount of low density residential (see SDEIS, Figure 3-4), they are not expected to develop for these purposes. Instead, under the City's acknowledged plan, the WEP is the intended land use in this area. Where the Modified Project leaves the Approved Design to cross the railroad tracks, it enters an area where wetland protection is the predominant use. See WEW?, Map 3. To accommodate the Modified Project, the WEWP will need to be amended to reflect the shig in the alignment. Outside the urban growth boundary, existing land uses within the project area include wetland mitigation, hobby farms, four commercial farms, and some rural residences. See Figure 2; see also SDFJS, Figure 3-3 and Compatibility Memorandum, Figure 1. The West Eugene Wetlands Study Area extends approximately 0.g mile west of Green Hill Road in the project area. Also, an urban reserve area extends into this area approximately 0.7 mile from the UGB at Green Hill Road. Lands immediately affected by the Modified Project are designated predominantly for agricultural use, with a small amount of forest land present. See SD£IS, Figure 3-4 A detailed description of land uses in the project area, including a discussion of existing uses by ownership, the location of commercial agricultural enterprises, and a discussion of accepted fhrming practices, appears in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference.28 Overview of Exceptions Process LCDC adopted the Transportation Planning Rule in 1991 to implement Goal 12, Transportation~ OAR 660~012~0065 of that rule identifies uses which are permitted on rural lands wkhout taking exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11~ or 14. Because the Modified Project would be a "new road" ora type not otherwise permitted under OAR 660-012~0065, Lane County must take goal exceptions to Goals 3, 4, I l, and 14 pursuant to OAR 660-012-0070. Under OAR 660-012-0070 in particular, and under ORS 197.732(1Xc), Goal 2 Part II and OAR 660, Division 4 more generally, an exception must provide reasons justifying (1) why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply, and (2) why areas not requiring a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use. For transportation facilities, these requirements are spelled out in greater detail in OAR 660-012-0070(3) through (6), set out below~ In adthtmn to addressing "need" and alternat~ves~ an exception also must (3) compare of economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location and other alternative locations requk/ng exceptions, determining whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are significantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations requiring exceptions; and (4) describe the adverse effects the proposal is likely to have on adjacent uses and explain how the proposal will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. For transportation facilities, the identification of the "transportation need" and the evaluation of alternatives ave key components of the exceptions process. OAR 660-012-0070(4) requires the exception to demonstrate the existence of a "transportation need" identified consistent w~th the requirements of 660-012-0030. Further, OAR 660-012-0070(4) and (5) require the exception to demonstrate that the identified transportation need cannot reasonably be accommodated at non- 28 See a~so Land Use Technical Repo~ EXHIBFF C4 - F~NDINGS 18 WEST EL~E ~ PARKWAY ~DIFiED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY WiTH THE S?ATE'A~DE PLANNING ~ALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE exception locations or through one or a combination of measures not requiring an exception, including alternatives modes of transportation, traffic management measures and improvements to existing transportation facilities. [n taking an exception it is important to recognize the unique role roads and highways play in Oregon's land use l:?amework. Roads and highway are linear facilities that are linked to t%rm an overall transportation system. Lane County, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region, and the State of Oregon are traversed by roads and highways that cross urban and rural lands to form a comprehensive transportation system. This network is necessary to move people and goods and to secure the welfare and well-being of Oregon residents, in this way, roads and highways are very dil~6rent from site-specific land uses such as residential, commercial and industrial. They are also different from urban t:hcilities and infrastructure such as public sewer and water lines. it is feasible and appropriate to restrict the extension of urban sewer and water systems outside of urban growth boundaries because such systems typically are designed to serve urban uses which are accommodated within a UGB. However, it is not always feasible, logical, appropriate or realistic to preclude the extension or improvement of roads or highways outside of urban growth boundaries, even if the roads will predominantly serve the traffic needs of urban residents. This is certainly so for roadways like Highway 126 that serve statewide transportation needs and are on the National Highway System. These roads necessarily must pass through rural lands to connect larger urban areas, ports, major recreation areas and regions of the state, in short, Goal 12 must be balanced with the policy objectives of Goal 3, Goal 4, Goal 11, and Goal 14, which together seek to protect agricultural and fi>rest lands for titan and fbrest uses and restrict urban level uses and public facilities to lands within urban growth boundaries. While by definition the Modified Project is a "new road," it might be more accurately described as a realignment of a portion of a previously approved but as yet unconstructed four-lane limited access facility, it is important to stress that goal exceptions have already been taken to demonstrate the need for the West Eugene Parkway and to authorize its construction across agricultural and forest lands. The need for the West Eugene Parkway ~ is unchanged and unaffected by this amendment. Only the alignment is modified, primarily to reduce adveme natural resource impacts. The ~ is and remains part of the ~e ounty s and the Metro Area's acknowledged comprehenSive plans. For C , that reason, rejustifying the need for the project should not be necessary. Instead, analysis should properly focus on just the modified portion extending outside of the urban growtt5 boundary, with particular attention given to whether alternative modes or alternative locations not requiring goal exceptions can reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. Compliance with OAR 660-0i2.0060 Under ORS 660-012-0060(1), amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which "significantly affect" a transportation facility m ust assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e~g., level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility." This can be achieved by (1) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and performance standards of the proposed facility; (2) amending the adopted transportation system plan (TSP) to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses; (3) altering land use designations, densities or design requirements to reduce demand fbr automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or (4) amending the TSP to modify planned function, capacity and performance standards to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian friendly development where multi- modal travel choices are provided. The initial question raised by this rule is whether the proposed shi~ in the WEP alignment from the Approved ~sign to the Modified Project would "significantly affect a transpor~tion facility." if EXH(B)T C~I - F)ND{NGS 19 WEST E~NE PAPJ~AY ~OD{FIED PR~ECT.-~O~NS!STENCY ~,~ ~ STATEt~I._~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATIrj~ PlANNiNG RUlE there is no significant effect, then OAR 660-012-0060 does not apply. Under OAR 660-012-0060(2), a plan or land use regulation amendment "significantly affects" a transportation facility if it (1) changes the acknowledged functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (2) changes standards implementing the functional classification system; (3) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of the fhcility; or (4) reduces the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. The change from the Approved Design to the Modified Project alignment has none of these effects. It does not change the acknowledged function of the West Eugene Parkway or alter the standards implementing the functional classification system. It does not alter the types or levels of permitted land uses in the area, and the levels of travel and access it would permit am consistent with its planned function as a major limited access highway serving primarily regional and through travel. Further, it would not reduce the WEP's performance standards below the minimum levels set out in the acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene Transportation Plans. Indeed, at ever3, affected intersection, the Modified Project improves performance over the no-build alternative and achieves minimum acceptable level of service standard requirements.29 See Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix B. Although the WEP with the Modified Project alignment would not significantly affect a transportation facility, its absence would have that effect because, even with the substantial protection of lands in the area under the t¢'EWP, other planned development in West Eugene still would increase traffic on existing streets to levels that are inconsistent with their functional classifications. Without the Wgs_t Eu erie ~ar_k~a b the ear 2215 the level ofservme at eve ma;or inte West 1 lth Avenue eastward to Ga~eld Street at 6th and 7th Avenues deteriorates to LOS "F' With er than 1 . . See Appendix B~ Alternatives Memoramtum. The Modified Project is needed to retain a balance between the transportation system and projected land uses and growth in population and employment through the planning period. Compliance with OAR 660-0i2.0065 OAR 660~012-0065 identifies the types of transportation improvements "which may be permitted on rural lands consistent with Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 without a goal exception." Because the list of permitted transportation improvements does not include new four-lane limited access highways on rural lands, OAR 660~012-0065 does not apply~ Instead, the exception standards in OAR 660-012- 0070 apply. See OAR 660-012-0070(I). omphance with OAR OAR 660-0 ~ 2-0070 contains the requirements and standards for taking goal exceptions to justify transportation facilities and improvements on rural lands. These standards, set out in OAR 660-012- 0070(1) through 660-012-0070(8), are addressed below. OAR 660-0i2.0070(i) OAR 660-012-0070(I) requires an exception for siting transportation facilities on rural lands that do not meet the requirements of 660-012-0065. The Modified Project satisfies OAR 660-012-0070(1) because goal exceptions will be taken as required by this standard. 29 In a~l instarm~s, affe~od intersections will operate at the minimum acceptable level ~dentified in the TransPian. EXHIBFF ~l - FINDINGS 20 ~ST E~NE PARJG~Ay ~DiFIED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY ~TH THE STAT~'~mr~ ~ ................. ....... r~*u~mr~ ~ AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE OAR OAR 660-012-0070(2) provides that where exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11 or 14 are required, "the exception shall be token pursuant to ORS 197.732(1~c), Goal 2, OAR 660, D~v~s~on 4 ~d hh~s d~vision/~ Because OAR 660, D~v~sions 4 and 12 ~mplement Goal 2 and ORS 197.732(1)(c), a demons~afion of compliance with these administrative rule requirements demons~ates compliance wkh all of these review s~nd~ds.30 Th~s technical memorandum provides the findings of fact and m~ons demons~ating ~mpl~ance wkh the applicable exception s~ndards, ~s required by Goat 2 ~d ORS 197.732. OAR OAR 660-012-0070(3) requires that "an exception adopted ~ p~ of a TSP or refinement pl~ shall, at a m~nimum, decide ne~, mode, function and general locmion for the propos~ healthy or ~mprovement. As note~ above, ff~e West Eugene Parkway project is already an element of the TransPlan and the e Coun~ R~oI Comprehe~ive plam3~ ~e ac~owledged 1986 exception ~deafifi~ the need for project32 and detemined ~ts mode (h~ghway), function (l[mit~ access major ~edal) and general location ~is cu~ent exception ~s required only to change the general l~afioa of the approved hc~lky from south of the m~lroad ~acks to nomh grease trac~. F~gure 1 Shows ~e co~dor wkh~n which ~e Modified Project would be lommd. The Modified Project would have ~bur 12-foot w~de ~avel lanes w~ 8~foot wide shouldem on the ou~[de of the Ianes. A center median would v~, in w~dth from 12 to 14 feet. See Roadway Profiles at F~gure 2-3 of tbe SDEZS. The alignment shi~ no~hward from the Approved Design would be accomplished w~ a grade-sep~ated crossing over the Central Oregon ~d Pacific m~lroad tracks and the Amain Channel near Te~ S~eet. The precise l~fion of the hc~l~W wkh~n the co~dor w~ll be detemined during prQect design. Becau~ the hcil~W ~s a state highway, ~ts design and cons~ucfion w~ll comply wkh es~bl[shed ODOT s~nd~ds for ~nsmcfing urban, s~tew~de limked ac~s facilk~es, ~d w~ 1~1 s~ndards and pr~edures when appl~mble. OAR 660,0i2-0070{4), ORS igL732{i}{c)(A), Goal 2 Part ll(c){i), OAR 660-004. 0020(2)(a) and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(4) states: "To address Goal 2, Part II(c)(1) the exception shall demonstrate that there is a transportation need identified consistent with the requirements of 660-012-0030 which cannot reasonably be accommodated through one or a combination of the following measures not requiring an exception: "(a) Alternative modes of transportation. 30 The ~anguage in ORS 197~732(1)(c) is identical to the Goa~ 2 exception language set out above in the analysis of compliance w~th statewide p~anning goal 2. 31 Beceuse the TransP~a~ was adopted pdor to LCDC adoption of the Transportation Planning Ru~e, ~t ~s nat a TSP as that term is used Jn the mia. The Large Counci~ of Governments is currently developing a regional TSP to comply with TPR require~nts. ~rding to City of Eugene Planning Director Jan Childs, that p~an currently ~s scheduled for headngs in the of 1999, with adoption unlikely pdor to June 32 The 1986 exception k~ent!fies this prole~ as needed to provide a safe transition to Highway ~26 and to avok~ the existing na~ow, ~rved ore.ass at ~e Southern Pac~c [now Central Oregon and Pac~c] railroad tracks. Add~ional need for this project is described below. E)CqIBiT C~i - FiNDiNGS 2~ WEST E~NE PARKWAY ~JED PROJECT--CX~SJSTENCY WITH THE STAT~,~- ................. -,-..,ut r'~r~..~ ~.XmL~ AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE "(b) Traffic management measures; and "(c) Improvements to existing transportation fi ' ' ' - acflmes~ Transportation eed The ~denfified ~anspo~fion need is for the West Eugene Parkway ~t rather than the Mod{fled Project ali nment The ~ need for the Mod~fi~ Project alignment ~s ~ to reduce significant adverse ~mpac~ to high value wetlan~ and to threatened and endangered plant and animal species from those ~at would ~cur through construction of~e Approved Design. As described the J]ternatives ~emorandum, the Modified Project w~ll ~mpact &4 hec~res of h~gh value wetlands, ~mp~e~ to ~ ~ ~27 for the Approved Des[gnfi3 it also dir~tly ~mpacts only three clumps of endangered plan~ compared to 39 plan[s or plant clumps for the Approved Des~, and unlike the Approved Design, k d~s not eliminate western pond tulle hab~t. The Modified Project also ~ncludes five undercross{ngs ~een Te~ S~eet ~d ks we~em tem~nus to provide safe cross~ngs for small animals ~ncluding ~e western pond ~le.~ Because the West Eugene P~kway project already ~s an element of the acknowledged Metro Tr~sPlan, ~d Lane C~u~ ~ural Com~rehe~ive P~an, a s~tement of reasons why there ~s a ~anspo~fion need for the ~p should not ~ n~essa~. ~e overall need for the project ~s afl, ted by the alignment modification from the Approved Design to the Modified Project. Noae~eless, ~is ~s addressed ~n ~ exercise of caution. To the extent th~s constitutes su~lussage, should be reg~ded as such. lnkially, ~e 1986 exception ~denfified a need to provide a safe transk~on to H~ghway 126 and avoid the na~ow, cun, ed ove~s wi~ ~e railroad. That transpo~fion need still ex~s~ ~s do the aeeds~ identified ~n the 1985 Dra~ Eavironmea~l Impact Statement and repeated in the SDEI& to (1) improve access to ~e West Eugene ~nd~ial ~ea v~a d~rect ~nnecfions with only s~ateg~c crossroads, (2} be~er link West Eugene residential areas with downtown, (3) relieve congestion and ~mprove s~e¢- along West 1 lth Avenue by removing most ~ntra- and ~nte>regional and some local traffic from the bus,est and most h~dous section of West 1 lth Avenue~ (4) fac~l~te imra- and ~nte>reg[onal and c~de ravel through the western half of~e C~ of Eugene be~een Highway ~ 26 ~d the lme~te 5~mer~te 105 co~dor~ and (5) ~mplement an ~mpo~nt pa~ of the ~eaw~de roadway system ~ e~v[sion~ in ~e TmnsPl~. See SDEIS at 1~ 1; see also Su~ementa[ N¢eds ~nalysis and ~hematives Memorandum. ~e Tr~spo~fion Planning Rule, at OAR 660-012-0005(28)~ defines "regional ~anspo~fion needs" as "needs for movement of people and goods be~een and through communities and accesslbili~ to regional destinations w~in a me~opoli~n ~e~ county or ass~iated group of counties." ~ose n~ds exist in West Eugene~ ~ ~dentified above. ~e West Eugene P~kway, wkh the Modified Project al~men~ would se~e regional ~spo~fion needs of the area by enhancing ~he movement of~c ~rough the Eugene-Springfield region, by ~mproving access to regional population ~d emploSment centers (in p~icular, the West Eugene indus~ial ~ea ~d the Willow Creek B~n35)~ and by improving accessib[l[~ to regional destinations, including Fern RJdge 33 Alternatives Memorandum, Table 4. 35 The ~l~ow Creek Basin ~s k~cated south of West 1'1~' Avenue in West Eugene. The 1082 Willow Creek SpecJal Area Study the 20~e ~ll~ Cr~k ~ndustfia~ pa~, in~Udes ~e m~nt~ approv~ Hyunda~ semi~ndu~or ~nufa~udng plant ~n EXHIBIT C-1 - F~N[;)~NGS 22 WEST E[~NE PARKWAY MOD{FtED PR~ECT--.C,~OON~ SISTE NCY WiTH THE STATEW;DE PLANNING GOALS AND TP, ANSPORT^T~ON PLANN!~ RULE Reservoir, the Hult Center for the Performing Arts, the Lane County Fair Grounds, the University of Oregon and Autzen Stadium, and the Oregon Country Fair? The WEP also would serve "state transportation needs," which the TPR defines as "needs for movement of people and goods between and through regions of the state and between the state and other states." OAR 660-012-0005(29). Maintaining an acceptable level of service along Highway 126 through Eugene and the City of Springfield is very important because Highway 126 is the major east- west connector through the metropolitan region. Highway 126 not only serves the Eugene-Springfield area, but connects this region to destinations along the Oregon Coast, in the Oregon Cascades, and in Central and Eastern Oregon? Until ODOT eliminated the classification recently, Highway 126 from Eugene to Florence38 was identified as an Access Oregon Highway, deemed the most important for statewide travel. ODOT's 1999 Oregon Highway Plan classifies the road as a "Statewide Highway" intended primarily t© provide inter-urban and inter-regional mobility and provide conne~:tions to larger urban areas? The management objective for facilities of this nature is to provide safe and efficient, high speed, continuous operation flow, with interruptions to that flow within urban areas only "minimal.'~0 Existing Highway 126 along West 1 lth Avenue already fails to meet this objective and will only deteriorate further with time~ Table 2 of the Alternatives Memorandum demonstrates the statewide and regional nature of travel along the WEP. As described in the Alternatives Memorandum, Table 2 identifies the percentage of trips the West Eugene Corridor, defined as Re al . north, West 18th Avenue to the south, River Road to the e~t ~ ~ ......... y~ ..Avenue to the shows that over 42 percent of total trips on the facility between the we~ end of the WEP and its intersection with Highway 99 are through trips beginning or ending outside the UGB?I From the western WEP terminus to Garfield street, the percentage of through trips along selected links varies from a low of 49 percent to upwards of 78 pement. ~[~ese through-trip travel needs are most appropriately met on facilities designed to serve statew[de and regional rather than local trips. The general configuration of the Eugene~Springfield metropolitan area is aligned along an east-west axis that, traveling east to west, ~bllows Springfield's Main StreeC Franklin Boulevard and West 1 lth Avenue~ Highway 126 is the main east-west route through the metropolitan region. This route enters Springfield on the e~stem edge of the region from the McKenzie Valley as Highway 126 and runs through Thurston and east Springfield as "Main Street". At 58th Street, the route tums northward and follows the Eugene-Springfield Highway, a four-lane, limited access facility. As it crosses Interstate 5, this highway becomes Interstate 105, and the Highway 126 route tums southward across the 36 A~ss to reservoir facilities is year-round, although most intensive uses occur dudng the summer months. The Hult Center, Lane County Fair Grounds, and the Univers~y of Oregon provide entertainment and cultural events year round. The Country Fair ~ held annually dudng July and draws a large number of people from the Lane County region, statewide, and from other states. 37 Highway t26 is one o~ only ~our major routes connecting the V~,0tlamette Valley and Interstate 5 with the Oregon Coast The other routes are Highways ~ 8, 20 and 26. Coastal destinations easily acoessib~e from H{ghway ~ 26 include historic downtown F~orenca, the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Jessie M. Honeyman Memorial State Park~ Cape Perpetua, and the eries o~ Yacha~ and ReedsporL Cascade destinations include skiing and hiking destinations at Santiam Pass and VV~llamette Pass, the Mt. Jefferson~ Mt. Washington and Three Sisters V~ldemess Areas, and the Metolius recreation area. Central and Eastern Oregon destinations include the cities o~ Sisters, Bend, Redmond, Pdnevffle Klamath Falls, John Day, Bums and Ontado and the Ma~heur and Klamath Wlldlh~e Refuges. ' 38 Highway 126 from Eugene to Florence also passes through and serves the communities of Veneta, Noti, and Map~eton. 39 Further, Highway 126 is an element of the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS purpose is to provide an interconnected system o~ principal at, ertl routes which wil~ serve malor population centers, intemationa~ border crossings, pe(~s, airports, public transportation ~acll~ies and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve interstate and inter~regiona~ travel 40 The ~Statewk~e" and ~NHS" class{fications extends eastward all the way along Highway 126 to ~ terminus, where ~ ~oins w~h US H~ghway 20 and S~ate Highway 22 near Santiam Pass in the Oregon CasCades. 41 It ~s like~ that many other tdps beg n and end ~nside the UGB but outside the West Eugene Corrk~on Still ether tdps begin or end inside the Wes1 Eugene Corridor, but do not both begin and end insk~e the West Eugene Conidor. EXHIBFr C~I -FINDINGS 23 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIF{ED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATEWI~ PLANNING GOALS AND TP~NSPORTAT~ON PLANNING RULE Jefferson Street Bridge and over the Willamette River to the couplet at 6th and 7th Avenues. This couplet extends westward to Garfield Street, which Highway 126 follows about six blocks to its intersection with West 11 th Avenue, a designated principal arterial. Highway 126 then follows West 1 lth Avenue through West Eugene and outside the urban growth boundary, continuing to Veneta and Florence, where it connects with US As explained in the SDEIS, Supplemental Needs Analysis, and Alternatives Memorandum, through West Eugene, this existing east-west roadway system does not support the efficient and safe local, citywide, regional and statewide movement of people, goods and services. West 1 characterized by numerous signals and intersections and by extensive strip commercial development on both its north and south sides, all with direct access to the roadway. Right-of-way width is limited, and constant intersections and ingress and egress movements hinder smooth traffic flow. Even with significmat roadway improvements to West 1 lth Avenue, including road widenings, center turn lanes at major intersections and signal synchronization improvements?2 the roadway does not provide the carrying capacity ora limited access arterial with speeds of 35 to 60 miles per hour. In the developed portions of West 11 th Avenue, speeds greater than 35 miles per hour are not safe because of the movements in and out of the driveways serving the numerous businesses. Especially during peak hours, West 1 lth Avenue is highly congested, with many intersections already at or near capacity (Level of Service ( ) ). LOS "F' The Supplemental Needs Analysis states that from 1982 to 1992, traffic counts on West 11 th Avenue increased from 17 pement to 58 percent on segments between City View and Green Hill Road. At the same time, traffic on the north-south connectors to West 11 th Avenue increased from 527 percent. Without the WEP, traffic congestion along West 1 lth Avenue will deteriorate to unacceptable congestion levels (LOS F) as population in the Metropolitan area continues to grow.43 With the WEP, those performance levels are improved to LOS C and D. Current planning policy recognizes LOS "D" as the minimum acceptable standard fbr congestion. Updated in~brmation gathered in the summer of 1999 confirms the conclusions reached in the S~pplemental Needs Analysis. This information shows the West 1 l th Avenue intersections with Green Hilt Road, Danebo Avenue and Beldine Highway alt at LOS "F' by the year 2015. Volume to capacity ratios for these intersections range from a low of 1.05 at Green Hill Road to a high of 1.50 at Beltline Highway. Levels of service east of Beltline Highway along West 1 Ith Avenue rand G~eld Street are no better. For this section, which is also the highest accident rate area in the City of Eugene,44 volume to capacity ratios at a major intersections range from 1.21 to 1.36 (Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix B).4s With construction of the Modified Project, Highway 126 will be moved entirely off of West 11 th Avenue. The direct connection to West 1 lth Avenue is severed. For West 1 lth Avenue~ the effect is 42 Over the past 30 years West 11~ Avenue has been continually improved and upgraded. Most recent projec~ (in the 1990s) include additions of a center ~ane and sidewalks in the section from Seneca Road to Garfield Street; installation of traffic signals at cross streets in the section be[ween Bailey Hill Road and Garfield Street; road widening (from two to five ~anes) and Sidewalks in the section between BoltJine Highway and Danebo AvenueNVillow Creek Road; and road widening (from two to four ~anas/plus center median/turn pockets, bike ~anes, sidewalks and a traffic signa~ (at Terry Street) in the segment from Danebo Avenue to Temg Street. 43 Population projections contained in the recently adopted Metro Area Reaidentia! Land Use and Houaing Study show that the Eugene-Spdpgfie{d metropolitan area population is expected to increase from approximately 204,359 m year 2015 FUtUre develo m t~ . _ ' 90 to 30t 400 by the . p eot plans near West 1'1 Avenue include nodal development areas including commercial, employment or neighborhood centers. See Alternatives Memorandum at 8. 44 Supplemental Needs Analysis at 28; Alternatives Memorandum at 2. For 1996-1998, the acc{dent rate at {he intersections of 6th and 7th Avenue with Garfield Street (roilepost 121.7 to 122.4) was 9.41 crashes per roil{ion vehicle miles trsve]ed, compared to a statewkJe average of 3~71 for urban arterials over the same peded. 45 The Tmr~sPz'an also projects traffic overloads for 6th and 7th Avenues, the 6th-7th Extension West of Gar~d, West '~Sth Avenue~ portions of Roosevelt Boulevard, and the [woqane section of Beitl]ne Highway from West ~ 't th Aenue to Highway 99. Supplementa! Needs Analysis at 23. EXHIBPr ~1 - FINDINGS 24 WEST E~NE PA~AY ~)0{F~ED P~ECT-,~.,~NSISTENCY W~H THE STATE~ ............ u~ PLANNING GUALS AND TRANSP~ATION PLANNING RULE to vastly relieve congestion. Restoring West l 1 th Avenue to a properly functioning local road serves a "local transportation ne local destinations, ea to move people within the West Eugene area and to provide access to In summary, a transportation need exists for the Modified Project. 2rlqat need is a regional need to move people and goods within the greater Eugene-SPringfield metropolitan region, a statewide need to move people and goods through the region to outside destinations, such as the Oregon coast and Oregon Cascades, and a local need to move people efficiently within the West Eugene area. A limited access fhcility is warranted to preserve the function of the roadway to facilitate these kinds of trips. A four-lane facility is warranted with 2015 vehicle trip estimates ranging from 18,400 to 23,700 average daily trips in the portions of the WEP west of Beldine Highway and over 34,000 average daily trips east of Beltline Highway.46 Without this new facility, arterial and collector streets in West Eugene become overburdened. All principal intersections along West 1 lth Avenue will function at LOS "F' by the year 2015. With the modified project, Highway 126 can again perform its intended purpose of serving primarily intra-regional and interregional travel, and West 11 th Avenue cm~ again perform its primary, function of serving predominantly local travel needs. Consistency with To comply with OAR 660-012-0070¢), the identified transportation need must be consistent with the requirements of OAR 660~012-0030. The WEP and its Modified Project are consistent with those requirements for the reasons stated below. O~ 660-012-0030(1) requires that a TSP identify, transportation needs relevant to the planning area and the scale of the transportation network being planned, including state, regional and local transportation needs, the needs of the transportation disadvantaged, and needs for movement of goods and services. The ]999 Oregon Highway Plan is an element of the State TSP. That plan identifies a statewide transportation need for the WEP. That plan, and ODOT's Oregon Transportation Plan (1992), also address broader statewide needs, including the needs of the transportation disadvantaged and the needs for movement of people and goods~ consistent with this provision. Neither the TransPlan nor the Lane County Rural Transportation Plan are "transportation system plans" as that term is used in the TPR. BOth were adopted before the TPR took effect and have not yet been amended to fully comply with the rule. Currently, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is in the process of preparing amendments to the TransPlan to implement the TPR and create a regional TSP.47 A dra~ plan has been released, with adoption anticipated sometime in 2000. Efforts to update Lane County's transpo~tion plan are following a separate track. Under the coordination requirements of the TPR, regional and local transportation plans, including the TransPlan and the Lane Count3, Rural Transportation Plan, will need to be consistent with the state TSP~ Accordingly, both the Metro Area and County TSPs will need to include the WEP. The ~P and its Modified Project also are intended to improve access within the metropolitan region and to developments existing and planned for the West Eugene area, including the large West Eugene industrial area. Even with the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, hundreds of acres remain available for future industrial development in the industrial area where, as of 1994, the City had invested over 46 SDEiS, Figure 3~2. 47 LCOG ~s the Me~ropo~ita~ P{anning Organ~ation (MPO) designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation p~anning for ~ Eugen~pdngfie!d me~repolitan area. LCOG~ preparing ~ Tra~aPlan u ate w' '~ ~- ~,,~ ~ ~s[r~ m ~oramat~on w~n O~T the Lane - ~ ' .... ' , Reg~ona~ Air Author~, the F~eral Highway Administration, the F~erel Trans~ Agent, and other agencies, EXH~T C~ - FINDINGS 25 WES'T EU~NE PARKWAY ~FIED PROJECT~NSIS~NCY WiTH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS AND T~NS~TATEAN PLANNING R1JLE $12,000,000 in infrastructure? The West Eugene Parkway with its Modified Project alignment wi~t facilitate the movement of ~ple and goods to and from the West Eugene industrial area~ Moreover, the WEP will improve the ability of West 1 lth Avenue to serve local access needs of area businesses. Further, the WEP will also help serve the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by facilitating effcient regional transit service along route 93 serving county residents and regional recreational destination access to the Veneta and Fern Ridge Reservoir areas.49 OAR 660-0124~030(2) requires that counties or Metropolitan Planning Organizations preparing regional TSPs rely on the analysis of state transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP, and that local governments preparing local TSPs rely on the analyses of state and regional transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and adopted regional TSPs. LCOG, in coordination with I~ne County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield, has developed in£orrnation for a regional TSP and prepared a draft transportation system plan. In so doing, LCOG is relying on analysis of state transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan is an adopted element of ODOT's state TSP. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan designates Highway 126 from Florence to the Oregon Cascades as a Statewide Highway. The identified transportation need for the WEP with its Modified Project alignment is oonsistent with ODOT's designation of Highway 126 as a Statewide Highway because the principal purpose ora Statewide Highway is to serve interurban and interregional trave~ needs. Accordingly, this requirement is met. OAR 660,012-0030(3) requires that local and regional transportation need deteminations within urban gro,~,l~h boundaries be based on 20-year population and employment forecasts and distributions which are consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans and Goal 14 urbanization policies. The population and emplos~nent projections t:br the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area are consistent with the acknowledged Metro ?inn and ~'EI~?, which identify West Eugene for predominantly industrial and resource protection use in the immediate vicinity of the Modified Project.50 Those projections support the conclusion that traffic conditions at all major intersections along West 1 Ith Avenue by the year 2015 will be at LOS "F' without the WEP..~hernatives Memorandum, Appendix B. Si~ifieant investment in infrastructure already has taken place in West Eugene, including over $12 mill~on by the City to support industrial development plus private expenditures. Serviced areas include the Green Hill Technology Park north of West I I th Avenue and west of Terry Street. During the past two years, over half the streets and sewers have been constructed to serve this approximately 133-acre industrial park. In 1998 and 1999~ Rosen Products completed their first phase of development and by September, t999, employed over 200 workersfi~ Through this provision of infrastructure and commencement of development, urbanizable lands have been converted to urban lands. ~ile there remains substantial vacant acreage for future industrial development, the presence of urban facilities in this area means that the area can accommodate industrial development now or in the very near future. This is consistent with Goal 14's requirement to encourage urban development on urban lands prior to conversion of urbanizable lands. As described in more detail below, the Lane Council of Governments currently is developing a regional Transportation System Plan as required by the TPR. ~his plan, the TransP~'an Update~ has not yet been adopted. However, the plan considers need taking into account numerous measures to 48 Supplemental IVood$ Analysis at 30. ' 40 Land Uae rachn~ Report at 103. 50 The Draft Revised TransP]an (May ~ 999) )den,(ties year ~995 population and employment at 224~00 and mspe~e(y; Projected 20~ 5 Population and employment forecasts are 30~,400 and ~ 53~000 respecth~ely. 51 Correspondence from Dave Reinhard, C~ty of Eugene Planning and Development Department, dated September 20, ~ 999. WEST E~NE P~'J:~,<WAY ~IOi[~F~ED PROJECT,--.CONSISTENCY WffH THE STAT'-EW~iDE ~NING GOglJ~ AND TRANsPORTAT~Ofl PLA~NI~NG RULE reduce reliance on the automobile, including Bus Rapid Transit, transportation demand management, and encouragement of travel by foot and bicycle. MOreover, the City of Eugene has amended its land use regulations to comply with OAR 660-012-0045 to support and encourage travel by bike, foot and transit. Still, for the reasons spelled out below in the discussion of compliance with OAR 660-012~ 0070(4) and incorporated herein by this reference, these measures do not eliminate the need for the WEP. Under OAR 66{}-012-0030(4), calculations of local and regional transportation needs are to be based upon accomplishment of the requirements in OAR 660-012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on the automobile. Specifically, OAR 660-012-0035(4) requires Eugene-Springfield area local governments to design their TSPs to achieve a 5 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita (VMT) within 20 years oFTSP adoption. However, under OAR 660-012-0035(5), the Eugene~Springfield region may seek authorization from LCDC to use alternative standards in place of the VMT standards to demonstrate progress towards achieving reduced automobile reliance through means identified in that rule section, it currently appears to be the region's intention to do so. A Eugene-Springfield transportation plan constituting a "TSP" meeting TPR requirements has not yet been adopted. ~en these jurisdictions adopt that TSP, they will apply the VMT standard (or an alternative) on a regional system planning basis rather than an individual project development basis. The aim is to develop a transportation system that, overall, meets the VMT or alternate standard. Nothing in the standard precludes a single project from increasing VMT, provided that the TSP, as a whole, has an overall effect of reducing VMT or making progress towards achieving reduced automobile reliance through other approved means. It is likely that local land use approval for the Modified Project will precede local TSP adoption. The question of how the VMT standard applies prior to adoption cfa regional TSP is addressed in a December 9, 1991 letter from Larry Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General, to Michal A. Wert, Highway Division. "OAR 660-12-035(4) establishes objectives for the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPC) areas. ~here has been some question about whether the numerical reduction objectives apply to individual transportation projects and whether they apply at all to ODOT. my opinion, the objectives do not apply directly to individual projects. Rather, they are to be applied over an entire planning area and over a specific (lO and 20 year) time period In other words., a TSP may include a project that fails to reduce (or even increases) VMT so long as the plan, as a whole, ia' designed to achieve the objective. "The rule does not expressly apply to ODOT. By its terms, nly regional and local TSPs shall be designed to achieve' VMT reduction objectives. Indirectly, however, the rule does affect ODOT. For example, VMT reduction objections [sic] must be considered when calculating local and regional needs in the preparation of a plan. OAR 660-12-030(4). Similarly, under the state agency coordination program, O ' DOT s actions (with respect to programs affecting land use) must comply with the statewide goals and be compatible with local land use plans. Unless a project is authorized by acknowledged tocal plan provisions, ODOT should consider whether a proposed land use action would make it impracticable for the M~O to achieve its VkFF objectives." (Emphasis added.) Here, the West Eugene Parkway is ~ authorized by acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions. Given that fact, plus the fact that the Modified Project alters only the project location rather than its need, it would appear that OAR 660-012o0035(4) need not be further considered. It is EXHIB~ ~ - F~ND~NGS 27 EUGENE PARKWAy MOBF~ED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE~DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE considered here in an exercise of caution. If such analysis is not required, then this discussion should be considered as surplussage. Also, as previously noted, the identified transportation need for this facility includes a need to serve interregional trips. The facility, a state highway, is part of the state TSP and thereby ~us_t be included in the local TSP under the coordination and consistency requirements in OAR 660-012- 0015(2)(a). [£the VMT standard must be considered, then the evidence suggests, for a variety o£reasons, that this facility would not so contribute to VMT per capita as to impede the r ' ' egmn s ability to achieve VMT compliance or otherwise achieve alternate standards demonstrating progress towards achieving reducing automobile reliance. First, under the definition of VMT at OAR 660-012~0005(36), trips originating or ending outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (hem, LCOG) are not included in VMT calculations. S2 As a facility meeting state transportation needs, many o£the trips on the WEP will begin or end outside the MPa bounda~fi3 These trips do not contribute to per capita VMT. Second, without the WEP, traffic conditions along West 1 Ith Avenue would so deteriorate as to create significant out-of-direction travel, thereby causing a greater increase in VMT per capita.54 People will travel parallel routes to access or leave West Eugene. These routes include West 18th Avenue and Beltline Highway (see Figure 1). This out of direction travel not only would increase VMT~ but may cause mismatches in roadway function relative to surrounding land uses. For example, West 18th Avenue is surrounded primarily by residential land uses. By serving as an overflow for West 1 lth Avenue traffic during congested periods, West 18th Avenue may be serving a function for which it is was neither designed nor intended. Third, the region is undertaking other transportation and land use efforts to reduce reliance on the automobile, including land use, demand management and system improvements~ These measures include opportunities for nodal mixed use developments in areas served by transit and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) pilot project, implementation of which is expected to begin within the next several years. Nodal mixed use development will place housing closer to jobs and shopping, thereby increasing convenience and accessibility and reducing the need to drive long distances.SS The BRT concept consists of high-frequency, fast transit service along major transportation corridors, with small bus service in neighborhoods that connects with the BRT corridor service and with nearby activity centers. Ultimately, elements of the BRT system ma3, include exclusive bus lanes, a bus guideway system, traffic signal priority for trar~sit, low-floor buses for faster boarding, pre-pare fares for faster boarding, greater spacing between bus stops, improved stops and stations, and park and ride lots along BRT corridors, which will include West 1 lth Avenue to Beldine Highway. F~nally, the Modified Project will not encourage sprawl types of development that contribute to VMT per capita because so much of the area within which the project is located cannot be developed under 52 While LCOG, as a Counci~ of Governments, covers the entire Lane County area, the Eugene~Spdngfie~d MPa plan boundary is only the area within the Metro Ptan boundary. That boundary extends about 3,200 feet west of the UGB at Green Hill Road, 53 Figure 3-2 of the SDE~S identifies ~ 8,400 tdps begidning or ending outside the MPa area. 54 VMT impacts are described be~ow in the discussion of knprovemen~ to existing facilities. 55 Nodal development refers to a mixed.use, pedestrian friendly land use pattern thatseeks to increase concentrations of population and employment Jn wetl<lefined areas with good transit service, a mb( of d~erse and compatible land uses, and publ{c and pr~ate knprevements designed to be Pedestrian aad transit oriented. Noda~ developments ~n the Eugene-Springfield sma vary in ~he amount, type and orientation of commercJa~, c~ic, and employment uses; target commercial floor ama ratios; s~ze of buiidings; and the amount and ty~ of residential uses. Nodal development patterns include neighborhood centers (primarily residential w~ a mb( of commemial uses), commerc~a~ centers (pdmadty off`me and oomme residential deVeloPment) and em Iovment cente ~:~ -~..,~.. ~t~h~ ~,.~,,.~ .. .. rcJal with higher densk~ retail and service activities P .--- rs .~.r ....... ~ ..= ...... a~ omco and/or msmut~ona{ w~th some supporting and possibly some housing). EX~IISIT C-~ - FINDINGS 28 WEST EUC~NE PARKWAY ~IOB{F~ED PROJ ECT-4X2~ISISTENCY V[~rH Th~ STATEWI[~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE the WEWP. Hence, auto-dependent uses such as shopping centers built alongside freeways, creating tremendous increases in automobile reliance, cannot occur in the vicinity oftbe Modified Project Instead, adjoining properties west of Beltline Highway inside the UGB will remain predominantly vacant. Inadequacy of Alternative ~$[ode~¢ Traffic Management Measures, and Improvements to Existing Transportation Facilities OAR 660-012-0070(4) requires consideration of whether the identified transportation need can be reasonably accommodated through one or a combination of measures not requiring goal exceptions, considering (1) alternative modes of transpor~mtion, (2) traffic management measures, and (3) improvements to existing transportation facilities. As part of the TransPlan update process now underway, LCOG, Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield have been carefully analyzing the regional transportation network, land use patterns and population and employment projections to identify future transportation system needs throughout the region. As part of this process, and consistent with TPR requirements, considerable attention has been given to the ability of transit, transportation system management, transportation demand management and transportation modes other than the automobile to meet identified transportation needs~ The draft Tra~nsPlar~ includes consideration of aggressive transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) knprovements that would reduce reliance on the automobile. As described in more detail below, the analysis shows that with Bus Rapid Transit, overall transit ridership likely would increase by 50 pement by the year 2015. This is a significant rate of growth fur transit. Further, TDM measures such as employer support strategies, transit fare reductions, family car incentives, ridesharing, group transit passes, parking management measures, special user fees, and other techniques could reduce total per capita VMT by nearly 10 pemenL See -Alternatives Memorandum at 8-12. However, even with these and other measures, the analysis shows that construction of the WEP still is needed to meet overall identified storewide and regional transportation needs~ Alternative ~odes of Transportation The ongoing TransPlan update process is an extensive technical and public effort to develop, evaluate, refine and recommend a balanced transportation system. As part of that process, LCOG has carefully considered the ability of alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, ~sit, and fide sharing and vanpool programs, to meet regional and local transportation needs. According to infomation contained in the draft Trans?lan Update (May 1999), under the fiscally constrained 2015 Tram'Plan, non-auto trips am estimated to ~ncrease from 13.0 percent to 15.6 percent of total trips between 1995 and 2015, with pedestrian trips increasing from 8.6 percent to 9.4 pement, bus trips ~ncreasing from 1.8 percent to 2.7 pement, and bicycle trips decreasing from 3~6 percent to 3.5 percent. Shared auto trips also are expected to increase slightly, from 42.3 pement to 42.9 percent of trips, while single occupancy automobile trips decrease from 43.7 percent to 41.6 percent of total trips. Alternatives Memorandum, Table 1 .ss The cities of Eugene and Springfield already have one of the best and most extensive bicycle path networks in the State of Oregon. The pementage of bicycle ridership in the region is substantially h~gher than in most other urban areas of the state. The region wU1 continue to encourage bicycle as well as pedestrian usage through construction of new bicycle lanes and sidewalks and through implementation of the measures required by OAR 660~012~0045 to provide for safe and convenient 56 These percentages ~rata cha~ges ~o !and use designations, densities and designs to accommodate pedes~an- ~nd~ m~ed ~se developing. ~ese ~r~tages ~n~orate ~anges to land use des~aUons, de~s~ies and designs to a~mm~ate ~dest~a~end~y m~ use developments. EXHIBIT C-i - FiNDiNGS WEST EU~NE PARKWAY MODIFIED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY ~TR THE STATEV~DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE bicycle and pedestrian circulation and reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel in areas where usage of these modes is likely. In August, 1997, LCOG analyzed the potential for public transportation in the region. This study consisted of market analysis, system analysis, and findings and conclusions, and it incorporated TDM strategies, transpor~tion system features and land use changes to support mixed use developments. LCOG concluded that an improved transit system, together with nodal mixed use development patterns, would act in a complementary manner and improve overall transit ridership in the region. The improved transit system incorporates the aggressive Bus Rapid Transit pilot project. BRT consists of high-frequency, fast transit service along major transportation corridors, with small bus service in neighborhoods that connects with the BRT corridor service and with nearby activity centers. The BRT system is based on light rail principles, but instead of the required capital investment in trains and track~ it utilizes buses in service that is integrated with key components of the existing automobile transportation inf?astructure, such as roads and rights-of-way, intersections, and traffic signals. The BRT system would be used as a complementary element to the regular public transit service provided by Lane Trar~sit District. Service frequencies would be similar to regular services with minute headways during daytime peak hours and 20-minute headways during daytime off-peak hours and on evenings and weekends. BRT would employ several features to decrease travel time, including exclusive bus lanes, transit priority treatments (e.g., prefhrential traffic signal timing and queue- jumpers), extended stop spacing, enhanced shelters and boarding areas, and a barrier-free fare systemfi7 Improving the transit system through a combination of BRT and nodal mixed-use, development clearly Can significantly increase the modal share assigned to transit~ pedestrian-friendly Moreover, the BRT system is expected to serve West Eugene through its extension along the West 11 Avenue corridor. However, notwithstanding anticipated increases in transit ridership and the increase in trans~t's modal share of all trips, West 1 lth Avenue still will not function adequately wkhout the WEPfi8 The volume to capacity ratios at the intersections of West 1 lth Avenue with Green Hill Road~ Danebo Avenue, Beltline Highwa% Bertelsen Road, Bailey Hill Road and Seneca Road will continue to exceed 1.00 without the WEP, with the ratio at Beltline Highway estimated at 1.50.so Clearly~ travel by alternative modes, combined with TDM and traffic management improvement measures, does not eliminate the need fbr the WEPfi0 The new roadway is still needed to serve existing and planned growth and statewide and regional trips. Transportation ~ana~ement and Transportation Demand ~easures Transportation management measures include techniques for increasing the efficiency, safety, capacity or level of service of a transportation facility without increasing its size. Examples include traffic signal improvements, traffic control devices including installing medians and parking removal~ channelization, access management, ramp metering, and restriping of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. See OAR 660-012-0005(25). Measures such as ramp metering and high occupancy vehicle lanes are not appropriate for West 11 th Avenue. These measures apply more to freeway projects experiencing efficiency or capacity deficiencies. Median barriers along West 1 lth Avenue also are not appropriate g~ven the ex[sting strip 57 Alternative Memorandum at "~ ~-12~ 58 A~tematives Memorandum at 12. 59 Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix B. 60 The figures set out in Appendix B of the Alternatives Memorandum include TDM. EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS WEST EUGENE PA}~<VVAY ~K)D~F1ED PROJECT~sISTENCY W~TH THE STATe. DE PtANN~NG ~ AND T~TAT~ON PLANNING RULE commercial development pattern, the absence of access management, the absence of alternative frontage roads to provide adequate access to affected retail and commercial operations, and other reasons described in more detail below. TDM measures hold greater promise~ TDM is a program with elements designed to reduce the number of trips by automobile by creating measurable or quantifiable differences in time or cost. Examples include transit subsidies, parking charges for work-related single occupancy vehicles~ lane pricing, shuttle services, telecommuting, no-drive days and user fees. From 1994 to 1996~ LCOG studied and analyzed TDM strategies to identify measures that would help reduce VMT and postpone the need for more extensive investments~ A TDM task force was established to priork~ze preferences for TDM strategies and identify opportunities fbr application of these preferences for additional evaluation. Strategies considered included ridesharing, parking management, employer transit use subsidies, special user fees, family car incentives, shuttle services, trip reduction ordinances~ voluntary no-drive days, congestion pricing, and other measuresfi~ Because 25 pement of all trips are work-related, the task force examined oPpo~nkies for work trip reductions through TDM in greater detail. Both ~¢oluntary and mandatory strategies were considered, with participation rates based on actual program results documented elsewhere in the coun~. The studies indicated that a strong employer-supported TDM package could reduce work trip VMT by as much as 10.5 percentfi~ The task force concluded that a reduction of just under t0 pement in total VMT could be justified with a relatively high level of public acceptance. Yet even with this improvement, there was little difference in the transportation operation numbers shown for the Build with TDM. Tl~e major intersections along West 1 ltd Avenue continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service "F' and at volume to capacity ratios well above 1.00.63 Improvement~ to Existing Transportation FacDities [Yest ]]th~lvenue is the primary- link between Highway 126 to the west and the Interstate 5/Interstate 105 corridor to the east. West 11 th Avenue also serves the local travel needs of residents, businesses and industries located along or near West 1 Ith Avenue iD West Eugene. As part of the West Eugene Parkway study, improvements to West 1 tth Avenue were carefully evaluated. As described beginning at page 5-13 of the SDE~rS, since the 1960s, development along West 11th Avenue has proceeded based on land use plans assuming the construction ora new east- west transportation corridor~ The assumption has been that West 1 lth Avenue would serve primarily local travel needs and the commercial and industrial establishments along its leng~h~ As a result, commercial and light industrial businesses oriented toward the street, and numerous curb cuts were approved to provide access to these businesses. Beginning in the ~ 960s, the City of Eugene completed several improvements to increase the capacity of West 1 lth Avenue and to bring it up to an urban level of service for a major city arterial. Eastward from Danebo Avenue, 'West 1 lth Avenue has four travel lanes with a continuous center lane for le~ turns. Construction currently is underway extending four travel lanes plus a raised median with turn pockets from Danebe Avenue westward to Terry Street. West of Terry Street, West 1 lth Avenue is a two-lane facility without a median or center turn lane, but with turn pockets at Green Hill Road~ As previously stated, under a no-build alternative with TDM, all major intersections along West 1 Avenue wi]tl operate at LOS F with volume to capacity ratios greater than 1.00 by the year 2015. This projected intersection failure illustrates the need for significant transportation improvements in the 6~ See A[tema#vo$ Memorat~dum at 9~ ~ 6~ The s~dy resu~ are se~ oufr at pa~es ~0-1 ~ o~he Alternat~es Memorartdum, i~corporated herein by ~his reference. E~IBIT C-~ -FtNDINGS 3~ WEST E[A~ENE PAPJ<WAY ~D~F~ED PROJECT_.O~NSi~NCY V~TH THE STATEV~3DE PLANN(NG ~S AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE area. To reasonably accommodate storewide and regional transportation needs, consideration was given to whether West 1 lth Avenue from Garfield Street to the Oak Hill area outside the UGB reasonably could be convened from a local road to a limited access facility meeting Statewide Highway standards to serve intra- and inter-regional travel needs. Through study, many factors were found to impede this action; including the numerous signals and intersections that are part of the existing local road network, over 100 existing commemial enterprises with direct access to West 1 lth Avenue, and an inefficient connection between West 1 lth Avenue and the 6th and 7th Avenue couplet by way of G~eld Street, including two signals and two 90- degree turns. To rectify these condkions would require (1) elimination of most direct accesses to West 1 lth Avenue through the construction of frontage roads or rearrangement of access to other roadways; (2) construction of interchanges at strategic locations serving regional and/or local travel; and (3) construction of a complicated, if not impossible, connection between West 11 th Avenue and Highway 99 in the Garfield Street area. Accomplishing these modifications is not reasonable because the adverse impacts are too severe. The required modifications would cause the displacement or extensive access changes to over 100 commercial and light industrial businesses immediately adjacent to West 1 lth Avenue, Garfield Street, and 6th and 7th Avenues. The changes would require extensive alteration of the land use pattern established over the last 25 to 31) years. These actions would severely impact the commercial land base of the city and substantially impact local employment, business income and tax base. Property owners would need to be compensated for taken property. Resulting loss of parking spaces and landscaping associated with businesses could result in inadequate numbers of spaces or inadequate landscaping measured against City of Eugene standards. Internal circulation and truck movement patterns would be adversely impacted. Providing alternate accesses to all affected properties would also be very disruptive and expensive. Also~ a major objective identified ~br the West Eugene Parkway is to relieve traffic along West 1 lth Avenue so that it can operate as a local road serving local residents and businesses. Converting West 1 lth Avenue into a limited access highway contradicts this objective and violates formalized project goals underlying this project aimed at avoiding impacts to existing commercial and industrial development. For all of these reasons, improvements to West I tth Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need. West Eugene needs both West 1 Ith Avenue, operating as a local road serving area residents and businesses, and a facilky serving storewide and regional twanspormtion needs. The displacement, cost, and environmental impacts that would result from the improvements needed to improve West 1 lth Avenue, together Mth the associated social costs resulting from disruption of the existing land use pattern of the area, are simply too great when considered together. Other existing arterials serving the West Eugene area include Royal Avenue, Beltline High-way and West 18th Avenue. See Figure 1. Each of these facilities is important to the overall regional and local transportation netw~ork. However, these facilities do not represent connections that can provide adequate relief for the east-west traffic flow such as to eliminate the need for the ~.JEP. Moreover, individually a~d cumulatively, they would significantly increase VMT per capita° Royal Avenue, a minor arterial, is located approximately 1.4 miles north of West 11 th Avenue. The roadway passes through and serves primarily residential properties and is adjacent to a park and elemen~ry school. From west of the UGB to Terry Street, Royal Avenue is a two-lane facility with a painted fog line and a posted speed of 45 miles per hour. From Terry Street to Bertelsen Road, the roadway is a three-lane section with bike lanes, no parking, and a posted speed of 35 miles per hour. East of BerteBen Road to Highway 99~ Royal Avenue narrows to two lanes with bike lanes and no parking. Accesses are typical of residential streets (Lo, numerous eurbcuts). EXHIB~ C-I - FIND{NGS 32 WEST EU~NE PARKWAY MODIF~ED PROJECT_.CONSiSTENC.~f W~TH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE For numerous reasons Royal Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need for a facility handling primarily statewide and regional through traffic. The surrounding residential character of the area, and accesses typical of residential streets, makes it a very poor location i:br major widening. Because of its location primarily in residential areas, it is not suited to accommodate traffic at speeds and volumes more appropriate to serve statewide and regional travel needs. Because many accesses would be taken improvement costs would be very expensive. A widened facility within a predominantly residential area also would significantly disrupt the neighborhood and cause the loss of community cohesion. Widening Royal Avenue to accommodate increased travel also would increase in out-of-direction travel by an average of two miles per trip. Finally, Royal Avenue does not provide a connection through the City of Eugene, as is needed to meet regional travel needs. Beltline Highway connects West 1 lth Avenue to interstate 5. From south of the Barger Avenue interchange to Gateway Street just east of I-5, Beltline Highway is a fully access-controlled facility serving the northern part of the metropolitan region. South of the Barger Avenue intemhange to West 1 lth Avenue, Beltline Highway is a two-lane facility without controlled access. Upon completion of the final two phases of the West 1 lth Avenue-North City Limits projeclg Belttine Highway will become a 4~lane controlled access facility all the way to West 1 lth Avenue. The 2015 level of service and volume to capacity estimates in West Eugene under the No-Build alternative assume the completion of Bettline Highwa~v. Consequently, even with this facility, need for significant additional transportation improvements remain. Widening Beltline Highway would not serve the identified need, as the need is to improve east-west travel rather than access to West Eugene from the nor~. For many people traveling to West Eugene, travel via Bettline Highway would be out of direction and defeat state effbrts to reduce per capita VMT. YKest I8th zlvenue is a minor arterial located approximately 0.6 mile south of West 1 lth Avenue. West 18th Avenue extends eastward from Willow Creek Road past Garfield Street to Agate Street near the University of Oregon. From Willow Creek Road to Bertetsen Road, the roadway is being reconstructed to urban standards. Between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road, West 18th Avenue is a two-lane facility with bike lanes and parking on both street sides and a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. From Bailey Hill Road to Garfield Street, West 18th Avenue is a three-lane section with bike lanes but no parking and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. The area from Bertelsen Road to Garfield Street contains residences, financial uses, churches and five schools. The vertical and horizontal alignments may be designed for running speeds less than the posted speed. West 18th Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need for manly' of the same reasons Royal Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Numbers generated by the TraasPian Update indicate that even existing volumes on West 18th Avenue prevent consideration of this route as a serious alternative to the WEP. Moreover, the residential character of the surrounding area makes the roadway a very poor candidate for widening. This residential character, plus the location of five schools along West 18th Avenue, support travel at speeds substantially slower than what is appropriate for a state highway included in the National Highway System. Placing much higher percentages of through traffic along this roadway would increase pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and thus create safety haT_~ards. Further, using West 18th Avenue as an alternative route would require an average out-of-direction travel distance of approximately 1.2 miles, which is inconsistent with the policy objectives in the Transportation Planning Rule. Conclusion with Respect to Alternatives As the above-described analysis demonstrates, alternatives to the West Eugene Parkway have been carefully studied. For all of the reasons stated above, alternative modes, traffic management measures, TDM and improvements to existing transportation facilities, even in combination, cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need for the WEP with it~ Modified Project alignment. EXHIB(T C~l ~ F~NDING$ 33 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MOENFIED PROJECT-.CoNsiSTENCY W)TH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Significant transit hnprovements are being made through the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit program. These improvements are expected to increase overall transit ridership in the metropolitan area by 50 percent over current figures. Further, TDM measures could reduce VMT by about 10 percent. But even with these measures, West 1 l th Avenue still operates an unacceptable levels of service. Widening Royal Avenue and West 18th Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Such improvements would disrupt well~established residential or commercial land use patterns and would significantly increase out-of-direction travel and vehicles miles traveled per capita. Likewise, additional improvements to BekHne Highway beyond those already planned cannot reasonably accommodate the need because the WEP serves primarily east-west travel while Beltline Highway serves circumferential travel. Additional improvements to West 1 l th Avenue also cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Already~ that roadway has been widened and provided with turn lanes to accommodate increasing traffic volume in the area~ Stilly by the year 2015, all major intersections will experience volumes substantially exceeding their capacity. Further widening of West 1 I th Avenue to increase capacity and accommodate through traffic would displace lands from many properties, with over 100 commercial and industrial businesses directly affecte& The modifications necessary to meet identified state and regional transportation needs would severely disrupt the existing land use pattern of the area, and the costs of compensation and providing new accesses would be enormous. These impacts, cumulatively, render this alternative unreasonable. Alteration of West I 1 th Avenue also would run contrary to the need to restore this roadway as a local road serving local residents and businesses. The identified need for the WEP is fbr a facility that provides for relatively high speed movement of people and goods into and out of or through the regiom West 1 lth Avenue can not reasonably function as both a local road and a higher speed facility serving through traffic. tn summary~ despite improvements resulting from BRT~ TDM~ and improvements to existing facilities~ the WEP still is needed to meet the identified predominantly statewide and regional transportation need. Accordingly, OAR 660-012~0070(4) is satisfied~ Compliance with ORS Goal 2 Part OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and OAR 660-004 0022 ORS 19T732(1)(c)(A), Goal 2 Part H(c)(1) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and -0022 parallel OAR 660-012-0070(4). ORS 19T732(1)(c)(A) and Goal 2, Part II(c)(1) require an exception to include reasons whichjustify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply.64 OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) interprets these requirements by explaining that the exception should set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis ibr determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to a specitic property or situation, including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land. OAR 660-004-0022 expands on OAR 660-004- 0020(2)(a) by giving examples of the types of reasons which may justify exceptions, including demonstrated need for the activity based on one or more requirements of Goals 3 to 19 and special features of the proposed use or activity that necessitate its location on the proposed exception site. The reasons Whichjustif~ exceptions to Goals 3~ 4~ 11 and 14 to locate the West Eugene Parkway with the Modified Project alignment on resource lands are stated in this document. These reasons relate principally to Goals 12 and 5. Regarding Goal 12, a statewide and regional need has been identified to move through traffic effic[endy in an east-west direction through the metropolitan 64 Those state policies am identified above in the goal comD~iance section of this document. EXHIBIT C-1 -FINDINGS 34 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIFIED PROJECT--CONSiSTENCY WiTH THE STATEW1DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE reg{on. By the year 2015, all major {ntersections along West I lth Avenue in West Eugene will operate at unacceptable levels. The WEP is needed to facilitate through traffic and allow West 1 Avenue again to function as a local road. Regarding Goal 5, the Modified Project reflects a shared interest by federal, state and local officials to minimize adverse impacts to high va~ue wetlands and to endangered and threatened plant and animal species in the area. Indeed, this interest provided the impetus for shifting from the Approved Design to the Modified Project that necessitates these exceptions. These reasons are consistent with the more specific reasons required under OAR 660- 012-0070(4). As described in greater detail below, the differences in impacts to agricultural and forest lands between locating the WEP on the Approved Design or the Modified Project alignment are not substantial. Overall, the Modified Project has slightly less adverse impacts because it does not directly affect any commercial farming operations. The absence of direct impacts on commercial farming is a reason to justify a Goal 3 exception. As explained in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference, the Modified Project will use approximately I3.9 acres of ODOT property and require acquisition of approximately 9.9 acres of other public lands and 3. l acres of private lands outside the UGB. The afl:bcted public lands serve Goal 5 rather than Goal 3 objectives and do not contribute to the commercial agricultural enterprise of the county or state, which is the focus of Goal 3's attention~ While the 3.1 acres of private lands include some properties used for hobby farming, protecting hobby farms is not the primary objective of Goal 3. In contrast, the acknowledged Approved Design would displace nearly two acres of the Allendar commercial hay and cattle operation. Hence, the policies which Goal 3 seeks to achieve are not adversely impacted by this exception. Likewise, Goal 4's policy objectives are not adversely impacted because only a verb, small amount of designated forested land is impacted by the Modified Project Compare SDEIS, Figure 3~4 with Coml2atibility ~femorandum, Figure I~ The approximately 27 acres of resource lands taken to accommodate the Modified Project reflect the amount of land needed to meet right-of-way standards for a four-lane limited access facility with 12- foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders and a 12- to 14-foot-wide center median. Consequently, the amount of land included in the exception reasonably relates to the amount needed for transportation purposes and is justified. As described in the alternative modes analysis above and in the alternative locations analysis below, the WEP requires a rural location because alternative modes or alignments not requiring goal exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need consistent with acceptable design or performance standards. Moreover, even if alternatives were available to connect this project to West 1 lth Avenue at or east of Green Hill Road, thereby avoiding the need for goal exceptions, resource lands still would be needed to accommodate improvements extending from the UGB at Green Hill Road to Highway t 26 west of Goble Lane, although the acreage amounts would be reduced. For all of these reasons, the WEP with its Modified Project alignment complies with ORS 197.732(1 )(c)(A), Goal 2 Part II(c)(1 ) and OAR 660~004-0020(2)(a) and 660-004-0022~ Compliance with OAR 660-0i2-0070(5}, ORS i97.732(i)(0)(B), Goa 2 Part ii(0)(2) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) OAR 660-012~0070(5) provides that to address Goal 2 Part Ill(c)(2), the exception must demonstrate that non-exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transpor*mtion improvement or facility. Similarly, OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b) requires justification why "areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use." EXHiBiT C-1 - F~ND~NGS 35 WEST EUC~NE PARKWAY ~ODIFIED PROJECT--COHSISTENCY WITH THE STATEWI~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE The process resulting in the recommendation for the Modified Project included study of a range of alternative alignments at locations not requiring goal exceptions. For the reasons stated below and in the ~4hernatives Memorandum, incorporated herein by refemnce~ none of those alternative alignments can reasonably accommodate the proposed use. The alternative alignments not requiring new exceptions are the following. Environmental Protection Agency Alternative Environmental Protection Agency Optimized Alternative Green Hill Road At-Grade Alternative Southern Alternative Southern (Modified) Alternative Approved Design Green Hill Flyover Alternmive These akernatives are illustrated on Figure 1. This first of two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alternatives proposes a "no-build" condition from Beltline Highway to the Oak Hill area north of the railroad tracks and west of Gable Lane. Traffic west of the Beltline£WEP interSection would use West 1 lth Avenue and Beltline Highway to access the WEP. This EPA alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need because it cannot operate as a major arterial in a manner consistent with applicable design and safety Standards or achieve state and local transportation objectives. The EPA alternative would result in severe and unacceptable traffic congestion at the three major intersections along West 1 lth Avenue between Bekline Highway and Highway 126. Under this alternative, the West 1 lth Avenue/Green Hill Road imersection would operate at LOS F with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of 1.11; the West 1 lth Avenue/Danebe intersection would operate at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.84; and the West 11th Avenue/Beltline Highway intersection would operate at LOS F with a 2.40 v/c ratio. See Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix C and SDF~t$ at 5-13. These severe congestion problems cause this alternative to be unsafb and inefficient, and the failure to meet applicable ~ndards would result in registered professional engineers not approving the alternative. Moreover, the EPA Alternative does not support the purposes and needs of the project to improve access to the West Eugene industrial area, relieve congestion on West 1 lth Avenue, or facilitate interregional and intra-regional travel. Environmenta~ Protection Agency Optimized Alternative The EPA Optimized Alternative would follow the same concept as the EPA AlternatiVe, except that the facility would be designed to meet the transportation operational requirements of a parkway. To meet acceptable (LOS D) traffic operating conditions, this would potentially require interchanges at WEP/Beltline Highway, Beltline Highway/West 1 lth Avenue, and West 1 Ith Avenue/Terry Street; frontage roads along much if not all of West 1 lth Avenue; potential connectors between Danebo Avenue and Beltline Highway and between Terry Street and West 1 Ith Avenue; the closure of the Danebe Avenue/West 1 Ith Avenue intersection; and substantial widening (potentially up to eight lanes) along portions of West 11 th Avenue (5'DEIS at 2-20). The EPA Optimized Alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need because it is not geometrically feasible or prudent. Project design engineers have determined that there is not enough room between Terry Street and the proposed WEP~eltline Highway interchange EXHIBIT C-~ - FIN~DI~IGS 36 WEST EU~NE PARKWAY ~O(FIED PROJECT-CONSISTENCY WFFH THE STATE. DE PLANNING GOALS AND T~ANSPORTAT)~ PLANNING RULE to place the three intemhanges needed and still meet the design requirements of the project. Under OAR 660~012-0065(5Xa), jurisdictions need not consider alternatives that are inconsistent with applicable standards or not approved by a registered professional engineer. Moreover, any design that would remotely approach meeting the geometric design requirement would displace substantial property associated with the West Lawn Memorial Park cemetery, and/or the Lane Memorial Gardens cemetery, and displace commercial and industrial properties in the vicinity of Terry Street and Beltline Highway near West 1 lth Avenue. The Green Hill Road At-Grade Alternative would extend the Modified Project westward to Green Hill Road, where k would terminate with an intersection. A sweeping curve to connect the Green Hill Road and West 1 lth Avenue leg of the alternative would extend west to the project terminus. Double legs and double rights would be required at each of the intersections of Green Hill Road with West 11 th Avenue and the WEP. This alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need primarily for two reasons. Fimt~ the alternative would impact sensitive species and wet prairie wetlands south of the railroad. Second, from an engineering standpoint~ the alignment would be unsafe and is not recommended. This alternative would create conditions likely to result in a high accident location at the intersection of the WEP with Green Hill Road. Drivers traveling ea~st to west would encounter conditions where traffic moving at high speeds along a limited access facility first must nearly come to a stop in order to negotiate the curve from the WEP onto Green Hill Road, and then immediately cross a railroad crossing. The likelihood is high that this design would result in a high pementage of violent crashes resulting in debilitating i~uries or death. Traffic volumes across the railroad track would increase to an excess of 26,000 daily crossings, increasing the number of traim'anto conflicts significantly. The proximity of the intersection of the WEP at Green Hill Road to the railroad crossing also conflicts with railroad safety standards. For these reasons, the Green Hill Road At-Grade Alternative is operationally infeasible and environmentally unreasonable and therefore cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need. Southern and Southern (~odified) Alternative~ The Southern Alternative would follow the Modified Project alignment to Danebo Avenue, then shift the alignment southward through the Green Hill Technology Park and other parcels identified in the g'EW? as developable industrial lands before reconnecting to West 1 lth Avenue east of Green Hill Road. ~[he Southern (Modified) Alternative would be located somewhat to the north of the Southern Alternative, and connect to West 1 lth Avenue slightly to the west of the Southern Alternative although still east of Green Hill Road. Compared to the Southern Alternative, the Southern (MOdified) has greater adverse impacts on wetlands and threatened and endangered plants, but would provide a larger buffer distance from a plant, Kincaid's Lupine~ that serves as a host to the federally proposed endangered Fender's blue butterfly. While both the Southern Alternative and Southern (Modified) Alternative would function from a design and engineering standpoint, neither is a reasonable alternative because of their impacts to threatened and endangered species; their significant impacts to developing industrial lands in a manner inconsistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans, the g'EW? and reasonable investment- backed expectations; their damage to the integrity of the compromises realized in the g'EgzP; and their overall costs. These impacts are addressed in detail in the Alternatives Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference. E)~H~B~T C~ - FINDINGS 37 WEST EUC~ PAP,~^y J~OD~FIED PROJECT'CONSISTENCY W~TH THE STA~,~ m ~ ........................... ..... ~ r~r~ ~ mu ~u~P~JRTATIOfl ~NNJNG RULE The Southern and Southern (Modified) Alternatives would result in significant adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species. While the Southern Alternative would not displace any T&E species, it would be located within 50 meters of over 235 Kincaid's Lupine plants. High-speed traffic along the facility would pose a substantial threat to the federally proposed endangered Fender's blue butterfly, 'which is attracted to the Lupine as a host plant for the butterfly larvae. The Southern (Modified) Alternative would displace 19 plants of Willamette Daisy and 12 clumps of' White-topped Aster. Because o~er alternatives have significantly reduced potential adverse impacts to T&E species in comparison to the Southern alternatives, the Southern Alternative and Southern (Modified) Alternative are not reasonable alternatives. The protection of T&E species is a paramount consideration, as reflected both by the applicable federal and state endangered species legislation and by the decision to reconsider alternatives to the Approved Design that would reduce overall adverse environmental ~mpacts. Where other alternatives are available with significantly less adverse impacts to T&E species, these alternatives become unreasonable. The Southern alternatives also are not reasonable because of the substantial damage they would do to the implementation and ~ntegrity of the ~Zest Eugene Wetlands Pla~ and to developing industrial businesses ~n the affected area, and because of their very high and continually growing costs. Placing these impacts in perspective requires some background discussion of the The YP~est Eugene Wetlands Plan was developed following discovery and ~nventory of a concentration of wetlands [n western Eugene ~n the late 1980s. Those wetlands coincided wkh areas that had been designated by the C~ty of Eugene and acknowledged by LCDC fbr industrial development. At the time of the wetlands discovery, industrial ~nvestment and development already was proceeding. By then, the City already had expended over $ t 2,000,000 in ~nfrastrncture to the West Eugene area to support such development. Private investment included over $900,000 by Spectra Physics for wetland mitigation to develop ks industrial property in th~s areafi5 It became clear to the affected governments, regulatory agencies and property owners that the conflicts needed to be addressed in a comprehensive and timely manner to achieve certainty in the planning process, protect wetlands, and to provide greater security for the City and developers in making investment decisions. The result was a study culminating w~th the adoption of the ~E~p in 1992. Today, the provides the basts for wetlands management in the West Eugene area. The plan was developed to balance the City's acknowledged need for economic development wkh the protection and restoration of a wetland and waterway system, as well as to protect natural diversity. The plan includes goals and policies for protection, enhancement, mkigation and development. The WEW'P identifies approximately 1,307 acres of wetlands in the West Eugene area. Through the coordination efforts between the C~ty of Eugene, Lane County, LCOG and affected state and federal agencies, 1,109 of these acres have been designated for protection or restoration, while 288 wetland acres remain available for development. The 1,307 acres include about 600 acres ink,ally designated for industrial use, of which 485 acres now are identified for protection or restoration. Over $7 m[ll~on of federal funding has been ~nvested in the implementation of the WEWP to datefie In addkion to the federal funding, there has been considerable investment from private property owners located in the area west of Bekline Highway, north of West 1 l th Avenue, and south of the ~5 See The ~a~ure Conservancy Report No 2 (September/October ~lgg3). The Spectra Physics $~e is now occupied by PSC Scanning. ~6 On August 2~, 1999, dudng a tour of~e West Eugene wetlands area hosted by LCOG, Senator Gordon Srn~th pledged an add~iona! $2,5 mflfion ~nves~ent to knp[emer~ the ~WP. Also, the federa~ Environmental Pro~ection Agency contributed $50,~ to th~ deVeloPment of the ~WP to use il as a nationa~ case study in how wefJand protection and economic development both can be accommodated ~n an urban environment. E~IBIT 0,-'1 - FINDINGS 38 ~ST EU~ PARKWAY k'tOD(FiED pROJEc~i-__CONS~S~NCy WFFH THE STATEWi~ PLANNING ~ AND TRANSPORTAT)ON ~NN(NG RULE railroad tracks. This investment includes the Green Hill Technology Park, a developing industrial park containing 17 lots ranging in size from approximately 4 to 17 acres. This investment was made in good ~:hkh in reliance that the compromises and ultimate policy choices agreed to in the WE[~,~? would be adhered to, i.e. that the WEW? would preserve properties for development as shown on the plan. The proposed alignment shift from the Approved Design to the M<x~ified Project would require amendments to the ~E~r? in a manner that moves allowed development from one location to another without othe~ise upsetting the carefully established balance between resource protection and devetopment~ However, an alignment shift from the Approved Design to either Southern alternative would require the ~4~EW? to be amended in a manner that eliminates a substantial portion of the area identified for industrial development under this carefully developed plan. With either Southern Alternative, much of the 133-acre Green Hill Technology Park and other large designated industrial parcels would be removed from the industrial lands inventory due to right of way acquisitions and landlocking. Overall~ the Southern and Southern (Modified) alternatives would each directly affect over 5(} properties. This compares to 25 and 23 for the Approved Design and Modified Project respectively. In all, the effect ~s to upset the careful balance between development and resource protection achieved by the WEWpfi7 Developing either Southern alternative would greatly compromise the integrity of the WEWP. Given the planning history of these sites, investment expectations resulting from that Planning process, and the significant level of investment already expended by the City of Eugene, the t~ederal government and affected industrial property owners, this result would not be reasonable. The Southern alternatives also would cost substantially more to build than either the Approved Design or the Modified Project. Estimated construction costs for the Southern and Southern (Modified) Alternatives are approximately $115,600,000 and $110,500~000 respecfively, compared to $72~400,000 for the Approved Design and $88,800,000 for the Modified Prqjectfi8 With further development of the Green Hill Technology Park resulting ~n higher land acquisition costs, the cost differential between the Southern alternatives and the Modified Project will increase~ The costs associated with the Southern Alternatives go well beyond mere raw land costs. Were costs issues l~ked to comparing undeveloped lands ou~ide the UGB with undeveloped lands inside the UGB, cost would not be a relevant factor. But cost concerns go much ~ther here. They involve additional costs associated with crossing the Amazon Creek flood plain, and more s~gnificantly, substantial costs associated with placing the facility on land already improved with infrastructure and buildings. The Green Hill Technology Park has been subdivided into industrial lots that each have developed street access and utilities. With either Southern Alternative, large portions of this land become landlocked, requiting their acquisition. Also, another large industrial parcel to the west, and other smaller industrial parcels, would become landlocked and require acquisition. For both alternafives~ damages would amount to many millions of dollars. Preliminary estimates identify land acquisition costs for right of way west of Beltline Highway at around $22.5 million for the Southern Alternative and $17.4 mill~on ~br the Southern (Modified) Alternative. Additional costs would result from the need to buy landlocked properties. Further, damages could be considered to the Green Hill Technolo~ Park on the south side of the realignment proposals because of shape deficiencies of the impacted lots and the necessity to reconstruct existing roadways and utility layouts. 67 See Alternatives Memorandum. 68 Those es~imaf, os include approxirt~ato~ $~2 m~lion ~r a stratum to ~oss the w~de ~on Creek flo~ p~a~n at ~his FiNDiNGS 39 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY ~OD~F1ED PROJECT--CONSIS~NCy WiTH THE STATEW1DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTAT~ PLANNING RULE Construction and occupancy of buildings in the Green Hill Technology Park has already begun. In 1998 and 1999, Rosen Products completed their first phase of development, and by September 1999 employed over 200 workersfi0 Based on a rough total build estimate by Russ Royer, Real Property Officer with the City of Eugene, total buildout of the park by the time of acquisition could add about $30 million to the costs in today's dollars. No similar cost increase would occur with either the Approved Design or the Modified Project because those affected areas are not identified for industrial development. Consideration of increased right-of-way costs over time is relevant and appropriate because the WEP will be constructed in phases and right-of-way for the area west of Beltline Highway may not be purchased for several years. Moreover, in an era where the need for transportation improvements is ever growing, but funding to pay for those improvements is constrained, spending many $1 Os of millions extra to locate a needed transportation facility across an established industrial park is not reasonable, particularly when the alternative requiring goal exceptions removes no land from the commercial agricultural base and has no adverse impacts on commercial agricultural enterprises. There are also additional hidden costs. Development and implementation of the V/EV/? involved substantial public and private expense, including significant funding flor planning. The I, FE[YP resulted in the designation of the Green Hill Technology Park and surrounding areas for industrial development. With the Southern alternatives, substantial additional public funds would need to be spent to replan industrial development in this area. Besides being unreasonable in terms by compromising the integrity of the IYEIt/p, the Southern alternatives also would be unreasonable by requiring the City and affected agencies to expend public monies to start over in planning for industrial development in this area and achieving new compromises with wetlands protection. Taken cumulatively, alt of the above-described impacts support the conclusion that the Southern and Southern Modified alternatives cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need for the ~p. Approved Design In 1986 Lane Count), adopted goal exceptions authorizing the Approved Design. The Approved Design was confirmed in the federal FEIS and is an element of both the City's and the County's acknowledged comprehensive plans. Because the Approved Design does not require a new goal exception, it reasonably belongs in the category of facilities addressed under OAR 660-012-0070(5). However, because (1) the principal reason for rejecting the Approved Design is environmental, (2) there is value in comparing the adverse environmental impacts of the Approved Design with the Modified Project, and (3) environmental comparisons between alternatives are required under OAR 660-012-0070(7), this alternative is analyzed in the section addressing alternatives requiring exceptions. That analysis is incorporated herein by this reference, and for the reasons therein stated, this alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. Green Hi~ F~yovor Alternative The Green Hill Flyover Alternative, described in more detail below, was designed to move the alignment north of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks west of Terry Street within the UGB, then cross back to the area covered by the existing Approved Design goal exceptions west of Green Hill Road. The intent was to develop an alternative that would avoid most of the natural resource impacts of the Approved Design but not require new goal exceptions. Because the Green 60 The e×~sting infrastruc(ure and development ~ just phase 1 of the technology park. The same deve{oper owns ~ar)ds to the north and wes~ ~haf[ are p~anned ~o be developed in la~er phases, EXHiE)FF C~i - FiNDiNGS 40 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY [~OOIFJED PROJECT--,CONSISTENCY W~H THE 8TATEWIDE PLANNING ~S AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Hill Flyover Alternative does not require a new goal exception, it reasonably belongs in the category of facilities addressed under OAR 660-012-0070(5). However, fbr the same reasons described immediately above under the Approved Design, it makes more sense to address this alternative in the section addressing alternatives requiring exceptions. That analysis is incorl~rated herein by this reference, and for the reasons therein stated, the Green Hill Flyover Alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. omplmnce with OAR 660-012-0070(6) OAR 660-012-0070(6) requires the exception to justify the thresholds chosen to judge whether an alternative method or location identified under OAR 660-012-0070(4) or (5) cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transpo~tion need or facility. These thresholds include cost, operational feasibility, economic dislocation and "other relevant factors." For the West Eugene Parkway, the thresholds used to judge an alternative's ability to "re " accommodate" the identified transportation need include: asonamy Cost Operational Feasibility and Design Standard Compliance Economic Dislocations and Other Economic Impacts Protecting Natural Resources Consistent with Federal Environmental Objectives Achieving State and Local Planning and Transportation Objectives Maintaining the Integrity of the Comprehensive Planning Process Cost Cost is an appropriate threshold to consider in judging whether alternative methods or locations not requiring goal exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the WEP. Cost factors include costs for right of way acquisition and relocation rights, sub-grade preparations, drainage features, surfacing, structures, and roadside amenities. To the extent that raw land acquisition costs outside of an urban growth boundary are cheaper generally than those inside a ~undary, cost is not a reasonable basis for determining that alternatives not requiting goal exceptions axe not reasonable. However, where existing development patterns, required dislocations, loss of access and other factors are of such magnitude as to substantially increase the costs of urban lands above their raw land values, then the comparative costs of alternatives become a legitimate factor to consider. This is particularly so in an era where the need for transportation improvements is substantial and the resources available to pay for them are constrained. Transportation finance has not kept up with inflation. Safety, pavement conditions, and bridge sufficiency ratings are not meeting minimum sen, ice levels and are declining. While costs along cannot be the determining factor, relative savings represent potential system improvements to existing facilities elsewhere on the transportation network. Operational Feasibility and Design Standard Compliance A facility that c,~not operate as a major arterial in a manner consistent wkh applicable state or local highway design and safety standards is not deemed reasonable to accommodate the WEP. Consistent with the identified need for the WEP, the facility must be capable of operating ~n a manner consistent with its function of moving inter-and intra-urban traffic efficiently through the Eugene-Springfield metro~litan area, and its design must be safe. This threshold is consistent with the provision in OAR 660-012-0065(5)(a) that a jurisdiction need not consider any alternative that is inconsistent with applicable standards or not approved by a registered professional engineer~ EXHIBIT C~ - FINDINGS 4~ WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIFIED PROJECT---CONsiSTENCY WITH THE STATEWIDE ~NNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Economic Dislocations The number and scale of economic dislocations is an appropriate consideration in determining an alternative's reasonableness to accommodate the identified need. Generally, when the dislocations are relatively few in number or small in scale, the mere fact that dislocations occur wou~d not render an alternative "unreasonable." However, when the number or scale of dislocations is of such magnitude as to result in substantial public inconvenience or harm, then the alternative creating this impact may be unreasonable. As used in this paragraph, economic dislocations include not only direct loss of land or relocation of homes or businesses~ but also loss of access, loss in investment, loss of parking spaces, and similar adverse economic impacts. Protecting Natura~ Resources and Biologically Sensitive Areas Consistent with Federa~ and State Environmenta~ Objectives Were it not for the significant adverse impacts of the Approved Design on high value wetlands and threatened and endangered species,?0 the City of Eugene and Lane County would not now be considering comprehensive plan amendments to relocate the WEP. instead, they could rely on the 1986 exception and their plans to construct the Approved Design. With the discovery of wetlands in the late 1980s, attention turned to how best to avoid or minimize wetland and T&E species impacts consistent with federal and state regulations governing protection of wetlands and threatened and endangered species.?l Because the federal wetland permit and highway construction using federal funds are federal actions, and because federal agencies have pressed for consideration of alternatives to the Approved Design for the express purpose of reducing environmental impacts, minimizing adverse impacts to high value wetlands and to threatened and endangered plant and animal species consistent with federal regulations and objectives is the foremost threshold for determining the reasonableness of an alternative to ac4:ommodate the WEP. Generally, the less severe the direct and indirect impact to high value wetlands, other biologically sensitive areas and T&E species, the more reasonable the alternative. Alternatives with significantly higher adverse high value wetland or T&E impacts in relation to other alternatives are considered unreasonable as they fail to conform with federal requirements that prioritize avoidance or minimization of impacts to these resources. Achieving State and Loca~ Transportation Objectives This threshold factor considers whether the alternative can reasonably achieve the identified transportation need. Highway 126, of which the WEP would be a part, is identified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as a Statewide Highway. It is also an element of the National Highway System. As such, it is intended to serve primarily intra and inter-regional transportation needs. An alternative whose fianction is different (e.g., one that would serve primarily local needs) or whose level of service does not meet ODOT standards fbr Statewide Highways would not be an alternative that could reasonably accommodate the WEP. I~aintaining the integrity of the Loca~ Comprehensive P~anning Process Alternatives not requiring goal exceptions may still profoundly affect the implementation of an acknowledged comprehensive piano For this project, a relevant issue is whether an alternative would so alter reasonable planning expectations and investment as to be unreasonable. More particularly, West Eugene was identified long ago as an industrial area. Since then, many millions of dollars have been invested by the City of Eugene and private landowners on infrastructure and development to 70 As used herein, T&E species include federal Candidate species and species of concern and state sensitive species. 71 These include Section 404 of the federa~ Clean Water Act and the federa~ Endangered Species ACt. EXHIBITC-1 - FIND~NGS 42 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MO~FiED PROJECT,--CONSISTENCY WiTH THE STATEWI~ PLANNING GOALS AND TF~ANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE implement the plan. With the discovery of vast wetland resources in the late 1980s, action began to develop a wetlands conservation plan, the b~E~/p, that would balance protection and development interests by identifying where industry could or could not go. A principal goal of that plan was to provide a substantial element of certainty about where industrial development could and could not go to guide future public and private investment. In terms of this threshold, an alternative that would have relatively minor impacts on maintaining the balance and compromises achieved in the ?/EWP would be considered reasonable to accommodate the need in this context. However, an alternative that has major impacts on maintaining that balance, such as through removing significant acreage from the industrial base, cutting offaccess, or compromising previously made investments, such that the integrity of the WEWP is reasonably cal~ed into question, would not be considered reasonable to accommodate the identified transportation need. Compliance with OAR 660-0i2-0070(7), ORS i97.732(i)(c)(C), Goa 2 Part I1(c)(3) and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(7) provides that to comply with Goal 2 Part II(c)(3),/he exception must compare the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location wkh other locations requiring exceptions. The exception must discuss "whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are significantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations which would also require an exception." The proposed exception would fail only if the impacts associated with it are "significantly more adverse" than the other identified exception sites. Under OAR 660-0t2-0070(c), the evaluation of consequences may be generalized. OAR 660-004-0020(2)(c) is vet), similar to OAR 660-012-0070(7). It requires a general description of the character of each alternative area and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives, including positive and negative consequences. Like OAR 660-012-0070(7), the exception must explain why the use at the chosen site is not "significantly more adverse" than would typically result from the same proposal being located at one of the other exception sites. Considerations include which resource lands are most productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and long-term economic impact on the general area resulting from removal of land from the resource base.. For purposes of this analysis, the p oposec~ location" and ne proposea exception site" is the Modified Project. The other alternatives for which goal exceptions are required are: Roosevelt Extension Alternative Approved Design (for which an exception has already been taken) Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative Each of these alternatives would be designed as a four-lane, limited access facility. The alternatives are illustrated at Figure i. Description of Alternatives Requiring Exceptions The Roosevelt Extension Alternative would involve the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard from Highway 99W to the Oak Hills area west of the UGB. At all times, the alignment remains north of the Union Pacific and Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks. The Roosevelt Extension Alternative would require interchanges at the intersections of Roosevelt Boulevard with Highway 99W and Beltline Highway, extensive modification of the Terry Street intersection, and a new intersection at Green Hill Road. The Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative would follow the Modified Project alignment (described below) between Highway 99W and Green Hill Road. At Green Hill Road, this alternative would EXHIBITC-1 - FINDINGS 43 WEST EU~NE PARKWAY ~F(ED PROJECT-,C~NS~STENCY W~TH THE STATE~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANN!NG RULE connect with the westernmost portion of the Approved Design alignment (described below) via a flyover grade separation structure over-crOssing of Green Hill Road and the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks. Thy ~t£prm, ed Design extends the 6th and 7th Avenue couplets westward from Highway 99W to a point west of the intersection of Highway 126 and Goble Lane near Oak Hill, outside the urban growth boundary. At all times prior to its connection with West 1 lth Avenue, the alignment remains south of the railroad tracks. From Beltline Highway to Green Hill Road, the alignment crosses Danebo Avenue, then shifts towards the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks, heading westward south of those tracks to Green Hill Road. From Green Hill Road west to approximately West 1 Avenue, the alignment continues to parallel the railroad south of the tracks. See SDEIS, Figure 2-2. The Modified Project generally follows the Approved Design alignment from Highway 99W across Beldine Highway to a point east of Terry Street. There, the Modified Project crosses over the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks, then essentially parallels those tracks on the north side to a connection with Highway 126 terminating approximately 1,300 feet farther to the west than the Approved Design. Unlike the Approved Design, the Modified Prqject would eliminate the direct connection between Highway 126 and West 1 lth Avenue. See SDEZS, Figure 2-2. Economic Impacts Inside the urban growth boundary, the principal adverse economic impacts associated with the Roosevelt Extension Alternative involve the displacement of several commercial businesses at the Roosevelt Boulevard/Highway 99W interchange. Similarly, the Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative, Approved Design and Modified Project would displace several businesses, as noted in the A~ter~atives Memorartdum. Outside the urban growth boundary~ the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would impact mostly small hobby farm properties located north of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks (see Figure 2). Given its location away from the railroad tracks, parcelization of properties also is likely. The Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative (which follows the Approved Design alignment west of Green Hill Road) would divide two properties on the east end of the area outside the UGB, while the Modified Project would not create any parcels. All of these akernat~ves would result in displacements to obtain land to accommodate the facility. The Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover would result in the loss of nearly two acres of land used for commercial farming, while the Modified Project does not remove acreage from any commercial farms. Because they affect very little or no commercial farm acreage, none of these alternatives should preclude or ~mpede commercial farming in the area in any significant manner. All four alternatives share the positive economic impacts of relieving traffic congestion on West 1 Avenue and improving access to the West Eugene industrial area~ This, in turn, enhances the stability of existing industrial uses. Because of the nature and scale of these economic impacts are relatively similar and not severe, the impacts resulting f?om selection of the Modified Project are not significantly more adverse than those that would result from selecting a different alternative requiting goal exceptions. Social Impacts Inside the urban growth boundary, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative could have significantly more adverse social impacts than those associated with the other three alternatives. Depending on the placement of right-of~way, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative could result in the displacement of rmmerous residential units and disruption to neighborhood identity and cohesion in the area adjacent to the north side of Roosevelt BouleVard between Highway 99W and Beltline H~ghway. It also could E~IBIT C-1 = FINDINGS 44 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY ~ODIF~ED PROJ ECT--C~NSISTE NCy W1TH THE STATE~,~DE PlANNiNG ~LS AND TP, ANSPORTAT~ON PLA~N~ RULE displace 25 or more residential units and deny access to an estimated 60 residential units between Belttine Road and Terpy Street, resulting in substantial adverse impacts to the affected neighborhood's identity and cohesion.?2 in contrast, the Modified Project and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative would displace I to 3 residences, and the Approved Design would have no displacements?3 All alternatives would provide improved access to downtown Eugene. Additionally, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would have much greater noise impacts than the other alternatives ins[de the UGB because it is adjacent to many more residences. Outside the UGB, ali alternatives would affect accesses to three private properties on Goble Lane, but no displacements should result.?4 Except for the Roosevelt Extension Alternative, which is lc~cated further away from the railroad h-acks, none should create a feeling of separation for people in the area due to their very close proximity to the railroad tracks~ All alternatives would create visual impacts. The Modified Project would increase visual intrusions to the Hays, Goldsmith and Jorgensen residences, while the Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative would impact the Allendar, Tredgold and Ware residents~ Visual impacts associated with the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would be slightly greater as there are more residences farther north of the railroad tracks.7s Noise impacts outside the UGB are not expected to be significant for the Modified Project, Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternatives because affected properties ~enerally are set back from the road. The Roosevelt Extension Alternative may have somewhat higher noise impacts because of [ts location closer to affected residences. Overall, the adverse social impacts associated with the Modified Project, Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative are not significantly more adverse for any one than for the other two. In contrast, social impacts associated with the Roosevelt Extension Alternative are significantly worse than for the other three alternatives and would justify excluding the Roosevelt Extension Alternative from further consideration. The reason alternatives to the acknowledged Approved Design alignment are being considered at all relates to concerns among federal and state regulator2. agencies, ODOT and the City of Eugene over potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with wetlands and threatened and endangered plant and animal resources. As explained in the LarM Use Technical Report, what distinguishes the Modified Project from the Approved Design and justifies the shift in the alignment is the reduction in adverse impacts affecting high value wetlands and endangered and/or threatened species. Comparing alternatives, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would have significant adverse impacts on the wetland and upland habitat areas that the City, Lane County and ODOT are trying to protect through this consideration of an alignment modification. The Roosevelt Extension Alternative would cross over 3,000 feet of wetlands and upland habitat areas identified for protection, enhancement or upland mitigation in the WEP. It would remove valuable wetlands and wildlife habitat in and around the Danebo Ponds at the Roosevelt Boulevard~eltline Highway interchange. Between Beltline Highway and Terry Street, it would displace an existing wildlif~ corridor along the A3 channel 72 SDEI$ at 5-~5. 73 A~temat~s Memorandum, Table 1. 74 Compatibility Memorandum at 75 Compat~b#ity Memorandum at EXHIBIT C~1 - FIND{NGS 45 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODiFiED PROJECT---4'~ONSISTENCY WITH THE STATEWI~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Farther west, it wouM displace two wetland/pond/vernal poo~s between the current end of Roosevelt Boulevard and the Amazon ChanneL?6 These are significant adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would add a new barrier that would further fkagment the wetlands. In contrast, the other alternatives would be parallel and adjacent to the railroad which already creates a barrier and fragments the wetlands. While the environmental impacts of the Approved Design are less severe than those resulting from the Roosevelt Extension Alternative, they are still substantial and significantly more adverse than those resulting from the Modified Project. Regarding high value wetlands, the Approved Design would adversely affect 11.27 hectares of high value wetlands, compared to 6.4 hectares for the Modified Project. Regarding T&E species, the Approved Design would eliminate 22 Willamette Daisy plants and 17 clumps of White-topped Aster and eliminate habitat for the Western Pond Turtle, while the Modified Project would eliminate just three clumps of White-topped Aster and cause only temporary construction impacts to the Western Pond Turtle habitat.?7 The Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative also would have much more significant adverse environmental effects that the Modified Project. While this alignment fbltows the Modified Project east of Green Hill Road, it shifts to the Approved Design Via the flyover at Green Hill Road. The flyover would require approximately 4.25 hectares of fill south of the railroad tracks, in a rare Willamette Wet Prairie wetland area identified as a very important ecological resource.?6 The fill would fragment a large patch of wet prairie wetlands, cutting the surface hydrology connection that now exists. Overall, the fill would impact considerably more protected plants than the Modified Project. From the standpoint of environmental impacts, the Modified Project clearly has significantly fewer adverse impacts than the other three akernatives. Energy ~mpacts There Js no significant discernible difference Jn energy impacts among the four alternatives. All four alternatives would establish a four lane, limited access highway that would improve access to the West Eugene industrial area and relieve the substantial tra~c congestion along West 1 lth Avenue. Motorized vehicles traveling along any of these alternatives would consume gasoline. On the other hand~ facilitating the smooth flow of traffic at acceptable levels of service would help conserve fuel by avoiding the wasteful burning of fuel at intersections already above capacity or expected to exceed capacity during the planning period. Overall ~mpact Analysis For the reasons stated above, the net adverse impacts resultk~g from the Modified Project would not be "significantly more adverse" than would result from the same proposal being located at any of the other three locations requiring goal exceptions. Indeed, compared to the other alternatives, the net adverse impacts resulting from the Modified Project appear to be significantly less adverse, due primarily to differences in environmental impacts. 76 Alternatives Memorandum, Table 4. 77 The Willamette Valley Daisy is classified as a federal "candidate~ species and a state listed endangered species. The Whi~e-topped Aster is classified as a federal "species of concern" and a state listed threatened species. The western pond turtle is classified as a federai species of concern and a state 'sensitive cr~ical" specJes. SDE~S at 3-1 78 Wi!larnette wet prairie wet,and is very rare, with only about 0.1 percent remaining. The resource provides high biological diversity and has high significance for threatened and endangered species. See e.g. SDEIS at 3-8 3-9' Land Uae Technical Report at 88 EX~HIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS 46 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY ~FIED PROJECT-CONSiSTENCY W~TH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING ~S AND TRANSPORTATION PlANNiNG RULE In addition to the adverse impacts identified for the Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative, it also is noted that the elevated structure required to cross the railroad tracks would result in safety hazards due to rotating super-elevation rates. In turn, this could result in erratic vehicle operation as drivers attempt to negotiate the curves, especially at night and during wet and icy pavement condkions~ Potential ponding of highway runoff resulting from the nonstandard design would also present a hazard. See .d[ternatives Memorandum. For these reasons, the Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative is not an operationally feasible alternative. Finally and as previously noted, because goal exceptions were previously approved and acknowledged ~br the Approved Design, it is likely that the Approved Design and Green Hill Flyover alternatives are more properly addressed under OAR 660-012-0070(5) (alternatives not requiring an exception) than under OAR 660-012-0070(7). For that reason, the discussion of those alternatives in this section are incorporated by reference into the discussion under OAR 660-012-0070(5). For the reasons explained in this section, the Approved Design and Green Hill Flyover alternatives cannot reasonably accommodate the needed transportation facility because of their significant adverse impacts to high value wetlands and T&E species. omphance with OAR, 660.0 2.0070(8), ORS 97.732(1)(c)(D), Goa 2 Part and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(§) provides that to comply with Goal 2 Part lI(cX4), the exception must describe the adverse effects that the proposed transportation improvement is likely to have on the surrounding rural lands and land uses, including increased traffic and pressure for nonfarm or highway oriented development on areas made more accessible by the transportation improvement. This section also requires, as part of the exception, facilky design and land use measures which minimize accessibility of rural lands from the proposed transportation facility and support continued rural use of surrounding lands. Similarly, OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) requires the exception to explain how the proposed use is compatible with other adjacent uses or will be rendered compatible through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. As used in this section, "compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. The compatibility of the Modified Project with surrounding rural lands is described in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference. Those findings are summarized below. Overall, the impacts resulting from the location of this facility on rural land are minimized as a consequence of the proposed location of the facility within an area where substantial acreage is not available for development due to environmental constraints, and through the limited access design of the facility that discourages increased traffic in rural areas. Because of its location immediately north of the railroad tracks, the Modified Project will not create any new parcels or result in any uneconomic remnants, thereby reducing farm impacts. Moreover~ of the approximately 27 acres needed to be taken to accommodate the project outside the UGB, only 3. acres involve privately owned lands, and none of those acres are part of commercial farms. Accordingly~ any impact on the commercial farm enterprise in the area is minimal. The Modified Project will affect accesses to properties along Goble Lane. To maintain local access and use compatibility, Goble Lane would be realigned to the north and extended westward about t,300 feet to near the western end of the project. The existing Highway 126/Goble Lane access would be closed and a new intersection created at an existing driveway at the western end of the proposed Goble Lane extension. The closure of the existing Goble Lane access and its relocation to the new ~ntersecfion will help limk local access to the adjoining rural area, thereby reducing adVerse farm impacts and maintaining compatibility. Likewise~ the design feature closing direct access onto West EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS 47 ~ST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIFtED PROJECT--CONSiSTENCY WITH THE STATEW~ P.~LANN(NG GOALS AND TPJkNSPORTATION PLANNING RULE 1 lth Avenue from Highway 126 will help minimize access to rural properties south of the Modified Project, as will the presence of the railroad tracks and railroad right-of-way south of the Modified Project where it rejoins existing Highway 126. A concern often associated with limited access highways is the potential for urbanizing effects outside and at the fringe of the urban area. While this potential exists for the WEP and its Modified Project alignment, any pressures for nonfarm or highway oriented development that this facility might otherwise have should be substantially constrained by the federal and state ownerships and management of many of the largest pamels nearest the proposed corridor, as well as by zoning limitations imposed to comply with state land use requirements. As shown in Figure 2, a large Percentage of the property abutting the proposed Modified Project corridor north and south of the railroad outside the urban growth boundary is under public ownership for the purposes of restoring habitat consistent with the VZE/,V?.T!~ Other properties inside the UGB between the Amazon Channel/railroad separated grade structure and Green Hill Road south of the railroad are in similar public ownership or substantially development~constrained because of the presence of wetlands. Consequently, these properties effectively are not subject to urbanizing pressures. There is some rural land near Green Hill Road that is designated urban reserve land for the metropolitan area. Improved access to this area could accelerate the timeline for developing those urban reserve lands. Nearer the terminus of the Modified Project, a larger percentage of lands are privately owned~ In this area, protection from urbanizing pressures comes through development limitations resulting from the presence of wetlands, exclusive fhrm use or forest zoning designations, and through the very large ba~ier to development created by the Fern Ridge Reservoir State Wildlife Management Area. The presence of wetlands in this area substantially reduces development pressures because of the difficulties in obtaining authorization to develop wetlands and because of the significant costs involved in wetland mitigation. Also, the presence of railroad tracks south of Highway 126 creates a barrier that helps minimize accessibility to rural lands in this area. However, improved access to this area could accelerate pressures for rural residential development Jn areas near the project terminus designated for rural residential development with five or ten acre minimum lot sizes. Any such development would remain rural and would not be incompatible or inconsistent with acknowledged plans. Any potential WEP contributions to the development rate at Veneta, located about 5½ miles from the western WEP terminus, should be substantially offset by infrastructure constraints, including an inadequate wastewater treatment facility and problems with the municipal water supply. See Land Use Technical Report at 50. Overall, the significant wetlands resource, the large amount of acreage in public ownership, and the EFU zoning should provide adequate protection for rural and resource lands and minimize their accessibility. The presence of the railroad, the locations of wetlands a~d public land ownerships, particularly at Green Hill Road and in close vicinity to the Modified PrQect alignment terminus, will minimize pressures for highway oriented development in the area. Additionally, the limited access design of the WEP with the Modified Project should reduce pressures for nonfarm or highway oriented uses on the surrounding rural lands. As designed, the WEP does not encourage usage by local traffic. Instead, it will serve statewide and regional "through" traffiC. For 79 Restoration projects incJude the ~ ~35 proje~, ~den~ed at page 43 of the Land Uso Techr~[Report, which provides for romova~ of dikes bY the US Anmy Corps of Eng~eers F1 the area Just north of (Dut not including) ~he Modified Project between Terry Stroe~ and Green Hi!l Road to restore appmxFnate~y ~ 40 acres of wetlands and enhance another 45a~s of nat~e habitat, and ~he Cone rn~igaf~ion s~te, a wetlar~ mitigation proje~ ~oceted northwest of Te~ Stroe The 1135 project eXclude~ the Modffiod Project aligfiment because of the potential that the~P may be located thoro. EXHIBIT C~l - FiNDiNGS 48 WEST EUGENE PAP~,NAY MODIFIED PROJECT--CONSiSTENCY W~TH THE STATEW~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRAN~TAT)ON PLANNING RULE this reason, any increases in traffic volumes outside the UGB resulting from the WEP are expected to be minimal and insignificant. The absence of interchanges or intersections outside the UGB between Green Hill Road and the project terminus further minimizes pressures to convert rural lands to nonresource Because of the existing environmental and zoning constraints reducing pressures to development on rural lands, because the WEP is designed to support statewide and regional rather than local travel needs, and because accesses to rural lands are not provided for along the facility between Green Hill Road and the Project terminus, the Modified Project is compatible with adjacent rural uses in the area and further measures to reduce adverse impacts should not be necessary. EXHIB~T C~,1 - FINDI~,~S 49 ~EST EU~NE PARKWAY ~tOO{F~ED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY W{~ THE STATEW1D~ ~NNING ~ AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE amendment to modify the facility's location, given that this amendment does not change those provisions~ While the answer may well be "no?0 these provisions of the rule nevertheless are addressed herein in an exercise of caution. However, to the extent this analysis is unnecessary and thus would constitute %urplussage,' it should be considered as such. Clearly, the TPR exceptions provisions applicable to the location of the facility apply because the Modified Project ~nvolves a location outside of the corridor approved in the 1986 exception. Pursuant to those requirements, exceptions are addressed herein for Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands)~ 4 (Forest Lands) 11 (Public Facilities and Services) and 14 (Urbanization} for that portion of the Modified Project to be located outside the UGB. While most of the affected rural land is agricultural, a very small portion ekher directly or indirectly affected is designated by Lane County as Forest Land. See Land Use Technica; Re~ort, Figure 7; ~gDE[& Figure 3-4~ Accordingly~ Goal 4 must be addressed. Scope of Analysis and Applicable Statewide Planning Goal Standards As stated above, the WEP ha~s been included in the acknowledged Lane County Rura; Comj)rehensive ?;an and the ~T(etro ?;an for many years. It is authorized in the Tram~?;an. Because the WEP is acknowledged~ it should not be necessary for the City or County to readdress goal compliance ~br the project in its entirety. However, goal compliance must be demonstrated for those changes requirk~g amendments to the acknowledged plans. This analysis addresses goal compliance issues arising from the shif~ in the alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project in "Unit 2" of the project~ Lc. that portion of the WEP located between Beltl~ne Highway and the western terminus of the projec[ See SDE/r$, Figure 2~2. This is the portion of the project ~at requires goal exceptions and analysis of alternatives under the TPR. Alignment modifications occurring in Unit I of the project generally are beyond the scope of th~s analysis~ The land use standards applicable to the Modified Project include the statewide planning goals and OAR 660~012-0060~ 6~0-012-0065~ and 6~0-012-0070. Because goal exceptions take the form of plan amendments~ the Modified Project also must be shown to comply with relevant unamended provisions of the acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene comprehensive plans. Further~ the project must comply with the ODOT's Oregon H~ghway Plan. This technical memorandum addresses only the Modified Project's compliance wkh the identified TPR requirements and statewide planning goals. Compliance wkh the Oregon Highway Plan and applicable comprehensive plans policies is discussed at pages 58-105 of the Land Use Technical Report. 1 ~ C m omphance with the Statewide Planning Goals This section addresses compliance with Statewide Planning Goals I-14. Because the Modified Project does not affect the Willamette RNer Greenway or coastal resources, Goals 15 through 19 do not apply. 10 This ~ a ~ga~ question to be addressed by the Department of Justice. 11 The La~e CouRcJI of Governments (LCOG), La~e County and the c~ies of Eugene and Springfield are in the process of preparing regional and ~°c~ ~ra~sportation system P~ans ~SPs) as required by the Transportation P~anning Rule. The p{an amendments addressed ~n this document w{ll be adopted separately from the TSP adoption process. EXHIBIT C-I - FINDINGS EUGENE PAP~wAY ~FIED PROJECT--CONSIS~NCY NTH THE STATEV~[~ PLANNING GOALS AND TP~NSPORTAT~ON PLANNING RULE In 1973, the Oregon Legislature created the Land Conservation and Development Commission and directed it to adopt goals for use by local governments, state agencies and special districts in preparing, adopting, amending and implementing existing and future comprehensive plans. Over the next several years LCDC adopted 19 statewide planning goals, most of which have since been amended. As shown below, these goals address a broad range of topics, ranging from conservation of agricultural and forest lands and coastal and natural resources to urbanization and development concerns such as housing, jobs, public facilities and transportation. The goals also address procedural concerns including citizen involvement and coordination with affected local government entities and state and federal agencies, and they include an exceptmns process under which a local government or agency may be able tojustify an action that the goals otherwise would Prohibit. Over time, LCDC has adopted numerous administrative rules interpreting its goals and providing guidance on how the goals are satisfied. Since the goals were adopted, all cities and counties in Oregon have adopted comprehensive plans and land use regulations (such as zoning ordinances or development codes) to comply with the goals. These plans and regulations underwent formal review by LCDC for goal compliance, and were either "acknowledged' as in compliance with the goals or sent back for additional work. Today, all local governments in Oregon have acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations. By state law, once the plan and regulations are acknowledged, then it is the plan and regulations, and not the goals, that apply to land use decisions, unless the land use proceeding before the local government is for a comprehensive Plan or land use regulation amendment or the adoption of a new land use regulation. Here, because plan amendments are requked, the statewide planning goals apply~ Goa i (Citizen nvo vement) Goal l[ requires opportunity for citizens to be involved Jn all phases of the planning process. Already, through development of the SDEJS, there has been substantial opportunity fbr citizen involvement through public information meetings and open houses, workshops~ newsletters, bus~nesx/community group briefings, WEP subcommittee meetings and other activities that were open to the public. See SDEI& Chapter 6. These opportunities can be considered as part of the overall citizen involvement program for purposes of satisfying Goal 1. Add~tionally, Goal I is met during the plan amendment adoption process, through Lane County and City of Eugene compliance with the plan amendment requirements in ORS 19T610 through ORS 197.625 and their acknowledged plan or land use ordinance procedures governing the adoption of plan or land use regulation amendments. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Goal 2, Land Use Plarming, consists of two parts. Part t (Plannk~g) addresses general planning and coordination requirements. Part II (Exceptions) addresses goal exceptions. Goa~ 2 Part i Like actions taken pursuant to NEPA, Goal 2 Part I (Planning) requires that local government comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments be (1) coordinated with affected state and federal government agencies; (2) consistent with applicable c~ty, county and regional comprehensive plans; and (3) supported by an adequate factual base~ As described in Chapter 6 of the SDEIS and elsewhere, there have been substantial coordination efforts between the City of Eugene, Lane County, and a wide variety of affected or potentially affected federal and state agencies, includh~g, but not limited to, the federal Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps EXH(B~ ~l ~ F~ND(NG$ WEST EU~NE PARKWAY Me,FlED PROJECT--C. ONS~S~NCy WiTH THE STAIEWIDE PLANNING GgALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE of Engineers, and U.Si Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Oregon Department of Transportation, Division of State La~ds, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Fish and Wildlife~ As a consequence of these coordination efforts, numerous alternatives were carefully studied for their impacts and viability. The Modified Project is the result of that coordination, reflecting in particular, and accommodating as much as possible, the identified interests of protecting higher value wetlands and threatened and endangered (T&E) plant and animal speciesl2 while meeting regional and storewide transportation and economic development needs and highway design and safety standards. This coordination effort is consistent with and satisfies Goal 2 requirements. The Modified Project also satisfies Goal 2 consistency requirements as it is consistent with acknowledged Lane Count*./and City of Eugene comprehensive plan provisions providing for a four- lane limited access highway extending westerly from Beltline Highway to Highway 126 west of Goble Lane. Consistency with other specific City and County plan provisions is demonstrated at pages 58 through 105 of the Land Use Technical Report, incorporated herein by this reference. Inconsistent provisions associated with the Approved Design will be eliminated through the amendments to the relevant City and Count3, comprehensive plans taken to relocate the alignment as shown for the Modified Project. Those amendments include map changes, alignment descriptions and the goal exceptions described below. An adequate fhctual base supporting the alignment shift from the Approved Desi~ to the Modified Project, including exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14, is set out in a variety of documents contained in the record of this matter, including but not limited to the SDEIS, the Land Use TechnicaIReport, the Supplemental Needs Analysis, the Alternatives Memorandum, the Compatibility with Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses in the WEP Project Area Technical Memorandum (August 1999) ("Compatibility g~emorandum'), the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, and the Interim Corridor Strategy for Highway 126 West (April, 1998). Testimony from ODOT and its consultant at the public hearings to consider plan amendments modifying the alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project also wilt provide additional evidence to support the alignment shift to the Modified Design. A policy choice to construct a four4ane limited a " ccess West Eugene Parkway" was previously made and remains a part of the acknowledged County and Metro area comprehensive plans. The decision to alter the alignment does not affect that ultimate policy choice. For all of these reasons, this plan amendment complies with Goal 2 Part 1. Goa~ 2 Part Il ~[he Goal 2 exceptions standards apply in circumstances where a land use decision would otherwise violate one or more goals. Under Goal 2 and ORS 197.732(1), "A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when: "(c) The following standards are met: "(1) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply; "(2) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use; 12 As used in th~ memorandum, T&E species ~nclude sens~ve specJes and specJes under consideration for listing. As part of f~e C~ of Eugene's current po(icy amendments~ the C~ ~ replacing the term ~threatened and endangered" w~th the term "rare~ in the ~. Th~s is a term that appears in the Oregon Natural Hedtage Program database. The term 'rare" also appears in some of the documents referenced in this memorandum. EXHIBIT C-1 - F)NC)(NGS W~ST EU~NE PA~AY ~ODIF~ED PROJECT-~CONSiSTENCY WiTH THE STA~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANS~TATION Pi. ANN~NG RULE "(3) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site; and "(4) The proposed uses are compatible with other adiacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse ' ~" ~mpacts. As explained below in the discussion of compliance with Transportation Planning Rule requirements, unless exempted under OAR 660-012-0065, the location of a new transportation facility outside an urban grey, lb boundary requires goal exceptions. Because the Modified Project would constitute an urban use that falls outside the listed exemptions, and because the facility would pass through rural lands designated for agricultural and forest uses, exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 are required. The applicable goal exception standards for transportation projects are set out in OAR 660-012-0070. Because those standards are met for the reasons set out in detail below and incorporated herein by this reference, the Modified ProJect complies with Goal 2 Part II. Goal 3 {Agricu tura Lands) Goal 3 requires counties to preserve and maintain agricukural lands for farm uses. Counties must inventory agricultural lands and protect them by adopting exclusive firm use (EFU) zones consistent with ORS 215.203 et. seq. The Modified Project crosses agricultural lands that are zoned for exclusive farm use. ORS 215.213(1) and (2) identify a variety of transportation uses that are permitted on agricultural lands without the need for an exception to Goal 3.13 HOwever, the Modified Project does not fall among those listed uses. Accordingly, a Goal 3 exception is required. See ORS 215.213(10)(a). The justification for an exception to Goal 3 is included below in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Goa 4 (Forest Lands) Goal 4 requires counties to conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and protecting the state's fbrest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices. Goal 4 is implemented through LCDC's administrative rule on Forest Lands, OAR 660, Division 6. The Modified Project crosses over or near a small area of land designated by Lane County, as forest land. However, under OAR 660 Division 6, the WEP is not among the uses permitted on forest land. Accordingly, a Goal 4 exception is required. The justification for an exception to Goal 4 is included below, in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Goa 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) Goal 5, amended in 1996, requires local governments to adopt programs to protect natura~ resources and conserve scenic, historic and open space resoumes for present and future generations as provided in LCDC's Goal 5 administrative rule, OAR 660, Division 23. When Lane County amended its comprehensive plan in 1986 to authorize the Approved Design, it took an exception to Goal 5.TM The County took the exception because the project would impact bem, een 7.8 to 10.7 acres of wetlands plus some wildlife habitat. However, the exception noted that 13 ORS 2~5.213 appI~es to ~marginal lands" coan~J~s. Lane County kq a ~marginal ~ands~ county. ~4 Given the nature of the Goal 5 process, ~t is questionable whether §oal exceptions to Goal 5 are appropriate or necessary. The issue need not be, and is no[ addressed as part of this ahab/sis. Should ~he ~ssue later adse, ~t is a ~e~al matter that should be considered by the Department of Justice. EXH~BF~ C-1 - FINDINGS ~ST EU~NE P.~[KWAY MOGiF1ED PROOECT--Cg)NSISTENCY W~TH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TP~NSPORTAT1ON PLANNING RULE the approved project avoided impacts to Stewart Pond and the Bertelsen Slough Natural Resource Area, which it deemed the most significant natural resources in the area. Subsequent to adoption of the West Eugene Parkway exception, the County and City discovered that the wetlands resoume in the West Eugene ama was much larger than was previously recognized. Because, in addition to the WEP, tbe acknowledged Metro Plan identified this area for extensive industrial development, the City and County, together with LCOG and in coordination with state and federal agencies, embarked on a major undertaking to develop a wetlands conservation plan to identify areas for protection and areas for future development. Is This complex, extensive and very expensive effort culminated in 1992 with the adoption of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, which is now an acknowledged element of the Metro Plan.is The approved [YEWP includes a corridor south of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks to accommodate the West Eugene Parkway project along the Approved Design. However, federal officials held off on approving that element of the WE~¥P pending further examination of alternatives that might reduce impacts to high value wetlands mad threatened and endangered species.l? Through further study, it has now been determined that the Modified Project would have substantially less adverse impacts on high value wetlands and T&E species than the Approved Design, thereby providing those Goa~ 5 resources with better protection. Modifying the WEP to shift the alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project will require an amendment to the WE~p. This could require a new analysis of economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences under Goal 5 if the modification would result in different impacts from those previously considered. Because of the similar nature of the impacts for the Approved Design and the Modified Project, and because the Modified Project reduces the overall level of adverse impacts, it may be that no new ESEE analysis is required. However, in an abundance of caution, ESEE considerations are addressed herein. To the extent this analysis exceeds what is required to demonstrate Goal 5 compliance, it should be considered surplussage. Economic Consequences As illustrated on the Comprehensive Plan Designations map at Figure 3-3 of the EDEIS, all areas inside the UGB that are affected by the Modified Project are designated for industrial development, except ~br a small portion of low density residential land west of Terry' Street. As shown on the Existing Land Use map at Figure %1 of the SDE[& these lands are predominantly vacant or used as open space. Because the WEP is already a part of the Metro Area's and C ounty s acknowledged comprehensive plans, realignment of the WEP from just south of the railroad to just north of the railroad will have no significant adverse economic impacts. The change in alignment west of Beldine H~ghway would cause no additional industrial or commercial displacements~ As explained in the ~gDEgS purpose and need statement, the WEP improves access to the West Eugene industrial area and would relieve congestion along West l lth Avenue~ thereby providing economic benefit. This economic benefit is lost without the WEP. Outside the UGB, most of the affected land is zoned for agricultural use. However~ for reasons explMned in more detail in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference, much of the adjoining agricultural land is being used as open space for wetland mitigation or to protect 15 See A~temativea Memorandum at 3-5. l0 In ~994, the Divisio~ of State Lands, US Army Corps of Engineers and the Environme~ta~ Protection Agency approved the [~WP with conditions. Subsequently, over $7 million in federal spending has been invested in the WEWP to date, plus considerable investn~nt from pdvate property ownem located in the area west of Beltiine Highway, north of West 11th Avenue, and south of the Centra~ Oregor~ and PacCo railroad trac~s. Pdvate investment was made in good faith that the plan would presage properties for development as shown in the plan. See Alternatives Mernorandurn at 17 A~temat~vea Mernorandurn at 4. EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MOD~F~D PROJECT--C~NSISTENCY W~TH THE STATEW~ R.,ANN~NG (Z~,LS AJ'~D TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE threatened and endangered species. See Figure 2; see also Compatibility Memorandum at Figure 1. In terms of impacts on commercial farm enterprises, the northward realignment of the WEP does not result in any acreage loss of the four large commemial farms in the project vicinity. In ~:hct, compared to the Approved Design, it reduces adverse impacts to commercial fam~ operations by moving the facility farther from the large cattle operation south of West 11 th Avenue. West of Goble Lane, the facility essentially occupies the same area as the Approved Design, rendering no real impact diff~erences from that alignment. Except for these places, there are no commercial farms in the project vicinity. Instead, this area is checkered with a pattern of hobby farms that do not contribute significantly to the commercial agricultural enterprise. The Modified Project EX~B~T C-I - F)ND(NGS 10 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY ~{~FtED PROJ ECT--CA]NSISTENCY WITH THE STATEWI~ ~NNiNG GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE creates no new parcels outside the UGB, and it should not increase the potential fYr encroachment beyond that associated with the Approved Design. Social Consequences Potential adverse social impacts resulting from highway pro~ects typically include displacements, acreage losses, impeded access, impacts to community cohesion, visual impacts, induced development and noise. Because of the industrial zoning of affected lands inside the UGB, and because of the predominant pattern of existing open space use of lands in this area as provided in the ~FE~7?, the Modified Project should cause few adverse social impacts inside the UGB. Noise impacts should not differ significantly from the Approved Design~ with the roadway mostly next to and paralleling the railroad, away from noise receptors. Visual impacts are reduced by the alignment mostly adjoins lands protected as wetlands under the ~FET, F? (including the fact that the residentially designated lands near Terry Street) instead of being located closer in proximity to residential and other developed areas. See Map 3 of the ~YEWP. However, in comparison to a no-build~ the Modified Project does have significant visual impacts, as some may deem a roadway facility crossing open space to be unsightly. Still~ others may consider it a visual benefit, providing opportunity to view the open space. Overall, the social consequences of allowing the WEP~ as opposed to fully protecting the resource~ are not significantly different. Some people will find the Modified Project socially o~jectionable by its very nature~ where full preservation of the resource would not have this resul[ However, others would find that the improved mobility provided by the WEP socially outweighs adverse visual impacts oft he project and the preservation of[he acres of wetlands otherwise lost. Outside hhe UGB, social knpacts again would be minor~ Indeed, the level of impact is reduced over that resulting from the Approved Design. As described in the Compatibility Memorandum, access to four private properties on Goble Lane could be affected~ but alternative access will be provide& The proximity of the facility to the railroad tracks and West 11 th Avenue should preclude any adverse community cohesion consequences. Three residences will be impacted visually, hut impacts are reduced for three other residences as a result of the alignment modification. Noise impacts could potentially increase for six property owners, compared to eight for the Approved Design. However, noise impacts are not expected to be significant~a Because of ~Y/r~ and zoning limitations and the proximity of Fern Ridge Reservoir to the wes~ the potential for induced development is not high.~ Ofcourse~ vfith full protection of the resource~ none of these impacts would result. Still, many rural residents surveyed view the WEP as a social benefit. ~nvironmental Consequences The primary reason for shifting the roadway location from the Approved Design to the Modified Project relates to environmental impacts associated with wetlands and threatened and endangered plant and animal resources. As the Land Use TechnicaI ]~eport explains, the extent to which endangered and/or threatened species would be protected is one of the most ~mportant criterion distinguishing the Approved Design from the Modified Project, with the Modified Project resulting in much greater protection. Similarly, the Modified Project would result in substantially less adverse impacts to designated biologically sensitive areas and critical natural vegetation and habitat than the Approved ~sign. [t is noted that wetland resources extend virtually the entire length of the %rEP from just west of Danebo Avenue to near Goble Lane, outside the UGB.20 Analysis of noise impacts for state land use purposes is not the same as for federa~ NEPA purposes. ~nduced development ~s address~ ~n more detai~ ~n the discussion under OAR 66~2~070(8), ~orated here~n by ~h~s mfem~. S~ maps a6a~ed ~o ~he ~mpa~b#i~ Memo~ndum. EXHIB~T C-1 - FiNDiNGS WEST EUC~NE PARKWAY ~)[~FIED PROJECT-4?d)NSiSTENCY W(TH THE STATEW~DE PtANNiNG C:ZIALS AND TR-ANS~TATION PLANNING RULE Table 4 of the ,4lternatives Memorandum quantifies thes~ impacts to natural resources. Regarding wetlands, while the Modified Project overall would take more wetland acreage than the Approved Design ( 14.4 hectares versus 13.33 h ectares),21 the Mod i fied Project affects on ty 6.3 9 he2~~ ' ' ' res of "high value wet prame wetlands, compared to 11.27 hectares for the ApProved Design. Regarding threatened and endangered species, the Modified Project has considerably less impact on the White- topped Aster and Willamette Daisy than the Approved Design, and unlike the Approved Design, it does not eliminate Western Pond Turtle habitat. The result is a program that furthers the Goal 5 objective to protect natural resources.23 The environmental impacts of allowing the Modified Project were considered during development of the WEIq'P. Through that process, it was agreed by the various governments and agencies involved to provide a corridor for the WEP. The adverse environmental impacts of building the Modified Project are minimized through the requirement for wetlands mitigation for those acres of wetland that are developed. Without any West Eugene Parkway, there would be additional wetland protection and no impact on threatened or endangered species. With the Modified Project, those impacts occur, but they are substantially less adverse than the impacts already permitted by the acknowledged Approved Design.24 Energy Consequences Because the WEP ~s a highway facilky, cars using k will burn gasoline. Other than this impact, there are no adverse energy consequences associated with the Modified Project. Without the WEP~ including its Modified Project alignment, adverse energy impacts would be increased due to ~he rapid and significant deterioration of the roadway system along West 11 th Avenue. At peak hours, many of the key intersections would exceed capacity, resulting in delays that waste fuel. ESEE Conclusions While the Modified Project would result in some wetland loss and impact some threatened and endangered species, the impacts to wetlands and T&E species associated with the Modified Project would be significantlY less adverse than those associated with the acknowledged Approved Desigm This reduction in impact matters a great deal to affected goverm~ental agencies whose missions include protecting wedands and rare plant and animal species. While wetland impacts will occur, all such impacts ~ and will be mkigated. Beyond these impacts, the Modified Project has few serious adverse consequences. Conversely, it offers significant economic, social and energy benefits associated with greatly improved accessibility to and within the West Eugene industrial area. Not constructing the ~P would avoid wetland and T&E impacts, but create major traffic congestion problems for the industrial area and hinder the efficient movement of traffic between the coast and Interstate 5. Th~s warrants allowing the conflicting u~se. In effect, the program to achieve Goal 5 has already been determined through the acknowledged W£W?, which provides for the WEP while otherwise substantially reducing the amount of developable land in West Eugene. By relocating the facility from the Approved Design corridor to the Modified Project location, adverse Goal 5 resource impacts are substantially reduced~ furthering the 2I One hectare is approximately 2.47 acres. 22 These acreage numbem d~er from those contained in the SDEIS and Land Use Technical R{~ort. Because of the inconsistency, further rev~w was undertaken by the consultant. According to both the consultant and ODOT, the numbem contained in this document are the correct ones. 23 ~f the resource occupied by the Modified Project were protected fully, then the impacts from the Approved Design would still reset, as that project woukt remain part of the acknowledged plans. Accordingly, it is proper to compare the two alignments. vkr~th no project, obviously aI~ of the resources would be protected. 24 Additional information comparing the environn~ntal impacts of the Approved Design and the Modified Project are set out ~low in the discussion addressing compliance with OAR 660-012-0070(7), incorporated herein by this reference. EXHIBIT Cci - F~NDINGS 13 WEST EU~ PARKWAY ~O[~FIED PROJECT-X'.,ONS1STENCY W~TH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE purposes of Goal 5. This result is consistent with the intent and purposes of the WEW?, which was adopted to achieve Goal 5. Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) Goal 6 addresses the quality of air, water and land resources. A loca~ government complies with Goa~ 6 by showing that planned development, when combined with existing development, will not violate or threaten to violate applicable environmental laws. These environmental laws include regulations and standards governing air pollution, water pollution and noise. The WEP complies wkh Goal 6 because it can and will meet applicable water and air quality and noise standards. As explained beginning at page 4-2 of the SDEIS, potential water quality problems associated with construction of the WEP "should be relatively easy to control" by following the requirements in erosion control plans that are covered by NPDES permks~ Through site management plans and compliance with ORS Chapter 468 as required in the Oregon Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (1996), soil erosion and sediment pollution from construction activities can be controlled. Compliance methods are identified at page 61 of the La~d Use Technical Report~ Once built, vehicles traveling on the roadway will deposit pollutants on the pavement and shoulders. The use ofdkches, bioswales, catch basins and other best management practices hinders these pollutants from entering adjacent wetlands, thereby minimizing impacts to water qualiW. Appropriate mitigation measures available to maintain water quality are listed at pages 4-6 to 4-7 of the SDE[S. Toxic substances can be controlled in accordance with ODOT and DEQ requirements as described at page 62 of the La~d Use Technical Report, and negative impacts from petroleum or chemical spills can be minimized by using biofiltration swales and constructing storm channels that parallel the highway. Highway construction and operational activities also contribute to air pollution. Total daily emissions of CO, NO~ and particulate matter increase with facilities of this kind. Compared to the Approved Design, air qualky impacts from the Modified Project will be louver due to overall lower vehicle miles traveled for the Modified Project~ However, through irnplementation of mitigation measures identified in the ~est Eugene Parkway FP~est I lth ~4venue-Garfield St. SFEIS- ~4ir Quality Report (1997), incorporated herein by this reference, either alignment can comply wkh all state and federal ambient air quality smndards.2$ No residences would be no[se-impacted by the Modified Project. Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards) Goal 7 protects life and property from natural disasters and hazards. In "known areas of natural disasters and hazards," the goal prohibits "developments subject to damage or that could result in loss of life" unless appropriate safeguards are applied. Areas of natural h~ds include ~eas subject to flooding, earthquake, landslide, weak foundation soils, erosion and the like. For transportation facilities, detailed consideration of Goal 7 impacts typically occurs after corridor selection, at the design stage. Recognizing this practice, the TPR d~stinguishes between "transportation system planning" and "transportation project development" and permits local governments to address Goal 7 issues at the project development stage26 See OAR 660-012-0050(3). 25 Land Uae Technica~ Report at 6280, 97-98; SDE~$ at 4-53 to 4-55, 26 Neve~eless, for fl~ose a~ematktes ~u~d~ plan a~nd~n~ there must still ~, at ~ ~or planning s~ge, at ~ast an ~ent~n of areas ~st may ~ s~ to natural disaste~ a~ h~a~s and a d~e~ina~on that a~n~g~ ~mpmhens~e p~an pmv~ions amd ~nd use ~ulations ~n provue ad~uate pmt~0n, EXHIB~T C-i = FIND~NGS WEST EUGENE PAP~q~AY I~ODtFIED PROJECT-~JC~NSJSTE~ WfTH THE STATEV~DE PU~,NNING ~L$ AND TRANSPO~TATJOfl P'LANNJNG RULE Near the railroad in the vicinity of Terry Street, the Modified Proiect would cross the flood plain of the Amazon Channel However, the facility would not impact th~ Amazon Creek Channel floodway. The Modified Project can and would be designed to utilize construction techniques that avoid damage or loss of life~ Structures will be constructed to bridge floodways, barriers would be installed for protection from steep slopes, and temporary and permanent traffic control features such as signs, striping; temporary concrete barriers and raised pavement markers would be used to enhance public safety. Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) Goal 8 provides for local governments to meet the recreational needs of the citizens of Oregon. The Modified Project furthers this objective by improving access to recreational destination areas such as the Oregon coast, the Oregon Cascades, and Fern Ridge Reservoir, a well known and popular local sailing and wildlife viewing destination just west of Eugene. Goa 9 (Economic Development) Goal 9 requires local governments to adopt comprehensive plans and policies which '"contribute to a stable and healthy economy/' For urban areas, comprehensive plans must (1) include an analysis of the community's economic patterns, potentialities, strengths and deficiencies; (2) contain policies addressing economic opportunities; (3) "provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies"; and (4) limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial or commercial uses to those that are compatible with proposed uses. West Eugene in the vicinity of the Modified Project is designated primarily for industrial development~ West of Beltline Highway to Green Hill Road, the area between West 1 lth Avenue and the WEP is designated nearly entirely fbr industrial and open space uses. East from Beldine Highway along West 1 lth Avenue, industrial and commemial uses predominate. As the City of Eugene has grown in population, h~affic along the West 1 lth Avenue corridor has increased. Trarts?Ian modeling and impact analysis shows that~ even w/th significant wetlands protection in th~s area, industrial development will continue to expand, and traffic congestion at all major intersections will attain Level of Service (LOS) "F,' where traffic volumes exceed roadway capacity° By reducing levels of service to acceptable "C" and "D' levels, the Modified Project relieves the congestion off the roadways serving industrial and commercial uses in this area. This enhances local access and benefits local businesses. By rerouting most regional traffic off of West 1 lth Avenue, the Modified Project also reduces conflicts between regional and local traffic on West 1 lth Avenue and ~mproves the efficiency of freight movement through the project vicinity. Further, the location of the Modified Project generally avoids designated industrial lands available for development under the ~Egq~, thereby maintaining industrial development opportunities in West Eugene. These results enhance and benefit existing and anticipated industrial and commercial development in West Eugene and satisfy Goal 9. Goa 10 (Housing) Goal 10 requires local governments to do their fair share to provide for the housing needs of people of all income levels. Under Goal 10, cities and counties must inventory "buildable lands" for residential use and encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels that are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. "Bu~Idable EXHIBIT C-1 - RND~NGS 15 VVEST E~NE PARKWAY ~}OD~FIED PROJECT--~,ONS~$~NCY ~ITH THE STATE~t~DE PLANNING GO¢£S AND TRANSP~RTAT{ON PLANNING RL~LE ands are defined in Goal 10 as lands ir~side urban growth boundaries that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use. Hence, Goal 10 does not apply to affected unincorporated areas. The Modified Project does not directly impact any area identified for housing. Accordingly, Goal 10 is inapplicable to this land use proceeding. Goa ii (Public Facilities and Services) Goal 11 requires ~ocal governments to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and ~rvices. The goal provides that urban and rural develo ment "be ui P g ded and supported by types and levels of services appropriate fbr, but limited to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbani~ble and rural areas to be served." Goal 11 is implemented by the Public Facilities Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division I 1. Inside the urban growth boundary, the level of service provided by the Modified Pro~ect woul be appropriate to serve urban needs Therefore within ,h,~ TT~r~ ~,~: ..... . .. ,. ~J d , ~,,,. ,~,~, mrs m~gnment satm~es Goal 11. Outside the UGB, the level of service provided by the Modified Project would exceed that appropriate for and needed to serve the rural area. Accordingly, a Goal 11 exception is required. The justification for an exception to Goal I l is included below in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Goal i2 (Transportation) Goal 12 requires local governments to "provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12. As noted above, the WEP is already a part of the acknowledged Metro Plan, TransPlan, and Lane County Rural Comj~rehensive Plan. Inside the UGB, merely modifying the location of the facility from the Approved Design to the Modified Project should not implicate Goal 12 in any way that would bring the proj~t out of compliance with the goal. The Modified Project does not alter the mode or function of the facility or increase its planned capacity. The Modified Project does not result in a lowering of ~rformance standards at affected intersections as compared to the Approved Design. Further, the Modified Project is not a new use not already authorized in the acknowledged transportation plans. However, outside the UGB, the modification of the location of the WEP results in the conversion of agricultural and forest lands for nonresource purposes. Because use of the affected agricultural and forest lands for highway purposes was not previously approved against the goals, goal exceptions must be taken pursuant to the exceptions provisions in the Transpor'mtion Planning Rule to justify this facility' at those locations. By demonstrating compliance with those provisions, compliance with Goal 12 ~s achieved. ~e justification for goal exceptions in accordance with TPR requirements is set out below in the section analyzing compliance with the TPR. Goal i3 (Energy Conservation) Goal 13 d~rects cities and counties to manage and control land and uses developed on the land so as to maximi~ the conservation of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles~ Highways are not generally synonymous w~th the notion of energy conservation. However, Goal 13 does not prohibit new highways or improvements to existing highways. Indeed, such an interpretation would conflict with provisions in Goal 12 and the TPR authorJzing highway facilities and improvements as part of an overall multi-modal transportation plan. EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS WEST EU~NE PARKWAY ~ODIF~ED PROJ ECT._C.,~SiSTE NCY WITH THE STATEWi~ FLANNING GOALs AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE The WEP, with the Modified Project alignment, is intended to improve access to the West Eugene industrial area and to relieve the substantial traffic congestion along West 1 lth Avenue, which will only deteriorate furthest in the absence of the WEP. Providing safe and convenient travel to an area deficient in its roadway system, and facilitating the efficient movement of people, goods and services in such an area, serves the growth needs and objectives of the region and t2ollows sound economic principles. Facilitating the smooth flow of traffic at acceptable levels of service also helps conserve fuel by avoiding the wasteful burning of fuel at intersections already above capacity or expected to exceed capacity during the planning period. Goa 14 (Urbanization) Goal 14 requires local governments to establish urban growth boundaries in accordance wkh seven factors listed in the goal in order to separate urban and urbanizable lands from rural lands. Goal 14 also mandates the orderly and efficient conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses. Pursuant to Goal 14, Lane County and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield have established an urban growth boundary fbr the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region. Under Goal 14, urban and urbanizable lands are available for urban uses. However, Goal 14 prohibits urban uses on rural lands. To locate urban uses on rural lands, local governments either must expand the UGB to include the subject property or take a Goal 14 exception setting forth reasons why urban development should be allowed on rural land and explaining why the urban use cannot reasonably be located inside the UGB. A four-lane limited access highway facility is considered an urban use, as it serves transportation needs well beyond those of the affected rural area. This causes no problem inside the UGB, where urban uses are authorized. Hence, the Modified Project inside the UGB complies with Goal 14. However, outside the UGB, the Modified Project violates the Goal by placing an urban use on rural land. This is permitted only through an exception to Goal 14. Thejustification for an exception to Goal 14 is included below in the analysis of compliance with the TPR. Overall Conclusions Regarding Goal Compliance For all of the reasons set out above, approval of the Modified Project complies with statewide planning goals 1 through t4, except as those goals require goal exceptions. For all of the reasons set out below, approval of the Modified Project complies with the applicable standards for exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 in the Transportation Planning Rule and Goal 2 Part II. omphance with Goal 12 and the Transportation P anning Rule General informat on ~ae Modified Project modifies the West Eugene P~kway by shi~ng no~hw~d the w'este~nost potion of the project ~om approximately Te~ S~eet to the project tem~nus on H~ghway 126. Th~s es not affect the~!_need, mode~ or funct~°~ me~a~e c'oun ~ural C~m rehensive From Bekline Highway, the Modified PrQect follows the Approved Desi~ aligment past Danebo Avenue tow~ds Te~ S~eet.27 Just before Te~ S~eet, the Modified Project leaves the Approved Design al~gment~ shiging no~hw~d over ~e Cenml Oregon ~d Pacific ~[Iroad and then 27 The Modified Project crosses Danebo Avenue on an overctossing. Them is no direct access to or from Danebo Avenue. EXHiBiT C-I - F~ND{NGS 17 WEST EUGENE PAJ;M<WAY ~flDIF~ED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY WiTH THE STAT~,,~r, .................... ~'~v~,~: ~'~,ml~ tA~L;5 ANL~ ~RANSPORTATJON PLANNI~ ~AULE proceeding westward next to and parallel with the railroad tracks past Green Hill Road (the UGB) and Goble Lane to its intersection with Highway 126 and its terminus east of Richmond Street (see Figure 1). Inside the urban growth boundary, existing land uses westward from Beltline Highway along the Modified Project alignment consist almost exclusively of vacant and open space lands. SDEZS, Figure 3-3. While these properties are designated mostly fbr industrial use, with a small amount of low density residential (see SDEtS, Figure 3-4), they are not expected to develop for these purposes. Instead, under the City's acknowledged plan, the WEP is the intended land use in this area. Where the Modified Project leaves the Approved Design to cross the railroad tracks, it enters an area where wetland protection is the predominant use. See WEW?, Map 3. To accommodate the Modified Project, the WE~'? will need to be amended to reflect the shi~ in the alignment. Outside the urban growth boundary, existing land uses within the project area include wetland mitigation, hobby farms, four commercial farms, and some rural residences. See Figure 2; see also SDEZS, Figure 3~3 and Compatibility Memorandum~ Figure t. The West Eugene Wetlands Study Area extends approximately 0.8 mile west of Green Hill Road in the project area. Also, an urban reserve area extends into this area approximately 0.7 mile from the UGB at Green Hill Road. Lands immediately a~cted by the Modified Project are designated predominantly for agricultural use, with a small amount of forest rand present. See SDEI& Figure 3-4 A detailed description of land uses in the project area~ including a discussion of existing uses by ownership, the location of commercial agricultural enterprises, and a discussion of accepted farming practices, appears in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference.28 Overview of Exceptions Process LCDC adopted ~e Transportation Planning Rule in 1991 to implement Goal 12, Transportation. OAR 660-012-0065 of that rule identifies uses which are permitted on rural lands wkhout taking exceptions to Goals 3~ 4, 11, or 14. Because the Modified Project would be a "new road" ora type not other~vise permitted under OAR 660-012-0065, Lane County must take goal exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11~ and 14 pursuant to OAR 660-012-0070. Under OAR 660-012~0070 in particular, and under ORS 197.732(t )(c), Goal 2 Part II and OAR 660, Division 4 more generally, an exception must provide reasons justifying (1) why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply, and (2) why areas not requiring a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use. For transportation facilities, these requirements are spelled out in greater detail in OAR 660-012-0070(3) through (6), set out below. In addition to addressing "need" and" ' - ' alternatives, an exception also must (3) compare of economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions, determining whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are significantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations requiring exceptions; and (4) describe the adverse effects the proposal ~s likely to have on adjacent uses and explain how the proposal will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. For transportation facilities, the identification of the "transportation need" and the evaluation of alternatives are key components of the exceptions process. OAR 660~012-0070(4) requires the exception to demonstrate the existence f a transportatmn need" identified consistent with the requirements of 660-012-0030. Further, OAR 660-012~0070(4) and (5) require the exception to demonstrate that the identified transportation need cannot rewsonably be accommodated at non- 28 See also Land Lisa Technical Report. EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS 18 WEST EtAGENE PARKWAy ~FIED PR~ECT-4X)NSISTENCY Wll~ THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TP&NS~TAT~ON PLANNING RULE exception locations or through one or a combination of measures not requiring an exception, including alternatives modes of transportation, traffic management measures and improvements to existing transportation facilities. In taking an exception it is important to recognize the unique role roads and highways pla3, in Oregon's land use framework. Roads and highway are linear facilities that are linked to form an overall transportation system. Lane County, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region, and the State of Oregon are traversed by roads and highways that cross urban and rural lands to form a comprehensive transportation system. This network is necessary to move people and goods and to secure the welf~tre and well-being of Oregon residents. In this way, roads and highways are very different from site-specific land uses such as residential, commercial and industrial. They are also die, rent from urban facilities and infrastructure such as public sewer and water lines. It is feasible and appropriate to restrict the extension of urban sewer and water systems outside of urban grovcth boundaries because such systems typically are designed to serve urban uses which are accommodated within a UGB~ However, it is not always feasible, logical, appropriate or realistic to preclude the extension or improvement of roads or highways outside of urban growth boundaries, even if the roads will predominantly serve the traffic needs of urban residents. This is certainly so for roadways like Highway 126 that serve statewide transportation needs and are on the National Highway System. These roads necessarily must pass through rural lands to connect larger urban areas, por~, major recreation areas and regions of the state. In short, Goal 12 must be balanced with the policy objectives of Goal 3, Goal 4, Goal 11~ and Goal 14, which together seek to protect agricultural and forest lands for farm and forest uses and restrict urban level uses and public facilities to lands within urban growth boundaries. While by definition the Modified Project is a "new road~" it might be more accurately described as a realignment of a portion of a previously approved but as yet unconstrncted four-lane limited access facility. It is important to stress that goal exceptions have already been taken to demonstrate the need for the West Eugene Parkway and to authorize its construction across agricultural and forest lands. The need for the West Eugene Parkway ~ is unchanged and unaffected by this amendment. Only the alignment is modified, primarily to reduce adverse natural resource impacts The ro ect and remains part of the Lane Counw s and ~ ~'- ............ ' ~ is ~,, .,,~ ,,~u~ ~vea s acKnowleoged comprehensive plans. For that reason, rejustif35ng the need for the project should not be necessary, l[nstead, analysis should properly focus on just the modified portion extending outside of the urban growth boundary, with particular attention given to whether alternative modes or alternative locations not requiring goal exceptions can reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. omphance w th OAR 660-012.0060 Under ORS 660-012-0060(1), amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which "significantly affect" a transportation facility must "assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g., level of service~ volume to capacity ratiO, etc.) of the facility." This can be achieved by (1) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with tlte planned function, capacity and performance standards of the proposed facility; (2) amending the adopted transportation system plan (TSP) to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses; (3) altering land use designations, densities or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or (4) amending the TSP to modify planned function, capacity and performance standards to accept greater motor vehicle congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian friendly development where multi- modal travel choices are provided. The initial question raised by this rule is whether the proposed shift in the WEP alignment from the Approved Design to the Modified Project would "significantly affect a transportation facility." If FINDINGS 19 WEST EUC:~f~ PARKWAY fv~OD~FIED PROJECT~NSJSTENCY WiTH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING ~LS AND TRANSPORTATION ~NN~NG RULE there is no significant effect, then OAR 660-012-0060 does not apply. Under OAR 660-012-0060(2), a plan or land use regulation amendment "significantly affects" a transportation facility if it (1) changes the acknowledged functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (2) changes standards implementing the functional classification system; (3) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of the facility; or (4) reduces the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. The change from the Approved Design to the Modified Project alignment has none of these effects. It does not change the acknowledged function of the West Eugene Parkway or alter the standards implementing the fimctional classification system. It does not alter the types or levels of permitted land uses in the area, and the levels of travel and access it would permit are consistent with its planned function as a major limited access highway serving primarily regional and through travel. Further, it would not reduce the' WEP's performance standards below the minimum levels set out in the acknowledged Lane County and City of Eugene Transportation Plans. Indeed, at every affected intersection, the Modified Project improves performance over the no-build alternative and achieves minimum acceptable level of service standard requirements.29 See Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix B. Although the WEP with the Modified Project alignment would not significantly affect a transportation facility, its absence would have that effect because, even with the substantial protection of lands in the area under the WEW?, other planned development in West Eugene still would increase tra~c on existing streets to levels that are inconsistent with their functional classifications. Without the West Eu ene Parkwa b the ear 2015 the level of service at eve ma'or intersection along West I Ith Avenue eastward to Ga~eld Street at 6th and 7th Avenues deteriorates to ater than 1 00 See Appendix B, Alternatives Memorandum. The Modified Project is needed to retain a balance between the transportation system and projected land uses and growth in population and employment through the planning period. Compliance with OAR 6604124065 OAR 660-0 t 2~0065 identifies the types of transportation improvements "which ma3, be permitted on rural lands consistent with Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14 without a goat exception." Because the list of permitted transpor~tion improvements does not include new four-lane limited access highways on rural lands, OAR 660-012-0065 does not apply. Instead, the exception standards in OAR 660-012- 0070 apply. See OAR 660-012-0070(t ). Compliance with OAR 660-0 2.0070 OAR 660-012-0070 contains the requirements and standards for taking goal exceptions to justify transportation facilities and improvements on rural lands. These standards~ set out in OAR 660-012- 0070(1) through 660-012-0070(8), are addressed below. OAR 660-012-0070(1) requires an exception for siting transportation facilities on rural lands that do not meet the requirements of 660-012-0065. The Modified Project satisfies OAR 660-012-0070(1) because goal exceptions will be taken as required by this standard. 29 In all instances, affected intersections will operate at the minimum acceptable level identified in the TransPlan, EXHIBIT C4 - F~NDINGS 20 WEST El~NE PARKWAY ~EIED PROJECT-4'.,ONSIS~NCY WiTH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE OAR 660~012-0070(2) provides that where exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11 or 14 are required, "the exception shall be taken pursuant to ORS 197.732(1)(c), Goal 2, OAR 660, Division 4 and this division." Because OAR 660, Divisions 4 and 12 implement Goal 2 and ORS 197.732(1)(c), a demonstration of compliance with these administrative role requirements demonstrates compliance with all of these review standardsfi0 This technical memorandum provides the findings of fact and reasons demonstrating compliance with the applicable exception standards, as required by Goal 2 and ORS I97.732. OAR 660-012-0070(3) requires that "an exception adopted as part of a TSP or refinement plan shall, at a minimum, decide need, mode, function and general location fbr the proposed facility or improvement." As noted above, the West Eugene Parkway project is already a~n element of the 7?ansPlan and the Lane Counr)~ Rura! Comprehensive Plato31 The acknowledged 1986 exception identified the need fbr the project32 and determined ks mode (highway), function (limited access major arterial) and general location~ This current exception is required only to change the general location of the approved facility from south oft he railroad tracks to north of those tracks. Figure 1 show's the corridor within which the Modified Project would be locate& The Modified Project would have four 12-foot wide travel lanes with 8-foot wide shoulders on the outside of the lanes. A center median would var5, in width from 12 to 14 feet. See Roadway Profiles at Figure 2-3 of the SD£JS. The alignment shift northward f?om the Approved Design would be accomplished wkh a grade-separated crossing over the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks and the Amazon Channel near Terry Street. The precise location of the facility within the corridor will be determined during project design. Because the facility is a state highway, its design and construction will comply with established ODOT standards for constructing urban, statewide limited access facilities, and with local standards and procedures where applicable. OAR 660-0 2.0070(4), ORS 197.732(1)(c)(A), Goal 2 Part OAR 0020(2)(a) and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(4) states: "To address Goal 2, Part Il(c)(1) the exception shall demonstrate that there is a transportation need identified consistent with the requirements of 660-012-0030 which cannot reasonably be accommodated through one or a combination of the following measures not requiring an exception: "(a) Alternative modes of transportation. 30 The language in ORS 197.732(~1)(c) ~s klentical to the Goal 2 exception language set out above in the analysis of compliance with statewide planning goal 2. 31 Because the TransP~an was adopted pdor to LCDC adoption of the Transportation P~anning Rule, it is not a TSP as that term is used in the ru~e. The Lane Counci~ of Governments is currently developing a regional TSP to comply with TPR requim~nts. According to C~ of Eugene Planning Director Jan Childs, that plan currently is scheduled for hearings in the fall of 1999, with adoption unlikely pder to June 2000. 32 ~e ~986 ex~ption k~entifles this project as needed to provide a safe transition to Highway 126 and to avo~ the existing narrow, oa~ed ove~ass at the Southern Pacffic [now Centra~ Oregon and Pac~cl railroad tracks. Additional need for this project is described be~ow. EXHIBIT C-I - F~NDINGS 21 WEST ELIC~NE PAP, KWAY M(X~FI~ PROJECT-.CONSiSTENCY ~TH T~ STATEtP~IDE ~NNING GOALS A~D TRANSPE~An~ PLANN~ Rd Traffic management measures; and Improvements to existing transportation facilities." Transportation Need Re identified transportation need is for the West Eugene Parkway P_~i~9_~t rather than the Modified Proj~t ~ The need ~br the Modified Project alignment is e~.~¢yimnme.__.., n.~J, to reduce significant adverse impacts to high value wetlands and to threatened and endangered plant and animal species from those that would occur through construction of the Approved Desigm As described in the Alternatives Memorandum, the Modified Project will impact 6.4 hectares of high value wetlands, compared to 11.27 for the Approved Design? It also directly impacts only three clumps of endangered plants, compared to 39 plants or plant clumps for the Approved Design, and unlike the Approved Design~ k d~s not eliminate western pond turtle habitat. The Modified Project also includes five undercross~ngs between Terpy Street and its western terminus to provide safe crossings for small animals including the western pond turtle.34 Because the West Eugene Parkway project already is an element of the acknowledged Metro Plan, TransPtan, and Lane County Rural Compreher~ive Plan, a statement of reasons why there is a transportation need for the WEP should not ~ necessary. The overall need for the project is not affected by the alignment modification from the Approved Desi~ to the Modified Project. Nonetheless, ~is is addressed in an exercise of caution. To the extent this constitutes surplussage, it should be regarded as such. Ink[ally, the 1986 exception ~dentified a need to provide a safe transition to Highway 126 and avoid the narrow, curved ore,ass w~th the railroad. That transportation need still exists~ as do the needs, identified in the t985 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and repeated in the SD~g& to (1) improve access to the West Eugene industrial area v~a direct connections w~th only strategic crossroads, (2) better link West Eugene residential areas with downtown, (3) relieve congestion and improve safety along West ] lth Avenue by removing most ~ntra- and ~nter-regional and some local traffic from the busiest and most h~dous section of West 1 lth Avenue, (4) facilitate intra- and ~nter-regional ~d citywide ~'avel through the western half of the C~ty of Eugene between H~ghway 126 ~d the Interstate 5~nterstate 105 corridor, and (5) ~mplement an important part of the areawide roadway system as envisioned [n the TransPhn. See SDEI$ at I- 1; see also 5;upp~emental Needs Analysis and Alternatives Memorandum. The Transportation Planning Rule, at OAR 660-012-0005(28), defines "regional transportation needs" as "needs for movement of people and goods between and through communkies and accessibility to regional destinations wi~in a metropolitan area, county or associated group of counties." ~ose needs exist in West Eugene, as identified above. The West Eugene Parkway, with the Modified Project alignment~ would serve regional transportation needs of the area by enhancing the movement of traffic through the Eugene-Springfield region, by improving access to regional population and emplo3ment centers (in particular, the West Eugene industrial area and the Willow Creek Basin35), and by ~mproving accessibility to regional destinations, including Fern Ridge 33 A~temativos Memorandum, Tabie 4. 34 SDE~$ at 2-~ % 35 The ~ Creek Basin ~ ~ south of West ~ ~ Aven~e ~n Wes~ Euge~. The ~982 ~ Cr~k Spe~al Ama S~udy 9~ emp!oYees~ The p~a~ a~ mSu~ed ~n ~he designation of another ~,622 e~s as ~u~an rese~e~ ~and. S~ Supplemen~ the 205-a~e ~11~ Creek ~ndUstdal pa~. EXHIB~ C4 - FiNDiNGS 22 WEST EL,~.~ NE P,~AKWAY MODiFiED PROJECT,-(A)NSISTENCY WiTH rilE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTAT{ON PLANNING RULE Reservoir, the Hult Center for the Performing A~, the Lane County Fair Grounds, the University of Oregon and Autzen Stadium, and the Oregon Country FMr? The WEP also would serve "state trans~rtation needs," which the TPR defines as "needs for movement of people and goods between and through regions of the state and between the state and other states." OAR 660-012~0005(29). Maintaining an accep~ble level of service along Highway 126 through Eugene and the City of Springfield is very important because Highway 126 is the major east- west ~nnector through the metropolitan region. Highway 126 not only serves the Eugene~Spfingfield area, but connects th~s region to destinmions along the Oregon Coast, in the Oregon Cascades, and in Central and Eastern Omgonfi7 Until ODOT eliminated the classific~ation recently, Highway 126 from Eugene to Florence3s was ~dentifie~ as an Access Oregon Highway, deeme~ the most important for statew~de travel ODOT's 1999 Oregon H~ghway Plan classifies the road as a "Statewide Highway" intended primarily to provide inter-urban and inter-regional mobility and provide connections to larger urb~ are~? ~e management objective for facilities of this nature ~s to provide safe and efficient~ h~gh speed, continuous operation flow, w~th interruptions to that flow within urban areas only "minimah'40 Existing Highway 126 along West 1 lth Avenue already fails to meet this objective and will only deteriorate further with time. Table 2 of the Alternatives Memorandum demonstrates the statewide and regional nature of travel along the WE?. As described in the Alternatives Memorandum, Table 2 identifies the percentage of trips neit~._.h~r ~.n....~ _r destined for the West Eugene Corridor, defined as Royal Avenue to the north, West 18th Avenue to the south~ River Road to the east, and Green Hill Road to the west. It shows that over 42 pement of total trips on the facility between the west end of the WEP and its ~ntersection wkh Highway 99 are through trips beginning or ending outside the UGB.4~ From the western WEP terminus to Ga~eld street, the percentage of through trips along selected links varies ~?om a low of 49 pement to upwards of 78 pement. ~ese through~trip travel needs are most appropriately met on facilities designed to serve statewide and regional rather than local trips. The general configuration of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area is aligned along an east-west axis that, traveling east to west, follows Springfield's Main Street, Franklin Boulevard and West 11 th Avenue~ Highway 12~ ~s the main east-west route through the metrolx>l~tan regiom This route enters Springfield on the eastern edge of the region from the McKenz~e Valley as H~ghway 126 and runs through Thurston and east Springfield as "Main Street". At 58th Street, the route tums northward and follows the Eugene~Springfield Highway, a fouMane, limited access facility. As it crosses Interstate 5~ this h~ghway becomes Interstate 105~ and the Highway 126 route tums southward across the 36 Access to reservok facilities is year-round, although most intensive uses occur during the summer months. The Hult Center, Lane County Fair Grounds, and the University of Oregon provide entertainment and culture~ even[s year round. The Country Fair is held annually dudng Ju~y and draws a large number of people from the Lane County region, statewide, and from other states. 37 Highway 126 is one of on~y four major routes connecting the Willamette Valley and interstate 5 with the Oregon Coast. The other routes are Highways 18, 20 and 26. Coasta~ destinations easily accessible from Highway 126 incJude historic downtown Florence, the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Jessie M. Honeyman Memodal State Park, Cape Perpetua, and the c. Aies of Yachats and Reedsport. Cascade destinations include skiing and hiking destinations at Sandam Pass and Willamette Pass, the Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington and Three Sisters W~derness Areas, and the Metolius recreation area. Central and Eastern Oregon destinations loc~ude the cities of Sisters, Bend, Redmond, Pdneville, Klamath Fails, John Day, Bums and Ontado and the IVlalheur and Kiamath Wildlife Refuges. 38 Highway 126 from Eugene to Florence a~so passes through and serves the communities of Veneta, Noti, and Mapleton. 39 Further, Highway 1126 is an element of the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS purpose is to provide an interconnected system of principal artedal routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facJlities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve ~oterstate and ~nter-re¢onal travel 40 The ~Statew~de" and 'HHS' c~assifloatlor~s extends eastward all the way along Highway 1126 to ~s terminus, where ~t joins with US Highway 20 and State Highway 22 near Sangam Pass in the Oregon Cascedes~ 41 it is like~ that many other tdps begin and end inside the UGB but outside the West Eugene Corridor. Still other tdps begin er end ~nside the West Eugene Corridor, but do not both begin and end inside the West Eugene Corridor. EXHIBIT 0-1 - FINDINGS 23 WEST E~NE PARKWAY ~F~ED PROJECT--C~NSIS~NCY 1~TH THE 8TATEV~D~ PtANN;NG GOALS AND ~NSPORTATION ~ANN~NG RULE Jefferson S~et Bridge ~nd over the Willamette River to the couplet at 6th and 7th Avenues. This couplet extends westward to Garfield Street, which Highway 126 follows about six blocks to its intersection with West 1 lth Avenue, a designated principal arterial. Highway 126 then follows West 1 lth Avenue through West Eugene and outside the urban growth boundary, continuing to Veneta and Florence, where k connects wkh US 1 As explained in the SDE1S, Supplemental Needs Analysis, and Alternatives Memoranduml through West Eugene, this existing east-west roadway system does not support the efficient and safe local~ ci~ide, reg{onal and statewide movement of people, goods and services. West characterized by numerous signals and intersections and by extensive strip commercial development on both its north and south sides, all wkh direct access m the roadway. Right-of-way width is limited, and constant intersections and ingress and egress movements hinder smooth traffic flow. Even with significant roadway improvements to West 1 lth Avenue, including road widenings, center turn lanes at major intersections ~d signal synchronimtion improvements,4~ the roadway does not provide the carrying capacity ora limited access arterial with speeds of 35 to 60 miles per hour. In the developed portions of West 1 lth Avenue~ speeds greater than 35 miles per hour are not safe because of the movements in and out of the driveways serving the numerous businesses. Espec{ally during peak hours, West 1 lth Avenue is highly congested, with many ~ntersections already at or near capacky (Level of Service (LOS) The Supplemental Needs Analysis states that from 1982 to 1992, traffic counts on West 11th Avenue increased from 17 percent to 58 percent on segments between City' View and Green H~tl Road. At the same time; traffic on the north~south connectors to West 11 th Avenue ~ncreased from 15 percent to 527 percenL Without the WEP, traffic congestion along West 1 Ith Avenue will deteriorate to unacceptable congestion levels (LOS F) as population in the Metropolitan area continues to grow.43 With the WEP, those ~rformance levels are improved to LOS C and D. Current planning policy recognizes LOS "D' as the minimum acceptable standard for congestion lJpdated information gathered ~n the summer of 1999 confirms the conclusions reached ~n the Supplemental Needs Analysis. This information shows the West 1 lth Avenue intersections w4th Green Hill Road, D~ebo Avenue and Beltline Highway all at LOS "F' by the year 2015. Volume to capaciW ratios for these intersections range from a low of 1 ~05 at Green Hill Road to a high of 1.50 at Beltline Highway~ Levels of service east of Beltline Highway along West 1 lth Avenue and G~eld Street are no better. For this section, which is also the highest accident rate area [n the City of Eugene?4 volume to capacity ratios at a major intersections range from 1.21 to 1.36 (Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix B).45 Wi~ cons~ction of the Modified Project, Highway 126 will be moved entirely off of West 1 lth Avenue. ~e direct connection to West 1 lth Avenue is severed. For West 1 Ith Avenue, the effect is 42 Over the past 30 yearn West lim Avenue has ~n mntinualiy improved and upgraded. Most recent proje~ (in the I990s) include additions of a ~nter ~ane and sidewalks ~nthe se~ion fr~ Sene~ Road to Ga~e~ Street; ~nstaBa~on of ~raffic s~g~a!S a~ ~oss stree~ ~ ~e se~o~ ~n Bailey HiI~ R~d and Ga~e~d Street; mad widening (from ~o to five ~anes) and s~dewa!~ ~n the s~ion be~n ~line H~ghway and Danebo Avenue~llow Creek Road; and mad widening (~om ~o to four ~a~es)pius ~nler ~[a~um po~ets, bike lanes, sidewal~ and a traffic signal (at Temg Street) in the seg~nt from Danebo Avenue ~o Te~ Street. 43 Popula~o~ proje~ions ~ntained in the re~nfly adopted Metro ~a Residential ~ Uso a~ Housing Stay show that the Eugene~pdn~m!d metropo~n area population {s expe~ Io inmase from approximately 2~,359 ~n 19901o 301 400 by the year 20~ 5~ FUrute devei~p~nt plans near West 11m Avenue {ndude n~al develOPment areas ~ncluding ~mmerdal, empioymnt or ne~ghbo~o~ ~ntem. See A/tomatives Memomndum at ~ Supplementa~ Needs Am~ at 28; ~temat~es Momomndum 6~ and 7~h Avenue w~h Ga~e!d Str~ (m~post 12~,71o I22~4) was 9~41 crashes ~r million vehicle mi~s traveled, mmpa~1o as~tew~eavemge of 3.7t for u~an adeda~ over ~he sa~ 45 The TmnsP~a~ also pmje~s ~raffic overloads for 6th and 7th Avenues, ~e 6t~71h ~ens~on West of Gained, West 18th Avenue, po~{oms of Roo~ve~ Boulevard, a~ the ~oqane se~ion of ~line H~hway ~ West 1 lth Aenue to H~hway 99. Supp~ementa~ Needs AmaZes at 23. E~B~T C4 - F~NDJNGS 24 WEST E~NE PARA'WAY ~FIED PROJECT--CONSISTEN~ WITH THE STATEWtDE PLAHHING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION ~NNING RULE to vastly relieve cx~ngestion. Restoring West 1 lth Avenue to a properly functioning local road serves a "local transportation need" to move people within the West Eugene area and to provide access to local destinations. In summary, a transportation need exists for the Modified Project. That need is a regional need to move people and goods within the greater Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region, a storewide need to move people and goods through the region to outside destinations~ such as the Oregon coast and Oregon Cascades, and a local need to move people efficiently within the West Eugene area. A limited access fhcility is warranted to preserve the fUnctiOn of the roadway to facilitate th~se kinds of trips. A four-lane facility is warranted with 2015 vehicle trip estimates ranging from 18,400 to 23,700 average da~ly tr~ps in the potions of the WEP west of Beltline H~ghway and over 34,000 average da~ly trips east of Beltline Highway?~ Without this new fac[lity~ arterial and collector streets in West Eugene become overburdened~ All principal intersections along West 1 Ith Avenue will function at LOS "F' by the year 2015. With the modified project~ Highway t26 can again perform its intended purpose of serving primarily intra~regional and interregional travel, and West 1 lth Avenue can again perform ~ts primary function of serving predominantly local travel needs. To comply with OAR 660-012-0070(4)~ the identified transportation need must be consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0030. The WEP and ~ts Modified Project are consistent with those requirements for the reasons stated below. O~ 660-012-9030(1) requires t~at a TSP identi~ transportation needs relevant to the planning area and the scale of the transportation network being planned, including state~ regional and local transportation needs, the needs of the transportation d~sadvantaged~ and needs ~br movement of goods and services. The J999 Oregon Highway Plan is an element of the State TSP. That plan ~dentifies a statewSde transportation need ~or the WEP. That plan, and ODOT's Oregon Transportation Plan (i992), also address broader storewide needs, including the needs of the transportation disadvantaged and the needs for movement of people and goods, consistent wkh this provision. Neither the TransJ~lan nor the Lane Coun~ Rural Transportation Plan are "transportation system plans" as that term is used in the TPR. Both were adopted befbre the TPR took effect and have not yet been amended to fully comply with the rule. Currently, the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is in the process of preparing amendments to the TransPlan to implement the TPR and create a regional TSPfi7 A dra~ plan has been released, with adoption anticipated sometime ~n 2000. Efforts to update Lane County's transportation plan are following a separate track. Under the coordination requirements of the TPR, regional and local transportation plans, including the Trans£lan and the Lane County Rural Transportation Plan, will need to be consistent with the state TSP. Accordingly~ both the Metro Area and County TSPs wilt need to include the WEP. The WEP and ~ts Modified Project also are intended to improve access within the metropolitan region and to developments existing and planned for the West Eugene area~ including the large West Eugene industrial area: Even with the grest Eugene ~edands Plan, hundreds of acres remain available for future ~ndustrial development in the industrial area where, as of 1994, the City had invested over 46 SDE~S, F~gum 3-2. for t~ Eugene,SPdngfie!d m~tmpol~an area~ LCOG ~s preparing ~ TmnsPtan u~ate w~th staff assistan~ from the c~ies of A~hO~, [~ F~era~ H~ghWay Administration, the Federal Trans~ Agent, and other agenc~s~ E~IB1T C-~ - FINDINGS 25 WEST [UGtENE PARKWAY ~FIED PROJECT-~)NSlSTEN~ WrfH Tt~ 8TATE~¢I[I[ PLgNNING ¢.4)AL8 &ND TP, ANSPORT^nolt ItAI,IN!NG RIJ~E $12,000,000 in inf?astructure? The West Eugene Parkway with its Modified Project alignment will facilitate the movement of people and goods to and from the West Eugene industrial area. Moreover, the WEP will improve the ability of West 1 lth Avenue to serve local access needs of area businesses. Further, the WEP will also help serve the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by facilitating e~lcient regional transit service along route 93 serving county residents and regional recreational destination access to the Veneta and Fern Ridge Reservoir areas.49 O~ 660-0!2-0030(2} requires that counties or Metropolitan Planning Organizations preparing regional TSPs rely on the analysis of state transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP, and that local governments preparing local TSPs rely on the analyses of state and regional transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and adopted regional TSPs. LCfX}, in coordination with Lane County and the ckies of Eugene and Springfield, has develo~d information for a regional TSP and prepared a draft transportation system plan. In so doing, LCOG is relying on analysis of state transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan is an adopted element of ODOT's state TSP. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan designates Highway 126 from Florence to the Oregon C~cades as a Statewide Highway. The identified transportation need for the WEP with its MOdified Project alignment is consistent with ODOT's designation of Highway 126 as a Statewide Highway because the principal pu¢ose cfa Statewide Highway is to serve interurban and interregional travel needs. Accordingly, this requirement is met. O~ ~60~0!2~0030(3) requires that local and regional transportation need determinations within urban growth boundaries be based on 20-year population and employment forecasts and distributions which are consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans and Goal 14 urbanization policies. The population and employment projections tSbr the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area are consistent with the acknowledged Metro £[an and FFEWP, which identify West Eugene for predominantly industrial and resource protection use in the immediate vicinity of the Modified Projectfi0 Those projections support the conclusion that traffic conditions at all major intemections along West 1 lth Avenue by the year 2015 will be at LOS "F" without the WEP. Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix B. Significant investment in infrastructure already has taken place in West Eugene, including over $12 million by the City to support industrial development plus private expenditures. Serviced areas include the Green Hill Technolo~ Park north of West t lth Avenue and west of Terry Street. During the past two years, over half the streets and sewers have been constructed to serve this approximately 133-acre indus~ial park. In 1998 and 1999, Rosen Products completed their first phase of development and by September, 1999, employed over 200 workersfi~ Through this provision of infrastructure and commencement of development, urbanizable lands have been converted to urban lands. Whlle there remains substantial vacant acreage for furore industrial development, the presence of urban facilities in this area means that the area can accommodate industrial development now or in the very near future. This is consistent with Goal 14's requirement to encourage urban development on urban lands prior to conversion of urbanizable lands. As described in more detail below, the Lane Council of Governments currently is developing a regional Transportation System Plan as required by the TPR~ This plan, the Transl'lan Update, has not yet been adopted~ However, the plan considers need taking into account numerous measures to 48 Sttpp~emental Needs Analysis at 30. 49 Land Uae Technical Report at 50 The Dm~ Revised TmnaP~a~ (May ~999) ~e~es year ~ 995 population and emp!oy~nt at ~4,1 O0 and ~ ms~mively~ Proj~ed 2055 population and emplOY~ fomms~ are 30~,400 a~ $ 53;~0 51 Co~esponden~ ~ Dave Reinhard, C~ of EUgene Planning and ~velopment ~pa~ent, dat~ September 20, 1999, EXHIBIT C-t - FINDINGS 26 W~$T E~NE PARKWAY ~F~D PROJECT-~-~ONSISTEN~ WITH THE STATEWtDE PLANNt~tG GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANN!NG RUL~ reduce reliance on the automobile, including Bus Rapid Transit, transpo~tion demand management, and encouragement o£travel by fbot and bicycle. Moreover, the City of Eugene has amended its land use regulations to comply with OAR 660-012~0045 to support and encourage travel by bike, foot and transit~ Still, for the reasons spelled out below in the discuss[on o£ compliance with OAR 660-0 I2- 0070(4) and incorporated herein by this reference, these measures do not eliminate the need for the WEP. Under O~ 660-012~0030(4), calculations of local and regional transportation needs are to be based upon accomplishment of the requirements in OAR 660-012~0035(4) to reduce reliance on the automobile. Specifically, OAR 660-012-0035¢) requires Eugene-Springfield area l~al governments to design their TSPs to achieve a 5 pemem reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita (VMT) within 20 yem of TSP adoptiom However, under OAR 660~012~0035(5)~ the Eugene-Springfield region may seek authorization from LCDC to use alternative standards in place of the VMT standards to demonstrate progress to'wards achieving reduced automobile reliance through means identified in that rule section. It currently appears to be the region's intention to do so. A Eugene~Spfingfield trans~rtation plan constituting a "TSP' meeting TPR requirements has not yet been adopte& When these jurisdictions adopt that TSP, they will apply the VMT standard (or an altematN¥) on a regional system planning b~is rather than an individual project development basis. ~e aim is to develop a trans~rtation system that, overall, meets the VMT or alternate standard. Nothing in the standard precludes a single project from increasing VMT, provided that the TSP, as a whole, has an overall effect of reducing VMT or making progress towards achieving reduced automobile reliance tbxough other approved means. It is likely that local land use approval for the Modified Project will precede local TSP adoption. The question of how the VMT standard applies prior to adoption of a regional TSP is addressed in a December 9, 1991 letter from Larry gmudsen, Assistant Attorney General, to Michal A. Wert, Highway Division. "OAR 66042~035(4) establishes objectNes for the reduction of vehicle miles tmveted (VMT) ~n Metropolitan Planni~ Organization (MPO) areas. ~ere has been some question about whether the numerical reduction objectives apply to individual transportation projects and whether they apply at all to ('_)DOT. "In my opinion, the objectives do not apply directly to individual projects. Rather, they are to be applied over an entire planning area and over a specific (JO and 20 year) time period tn other word& a TSP ma3, include a project that fails to reduce (or even increases) VMT so long as the plan, as a whole, is designed to achieve the objective. "The role does not expressly apply to ODOT. By its terms, only 'regional and local TSPs shall be designed to achieve' VMT reduction o~ectives. Indirectly, however, the rule does affect ODOT~ For example, VMT reduction objections isleI must be considered when calculating local and regional needs in the preparation of a plan. OAR 660-t2-030(4). Similarly, under the state agency coordination program, ODOT's actions (with respect to programs affecting land use) must comply with the storewide goals and be compatible wkh local land use plans. Unless a project is authorized by acknowledged local plan provisions, ODOT should consider whether a proposed land use action would make it impracticable for the MPO to achieve its Vl~ objectives." (Emphasis added.) Here, the West Eugene Parkway is authorized by acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions. Given that fact, plus the fact that the Modified Project alters only the project location rather than its need, it would appear that OAR 660-012-0035(4) need not be further considered. It is EXHtBff C4 - F~NDINGS 27 WEST EUC~NE PARKWAY M~FIED PROJECT--C'.J3NSiSTENCY WiTH THE STAT~ PLANNING C..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~ ~ L S AND ?RAN~ORTATllON PLANNING RULE considered here in an exemise ofcautiom If such analysis is not required, then this discussion should be considered as surplussage. Also, as previously noted, the identified transportation need for this facility includes a statewide need to serve [nterregional trips. The facility, a state highway, is part of the state TSP and thereby must be included in the local TSP under the coordination and consistency requirements in OAR 660-0 0015(2)(a). If the VMT standard must be considered, then the evidence suggests, for a variety of reasons, that this facility would not so contribute to VMT per capita as to impede the region's ability to achieve VMT compliance or otherwise achieve alternate standards demonstrating progress towards achieving reducing automobile reliance. First, under the definition of VMT at OAR 660~0 originating or ending outside the jurisdictional boundaries oft he Metropolitma Planning Organization (here, LCOG) are not included in VMT calculations.52 As a facility meeting state transportation needs, many of the trips on the WEP will begin or end outs[de the MPO boundary.53 ~ese trips do not con~ibute to per capita VMT. Second, without the WEP, traffic conditions along West t 1 th Avenue would so deteriorate as create s[~ficant out-of-direction travel, thereby causing a greater increase in VMT per capita.5~ People will travel parallel routes to access or leave West Eugene. These routes include West 18th Avenue and Beltl[ne Highway (see Figure 1). Th~s out of direction travel not only would increase VMT~ but may cause mismatches in roadway function relative to surrounding land uses. For example~ West ISth Avenue is surrounded primarily by residential land uses. By serving as an overflow for West 1 lth Avenue traffic during congested periods, West 18th Avenue may be serving a function for which it is was neither designed nor intende& ~ird~ the region is undertaking other transportation and land use effo~s to reduce reliance on the automobile, including land use, demand management and system improvements. These measures ~nclude opportunities for nodal mixed use developments in areas served by transit and the Bus Rapid Transk (BRT)p~lot project~ implementation of which is expected to begin within the ne~t several yearn. Nodal mixed use development will place housing closer to jobs and shopping, thereby {ncreasing convenience ~d access[b[lky and reducing the need to drive long distancesfi5 The BRT concept consists ofhigh~frequency~ fast transk service along major h~ansportation corridors, with small bus service in neighborhoods that connects wkh the BRT corridor service and wkh nearby activity centers. Ultimately, elements of the BRT system may include exclusive bus lanes, a bus guideway system, traffic signal priority for transit, low-floor buses for ~hster boarding, pre-pare fares for faster boarding, greater spacing between bus stops, improved stops and stations, and park and ride lots along BRT corridors~ which will include West 1 Ith Avenue to BeltHne Highway. F[naIly~ the Modified Project will not encourage sprawl types of development that contribute to VMT per capita because so much of the area v¥4thin which the project is located cannot be developed under 52 ~ile LCOG, as a Council of Governments, covem the entire Lane County area, the Eugene-Springfield MPO plan boundary is only [he area wAhin the Metro P~an boundary. That boundary extends about 3,200 feet west of the UGB at Green H~I~ Road. 53 Figure 3~2 of the SDEIS ~ent~es 18,4~ trips ~ginning or ending outside the MPO area. ~ ~T ~pa~ am des~d below ~ the d~scussion of improve~n~ to ex~st~ng fadl~ties. 55 N~a] deve!~pment refem taa mixed-us~, ~destdan ~end/y ~and u~ pa~em that s~ks to increase ~n~ntrat~ons of population and emp~oy~n[ ~n wel~efined areas W~h 9o~ ~rans~ se~!~, a m~ of dive~e and ~mpatib!e ~and uses~ and Public and P~ate ~ProVemn[s designed to ~ pedestrian and transE oriented; N~al developments in the Eugene. Springfield areava~ i~ ~e amount, ty~ and orientation of ~mmerdal, dMc, and emp[oy~nt uses; ta~et ~mmercial ~OOr area ratios; s~e of buS,dings; and [he amount and ~ of res~ent~at uses. N~a~ development pa~ems ~n~ude neighbo~o~ ~ntem ~s~e~a~ develoPm~[) a~d emp~Oymen~ ~n~ {primarily ~ight ~dustfial offi~ and/or ~nst~ut~onal W~h so~ S~ppo~ng mtaJ~ and se~J~ a~iv~ies and possib~ some housing). E~IBff C4 -FINDINGS 28 EST EUC~NE PARKWAY MOD~F~EID PROJECT--CONStS~NCY WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATI~ ~NNt~ RUG the WEWP. Hence, auto-dependent uses such as shopping centers built alongside freeways, creating tremendous incre~es in automobile reliance, cannot occur in the vicinity of the Modified Project. Instead, adjoining properties west of Bekline Highway inside the UGB will remain predominantly vacant. inadequacy of Alternative Modes, Traffic ~tanagement ~leasures, and Improvements to Existing Transportation Facilities OAR 660~012-0070(4) requires consideration of whether the identified transportation need can be reasonably accommodated through one or a combination of measures not requiring goal exceptions, considering (1) alternative modes of transportation, (2) traffic management measures, and (3) improvements to existing transportation facilities. As part of the Transplan update process now underway, LCOG, Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield have been carefully analyzing the regional ~sportation network, land use patterns and population and employment projections to identify future transportation system needs throughout the region. As part of this process, and consistent with TPR requirements, considerable attention has been given to the ability of transit, transportation system management, transportation demand management and transportation modes other than the automobile to meet identified transportation needs. The draft TransPlan includes consideration ofa~ressive transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) improvements that would reduce reliance on the automobile. As described in mom detail below, the analysis shows that with Bus Rapid Transit, overall transit ridership likely would increase by 50 pement by the year 2015. This is a significant rate of growth for transit. Further, ~M measures such as employer support strategies, transit fare reductions, family car incentives, ridesharing, group transit p~ses, parking management measures, special user fees, and other techniques could reduce total per capita VMT by nearly t 0 percent. See Alternatives Memorandum at 8-I2. However, even with these and other measures, the analysis shows that construction of the WEP still is needed to meet overall identified statewide and regional transportation needs. Alternative [~odes of Transportation The ongoing TransP[an update process is an extensive technical and public ef~brt to develop, evaluate, refine and recommend a balanced transportation system. As pa~ of that process, LCOG has carefully considered the ability of alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle, ~sit, and fide sharing and vanpool programs, to meet regional and local transportation needs. According m information contained in the draft TransPlan Update (May 1999), under the fiscally constrained 20l 5 TransRlan, non-auto trips am estimated to increase from 13.0 percent to 15.6 pement of totaI ~ips between 1995 and 2015, with pedestrian ~ps increasing from 8.6 percent to 9.4 percent, bus ~ips increasing from 1.8 percent to 2.7 pement, and bicycle trips decreasing from 3.6 percent to 3.5 percent. Shared anto trips also are expected to increase slightly, from 42.3 pement to 42.9 pement of trips, while single occupancy automobile trips decrease from 43.7 percent to 41.6 percent of total trips. Alternatives Memorandum, Table 1.5~ ~e cities of Eugene and Springfield already have one of the best and most extensive bicycle path networks in the State of Oregon. The percentage of bicycle ridership in the region is substantially higher ~an in most other urban areas of the state. The region will continue to encourage bicycle as well ~ pede~ian usage through construction of new bicycle lanes and sidewalks and through implementation of the measures required by OAR 660-012-0045 to provide for safe and convenient 56 These ~rcentages ink.orate changes to ~and use designat!OnS, dens,ties and designs to a~mm~ate ~d~y m~ed use deve~op~n~ These ~n~ges ~n~omte ~anges to ~and use d~{g~at~ons, dens~ies and desk,s to a~m~ate p~estr~an-~e~d~y m~ed use developments. EXH~B~ C~i - F~ND~NGS 29 W~ST E~NE PAPJ<~AY ~RED PRO~JECT--CONSISTENCY ~TH THE STATE. DE ~NNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATI~ PLANNING RULE bicycle and pedestrian circulation and reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel in areas where usage of these modes is likely. In August, 1997, LCOG analyzed the potential for public transportation in the regiom This study consisted of market analysis, system analysis, and findings and conclusions, and it incorporated TDM strategies, transportation system features and land use changes to support mixed use developments. LCOG concluded that an improved transit system, together with nodal mixed use development patterns, would act in a complementary manner and improve overall transit ridership in the region. The improved transk system incorporates the aggressive Bus Rapid Transit pilot pr0jec[ BRT consists of high-frequency, fast transit service along major transportation corridors~ with small bus service in neighborhoods that connects Mth the BRT corridor service and with nearby activky centers. The BRT system is based on light rail principles, but instead of the required capital inves~ent in trains and track, k utili~s buses in service that is integrated with key components of the existing automobile transportation infrastructure, such as roads and rights-of-way, intersections, and traffic signals. The BRT system would be used as a complementary element to the regular public transit service provided by Lane Transk District. Se~ice frequencies would be similar m regular services with 10- minute headways during daytime peak hours and 20-minute headways during daytime off-peak hours and on evenings and weekends. BRT would employ several features to decrease travel time, including exclusive bus lanes, transit priority t~eatrnents (e.g., preferential traffic signal timing and queue- jumpers), extended stop spacing, enhanced shelters and boarding areas, and a barrier-free fare systemfi7 Improving the transit system through a combination of BRT and nodal mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development cle~ty can significantly increa~ the modal share assigned to transit. Moreover, the BRT system is expected to serve West Eugene ~rough its extension along the West 11 Avenue corridor. However, no~khstanding anticipated increases in transit ridership and the increase in transit's modal share of all trips, West 1 tth Avenue still will not function adequately without the WEPfi8 The volume to rapacity ratios at the intersections of West 1 lth Avenue wkh Green Hill Road, Danebo Avenue, Beltline HighWay, Bertelsen Road, Bailey Hill Road and Senec~ Road will continue to exceed 1.00 without the WEP, with the ratio at Beltline Highway estimated at 1.50.s~ Clearly, travel by alternative modes, combined with TDM and traffic management improvement measures, does not eliminate the need for the WEPfi0 The new roadway is still needed to serve existing and planned growth and statewide and regional trips. Transportation t~anagement and Transportation Demand ~easuras Transportation management measures include techniques for increasing the efficiency, safety~ capacity or level of service of a transportation facility wkhout increasing its size. Examples include traffic signal improvements, traffic control devices including installing medians and parking removal, channelization, access management, ramp metering, and restfip[ng of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. See OAR 660-012-0005(25). Measures such as ramp metering and high occupancy vehicle lanes are not appropriate for West 1 Avenue~ These measures apply more to freeway projects experiencing efficiency or capacity deficiencies. Median barriers along West 1 lth Avenue also are not appropriate given the existing strip 57 Attomative Memorandum at 58 Attematives Memorar~dum at 59 A~omativesMemomndum~ Ap~nd~x 60 The f~ums se~ out ~n Appendix B of the A~ematives Memorandum ~nc~ude TDM EXH~Bff C-i - FiNDiNGS 30 W~ST EUGENE PARKWAY NtO~F~ PROJECT-~XANS!STEN~ WrfH THE STATEWI~ PLANNING C-;4~LS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE commercial development pa~er~, the absenc~ of access managemenL ~he absence of alternative frontage roads to provide adequate access to affected re~l and commercial operations, and other reasons described in more dem~l below. TDM measures hold greater promise~ TDM ~s a program wkh elemems designed to reduce the number of trips by automobile by crmfing measurable or quantifiable d~fferences in time or cost. Examples ~nclude ~ansk subsidies, p~k~ng charges for work-related s~ngle occupancy vehicles, lane pric~ng, shuAle se~[ees, telecommufing~ n~dr[ve days and user fees. From 1994 to 1996~ LCOG studied and analyzed TDM strategies m ~denfify measures that would help reduce VMT and postpone ~e need for mom extensive ~nvestments~ A TDM task force was es~bl[sh~ to pfiofifi~ preferences for TDM strategies aad idenfi~ oppo~unk[es for application of these preferences for additional evaluafiom Strategies considered ~ncluded rideshafing, parking managemen~ employer ~sk use subsid[es~ special ~ser fees, family c~ ~ncenfives, shuAle seduces, ~[p reduction ordinances, volunm~, no-drive days, congestion pricing, and other me~uresfi~ Because 25 percent of all ~ps are work-related~ the ~sk rome exmined op~nk~es for work trip reductions through TDM in greater dem~L Both volun~ and mandato~ s~ateg~es were considered, wkh paA~c~pafion rates based on octal program results d{mumented elsewhere ~n the count~. ~e studies ~nd[cat~ thru a s~ong employer-suppoAed ~M package could reduce work ~p VMT by ~ much ~s t0~5 percentfi2 The rusk rome concluded that a reduction of just under 10 pement ~n total VMT could be justified w~th a relmNely h~gh level of publ~c acceptance. Yet even w~th th~s ~mprovement, ~em w~ l~le difference in the ~spo~fion operation humors shown for the No- Build wi~ TDM. The major ~ntemecfions along West 11~ Avenue core,hue m ope~te at an unaccep~ble level of se~[ce "F' and m volume to capac[~ ratios well above 1.00fi3 improvements to Existing Transportation F/est ]]th Avenue is the pfima~ l~nk be~een Highway 126 to the west and the Inters~te 5/Interstate 105 eo~dor to the easL West l I~ Avenue also sen, es the local travel needs of residents~ businesses and industries loeat~ along or near West 11~ Avenue in West Eugene. As ~A of~e West Eugene P~kway study, ~mprovements m West 11 th Aveaue were ~efully evaluated. As descried beginning m page 5~13 of the SDE~, s~nce the 1960s~ deveBpment aBng West 1 Ith Avenue h~s proceeded based on And use pl~s ~sum~ng the conAmcfion of a new west tr~spo~fion co~[dor. ~e assumption has been that West t lth Avenue would se~e primarily local ~avel needs and the commem[al ~d [ndus~ial esmblishmenm along ks len~h. As a result, commercial and tight industrial bus[aesses oriented towed the s~eet, and numerous curb cuts were approved to provide a~ess to these businesses. Beginning ~n ~e I960s~ the C~, of Eugene completed several [mprovemen~ m increase ~e capac~ of West It~ Avenue and m bring k up to an urban level of semite for a major c[~ ~efiaL E~s~d from D~ebo Avenue, West 1 lth Avenue has four travel lanes with a continuous center l~e for le~ tums. Construction cu~ently is unde~ay extending four ~avel lanes plus a m~sed medhn w~ mm pockeCs from D~ebo Avenue wes~d to Te~ Street. West of Te~ Stree~ West 11~ Avenue is a ~o-l~e fac[li~ wkhout a median or ~nter turn lane, but w~ turn pocke~ at Green Hill Road. As previously smted~ under a no-build alternative with TDM, all major ~ntemecfions along West 1 Avenue w~ll opera~ at LOS F w~th volume m capaci~ ratios greater th~ 1.00 by the year 2015. ~is projected ~ntersecfion failure ~llustmtes the need for significant transportation ~mprovemen~ in the 6~ See A~ternatives Memorandum at 9-~ % 62 The s[udy resu~ ere set ~ at pa~es ~0~ ~ of the A~temat~es Memomndum~ 63 A~emati~s Memom~um, Ap~nd~x B, EY~iBrr C-1 ~ FIND(NGS 31 ~ST EUO~NE PARKWAY ~F~ED PROJECT--CONS~STE~ WiTH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANS~AT~t~ PLANNING RULE area. To reasonably accomm~ate statewide and regional transportation needs, consideration was given to whether West 1 lth Avenue from Ga~eld Street to the Oak Hill area outside the UGB reasonably coutd be converted from a local road to a limited access facility meeting Statewide Highway standards to serve intra- and inter-regional travel needs. Through study, many factors were found to impede this action; including the numerous signals and intersections that are part of the existing local road network, over 100 existing c4>mmemial enterprises with dkect access to West 1 Ith Avenue, and an inefficient connection between West t Ith Avenue and the 6th and 7th Avenue couplet by way of Garfield Street, including two signals and two 90- degree turns. To rectify these conditions would require (1) elimination of most direct accesses to West 1 lth Avenue through the construction of frontage roads or rearrangement of acmess to other roadways; (2) construction of interchanges at strategic locations serving regional and/or local travel; and (3)construction ora complicated, if not impossible, connection between West 11 th Avenue and Highway 99 in the Garfield Street area. Accomplishing these modifications is not reasonable because the adverse impacts are too severe. The required modifications would cause the displacement or extensive access changes to over commercial md light industrial businesses immediately adjacent to West 1 lth Avenue, Garfield Street, and 6th and 7ff~ Avenues. The changes would require extensive alteration of the land use pattern established over the last 25 to 30 years. These actions would severely impact the commercial land base of the city and substantially impact local emplo3~nent, business income and m base. Prope~ ownem would need to be compensated for taken property. Resulting loss of parking spaces and landscaping ~s~iated with businesses could result in inadequate numbers of spaces or inadequate landscaping measured against City of Eugene standards. Internal circulation and truck movement patterns would be adversely impacted. Providing alternate accesses to all affected properties would aIso be very disruptive and expensive. Also, a major objective identified for the West Eugene Parkway is to relieve traffic along West 1 Avenue so that it can operate as a local road serving local residents and businesses. Converting West 1 lth Avenue into a limited access highway contradicts this objective and violates formalized project goals underlying this project aimed at avoiding impacts to existing commercial and industrial development. For all of these reasons, improvements to West 1 lth Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the idemified need. West Eugene needs both West 1 lth Avenue, operating as a local road serving area ms[denl:s and businesses, and a facility serving statewide and regional transportation needs. The displacement, cost, and environmental impacts that would result from the improvements needed to improve West 1 lth Avenue, together wkh the associated social costs resulting from disruption of the existing land use pattern of the area, are simply too great when considered together. Other existing arterials se~ing the West Eugene area include Royal Avenue, Beltline Highway and West ISth Avenue. See Figure 1. Each of these facilities is important to the overall regional and local transportation network. However, these facilk~es do not represent connections that can provide adequate relief for the east-west traffic flow such as to el~inate the need for the WEP. Moreover~ individually and cumulatively, the3, would significantly increase VMT per capita. Royal Avenue, a minor axtefial, is located approximately 1.4 miles north of West 1 lth Avenue. The roadway p~ses through and serves primarily residential properties and is adjacent to a park and elementary school. From west of the UGB to Terry Street, Royal Avenue is a two-lane facility with a painted fog l~ne and a posted speed of 45 miles per hour. From Terry Street to Bertelsen Road, the roadway [sa three-lane section with bike lanes, no parking, and a posted speed of 35 miles per hour. East of Bertelsen Road m Highway 99, Royal Avenue narrows to two lanes with bike lanes and no parking. Accesses are typical of residential streets (i.e., numerous curbcuts). EXHiBiT 04 - FINDINGS 32 EUGENE FAPJO~AY MODIFIED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY NTH THE STATEW~ PlANNiNG GOALS AND TRANSPORTAT]i~ pLANN!~ ~lJLE For numerous reasons Royal Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need fbr a facility handling prim~ily statewide and regional through traffic. The surrounding residemial character of the are~ and accesses typical of residential streets, makes it a very poor location for major widening~ Because of its location primarily in residential areas, it is not suited to a~ommodate traffic at speeds and volumes more appropriate to serve statewide and regional travel needs. Because many accesses would be taken improvement costs would be very expensive. A widened ~hciliW within a predominantly residential area also would significantly disrupt the neighborhood and cause the loss of community cohesion. Widening Royal Avenue to accommodate increased travel also would increase in out-of-direction travel by an average of two miles per trip. F~nally, Royal Avenue does not provide a connection through the City of Eugene, as is needed to meet regional travel needs~ BeItline Highw~ connects West 1 lth Avenue to Interstate 5. From south of the Barger Avenue interchange to Gateway Street just east of I~5, Beldine Highway is a Pally access~controlled facility serving the northern p~ of the metropolitan region. South of the Barger Avenue interchange to West 1 Ith Avenue, Beltline Highway is a two-lane facility wkhout controlled access. Upon completion of the final two phases ofthe West 1 lth Avenue-North City Limits project, Beltline Highway will become a 4-lane controlled access facility all the way to West 1 lth Avenue. The 2015 level of service and volume to capaci~ estimates in West Eugene under ~e No-Build alternative assume the completion of Beltline Highway. Consequently, even with this facility, need for significant additional transportation improvements remain. Widening Bekline Highway would not serve the identified need, as the need is to ~mprove east-west travel rather than access to West Eugene from ~e north~ For many people traveling to West Eugene, travel via Beltl~ne Highway would be out of direction and defeat state efforts to reduce per capita VMT. V/est t8th Avenue is a minor arterial located approximately 0.6 mile south of West 11 th Avenue. West 18th Avenue extends eastward from Willow Creek Road past Garfield Street to Agate Street near the Universky of Oregon. From WillOw Creek Road to Bertelsen Road, the roadway is being reconstructed to urban standards, Between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road, West I Sth Avenue is a two-lane ~tcility with bike lanes and parking on both street sides and a posted speed timk of 40 m~les per hour~ From Bailey Hill Road to Garfield Street, West 18th Avenue is a three-lane section with bike lanes but no parking and a posted spe~ limit of 30 m~les per hour. The area from Bertelsen Road to Garfield Street c~ntains residences, financial uses, churches and five schools. The vertical and horizontal alignments may be designed for running speeds less than the posted speed~ West 18th Avenue cannot reasonably ac~mmodate the identified transportation need for many of the same reasons Royal Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Numbers generated by the Trams?Jan Update ~ndicate that even existing volumes on West 18th Avenue prevent consideration of this route ~ a serious akemative to the WEP. Moreover, the residential character of the surrounding area makes the roadway a very poor candidate for widening. This residential character, plus the location of five schools along West 18th Avenue, support travel at speeds substantially slower than what is appropriate for a state highway included in the National H~ghway System. Placing much higher pementages of through traffic along this roadway would increase pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and thus create safety hazards. Fu~er, using West 18th Avenue as an alternative route would require an'average out-or-direction travel distance of approximately 1.2 miles, which is inconsistent with the policy objectives in the Transportation Planning Rule. Conclusion with Respect to Alternatives As the above-described analysis demonstrates, alternatives to the West Eugene Parkway have been carefully studie& For alt of the reasons stated above, alternative modes, traffic management measures, TDM and improvements to existing transportation facilities, even in combination, cannot reasonably accommodate the idem[fled need for the WEP with its Modified Project alignment. EXhiBiT C-1 - F~ND{NGS 33 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODiFiED PRCUEcT--CONSISI'EN~ WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING C4'3ALS AND I'RANSPORTATION PLANN{NG RULE Significant transit improvements are being made through the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit program. These improvements are expected to increase overall transit ridership in the metropolitan area by 50 percent over current figures. Further, TDM measures could reduce VMT by about 10 percent. But even with these measures~ West I I th Avenue still operates an unacceptable levels of service. Widening Royal Avenue and West 18th Avenue cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Such improvements would disrupt wellZestabfished residential or commercial land use patterns and would significantly increase out-of-direction travel and vehicles miles traveled per capita. Likewise, additional improvements to Beltline Highway beyond those already planned cannot reasonably accommodate the need because the WEP serves primarily east-west travel while Beltline Highway serves circumferential travel. Additional improvements to West 1 Ith Avenue also cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Already, that roadway has been widened and provided with turn lanes to accommodate increasing traffic volume in the area. Still, by the year 2015, all major intersections will experience volumes substantially exceeding their capacity. Further widening of West l 1 th Avenue to increase capacity and accommodate through traffic would displace lands from many properties, with over 100 commercial and industrial businesses directly affected. Re modifications necessary to meet identified state and regional transportation needs would severely disrupt the existing land use pattern of the area, and the costs of compensation and providing new accesses would be enormous. These impacts, cumulatively, render this altematNe unreasonable. Alteration of West 11th Avenue also would run contrary to the need to restore this roadway as a local road serving local residents and businesses. The identified need for the WEP is for a facility that provides for relatively high speed movement of people and goods into and out of or through the region. West 1 Ith Avenue can not reasonably function as both a local road and a higher speed facility serving through traffic. lin summa.fy, despite improvements resulting from BRT, TDM, and improvements to existing facilities, the WEP still is needed to meet the identified predominantly statewide and regional transportation need. Accordingly, OAR 660-012-007~4) is satisfied. Compliance with ORS i97.732(i)(c)(A), Goal 2 Part ll(c)(i), OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and OAR 660-004.0022 ORS 19T732(1)(c)(A), Goal 2 Part II(c)(1) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and -0022 parallel OAR_ 660-012-0070(4). ORS 197.732( 1 )(c)(A) and Goal 2, Part lI(cX 1) require an exception to include reasons which justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not appty.~ OAR 660~004-0020(2)(a) inte~rets these requirements by explaining that the exception should set fbrth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to a specific prope~ or situation, including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land. OAR 660-004-0022 expands on OAR 660-004- 0020(2)(a) by giving examples of the types of reasons which may justify exceptions, including demonstrated need fbr the activity based on one or more requirements of Goals 3 to 19 and special features of the proposed use or activity that necessitate its location on the proposed exception site. The reasons which justify exceptions to Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 to locate the West Eugene Parkway wkh the Modified Project alignment on resource lands are stated in this document. These reasons relate principally to Goals 12 and 5. Regarding Goal 12, a statewide and regional need has been identified to move through traffic efficiently in an east-west direction through the metropolitan 64 Those state policies are ident~ed above in the goal c~mpliance section of th~s document, ETJ~IB;T C-1 - RNDINGS 34 WEST E~ENE PARKWAY MODifiED PROJECT--CONStSI'ENCY WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANN!NGGOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE region. By the year 20t5, ail major intersections along West l l th Avenue in West Eugene will operate at unacceptable levels~ The WEP is needed to facilitate through traffic and allow West l Avenue again to fimction as a local read. Regarding Goal 5, the Modified Project reflects a shared interest by federal, state and local officials to minimize adverse impacts to high value wetlands and to endangered and threatened plant and animal species in the area. Indeed, this interest provided the impetus for shining from the Approved Design to the Modified Project that necessitates these exceptions. These reasons are consistent with the more specific reasons required under OAR 660- 012-0070(4). As described in greater detail below, the differences in impacts to agricultural and forest lands between locating the WEP on the Approved Design or the Modified Project alignment are not substantial. Overall, the Modified Project has slightly less adverse impacts because it does not direCdy~ affect any commercial farming operations. The absence of direct impacts on commercial faming is a reason to justify a Goal 3 exception. As explained in the Compatibili~, Memora~dum, incorporated herein by reference, the Modified Project will use approximately 13.9 acres of ODOT property and require acquisition of approximately 9.9 acres of other public lands and 3~ 1 acres of private lands outside the UGB. The affected public lands serve Goal 5 rather than Goal 3 objectives and do not contribute to the commercial agricultural enterprise of the county or state, which is the focus of Goal 3's attemion. While the 3.1 acres of private lands include some properties used for hobby farming, promcting hobby farms is not the primary objective of Goal 3. In contrast, the acknowledged Approved Design would displace nearly two acres of the Allendar commemial hay and cattle operation. Hence, the policies which Goal 3 seeks to achieve are not advemely impacted by this exception, Likewise, Goal 4's policy objectives are not adversely impacted because only a very small amount of designated fi)rested land is impacted by the Modified Project. Compare SDEIS, Figure 3-4 with Compatibility Memorandum, Figure I. The approximately 27 acres of resource lands taken to accommodate the Modified Project reflect the amount of land needed to meet right-of-way standards for a four-lane limited access facility with t 2- fbot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders and a 12~ to 14-foot-wide center median. Consequently, the amount of land included in the exception reasonably relates to the amount needed for transportation purposes and is justified. As described in the alternative modes analysis above and in the akemative locations analysis below, the WEP requires a rural location because alternative modes or alignments not requiring goal exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need consistent with acceptable design or performance standards. Moreover, even if alternatives were available to connect this project to West 1 lth Avenue at or east of Green Hill Road, thereby avoiding the need for goal exceptions~ resource lands still would be needed to accommodate improvements extending from the UGB at Green Hill Road to Highway 126 west of Goble Lane, although the acreage amounts would be reduced. For all of these reasons, the WEP with its Modified Project alignment complies with ORS 197.732(t)(c)(A), Goal 2 Part It(c)(1) and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) and 660-004-0022. Compliance with OAR 660-012-0070(5), ORS '!97.732('1)(c)(B), Goal 2 Part Ii(c)(2) and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(5) provides that to address Goal 2 Part Il(c)(2), the exception must demonstrate that non-exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation improvement or facility. Similarly, OAR 660-004~0020(2)(b) requires justification why "areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use." EXHIBIT C-1 - FiNDiNGS 35 WEST EL~ENE PARKWAY ~O~F!ED PROJECT--CO~SISTENCY WiTH THE STATEWtDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRA~tSPORTATt~ PLANNI~ RULE The process resulting in the recommendation for the Modified Project included study of a range of alternative alignments at locations not requiring goal exceptions. For the reasons stated below and in the Alternatives Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference, none of those alternative alignments can reasonably accommodate the proposed use. The alternative alignments not requiring new exceptions are the following. Environmental Protection Agency Alternative Environmental Protection Agency Optimized Alternative Green H~ll Road At-Grade Alternative Southern Alternative Southern (Modified) Alternative Approved Design Green Hill Flyover Alternative These alternatives are illustrated on Figure 1. Environmental Protection Agency Alternative This first o£two Env~mmental Protection Agency (EPA) alternatives proposes a "no*build" condkion from Beltline H~ghway to the O~ Hill area no~ of the railroad tracks and west of Goble Lane. Traffic west of the Beltline/WEP interSection would use West 1 tth Avenue and Bekline Highway to access the WEP. This EPA alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identfffied need because it ~not operate as a major arterial ~n a manner consistent with applicable design and safety standards or achieve state and local transportation objectives. The EPA alternative would result in severe and unacceptable traffic congestion at the three major intersections along West 1 lth Avenue between Beltline Highway and Highway 126. Under this alternative, the West I lth Avenue~/Green Hill Road interSection would operate at LOS F with a volume to capaci~ (v/c) ratio of 1.1 l; the West 11th Avenue/Danebo intersection would operate at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.84; and the West 1 lth Avenue/Bettline Highway intersection would operate at LOS F with a 2.40 v/c ratio. See Alternatives Memorandum, Appendix C and SDEt3 at 5-~3. These severe congestion problems cause this alternative to be unsafe and inefficient, and the h~lure to meet applicable standards would result in registered professional engineerS not approving the alternative. Moreover, the EPA Alternative does not support the purposes and needs of the project to improve access to the West Eugene ~ndustr[al area, relieve congestion on West 1 lth Avenue, or facilitate ~nterregional and intra-regional travel. Environmenta~ Protection Agency Optimized Alternative The EPA Optimized Alternative would follow the same concept as the EPA Alternative, except that the facility would be designed to meet the transportation operational requirements of a parkway. To meet acceptable (LOS D) traffic operating conditions, this would potentially require intemhanges at WEP/Bekline Highway, Beltl[ne Highway/West 1 lth Avenue, and West 1 Ith AvenueFFerry Street; frontage roads along much ~f not all of West 1 lth Avenue; potential connectors between Danebo Avenue and Beltl[ne Highway and between Terry Street and West 1 lth Avenue; the closure of the Danebo Avenue/West 1 lth Avenue intemection; mad substantial widening (potentially up to eight lanes) along portions of West 1 lth Avenue (EDENS at 2-20). The EPA Optim~ Alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need because ~t ~s not geometfically £eas[ble or prudent. Project design engineers have determined that there ~s not enough room between Terry Street and the proposed ~P~eltline Highway interchange EXHIBIT C4 - FINDINGS ~sr E~NE PARKWAY ~OD~FIED PROJECT~NSISTEN~ V~TH THE STATE'V~ PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PL~J~N!NG RULE to place the three interchanges needed and still meet the design requirements of the project. Under OAR 660-012-0065(5~a), jurisdictions need not consider alternatives that are inconsistent with applicable standards or not approved by a registered professional engineer. Moreover, any design that would remotely approach meeting the geometric design requirement would displace substantial property associated with the West Lawn Memorial Park cemetery and/or the Lane Memorial Gardens cemete~, and displace commercial and industrial prope~ies in the vicinity of Ter~ Street and Beltline Highway near West 1 lth Avenue. Green Hill Road At-Grade A~ternalive The Green Hill Road At-Grade Alternative would extend the Modified Project westward to Green Hill Road, where it would terminate with an intersectiom A sweeping curve to connect the Green Hill Road and We~ t tth Avenue leg of the alternative would extend west to the project terminus. Double lefts and double rights would be required at each of the intersections of Green Hill Road with West 1 lth Avenue and the WEP. This alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need primarily for two reasons. First, the alternative would impact sensitive species and wet prairie wetlands south of the railroad. Second, from an engineering standpoint, the alignment would be unsafe and is not recommended. This alternative would create conditions likely to result in a high accident location at the intersection of the WEP with Green Hilt Road. Drivers traveling east to ,,vest would encounter condkions where traffic moving at high speeds along a limited access facility first must nearly come to a stop in order to negotiate the cu~e from the WEP onto Green Hill Road, and then immediately cross a railroad crossing. The likelihood is high that this desi~ would result in a high percentage of violent crashes resulting in debilitating injuries or death. Traffic volumes across the railroad track would increase to an excess of 26,000 daily crossings, increasing the number of train/auto conflicts significantly. The proximity of the intersection of the ~P at Green Hill Road to the railroad crossing also conflicts with railroad safety standards. For these reasons, the Green Hill Road At-Grade Alternative is operationally infe~ible and enviromentally unreasonable and therefore cannot reasonably accommodate the identified need~ Southern and Southern {~odified) Alternatives The Southern Almrnative would follow the Modified Project alignment to Danebo Avenue, then shift the alignment sonthward through the Green Hill Technology Park and other parcels identified in the ~SE[F? as developable industrial lands before reconnecting to West 11th Avenue east of Green Hill Road. The Southern (Modified) Alternative would be located somewhat to the north of the Southern Alternative, and connect to West 1 lth Avenue slightly to the west of the Southern Alternative although still east of Green Hill Road. Compared m the Southern Alternative, the Southern (Modified) has greater adverse impacts on wetlands and threatened and endangered plants, but would provide a largerbuffer dismce from a plant, Kincaid's Lupine, that serves as a host to the federally proposed endangered Fender's blue butterfly. While both the Southern Alternative and Southern (Modified) Alternative would function from a design and engineering standpoint, neither is a reasonable alternative because of their impacts to threatened and endangered species; their significant impacts to developing industrial lands in a manner inconsistent with acknowledged ~mprehensive plans, the WEWP and reasonable invesm~ent- backed ns; their damage to the integrity of the compromises realized in the WEV/P; and their overall costs. These impacts are addressed in detail in the Alternatives Memorw~dum, incorporated herein by reference. EXHiBiT C-i - FINDINGS 37 ~ST EU~NE PARKC~AY ~FIED P~ECT--C%~',I$!STEN~ VQTH THE STAT~DE P~NING ~L$ MD TP, ANSP(XRTATION ~NNING RULE The Southern and Southern (Modified) Alternatives would result in significant adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species~ While the Southern Alternative would not displace any T&E species, would be located within 50 metem of over 235 Kincaid's Lupine plants~ High-speed traffic along the fatuity would pose a substantial threat to the federally proposed endangered Fender's blue butteffiy~ which is attracted to the Lupine as a host plant for the butterfly larvae~ ~lae Southern (Modified) Altemative would displace 19 plants of Willamette Daisy and 12 clumps of White-topped Aster. Becaus? other alternatives have significantly reduced potential adverse impacts to T&E species in comparison to the Southern alternatives, the Southern Alternative and Southern (Modified) Alternative are not reasonable alternatives~ The protection of T&E species is a paramount consideration, as reflected bo~ by the applicable federal and state endangered species legislation and by the decision m reconsider alternatives m the Approved Design that would reduce overall adverse environmental impacts~ Where other alternatives are available with significantly less adverse impacts to T&E species, these alternatives become unreasonable. The Southern alternatives also are not reasonable because of the substantial damage they would do to the implementation and ~ntegfity of the West Eugene WetIan& Plan and to developing industrial businesses in the affected area, and because of their yew high and continually growing costs. Placing these impacts ~n perspective requires some background discussion of the WEW£. The West Eugene ~dands Plan was developed following discover), and inventory of a concentration of wetlands in western Eugene ~n the late 1980s. Those wetlands coincided with areas that had been designated by the City of Eugene and acknowledged by LCDC for industrial development. At the time of the wetl~ds d~scovery, industrial investment and development already was proceeding. By then, the City akeady had expended over $12,000,000 in infras~cture to the West Eugene area to support such development. ?rivate inves'tmem included over $900~000 by Spectra Physics for wetland mitigation to develop ks industrial property in this areafis It became clear to the affected governments, regulatory agencies and property owners that the conflicts needed to be addressed ~n a ~ve and timely manner to achieve certainty in the planning process, protect wetlands, and to provide greater security ~br the C~ty and developers in making investment decisions. The resuk was a study culminating with the adoption of the WEWP in 1992. Today, the WEWP provides the basis for wetlands management in the West Eugene area. The plan was developed to balance the City's acknowledged need for economic development with the protection and restoration ora wetland and waterway system, as well ~ to protect natural diversity. The plan ~ncludes goals and policies for protection, enhancement, mitigation and development~ The WEWP ~dentifies approximately 1,307 acres of wetlands in the West Eugene area. Through the coordination effo~ between the City of Eugene, Lane County, LCOG and affected state and federal agencies~ 1,109 of these acres have been designated for protection or restoration, while 288 wetland acres'remain available for development The 1,307 acres ~nclude about 600 acres initially designated for industrial use, of which 485 acres now are identified for protection or restoration. .Over $7 m~llion of federal funding h~ been invested in the implementation of the ~rEWP to datefis In addition to the ~deral funding, there h~ been considerable invesWnent from private property omers located in the area west of Beltline Highway, north of West 1 lth Avenu~, and south of the 65 S~ The Nature Conserva~m¥ Report No 2 (September/October 1993). The Spectra Physics site is now o~upied by PSC 66 ©n August 26, !t999~ dudng a tour of the West Eugene weUands area hosted by LCOG, Senator Gordon Sre~h pledged an i~es~nt ~o ~p[e~n~ ~he ~t4/P~ Also the ~dera[ Envimnmenta~ Protection Agen~ contributed $50;~ 10 flhe deveBp~n! of the ~ to Use ~asa nationa~ ~se Study in how wet~and pmtem~on and e~mOmic development both mn ~ a~mmodated ~n an u~an environment EXHIBIT O-1 - F~ND~NGS 38 WI[ST EU~NE PAR~AY ~D~tF!EI~ PROJECT-~IsISTENcY wITH THE STAT[W~DE PLANNING GOALS A~D TP~HSPORTATIO~ P~NHIHG RULE railroad tracks. This investment includes the Green Hilt TechnolotE,, Park, a developing industrial park containing 17 lots ranging in si~ from approximately 4 to 17 acres. This investment was made in good faith in reliance that the compromises and ultimate policy choices agreed to in the }P~4'~P would be adhered to, i.e. that the WEWP would preserve properties fbr development as shown on the plan. The proposed alignment shi~ from the Approved Design to the Modified Project would require mendments to the WEW£ in a manner that moves allowed development from one location to another without otherwise upsetting the carefully established balance between resoume protection and development~ However, an alignment shi~ from the Approved Design to either Souhhern alternative would require the i~E[~/? to be amended in a manner that eliminates a substarttial portion of the area idemified for industrial development under this carefully developed plan. With either Southern Alternative, much of the 133-acre Green Hill Technology Park and other large designated industrial parcels would be removed from the industrial lands inventory due to right of way acquisitions and landlocking. Overall, the Southern and Southern (Modified) alternatives would each directly affect over 50 properties. This compares to 25 and 23 for the Approved Design and Modified Project respectively. In all, the effect is to upset the careful balance between development and resoume protection achieved by ~e WEFFPfi7 Developing either Southern alternative would greatly compromise the integrity of the F/EF~'P. Given the planning history of these sites, investment e s resulting from that planning process, and the significant level of investment already expended by the City of Eugene, the federal government and affected industrial property ovmers, this result would not be reasonable. The Southern alternatives also would cost substantially more to build than either the Approved Design or the Modified Project. Estimated construction costs for the Southern and Southern (Modified) Alternatives are approximately $115,600,000 and $110,500,000 respectively, compared to $72,400,000 for the Approved Design and $88,800,000 for the Modified PrQjectfi8 With further development of the Green Hill Technology Park resulting in higher land acquisition costs, the cost differential between the Sonthem alternatiVes and the Modified Project will increase. The costs ass~iated with the Southern Alternatives go well beyond mere raw land costs. Were ~sts issues timited m comparing undeveloped lands outside the UGB with undeveloped lands inside the UGB~ cost would not be a relevant factor. But cost concerns go much farther here. The5, involve additional costs associated with crossing the Amazon Creek flood plain, and more significantly, substantial costs associated with placing the facility on land already improved with infrastructure and buildings~ The Green Hill Technolo~ Park has been subdivided into industrial lots that each have developed street access and utilities. With either Southern Alternative, large portions of this land become landlocked, requking their acquiskiom Also, another large industrial parcel to the west, and other smaller industrial parcels, would become l~dlocked and require acquisition. For both alternatives, damages would amount to many millions of dollars. Preliminary estimates identify land acquisition costs for right of way west of Beltline Highway at around $22.5 million for the Southern Alternative and $17.4 million for the Southern (Modified) Alternative. Additional costs would result from the need tobuy landlocked pro~rties. Further, damages could be considered to the Green Hill Technolo~ Park on the south side of the realignment proposals beeanse of shape deficiencies of the impacted lots and the necessity to reconstruct existing roadways and utility layouts. 67S~ Alternatives Memorandum. 68 ~ese estimates include approximate~ $12 million for a structure to cross the wide Amazon Creek flood plain at this ~oeation. EXHiBiT C,-~ - FINDINGS 39 W~ST EUGENE PARKWAY MOD~FIED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATEW~ PLANNING C~JALS AND TRA~SPORTAT~ ~!NG RULE Construction and ~cupancy of buildings inthe Green Hill Technology Park has already begun. In 1998 and I999, Rosen Products completed their first phase of development, and by September 1999 employed over 200 workersfi9 Based on a rough total build estimate by Russ Royer, Real Prope~ Officer with the City of Eugene, total buildout of the park by the time of acquisition could add about $30 million m the costs in today's dollars. No similar cost increase would occur with either the Approved Design or the Modified Project because those affected areas are not identified for industrial development. Consideration of increased right-of-way costs over time is relevant and appropriate because the WEP Mll be constructed in phases and right-of~way for the area west of Beltline Highway may not be purchased for several yeam. Moreover, in an era where the need for transpo~ation improvements is ever growing, but funding to pay ~br those improvements is constrained, spending many $ ~ Os of millions extra to locate a needed transportation facility across an established industrial park is not reasonable~ particularly when the alternative requiting goal exceptions removes no land from the commercial agricultural base and has no adverse impacts on commercial agricultural enterprises. There are also additional hidden costs. Development and implementation of the FP~E~P involved substantial public and private expense, including significant funding for planning. The [¥E~P resulted in the designation of~e Green Hill Technolo~ Park and surrounding areas for industrial development. With the Southern alternatives~ substantial additional public funds would need to be spent to replan industrial development ~n this arem Besides being unreasonable in terns by compromising the ~megrit7 of the ~£[4~£, the Southern alternatives also would be unreasonable by mqu~fing the City and affected agencies m expend public monies to start over in phnning for industrial development in this area and achieving new compromises with wetlands protection. Taken cumulatively, all of the above-described impacts support the conclusion that the Southern and Southern Modified alternatives cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need for the WEP. Approved Design in 1986 Lane County ~opted goal exceptions authorizing the Approved Design. The Approved Design was confinr~ed in the federal FEIS and is an element of both the City's and the County's ac~owledged comprehensive plans. Because the Approved Design does not require a new goal exception, k reasonably belongs in the catego~ of f~cilkies addressed under OAR 660~012-0070(5). However~ because (!) the principal reason for rejecting the Approved Design is environmental~ (2) there is value in comparing the adverse environmental impacts of the Approved Design with the Modified Project, and (3) enviromental comparisons between alternatives are required under OAR 660-012-0070(7), this alternative is analyZed in the section addressing alternatives requiring exceptions. That analysis is incorporated here~n by this reference, and for the reasons therein stated, this alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. Green Hill Flyover A~temative The' Green Hill Flyover Alternative, described in more detail below, was designed to move the alignment north of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks west of Terry Street within the UGB, then cross back to the area covered by the existing Approved Design goal exceptions west of Green Hill Road~ The intent was to develop an alternative that would avoid most of the natural resource impacts of the Approved Design but not require new goal exceptions. Because the Green 69 The e×~sting infrastructure and developmen~ ~lust phase 1 of the technology park, The same developer owns lands to the north and web,hat are planned ~o be developed in ~ater phases. __ WEST EUC~HE PAP, KWAY M~FIED PROJECT--.CONStSTENC'f WITH THE STATEW~DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Hill Flyover Alternative does not require a new goal exception, it reasonably belongs in the category .of facilities addressed under OAR 660*012"0070(5). HoWever, for the same reasons described immediately above under the Approved Design, it makes more sense to address this alternative in the section addressing alternatives requiting exceptions. That analysis is incorporated herein by this reference, and for the reasons therein stated, the Green Hill Flyover Alternative cannot reasonably accommodate the identified transportation need. Compliance with OAR 660-012.0070{6} OAR 660-012-0070(6} requires the exception to justify the thresholds chosen to judge whether an almrnative method or location identified under OAR 660-012-0070(4) or (5) cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation need or facility. These thresholds include cost, operational feasibility, economic dislocation and "other relevant factors." For the West Eugene Parkway, the thresholds used to judge an alternative's ability' to "reasonably accommodate" the identified transportation need include: Cost Operational Fe~ibility and Design Standard Compliance Economic Dislocations and Other Economic impacts Protecting Natural Resources Consistent with Federal Environmental Objectives Achieving State and Local Planning and Transportation Objectives Maintaining the Integrity of the Comprehensive Planning Process Cost Cost is an appropriate threshold to consider in judging whether alternative methods or locations not requiring goat exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the WEP. Cost factors include cosN for right of way acquisition and relocation rights, sub-grade preparations, drainage features, surfacing, structures, and roadside amenities. To the extent that raw land acquiskion ~sB outside of an urban gro~ boundary are cheaper generally than those inside a boundary, cost is not a reasonable basis for detemfining that alternatives not requiring goal exceptions are not re~onable. However, where existing development patterns, required dislocations, loss of access and other factom are of such magnitude as to substantially increase the costs of urban lands above their raw land values, then the comparative costs of alternatives become a legitimate factor to consider. ~is is particularly so in an era where the need for transportation improvements is substantial and the resources available to pay for them are constrained. Transportation finance has not kept up with inflation. Safety, pavement conditions, and bridge sufficiency ratings are not meeting minimum semite levels and are declining. While costs along cannot be the determining factor, relative savings represent potential system improvements to existing l~cilities elsewhere on the transportation network. Operational Feasibility and Design Standard Compliance A facility that cannot operate as a major arterial in a manner consistent with applicable state or local highway design and safety standards is not deemed reasonable to accommodate the WEP. Consistent with the idemified need for the ~P~ the facility must be capable of operating in a manner consistent with im function ofmovNg inter-and intra-urban traffic efficiently through the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, and its design must be safe~ This threshold is consistent with the provision in OAR 660-012-0065(5)(a) that a jurisdiction need not consider any alternative that is inconsistent with applicable standards or not approved by a registered professional engineer. EXHiBiT 0~1 - FINDINGS 41 W~ST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIFIED P~ECr~C.~'3NSISTENCY WITH THE STATE:WIDE PLA~NING GOALS A~D TP~NSPORTATIOH PLAHNING RULE Economic Dislocations Re number and scale of economic dislocations is an appropriate consideration in determining an alternative's reasonableness to accommodate the identified need. Generally, when the dislocations are relatiYely few in number or small in scale, the mere fact that dislocations occur would not render an akemative "unreasonable~' However, when the number or scale of dislocations is of such magnitude as to result insubstantial public inconvenience or harm, then the alternative creating this impact may ~ unre~onable. As used in this paragraph, economic dislocations include not only d~rect loss of land or relocation of homes or businesses, but also loss of access, loss in investment, loss of parking spaces, and similar adverse economic impacts. Protecting Natum~ Resoumes and Biologically Sensitive Areas Consistent with Fedem~ and State Environmental Object,yes Were k not for ~e significant adverse ~mpacts of~e Approved Design on h~gh value wetlands and threatened and endangered species,70 the C~ty of Eugene ~d Lane Coun~ would not now be considering comprehensive plan mendments to relocate the WEP. Instead~ they could rely on the 1986 exception and ~e~r plans to construct the Approved Design. Wkh the discove~ of wetl~ds in ~e late t980s, a~ention mined to how best to a¥oid or minimize wetland and T&E species impac~ consistent wkh federal and state regulations govern{rig promotion of wetlands and t[~eatened and endan~red species.7~ Because the federal wetland pem~k ~d highway construction ~[ng federal funds ~e federal actions, and because federal agencies have pressed for consideration of akematives to the Approved Design for the express pu~se of reducing env~ronmen~l impacts~ minimizing adverse impac~ to high value wetlands and to threatened and end--gered plant and animal species ~nsistent wi~ federal regulations and objectives is the foremost threshold for dete~ining ~e m~onableness of an ~temative to accommodate the WEP. Generally, the less severn the d~rect ~d indirect impact m high value wedands~ o~er biologically sensitive ~eas ~d T&E species, ~e mom reasonable the altemafive~ Almrnmives with s~gnificantly higher adve~e high value wedand or T&E impac~ in relation to other alternatives are considered unreasonable ~ they fa~l to confom~ with federal requiremen~ that priorkize avoidance or minim~mtion of ~mpac~ to these resoumes. Achieving State and Local Transportation Objectives ~is threshold factor considers whether the alternative can reasonably achieve the identified transportation need. Highway I26, of which the WEP would be a par~ is identified in the 1999 Oregon Highway ?lan as a Statewide Highway. It is also an element of the National Highway System. As such, k is intended to se~e primarily intra and inter-regional transportation needs. An alternative whose function is d~ff~rent (e.g., one that would serve primarily local needs) or whose level of se~ice does not meet ODOT standards for Statewide Highways would not be an alternative that could reasonably accommodate the WEP. Alternatives not requiring goal exceptions may still profoundly affect the implementation of an acknowledged comprehensive plan. For this project, a relevant issue is whether an alternative would so alter re,enable planning expectations and investment as to be unreasonable~ More particularly, We~ Eugene was identified long ago as an ~ndustrial area. Since then, many m~llions of dollars have been inYested by the City of Eugene and private landowners on infrastructure and development to 70 As used heroin, T&E Species ~nc~ude federa~ ca~dklate species and species of concern and state sensitive species, 7'~ These include Section 404 of the fedem{ Clean Water Act and the federa{ Endangere~ Species Act. E~IBrT C~ - F~ND{NGS 42 WEST EUGENE PARKWAY MODIFIED PROJECT~NS~STENCY WITH THE STATEW;DE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE implement the plan. With the discovery of vast wetland resources in the late 1980s, action began to develop a wetlands conservation plan, the WE~4zP, that would balance protection and development interests by identifying where industry could or could not go. A principal goal of that plan was to provide a substantial element of certainty about where industrial development could and could not go to guide future public and private investment. la terms of this threshold, an alternative that would have relatively minor impacts on maintaining the balance and compromises achieved in the FKEWP would be considered reasonable to accommodate the need in this context. However, an alternative that has major impacts on maintaining that balance, such as through removing significant acreage from the industrial base, cutting off access, or compromising previously made investments, such that the integrity of the WEWP is reasonably called into question, would not be considered reasonable to accommodate the identified transportation need. Compliance with OAR 660-0i2.0070(7), ORS i97.732(1 )(c)(C), Goa 2 Part and OAR OAR 660-012-0070(7) provides that to comply with Goal 2 Part II(c)(3), the exception must compare the economic, social~ environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location with other locations requ~r{ng exceptions. The exception must discuss "whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are significantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations which would also require an exception." The proposed exception would fail only if the ~mpacls associated with it are "significantly more adverse" than the other identified exception sites. Under OAR 660-012~0070(c), the evaluation of consequences may be generalized. OAR 660-004-0020(2)(c) is very similar to OAR 660~012~0070(7). It requires a general description of the character of each alternative area and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives, including positive and negative consequences. Like OAR 660-012~0070(7), the exception must explain why the use at the chosen site is not "significantly more adverse" than would typically result from the same proposal being located at one of the other exception sites. Considerations include which resource lands are most productive; the abilffy to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and long-term economic impact on the general area resulting from removal of land from the resource base. For purposes of this analysis~ the "proposed location" and the "proposed exception s~te' is the Modified Project. The other alternatives for which goal exceptions are required are: Roosevelt Extension Alternative Approved Design (for which an exception has already been taken) Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative Each of these alternatives would be designed as a four-lane, limited access facility. The alternatives are illustrated at Figure 1. Description of A~ternatives Requiring Exceptions The Rooseve~ Extension A~ternat~e would ~nvolve the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard from H~ghw'ay 99W to the Oak Hills area west of the UGB. At all times, the alignment remains north of the Union Pacific and Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks. The Roosevelt Extension Akernafive would require interchanges at the intersections of Roosevelt Boulevard with H~ghway 99W and Beltline Highway, extensive modification of the Terry Street intersection, and a new intersection at Green Hill Road. The Green 1~71[ Road Flyover Alternative would follow the Modified Project aUgnment (described below) between Highway 99W and Green Hill Road. At Green Hill Road, th~s alternative would EXHIBIT C-1 - FINDINGS 43 WEST EUGENE PAP~%~/AY ~FIED PROJECT-,-CONSJS~NCY WITH THE STATEW~ PLANNING GOALS A~D TPANSPORTATION P~.J~NNING RULE connect with the westernmost portion of the Approved Design alignment (described below) via a flyover grade separation structure over-crossing of Green Hill Road and the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks. The Apprm, ed Design extends the 6th and 7th Avenue couplets westward from Highway 99W to a point west of the intersection of Highway 126 and Goble Lane near Oak Hill, outside the urban growth boundary. At all times prior to its connection with West 1 lth Avenue, the alignment remains south of the railroad tracks. From Beltline Highway to Green Hill Road, the alignment crosses Danebo Avenue, then shiRs towards the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks, heading westward south or,hose tracks to Green Hill Road. From Green Hill Road west to approximately West I lth Avenue, the alignment continues to parallel the railroad south of the tracks~ See SDEir& Figure 2-2. The Modified Project generally follows the Approved Design alignment from Highway 99W across Belttine Highway to a point east of Te~ Street. There, the Modified Project crosses over the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks, then essentially parallels those tracks on the north side to a connection with Highway 126 terminating approximately 1,300 feet farther'to the west than the Approved Design. Unlike the Approved Design, the Modified Project would eliminate the direct connection between Highway 126 and West 1 ith Avenue. See SDE~r& Figure 2~2. Economic lmpacts Inside the urban growth boundary, the principal adverse economic impacts associated with the Roosevelt Extension Alternative involve the displacement of several commercial businesses at the Roosevelt BouleYard/Highway 99W interchange. Similarl% the Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative, Approved Design and Modified Project would displace several businesses, as noted in the Alternatives Memorandum. Outside the urban grow,g~ boundary, the Rcosevelt Extension Alternative would impact mostly small hobby farm properties located north of the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad tracks (see Figure 2)~ G~ven its location away from the railroad tracks, parcelization of properties also is likely. The Approved Design and Green H~tl Road Flyover Alternative (which follows the Approved Design alignment west of Green Hill Road) would divide two pro~rties on the east end of the area outside the UGB, while the Modified Project would not create any parcels. All of these alternatives would result ~n displacements to obtain land to accommodate the facility. The Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover would result in the loss of nearly two acres of land used for commercial farming, while the Modified Project does not remove acreage from any commercial farms. Because they affect very little or no commercial farm acreage, none of these alternatives should preclude or impede commercial farming in the area in any significant manner. All four alternatives share the positive economic impacts of relieving traffic congestion on West 1 lth Avenue and improving access to the West Eugene industrial area. This, in turn, enhances the stability of existing industrial uses. Because of the nature and scale of these economic impacts are relatively similar and not severe, the impacts resulting from selection of the Modified Project are not significantly more adverse than those that would resuk from selecting a different alternative requiring goal exceptions. Social ~mpacts Inside the urban growth boundary, the Roosevelt Extension Altemative could have significantly more adverse social impacts than those associated with the other three alternatives. Depending on the placement of fight-of-way, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative could result in the displacement of numerous residential units and disruption to neighborhood identity and cohesion in the area adjacent to the north s~de of Roosevelt Boulevard between Highway 99W and Beltl~ne H~ghway. It also could EXHIB~ C~'~ -FINDINGS 44 WEST ELlC'..~..NE PARKWAY ~DIFJED PROJECT-.,.430NSISTE NeY WffH THE STATE'WiDE PLANN{NG GOALS AND TRANSPORTATK:h~ PLANNING RULE displace 25 or more residential units and deny access to an estimated 60 residential units between Beltline Road and Terry Street, resulting in substantial adverse impacts to the affected neighborhood's identity and cohesion.72 In contrast, the Modified Project and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative would displace 1 to 3 residences, and the Approved Design would have no displacements.73 All alternatives would provide improved access to downtown Eugene. Additionally, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would have much greater noise impacts than the other alternatives inside the UGB because it is adjacent to many more residences. Outside the UGB, all alternatives would affect accesses to three private properties on Goble Lane, but no displacements should result?4 Except for the Roosevelt Extension Alternative, which is located f~trther away from the railroad tracks, none should create a feeling of separation for people in the area due to their very close proximity to the railroad tracks. All alternatives would create visual impacts. The Modified Project would increase visual intrusions to the Hays, Goldsmith and Jorgensen residences, while the Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative would impact the Allendar, Tredgold and Ware residents. Visual impacts associated with the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would be slightly greater as there are more residences farther north of the railroad tracks? Noise impacts outside the UGB are not expected to be significant fbr the Modified Project, Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternatives because affected properties generally are set back from the roa& The Roosevelt Extension Alternative may have somewhat higher noise impacts because of its location closer to affected residences. Overall, the adverse social impacts associated with the Modified Project, Approved Design and Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative are not significantly more adverse for any one than for the other two. In contrast, social impacts associated with the Roosevelt Extension Alternative are significantly worse than for the other three alternatives and would justify excluding the Roosevelt Extension Alternative from further consideration. The reason alternatives to the acknowledged Approved Design alignment are being considered at all relates to concerns among ~deral ~d state regulatory agencies, ODOT and the City of Eugene over potentially significant adverse environmental impacts assc,:iated with wetlands and threatened and endangered plant and animal resources. As explained in the Land Use Technical Report, what d[stin~ishes the Modified Project from the Approved Design and justifies the sh~ft in the alignment is the reduction in adverse impacts affecting high value wetlands and endangered and/or threatened species. Comparing alternatives, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would have significant adverse impacts on the wetland and upland habitat areas that the City, Lane County and ODOT are trying to protect through this consideration of an alignment modification. The Roosevelt Extension Alternative would cross over 3,000 feet of wetlands and upland habitat areas identified for protection, enhancement or upland mitigation in the WEP. It would remove valuable wetlands and wildlife habkat in and around the Danebo Ponds at the Roosevelt Boulevard/Beltline Highway interchange. Between Bekline Highway and Terry Street. k would displace an existing wildlife corridor along the A3 channel. 72 SDEI$ at 5-4 5. 73 A~temat~os Memorandum, Table 74 Compatib#ib/ Memorac~dum st 75 Compatibility Memorar~d~m at ~243, E~lT C4 - FINDINGS 45 WEST EUGENE PARK3NAY MODtFIED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY WiTH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE Farther west, it would displace two wetland/pond/vernal pools between the current end of Roosevelt Boulevard and the Amazon Channel.?6 These are significant adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, the Roosevelt Extension Alternative would add a new barrier that would further fragment the wedands. In contrast, the other alternatives would be parallel and adjacent to the railroad which already creates a barrier and fragments the wetlands. While the environmental impacts of the Approved Design are less severe than those resulting from the Roosevelt Extension Alternative, they are still substantial and significantly more adverse than those resulting from the Modified Project. Regarding high value wetlands, the Approved Design would adversely affect 11.27 hectares of high value wetlands, compared to 6.4 hectares for the Modified Project. Regarding T&E species, the Approved Design would eliminate 22 Willamette Daisy plants and 17 clumps of White-topped Aster and eliminate habitat for the Western Pond Turtle, while the Modified Project would eliminate just three clumps of White-topped Aster and cause only temporary construction impacts to the Western Pond Turtle habitat.77 The Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative also would have much more significant adverse environmental effects that the Modified Project. While this alignment follows the Modified Project east of Green Hill Road, it shifts to the Approved Design via the flyover at Green Hill Road. The flyover would require approximately 4.25 hectares of fill south of the railroad tracks, in a rare Willamette Wet Prairie wetland area identified as a very important ecological resoume?s The fill -would fragment a large patch of wet prairie wetlands, cutting the surface hydrology connection that now exists. Overall, the fill would impact considerably more protected plants than the Modified Project. From the standpoint of environmental impacts, the Modified Project clearly has significantly fewer adverse impacts than the other three alternatives. Energy impacts There is no significant discernible difference in energy impacts among the four alternatives. All fbur alternatives would establish a four lane, limited access highway that would improve access to the West Eugene ~ndustrial area and relieve the substantial traffic congestion along West 11 th Avenue. Motorized vehicles traveling along any of these alternatives would consmne gasoline. On the other hand, facilkafing the smooth flow of traffic at acceptable levels of service would help conserYe fuel by avoiding the wasteful burning of fuel at intersections already above capacity or expected to exceed capacity during the planning period. Overall ~mpact Analysis For the reasons stated above~ the net adverse impacts resulting from the Modified Project would not be "significantly more adverse" than would result from the same proposal being located at any of the other three locations requiring goal exceptions. Indeed, compared to the other alternatives, the net adverse impacts resulting from the Mod[fled Project appear to be significantly less adverse, due primarily to differences in environmental impacts. 76 Alternatives Memorandum, Table 4. 77 The Willamette Valley Daisy is classified as a federal "candidate" species and a state listed endangered species. The VVhite-topped Aster is c~ass~ed as a federal "s~es of ~n~m' and a state ~isted threatened species. The western pond tuA~e ~s classified as a federal s~c~es of ~n~rn and a state "sens~ive ~iti~t" spades. SDE~S at 3-10. 78 Willame~e wet prakie wetland is ve~ rare, with only about 0.1 per, ut remaining. The resour~ provides high biologi~l divem~y and has high s~n~mmn~ for threatened and endangered species. See, e.g., SDEIS at 3~, 3-9; Land Use Technical Re~d at 86. EXHIBIT C-I - FINDINGS 46 WEST ELKT~NE PARKWAY ~FJED PROJ ECT~-4X)NSISTENC:-f W~TH THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPOP~TATION PLANNING RULE In addition to the adverse impacts identified for the Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative, it also is noted that the elevated structure required to cross the railroad tracks would result in safety hazards due to rotating super-elevation rates. In turn, this could result in erratic vehicle operation as drivers attempt to negotiate the curves, especially at night and during wet and icy pavement conditions. Potential ponding of highway runoff resulting from the nonstandard design would also present a hazard. See Alternatives Memorandum. For these reasons, the Green Hill Road Flyover Alternative is not an operationally feasible alternative, Finally and as previously noted, because goal exceptions were previously approved and acknowledged for the Approved Design, it is likely that the Approved Design and Green Hill Flyover alternatives are more properly addressed under OAR 660-012-0070(5) (alternatives not requiring an exception) than under OAR 660-012-0070(7). For that reason, the discussion of those alternatives in this section are incorporated by reference into the discussion under OAR 660-012-0070(5). For the reasons explained in this section, the Approved Design and Green Hill Flyover alternatives cannot reasonably accommodate the needed transportation facility because of their significant adverse impacts to high value wetlands and T&E species. Compliance with OAR 660-012-0070(8), ORS 97.732(1)(c)(D) Goal 2 and OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) OAR 660-012-0070(8) provides that to comply wkh Goal 2 Pa~ II(c)(4), the exception must describe the adverse effects ~at the proposed transpo~afion ~mprovement [s l~kely to have on the su~ound[ng rural lands and land uses, including increased traffic ~d pressure for nonf~ or h~ghway oriented development on me~ made more accessible by the transpomfion ~mprovement. ~is section also requires, as pa~ of the exception, fac~liW design and land use measures which m~nim~ze accessibility of rural lands from the proposed tmnspo~fion fac~lky and suppo~ continued rural use of surrounding lands. Similarly, OAR 660-004-0020(2)(d) requires the exception to explain how the proposed use is compatible with other adjacent uses or will be rendered compatible through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts, As used in this section, "compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. The compatibility of the Modified Project with surrounding rural lands is described in the Compatibility Memorandum, incorporated herein by reference. Those findings are summarized below. Overall, the impacts resulting from the location of this facility' on rural land are minimized as a consequence of the proposed location of the facility within an area where substantial acreage is not available for development due to environmental constraints, and through the limked access design of the facility that discourages increased traffic in rural areas. Because of its location immediately north of the railroad tracks, the Modified Project will not create any new parcels or result in any uneconomic remnants, thereby reducing farm impacts, Moreover, of the approximately 27 acres needed to be taken to accommodate the project outside the UGB, only 3.1 acres involve privately ovmed lands, and none of those acres are part of commercial farms. Accordingly, an3' impact on the commemial farm enterprise in the area is minimal. The Modified Project will affect accesses to properties along Goble Lane. To maintain local access and use compatibility~ Goble Lane would be realigned to the north and extended westward about 1,300 feet to near the western end of the project. The existing Highway 126/Goble Lane access would be closed and a new intersection created at an existing driveway at the western end of the proposed Goble Lane extension. The closure of the existing Goble Lane access and its relocation to the new intersection will help limit local access to the adjoining rural area, thereby reducing adverse farm impacts and maintaining compatibility. Likewise, the design feature closing direct access onto West EXIqlB~T ~l - F~ND)NGS 47 WEST EUGENE PAR~Og/AY ~ODIF~ED F~tOJECT-..CX)NSiSTE~ WiTH THE STATEWJDE PLANNING GOALS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE 1 lth Avenue from Highway 126 will help minimize access to rural properties south of the Modified Project, as will the presence of the railroad tracks and railroad right-of-way south of the Modified Project where it rejoins existing Highway 126. A concern often associated with limited access highways is the potential for urbanizing effects outside and at the fringe of the urban area. While this potential exists for the WEP and its Modified Project alignment, any pressures for nonfarm or highway oriented development that this facility might otherwise have should be substantially constrained by the federal and state ownerships and management of many of the largest parcels nearest the proposed corridor, as well as by zoning lknkations imposed to comply with state land use requirements. As shown in Figure 2, a large pementage of the property abutting the proposed Modified Project corridor north and south of the railroad outside the urban growth boundary is under public ownership for the purposes of restoring habitat consistent with the WEWP.79 Other properties inside the UGB between the Amazon Channel/railroad separated ~ade structure and Green Hill Road south of the railroad are in similar public ownership or substantially development-constrained because of the presence of wetlands. Consequently, theSe properties effectively are not subject to urbanizing pressures. There is some rural land near Green Hill Road that is designated urban reserve land for the metropolitan area. Improved access to this area could accelerate the timeline for developing those urban reserve lands. Nearer the terminus of the Modified prOject, a larger percentage of lands are privately owned. In this area, protection from urbanizing pressures comes through development limitations resulting from the presence of wetlands, exclusive farm use or forest zoning designations, and through the very large barrier to development created by the Fern Ridge Reservoir State Wildlife Management Area. The presence of wetlands in this area substantially reduces development pressures because of the di~culties in obtaining authorization to develop wetlands and because of the significant costs involved in wetland mkigation. Also, the presence of railroad tracks south of Highway 126 creates a barrier that helps min[mi~ accessibility to rural lands in this area~ However, improved access to this area could accelerate pressures for rural residential development in areas near the project terminus designated for rural residential development with five or ten acre minimum lot sizes. Any such development would remain rural and would not be incompatible or inconsistent with acknowledged plans. Any potential WEP contributions to the development rate at Veneta, located about 5~5 miles from the western WEP terminus, should be substantially offset by infrastructure constraints, ~ncluding an inadequate wastewater treatment facility and problems with the municipal water supply. See Land Use Technical Report at 50. Overall, the significant wetlands resource, the large amount of acreage in public ownership, and the EFU zoning should provide adequate protection for rural and resource lands and minimize their accessibility. The presence of the railroad, the locations of wetlands and public land ownerships, particularly at Green Hill Road and in close vicinity to the Modified Project alignment terminus, will minimize pressures for highway oriented development in the area~ Additionally, the limked access design of the WEP with the Modified Projec~ should reduce pressures for nonfarm or h~ghway oriented uses on the surrounding rural lands. As designed, the WEP does not encourage usage by local traffic. Instead, it will serve statewide and regional "through" traffic. For 70 R. estoration preject~ incJude the ~ ~ 35 project, k~enthSed at page 43 of the ~nd Uso T~hni~l Ro~d, whlch provides for ~ova~ of d~kes by ~he US A~y Co~s ~ E~g~neem ~n ~he ama just no~h ~ (but not ~n~ud[ng) ~e M~ Proj~ be~een Ter~ Strut and Gr~ H~J~ Road to restore approx~mate~ ~40 a~s of wet,ands and enhan~ another 45 a~ of native hab~at~ and the Cone mR~gat~on s~e, a weUand m~igation proj~ ~t~ no~hwest of Tem~ Street and ~ M~ Pmje~. The 1135 proje~ excludes ~he M~ified Proje~ al~nment ~use of the potentJaJ that the ~P may be ~ted them. EXHtB~ ~l - FiNDiNGS 48 WEST ElY',.~NE PARKWAY t~OD{FIED PROJECT--CONSISTENCY W~TH THE STATE~DE PLANNING GOJ~LS AND TRANSPORTATION PlANNiNG RULE this reason, any increases in traffic volumes outside the UGB resulting from the WEP are expected to be minimal and insignificant. The absence of interchanges or intersections outside the UGB between Green Hill Road and the project terminus further minimizes pressures to convert rural lands to nonresource uses. Because of the existing environmental and zoning constraints reducing pressures to development on rural lands, because the WEP is designed to support statewide and regional rather than local travel needs, and because accesses to rural lands are not provided for along the facility between Green Hill Road and the Project terminus~ the Modified Proiect is compatible with adjacent rural uses in the area and further measures to reduce adverse impacts ~hould not be necessary. EXHIBIT C~ - F~ND~NGS 49 EXHIBIT C~2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2~HILL Alternatives Considered- WEP PREPARED FOR: Jim Co>dODOT PREPARED BY: Jay McRae, PE/CH2M HILL coP~ES: Mark Greenfield/GA Amy Hopper/CH2M HILL DATE: October 4, 1999 Purpose of Memo The development of the West Eugene Parkway Project from West 11th Avenue easterly to Garfield along Highway t 26 has spanned over three decades. Numerous alternatives have been considered and many have been rejected for a variety of reasons - engineering infeasibilky, inconsistency with loc~l plan, adverse impacts to natural msoumes, and unreasonable socio-economic impacts - to arrive at a build alternative that best satisfies the purpose and need for the project. The Modified Project (Northern Alternative) is the recommended WEP alternative. The alignment includes a section that would extend part of the facility a short distance onto agricultural land west of the Eugene-Springfield Metro area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)~ The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) governs transportation facilities and improvements located outside the UGB specifying which facilities are appropriate in rural locations. Any' facilkies which are not specified in the TPR require goal exceptions to locate on rural lands. The exception statement required by the TPR must address the identified transportation need and explain why that need cannot reasonably be accommodated through alternative modes~ or by locations not requiring an exceptiom The TPR also requires the ~dentificafion and justification of the factors used to determine why alternatives not requiring goal exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the nee& Under the TPR the recommended WEP alternative would require exceptions to Goals 3~ 4~ 11 and This memo is not an exception statement, the purpose is to provide a record of background ~nformation and facts regarding the alternatives considered for the West Eugene Parkway Specifically, why those alternatives cannot accommodate the project need. The basis of this paper is the Draf~ SEIS with additional research and information added as necessary. This document considers the following topics: Background Purpose and Need - description of basic premise of the project Project History - discussion includes general evolution of the project to date and planning context Decision Criteria - constraints~ goals, and objectives ~ro~ect Context System Assumptions - fundamental assumptions related to the transportation system EXHIBff C-2 - FiNDiNGS ALTERNATES CONSIDERED - WEP Base Case and Existing Conditions - description of physical east - west facilities in West Eugene Alternatives Considered * Evaluation Factors ~ Comparison of Akematives List of Append ices A. Purpose and Need B. Transportation Operations C. Summary of Alternatives Dismissed D. Evaluation Framework E. Related Projects F. Reference List Background Purpose and Need The purpose trod need for the WEP has not changed from the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, chapter 1, page 1 (see Appendix A). The West Eugene Parkway Supplemental Needs Analysis of September 1994 demonstrates a continuing need for the project. The transportation issues are improvement of mobility and access, relief from congestion, and safety improvement. Without the West Eugene Parkway, numerous intersections in the vicinity of West 11th Avenue would operate with levels of service greater than F and volume to capacity ratio in excess of 1.0 for peak hour traffic (see "No Build" level of service in Appendix B). In addition, the intersections of 6th and 7th Avenue (Hwy 99W, MP 121.7 to 122.4) with Garfield Avenue have an accident rate of 9.41 vehicle crashes per 1 million miles traveled compared to a statewSde average of 3.83 vehicle crashes per 1 million miles traveled for urban arterials for the period from 1996 through 1998. Projec History As Eugene's population grew from about 36,000 in 1950 to an estimated 125,000 people today, development continued to expand to the west in accordance with plans. During this period, the City of Eugene steadily armexed lands to the west. The current urban growth boundary (UGB) extends west to Green Hill Road. The West Eugene area is one of the city's areas of existing and future industrial land supply. A 1960 Highway Study for the years 1980-85 [the Eugene-SpringfieM Area Transportation ~gtudy ,Interim Report (E-SATS)] identified a need for a limited access facility serving West Eugene. The Roosevelt Freeway was conceived to link I~5 with Highway 126. It was planned to be a loop expressway to avoid the central bus,ness district and mn parallel to and north of the railroad through the Bethel-Danebo region. The connection with Highway 126 was to be the completion of the Roosevelt Freeway to carry traffic from I-5, River Road, and Highway 99 through congested areas westward. EXHIBIT C~2 - FINDINGS 2 A~_TERNAT~V~S CON$~DE~D - ~P In 1961, Eugene voters adopted a City Charter provision that required a vote of the electors before freeway planning could be undertaken by the CID,. The 1961 Charter provision was repealed by the Eugene voters in 1964. Early plans extended I- 105 across the Willamette River to connect with the Roosevelt alignment through West Eugene, but construction of the Valley River Center in the late 1960s blocked that route. By the early 1970s, planning for the Roosevelt Freeway was completed and some right-of-way was purchased by the state. Community opposition to negative impacts on the Willamette River Greenway and the Whiteaker and Roosevelt neighborhoods resulted in changes to the Roosevelt Freeway proposal in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1972, Eugene voters amended the City Charter to require a city-wide vote on any future limited access arterial proposed within the city. Meanwhile, due to changing community attitudes, the adoption of the T-2000 Plan in 1978 replaced the Roosevelt Freeway with a new corridor in the alignment of 6th and 7th Avenues extending westward. Subsequent development precludes this corridor from further consideration for a limited access controlled transportation facility. Several alternatives were considered over the next 8 years. In 1984, a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) recommended two alternatives for study in the DEIS. 7~e DEl[S, released for public review in October 1985, evaluated the two alternatives and a No-Build alternative. A Supplemental DEl[S was issued in June 1986 and examined five alternatives between Seneca Road and Highway 99. A FEIS was released in early 1990. The FEIS identified the Approved Design as the selected alternative. Avoiding segmentation of industrial lands was one of the reasons for the selection of the preferred alternative. The approved design in the FEIS included 4.5 acres of agricultural land outside the urban growth boundary that required and received an exception to Goals 3 and 5 in 1986~ Because the understanding of existing conditions had changed substantially since issuance of the FEIS, the Modified Project was developed to address concerns related to these changed conditions, and to provide art update of the WEP's potential impacts to these and other resources. After discovery and inventory of a concentration of wetlands in western Eugene in 1987~ the City of Eugene undertook a formal planning work program in January 1989 to develop the West Eugene Wetland?lan (Ti{/EWP)~ Lane Council Of Governments (LCOG) managed the development of the WEWP in a process separate and concurrent to the development of the WEP. West Eugene Wetland Plan - The [{~EWP development process took place from 1989 to 1992. Lane County, LCOG, City of Eugene, Youth Conservation Corps, and Nature Conservancy coordinate the development and implementation of the plan through a signed coordination agreement. The approach for the development of the WEWP included a comprehensive work program including technical analyses, agency coordination, and public involvement to consider a range of alternatives. Of the eight alternatives evaluated, the selected alternative consists of a balanced development and wetland protection prograrm The purpose of the WEWP is multi-faceted and includes the following factors: - Protection and restoration of wetland and waterway system - Protection of natural diversity (referring to plants) - Development opportunities and certainty (remove cloud for property owners) - Define wetland protection measures - Mifigafioo and banking - Stormwater management EXH~BFf C~2 - F~ND)NGS 3 ALTEPJ~TN'ES ~SI~P~D - WEP - Water quality improvements - Improved flood control - Improved plant and animal habitats - Recreation, education, and research - Corridors and connections - System management - Financing protection, restoration, and management A major reason for undertaking the West Eugene Wetlands Study was to solve the issue of how the City might recoup some of the remaining capacity for over $12,000,000 worth of existing infrastructure already extended into the west Eugene region. There are other examples where projects are currently moving forward under the premise of planned growth~ with the WEP as an integral component of local plans. The WEP was incorporated into the WEWP from the beginning. The plan diagram referred to as Map No. 3 in the WEWP, shows the Approved FEIS Aligmment as "Wetlands to be Developed". Appendix B (p. 73) of the WEWP contains the list of protection and development erkeria. The "Revised Alternatives Analysis, Chapter VII, West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study Technical Report", 1993 includes justification for development sites in Chapter J. The decision-making criteria included #2, p. 126: "need for a public project (i.e., the West Eugene Parkway)". In 1992, the WEg/~ was adopted as an element of the local comprehensive plans of Lane County and City of Eugene~ In September of 1994, DSL approved the WEWP with conditions and the Army Corps of Engineers did likewise in November of 1994, with EPA approval follow~ng before the end of the year. In the approval order and final dec~sion document, the WEP portion of the WEWP was not approved because ODOT and key federal agencies had agreed to examine other alternatives to the FEIS alignment in part to respond to new infbrmafion about rare species and wetland impacts (DSL condition #6, p. 11). The Corps decision document adopted the DSL conditions. In the WEWP planning area, there are 1,307 acres of wetlands of which 600 have been designated as industrial use in the comprehensive plan. Iraplementation of the WEWP will resuk in protection of 1,019 acres of wetlands of which 485 acres are designated as industrial use. This leaves 1 t5 acres of the original 600 acres of lands designated for industrial use as developable~ There are 2,271 acres of designated industrial use elsewhere within the City of Eugene UGB. '[t~e decision structure for the plan consists of policy, implementation and management, and monkofing level responsibilities. WEWP is an element of the local comprehensive plan. The Wetland Executive Team (WET) manages plan implementation and ongoing coordination chaired by C~ty of Eugene Public Works Director. City Public Works is responsible for a comprehensive monitoring and maintenance program (CMMP) as defined in the WEWP. Subsequent agreements have been made where BLM has responsibility for monitoring rural lands and Public Works urban lands. Over $7 m~llion of federal funding has been invested in the implementation of the WEWP to date. In addition to the federal funding, there is considerable investment from private property owners located in the area west of Beltline, north of West 11th, and south of the railroad tracks. Private investment was made [n good faith that the plan would preserve properties for development as shown in the plan. ODOT and BLM coordinated property ALTEPJ,~AT(¥E$ CONS~D~F~£D ~ ~EP acquisition activities where parcels along the Approved FEIS Alignment were deeded to ODOT for the purposes of transportation. ODOT and BLM discontinued this arrangement when the NEPA process was reopened to give consideration of the Modified Project alignment north of the railroad tracks. The WEWP has received national acclaim as a prototype for wetland banking and an exemplary case demonstrating how environmental protection and industrial development can co-exist in a coordinated implementation and management plato Property has been acquired, projects have been developed, and built with the WEWP and WEP in mind° Specifically, the 11-35 Project developed cooperatively by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Cig~ of Eugene ,mas designed to accommodate the alignment of the Modified Project by not including the properties to north of the railroad tracks or the Modified Project. See Appendix E fbr a more complete listing of related projects. According to City of Eugene's Planning Director, a plan amendment would be required for the Modified (Northern) Alignment. Lane County and City of Eugene locally elected officials make policy level decisions including plan amendments. The City' has been waiting for the ROD and closure of the NEPA process to begin the amendment process to shift the alignment from the Approved FEIS Alternative to the Modified Project. By 1995, recommended changes to the Approved Design were developed to improve traffic operations and to reduce impacts to the western pond turtle, wetlands, and rare plants. A supplement Draft SEIS was prepared in 1997 and Public Hearing held to report new data, compare impacts of the two alternatives and to update the environmental analysis. The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement disclosed potential environmental impacts for two alternatives: The Approved Design (Approved FEIS Alternative), was selected in the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement. It involves constructing the WEP on a new alignment, creating an 8.9-kilometer (5.5-mile) extension of the 6th and 7th Avenue Couplet. The western limit of the Approved Design is west of the City of Eugene, west of the intemection of Highway 126 and Goble Lane near Oak Hill. The roadway would travel on a new alignmem generally eastward to a terminus at Highway 99 and Garfield Street. As explained in the FEIS, the Approved Design combines the best features of Alternative 1, Modified At Grade, and Alternative lB, as described in the DEIS. The Modified Project (Northern Alternative), encompasses design options that reduce biological impacts and improve traffic operations. These include moving the West Eugene Parkway to the north side of the railroad tracks between the west end of the project and Terry Street, and construction of a new flyover at the West Eugene Parkway's intersection with Highway 99, to eliminate congestion associated with at-grade left tums across Highway 99. To accommodate projected traffic volumes, several modifications would be made to the intersections of 6th and 7th avenues with Garfield Street. Sixth Avenue would widen from four lanes at Grant Street (two blocks east of Garfield Street) to six lanes at Garfiel& That widening is likely to occur within the existing right-of°way. Approaching Garfield, 6th would have two left-mm lanes, three through lanes, and one combination throughJright mm lane. As Garfield approaches 6th from the north, it would be widened to four lanes~ Garfield would be widened to five lanes between 6th and 7th, with two through lanes in each direction and a center left turn lane at 6th and 7th-. To reduce wetland and rare plant impacts, an alignment shift is recommended that would locate the WEP along the north side of the Central Oregon and Pacific ~ilroad alignment EXH{B~T C~2 - FINDINGS 5 ^LTERI~T~E$ CO~$1~RE~ - ~'~P west of Terry Street, rather than along the south side as proposed [n the Approved Design. This would be accomplished with a grade-separated crossing over the tracks and the Amazon Channel near Terry Street, and would also require that the project be lengthened about 400 meters (1,300 feet) on the ,,vest end at its connection with Highway 126. In order to meet an acceptable level of service at the WEP connection with Highway 99, a northbound to westbound separated grade was added. When the results of the Public Hearing open comment period favored the Modified Project, a review of non-exception alternatives was undertaken because a new goals exception would be required. All but the ~Southern Alternative Corridor (Options I and 2)' failed to meet satisfactory transportation operational requirements (see Appendix C for descriptions of alternatives). The Southern Alternative was evaluated at a corridor level for prudence and feasibility. The Southern Alternatives were evaluated for feasibility at a corridor level. For the Southern Alternatives east of Danebo, the alignment is the same as the Modified Project. From Danebo Avenue to the west there are significant differences between the Modified and Southern Alternatives. In general, the alignment shifts to the south through the industrial lands reconnecting with West Ilth prior to the intersection of Green Hill Road. The alignment would bisect the Green Hill Technology Park and other parcels designated in the WEWP as developable ~ands. West l 1th would be rerouted. Westbound along West 11th would continue straight to the intersection of Crow Road and Green Hill Road rather than curving to the right. Upon review of site conditions, modifications to the alignment were made to reduce impacts to natural resources. Southern Alternative, attempts to avoid goal exception lands, minimize wetland impacts, and impacts to federally listed T&E species. However, the alignment is within close proximity to a patch of lupine, so would pose a greater risk to fender's blue butterfly (which will also soon be federally listed). The modified alignment was created as a refinement and to optimize costs and impacts. Southern Modified Alternative provides greater buffer distance f¥om Kincade's Lupine, host plant to the Fender's blue butterfly (federally proposed endangered) than the Southern Alternative. Overall impacts and implementation costs were reduced from the Southern A1ternative. The Southern Modified is further north and has more impacts to wetlands and T&E, includi~g direct impacts to the Willamette Valley daisy (which will soon be federally listed) which make it unacceptable based on the federal Endangered Species Act. Both of the Southern Alternatives were determined to be unreasonable on the basis of combined impacts to the natural and social environments and cost as will be shown in greater detail in following sections of this document. The impacts to industrial properties of the Southern Alternative are similar to Alternative 2 and 2A considered and dismissed by the CAC during the mid-1980s in the development and selection of the Approved FEIS Alternative. Dec]sion Criteria During the development of alternatives for the October 3, 1985 DEIS, there was a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a Citizens Advisor3' Committee (CAC) in place~ The TAC and CAC identified constraints, goals, and objectives. The goals and objectives have been used in the decision process for evaluating and screening alternatives~ At a February 14, 1983 meeting, the project TAC identified the following constraints: EXHIBIT C-2 -F]NDINGS 6 ALTEP~IAT~S CON$1DE~D - WEP Avoiding Bertelsen Slough Avoiding West Lawn Memorial Park Keeping intact large parcels of land with commemial/industrial development potential Avoiding existing substantial commercial/industrial development Project goals and objectives were fbrmalized by the CAC at their April 12, 1983 meeting. The goals we re: Move traffic east to west Relieve traffic on West 11th Avenue Facilitate future development (in the UGB) Provide access to the extent this is possible and practical The objectives were: To disturb existing businesses as little as possible To closely follow proper¢' lines and thus not divide large parcels To respect the Bertelsen natural areas To miss the existing cemetery on Danebo This decision criterion was developed through public and agency participation and applied consistently as development of the WEP evolved over time. Appendix D shows the evaluation framework used for evaluating alternatives. Project Context The purpose of this section is to describe the system assumptions and the base case and existing conditions, The system assumptions addresses general planning data, mode split trends, transportation demand management (TDM), and Public Transit including land use and transportation system management (TSM). System Assumptions The local transportation-planning document (TransPlan) has been in an update process flor some time. The Draft Revised Trans£lan is currently in the process of public review prior to being adopted. Preliminary indications are that there will be revisions to the plan before it is finally adopted. For the WEP, the NEPA process is predicated on adopted local plans and not draft or proposed plans. However, there has been significant technical analysis and public participation tn elements of the plan update process in order to bring the current plan into compliance with TPR. LCOG operates the land use/transportation model that was used for travel demand forecasting and traffic operations analysis for the WEP and has also provided technical assistance to the update process of TransPlam While the current plan must be used in the NEPA process, there are a number of results from prior studies that provide addkional support and justification of the WEP. 71~e focus of this section is to extract general data, TDM, and public transportation findings that are necessary in addressing the purpose and need of the WEP and TPR. For planning purposes, the region is considered to be the Eugene Springfield area within the Urban Grov,~h Boundary (UGB). TransPlan shows the region is expecting a population growth of 34% from 224,100 in 1995 to 301,400 in 2015 and employment growth of 43% from 106,900 in 1995 to 153,000 in 2015. A forecast of trends during the planning period show that travel behavior would lead to an increase in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congestion without a balanced EXHIBrT C-2 - F~ND{NGS 7 ALTERNATF~S CONSJ~RED ~ WEP approach to land use/transportation supply and demand solutions. TransPlan strategies applied [n West Eugene include TDM Programs and Public Transportation. The Draft Revised TransPlan expands TDM programs, includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and nodal development, and in addition, roadway projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists~ As part of the update to TransPJar~ process, LCOG developed strategies for improving the transportation system were divided into three categories: Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transportation System Improvements (TSI), and Land Use Measures (LUM)~ Citizen task forces were formed to study and evaluate strategies in each of these categories based generally on appropriateness and feasibility in Eugene/Springfield. On the basis of these evaluations, groups of TDM strategies combine LUM and TSI strategies to form plan scenarios and eventually a transportation plan. The Draft Revised TransPlan proposes to implement a balance or equal emphasis of TDM strategies, Land Use Measures, and System Improvements. Table 1 reports the associated modal splits~ EXHIBIT C-2 - FiNDiNGS 8 ALTERNATP~ES ~SID~R~D - WEP TABLE 1 MODE SPLIT COMPARISON Performance 1995 E×is~Jng 2015 Trends 20t 5 2015 financially Measures Condi~ons unconstrained co~s~ed scenado (~) scenario (~) Walk 8.6% 7.8% 9.3% 9.4% Bike 3.6% 3.2% 3.4% 3.5% Transit 1.8% 1.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2 or more person 42.3% 42.9% 43,0% 42.9% Ca~ool SOV 43,7% 44,3% 41.6% 41,6% Person tdps per 1,59 1.61 1.7 1.7 auto tdp (1) Note: Future scenarios factor in the 10 percent vehicle tdp rate reduction allowed in the TPR amendments for mixed~use pedestrian friendly areas, This reduction has been applied to nodal development areas identified in the Draft TransP~an Transportation Demand Management (TDM) In a period from 1994 through 1996, LCOG conducted a study and analysis of the potential for TDM in the Eugene-Springfield Area. There were a number of reports and studies published related to this effort. Tiffs section attempts to report the findings in an incremental presentation format concluding with the maximum benefit in VMT reduction associated with publicly acceptable TDM strategies. TDM is relatively ~nexpensive and can be implemented in the short term to help postpone the need for more extensive investments. LCOG facilitated a task force to prioritize preferences of TDM strategies and identify opportunities for application of these preferences for additional evaluation. TDM Task Force evaluated and prioritized strategies into three groupings; high preference, medium preference, and low preference. The Task Force Final Report records the following listing priorities based on appropriateness * ~reference list - Family car incentive, marketing/public education, Bike~ed Polic% rideshare matching (voluntary program), transportation allowance, group transk pass (voluntary program}, parking management, employee transportation coordinator, special event TDM programs/plans, transit use subsidy (voluntary program)~ special user fees, and insurance pricing at the pump. Medium Ereference list - networking groups~ park and ride lots, trip reduction ordinances~ and shuttle services. Low.preference list - voluntary no-drive days, high occupancy vehicle lanes, special taxes, and congestion pricing. Home based work trips account for a relatively small percentage of total trips. However, the work commute trip heavily influences the choice of departure time, mode and destination for other trips. EXHIBIT 0-2 - FINDINGS 9 ALTEPJ~T~VES CONSIDERED - WEP Work related trips are approximately 25% of all trips and represents a significant concentration of trips during a narrow window of facility demand or peak period. This opportunity for trip reduction was examined in greater detail by the task force. Two types of employer based TDM strategies were modeled by LCOG on five sub-areas in the Eugene-Springfield region. The strategies were grouped by employer support strategies and employer incentive strategies. Each strategy or package of strategies was modeled twice, once as a voluntary strategy and once a~s a mandatory strategy. Voluntary and mandatory refer to the implementation conditions~ The selection of either voluntary or mandatory determines the participation rates of employers in the TDM strategy or program. Rates were based on actual program results documented elsewhere from around the country. Employer support strategies were packaged into two complete programs. The two programs considered for study were: Modest Em pj~rt Package. - Rideshare (carpool and transit) information activities tied in w~th area~wSde matching, and a IA time transportation coordinator. Rates range from a low of 0.1% fbr voluntary to a high of 0.4% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. Strong_E p~gPaekag~ - In-house rideshare matching and information services, preferential parking for ride sharers, flexible schedules, a guaranteed ride home program, and a full-time transportation coordinator. Rates range from a low of 2;4% ~br voluntary to a high of 10.5% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. Employer incentive strategies involve changes in the cost per day (in parking or fare) to single~ occupant vehicles (SOVs), carpools, vanpools, and transit users. For example, a reduction in transit fare of $0.75 and an increase in parking of $1.00 would have double affect on SOV. Transit Fare Reduction - Rates range from a low of 0% for voluntary to a high of 0.4% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. Parking ~r~.c~ng Increase - Rates range from a low of 0~2% for voluntary to a high of 6.0% for trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. Wh~le work related trips are one segment of VMT, there are additional strategies that were evaluated for broader application and corresponding benefit to VMT reduction. Several TDM strategies were considered and evaluated by the task force to go beyond work related VMT reduction. The findings of the TDM Task Force resulted in the following: Mandatory Em orr Programs - 2.5% reduction in total VMT, assuming strong employer package as defined above. ~-reduction Ordinances - not supported by the Task Fome Transk Strate~ - 1% reduction in total VMT, assumes a $0.75 trip fare reduction. Parking Price Increases - 2.5% reduction in total VMT, assumes SOV increase in the downtown area of $2.00 and carpool fee were increased by $0.40. HOV ~Lanes - 1% reduction in total VMT, assumes some shift from transit to carpool. Fuel Price Increases - 0.3% reduction in total VMT, assumes an increase of $0.06 per gallon that was being contemplated by the legislature. Telecommuting - voluntary 0.5% and mandatory 2.1%, assumes strategy would only affect work related trips. ~e conclusions from TDM Task Force and LCOG study efforts show that a reduction o__f ~.~ust under 10% reduction in total VMT can be justified wkh a relatively high level of acceptance. EXHIEt~T C-2 - FINDINGS 10 ALTERNATIVES CONSI~REED- WEP The model runs used in 1996 to conduct the transportation operational analysis shown in Appendix B include TDM Programs. Revisions to the model associated with proposed expansion of TDM Programs from 1996 levels are not considered to be detectable within the precision and accuracy of the model according to Bud Reiffs, LCOG's principle modeler. It is clear that TDM provides a benefit to the overall transportation system and improve overall operations. The marginal improvement is not significant enough to negate the need for the WEP. Pub)lc Transit In August of 1997, LCOG conducted an analysis on the potential for Public Transportation in Eugene-Springfield Area. This study consisted of a market analysis, system analysis, and findings and conclusions. The following paragraphs address the public transit findings and direction being established for future system development. Due to growth in the area and increasing demand for faster, more convenient transit service, Lane Transit District (LTD) has proposed development of Bus a Rapid Transit system (BRT). The BRT system is based on light-rail transit principles, but instead of the required capital investment in trains and track, it utilizes buses in service that is integrated with key components of the existing automobile transportation infrastructure, such as roads and rights-of-way, intersections, and traffic signals. The BRT system would be used as a complementary element to regular Public Transit service. The West 1 Ith/West 18th Avenues (Eugene) - Main Street (Springfield). as identified in Draft Revised TransPlan. Service frequencies would be similar to regular services with 1 O-minute headways, weekday daytime and 20-minute headways, evenings and weekends. Regular service would default to 20-minute headways off-peak. BRT would employ several features to decrease travel times including; exclusive bus lanes, transit priority treatments (e.g. preferential traffic signal timing and queue-jumpers), extended stop spacing, enhanced shelters and boarding areas, and barrier free fare system. Findings from the analysis conclude that BRT and mixed-use nodal development patterns are complementary strategies~ The actual analysis was conducted in coordination with TDM strategies, land use measures, and transportation system improvements. The analysis strategies included existing conditions, base case, TDM emphasis, land use emphasis, system changes emphasis, and equal emphasis. The range of pement transit modal share excluding external trips ranged from a low of 2A0% for 1995 conditions, 2.23% for 2015 base case, up to the highest with 4.03% with 2015 equal emphasis. The cost to implement BRT ranges from a low end of $27 million to a high end of $102 million depending upon the degree to which a pure BRT system can be implemented. There will be tradeoffs made between BRT and a comparable fixed route system. The Draft Revised TraasPIan proposes to implement a variation of the equal emphasis scenario. It is clear from the numbers generated from these studies that increases in investment in Public Transportation and changes in land use will have an affect on improving transportation operations. The marginal improvement is not significant enough to negate the need for the WEP. System Improvements - The proposed system improvements are likely to be revised prior to approval of TransPIam The Draft Revised TransPlan proposes the following improvements to east- west facilities in the West Eugene Vicinity: * Improve Royal Avenue from Green Hill Road to Terry Street to urban standards. Improve Roosevelt Blvd. from Danebo to Beltline to urban standards as part of the Beltline Project from Royal Avenue to Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad. EXHIBIT C-2 - F~NDtNGS Il AL~RNAT~V~S CONSID~R~D ~ WEP Plans include nodal development areas including commercial, employment, or neighborhood centers as well as future capacity improvements from the UGB to Danebo along West 11th Avenue. This route has been identified as a "pilot test case ' as a bus rapid transit corridor. West 18th Avenue has been identified as a study route due to the apparent conflict between function and adjacent uses. Traffic volumes are higher than desirable for the adjacent land uses. Implement Unit lA of the West Eugene Parkway. Base Case and Existing Conditions The purpose of this section is to highlight existing characteristics of the east-west arterial system in West Eugene. The following discussion includes a description of general setting, physical facilities, and statement of the out of direction travel required for east,-west through trips as an alternative to the WEP. Royi~l Avenue - Royal Avenue is north of West 11 th Avenue approximately 1.4 miles and functions as an east-west minor arterial through residential properties primarily. In addition, the route is adjacent to Peterson Park and Fairfield Elementary School. From west of the UGB to Terry Street, the typical section consists ora two-lane facility with a painted fog line with a posted speed of 45 mph with a four-way stop control at Green Hill Road. From Terry Street to Bertelsen, Royal Avenue is a three-lane section with bike lanes and no parking with a posted speed of 35 mph~ From Bertelsen to Highway 99, Royal narrows to two lanes with bike lanes and no parking. Accesses are typical of residential streets. Without the WEP, using Royal Avenue require an average out of direction of approximately 2 miles per trip. Roosevelt Bird - Roosevelt Blvd. is north of West 11th Avenue approximately 1.1 miles and functions as a minor arterial from Terry Street to Highway 99. Roosevelt Blvd. has not been fully constructed along this route. Roosevelt currently starts at the west end as a 'Round About' intersection with Terry Street and continues to Danebo as a two lane street with a large drainage (A3 Channel), industrial lands, and prefabricated housing to the south. Affordable {stick built' residential is located to the north along this section. There is no street from Danebo to Beltline at this time. From Bekline to Bertelsen~ Roosevelt Blvd. is a 3 lane section with bike lanes, heavy industrial to the south and a mixture of mobile homes and manufactured housing to the north. From Bertelsen to Seneca, RooseVelt Blvd. continues as a three lane section with a concrete barrier, ditch, and residential to the north and industrial to the south. From Seneca to Highway 99, Roosevelt Blvd. is a 5-lane section with bike lanes and industrial properties north and south. Without the WEP, using Roosevelt Avenue would require an average out of direction travel of approximately 2.0 miles. For through travel, Royal Avenue would need to be used to the north. Terry Street is a limited connector for truck traffic and a percentage of other vehicles due to the traffic calming features that are currently under construction or recently completed along Terry Street. West 11th Avenue - West 11 th Avenue currently serves as the extension of Highway 126 into Eugene as far as Garfield Street from the west, where West 11th becomes one-way westbound. West 11th is classified as a principal arterial. West 11th Avenue is a 2-lane facility to Danebo with left turn lanes at Green Hill and Terry Street. From Danebo to the east, West 11th is a 5 lane section without parking and bike lanes. West 1 lth Avenue has no access control with an average spacing of One driveway per 75 feet from Beltline Road to Garfield Street and with a posted speed of 45 mph. Without the WEP, out of direction travel would be less than Roosevelt, Royal, and West 18th Avenues. However, travel times would be delayed due to congestion. EXHIBIT 0-2 - FINDINGS 12 ALTERNATrVES C(~SJOERED - WEP West 18th Avenue - West 18th is located approximately 0~6 miles south of West 11th Avenue and is classified as a minor arterial. West 18th connects to Willow Creek Road to the west extending past Garfield to the east to Agate Street. The section from Willow Creek Road to Bertelsen is currently being reconstructed to urban standards. From Bertelsen to Bail<¢ Hill, West 18th is a two lane facility with bike lanes and parking on both sides through a residential section posted at 40 mph. From Bailey Hill to Garfield, West 18th is a three lane section with bike lanes, no parking through a mixture of residential, financial, churches, and five schools with a posted speed of 30 mph~ The vertical and horizontal alignments may be designed for running speeds less than the posted speed. Without the WEP, using West t8th as an alternative route would require an average out of direction travel distance of approximately 1.2 miles. In addition travel speeds would be reduced and there are a significant number of schools and associated crossings where pedestrian/vehicle conflicts exist translating to potential safety problems. West Eugene P:~rkway - WEP is proposed to function as a limited access controlled fhcility. As such, the facility would serve primarily through trips while other parallel facilities would primarily serve local trips and facilitate access to lands in the West Eugene vicinity. Table 2 reports the percent of through trips not originating in or destined for the West Eugene corridor defined as Royal Avenue to the north, West 18th to the south, Green Hill Road to the west, and River Road to the east. The function of the WEP will be to primarily carry through trips. The purpose of other nearby facilities will be to carry local travel trips. The total through trips entering/exiting the WEP west of Greenhill amounts to over 42% of total trips exiting/entering the WEP at Highway 99. This indicates that there is a significant demand fi>r this facility for purposes other than access to properties in West Eugene. TABLE 2: PERCENT THROUGH TRIPS West to East Section Roosevelt Avenue WEP West 11th Avenue Western termini to Green Hill Green Hill to Danebo Danebo to Bertelsen Ber~elsen to Bailey Hill Bailey Hill to Seneca Seneca to Garfield 34% 0-24% 19-24% 19-24% 78% 74% 85~75% 4-17% 72-75% 13-19% 54-58% 13-19% 54-58% 18-23% 49-58% 23% Alternatives Considered The purpose of this section is to address alternatives considered for the purposes of state land use planning goals. Numerous other alternatNes have been considered over the years and are documented elsewhere in the project record. This section includes a discussion of the evaluation EXHIBIT C-2 - RNDINGS 13 ALTERNATg/ES ~S~O*:J~ED - ~EP factors leading to the Modified Project (Northern Alternative) being recommended as the preferred alternative with justification presented as to why other alternatives are deemed unreasonable. Eva uation Factors In the development of the WEP, there were an extensive number of akernatives and options considered and evaluated. The TPR requires a determination of reasonableness be identified and justified for affecting exception lands outside of the UGB. The factors identified in the T?R include operational feasibility, cost and economic dislocation. Many corridors, alternatives, and options were considered and rejected outright on a qualitative or comparative basis due to unfeasibility from an engineering standpoint and/or negative impacts to the natural environment. A summary of these alternatives is shown in Appendix C with a written description of design and operational features that make them unreasonable~ TranspoFmtion operational feasibility factors include application of Oregon's transportation plans~ policies, and standards (design, level of service, safety, etc.). These factors include safe engineering design, capacity to reasonably accommodate future travel demand, and constructab[lity. The WEP would be designed and constructed to comply with ODOT standards for an urban, statewide, limited access facility according to; Oregon Highway Plan (ODOT 1999), Metric Highway Design Manual (ODOT 1993), .4 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO 1994), Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 1996), Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (ODOT 1996), and Supplemental Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (ODOT t 996). A public hearing process occurred prior to the adoption of the Oregon Highway Plan and the classification of facilities. Cost factors include costs for right of wa3, acquisition and relocation rights, sub-grade preparations, drainage featores, surfacing, structures, and roadside amenities~ Precise values are normally determined at the time of right of way acquisition and construction. Transportation financing in Oregon has not kept pace with inflation during the 1990s. Therefore, costs are critical due to the limited resources available. Safety, pavement conditions, and bridge sufficiency ratings are not meeting minimum service levels and are declining according to presentations made by ODOT to the Oregon Legislature of 1999. While costs alone cannot be the determining factor, relative savings represents potential system improvements to existing facilities elsewhere on the transportation network. Other relevant factors include reasonableness of alternatives to carry out project goals and objectives, plan consistency, and protection of natural resources. Comparison of Alternatives The focus of this section is to consider alternatives that affect non-exception lands, existing exception lands, and exception lands with least impacts that meet transportation operational requirements. This section reports facts about the three most promising alternatives, the southern having two options, from a transportation operations perspective. Figure 1 displays the four most promising alternatives listed below and as previously described in more detail as well as other alternatives described in Appendix C. Approved FEIS Alternative, the alignment of which lies south of the railroad tracks west of Danebo Avenue. This alternative does not provide flyover from northbound Highway 99 to westbound WEP. Alignment has received approved use of agricultural lands through goal exceptions adopted in 1986. EXHIBIT C,-2 - F~NO~NGS 14 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Northern Alternative (called the Modified Project in the SEIS) which lies north of the railroad tracks west of Danebo Avenue. This alternative provides the flyover at the Highway 99/WEP connectiom Alignment is located on exception lands. * Southern Alternative which reconnects with West 11th Avenue east of Green Hill Road. The alternative provides the flyover at the Highway 99/WEP connection. Alignment does not require goal exceptions. Southern (Modified) Alternative, an alignment variation of the Southern Alternative that lies somewhat to the north of the other Southern Alternative and connects with West 11 th Avenue slightly west of the other Southern Alternative but east of Green Hill Road. This alternative provides the flyover at the Highway 99/WEP connection. Alignment does not require goal exceptions. he Southern and Southern (Modified) Alternatives are assumed to have acceptable level of service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratio (V/C) characteristics base upon cornparisons between Alternative l and Akernatives 2 and 2B in the 1985 DEIS compared with current calculations for the Approved FEIS and Northern Alternatives. EXH(B~T C-2 - F~ND(NGS 15 ALTERNAT~,~ES CONS~UE~D - WEP Figure 1 Alternatives Considered EXHiBiT 0,-2 - FIND)NGS 16 EXHIBIT TECHNICAL ~E~ORANDU~ Alternatives Considered- WEP PREPARED FOR: Jim Cox/ODOT PREPARED aY: Jay McRae, PE/CH2M HILL COPIES: Mark Greenfield/GA Amy Hopper/CH2M HILL DATE: October 4, 1999 Purpose of The development of the West Eugene Parkway Project from West 11th Avenue easterly to Garfield along Highway 126 has spanned over three decades. Numerous alternatives have been considered and many have been rejected for a variety of reasons - engineering infeasibility, inconsistency with local plan, adverse impacts to natural resources, and unreasonable socio-economic impacts - to arrive at a build alternative that best satisfies the purpose and need fbr the project. The Modified Project (Northern Alternative) is the recommended WEP alternative. The alignment includes a section that would extend part of the facility a short distance onto agricultural land west of the Eugene-Springfield Metro area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Transportation Plannkag Rule (TPR) governs transportation facilities and improvements located outside the UGB speci~ing which facilities are appropriate in rural locations. Any £acilities which are not specified in the TPR require goal exceptions to locate on rural lands. The exception statement required by the TPR must address the identified transportation need and explain why that need cannot reasonably be ac~mmodated through alternative modes, or by locations not requiring an exception. The TPR also requires the identification and justification of the factors used to determine why alternatives not requiring goal exceptions cannot reasonably accommodate the need. Under the TPR the recommended WEP akemative would require exceptions to Goals 3, 4~ 11 and 14. This memo is not an exception statement, the purpose is to provide a record of background information and facts regarding the alternatives considered for the West Eugene Parkway (WEP)~ Specifically, why those alternatives cannot accommodate the project need. The basis of this paper is the Draft SEIS with additional research and information added as necessary. This document considers the following topics: Background Purpose and Need - description of basic premise of the project Project History - discussion includes general evolution of the project to date and planning context * Decision Criteria- constraints, goals, and objectives Proiect Context System Assumptions - fundamental assumptions related to the transportation system EXHIBIT C-2 - FIND{NGS ALTEP, NAT~VES CONSI~RED- WEP Base Case and Existing Conditions - description of physical east - west facilities in West Eugene Alternatives Considered ~ Evaluation Factors ~ Comparison of Alternatives List of Appendices A. Purpose and Need B. Transportation Operations C. Summary of Alternatives Dismissed D. Evaluation Framework E. Related Projects F. Reference List Background Purpose and Need The pu~ose and need for the WEP has not changed from the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, chapter 1, page I (see Appendix A)~ 'I~e West Eugene Parkway Supplemental Needs Analysis of September 1994 demonstrates a continuing need for the project. The transportation issues are improvement of mobility and access, relief from congestion, and safety improvement. Without the West Eugene Parkway, numerous intersections in the vicinity of West 11th Avenue would operate w!th levels of service greater than F and volume to capacity ratio in excess of t ~0 for peak hour traffic (see "No Build" level of service ~n Appendix B). In addkion, the intersections of 6th and 7th Avenue (Hwy 99W, MP 121.7 to 122.4) with Garfield Avenue have an accident rate of 9.41 vehicle crashes per 1 m~llion miles traveled compared to a statewSde average of 3.83 vehicle era£hes per 1 million miles traveled for urban arterials ~br the period from 1996 through 1998. Project History As Eugene's population grew from about 36,000 in 1950 to an estimated 125,000 people today, development continued to expand to the west in accordance with plans. During this period, the CiD' of Eugene steadily annexed lands to the west. The current urban growth boundary (UGB) extends west to Green Hill Road. The West Eugene area is one of the city's areas of existing and future industrial land supply~ A 1960 Highway Study for the years 1980-85 [the Eugene~SpringfieldArea Transportatio~ Study Interim Report (E~SATS)] identified a need for a limited access facility serving West Eugene. The Roosevek Freeway was conceived to link I~5 with Highway 126. It was planned to be a loop expressway to avoid the central business district and run parallel to and north of the railroad through the Bethel-Danebo region. The connection with Highway 126 was to be the completion of the Roosevelt Freeway to carry traffic from I-5, River Road, and H~ghway 99 through congested areas westward. EXHIBIT C-2 - F~NDINGS 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSt~D - W~P In 1961, Eugene voters adopted a City Charter provision that required a vote of the electors before freeway planning could be undertaken by the City. The 1961 Charter provision was repealed by the Eugene voters in 1964. Early plans extended I-105 across the Willamette River to connect with the Roosevelt alignment through West Eugene, but construction of the Valley River Center in the late 1960s blocked that route. By the early 1970s, planning for the Roosevelt Freeway was completed and some right-of-way was purchased by the state. Community opposition to negative impacts on the Willamette River Greenway and the Whiteaker and Roosevelt neighborhc~ds resulted in changes to the Roosevelt Freeway proposal in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1972, Eugene voters amended the City Charter to require a city-wide vote on any future limited access arterial proposed within the city. Meanwhile, due to changing community attitudes, the adoption of the T-2000 Plan in 1978 replaced the Roosevelt Freeway with a new corridor in the alignment of 6th and 7th Avenues extending westward. Subsequent development precludes this corridor from further consideration for a limited access controlled transportation facility. Several alternatives were considered over the next 8 years. In 1984, a Citizens Advisor3, Committee (CAC) recommended two alternatives for study in the DEIS. The DEIS, released for public review in October 1985, evaluated the two alternatives and a No-Build alternative. A Supplemental DEIS was issued in June 1986 and examined five alternatives between Seneca Road and Highway 99. A FEIS was released in early 1990. The FEIS identified the Approved Design as the selected alternative. Avoiding segmentation of industrial lands was one of the reasons for the selection of the preferred alternative. The approved design in the FEIS included 4.5 acres of agricultural land outside the urban growth boundary that required and received an exception to Goals 3 and 5 in i986. Because the understanding of existing conditions had changed substantially since issuance of the FEIS, the Modified Project was developed to address concerns related to these changed conditions, and to provide an update of the WEP's potential impacts to these and other resources. After discovery and inventory of a concentration of wetlands in western Eugene in 1987, the City of Eugene undertook a ~brmat planning work program in January 1989 to develop the West Eugene Wetland Plan (?VEWP). Lane Council Of Governments (LCOG) managed the development of the [~EWP in a process separate and concurrent to the development of the WEP~ West Eugene Wetland Plan -- The WEWP development process took place from 1989 to 1992~ Lane County, LCOG, City of Eugene, Youth Conservation Corps, and Nature Conservancy coordinate the development and implementation of the plan through a signed coordination agreement. The approach for the development of the WEWP included a comprehensive work program including technical analyses, agency coordination, and public involvement to consider a range of alternatives. Of the eight alternatives evaluated, the selected alternative consists of a balanced development and wetland protection program. The purpose of the WEWP is multi-faceted and includes the following factors: - Protection and restoration of wetland and waterway system - Protection of natural d~versity (referring to plants) - Development opportunities and certainty (remove cloud for property owners) - Define wetland protection measures - Mkigation and banking - Stormwater management EXHIBIT C-2 - FIND~NGS 3 ALTEPJ~IIVES COflS)DE~D - WEP - Water quality improvements - Improved flood control - Improved plant and animal habitats - Recreation, education, and research - Corridors and connections - System management - Financing protection, restoration, and management A major reason for undertaking the West Eugene Wetlands Study was to solve the issue of how the City might recoup some of the remaining capacity for over $12~000,000 worth of existing infrastructure already extended into the west Eugene region. There are other examples where projects are currently moving forward under the premise of planned growth, with the WEP as an integral component of local plans. The WEP was incorporated into the WEWP from the beginning. The plan diagram referred to as Map No. 3 in the WEWP, shows the Approved FEIS Alignment as "Wetlands to be Developed'. Appendix B (p. 73) of the WEWP contains the list of protection and development criteria. The "Revised Alternatives Analysis, Chapter VII, West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study Technical Reporf', 1993 includes justification for development sites !n Chapter J. The decision-making criteria included #2~ p. 126: "need for a public project (i.e, the West Eugene Parkway)'. tn 1992, the WEWP was adopted as an element of the local comprehensive plans of Lane County and CiW of Eugene. In September of 1994, DSL approved the WE~q~ with condkions and the Army Corps of Engineers did likewise in November of 1994, with EPA approval following before the end of the year. In the approval order and final decision document, the WE? portion of the WEWP was not approved because ODOT and key federal agencies had agreed to examine other alternatives to the FEIS alignment in part to respond to new infomation about rare species and wetland impacts (DSL condition #6, p. 11). The Corps decision document adopted the DSL condkions. In the WEWP planJfing area, there are t,307 acres of wetlands of which 600 have been designated as industrial use in the comprehensive plato Implementation of the WEWP will result in protection of 1,019 acres of wetlands of which 485 acres are designated as industrial use. This leaves 115 acres of the original 600 acres of lands designated for industrial use as developable. There are 2,271 acres of designated industrial use elsewhere within the City of Eugene UGB~ The decision structure for the plan consists of policy, implementation and management, and monkoring level responsibilities. WEWP is an element of the local comprehensive plan. The Wetland Executive Team (WET) manages plan implementation and ongoing coordination chaired by City of Eugene Public Works Director. City Public Works is responsible for a comprehensive monitoring and maintenance program (CMMP) as defined in the WEWP. Subsequent agreements have been made where BLM has responsibility for monitoring rural lands and Public Works urban lands. Over $7 m~llion of federal funding has been ~nvested ~n the implementation of the WEWP to date. In addition to the federal funding, there is considerable investment from private property owners located in the area west of Beltline, north of West 11th, and south of the railroad tracks. Private investment was made in good faith that the plan would preserve properties for development as shown in the piano ODOT and BLM coordinated property EXHIBIT C~2 - FINDINGS 4 ALT~R~T~VES CO~DERED - ~P acquisition activities where pamels along the Approved FEIS Alignment were deeded to ODOT for the purposes of transportation. O~T and BLM discontinued this arrangement when the NEPA process was reopened to give consideration of the Modified Project alignment north of the railroad tracks. The WEWP has received national acclaim as a prototype for wetland banking and an exemplary case demonstrating how environmental protection and industrial development can co-exist in a coordinated implementation and management plan. Property has been acquired, projects have been developed, and built with the WEWP and WEP in mind. Specifically, the 11-35 Project developed cooperatively by the US Army Corps of Engineers and City of Eugene was designed to accommodate the alignment of the Modified Project by not including the properties to north of the railroad tracks or the Modified Project. See Appendix E for a more complete listing of related projects. According to City of Eugene's Planning Director, a plan amendment would be required for the Modified (Northern) Alignment. Lane Count5, and City of Eugene locally elected officials make policy level decisions including plan amendments. The City has been waiting for the ROD and closure of the NEPA process to begin the amendment process to shift the alignment from the Approved FEIS Alternative to the Modified Project. By 1995, recommended changes to the Approved Design were developed to improve traffic operations and to reduce impacts to the western pond turtle, wetlands, and rare plants. A supplement Draft SEIS was prepared in 1997 and Public Hearing held to report new data, compare impacts of the two alternatives and to update the environmental analysis. The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement disclosed potential environmental impacts for two alternatives: The Approved Design (Approved FEIS Alternative), was selected in the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement. It involves constructing the WEP on a new alignment, creating an 8.9-kilometer (5.5-mile) extension of the 6th and 7th Avenue Couplet. q~e western limk of the Approved Design is west of the City of Eugene, west of the intersection of Highway 126 and Goble Lane near Oak Hill. The roadway would travel on a new alignment generally eastward to a terminus at Highway 99 and Garfield Street. As explained in the FEIS, the Approved Design combines the best features of Alternative 1, Modified At Grade, and Alternative 1 B, as described in the DEIS. The Modified Project (Northern Alternatave), encompasses design options that reduce biological impacts and improve traffic operations. These include moving the West Eugene Parkway to the north side of the railroad tracks between the west end of the project and Terry Street, and construction of a new flyover at the West Eugene Parkway's intersection with Highway 99, to eliminate congestion associated with at-grade left turns across Highway 99. To accommodate projected traffic volumes, several modifications would be made to the intersections of 6th and 7th avenues with Garfield Street. Sixth Avenue would widen from four lanes at Grant Street (two blocks east of Garfield Street) to six lanes at Garfield. That widening is likely to occur within the existing fight-of-way. Approaching Garfield, 6th would have two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one combination through/right turn lane. As Garfield approaches 6th from the north, it would be widened to four lanes. Garfield would be widened to five lanes between 6th and 7th, with two through lanes in each direction and a center left turn lane at 6th and 7th-. To reduce wetland and rare plant impacts, an alignment shift is recommended that would locate the WEP along the north side of the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad alignment EXHiBiT C-2 - FINDINGS 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSPIRED - WEP west of Terr3, Street, rather than along the south side as proposed {n the Approved Design. This would be accomplished with a grade-separated crossing over the tracks and the Amazon Channel near Terry Street, and would also require that the project be lengthened about 400 meters (1,300 feet) on the west end at its connection with Highway 126. In order to meet an acceptable ~evel of service at the WEP connection with Highway 99, a northbound to westbound separated grade was added. When the results of the Public Hearing open comment period favored the Modified Project, a review of non-exception alternatives was undertaken because a new goals exception would be required. All but the 'Southern Alternative Corridor (Options I and 2)' failed to meet satisfactory transportation operational requirements (see Appendix C for descriptions of alternatives). The Southern Alternative was evaluated at a corridor level for prudence and feasibility. The Southern Alternatives were evaluated for feasibility at a corridor level. For the Southern Alternatives east of Danebo, the alignment is the same as the Modified Project. From Danebo Avenue to the west there are significant differences between the Modified and Southern Alternatives. In general, the alignment shifts to the south through the industrial lands reconnecting with West 11 th prior to the intersection of Green Hill Road. The alignment would bisect the Green Hill Technology Park and other parcels designated in the WEWP as developable lands. West 11th would be reroute& Westbound along West 1 lth would continue straight to the intersection of Crow Road and Green Hill Road rather than curving to the right. Upon review of site conditions, modifications to the alignment were made to reduce impacts to natural resources. Southern Alternative, attempts to avoid goal exception lands, minimize wetland impacts, and impacts to federally listed T&E species. However, the alignment is within close proximity to a patch of lupine, so would pose a greater risk to fender's blue butterfly (which will also soon be federally listed). The modified alignment was created as a refinement and to optimize costs and impacts. Southern Modified Alternative provides greater buffer distance from Kincade's Lupine, host plant to the Fender's blue butterfly (federally proposed endangered) than the Southern Alternative. Overall impacts and implementation costs were reduced from the Southern Alternative. The Southern Modified is further north and has more impacts to wetlands and T&E, including direct impacts to the Willamette Valley daisy (which will soon be federally listed) which make it unacceptable based on the federal Endangered Species Act. Both of the Southern Alternatives were determined to be unreasonable on the basis of combined impacts to the natural and social environments and cost as will be shown in greater detail in following sections of this document. The i~npacts to industrial properties of the Southern Alternative are similar to Alternative 2 and 2A considered and dismissed by the CAC during the mid-1980s in the development and selection of the Approved FEIS Alternative~ Decision Criteria During the development of a~ternatives for the October 3, t 985 DEIS, there was a Technical Advisor3' Committee (TAC) and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in place. The TAC and CAC identified constraints, goals, and objectives. The goals and objectives have been used in the decision process for evaluating and screening alternatives. At a February 14~ 1983 meeting, the project TAC identified the following constraints: EXHIBIT C~2 - FINDINGS 6 ALTEPJ~AT~ES ~SI~RED - VVEP Avoiding Bertelsen Slough Avoiding West Lawn Memorial Park Keeping intact large parcels of land with commercial/industrial development potential Avoiding existing substantial commercial/industrial development Project goals and objectives were formalized by the CAC at their April 12, 1983 meeting. The goals were: Move traffic east to west Relieve traffic on West 11th Avenue Facilitate future development (in the UGB) Provide access to the extent this is possible and practical The objectives were: * To disturb existing businesses as little as possible To closely follow properVv, lines and thus not divide large parcels To respect the Bertelsen natural areas To miss the existing cemetery on Danebo This decision criterion was developed through public and agency participation and applied consistently as development of the WEP evolved over time. Appendix D shows the evaluation framework used for evaluating alternatives. Project Context The purpose of this section is to describe the system assumptions and the base case and existing conditions. The system assumptions addresses general planning data, mode split trends, transportation demand management (TDM), and Public Transit including land use and transportation systern management (TSM). System Assumptions The local transportation-planning document (TransPlar0 has been in an update process for some time. The Draft Revised Trans?lan is currently in the process of public review prior to being adopted. Preliminary indications are that there will be revisions to the plan before it is finally adopted. For the WEP, the NEPA process is predicated on adopted local plans and not draft or proposed plans. However, there has been significant technical analysis and public participation in elements of the plan update process in order to bring the current plan into compliance with TPR. LCOG operates the land use/transportation model that was used for travel demand forecasting and traffic operations analysis for the ~P and has also provided technical assistance to the update process of TransPlam While the current plan must be used in the NEPA process, there are a number of results from prior studies that provide additional support and justification of the WEP. The focus of this section is to extract general data, TDM, and public transportation findings that are necessary in addressing the purpose and need of the WEP and TPR. For planning purposes, the region is considered to be the Eugene Springfield area within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). TransPlan shows the region is expecting a population growth of 34% from 224~100 in 11995 to 301,400 in 2015 and employment growth of 43% from 106,900 in 1995 to 153,000 in 2015. A forecast of trends during the planning period show that travel behavior would lead to an increase in per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congestion without a balanced EXHIBIT C-2 - FINDINGS 7 ALTERNATIVES ~SIC~RED- WEP approach to land use/transportation supply and demand solutions. TransPlan strategies applied in West Eugene include TDM Programs and Public Transportation. The Draft Revised TransP[an expands TDM programs, includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and nodal development, and in addition, roadway projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. As part of the update to Tra~,sPlan process, LCOG developed strategies for improving the transportation system were divided into three categories: Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transportation System Improvements (TSI), and Land Use Measures (LUM). Citizen task forces were formed to study and evaluate strategies in each of these categories based generally on appropriateness and feasibility in Eugene/Springfield. On the basis of these evaluations, groups of TDM strategies combine LUM and TSI strategies to form plan scenarios and eventually a transportation plan. The Draft Revised TransPlan proposes to implement a balance or equal emphasis of TDM strategies, Land Use Measures, and System Improvements. Table 1 reports the associated modal splits. EXHiBiT 0,-2 - FINDINGS 8 ALTERNAT{VES CONSIDERED - WEP TABLE 1 MODE SPL~r COMPA[~SON Performance 1995 E×isting 2015 Trends 2015 2015 financially ~easures Conditions unconstrained constrained scermrio (1) scenario (1) Walk 8.6% 7.8% 9.3% 9.4% Bike 3,6% 3.2% 3.4% 3.5% Transit 1.8% 1.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2 or more person 42.3% 42.9% 43,0% 42,9% Carpooi SOV 43~7% 44.3% 41.6% 41.6% Person trips per 1.59 1,61 1.7 1,7 auto trip (1) Note: Future scenarios favor in the 10 percent vehicle tdp rate reduction allowed in the TPR amendments for mixed-use pedestrian fdend{y areas. This reduction has been applied to nodal development areas identified in the Draft TransPlan Transportation Demand I~a~agement (TDI~) In a period from 1994 through 1996, LCOG conducted a study and analysis of the potential for TDM in the Eugene-Springfield Area. There were a number of reports and studies published related to this effort. This section attempts to report the findings in an incremental presentation format concluding with the maximum benefit in VMT reduction associated with publicly acceptable TDM strategies. TDM is relatively inexpensive and can be implemented ~n the short term to help postpone the need for more extensive investments. LCOG facilitated a task force to prioritize preferences of TDM strategies and identify opportunities for application of these preferences for additional evaluation. TDM Task Force evaluated and prioritized strategies into three groupings; high preference, medium preference~ and Iow preference. The Task Force Final Report records the following listing priorities b~sed on appropriateness * ~reference l~st- Family car incentive, marketing/public education, Bike/Ped Policy, rideshare matching (voluntary program), transportation allowance, group transk pass (voluntary program), parking management, employee transportation coordinator~ special event TDM programs/plans, transit use subsidy (voluntary program), special user fees, and insurance pricing at the pump. Medium preference list - networking groups, park and ride lots, trip reduction ordinances, and shuttle services. Low preference list - voluntary no-drive days, high occupancy vehicle lanes, special taxes, and congestion pricing. Home based work trips account for a relatively small percentage of total trips. However, the work commute trip heavily influences the choice of departure time, mode and destination for other trips. EXHiBiT C-2 - F)NDINGS 9 ALTERNATOr'ES CO~S]~F~D ~ WEP Work related trips are approximately 25% of all trips and represents a significant concentration of trips during a narrow window of facility demand or peak period. This opportunity for trip reduction was examined in greater detail by the task force. Two types of employer based TDM strategies were modeled by LCOG on five sub-areas in the Eugene-Springfield region. The strategies were grouped by employer support strategies and employer incentive strategies. Each strategy or package of strategies was modeled twice, once as a voluntary strategy and once as a mandatory strategy. Voluntary and mandatory refer to the implementation conditions. The selection of either voluntary or mandatory determines the participation rates of employers in the TDM strategy or program. Rates were based on actual program results documented elsewhere from around the country. Employer support strategies were packaged into two complete programs. The two programs considered for study were: o Modest Em orr Package- Rideshare (carpool and transit) information activities tied in with area-wide matching, and a ¼ time transportation coordinator. Rates range from a low of fi. 1% for voluntary to a high of 0.4% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. St~_...rgnl~..~¥er ~.up~ort Package.- In-house rideshare matching and information services, preferential parking for ride sharers, flexible schedules, a guaranteed ride home program, and a full-time transportation coordinator. Rates range from a low of 2.4% for voluntary to a high of 10.5% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. Employer incentive strategies involve changes in the cost per day (in parking or fare) to single- occupant vehicles (SOVs), carpools, vanpools, and transit users. For example, a reduction in transit fare of $0.75 and an increase in parking of $1.00 would have double affect on SOV. * Transit Fare Reduction - Rates range from a low of 0% for voluntary to a high of 0.4% trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. Parkin~ Pricing.Increase - Rates range from a low of 0.2% for voluntary to a high of 6.0% for trip reduction in work trip VMT by sub-area. While work related trips are one segment of VMT, there are additional strategies that were evaluated for broader application and corresponding benefit to ¥~T reduction. Several TDM strategies were considered and evaluated by the task force to go beyond work related VMT reduction. The findings of the TDM Task Force resulted in the following: * Mandato~ Em up~pg~ Programs - 2.5% reduction in total VMT, assuming strong employer package as defined above. * ~-reduction Ordinances - not supported by the Task Force o Transk Strategi..e~ - 1% reduction in total V'MT, assumes a $0.75 trip fare reduction. * Parking Price Increases - 2.5% reduction in total VMT~ assumes SOV increase in the downtown area of $2.00 and caspool fee were increased by $0.40. * HOV Lanes - 1% reduction in total VMT, assumes some shif~ from transit to carpool. * Fuel ?rice Increases - 0.3% reduction in total VMT, assumes an increase of $0.06 per gallon that was being contemplated by the legislature. * Telecommuting - voluntary 0.5% and mandatory 2.1%, assumes strategy would only affect work related trips. The conclusions from TDM Task Force and LCOG study efforts show that a reduction o__f a_p~.r~,i¢_ate_, loy_9_~f'ust under 10% reduction in total VMT can be justified with a relatively high level of acceptance. EX. HJB~T C-2 - FINDINGS ALTERNATr'~ES CO~SIDERED ~ WEP The model runs used in 1996 to conduct the transportation operational analysis shown in Appendix B include TDM Programs. Revisions to the model associated with proposed expansion of TDM Programs from 1996 levels are not considered to be detectable within the precision and accuracy of the model according to Bud Reiffs, LCOG's principle modeler. It is clear that TDM provides a benefit to the overall transportation system and improve overall operations. The marginal improvement is not significant enough to negate the need for the WEP. Public Transit In August of 1997, LCOG conducted an analysis on the potential fbr Public Transportation in Eugene-Springfield Area~ This study consisted of a market analysis, system analysis, and findings and conclusions. The following paragraphs address the public transit findings and direction being established for future system development. Due to growth in the area and increasing demand for faster, more convenient transit service, Lane Transit District (LTD) has proposed development of Bus a Rapid Transit system (BRT). The BRT system is based on light-rail transit principles, but instead of the required capital investment in trains and track, k utilizes buses in service that is integrated with key components of the existing automobile transportation infrastructure, such as roads and rights-of-way, intemections, and traffic signals. The BRT system would be used as a complementary element to regular Public Transit service. The West 1 lth/West 18th Avenues (Eugene) - Main Street (Springfield). as identified in Dra~ Revised TransPlan. Service frequencies would be similar to regular services with 10~minute headways, weekday daytime and 20-minute headways, evenings and weekends~ Regular service would default to 20~minute headways off-peak. BRT would employ several features to decrease travel times including; exclusive bus lanes, transit priority treatments (e.g. preferential traffic signal timing and queue-jumpers), extended stop spacing, enhanced shelters and boarding areas, and barrier free fare system~ Findings from the analysis conclude that BRT and mixed-use nodal development patterns are complementary strategies. The actual analysis was conducted in coordination with TDM strategies, land use measures, and transportation system improvements. The analysis strategies included existing conditions, base ease, TDM emphasis, land use emphasis, system changes emphasis, and equal ernphas[s. The range of pement transit modal share excluding external trips ranged from a low of 2~ 10% for 1995 conditions, 2~23% for 2015 base case, up to the highest with 4.03% with 2015 equal emphasis. The cost to implement BRT ranges from a low end of $27 million to a high end of $1{)2 million depending upon the degree to which a pure BRT system can be implemented. There will be tradeoffs made between BRT and a comparable fixed route system. The Drq[? Revised Trans?la~ proposes to implement a variation of the equal emphasis scenario. It is clear from the numbers generated f?om these studies that increases in investment in Public Transportation and changes in land use will have an affect on improving transportation operations. The marginal improvement is not significant enough to negate the need for the WEP. System Improvements - The proposed system improvements are likely to be revised prior to approval of TransPlar~. The Draft Revised TransPlan proposes the following ~mprovements to east- west facilities in the West Eugene Vicinity: ~ Improve Royal Avenue from Green Hill Road to Terry' Street to urban standards. Improve Roosevelt Blvd. from Danebo to Beltline to urban standards as part of the Beltline Project from Royal Avenue to Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad. EXHIBff C-2 - FIND{NGS 11 ALTERNAT~ES ~F~D- W~P Plans include nodal development areas including commercial, employment~ or neighborhood centers as well as future capacity improvements from the UGB to Danebo along West l Ith Avenue. his route has been identified as a "pilot test case ' as a bus rapid transit corridor. West 18th Avenue has been identified as a study route due to the apparent conflict between function and adjacent uses. Traffic volumes are higher than desirable for the adjacent land uses. Implement Unit lA of the West Eugene Parkway. Base Case and Existing Conditions he purpose of this section is to highlight existing characteristics of the east-west arterial system in West Eugene~ The following discussion includes a description of general setting, physical facilities, and statement oft he out of direction travel required for east-west through trips as an alternative to the WEP. Royal Avenue - Royal Avenue is north of West 11th Avenue approximately 1.4 miles and functions as an east-west minor arterial through residential properties primarily. In addition, the route is adjacent to Peterson Park and Fairfield Elementary School. From west of the UGB to Terry Street, the typical section consists of a two-lane facility with a painted fog line with a posted speed of 45 mph with a four-way stop control at Green Hill Rea& From Terry Street to Bertelsen, Royal Avenue is a three-lane section with bike lanes and no parking with a posted speed of 35 mph. From Bertelsen to Highway 99, Royal narrows to two lanes with bike lanes and no parking. Accesses are typical of residential streets. Without the WEP, using Royal Avenue require an average out of direction of approximately 2 miles per trip. Roosevelt Bird - Roosevelt Blvd. is north of West 11 th Avenue approximately 1. t miles and functions as a minor arterial from Terry Street to Highway 99. Roosevelt Blvd. has not been fully constructed along this route. Roosevelt currently starts at the west end as a 'Round About' intersection with Te~v Street and continues to Danebo as a two lane street with a large drainage (A3 Channel), industrial lands, and prefabricated housing to the south. Affordable 'stick built' residential is located to the north along this section. There is no street from Danebo to Bekline at this time. From Beltline to Bertelsen~ Roosevelt Blvd. is a 3 lane section with bike lanes, heavy industrial to the south and a mixture of mobile homes and manufactured housing to the north. From Bertelsen to Seneca, Roosevelt Blvd. continues as a three lane section with a concrete barrier, ditch, and residential to the north and industrial to the south. From Seneca to Highway 99, Roosevelt Blvd. is a 5-lane section with bike lanes and industrial properties north and south. Without the WEP~ using Roosevelt Avenue would require an average out of direction travel of approximately 2.0 miles. For through travel, Royal Avenue would need to be used to the north. Terry Street is a limited connector for truck traf~fic and a percentage of other vehicles due to the traffic calming features that are currently under construction or recently completed along Terry Street. West llth Avenue - West 11th Avenue currently serves as the extension of Highway 126 into Eugene as far as Garfield Street from the west, where West 11th becomes one-way westbound. West 11th is classified as a principal arterial. West 11th Avenue is a 2-1ane facility to Danebo with left turn lanes at Green H~ll and Terry Street. From Danebo to the east, West I 1th is a 5 lane section without parking and b~ke lanes. West 11th Avenue has no access control with an average spacing of One driveway per 75 feet from Beltline Road to Garfield Street and with a posted speed of 45 mpho Without the WEP, out of direction travel would be less than Roosevelt~ Royal, and West 1 gth Avenues. However, travel times would be delayed due to congestion. EXHIBIT C-2 - FINDINGS 12 ALTERNATFeES CONSt~D - WEP West 18th Avenue- West 18th is located approximately 0.6 miles south of West 11 th Avenue and is classified as a minor arterial. West 18th connects to Willow Creek Road to the west extending past Garfield to the east to Agate Street. The section from Willow Creek Road to Bertelsen is currently being reconstructed to urban standards. From Bertelsen to Bailey Hill, West 18th is a two lane facility with bike lanes and parking on both sides through a residential section posted at 40 mph. From Bailey Hill to Garfield, West 18th is a three lane section with bike lanes, no parking through a mixture of residential, financial, churches, and five schools with a posted speed of 30 mph. The vertical and horizontal alignments may be designed for running speeds less than the posted speed. Without the WEP, using West 18th as an alternative route would require an average out of direction travel distance of approximately 1.2 miles. In addition travel speeds would be reduced and there are a significant number of schools and associated crossings where pedestrian/vehicle conflicts exist translating to potential safety problems. West Eugene Parkway - WEP is proposed to function as a limited access controlled facility. As such, the facility would serve primarily through trips while other parallel facilities would primarily serve local trips and facilitate access to lands in the West Eugene vicinity. Table 2 reports the percent of through trips not originating in or destined for the West Eugene corridor defined as Royal Avenue to the noR, West 18th to the south, Green Hill Road to the 'west, arm River Road to the east. The function of the WEP will be to primarily carry through trips. The purpose of other nearby facilkies will be to carry local travel trips. The total through trips entering/exking the WEP west of Greenhill amounts to over 42% of total trips exking/entering the WEP at Highway 99. This indicates that there is a significant demand for this facility fur purposes other than access to properties in West Eugene. TABLE 2: PERCENT THROUGH TRIPS West to East Section Roosevelt Avenue WEP West 11th Avenue Western termini to Green Hill Green Hill to Danebo Danebo to Bertelsen Bertelsen to Bailey Hill Bailey Hill to Seneca Seneca to Garfield 34% 0-24% 19-24% 19-24% 78% 74% 85~75% 4-17% 72-75% 13-19% 54-58% 13-19% 54-58% 18-23% 49-58% 23% Alternatives Considered The purpose of this section is to address alternatives considered fur the purposes of state land use planning goals. Numerous other alternatives have been considered over the years and are documented elsewhere in the project record. This section includes a discussion of the evaluation EXHIBIT C-2 - FINDINGS I3 ALTEP. NAllVES CONSIDERED- WEP factors leading to the Modified Project (Northern Alternative) being recommended as the preferred alternative with justification presented as to why other alternatives are deemed unreasonable. Evaluation Factors In the development of the WEP~ there were an extensive number of alternatives and options considered and evaluated. The TPR requires a determination of reasonableness be identified and justified for affecting exception lands outside of the UGB~ The factors identified in the TPR include operational feasibility, cost and economic dislocation. Many corridors, alternatives~ and options were considered and rejected outright on a qualitative or comparative basis due to unf~asibilitS,' from an engineering standpoint and/or negative impacts to the natural environment~ A summary of these alternatives is shown in Appendix C with a written description of design and operational features that make them unreasonable. Transportation operational feasibility factors include application of Oregon's transportation plans, policies, and standards (design, level of service, safety, etc.). These factors include safe engineering design, capacity to reasonably accommodate future travel demand, and constructability. The WEP would be designed and constructed to comply with ODOT s~dards for an urban, statewide, limited access facility according to; Oregon Highway Plan (ODOT 1999), Metric Highway Design Manual (ODOT 1993), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO 1994), Roadside Design Guide ( AASHTO 1996), Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (ODOT 1996), and Supi~lementa[ Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (ODOT 1996). A public hearing process occurred prior to the adoption of the Oregon Highway Pla~ and the classification of facilities. Cost factors include costs for right of way acquisition and relocation rights, sub-grade preparations, drainage features, surfacing, structures, and roadside amenkies. Precise values are normally detemined at the time of right of way acquisition and construction. Transportation financing in Oregon has not kept pace with inflation during the 1990s. Therefore, costs are critical due to the limited resources available. Safety, pavement conditions, and bridge sufficiency ratings are not meeting minimum service levels and are declining according to presentations made by ODOT to the Oregon Legislature of t999. While costs alone cannot be the determining factor, relative sayings represents potential system improvements to existing facilities elsewhere on the transportation network. Other relevant factors include reasonableness of alternatives to carry out project goals and objectives, plan consistency, and protection of natural resources. Comparison of Alternatives The focus of this section is to consider alternatives that affect non-exception lands, existing exception tands, and exception lands with least impacts that meet transportation operational requirements. This section reports facts about the three most promising alternatives, the southern having two options, from a transportation operations perspective. Figure 1 displays the four most promising alternatives listed below and as previously described in more detail as well as other alternatives described in Appendix C. Approved FEIS Alternative, the alignment of which lies south of the railroad tracks west of Danebo Avenue~ "[his alternative does not provide flyover from northbound Highway 99 to westbound WEP. Alignment has received approved use of agricultural lands through goal exceptions adopted in 1986. EXH~B;T C-2 - FINDINGS 14 A~TE~T~E$ CO~S~)ERED- WEP Northern Alternative (called the Modified Project in the SEIS) which lies north of the railroad tracks west of Danebo Avenue. This alternative provides the flyover at the Highway 99/WEP connection. Alignment is located on exception lands. Southern Alternative which reconnects with West 11th Avenue east of Green Hill Road. The alternative provides the flyover at the Highway 99/WEP connection. Alignment does not require goal exceptions. Southern (Modified) Alternative, an alignment variation of the Southern Alternative that lies somewhat to the north of the other Southern Alternative and connects with West 11 th Avenue slightly west of the other Southern Alternative but east of Green Hill Road. This alternative provides the flyover at the Highway 99/WEP connection. Alignment does not require goal exceptions~ The Sou~]ern and Southern (Modified) Alternatives are assumed to have acceptable level of service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratio (V/C) characteristics base upon comparisons between Alternative I and Alternatives 2 and 2B in the 1985 DEIS compared with current calculations for the Approved FEIS and Northern Alternatives. EXHIBIT C~2 - FINDINGS 15 ALTEP~T~S CONS(~RED - WI~P Figure I Alternatives Considered ALTERNATWES CONSIDERED - WEP Costs and Economic Dislocation: Table 3 reports a comparison of costs and economic dislocation summary for the four alternatives. ODOT staff collected R/W preliminary estimate information to compare the alternatives. This estimate is based upon new information that details potential costs west of Beltline Highway. Staff performed less new analysis for the areas east of Beldine Highway because the Southern Alternatives do not change the design in this area; for the purposes of this report, costs already developed for the east of Beltline Highway were updated by factoring in general marketplace trends. Some properties have already been acquired for the WEP. They have been purchased at various times - as long ago as during the Roosevelt Freeway acquisition and as recently as voluntary sales related to coordination of the West Eugene Parkway/Beltline Highway purchases and in coordination with BLM fbr the implementation of ~'£W'?. The cost of these properties is not factored into the estimates provided herein. Rather, the costs shown are estimates of what would be required to complete R/W acquisition under each alignment scenario. TABLE 3: COSTS AND ECONOMIC DISLOCATION Approved FE~S Northern Southern Southern Modified Residential 0 I to 3 8 to 10 7 to 9 displacements Business 5 to 10 11 to 14 13 to 14 12 to 14 displacements Estimated No. of 25 23 52 57 PJW Fi~es 1998 ~ Cost $8,700,000 $14,780,000 $30,280,000 $25,180,000 Construction Costs $63,655,465 $74,006,809 $85,282,394 $85,282,394 Total Costs $72,355,465 $88,786,809 $115,562,394 $110,462,394 % of Approved 100% 122.7% 159.7% 152.7% FEIS Total Casts ~[lae WEP is designed as a limited access facility to move traffic thrOUgh the west side of Eugene as part of Highway 126. The existing route follows West 11th Avenue which has been so highly developed with accesses to various businesses that it is very inefficient as a route for through traffic~ To avoid similar failure problems, the limited access proposal for the WEP does not allow direct access to individual ownerships. The West Eugene industrial market is fairly strong after a long lull due in part to developers' concerns over wetland mkigation procedures. The influence of the building of a large Hyundai manufacturing plant in this area, and the advent of the wedand banking process have provided the stimulus to increased development actMty. Based on general discussions with local realtors, appraisers and assessors the market is currently experiencing an increase of approximately 6% per year in industrial land prices. This is subject to change at any time because of swings in the EXHIBIT C-2 - F~ND~NGS 17 ALTERNATIVES CONSI~D ~ WEP influencing economic market climates. Based on very preliminary data, smaller industrial lots appear to now be selling in the range of $2.50 to $3.00/sq. ft. and larger tracts in the $l ~00 to $1 ~50/sq. ft. range. Individual properties can fluctuate within this range for a number of reasons, including but not limited to, location~ access, utilities, size and availability. The "Southern Alternative" proposals bisect a large industrial development property, the Green Hill Technology Park, which has been subdivided into industrial lots ranging in size f?om roughly 4 to 8 acres. These lots have developed street access and all utilities available. The major R/W cost complication comes f?om landlocking a large portion of the developable land in this park and also landlocking an adjoining large industrial tract to the west due to limiting access to the WEP. Two industrially zoned parcels, 17043200~ #600, containing 78.90+/- acres and 17043212 TL #1 containing 43.23+/- acres, are rendered landlocked by both the Southern and Southern (Modified) alternatives. Remainder parcels on the Southern Alternative consisting of 17043212 TL #200, #300, #400 & #500 and 17043213 TL #200, #400 & #700 are damaged because of lack of access. Remainder parcels on the Southern (Modified) Alternative consisting of 17043212 TL #200, #300, #500 & 17043213 TL #200 are damaged because of lack of access. These damages amount to large additional costs of millions of dollars tbr both of these altematives~ A prelimin~ estimate of the dollar amount these damages contribute to the overall alignment R/W cost estimates given above is in the neighborhood of $6~200,000 for the Southern (Modified) Altemative and $7~400,000 for the SOuthern Alternative, and substantial acreage impacts. In addition, damages could be considered to the Green Hill Technology Park on the south side of the realignment proposals because of shape deficiencies of the impacted lots and the necessiW to reconstruct the existing roadways and layouts. These damages cannot even begin to be fully analyzed until a formal appraisal of the property could be done. Other major cost impacts of these alignment alternatives occur in several places. Damages occur under both Southern alignments because of access restriction to the Chevron service station at the corner of Green Hill and West 11th. These restrictions would cause the entire purchase of this property and displacement of the business. The additional land, improvements and business rel~afion costs would likely put the acquisition of this property alone well over $1,000~000. This does not include any possible cleanup costs for potential hazardous materials ~?equently associated with gas stations. The connection of the north end of Terry Street, the necessary' access restrictions in the area of the West 11th/Green Hill intersection area and the widening of West 11th to the west of Green Hill to handle the increased traffic load would cause several residential relocations with both Southern alternatives. It is estimated that there would be six single-family residential relocations necessary because of the Southern (Modified) Alternative and seven because of the Southern Alternative. The residential prope~ies ~mpacted are as follows: 17042823 TL# 11600, 17043100 TL #300, 17043114 TL #300 & #400 (former lots 1704310000407 & 00412), 17043100 TL #500, 17043114 #200 (formerly 1704310000700), and 17043100 TL #1600. The residence on the property at 17043100 TL#I600 would be displaced, but this is a large 99+/- acre parcel that would not necessitate the damaging and buying out of the entire remainder parcel as was necessary with the other smaller lot residences that were impacted. The additional residential relocation on the South Alignment is anticipated because of impacts to the residence to the east of the Bunks Plus Store on W 11th, located on 17043200 TL# 200. Although ODOT would likely purchase the old store/residence property at the southwest comer of Green H~ll and W 11th due to access restriction, it is currently unoccupied and would not be counted as a business or residential relocation. The other business that is estimated to be impacted to the point of EXHIbiT C-2 - FIND{NGS ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED relocation is the Bunks Plus business mentioned above. This relocation would be necessary only under the Southern Alternative. Other concerns for potential unforeseen residential relocations revolve around how much widening is done along some of the connector roads to handle the off line traffic circulation necessary to make the design options function. Of special concern is the area along West Crow Road (which runs east- west south ofW. I Ith to the east of Green Hill). There appear to be several wells that are close enough to die road now that they could be impacted depending on final design. If these wells are impacted, theY could cause additional relocations. Estimates of land, improvement, damages, relocation, demolition, labor and legal contingency costs are considered and included in the final estimates to give a better idea of total costs that will be incu~ed. At the current estimated 6% land appreciation rate, close to a million dollars would need to be added to the estimate by this time next year. Additional millions could be added as the Green Hill Technology Park development starts to add buildings that will be impacted by the project. Construction has begun in some areas of the park already. Based on a rough total build out estimate by Russ Royer, Real Property Officer, with the City of Eugene, total buildout of the park by the time of acquisition could add about $30 million to the costs in oday s dollars. t ' The best Southern Alternative is 30% higher than the Modified Project. In a transportation revenue constrained environment, this represents approximately 90 intersection safety improvements or 60 miles of rural pavement preservation. Other Factors: Table 4 reports a comparison of other factors for the four alternatives. Other relevant factors include reasonableness of alternatives to carry out project goals and objectives, plan consistency~ and protection of natural resources. On this basis, the Southern Alternative is not a reasonable alternative for consideratior~. It should be noted that Section 4(0 impacts are comparable for all alternatives. The prior determination of BLM properties being clasMfied as Section 4(0 has been reversed by FHWA on the basis of the property not functioning primarily as a park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge~ An error was made in the previous determination where all BLM properties were categorically classified as Section 4(f). TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF OTHER FACTORS Approved FEIS Northern Project Goa~ High High consistency Plan consistenccy~__j Nigh High to Moderate Natural Resource knpacts (Wetlands, T&E Plants, T&E Animals) H,gh value t 11.27 16.39 wetlands, in Southern Southern IVlodified Low Low Low Low I4-75 I5.33 EXHIBIT C-2 - FINDINGS 19 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - WEP hectares % of Approved FEIS High value Total wetlands, in hectares T&E Plants Nearby T&E plants F' ender s Blue BUtterfly (Fed proposed endangered) 'Western Pond Tudte (Fed specie of concern; state sensitiVe-critical) 100% t3.33 Willamette Daisy, 22 plants White-topped Aster, 17 clumps Willamette Daisy, 32 w/in 15m White-topped Aster, 8 w/in 15 m None directly; hectoring sources would be reduced Eliminates habitat 56.7% 14.40 White-topped Aster, 3 clumps Bradshaw's Iomatium, 1plant wfin 15m Willamette Daisy, 5 w/in 15m V~ite-topped Aster, 8 w/in 15m None directly; hectoring sources would be reduced Temporary construction impacts 41.7% 9.08 None Willamette Daisy, >60 w/in 15m Kincaid's Lupine, >235 w/in 50m None directly; Larvae and larval plant 18m south of impact area Temporary construction impacts 47.0% 9.95 Willamette Daisy, 19 plants White-topped Aster, 12 clumps Willamette Daisy, >60 w/in 15m W~ite-topped Aster, I w/~n 15m None directly; Larvae and larval plant 50m south of impact area Temporary construction impacts For the following additional reasons, both options of the Southern Alternative are deemed unreasonable: Natural Disastem and Hazards -~ch of the alternatives will be designed to utilize measures that avoid or minimize damage or loss of lifb. These measures will include the installation of barriers for protection from steep slopes and large objects and use of temporary and permanent traffic control features (e,g. signs, striping, temporary concrete barrier, raised pavement markers, etc.). However, for ~e Southern Alternative options, the flooding and Amazon Channel characteristics require spanning the entire len~h of the floodway~ The floodplain is likely to be raised from 1 to 2 feet as a result of implementation of the WEWP. The topography is flat and uncertainty of floodway boundary ~s high. The structure costs contribute s~gnificantty to the overall costs. Land Use - The Southern Alternative is inconsistent with the transportation concept identified in the WEWP where the tr~sportation corridor parallels the railroad tracks. The Southern Alternative bisects remaining developable industrial lands within the WEWP area without providing access to remnant parcels making unavailable a substantial amount of the land designated for development in the plan_ E~IBIT C-2 - FINDINGS 2O ALTERNATES C~S~RED - ~,~p Socio~Economic - This alternative disrupts a social contract or agreement to protect development opportunities as well as protect the natural environmenL The WEWP has received national acclaim as a prototype partnership between industry and environmental interests in the development ora comprehensive plan that satisfies regulatory requirements while preserving development oppor~Jnity~ There has been over $7 million federal funds invested in the implementation of the ~VEPV? as well as private funds. EPA has contributed about $300~000 in support of the development of the WEWP as a national case study in accommodating wetlands protection and economic development in an urban setting (EPA Nonpoint Source News-Notes~ October I990~ Issue #8). EPA also allocated $100,000 by I993 for helping other communities adopt the Eugene plan (Nature Conservancy Report 2, September/October 1993). In addition~ there is higher risk of costs to acquire property appreciating faster than the Northern Alternative due to potential delays in construction. ~azardo~s Materials - There are two additional gas stations impacted located in the NE and SW quadrants of the intersection of Green Hill Road and West 11th Avenue with potentially contaminated soils~ Biology - The Southern Alternative is located ~nthe proximity of the Fender's Blue Buttery host plant, K~ncaid~s Lupine. The Fender's Bhe Butterfly is federally pro~sed endangered species. Kincaid~s Lupine ~s federally proposed threatened and state l~sted threatened species. A recent survey idemified egg masses of the Fender's blue butterfly on these lupine plants. USFWS indicated in September t999 that they expect both species to be federally listed soon. If the %rEP were located on ekher option of the Southern Alternative, k would have a negative affect on the Fender's Blue Butterfly according to regulatory agencies. On the Southern Modified, there are 19 Willamette Valley daisies d~rectly impacted and USFWS expects those plants to be federally listed as endangered very soon eliminating the Soufhern Modified as a viable alternative. EXHI~]T C-2 - FINDINGS 2~ ALTERNATIVES ~SIDE~D - WEP ppendl× A- Purpose and Need The overall purpose and need for the West Eugene Parkway (WEP)has not changed since issuance of the J985 Drq~ Environmental Impact Statement (DE[S) and J990 Fi~a[ Environmental [mpact ~ta~emem (FE[S) for the projecL The pfima~ pu~ses or,he WEP are to: Provide a major access.controlled east~west mnnecfing a~efial for ~ntra- and ~nter-reg~onal and c~de travel through the western half of the C~ of Eugene~ bem, een Highway 126 to the west and the I~5~- 105 corridor to the east Improve access to the West Eugene ~ndustfial ~ea via d~rect connections wkh only strategic crossroads~ thereby supposing orderly and Planned gro~h Be~er l~nk West Eugene residential areas w~th dowmo~, thereby supposing orderly and planned gro~h ~ Implement an ~mpo~nt pa~ of the area~w~de roadway system as envisioned ~n the Eugene- ~r~eM ~-~etro ~rea ~rans~ortatior~ P~an ( Tra~sPIan) Relieve congestion and ~mprove safe~ on West 11~ Avenue, by removing most in~a- and ~mer- regional and some local traffic from the bus,est ~d most h~rdous section of West 1 Ith Avenue ~hese ~mprovements ~e needed because of deficiencies in ~e east-west roadway system~ which is h~l[ng to sup~ efficient and safe local~ ciD~ide~ and regional movemem of people~ goods~ and se~[ces through West Eugene. West 11th Avenue ~om the Oak Hill area and as far east as Garfield S~eet [ncludes numerous features that ~mpede safe and efficient travel~ ~nclud[ng: Numerous s~gnals and ~ntersecfions Extensive commem[al development w~ d~rect access to the facili~j * A complicated connector be~n West 11~ Avenue ~d the 6th and 7~ Avenue Couplet by way of Go.eld S~eet~ ~ncluding ~o signals and ~o 90-degree tums H~gh~ congested conditions, especially during peak traffic bourn, wkh key inmrsecfions experiencing volume to capacity rat[os exceeding 1.0 and level of se~ce F condk[ons Pmsently, ex~sfing access linkage m ~e West Eugene [ndus~al ~ea is circuitous. Access problems also apply to l~nks be~een ex~sfing and developing residemial ~eas ~n West Eugene and downm~ Eugene. The need for an east-west connector in West Eugene has been long recognized. ~e LCDC acknowledged TransPlan~ which guides transpo~fion plmaning ~n the me~opol~mn ~ea, and even the Eugene-Sprin~eM T-2000 Plan, which preceded TransPlan, ~ncludes the connector as ~ ~mpo~mnt pa~ of the ~ea-wide roadway system envisioned for West Eugene. 22 AL~PJ'~T~S CC~SIDERED ~ WEP Appendi× B- Transpo ation 0Perations 20t5 L~EL OF SERVICE (LOS) AND VOLIJI~E TO CAPACITY (VIC P~TIO) Intersection No BuBd Approved Nlodified Green Hill ~ with TDI~ (1) FE~S (2) (N°~hern) Grade (4) Green HilI/WEP Hwy 99W/WEP TerryNVEP Beltline/WEP Bertelsen/W~P Bailey Hi~I/WEP Sene~P Green HilINV 11th Alternative (3) LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) LOS (VIC) F B (0,63) D~ (86%) F (1,27) B (0,57) A (0.52) B (0.58) F (1.34) CID (0.77) D (0.83) D (0.78) C/D (0.76) C (0.70) F (1.07) C/D (0.75) F (1.05) B (0.56) B (0.54) F (130%) m FlyOver (4) LOS (V/C) iB EPA (5) LOS (V/C) E (o.9~) A F F (1.84) F (2.40) Danebo/W 11th BeltlineNV 11th Berte/sen/W 11th Bailey HiflAN 11th Seneca/W 11th 99W/Wilson Garfield & 6th Garfield & 7th F (1.47) F (1.50) F (1.29) F (1.21) F (1~21) F (I.36) F (1.29) D (0.S0) E (0~96) F (1.06) DIE (0.88) E (o.9o) c CiD (0.77) D (0~79) D (o.85)* D (0.82) ~- (0.62) D (0.76) D/E (0.89) (t) Note: No Build is defined to include widening for Beltline from West 11~ Avenue to NCL (Eugene), Stage 2. The remainder of Beltline and WEP are not included. Reference: Bud Refff/LCOG e-mail to Roxann Rivord/ODO T, September 3, 1999. (2) NOte: WEP/Beltfine ~ntemhange Traffic Analysis Report, February 19, 1997, Roxann RivordtODOT. (3) Note: Table 2 Level of Se~ice and VOlume to Capacity (Design Year 2015) West Eugene Parkway Build Alternatives, August 19, 1999, Roxann Rivord/ODOT (4) Note: G~enHfllAltemative Traffic Analysis Report, January 21, 1997, Roxann Rivord/ODOT (for a written descdpton, see Appendix C) (5) Note: EPA Alternative Traffic Analysis Report, January 2, 1997, Roxann Rivord/ODOT and EPA Alternative Traffic Analysis RepOrt, jUly 8, 1998, Roxann Rivord/ODOT (for a written descdpton, see Appendix C) EXHIBIT G2 - FINDINGS 23 ALTERN~T~ES CONSI~P~D - ~P ppe d × C - S mma of AlternatiVes DismiSsed Goals Exceptions Avoidance A tematives An exception to the Statewide Planning Goals was adopted for the Approved Design in 1986. The exception provided the b~is for identifying the WEP in the TransPtam Because the Modified Project includes a preliminary alignment lying outside the WEP corridor that was approved through the exception, a new excePtion is required for the that alternative. The Statewide Planning Goals exception process requires evaluating alternatives to determine their "m~onableness." A number of alternatives were reviewed in a screening process and failed to pass a basic level of evaluation. The following alternatives are unreasonable on the basis of proven engineering and planning principles. Transportation System P~an A~temative The Draft Revision to TransPlan incorporates a balanced approach to the use of Transportation Demaud Management (TDM), Land Use Measures (LUM), and Transportation System Improvements {TSI)in order to achieve significant improvements over the base case or hmm trend scenario~ TDM implementation relies on voluntary and employer supported programs. LUM includes extensive implementation of mixed use nodal development along corridors that have been designated for development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). ~I includes expansion of standmd public transit in addition to BRT. ~is alternative without ~e WEP is unreasonable because of the extent of continued deterioration of the transportation system in the project vicinity. Absent the WEP, levels of service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratios (V/C) are in excess of standards. The 'No Bu{ld' modeling runs include voluntaw TDM and V/C ratios exceed 1 ~0 at numerous intersection locations. In fact, continued degradation of the system amounts to a difference oftwo LOS grades or mom at seven intersections. TDM is expected to affect demand almost 4 times greater ~ public transportation. Therefore, the combined affect of TDM with transit is virtually no difference in the transportation operations numbers shown for the No-Build with TDM. ~is altemative~ the widening of West 1 ~th A~enue, could not reasonably meet the need for an access-limited parkway in West Eugene without substantial socioeconomic disruptions, as described below. Since the 1960s, development along and near West 11th Avenue has proceeded based on land use plans assuming a new east-west transportation corridor would be constructed, at which time West tith Avenue would se~e primarily local travel needs and the commercial and industrial establishments along its length. ConseqUently, the land use pattern for development along the West 1 lth corridor focused on commercial and light industrial businesses primarily oriented toward the street. Beginning in t~he 1960s, the City of Eugene h~ completed several successive improvements along West 1Ith to improve operating conditions(such as safe~ and capacity) and to bring it upto urban level ofservi~ for a major city arterial N 1993, construction was completed, widening the section between Garfield Street and Tyinn Street by 8 feet to accommodate a mm lane and pedestrian access, thus improving signalization timing, and inco~orating access consolidations. %ese modifications involved substantial right-of-way acquisition. Although studied, widening hhe road to three lanes E×HIBff C:2 - FIND~NGS 24 ALTE~JATIVES CO~$~D~D - ~p (each direction) was found to be infeasible because of the amount of unacceptable right-of-way acquisition. Additional roadway safety and capaci~ improvements are planned in the near future between Danebo Avenue and Green Hil~ Road.These past and futura ~mprovements have been incorporated into the traffic modeling fbr the project that show a need for the WEP. As the Prima~ link between Highway 126 m the west and the I-5/I-105 corridor to the east and also a principle street se~ing local travel, West t tth Avenue f?om the Oak Hill area to Garfield Street includes numerous features that impede efficient expressway travel, including: e Numerous signals and intersections e Traffic flow would be disrupted M~ sho~ traffic weaving sections causing drivers m move vetficles across lanes at sharp angles thereby increasing the severity of potential crashes ~ Transportation operations would function very inefficiently because the ~brecasted traffic volumes on West 11~h make it almost impossible to time sig~s for optimal ve~cle progression ~ Over 100 existing commercial enterprises with direct access to West 1 tth ~ ~ inefficient connection between 'West 11~ Avenue and the 6~ and Th Avenue couplet by way of Garfield Street, including two signals and two 90-degree tums~ Under ~is minimization alternative, these condkions would all need to be rectified by one or a combination oft he following measures: ~ Elimination of most direct access to West 1 lth Avenue through construction of frontage roads or re of access to other roadways ~ Construction of intemhanges at strategic intersections se~ing region~ and/or local ~avel~ such ~ at eltline or COnstruction of elevated crossings at cross streets ~ Construction o£a complicated, if'not impossible, connection between West 11~h Avenue and Highway 99 in the Garfield Street area Each of ~ese actions would require extensive fight-of-way modifications to West 11th Avenue and/or other existing or new roads, resulting in adverse effects including: · Displacement and/or extensive access changes to over 100 commercial and light- industrial businesses ly adjacent m West 11~h, G~eld Street, and 6th and 7~ avenues. The changes would require extensive alteration of the overall land use pattern established in the last 25 to 30 years. These actions would severely ~mpact the commemial land base of the city, and also substantially impact local employment, business ~ncome, and tax base. Combined, these impacts would be of such magnitude to render this alternative ~easonable. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Alternative This alternative proposes a "no-build" condk[on from the Oak Hill area to Beltline Highway~ NOnetheless, ~e segment of~e MOdified Project ~om Beltline Highway m Highway 99 would be constructed. Tra~c west of the Belthne~P' ~ntersectmn' :' would use West 11th Avenue and Beltl~ne EX~IB~ C~2 - F~NDiNGS 25 ALTERNAT)~$ ~S:~D - WEP Highway to access the WEP~ Re EPA Alternative does not comply with bicycle and pedestrian requirements of the TranspoFtation planning RUle (TPR). his alternative fails to meet the proj~t pu~ose and need because it would not meet the operational requirements of an expressway using only intersections and existing rights-of- way~ NmerOus intersections fail to meet mobility standards of LOS D or be~er for Signalled and LOS E or better for unsignalized intersections. Traffic at the intersection at West 11a and Beltline would be 240 percent over capacity Traffic at the intersection at West 11 th and Danebo would be 184 percent over capacity Traffic at West 11t~ and Green Hill would be 111 percent over capacity ~ese congestion problems cause this alternative to be unsafe and inet25cient and ~erefore, ~easonabte. EPA Optimized A)temative This alternative generally would follow the same concept of the EPA Alternative, except the facility would be designed to meet the level ofservSce requirements of a parkway to the western terminus near Oak Hill. This alternative would potentially require interchanges at WEP/Betttine Highway, Beltline H st 11t~ Avenue, and West 1 It~ Avenue~Terry Street, and frontage roads along much, if not all, of the section west of Beltline in order to achieve acceptable operating conditions. To address addkional capacity requirements and provide for safe operations there would need to be the following changes to the transportation system: Added east m west connections between Danebo Avenue and Beltline Highway, Closure of the Danebo Avenue/West 1 lth intersection, Extension of Tero~ Street to West 11 th Avenue, and Substantial widening (potentially up to a total of 8 lanes along portions) of'West 1 lth Avenue. Project design engineers and planners have determined that this alternative is not reasonable. There simply is not enough room between Terry Street and the proposed WEP/Beltline Highway interchange (inclusive) to place ~e three interchanges needed and meet the design requirements of the project. Moreover, a~y design that would remotely approach meeting the geometric design requirements would: * Displace substantial property ~sociated with the West La~,m Mernorial Park cemelery and/or the Lane Memorial Gardens cemetery e Displace several commemial or industrial properties in the vicinity of the West 11 ~ Street ~d Beltline/West 11t~ Avenue interchanges including the Baxter RV Center, and businesses along Arrowsmith Street and Terry Street. Green Hil~ Road Alternative This alternative would use the Modified Project alignment between Highway 99 and Green Hill)Road, extending the roadway improvements south of the railroad tracks to the western terminus of the WEP via two optional alignments. ALTERNATI\,~ES CO{~{SID~RED ~ ~p FOr this oPtion~ the western end of the ~w ~p facili~ would terminate at Green Hill Road with ~ intersection: Additioml capacity improvements would need to be extended south along Green Hill Road. This alternative would impact sensitive species and wet prairie wetlands south of the railroad. A sweepk~g curve to connect the Green Hill Road and West 11th Avenue leg of the alternative would extend west to the project terminus~ Double !efts and double fights would ~ required at each of the intersections of West 1 lth Avenue and ~P with Green Hill Road. To the east, the aligrm'~ent would follow the Modified Project or Northern Almrnative to minimize ~mpacts to T&E listed plants, tother features of this ~ternative ~nclude a frontage road to pm-vide local access for properties between the existing Nielsen Road and Green Hill Road as well as an at grade railroad crossing. For this alternafive~ driver expectations would be violated creating a condition where the probab~l~w of creating a high accident location at the intersection of the V~rEP with Green Hill Road is ~avoidable. Driving conditions from the east m west would be .along a high speed access controlled facility where traffic must nearly come to a stop m order to negotiate the curve from the W-EP onto Green H~ll Road and immediately cross a railroad crossing. There is ahigh likelihood that the design would result in a high percentage of violent crashes resulting ~n fatalities and debilitation injuries. Traffic volumes across the railroad track would increase to ~ excess of 26,000 vehicular crossings per day increasing the number of train/auto comqicts significantly. l~e proximity of the intersection of the WEP ~ Green Hill Road to the railroad crossing conflicts with railroad safety standards. Consequently, this alternative would be operational unfeasible and unreasonable environmentally. Flyover (atRR tracks and Approved FE~$) Option This option would ~nclude a flyover grade separation structure over-crossing of Green Hill Road and the railroad tracks, maligning with the Approved FEIS Design corridor along the alignment with an existing goal exception. ~s option requires using substantial fill south of the tracks and extending to the WEP~s western project terminus° Unlike the Approved Design, this option would not include direct access from the %~.P onto Green Hill Road. Adding a new elevated structure to cross the railroad with reversing curves would result in addkional safety hazards due to rotating opposite super-elevation rates. Erratic vehicle operation could resuk as drivers attempt to negotiate the curves~ especially at night and during wet and icy pavement condkions. Potential ponding of highway rnn-off resulting from non-standard design would also present a hazard. Approximately' 4.25 hectares (10.5 acres) of additional fill south of the tracks would occur in Willamette Wet Prairie wetland, which is identified as a very irnportmnt ecological resoume in the WEWP. The fill would fragment a large patch of wet prairie we. tlands, cutting the surface hydrology connection that now exists. This effective ~IBIT C-2 - FINDINGS 27 ALTERNATIVES ~S!~D- ~P isolator WOuld be yew de. mental to the local ecosystem, especially in ~e long temp. The fill woUld also impact considerablY more rare and protected plant species than the Modified Project. This option would be operationally unfeasible and unreasonable because of overall operational problems and impaCts to rare species and wetlands. Goa s Exceptions Alternative ~is altemmi~e would include widening Roosevek Boulevard be~een Highway 99 and ks cu~ent teminus~ and extending k muthwest acmssopen space am~ to the proposed WEP teminus. ~e w~den[ng would mquke additional fight-of-way eider m the no~h or south of the ex~sting roadway between H~ghway 99 and ~ cu~ent te~inus at Te~ Street. Addkiona[ design f~tums would include interchanges at Roosevelt Bou!evar~H~ghway 99 and Roosevelt Boulevar~Bekline H~ghway, an extensive modification of the Ter~~ Street intersecfion~ and a new intersection at Roosevel~ BOUlevar~Green Hill Road~ Although geome~kally this almmative m~ be feasible~ it ~s not prudent because k would likely resuk ia substantial ~mpacts to the natural and hum~ env[ronment~ ~nclud[ng: *D[splacement of several ~erc~al businesses at the Roosevelt Boulevar~ghway 99 ~nterchange * D~ ofn~erous residemi~ urfits ~d disruption to neighborhood identity/ cohesion ~jacem m the no~h side of Roosevelt Boulev~d. an~or of n~erous co~emia!~ight indUs~aI b~inesses adjacem to the south side of Roosevelt Boulev~d between High'ay 99 ~d Bekline High~y, depending on the placement of the fight-of- way. ~ D nt of eider addition~ ho~ing ~its and disruption m neighborhood identity/ cohe~on, or use of potemial h~do~ subst~ces sim ne~ ~e Roosevelt Bo~ev~ Beltline Highway interch~ge ~ Removal of valmbie wetl~ds ~d Mldlife habitat in and ~ound the D~ebo Ponds at the Roosevek Boulev~eltline Highway interch~ge ~ Displacement or loss ofnmerous feat~es be~een Beltline Highway and Te~ Street t~ough Mdening ~e roadway m four l~es, including: - Piping the A-3 c~el, resulting in loss of impo~t values asociated with ~e existing Mldtife habita co~idor; or, relocaing ~e ch~el, resulting in additional rights-of- way impacts - Maint~n ~e A*3 ch~el ~d consequently displace up m 25 residential uniB no~& of ~e roadway, plus close ~ee roadways co~ecting Teralee Street ~d Roosevelt Boulev~d ~em'by denying access m ~ estimated 60 residential ~ts (or provide altmative new roadways for thek access, which would ~so displace residential ~i~), resulting in subs~tial adverse impac~ to ~e affected neighborhood's identity/ cohesion - Sever~ residential ~its, ~d subsmtially disrupt neighborhood cohesion, in the vic~ty of~e Roosevek Boulev~&~e~ S~eet intersection due to ~e poor E~IBIT C-2 - FINDINGS 28 intersecting angle of the roads, thereby fi~er increasing the adverse impacts to the affected neighborhood's identity/cohesion Substantial impacts between Terry Street and western project terminus, including: - Roadway placement within the Amazon Channel floodway, including areas within the 2-year floodway being considered for floodplain widening u~der the Army Corps of Engineers' 1135 project - Crossing approximately 1.3 km (0.8 mile) of Section 4(f) properties owned by the BLM or City- of Eugene for protection/restoration purposes, including bisection of habitats, and d nt of two wetland/ponds/vernal pools between the current end of Roosevelt Boulevard and the Amazon Channel - Potential direct or indirect impacts to ESA-listed species located in the vicinity of the Roosevelt/Green Hill Road intersection Combined, these impacts would be of such magnitude m co~ercial land inventor},, employment~ loml income and m base, co~i~ cohesion, and protection of habitat areas included in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area, as to render this alternative not prudent. ALTERNAT~,~ES ~SIDERED- WEP Append)× D-Evaluation Framework The was extracted from project records. Over the course of the project, concepts and altematiYes have been evaluated using this framework in one format or another. For the pu~oses of evaluating the consistency of decisiOn making, the f?amework was developed as a guideline for selecting the Modified Project as the preferred alternative. Transpo~ation Operational Feas~b) li~ Constraints: Level of Service Standards Safety Design Standards Limited Access Urban Expressway Access Management Classification Project Goals: Move through traffic east to west Relieve traffic on West 1 lth Avenue Provide access to the extent this is possible and practical Project Objectives: LOS D or better for signalized intersections LOS E or better for uns~gnalized intersections Public mad access for at grade/interchanges at ½ to 1 mile minimum spacing Private drive access is l~mked m right in/right out on 800' spacing Partial median control will be used to preserve transportation operations ODOT Highway Design Manual Design speed of 60 mph is used for determining safety design standards Performance Measures: Mobility expressed ~ WC Ratio and/or LOS COst expresSed !n dollars Access and constructibility expressed qualitatively Natural Resources Factors Constraints: Goals: Willamette River - Greenway Goal of Statewide Planning Goals Agricultural Lands - Statewide Planning Goals Biological - federal Endangered)Species Act West Lawn Memorial Park & Cemetery - these are not 4(f) resources Amazon Channel- Floodway/Flood Plain FEMA Wetlands - ~WP~ DSL, and ACE Avoiding Bertelsen Slough Avoid regulated floodplain AvOid~ minimize, and mkigate impacts to wetlands AvOid impacts to threatened and endangered species. E~IBIT C~2 - FINDINGS 30 A~TEP, NAT~ CONSI~RED. WEP Objectives: To respect the Bertelsen natural areas Performance Measures: Area and qualiR of wetland plant communities affected T&E listing status and avoidance of impacts to listed species Acceptance of mitigation Issuance of 404 Permit EcOnomiC Dislocations. SOcial/Economic]Cultural Factors Constraints: Keeping intact large parcels of land with commercial/industrial development potential Avoiding existing Substantial commercial/industrial development Goals: Facilitate future development (in the UGB) Objectives: To disturb existing businesses as lit~tle as possible To closely fi>llOw prope~ lines and thus nor divide large parcels To miss the existing cemetery on Danebo Perfbrmance Measures: Neighborhood impacts/Ci~ Charter Amendments Residential and business dislocations EXHIBrr ~2 - F~NDINGS 31 ALTERNATES ~DE~D ? WEP Appendi× E-Related Projects One major re,on for undertaking the West Eugene Wetlands Study was to solve the issue of how the City might recoup some of the remaining capacity for over $12~000~000 wo~h of ex~Sfing ~astmcture already extended ~nto ~e west Eugene region. ~ere are other exmmples where projec~ ~e cu~ently moving fo~d under the premise of pl~ed gro~h~ ~Ath ~e V~P~ ~nteg~ component of local pl~s. In recent years, pr0jecm have been deveBped not only m acco~odate the WEP. Specifically, the 1 I~35 Project developed cooperatively by the US ~my Co~s of Engineem ~d C~ty of Eugene w~ designed m acc ~e al~g~ent of the Modified Project for the segment no~ of the ra~Iroad tracks. Phase l, stage lofthis project is constructed. Phase l, stage 2 is scheduled for a construction bid submittal in November i999. The interchange at the crossing of WEP and Bekline is not e~ently progrmed for ~Ming Md scheduled for constmction~ but has been completed ~Ough the NEPA process. The final config~ation wSll provide four lanes with full access control from West 11th Avenue m 99 (No~ City Limits) and construction of a grade separated interchange at the crossing of the WEP~ West Eugene Development The urban growth 'boundary (UGB) in.the West Eugene area generally extends to Green Hill Road. All of the development projects described below are consistent w/th the long-range planrfing designations for the West Eugene area. Wl~fite projects such as Hyundai (Willow Creek area) have been envisioned in Eugene planrfing documents~ their development is much more ora certainty. Hyundai v,511 generate additional support businesses ~n the West Eugene area, and w[tl soon place demands -upon housing supply. Pacific Scanning Systems Expansions The Pacific Scanning Systems site accesses West 11~ Avenue v~a Terry Street~ Additional expansions of this facility have been under discussion, but no current activity ~s underway. Green H~I~ Technology Park The technology park's subdivision has been approved and the infrastructure for the first phase ~s constructed~ including a loop road off West 1 lt~ Avenue west of Terry Street~ The technology park's approved subdivision includes 17 lots ranging Lq size from approximately 1.6 hectares (approxLmately 4 acres) to 6.9 hectares (17 acres), consistent w~th Caxnpus Industrial zoning (light industrial). Rosen Products completed their first phase and by September 1999 employed over 200 workers. Approximately 15 hectares (37 acres) of wetland ~¼11 be filled by the technology park development. Wetland mitigation has occurred on properties north of the CORP raJlroad tracks and west of Danebo Avenue. BargeflBeltline Commercia~lResidential Development Vacant land in the northeast quadrant of the Beltline£Barger intersection is being developed. Tiffs area is nearing buildout with a W~nco Store~ AM-PM mini-market/gas stafion, E×HIE~IT C~2- F~NDINGS 32 ALTEP, hLATrVES CONS~D- WEP McDonalds ~d a couple of other businesses. At buildout, this ~ea is anticipated to have 15 acres of Commercials ~d 77 acres o£Medim and High Density Residential. (This development area lies beyond that she~ in Figure 2-6 of the Draft SEIS.) RoYalIDanebo Commemial/Residentiai Development A Pl~ed mi×ed~use development node at Lis location includes 10 acres of Commercial~ and 30 acres of Medium Density Residential, The property is vacant, and there is no proposal to develop the prope~j. Located on the north side of Roy~ between Terry and Green Hill, 5 acres of Commercial and 20 acres ofMedim Densky Residential is planned. The property is vacant, and there is no proposal to develop the property. Willow Creek Area The Hyunda~ electromcs manufacturing facility, in the 83 hectare (205 acre) Willow Creek industrial Park, ~s located south of the project vicinity near the intersection of 18th Avenue and W~llow Creek Road. Development of the Hyundai semiconductor manufacturing facility includes fill~ng 10.4 acres of wetlands located w~th~n the Willow Creek drainage w~th possibly another 11 acres being filled Phase III is ~mptemented. The overall dens[b~ of workers per acre approved for the Hyundai ~hcility ~s consistent w~th planned uses ~br the Willow Creek area. Additional industrial and residential development will be occurring south of West l i th West Eugene Wetlands Within the approximately 8,000-acre West Eugene Wetlands Study Area considered in the ~+'E~P, 1,800 acres of wetl~ds ~e l~kely m be prese~e~developed~ ~ntempersed ~fith ~ co~ci~ ~d ~ndustfia] development. Amazon Creek ~nhancement Prelect Th~s project w~s completed ~n 1998 and involves creek w~dening and development of a b~ke path south of the ~P alignment be~een Ba~ley H~ll Road ~d the UP~ tracks near Te~y. [t ~s funded through the [ntemodal Surface Trans~fion Efficiency Am ([STEA). ~ ~35 Project ~[s projem ~s ~der cons~ucfion where removal of dikes ~d restoration of the floodplain ~s p~ed by the U.S~ Amy Co~s of Engineers (CEE)just no~h of~e projem ~ea between Te~ S~eet ~d Green Hill Road~ BLM~ City of Eugene, ~d CeE designed the projem coordination M~ ~e location of~e ~gment associated w~th ~e Modified Projem of the ~P by leaving ~e ~ea open for development ~ a new ~spo~fion Tax Lot 600 Mitigation Site The Tax Lot 600 wetlan&s m~figation site is located northwest of Terry and the WEP's north alignment option. The Terry Street connection has been moved east to avoid impacting this mitigation site. The Tax Lot 600 project mitigates Green Hill Technology Park development. ~IB~ C~2 - FiNDiNGS 33 ALTEPJ~AT~S ~NSIDEP~ED - ~P Terr~ S~reet E×~e~sio~ ~This Cib, of Eugene project was completed in t 9997 as used in modeling for the WEP projects would ~mprove and extend Terry Street from the WEP north to Royal Avenue. It would eventually extend to Barger Boulevard similar to that proposed as project number 242 in Trams?lam The project would not improve and extend Terry Street between the Central Oregon and Pacific railroad and West 11th Avenue. ~JBJT C~2 -FINDtNGS 34 ALTERNATIVES ~SID~P, ED- WEP Appendix F-. eference Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4~ Evaluation, August 1997~ ODOT ~Yest Eugene Parkwco, Supplemental Needs Analysis, September 1994, Lane Council of Governments Analysis and Findings on the Potentia[ for Public Transportation in the Eugene-SpringfieM Area, August 29, 1997~ Lane Council of Governments Draft Revised TransPlan The Eugene-SpringfieM Tram~ortation System Plan, May 1999, Lane Council of Governments Table 2: Level of Se~ice and Folume to Capacity (Design Year 20.15), [4rest Eugene Parkway Build Alternatives, August 19, 1999, Roxann Riv0rd/ODOT Transportation Demand g~ranagement Task Force Final Report, June 1994, Lane Council of Governments TranSPlan Update Transportation Demand Management Strategies: Technical Evaluation and Model Results, July 1995, Lane Council of Governments Analysis of the Suitability and Effectiveness of TDM Strategies in Selected Areas, TGM Grant, No date Shown, Lane Council of Governments Interview with Steve Reed/ODOT, SPIS Support, September 2~ 1999 Need for 4 Lanes west of t~eltline E-mail, May 8, 1997, Roxann Rivord/ODOT Southern Alternative Traffic Analysis Report~ December 1997~ Roxann Rivord/ODOT Green Hill Alternative Traffic Analysis Report, January 21, 1997, Roxann Rivord/ODOT I{'EP/Beltline Interchange Traffic Analysis Report, February 19, 1997, Roxann R~vord/ODOT I~'EP/i~eltline Interchange Timing Requirement E-mail, January 3, 1997, Roxann Rivord/ODOT EPA Alternative Traffic Analysis Report, January 2, 1997, Roxann RivorcLIODOT EPA Alternative Traffic Analysis Report, July 8, 1998, Roxann Rivord/ODOT [Fest Eugene ~etland Plan, 1992, City of Eugene and Lane Council of Governments Draft F~est Eugene gZetlands Plan Treatment of the g~est Eugene Parkway FEIS Alignment, December 3, 1998, Lane Council of Governments ~est Eugene ~/etlands SReciaI Area Stud&; Draft Technical Report, April 1991, Lane Council of Governments ~'etlandExecutive Team flg/ET) Statement of Partnership, Revised 1996, City of Eugene, Bureau of Land Management, The Nature Conse~ancy, YOuth Conservation Corps, and Army Corps of Engineers PrOposed Order and Conditions to City of Eugene, 1994, Division of State Lands EXHIBITC-2 -FINDINGS 35 ALTERNATIVES CONSI~RED. WEP Data Matrix for Alternatives AnaIysis- g'est Eugene Parkway Technical Memorandum, November 17, 1998, Dave Mayfield&JSR Greiner Woodward Clyde, Wetland Areas by Mike Shippey Section 4(/) alpplicability Determination Memorandum, June 30,1999, Hank Honeywell, FHWA Division Administrator gTetland Delineation Yerification Report: ~Yest J jth Street - Ga(field Street, Florence-Eugene Highway flYest Eugene Parkway) Unit 2, Fishman Environmental Services Biological Evaluation qf the Effects' West l lth _ Garfield Street (~'est Eugene Parkway), Lane County Oregon on the Western Pond Turtle, Fishman Environmental Services 1994 E~IB~T C~2 - F)NDINGS 36 EXHiBiT Cra3 TECHNICAL AND CH2~HILL Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area PP~PA~D FOR: P~PA~D BY: DATE: Mark Greenfield SherYl Christensen July 30, 1999 ntroductmn This technical memorandum addresses incompatible land uses that are adjacent to the proposed West Eugene Parkway (WE.P) northern alignments (Approved Design and Modified Project). T~is information is intended to support a Statewide Planning Goal Exceptions statement. Therefore~ land uses are evaluated for the Exception area, which includes lands adjacent to the proposed alignment outside of the urban growCh boundary (UGB). The following information was obtained by reviewing relevant plans and documents~ conducting a half-day field survey, and corresponding with the Lane County Assessor's Office, Lane County Land Management Division, and property owners in the project area. Definitions e project area ~nctudes properties outside the UGB (Greenhill Road) that border the proposed alternatives being considered in the Statewide Planning Goals Exception Statement for the proposed WEP project, and is the focus of this memorandum (See Figure 1). properties referenced m thru techmcal memorandum ~nclude tax lots as identified by the Lane County Assessor's Office. These do not necessarily correspond to legal parcels as defined by property deeds. Some property owners divide their legally deeded properties into two or more mx lots, Table 1 ~llustrates a parcel identification index for the "properties" within the area directly berg considered under the Planning Goals Exception process for the proposed ~rEP pro~ect. Throughout this technical memorandum, reference to these property numbers are derived from this index. Property and/or acreage figures provided are based on esthnates provided by the Lane County Assessor's Office. A ernatives Descriptions The proposed West Eugene Parkway (WEP) would provide a 8.9 to 9.4-kilometer (5.6-to 5.8-mile) limited access roadway with bike lanes from the Oak Hill area west of Eugene in Lane County (on Highway 126) to Highway 99W and Garfield Street in Eugene. The Approved Design in_volves constructing WEP on a new alignment, creating an 8.9 kilometer (5.5~ mile) extension of the 6~ and 7~ Avenue Couplet. The western limit of the Approved Design-would be west of the intersection of Highway 126 and Goble Lane near Oak Hill It would have four 3~6 meter (12-foot) wide travel lanes, a 4.4-meter (14-foot) wide median, and 2.4-meter (8 foot) wide shoulder/bike lanes~ EXI~IIBIT C-3 - FINDINGS INCOMPATIBLE A~ACENT LAND USES IN THE WEP PROJECT AREA Severa~ modifications have been proposed for the Approved Design, resulting in the Modified project; Wh~Ch is a 9fi~kilometer i51~i~ile)10ng aii~mentl This would be I;cated along the north side or,he Centre! Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) alignment west of Terry Street, rather than along the soudl s~de as proposed in the Appr°ved Desigm This would be accomplished with a grade- separated crossing over the tracks and the Amazon Channel near Terry Street, and would also require that the project be lengthened about 400 meters (t,300 feet) on the west end at its connection with H~ghway 126~ Like the Approved Design~ the Modified Project would have four 3.6-meter (l 2~foot) Wide travel lanes with 2~4*meter (8-foot)wide shoulders on the outside of the lanes. The center median would yaw in width from 3.6 to 4.4 meters (12 to 14 feet). See Figure I for location of both alternatives in the project area. In general; both alternatives would improve accessibility to points west of the WEP, including Veneta and other nearby communities. Improved access would contribute to the liveability of the area and influence future development. Plannin§ Co ntext The projec~ area is located outside the UGB and would therefore primarily be under the ~and use jurisdiction of Lane County~ The Approved Design would be in Lane County from its western tetanus to Greenh~ll Road, where Jt would cross into Eugene. The Modified Project would be subject to Lane County land use jurisdiction f~om the western end to Te~ Street, where k would cross Eugene's c[W l~m~ts. Aklmugh the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan guides future land uses outside the Metro plann~g area~U~fir~ l~n~ U~S ~n muc~ 6(~he pmj~rea w~ll also be ~nfluenced by special wetland protection and development provisions of the West E~ege Wetlands Plan (WEWP). The WEWP ~s a refinement 0f~he EU~ene~'fingfieldM X~:Gener~i Pfa~n, ~87, a guiding document for PUblF dec~sj°ns affe~fig the ~;tropol[t~n region. " As ~dem~fied in the WEWP, the West Eugene Wetlands Study Area extends approximately t .3 k[lometem (.8 m~les)west ofGreenhJll Road into the project area. W[~n this pa~ of the project area, wedands ~e ~denfified (Palustfine Emergent, Scrub~Shrub & Prairie Grasslands) to be protected, developed, or enhanced for mff~gafion cmdk. Fu~her info~ation regarding wetlands and T&E species can be found ~n the follow~ng documents: FES~ ~994. A~temati~es Ana!ys~s fo~theWe~t Eugene pa~way, West 11t"S~met-Ga~e!dStreet; F~omn~-Eugene Highway, South A~temative vs~ Noah A~ernat~e, Highway 126 to Danebo Road. Fishman Environmental Se~i~s, PoA~and, Oregon. FES. ~996; B~o!ogi~[ ~sessment on,he Effe~s of the West1 ~ Street~Ga~e~d Street West Eugene Pa~way on Bradshaw's Iomatium; Lomatium bradshawii. Fishman Environmental Se~i~s, PoAland, Oregon. FES. ~994~ Biolog~m~ Eva!uation~ Effe~s or,he West ~ ~ Street-Ga~e!d Street West Eugene Parkway on the Western Pond TuA~e (clemmys ma~ora~a). F~shman Environmental Se~,i~s, PoAland, Oregon. Galen, C. ~995~ Threatened and E~dangered botan[~tSu~eys for West 1~t" St. ~a~eld St, F~orence~Eugene Highway, Land County Proje~ ~es[ Eugene Pa~way). Fishman Environmental Se~i~s, PoAland, Omgen. Memorandum. LCOG ~99~ West Eugene Wet, ands Speda~ Study Area. Land [Countyl Council of Governments, Eugene, Oregon. Technica~ RepoA. LGQG. t992. Wes~ Eugene Wetlands Plan. Lane [count] counci~ of Governments, Eugene, Oregon. FHWA and ODOT. ~985. Dra~Environmen~a~ ~mpa~Statement. West l~*~a~eid, Floren~Eugene Highway. Lane COUnty Federal Highway Administration and Oregon DepaAment of TranspoAation, Salem, Oregon. Powers~ R. t983i Biology Techni~ RepoA: W 11%Ga~eld, 6%7t~ Street Extension, Lane Count, Oregon. Oregon DepaAment of TranspoAafion, Salem, Oregen. E~IBIT C-3 - FINDINGS 2 INCOMPATIBLE ADJACENT ~D USES ~N THE ~P ~OJECT AREA ~ mj~,~, Large ~oun~, ~Jregon; ~ey ~u~95; (.)mgon ~pa~ent of TranspOrtatior~ salem, Ore§on. An Urban Rese~e Area extends approximately 1.1 kilometers (.7 miles) outside the UGB, past Greenh~llRoad ~nto ~e project area; This area has been identified, based on current trends and pol!e~es~ area for future urban development. Urban level servi~s will not be extended m this urban reserve area until ~ is ~nclUded within the urban growth boundary through furore amendments or updates, ~ere are no plans to amend or Update the UGB in the near future, Until ~t is added to the urban gr°wth bOUndary, this Urban ReSe~e Area Will be designated to protect natural resource values. Land Uses of the Project Area The emire project area ~s designated Exclusiye Farm Use (EFU) or E40~acre minimum lot s~ze~ In addkion~ most ofthe project area is cl~sified ~ either prime farmland by the NRCs or high-value fhrm!and accord~ngm the Lane CounW S0~l Ratings for Forestry mad Agricukum. Consequently, this men !s subject m the farmland prese~afi0n objectives of Statewide Planning Goal 3, and would be expected to maintain the land base for farm enterprises and preservation of natural resources~ However, there are two specific exceptions to continuation of this overall rural land use pattern within th~s E40~zoned area, as follows: Preservation and restoration of wetlands DevelOpment of WEP The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are Currently [nthe process of Purchasing prope~j for wetland mitigation and wetland/upland restoration efforts, respectively~ ODOT has already purchased approximately t4 hectares (35 acres). Nearly all o~the pr°perfies west ofGreenhill. Road m the western project terminus on the north and south side of the m~lmad are owned by ODOT, thereby restricting their development potential. The BLM has not acquired any lands in the project area to date. Although the Lane Coun~ Rural C ire Plan states that agriculture will continue to be the R°adl tl~ ~en~ pUbliC ownership of the pr0pe~es primarily o~n space (vacant) and/Or wetland mitigation uses is expected to preclude furore use of the prope~es for agricUltural production. Curremly, in addkion to vacant ODOT l~ds, the project area is primarily characterized by rural single family residences ~d small farmsl Most of~e farms in theproject areado not provide a prim~ source ofincome to the farm operatOrs/Owners. ~ey are more typical of hobby farms. Many of the parcels include timber lots or open pasture areas, some of which could be called small-scale farms insofar ~ their primary use is residential and any fhrming does not produce a pfimaxy source of ~nc°me ~br residents. Portions of some of these properties are not farmed and contain patches of forested or other unused areas. The only large scale farming operations include a 51 hectare:(!26-acre) cattle operation (170431 1500 ~d 1600). a 6l hectare (151~acre)grass seed farm (170536 400), and a 40 hectare (100-acre) hay p~tures, which is considered a loW'prodUCfivi~ agricultural use (See Table 1 for details). There is also a horse breed[ng~ mining and boarding business along West 1 l th Avenue (170431 403), and several smaller (10- to 20-acre) hay fields. ~NCOMPATIBLE ADJACENT LAND USES iN THE WEP PROJECT AREA There is no commercial use occurring in the project area, and one public fhcility, the BPA Lane Substation, is located south of Highway 126, near the west end of the project. Immediately west of the project area there are Rural Residential 5-acre minimum and 10~acre m inimum designations (north of Highway 126)~ and the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Fern Ridge Wildlife Area (south of Highway 126). The following table lists tax lots, property owners, total acres~ and the type of use occurring on each property adjacent to the proposed project. EXHJBITC~3 - F~NDJNGS 4 ~NCOMPATiBLE ADJACENT LAND USES IN THE WEP PROJECT AREA Location Township, Range, Section 17 04 30 17 04 31 Owner Chemecki, Eddy O & Carol A. Bishop, Dean & Vicki L. Wentz, Fred N & Audrey E Nolte Richard Fleer, Billy A & Lois L Harvel, Ervin RTE ODOT Oregon State Land Board Jorgensen Kurt D & Laura K ODOT Oregon State Highway Commission O'Reilly Patrick Timothy TE Goldsmith Robert E Southern Pacific Co. ODOT Eugene Water & Electric Board Group LLC ODOT ODOT ODOT ODOT ODOT Tredgold, Donald W. YI Kenneth K S Ware, Robert P. and Gayle S. Existing Land Use Driveway Ha5' pasture Residence Residence, horses, calves Residence, sheep Residence Residence, hay pastures Vacant Vacant Residence (?) Vacant Vacant Vacant Residence Vacant Vacant Vacant~plans to build an electrical substation in the next few years. ~Tacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Residence, car restoration Hay pasture, blueberries Residence, horses, hay EXHIBIT 0-3 - FINDINGS 5 INCO~,{PATIBLE ADJACENT LAND USES iN THE WEP PROJECT AREA Location Township, Range, Section 17 04 31 (continued) 17 05 25 17 05 36 Owner Purvis, Margaret M. Hayes, Dale R ay and Bethe B Southern Pacific Co. Rober~son Marilyn M Altendar John Allendar, John Klelngartner, Evelyn, Skoog, John E. Meduna, Joseph & Evelyn Skoog, John & Florence John E, and Kteingartner, Evelyn Robertson Marilyn M Senchina Paul & Patricia A PE&BK USACE Existing Land Use Vacant Residence, vacant fields Vacant Vacant residence Residence, cattle, hay Hay pasture Vacant (?) Hay pasture Vacant Vacant Residence Grass seed BPA Lane Substation Set out below is a more detailed description of the project area by property ownership. Chemecki Property (i 70430i402) This l-acre property is a driveway providing access to five properties. Bishop Property (i70430i405) ~lais approximately 5~6 acre property contains a house (28335 West l 1m Avenue) and open field. Went[ Property (i70430i406) This approximately 3-acre property is used primarily for raising horses and calves (hobby farm). The property contains a house (28333 West 11th Avenue), outbuildings, and pasture. No~te Propedy (i70430i 409) This approximately 5-acre property is used primarily for raising sheep (hobby farm). The property' contains a house (28329 West 11a Avenue). Fleer Proper~ (i70430i600) This approximately 2-acre property contains a house (28275 West 11th Avenue) and open field. EXHIB~T C-3 - FINDINGS iNCOMPATIBLE ADJACENT [AND USES {N THE WEP PROJECT AREA Harve~ Property (1704301800) This approximately 42.5 acre property contains two residences, for one f~mily (28473 Ooble Lane), outbuildings, an orchard, and hay pastures. The omhard contains approximately 24 trees that produce cherries, pears, apples, and plums (for personal consumption). There are two hay pastures, totaling approximately 20 acres. The Harvels do not earn any income offtheir land; they hire a person to process the hay for tim safety'. However, in the future, the Harvels may plant and sell cottonwoods for a secondao' income. They also may partition and sell a 5 to 8 acre piece of land (just north of the railroad tracks), but are concerned about this land being impacted by the WEP. ODOT Properties (1704301801, 1704302201, 170431100, 170431201-205) These properties total approximately 35.2 acres adjacent to the proposed alignments, and have been acquired over the years in anticipation of the WEP project. These lands are all vacant. Oregon State Land Board Property (1704301900) This approximately 2.5 acre property is currently vacant. Jorgensen Property (1704302200) This approximately 8~7 acre property contains a house (28579 Goble Lane), barn, and several outbuildings. It is a small farm operation providing secondary income with horses, pigs and chickens. Oregon State Highway Commission Property (1704302202) This approximately 19.6 acre property is vacant. O'Reilly Property (1704302204) This approximately 1.5 acre property is vacant. Goldsmith Property (1704302300) This approximately 2.1 acre property contains a house (28573 Goble Lane) and barn for horses. Southern Pacific Company Properties (1704302400, 1704311100) These properties total approximately 11.2 acres that are currently vacant. Eugene Water & Electric Board Property (170431101) This approximately 1.2 acre property is vacant. They have plans to build an electrical substation in the next few years. Transmission lines are already in place. BBB Group Property (170431200) This approximately 33.2 acre property is cu~ently vacant. Tredgold Property (170431300) This approximately 4.7 acre property contains a house (28614 West 1[ 1 t~ Avenue), chicken coops for egg production, and old cars that are restored. In the past, they have also had EMU's on their property. EXHIBIT C-3 - F~NDiNGS 7 ~NCOMPATIBLE ADJaCEnt' LAND USES ~N THE WEP PROJECT AREA Yi Property (170431400) This approximately 21.8 acre property contains a hay pasture and blueberries. The hay pasture is approximately 19 acres and there are approximately 200 blueberry plants on nearly 2 acres. There is no residence or buildings on the property. Mr. Yi is interested in developing most of this land as an RV Park, but needs to get a zone change before this can happen. Ware Propert7 (170431403) This approximately 10 acres contains a house (28690 West 11 th Avenue), horses~ "Field of Dreams Training and Boarding Facility and Breeders of Norwegian Fjord Horses". Nearly 9 acres of this property provides hay pasture for their horses. Purvis Property (170431405) This approximately 5.4 acre property is vacant. Hayes Property (170431500) This approximately 5.1 acre property contains a house (88130 Greenhill Road), and vacant fields. Robertson Properties (1704311400, 170536200) These properties total approximately 25.5 acres, containing a vacant house (28295 K R Nielsen Road) and vacant field. A~endar Properties (1704311500, 1704311600) These properties tota~ approximately 125.51 acres~ on which there is a house (28536 West 11~ .Avenue), cattle operation and hay pastures. Mr. Allendar owns property on both sides of West 11t}~ Avenue. It does not appear as though this property owner transports cattle to the north field. It used to be an orchard but appears to be no longer in use. KleingartnedSkoog Properties (1705252400, 170536100) 71~ese properties total approximately 86.3 acres used primarily as hay pasture. ~eduna Property (1705252401) This approximately 18.5 acre property is used as hay pasture. Skoog Property (1705252402) This approximately 17-acre property is used as hay pasture. Senchina Property (t70536300) This approximately 6.7 acre property contains a house (27299 K R Nielsen Road). Estergard Property (170536400) This approximately 151-acre property is used to grow grass seed. EXHiBiT C~3 - FiNDiNGS 8 INCOMPAllBLE ADJA~NT LAND USES IN THE WEP PROJECT AREA USACE Prope~ ('~ 7053640'~) This approximately 81.8 acre property contains the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Lane Substation. Summary of mpacts Land use impacts usually associated with roadway projects in rura~ lands include: Displacements of houses and buildings Acreage losses from roadway rights-of-way and/or uneconomic remnants Parcelization, resulting in more complicated farming practices Complication of access to properties Visual modifications to the rural setting Potential induced (incompatible) development Displacements of houses and buildings Neither alternative would displace any residences or outbuildings in the project area~ Acreage ~osses from roadway rights-of-way and/or uneconomic remnants As mentioned previously, the BLM and ODOT have plans to purchase adjacent lands for wetland mitigation and wetlan®'upland restoration efforts, respectively. ODOT has already purchased a significant portion of adjacent lands. WEP would not result in acreage losses of the three large farm operations in the project area; Allendar (170431 1500 and 1600), Estergard (170536 400) and Kleingartner/Skoog (170525 2400). Additionally, there would not be any uneconomic remnants as a result of the project. Parce~ization, resulting in more complicated farming practices The Approved Design would create several parcels between West 11th Avenue and the CORJ> railroad tracks. However, th~s land is all in ODOT ownership. Neither alternative would result in the parcelization of any agricultural properties. Complication of access to properties Both alternatives could impact access to the five residential properties on Goble Lane. Visual modifications to the rura~ setting With any road improvement project, visual modifications are inevitable.. However~ existing H~ghway 126 already dissects this rural area, thereby increasing urban character. WEP would also increase urban character of the area. Potential induced development WEP'could expedite urban development in the Urban Reserve Area, and may result in increased rural residential development, particularly near the western project terminus designated Rural Residential 5~acre minimum lot size (RR5) and Rural Residential 10-acre minimum lot size (~10). These uses are not incompatible with existing plans m~d designations. EXHIBIT C-3 -FINDINGS 9 INCOMPAT~BLE ADJACENT LAND USES IN THE ~P PR~ECT APEA Conclusion The WEP would not have any major impacts on land uses in the project area. In general, it is compatible with adjacent uses. This is due to several factors: Many of the adjacent lands are currently owned by ODOT Adjacent lands are in the process of being purchased by ODOT and the BLM for wetland mitigation and preservation purposes The remaining adjacent properties are primarily single farnily residential with unused land or small hobby farms~ Lands within project right-of-way are either vacant, unused by property owners, or used to grow hay crops, which is considered a ~ow-value agricultural use. The three large scale farm operations in the project area would not be negatively impacted by the project. One Final Note: A few property owners were concerned about losing ~and and/or rural character of the area (Lc., visua~ changes, increase in traffic noise). However, the majority of property owners viewed WEP as very positive. EXHIBIT C-3 -FINDINGS 10