Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 195840 ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS To THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: 1. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan ~TransPlan} was adopted by the Eugene City Council on April 28, 198 by Eugene ordinance No. 19385, and in accordance with the proviscions contained therein, subsequently endorsed on ~'ul Y 27, 1987 by Resolution No. 4049. 2. The TransPlan is the basis for guiding surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area and should accurately reflect current regulations and review procedures, anticipated improvements projects, and include an amendment process. 3. Amendments to the TransPlan have been prepared to accomplish these objectives. 4. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the TransPlan on November 15, 1988 and recommended tv the Council that they be adopted. 5. Based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the evidence and testimony presently in the record, and the evidence and testimony presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and Council, it appears that it would be in the public interest and in conformity with adopted plans and policies to adapt the proposed amendments to the TransPlan. Now r therefore, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Based on the above findings, which are adopted herein, the amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan ~TransPlan} set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adapted. Section z. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the amendments adopted by this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and Independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3. That the matters contained herein concern the Ordinance - 1 v public welfare and safety, and an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its, passage by the City Council, approval by the Mayor, and ratification by the Lane Council of Governments Board. Passed by the City Council this d y of November, 19SS M Ci Record Approved by the Mayor this day o Novembe , 1958 C Ma r ordinance - ~ PRaPDSED FY198S TRAN5PLAN AMENDMENTS As part of the FY1988 Annual Review, amendments are proposed to four sections of TransPlan: - Element III. Goals, Gbjectives and Policies - E1 ement IV. Street and Highway '- E] ement V. Bicycle ~~ ~- Appendix C. Annual Plan Endorsement The amendments are specified in detail in the following pages. The Transpartation Planning Committee developed these amendments based upon the requests of Eugene and Springfield. The proposed amendments to the Goals, Objectives and Policy Element and Appendix C Annual Plan Endorsement are designed to discontinue the annual endorsement process and to simplify the amendment process. Federal regulations no longer require an annual endorsement of an area's long- range plan. Action by any of the agencies which originally adapted the plan will be required only at such time as the plan is amended. The modifications proposed to Appendix C provide for policy direction by the Metropolitan Policy Committee, because the Metropolitan Area Transpartation Committee has been di sso~l ved. Another key change proposed for the amendment process i s a provi si on which would allow a single agency to amend the street and highway project list for projects which are found not to be regionally significant. A streamlined amendment process for minor projects would reduce the need for amendments to be taken to all agencies for acti an. Amendments to the project lists for Element IV. Streets and Highways and E1 ement 1!. Bicycles are the results of additional study and analysi s performed during the last year. The amendments to the Street and Highway project list include deletions, modifications and additions. Proposed Changes to TransPlan Element Ill. Goals, Objectives and Policies The following, describes proposed modifications to TransPlan`s Element 1 I ! . Goals, Objectives and Policies, This section is prepared in. legislative format; deletions are indicated b brackets • additions are i ~ ~ Y ~ ], ndlcate by .z~alYCS. PCl, Provide far fan annual review and endorsement process for TransPlan which includes eonsideration of amendments a process by which TransPlan can he amended. . ~ Proposed Changes to TransPlan Element IV. Street and Highway The following describes proposed modifications to TransPlan's Street and Highway Project List. The following project is to be deleted from the Short-Range Phase; 191. ~ - Beverly St Extension, Harlow to Gateway; develop Beverly St Loop Road west of Gateway from Beverly at Harlow to Gateway provide curbs, sidewalks and bike lanes -~ install signal at Harl aw and at Gateway Cost: ~625,OD0 Distance : . 50 mi . Justification: A, LQS, ED Jurisdiction : Spr Discussion: This project vas originally included in TransPlan to ensure that that there Would be adequate access to the adjacent cammerciallp paned land should this land be developed in a piecemeal fashion. The anticipated development of this site as a regional shop;~ing center Gateway Mall) makes this project unnecessary since the shopping center provides its awn internal circulation system. The following projects are to be added to the Short~Range Phase. 125.) Riverfront Research Park Access: -~ extend Agate, Qnyx, Broadway, Sth and Patterson onto site construct local and minor collector streets tv serve new research park streets to i nc1 ude vnwstreet bicycle 1 ones, curbs, sidewalks, 1 i ghti ng and 1 andscapi ng ~ .- -- 1 ocati an and design to follow adapted master site p1 an Co t: X6,500,404 Justification: A, ED Jurisdiction: Eug,QDOT Discussion : AI though the master site plan for the Riverfront Park has not yet been adopted, the City and 4DOT have agreed upon a conceptual design and financing partnership far access from Franklin Boulevard and internal streets. Four basic access points are planned; the rest of the description is general since the final design will have to conform to the adopted site plan. Implementation of parts of this project will occur in both the short-range and medium range phases. 12s. ~ ~entenniai Boulevard, Patterson Slough to I«5: provide curb, gutter and sidewai ks -add center turn ~ anes Cost: ~~,Da4,Daa Distance : ~ . 6 rni . Justi f i cati an : A, S, U Jurisdiction: Eug Discussion : This project was apparently 1 eft off the original List due to an oversight . The C.z t y of Eugene plans to construct it in 1989 or .1990 and recommends that it be included zn the Short-Range Phase. 152. ~ .. H i lya rd St at ~ 3th ; add east bound through lane remove parking Cost: limited capital cost Distance : , afi mi . Justification; LDS, S Juri sdi cti an : Eug Discussion : The need far this pra ject, which Will reduce air poll utian by improving traffic flow, Was determined through the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. 153.) H i lya rd St, E ~ ~ th to E 13th - remove parking/restri pe as 3 1 anes Cost: limited capita] Bost Distance :.14 mi . Justification : LQS, S Juri sdi cti an: Eug Discussion : The need for this pra ject, which wi11 reduce a.rr pollution by improving traffic flow, was determined through the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. 154.) Pearl/Amazon Parkway, 18th to 4th : widen to provide two southbound lanes Cast: $I85,0~a Distance : 0.4 mi . Justification:LaS,D Jurisdiction; Eug Discussion: The need for this project rags deter~rined through the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. It is needed to alleviate traffic congestion at the Pearl and 18th intersection. 155.E Lenten n is t at 10th Street: - instal traffic signal Cost: ~~05,DDD Justificatian: LQS,S,D Jurisdiction: Spr Discussion: The intersection already meets signal warrants. .It is in the current TIP and is being processed for FAU funding and construction in 1989. 195.E 15th Avenue at Agate Street: - install traffic signal Cost: ~105,ODD Justification: LQS,S,o Jurisdiction : Eug Discussion: The treed for this signal was determined through the.City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. 19fi. ~ w Hilyard, between 1~th and 13th Avenues: - install traffic signal Cast: $15,000 Justification: 5,Q Jurisdiction : Eug Discussian: The need for this signal was determined through the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. 197. ~ 11th Avenue at Kincaid Street: -install traffic signs] cast: ~~o~, o00 Justification: LQS,S,Q Jurisdiction : Eug Discussion: The need for this signal was determined thraugh the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. 198.} South 5th Street, Main to South B : -widen street -' install curbs, gutters and side~alks Cost: X600,000 Distance: 0.2 Justification: ED,A Jurisdiction: Spr Discussion; This project wil,~ provide access to the Booth-Belly center. The following project from the Medium-Range Phase is to be modified. The modification is identified by the addition in italics. 211.) Franklin Blvd intersections: - ,provide additional turn ~ ones and signal improvements an Franklin.Blvd. at: Broadway Patterson Halyard Agate ~!i 1 ~ and Dnyx Cost: ~~,800,000 Justification: LDS,Q Juri sdi cti on : ODOT Discussion: The need for the addition of Dnyx to the intersections inc.2uded in this project was determined through the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. The following projects are to be added to the Medium-Range Phase. 292.) - 18th Avenue at Agate Street: - install traffic signal Cost: X105,000 JustifiCatlOn: LDS,S,~ Juri sdi cti an : Eug Discussion: The need for this signal Was determined through the City of Eugene's Central Area Transportation Study. 293. 58th Street at Thurston Road: - install traffic signal Cost; $105,Q00 Justification: LO5,5 Juri sdi cti an: Spr Discussion: Continued land development in the Thurston area will necessitate this project Within 3 to 14 years. ~.. Proposed Changes to TransPlan Element v. Bicycle Element The following describes proposed modifications to TransPlan's Bic cle Project List, y The following bicycle facility project is to be deleted: Project 7'52 Beverly Street, Harlow to Postal way; striped lanes on street Discussion: This project Was originally included irr TransPlan to ensure that that there would be adequate bicycle access to the adjacent cvmmerczally zoned Land should this land be developed in a piecemeal fashion. The anticipated development of this site as a regional shopping center (Gateway Mall} makes this project unnecessary since the shoppia center provides an internal circulations stem, g Y Proposed Changes to TransPlan Appendix C The following describes proposed modifications to TransPlan's Appendix C; Annual Plan Endorsement, which would be renamed "Plan Amendments," This section is prepared in legislative format; deletions are indicated by brackets [ ]; additions are indicate by italics. [iNITIATiON OF ENDORSEMENT PROCEEDINGS [The TransPlan Annual Review shall initiate the Plan amendment and endorsement process. The Lane Council of Governments' ~L-~COG} Transportation Planning Committee TPC} sha11 prepare the Annual Review before the end of the 1 ocal f i sca] year. The Annual Review wi 11 include a review of all relevant transportation issues and their impact on the Plan; progress on attar n~ ng the Plan ` s goals, including, but not 1 i mi ted to, the transit ri dershi p goal ; areas of 1 ocal poi i cy conf 1 i ct with the P1 an; recommendations on any amendments proposed as part of the Annual Review; and a request far endorsement of the Plan as amended. ~ PLAN AMENDMENT Submitting Plan Amendments [Plan amendments will be processed at the time of the Annual Review. . ~ Amendments may be c~ t~ zen-~~ n~ ti aced or may be proposed by 1 ocal governi n bodies (Eu ene S rin field and g g p g Lane County) , Lane Tran s~ t D~ str~ ct LTD}, the Oregon Department of Transportation (GDGT} or their desi nees. g A citizen-initiated amendment shoal d be f i 1 ed with the planning or publ i c works staff of the city whose incorporated area would be affected, or. with County planning or public works staff for amendments that lie outside incorporated areas. A proposed text change that has na apparent geographical area impact can be filed with any of the three planning or public works departments. Plan amendments will be accepted at any time but wi]1 be processed at least once annually [during the Annual Review, the timing of which shall be determined by the Metropolitan [Area Transpartation~ Po~~cy Committee [~MATC} EMPC1. The planning or public works staff of the jurisdiction receiving the amendment will make a recommendation to TPC as to which amendments should be processed during the [Annual Reviews current amendment process and which should be processed during the next regularly scheduled major Plan update. Amendments initiated by 1 acal jurisdictions ~ Eugene, Springfield and Lane County}, LTD ar ODDT will be submitted directly to TPC. Screening of Amendments TPC wit] review all proposed Plan amendments and [recommend to MATC make . ~ a determination that they be dealt with ether during the current [Annual Reviews amendment process or that they be delayed until the next ma 'or a Plan update. TPC shall [recommend to MATCH determine that a proposed amendment be delayed until the next major Plan update if: ~. The proposal involves a change to one or more of the Key Assumptions of the Plan as specified i n Sect? on I Y of TransPl an, yr i f 2. The proposal is of insufficient importance to divert budgeted planning resources from other scheduled activities, ar i f 3. The proposal is premature for consideration because of other related Plan studies i n progress. TPC shall refer all proposed amendments and its recommendations tv MATC~.~ ~MATC shall review the recommendations of TPC and determine which of the proposed amendments will be considered as part of the Annual Review and which wi 11 be delayed unti 1 the next ma jar Plan update . ~ For those amendments wh.zch TPC determines should be considered during the current amendment process, TPC sha11 further determine whether the amendment is..af regional significance ar of non-regional significance. Amendments proposed to Element I1'I. Gaa1s, Cbjectives and Policies Element are presumed to be of regional significance. Amendments proposed to other elements of TransPlan, including the project lfists in EI ernent IV . Street and Kighway Element; Element ~, Bicycle Element; and VI. Transit Element may be determined to be either non-regional or regionally significant, A determination by TPC that consideration of an amendment be delayed until the next major plan update may be appealed by any of the adopting jurisdictions or by the applicant who proposed the plan amendment. Likewise, a determination by TPC that a project is regionally significant or non-regionally significant may be appealed to MPC. Review of Pro osed Amendments TPC shall prepare background information and supporting materials for each of the amendments preferred to it by MATC for consideration. TPC shall also make recommendations on all proposed Plan amendments being considered. TPC's recommendation for action on non-regionally significant amendments shall be made to the governing body under whose jurisdiction it falls. TPC's recommendation far action on regionally significant amendments shall be made to Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, LTD and OD4T . The Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee ~MAPAC~ may review proposed amendments that MATC] TPC has determined should be considered. MAPAC shall forward any recommendations on proposed Plan amendments to TPC within 30 days of MATC's~ TPC's actions. TPC will consider MAPAC's recommendations when preparing [the Annual Reviews its recommendations for action on proposed plan amendments. Additional opportunities for citizen review will occur during the public hearings phase of the Annual Revi ewe the amendment process, [ANNUAL REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT]At1ENDttENT PROCEDURES [Release~of Annual Review] [MATC shall receive the Annual Review hand amendments from TPC and } authors ~e its release, as .appropriate, to 1 ocal jurisdictions LTD and ODOT. MATC's referal of the Annual Review shall include a recommendation far adoption of Plan amendments and a recommendation that each a enc endorse the P1 an as amended, g y ] Far proposed amendments Which TPC has determined not to be of re Tonal significance, adoption b the overnin bod un g Y ~ g y der Whose jurisdiction the amendment falls and the L-COG Board will be required. Far proposed amendments which TPC has determined to be regionally .significant, adoption by Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the L-CDG Board wi11 be required. Public Hearings For those proposed plan amendments for Which Its action is required, e[E]ach local jurisdiction shall conduct public hearin s an the sub'ect of Plan endorsement a g ~ [ nd] proposed amendments, either at the lanni commission level the overnin bod 1 p ng 9 g y evel , or both. Local jurisdictions have the option of establishing procedures for additional citizen participation (such as referral to neighborhood groups} as required b local policy. LTD and DDaT can deal it y w h the Annual Review as each deems appropriate. All three local jurisdictions may, but are not required to conduct joint or simul tanevus hearings. Planning Commission Recommendations A joint public hearing and deliberations by the three planning commissions are recommended, but not required far amendments which are of regional significance. If the three planning camr~issions, through their individual deliberations and separate actions, reach concensus on their recommendations far the regionally significant amendments, their recomrnendat.ions shall be submitted to their respective governing bodies for adoption. 1'f the planning commission's recommendations differ, their recor~mendations shall be transmitted to ~lPC. I~PC will consider the planning comissions' recommendations and make its .own recommendation to the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Consensus Endorsement and Amendment In the event that all three local governing bodies [endorse the existin Plan or endorse the Plan as modified g ] amend the Plan by identical amendment, and if no abjection is raised by either LTD ar DDQT, the MATC [ and] the L-CQG Board of Directors shall be re wired to ratif the q Y [endorsement hand] amendment[}] without further action b an ~ urn sd~ cti on , y y Lack of Consensus (First Stage)1 Tf consensus to endorse] amend the Plan in identical fashion is not reached, or if LTD or DDDT objects to the [endorsements amendment, the ~MATC~ ~iPC shall convene within 30 days of the action of the last jurisdiction to consider the ~endarsement~ amendment. [MATC] ~fPC shat l consider the actions taken by local jurisdictions and shall ro ose P P recommendations that would eliminate differences between Chase actions. ~MATC~ tlPC shall submit its recommendations to 1 ocal jurisdictions, LTD or DDDT as appropriate, If the ~MATC~ MPC process results in substantial modifications to the Plan as ~endorsed~ amended by any local jurisdiction, affected ~ur~sdict~ons shall conduct new hearings before Cendorsing~ amending the Plan as modified. - ?"he L-COG Board will be required to ratify non~reginnally significant amendments adopted by the governing body under Whose jurisdiction they fall and the regionally significant amendments adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. Public hearings conducted by the L~C4G Board shall not be required since public bearings must have been conducted by at least one agency's planning commission or govern.zng body. [Lack of Consensus (Second Stage)1 ~If consensus to endorse the Plan in an identical fashion is still Hat reached as described in the first stage, Lack of Consensus step, the P1 anni ng and Public Forks Directors sha11 schedul e a joint meeti n of elected officials from Eu ene S i g g pr ngf~eld and Lane County for the purpose of discussing the endorsement. LTD and DDQT may participate, if appropriate, ~f LTD or DDDT is involved, the LTD Board and the Dregan Transportation Commission or their designees shall participate in the joint meetings. ~f resolution on the differences is reached, the Plan sha11 be forwarded to MATC and the L-CDG Board for rati f i cati an . ~ ?. jLack of Consensus (Third Stage)~ ~If consensus to endorse the Plan in an identical fashion is Hat resolved through joint meetings, the matter wi 11 be referred to the LwCDG Board. The L-CDG Board shall endorse the Plan plus only those amendments that have been adopted i n i denti ca 1 fashion by all three 1 oval jurisdictions . This will insure that federal transportation fundin remains g uninterr~rpted.~ A recommendation from MATC for ~no endorsement could jeopardize cvnti Hued federal and state transportation funding. c 1 j rta r GUIDELINES FAR PRC?JECT DETERMINATION Guidance is provided in Appendix C to determine whether ro p posa ~ s for modification of TransPlan are appropriate for the amendment ro sha 11 be de 1 ayed unti 1 the next ma 'or P cess or ~ update. The following provides guidance as to the regional or non-regional significance of amendment The regional ar non--reg~onal si nificance is s~ 9 the factor which determines which agencies are required to adopt the proposed amendments. When making its determination on the regional si nifi g cance of an amendment, the Transportation Planning Committee will use the foil ' awing as guidelines: Pra used Amendments of Re Tonal Si nificance Amendments in the following categories are presumed to have an im pact on more than one agency. Therefore, i t i s appropriate far al ~ a enci es which originally adopted TransPlan to revi g ew and formally adopt amendments with the following characteristics, - Modifications of Element III -Goals, Qbjectives and Policies. - Modifications of Element VII -Parking. - Modifications of Element UI I I - Air Quality. - Madi fication of Appendi x C -Plan Amendment Process. - Modifications of the project list in Element IV - Streets and Highways, which propose the addition or deletion of rojects of the P following types: - limited access highways or additional interchanges an existin 1 imi ted access foci 1 i ~i es ~ ~' ' g - principal or minor arterial streets on new alignments; - existing streets where the proposed facility is or will be greater than three 1 apes; - i ntersecti on improvements which require major channel i zati on or turn 1 apes on more than two legs of the .intersection . Modifications of the project list in Element U - Bicycles which propose the addition or deletion of projects which are independent paths or an-street ]ones for ar P teri al streets. - Modifications of E] ement VI -Transit, consisting of the addition or deletion of major or minor transit stations. Proposed Amendments Not of Regional 5i nificance - Modi f i Kati on s .to Element IV -Streets and Highways, wh~i ch ro ose the addition ar deletion vf: P P - traffic signals or the addition of individual turn lanes an one or two 1 cgs of an intersection; - existing streets where the proposed foci 1 i ty i s or wi 11 be three or fewer lanes; - new co 11 ector streets with three or fewer 1 one s . - Modifications to Element V - Bicycles, which propose the addition or deletion of on-street lanes on collector streets or desi Hated routes, 9 - Modifications to Element v~ - Transit, which pro ose non- P construction acts vi ti es . ~ TransP~an amendment Process Citizen Initiated Plan Amendment E, 5, LC Planning ' or Public Works Agency Initiated Plan Amendment TPC Makes Determination of Timing and Significance ~ TPG Decision to Delay until next major update ~ Process Ends I MPC ~ TPC Decision to Consider This Year as Regionally Significant Amendment TPG Analyzes and Makes Recommendation to E, S, LG, LTD, DDOT Each PC Conducts Hearing Joint Hearing Recommended} Recommends Adoption Develops Na PC Consensus ? Recommendation Yes Agency Elected D#fic':als Adopt Plan Amendments MPC ,_,_, Develops ~ Agency Consensus ? Recommendation Yes Elected D#f icials L.DDG Board Reconsiders and Ado is Amendment adopts Amendments p ~ TPC Decision to Consider this Year as Non-Regional Amendment MAPAC TPC Analyzes and Makes Review Recommendation to the Agency with Jurisdiction Agency PC Conducts Hearing, Recommends Adoption Agency Elected Officials Adepts Amendmeni L-GDG Soard Adapts Amendment ~ May be Appealed . to MPC