The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 5: TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action:An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (Transplan) to Adjust the Planning Period from Year 2015 to Year 2027, to Remove Completed Projects from the Project Lists and to Make Related Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Meeting Date: August 9, 2010 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Public Works Engineering Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8379 ISSUE STATEMENT Approval is requested on an ordinance that takes the following actions: 1. Non-site specific text amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) to adjust the planning period from year 2015 to year 2027 to reflect actual slower growth rates since TransPlan’s adoption and to be consistent with the previously adopted Lane County coordinated population forecast. 2. Remove completed transportation projects from TransPlan’s project lists. 3. Non-site specific text amendments in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) needed to maintain consistency between TransPlan and the Metro Plan. The proposed ordinance and exhibits are attached to this AIS as Attachment A. BACKGROUND On November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an update to the federally- required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which resulted in Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) approval of a Regional Transportation Work Plan (“Work Plan”), with conditions. The Work Plan represents a logical, coordinated, and programmatic approach for updating local and regional land use and transportation plans. The Work Plan requires as early, interim steps, the deletion of transportation projects that have been completed and adjustment to TransPlan’s planning period to better reflect actual population growth. Substantive amendments may be considered in subsequent actions and during the update of the City’s integrated comprehensive land use and transportation plans. A joint public hearing on these proposed amendments was held on June 17, 2010. The record was held open to allow Lane County staff to respond to questions raised by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The Lane County staff response is included as Attachment E to this AIS. In accordance with the council’s motion, the record closed on June 28, 2010, the date that the Lane County staff submitted their response. The City received no other submissions between June 17, 2010, and June 28, 2010. Non-site specific text amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan require identical actions from all Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100809\S1008095.doc three Metro jurisdictions. The City of Springfield City Council unanimously approved these amendments on July 6, 2010. The County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to act on August 18, 2010. RELATED CITY POLICIES This matter is presented in response to a work plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. There are no policy implications as the amendments reflect transportation projects that are completed and based on the previously adopted County’s coordinated population forecast. COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council has the following options: 1.Adopt the proposed ordinance; 2.Adopt the proposed ordinance with specific modifications; 3.Postpone ordinance adoption; or 4.Deny the proposed ordinance. Any actions other than Option 1, approval, may require coordination with Springfield and Lane County before the amendments would be effective. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City manager recommends Option 1: adopt the proposed ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION Move that the City Council adopt Council Bill # 5030, included as Attachment A, amending TransPlan and the Metro Plan as set forth in Exhibits A and B of that ordinance, based on the findings of consistency set forth in Exhibit C of that ordinance. ATTACHMENTS A. Ordinance, with attached Exhibits A, B and C  Exhibit A – Amendments to TransPlan  Exhibit B – Amendments to Metro Plan  Exhibit C – Findings of Consistency B. LCDC Work Plan C. Calculations for TransPlan planning year D. Minutes of Joint Elected Public Hearing (June 17, 2010) E. Supplemental information from Lane County staff responding to Lane County Board of Commissioners questions Minutes of Planning Commission and elected official meetings between April and September 2009 were included with the agenda item summary for the June 17, 2010, public hearing. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Senior Transportation Planner Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100809\S1008095.doc Telephone: 541-682-8379 Staff E-Mail: Kurt.M.Yeiter@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100809\S1008095.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN) TO ADJUST THE PLANNING PERIOD FROM YEAR 2015 TO YEAR 2027, TO REMOVE COMPLETED PROJECTS FROM THE PROJECT LISTS AND TO MAKE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that : A. Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for 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 functional plan which forms the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area. C. The City Council adopted TransPlan by Ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April 28, 1986, which was subsequently 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, Ordinance No. 20234 enacted on September 10, 2001, Ordinance No. 20258 enacted on July 8, 2002, and Ordinance No. 20442 enacted on November 9, 2009, adopting a revised Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and adopting revisions to TransPlan. D. On November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee adopted an update to the federally-required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); the update included extending the RTP’s planning period to 2031 and deleting projects that had been completed or that were determined to be no longer needed. E. Following a public hearing on April 7 2009, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended to the Eugene City Council that TransPlan be amended to adjust the planning period from year 2015 to year 2024, to remove completed transportation projects from TransPlan’s project lists, and to make related amendments to the Metro Plan. On September 1, 2009, following Eugene, Springfield and Lane County’s adoption of coordinated population forecasts, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended to the Eugene City Council that the previously-recommended 2024 planning period be adjusted to reflect the newly adopted population numbers. F. On June 17, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing 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. G. Substantial evidence exists within the record that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 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 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TransPlan, adopted 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, Ordinance No. 20234, enacted on September 10, 2001, Ordinance No. 20258 enacted on July 8, 2002, and Ordinance No. 20442 enacted on November 9, 2009, 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 Roadway Projects list 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. Section 3 . The Metro Plan, Transportation Element, Chapter III, Section F, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit B 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. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a 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 hereof. Section 6 . Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council have taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in Sections 1 - 3 of this ordinance. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this _____________________________ _____________________________ City Recorder Mayor Exhibit B F. Transportation Element The Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan area. TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, provides the basis for the surface transportation portions of this element and the Eugene Airport Master Plan provides the basis for the air transportation portions. to serve TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning in the metropolitan area [for a a 20-year period and serves] the transportation planning needs of [the] projected population of The TransPlan Study Area is an area extending 296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area (fn 11). 1 beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes. TransPlan establishes the framework upon which all public agencies can make consistent and coordinated transportation planning decisions. Goals and policies in TransPlan are contained in this Transportation Element and are part of the adopted Metro Plan. TransPlan project lists and project maps are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan. This element complies with State Transportation Goal 12, “To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.” Three types of transportation planning strategies are reflected in the goals and policies in this element: Transportation demand management (TDM), land use, and system improvements. TDM strategies focus on reducing demands placed on the transportation system, and thus system costs, by providing incentives to redistribute or eliminate vehicle trips and by encouraging alternative modes. Land use strategies focus on encouraging development patterns that reduce the need for automobiles, reduce trip lengths, and support the use of alternative modes. System improvements focus on increasing efficiency and adding capacity or new facilities to the existing highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems. Together, these strategies form a balanced policy framework for meeting local and state transportation goals to: increase urban public transit ridership; reduce reliance on the automobile; substitute automobile trips with alternative modes, such as walking and biking; and reduce automobile energy consumption and transportation costs. Consistent with this approach, the policies in this element are presented in the following categories: Not all Transportation Element policies will apply to a specific transportation-related decision. When conformance with adopted policy is required, policies in this and other Metro Plan elements will be examined to determine which policies are relevant and can be applied. When policies support varying positions, decision makers will seek a balance of all applicable policies. Goals are timeless, but some policies will expire as they are implemented. Goals 1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life. [Fn 11: The TransPlan Study Area is an area used for transportation modeling purposes. The 296,500 projected population for this area includes the estimated 2015 population of 286,000 for the UGB plus an additional 10,5000 projected population for the Transportation Analysis Zones that extend beyond the UGB.] Transportation Demand Management Findings st 14. TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA 21) and state TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the automobile, thus helping to postpone the need for expensive capital improvements. The need for TDM stems from an increasing demand for and a constrained supply of road capacity, created by the combined effects of an accelerated rate of population growth (41% projected increase from 1995 to [2015] 2027 ) and increasing highway construction costs; for example, the City of Eugene increased the transportation systems development charge by a total of 15 percent to account for inflation from 1993-1996. Exhibit C FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY Metro Plan Amendment Criteria Criteria to be used to evaluate amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) are found in Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135( C )(1-2), Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3), and Lane Code Section 12.225(2)(a) &(b) and all reads as follows: (a)The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and (b)Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. This application involves text amendments (non-site specific) and project list amendments to TransPlan, a special purpose functional plan, and text amendments (non-site specific) to the Metro Plan (hereinafter referred to as “the amendments”). The process for making the amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan are identical; requiring that the three jurisdictions follow the “Type I” amendment process. To become effective, the amendments to TransPlan the Metro Plan must be approved by all three governing bodies. Criterion A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL CONSISTENCY: Based on the findings set forth below, the amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and interpretive rules. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Cities of Springfield and Eugene and Lane County have acknowledged citizen involvement programs and acknowledged processes for securing citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments. The governing bodies code provisions require that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Notification of the proposed amendments and opportunities for public participation in these amendments were consistent with the acknowledged citizen involvement programs. The governing bodies’ code provisions implement Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of the proposed land use code amendment be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. Consideration of the amendments will begin with a joint Planning Commission work session on April 7, 2009, followed by a public hearing. On October 16, 2008, the City of Springfield provided notice of the proposed amendment to the 20-year planning period in TransPlan from 2015 to 2023 to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). That notice included copies of the proposal previously approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee for inclusion in the federal RTP in November, 2007, and a copy of the report that went to the Springfield City Council for the October 6, 2008, initiation of this amendment. The identical proposal was reviewed and approved by the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield 1 and Lane County on September 15, 2008, prior to being submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in October as part of the proposed work program for the update of TransPlan. Each of these and activities and meetings were noticed and included opportunities for citizen involvement and comment. The October 2008 DLCD notice was revised on January 29, 2009, to add the proposed removal of the completed projects, and to clarify that Metro Plan amendments were also necessary, and that Eugene and Lane County would be participants as well. The DLCD notice was revised again on February 6, 2009, to provide specific proposed text amendments and to provide the new (postponed) date for the first evidentiary hearing. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was mailed to all persons who had requested such notice on March 6, 2009, thirty (30) days prior to the first hearing. Notice was published in the Register Guard, the area’s general circulation newspaper, on March 18, 2009, twenty (20) days before the first hearing. The proposed amendments were available for inspection at the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County planning offices. The process leading up to the adoption of the amendments provided numerous opportunities for public involvement. We find that the process for adopting these amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since it complies with, and surpasses, the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) is a function plan of the Metro Plan, which forms the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area. TranPlan was acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with statewide planning goal. These findings and the record show that there is an adequate factual base for City’s decision concerning the amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the adopting governmental bodies engage in an exchange, or invite such an exchange, between the adopting bodies and any affected governmental unit and when the adopting bodies use the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the three jurisdictions coordinated the review of these amendments with all affected governmental units. Notice of the proposed amendments and information about where the materials would be available for review was mailed to all parties that had requested such notice. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 2 The amendments will not change or conflict with the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan regarding agricultural lands since these amendments continue to reflect the growth planned for and accommodated by the existing, acknowledged Metro Plan and TransPlan. Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3. GOAL 4 - FOREST LAND: To conserve forest lands for forest use. The amendments will not change any policies or plan diagram designations of the Metro Plan or TransPlan, nor do the amendments impact any forest lands. Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 4. GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) request: (3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. The amendments do not affect a Goal 5 resource. Specifically, the amendments do not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular Goal 5 resource site, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply to these plan amendments. GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts of those discharges. TransPlan currently contains policies related to nodal development, transportation demand management and the encouragement of additional alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and pedestrian use. These policies are related to the need to maintain and improve the air quality in the metropolitan area. The amendments will not impact any of these policies and no new projects are proposed; the project list amendments consist only of deleting completed projects. Projects already identified in TransPlan will be designed 3 and constructed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 6. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as land slides. The amendments do not address potential natural disasters. Further, the amendments do not affect the current restrictions on development in areas subject to natural hazards, nor allow for new development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 7. GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destinations resorts. Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provisions of those facilities in non-urban areas of the State. The amendments do not affect the current provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities, nor will the amendments affect access to existing or future recreational facilities. Further, the amendments do not change the Metro Plan and TranPlan policies that support access to recreational facilities with the Metropolitan area and to recreations opportunities outside the area or delete any planned transportation projects that would make recreational facilities more available. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 8. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens. The amendments will not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands and will not change or conflict with the economic policies of Metro Plan. The amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies directed toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene- Springfield area by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation system that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable. Additionally, the amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies related to the movement of goods; those policies adopted to further the goal of using the public facilities infrastructure to support responsible economic development. The Oregon Transportation Plan recognizes that goods movement of all types makes a significant contribution to the region’s economy and wealth and contributes to residents’ quality of life. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 9. GOAL 10 – HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. The amendments will not impact the supply or residential lands and will not result in any change or conflict with the housing policies of the Metro Plan. Additionally, the amendments will not change any of the policies in TransPlan and the Metro Plan related to nodal development and transit-supportive land use patterns and development; those policies adopted to expand housing opportunities for the region’s citizens. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 10. 4 GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has an acknowledged Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). The amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the PFSP. GOAL 12 – TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The proposed amendments are consistent with all applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0016. Further, the amendments are consistent with, and required by, the Regional Transportation Work Plan approved pursuant to OAR 660-012-0016(2)(b) by the Land Conservation and Development Commission on October 16, 2008. The TPR states that when amendments to a functional plan would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. Adoption of the amendments will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 12. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION: To conserve energy. The Energy Goal is a general planning goal that calls for land and uses developed on the land to be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The proposed amendments will not change the Metro Plan or TransPlan provisions related to promoting more compact development, encouraging the use of alternate modes of transportation and providing a transportation system design to increase the efficiency of travel wherever possible. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 13. GOAL 14 – URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments will not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan provisions adopted to preserve the distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and programs that provide for more efficient urban uses within the UGB, thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. Accordingly, the amendments comply with Goal 14. GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The Willamette River Greenway area with the Urban Growth Boundary is governed by existing local provisions that have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those provisions will be unchanged 5 by the amendments. The amendments will not change TransPlan’s and the Metro Plan’s provisions related to the protection and maintenance of the scenic, historical, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River. Further, the amendments will not affect TransPlan’s and the Metro Plan’s compliance with Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 15. GOALS 16-19 – COASTAL GOALSEstuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelines, Beaches and : ( Dunes, and Ocean Resources) There are no estuarine resources, shorelines, beaches, dunes, or ocean resources located within the Metro Plan or TransPlan boundary. Accordingly, Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 are not applicable. Criterion B. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The region covered by TransPlan is the “TransPlan Study Area”, which is an area extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes. TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of a projected population of 296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area. When TransPlan was updated in 2001, it was anticipated that the TransPlan Study Area’s population would reach 296,500 in 2015. It is now anticipated that the TransPlan Study Area’s population will not reach 296,500 until approximately 2027. Since the transportation modeling for the TransPlan Study Area was based on a projected population of 296,500, TransPlan guides regional and transportation system planning and development in the Transportation Study Area until 2027. The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. While the proposed TransPlan amendments necessitate that the text of the Metro Plan’s Transportation Element be amended to ensure internal consistency of the Metro Plan; these needed Metro Plan text amendments are proposed along with the TransPlan amendments. Together, the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and to TransPlan are consistent with each other and the other provisions of the Metro Plan. Additionally, the amendments are consistent with applicable Metro Plan findings and policies; specific findings and policies being discussed below. B. Economic Element B.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy B.18. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s project lists identify the following transportations projects as having been completed: Jasper Road Extension, Project No. 66 (Construct 4-lane arterial); Pioneer Parkway Extension, Project No. 768 (Construct 4-5 lane minor arterial); Beltline Highway, Project No. 409 (Widening to 4 lanes, construction of Roosevelt extension). F. Transportation Element 6 F.4 Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit residential development. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.4. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s project lists identify the following transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects as having been completed: Expansion of Glenwood [Bus] Operating Base, Project 1320 (expansion of existing operation and maintenance); Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction of transfer station and park-and-ride lot); th LCC Station Expansion, Project No. 1125 (expansion of LCC station); 11 and Beltline Station, Project No. 1340 (construction of transfer station); Gateway and Beltline Station, Project No. 1350 (construction nd of transfer station); Springfield Station, Project No. 1355 (construction of new transit station); 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, Project No. 423 (multi-use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi-use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi-use path). F.9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital Investment Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy. The proposed amendments to the project lists contained in TransPlan will be adopted by reference into the Metro Plan, demonstrating consistency with this policy. F.18 Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system’s accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for all users, include the transportation disadvantaged population. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.18. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s project lists identify the following transit projects as having been completed: Expansion of Glenwood Operating Base, Project 1320 (expansion of existing operation and maintenance); Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction of transfer station and park-and-ride lot); LCC Station Expansion, Project No. th 1125 (expansion of LCC station); 11 and Beltline Station, Project No. 1340 (construction of transfer station); Gateway and Beltline Station, Project No. 1350 (construction of transfer station); Springfield Station, Project No. 1355 (construction of new transit station) F.21 Expand the Park-and-Ride system within the metropolitan area and nearby communities. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.21. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s project lists identify the following park-and-ride project as having been completed: Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction of transfer station and park-and-ride lot). F.22 Construct and improve the region’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.22. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s nd project lists identify the following bicycle projects as having been completed: 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, 7 Project No. 423 (multi-use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi- use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi-use path). F.26 Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.26. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s nd project lists identify the following pedestrian and bicycle projects as having been completed: 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, Project No. 423 (multi-use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi-use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi-use path). F.27 Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points. The amendments to TransPlan’s project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.27. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan’s nd project lists identify the following pedestrian projects as having been completed: 42 Street Pathway, Project No. 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2, Project No. 423 (multi-use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660 (multi- use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi-use path). CONCLUSION The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Eugene Land Us Code OR Springfield Development Code OR Lane County Code. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable Metro Plan policies as discussed in these findings. 8 00223443.DOC;1 00223286.DOC;1 9 öÍÊ×ÙÛÉÈì×ÊÓÍØ ÷ÇÕ×Î×ùÓÈÃÍÎÐÃ éÌÊÓÎÕÖÓ×ÐØÙÓÈÃÍÎÐÃ ÷ÇÕ×Î×çÊÚÛÎûÊ×Û éÌÊÓÎÕÖÓ×ÐØçÊÚÛÎûÊ×Û èÍÈÛÐ÷ÇÕ×Î× èÍÈÛÐéÌÊÓÎÕÖÓ×ÐØ èÍÈÛÐ÷ÇÕ×Î× éÌÊÓÎÕÖÓ×ÐØï×ÈÊÍûÊ×Û éÍÇÊÙ×ðÛÎ×ùÍÇÎÈÃíÊØÓÎÛÎÙ× ATTACHMENT D NAME OF MEETING: Joint Elected Officials—Eugene, Springfield, Lane County M I N U T E S EXCERPT Joint Elected Officials Eugene and Springfield City Councils, Lane Board of County Commissioners Bascom-Tykeson—Eugene Public Library Eugene, Oregon June 17, 2010 Noon PRESENT: Eugene City Council: Mayor Kitty Piercy, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, George Brown, members. Springfield City Council: Mayor Sid Leiken, Hillary Wylie, Dave Ralston, Christine Lundberg, Terri Leezer, Joe Pishioneri, Fred Simmons, members. Board of County Commissioners: Bill Fleenor, Peter Sorenson, Faye Stewart, Rob Handy. ABSENT: Eugene City Council: Jennifer Solomon, member. Board of County Commissioners: Bill Dwyer, member. Also present were County Administrator Jeff Spartz, Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz, Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Tom Boyatt, Springfield, Lane County Counsel Steven Vorhees, Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe, Lane County Planner Celia Barry, Marsha Miller, Lane County; Kurt Yeiter, Katheryn Brotherton, Mike Sullivan, Lisa Gardner, Beth Forrest, Kris Bloch, City of Eugene; Jamon Kent, Ann Mortenson, Lane Council of Governments. Mayor Leiken called the meeting of the Springfield City Council to order. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. As Board Chair Bill Fleenor had not yet arrived, Board Vice Chair Rob Handy convened the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners and reviewed the Lane County file numbers for the items under consideration. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing on behalf of Eugene. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing on behalf of Springfield. Mr. Handy opened the public hearing on behalf of Lane County. Mr. Yeiter provided the staff report. He recalled that in 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted a new federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which triggered State transportation planning rules that the area adopt findings of consistency between TransPlan and the RTP, or amend TransPlan to become consistent with the RTP. The MPC chose to amend TransPlan. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 1 City of Eugene Planner Kurt Yeiter reported that staff presented a multi-year work program to the Land Conservation and Development Commission, which adopted the work plan in 2008. The work plan was attached to the packet as Attachment B. Mr. Yeiter said one of the first amendments requested was to remove completed projects from the project list so it would better matched the RTP, and to update the planning horizon year to 2027 to reflect the reality of slower growth than anticipated. The ordinance before the elected officials include an amendment to extend the planning horizon, an amendment to amend the project list by removing completed projects, and an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) so it reflected the same information as TransPlan. Mr. Yeiter recalled that the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) agreed to open up the process to allow new evidence in the form of the County’s coordinated population estimate to be brought into the record. He invited questions, and indicated no action was expected at that time. Mayor Piercy noted no one had signed up to speak for the public hearing. She solicited questions from the Eugene council. Mr. Zelenka said the West Eugene Parkway project kept appearing in the document and he was concerned that it was still in TransPlan, particularly since it had been removed from the RTP. He said it made no sense to include it in TransPlan, and had asked if it could be removed in this process as well. However, he had encountered numerous legal hoops in that endeavor. He had learned that the elected officials could amend the description to indicate it had been removed from the RTP and all the funding for construction had been deleted from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and there was no funding for construction. There being no objection, Mayor Piercy closed the record and public hearing on behalf of Eugene. Mayor Leiken closed the record and public hearing on behalf of Springfield. Mr. Handy solicited comments or questions from the Board of County Commissioners. There were none. Mr. Handy referred to the work plan, and suggested it was the blueprint guiding staff efforts and the decisions of elected officials. He believed that it was clear, but progress toward completing the enumerated tasks was less so. He did not think the staff-provided materials clarified what work plan tasks had been completed, which were partially complete and the percentage completed, what remained to be accomplished, and the timeline for doing so, if different from the stated deadline. Continuing, Mr. Handy said the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) conditions associated with the work plan had not been provided to the JEO. There seemed to be no analysis or consideration of actual on-the-ground progress in the packet of proposed TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments, and the area did not seem to be on schedule, according to the work plan. As an example of the lack of analysis or consideration of on-the-ground progress, Mr. Handy said the amendments failed to speak to what, if any, progress had been made toward benchmarks and the LCDC- approved Alternative Performance Measures as a result of implementation of planned projects and development patterns. Instead, the planning goals identified for 2015 were merely pushed out 12 years to 2027. He said if the projects and development patterns realized over the past 15 years had not gotten the community where it wanted to be, there should be analysis of that. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Handy said that projects removed from the financially-constrained lists were not accounted for in the bottom line financial constraint of each project’s category. He asked why the information provided did not include the adjusted subtotals and totals and the adjustments to the completed project costs that differed from projected project costs. He asked that those differences be accounted for throughout the document. Mr. Handy asked if by leaving out an analysis of financial constraint for the year 2027, staff was implying that the reasonable expectation for funding for highway, local road, transit, pedestrian, and bike projects through 2027 would be the same as originally expected for the year 2015. If not, why was there no analysis of financial constraint out to the year 2027? Mr. Handy then spoke to TransPlan, Exhibit A, Ordinance 1272, saying that the only work that appeared to have been done on the TransPlan update was editing, such as changing the plan horizon year from 2015 to 2027, some text revisions to recognize the change to two separate urban growth boundaries, and new text noting consistency between TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He questioned how the trends expected for the year 2015, in a plan adopted in 1995, could remain unchanged out to 2027, and asked for the analysis to support that assumption. Mayor Piercy raised a process question about the fact that Mr. Handy’s remarks had occurred following action to close the record by Eugene and Springfield. Ms. Brotherton said that given the fact the record had been closed by Eugene and Springfield, there would be two separate and different records. Mr. Yeiter suggested the elected officials could proceed with the amendments, and staff could address the questions raised by Mr. Handy in a later phase of the process. Ms. Brotherton said the staff responses to those questions could not be a basis for the elected officials’ decision on the ordinance in question. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to reopen the record on behalf of Eugene; the motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Ms. Leezer, seconded by Mr. Pishioneri, moved to reopen the record on behalf of Springfield. The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Ralston and Mr. Simmons voting no. Continuing, Mr. Handy spoke to the Department of Land Conservation and Development-approved (DLCD) Alternative Performance Measures Per Work plan (Attachment B), recalling that the first, second, and fourth quarters of 2009, were expected to address the DLCD-approved Alternative Performance Measures. He did not recollect that work had been completed, adding that if it was, or was in progress, staff should provide the JEO with a hard-copy report on the status of the Alternative Performance Measures. He asked if the measures needed to be adjusted and, if so, why? He asked if the metropolitan area was going to be able to meet the benchmarks and wondered where the analysis of that question was. He wanted to know what the area would do differently between now and 2027 if it was not on track. Mr. Handy said that performance measures were tied to project implementation, and many of the projects scheduled to be completed by 2015 had been completed, so he questioned how future trends projected for 2015 could be the same as expectations for 2027, 12 years beyond that date. Mr. Handy did not think that Lane Transit District (LTD) bus route status changes had been considered, nor had implementation of bus rapid transit in Springfield or between Eugene and Springfield. He requested an explanation. Mr. Handy questioned the lack of a staff report regarding the impact of mixed-use centers on the plan's performance thus far. He asked what the cities were doing, if they needed to do better, and if there had been any progress toward addressing the TransPlan Alternative Performance Measures and TransPlan goals. He asked “Where is the full analysis of all of this?” MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Handy indicated he would submit his written remarks into the record. Mr. Handy closed the hearing on behalf of Lane County. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing on behalf of the City of Eugene. Mayor Leiken closed the hearing on behalf of the City of Springfield. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved that the Eugene City Council record be held open to accept the staff responses to Mr. Handy’s questions. Ms. Ortiz determined from Mr. Yeiter that Lane County staff would respond to Mr. Handy’s questions. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Simmons, seconded by Ms. Wylie, moved that the Springfield City Council record be held open to accept the staff responses to Mr. Handy’s questions. The motion passed unanimously 6:0. Mr. Fleenor arrived and assumed the chairmanship of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Fleenor read the ordinance for the first time. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Handy, moved the first reading, setting the second reading for July 7, 2010, for Ordinance PA 1272, leaving the record open until July 7. The motion passed, 4:0. **** Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz, City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County & Eugene June 17, 2010 Page 4 Lane County ûèèûùôï÷îè÷ Public Works Department / Transportation Planning Division 3040 North Delta Hwy. / Eugene, Oregon 97408 Phone: 541-682-6936/ fax: 541-682-8554 June 28, 2010 Supplementary Memo 1 for July 7, 2010 Work Session First Reading and Public Hearing: June 17, 2010 Second Reading: July 7, 2010 TO: Board of County Commissioners DEPARTMENT:Public Works PRESENTED BY: Celia Barry, Transportation Planning Division AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ordinance PA 1272/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to Adjust the Planning Period from Year 2015 to Year 2027, to Remove Completed Projects from the Project Lists, to make Related Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, and Adopting a Severability Clause. On June 17, 2010 the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Joint Elected Officials held a public hearing on the above matter. Commissioner Handy submitted comments into the public hearing record, after which the public hearing was closed and the record was left open for staff responses. The Board of Commissioners moved to approve a second reading on July 7, 2010. Responses to Commissioner Handy’s Comments and Questions at the June 17, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing are as follows: Comment 1: Í¬¿®¬·²¹©·¬¸¬¸»©±®µ°´¿²·¬·¬¸»¾´«»°®·²¬º±®¬¸»¬¿ºº»ºº±®¬¿²¼ »´»½¬»¼±ºº·½·¿´¼»½··±²¼±©²¬¸»®±¿¼òÌ¸»©±®µ°´¿²·½´»¿®ô¾«¬¬¸» °®±¹®»¬±©¿®¼½±³°´»¬·²¹¬¸»»²«³»®¿¬»¼¬¿µ·´»±ò Ì¸»¬¿ºº³¿¬»®·¿´ô·²½´«¼·²¹¬¸»î°¿¹»©±®µ°®±¹®¿³øß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬Þ÷ô¼±²±¬ ½´¿®·º§©¸·½¸©±®µ°´¿²¬¿µ¿®»½±³°´»¬»ô©¸·½¸¿®»°¿®¬·¿´´§½±³°´»¬»ø©¸¿¬ û½±³°´»¬»÷ô©¸¿¬®»³¿·²¬±¾»¼±²»¿²¼¬¸»¿½¬«¿´¬·³»´·²»ø·º¼·ºº»®»²¬ º®±³¬¸»¬¿¬»¼¬·³»´·²»÷º±®¼±·²¹±òÌ¸»ÔÝÜÝ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿±½·¿¬»¼©·¬¸¬¸»©±®µ°´¿²¿®»²±¬°®±ª·¼»¼òÌ¸»°¿½µ»¬±º°®±°±»¼ Ì®¿²Ð´¿²¿²¼Ó»¬®±Ð´¿²¿³»²¼³»²¬¿®»»»³·²¹´§©·¬¸±«¬¿²§¿²¿´§·±® ½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²±º¿½¬«¿´±²¬¸»¹®±«²¼°®±¹®»¬¸«º¿®ô²±®¼±©»¿°°»¿®¬± ¾»ù±²½¸»¼«´»ù¿½½±®¼·²¹¬±¬¸»©±®µ°´¿²ò Response 1: The purpose of this agenda item is to remove completed projects from Transplan, and adjust the plan horizon. Work plan progress reporting is not the purpose of this agenda item, although progress is briefly discussed on page 5 of 6 of the Board Agenda Cover Memo, as folllows: Work Plan Progress The Work Plan requires as early, interim steps in the overall update process that the local jurisdictions amend TransPlan in the following ways: (1) delete transportation projects that have been completed; (2) delete the West Eugene Parkway; (3) move four ODOT projects from the Future list to the Financially Constrained list; and, (4) adjust TransPlan’s planning period to be better reflective of actual population. A copy of the Work Plan is attached to this Agenda Cover Memo as Attachment B. The shift of four ODOT projects from the Future projects list to the Financially Constrained list has been accomplished through a separate land use process. The removal of the West Eugene Parkway will be considered during development of the Eugene Transportation System Plan at a later date because it will require additional analysis and findings, as yet uncompleted, with regard to the transportation needs the WEP was to address. It is county staff’s understanding that this analysis is being done as part of the city’s comprehensive land use and transportation planning effort, currently underway. Attached is a draft, updated time line of Eugene and Springfield long range transportation system planning. Other related transportation planning efforts are also shown. This updated time line was distributed as part of item 5.d. for the June 10, 2010 Metropolitan Policy Committee meeting. The City of Springfield is scheduled to join the Board of County Commissioners at a County work session on July 6 at 1:30. The City can update the Board on its progress on Long Range Transportation System Planning at that meeting. Comment 2: Û¨¿³°´»±º´¿½µ±º¿²¿´§·±®½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²±º±²¬¸»¹®±«²¼°®±¹®»æ òïë§»¿®±ºÌ®¿²Ð´¿²¸¿ª»°¿»¼ô¸·¹¸©¿§ô®±¿¼ô°»¼ñ¾·µ»¿²¼ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼°®±¶»½¬¸¿ª»¾»»²¾«·´¬ô¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°¿¬¬»®²¸¿ª»½¸¿²¹»¼ø±® ²±¬÷§»¬¬¸»°®±°±»¼¿³»²¼³»²¬¿§²±¬¸·²¹¿¾±«¬©¸¿¬ô·º¿²§ô°®±¹®» ¸¿¾»»²®»¿´·¦»¼¬±©¿®¼¾»²½¸³¿®µ¿²¼ÔÝÜÝ¿°°®±ª»¼ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»Ð»®º±®³¿²½» Ó»¿«®»¬¸®±«¹¸·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²±º°´¿²²»¼°®±¶»½¬¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°¿¬¬»®²å ®¿¬¸»®ô©¸»®»©»©»®»ù°´¿²²»¼¬±¾»ù·²îðïë·³»®»´§°«¸»¼±«¬ïî§»¿®¬± îðîéòÛª»²·º°»®¸¿°¬¸»°®±¶»½¬¿²¼¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°¿¬¬»®²®»¿´·¦»¼±ª»®¬¸» ©¸»®»©»¿·¼©»©¿²¬»¼¬±¾»òÉ¸»®» °¿¬ïë§»¿®¸¿ª»²ù¬¾»»²¹»¬¬·²¹«¬± ·¬¸»¿²¿´§·±º¿´´±º¬¸·á Response 2: Please see Attachment E of the Joint Elected Officials materials for the June 17, 2010 public hearing. It is an April 7, 2009 Memorandum responding to Planning Commission comments. In the staff reponse to Question 1, the following information is provided: . . . The current amendment reflects the actual growth rate of recent years and the growth rate projection prepared for Eugene and Springfield using “safe harbor” methodology. This methodology is satisfactory to ODOT and DLCD at this juncture . . . A more robust calibration will occur towards the end of the multiyear work plan, when a new Regional Transportation System Plan is adopted, one that will incorporate information from the two cities’ buildable lands assessments now underway. . . [Note, staff adjusted the horizon year for TransPlan and the Metro Plan to 2027 from 2024, based upon Lane County’s adopted coordinated population PA 1272: TransPlan Completed Projects and Horizon Year Update Page 2 of 4 forecast. The Planning Commissions unanimously recommended adoption of the adjusted horizon year.] Comment 3: òÐ®±¶»½¬®»³±ª»¼º®±³¬¸»º·²¿²½·¿´´§½±²¬®¿·²»¼´·¬¿®»²ù¬ ¿½½±«²¬»¼º±®·²¬¸»¾±¬¬±³´·²»º·²¿²½·¿´½±²¬®¿·²¬±º»¿½¸°®±¶»½¬ ½¿¬»¹±®§òÉ¸»®»¿®»¬¸»¿¼¶«¬»¼«¾¬±¬¿´¿²¼¬±¬¿´áÉ¸»®»¿®»¬¸» ¿¼¶«¬³»²¬¬±¬¸»½±³°´»¬»¼°®±¶»½¬½±¬ô¬¸¿¬¿®»¼·ºº»®»²¬º®±³¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼°®±¶»½¬½±¬áÌ¸»»º·²·¸»¼°®±¶»½¬¹»²»®¿´´§½±³»·²¸·¹¸»®±® ´±©»®¬¸¿²¬¸»»¬·³¿¬»¼½±¬òÐ´»¿»¿½½±«²¬º±®¬¸·¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬¬¸» ¼±½«³»²¬ò Response 3: The Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Policy Committee in November 2007 contains the official, federally required Financially Constrained Project list. The request to adjust project costs is beyond the scope of this LCDC and Joint Elected Official-approved work program item. This item is an interim step toward comprehensive long range planning efforts currently underway and is not, nor is it meant to be, a comprehensive planning undertaking. A financially constrained list is not required by the state Transportation Planning Rule. When the cities of Eugene and Springfield adopt separate Transportation System Plans, this artifact is likely to be deleted entirely from their respective documents. Comment 4: Þ§´»¿ª·²¹±«¬¿²¿²¿´§·±ºº·²¿²½·¿´½±²¬®¿·²¬º±®¬¸»§»¿®îðîéô·¬¿ºº ·³°´§·²¹¬¸¿¬¬¸»®»¿±²¿¾´»»¨°»½¬¿¬·±²º±®º«²¼·²¹º±®¸·¹¸©¿§ñ´±½¿´ ®±¿¼ñ¬®¿²·¬ñ°»¼¿²¼¾·µ»°®±¶»½¬¬¸®±«¹¸îðîé©·´´¾»¬¸»¿³»¿ ±®·¹·²¿´´§»¨°»½¬»¼º±®¬¸»§»¿®îðïëá×º²±¬ô©¸§·¬¸»®»²±¿²¿´§·±º º·²¿²½·¿´½±²¬®¿·²¬±«¬¬±¬¸»§»¿®îðîéá Response 4: No. The financially constrained list in the Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Policy Committee in November 2007 is the offical, federally required financially constrained list. Updating it is not required as part of this interim step. Comment 5: ÌÎßÒÍÐÔßÒøÛÈØ×Þ×ÌßÑÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛïîéî÷ Ì¸»±²´§©±®µ¬¸¿¬¿°°»¿®¬±¸¿ª»¾»»²¼±²»±²¬¸»Ì®¿²Ð´¿²«°¼¿¬»· »¼·¬·²¹½¸¿²¹·²¹¬¸»°´¿²¸±®·¦±²§»¿®º®±³îðïë¬±îðîéô±³»´¿²¹«¿¹» »¼·¬¬±®»½±¹²·¦»¬¸»½¸¿²¹»¬±î»°¿®¿¬»Ë®¾¿²Ù®±©¬¸Þ±«²¼¿®·»øËÙÞ÷ô²»© ´¿²¹«¿¹»²±¬·²¹½±²·¬»²½§¾»¬©»»²Ì®¿²Ð´¿²¿²¼¬¸»Î»¹·±²¿´Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² Ð´¿²øÎÌÐ÷ò×¼±²±¬«²¼»®¬¿²¼¸±©ô±®¾»´·»ª»¬¸¿¬ô¬®»²¼»¨°»½¬»¼º±®¬¸» §»¿®îðïë©¸»²¬¸»°´¿²©¿¿¼±°¬»¼·²ïççë©·´´®»³¿·²«²½¸¿²¹»¼±«¬¬±îðîéò É¸»®»·¬¸»¿²¿´§·¬±«°°±®¬¬¸·¸«¹»¿«³°¬·±²á Response 5: It is correct that this amendment is, and is intended to be, largely an interim housekeeping action. Analysis of trends is being done as part of the comprehensive planning updates underway in Eugene and Springfield. Emerging trends and issues are being addressed in those processes. Comment 6: ÜÔÝÜ¿°°®±ª»¼ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»Ð»®º±®³¿²½»Ó»¿«®»Ð»®É±®µ°´¿²øß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬Þ÷ô ¬¸»ï¬ôî²¼¿²¼ì¬¸¯«¿®¬»®±ºîððç©»®»»¨°»½¬»¼¬±¿¼¼®»¬¸»ÜÔÝÜ ¿°°®±ª»¼ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»Ð»®º±®³¿²½»Ó»¿«®»ò×¼±²ù¬®»½¿´´¬¸¿¬¬¸·©±®µ¸¿ ¾»»²½±³°´»¬»¼ò PA 1272: TransPlan Completed Projects and Horizon Year Update Page 3 of 4 ×º·¬¸¿ô±®··²°®±¹®»ô¬¿ºº¸±«´¼°®±ª·¼»«©·¬¸¿¸¿®¼½±°§®»°±®¬ ±²¬¸»¬¿¬«±º¬¸»ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»Ð»®º±®³¿²½»Ó»¿«®»ò Ü±¬¸»§²»»¼¬±¾»¿¼¶«¬»¼á×º±ô©¸§áß®»©»±²¬®¿½µ¬±©¿®¼³»»¬·²¹¬¸» ¿®»¹±·²¹¬± ¾»²½¸³¿®µáß²¼©¸»®»·¬¸»¿²¿´§·±º¬¸»¯«»¬·±²áß²¼©¸¿¬ ¼±¼·ºº»®»²¬´§¾»¬©»»²²±©¿²¼îðîé·º©»¿®»²±¬±²¬®¿½µá Response 6: Local jurisdictions from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area are scheduled to report to the Land Conservation and Development Commission at the LCDC July 21-23, 2010 meeting in Salem. Staff are in the process of finalizing the Alternative Performance Measures report in cooperation with the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Comment 7: òÐ»®º±®³¿²½»³»¿«®»¿®»¬·»¼¬±°®±¶»½¬·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²·ò»æ °®±¶»½¬½¸»¼«´»¼¬±¾»½±³°´»¬»¼¾§îðïëø±®·¹·²¿´´§÷å¯«·¬»¿º»©±º¬¸»³ ø´¿®¹»¿²¼³¿´´÷¸¿ª»¾»»²½±³°´»¬»¼ô±¸±©½¿²º«¬«®»¬®»²¼°®±¶»½¬»¼º±® îðïë¾»¬¸»¿³»¿»¨°»½¬¿¬·±²º±®îðîéôïî§»¿®¾»§±²¼îðïëáÐ´»¿» »¨°´¿·²á òÔÌÜ¾«®±«¬»¬¿¬«½¸¿²¹»¸¿ª»²±¬¾»»²½±²·¼»®»¼²±®¸¿ ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±²±ºÞÎÌ·²Í°®·²¹º·»´¼ô±®¾»¬©»»²Û«¹»²»¿²¼Í°®·²¹º·»´¼ò Ð´»¿»»¨°´¿·²á òÉ¸»®»·¬¸»¬¿ºº®»°±®¬®»¹¿®¼·²¹·³°¿½¬±º²±¼¿´¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ø³·¨»¼ «»½»²¬»®÷±²¬¸»°´¿²ù°»®º±®³¿²½»¬¸«º¿®½±²·¼»®·²¹¬¸»°´¿²¸±®·¦±² îðïëá±²´§ë§»¿®±«¬å¼±¬¸»½·¬·»²»»¼¬±¼± ø±®·¹·²¿´°´¿²¸±®·¦±²÷©¿ ¾»¬¬»®áÉ¸¿¬¿®»¬¸»½·¬·»¼±·²¹áØ¿¬¸»®»¾»»²¿²§°®±¹®»¬±©¿®¼ ¿¼¼®»·²¹¬¸»Ì®¿²Ð´¿²ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»Ð»®º±®³¿²½»Ó»¿«®»¿²¼Ì®¿²Ð´¿² ¹±¿´áÉ¸»®»·¬¸»º«´´¿²¿´§·±º¿´´±º¬¸·á Response 7: The above requested information is beyond the scope of this item. In addition, please see Response 6 above regarding Alternative Performance Measures. Attachment Regional Transportation Work Plan and GHG Planning Calendar PA 1272: TransPlan Completed Projects and Horizon Year Update Page 4 of 4