Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, Oregon 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m.) 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:40 a.m. II. DELIBERATIONS: EUGENE 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Lead Staff: Rob Inerfeld, 541-682-5343 rob.b.inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us Kathryn Brotherton, 541-682-5344 kathryn.brotherton@ci.eugene.or.us 1:15 p.m. III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Commission B. Other Items from Staff C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Vice Chair); John Jaworski; Jeffrey Mills; Brianna Nicolello; William Randall; Kristen Taylor (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Memorandum Date: September 20, 2016 Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 TO: Eugene Planning Commission FROM: Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager Kathryn Brotherton, Deputy City Attorney Julia Kuhn, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. SUBJECT: Deliberations and Potential Action on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System, Corresponding Metro Plan, TransPlan and Chapter 9 amendments, Street Classification Map amendments, Ordinance No. 20528 amendment, and repeal of the Central Area Transportation Study. City of Eugene (City File No. s CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) ACTION REQUESTED: To deliberate on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) and corresponding amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Area Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Eugene-Springfield Transportation Plan (TransPlan), concurrent amendments to the Eugene Code, amendments to Eugene’s Street Classification Map, an amendment to Ordinance No. 20528 and repeal of Eugene’s Central Area Transportation Study and to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding these proposed actions. BRIEFING STATEMENT: For Eugene’s transportation planning area, the 2035 TSP updates and replaces TransPlan’s (2002) goals, policies, and list of projects that describe how local transportation networks should change to accommodate growth, improve livability, and support economic vitality within the Eugene urban and airport areas. The 2035 TSP is coordinated and consistent with the Airport Master Plan, Lane Transit District’s Long Range Transit Plan, the Regional Transportation Options Plan, Springfield’s TSP, Lane County’s TSP update, the Oregon Highway Plan, the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan and other plans. PLANNING COMMISSION QUESTIONS Below are staff’s responses to the Planning Commission’s questions and comments that Commissioners provided at the Planning Commission’s July 18, 2016, work session. 1. What process would the City follow to remove on-street parking that was approved as part of a PUD, specifically, parking that was approved as part of the Crescent Village PUD on Shadow View Drive? Even though Shadow View Drive is located within an approved PUD, it is a public street; thus, the removal of on-street parking from Shadow View Drive would follow the process set forth in Eugene Code Chapter 5 (that process described in more detail in the AIS for the Planning Commission’s July 18, 2016, meeting). The twenty-five criteria in EC 5.055 that the City’s Traffic Engineer must consider when taking action to City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 1 1 of 12 remove on-street parking include the physical condition and characteristics of the street and abutting property, the impact on nearby commercial uses, and the availability of other parking spaces. In addition to the code-established process and criteria for removing on-street parking, when considering whether to remove on-street parking or make other modifications to the existing street design, the Public Works Department undertakes a robust public outreach effort to engage and gain feedback from the public, stakeholders, adjacent residents and businesses. These outreach efforts allow the City staff to understand all of the potential impacts associated with physical changes to the street, including on-street parking. The proposed amendments to Eugene’s Street Classification map identify the re-designation of Shadow View Drive from Local Street to Neighborhood Collector (both of which allow on-street parking); however, there is no proposal to make any design changes to Shadow View Drive or to remove parking along Shadow View Drive nor are there any proposals to make changes to the design of other streets that are also proposed for re-designation. 2. Prioritize safety in the 2035 TSP and provide additional information in the 2035 TSP regarding Vision Zero. The proposed 2035 TSP includes information about Vision Zero and the official policy set by the City Council that no loss of life or serious injury on our transportation system is acceptable. To expand on the Vision Zero information currently in the 2035 TSP, staff recommends the following addition to the 2035 TSP (additional text shown underlined): “In November, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5143 setting as official policy for the City the Vision Zero goal that no loss of life or serious injury on our transportation system is acceptable. In its resolution, the City Council explicitly gave its support to “efforts by the City of Eugene and our regional partner agencies to prioritize safety improvements for people walking, bicycling, and using mobility devices” and to “efforts by the City of Eugene and our regional partners to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our transportation system, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable users.” Each of the planned projects advance, in some way, the Vision Zero goal by improving the safety of the subject transportation facility for the users. In addition to the many bicycle and pedestrian projects that will improve the user’s safety, such as the grade separated path/sidewalk projects and the protected bike lane projects, proposed improvements to our current roadways will also advance user safety goals. For example, the complete street upgrade projects will improve the roadway for all users and the adoption and construction of the Randy Papé Highway Facility Plan recommendations for improvements to the Randy Papé Beltline Highway and Delta Highway will improve the safety of those facilities, both of which have segments identified by ODOT as having Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) scores in the top 10 percent. (ODOT’s SPIS score is based on crash rate, frequency and severity over the prior three years). In all, implementation of the 2035 TSP will result in improved safety from crashes, safer sidewalks and bike facilities, slower vehicular speeds, and better pedestrian crossings on busy streets. Regarding the prioritization of safety in the 2035 TSP’s goals, policies and actions items, as proposed, safety is a key element of the 2035 TSP’s first and fourth goals. Those goals state: “Goal 1: Create an integrated transportation system that is safe and efficient; supports the Metro Plan’s land use diagram, Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032 (2012), the City of Eugene’s target for a 50 percent reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and other City land use and economic development goals; reduces reliance on single‐occupancy automobiles; and enhances community livability.” City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 2 2 of 12 “Goal 4: Address the transportation needs and safety of all travelers, including people of all ages, abilities, races, ethnicities, and incomes. Through transportation investments, respond to the needs of system users, be context sensitive, and distribute the benefits and impacts of transportation decisions fairly throughout the City.” Additionally, safety is a primary component of more than 10 policies and more than 20 potential action items. Regarding Vision Zero, specifically, the 2035 TSP includes the following system-wide policy: “Consider safety first when making transportation decisions. Strive for zero transportation‐related fatalities and severe injuries by reducing the number and severity of crashes through design, operations, maintenance, education, and enforcement. Prioritize safety improvements for people who walk, bike and use mobility devices because no loss of life or serious injury on our streets is acceptable.” Better Eugene-Springfield Transit (BEST) submitted testimony regarding Vision Zero’s role in the 2035 TSP and requested that a separate Vision Zero Action Plan be developed. City staff, with our regional partners, have already begun the process for developing a Vision Zero Action Plan. To support this process, the City has formed two committees related to Vision Zero – the Vision Zero Task Force and the Vision Zero Technical Advisory Committee. The Vision Zero Task Force will guide the Eugene Vision Zero Action Plan. Members will work together to guide the development of the Plan's goals, policies, actions and performance measures. Individuals serving on the Task Force will act as liaisons to the communities, organizations, and agencies they represent. They will be the driving force necessary to help carry out the Vision Zero Action Plan so that our community will achieve a goal of zero transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries. The Vision Zero Technical Advisory Committee will offer technical expertise in areas including, but not limited to engineering, community education, enforcement, data collection and analysis. TAC members will also help answer questions and provide information to the Task Force. Regarding the request to revise the above-quoted TSP policy to include specific deadlines for adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan, a completion date for the Vision Zero Action Plan is more appropriate for the 2035 TSP’s action items than a policy statement. To that end, staff recommend the following potential action item be added to the 2035 TSP: “By July 2017, complete a Vision Zero Action Plan to achieve the goal of zero transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries by a target date recommended by the Vision Zero Task Force.” 3. Explain how the Complete Streets policy will be implemented. While there will be a variety of post-TSP adoption actions that will further the Complete Streets policy, an update to the City’s current Design Standards and Guidelines will be the primary way in which the City will implement the Complete Streets policy. This update is already underway and will be completed during 2017. An action item in the 2035 TSP describes this primary implementation measure as follows: “Update the Eugene Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways to implement the “complete streets policy” by:  Recognizing these attributes as integral parts of the planning, design, and programming for public streets and rights‐of‐way: - The safety for those traveling in the public right‐of‐way, including the most vulnerable people of all ages and abilities. - The convenience of all users of the transportation system. City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 3 3 of 12  - The importance of making walking and biking the most efficient, convenient, safe, and comfortable method of travel for trips of up to half a mile and up to 2 miles, respectively. - Adopted plans that state a preference for a mode of travel in a specific location, such as transit in Frequent Transit Corridors, emergency services on Emergency and Fire Response routes, trucks on designated freight routes, and bicycles on facilities described in Chapter 5. - Balancing traffic flow with the street experience, safety, and needs of other users within the streetscape.  Articulating circumstances that may require that the complete streets policy be achieved incrementally through a sequential series of smaller improvements rather than by incorporating all elements into a single construction project.  Articulating a process for determining when conditions inherent to a specific project may make application of the complete streets policy difficult or superfluous, such as when all modes of travel are adequately served in an area by separate, complementary networks, or where a mode of travel is prohibited.” 4. Better explain LOS and the proposed change from LOS D to E, including an explanation of the reasons for lowering the LOS from D to E and the practical implications of this change. The City of Eugene, like many of the communities throughout Oregon and the nation, are reviewing LOS standards in relation to overall goals and vision, in recognition of the natural and built environment, a prioritization on safety, diminishing capital resources for large transportation projects, and the desired urban land use and transportation context. As part of this review, they are assessing changes to the way LOS is defined and/or measured. These discussions are considering whether the benefits of changing LOS standards outweigh any negative effects on local transportation facilities. From a practical perspective, changing the acceptable LOS to “E” in Eugene is consistent with the TSP policies as well as other City policies and priorities, such as Vision Zero, the Climate Reduction Ordinance, and the efforts of Envision Eugene. In fact, the change helps to create a transportation system that is “on- balance” and supportive of the City’s desired land use vision. Without this change, the TSP would need to include a series of motor vehicle improvements that are fundamentally inconsistent with these priorities and are not fundable nor practical to construct. 5. What are the potential action items that can be added to the Eugene TSP that can address the possible impacts of lowering LOS D to E? There are a number of different actions that the City can take to evaluate and mitigate impacts from lowering the LOS from D to E. Some of those actions are already included in the 2035 TSP, additional potential actions items could include: 1. Provide a higher level of funding for the City’s traffic calming program (it has been funded at $30,000 per year for a long time) so that it can more effectively respond to community concerns about speeding and cut-through traffic. 2. Amend the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis code and administrative rule provisions to expand the measurement of a proposed development’s traffic impacts beyond the level of service City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 4 4 of 12  measurement and, correspondingly, expand potential mitigation measures beyond measures that address only vehicular delay. 3. Require all developments and employers of a certain size and type to prepare and monitor Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. 4. Expand the definition of LOS to include volume-to-capacity ratio, queuing, traffic control changes. 5. Adding a requirement in the Traffic Impact Analysis provisions to require a review of safety at intersections through a comparison of the actual crash rate experienced during the past 3 – 5 years versus the expected crash rate for similar facilities to determine whether improvements may be needed. The city could include the methodology presented in ODOT’s SPR 667 Assessment of Statewide Intersection Safety Performance as well as the Highway Safety Manual methodology. Below are some examples of potential action items currently proposed in the 2035 TSP that can address the possible impacts of lowering LOS D to E.  Develop local metrics that may be applied when the land use and transportation system characteristics would indicate a tendency for a development or area to generate fewer motorized vehicle trips than would be predicted by using national standards, such as for mixed-use development, areas served by frequent transit, and areas with Transportation Demand Management agreements.  Continue to develop the City’s traffic calming program with input from the Fire Department regarding acceptable traffic calming treatments.  Promote transportation demand management programs along the Key Corridors, in downtown, and near the University of Oregon to coordinate the needs and travel options of multiple businesses and residences for purposes of reducing automobile and freight demand at times of peak congestion. These programs could be staffed by either a public agency, a business association, or by training individuals within the affected businesses and housing to perform this work.  Align the City’s land use and parking regulations to encourage walking, biking, and use of public transit; more efficient use of land; and lower transportation and housing costs while accommodating the growth and economic prosperity espoused by the comprehensive land use plan.  Expand methods of providing real‐time traveler information to the public.  Review and update as necessary the Eugene Code and policies for access management and street connectivity standards to enhance safety and operational efficiency for all modes of travel on streets and sidewalks.  Explore methods of describing multimodal levels of service that address the City’s desire for a safe and convenient multimodal transportation system.  Update Eugene’s Traffic Impact Analysis review regulations for new development to include review of walking and biking improvements and connections to nearby networks. City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 5 5 of 12  6. How will accountability to the Eugene TSP be addressed, i.e., monitoring, reporting? Consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals, the City has taken every opportunity to coordinate its long range land use and transportation planning efforts. To that end, transportation-specific monitoring is included in the policies for growth management monitoring that are being prepared as part of the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. The transportation trends proposed to be monitored include vehicle miles traveled, mode split, LTD ridership and commuting trends. Additionally, interwoven throughout the 2035 TSP are ways in which the City anticipates that it will monitor, evaluate and report on its progress toward achieving the 2035 TSP’s goals. Examples of the manner in which the City proposes to hold itself accountable to the goals of the 2035 TSP are set forth in the following 2035 TSP action items:  Articulate a process for implementing the complete streets policy, including responsibilities for decision making, public review, opportunities for appeals of decisions, the means of documenting and justifying decisions, and the collection and reporting of data that allows monitoring the effects of street design changes over time.  Monitor travel time reliability on state and federal freight routes and prioritize improvements to these corridors when chronic delays are projected to become a detriment to regional economic development strategies.  Monitor advancement toward achieving the goals of this plan. Coordinate progress reports with scheduled updates to the Regional Transportation Plan made by the Central Lane MPO. Make progress reports available to the public.  Collect and report crash data for all travel modes and use the data to inform capital and maintenance projects to enhance safety and engineering changes to existing infrastructure.  Prepare an assessment of the City’s current safety efforts, recommendations for actions to take to improve transportation safety, and an implementation plan for those actions. The assessment should include a framework for screening all transportation projects for consistency with adopted policies.  Evaluate City streets for opportunities to lower speed limits when doing so will make the street safer for one or more modes of transportation and not make it less safe for any other mode.  Evaluate and adjust traffic control systems to balance bicycle travel with other modes along strategically chosen bicycle routes. 7. What is the history of Arcadia as it pertains to the City’s removal of the barrier on Arcadia? Over the last 20 years, Eugene Code Chapter 9 has evolved to better reflect the importance and need for an interconnected street system. Since at least 2001, the EC Chapter 9 has included robust street connectivity requirements in which all land use applications must comply. As such, when the newer subdivisions north of Arcadia were developed, the City Code required that the streets be connected. In contrast, the southern section along Arcadia was developed before the city code required such connectivity. City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 6 6 of 12 PUBLIC COMMENT The Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on June 21, 2016, where they received both spoken and written public comment. The public comments received up to June 9, 2016, were included as an attachment to the AIS for the June 21, 2016, public hearing. Additional written comments received after preparation of the public hearing AIS, but prior to the June 21 public hearing, were provided to the Planning Commissions at the June 21 public hearing. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commissions voted to hold the record open until July 8, 2016. The written public testimony received at the June 21 public hearing and before the close of the record on July 8, 2016, was attached to the AIS for the Planning Commission’s July 18, 2016, work sessions (a packet of the June 21 – July 8 public testimony was also distributed to the Planning Commission at the July 19 meeting). More than 60 people provided testimony to the Planning Commission regarding the 2035 TSP. City staff directly responded, via email or on the phone, to many of the individuals that submitted testimony. Staff’s direct written responses were included in the public testimony provided to the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing and during deliberations, the questions asked by the Planning Commission reflect much of the public testimony submitted to the Commission. Accordingly, answers to the Planning Commission’s questions set forth in this AIS (above) as well as the AIS for the Planning Commission’s July 18, 2016, work session, together with staff’s presentation provided to the Commission at the work session, respond to a great deal of the public testimony. Based on the Planning Commission’s discussions and comments as well as the public testimony, staff have compiled a list of recommended revisions to the 2035 TSP. Attachment A to this AIS is the list of recommended revisions to the 2035 TSP. Below is information responsive to questions/issues raised in the public testimony that is not already covered in answers provided by staff or addressed in the findings in support of the 2035 TSP. 1. Testimony submitted by neighborhood groups. A number of neighborhood organizations submitted testimony regarding the draft 2035 TSP. Throughout the drafting of the 2035 TSP, many neighborhood organizations participated regularly in the Transportation Community Resource Group (TCRG), invited City staff to present at their neighborhood meetings, and provided comments, in writing and in person, on the policies, programs and projects that comprise the 2035 TSP. This active engagement shaped the vision, direction and goals articulated in the 2035 TSP, as well as the specific projects. We are pleased that these groups have remained engaged in the 2035 TSP process, as the neighborhood organization perspective is always extremely informative to City staff. Two examples of the thoughtful and extensive feedback that City staff has received can be seen in the comments submitted by the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NeN) and the Santa Clara/River Road (SC/RR) Implementation Planning Team. Representatives from both of these organizations have been active in the TCRG and other TSP activities from the onset. Upon release of the draft 2035 TSP, both organizations submitted recommendations regarding the prioritization and necessity of several specific projects. Public Works staff will be meeting with the two organizations to discuss their specific needs and concerns and the manner in which the 2035 TSP relates to, and can better address, those issues. The meeting with the NeN is scheduled to occur in October. We have not yet scheduled a meeting with the Santa Clara/River Road Implementation Planning Team, but will ensure that this meeting is held prior to City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 7 7 of 12 the City Council hearings on the TSP. The NeN submitted eight specific recommendations regarding the 2035 TSP. Staff anticipate discussing each of the recommendations at the NeN’s October meeting, including the reasons why staff is not recommending that all of the changes be made at this time. Additionally, based on NeN’s recommendations, staff recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to:  Re-categorize Upon Development Project No. UD-18 (North Gilham Road) as a project to be completed within the next 20 years.  Add to the list of Study Projects shown in Table 5.6 a project to analyze options to address congestion and local connectivity needs in the vicinity of the Coburg Road/Beltline Highway interchange. The SC/RR Implementation Planning Team also submitted a number of recommended revisions to the 2035 TSP. Based on their recommendations, staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to:  Add a policy to reflect that, prior to moving forward with a project, staff will consider a neighborhood’s character (the built and the natural environment) and public input regarding design and practicality of a proposed project.  Revise Study Project No. S-9 (NE Expressway) to state: “Study opportunities to improve the safety and functionality of Northwest Expressway as a major arterial street including by making intersection improvements at the Randy Pape Beltline Highway ramp termini and other locations, by improving signage, and by making other changes to the street.”  Add a potential action item regarding the Railroad Quiet Zone that states: “Work with Lane County to investigate creating a railroad quiet zone that addresses the rail crossings of Irving Road and Irvington Drive.”  Delete the descriptions of the street design cross sections for individual projects identified as Projects to be Completed Upon Development.  Revised Beyond 20 Years Project No. B-2 (Northwest Expressway) to replace the word “freight” with the word “vehicle.” Testimony regarding projects listed in Table 5.5, Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Beyond 20 Years. A number of people submitted testimony opposing the bike and sidewalk projects proposed for Lorane Highway (i.e., PB-29 and PB-323). In light of the fact that these two projects are on the Beyond 20 Years list and in response to public testimony, Staff recommends removing these two projects from the 2035 TSP. 2. Testimony regarding Appendix F (Volume 2), Map of Seven Key Corridors. The Planning Commission received testimony stating that portions of West 11th (from Chambers to Charnelton) should not be identified as part of the West 11th Key Corridor on the Key Corridors Map (Appendix F in Volume 2) because that segment of West 11th has historically been carved out of the West 11th Key Corridor and because, based on the characteristics of the neighborhood, that section of West 11th is not suited as a Key Corridor. Over the last few years, the concept of Key Corridors has been integrated into a number of land use and transportation planning efforts. While the role Key Corridors play in the various planning efforts may differ, generally, the corridors identified as “Key Corridors” has remained consistent, i.e., portions of W 11th Avenue, Highway 99, River Road, 6th and 7th Avenues, Coburg Road, Franklin Boulevard, and South City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 8 8 of 12 Willamette Street. Maps depicting the general location of the Key Corridors have been generated over the last few years. The Key Corridors map included as Appendix F to Volume 2 of the 2035 TSP is less detailed than Key Corridor maps that have been used in other planning efforts. Upon further review, staff have concluded that Appendix F does not provide a sufficiently detailed (and accurate) depiction of the Key Corridors that are described and discussed in the text of the 2035 TSP. To that end, staff recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to either (1) update Appendix F to be consistent with previously published maps of the key corridors (that update to reflect the public testimony regarding the West 11th Key Corridor); or, (2) remove Appendix F from Volume 2 entirely. 3. Testimony submitted by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The letter submitted by DLCD identified five issues, below are responses to each of the issues.  DLCD Comment 1: “OAR 660-012-0020 sets forth the required elements of a TSP and requires that the city, and county, adopt both volumes to meet the requirement of this division. The department recommends that the city and county adopt by ordinance both Volume 1 and 2.” It is unclear which portions of Volume 2 DLCD believes must be adopted as part of the 2035 TSP. Some of the items included in Volume 2 have been previously adopted through a different processes (or by a different jurisdiction) and cannot be re-adopted through the 2035 TSP adoption process. Other items included in Volume 2 are intended to serve as informational items, are not required by OAR 660-012- 0020, and should not be adopted as part of the 2035 TSP. That said, staff recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to revise the adopting ordinance and the introductory language in the 2035 TSP to specifically adopt Appendices A through E in Volume 2 as part of the 2035 TSP.  DLCD Comment 2: “Based on the text of the 2035 TSP, the department is under the assumption that the evaluation of the existing PMs in meeting established benchmarks will occur as part of the update of the Regional Transportation Plan. Depending on the results of that analysis, the 2035 TSP may need to be amended to reflect the results of that analysis which could include new PMs and benchmarks (that would need to be approved by LCDC), new policies and revised implementation measures.” DLCD is correct in its assumption that performance measures approved by LCDC in 2001 will be evaluated as part of Central Lane MPO’s update of the Regional Transportation System Plan. The existing performance measures, and accompanying benchmarks, were approved by LCDC in 2001 as part of TransPlan apply to TransPlan’s geographic planning area (the transportation area zone, TAZ) that consists of Eugene, Springfield, and parts of close-in Lane County. For example, the performance measure and benchmark of 74 priority bikeway miles by 2015 is not a Eugene-only performance measure; rather, the priority bikeway projects adopted as part of TransPlan are located in Eugene, Springfield and rural Lane County. Thus, Eugene is unable to unilaterally report on the status of the performance measures and accompanying benchmarks. Pursuant to OAR 660-012-0035(7), the Central Lane MPO will evaluate Eugene, Springfield and Lane County’s program in meeting the benchmarks when the Central Lane MPO updates its Regional Transportation Plan as the RTSP.  DLCD Comment 3: “Any change to the existing PMs and benchmarks will need to be approved by the LCDC.” As noted above, Eugene cannot provide an analysis and report regarding how the performance measures are currently working for the entire Eugene-Springfield metro area. Regarding the existing performance City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 9 9 of 12 measures and benchmarks, it is not the City’s intent to change the performance measures or benchmark’s approved by LCDC. Rather, pursuant to OAR 660-012-0035(7), the 2035 TSP includes benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress towards meeting LCDC’s approved standards. LCDC’s approved standards (the 6 performance measures) are set forth in Attachment C to the 2035 TSP with new benchmarks for achieving those standards. In light of DLCD’s comment, staff have reevaluated the benchmarks proposed in Attachment C to the 2035 TSP. Based on this reevaluation, staff recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to revise Attachment C to the 2035 TSP to address potential inconsistencies between the performance measures and benchmarks approved by LCDC in 2001 and the benchmarks proposed as part of the 2035 TSP.  DLCD Comment 4: “While the 2035 TSP supports the Envision Eugene ‘Vision,’ if the Land Use Diagram for EECP is different from the existing Metro Plan diagram, a new transportation model run may be needed and the projects identified in the 2035 TSP may also need to be revised when the 2035 TSP is adopted into the EECP.” Staff agree with DLCD’s statement. The 2035 TSP acknowledges that it may need to be amended when it is adopted as the transportation chapter of the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan (EECP). To the extent the Land Use Diagram from the EECP is different than Metro Plan diagram, the 2035 TSP states: “If adoption of the new comprehensive plan includes an expansion of the UGB, any amendments to the 2035 TSP that are necessary to address the expansion area will be adopted concurrently with the UGB amendment.” As part of that amendment process a transportation model will be run to determine whether any transportation projects need to be added to the 2035 TSP to serve the new area.  DLCD Comment 5: “Table 3.2 (pg. 41-42) outlines the review criteria that were used to evaluate transportation alternatives. In reviewing the criteria, it does not appear that the LCDC-approved PMs were included as criteria on which to base the selected transportation alternative. The 2035 TSP should either explain how the LDCD-approved PMs were used when evaluating transportation alternative, or the transportation alternative analysis should be revised to include consideration of the PMs.” The performance measures approved by LDCD in 2001 were used in the evaluation of transportation alternatives. In the text following Table 3.2, the 2035 TSP states: “The TCRG and PMT reviewed and revised this evaluation to define a 20-year project list that could address the identified transportation needs, and meet the draft 2035 TSP goals and criteria contained in OAR 660-12-0035.” This statement in the 2035 TSP acknowledges that the evaluation criteria in Table 3.2 was further refined to comply with OAR 660- 012-0035, including the requirement in OAR 660-012-0035(3)(e) that selected transportation alternatives should be designed to achieve the LCDC-approved performance measures. The findings in support of the 2035 TSP, specifically the findings demonstrating compliance with OAR 660-012-0035(3)(e), will be expanded to further elaborate on how the City used the LCDC-approved performance measures when evaluating transportation alternatives. 4. Testimony regarding moving projects from one list to another. The Planning Commission received a number of public comments requesting that specific projects be moved from one project list to a different project list. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the 2035 TSP, the projects are organized into five categories that suggest timeframes for implementation based on complexity, likely available funding, and assessment of need (those categories being: within 20 years, operational/on-going, upon development, beyond 20 years and study). Inclusion of a project on a particular list, for example including a project on the beyond 20-year list, does not prevent the project City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 10 10 of 12 from being undertaken within an earlier timeframe. Similarly, nothing prevents a project that is listed on the upon-development list from being constructed by the City as a capital project. As explained in the 2035 TSP, it is expected that some projects may be accelerated and others postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed study performed during programming and budgeting processes. Also, the projects described in the lists represent the best estimation for appropriate design available at time the 2035 TSP was drafted. Since the 2035 TSP was drafted at a high-level citywide scale, project design may change before construction commences as public input, available funding, and unique site conditions are taken into consideration. Even though the location of a project on a particular list does not guarantee, nor prevent, its construction along a certain timeline, staff has been tracking all of the requested “list movements” so that staff can decide whether, in context of the needs and transportation system alternatives analysis as well as the requirements of OAR 660-012-0035, a project should be moved to a different list. To that end, in addition to the specific list-movements recommended above, staff recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to review the “list movements” submitted to the Planning Commission to determine whether moving one or more projects to a different list is warranted at this time. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Eugene Planning Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria in making its recommendation to the Eugene City Council on the proposed amendments. Adoption of the 2035 TSP and the corresponding amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan are all governed by the Metro Plan amendments approval criteria. Eugene Code 9.7735 provides: Metro Plan Amendments – Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals; and (2) The proposed amendment does not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. (3) When the city-specific local comprehensive plan also applies, the proposed amendment is consistent with the city-specific local comprehensive plan. Eugene’s approval criteria for Refinement Plan amendments is set forth in Eugene Code 9.8424: 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall decide whether to act on the application. If the city council decides to act, it shall approve, approve with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a) Statewide planning goals. (b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. (c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan. (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 11 11 of 12  regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. Eugene’s approval criteria for code amendment is set forth in EC 9.8065. 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. Preliminary findings addressing the above approval criteria have been prepared and were provided as an attachment to the AIS for the June 21, 2016, public hearing. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to direct staff to revise the 2035 TSP in a manner that substantially conforms to Attachment A and recommend that the City Council adopt the revised 2035 TSP and the corresponding amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Area Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Eugene-Springfield Transportation Plan, concurrent amendments to the Eugene Code, amendments to Eugene’s Street Classification Map, an amendment to Ordinance No. 20528 and repeal of Eugene’s Central Area Transportation Study. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed revisions to the 2035 TSP. B. Memo and attachments from Lane County Transportation Planner, Becky Taylor City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: September 19, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: September 26, 2016 PC Agenda - Page 12 12 of 12  Attachment A Revise the 2035 TSP to: 1. Remove from the Street Classification Map the reclassification of Arcadia Drive, Kingston Way, and King Edwards Court. 2. Delete the two Lorane Highway projects identified on Table 5.5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Beyond 20 Years as Project Nos. PB-29 and PB-323. 3. Add to Table 5.2, a project to complete the sidewalk along West 1st between Bertelsen and Seneca. 4. Add to the list of Study Projects shown in Table 5.6 a project to analyze options to address congestion and local connectivity needs in the vicinity of the Coburg Road/Beltline Highway interchange. 5. Re-categorize Upon Development Project No. UD-18 (North Gilham Road) as a project to be completed within the next 20 years. 6. Add the text shown underlined: In November, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5143 setting as official policy for the City the Vision Zero goal that no loss of life or serious injury on our transportation system is acceptable. In its resolution, the City Council explicitly gave its support to “efforts by the City of Eugene and our regional partner agencies to prioritize safety improvements for people walking, bicycling, and using mobility devices” and to “efforts by the City of Eugene and our regional partners to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our transportation system, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable users.” Each of the planned projects advance, in some way, the Vision Zero goal by improving the safety of the subject transportation facility for the users. . . . . 7. Add the following potential action: By July 2017, complete a Vision Zero Action Plan to achieve the goal of zero transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries by a target date to be recommended by the Vision Zero Task Force. 8. Add the following potential action: Provide a higher level of funding for the City’s traffic calming program (it has been funded at $30,000 per year for a long time) so that it can more effectively respond to community concerns about speeding and cut-through traffic. 9. Add the following potential action: Amend the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis code and administrative rule provisions to expand the measurement of a proposed development’s traffic impacts beyond the level of service measurement and, correspondingly, expand potential mitigation measures beyond measures that address only vehicular delay. 10. Add the following potential action: Require all developments and employers of a certain size and type to prepare and monitor Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 1 of 2 {00216069;1 } PC Agenda - Page 13  Attachment A 11. Add the following potential action: Expand the definition of LOS to include volume-to-capacity ratio, queuing, traffic control changes. 12. Add the following potential action: Amend the Traffic Impact Analysis provisions to require a review of safety at intersections through a comparison of the actual crash rate experienced during the past 3 – 5 years versus the expected crash rate for similar facilities to determine whether improvements may be needed. 13. Either: (1) update Appendix F to be consistent with previously published maps of the key corridors (to reflect the public testimony regarding the West 11th Key Corridor); or, (2) remove Appendix F from Volume 2 entirely. 14. Revise the adopting ordinance and the introductory language in the 2035 TSP to specifically adopt Appendices A through E in Volume 2 as part of the 2035 TSP. 15. Revise Attachment C to the 2035 TSP to address potential inconsistencies between the performance measures and benchmarks approved by LCDC in 2001 and the benchmarks proposed as part of the 2035 TSP. 16. Add a policy to reflect that, prior to moving forward with a project, staff will consider a neighborhood’s character (the built and the natural environment) and public input regarding design and practicality of a proposed project. 17. Revise Study Project No. S-9 (NE Expressway) to state: “Study opportunities to improve the safety and functionality of Northwest Expressway as a major arterial street including by making intersection improvements at the Randy Pape Beltline Highway ramp termini and other locations, by improving signage, and by making other changes to the street.” 18. Add a potential action item regarding the Railroad Quiet Zone that states: “Work with Lane County to investigate creating a railroad quiet zone that addresses the rail crossings of Irving Road and Irvington Drive.” 19. Delete the descriptions of the street design cross sections for individual projects identified as Projects to be Completed Upon Development. 20. Revised Beyond 20 Years Project No. B-2 (Northwest Expressway) to replace the word “freight” with the word “vehicle.” 21. Review the “list movements” submitted to the Planning Commission to determine whether moving one or more projects to a different list is warranted at this time. 22. Correct typos, grammatical errors and reference errors. 23. Correct ambiguities on the project maps. Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 2 of 2 {00216069;1 } PC Agenda - Page 14  Attachment B September 20, 2016 TO: City of Eugene Planning Commission FROM: Becky Taylor, Lane County Transportation Planner SUBJECT: Eugene TSP Deliberations Background On June 21, 2016, the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on the Eugene 2035 TSP. At the close of the public hearing, the commissions posed questions to staff to answer at their respective deliberations. Eugene and Lane County staffs worked together to answer the questions and exchanged information to share with their respective commissions. The Eugene Planning Commission had its first deliberations on July 18, 2016. Lane County staff was in attendance to listen to the discussion, answer any questions, and to relay information to the Lane County Planning Commission. The Lane County Planning Commission held its first deliberations on July 19, 2016. Eugene staff attended the meeting and helped answer questions. Key discussion items from that meeting are provided below. Discussion The meeting minutes from the July 19, 2016 Lane County Planning Commission deliberations on the Eugene TSP are attached. Key points from that discussion are noted below.  Urban Upgrades: Currently, Eugene expects Lane County to upgrade County roads within Eugene’s UGB before Eugene will accept jurisdiction. Lane County lacks funding for these upgrades, which are largely needed to serve urban development and implement Eugene’s vision. Conversely, Eugene collects equivalent assessments from developments abutting County roads that are not built to urban standards, as well as a Transportation Systems Development Charges; these funds are not shared with Lane County or otherwise reserved for upgrading the affected County road. The proposed TSP policy to “…develop criteria that trigger logical phased jurisdictional transfer…” shows a willingness to work together to address this issue.  Freight Routes: One of the Lane County Planning Commissioners requested that the Eugene Planning Commission consider the economic implications, as well as the potential health impacts from additional freight emissions associated with congestion, of reduced LOS on freight routes. Eugene Planning Commission’s 2nd Deliberations on Eugene’s TSP: 9/26/16 Page 1 of 2 PC Agenda - Page 15  Attachment B Given the Eugene Planning Commission’s interest in the Beaver-Hunsaker Corridor Study and related public involvement, attached is the latest project newsletter and responses to the public’s most frequently asked questions (FAQ). This information was sent to the project’s interested parties list, which consists of over 70 individuals, as well as to the Santa Clara Neighborhood Organization. Lane County staff will attend the September 19, 2016 Eugene Planning Commission deliberations to answer any additional questions. The Lane County Planning Commission will continue its deliberations on the Eugene TSP on October 4, 2016. Attachments Lane County Planning Commission July 19, 2016 Meeting Minutes Beaver-Hunsaker Corridor Study Newsletter and FAQ Eugene Planning Commission’s 2nd Deliberations on Eugene’s TSP: 9/26/16 Page 2 of 2 PC Agenda - Page 16  Attachment B Lane County Delta Goodson Room – 3040 North Delta Highway MINUTES Lane County Planning Commission Eugene, Oregon July 19, 2016 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners: Charles Conrad, Chair; Randy Hledik, Vice Chair; Charlcie Kaylor, Dwight Coon, Gary Rose, Ryan Sisson, Jason Thiesfeld, Larry Thorp, Staff: Lydia McKinney, Keir Miller Others: Becky Taylor, David Reesor, Rob Inerfeld Mr. Conrad called the Lane County Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. WORK SESSION 1. Deliberations for the Eugene TSP - Becky Taylor Becky Taylor provided a brief overview of the following documents from the agenda packet: 1. Memorandum entitled: Deliberations on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System and corresponding Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments 2. Memorandum entitled: Deliberations on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System and corresponding Metro Plan, TransPlan amendments and Chapter 9 amendments, and repeal of the Central Area Transportation Study, 3. Public written comment from Steve Norris entitled: Eugene TSP and the County Planning Commission, and 4. Attachment C: Public testimony received between June 21, 2016 and the close if the record on July 8, 2016. Ms. Taylor suggested the LCPC delay second deliberations until the Eugene Planning Commission completes final deliberations, which were scheduled to take place in September. Mr. Reesor provided a summary of the following topics discussed at the Eugene Planning Commission deliberations on July 18, 2016:  Proposed reclassification of streets in the TSP draft  Public comments on the Beaver-Hunsaker Corridor  Congestion relief and safety improvements for the Beltline Project  Clarification on where skateboards were allowed  Definition of complete streets for the Complete Streets Policy  Process for removing on street parking  Emergency response  Safety ranked as highest priority for transportation  Separation of safety from efficiency when reviewing projects  Strengthening of TSP monitoring language  Level of Service (LOS) MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 19, 2016 Page 0 PC Agenda - Page 17  Attachment B  Community concerns about cut through traffic with congestion  Suggestion to increase the current budget for traffic in Eugene Rob Inerfeld provided additional information about the Eugene deliberations. He explained that the Complete Streets Policy would apply to projects and would not be imposed across the entire city. Some believed the policy should look at complete networks rather than every street because every street could not serve all needs. He added that the City of Eugene was going to launch a new design to city street standards. Mr. Conrad asked if the Complete Streets Policy mandated a sidewalk addition in an area without sidewalks, would homeowners have to pay for the sidewalk addition in front of their house. Mr. Inerfeld said that historically the homeowner paid for sidewalk additions in front of their house, although there were some exceptions. He said sometimes the City of Eugene would fund sidewalk infill projects. He added that homeowners are also responsible for sidewalk maintenance costs. Mr. Thorp asked if the city collected a systems development charge for transportation from development on a county road that was not fully up to city standards. Mr. Inerfeld said the city would collect a systems development charge for transportation. Mr. Thorp then asked if any of those funds went to the county. Mr. Inerfeld said it did not. He said the City of Eugene collected an equivalent assessment for the cost of meeting urban standards. Mr. Thorp asked if there would be discussion on the appropriateness of the county’s responsibility to upgrade streets to city standards throughout the course of implementing these policies. Mr. Inerfeld did not believe that level of detail would be discussed in the TSP. He said it was possible to hold discussions and to later amend the TSP to be consistent with Envision Eugene. Mr. Hledik discussed freight routes and level of service, referring to page 2, item 4 of Attachment A provided in the memorandum entitled: Deliberations on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System and corresponding Metro Plan, TransPlan amendments and Chapter 9 amendments, and repeal of the Central Area Transportation Study. He presented a document entitled Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gasses from Access #35 published by the University of California Transportation Center in 2009. The document stated that potentially the most serious consequence of traffic congestion is increasing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. It indicated that congestion mitigation, speed management strategies and traffic smoothing were ways to overcome this. He suggested that more research be done before using the Climate Recovery Ordinance goal of reducing the community’s fossil fuel consumption as a reason for going to Level of Service E. Mr. Inerfeld agreed that the Climate Recovery Ordinance should not be cited as the basis for LOS reductions. He said that correction would be made to the TSP. Mr. Hledik then asked if Level of Service E applied to the streets shown on the freight map found in Attachment B of the memorandum entitled: Deliberations on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System and corresponding Metro Plan and TransPlan amendments. MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 19, 2016 Page 1 PC Agenda - Page 18  Attachment B Ms. Taylor noted that the Eugene Downtown area is currently LOS F, which would not be changed by the TSP. She also noted that the TSP recognizes that LOS reductions on State facilities would require approval by the State. She clarified that there were no reduced LOS on County facilities; the LOS F references were in error and would be corrected; the LOS E are consistent with County standards. Mr. Hledik asked that the Eugene Planning Commission also consider the economic and health impacts of applying Level of Service E to freight routes. Mr. Coon said that restricting parking to encourage bicycling could increase gases because some of the population may feel too restricted and move to smaller surrounding cities which would then increase commutes and demand of services being needed in smaller surrounding cities. Ms. Taylor thanked the LCPC for their input. She asked them to email her with any further comments and questions. Mr. Conrad adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. (Recorded by Emily Mathis) MINUTES—Lane County Planning Commission July 19, 2016 Page 2 PC Agenda - Page 19  Attachment B BEAVER-HUNSAKER CORRIDOR STUDY N E NW S SLL EE TTT ETR E R EW THE SOLUTIONS HUNSAKER LANE COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS Planning designs to meet current and future needs BEAVER STREET June 15, 2016 – More than 50 area residents and business owners gathered together at North Eugene High School to share their ideas, experiences, and feedback on potential changes to Beaver Street and Hunsaker Lane. These changes are aimed at improving the safety, comfort and convenience for pedestrians, cyclists, traffic local to the neighborhood and traffic that is using the corridor to travel between River Road and the Beltline Highway. Although the Beaver‐Hunsaker corridor is serving the many roles that both the City and Lane County expect in its “Major Collector” designation, the lack of sidewalks and bike facilities as well as the speed of vehicles contributes to an environment that the County and the neighborhood want to see improved. BEAVER-WILKES BIKE PATH The County presented design solutions at the workshop that were based on both technical analysis as well as feedback gathered by staff and through the Lane County Board of Commissioners through a variety of interactions with the people traveling the street and living next to it over the past 12 months. The County kicked off the project with a series of “stakeholder interviews” with a wide range of community members, including property owners, businesses, and the school district, and then followed up with meetings with neighborhood groups and advisory groups, such as Eugene’s Active Transportation Committee, the Central Lane Metropolitan Policy Committee, and Lane County’s Transportation Advisory Committee. PC Agenda - Page 20  Attachment B newsletter For Beaver Street, the design solution links the corridor to the existing pedestrian and bicycle path along Division Avenue by creating a new pathway adjacent to the Delta Sand and Gravel property. Sidewalks are provided only on the south/west side of the street. The design solution also recognizes the potential to add a north‐south off‐street pathway from the corridor north to Wilkes Drive. For Hunsaker Lane, sidewalks and bike lanes are provided on both sides of the street. Under both designs, a green space is added to provide a separation between people walking or cycling and vehicles and buses as well as to provide for natural plantings to help with street drainage. Both designs also plan for the continued use of the corridor by Lane Transit District buses as well as allowing for safe passage by emergency responders. At the workshop, 64 percent of people responded positively to reducing the width of the travel lanes from 11 feet to 10 feet to help reduce vehicle speeds in the corridor. Both the Fire Marshal and LTD confirmed that the reduced travel lane width will serve their needs. In addition, most of the people who attended the workshop agreed that adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities is of utmost importance, however, some questioned whether the facilities are needed on both sides of the roadway, due to potential local property impacts. Reducing these impacts will be looked at more detail when the project moves into construction. The County’s technical work revealed that a new north‐south street between Beaver Street and Wilkes Drive would not be supported by state law. WHAT’S NEXT? Over the next several months, the County, City, and the State are embarking on a number of plans that will shape the future of transportation along and near the Beaver‐Hunsaker corridor. Lane County staff will be summarizing the process, technical analysis, public comments, design concepts, and recommendations to inform future decision‐making and ultimate construction in the Beaver‐Hunsaker corridor. Refining the designs to include some of the recommendations, like strategically placing pedestrian crossings along the corridor to improve safety and slow vehicle speeds, and transitioning the sidewalk from setback to curbside to protect building setbacks and significant vegetation, will require more information and funding beyond the scope of this corridor study. The proposed Beltline Bridge will also affect the design of the corridor. The location and design of the proposed intersection of the new street with Beaver Street is pending local adoption of the Beltline Facility Plan and subsequent NEPA review. In addition, both Lane County and the City of Eugene are currently working toward adoption of 20‐year transportation system plans that reflect how the future land use vision can be supported by our multimodal transportation system. We look forward to seeing you at any or all of the upcoming opportunities for each of these efforts that are critical to our future. For more information, PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.lanecounty.org/ Eugene Transportation System Plan departments/pw/transplanni  October‐November 2016 Eugene Planning Commission ng/pages/beaver- recommendations to City County hunsakercorridorstudy.aspx  November – December Joint Public Hearing: Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners or contact: Becky Taylor Lane County Transportation System Plan Senior Transportation Planner  January 2017 Draft Project List Lane County Public Works  March 2017 Draft Transportation System Plan 3040 North Delta Highway  July 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing Eugene, OR 97401  October 2017 Board of County Commissioners Public 541‐682‐6932 Hearing becky.taylor@co.lane.or.us PC Agenda - Page 21  Attachment B BEAVER-HUNSAKER CORRIDOR STUDY FREQUENTLY ASKED FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS QUESTIONS Funding Q How will roadway improvements be funded? A Final design and construction funding have not yet been identified for this project. Lane County continues to seek federal and state funding, with the potential to leverage some funding resources from future improvements to the Beltline Highway and an adjacent new Local Arterial Bridge as identified in Eugene’s 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP). Q Will local project owners be assessed for any of the construction costs? A Any future assessments of local property owners would need to be reviewed within the context of both city and county policy and practice (including an evaluation of equity). Even if initiated by the City, the Board of County Commissioners would need to authorize assessing properties that have not been annexed into the city (several along corridor). Any additional right‐of‐way needed for the project would involve compensation to the affected property owner consistent with state and federal laws. Property Impacts Q How will construction of this project potentially affect my parking, landscaping, fencing and building setbacks? A Off‐street parking: Future design efforts will evaluate ways to reduce the impacts to homes that currently rely on driveway parking within the right‐of‐way. When possible, the final project design team will look at ways to lessen impacts where possible. For example, transitioning sidewalks with landscape strips to curbside sidewalks may be possible in some areas. A On‐street parking: There is currently no defined on‐street parking. Area residents do sporadically use the existing right‐of‐way along the street for parking near homes. Current design concepts for corridor improvements do not include future on‐street parking due to the significant property impacts it would have to current residents. A Landscaping: Recent public outreach has shown overall support for the conceptual landscape strip between the road and future sidewalk. Prior to making landscaping decisions, the project design team will PC Agenda - Page 22  Attachment B need to develop a drainage plan that could affect where a landscape strip is located as well as its needed size. Future public input will be included as part of the final design solution. A Setbacks: During design phase of project, County will evaluate each property relative to the setback requirements and identify potential modifications to design (e.g., narrowing of landscape strip) for individual parcels. For those parcels where setback requirements cannot be met with the new design, the right‐of‐way acquisition process is required to compensate the affected property owner consistent with state and federal laws. Vehicle Volumes and Speeds Q Will construction of this project help reduce the number of cars and trucks on the road? A Traffic volumes for the corridor are consistent with the current street classification. However, one of the primary purposes of this project is to improve the street design, including adding sidewalks and vegetative buffers, to improve the livability of residents along the corridor. Q Will construction of this project help reduce the speed cars and trucks? A Concerns about the speed of cars and trucks on the road have been a consistent message heard during public outreach. The design of a road has a significant effect on how fast cars and trucks drive. The final design of the corridor will include design elements to slow the overall speeds through this neighborhood and make biking and walking feel more comfortable. Q Is a new road connection between Beaver and Wilkes possible, and if so, would it help reduce crowded traffic conditions? A County staff analysis of a connection between Beaver and Wilkes showed that a new roadway outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) would most likely not be allowed with existing state land use laws. Further, traffic modeling showed that this new connection would have very little impact on the traffic volumes on River Road or on Beaver‐Hunsaker. However, area residents have expressed support of a pedestrian‐bicycle pathway between Beaver and Wilkes. A pathway is consistent with both state land use laws and city and county policies. Roadway Design Q Why does the conceptual design show narrower travel lanes, sidewalks on both sides, bike lanes, and a landscaping strip? PC Agenda - Page 23  Attachment B A Since Hunsaker Lane passes through an existing neighborhood, any design changes need to be sensitive to the impacts of adjacent residents. The Corridor Study evaluated existing county and city road standards and looked for design flexibility when possible to reduce any impacts on neighboring properties. Sidewalks and bike lanes are needed on both sides of the street to allow people who walk and bike to safely access destinations on both sides. Installing a landscape strip between the sidewalk and travel lanes helps provide a buffer while also helping slow cars down. Narrower lanes will also help slow cars down but be wide enough for buses and emergency vehicles to safely pass. Q Why does the conceptual design only include a multi-use path on a portion of the corridor? A The multi‐use path on Beaver Street is intended to connect the existing bike path on Division Avenue and to a future bike path extension to the north. Further, the multiuse path on the east/north side of Beaver Street limits the impact on adjacent properties. Including a multi‐use path on other portions of the corridor would have significant effects on adjacent properties. Sidewalks on these other portions provide a balance of creating a safer walking environment while also limiting property impacts. Intersection Design Q How will the intersection of River Road and Hunsaker Lane be affected? A The final design of this intersection will be determined as part of LTD’s future transit station in the southeast quadrant of the intersection as well as future phases of the Beltline project. The final report for the Beaver‐Hunsaker plan will recommend that both future projects consider pedestrian improvements and left‐turn improvements as well as local access impact at this intersection. Q How will the intersection of Division Avenue and Beaver Street be affected? A The final design of this intersection will be determined as part of future phases of the Beltline project. The concepts considered to‐date as part of the Beltline Facility Plan include a complete reconfiguration of the intersection (including the potential for a roundabout). The final report for the Beaver‐Hunsaker plan will highlight resident concerns with the existing configuration for consideration as part of later design efforts for the Beltline. Corridor Crossings Q Will there be pedestrian crossing improvements made along Beaver Street and Hunsaker Lane? A Yes, there will be several pedestrian crossing improvements made as part of the project. Public input and technical research shows that the top three desired locations are Summer Lane, Ross Lane (to connect with a potential new north‐south path), and Division Avenue. The County’s future design will evaluate the specific locations of the crossings relative to storm‐drainage, utilities and property impacts. PC Agenda - Page 24  Attachment B Truck Traffic Q Can trucks be prohibited from Hunsaker Lane? A Trucks account for approximately 6% of the vehicle traffic; this translates to about 200 trucks a day. There are limited instances in which the County restricts truck access, usually related to weight restrictions of bridges. While some trucks currently use Hunsaker Lane, the new corridor design will help encourage truck drivers to use alternative routes. PC Agenda - Page 25