Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12062022 PC PACKET
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 6, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. Email planning@centralpointoregon.gov to request a Zoom link for virtual participation I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Amy Moore, Jim Mock, Pat Smith, Kay Harrison, Brad Cozza, Robin Stroh IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the October 4, 2022 Planning Commission meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public hearing and consideration of a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the Transportation System Plan (TSP). File No. CPA-22001. Approval Criteria: CPMC 17.96.500. Applicant: City of Central Point. B. Public hearing and consideration of a Tentative Partition Plan to consolidate three (3) properties and divided the consolidated lot into two (2) parcels, including dedication and extension of Federal Way, a Standard Local Street, to the intersection of Table Rock/Airport Road. File No. PAR-22001. Approval Criteria: CPMC 16.10 and 16.36. Applicant: BH DevCo (Steve Backman). C. Public hearing and consideration of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to develop a warehouse and ground distribution facility on Parcel 1 of Tentative Partition No. PAR-22001. File No. SPAR-22006. Approval Criteria: CPMC 17.48, 17.64, 17.72. Applicant: BH DevCo (Steve Backman) D. Public hearing and consideration of a Floodplain Development Permit to complete channel restoration improvements in Horn Creek. File No. FP-22001. Approval Criteria: CPMC 8.24.200. Applicant: City of Central Point. VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Planning Commissioner Reports. XI. ADJOURNMENT Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: deanna.casey@centralpointoregon.gov . Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201. 1 City of Central Point Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 4, 2022 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance III. ROLL CALL Commissioners Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Jim Mock, Kay Harrison, Pat Smith, Amy Moore and Brad Cozza were present. Also in attendance were Planning Director Stephanie Holtey, City Manager Chris Clayton, Public Works Director Matt Samitore, Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger, and Planning Secretary Karin Skelton IV. CORESPONDENCE Email from Kylie Camden Email from Kevin Norman MINUTES Pat Smith made a motion to approve the August 2, 2022 minutes as presented. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith yes; Amy Moore, abstain, Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application to allow a preschool to operate at 81 Freeman Road. The 0.57 acre site is within the Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) commercial zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 02D Tax Lot 1000. File No. CUP-22001. Applicants: Ashley Crofton and Malory Mitchell: Agent Jared Pulver; Pulver and Leever Real Estate. Tom Van Voorhees read the rules for a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. The commissioners had no conflicts of interest, ex parte contact or bias to declare. Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner introduced the Conditional Use Permit Application. He reviewed the allowed uses in the C-4 zone. He said the Code referenced nursery schools as a conditional use. Staff determination was that by definition the preschool was the same use as a nursery school. He explained there would be a maximum of 26 students and 3 teachers. There is ample parking and there will be a fence constructed to enclose an outdoor play area. He reviewed the site stating the fence will be in the floodplain and will be subject to floodplain development permit 2 Planning Commission Minutes Oct. 4, 2022 Page 2 requirements. Additionally interior modifications and change of use are subject to building code requirements. Mr. Gindlesperger reviewed the building and site design and stated the use is compatible with the neighborhood. The Commissioners discussed traffic impacts and Mr. Samitore explained the threshold which would require a traffic study would be 36 students. The Public Hearing was opened Applicants Ashley Crofton and Mallory Mitchell explained that there would be a rubber playground surface within the fenced playground area. They planned for 26 students and possible future expansion to approximately 30 students. Ms. Holtey suggested a condition of approval that they would need to examine traffic impacts if the number of students exceeded 36. There were no public comments or questions. The public hearing was closed. Kay Harrison moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit application to allow a preschool to operate at 81 Freeman Road. The 0.57 acre site within the Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) commercial zoning district identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 02D Tax Lot 1000 Brad Cozza seconded the motion. The commissioners discussed the traffic impacts, proposed fencing and safety issues. Kay Harrison amended the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to staff’s recommended conditions. Brad Cozza seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. B. Consideration of the Downtown Revitalization & East Pine Street Corridor Plan Amendment (Urban Renewal Plan Amendment) conformance with the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. This is not a land use action but public comments are invited and encouraged. File No. UR – 22001 City Manager Chris Clayton introduced the Downtown & East Pine Street Corridor Revitalization Plan Amendment. He gave the background of the Urban Renewal Plan which was adopted in 2012 and the changes that prompted the proposed Plan Amendment. He reviewed the Urban Renewal background including the program’s history and basic financial information stating that maximum indebtedness will be unchanged by the proposed plan amendment. Mr. Clayton explained the role of the Planning Commission was to review the Downtown & East Pine Street Corridor Revitalization Plan Amendment for conformance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. 3 Planning Commission Minutes Oct. 4, 2022 Page 3 He said the proposed plan changes remove some non-taxable property and it adds other property. This includes property not within the city limits. New projects would be added and general updating would be done. There would be no impacts to taxing districts and no increase to individual property taxes. He explained how the Urban Renewal Plan worked. He said there were statutory limitations as to acreage the City could include in the Urban Renewal area. He said the City’s proposed amendment is well under the limit. He outlined the new projects that would be funded by Urban Renewal. Mr. Clayton reviewed the Beebe Road Extension and Bridge Extension. This will extend the bridge from the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard across Bear Creek to CP-3 and the Peninger area. This needs to be done to alleviate traffic on Pine Street and to provide access to the employment lands in CP-3. He explained the City of Central Point Community Center is being considered as a collaborative project with Jackson County and includes a possible location on Jackson County property outside of Central Point City limits. This property is being included into the urban renewal area in the 2022 amendment. The plan is for a combined community center and evacuation shelter. The City has not committed to this project yet but is exploring this option as opposed to a smaller stand-alone facility. Mr. Clayton stated there are plans to create a park-like and fire resilient area along the Greenway, which is owned by or is in the process of be transferred to the City’s ownership. Planning Director Stephanie Holtey explained the City’s Strategic Plan stating it established vision, mission, values and priorities to guide policy and day-to-day decisions. Ms. Holtey explained that the comprehensive plan determines future growth consistent with statewide goals and guidelines, and sets policy to ensure a logical and orderly planning process. She reviewed the Citizen Involvement Element, Parks Element and Transportation Element as these are the three elements of the comprehensive plan that are implicated by the proposed Urban Renewal Plan Amendment. Ms. Holtey explained the proposed Plan Amendment’s conformance with the applicable goals and policies in these comprehensive plan elements. Ms. Holtey stated the next steps would be a County briefing on October 13, 2022, City Council hearing on October 27, 2022 and a City Council vote on November 17, 2022. The Commissioners expressed approval of the amendment indicating it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Amy Moore made a motion that the Central Point Planning Commission finds, based upon the information provided in the staff report and attachments, that the Downtown & East Pine Street Corridor Revitalization Plan Amendment conforms with the Central point Comprehensive Plan and further recommends that the Central Point city Council adopt the proposed Amendment. The motion was seconded by Pat Smith. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Oct. 4, 2022 Page 4 ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza, yes. Motion passed. DISCUSSION A. Transportation System Plan Update Information Session Planning Director Stephanie Holtey explained the Transportation System Plan was last updated in 2008. The need to update it now is to address new state Rules and projects regarding the Urban Growth Boundary Amendment. She reviewed the scope of the changes and the funding sources. She explained there were three funding scenarios presented to the Citizen’s advisory Committee (CAC). There were Conservative, Moderate and Ideal funding scenarios. After reviewing the financial information the CAC unanimously approved the Ideal Scenario. Ms. Holtey explained the State’s Equity Analysis and the results of that analysis. She reviewed the updated Tier 1 and Tier 2 project lists. Public Works Director Matt Samitore described the projects. There was discussion about the projects. Ms. Holtey said the next steps would be a Public Hearing with the Planning Commission on November 1, 2022, a public hearing at the November 17, 2022 City Council meeting and the Second Reading and adoption of the Ordinance at the December 15, 2022 City Council Meeting. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Development Update. Ms. Holtey provided a brief review of development inquiries and recent Pre-Application Conferences for commercial and industrial developments. B. Planning Commissioner Reports. There were no Planning Commissioner reports. XI. ADJOURNMENT Amy Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Pat Smith seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. . Tom Van Voorhees, Planning Commission Chair 5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AMENDMENT 6 Staff Report Transportation System Plan Amendment Type IV Legislative Comprehensive Plan Amendment File No. CPA-22001 December 6, 2022 Item Summary Public hearing and consideration of a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Transportation System Plan (i.e. Transportation Element). Applicant: City of Central Point; File No. CPA-22001; Approval Criteria: CPMC 17.96, Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Staff Source Stephanie Holtey, Planning Director Matt Samitore, Parks & Public Works Director Background The City is amending its Transportation System Plan (TSP), an Element of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. The TSP was adopted in 2008 (City Council Ordinance No. 1922) based on its conformance with all applicable state and local land use transportation requirements. The purpose of the TSP is to assure that the City’s multimodal transportation needs are met in coordination with anticipated growth over a 20-year period. This includes adopting a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list that is financially constrained. These are the projects that the City will fund during the life of the TSP. Since adoption of the TSP, the City amended its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include an additional 444 acres for housing, non-industrial employment, parks/open space and associated public facility needs. The proposed TSP amendment responds to the UGB Amendment and accomplishes the following: Incorporates projects identified the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the UGB Amendment; Removes projects that have been completed; Reprioritizes the updated project list to consider transportation disadvantaged populations; and, Updates the funding forecast used to financially constrain the City’s Capital Improvement Project List. Except for minor text corrections, the proposed changes to the TSP noted above are limited to Chapter 7 (Street System Plan) and Chapter 12 (Transportation System Financing Program). At the December 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, City staff and consultants will present the proposed amendments to the TSP relative to its conformance with the applicable review criteria. Following a duly noticed public hearing, staff is seeking a recommendation on the proposed amendment for consideration by the City Council at their December 16, 2022 meeting. Issues None. 7 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The proposed TSP Amendment (Attachment “A”) has been reviewed for conformance with applicable criteria in CPMC 17.96, Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative Rules 660-012, the Oregon Transportation Plan and Oregon Highway Plan. As provided in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Attachment “B”), the proposed TSP Amendment conforms to all applicable review criteria. Recommended Changes None. Attachments Attachment “A” – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Attachment “B” – Proposed TSP Amendment Attachment “C” – Draft Resolution Action Conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed TSP Amendment and recommend the City Council 1) approve; 2) approve with changes; or 3) deny it. Recommendation Approve the Resolution recommending the City Council approve the TSP Amendment without changes. Recommended Motion I move to approve Resolution No. 897 recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan updating the Transportation System Plan based on the Staff Report dated December 6, 2022 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law therein. 8 Approved by the Central Point City Council on December 18, 2008 Implemented by Ordinance #1922 Amended on December X, 2022 by Ordinance #X 9 City of Central Point – Comprehensive Plan City of Central Point Transportation System Plan 2030 Approved by the Central Point City Council on December 18, 2008 Implemented by Ordinance #1922 Amended on December X, 2022 by Ordinance #X 10 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 2008 Acknowledgments Page v 2008 Acknowledgments Central Point Planning Department: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director Don Burt, Planning Manager David Jacob, Community Planner Connie Clune, Community Planner Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary Central Point Public Works Department: Bob Pierce, Public Works Director Chris Clayton, Deputy Public Works Director Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator/Parks & Recreation Director Transportation System Plan Technical Advisory Committee: David Pyles, Oregon Dept. of Transportation John Renz, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Susan Lee, Jackson County Development Services Craig Anderson, Jackson County Planning Mike Kuntz, Jackson County Roads James Philip, Jackson County Roads Paige Townsend, Rogue Valley Transit District Matt Hermen, Rogue Valley Council of Governments/Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Eric Heesacker, Rogue Valley Council of Government/Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization City Council: Hank Williams, Mayor Bruce Dingler Michael Quilty Matthew Stephenson Richard Halley Walter Moczygemba Kay Harrison Planning Commission: Connie Moczygemba, Chairman Chuck Piland Candy Fish Damian Idiart Mike Oliver Justin Hurley Pat Beck Citizens Advisory Committee: Joe Thomas, Chairman Herb Farber Jake Jakabosky Allen Broderick Sam Inkley, Jr. Larry Martin David Painter 11 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 2008 Acknowledgments Page vi 12 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 2008 Acknowledgments Page vii 13 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 2008 Acknowledgments Page viii 14 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Table of Contents Page ix Table of Contents Chapter 1 — Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, 2022 ................................................................................ 2 1.3 The Transportation Planning Rule ................................................................................................ 2 1.4 The Regional Transportation Plan ................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Values, Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies .............................................................................. 4 1.6 Public Involvement & Plan Approval Process ............................................................................... 5 1.7 Plan Organization .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.8 1.8. Action Program ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.9 Program Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Plan Compliance, Scope of Review ............................................................................................... 7 2.3 Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 ................................................................................ 8 2.4 Oregon Transportation Planning Rule .......................................................................................... 9 2.5 Plan Conformity, Other ............................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Other Plans .................................................................................................................................. 14 2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning .......................................................................... 15 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15 3.2 The Land Use Element ................................................................................................................ 15 3.3 Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) .................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Growth Projections ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Housing Element: ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.6 Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................................................... 17 3.7 Land Use Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions ............................................................................. 20 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 Street System .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.3 Transportation Corridor Studies ................................................................................................. 31 15 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Table of Contents Page x 4.4 Bicycle System Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 32 4.5 Pedestrian System, Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 35 4.6 Rail System, Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management ...................................................................................... 39 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 39 5.2 Transportation System Management (TSM)............................................................................... 39 5.3 Mobility Standards ...................................................................................................................... 40 5.4 Access Management (AM) .......................................................................................................... 43 5.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ............................................................................ 46 5.6 Transportation Management Goals, Objectives, and Policies .................................................... 50 Chapter 6 — Parking Management .................................................................................................. 52 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 52 6.2 Current Parking Inventory ........................................................................................................... 52 6.3 Parking Performance Measures .................................................................................................. 52 6.4 Parking Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 53 6.5 Regional Transportation Plan ...................................................................................................... 58 6.6 Current Parking Code and Policy Changes .................................................................................. 59 6.7 Parking Management Goals and Policies .................................................................................... 59 Chapter 7 — Street System .............................................................................................................. 61 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 61 7.2 Street System .............................................................................................................................. 62 7.3 Recommended Street System Improvements ............................................................................ 72 7.4 Street System Goals, Objectives, and Policies ............................................................................ 80 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System ....................................................................................... 82 8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 82 8.2 Bicycle System Hierarchy ............................................................................................................ 82 8.3 The Bicycle System ...................................................................................................................... 83 8.4 In-fill Project Priorities & Implementation / Improvement Strategies ....................................... 83 8.5 Bicycle Parking, Safety Programs, and Facility Maintenance...................................................... 86 8.6 The Pedestrian System ................................................................................................................ 87 8.7 Priority of Pedestrian Improvements.......................................................................................... 88 16 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Table of Contents Page xi 8.8 Public Awareness ........................................................................................................................ 88 8.9 Bear Creek Greenway ................................................................................................................. 88 8.10 8.10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Goals, Policies, & Actions .............................................................. 89 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System .................................................................................................. 91 9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 91 9.2 2005 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ................................................................................... 91 9.3 Rogue Valley Transportation District .......................................................................................... 92 9.4 Strategies to Improve Transit Service ......................................................................................... 94 9.5 Transit Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................... 96 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System ........................................................................................ 97 10.1 Railroad System- Introduction .................................................................................................... 97 10.2 Railroads - Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 97 10.3 Aviation System – Introduction ................................................................................................ 105 10.4 Railroad and Aviation Goals and Policies .................................................................................. 105 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System ................................................................................................ 106 11.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 106 11.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 106 11.3 Truck Freight - Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 106 11.4 11.4. Central Point Truck Freight - Issues & Concerns .............................................................. 111 11.5 Out-of-Direction Travel ............................................................................................................. 111 11.6 Truck Freight Goals and Policies ............................................................................................... 111 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program ................................................. 113 12.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 113 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies ........................................................................................... 127 13.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 127 13.2 Implementation Goals and Policies by Chapter ........................................................................ 127 17 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 List of Figures Page xii List of Figures Figure 1-1: Central Point Urban Growth Boundary, 2022 ............................................................................ 1 Figure 1-2: Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 .............................................................................. 4 Figure 4-1: Functional Classification System Map illustrates the City’s existing arterial and collector street classification system. .................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 4-2: Roadway Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 4-3: Major Truck Routes................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 4-4: Bicycle System Map .................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 4-5: Pedestrian System Map ............................................................................................................ 36 Figure 4-6: Rogue Valley Transit System Routes and Stops ........................................................................ 38 Figure 7-1: Functional Classification & Street Network Map, 2008-2030 .................................................. 63 Figure 7-2: Intersection Deficiencies .......................................................................................................... 71 Figure 7-3: Tier 1 Projects ........................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan ............................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 9-1: Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................ 93 Figure 10-1: Railroad System .................................................................................................................... 104 Figure 11-1: Rogue Valley MPO Freight Route ......................................................................................... 107 Figure 11-2: Freight Route Plan ................................................................................................................ 109 Figure 11-3: Problem Routes and Intersections ...................................................................................... 110 List of Tables Table 2-1: Alternative RTP Performance Measure ..................................................................................... 12 Table 3-1RTP Alternative Performance Measures ...................................................................................... 18 Table 3-2City of Central Point Performance Measures .............................................................................. 18 Table 4-1: Crash Rate, City of Central Point, 2006 ...................................................................................... 25 Table 4-2: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Designations for Signalized ................................... 26 18 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 List of Tables Page xiii Table 4-3: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service for Stopped Controlled Intersections .................... 27 Table 4-4: Level of Service and Vehicle-to-Capacity Ratio .......................................................................... 29 Table 4-5: RVMPO Freight Study Recommended Projects, City of Central Point ....................................... 31 Table 5-1: Access Management Spacing Standards for District Highway ................................................... 44 Table 5-2: Access Management Guidelines ................................................................................................ 45 Table 6-1: Transportation System Plan Parking Performance Measures ................................................... 52 Table 6-2: Parking Plan Strategies............................................................................................................... 53 Table 7-1: Year 2010 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point .................................................................. 64 Table 7-2: Year 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point .................................................................. 67 Table 7-3: Year 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point .................................................................. 69 Table 7-4: Transportation Projects ............................................................................................................. 73 Table 7-5: Jackson County Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area ............................... 79 Table 7-6: ODOT Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area .............................................. 79 Table 8-1: Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle System Performance Measures ..................................... 82 Table 8-2: City of Central Point Bicycle System Performance Measures .................................................... 83 Table 8-3: Bicycle Facilities In-fill Strategies ............................................................................................... 84 Table 8-4: Prioritized Bicycle Facility Projects – Short-Term (5–10 years) ................................................. 85 Table 8-5: Regional Transportation Plan Pedestrian System Performance Measures ............................... 87 Table 8-6: City of Central Point Pedestrian System Performance Measures ............................................. 87 Table 9-1: City of Central Point Transportation System Plan Performance Measures ............................... 92 Table 10-1Central Point Railroad Crossings ................................................................................................ 98 Table 10-2: Level of Service Explained ...................................................................................................... 100 Table 11-1: Central Point Truck Freight Issues and Concerns................................................................... 108 19 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 1 Chapter 1 — Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION Throughout history, transportation has been a major factor in the economic success and growth of cities, states, and nations. The ability of a community to efficiently move people and goods from one place to another offers a distinct competitive advantage over places that have limited transportation systems. The availability of efficient transportation systems, from ancient trade routes to today’s highways, railways, waterways, and airways have been synonymous with both economic progress and improved quality of life. Consequently, transportation and transportation related expenditures constitute a significant percentage of the economy, and few issues are as important for the economic development and quality of life of local communities as transportation. The City of Central Point recognizes the importance of having and maintaining a coordinated network of transportation facilities that serves current and future state, regional and local transportation needs. In response to this objective, the City has prepared this Transportation System Plan (TSP) to assure that not only are the transportation needs of its citizens met in a timely and efficient manner, but that in doing so, the transportation system will continue to be improved in a manner that supports projected growth, while enhancing the quality of life of those living and visiting the City of Central Point. Figure 1-1: Central Point Urban Growth Boundary, 2022 This TSP has been prepared within the context of an urban area consisting of 3,420 acres, the state’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as developed by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) and other local transportation plans and programs as described in detail in Chapter 2. This TSP will serve as the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 20 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 2 1.2 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT, 2022 The City added 444 acres of land to its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2022 to provide needed housing, non-industrial employment, parks and supporting land uses. Consequently the 2008 TSP is being amended to incorporate the new UGB areas as necessary to plan for transportation facilities and improvements. New projects for the revised UGB were identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC on July 27, 2022. These include the following six (6) intersections: Gebhard Road/Pine Street: Addition of a third westbound through lane, dual eastbound left turn lanes, and dual southbound left turn lanes. A third westbound through lane on Pine Street is recommended to begin east of Table Rock Road and extend to the I-5 northbound ramps for continuity and to help with corridor congestion. Upton/Scenic Road: Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout when warrants are met. Gebhard/Beebe Road: This new connection in the future is planned as a two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection with Beebe Road approaches stopped and Gebhard Road approaches free movements. As a TWSC intersection, the eastbound movement operates at a LOS “F”, which exceeds the City operational standard of LOS “D” or better. Implementing all-way stop-control (AWSC) was considered but was not shown to adequately mitigate this intersection. A roundabout is recommended to mitigate the higher demand of traffic volumes and blend in with the proposed roundabout network to the north. North Grant Road/Twin Creeks Crossing: This TWSC intersection becomes a 4-legged intersection in the future with an increase in traffic generated to/from the east from URA CP-6A. It exceeds the City and County performance standards as a TWSC but meets as an AWSC intersection. Proposed mitigation includes adding stop signs to the north and south Grant Road approaches when warranted. Gebhard/Wilson Road: This 4-legged intersection exceeds its County performance standard under future build conditions due to an increase in traffic to/from Wilson Road. Proposed mitigation includes adding stop signs to Wilson Road east and west approaches to make it an AWSC intersection when warranted. Upton Road/CP-2B: This 3-legged intersection exceeds its County LOS D performance standard under future build conditions due to an increase in traffic to/from Upton Road through a new connection to CP2B URA. Proposed mitigation includes adding a center turn lane on Upton Road at the CP-2B street connection. This TSP is updated to reflect the findings of the 2020 UGB TIA with an emphasis on Chapter 7 (Street System) and Chapter 12 (Transportation System Financing Program). In addition to adding projects identified by the UGB TIA, the amendment eliminates projects that have been completed, and prioritizes the new Capital Improvement (Tier 1) project list based on an updated financial forecast and inclusion of a new criterion addressing equity. Other minor amendments have been made throughout this document to coincide with major amendments discussed above. 1.3 THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE In recognition of the role that transportation plays in the economic success and livability of the state and the magnitude of the cost to provide and maintain a competitive transportation system, Oregon has included it as an element of the statewide planning process. Goal 12 - Transportation provides and 21 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 3 encourages the planning and implementation of a convenient, economic, and safe transportation system that integrates local, regional, state and inter-state transportation systems. This goal recognizes the necessity, at all levels of government, of having, and maintaining, a comprehensive transportation planning program that serves statewide transportation needs. The preferred means to achieving this objective is through the preparation of transportation system plans (TSP). A TSP is a plan for one or more transportation facilities that are planned, developed, operated, and maintained in a coordinated manner to assure continuity of movement between modes and geographic and jurisdictional boundaries. To facilitate implementation of Goal 12, the state adopted rules governing the preparation and coordination of transportation system plans (OAR 660-12). These rules are collectively referred to as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR acknowledges the significance in the relationship between transportation and land use planning and defines transportation systems planning as a mandatory element of a community’s comprehensive planning process. The following objectives of the TPR have been incorporated in the guiding principles, goals, and policies presented in this TSP: a) Promote the development of transportation systems adequate to serve statewide, regional and local transportation needs and the mobility needs of the transportation disadvantaged; b) Encourage and support the availability of a variety of transportation choices for moving people that balance vehicular use with other transportation modes, including walking, bicycling and transit; c) Provide for safe and convenient vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access and circulation; d) Facilitate the safe, efficient and economic flow of freight and other goods and services within regions and throughout the state through a variety of modes including road, air, rail and marine transportation; e) Protect existing and planned transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their identified functions; f) Provide for the construction and implementation of transportation facilities, improvements and services necessary to support acknowledged comprehensive plans; g) Identify how transportation facilities are provided on rural lands consistent with the goals; h) Ensure coordination among affected local governments and transportation service providers and consistency between state, regional and local transportation plans; and i) Ensure that changes to comprehensive plans are supported by adequate planned transportation facilities. Transportation \,tran(t)s- pər-‘tā-shen\ n 1: an act, process, or instance of transporting or being transported. Transport \tran(t)s-‘pō(ə)rt, ‘tran(t)s-,\ vt 1: to transfer or convey from one place to another. System \’sis-təm\ n 1: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole. 2: an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole. 22 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 4 1.4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN In accordance with the TPR, the RVMPO is charged with the preparation, management, and maintenance of the RTP. The RVMPO covers the urbanized area of Jackson County, including the cities of Central Point, Ashland, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent, the unincorporated area of White City and surrounding Jackson County which in 2007 had an estimated population of 128,780. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) serves as the MPO for the Rogue Valley area. The MPO Policy Committee, the organization's decision-making board, consists of elected officials from the member cities and Jackson County, plus the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD), Jackson County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 1.5 VALUES, GUIDING PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND POLICIES In 2007, Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 (Vision 2020) was adopted by the City Council. Preparation of Vision 2020 included considerable citizen involvement in defining the future of the City, including the role transportation will play as the vision unfolds. Vision 2020 adopted the following statement as a core value for the planning and development of the City’s transportation system: “The City of Central Point values a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient and sensitive to the environment.” Figure 1-2: Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 In addition to this core transportation value, the citizens of Central Point developed a series of transportation related principles. The term “principle” refers to the community’s fundamental position to be used throughout the preparation and implementation of this TSP. The use of principles is intended to serve as a point of reference and a philosophical system of wayfinding as the City navigates its way through the goals, policies, and implementation strategies necessary to attain the City’s transportation vision. The following represents the principles that will guide the preparation and implementation of this TSP: 1. To strike a balance between accessibility and connectivity of people and goods, while keeping the system safe, attractive, and well-maintained. 2. To advocate land use patterns, such as transit-oriented development and in-fill strategies, that support the continued enhancement of multi-modal transportation. 3. To increase street system safety and function through the adoption and implementation of access management standards for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the existing investment in transportation facilities. 23 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 5 4. To design streets in a manner that maximizes the utility of public right-of-way; is appropriate to their functional role, and provides for multiple travel modes, while minimizing their impact on the character and livability of surrounding neighborhoods, business districts and the environment. In addition to guiding principles, the City has adopted a series of transportation related goals. The term “Goals” is defined as the City’s major desire, or intent, determined necessary for the attainment of its preferred transportation system. The goals are written to focus attention, to energize the community to action, and to instill the resolve necessary to attain the goal during the life of the Plan. Goal implementation is generally enforced through what is referred to as policies. The term “Policy” identifies the preferred course of action determined appropriate to the successful attainment of a related goal. Where appropriate each policy is followed with actions related to the implementation of the policy. Actions are typically associated with events such as code amendments, capital improvement plans, etc. 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT & PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS In accordance with the Statewide Planning Goal, 1 the preparation and adoption of this TSP included a citizen involvement component that included the following: Central Point Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Throughout development of the TSP the CAC served as a reviewing authority, providing input and forwarding recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The CAC draft TSP was the first released to the public and to other agencies for review (Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development). Throughout the CAC review all meetings were noticed to encourage the public to participate in preparation of the draft TSP. The Central Point Planning Commission. The draft TSP, as recommended by the CAC, was forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. All Planning Commission meetings were noticed to encourage the public to provide input on preparation of the final draft of the TSP, and City Council meetings at which the TSP was considered. Central Point City Council. Based on recommendations from the CAC and the Planning Commission, the City Council reviewed the TSP and after conducting public hearings the City Council December 4 and 18, 2008 adopted the TSP as presented in this document. The City Council meetings were noticed to further encourage the public to provide final input on TSP. 1.7 PLAN ORGANIZATION In acknowledgement of the relationship between the TPR, the RTP, and this TSP, the organization of this document closely follows the format described in the TPR - Elements of Transportation System Plans. Central Point’s TSP has been developed through a series of technical evaluations of the City’s transportation system as it currently exists and as it will be expanded and used through the year 2030. In addition, the technical analysis preparation of this TSP has included systematic input and review by the city staff, the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Planning Commission, and the citizens of Central Point. 24 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 1 — Introduction Page 6 In its entirety, this TSP contains thirteen (13) chapters as follows: Each of these chapters has been prepared in compliance with the TPR and tested for consistency with federal, state, regional, and local transportation plans. 1.8 ACTION PROGRAM During the preparation of this TSP, there were numerous occasions where it was determined that the current standards and regulations were in need of modification or that entirely new provisions were required to bring the City’s transportation program into compliance with the TPR. Changes to the City’s zoning and public works standards are presented in the Implementation subsection of Chapter 13, Implementation Policies. The Implementation subsection identifies required actions, the lead department responsible, the document needing modification, and a schedule for completion of the action throughout the planning period. The design of the Implementation subsection fully expects that as actions are completed that they are noted in the Action Program and that this section will be periodically updated to reflect the action. These periodic updates of the Action Program are not considered amendments to this TSP, but merely reflect an accounting of progress in attaining the objectives of the TSP throughout its life. 1.9 PROGRAM COMPLIANCE In collaboration with the TPR and the RTP, the City of Central Point has prepared this TSP. Central Point’s TSP is consistent with, and complements, other related transportation system plans, including local, regional, state, and federal transportation policies and programs. The goals, policies, and plans set forth in this TSP represent the City’s vision for maintaining and advancing its transportation system in coordination with its land use planning program. The ultimate objective is to efficiently and effectively provide for the transportation needs of the community while improving the quality of life of its citizens. Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian System Chapter 2. Plan Compliance Chapter 9. Public Transit System Chapter 3. Land Use and Forecasting Chapter 10. Aviation and Rail System Chapter 4. Existing Conditions and Needs Chapter 11. Freight System Chapter 5. Transportation Management Chapter 12. Transportation System Financing Chapter 6. Parking System & Management Chapter 13. Implementation Policies Chapter 7. Street System 25 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 7 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that all local transportation system plans be consistent with the regional transportation system plan and adopted elements of the state transportation system plan . Local transportation system plans are also required to be coordinated with affected federal and state agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers of transportation services. The purpose of this chapter is to verify coordination, and where appropriate, compliance with applicable transportation plans and programs and to address the consistency of this Transportation System Plan (TSP) with affected state, federal and local transportation plans and programs. 2.2 PLAN COMPLIANCE, SCOPE OF REVIEW Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines, Goal 12: Transportation serves as the principal document governing the preparation and implementation of state, regional and local transportation plans. Goal 12 requires that transportation system plans: Consider all modes of transportation; Be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; Consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing combinations of transportation modes; Avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation; Minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; Conserve energy; Meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services; Facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; and Conformity with local and regional comprehensive land use plans. While Goal 12 establishes the state’s overall transportation goal, it is the TPR that defines the minimum requirements for the preparation of local transportation system plans, including compliance with other federal, state, and regional transportation plans. The goals, policies and plans presented in this TSP have been reviewed for compliance with the following transportation plans and other documents: City of Central Point Strategic Plan 2040 – A review of the City’s updated long-term vision for the City of Central Point relative to the 2022 TSP Amendment. Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 – A review of the City’s long-term vision for the City of Central Point, with an emphasis on the community’s vision for their transportation needs. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) – The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) was adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1991 and sets forth the requirements for preparation of local transportation system plans. The City of Central Point’s TSP was originally based on, and complies with, the TPR as set forth in OAR 660, Division 12 dated October 30, 2006. The 26 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 8 2022 TSP Amendment was prepared in conformance with OAR 660-012-0012(2)(a) dated August 17, 2022. Plan Conformity, Other – Preparation of this TSP included a review of the goals and policies of applicable state, regional, and local transportation plans, as well as the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development ordinances. Other plans considered in the preparation of this TSP included: o Oregon Transportation Plan o 1999 Oregon Highway Plan o Oregon Rail Plan, 2001 o Regional Freight Study o Statewide Transportation Improvement Program o Oregon Access Management Rules (OAR 734-051) o Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan o Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) o Jackson County Transportation System Plan, March 2005 o Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan o Transit-Oriented Design (TOD) and Transit Corridor Development Strategies for the Rogue Valley o Rogue Valley Transit District Plan o City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan o City of Medford Transportation System Plan o City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance o City of Central Point Subdivision Ordinance o City of Central Point Public Works Standards o Other plans 2.3 CENTRAL POINT STRATEGIC PLAN Over the course of time, there are many documents and plans that are used in guiding the development practices of any community. The most significant of these documents is the one that identifies a community’s long-term vision for its future. The City of Central Point has developed such a vision plan, Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020 and City of Central Point Strategic Plan 2040. Central Point Forward, Fair City Vision 2020. Preparation of this plan was based on considerable citizen involvement in defining the preferred future of the City, including the role transportation will play as the vision unfolds. Within the scope of the visioning process, citizens defined a system of values, goals, strategies, and actions to be applied over the course of the next thirteen years. When completed, there were six categories defining the City’s vision and strategies for attaining that vision. One of those categories included Transportation. For transportation, the citizens of Central Point defined as a core value the planning and development of a system of transportation and infrastructure that is modern, efficient, and sensitive to the environment. For transportation, the Vision Plan identified three goals, thirteen strategies, and eight actions. Each of these goals, strategies, and actions has been addressed in this TSP. City of Central Point Strategic Plan 2040. The 2040 Strategic Plan was developed following completion of the actions identified in the 2020 Vision Plan. The 2040 Strategic Plan charts a course for the next 20- 27 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 9 years with an emphasis on the priorities and actions need to realize the community’s preferred vision for its future as follows: “Central Point is a safe, family-friendly, livable community that cultivates its small-town feel by managing growth and inspiring meaningful connections between people and places.” The Plan identifies five (5) Strategic Priorities to guide achievement of the community’s vision: 1. Community Investment – This priority has to do with making physical, social and economic investments that support the community’s vision. 2. Community Engagement – Responsive and proactive governance requires quality communication between citizens, business and the City. This priority is geared toward building strong relationships and effective communication. 3. Community Culture – Central Point has a unique identify and culture. This priority aims to celebrate Central Point customs, arts, social institutions and achievements. 4. Responsible Governance – There are multiple facets to responsible governance from earning and retaining public trust, maintaining a strong financial position, to thoughtfully hiring and training employees, promoting volunteerism, and developing the policing program. Lastly, this area focuses on becoming a resilient city that has the capabilities needed to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk. 5. Vibrant Economy – Having a vibrant economy is the fuel for a healthy community. The City’s Strategic Plan focuses on managing growth, revitalizing downtown, connecting the east and west sides of the community and business attraction, support and investment. For transportation the 2040 Strategic Plan identifies six (6) goals and twelve (12) strategies within the Strategic Priorities related to Community Investment and Vibrant Economy. Priorities relative to Community Engagement and Responsible Governance have been applied throughout the planning process and will continue to be a core focus during implementation. 2.4 OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE The need to update the TSP is driven by the requirements of the Oregon TPR. In accordance with the TPR, local transportation plans at a minimum must: Establish a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local transportation needs and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and adopted elements of the state TSP; Be adopted as part of the City’s comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan); and Be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and private providers of transportation services (Plan Conformity). 28 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 10 The goals and policies of the City’s TSP have also been reviewed for consistency with the Planning and Implementation Guidelines established by Goal 12, Transportation, and modified as necessary to address the following key provisions of Goal 12: Planning - To the fullest extent possible transportation systems should be planned to utilize existing facilities and rights-of-way; Planning - Population densities and peak hour travel patterns of existing and planned developments should be considered in the choice of transportation modes for trips taken by persons. While high density developments with concentrated trip origins and destinations should be designated to be principally served by mass transit, low-density developments with dispersed origins and destinations should be principally served by all transportation modes, including automobiles, multiple use trails, public transportation, bicycles, etc.; Planning - Plans providing for a transportation system should consider as a major determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land, and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation and development actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources; Implementation - The number and location of major transportation facilities should conform to the applicable state or local land use plans and policies designed to direct urban expansion to areas identified as necessary and suitable for urban development; Implementation - Plans for new or for improvement of major transportation facilities should identify the positive and negative impacts on: o Local land use patterns; o Environmental quality; o Energy use and resources; o Existing transportation systems; and o Fiscal resources in a manner sufficient to enable local governments to rationally consider the issues posed by the construction and operation of such facilities. Implementation - Lands adjacent to major mass transit stations, freeway interchanges, and major air, land and water terminals should be managed and controlled so as to be consistent with and supportive of the land use and development patterns identified in the comprehensive plan of the jurisdiction within which the facilities are located; and Implementation - Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal. Additionally, the TSP goals and policies were reviewed to confirm that the following required elements have been addressed: A coordinated network of transportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional, and local transportation needs; A determination of transportation needs; A road plan for arterial and collector streets and standards for the layout of local streets and other non-collector street connections; and An inventory and general assessment of existing and committed transportation facilities and services by function, type, capacity, and condition; 29 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 11 A public transportation plan; A bicycle and pedestrian plan; An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan; A transportation system management plan and demand management plan (for areas greater than 25,000 persons) A parking plan; Policies and land use regulations for TSP implementation; and A transportation financing program. 2.5 PLAN CONFORMITY, OTHER The objective of the state’s transportation program is to assure that the preparation and content of local transportation system plans support other local, regional, and state transportation plans. The following identifies each of the local, regional, and state plans, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and land development regulations, including a summary of changes required for conformity. 2.5.1. Oregon Transportation Plan, 2006 (OTP): With the exception of the designation of Hwy. 99 as noted below, the TSP goals and policies are consistent with the OTP goals and policies. 2.5.2. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP): As its name implies the OHP is the state’s twenty-year plan for managing and improving its highway system. The OHP sets forth the state’s guiding vision for the future of the state highway system, and sets forth goals, policies, and actions (the Policy Element) necessary to attain its vision. The OHP also includes an analysis of system needs, revenue forecasts, investment and implementation strategies, and performance measurements. The goals and policies of this TSP are consistent with the OHP, with one exception resulting from a jurisdictional exchange affecting the District Highway designation of Hwy. 99. On May 14, 2004, by City of Central Point Resolution No. 1015 the jurisdiction of Hwy. 99 from Mile Post 1.64 to Mile Post 2.18 was transferred to the City and re-designated as a Major Arterial. Within the City’s urban area there remain two short sections, one north of Mile Post 1.64 and one south of Mile Post .063 that retain the District Highway designation. The City’s Street Classification Map has been modified to reflect these changes. 2.5.3. 2001 Oregon Rail Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Air & Rail chapter of the TSP are consistent with the Oregon Rail Plan. 2.5.4. Regional Freight Study, 2006: The Regional Freight Study identified the section of Pine Street through the downtown as a freight route. As stated in the City’s 2000 TSP and its Vision 2020, the preference is that freight be diverted from that section of Pine Street within the Central Business District. 2.5.5. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the TSP are consistent with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 2.5.6. Oregon Access Management Rules (ORS 734-015): The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Access Management chapter of the TSP are consistent with ORS 734-015. 2.5.7. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Bicycle and Pedestrian chapter of the TSP are consistent with the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 30 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 12 2.5.8. Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 (RTP): Aside from Goal 12 and the TPR, the RTP is the most significant contributing document with regard to preparation of this TSP. Many of the findings and compliance statements contained in the RTP are relied upon for compliance of this TSP, particularly in reference to state and federal plans and programs. The goals, objectives and policies of this TSP were compared against, and determined to be consistent with, those of the RTP, with the exception of the following two items as follows: 1. Hwy. 99 Classification – As discussed, subsequent to the adoption of the OHP and the RTP, Hwy. 99 was transferred to the City and downgraded from District Highway to Major Arterial Street. When the OHP and RTP are updated, they will reflect the change in designation of Hwy. 99 to Major Arterial Street. 2. Regional Freight Study – In the Regional Freight Study, the RTP designates Pine Street, from Front Street to Hamrick Road as a freight route. The freight designation conflicted with goals and policies of the prior TSP (2000) and the City’s Vision Plan. In this TSP Pine Street, west of I-5 is retained as part of the freight network but is not identified as a major freight route (Figure 11-2). Additional discussion on this issue is presented in Chapter 11. In addition to the goals and policies, the RTP also included seven performance measures. The purpose of the performance measures is to provide assurances that a reduction in the region’s reliance on the automobile would be achieved. The City of Central Point’s TSP acknowledges these performance measures and has included similar supporting performance measures for the City. The RTP performance measures are presented in Table 2-1. For comparison purposes the City’s performance measures are presented in Table 2-1 in parenthesis. Table 2-1: Alternative RTP Performance Measure Measure How Measured Current 2000 Benchmark 2005 (2008) Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark 2020 Benchmark 2030 Measure 1: Transit & bicycle/pedestrian mode share The percent of total daily trips taken by transit and the combination of bicycle and walking (non-motorized) modes. Determined from best available data (e.g., model output and/or transportation survey data). % daily trips Transit: 1.0 bike/ped.: 8.2 % daily trips Transit: 1.2 (1.2) bike/ped.: 8.4 (8.4) % daily trips Transit: 1.6 (1.6) bike/ped.: 8.4 (8.4) % daily trips Transit: 2.2 (2.2) bike/ped.: 9.8 (9.8) % daily trips Transit: 3.0 (3.0) bike/ped.: 11.0 (11.0) Measure 2: Percent of Dwelling Units (DU’s) within ¼ mile walk to 30- min. transit service Determined through GIS mapping. Current estimates are that 12% of DU’s are within ¼ mile walking distance of RVTD transit routes. 12% 20% (38%) 30% (40%) 40% 50% (55%) (65%) Measure 3: Collectors & arterials w/bicycle facilities Determined through GIS Mapping. Current estimates are that 21% of collectors and arterials in the City have provisions for bicyclists. 21% 28% (16%) 37% (21%) 48% 60% (48%) (70%) Measure 4: Percentage of collectors and Determined through GIS mapping. Current estimates are that 46% of 47% 50% (70%) 56% (75%) 64% 75% 80%) 31 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 13 2.5.9. Jackson County Transportation System Plan 2005: The goals and policies of this TSP have been reviewed against Jackson County’s TSP and determined to be consistent. No changes were required. 2.5.10. Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Bicycle and Pedestrian chapter of the TSP is consistent with the Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan. 2.5.11. Rogue Valley Transit District Plan: The goals, policies and actions set forth in the Transit chapter of the TSP are consistent with the Rogue Valley Transit Plan. 2.5.12. City of Medford Transportation Plan: Similar to Jackson County, the City’s transportation network interfaces in several locations with that of the City of Medford. Central Point’s TSP was compared with Medford’s TSP and was found to be consistent on all levels. The functional classification of streets, particularly the arterials system, is consistent as they traverse jurisdictional lines. Similarly, the bicycle and pedestrian systems facilitate inter-jurisdictional movement. No changes were required to assure consistency between the two TSPs. 2.5.13. City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan: This TSP has been prepared based on the land use classifications and distribution in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2.5.14. City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance: As a result of the preparation of this TSP, numerous incidents were revealed requiring amendment of the City of Central Point Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning. 2.5.15. City of Central Point Subdivision Ordinance: As a result of the preparation of this TSP, numerous incidents were revealed requiring amendment of the Central Point Municipal Code, Title 16, Subdivisions. arterials in TOD areas with sidewalks. collectors and arterials in TOD areas have sidewalks (85%) Measure 5: Percentage mixed-use DU’s in new development Determined by tracking building permits – the ratio between new DU’s in TODS and total new DU’s in the region. 0% 9% (25%) 26% (35%) 41% 49% (50%) (60%) Measure 6: Percentage mixed-use employment in new development Estimated from annual employment files from State – represents the ratio of new employment in TODs over total regional employment. 0% 9% (9%) 23% (23%) 36% 44% (44%) (50%) Measure 7: Alternative Transportation Funding Estimated from annual employment files from State – represents the ratio of new employment in TODs over regional employment. N/A $950,000 (-) $2.5 million (-) $4.3 million (-) $6.4 million (-) (-) 32 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 2 — Plan Compliance Page 14 2.6 OTHER PLANS Over the course of the past five years, the City has completed three significant transportation studies for Hwy. 99, East Pine Street, and the Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development district. The findings and recommendations from these three plans have been reviewed and incorporated into this TSP. The following is a brief description of each study and its relationship to the TSP. 2.6.1. Highway 99 Corridor Plan: This plan was prepared in 2005 for the purpose of identifying improvements to Hwy. 99 consistent with commercial revitalization of the Hwy. 99 corridor through Central Point. The findings and recommendations of the Highway 99 Corridor Plan have been incorporated in this TSP. East Pine Street Transportation Plan: This plan was prepared in 2004 by JRH Transportation Engineering. The purpose of this plan was to provide an assessment of the future transportation infrastructure of the East Pine Street corridor area to accommodate regional and local traffic growth. The plan forecast traffic growth through the year 2023 and recommended improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service. The findings and recommendations of the East Pine Street Transportation Plan have been updated and incorporated in this TSP. Central Point Transit-Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study: This study was completed in August 2000 by JRH Transportation Engineers to evaluate the traffic impacts of Central Point’s Transit-Oriented Development District. The findings and recommendations have been incorporated in this Plan. 2.7 CONCLUSION The TSP as presented in this document is found to be consistent with all applicable federal, state, regional and local transportation plans. It is the City’s intent, throughout the duration of this TSP, to continue monitoring and managing the TSP as necessary to maintain compliance with federal, state, regional, and local transportation system plans and changing transportation and land use needs. 33 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 15 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning 3.1 INTRODUCTION By the year 2030, it is expected that the City of Central Point’s population will approach 26,000, making Central Point the second largest city in the Rogue Valley. To accommodate the City’s projected growth, land was added to the UGB in 2022 for housing and jobs as well as other supporting land uses. Improvements to the City’s transportation system will be needed to accommodate continued growth. The amount, use, and distribution of future development, and the policies governing land use and development will determine the need for improvements to the transportation system. Consequently, the ability of the City to effectively incorporate transportation planning as an element of its land use planning process is critical to the continued enhancement of the quality of life offered to the citizens of Central Point. The purpose of this chapter is to acknowledge the relationship within the City’s Comprehensive Plan between land use and transportation planning. The findings, goals, and policies presented in the TSP have been integrated with the findings, goals, and policies of the City’s land use program as presented in the Comprehensive Plan. It is not the purpose of this chapter to restate the City’s land use program, but instead to reference those elements of the Comprehensive Plan that most directly determine the transportation needs of the City. Within the City’s Comprehensive Plan there are four elements that have a noticeable impact on transportation planning. Those elements are the Land Use Element, the Population Element, the Housing Element, and the Economic Element. Together these elements affect the rate, character, and location of development within the City’s urban area, which then determines the need for transportation services. Each of these elements and their role in the City’s transportation planning process will be discussed and noted as a reference to the TSP. 3.2 THE LAND USE ELEMENT Currently, within the City’s urban area there are 3,420 acres of land distributed over eleven (11) land use classifications. Included in the land use classifications is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. The land use classifications identified in the Land Use Element are supported by fourteen (14) zoning districts, with nine (9) residential zones and five (5) commercial/industrial zones. Development within each zoning district is regulated by standards set forth in the City’s Land Development Code. Collectively, this system of land use classifications, zoning districts, and development standards establish the limits and tools for the development of an efficient and timely transportation system. Land Use Classifications: The land use classifications are the basis for determining traffic generation/services. The transportation modeling used in the preparation and maintenance of the TSP relies on the land use classifications defined in the Land Use Element. Changes in the City’s land use 34 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 16 classifications should be accompanied by supplemental traffic analysis to identify any impacts and mitigation measures necessary to maintain a balanced transportation system. Zoning Districts: Zoning districts are a higher order refinement of the land use classification system. Zoning districts must be compatible with the underlying land use designation. For each zoning district, specific types of uses are identified and regulated in accordance with the standards set forth in the City’s Land Development Code. Allowed uses within a zoning district are consistent with the underlying land use classification. Development Standards: Throughout the City of Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) there are codified standards that control improvements to the City’s transportation system. Most of these development standards are contained in the City’s Land Development Code (Chapter 17). Another source of development standards can be found in the City of Central Point Public Works Standards. The City’s development standards are designed to support and implement the multi-modal goals and policies of the TSP. 3.3 BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY (BLI) One of the significant considerations in preparation of the TSP is the availability and distribution of vacant lands within the City’s urban area. The BLI provides an accounting of buildable lands by land use designation, zoning, and Transportation Area Zones (TAZ) making it possible to determine the location and type of new development, and the future impact of that development on the City’s transportation system. The BLI is a support document to the Land Use Element. 3.4 GROWTH PROJECTIONS The rate of development of the City’s buildable lands and its impact on the transportation system is a function of the rate of population and employment growth. The Population Element and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the City’s projected population growth and housing needs throughout the planning period, while the Economic Element addresses the City’s expected employment growth. Together these three Comprehensive Plan elements will, in conjunction with the BLI, provide the basis for identifying the rate, location of new development, and the impact of that development on the City’s transportation system. 3.4.1 POPULATION ELEMENT: The Population Element identifies the City’s projected population growth and population characteristics throughout the planning period. It is expected that by the year 2030 the City’s population will be approaching 29,000 people. 3.4.2 HOUSING ELEMENT: The demand for housing is a function of population growth and household characteristics such as housing type, vacancy rate, and persons per household. The Housing Element evaluates the housing needs of the City throughout the planning period. The Housing Element, in conjunction with the Land Use Element, determines the mix and distribution of housing within the urban area. As evidenced in the Housing Element, the City is encouraging use of the TOD overlay to encourage mixed residential development and the use of multi-modal transportation opportunities. 35 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 17 3.4.3 ECONOMIC ELEMENT: Similar to the Housing Element, the Economic Element, using population projections, estimates job creation throughout the planning period. Together with the Land Use Element, the Economic Element provides information on the rate and location of jobs. 3.5 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Any discussion of land use and transportation planning is not complete without the inclusion of transit- oriented development (TOD). As used in this chapter, the term “TOD” refers to mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development. Transit-oriented design is a general description of a set of development strategies designed to create an atmosphere that is safe, convenient, and easily accessible by foot, bicycle, and transit users. With the completion of the Transit-Oriented Design and Transit Corridor Development Strategies Study (TOD 1999 Study), cities within the metropolitan area have been successfully applying transit-oriented development (TOD) as a land use strategy. The City of Central Point is an excellent example of the application of TOD strategies. Shortly after completion of the TOD 1999 Study the City adopted TOD standards and in December of 2000, a final plan for the Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development, a 230-acre TOD project was approved, and development commenced. Today the Twin Creeks TOD is a successful representation of applied TOD strategies. The Twin Creeks TOD has been a positive influence on the land use planning for the City and has set the standard for new, in-fill and redevelopment standards throughout the City. Today the City has a TOD designation for the City’s Central Business District and for the commercial area along Highway 99. Most recently the citizens of Central Point have reasserted in Vision 2020 their continued endorsement of land use policies that support and enhance the City’s transit-oriented land use program. The use of TOD strategies has been endorsed on the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and is represented in three of the seven RTP performance measures identified in Chapter 2. These performance standards have been acknowledged by the City and included in the TSP as land use performance measures for the City and are presented in Table 3-1. The RTP performance measures are presented below and included in the TSP as future performance benchmarks for the City. 36 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 18 Table 3-1: RTP Alternative Performance Measures Measure How Measured Current 2008 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark 2020 Benchmark 2030 Measure 2: Percent of Dwelling Units (DUs) within ¼ mile walk to 30-min. transit service Determined through GIS mapping. Current estimates are that 12% of DUs are within ¼ mile walking distance of RVTD transit routes. 12% 30% 40% 50% Measure 5: Percentage mixed- use DUs in new development. Determined by tracking building permits – the ratio between new DUs in TODs and total new DU’s in the region. 0% 26% 41% 49% Measure 6: Percentage mixed- use employment in new development. Estimated from annual employment files from State – represents the ratio of new employment in TODs over total regional employment. 9% 23% 36% 44% Table 3-2: City of Central Point Performance Measures Measure How Measured Current 2008 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2020 Benchmark 2030 Measure 3.1: Percent of Dwelling Units (DUs) within ¼ mile walk to 30-min. transit service Determined through GIS mapping. Current estimates are that 12% of DUs are within ¼ mile walking distance of RVTD transit routes. 38% 40% 55% 65% Measure 3.2: Percentage mixed- use DUs in new development. Determined by tracking building permits – the ratio between new DUs in TODs and total new DU’s in the region. 25% 35% 50% 60% Measure 3.3: Percentage mixed- use employment in new development. Estimated from annual employment files from State – represents the ratio of new employment in TODs over total city employment. 9% 23% 44% 50% 37 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 3 — Land Use & Transportation Planning Page 19 3.6 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND THAT SUPPORTS, THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN. Policy 3.1.1. The City shall manage the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that enhances livability for the citizens of Central Point as set forth in the Transportation System Plan. Policy 3.1.2. The City shall continuously monitor and update the Land Development Code to maintain best practices in transit-oriented design consistent with the overall land use objectives of the City. 38 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 20 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 660-012-0020(3) of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that all transportation system plans include an inventory of existing transportation facilities and services by function, type, capacity, and condition. In accordance with the TPR, this chapter will inventory the condition of the City’s existing transportation system. The City’s transportation system is comprised of five (5) transportation modes: 1. Street System 2. Pedestrian System 3. Bicycle System 4. Transit System 5. Rail System An inventory of each of these transportation modes has been completed as part of the 2008 TSP planning process. The inventory data comes from a variety of sources including the City’s physical inventory of its street, pedestrian, and bikeway systems. For the transit system, the facilities inventory information was provided by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. For the rail system, the inventory information was provided by Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP). 4.2 STREET SYSTEM The City’s street system is comprised of over 60 miles of roadway serving a variety of functions from arterial and collector streets to local residential and commercial streets. Each street type within the City has a specific functional classification. 4.2.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Streets, whether public or private, do not operate independent of one another but as a network of roadways. The City’s street system is comprised of a hierarchy of street types, each designed and constructed with the objective of serving a specific function within the City’s street system, the regional street system, and the state roadway system. The City’s street classification system is derived from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHA) functional classification definitions, which consists of four (4) basic street types: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets. Each street classification describes the role of that classification in serving the flow of trips through a community’s street network, as well as how it interfaces with regional, state, and national street networks. The following describes each of the City’s street classifications: 39 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 21 Principal Arterials. The City’s principal arterial system is designed to link major activity centers within the metro area. Principal arterials have the highest traffic volumes, serve the longest trip desires, and should be integrated with local and regional arterial systems. To effectively serve its design objective, principal arterials are either partially, or fully, access controlled. In order to preserve the identification of controlled access facilities, the principal arterial system is further classified as interstate freeways (I-5), principal arterials, or minor arterials. The minimum design standard for principal arterials will include bike lanes and sidewalks. Intermodal Connectors. Another, often overlooked, function of principal arterials is their role as intermodal connectors linking regional intermodal terminals to the highway network. Although they account for less than one percent (1%) of National Highway System mileage, intermodal connectors are unique in their role as key conduits for the timely and reliable delivery of goods, and hence the regional economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation identifies Pine/Biddle between I-5 and Hwy. 62 as an intermodal connector. This stretch of arterial street is referred to as the Rogue Valley International Airport intermodal connector. It is described as an Airport intermodal connector connecting I-5 and Hwy. 62 with the Airport. The identification of intermodal connectors, their role in the community’s transportation and economic system, and the investment needs necessary for their efficient operation throughout the planning period are deserving of special acknowledgement. Changes to this classification require amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary. Minor Arterials. The minor arterial street system includes all arterials not classified as a principal arterial, contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access than principal arterials, and offer a lower level of traffic mobility. Minor arterials may carry local bus routes and provide intra-community connectivity but ideally should not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. The minimum design standard for minor arterials will include bike lanes and sidewalks. Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary. Collector Streets. As their name implies, collector streets collect and distribute traffic from principal arterials and minor arterials to the local street system or directly to local destinations. Collector streets differ from the arterial system in that the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterials through the area to their ultimate destination. Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary. Local Streets. The local street system consists of all streets not classified as one of the other higher order streets. As their name implies local streets provide adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial land uses with access to the City’s higher order streets. Local streets typically offer the lowest level of mobility. Within the City there are two basic types of local streets as follows: Residential Streets. Residential streets provide direct access from the arterial network to local land uses. Residential access streets provide access to low and medium density residentially 40 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 22 zoned lands. Residential streets can be further classified based on the number of residential units served. Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary. Commercial/Industrial Streets. Commercial/Industrial streets provide direct access from the arterial network to local commercial and industrial land uses. Commercial/Industrial streets provide access to commercial and industrial land uses and provide localized traffic circulation. They serve commercial, manufacturing, and industrially zoned lands. Changes to this classification require an amendment to the TSP and would be based on factors such as changes in land use, including expansion of the urban growth boundary. Private Streets. Privately owned streets provide direct access from the arterial network to local land uses. Private streets may serve both residential and commercial land uses and provide localized traffic circulation. Private streets are no longer permitted by the City. Changes to this classification require the streets to be brought to public street standards and dedicated to the City without modification to this TSP. Figure 4-1 illustrates the City’s existing arterial and collector street classification system. 4.2.2 JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Several jurisdictions, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Jackson County, are responsible for portions of the existing street system within the study area. Figure 4-2 identifies the jurisdictions responsible for each street within the City. State Maintained Facilities. Within the planning area, ODOT maintains Interstate 5 (I-5) as well as portions of Pine Street near the Central Point/I-5 Interchange and portions of Highway 99. Each of these roadways is identified as a four-lane divided interstate freeway with posted speeds of 55 and 65 miles per hour in the Central Point area. It is classified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as having interstate significance and serves as the primary north and south route for traffic traveling through the area. Interstate 5 (I-5) is the main Interstate highway on the West Coast, paralleling the Pacific Ocean from Canada to Mexico and serving some of the largest cities in the western U.S., including Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Salem, Sacramento, San Francisco/Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Within the planning area, ODOT maintains I-5 which is a four-lane divided freeway with posted speeds of 55 and 65 miles per hour. The City is bisected by I-5, which runs in a northwest to southeast direction on the east side of downtown. There are two I-5 interchanges that serve Central Point. The first is located at Pine Street (Exit 33) near the center of the city and serves the downtown area, residential areas in east Central Point, the airport, and the industrial area located on Biddle Road and Table Rock Road. The second is the Seven Oaks Interchange (Exit 35) located approximately two (2) miles north of the City center. Highway 99 serves as another north-south access through Central Point. In 2004, a jurisdictional transfer was completed conveying to the City of Central Point the section of Highway 99 from Mile Post 1.64 to Mile Post 2.18. Within the City’s urban area there remain two short sections, one north of Mile Post 1.64 and one south of Mile Post .063 that retain the District Highway designation. The City’s Street Classification Map has been modified to reflect these changes. 41 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 23 Figure 4-1: Functional Classification System Map 42 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 24 Figure 4-2: Roadway Jurisdiction 43 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 25 County Maintained Facilities. Jackson County has jurisdiction over some roads within the Central Point UGB, including many sections of the City’s arterial and collector street system such as Beall Lane, Grant Road, and Upton Road. The City and the County have been working collaboratively to transfer County roads to the City’s jurisdiction. City Maintained Facilities. As illustrated in Figure 4-2, the City maintains the majority of the streets within the Central Point urban area. The cross-sections range from two lane local streets to five lane arterial streets with posted speed ranges between 20 and 40 mph. Privately Maintained Facilities. Throughout the City there are a limited number of privately owned and maintained streets. The City no longer allows the creation of private streets. 4.2.3 TRAFFIC SAFETY ANALYSIS The crash histories on the major intersections within the City were reviewed to identify potential intersection safety concerns. Crash records were obtained from the ODOT Crash Summary Books and the City of Central Point Police Department for the period of January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2006. Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. provides a summary of this crash data for each of the study intersections. As illustrated in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., all study area intersections are currently operating at less than 1.0 accidents per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV), indicating that there are currently no apparent safety issues within the City’s street system. Table 4-1: Crash Rate, City of Central Point, 2006 Intersection Threshold Used in Evaluation (MEV) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ADT Crash Rate (MEV) Beall & Freeman 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 5,620 0.10 Beall & Bursell 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 4,810 0.00 Beall & Grant 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 3,360 0.00 Beall & Hanley 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0.00 Beall & Hwy. 99 1.0 0 0 4 2 1 18,480 0.21 Taylor & Grant (south) 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,550 0.00 Taylor & Grant (north) 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,740 0.00 Bursell & Hopkins 1.0 2 1 0 1 1 4,490 0.61 Wilson & Table Rock 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 14,960 0.00 Vilas & Table Rock 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 23,870 0.00 New Haven & Hamrick 1.0 0 1 0 1 0 11,850 0.09 Gebhard & Wilson 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,860 0.00 Grant & Scenic 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 1,710 0.00 Scenic & Hwy. 99 1.0 0 1 0 1 0 9,660 0.11 Haskell & Taylor 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 2,840 0.00 Haskell & West Pine 1.0 1 2 2 3 2 11,320 0.48 Upton & Peninger 1.0 0 1 1 0 0 4,590 0.24 Freeman & Hopkins 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,650 0.00 44 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 26 Mobility Measures and Standards: There are two methods for determining the quality of a street system’s mobility: Level of Service (LOS) and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C Ratio). The City uses the LOS as its primary methodology for determining the street systems efficiency. The City also uses V/C Ratio methodology as a secondary measurement of efficiency, while ODOT and Jackson County only use the V/C Ratio methodology. Level of Service (LOS): The LOS methodology was developed to quantify the quality of service of transportation facilities. LOS quantifies the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway section. In general, level of service is based on total delay. This parameter is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. LOS ranges from “A” to “F”, with LOS “A” indicating the most desirable condition and LOS “F” indicating an unsatisfactory condition. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS designations for signalized and stop-controlled intersections are provided in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, respectively. The City uses LOS as a performance standard for its traffic facilities. The maximum level of service for Central Point facilities is level of service “D”. With the exception of ODOT facilities the LOS methodology will be used in identifying existing and future mobility standards for all other major roadway systems. As previously noted, the City acknowledges that the County uses the V/C Ratio methodology. However, it is generally acknowledged that all County roads will at some point come under the City’s jurisdiction, and as such the LOS mobility measure is used. Table 4-2: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Designations for Signalized of Service Traffic Flow Comments Delay Range* A (Desirable) Free Traffic flows freely with minimum or no delay. Drivers can maneuver easily and find freedom in operation. <=10 Level Meadowbrook & East Pine 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 13,540 0.04 Beebe & Hamrick 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 12,960 0.00 Peninger & East Pine 1.0 10 3 3 5 4 27,340 0.50 Hamrick & East Pine 1.0 2 0 3 1 3 24,550 0.20 Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) 1.0 4 7 2 4 4 22,230 0.52 2nd & East Pine 1.0 3 3 5 3 2 15,420 0.57 3rd & East Pine 1.0 5 4 4 4 5 14,070 0.86 4th & East Pine 1.0 2 4 4 1 2 13,430 0.53 6th & East Pine 1.0 3 1 1 1 2 15,430 0.28 10th & East Pine 1.0 12 9 8 10 8 25,960 0.99 I-5 NB & East Pine 1.0 2 2 2 2 1 26,960 0.18 I-5 SB & East Pine 1.0 2 2 2 2 1 23,460 0.21 Table Rock & East Pine 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 16,060 0.03 Hazel & 3rd & 2nd 1.0 3 0 1 0 0 3,160 0.69 45 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 27 of Service Traffic Flow Comments Delay Range* B (Desirable) Stable Traffic still flows smoothly with few delays. Some drivers feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. >10 and <=20 C (Desirable) Stable Traffic generally flows smoothly but occasionally vehicles may be delayed through one signal cycle. Desired urban area design level. Backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. >20 and <= 35 D (Acceptable) Approaching Unstable Traffic delays may be more than one signal cycle during peak hours, but excessive back- ups do not occur. Considered acceptable urban design level. Maneuverability is limited during short periods due to temporary back-ups. >35 and <=55 E (Unsatisfactory) Unstable Delay may be great and up to several signal cycles. Short period of this level may be tolerated during peak hours in lieu of the cost and disruption attributed to providing a higher level of service. There are typically long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersections. >55 and <= 80 F (Unsatisfactory) Forced Excessive delay causes reduced capacity. Always considered unsatisfactory. May be tolerated in recreational areas where occurrence is rare. Traffic is backed up from other locations and may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles at the intersection. >= 80 *Delay Range related to the range of average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) that falls within the associated level of service. Table 4-3: Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service for Stopped Controlled Intersections Level of Service Delay Range* A (Desirable) <=10 B (Desirable) >10 and <=15 C (Desirable) >15 and <= 25 D (Acceptable) >25 and <= 35 E (Undesirable) >35 and <= 50 F (Unsatisfactory) >50 *Delay Range related to the range of average vehicle delay (in seconds per vehicle) that falls within the associated level of service. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio: Volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is another measure of effectiveness that is used to describe the level of operation of signalized intersections, stop-controlled movements, and roadway segments. A volume-to-capacity ratio measure indicates the percentage of available capacity that is used by traffic demand during a given time period. When the volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1.0, traffic queues will form and continue to lengthen until demand reduces to below the capacity. The City of Central Point and Jackson County use the V/C Ratio to provide for consistent traffic analysis with ODOT and because the V/C Ratio is conceptually simpler making it somewhat easier to explain to the general public. ODOT has jurisdiction over the signalized I-5 ramp terminal intersections at East Pine Street, as well as the intersections of Hwy. 99 & Beall Lane, Hwy. 99 & Scenic Avenue and Peninger Road & 46 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 28 East Pine Street. ODOT does not employ LOS methodology. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan lists maximum volume-to-capacity ratios for all Oregon highways based on their level of importance within the statewide highway system. Volume-to-capacity ratio provides an indication of capacity sufficiency. The higher the volume-to-capacity ratio, the more congested the facility. The Highway Mobility Standards Policy established standards for mobility that are reasonable and consistent with the directions of other highway plan policies. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan volume-to-capacity ratio standard for I-5 and its interchange components is 0.85. Action 1F.1 of the plan states that the maximum volume-to-capacity ratio for the ramp terminals of interchange ramps shall be the smaller of the values of the volume-to- capacity ratio for the crossroad, or 0.85. All other ODOT intersections within the City of Central Point must operate at a volume-to-capacity ratio less than or equal to 0.90. For both the City and County facilities, the maximum V/C ratio is 0.95. 4.2.4 EXISTING OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS In 2007, the City completed an operational analysis of the City’s existing street system. With the exception of the intersection of Beebe Road and Hamrick Road, the City’s arterial and collector street system is currently operating at an acceptable level of service. The LOS at the intersection of Beebe Road and Hamrick Road is operating at a LOS of E/F (am/pm). All ODOT facilities are operating within their minimum of 0.85 V/C for Interchange 33 ramp terminals and 0.90 V/C for the north and south remaining Oregon Highway 99 segments under state jurisdiction (portions of the intersection at Scenic Road and Beall Lane). The existing operational levels of intersections within the study area are summarized in Table 4-4. 4.2.5 FREIGHT SERVICE. Truck freight transportation within the Central Point UGB is primarily concentrated along the truck routes designated in the Regional Transportation Plan. Figure 4-3 illustrates the City’s truck routes, which include Interstate 5 (I-5) and Highway 99 (Front Street). I-5 is the most important freight route in the region carrying approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks per day through the area. I-5 not only serves freight heading to destinations within the Central Point UGB, but also serves trucks passing through the region to destinations throughout the West Coast. Currently, the combined volume of freight transported over highway and rail modes in the I-5 corridor through the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Region is estimated at 25 million tons annually, with the majority of this freight carried on the highway system. Additional Central Point Freight Routes as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study (2006) include Table Rock Road, Hamrick Road, East Vilas Road, Pine Street, and Hanley Road. The Freight Study finds that the freight system is in need of improvements to maintain adequate levels of service to remain competitive and safe. The Freight Study recommended twenty-nine (29) projects that would improve the region’s freight system. Of these twenty-nine projects, seven (7) were within Central Point’s urban area. These projects and their scoring are listed in Table 4-5. 47 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 29 Table 4-4: Level of Service and Vehicle-to-Capacity Ratio Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard Year 2006 A.M. Performance Year 2006 P.M. Performance WEST SIDE Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.81 V/C 0.76 Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS C 2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D 3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS A 4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS A 6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS D LOS D 10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS C Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.23 V/C 0.64 Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS A Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C EAST SIDE Meadowbrook & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS E LOS F Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.51 V/C 0.77 I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.72 V/C 0.65 Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS D LOS D Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS C New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B 48 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 30 Figure 4-3: Major Truck Routes 49 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 31 Table 4-5: RVMPO Freight Study Recommended Projects, City of Central Point Rank Project Importance to Freight Create & Sustain Jobs Multi-Modal Remove Barriers Total Score 6 Table Rock Rd. & West Vilas Rd. Intersection 30 14 0 30 80 7 Table Rock Rd. & Hamrick Rd. Intersection 20 30 0 30 80 9 Improve East/West Flow on Pine Street 30 10 6 30 78 10 Improve Traffic Flow at Central Point I-5 Interchange 30 10 6 30 76 21 Repair Hamrick Rd. South of Pine St. 5 30 0 18 53 23 East Pine St. & Peninger Intersection 10 10 0 30 50 27 Table Rock Rd.: Bear Creek to Pine St./Biddle Rd. 20 10 0 10 40 4.3 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDIES Within the City, there are two major transportation corridors: Hwy. 99 and Pine Street. Over the years each of these transportation corridors have had studies prepared addressing the transportation role of each in the community and preferred design solutions. Pine Street Transportation Corridor. Pine Street serves as the City’s primary east/west major arterial and is also the primary street serving the Central Business District. Additionally, Pine Street is a designated freight route. Because of its history and abutting land uses, Pine Street has been segregated in to two unique sections: East Pine Street and West Pine Street. East Pine Street Plan (JRH Transportation Engineering, October 2004) – East Pine Street serves as a typical major arterial with limited access. In 2005, the City completed an East Pine Street Corridor Study. This study identified limitations on East Pine Street due to continued growth in the area. The study also identified mitigation measures needed to maintain an acceptable level of service along East Pine Street. Recommended improvements have been incorporated in this TSP as part of the roadway improvements presented in Chapter 7. West Pine Street serves the Central Business District and is considered an urban arterial through the downtown with on-street parking, curb-extension, and other design features to emphasize the pedestrian nature of the downtown. Because West Pine Street traverses the downtown, it is critical that the design standards for West Pine Street be formalized as a by-product of a downtown master plan. Although West Pine Street is classified as a major arterial, it is imperative that on-street parking continues to be a part of the design for West Pine Street through the downtown. Highway 99 Corridor Plan (OTAK/DKS, June 13, 2005). Historically Hwy. 99 has been a north/south state highway that runs through Central Point. As is typical of the State’s old highway system, business developed and received direct access from Hwy. 99. Although a major arterial street, there are many businesses that have direct access to Hwy. 99. Through a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant, the City has prepared a corridor plan for Hwy. 99 that will serve as a blueprint for future private and public development along the highway using Smart Growth techniques. It is the objective of this plan to provide an aesthetically pleasing and safe multi-modal environment along the corridor. 50 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 32 In 2005, the City and the State agreed on a jurisdictional transfer conveying to the City the jurisdiction of Hwy. 99 between Mile Post 1.64 and Mile Post 2.18. During that same period the City, after considerable community and ODOT input, adopted the Highway 99 Corridor Plan. The acknowledged function of Hwy. 99 is as a major arterial with a posted speed of 45 mph. The proposed design of Hwy. 99 intends to slow the traffic through the inclusion of the following: Gateway medians Frontage improvements to Fire Station No. 3 Enhanced pedestrian crossings Continuous pedestrian sidewalks and pathways Narrower curb-to-curb distances and travel widths Landscape improvements to the street edges, e.g., street trees and landscape planter strips These design components have been compiled into a boulevard design standard that addresses the unique character of Hwy. 99. Figure 9.2 illustrates the City’s typical cross-section as applied to Hwy. 99. The primary challenge in managing the redevelopment of Hwy. 99 will be access management. Typical access management regulations will be difficult to apply to Hwy. 99 as a result of existing land use patterns and driveways. An access management plan unique to Hwy. 99/Front Street should be prepared and adopted by the City. The recommendations presented in each of these studies are discussed in other chapters of this TSP, such as Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Streets. 4.4 BICYCLE SYSTEM EXISTING CONDITIONS The City’s existing bicycle system is illustrated in Figure 4-4. While existing bicycle facilities are located on a few of the arterial and collector streets in Central Point, much of the City’s arterial and collector systems lack bicycle facilities. The bicycle facilities that do exist cover only a limited geographic area and, in some cases, are disconnected from each other. Many of the City’s public schools and parks are poorly connected with surrounding neighborhoods, reducing the opportunity for convenient and safe bicycle travel for students and employees. What follows are descriptions of the status of bicycle facilities on arterial and collector streets. The focus is on these streets because they provide the essential connectivity needed to develop an effective bicycle facilities system. The most significant arterial and collector streets with limited or no bicycle facilities are: Front Street. There are no bicycle facilities located on Front Street. The Highway 99 Corridor Plan was completed in June 2005 and recommended that adding bike lanes to Front Street is not a recommended improvement. Within the current curb-to-curb distances, the bicycle lanes would be substandard and the differential between the average vehicle speeds and bike speeds are too great to support a convenient and safe bicycle system. It was proposed that safe and continuous north to south bicycle lanes could be provided along two parallel routes: Second Street (north bound), with bikes and vehicles sharing a travel lane; and A multi-use pathway west of the existing railroad tracks and connecting Crater High School with the Twin Creeks TOD and the future Snowy Butte TOD (south bound). A fence separating the railroad lines and the pathway will be required. 51 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 33 Figure 4-4: Bicycle System Map 52 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 34 East Pine Street (Freeman Road to Front Street). This section of East Pine Street has limited bicycle facilities located near the I-5 Interchange and Front Street. While East Pine Street may be designated as a bicycle route, due to issues related to traffic flow, parking and access to shopping areas, bicycle lanes may not be located on the street. Since this is the case, Manzanita Street and/or Oak Street have been designated as bikeways. Biddle Road (Table Rock Road to Hamrick Road). From Hamrick Road to Table Rock Road, bicycle facilities are not available. This section of Biddle Road (Biddle Road changes to East Pine Street at the intersection of Hamrick Road) is designated as a bicycle route consistent with the City of Medford’s designation of Biddle Road. Upton Road – I-5 Overpass. The Upton Road – I-5 overpass provides one of only two means for crossing I-5 in Central Point. A new overpass was completed in 2008 which provides both bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle lanes were also added to the west side of Upton which now connects to 10th Street/Scenic Avenue providing improved connectivity to the existing bicycle system. 4.4.1 LINKS TO OTHER EXISTING REGIONAL & MUNICIPAL BICYCLE FACILITIES AND PLANS The City’s Bicycle Plan, as illustrated in Figure 8-1 of TSP Chapter 8, provides connectivity to other local and regional bicycle facilities and plans. These links should be included to the Bear Creek Greenway, and the City of Medford TSP, and Jackson County TSP which are described below. Bear Creek Greenway Plan. The Bear Creek Greenway is a narrow corridor of publicly owned land that follows the Bear Creek streambed from Ashland (Nevada Street) to Central Point (Pine Street). Development of the Bear Creek Greenway bicycle and pedestrian path began in 1973 when the Oregon Department of Transportation built the first 3.4 mile stretch of the pedestrian/bicycle path through Medford. The Greenway currently includes two primary sections: Pine Street in Central Point to Barnett Road in Medford; and Blue Heron Park in Phoenix to Nevada Street in Ashland. When complete, the Greenway will provide a 20-mile, multi-use path from the I-5/Seven Oaks Interchange in Central Point to Nevada Street in Ashland. It will serve as an important facility for intercity travel in the I-5/OR 99 corridor. Additionally, a Rogue River Greenway is currently in the planning stages. This greenway will connect the communities of Grants Pass, Rogue River, and Gold Hill and would eventually be linked to the Bear Creek Greenway at the Seven Oaks Interchange. In terms of the bicycle component of the Central Point TSP, the Bear Creek Greenway not only offers a relatively safe and efficient means of transportation but also provides an essential connection to other communities located along the path. The links from the Central Point bicycle system to the Bear Creek Greenway are via Upton Road / Peninger Road and East Pine Street near the I-5 Interchange. The Jackson County Transportation System Plan (March 2005). Jackson County adopted its Bicycle Master Plan, which identified conditions, needs, and projects in 1997. The current Jackson County Transportation Plan adopted in March 2005 incorporates the projects identified in the master plan that have not yet been completed. The plan also adds projects that were not in the Master Plan where traffic volumes are expected to exceed 3,000 Average Daily Traffic Count (ADT) and adequate shoulders or bike lanes are not provided. 53 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 35 The primary connections that need to be considered as Central Point bicycle facilities are planned, developed, and improved are Hanley Road, Beall Lane, and Taylor Road. The Jackson County section of Taylor Road from Grant Road to Old Stage Road has been scheduled for improvement, including bicycle facilities. Once completed, Taylor Road will provide an additional link from Central Point to Old Stage Road. The county section of Beall Lane from Hanley Road to Old Stage Road has bicycle facilities. City of Medford Transportation System Plan (April 2003). The City of Medford Transportation System Plan – Bicycle Plan identifies the existing and planned bicycle system within the Medford urban area. On arterial and collector streets, it is important that Medford’s and Central Point’s bicycle systems be coordinated and supportive. The primary connections described in Medford’s Bicycle Plan that need to be considered as Central Point bicycle facilities are planned, developed, and improved are Merriman Road via Beall Lane, Front Street connection to North Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), West Vilas Road via Hamrick Road, and E. Pine Street connections to Biddle Road. Within the City of Medford these streets have, or are planned to have, bicycle lanes. 4.5 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM, EXISTING CONDITIONS The City’s existing pedestrian system is illustrated in Figure 4-5. The City has been diligently constructing sidewalks within activity centers, i.e. schools, shopping, etc. The City’s current development standards require sidewalks along all public streets. 54 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 36 Figure 4-5: Pedestrian System Map 55 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 37 4.6 RAIL SYSTEM, EXISTING CONDITIONS A single rail line runs through the City parallel to Hwy. 99. The rail line is operated by Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP) and is used for freight purposes only. Throughout the City’s urban area, there are three (3) public at-grade railroad crossings and one (1) proposed crossing. Table 4-6: Central Point Railroad Crossings and Controls 4.7 TRANSIT, EXISTING CONDITIONS The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) serves most of the urbanized area in Jackson County with public transit and paratransit services. It also serves other roles such as providing medical-purpose transportation for Medicaid clients, coordination with other government agencies for transportation planning and houses the region’s rideshare program. Central Point is currently served by Route 40 (Figure 4-6) and has very strong ridership. Based on the City’s GIS mapping, Route 40 is within a ¼ mile walk of approximately 40% of the City’s residential population. Route 40 travels from Medford to Central Point and has received increased frequency from one hour to 30-minute headways (the time between buses on the same line). Crossing Name Crossing No. Crossing Control Beall Lane U.S. DOT #756030T Full W. Pine Street U.S. DOT #756050T Full Scenic Avenue U.S. DOT #756051A Full Twin Creeks Crossing Proposed Full 4.7. Transit, Existing Conditions 56 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 4 — Existing Transportation Conditions Page 38 Figure 4-6: Rogue Valley Transit System Routes and Stops 57 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 39 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management 5.1 INTRODUCTION The Transportation Management chapter addresses transportation management best practices. There are three basic components to transportation management: Transportation System Management Access Management Transportation Demand Management The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that cities over 25,000 population include in their Transportation System Plan (TSP) strategies for Transportation System Management, Access Management, and Transportation Demand Management. With a current population of less than 25,000, the City of Central Point is not required by the TPR to include these elements in its TSP. However, because of the significance of these elements in maximizing the efficiency of a transportation system, coupled with the fact that during the life of this TSP the City will exceed 25,000, the City has elected to include these transportation management techniques as a part of its TSP. Additional information on these elements is provided in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In this chapter, it is the City’s objective to establish, as a guiding principle, the use of transportation management strategies that maximize the utility of public right-of-way; is appropriate to the functional classification of each street; and provides for multiple travel modes, while minimizing their impact on the character and livability of surrounding neighborhoods, business districts, and the general environment. 5.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) The TPR defines TSM as “techniques for increasing the efficiency, safety, and capacity or level of service of a transportation facility without increasing its size.” TSM strategies are aimed at making the most efficient and timely use of the existing transportation infrastructure, thus reducing the need for costly roadway capacity expansions. Techniques include, but are not limited to: Intersection and signal improvements: o Signal timing optimization o Controller/cabinet and signal head upgrades o Vehicle detectors repair/replace o Communication with central system o Turning lanes o Grade separations o Pavement Striping o Lane assessment changes o Signage and lighting 58 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 40 o Using one-way streets Signal prioritization for mass transit Freeway bottleneck removal programs Data Collection to monitor system performance Special events management TSM strategies emphasize policies that can guide implementation of solutions to problems when they are discovered. Specific TSM measures most applicable to the City’s transportation system are presented below. The listing and discussion of TSM strategies below does not represent any priority order. The broad range of TSM strategies must be considered for the individual problems associated with traffic operations at each location. 5.3 MOBILITY STANDARDS 5.3.1 UPDATE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS Local governments traditionally base their decisions on the installation of traffic signals on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Central Point has a history of successfully using signals to achieve optimum traffic flow and will continue to give priority to improving existing traffic signals and signal systems. Such improvements should include regular signal maintenance, updating the signal equipment and signal timing plan improvements. The need for traffic signal equipment modernization, timing plan improvements, and traffic signal removal should be evaluated based on detailed analyses of traffic operations at the existing intersections where signals are in place. Recent advances in signal technology and acceptance have led to installation of signals that offer a broader menu of traffic movement options, such as protective- permissive left turns. Depending on the traffic and the precise characteristics of individual intersections, installation of such equipment may prove desirable. The Pine Street traffic calming project, which is a part of this TSP, includes the replacement of the mechanical downtown Pine Street signals with protective-permissive left turn signals. Signal evaluations must be made on a case-by-case basis and can be more easily evaluated using software packages such as, but not limited to, TRANSYT, SYNCHRO, and Passer II. 5.3.2 COORDINATE TRAFFIC SIGNALS The coordination of new traffic signals through interconnection with existing traffic signals is a management technique that has demonstrated mobility improvements in corridor level traffic operations. Experience in other communities has shown an eight to ten percent improvement in travel time along arterials after interconnected systems have been installed. Reduction of some types of automobile-generated emissions is also cited as a possible benefit of improved signal systems. Whenever additional intersections are signalized, Central Point needs to consider how they can be best integrated with nearby signalized intersections. In some cases, signals operate most efficiently as independent signals, but in other cases, they are best integrated into a signal system. Some of the existing systems may need to be expanded to attain maximum benefit with the addition of more signals. 59 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 41 The RTP identifies East Pine Street between the I-5 interchange and Rogue Valley Highway in Central Point as a candidate corridor for consideration, or for re-evaluation, of existing traffic signal systems. The East Pine Street signal needs were evaluated, and recommendations are presented in the East Pine Street Transportation Plan, October 2004. The recommendations from the East Pine Street Plan have been included in this TSP. Installation of master controllers, interconnection systems, and other equipment may help to achieve increased efficiency and reduce congestion of the street system. The Pine Street traffic calming project includes the coordination of the downtown Pine Street signals. 5.3.3 ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS Intersection traffic control improvements such as traffic signals are generally based on identified traffic congestion and safety problems. Over time, a change in the surrounding land use and/or street system may reduce travel demand at the signalized intersection, or roadway and intersection geometric improvements may mitigate the safety problems at the intersection. Such changes in travel demand and safety at the intersection may make the signal unnecessary, thereby requiring that the signal be removed for optimum system performance. Intersections requiring removal of traffic signals may be converted to two-way stop control with free flow in the major direction of travel, or they may be converted to all-way stop control. The placement of traffic signals in downtown Central Point is likely to be re-evaluated during the Pine Street traffic calming project. 5.3.4 INTERSECTION GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS Intersection improvements such as the provision of turning lanes, traffic islands, channelization, and improved design can generally be implemented at relatively modest cost depending on their complexity. The benefits, though, in terms of improved vehicular traffic flow and pedestrian safety are substantial. Central Point should consider following recognized national standards for geometric improvements at intersections. The following are guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in designing and improving arterial intersections at grade: Reduce the number of conflicts among vehicular movements. Control the relative speed of vehicles both entering and leaving the intersection. Coordinate different types of traffic control devices used with the traffic volume at the intersection. Select proper types of intersections to serve the traffic volume. Low volumes can be served with minimal control, whereas higher volumes require turning lanes and sophisticated actuated signal operations. Use separate left- and right-turn lanes at high volume intersections. Avoid multiple and compound merging and diverging maneuvers. These require complex driver decisions and create additional conflicts. Separate conflict points. Intersection hazards and delays are increased when intersection maneuver areas are too close together or overlap. Favor the heaviest and fastest flows. Reduce areas of conflict by channelization (striping, islands, etc.). Segregate non-homogenous flows. Separate lanes should be provided where appreciable volumes of traffic are traveling at different speeds (e.g. turning lanes for slowing vehicles). 60 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 42 Consider the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Geometric improvements at qualifying intersections are included in this TSP’s project list (see Chapter 7- Street System). 5.3.5 ONE-WAY STREETS Streets carrying high traffic volumes in major activity centers, such as in the central business district (CBD) areas of cities, are often regulated to carry traffic in only one direction. The one-way designation increases the vehicle carrying capacity of the street by offering additional lanes for travel in the same direction and increases capacity of signalized intersections along the highway through improved signal progression and reduction in the number of signal phases (turning movements). The increased capacity along the corridor can result in reduced delays thereby providing significant travel time savings. One-way streets can also result in increased safety by reducing vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-vehicle conflicts; preventing the entrapment of pedestrians between opposing traffic streams; and improving the driver’s field of vision at intersection approaches. Along with increasing capacity and safety, one-way streets can help meet community objectives by saving sidewalks, trees, and other valuable frontage assets that would otherwise be lost because of the need to widen existing two-way streets. Additionally, the one-way designation can also permit improvements in public transit operations such as routings without turn-back loops. Overall, one-way streets provide a cost-effective operational solution to busy streets in highly developed areas, such as CBD or other activity centers, without requiring large capital expenditures. One-way street systems must be adequately signed and enough cross-connections must be provided for adequate accessibility. Without such provisions, traffic congestion and vehicle miles of travel could actually increase. One-way streets are not universally accepted. Where one-way streets have been proposed or implemented, many business owners object, fearing that access by customers will be lost. Many communities where one-way streets have been implemented have subsequently reversed their direction or have changed them back to two-way operation. Such changes make it clear that implementation of one-way street systems must be carefully considered, requiring involvement of all parties including business owners, motorists, and all other transportation system users. Several alleys in Central Point are one-way alleys. Currently, no streets are identified for being changed to one-way. 5.3.6 INSTALL NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT INTERSECTIONS Traffic signal improvements generally provide the most cost-effective solution to improving traffic congestion on existing arterial and collector streets. The need for traffic signal control at intersections that are currently under two-way or four-way stop-control has been evaluated as part of this TSP and the need for new traffic signals has been identified in Chapter 7 - Street System Plan. 5.3.7 RAMP METERING Ramp meters are employed at freeway on-ramp entrances with the objective of optimizing throughput capacity on the mainline freeway. The optimization is achieved by regulating the entry of vehicles onto 61 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 43 the freeway during the peak hours of operation through the use of ramp signals at the on-ramps. Very often, optimization of freeway throughput capacity is achieved at the expense of additional delays at the metered on-ramps. Another key consideration is the ability to provide adequate queuing or storage capacity for the stopped vehicles on the ramps leading to the through road. Ramp metering has proven to be one of the most cost-effective techniques to improve traffic flow on the freeway. A Federal Highway Administration study of seven ramp metering sites in the United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after installing ramp metering. An analysis of the system in Seattle revealed that in addition to speed and corresponding travel time improvements, highway volumes increased between 12 and 40 percent as a result of ramp metering. Also, accident rate reductions between 20 and 58 percent have been recorded as a result of improved merging operations associated with ramp metering at freeway and on-ramp merge points. The need for metering on-ramps to I-5 should be evaluated by ODOT in cooperation with local governments as the region grows and travel demands increase along I-5. Although I-5 and the ramps are under the jurisdiction of ODOT, it will be important for agencies to work cooperatively to balance the competing demands on the interstate system. The ramps at the Central Point interchange are forecast to be operating at an acceptable level of service through 2010, but by 2020 the northbound ramp is forecast to exceed ODOT’s minimum acceptable V/C ratio. By 2030, it is forecast that the southbound ramp will have similar capacity problems. Whether ramp metering is a solution to the capacity limitations of these two I-5 ramps is a question to be answered by ODOT. This TSP does not identify any projects for meter installation at the I-5 interchange. 5.3.8 GOODS MOVEMENT MANAGEMENT The efficient movement of goods into and out of urban areas is essential for the economic vitality of the region. Goods movement management strategies are aimed at improving congestion and safety conditions along the arterials. Strategies include restricting truck deliveries and pick-ups to off-peak periods, using alleys for loading and unloading, and providing additional curb space for loading and unloading operations. Such strategies should be investigated in commercial areas along heavily congested roads. In preparation of this TSP the issue of freight movement has resulted in a chapter dedicated to freight. Chapter 11 - Freight will discuss the role of freight movement, issues, and solutions. 5.4 ACCESS MANAGEMENT (AM) Access Management is an effective and rational approach to maximizing the City’s street system. As its name implies, access management regulates access to land development while preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity needs, and speed. To be effective, access management requires coordination between land use planning and transportation planning, which is the primary objective of the State’s transportation planning rule. Access management calls for land use controls that are keyed to development policies and transportation system capabilities. The product of an effective access management program is a street system that is efficient, safe, accessible, and viable. The challenge is to develop effective access standards that find a balance between transit needs, land development plans, and the functional integrity of the roadways that serve local and regional development and transportation needs. 62 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 44 Access issues can be highly controversial since access management often regulates and limits access to individual businesses or requires access from side streets or frontage roads. The key elements to a successful access management program include: Defining allowable access levels and spacing for various classes of roadways; Providing a mechanism for granting variances when reasonable access cannot be provided; and Establishing a means of enforcing standards. Without an access management program along arterials and collectors, roadways may need to be periodically widened to accommodate demands of new development. This cycle is a result of continually trying to satisfy traffic demands, which are often a result of increased business activity, which is influenced by improved traffic conditions, which leads to further traffic demands. The number of conflict points among vehicles rises as a result of an increase in the number of driveways, causing capacity to diminish. Vehicle delay increases and safety and comfort are reduced. The following are some of the more important elements of an access management strategy that are applicable in the Central Point area: Regulate minimum spacing of driveways. Regulate maximum number of driveways per property frontage. Require access on adjacent cross-street (when available). Consolidate access for adjacent properties. Encourage connections between adjacent properties that do not require motorists to traverse the public streets. Require adequate internal site design and circulation plan. Regulate the maximum width of driveways. Improve the vertical geometrics of driveways. Optimize traffic signal spacing and coordination. Install raised median divider with left-turn deceleration lane. Install continuous two-way left-turn lane. Access management standards associated with state facilities are a required component of local transportation system plans. Table 5-1 identifies the access management standards the City of Central Point utilizes along state facilities. Table 5-2 identifies access management guidelines for all other facilities within Central Point. Table 5-1: Access Management Spacing Standards for District Highway Posted Speed Urban Highway Urban Business District Special Transportation Area >= 55 mph 700 feet - 50 mph 550 feet - 40 and 45 mph 500 feet - 30 and 35 mph 400 feet 350 feet Existing block spacing specified in Comprehensive Plan or other spacing as permitted. See complete description in 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. >= 25 mph 400 feet 350 feet 63 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 45 Table 5-2: Access Management Guidelines Functional Classification Minimum Posted Speed Minimum Spacing between Driveway and/or Street* Spacing between Intersections Appropriate Adjacent Land Use Major Arterial 35-50 mph See Table 5-1 See Table 5-1 Community/neighborhood commercial near major intersections. Industrial/office/low volume retail and buffered medium or higher density residential between intersections. Minor Arterial 35-50 mph 300 feet ¼ Mile Light industry/offices and buffered medium or low density. Neighborhood commercial near some major intersections. Collector 25-35 mph 50 feet 300 feet Neighborhood commercial near some major intersections. Medium or low density residential. Primarily lower density residential. Primarily industrial. Local 25 Access to each lot permitted 300 feet Primarily low density residential. Primarily industrial. *Desirable design spacing (existing spacing will vary). 5.4.1 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLANNING In recognition of the value of access management, the City of Central Point has prepared access management plans and standards for its arterial and collector street system. Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street. This plan was prepared in 2003 to identify access management strategies for the section of Highway 99 generally defined as Front Street. The Plan also included the section of Pine Street from Haskell Street to First Street. Both short-term and long-term access strategies were developed. The findings and recommendations of the Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan are incorporated in this TSP by reference. Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. This plan was prepared in 2005 and addressed the land use and transportation needs of Highway 99 as a major transportation corridor. This plan differed from the 2003 Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street Plan only to the extent that its purpose was broader in scope, including roadway geometry options, bicycle and pedestrian systems, urban design solutions, etc. The access management recommendations in both plans are consistent for the section of Highway 99 referred to as Front Street. The findings and recommendations of the Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan are incorporated in this TSP by reference. 64 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 46 5.5 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) The objective of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies is to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options to those who wish to travel. In accomplishing this objective, TDM measures increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system, without the expense and inconvenience of adding capacity to the system. If implemented on an area-wide basis and actively supported by agencies, businesses, and residents, TDM strategies may be able to reduce or delay the need for street improvements as well as reduce energy consumption and air quality problems. TDM strategies are aimed at reducing travel demand by influencing people’s travel behavior in one of two ways: (1) by reducing the need to travel, or (2) by encouraging travel utilizing a mode other than a single-occupant automobile. To manage the demand upon a transportation system, there are a number of basic approaches that a community may take. First, decreasing peak demand either by shifting person-trips from the peak hour of demand or by eliminating person-trips. Person-trips represent the number of trips made by an individual, while vehicle trips account for multiple person-trips depending upon the number of people traveling in the vehicle. Second, for the person-trips that are necessary during the peak hour of demand, a community may encourage non-vehicular and vehicular alternatives to single-occupant vehicles (SOVs). Non-vehicular alternatives such as bicycling and walking are most applicable for short trips, while vehicular alternatives such as ridesharing and transit are necessary for intermediate and long trips. Finally, a community may reduce the demand on its surface transportation system by decreasing the distances traveled by vehicle trips through different methods including, but not limited to, transit- oriented type development and increasing the attractiveness of alternative modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling, and walking. There is an important inter-relationship between the TDM element and land use. The major effect of the TDM programs would be on the home to work and return trips, which comprise about one-fifth of the total daily trips and about half of the peak hour traffic. Although other types of trips may be impacted, the effect would be considerably less because the trips are not as regular (e.g., shopping or business trips), often have a higher vehicle occupancy (e.g., school trips), and sometimes involve the transfer of goods (e.g., shopping trips). TDM strategies recommended for the Rogue Valley metropolitan area focus on the home to work and return trips. These include establishing alternative work arrangements, promoting telecommuting and ridesharing, and adopting a trip reduction ordinance. TDM strategies are also closely tied to the provision of adequate pedestrian/bicycle facilities and transit services and modifying parking requirements. The following describes the recommended plan for alternative work arrangements, telecommuting, ridesharing, and a trip reduction ordinance. RVTD houses the “Way to Go Program” which is Transportation Demand Management programs for the entire Rogue Valley. Programs focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety, carpools and vanpools, etc. 5.5.1 ALTERNATIVE WORK ARRANGEMENTS Local governments and major employers can encourage work arrangements providing an alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements could include, but not be limited to, employee flex-time programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work weeks as described below: 65 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 47 Employee Flex-Time Programs. One opportunity employers have to affect total trip demand is through influencing their own employees’ peak versus off-peak travel behavior. A flexible schedule may allow employees to match their work hours with transit schedules, make carpool arrangements, or merely avoid peak congestion times. Active promotion of alternative schedules might slightly decrease total peak hour traffic. Flex-time is most useful in offices, particularly for administrative and information workers. It may not be as applicable for non-office employers since their employees often have to work hours that are not during the peak hour of traffic demand anyway (e.g., retail employers) or because their work requires continuous communication between workers. In addition, flex-time may be difficult to implement for small employers. Staggered Work Hours. Staggered work hours is a policy of established starting and finishing times for different groups of employees. Unlike flex-time, the employer, rather than the employee, determines the staggered work hours. Like flex-time, this tool has greater applicability to employees of large offices, since many non-office employees already work staggered work hours or work in a highly interdependent manner. Government agencies can take a lead by establishing a standard work schedule that differs from the historic 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule. For example, employees can be encouraged to work a 7-to-4 or 9-to-6 five-day work schedule. This is often done for the street and parks crews in public works situations because of summer hours and weather conditions. It might also be established for other employees, although some agencies and local governments have encountered opposition from employee groups claiming they should have additional compensation for unusual work hours. Staggered work hours have to be considered in light of the need to have service desk hours that meet the needs of citizens. Staggered work hours could actually increase the opportunities for citizen contact. Compressed Work Week. Compressed work weeks involve employees working fewer days and more hours per day. One common form of this policy is the 4-day/40-hour week where the employee works four 10-hour days. A second common form is the 9-day/80-hour schedule in which the employee works 9 days and 80 hours over a two-week period. With the 4/40 schedule, the employee gets one business day off each week; with the 9/80 schedule, the employee gets one business day off each two weeks. Because of the extended hours, both policies usually shift one “leg” of a work trip per working day (either the arriving or departing “leg”) out of the peak hours. The 4/40 policy additionally eliminates an entire work trip every five business days (1/5 of the work trips). The 9/80 policy eliminates an entire work trip every ten business days (1/10 of the work trips). One of the problems with any of the compressed work schedules is the potential for increases in non- work trips during the “off day.” Increases from non-work travel may off-set gains made from the shift in employee schedule. Such trips, however, may not be taken during peak periods and could still produce benefits related to peak hour congestion and air quality. 5.5.2 TELECOMMUTING Local governments and major employers can encourage telecommuting. Telecommuting is another opportunity available to employers to affect total trip demand. It is similar to work-at-home policies, except that the employee connects to the workplace via a computer and fax/modem. Telecommuting 66 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 48 arrangements can also involve more than one employee, e.g., when an employer provides a satellite work center connected to the principal work center. Another telecommuting alternative is a neighborhood work center operated by more than one employer, or by an agency. Recent advances in communications technology (e.g., Internet capabilities) should greatly enhance telecommuting options. Telecommuting for even one or two days per week could save significant trip miles and still reap the benefits of working at the central work site. 5.5.3 RIDESHARING Local governments and major employers can encourage ridesharing by subsidizing ridesharing or by making ridesharing more convenient. Ridesharing includes two principal categories: carpooling and vanpooling. Carpooling involves the use of an employee’s private vehicle to carry other employees to work, either using one car and sharing expenses or rotating driving responsibilities and vehicles. Vanpooling involves the use of a passenger van driven by one of the employees with the fixed and operating costs at least partially paid by the other riders through monthly fares. A common feature of vanpooling is that the van is often owned by the employer, a public agency (such as a transit district), or a private, non-profit corporation set up for that purpose. Ridesharing can be greatly influenced by special treatment at the workplace. Participation can be increased by employer actions, which make ridesharing more convenient through incentives such as providing guaranteed ride home services, preferential car/vanpool parking, and area-wide and employer-based commuter matching services: Guaranteed ride. A guaranteed ride home often makes ridesharing more attractive. Surveys have shown that many employees drive to work because they feel they need their automobile during the day or because they may work late. In some cases, they need their automobile for work trips or errands. In other cases, they do not use their automobile but simply want it available for emergencies. Provision of daytime and emergency transportation by allowing use of a company vehicle or employer-sponsored free taxi can encourage ridesharing by eliminating some of the barriers. On the other hand, ridesharing also reduces individual “freedom” and is not widely accepted until there is real congestion or financial benefits. Preferential car/vanpool parking. Preferential carpool and vanpool parking is a simple, inexpensive way for an employer to encourage employees to rideshare by increasing the ease of access to the workplace. Generally, preferential carpool and vanpool parking spaces are provided close to the building entrance. This makes it convenient for the employees to access the building, particularly during inclement weather conditions. Commuter matching services. Commuter matching services, whether area-wide or employer-based, permit those who wish to rideshare to find others with similar locations and schedules. An employer- based matching service offers the advantage of a shared destination but presents the disadvantage of limiting the pool of potential riders. A carpool matching service can be one-time or continuous. The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) serves as the carpooling agency and performs a wide variety of services to support and encourage the use of carpools, including matching of potential riders. 67 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 49 5.5.4 TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE Local governments can encourage major employers to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation. A voluntary Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) is recommended for the Rogue Valley metropolitan area, applicable to major employers with more than 50 employees. The ordinance would apply to both existing and proposed development, thereby distributing the responsibility equitably between existing and future development. A TRO is not a TDM strategy itself but is a device by which TDM measures are implemented. TROs typically require employers and developers to share some of the responsibility for reducing single- occupant automobile use by their employees. Some communities place the burden on the initial developers of office parks or other major employment centers, including obligating them to fund a transportation management organization. The developer then passes these costs on to tenants of the facilities. TROs identify specific trip reduction targets, such as the percentage reduction of commuter vehicle trips. The decrease in trip generation can be achieved by decreasing auto trips and by increasing ridesharing and transit trips and trips by other alternative modes. Ordinances are usually slowly phased into many communities as a way of easing the compliance burden. A voluntary compliance period is initially implemented for employers to voluntarily adapt to the requirements and learn the various demand management tools, such as promoting ridesharing, subsidizing transit passes, and developing parking incentives. During this period, studies are conducted to determine if voluntary compliance is meeting the community trip reduction goals. If the goals are not met, then a community may choose to make the trip reduction goals mandatory for major employers and/or expand it to smaller ones. 5.5.5 BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit are often treated as TDM measures because promotional programs aimed at encouraging their use are a major part of an area plan. The Central Point TSP project improvement list calls for facilities as well as operational or promotional programs for all three modes. Because of the importance of these modes to the overall transportation strategy for the region, these modes are addressed in separate plan elements. 5.5.6 PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES Local governments should consider the development of park-and-ride facilities as a cost-effective means of increasing the efficiency of the existing transportation system. Park-and-ride facilities are one of many TDM tools designed to increase efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and provide options to the single occupant vehicle trip. Park-and-ride facilities increase the effectiveness of transit service by expanding the area from which transit draws. Patrons living outside of walking distance of an established transit stop can drive or bike to the park-and-ride and use transit instead of driving or cycling long distances to their destination. Ease of access, security and safety, easy to understand layouts and good, direct pedestrian and bicyclist connections make use of park-and-ride lots desirable. Park-and-rides are frequently located near freeway interchanges or at transit stations and may be either a shared use, such as at a church or Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) center, or an exclusive use. Shared use facilities are generally designated and maintained through agreements reached between the local transit operator and nearby businesses, churches, or other entities. 68 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 50 The Rogue Valley Council of Governments completed The Park-and-Ride Feasibility/Location Study in January 2001 for the RVTD service area. Feasible locations for park-and-ride sites were one of the tasks of the study. For Central Point, it was suggested that a park-and-ride site could be located at East Pine Street and Freeman Road in the Albertson’s parking lot located on RVTD’s Route 40 (Medford to Central Point). This site could be accessed by southbound I-5 commuters or those coming from within Central Point. This site would be most logical if it could be served by an express transit line running on the I-5 corridor. Current routing would require buses to slightly deviate on their in-bound journey. In most other respects, this lot would work well as a park-and-ride facility. The City should remain open to other alternative park-and-ride facility options. As an example, it was suggested by RVTD that strategically located churches could also serve as effective park-and-ride facilities. 5.6 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY OF THE CITY’S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a minimum level of service (LOS) “D.” The City defines LOS D as the equivalent to a volume-capacity ratio of 0.9. Policy 5.1.2. The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on transit routes as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods. The feasibility, location and design of bus bays shall be developed in consultation between the City and RVTD. GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED FUNCTION. Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or the Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards based on best practices. Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street and the Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE. Policy 5.3.1. The City shall serve as a leading example for other businesses and agencies by maximizing the use of alternative transportation modes among City employees through incentive programs. The City shall provide information on alternative transportation modes and provide incentives for employees who use alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. 69 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 5 — Transportation Management Page 51 Policy 5.3.2. The City shall offer flexible schedules and compressed work-week options whenever feasible, as a way of reducing travel demand. The City shall encourage employees to telecommute, whenever feasible. GOAL 5.4: TO REDUCE THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSISTING INDIVIDUALS IN CHOOSING ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES. Policy 5.4.1. The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements providing an alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements shall include, but are not limited to, employee flex-time programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work weeks. Policy 5.4.2. The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where feasible. Policy 5.4.3. The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing more convenient. Policy 5.4.4. The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation. GOAL 5.5: TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES PROMOTED BY THE CITY WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STRATEGIES AIMED AT REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE (SOV) AND REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELD (VMT) PER CAPITA. Policy 5.5.1. The City shall coordinate and maintain a consistency in the implementation of transportation demand management strategies with similar regional strategies as presented in the Regional Transportation Plan. 70 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 52 Chapter 6 — Parking Management 6.1 INTRODUCTION The Oregon State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) encourages and promotes a variety of transportation choices that balance vehicular use with other transportation modes, including the reasonable management of vehicular parking spaces. In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c), the City of Central Point has elected to prepare, as part of its Transportation System Plan (TSP), a chapter addressing management of on-street and off-street parking within the City’s urban area. The primary goal in regulating parking is to responsibly reduce auto dependence, and to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation where they are available. This chapter will address objectives and strategies for the management of the City’s parking supply that integrates land use planning and best practices for on- street and off-street vehicular parking consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TPR. The contents of this chapter are intended to provide a basis for the development and implementation of parking regulations for the City of Central Point. 6.2 CURRENT PARKING INVENTORY The TPR defines the term “parking space” as on-street and off-street parking spaces designated for automobile parking in areas planned for industrial, commercial, and institutional or public use. Based on this definition, a parking inventory for the City was completed in 2008 with a count of 4,585 parking spaces located within the City’s urban area. The Parking Inventory will be maintained on an annual basis. 6.3 PARKING PERFORMANCE MEASURES The primary means of measuring the City’s progress in attaining its parking objectives will be determined using a per capita parking ratio (Parking Ratio). The Parking Ratio is measured by dividing the parking inventory by the most current population. Over the course of this TSP, it is the City’s objective to reduce parking spaces per capita by 10%. Currently, the City’s Parking Ratio is 0.27. A 10% reduction will reduce the Parking Ratio to 0.24 by the year 2030. The parking performance benchmark is defined in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Transportation System Plan Parking Performance Measures Measure How Measured Current 2008 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark 2020 Benchmark 2030 Measure 6-1: Ratio of parking spaces to population within the urban area. Calculated based on the City of Central Point Parking Inventory and annual population estimates from Portland State University. 0.270 0.265 0.260 0.250 0.240 71 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 53 6.4 PARKING STRATEGIES There are many parking strategies addressing a wide variety of techniques that manage parking supply and demand. The appropriateness of any individual parking strategy is dependent on the needs of the community. Not all parking strategies are appropriate for a community at any particular period in time but may be appropriate during later stages of a community’s development. Consequently, the list of potential parking strategies includes strategies that may not be appropriate at this time but may be appropriate within the planning period. In Table 6-2, a comprehensive listing of parking strategies is identified and cross referenced to both the RTP and TSP. A discussion of each of the strategies and their applicability to the City is included in this section. There are two categories of parking strategies presented in Table 6-2: Parking Facility Efficiency and Reduce Parking Demand. As their names imply, strategies that address Parking Facility Efficiency are intended to maximize the use of parking spaces (supply) while strategies to Reduce Parking Demand are directed to reductions in the demand for parking. Table 6-2: Parking Plan Strategies STRATEGY TSP POLICY RTP POLICY PARKING FACILITY EFFICIENCY Shared Parking 6 NA Regulate Parking 6 NA Accurate & Flexible Standards 6 6.B-2 Parking Maximums 6 6.B-1 Remote Parking & Shuttle Service 6 6.B-6 Smart Growth Policies 3 6.B-5 Walking & Bicycle Alternatives 8 NA Increase Capacity of Existing Parking 6 NA REDUCE PARKING DEMAND Mobility Management 5 6.B-3, 6.B-4 Price Parking 6 NA Improve Pricing Methods 6 NA Financial Incentives 6 NA Unbundle Parking 6 NA Parking Taxes 6 NA Improved Bicycle Facilities 8 NA User Information & Marketing 6 NA Enforcement & Control 6 NA Transportation Management Assoc. 6 NA Overflow Parking Plans 6 NA Spillover Problems 6 NA Parking Facility Design & Operation 6 6.B-5 6.4.1 SHARED PARKING The term “shared parking” refers to a parking facility that serves multiple destinations/uses. The key to the effective use of shared parking relies on the mix of uses sharing the parking facility. The use of 72 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 54 shared parking is most effective in a mixed-use development where there is a variety of uses that have different peak hour parking demands. Traditionally, parking lots have been sized to accommodate 90 percent of peak hour and peak month usage, typically the Christmas season, and serve a single development. For the most part, these lots are operating at levels considerably less than the number of spaces provided. Shared parking standards allow different uses with different peak period parking demand to share parking facilities. For example, a series of buildings may include such land uses as restaurants, theaters, offices, and retail, all of which have varying peak use times. A restaurant generally experiences parking peaks from 6 to 8 p.m., while offices typically peak around 10 a.m. and again around 2 p.m. on weekdays. Some retail establishments have their peak usage on weekends. Theaters often peak from 8 to 10 p.m. Without a shared parking plan, these uses would develop parking to serve each of their individual peaks. This generally results in each lot being heavily used while the other lots operate at far less than capacity. Depending upon the combination of uses, a shared parking plan may allow some developments to realize a parking reduction of 10-15 percent without a significant reduction in the availability of parking at any one time, due solely to the different peak periods for parking. One of the major stumbling blocks to implementing shared parking standards is local jurisdictions themselves. Quite often, parking codes are written to express parking minimums as opposed to maximums. In some cases, the implementation of shared parking strategies may require changes to the minimum parking requirements contained in the parking policies. Other issues surrounding shared parking are liability, insurance, and the need for reciprocal access agreements allowing patrons of one establishment to cross land owned by another establishment. The City zoning ordinance currently contains some provisions permitting shared parking and will continue efforts to expand the use of shared parking. It is acknowledged that the success of shared parking is in the understanding of a peak parking demand and the mix of uses to assure different peak parking demand. 6.4.2 REGULATE PARKING Parking regulations refer to the adoption of controls regulating who can use parking, when the parking can be used, and for how long a vehicle may park in a given location. As an example, the establishment of loading zones is a parking regulation, as is handicapped parking, time limits, no parking zones, etc. The primary objective of regulating parking is to ensure that parking is available to a specific user group. The City’s parking regulations follow conventional practices and laws. Since the City already employs parking regulations, it is only necessary that the City periodically evaluate the efficiency of its parking regulation program and update as necessary to maintain optimal efficiency. 6.4.3 ACCURATE AND FLEXIBLE STANDARDS Generally referred to as efficiency-based parking standards, this strategy refers to the use of parking requirements adjusted to a location’s needs based on parking demand and supply that addresses the demographic, geographic, and management factors unique to the area. The use of lower parking standards for retirement housing is an example of accurate and flexible parking standards. 73 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 55 The City will continue efforts to establish lower minimum parking requirements in the current zoning districts to encourage in-fill development and the use of alternative travel modes. This is particularly true of commercial and industrial zoning. Lower parking minimums could have an impact on the total parking inventory, but there is no guarantee that development would choose fewer parking spaces for their developments. Lower minimum parking requirements, however, might encourage some in-fill development. In-fill development can be encouraged to increase densities and remove land from its temporary status as parking lots. Both the reduction of existing parking and increasing building densities will help lead to a more pedestrian friendly environment and encourage transit ridership - a primary goal of the TPR. 6.4.4 PARKING MAXIMUMS Most often zoning regulations address parking in terms of the minimum parking required for any given use. This often leads to an overabundance of parking, particularly in retail environments. As its name implies, maximum parking standards establish a maximum amount of parking allowed per use or area. Depending upon how the zoning regulation is structured, the amount of parking built in connection with new development could be reduced by as much as 30 percent. The exact levels of parking permitted for new development would be figured on the rate of expected construction by land use type. The City does not currently regulate the maximum amount of parking allowed. The adoption of maximum parking standards is an effective means of reducing excessive parking and is a stated policy of the City. As a product of this TSP, the City will be updating the parking regulations in its Land Development Code to provide maximum parking requirements for all uses and development (new, in-fill, redevelopment). 6.4.5 REMOTE PARKING AND SHUTTLE SERVICE Remote parking typically involves off-site parking and is very similar to shared parking. Remote parking essentially addresses parking needs by providing parking in outlying areas. Consequently, users of remote parking are required to walk further, or use transit/shuttle services to reach the intended destination. The City’s current zoning regulations support remote parking, provided that it is located within a minimum specified distance. With respect to transit/shuttle service, the City does support efforts by ODOT and RVTD to develop shuttle service and park-and-ride facilities. 6.4.6 SMART GROWTH Smart growth is a term that represents land use planning techniques that encourage compact, mixed- use, pedestrian friendly, and transit-oriented development. Smart growth techniques are aimed at reducing reliance on the automobile by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling. The City has been very aggressive in its pursuit of smart growth techniques, with projects such as Twin Creeks TOD, Snowy Butte Station, and the adoption of transit-oriented development standards. 74 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 56 6.4.7 WALKING AND BICYCLE ALTERNATIVES To the extent that they reduce reliance on use of the automobile, walking and bicycle policies are an effective parking strategy. An effective and connected pedestrian and bicycle system will reduce the demand for parking. In Chapter 8, the City’s policies and plans for development of a convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle system are stated. 6.4.8 CAPACITY OF EXISTING PARKING FACILITIES Increases in the capacity of existing parking facilities applies to both on-street and off-street parking. It is not unusual for older parking facilities to have areas of waste or paring dimensions which can yield additional parking. Many cities also have parking requirements that don’t allow flexibility in dimensional standards, i.e., compact parking. The City will continuously evaluate its parking standards to maintain use of best practices for parking management. 6.4.9 MOBILITY MANAGEMENT Mobility management, more commonly referred to as transportation demand management (TDM) addresses strategies that increase the efficiency of a transportation system by changing travel behavior. This change in behavior can be in the form of routes use, transportation mode, time of travel, etc., or a combination thereof. An effective TDM program can cause a reduction in the demand for parking. Chapter 5 of the TSP discusses the City’s use of TDM strategies. When successfully implemented, many TDM strategies will also result in a reduction in the parking demand. 6.4.10 PRICE PARKING Another approach to reducing the supply of parking is to impose a fee on the use of parking spaces, particularly within commercial areas. There are a number of responses, both positive and negative, to pricing parking. One of the negative responses is to work, shop, or visit other destinations that are not subject to pricing of parking. At this time, the pricing of parking is not considered a reasonable parking reduction technique for the City. However, it is acknowledged that it is merely a matter of time before the pricing of parking will be a viable strategy, this will be particularly true of the successful revitalization of the downtown. 6.4.11 IMPROVE PRICING METHODS Improvements to pricing methods relates to the actual means by which motorists pay for parking, i.e., meters, parking passes, debit cards, etc. These payment systems are often an aggravation to the motorist, because of the general inconvenience they cause versus the preferred free parking that they have become accustomed to. The improvement in pricing methods strategy requires that a pricing system be in place (6.4.10). As noted above, it is not expected that the City will generate sufficient demand in parking to support price 75 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 57 parking and pricing methods. However, when considering plans for the downtown, price parking and pricing methods will be a consideration. 6.4.12 FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Financial incentives refer to strategies that encourage motorists to use alternative means of commuting to work/shopping. Examples include, discounted transit passes, rideshare incentives, and what is referred to as cash-out which is a direct cash incentive to employees to use an alternative travel mode less reliant on parking. In the foreseeable future, the City does not anticipate its direct use of this strategy but does support its use by RVTD. 6.4.13 UNBUNDLE PARKING The term “unbundle parking” refers to the leasing or sale of parking spaces separate from the building space. The objective is to allow users to purchase only the parking that is needed. Because of the administrative sophistication (legal) of unbundled parking, its use is primarily limited to metropolitan, high-density environments with very high parking demand. At this time unbundled parking is not an appropriate parking strategy for the City of Central Point. Parking demand and general land use characteristics do not support consideration of this strategy. 6.4.14 PARKING TAXES: The taxation of parking is another strategy for managing the supply of parking. Parking taxation strategies refer to a wide range of taxation related to parking, including the actual taxation of parking, storm water management fees, etc. Through its storm water systems development fee and maintenance fees the City does indirectly tax parking based on the impervious surface area parking creates. The use of a parking tax, other than the storm development and maintenance fee, is not a realistic consideration until it becomes a common practice throughout the metropolitan area. 6.4.15 USER INFORMATION AND MARKETING Often parking is available, but the location of that parking is unknown. Proper signage and marketing can improve the efficiency of parking use. Parking information and marketing will primarily apply to the City’s downtown area. As the downtown revitalizes, parking will become a premium and the location and availability of parking will be a functional component of the downtown revitalization process. 6.4.16 ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL As its name implies, this parking strategy addresses improvement in the efficiency of a City’s parking enforcement and control program. This strategy is primarily a management strategy focusing on the attainment of a City’s parking objectives. 76 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 58 Until the City has an enforcement or formal parking management program, this strategy is premature. It is probable that over the next twenty years revitalization of the downtown will result in the need for parking management. When a parking management program is developed, it is important to define the mission of the program. 6.4.17 PARKING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Parking management and parking management associations (PMAs) are mechanisms that can facilitate shared parking among non-adjacent land uses by providing off-site centralized parking facilities. These facilities can be large parking structures or surface lots. Parking management can employ a wide range of techniques that will result in the more efficient use of existing parking facilities. PMAs are entities responsible for conducting this management and providing access to resources that will ease the burden on the parking supply. Often PMAs are non-profit groups supported by retail or business district associations. With the exception of the downtown, it is not anticipated that during the planning period covered by this TSP that the intensity of development within the City will be such as to support a PMA. Currently, within the downtown, development is not intense enough to support a PMA. However, as the downtown’s revitalization efforts mature there will be a definite role for the creation of a PMA. This is particularly true considering the many small properties lacking current parking and the cost of developing new parking within the downtown. 6.5 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 (RTP) contains six (6) parking related policies. The policies adopted in the RTP address some, but not all, of the strategies noted above. The RTP parking policies are as follows: RTP Policy 6.B-1: Local Governments shall consider the adoption of maximum parking requirements (or parking caps) in their zoning codes to reduce excessive off-street parking supply. RTP Policy 6.B-2: Local governments should establish low minimum parking requirements in their zoning codes to encourage in-fill development. RTP Policy 6.B-3: Local governments should re-designate existing, general use parking spaces to a different, special use as to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. RTP Policy 6.B-4: Local governments are required to manage roadway space as necessary to provide for bike lanes, bus stops, turn lanes, no parking zones, and other such uses that promote use of alternative transportation modes. On-street parking can be eliminated as required to provide for these facilities. The management of roadway space also includes the use of narrower streets. Management of the roadway space and the allocation for these uses can have a measurable impact on the amount of on- street parking. Bike Lanes: In limited locations, the removal of on-street parking and re-striping for a bicycle lane is a possibility, rather than by widening the roadway. However, since most arterial and collector streets currently do not include on-street parking, elimination of a significant number of parking spaces is unlikely. 77 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 59 Bus Stops: From time-to-time throughout the planning period, the placement of bus stops will be needed as the Rogue Valley Transportation District’s expands routes and service. Turn Lanes: Re-striping for turn lanes is a transportation system management strategy that can be used to increase the capacity of intersections. In many cases, queuing distances at stop signs or traffic signals will require that no-parking zones be extended for more than 100 feet from the intersection. This could require removal of parking that is sometimes permitted as close as 20 feet from a cross-walk at an intersection. No-Parking Zones: Designating larger no-parking zones to increase sight distances at intersections is already implied in the code. Parking is not permitted within 50 feet of a stop sign, yield sign, or other traffic control device where such parking hides it from view. A blanket prohibition on parking within 50 feet of a corner would have a measurable impact on the number of parking spaces and would have other benefits related to sight distance. Street Standards: Adopting street standards for residential streets could include reducing street width to the extent that on-street parking would be permitted only on one side or eliminated completely. This technique needs to be carefully considered and managed through strict design controls to assure that residential neighborhoods have adequate parking for visitors. RTP Policy 6.B-5: Local governments shall utilize and encourage appropriate parking policies and strategies to reduce auto dependence and discourage auto use where other alternative modes of access are possible. Where appropriate, parking needs to be oriented to the back or side of buildings with entrances to the front for pedestrian access. The TPR presented two techniques in this category: Shared Parking; and Parking Management RTP Policy 6.B-6: Local government and ODOT shall plan park-and-ride facilities near transit routes and major transportation connections to encourage transit and shared rides to discourage single occupancy vehicles. The parking strategies presented in this chapter have been prepared in coordination, and are compliant with, the parking policies adopted in the RTP. 6.6 CURRENT PARKING CODE AND POLICY CHANGES The City’s current parking standards were last updated in 1998. Current parking regulations specify only minimum standards, resulting in some developments, such as retail stores, to provide an excess of parking supply. It is the City’s policy that parking regulations as set forth in the Land Development Code be periodically reviewed against best practices, and the Land Development Code appropriately amended. 6.7 PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA AS NECESSARY TO REDUCE PARKING CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS. 78 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 6 — Parking Management Page 60 Policy 6.1.1. The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement and demand for parking in the public right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety, transportation system efficiency, and livability of neighborhoods. Policy 6.1.2. Except within the Central Business District, where on-street parking is considered an element of the Central Business District’s economic vitality, the provision for on-street parking is second in priority to the needs of the travel modes (i.e., vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) using the street right-of-way, and shall be removed when necessary to facilitate street widening. Policy 6.1.3. In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply of off-street carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be provided. The location of these spaces shall have preference over those intended for general purpose off-street parking. GOAL 6.2: TO PROMOTE AND MANAGE THE PARKING NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT REASONABLY BALANCES THE DEMAND FOR PARKING AGAINST THE USE OF TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION MODES, WHILE MAINTAINING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY. Policy 6.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt and maintain parking standards that reflect best parking practices that further the parking goals of the City. Policy 6.2.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain effective development standards for paved off-street parking areas to include provisions for landscaping, planting strips, pedestrian walkways, curbs, and sidewalks. 79 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 61 Chapter 7 — Street System 7.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Central Point’s street system contains over sixty miles of roadways serving a variety of functions ranging from local streets, collectors, and arterials providing a broad range of transportation services for the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial needs. Within this system there are thirty- five key intersections, which by the year 2030, these intersections and their related street segments will require both modernization and extension to accommodate the City’s projected growth as discussed in Chapter 3. In anticipation of this growing demand the City has completed five major traffic studies. These studies and their objectives are: Central Point Transit-Oriented Development Traffic Impact Study, JRH Engineers, Planners & Project Managers, August 1, 2000. Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan, OTAK/DKS Associates, 2005. East Pine Street Transportation Plan, Central Point, Oregon, JRH Transportation Engineering, July 2004. Most of the City’s vacant land is served by E. Pine Street, a major arterial. The City recognizes the impact of development on the service level of E. Pine Street and commissioned a traffic study to evaluate future growth impacts and mitigation options. City of Central Point Transportation Plan, Existing & Future Conditions Technical Traffic Report, JRH Transportation Engineering, June 30, 2007. In preparation of this TSP the City commissioned a more comprehensive traffic analysis that took into consideration prior findings of prior traffic studies. City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, Traffic Impact Analysis, Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC, July 27, 2020. This TIA was completed in support of the City’s UGB expansion project. The findings and recommendations of this TIA form the foundation of this TSP amendment. As the City proceeds with implementation of its transportation plans, it is important that inter- jurisdictional coordination on those projects that involve other governmental agencies be communicated in a timely and productive manner. One of the primary purposes of this TSP is to identify and acknowledge projected improvements that are inter-jurisdictional, and to provide an estimate of the timing of those projects from concept through construction. Table 7-4 identifies each project, the estimated timing of the project completions, and the jurisdictions involved in the project’s design and development. 80 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 62 7.2 STREET SYSTEM The City’s 2030 Street System is illustrated in Figure 7-1, which provides an overview of the City’s existing and planned arterial and collector street system. 7.2.1 FUTURE CONDITIONS In Chapter 4, the existing conditions of the City’s street system were discussed, including current deficiencies. As of 2008, the City’s street system is operating at an acceptable level of service. In order to maintain this level of service it will be necessary that the street system be monitored and improved to meet the City’s growing demand for transportation services. In recognition of this challenge, the City has prepared, as part of this TSP, forecasts of future demands on the City’s arterials and collectors for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030. The purpose of these forecasts is to determine improvements necessary to accommodate growth while maintaining an acceptable level of mobility (LOS D) throughout the City’s street system. 7.2.2 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND LOS “D” For each of the forecast years (2010, 2020, and 2030), an operational analysis was conducted for each of the thirty-five intersections. The City’s policy is to maintain a minimum level of service (LOS) of “D” or better. Based on land development forecasts, development volume scenarios were prepared for each of the forecast years. These volume scenarios included growth in regional traffic volumes and traffic resulting from local development. The future year projections are based on the availability, probability, and location of vacant lands within the Central Point urban area as discussed in Chapter 3. If, throughout the planning period the average rate of development changes from that used in the model, project timing will similarly change through either acceleration or postponement of the project. Throughout the duration of this TSP, the rate of land use development and mobility level (LOS) should be continuously monitored with forecasts and project timing adjusted as appropriate. Year 2010 Roadway Deficiencies By 2010, it is projected that nine (9) intersections will approach, or exceed, minimum performance standards during one or both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 26% of the City’s key intersections. Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the operational analysis for the Year 2010 scenario. The table lists each intersection within the study area separately with the corresponding mobility standard for A.M. and P.M. conditions. Additionally, the fourth railroad crossing and intersection improvement for Twin Creeks Crossing Drive will be needed to accommodate the continued development of the Twin Creeks TOD. Without this improvement, the recently upgraded intersections of Front St. & Pine and Pine & Haskell will exceed acceptable levels of service. 81 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 63 Figure 7-1: Functional Classification & Street Network Map, 2008-2030 82 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 64 Table 7-1: Year 2010 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard Year 2010 A.M. Performance Year 2010 P.M. Performance WEST SIDE Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.85 V/C 0.90 Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D 2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS F 3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B 4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B 6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS E LOS E 10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS C Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.27 V/C 0.93 Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS B Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D EAST SIDE Meadowbrook & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS F/B restricted Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal) Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.74 V/C 1.00 I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.76 V/C 0.77 Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS D New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS E LOS F Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B 83 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 65 The following identifies each of the ten intersections and a general description of the improvements needed to meet a minimum LOS “D”: 1. Scenic Avenue & Hwy. 99. Install a traffic signal when signal warrants are met. The intersection is shown to exceed minimum performance standards by the year 2010 in the P.M. peak hour. Although the level of service will exceed minimums, the criteria for preliminary signal warrants will not be met. Planning and engineering should proceed in the short-term in preparation of construction. The intersection should be monitored until such time that signal warrants are met. 2. 2nd Street & East Pine Street. Install a new traffic signal. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010 during the P.M. peak hour. The existing signal at 3rd Street & East Pine Street is planned for removal when the signal is constructed at 2nd Street & Pine Street. Preliminary signal warrants are not met in the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met. 3. 6th Street & East Pine Street. Install a traffic signal. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010 during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Preliminary signal warrants are not met in the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met. 4. Wilson Road & Table Rock Road. Install a signal or restrict movements to right-in/right-out/left- out. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010 during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. Preliminary signal warrants are not met at the intersection in the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met or restricted by median control when the intersection begins to experience excessive delays and/or an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection. 5. New Haven Road & Hamrick Road. Install a signal or restrict with median control. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2010, but preliminary signal warrants are not met by the year 2010. The intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met or restricted by median control when the intersection begins to experience excessive delays and/or an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection. 6. Beebe Road & Hamrick Road. Install a new signal. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards under existing year 2006 conditions; however, preliminary signal warrants are not met under existing conditions. The intersection should be monitored and signalized when signal warrants are met when the intersection begins to experience excessive delays and/or an increase in accidents as an unsignalized intersection. 7. Meadowbrook Drive & East Pine Street. Restrict intersection movements to right-in/right- out/left-in movements. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards when the development to the south (Hamrick Business Park) is developed. Seventy-five (75) percent of the Hamrick Road Business Park project is estimated to be developed by the year 2010, with the remaining twenty-five (25) percent being developed by the year 2020. Median control prohibiting northbound and southbound left-turn movements will mitigate the intersection through the year 2030. 84 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 66 8. Peninger Road & East Pine Street. Remove signal and restrict intersection movements to right- in/right-out through median control. The proximity of this intersection to the northbound I-5 off-ramp intersection will necessitate the need to remove the signal and convert the intersection to a right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection. The success of this improvement is contingent on its coordination with improvements to the connectivity of Peninger Road north and south of East Pine Street as illustrated in Figure 7-1, which will necessitate the crossing of Bear Creek in two locations. The proposed improvement will impact the use of this intersection for freight purposes. The significance of this intersection on the City’s freight system reinforces the simultaneous need to improve the extensions of Peninger as noted above. The design of this project needs to be closely coordinated with development plans for the Jackson County Fairgrounds (the “Expo”). Throughout the planning period the Expo will continue to be a significant influence on the transportation needs of the general area. Currently, the County is preparing a master plan for the development of the Expo. This master plan should address transportation needs consistent with those set forth in this TSP. 9. I-5 Northbound Ramps & East Pine Street. Initial improvements will add capacity to the northbound off-ramp to accommodate the high right-turn volume demand forecast by the year 2010. Additional capacity improvements are needed to accommodate local development traffic. This improvement is listed in the RVMPO Freight Study as a priority freight system improvement. 10. Twin Creeks Crossing Drive & Hwy. 99. Construct the three-way signalized intersection at Hwy. 99 and the easterly extension of Twin Creeks Crossing Drive. The extension of Twin Creeks Crossing Drive will also require installation of a railroad crossing. Year 2020 Roadway Deficiencies By 2020 it is projected that sixteen (16) intersections will exceed performance standards during one or both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 46% of the City’s key intersections. The results of the operational analysis for the Year 2020 scenario are summarized in Table 7-2. The table lists each intersection within the study area separately, with the corresponding mobility standard for A.M. and P.M. conditions. 85 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 67 Table 7-2: Year 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard Year 2020 A.M Performance. Year 2020 P.M. Performance WEST SIDE Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.98 V/C 0.90 Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) Signalized LOS D LOS LOS 2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal) 3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B/D (unsignaled) LOS B/F (unsignaled) 4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS A 6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal) 10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS D Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.27 V/C 0.99 Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS A LOS B Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D EAST SIDE Meadowbrook & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS F/B restricted Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal) Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS (unsignaled) LOS (unsignaled) Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.72 V/C 1.23 I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.79 V/C 0.99 Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS E Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Gebhard Rd. & E. Pine St. Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS F 86 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 68 The following identifies each of the sixteen intersections and a general description of the improvements needed to meet a minimum LOS “D”: 1. Table Rock Road & Vilas Road. Widen to increase capacity. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2020. Adding an eastbound lane to allow a dual eastbound left turn movement and shared through-right turn movement mitigates the intersection in the year 2020. Additional widening is required to mitigate for the future year 2030 conditions. 2. East Pine Street, Table Rock Road to I-5. An additional westbound through lane will eventually be required based on projected traffic volumes. 3. Gebhard Road Extension. By Year 2020, it is forecast that Gebhard Road will be extended to intersect with E. Pine Street approximately 700 feet west of Hamrick Road. In addition to the extension of Gebhard Road, its intersection with East Pine Street would need to be signalized. 4. Beall Lane & Hwy. 99. Add protected-permissive phasing to the eastbound and westbound left turn movements. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2020. Changing to protected-permissive phasing mitigates the intersection through future year 2030 conditions during both A.M. and P.M. peak hours. 5. Hwy. 99 & Pine Street. Widen Pine Street. The intersection exceeds performance standards by the year 2020. Possible improvements at that time include striping the eastbound movements to include an exclusive left turn and two through lanes with a shared right-turn, as well as adding protected-permissive phasing to the eastbound and westbound left-turn movement. 6. Hamrick Road & East Pine Street & Table Rock Road/Biddle Road. Major capacity improvements are necessary for these intersections to accommodate heavy left-turn volume demand and added traffic due to developments along East Pine Street that will use existing and proposed cross-streets versus direct access to East Pine Street. Year 2030 Roadway Deficiencies By 2030, it is projected that nineteen (19) intersections will exceed performance standards during one or both peak hours without any improvements. This represents 54% of the City’s existing key intersections. The results of the operational analysis for the Year 2030 scenario are summarized in Table 7-3. The table lists each intersection within the study area separately with the corresponding mobility standard and type of control listed. 87 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 69 Table 7-3: Year 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, City of Central Point Intersection Control Type LOS & V/C Standard Year 2030 A.M. Performance Year 2030 P.M. Performance WEST SIDE Beall & Freeman Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS C Beall & Bursell Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Beall & Grant Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Beall & Hanley Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS D Beall & Hwy. 99 Signalized V/C 0.90 V/C 1.01 V/C 0.92 Taylor & Grant (south) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B Taylor & Grant (north) Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS B Bursell & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C Hwy. 99 & East Pine (Front) Signalized LOS D LOS LOS 2nd & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/C (signal) 3rd & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B/E (unsignaled) LOS B/F (unsignaled) 4th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS B 6th & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/B (signal) 10th & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS E Grant & Scenic Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Scenic & Hwy. 99 Stop/Unsignalized V/C 0.90 V/C 0.31 V/C 1.82 Haskell & Taylor Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS A LOS A Haskell & West Pine Signalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Freeman & Hopkins Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS D Hazel & 3rd & 2nd Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Haskell & Beall Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS C LOS D EAST SIDE Meadowbrook & East Pine Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B restricted LOS F/B restricted Beebe & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F/B (signal) LOS F/C (signal) Peninger & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS (unsignaled) LOS (unsignaled) Hamrick & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F Upton & Peninger Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS C I-5 NB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.93 V/C 1.45 I-5 SB & East Pine Signalized V/C 0.85 V/C 0.88 V/C 1.26 Table Rock & East Pine Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F Wilson & Table Rock Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Vilas & Table Rock Signalized LOS D LOS D LOS F New Haven & Hamrick Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS F LOS F Gebhard & Wilson Stop/Unsignalized LOS D LOS B LOS B Gebhard Rd. & E. Pine St. Signalized LOS D LOS C LOS F 88 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 70 The following identifies each of the nineteen intersections and a general description of the improvements needed to meet a minimum LOS “D”: 1. 10th Street & Pine Street & Freeman. Signal timing improvements. The intersection is shown to exceed performance standards by the year 2030 during the P.M. peak hour but can be mitigated with signal timing. 2. New Signal on East Pine Street. A new north-south public street is proposed between the existing Peninger Road and Hamrick Road. The new roadway will extend from Beebe Road to a new east-west street south of East Pine Street. The new east-west street will allow Peninger Road traffic to use the new signalized intersection at East Pine Street. A new east-west street is also proposed north of East Pine Street to accommodate traffic to and from the Fairgrounds site once the Peninger Road and East Pine Street signal is removed. The new public streets will relieve traffic demand on East Pine Street to facilitate the regional function of this roadway while accommodating local access. 3. I-5 & East Pine Street Interchange. Currently, there are no planned or programmed improvements scheduled or approved for Exit 33. There is a need for detailed analysis of the interchange to ensure that projects will meet long-term needs. Initial improvements will add capacity to the northbound off-ramp to accommodate the right-turn volume demand. Additional capacity improvements are needed to accommodate added local development traffic. 89 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 71 Figure 7-2: Intersection Deficiencies 90 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 72 7.3 RECOMMENDED STREET SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Based on the needs described above, a listing of recommended street projects has been prepared and presented in 91 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 73 Table 7-4. It is important to note that the recommendations in this table are based on the most recent growth forecasts at the time the TSP was adopted. Throughout the planning period 2008-2030, the City needs to continuously monitor its needs and make adjustments to this TSP as justified, both on a need basis and a financial basis. Circumstances will change and so will street improvement needs. As such, the 2022 UGB Expansion described in previous chapters of this plan has presented an opportunity to update the recommended street projects shown in 92 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 74 Table 7-4, including removing those that the City has completed since 2008 as well as incorporating new projects that are associated with the UGB Expansion. The recommended street projects are prioritized into two Tiers, which are described in Chapter 12. Projects that have been prioritized into Tier 1 are illustrated in 93 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 75 Figure 7-3 and are further prioritized into short-term and mid-/ long-term for implementation through 2030. Refer to Chapter 12 for more details on project prioritization. It is also important to understand that some of the listed projects are dependent on other projects to either precede them or to be developed concurrently. If developed alone, they will not resolve any traffic capacity issue and most likely would degrade existing levels of service. An example of such a project would be removing the signals at Peninger Road and East Pine Street. Without new bridge crossings of Bear Creek and the extension of Hamrick Road and Beebe Road an unacceptable level of service would immediately occur. Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 list Jackson County and ODOT projects within the City’s urban area that have been identified as necessary to support the City’s transportation objectives. These listed projects, although a part of this TSP, are not included in Chapter 12 Transportation System Financing Program, as a financial responsibility of the City. It is expected that as the County and state update their transportation plans that the projects listed in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 will be included in those plan updates. 94 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 76 Table 7-4: Transportation Projects Ref. No. Project Location Im prov . Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r 204 S. Haskell St.; Pine St. to Ash St. uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ♦ 205 10th St. & Pine St. & Freeman Rd. Intersection minor Add protective-permissive phasing to eastbound and westbound left turn movements. ▪ √ ♦ 207 10th St., Hazel St. to Lathrop uu Widen to add turn lane with bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 208 Oak St.: Second -Third & First St.: Manzanita- Laurel Improve alleys and parking facility ▪ √ ♦ 209 Beebe Rd.: Gebhard Rd. to Hamrick Rd. uu Widen to collector standards with sidewalks & bike lanes. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 211 Beebe Rd. & Hamrick Rd. intersection p Add traffic signal ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 212 Hwy. 99, Project No. 4 p Cupp Street Gateway. ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 214 Scenic Av.: Mary's Way to Scenic Middle School. uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 216 E. Pine St. & Hamrick Rd. Intersection minor Widen west and south approaches to add a second eastbound left turn lane and second receiving lane. Restripe northbound approach to include dual left turns and a single through-shared- right turn. Restripe southbound approach to include a left turn, through, and exclusive right turn lanes. ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 218 E. Pine St. & Table Rock Rd. minor Widen west approach to add second eastbound left turn lane. ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 219 Table Rock Rd. & Vilas Rd. Intersection major Widen to increase capacity, add eastbound lane & shared through-right turn movement ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 95 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 77 220 Gebhard Rd.: UGB to Beebe Rd. uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, and install separated bike-ped path on west side ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 221 Hwy. 99 & Beall Ln. intersection major Realign & upgrade signals & railroad crossing, urban upgrade. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 222 3rd St.: E. Pine St. to Hazel St. uu Add bike lanes and sidewalks ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ 223 Hazel St.: Third to 10th St. p Pave and improve, adding sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 225 Hwy. 99: Phase 3 pb Add sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ 227 W. Pine St.; Hanley Rd. to Haskell St. uu Widen 3 lanes (continuous turn lane), bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade. ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 230 Hwy. 99 & Scenic Av. Intersection major Install a traffic signal when signal warrants are met ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 231 Scenic Av.: Hwy. 99 to Grant Rd. uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks. Box culvert developer driven ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 232 Taylor Rd.: Grant Rd. to Silver Creek uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade. Culvert crossings (2) ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 233 E. Pine St.: Hamrick Rd. to Bear Creek Bridge pb Widen for decel/accel lanes, add bike lanes and sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 234 E-W Hamrick Rd. extension (south of E. Pine St.) nc Extend Hamrick Rd. westerly to intersect with Penninger Rd. (collector standards). ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ 235 Freeman Rd.: Hopkins Rd. to Beall Ln. b Rebuild to collector standards ▪ √ ♦ 236 E. Pine St.: Bear Creek Bridge to Peninger Rd. pb Widen for turn lanes, bike lanes, add sidewalks. And third lane ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 238 10th St.: E. Pine St. to Hazel St. uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ♦ 239 Grant Rd.: Scenic Av. to Taylor Rd. uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 240 Peninger Rd. Extension, South nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine St. south across Bear Creek to Hamrick Rd. & construct new bridge across Bear Creek ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 242 Grant Rd.: Taylor Rd. to Beall Ln. uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade (collector standards). ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 96 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 78 243 Bursell Rd.: Beall Ln. to Hopkins Rd. uu Urban upgrade; 2 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 244 Upton Rd., Scenic Av. Raymond St. ru Widen to rural 2 lanes with bike lanes, sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ 245 Peninger Rd. Project nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine St. north across Bear Creek to Beebe Rd.& remove signal at Penninger /Pine St. and construct bridge across Bear Creek. Also, extend Peninger Rd. south across Bear Creek to intersect with S. Hamrick Rd. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 246 Freeman Rd. & Hopkins Rd. Intersection s Install new signal when signal warrants are met. ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 247 3rd St.; E. Pine St. to Ash St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 248 Maple St.; Hwy. 99 to 10th St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 249 4th St.; Ash St. to Cedar St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 250 Ash St.; Hwy. 99 to Freeman Rd. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 251 Oak St.; Hwy. 99 to Freeman Rd. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 252 Rachel Dr.; Saxbury Dr. to W. Pine St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 253 Saxbury Dr.; Brad Wy. To Rachel Dr. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 254 Brad Wy.; Taylor Rd. to Saxbury Dr. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ ♦ 255 E. Pine St.; I-5 to Table Rock Rd. major Widen E. Pine St. to add third westbound through lane from east side of Table Rock Rd. to I-5 SB off-ramp. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 256 Upton Rd & Scenic Ave intersection major Install a roundabout ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 257 Beebe Rd Extension nc Extend Beebe Rd west to Peninger Rd – project includes a bridge over Bear Creek ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 258 Gebhard Rd & Pine St intersection major Install a traffic signal, a third westbound through lane (beginning east of Table ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ 97 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 79 LEGEND: uu = urban upgrade ru = rural upgrade s = signalization p = pedestrian b = bicycle pb = pedestrian/bicycle Rock Rd and extending to the I-5 northbound ramps), dual eastbound and southbound left-turn lanes, and dedicated westbound and northbound left-turn lanes to support future traffic volumes when the Gebhard Rd Extension is complete 259 Gebhard Rd Extension (Phase 1) nc Extend Gebhard Rd from north of Pine St south to Pine St (west of Hamrick Rd) – Coordinate with Project#258 ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 260 Grant Rd Realignment nc Realign Grant Rd south of Taylor Rd to align with Grant Rd north of Taylor Rd. Install two-way stop-control at Taylor Rd / Grant Rd and Grant Rd / CP-6A ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ ♦ 263 Gebhard Rd & Wilson Rd intersection minor Install all-way stop-control when warranted ▪ √ ♦ 264 Grant Rd & Twin Creek Crossing intersection minor Install all-way stop-control when west leg is complete ▪ √ ♦ 265 Gebhard Rd & Beebe Rd intersection major Install a roundabout when Gebhard Rd Extension is complete ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 266 Gebhard Rd & Local Gebhard Rd intersection major Install a roundabout when Gebhard Rd Extension is complete ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 267 Gebhard Rd Extension (Phase 2) nc Extend Gebhard Rd from Gebhard Rd (north of Beebe Rd) to north of Pine St – coordinate with Projects #259 and #261 ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 268 Gebhard-Upton Connector nc Construct a new street connection from Upton Rd to Gebhard Rd ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ 98 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 80 minor = minor capacity improvement major = major capacity improvement nc = new construction 99 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 81 Figure 7-3: Tier 1 Projects 100 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 82 Table 7-5: Jackson County Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area Table 7-6: ODOT Transportation Projects within Central Point Urban Area Ref. No. Project Location Im prov . Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r 916 I-5 & E. Pine St., SB Off- Ramp major Extend and channelize southbound off ramp ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ 917 I-5 Central Point Interchange (Exit 33) major Interchange reconfiguration. ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ 918 I-5 & E. Pine St. NB major Northbound & eastbound capacity improvements. ▪ ▪ ♦ LEGEND: uu = urban upgrade; ru = rural upgrade; s = signalization p = pedestrian; b = bicycle; pb = pedestrian/bicycle minor = minor capacity improvement; major = major capacity improvement nc = new construction Ref. No. Project Location Im prov . Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r 802 Beall Ln., Hwy. 99 to Merriman Rd. uu Widen to add continuous turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦ 812 Table Rock Rd., Bear Creek to Biddle Rd. uu Widen to add continuous turn lane with bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦ 813 Table Rock Rd. & Wilson Rd. minor Widen to five lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes. Install a signal when warranted or restrict movements to right-in, right-out, left- in. ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦ 816 E. Pine St., Table Rock Rd. to Hamrick Rd. ps Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ♦ ♦ ♦ 823 Hanley Rd.: W. Pine to Beall Ln. uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ ♦ ♦ ♦ 101 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 83 7.4 STREET SYSTEM GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE PRESENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. Policy 7.1.1. The City shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple travel modes within the public rights-of-way. Policy 7.1.2. The City’s street system shall contain a network of arterial and collector streets and highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide highways. Policy 7.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain street design standards consistent with the policies of this TSP. Policy 7.1.4. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards that promote connectivity of the street system consistent with the Functional Classification Map. Policy 7.1.5. The City shall actively pursue construction of I-5 interchange improvements at Pine Street. Policy 7.1.6. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain design standards for its streets to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel as has been accomplished in the TOD Districts. Policy 7.1.7. The City Standards and Details shall be the basis for all street design within the Central Point urban area. Policy 7.1.8. Wherever possible the City shall incorporate safely designed, aesthetic features into the streetscape of its public rights-of-way. These features may include: street trees, shrubs, and grasses; planting strips and raised medians; meandering sidewalks on arterial streets; and, in some instances, street furniture, planters, special lighting, public art, or non-standard paving materials. Policy 7.1.9. When existing streets are widened or reconstructed they shall be designed to the adopted street design standards for the appropriate street classification where practical. Adjustments to the design standards may be necessary to avoid existing topographical constraints, historic properties, schools, cemeteries, problems with right-of-way acquisition, existing on-street parking and significant cultural features. The design of the street shall be sensitive to the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 7.1.10. The City shall work with federal, state and local government agencies to promote traffic safety education and awareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and courtesies required of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Policy 7.1.11. The City shall place a higher priority on funding and constructing street projects that address identified vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety problems than those projects that solely respond to automotive capacity deficiencies in the street system. Exceptions are those capacity improvements that are designed to also resolve identified safety problems. 102 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 7 — Street System Page 84 Policy 7.1.12. The City shall select street improvement projects from those listed in the Central Point Transportation System Plan when making significant increases in system capacity or bringing arterial or collector streets up to urban standards. The selection of improvement projects should be prioritized based on consideration of improvements to safety, relief of existing congestion, response to near-term growth, system-wide benefits, geographic equity, and availability of funding. Policy 7.1.13. To maximize the longevity of its capital investments, the City shall design street improvement projects to meet existing travel demand and, whenever possible to accommodate anticipated travel demand for the next 20 years for that facility. Policy 7.1.14. The City shall involve representatives of affected neighborhood associations, citizens, developers, surveyors, engineering and planning professionals in an advisory role in the design of street improvement projects. Policy 7.1.15. The City shall require Traffic Impact Analyses as part of land use development proposals to assess the impact that a development will have on the existing and planned transportation system and to identify reasonable on-site and off-site improvements necessary to mitigate impacts. Policy 7.1.16. The City may require new development to pay charges towards the mitigation of system- wide transportation impacts created by new growth in the community through established Street System Development Charges (SDCs) and any other street fees that are established by the City. 103 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 85 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System 8.1 INTRODUCTION Providing adequate facilities and programs that support bicyclist and pedestrian needs is an important transportation strategy for promoting alternatives to the automobile. The goal of this chapter is to provide guidance in developing transportation alternatives through the design and implementation of a comprehensive, convenient, accessible, and safe system of bike and pedestrian routes throughout the City. It is the City’s goal to continually seek bicycle and pedestrian system improvements that will encourage use of these systems for journey-to-work trips as well as the non-work/recreational trip. Increases in bicycle and pedestrian use will reduce the City’s reliance on automobile use through reductions in vehicular miles traveled and parking demand. 8.2 BICYCLE SYSTEM HIERARCHY There are two basic uses for bicycles: as a means of transportation and for recreational purposes. This TSP focuses on bicycle use as a means of transportation, with recreational use as a secondary consideration. It is the City’s position that a well-planned and maintained bicycle transportation system will also effectively serve the needs of the recreational bicyclist. As a means of transportation, the bicyclist relies on a network that links local neighborhoods to intra-city and inter-city destinations. In order to meet this objective, an effective bicycle system will offer connectivity from neighborhoods to schools, recreation and employment centers, commercial districts, transit centers, institutions, and recreational destinations. The most common means of accomplishing this objective is by providing dedicated bikeways on arterial and collector streets. Dedicating travel lanes on arterial and collector streets to bicyclists is prudent because of the traffic volumes and speeds on these facilities. Additionally, by their very nature, arterial and collector streets offer connectivity between intra-city and inter-city activity centers. In recognition of this approach to improving the bicycle system’s connectivity and safety, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) has established as a performance measure (Measure 3) the provision of bicycle facilities on all collector and arterial streets with targeted percentages. Measure 3 is presented in Table 8-1. Table 8-1: Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle System Performance Measures Measure 3 How Measured 2000 Benchmark 2005 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark 2020 Measure 3: Collectors & arterials w/bicycle facilities Determined through GIS Mapping. Current estimates are that 21% of collectors and arterials have provisions for bicyclists. 21% 28% 37% 48% 60% 104 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 86 8.3 THE BICYCLE SYSTEM Chapter 4 demonstrates that approximately 17% of the City’s current arterial and collector street systems include bike lanes. As illustrated in Figure 8-1 City of Central Point Bicycle Plan, it is the City’s objective to provide bicycle lanes along all arterial and collector streets, linking the City’s major activity centers such as schools, shopping centers, community parks, etc. Over the course of the next twenty years, it is the City’s goal to increase the presence of bicycle lanes on arterial and collector streets by 40%. Table 8-2 presents the City’s benchmarks to the year 2030. Table 8-2: City of Central Point Bicycle System Performance Measures Measure 8.1 How Measured 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Collectors & arterials w/bicycle facilities Determined through Street Inventory and Geographic Information System (GIS). Current estimates are that 16% of collectors and arterials have provisions for bicyclists. 16% 21% 35% 48% 59% 70% 8.4 IN-FILL PROJECT PRIORITIES & IMPLEMENTATION / IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES The City’s current street standards for arterial and collectors include bike lanes. Since 2000, all new arterial and collector streets have been required to include bike lanes. However, the City’s older arterial and collector streets have gaps where bike lanes do not currently exist. Over time, it is expected that 105 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 87 these street sections will be modernized to include bike lanes. Short-term and long-term strategies for closing these gaps are presented in Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan 106 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 88 Table 8-3. The short-term strategies focus on creating critical links to develop a more integrated bicycle system using arterial and collector streets. The long-term strategies are primarily focused on providing safe and efficient links to the City’s major activity centers. 107 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 89 As described in Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan 108 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 90 Table 8-3, the short-term strategy for developing an effective bicycle system will focus on filling in existing gaps in the system. While this approach will eventually help to meet bicyclists’ needs for a comprehensive bicycle system, there is also a need to prioritize critical projects. Table 8-4 provides a prioritized short-term (5 to 10 years) list of those projects that are essential for needed connectivity and bicycle safety. 109 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 91 Figure 8-1: Bicycle Plan 110 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 92 Table 8-3: Bicycle Facilities In-fill Strategies Short-Term Strategy Description Objectives of the Strategy Fill in Gaps Improve/construct facilities linking existing and planned bikeways (filling in “missing links”) Increase percentage of bicycle facilities on arterial and collector streets Improve connections to employment centers, commercial districts, transit centers, institutions, and recreational destinations when possible Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle Long-Term Strategy Description Objectives of the Strategy Focus on Schools Provide bikeways to/from all public schools where none exist (emphasis on arterials and collectors) Primarily improve connections to schools Secondarily improve connections to employment and commercial districts, transit, institutions, and recreation Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle transportation for younger riders Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle Secondarily increase percentage of bicycle facilities on arterial and collector streets Focus on Parks and other Activity Centers Provide bikeways to/from commercial and neighborhood employment centers and parks where none exist (emphasis on arterials and collectors) Primarily improve connections to employment and commercial districts, transit, institutions, and recreation Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle Increase percentage of bicycle facilities on arterial and collector streets Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle Connect to Transit Routes Provide bikeways to/from major transit stops where none exist (emphasis on arterials and collectors) Primarily improve connections to transit Secondarily improve connections to employment and commercial districts, institutions, and recreation Increase percentage of daily trips made via bicycle and transit Encourage and facilitate safe and convenient bicycle transportation Table 8-4: Prioritized Bicycle Facility Projects – Short-Term (5–10 years) Priority Project Comments 1 Front Street Front Street is the primary north-south route through Central Point, but it is very unlikely that bicycle facilities will be developed along Front Street due to a lack of right-of-way and general driveway conflicts. The Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan evaluated bike lanes along Front Street and recommended alternative bike routes using the west side of the railroad right-of-way (south bound) and Second Street (north bound). This alignment is illustrated in Figure 8-1. 2 East Pine Street East Pine Street is the primary east-west route through Central Point. The designation of bicycle lanes on Pine Street would negatively impact parking and access to local businesses. To preserve the character of the downtown it is suggested that E. Pine Street be designated a bicycle route through the downtown area. Traffic speeds through the downtown should be reduced through traffic calming, on-street parking, and other site design strategies that make this section of Pine Street compatible with bicycle users. Under no circumstance should on-street parking on Pine Street, within the downtown, be removed to accommodate bicycle lanes. 3 Taylor Road Taylor Road provides access to Mae Richardson Elementary School, Twin Creeks Development, and is an important connection to the Jackson County Bicycle System along Grant Rd. 4 Bursell Road Bursell Road is an important north-south link in the Central Point System, providing connectivity between Beall Lane and Scenic Avenue via Hopkins/Freeman/10th. 5 N. 3rd Street N. 3rd Street from Hazel Street to N. 10th Street provides a critical north-south connection and an important link to both Crater High School and Scenic Middle School. 6 S. 3rd Street There is currently no connection from existing Hazel Street bicycle facilities to East Pine Street. Bicycle lanes need to be improved along South 3rd Street. 111 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 93 8.5 BICYCLE PARKING, SAFETY PROGRAMS, AND FACILITY MAINTENANCE While developing and implementing a bicycle facilities improvement program is a priority, consideration must also be given to bicycle amenities such as parking and safety. Also, once bicycle facilities are completed, there is a need to maintain them so that bicycling is both safe and convenient. 8.5.1 BICYCLE PARKING Currently, the City does not have standards for bicycle parking. The City needs to develop standards in its zoning ordinance requiring bicycle parking, along with other amenities to help meet bicyclists’ needs. Bicycle parking should include short-term parking for customers or visitors and all-day parking for employees or students. Safe, convenient, and secure bicycle parking is particularly important if bicycling is to become a viable mode of transportation. Bicycle parking requirements can be specified in the municipal code as a percentage of automobile parking or building square footage. For some uses, relatively little bicycle parking needs to be provided, but there are very few land uses for which no bicycle parking can be justified. The code can also specify locations which provide for safe, convenient, and secure bicycle parking. For example, it is preferable for bicycle parking to be located in high-visibility areas near high traffic pedestrian entrances to buildings. 8.5.2 BICYCLE PROMOTION & SAFETY PROGRAMS The use of the media, bicycle committees, and other methods are effective tools for the promotion of bicycling for transportation purposes. Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use of bicycling for transportation can have a positive impact. Encouraging major employers to provide amenities such as showers, lockers, and related facilities that encourage bicyclists to commute to work. Bicycle suitability maps or bicycle system maps can help cyclists choose the most appropriate route and can also be used for educational purposes. RVTD also provides a variety of bicycle safety and commuting education programs of which the city can provide links to and increase awareness. Along with promoting bicycle riding, the City Central Point needs to promote safe bicycle riding practices. Children should be taught at an early age basic bicycle riding skills and safety. The Central Point Police Department is developing a Dare-like program for 5th Grade students that will provide basic bicycle safety education and a free helmet as well. A consistent problem faced by the police department is that citations/warnings for not wearing helmets have not proved to be effective in increasing helmet use. Bicycle safety programs may also be planned in conjunction with summer Parks and Recreation programs. Educating drivers to the rights of bicyclist is also a critical issue. Areas of particular concern are those locations where bicycle lanes end and bicyclists enter traffic. This situation exists throughout Central Point where street improvements have occurred and short sections of bicycle lanes have been added. Areas of critical concern are located on East Pine Street near the I-5 Interchange and the Front Street Intersection. In both cases, once through these intersections, bicyclists enter the flow of traffic without warning provided to drivers. Another area of concern is the bicycle lanes located on the I-5 / Pine Street overpass. Drivers moving from Pine Street onto the freeway entrance ramp may not be aware of bicycle riders. Visible signage and stripes would be an effective means of educating the public on their obligation to share the road with bicyclists. 112 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 94 8.5.3 BICYCLE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Once bicycle facilities are developed, they need to be maintained on a regular basis in order to remove broken glass, mud, vegetation, etc. Because most of the bicycle system is located within the street system, routine maintenance can be accomplished in conjunction with regularly scheduled street maintenance. The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes the following bicycle facility maintenance recommendations: Establish a seasonal sweeping schedule; Sweep walkways and bikeways whenever there is an accumulation of debris on the facility; In curbed sections, sweepers should pick up debris; on open shoulders, debris can be swept onto gravel shoulders; Pave gravel driveway approaches to reduce loose gravel on paved roadway shoulders; and Provide extra sweeping in the fall in areas where leaves or pinecones accumulate in bike lanes. 8.6 THE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM In 2008, approximately 30% of the City’s arterial and collector street system included sidewalks. The Oregon TPR requires sidewalks along all collector and arterial streets within a city’s urban area. The City’s current standards for development are consistent with the TPR, requiring sidewalks on all public streets. As a sidewalk performance measure (Measure 4), the RTP sets benchmarks for the percentage of arterial and collectors that include sidewalks. Table 8-5 describes the RTP performance objectives for sidewalks. Table 8-5: Regional Transportation Plan Pedestrian System Performance Measures Measure How Measured 2000 2005 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark 2020 Measure 4: Collectors & arterials w/sidewalks Determined through GIS Mapping. Current estimates are that 47% of collectors and arterials have sidewalks. 47% 50% 56% 64% 75% In recognition of the RTP performance Measure 4, the City has established its own performance measure for the improvement of sidewalks on the arterial and collector street system. Table 8-6 presents the City’s benchmarks over the course of the next twenty years. Table 8-6: City of Central Point Pedestrian System Performance Measures Within the TOD districts, the City has adopted additional standards addressing the design of sidewalks within commercial areas, including provisions for landscaping, lighting, delineation, and on-site connectivity between adjacent developments. The purpose of these design standards is, through both land use and urban design, to provide an environment that encourages walking. Measure How Measured 2008 2010 2015 2015 2020 2020 Measure 8.2: Collectors & arterials w/sidewalks Determined through GIS Mapping. Current estimates are that 30% of collectors and arterials have sidewalks. 30% 56% 60% 64% 70% 75% 113 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 95 8.7 PRIORITY OF PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS The City’s most significant pedestrian challenge is the in-filling of areas where sidewalks do not exist, which is generally the older neighborhoods. A systematic approach to filling gaps in the sidewalk system and an annual allocation for construction is recommended. The primary consideration for sidewalk in-fill is safety, particularly of school-age children. Excluding new development, which is required to construct sidewalks, the priority for sidewalk in-fill construction should be based on the following considerations: Street Upgrade: As the City upgrades the existing street system, it will do so to the standards for city streets, which includes the provision of sidewalks. Pedestrian Connections to Schools: Many of the streets servicing the schools within the City are lacking sidewalk improvements, resulting in not only an inconvenience, but also a safety concern for students walking to and from school. Pedestrian Connections with Transit: Central Point should provide sidewalks and other amenities to make pedestrian access to bus stops easier. Current efforts at providing pedestrian access to transit could be significantly expanded by providing better walkways to commercial centers and providing walkways from subdivisions to bus stops on arterials. It is vitally important to RVTD that its riders or potential riders have safe, convenient access to bus stops and passenger shelters. The provision of sidewalks is expected to significantly increase the ability of RVTD to attract riders. RVTD needs the cooperation of other area governments with infrastructure improvements, especially sidewalks, to implement high quality transit service between activity centers. Pedestrian Connections to Commercial Activity Centers: Commercial Activity Centers are defined as commercial, civic, and to a lesser extent industrial areas, that attract large numbers of employees, customers, visitors, etc. For these areas convenient access throughout the area, to transit and to adjacent neighborhoods is important. 8.8 PUBLIC AWARENESS The use of the media, pedestrian committees, pedestrian plans, and other methods to promote use of walking as a mode of transportation is an important strategy in facilitating the community’s awareness of the pedestrian system and its many transportation and recreational opportunities. Promotional campaigns and other strategies that encourage the use of walking for transportation can have a positive impact. 8.9 BEAR CREEK GREENWAY The Bear Creek Greenway is a project that has been in progress for more than 25 years. When complete, the Greenway will provide a 20-mile, multi-use path from the I-5/Seven Oaks Interchange in Central Point to Nevada Street in Ashland. In addition to its recreational use, the Bear Creek Greenway will serve 114 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 96 as an important facility for intercity pedestrian and bicycle travel along the I-5 corridor. Within the City, the Greenway is divided into two sections: 1. East Pine Street in Central Point, south to Barnett Road in Medford; and 2. East Pine Street, north to the limits of the Urban Growth Boundary. The East Pine Street south section is complete and in use. The East Pine Street north section is unimproved. Part of this section (between East Pine Street and Upton Road) has been designed and approved for construction but not funded. 8.10 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN GOALS, POLICIES, & ACTIONS GOAL 8.1: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED. Policy 8.1.1. The City of Central Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary and viable component of the transportation system, both as an important transportation mode, and as an air quality improvement strategy. Policy 8.1.2. The Bicycle Element of this plan shall serve as the Central Point Bicycle Master Plan. Policy 8.1.3. The City of Central Point shall progressively develop a linked bicycle network, focusing on, but not inclusive to the arterial and collector street system, and concentrating on the provision of bicycle lanes, to be completed within the planning period (20 years). The bikeway network will serve bicyclists needs for travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit centers, schools, institutions and recreational destinations. Policy 8.1.4. The City of Central Point shall use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with road reconstruction and re-striping projects on collector and arterial streets. Policy 8.1.5. The City of Central Point shall maintain public improvement standards that assure that the design of all streets and public improvement projects facilitate bicycling by providing proper paving, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage grates, striping, signage, lighting, parking, etc. Policy 8.1.6. The City of Central Point shall prepare, adopt, and maintain on-site development standards that assure the provision of bicycle access, parking, racks and/or shelters in business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi-family developments and other locations where bicycle parking facilities are required. Policy 8.1.7. The City of Central Point shall support the local transit provider in their efforts to facilitate “bikes on buses” and bicycle facilities at transit stations and stops. Policy 8.1.8. Except within the Central Business District, the City of Central Point shall give priority to bicycle traffic over parking within public rights-of-way designated on the Bicycle Master Plan or otherwise determined to be important bicycling routes. Policy 8.1.9. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained. 115 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 8 — Bicycle & Pedestrian System Page 97 GOAL 8.2: THE CITY WILL PROMOTE BICYCLE SAFETY AND AWARENESS. Policy 8.2.1. The City of Central Point shall actively support and encourage local and state bicycle education and safety programs intended to improve bicycling skills, observance of laws, and overall safety for both children and adults. Policy 8.2.2. The City shall consider the use of the media, bicycle committees, bicycle plans and other methods to promote use of bicycling for transportation purposes. GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Policy 8.3.1. The City shall establish and maintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to complete the pedestrian facility network. Policy 8.3.2. Sidewalks and walkways shall complement access to transit stations/stops and multi-use paths. Activity centers, schools and business districts should focus attention on and encourage pedestrian travel within their proximity. Policy 8.3.3. The City of Central Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk and pedestrian access and standards for improvement, i.e. crosswalks at signalized intersections and high volume pedestrian areas such as the Central Business District. All road construction or renovation projects shall include sidewalks. Policy 8.3.4. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to connect neighborhoods and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through-access is maintained. Policy 8.3.5. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided. Policy 8.3.6. The City shall prepare a plan and implement a multi-use trail system, using linear corridors including, but not limited to: utility easements, rail lines, Bear Creek, Griffin Creek, Jackson Creek and other creeks that complement and connect to the sidewalk system. GOAL 8.4: TO ENCOURAGE EDUCATION SERVICES AND PROMOTE SAFE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDNTS INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS. Policy 8.4.1. The City of Central Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs shall educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling and walking. Policy 8.4.2. The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy 9.1.1) inclusion of a street lighting system. Policy 8.4.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards for the separation of pedestrian traffic from auto traffic on streets and, where determined appropriate, in parking lots. 116 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 98 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System 9.1 INTRODUCTION Public transportation services fulfill two roles. First, they provide transportation for those who cannot or choose not to drive their own automobile. The majority of Central Point transit riders would likely fall into this category. Secondly, the provision of a comprehensive local transit service is a key measure of quality of life within a community. In concert with walking and bicycling, transit provides an alternative to driving. Transit is also an important component in the toolbox of strategies that can support Smart Growth through higher density, mixed use development, and a more compact form of urban development where the dependency on automobile use is minimized. 9.2 2005 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) The RTP Transit System Element provides a comprehensive review of the region’s transit system and future potential for growth. The primary constraint confronting transit service is the limited amount of funds available to service the current system, not to mention the funds needed to support expansion of ridership. The RTP includes nine (9) transit related goals 6.D-1 through 6.D-9 focusing on funding, market demographics, and increased ridership. Of the nine policies five apply to local governments. Those policies include: RTP Policy 6.D-1 Local funding actions should be taken to ensure a long-term stable operating and capital-funding basis for RVTD. This policy is a general statement regarding local funding as a source of income for RVTD. The term “local” does not specifically refer to individual cities, but rather to the region as opposed to state and federal funding. The City of Ashland was used as an example of one city in the region that contributes annually to RVTD for transit services. RTP Policy 6.D-2 Local governments shall, through RVTD, continue provision of transportation services and facilities that enhance mobility/livability and quality of life options for the transportation-disadvantaged. The City of Central Point supports this policy as evidenced in this TSP. RTP Policy 6.D-4 Local governments, RVTD, and ODOT where appropriate, shall consider the development of park-and-ride facilities as a cost-effective means of increasing the efficiency of the existing transportation system. The City of Central Point supports this policy as evidenced in this TSP. The Parking Plan presented in this TSP sets forth as a parking reduction strategy the appropriate use of park-and-ride facilities (see Chapter 6). 117 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 99 RTP Policy 6.D-8 Local governments, ODOT where appropriate, and RVTD should support transit- friendly design including appropriate inclusion of bus-only lanes on arterial streets, bus bays or turnouts on district level State highways, arterial and collector streets as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods and should revise building codes that enhance pedestrian access to major destination buildings. This transit-friendly design approach will also encourage connectivity to transit by enhancing pedestrian, wheelchair, and bicycle access to bus stops. The City acknowledges the importance of including transit needs in its development and street standards. This acknowledgement is not only limited to functional design needs but also design standards that improve the attractiveness and convenience of the transit system. RTP Policy 6.D-9 Where warranted by traffic speeds, volume, and average bus schedule dwell time; where consistent with maintaining a positive pedestrian environment; and where approved by RVTD, local governments, and ODOT where appropriate, shall facilitate implementation of bus bays on congested arterial streets as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods. The appropriateness of bus bays on congested major streets is a justifiable design consideration, but one that is time sensitive and dependent of the presence of stable bus routes. The City will work with RVTD in identifying the need and timing of bus bays on arterial streets and the development of acceptable bus bay standards as part of the City’s street standards. In addition to the policies above, the RTP also includes a performance measure for transit service. Table 9-1 represents Measure 2 of the RTP. In support of the RTP Measure 2, the City as part of this TSP establishes a similar performance measure. Table 9-2 represents the City’s transit performance measure. It is important to note that attainment of this performance measure relies on the expansion of transit service to the east side of the City and other planned transit-oriented development areas. Table 9-1: Regional Transportation Plan Public Transportation System Performance Measures Measure How Measured Current 2000 Benchmark 2005 Benchmark 2010 Benchmark 2015 Benchmark 2020 Measure 2: Percentage of DU’s within ¼ mile walk to 30- minute transit service Determined through GIS Mapping. Current estimates are that 12% of DU’s are within ¼ mile walking distance of RVTD transit routes. 12% 20% 30% 40% 50% Table 9-2: City of Central Point Transportation System Plan Performance Measures Measure How Measured Current 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Measure 2: Percentage of DU’s within ¼ mile walk to 30-minute transit service Determined through GIS Mapping. Current estimates are that 35% of DU’s are within ¼ mile walking distance of RVTD transit routes. 38% 45% 50% 60% 65% 70% 9.3 ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT The Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) provides public transit within the City of Central Point, offering a combination of services including a fixed-route, fixed-schedule bus system, and paratransit (Valley Lift) service - a specialized service for people with disabilities that prevent them from riding the 118 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 100 bus. Additionally, RVTD operates the Valley Rideshare and Vanpool programs which provide ride matching support and commuter van service to employers and their employees. Figure 9-1: Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development Currently, RVTD ridership is less than one percent of total daily and peak-hour vehicular trips. Although not unusual for a small metropolitan area, public transportation has the potential for accommodating a greater portion of total daily trips in the region provided RVTD is adequately funded as necessary to increase transit services, including enhancements that will make transit more convenient to people who generally use automobiles. Transit’s ability to serve an expanded role would be significantly enhanced by other elements of this plan including the TDM, pedestrian, bicycle, and land use elements. Access to transit routes and stops will be improved by development of more sidewalks as specified in the Pedestrian Element. Development of mixed-use activity centers and higher densities adjacent to major corridors are among the strategies in the Land Use Element that would make travel by transit between activity centers a viable option. With the support of policies and projects in other elements of the plan, transit may be able to help reduce the need for street and highway system improvements. The preferred transit system for RVTD is fully described in the Regional Transportation Plan. Central Point is currently served by Route 40 of RVTD. The preferred transit system would provide for an additional route in Central Point as well as increased headways and weekend service. The present financial forecast does not support additional service to Central Point. During Phase II of the Regional Transportation Plan Update, the Rogue Valley MPO will be investigating methods of increasing transit service. 9.3.1 ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT TEN-YEAR LONG-RANGE PLAN (2007- 2017) The RVTD Ten-Year Plan 2007-2017 is a multi-modal document focused on enhancing ridership through appropriate best practices. The Plan is designed to address the community’s public transportation 119 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 101 needs, with the realization that there will be revenue constraints to be addressed throughout the Plan’s implementation. Central Point is currently served by Route 40 of RVTD (Figure 9-1), which has a very strong ridership. Route 40 travels from Medford to Central Point and has received increased frequency from one hour to 30-minute headways. South of Route 40 the City has created a TOD overlay district for the Twin Creeks area. Within this overlay district, future transit facilities have been planned. The long-range plan proposes the following priorities and future needs: Priorities and Immediate Needs: Service along Hwy 99; Service to the Twin Creeks TOD (Figure 9-2); Downtown reverse service (currently only the north side of Pine Street receives service); Expanded hours and increased frequency; Provide Saturday service; Express route that connects all City Centers; and Determine location for transfer station and major bus stops. Future Needs: East Central Point; and Area near South Haskell St. and Ash St. 9.4 STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE TRANSIT SERVICE The growth of transit service, in terms of ridership, will necessitate a variety of strategies that need to be simultaneously employed. These strategies include a variety of disciplines such as economics, land use and transportation planning, and urban design that when considered collectively will provide a solid infrastructure to build future transit ridership. 120 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 102 Figure 9-2: Transit Plan 121 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 9 — Public Transit System Page 103 The following is a listing of actions that will facilitate growth in transit ridership: Additional site plan standards can be incorporated into the land development code to encourage transit-oriented development. Prepare code amendments that provide standards and incentives fostering enhancements to parking lot design, integration of transit facilities, flexibility to support various uses over time, such as temporary parking zones or parking areas that convert to plazas to support programmed activities; shared parking facilities. Transportation infrastructure can be designed to support redevelopment of future building construction. Provide clear pathways to transit vehicles from shelters. Sidewalks should be constructed to the nearest intersection or to the nearest section of existing sidewalk from all urban transit facilities. Provide suitable and universally accessible waiting areas for transit users. Coordinate locations of crosswalks with placements of way-finding signage and shelters. On streets with parking, consider curb extensions at near-side bus stops so passengers can board transit directly from the curb without stepping onto the street and to comply with ADA universal accessibility standards. Encourage and promote high quality design, durable, easy to maintain materials, and modern vehicles to encourage ridership. Develop a consistent graphic system for wayfinding and information to facilitate increased ridership for all community sectors. 9.5 TRANSIT GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Policy 9.1.1. The City shall work with RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the City’s transit needs. Policy 9.1.2. To encourage accessibility and increased ridership, the City shall continue to encourage future transit-supportive land uses, such as mixed uses, multiple-family, and employment centers to be located on or near transit corridors. Policy 9.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain development standards and regulations facilitating accessibility to transit services through transit-supportive streetscape, subdivision, and site design requirements that promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, convenience and safety. GOAL 9.2: INCREASE OVERALL DAILY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, TO MITIGATE A PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC PRESSURE EXPECTED BY REGIONAL GROWTH. Policy 9.2.1. Through Transportation Demand Management efforts, the City shall work with Central Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter transit ridership. 122 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 104 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System 10.1 RAILROAD SYSTEM- INTRODUCTION In February 1976, Congress passed the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act (the 4R Act), which set up a nationwide local rail service assistance program and a rail planning process. As a prerequisite for obtaining federal assistance funds, a state was required to establish: “…An adequate plan for rail services in such state as overall planning process for all transportation services in such state, including a suitable process for updating, revising and amending such plan….and that….such state plan is administered and coordinated by a designated state agency and provides for the equitable distribution of resources.” The purpose of the rail transportation element is to address both freight and passenger components of the railway system relative to this TSP. The long-term potential for both freight and passenger service for the Rogue Valley region is greater than present service provides. This is particularly true as the increasing cost of gasoline affects the cost of the automobile and truck transportation. Rail service offers specific advantages for various bulk commodities or loads longer than those normally permitted on highways. Even with recent increases in railroad traffic, the total volume of rail freight is far less than the highway freight tonnage for the region. The combined highway and rail freight tonnage along the I-5 corridor alone is estimated at 25 million tons annually. The rail freight portion accounts for between 5 and 10 percent of this total in the I-5 corridor. 10.2 RAILROADS - EXISTING CONDITIONS The railroad has a long history in Central Point and was one of the driving forces behind the founding of the city. The Southern Pacific railroad came to the valley in 1885, four years prior to the incorporation of Central Point in 1889. Figure 10-1: Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad Map 123 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 105 Today within the City of Central Point’s transportation inventory, there is a single north-south railroad track operated by the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (CORP). This trackage is part of CORP’s Siskiyou Line which provides connections from Eugene-Springfield to Cottage Grove, Roseburg, Glendale, Grants Pass, Medford, Ashland and on into California (Figure 10-1). CORP is Oregon’s second largest short line railroad, operating on 378 route miles and 8 miles of trackage rights in Oregon. Its route miles comprise 13.8 percent of all route miles statewide. CORP is strictly a freight line that carries local forest and agricultural products. Steep grades and tight turns limit operating speeds, which mostly fall in the range of 25 to 35 miles per hour. Forty-three miles of track is limited to an operating speed of only ten miles per hour. In recent years, CORP carried approximately 28,000 cars on the Siskiyou Line. 10.2.1 LAND USE The CORP line through Central Point is generally bound predominantly by residential and commercially zoned properties with some industrial properties south of Pine Street. With the exception of the Grange Co-op, which does have a spur and occasionally uses the rail for shipment of materials, the City’s commercial/industrial use of the railroad is non-existent. The speed (low) and frequency (very limited) of the rail traffic is not a cause for concern at this time. Along much of the rail line, adjacent land uses are effectively buffered from rail traffic impacts such as noise and vibration. With the exception of the commercial lands along the west side of Front Street, the remaining lands are buffered by either Hwy. 99 on the east and planned open space/ landscaped berms along the west side of the tracks. These buffering systems are anticipated to be sufficient to mitigate any increases in rail speed and frequency that may occur in the future. Within the City’s urban area, there are three existing (3) and one (1) proposed public at-grade railroad crossings (Table 10-1). Each of these crossings is located on one of the City’s arterial streets. Table 10-1: Central Point Railroad Crossings 10.2.2 RAIL FREIGHT – EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, the CORP line is used only for freight, which can be divided into two major segments: 1. A large wood products operation at Dillard, south of Roseburg, contributes most of the traffic on the northern end of the line. 2. Shippers south of Grants Pass (Timber Products, Boise Cascade, and Sierra Pine, Ltd.) are the major source of business on the southern end of the line. While the railroad operates a through train between Medford and Roseburg, most of the traffic heads either north out of Roseburg or south out of Medford. CORP’s line south from Medford is one of the most rugged rail lines in the western part of the United States with gradients that approach 3.25 percent. The portion of the line south from Ashland to Black Butte, California has no weight restrictions but has height and length restrictions in the Siskiyou Mountains due to size limitations related to tunnels. Crossing Name Crossing No. Crossing Control Beall Lane U.S. DOT #756030T Full W. Pine Street U.S. DOT #756050T Full Scenic Avenue U.S. DOT #756051A Full Twin Creeks Crossing Proposed Full 124 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 106 In 2002, the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) undertook a survey entitled Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Freight Transportation System. The survey asked shippers if they were interested in improving their connections with rail. While there was interest among some manufacturers in increasing their use of rail for inbound raw materials and outbound finished product, it was very selective. Shippers with the greatest interest tended to have a spur either on their property or one nearby and were producing heavy, bulk products or needed large quantities of bulk raw materials. The reasons shippers gave for not using rail more extensively had to do with the length of time it takes to move freight by rail and concerns of the reliability of delivery times. Rail freight is typically carried by more than one railroad company before reaching its destination, which means that the originating company loses hands-on control of the freight in the process. Local rail personnel point to the inconsistency of schedules as an important issue that they have been working to correct. The findings of the 2002, Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Freight Transportation System, particularly as it pertains to timely and cost-effective rail service, have been reinforced by CORP’s most recent cutbacks. Any increased shipping times and costs will ultimately result in increases in demand for motor freight services. In September 2007, CORP discontinued operations between Vaughn, OR and Coquille, OR due to unsafe tunnel conditions. CORP estimates the cost for repairing the tunnels at $23 million and is seeking federal financial assistance for this purpose. Additionally, in December 2007, CORP notified shippers south of Eugene that the railroad’s Siskiyou Line would be closed to train service into California. Effective January 2008, no freight trains will be allowed south of Ashland. Instead, companies that want to ship cargo by rail south into California will have their products loaded onto railcars bound for Eugene. From Eugene, railcars will be directed to Klamath Falls and then into California. This change will have a direct impact on businesses using the Siskiyou Line by increasing shipping times and, potentially, shipping costs. Based on recent events, the future role of rail freight service to and from the Rogue Valley is questionable. Based on the most recent actions by CORP it appears that the market share of products shipped by rail will decline in the near future. 10.2.3 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE – EXISTING CONDITIONS Passenger rail service to and from Southern Oregon was terminated in 1958. Currently north-south rail passenger service in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor is provided through Klamath Falls, bypassing the Rogue Valley region on the way to Eugene. State sponsored thruway bus service with one daily round trip via the I-5 freeway between Eugene and Ashland started in May 2000. This bus connects with the mid-morning Amtrak Cascades train departure from Eugene. 10.2.4 PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE – FUTURE FEASIBILITY The primary advantage of rail is its ability to move larger numbers of passengers at approximately the same cost as a small number of passengers and to move them in a comfortable, time-competitive manner. Passenger service also can provide peaking capacity parallel to congested highway corridors. Because of the high infrastructure cost, rail works best where passenger volumes are high enough to justify the investment, and generally this means where multiple frequencies can be operated. Rail’s advantage declines where the available rail route is not competitive with driving times, either due to a circuitous route or to poor track conditions that limit operating speeds. Nevertheless, there is a 125 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 107 general perception that rail service is more reliable, more comfortable, and safer because the railway cars provide more passenger space and travel over a fixed guideway that is not affected by highway congestion. Recently, interest has been expressed in bringing passenger rail service to southwestern Oregon. Several studies have been completed providing various scenarios that could potentially reintroduce passenger service to the area, but in all cases, the cost would be prohibitive and federal and state support at this time is very limited. These studies include: The 2001 Oregon Rail Plan. The 2001 Oregon Rail Plan provided an analysis of potential rail passenger service between Medford and Eugene. In the Plan, it was stated that rail service is disadvantaged in southern Oregon by an antiquated rail line alignment built in the 1880s, twisting track alignment, slow speeds, and relatively light population. The line is maintained to Class 2 standards with maximum speed over the route of 25 mph, with many segments limited to 20 mph. A passenger rail service would be unable to match highway times. Rail running time on the present 205-mile rail route between Eugene and Medford would require over 8 hours, and the improvements necessary to reduce the rail running time to competitive levels would require major reconstruction. Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study, 2001. The 1999 session of the Oregon Legislature instructed the Oregon Department of Transportation to examine the potential for local passenger service (commuter rail) between Grants Pass and Ashland, a distance of approximately 45 miles. The operation being contemplated would operate on trackage owned by CORP. The Southern Oregon Commuter Rail Study was a joint effort of the Rail Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG). The overall goal of the study was to define costs, benefits, and impacts of the project to allow regional partners to compare the feasibility of commuter rail against other regional transportation options. The plan presented a highly visionary concept of rail service in the Rogue Valley that was determined to be infeasible under current, or foreseeable, levels of financial support for rail improvements. Key findings are: With substantial upgrading of the track and signal system, the rail line connecting the eight Rogue Valley communities is well suited to serve as the backbone of an effective commuter transportation system for the region. With top speeds of up to 60 miles per hour, commuter trains can travel the 45-mile corridor from Ashland to Grants Pass in about 80 minutes, making seven (7) intermediate stops. The estimated costs for upgrading the rail infrastructure, including track, ties, switches, a new 1.5-mile track through Medford Yard, new sidings, a modern train movement signaling system, grade crossing safety improvements, acquiring passenger equipment, and operating the system at three potential levels of service are summarized in Table 10-2 below: Table 10-2: Level of Service Explained Service Level Elements LEVEL 1 Full service (six (6) round trips in the morning and six (6) in the evening) between Ashland and Central Point. LEVEL 2 Level 1, plus limited service (two (2) round trips in the morning and two (2) in the evening) between Central Point and Grants Pass. LEVEL 3 Full service (six (6) round trips in the morning and six (6) in the evening) between Ashland and Grants Pass 126 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 108 Commuter and Inter-Urban Corridors Plan. The focus of this rail plan was primarily on intercity service, rather than commuter service. However, the Plan did discuss commuter service, which is getting increasing attention nationwide, both in major urban centers and in less populous communities where increasing traffic congestion encourages people to look for transportation alternatives. The recent introduction of such service between Seattle and Tacoma shows that this trend has moved to the Pacific Northwest. Several Oregon communities have conducted commuter rail feasibility studies, and others continue to show interest. The discussion that follows is intended to provide a perspective on these efforts. Once considered viable only as a means to move suburban residents into major downtown employment centers, many communities are now investigating commuter service potential between suburban areas where employment and housing patterns are more diverse. Lightly used or abandoned rail lines are seen as having commuter service potential with minimal or no conflicts with freight operations. A determination of commuter rail feasibility depends on a number of factors that vary widely from community to community, but ultimately the viability of commuter rail hinges largely on a calculation of the balance between its costs and ridership, which translates to revenue. A number of indicators can be used to measure the potential success for a commuter service. The checklist below covers the primary attributes that affect a viable commuter operation: Direct Rail Link: An existing rail line with a reasonably direct route between the communities to be served and with sufficient unused capacity to accommodate relatively frequent rush hour passenger service. Supporting Regional Goals: Land use and transportation system goals that seek to reduce motor vehicle trips, concentrate commercial and residential development in and near the urbanized areas in the corridor, and to promote higher-density development within the corridor and specifically, near rail station sites. Population Growth and Density: Continuing moderate to rapid growth in population within and along the corridor, with a high concentration of residences and/or business/commercial activity close to proposed station sites. Limited Funding for Highway Projects: Difficulty in raising funds for new highway projects which would increase traffic capacity in the corridor. Commuting within the Corridor: A high level of daily commuting within the rail corridor. Traffic Congestion: Growing traffic congestion on highways paralleling the rail line. Limited Parking: Limited and expensive parking at commuter destination points. Competitive Transit Times: Ability to provide rail commuter service competitive with auto commute times. Availability to Funding: Ability to provide rail commuter service at a cost competitive with auto commuting. Willingness to Use Transit: Daily commuters in the corridor with a relatively high propensity to use transit. A number of commuter or localized (inter-urban) rail services have been proposed in Oregon during the past decade. The status of each service is summarized below. Rogue Valley Commuter Rail Project, 2006. In 2006, the RVMPO examined an additional option for bringing commuter rail service to the Rogue Valley. This study was brought about as a result of the availability of several self-propelled rail diesel cars (RDC) owned by ODOT Rail Division. Under this scenario, these RDCs would be purchased or leased and would provide service to Central Point, 127 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 109 Medford, Bear Creek Orchards, Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland. The operation would be less extensive and require less capital and operating costs than the concept developed as part of the 2001 Southern Oregon Commuter Study. The estimated costs for required infrastructure improvements would be approximately $12,500,000, while the cost of the Southern Oregon Commuter would approach $38,000,000. Funding for the Rogue Valley Commuter Rail Project was limited, and additional information is required before it can be seriously considered, particularly information related to travel market demand. While these studies have, for the most part, focused on infrastructure needs, questions that need to be answered in future service assessments include: Will the service attract sufficient ridership and revenue to justify the service? What are the potential costs and revenue? What are the economic and social benefits to the state and local communities? Can a service be provided at an affordable cost? What are the alternatives to providing the service? How does the service satisfy Oregon’s transportation goals? Will the service contribute positively to other services through connections? Does the service accommodate disabled travelers and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act? In summary, the feasibility of passenger rail service must take into consideration not only infrastructure requirements, but also the following key operational thresholds: Patronage: To justify rail service, a train should have a minimum average occupancy of about 75 passengers per train. Occupancy might be lower at the extreme end of a run, but average occupancy should justify the operation of a train with at least 180 seats (typically a three-car train). The economic efficiency of rail is significantly reduced if usage falls below this level, and bus operation often may provide more effective use of transportation dollars. Most of Oregon’s current trains meet this threshold. Cost Recovery: Typical train operating costs are about $26 per mile. A new rail service should be expected to attain a 30-40 percent fare box recovery ratio (the proportion of operating costs covered by fare revenue) to be viable. With a lower cost recovery, the amount of subsidy per passenger becomes excessive and alternative transportation by bus becomes a more attractive option. Oregon’s long-term goal is to achieve or exceed 100 percent operating cost recovery on its rail services. Running Time: Rail service has to be reasonably competitive with auto driving times to be successful. Unfortunately, some branch lines that otherwise might have passenger service potential drop out of consideration because they follow alignments that cannot be upgraded to provide time-competitive service at a cost commensurate with the potential service level. Many of Oregon’s branch lines fall into this category. Freight service levels are insufficient to justify major capital investment in track upgrades or curve reductions that would also benefit passenger operations, so the entire cost of improvements would be a passenger-related responsibility. Parallel highways, however, have been improved to the extent that driving times (and potential bus times) have been significantly reduced over time, rendering establishment of rail service more difficult to justify. 128 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 110 Other Factors: In certain situations, rail service may be warranted even though it would not meet the general parameters given above. Justifications may include rail service that contributes substantially to the patronage of other trains, service that provides special benefits to the area served or operations that assist in the mobility of certain travelers (i.e. handicapped). 129 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 111 Figure 10-2: Railroad System 130 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 10 — Railroad & Aviation System Page 112 10.3 AVIATION SYSTEM – INTRODUCTION Although the City of Central Point does not provide aviation service, it is fortunate to have convenient access to the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. The airport is located to the east of the City just outside the urban area. The Rogue Valley International- Medford Airport is the third largest commercial service airport in Oregon providing air passenger and air freight services to seven counties in Southern Oregon and northern California. The airport provides national and international connections to the region with commercial air service provided by Horizon Airlines and United Airlines/United Express. Because of the airport’s proximity to the City, it is considered to be a transportation asset. The governing planning document for the Airport is the Medford-Jackson County Airport Master Plan Update, which will continue to serve as the airport’s guiding document governing anticipated development of the airport, including the on-site facilities. It is the City’s goal, through this TSP, to maintain convenient and efficient vehicular transportation access to the Rogue Valley International- Medford airport. 10.4 RAILROAD AND AVIATION GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 10.1: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Policy 10.1.1. The City shall encourage both freight and passenger service as part of statewide rail transportation planning efforts. Policy 10.1.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain site development standards that mitigate railroad noise and vibration. GOAL 10.2: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS VIA INTER-MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL- MEDFORD AIRPORT. Policy 10.2.1. The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to provide service to the Rogue Valley International Airport from established routes serving Central Point. 131 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 113 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System 11.1 INTRODUCTION Efficient truck movement plays a vital role in the economical transportation of raw materials and finished products. The establishment of through truck routes provides for this efficient movement while at the same time maintaining neighborhood livability, public safety, and minimizing maintenance costs of the roadway system. The significance of freight movement is supported by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Most recently the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) completed a freight study addressing the freight needs of the Rogue Valley. As a result of the findings presented in the RVMPO Freight Study (2006), truck freight movement warrants a special chapter in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) in order to maintain focus of truck freight issues. 11.2 LAND USE The safe and efficient movement of goods is a common goal for both truck and rail freight, but trucks use different infrastructure, have different land use implications, and must be integrated with other modes in the broader transportation system. Commercial trucks have specific travel needs such as adequate lane widths, adequate turning at intersections, and adequately designed loading and unloading areas. Truck services also need roadways operating at an adequate level of service so that goods and services can move efficiently through the city, the region, and the state. Most of the Central Point’s freight intense land uses are located on the eastside of the freeway with access predominantly via East Pine Street and Table Rock Road. The downtown and the area along Highway 99 also contribute but to a lesser degree. Aside from these areas most of the City is residential in character with limited freight needs. 11.3 TRUCK FREIGHT - EXISTING CONDITIONS Truck freight transportation within the Central Point urban area is primarily concentrated along the truck routes designated in the Regional Transportation Plan. Figure 11-1 illustrates the truck routes within the City as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study. The major truck routes include Interstate 5 (I-5) and Highway 99 (Front Street). I-5 is the most important freight route in the region carrying approximately 4,000 to 5,000 trucks per day through the area. I-5 not only serves freight heading to destinations within the Central Point UGB, but also serves trucks passing through the region to destinations throughout the West Coast. Currently, the combined volume of freight transported over highway and rail modes in the I-5 corridor through the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Region is estimated at 25 million tons annually, with the majority of this freight carried on the highway system. Additional Central Point Freight Routes as identified in the RVMPO Freight Study (2006) include: Table Rock Road, East Vilas Road, Pine Street, and Hanley Road. As part of the RVMPO Freight Study, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments conducted a series of interviews with major freight shippers and carriers providing issues and concerns related to specific Central Point freight routes. Table 11-1 lists the freight issues taken from the RVMPO Freight Study that affect facilities within the City’s urban area. 132 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 114 Figure 11-1: Rogue Valley MPO Freight Route 133 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 115 Table 11-1: Central Point Truck Freight Issues and Concerns Freight Route Issues & Concerns I-5 Interchange General concerns expressed about the capacity of the interchange and the potential for continued growth in the area around the interchange which will increase congestion in the future. Hwy. 99/Pine Street East Pine Street through downtown Central Point is congested and relatively narrow for truck freight traffic. Table Rock Road Table Rock Road deliveries are difficult due to the lack of turning lanes. [Please note: Since the publication of the RVMPO Freight Study sections of Table Rock Road have been widened and turning lanes added.] East Vilas Road The four corners intersection at Table Rock Road and Vilas Road is very tight. Turning lanes on Vilas Road are needed. [Please note: This intersection has been improved since the publication of the RVMPO Freight Study.] 134 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 116 Figure 11-2: Freight Route Plan 135 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 117 Figure 11-3: Problem Routes and Intersections 136 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 118 11.4 CENTRAL POINT TRUCK FREIGHT - ISSUES & CONCERNS As presented in the RVMPO Freight Study, the City of Central Point’s capacity to accommodate truck freight has numerous challenges ranging from capacity and land use conflicts to inappropriate route designations. East Pine Street/Central Point Interchange. Freight trucks moving south on I-5 often choose to connect with I-5 via the East Pine Street/Central Point Interchange, rather than face the congestion on Highway 62 en route to the North Medford Interchange. USF Reddaway, the largest bulk facility in the Rogue Valley, is located off Pine Street on Hamrick Road. Counting just Reddaway traffic, 300 trucks per day exit from I-5 and another enter I-5. Gordon Trucking, a long-haul company, is likely to relocate near this interchange. East Pine Street connects freight on Highway 99 with Table Rock Road, the route to industrial sites in White City. Issues include the high levels of congestion leading to and occurring within the area. Freight companies are concerned that conditions at the Central Point Interchange are starting to mirror those at the north and south Medford interchanges. This is troublesome since the Central Point Interchange is currently their only viable alternative south of the Seven Oaks Interchange. Hamrick Road. In the RVMPO Freight Study, Hamrick Road was identified as part of the MPO freight system. This section of Hamrick Road is predominantly residential in character and has been eliminated from the City’s freight route map as illustrated in Figure 11-2. As presented in this TSP, it is proposed that the section of Hamrick Road from East Pine Street to Table Rock Road be removed as a designated truck freight route from the RVMPO regional freight route map. Table Rock Road is adequate to serve the designated freight needs. East Pine Street (Downtown Core). By its very nature, the downtown core has always been, and will continue to be, a less than desirable truck route. This is particularly true given the City’s plans for revitalization of the downtown, which include pedestrian oriented uses and traffic calming along East Pine Street. To avoid the downtown section of East Pine Street, truck drivers often travel out-of- direction to the Seven Oaks I-5 interchange. 11.5 OUT-OF-DIRECTION TRAVEL Out-of-direction travel is defined as drivers taking an indirect non-designated route rather than a more direct designated route. The use of out-of-direction routes typically occurs as a result of regular routes being blocked during construction, drivers avoiding bottlenecks and congestion, and restrictions that prevent oversized freight. According to the RVMPO Freight Study, there has been an increase in out-of- direction travel. The result is that manufacturers and shippers are using alternative routes to Hwy. 99 and I-5 placing significant burdens on the Central Point Interchange, Table Rock Road, and Vilas Road. 11.6 TRUCK FREIGHT GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL 11.1: TO IDENTIFY AND MAINTAIN A TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY THAT SERVES THE CITY’S AND REGION’S FREIGHT NEEDS IN AN EFFICIENT AND SAFE MANNER, WITH MINIMAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES. 137 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 11 — Truck Freight System Page 119 Policy 11.1.1. The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOT and the City of Medford in the coordination of design, funding, and improvement of the freight system within the City that enhances freight movement, while improving the overall capacity of the City’s street system. Policy 11.1.2. The Freight System Map presented in Figure 11-2 shall be considered by the City as the official freight route system for the City of Central Point. The design and improvement of the street system designated on the Freight System Map shall accommodate large vehicles typical of freight movement. Policy 11.1.3. The City shall ensure access to truck freight via the local street system, with emphasis on maintaining an efficient and safe designated truck route system. 138 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 120 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program 12.1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), this chapter presents the City of Central Point’s financing program for its transportation system. By definition, the financing program shall include: 1. Policies that guide the selection of transportation facility and improvement projects for funding in the short-term that meet the standards and benchmarks established pursuant to the TPR; 2. A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements; 3. An estimate of the timing for planned transportation facilities and major improvements; and 4. A determination of rough cost estimates for the transportation facilities and major improvements identified in the TSP. In Chapter 7, a list of transportation improvements was identified. These are projects that are forecast to be needed through the TSP planning period. As stated in Chapter 7, the referenced list of transportation improvements has been updated to remove projects that have been completed since 2008 and to include new projects that are associated with the 2022 UGB Expansion. The remainder of this Chapter (12) reflects those updates. In the aggregate, the total cost of all projects approaches $58.4 million. These costs do not include the cost of Jackson County and ODOT projects as identified in Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 of Chapter 7. The City readily acknowledges that it is beyond the realm of feasibility to fund all projects through the year 2030 and that not all projects are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service throughout the planning period. Consequently, it is the purpose of this chapter to prioritize the projects based on need and to reconcile the cost of the projects with the City’s ability to fund. Development of this chapter is based on the following documents: The RVMPO Regional Transportation Plan 2005-2030 dated April 5, 2005, and draft information for the 2009-2034 RTP; City of Central Point’s FY 2007-08 Budget; City of Central Point’s Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan 2008-2012; and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 2008 – 2011. City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, Traffic Impact Analysis, July 27, 2020. 139 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 121 All expense and revenue estimates presented in this chapter are in terms of 2022 dollars. Funding has been estimated over the duration of this TSP. 12.2 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION POLICIES The TPR requires that the selection of transportation projects be based on policies that establish standards and benchmarks. To this end, the City relies on its Strategic Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the RTP, and the STIP. Initially, one of the standards to be achieved in local TSPs was a 5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during the planning period of the TSP. On April 3, 2002, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), by Order 02-LCDC-026, approved alternative standards to accomplish reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as required by OAR 660-012-0035(5). LCDC’s approval was conditional subject to completion of certain tasks. The RVMPO completed the necessary tasks in 2004. The 2005- 2030 RTP contains the LCDC approved alternative measures. In total seven (7) alternate measures were approved. These alternative measures have been incorporated in this TSP. Where applicable these alternate measures have been used in developing the standards and benchmarks for prioritization of transportation projects. Project prioritization is based on the following criteria: 1. Safety. Projects that improve the safety of the City’s transportation system. This includes all modes of transportation; 2. RTP Benchmarks. Projects that facilitate compliance with the RTP Benchmarks; 3. Economic Development. Projects that reinforce the City’s economy, either through improvements to freight routes, or improvements that facilitate development of land uses that support the City’s employment base; 4. Regional Coordination. Projects undertaken in coordination with the State, County, and/or City of Medford; 5. Livability. Projects that improve the City’s livability through maintenance of minimum levels of service, connectivity, and modal choice; and 6. Cost/Benefit. Projects that demonstrate cost effectiveness in relationship to benefits derived. As part of updating the recommended street projects presented in Chapter 7, the updated project was re-prioritized according to the criteria above and also considering a seventh criterion, Equity. The intent of introducing Equity into the prioritization process is to evaluate capital projects with a lens for people that may be considered transportation disadvantaged and must rely on active travel modes, such as walking, biking, and taking transit. The intent is also to be sure that projects that do serve transportation disadvantaged populations (e.g., sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) are located in areas with the highest concentrations of these populations. The project priorities presented later in this chapter reflect this re- prioritization process. 140 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 122 12.3 PROJECT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The transportation projects presented in this TSP have been assigned to one of two classifications referred to as either Tier 1 or Tier 2 projects. Tier 1 Projects. By definition, Tier 1 projects are financially constrained. Financially constrained projects are projects that can be reasonably funded within the next twenty years. Tier 1 projects are further classified as short- or medium/long-term. These time periods correspond to the years 2022 - 2026 (short-term) and 2026 - 2030 (medium/long-term). Tier 2 Projects. Tier 2 projects are those projects identified as having an eventual need beyond the timeframe of this TSP, and for which funding is unavailable. Tier 2 projects can advance to Tier 1 as funds become available or priorities change. Advancing Tier 2 projects requires an amendment to the TSP with justification for the advancement and the impact on the timing and funding of designated Tier 1 projects. 12.4 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES Revenue for transportation system projects predominantly comes from three sources: federal, state, and local. The City’s transportation projects have historically been funded by a combination of these sources. Its primary revenue sources have been generated by State gas tax, System Development Charges (SDCs), Transportation Utility Fees (TUFs), and Urban Renewal funds. The City has also funded several transportation projects with grants, including the Surface Transportation Block (STBG) program, All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. Federal, State, and local revenue sources that are used to fund street system projects are described in the RTP and a more comprehensive discussion of each funding source is available in the RTP. This section provides a summary of the funding sources referenced above. The funding forecast presented in Table 12-1 is derived from these sources. State Gas Tax: The City’s State gas tax revenue is primarily generated by House Bill 2017 (HB 2017), which increased the motor fuels tax, vehicle title and registration fees, and the weight-mile tax on heavy trucks. Revenue from HB 2017 is restricted to expenditures that include construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation, use, and policing of public streets within the City. The City currently receives an annual average of $1.1 million in State gas tax, of which $400,000 is earmarked for capital improvements. Over the last 10 years, this revenue source has increased by an average of six percent each year. The City expects to continue receiving revenue from State gas tax over the planning horizon but recognizes that electric vehicle fleets may impact this revenue source. System Development Charges (SDCs): System Development Charges (SDCs) are fees assessed on development for impacts created to public infrastructure. A portion of the City’s SDC funds are reimbursement fees, which are flexible and can be applied toward non-capital expenditures, but typically most of the SDC funds are dedicated toward capital improvement projects designed to accommodate growth. The City can offer SDC credits to developers that provide public improvements beyond the required street frontage, including those that can be constructed by the private sector at a lower cost. The City currently receives an annual average of $353,000 in SDC funds, of which $250,000 is earmarked for capital improvements. The City expects SDC funds to increase over the planning horizon 141 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 123 by two percent each year (reflecting the expected increase in development, not a rate increase assessed to developers). Transportation Utility Fee (TUF): The City implemented a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) in 2007 to provide a temporary solution to its street budget shortage. The TUF is a monthly fee assessed to a variety of land uses including single-family residences, multifamily residences, manufactured home parks, retirement communities, commercial sites, parks, and freight (businesses pay a higher TUF than residences, likely due to the higher traffic volume that they generate) and is collected through the City’s water bill collection system. The TUF became an important revenue source for the City’s street budget and continues to be renewed every few years. In 2017, the TUF was increased to specifically support ADA compliant infrastructure improvements and create a more walkable community. The City had anticipated that a long-term comprehensive fuel tax solution possibly adopted by the State would support such improvements, but the State did not implement a solution. The fee increase resembled that of nearby jurisdictions. The City implemented a fee increase applied specifically to commercial land uses in July 2021 and a second increase is being implemented this year. The City currently receives an annual average of $527,000 in TUF funds, of which $100,000 is earmarked for capital improvements. The City expects TUF funds to increase to approximately $825,000 annually over the planning horizon. Urban Renewal District: The City established an Urban Renewal District that generally includes the area of Old Town and the adjacent Interstate 5 (I-5) interchange (Exit 33). The Urban Renewal District is a temporary revenue source scheduled to fund capital projects through the year 2039. The City estimates that this revenue source will generate approximately $2 million each year through its life and fund several of the recommended street projects identified in 142 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 124 Table 7-4 (#209, #212, #225, #238, and #247-251), which is reflected in the overall cost of transportation projects presented later in this chapter. Surface Transportation Block (STBG) Program: STBG funds are flexible federal dollars that can be used for City projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance of any Federal-aid highway, bridge, or tunnel on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. The City can either apply 100 percent of these funds toward projects that comply with federal regulations or 90 percent toward projects that do not have federal constraints. All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program: ARTS funds are intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon. By working collaboratively with local road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s, and tribes), ODOT expects to increase awareness of safety on all roads, promote best practices for infrastructure safety, compliment behavioral safety efforts, and focus limited resources to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes across the state. The program is data driven to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and should be blind to jurisdiction. The ARTS program primarily used federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program: CMAQ funds are for projects that help reduce emissions and meet national air quality standards, such as transportation demand management programs, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, public transportation projects, diesel retrofits, and vehicle emission reduction programs. All types of non-motorized transportation projects are eligible for CMAQ funding. States are required to provide a non-federal match for program funds (which has not been the case historically for Federal lands highway funding). 12.5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REVENUE PROJECTIONS Projecting revenue over long periods – in this case, 20 years – involves making several assumptions which may, or may not, prove valid over time. For example, changing social, economic, and political conditions cannot be predicted, yet these factors play important roles in determining future funding levels for Street System projects. The Tier 1 revenue projections presented in this plan are based on historic funding sources. The revenue projections account for anticipated annual revenue increases that reflect both how historic funding sources have increased in the past as well as potential future increases to the City’s SDC and TUF fees. As illustrated in Table 12-1, it is forecast that there will be approximately $13.4 million in revenue that will be available to fund the City’s transportation projects through the planning horizon, 2030. It is important to remember that the revenue identified in Table 12-1 is a forecast. It is recommended that the revenue figures be re-evaluated annually and adjusted appropriately. Table 12-1: City of Central Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Funding 2022-2030 (Measured in 2022 dollars) Funding Source FY 2022-23 to FY 2025-26 (Short-Term) FY 2026-27 to FY 2029-30 (Medium/Long- Term) State Gas Tax (6% Annual Escalation) $1.75M $2.21M SDC (2% Annual Escalation) $1.03M $1.12M TUF (1% Bi-Annual Escalation) $0.63M $0.64M Grants (STBG, CMAQ, ARTS) $3.00M $3.00M 143 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 125 Funding Source FY 2022-23 to FY 2025-26 (Short-Term) FY 2026-27 to FY 2029-30 (Medium/Long- Term) Total $6.41M $6.97M 12.6 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COSTS Chapter 7 presented a comprehensive list of transportation projects identified as necessary to address the City’s transportation needs through 2030. Table 12-2 summarizes costs for City sponsored projects. The costs presented in Table 12-2 are estimates and should be updated annually to reflect budgeted and actual expenditures. The total estimated cost for Tier 1 projects is approximately $13.1 million. When combined with Tier 2 projects ($45.3 million), the total transportation program is estimated to cost approximately $58.4 million. Table 12-2: City of Central Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Costs 2022-2030 (Measured in 2022 dollars) Timeframe Project Costs Tier 1 (Short-Term) $11.2M Tier 1 (Medium/Long-Term) $1.9M Tier 2 $45.3M Total $58.4M Table 12-3 through Table 12-5 categorize each project as either Tier 1 or Tier 2, as defined previously in this chapter. These tables also include the estimated cost of each project. Tier 1 projects were differentiated from Tier 2 projects using the prioritization process presented earlier in this chapter and in conjunction with the funding available for transportation projects as forecasted in Table 12-1. As with forecasted revenue, it is recommended that the project costs be re-evaluated annually and modified as necessary. 144 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 126 Table 12-3: City of Central Point Projected Transportation Program Capital Costs 2022-2030 (Measured in 2022 dollars) Ref. No. Project Location Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e Ti er OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r Total Project Cost 204 S. Haskell St.; Pine St. to Ash St. uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ Tier 1, Short ♦ $250,000 205 10th St. & Pine St. & Freeman Rd. Intersection minor Add protective-permissive phasing to eastbound and westbound left turn movements. ▪ √ Tier 1, Short ♦ $100,0001 207 10th St., Hazel St. to Lathrop uu Widen to add turn lane with bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Short ♦ ♦ ♦ $550,0001 209 Beebe Rd.: Gebhard Rd. to Hamrick Rd. uu Widen to collector standards with sidewalks & bike lanes. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Short ♦ ♦ $02 220 Gebhard Rd.: UGB to Beebe Rd. uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, and install separated bike-ped path on west side ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Short ♦ ♦ ♦ $4,500,000 256 Upton Rd & Scenic Ave intersection major Install a roundabout ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1, Short ♦ $800,000 257 Beebe Rd Extension nc Extend Beebe Rd west to Peninger Rd – project includes a bridge over Bear Creek ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1, Short ♦ $5,000,000 TIER 1 SHORT-TERM COSTS $11,200,000 1 Project has a dedicated funding source. 2 Project is/will be funded by Urban Renewal. 145 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 127 Table 12-4: Tier 1 – Medium/Long-Term Projects Ref. No. Project Location Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e Ti er OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oint Medf o rd Othe r Total Project Cost 211 Beebe Rd. & Hamrick Rd. intersection p Add traffic signal. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ ♦ ♦ $647,000 212 Hwy. 99, Project No. 4 p Cupp Street Gateway. ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ ♦ $02 214 Scenic Av.: Mary's Way to Scenic Middle School. uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ ♦ $250,000 216 E. Pine St. & Hamrick Rd. Intersection minor Widen west and south approaches to add a second eastbound left turn lane and second receiving lane. Restripe northbound approach to include dual left turns and a single through-shared-right turn. Restripe southbound approach to include a left turn, through, and exclusive right turn lanes. ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ ♦ $01 258 Gebhard Rd & Pine St intersection major Install a traffic signal, a third westbound through lane (beginning east of Table Rock Rd and extending to the I-5 northbound ramps), dual eastbound and southbound left-turn lanes, and dedicated westbound and northbound left-turn lanes to support future traffic volumes when the Gebhard Rd Extension is complete ▪ √ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ ♦ $01 259 Gebhard Rd Extension (Phase 1) nc Extend Gebhard Rd from north of Pine St south to Pine St (west of Hamrick Rd) – Coordinate with Project#258 ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ $01 260 Grant Rd Realignment nc Realign Grant Rd south of Taylor Rd to align with Grant Rd north of Taylor Rd. Install two-way stop-control at Taylor Rd / Grant Rd and Grant Rd / CP-6A ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 1, Med./ Long ♦ ♦ $1,000,000 1 Project has a dedicated funding source. 2 Project is/will be funded by Urban Renewal. 146 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 128 Table 12-5: Tier 2 Projects Ref. No. Project Location Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e Ti er OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r Total Project Cost 208 Oak St.: Second - Third & First St.: Manzanita-Laurel Improve alleys and parking facility ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $717,000 218 E. Pine St. & Table Rock Rd. minor Widen west approach to add second eastbound left turn lane. ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $501,000 219 Table Rock Rd. & Vilas Rd. Intersection major Widen to increase capacity, add eastbound lane & shared through- right turn movement ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $800,000 221 Hwy. 99 & Beall Ln. intersection major Realign & upgrade signals & railroad crossing, urban upgrade. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ $3,400,000 222 3rd St.: E. Pine St. to Hazel St. uu Add bike lanes and sidewalks ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02 223 Hazel St.: Third to 10th St. p Pave and improve, adding sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $02 225 Hwy. 99: Phase 3 pb Add sidewalks. ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $02 227 W. Pine St.; Hanley Rd. to Haskell St. uu Widen 3 lanes (continuous turn lane), bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade. ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $01 230 Hwy. 99 & Scenic Av. Intersection major Install a traffic signal when signal warrants are met ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01 231 Scenic Av.: Hwy. 99 to Grant Rd. uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks. Box culvert developer driven ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ $2,700,000 232 Taylor Rd.: Grant Rd. to Silver Creek uu Widen 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade. Culvert crossings (2) ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $53,000 233 E. Pine St.: Hamrick Rd. to Bear Creek Bridge pb Widen for decel/accel lanes, add bike lanes and sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01 234 E-W Hamrick Rd. extension (south of E. Pine St.) nc Extend Hamrick Rd. westerly to intersect with Penninger Rd. (collector standards). ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $1,200,000 147 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 129 Ref. No. Project Location Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e Ti er OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r Total Project Cost 235 Freeman Rd.: Hopkins Rd. to Beall Ln. b Rebuild to collector standards ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $31,000 236 E. Pine St.: Bear Creek Bridge to Peninger Rd. pb Widen for turn lanes, bike lanes, add sidewalks. And third lane ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01 238 10th St.: E. Pine St. to Hazel St. uu Add bike lanes & sidewalks. ▪ ▪ Tier 2 ♦ $02 239 Grant Rd.: Scenic Av. to Taylor Rd. uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $7,300,000 240 Peninger Rd. Extension, South nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine St. south across Bear Creek to Hamrick Rd. & construct new bridge across Bear Creek ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $146,000 242 Grant Rd.: Taylor Rd. to Beall Ln. uu Realign, widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade (collector standards). ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $1,500,000 243 Bursell Rd.: Beall Ln. to Hopkins Rd. uu Urban upgrade; 2 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $2,500,000 244 Upton Rd., Scenic Av. Raymond St. ru Widen to rural 2 lanes with bike lanes, sidewalks. ▪ ▪ ▪ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $1,600,000 245 Peninger Rd. Project nc Extend Penninger Rd. from E. Pine St. north across Bear Creek to Beebe Rd.& remove signal at Penninger /Pine St. and construct bridge across Bear Creek. Also, extend Peninger Rd. south across Bear Creek to intersect with S. Hamrick Rd. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ $10,600,000 246 Freeman Rd. & Hopkins Rd. Intersection s Install new signal. ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $175,000 247 3rd St.; E. Pine St. to Ash St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02 148 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 130 Ref. No. Project Location Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e Ti er OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r Total Project Cost 248 Maple St.; Hwy. 99 to 10th St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02 249 4th St.; Ash St. to Cedar St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02 250 Ash St.; Hwy. 99 to Freeman Rd. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02 251 Oak St.; Hwy. 99 to Freeman Rd. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $02 252 Rachel Dr.; Saxbury Dr. to W. Pine St. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $261,000 253 Saxbury Dr.; Brad Wy. To Rachel Dr. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $187,000 254 Brad Wy.; Taylor Rd. to Saxbury Dr. p Construct sidewalks, repair curb & gutter. ▪ √ Tier 2 ♦ $250,000 255 E. Pine St.; I-5 to Table Rock Rd. major Widen E. Pine St. to add third westbound through lane from east side of Table Rock Rd. to I-5 SB off- ramp. ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ Tier 2 ♦ ♦ ♦ $01 263 Gebhard Rd & Wilson Rd intersection minor Install all-way stop-control when warranted ▪ √ ♦ $25,000 264 Grant Rd & Twin Creek Crossing intersection minor Install all-way stop-control when west leg is complete ▪ √ ♦ $25,000 265 Gebhard Rd & Beebe Rd intersection major Install a roundabout when Gebhard Rd Extension is complete ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $3,000,000 266 Gebhard Rd & Local Gebhard Rd intersection major Install a roundabout when Gebhard Rd Extension is complete ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $3,000,000 267 Gebhard Rd Extension (Phase 2) nc Extend Gebhard Rd from Gebhard Rd (north of Beebe Rd) to north of Pine St – coordinate with Projects #259 and #261 ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $2,100,000 149 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 131 Ref. No. Project Location Cat egor y Project Description Vehi cl e Bicy cl e Pedestrian Tr a n s it Freight Acc e ss Eco n o mic Saf ety Ope rat ion s Tr u c k Tr a f fi c Urba n Upg rad e Ti er OD O T Cou n t y Cent ral P oi nt Medf o rd Othe r Total Project Cost 268 Gebhard-Upton Connector nc Construct a new street connection from Upton Rd to Gebhard Rd ▪ ▪ ▪ √ √ √ ♦ $3,000,000 TIER 2 COSTS $45,300,000 1Project has a dedicated funding source. 2Project is/will be funded by Urban Renewal. 150 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 132 12.7 TRANSPORTATION FINANCING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES GOAL 12.1: TO DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY’S CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS. Policy 12.1.1. Transportation system development charges (SDCs), as defined by Oregon Revised Statutes and City ordinances, will be collected by the City to offset costs of new capacity development. The City will continue to collect SDCs as an important and equitable funding source to pay for transportation capacity improvements. Policy 12.1.2. For all Tier 2 projects the City shall require those responsible for new development to mitigate their development’s impacts to the transportation system, as authorized in the Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Oregon Revised Statutes, concurrent with the development of the property. Policy 12.1.3. The City shall continue to set-aside one-percent of its allocation of State Highway Fuel Tax funds for creation of on-street bicycle, pedestrian and transit capital facilities. Policy 12.1.4. When the City agrees to vacation of a public right-of-way at the request of a property owner, conditions of such agreement shall include payment by the benefitted property owner of fair market value for the land being converted to private ownership. Funds received for vacated lands shall be placed in a trust fund for the acquisition of future rights-of-way. GOAL 12.2: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT A STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL SUSTAIN A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE FOR PAVEMENT SURFACE AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. Policy12.2.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, the primary funding sources for street system maintenance activities shall be the City’s allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax and allocation of fees supplemented by street maintenance fees. Policy 12.2.2. The City shall seek additional funding sources to meet the long-term financial requirements of sustaining a street maintenance program, including alternative modes of transportation. Policy 12.2.3. The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with other State and local jurisdictions for maintenance and operation activities based on equitable determinations of responsibility and benefit. GOAL 12.3: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE OPERATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INCLUDING ADVANCE PLANNING, DESIGN ENGINEERING, SIGNAL OPERATIONS, SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, ILLUMINATION, AND CLEANING ACTIVITIES. Policy 12.3.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, transportation system operations shall be funded primarily from the City’s allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax. Other funding sources should be pursued to augment the financial requirements of providing adequate future system operations. 151 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 12 — Transportation System Financing System Program Page 133 Policy 12.3.2. The City shall continue to pursue federal, state and private grants to augment operations activities, especially in the planning and engineering functions. 152 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 134 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies 13.1 INTRODUCTION The transportation system goals and objectives listed below are broad statements of philosophy that describe the hopes of the people of the City of Central Point for the future of their community and its transportation system. Goals and objectives have been developed around each TSP chapter. A goal and/or objective may never be completely attainable but is used as a point toward which to strive and should be used to monitor future transportation strategies and improvements. Policies are statements that provide a specific course of action moving the community toward the attainment of its goals and objectives. Each new capital improvement project, land use application, or implementation measure must be consistent with the policies. Once adopted, the goals, objectives, and policies, as well as the project lists, will become part of the City of Central Point’s Comprehensive Plan. 13.2 IMPLEMENTATION GOALS AND POLICIES BY CHAPTER Chapter 3 – Land Use & Forecasting GOAL 3.1: TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE THE USE OF LAND WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND THAT SUPPORTS, THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN. Policy 3.1.1. The City shall manage the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that enhances livability for the citizens of Central Point as set forth in the Transportation System Plan. Policy 3.1.2. The City shall continuously monitor and update the Land Development Code to maintain best practices in transit-oriented design consistent with the overall land use objectives of the City. Chapter 5 – Transportation System Elements GOAL 5.1: TO MAXIMIZE, THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, THE EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, AND CAPACITY OF THE CITY’S EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Policy 5.1.1. The City shall make every effort to maintain mobility standards that result in a minimum level of service (LOS) “D.” The City defines LOS D as the equivalent to a volume-capacity ratio of 0.9. Policy 5.1.2. The City shall facilitate implementation of bus bays by RVTD on transit routes as a means of facilitating traffic flow during peak travel periods. 153 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 135 The feasibility, location and design of bus bays shall be developed in consultation between the City and RVTD. GOAL 5.2: TO EMPLOY ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR DESIGNATED FUNCTION. Policy 5.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain, either within the zoning ordinance or the Public Works Standards and Details manual, access management standards based on best practices. Policy 5.2.2. The City shall implement the access management strategies presented in the Access Management Plan for Front Street (Highway 99)/Pine Street and the Central Point Highway 99 Corridor Plan. GOAL 5.3: TO REDUCE THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE. Policy 5.3.1. The City shall serve as a leading example for other businesses and agencies by maximizing the use of alternative transportation modes among City employees through incentive programs. The City shall provide information on alternative transportation modes and provide incentives for employees who use alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. Policy 5.3.2. The City shall offer flexible schedules and compressed work-week options whenever feasible, as a way of reducing travel demand. The City shall encourage employees to telecommute, whenever feasible. GOAL 5.4: TO REDUCE THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSISTING INDIVIDUALS IN CHOOSING ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES. Policy 5.4.1. The City shall encourage major employers to promote work arrangements providing an alternative to the 8-to-5 work schedule. These arrangements shall include, but are not limited to, employee flex-time programs, staggered work hours, and compressed work weeks. Policy 5.4.2. The City shall encourage major employers to promote telecommuting where feasible. Policy 5.4.3. The City and major employers shall encourage ridesharing by making ridesharing more convenient. Policy 5.4.4. The City shall encourage major employers to work with RVTD to adopt trip reduction goals designed to reduce site vehicular trip generation. GOAL 5.5: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES PROMOTED BY THE CITY SHALL BE CONSISTEN WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STRATEGIES AIMED AT REDUCING RELIANCE ON SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE (SOV) AND REDUCING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) PER CAPITA. 154 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 136 Chapter 6 – Transportation System Elements GOAL 6.1: TO MANAGE AUTOMOBILE PARKING WITHIN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE REDUCTIONS IN PARKING SPACES CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS. Policy 6.1.1. The City shall manage the supply, operation, enforcement and demand for parking in the public right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety, transportation system efficiency, and livability of neighborhoods. Policy 6.1.2. Except within the Central Business District, where on-street parking is considered an element of the Central Business District’s economic vitality, the provision for on-street parking is second in priority to the needs of the travel modes (i.e., vehicle, transit, bicycle, pedestrian) using the street right-of-way, and shall be removed when necessary to facilitate street widening. Policy 6.1.3. In those areas where demand exists, an adequate supply of off-street carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be provided. The location of these spaces shall have preference over those intended for general purpose off-street parking. GOAL 6.2: TO PROMOTE AND MANAGE THE PARKING NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA IN A MANNER THAT REASONABLY BALANCES THE DEMAND FOR PARKING AGAINST THE USE OF TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION MODES, WHILE MAINTAINING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY. Policy 6.2.1. The City shall prepare, adopt and maintain parking standards that reflect best parking practices that further the parking goals of the City. Policy 6.2.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain effective development standards for paved off-street parking areas to include provisions for landscaping, planting strips, pedestrian walkways, curbs, and sidewalks. Chapter 7 – Streets System GOAL 7.1: PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE STREET SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE PRESENT AND FUTURE MOBILITY AND TRAVEL NEEDS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. Policy 7.1.1. The City shall fulfill its system wide travel capacity needs through the use of multiple travel modes within the public rights-of-way. Policy 7.1.2. The City’s street system shall contain a network of arterial and collector streets and highways that link the central core area and major industry with regional and statewide highways. Policy 7.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain street design standards consistent with the policies of this TSP. Policy 7.1.4. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards that promote connectivity of the street system consistent with the Functional Classification Map. 155 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 137 Policy 7.1.5. The City shall actively pursue construction of I-5 interchange improvements at Pine Street. Policy 7.1.6 The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain design standards for its streets to safely accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel as has been accomplished in the TOD Districts. Policy 7.1.7. The City Standards and Details shall be the basis for all street design within the Central Point urban area. Policy 7.1.8. Wherever possible the City shall incorporate safely designed, aesthetic features into the streetscape of its public rights-of-way. These features may include: street trees, shrubs, and grasses; planting strips and raised medians; meandering sidewalks on arterial streets; and, in some instances, street furniture, planters, special lighting, public art, or non-standard paving materials. Policy 7.1.9. When existing streets are widened or reconstructed they shall be designed to the adopted street design standards for the appropriate street classification where practical. Adjustments to the design standards may be necessary to avoid existing topographical constraints, historic properties, schools, cemeteries, problems with right-of-way acquisition, existing on-street parking and significant cultural features. The design of the street shall be sensitive to the livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 7.1.10. The City shall work with federal, state and local government agencies to promote traffic safety education and awareness, emphasizing the responsibilities and courtesies required of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Policy 7.1.11. The City shall place a higher priority on funding and constructing street projects that address identified vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety problems than those projects that solely respond to automotive capacity deficiencies in the street system. Exceptions are those capacity improvements that are designed to also resolve identified safety problems. Policy 7.1.12. The City shall select street improvement projects from those listed in the Central Point Transportation System Plan when making significant increases in system capacity or bringing arterial or collector streets up to urban standards. The selection of improvement projects should be prioritized based on consideration of improvements to safety, relief of existing congestion, response to near-term growth, system-wide benefits, geographic equity, and availability of funding. Policy 7.1.13. To maximize the longevity of its capital investments, the City shall design street improvement projects to meet existing travel demand, and whenever possible to accommodate anticipated travel demand for the next 20 years for that facility. Policy 7.1.14. The City shall involve representatives of affected neighborhood associations, citizens, developers, surveyors, engineering and planning professionals in an advisory role in the design of street improvement projects. Policy 7.1.15. The City shall require Traffic Impact Analyses as part of land use development proposals to assess the impact that a development will have on the existing and planned transportation system and to identify reasonable on-site and off-site improvements necessary to mitigate impacts. 156 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 138 Policy 7.1.16. The City may require new development to pay charges towards the mitigation of system- wide transportation impacts created by new growth in the community through established Street System Development Charges (SDCs) and any other street fees that are established by the City. Chapter 8 – Bicycle and Pedestrian System GOAL 8.1: TO PLAN FOR AND FACILITATE THE INCREASED USE OF BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA BY ASSURING THAT CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED. Policy 8.1.1. The City of Central Point recognizes bicycle transportation as a necessary and viable component of the transportation system, both as an important transportation mode, and as an air quality improvement strategy. Policy 8.1.2. The Bicycle Element of this plan shall serve as the Central Point Bicycle Master Plan. Policy 8.1.3. The City of Central Point shall progressively develop a linked bicycle network, focusing on, but not inclusive to the arterial and collector street system, and concentrating on the provision of bicycle lanes, to be completed within the planning period (20 years). The bikeway network will serve bicyclists needs for travel to employment centers, commercial districts, transit centers, schools, institutions and recreational destinations. Policy 8.1.4. The City of Central Point shall use all opportunities to add bike lanes in conjunction with road reconstruction and re-striping projects on collector and arterial streets. Policy 8.1.5. The City of Central Point shall maintain public improvement standards that assure that the design of all streets and public improvement projects facilitate bicycling by providing proper paving, lane width, traffic control, storm drainage grates, striping, signage, lighting, parking, etc. Policy 8.1.6. The City of Central Point shall prepare, adopt, and maintain on-site development standards that assure the provision of bicycle access, parking, racks and/or shelters in business developments, institutions, duplexes and multi-family developments and other locations where bicycle parking facilities are required. Policy 8.1.7. The City of Central Point shall support the local transit provider in their efforts to facilitate “bikes on buses” and bicycle facilities at transit stations and stops. Policy 8.1.8. Except within the Central Business District, the City of Central Point shall give priority to bicycle traffic over parking within public rights-of-way designated on the Bicycle Master Plan or otherwise determined to be important bicycling routes. Policy 8.1.9. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through access is maintained. GOAL 8.2: THE CITY WILL PROMOTE BICYCLE SAFETY AND AWARENESS. Policy 8.2.1. The City of Central Point shall actively support and encourage local and state bicycle education and safety programs intended to improve bicycling skills, observance of laws, and overall safety for both children and adults. 157 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 139 Policy 8.2.2. The City shall consider the use of the media, bicycle committees, bicycle plans and other methods to promote use of bicycling for transportation purposes. GOAL 8.3: TO FACILITATE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS THAT WILL ENCOURAGE AND INCREASE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Policy 8.3.1. The City shall establish and maintain a Sidewalk Construction Program to complete the pedestrian facility network. Policy 8.3.2. Sidewalks and walkways shall complement access to transit stations/stops and multi-use paths. Activity centers, schools and business districts should focus attention on and encourage pedestrian travel within their proximity. Policy 8.3.3. The City of Central Point shall maintain standards that require sidewalk and pedestrian access and standards for improvement, i.e. crosswalks at signalized intersections and high volume pedestrian areas such as the Central Business District. All road construction or renovation projects shall include sidewalks. Policy 8.3.4. The City shall require pedestrian and bicycle easements to connect neighborhoods and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall modify the street vacation process so pedestrian and bicyclist through-access is maintained. Policy 8.3.5. Pedestrian walkway or accessway connections shall be required between adjacent developments when roadway connections cannot be provided. Policy 8.3.6. The City shall prepare a plan and implement a multi-use trail system, using linear corridors including, but not limited to: utility easements, rail lines, Bear Creek, Griffin Creek, Jackson Creek and other creeks that complement and connect to the sidewalk system. GOAL 8.4: TO ENCOURAGE EDUATION SERVICES AND PROMOTE SAFE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS. Policy 8.4.1. The City of Central Point shall encourage schools, safety organizations, and law enforcement agencies to provide information and instruction on pedestrian safety issues that focus on prevention of the most important accident problems. The programs shall educate all roadway users of their privileges and responsibilities when driving, bicycling and walking. Policy 8.4.2. The City shall include in the Sidewalk Construction Program (Policy 9.1.1) inclusion of a street lighting system. Policy 8.4.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain standards for the separation of pedestrian traffic from auto traffic on streets and, where determined appropriate, in parking lots. Chapter 9 – Public Transit System GOAL 9.1: IN COOPERATION WITH TRANSIT PROVIDERS, FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. 158 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 140 Policy 9.1.1. The City shall work with RVTD to encourage transit services that meet the City’s transit needs. Policy 9.1.2. To encourage accessibility and increased ridership, the City shall continue to encourage future transit-supportive land uses, such as mixed uses, multiple-family, and employment centers to be located on or near transit corridors. Policy 9.1.3. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain development standards and regulations facilitating accessibility to transit services through transit-supportive streetscape, subdivision, and site design requirements that promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, convenience and safety. GOAL 9.2: INCREASE OVERALL DAILY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IN THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA, TO MITIGATE A PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC PRESSURE EXPECTED BY REGIONAL GROWTH. Policy 9.2.1. Through Transportation Demand Management efforts, the City shall work with Central Point employers and other government agencies to increase commuter transit ridership. Chapter 10 – Rail and Aviation System GOAL 10.1: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES AND PASSENGERS BY RAIL WHILE MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA. Policy 10.1.1. The City shall encourage both freight and passenger service as part of statewide rail transportation planning efforts. Policy 10.1.2. The City shall prepare, adopt, and maintain site development standards that mitigate railroad noise and vibration. GOAL 10.2: TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS VIA INTER-MODAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE ROGUE VALLEY INTERNATIONAL- MEDFORD AIRPORT. Policy 10.2.1. The City shall support the Rogue Valley Transportation District efforts to provide service to the Rogue Valley International Airport from established routes serving Central Point. Chapter 11 – Freight System GOAL 11.1: TO IDENTIFY AND MAINTAIN A TRUCK FREIGHT SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY THAT SERVES THE CITY’S AND REGION’S FREIGHT NEEDS IN AN EFFICIENT AND SAFE MANNER, WITH MINIMAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT LAND USES. Policy 11.2.1. The City shall cooperate with the RVMPO, Jackson County, ODOT and the City of Medford in the coordination of design, funding, and improvement of the freight system within the City that enhances freight movement, while improving the overall capacity of the City’s street system. 159 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 141 Policy 11.2.2. The Freight System Map presented in Figure 11-2 shall be considered by the City as the official freight route system for the City of Central Point. The design and improvement of the street system designated on the Freight System Map shall accommodate large vehicles typical of freight movement. Policy 11.2.3. The City shall ensure access to truck freight via the local street system, with emphasis on maintaining and efficient and safe designated truck route system. Chapter 12 – Transportation System Financing GOAL 12.1: A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CENTRAL POINT URBAN AREA THAT IS ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO MEET THE CITY’S CURRENT AND FUTURE CAPITAL, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS NEEDS. Policy 12.1.1. Transportation system development charges (SDCs), as defined by Oregon Revised Statutes and City ordinances, will be collected by the City to offset costs of new capacity development. The City will continue to collect SDCs as an important and equitable funding source to pay for transportation capacity improvements. Policy 12.1.2. For all Tier 2 projects the City shall require those responsible for new development to mitigate their development’s impacts to the transportation system, as authorized in the Central Point Zoning Ordinance and Oregon Revised Statutes, concurrent with the development of the property. Policy 12.1.3. The City shall continue to set aside one-percent (1%) of its allocation of State Highway Fuel Tax funds for creation of on-street bicycle, pedestrian and transit capital facilities. Policy 12.1.4. When the City agrees to vacation of a public right-of-way at the request of a property owner, conditions of such agreement shall include payment by the benefitted property owner of fair market value for the land being converted to private ownership. Funds received for vacated lands shall be placed in a trust fund for the acquisition of future rights-of-way. GOAL 12.2: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT A STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL SUSTAIN A MAXIMUM SERVICE LIFE FOR PAVEMENT SURFACE AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. Policy12.2.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, the primary funding sources for street system maintenance activities shall be the City’s allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax and allocation of fees supplemented by street maintenance fees. Policy 12.2.2. The City shall seek additional funding sources to meet the long-term financial requirements of sustaining a street maintenance program, including alternative modes of transportation. Policy 12.2.3. The City shall continue to participate in cooperative agreements with other State and local jurisdictions for maintenance and operation activities based on equitable determinations of responsibility and benefit. GOAL 12.3: SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE OPERATION OF THE TRANSPORTATOIN SYSTEM INCLUDING ADVANCE PLANNING, DESIGN ENGINEERING, SIGNAL OPERATIONS, SYSTEM MANAGEMENT, ILLUMINATION, AND CLEANING ACTIVITIES. 160 City of Central Point Transportation System Plan, 2008-2030 Chapter 13 — Implementation Policies Page 142 Policy 12.3.1. Assuming no changes in State funding mechanisms, transportation system operations shall be funded primarily from the City’s allocation of the State Highway Fuel Tax. Other funding sources should be pursued to augment the financial requirements of providing adequate future system operations. Policy 12.3.2. The City shall continue to pursue federal, state and private grants to augment operations activities, especially in the planning and engineering functions. 161 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 1 of 24 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) Amendment File No. CPA-22001 Applicant: City of Central Point INTRODUCTION This proposed amendment to the 2008 Central Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) as presented in Attachment “A” to the Staff Report dated December 6, 2022 has been prepared in accordance with applicable local and state requirements as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Procedurally, consideration of the proposed TSP amendment is a legislative action and has been processed in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 17.05.500 of the Central Point Development Code. It is the purpose of these findings to identify and address all applicable requirements. These findings are presented follows: 1. TSP Amendment Background 2. Compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 3. Compliance with the Oregon Transportation Plan 4. Compliance with the Oregon Highway Plan 5. Compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012 6. Compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan & Development Code 1. TSP AMENDMENT BACKGROUND The City of Central Point is amending its TSP to accomplish the following specific tasks: Incorporate transportation projects associated with the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion of 444 acres; Update project lists from the 2008 TSP to remove projects that are complete or no longer needed in the remainder of the City; Reprioritize updated project lists to consider transportation disadvantaged populations; and Update the funding forecast. The Central Point TSP was adopted and acknowledged in 2008. The current amendment does not adjust the 2030 planning horizon or revise any policy language. Except for minor text corrections, changes to the 2008 TSP are limited to Chapter 7: Street System Plan and Chapter 12: Transportation System Financing Program. The changes can be summarized as follows: Chapter 7 Street System Plan: The City of Central Point amended the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 2021 to add 444 acres. A detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in support of the UGB expansion project. The recommendations of the TIA form the foundation of this TSP amendment. The City also updated the 2008 transportation project list to remove those projects that the City has completed. 162 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 2 of 24 Chapter 12 Transportation System Financing Program: As part of updating the recommended street projects in Chapter 7, the project list was re-prioritized to include a new Equity criterion. The intent of introducing equity into the prioritization process was to ensure that the TSP prioritize projects that serve transportation disadvantaged populations as well as projects that are located in areas with the highest concentrations of these populations. The project priorities presented in Chapter 12 reflect this re-prioritization process. Chapter 12 was also updated to reflect current project costs as well as new funding sources. Because the remainder of the 2008 TSP remains intact as adopted and acknowledged in 2008, these findings below are restricted to the changes proposed in the amendment. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS As set forth in Section 17.05.500(G)(1) of the Central Point Development Coed, all Type IV (legislative) actions must demonstrate compliance with applicable statewide planning goals. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Finding: The City relied on the extensive public involvement process that was conducted for the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Expansion project to ensure that the planned improvements had broad-based support from the community. The process included public advisory committee meetings, open houses, neighborhood meetings, the City’s website, and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct electronic mail communications. For this TSP amendment, the public involvement process was accomplished by the use of the City’s standing seven-person Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2, Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment is supported by an adequate factual base (the UGB Expansion TIA) and is being adopted through the City’s land use planning processes. The amendment is being processed through a Type IV Legislative process, which requires that any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or state statutes or regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's implementing ordinances be addressed as part of the decision-making process. All noticing requirements have been met. Representatives of affected governmental entities were consulted. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 2. Goals 3 and 4, Agriculture and Forestry Finding: These statewide planning goals relate to agricultural and forest lands in Oregon; Goal 3 and Goal 4 are not applicable to this proposed amendment. Conclusion: Not applicable. 163 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 3 of 24 Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with the State’s Goal 5. The TSP amendment does not alter the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventories or land use programs. No changes will occur to current natural resource protections. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 5. Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 6. The TSP amendment does not alter the City’s acknowledged land use programs regarding water or air quality. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 6. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 7. The proposed TSP amendment does not alter the City’s acknowledged land use programs regarding natural hazards, nor does it alter the City’s participation. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is 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 destination resorts. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 8. The TSP amendment includes improvements intended to provide improved connectivity for all modes. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 8. Goal 9, Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 9. The TSP amendment includes facilities to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating future employment growth and the transport of goods and services needed to support a healthy economy. The transportation system identified in the TSP amendment was developed using the City’s current and planned land use patterns, and designed to connect people, services, goods, and to meet the economic needs of the City. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 9. Goal 10, Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 10. The TSP amendment includes 164 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 4 of 24 projects to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating future housing growth. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 10. 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. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 11. The proposed TSP amendment does not alter the policies for providing timely, orderly, and efficient public facilities and services. Additionally, adoption of the project list enables infrastructure planning, funding, and construction to identify infrastructure corridors for planned stormwater, sanitary sewer, water, and electricity facilities, as well as transportation. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 11. Goal 12, Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment will bring the City into alignment with the current and future conditions in Central Point by updating the project list, including equity-based prioritization, and ensuring continued compliance with Goal 12. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy To conserve energy. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 13. The TSP provides direction for the City regarding transportation strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single occupancy vehicle trips. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter these policies and is consistent with Goal 13. Goal 14, Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 14. The TSP amendment addresses the transportation needs of the City, particularly for the 2021 UGB expansion area as it transitions from rural to urban. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with Goal 14. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) is the state’s long-range, multimodal transportation plan. The OTP is the overarching policy document for a series of modal and topic plans that together form the state’s TSP. Per direction from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), a local TSP must make findings to demonstrate compliance with applicable OTP goals and policies. The following findings demonstrate how the proposed TSP amendment complies with 165 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 5 of 24 state transportation policy: Policy 1.1 – Development of an Integrated Multimodal System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and develop a balanced, integrated transportation system with modal choices for the movement of people and goods. Finding: The TSP is a plan to fund and develop a balanced multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of the community and region. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter this plan and is consistent with OTP Policy 1.1. Policy 1.2 – Equity, Efficiency and Travel Choices It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote a transportation system with multiple travel choices that are easy to use, reliable, cost-effective and accessible to all potential users, including the transportation disadvantaged. Finding: As part of the TSP amendment, an equity analysis was completed that identified historically transportation disadvantaged populations within the community. This information was used to re-prioritize unbuilt projects from the 2008 TSP and new projects for the UGB expansion area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 1.2. Policy 1.3 – Relationship of Interurban and Urban Mobility It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide intercity mobility through and near urban areas in a manner which minimizes adverse effects on urban land use and travel patterns and provides for efficient long distance travel. Finding: The 2008 TSP includes projects that address intercity mobility, provide for efficient long distance travel, and minimize adverse effects on land use. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter this plan and is consistent with OTP Policy 1.3. Policy 2.1 - Capacity and Operational Efficiency It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage the transportation system to improve its capacity and operational efficiency for the long term benefit of people and goods movement. Findings: The proposed TSP amendment includes projects to address capacity and efficiency and is therefore consistent with OTP Policy 2.1. Policy 2.2 – Management of Assets It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage transportation assets to extend their life and reduce maintenance costs. Finding: The 2008 TSP and the proposed TSP amendment address maintenance of new and existing facilities. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 2.2. Policy 3.1 – An Integrated and Efficient Freight System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote an integrated, efficient and reliable freight system involving air, barges, pipelines, rail, ships and trucks to provide Oregon a competitive advantage 166 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 6 of 24 by moving goods faster and more reliably to regional, national and international markets. Finding: The 2008 TSP includes a description of the air, freight, pipeline, and rail systems in the Central Point area, and provides plans for the continued movement of goods throughout the planning area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter that plan and is therefore consistent with OTP Policy 3.1. Policy 3.2 – Moving People to Support Economic Vitality It is the policy of the State of Oregon to develop an integrated system of transportation facilities, services and information so that intrastate, interstate and international travelers can travel easily for business and recreation. Finding: The TSP amendment plans for an integrated system of transportation facilities that meets the needs of people who live, work, and travel in and to the Central Point area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 3.2. Policy 3.3 – Downtowns and Economic Development It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide transportation improvements to support downtowns and to coordinate transportation and economic development strategies. Finding: The TSP amendment includes projects to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating future employment growth and the transport of goods and services needed to support economic development. The transportation system identified in the TSP amendment was developed using the City’s current and planned land use patterns, and designed to connect people, services, goods, and to meet the economic needs of the City. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 3.3. Policy 3.4 – Development of the Transportation Industry It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote, incubate and develop transportation- related industry and services in Oregon. Finding: The TSP amendment includes modal improvements that promote the movement of goods throughout the planning area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 3.4. Policy 4.1 - Environmentally Responsible Transportation System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide a transportation system that is environmentally responsible and encourages conservation and protection of natural resources. Finding: The TSP amendment includes infrastructure improvements that will provide an environmentally responsible transportation system. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 4.1. Policy 4.2 - Energy Supply It is the policy of the State of Oregon to support efforts to move to a diversified and cleaner energy supply, promote fuel efficiencies and prepare for possible fuel shortages. Finding: The 2008 TSP includes infrastructure improvements to support a more diversified 167 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 7 of 24 and cleaner energy supply and promote fuel efficiencies. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment does not alter this plan and is therefore consistent with OTP Policy 4.2. Policy 4.3 - Creating Communities It is the policy of the State of Oregon to increase access to goods and services and promote health by encouraging development of compact communities and neighborhoods that integrate residential, commercial and employment land uses to help make shorter trips, transit, walking and bicycling feasible. Integrate features that support the use of transportation choices. Finding: The TSP amendment includes infrastructure improvements that will increase access to good and services. The TSP amendment includes facility improvements intended to provide improved connectivity for people walking and bicycling. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 4.3. Policy 5.1 – Safety It is the policy of the State of Oregon to continually improve the safety and security of all modes and transportation facilities for system users including operators, passengers, pedestrians, recipients of goods and services, and property owners. Finding: The TSP amendment includes improvements that promote safety for all modes and system users. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 5.1. Policy 5.2 – Security It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide transportation security consistent with the leadership of federal, state and local homeland security entities. Finding: The TSP amendment supports and enables the continued provision of transportation security through a network of complete and safe infrastructure. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 5.2. Policy 6.1 – Funding Structure It is the policy of the State of Oregon to develop a transportation finance structure that addresses the public funding aspects of all modes and reinforces plan strategies. This structure should include provisions for flexibility in the use of new funding sources and new partnerships to achieve system integration while also protecting transportation funds for transportation purposes. Finding: The TSP amendment identifies possible existing and potential new funding sources in Chapter 12. The proposed TSP amendment addresses the public funding of all modes and includes provisions for flexibility in the use of new funding sources. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.1. Policy 6.2 – Achievement of State and Local Goals It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan and manage the transportation finance structure to contribute to the accomplishment of state and local environmental, land use and economic goals and objectives. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment identifies funding for transportation projects that 168 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 8 of 24 contribute to the accomplishment of the state and local environmental, land use, and economic goals. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.2. Policy 6.3 – Public Acceptability and Understanding It is the policy of the State of Oregon to use finance mechanisms that have broad public acceptance and are understandable to transportation system users. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment identifies finance mechanisms that provide direction about how projects and programs identified in the TSP may be funded. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.3. Policy 6.4 – Beneficiary Responsibilities It is the policy of the State of Oregon to examine mechanisms to expand the beneficiary pay concept to reflect the costs and benefits of uses of the transportation system and reinforce the relationship between benefiting from transportation facilities and paying for their benefit, but to retain essential fairness including cost responsibility. This policy recognizes some modes will continue to need subsidies to achieve overall transportation system goals and provide essential services. Finding: The TSP amendment identifies finance mechanisms, including existing and potential new funding sources. Chapter 12 examines mechanisms to reflect the costs and benefits of uses of the transportation system and reinforce the relationship between benefiting from transportation facilities and paying for their benefit. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.4. Policy 6.5 – Triage in the Event of Insufficient Revenue It is the policy of the State of Oregon to resolve revenue shortfalls by means that maximize public acceptance and that minimize undesirable long-term consequences to the overall transportation system in urban and rural areas. Finding: The TSP amendment addresses the potential funding constraints for the projects listed and identifies Tier 1 and 2 projects relative to their importance. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 6.5. Policy 7.1 – A Coordinated Transportation System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies with the objective of removing barriers so the transportation system can function as one system. Finding: The City of Central Point worked closely with the Rogue Valley MPO, the City of Medford, ODOT, and other relevant agencies to develop the 2008 TSP and the 2021 UGB expansion. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment reflects this coordination and is therefore consistent with PT Policy 7.1. Policy 7.2 – Public/Private Partnerships It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain, expand and provide tools to encourage partnerships to improve efficiency in the delivery of transportation facilities and services benefiting 169 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 9 of 24 the state transportation system and the state’s citizens. Partners include transportation providers, public agencies and private businesses at all levels across jurisdictions and ownerships. Finding: The City relied on the extensive public involvement process that was conducted for the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Expansion project to ensure that the planned improvements had broad-based support from the community. The process included public advisory committee meetings, open houses, neighborhood meetings, the City’s website, and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct electronic mail communications. For this TSP amendment, the public involvement process was accomplished by the use of the City’s standing seven-person Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 7.2. Policy 7.3 – Public Involvement and Consultation It is the policy of the State of Oregon to involve Oregonians to the fullest practical extent in transportation planning and implementation in order to deliver a transportation system that meets the diverse needs of the state. Finding: The City relied on the extensive public involvement process that was conducted for the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Expansion project to ensure that the planned improvements had broad-based support from the community. The process included public advisory committee meetings, open houses, neighborhood meetings, the City’s website, and notifying stakeholders and interested citizens through media notices and direct electronic mail communications. For this TSP amendment, the public involvement process was accomplished by the use of the City’s standing seven-person Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 7.3. Policy 7.4 – Environmental Justice It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide all Oregonians, regardless of race, culture or income, equal access to transportation decision-making. Finding: As part of the TSP amendment, an equity analysis was completed that identified historically transportation disadvantaged populations within the community. This information was used to re-prioritize unbuilt projects from the 2008 TSP and new projects for the UGB expansion area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OTP Policy 7.4. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OREGON HIGHWAY PLAN The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), including amendments, establishes policies and investment strategies for Oregon’s statewide highway system over a 20-year period and refines the goals and policies found in the OTP. Policies in the OHP emphasize the efficient management of the highway system to increase safety and to extend highway capacity, partnerships with other agencies and local governments, and the use of new techniques to improve road safety and capacity. These policies also link land use and transportation, set standards for highway performance and access management, and emphasize the relationship between state highways and local road, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, rail, and air systems. The TSP amendment meets the state’s policies in the OHP as follows: 170 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 10 of 24 Policy 1A: State Highway Classification System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to develop and apply the state highway classification system to guide ODOT priorities for system investment and management. Finding: The TSP amendment does not affect state facilities. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1A. Policy 1B: Land Use and Transportation This policy recognizes the need for coordination between state and local jurisdictions. Finding: The City of Central Point worked closely with the Rogue Valley MPO, the City of Medford, ODOT, and other relevant agencies to develop the 2008 TSP and the 2021 UGB expansion. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1B. Policy 1C: State Highway Freight System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to balance the need for movement of goods with other uses of the highway system, and to recognize the importance of maintaining efficient through movement on major truck freight routes. Finding: The TSP amendment plans for an integrated system of transportation facilities that meets the needs of people who live, work, and travel in and to the Central Point area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1C. Policy 1D: Scenic Byways It is the policy of the State of Oregon to preserve and enhance designated Scenic Byways, and to consider aesthetic and design elements along with safety and performance considerations on designated Byways. Finding: There are no designated Scenic Byways located within the Central Point UGB therefore OHP Policy 1D is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 1E: Lifeline Routes It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide a secure lifeline network of streets, highways, and bridges to facilitate emergency services response and to support rapid economic recovery after a disaster. Finding: Central Point’s existing system of streets is enhanced by the TSP amendment, facilitating emergency services response and supporting economic recovery after a disaster. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1E. Policy 1F: Highway Mobility Standards It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain acceptable and reliable levels of mobility on the state highway system, consistent with the expectations for each facility type, location and functional objectives. Finding: The TSP amendment does not affect mobility on the state highway system. 171 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 11 of 24 Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1F. Policy 1G: Major Improvements It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain highway performance and improve safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity. ODOT will work in partnership with regional and local governments to address highway performance and safety needs. Finding: The TSP amendment does not affect the state highway system. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 1G. Policy 1H: Bypasses Bypasses are highways designed to maintain or increase statewide or regional mobility. Generally they relocate a highway alignment around a downtown, an urban or metropolitan area or an existing highway. The goal of bypass facilities is to effectively serve state and regional traffic trips. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to build bypasses to provide safe, efficient passage for through travelers and commerce. Finding: No bypasses are existing, identified or included in the TSP amendment therefore Policy 1H is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 2A: Partnerships It is the policy of the State of Oregon to establish cooperative partnerships to make more efficient and effective use of limited resources to develop, operate, and maintain the highway and road system. These partnerships are relationships among ODOT and state and federal agencies, regional governments, cities, counties, tribal governments, and the private sector. Finding: The 2008 TSP includes a description of how cooperative partnership and cost- sharing between the City and ODOT could support future project funding. The proposed TSP amendment does not amend this description and therefore is consistent with OHP Policy 2A. Conclusion: Consistent. Policy 2B: Off-System Improvements It is the policy of the State of Oregon to provide state financial assistance to local jurisdictions to develop, enhance, and maintain improvements on local transportation systems when they are a cost-effective way to improve the operation of the state highway system, with identified guidelines. Finding: The 2008 TSP includes a description of how cooperative partnership and cost- sharing between the City and ODOT could support future project funding. The proposed TSP amendment does not amend this description and therefore is consistent with OHP Policy 2B. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 2B. Policy 2C: Interjurisdictional Transfers It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, interjurisdictional transfers that: 172 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 12 of 24 Rationalize and simplify the management responsibilities along a particular roadway segment or corridor; Reflect the appropriate functional classification of a particular roadway segment or corridor; and/or Lead to increased efficiencies in the operation and maintenance of a particular roadway segment or corridor. Finding: The TSP amendment does not include interjurisdictional transfers therefore OHP Policy 2C is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 2D: Public Involvement It is the policy of the State of Oregon to ensure that citizens, businesses, regional and local governments, state agencies, and tribal governments have opportunities to have input into decisions regarding proposed policies, plans, programs, and improvement projects that affect the state highway system. Finding: This policy is specific to planning and projects that affect the state highway system. The proposed and improvement projects identified in the TSP amendment are specific to the City of Central Point transportation network and the amendment included a public process as described in above, consistent with OHP Policy 2D. Conclusion: Consistent. Policy 2E: Intelligent Transportation Systems It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider a broad range of Intelligent Transportation Systems services to improve system efficiency and safety in a cost-effective manner. Deployment of ITS shall reflect the user service priorities established in the Oregon Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan. Specifically: Incident Management En-route Driver Information Traffic Control (Arterials and Freeways) Route Guidance Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance Pre-trip Travel Information Public Transportation Management Emergency Notification and Personal Security Emergency Vehicle Management Commercial Fleet Management Findings: The Rogue Valley MPO prepared an ITS plan in 2016. The City of Central Point coordinates with the Rogue Valley MPO on ITS issues. Conclusion: The TSP amendment will comply with OHP Policy 2E. 173 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 13 of 24 Policy 2F: Traffic Safety This policy improves the safety of the highway system. Finding: The TSP amendment addresses safety. The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 2F. Conclusion: Consistent. Policy 2G: Rail and Highway Compatibility It is the policy of the State of Oregon to increase safety and transportation efficiency through the reduction and prevention of conflicts between railroad and highway users. Finding: This policy is related to the reduction and prevention of conflicts between railroad and highway users which is outside of the scope of the Central Point TSP amendment; therefore OHP Policy 2G is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 3A: Classification and Spacing Standards It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage the location, spacing and type of road and street intersections and approach roads on state highways to assure the safe and efficient operation of state highways consistent with the classification and function of the highways. Finding: The 2008 TSP includes system plan elements addressing the location, spacing and type of road and street intersection and approach roads on state highways. The proposed TSP amendment does not affect any intersections or approaches to the State Highway system. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 3A. Policy 3B: Medians It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan for and manage the placement of medians and the location of median openings on state highways to enhance the efficiency and safety of the highways, and influence and support land use development patterns that are consistent with approved comprehensive plans including transportation system plans. Finding: This policy is related to the placement of medians and the location of median openings on state highways which is not specified in the TSP amendment therefore OHP Policy 3B is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 3C: Interchange Access Management Areas It is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan for and manage grade-separated interchange areas to ensure safe and efficient operation between connecting roadways. Finding: This policy relates to the planning and management of grade-separated state highway interchange areas which is outside of the scope of the TSP amendment and City’s purview; therefore OHP Policy 3C is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 3D: Deviations It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage requests for state highway approach permits that 174 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 14 of 24 require deviations from the adopted access management spacing standards and policies through an application process to ensure statewide consistency. Finding: This policy relates to the management of requests for State highway approach permits which is not within the scope of the TSP amendment or City’s purview therefore OHP Policy 3D is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 3E: Appeals It is the policy of the State of Oregon to manage appeals of approach permit decisions including approval subject to conditions, removal or modification of an approach, denied requests for approach roads and denied requests for deviations from adopted access management standards and policies through an appeals process to ensure statewide consistency with ORS 374.350 and the Access Management Rule. Finding: This policy relates to the management of appeals of State highway approach permit decisions, which is not within the scope of the proposed TSP amendment or City’s purview; therefore OHP Policy 3E is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 4A: Efficiency of Freight Movement It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain and improve the efficiency of freight movement on the state highway system and access to intermodal connections. The State shall seek to balance the needs of long distance and through freight movements with local transportation needs on highway facilities in both urban areas and rural communities. Findings: The TSP amendment plans for an integrated system of transportation facilities that meet the needs of people who live, work, and travel in and to the Central Point area. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 4A. Policy 4B: Alternative Passenger Modes It is the policy of the State of Oregon to advance and support alternative passenger transportation systems where travel demand, land use, and other factors indicate the potential for successful and effective development of alternative passenger modes. Finding: The TSP amendment is multi-modal. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 4.B. Policy 4C: High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities It is the policy of the State of Oregon to utilize HOV facilities to improve the efficiency of the highway system in locations where travel demand, land use, transit, and other factors are favorable to their effectiveness. A systems planning approach shall be taken in which individual HOV facilities complement one another and the other elements of the multimodal transportation system. Finding: This policy relates to HOV facilities. There are no existing or proposed HOV facilities in the TSP amendment therefore Policy 4C is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. 175 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 15 of 24 Policy 4D: Transportation Demand Management It is the policy of the State of Oregon to support the efficient use of the state transportation system through investment in transportation demand management strategies. Finding: The TSP amendment is consistent with the 2008 TSP’s Transportation Demand Management strategies and policies. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is consistent with OHP Policy 4D. Policy 4E: Park-and-Ride Facilities It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage the efficient use of the existing transportation system and to seek cost-effective expansion of the highway system’s passenger capacity through development and use of park-and-ride facilities. Finding: This policy relates to State park-and-ride facilities. There are no existing or proposed State park-and-ride facilities in the Central Point TSP area and designation of such is outside of the scope of the TSP amendment therefore Policy 4E is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 5A: Environmental Resources It is the policy of the State of Oregon that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the state highway system should maintain or improve the natural and built environment including air quality, fish passage and habitat, wildlife habitat and migration routes, sensitive habitats (i.e. wetlands, designated critical habitat, etc.), vegetation, and water resources where affected by ODOT facilities. Finding: This policy relates to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the State highway system, which is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and not within the scope of the TSP amendment therefore Policy 5A is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 5B: Scenic Resources It is the policy of the State of Oregon that scenic resources management is an integral part of the process of creating and maintaining the state highway system. The State of Oregon will use best management practices to protect and enhance scenic resources in all phases of highway project planning, development, construction, and maintenance. Finding: This policy relates to State highway project planning, development, construction, and maintenance, which is under the jurisdiction of ODOT and not within the scope of the TSP amendment therefore Policy 5B is not applicable. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 6A: New Toll Facilities It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider the use of tolling for financing the construction, operations and maintenance of new roads, bridges or dedicated lanes only if expected toll receipts will pay for an acceptable portion of project costs. Finding: This policy relates to the use of tolling in Oregon; Policy 6A is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment. 176 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 16 of 24 Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 6B: Pricing Existing Capacity It is the policy of the State of Oregon to consider the use of tolls, including time-of-day pricing, on existing, non-tolled state highways consistent with other Oregon Transportation Commission policies, state law, and federal statutes and planning regulations. Finding: This policy relates to the use of tolls and time-of-day pricing in Oregon; Policy 6B is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 6C: Consistent and Supportive Policy Objectives It is the policy of the State of Oregon to ensure motorists and its citizens have clear, consistent and coordinated objectives for any future highway tolling or pricing proposals, reflective of primary public concerns with the performance of the state highway system. Finding: This policy relates to the use of tolls and pricing proposals in Oregon; Policy 6C is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 6D: Toll Revenues The effectiveness, equity and overall utility of tolling projects can be affected by how net toll receipts are used. Multiple approaches to using revenue may need to be considered. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to treat the use of toll-generated revenue as an important component in evaluating any tolling proposal. Finding: This policy relates to the tolling projects and use of toll-generated revenue in Oregon; Policy 6D is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment. Conclusion: Not applicable. Policy 6E: Tolling Technology and Systems When tolling state highways, it is the policy of the state of Oregon to implement tolling systems that: 1) Enable cash-based motorists ready access to all-electronic toll facilities while eliminating the need for cash payment at the point of entry; 2) Deploy technology that facilitates interoperability with tolling systems of neighboring states and allows evolution of fully functional, non-proprietary tolling systems. Finding: This policy relates to the use technology in tolling systems; Policy 6E is not applicable to the proposed TSP amendment. Conclusion: Not applicable. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE The purpose of the Transportation Planning Rule is to facilitate implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation). The following findings address compliance of the TSP with the requirements set forth in the Transportation Planning Rule. OAR 660-012-0010, Transportation Planning 177 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 17 of 24 (1) As described in this division, transportation planning shall be divided into two phases: transportation system planning and transportation project development. Transportation system planning establishes land use controls and a network of facilities and services to meet overall transportation needs. Transportation project development implements the TSP by determining the precise location, alignment, and preliminary design of improvements included in the TSP. (2) It is not the purpose of this division to cause duplication of or to supplant existing applicable transportation plans and programs. Where all or part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan, TSP either of the local government or appropriate special district, capital improvement program, regional functional plan, or similar plan or combination of plans meets all or some of the requirements of this division, those plans or programs may be incorporated by reference into the TSP required by this division. Only those referenced portions of such documents shall be considered to be a part of the TSP and shall be subject to the administrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197 (Comprehensive Land Use Planning). (3) It is not the purpose of this division to limit adoption or enforcement of measures to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian circulation or convenient access to transit that are otherwise consistent with the requirements of this division Finding: The City of Central Point’s 2008 TSP was acknowledged as complying with OAR 660-012-0010. The TSP amendment contains the following items: Updated project lists from the 2008 TSP to remove projects that are complete or no longer needed in the remainder of the City; Reprioritization of the updated project lists to consider transportation disadvantaged populations; and Updated funding forecast. The proposed TSP amendment will allow the City’s TSP to continue to function as adopted and acknowledged. Conclusion: Consistent. OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans (3) Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and amend local TSPs for lands within their planning jurisdiction in compliance with this division: (a) Local TSPs shall establish a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local transportation needs and shall be consistent with regional TSPs and adopted elements of the state TSP; (b) Where the regional TSP or elements of the state TSP have not been adopted, the city or county shall coordinate the preparation of the local TSP with the regional transportation planning body and ODOT to assure that regional and state transportation needs are accommodated. (4) Cities and counties shall adopt regional and local TSPs required by this division as part of their comprehensive plans. Transportation financing programs required by OAR 660-012- 0040 may be adopted as a supporting document to the comprehensive plan. 178 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 18 of 24 (5) The preparations of TSPs shall be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts and private providers of transportation services. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment demonstrates that the proposed system of transportation facilities and services are adequate to meet the City’s needs to 2030. The City of Central Point worked closely with the Rogue Valley MPO, the City of Medford, ODOT, and other relevant agencies to develop the 2008 TSP and the 2021 UGB expansion. The proposed TSP amendment will be adopted as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The planning level cost estimates provided in the proposed TSP amendment provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and allows the assessment of the adequacy of existing and alternative funding mechanisms. The proposed TSP amendment meets the requirements of this section of the TPR. Conclusion: Consistent. OAR 660-012-0016 Coordination with Federally Required Regional Transportation Plans in Metropolitan Areas (1) In metropolitan areas, local governments shall prepare, adopt, amend, and amendment transportation system plans required by this division in coordination with regional transportation plans (RTPs) prepared by MPOs required by federal law. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment demonstrates coordination with regional planning processes to assure that transportation needs are met. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR. OAR 660-012-0020 Elements of TSPs (1) A TSP shall establish a coordinated network of transportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional and local transportation needs. (2) The TSP shall include the following elements: (a) Determination of transportation needs as provided in OAR 660-012-0030 (b) A road plan for a system of arterials and collectors and standards for the layout of local streets and other important non-collector street connections. Functional classifications of roads in regional and local TSPs shall be consistent with functional classifications of roads in state and regional TSPs and shall provide for continuity between adjacent jurisdictions. The standards for the layout of local streets shall provide for safe and convenient bike and pedestrian circulation necessary to carry out OAR 660- 012- 0045(3)(b). New connections to arterials and state highways shall be consistent with designated access management categories. The intent of this requirement is to provide guidance on the spacing of future extensions and connections along existing and future streets which are needed to provide reasonably direct routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The standards for the layout of local streets shall address: (A) Extensions of existing streets; (B) Connections to existing or planned streets, including arterials and collectors; and (C) Connections to neighborhood destinations. Chapter 3 of the TSP includes a 179 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 19 of 24 functional classification plan and roadway standards to address this requirement. (c) A public transportation system plan which: (A) Describes public transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged and identifies service inadequacies; (B) Describes intercity bus and passenger rail service and identifies the location of terminals; (C) For areas within an urban growth boundary which have public transit service, identifies existing and planned transit trunk routes, exclusive transit ways, terminals and major transfer stations, major transit stops, and park- and-ride stations. Designation of stop or station locations may allow for minor adjustments in the location of stops to provide for efficient transit or traffic operation or to provide convenient pedestrian access to adjacent or nearby uses. (D) For areas within an urban area containing a population greater than 25,000 persons, not currently served by transit, evaluates the feasibility of developing a public transit system at buildout. Where a transit system is determined to be feasible, the plan shall meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(c)(C) of this rule. (d) A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes throughout the planning area. The network and list of facility improvements shall be consistent with the requirements of ORS 366.514. (e) An air, rail, water and pipeline transportation plan. Finding OAR 660-012-0020(1) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e): The TSP amendment does not find a need for or anticipate any changes to these facilities. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0020(1) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(e): The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR. (f) Plan for transportation management and demand management. (g) Parking plan as provided in OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c). (h) Policies and land use regulations for implementing the TSP as provided in OAR 660- 012- 0045. Finding OAR 660-012-0020(2)(f) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(h): Potential actions for implementing the TSP are contained in the Central Point Development Code. The proposed TSP amendment does not trigger the need for any changes to the Development Code. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0020(2)(f) through OAR 660-012-0020(2)(h): Consistent. (i) Transportation financing program as provided in OAR 660-012-0040. (3) Each element identified in subsections (2)(b) – (d) of this rule shall contain: An inventory and general assessment of existing and committed transportation facilities and services by function, type, capacity and condition. (A) The transportation capacity analysis shall include information on: 180 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 20 of 24 (i) The capacities of existing and committed facilities; (ii) The degree to which those capacities have been reached or surpassed on existing facilities; and (iii) The assumptions upon which these capacities are based. (B) For state and regional facilities, the transportation capacity analysis shall be consistent with standards of facility performance considered acceptable by the affected state or regional transportation agency; (C) The transportation facility condition analysis shall describe the general physical and operational condition of each transportation facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very poor). (D) A system of planned transportation facilities, services and major improvements. The system shall include a description of the type or functional classification of planned facilities and services and their planned capacities and performance standards. Finding OAR 660-012-0020(2)(i) through OAR 660-012-0020(3): Most of these criteria are met by the 2008 TSP and the proposed TSP amendment does not affect them. The amendment describes the planned facilities and services needed for the UGB expansion through 2030 by function, type, and condition for each mode, except transit, since the Transit District does not plan to extend new routes to the expansion area. The proposed TSP amendment updates the transportation financing plan, including existing and potential new funding sources. Conclusion OAR 660-012-0020(2)(i) through OAR 660-012-0020(3): The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR. OAR 660-012-0025 Complying with Goals in Preparing TSPs (1) Adoption of a TSP shall constitute a land use decision regarding the need for transportation facilities, services and major improvements and their function, mode and general location. (2) Findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals and acknowledged comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall be developed in conjunction with the adoption of the TSP. (3) The City may defer decisions regarding function, general location and mode of a refinement plan if findings are adopted that: (a) Identify the transportation need for which decisions regarding function, general location or mode are being deferred. (b) Demonstrate why information required to make final determination cannot be made available within time for TSP preparation. (c) Explain how deferral does not invalidate the assumptions upon which the TSP is based ore preclude implementation of the remainder of the TSP. (d) Describe the nature of the findings which will be needed to resolve issues deferred to a refinement plan; and, (e) Set a deadline for adoption of a refinement plan prior to initiation of the periodic review following adoption of the TSP. 181 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 21 of 24 Finding: The TSP amendment is being adopted as a Type IV legislative land use decision, consistent with the Central Point Development Code and this rule. These findings of compliance accompany that decision. No deferrals are suggested. No refinement plans are proposed. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment is in compliance with this section of the TPR. OAR 660-012-0030 Determination of Transportation Needs (1) The TSP shall identify transportation needs relevant to the planning area and the scale of the transportation network being planned including: (a) State, regional and local transportation needs (b) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged (c) Needs for movement of goods and services to support industrial and commercial development planned for, pursuant to Goal 9. (2) Local governments preparing local TSPs shall rely on the analyses of state and regional transportation needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and adopted regional TSPs. (3) Within UGBs, the determination of local and regional transportation needs shall be based upon: (a) Population and employment forecasts and distributions that are consistent with acknowledged comp plan. Forecasts and distributions shall be for 20 years and, if desired, for longer periods; (b) Measures adopted pursuant to OAR 660-012-0045 to encourage reduced reliance on the automobile. (4) In MPO areas, calculation of local and regional transportation needs also shall be based on accomplishment of the requirement in OAR 660-012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on the automobile. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment outlines the identified existing and future needs by mode, related to state, regional and local transportation needs, needs of transportation disadvantaged, and needs for goods movement to support industrial and commercial development. The 2021 UGB expansion utilized population and employment forecasts consistent with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and the State of Oregon. The 2008 TSP demonstrated a transportation system that could reduce reliance on the automobile by increasing the safety and convenience of using other modes; the proposed TSP amendment continues this pattern by providing pedestrian and bicycle projects to support mode choice. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR. OAR 660-012-0035 Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives (1) The TSP shall be based on evaluation of potential impacts of system alternatives that can reasonably be expected to meet the identified transportation needs in a safe manner and at a reasonable cost with available technology. The following shall be evaluated as components of system alternatives. (a) Improvements to existing facilities or services 182 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 22 of 24 (b) New facilities and services, including different modes or combinations of modes that could reasonably meet identified transportation needs. (c) Transportation system management measures; (d) Demand management measures; and (e) A no-build system alternative required by the NEPA or other laws. (3) The following standards shall be used to evaluate and select alternatives: The transportation system shall support urban and rural development by providing types and levels of transportation facilities and services appropriate to serve the land uses identified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; (b) The transportation system shall be consistent with state and federal standards for protection of air, land and water quality; (c) The transportation system shall minimize adverse economic, social, environmental and energy consequences; (d) The transportation system shall minimize conflicts and facilitate connections between modes of transportation; and (e) The transportation system shall avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation by increasing transportation choices to reduce principal reliance on the automobile. Select transportation alternatives that meet the requirements in section (4) of the rule. (4) Local TSPs shall be designed to achieve adopted standards for increasing transportation choices and reducing reliance on the automobile. Adopted standards are intended as means of measuring progress of metropolitan areas towards developing and implementing transportation systems and land use plans that increase transportation choices and reduce reliance on the automobile. It is anticipated that metropolitan areas will accomplish reduced reliance by changing land use patterns and transportation systems so that walking, cycling, and use of transit are highly convenient and so that, on balance, people need to and are likely to drive less than they do today. (7) Regional and local TSPs shall include benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress towards meeting the approved standard or standards adopted pursuant to this rule at regular intervals over the planning period. MPOs and local governments shall evaluate progress in meeting benchmarks at each amendment of the regional transportation plan. Where benchmarks are not met, the relevant TSP shall be amended to include new or additional efforts adequate to meet the requirements of this rule. Finding: The proposed TSP amendment supports urban growth as planned for the Central Point UGB area in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and regional travel and restricts facility extension that might encourage inappropriate growth on rural lands. The multimodal system improvements proposed in the TSP amendment were developed to ensure that needs are met with a safe and reasonable manner. Improvements to existing facilities have been prioritized with a new equity lens. The reasonableness of proposed projects was verified by the selection criteria (established in the 2008 TSP and enhanced with a new equity criterion). Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management are addressed in the 2008 TSP and 183 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 23 of 24 will not be altered by this amendment. Benchmarks set in the 2008 TSP will also remain unaltered by this amendment. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR. OAR 660-012-0040 Transportation Financing Program (1) For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons, the TSP shall include a transportation financing program. (2) A transportation financing program shall include the items listed in (a)-(d): (a) A list of planned transportation facilities and major improvements; (b) A general estimate of the timing for planned transportation facilities and major improvements; (c) A determination of rough cost estimates for the transportation facilities and major improvements identified in the TSP; and (d) In metropolitan areas, policies to guide selection of transportation facility and improvement projects for funding in the short-term to meet the standards and benchmarks established pursuant to 0035(4)-(6). Such policies shall consider, and shall include among the priorities, facilities and improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian friendly development and increased use of alternative modes. (1) The determination of rough cost estimates is intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing and possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates for each transportation facility and major improvement, the transportation financing plan shall include a discussion of the facility provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each transportation facility and major improvement. These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of general guidelines or local policies. (4) The transportation financing program shall provide for phasing of major improvements to encourage infill and redevelopment of urban lands prior to facilities and improvements which would cause premature development of urbanizable lands or conversion of rural lands to urban uses. Finding: The TSP amendment lists the planned transportation facilities, along with a general time estimate. Each project is assigned a planning level cost estimate. The projects in the TSP amendment support the use of alternative modes of transportation. The TSP amendment includes a summary of cost estimates, by prioritization category. The forecast of revenue is based on existing funding mechanisms, potential new mechanisms, and a plan for implementation. Conclusion: The proposed TSP amendment complies with this section of the TPR. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & DEVELOPMENT CODE 184 City of Central Point TSP Amendment Findings Page 24 of 24 CPMC 17.96.500 Approval Criteria A recommendation or a decision to approve or to deny an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan, or urban growth boundary shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria: A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals; B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan; C. For urban growth boundary amendments findings demonstrate that adequate public services and transportation networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city’s public facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. Finding: The amendment to the comprehensive plan updating the TSP assures that allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity, and level of service of Central Point transportation facilities. The TSP amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as required by CPMC 17.96.500,as well as the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule. The proposed TSP amendment does not affect the current goals and policies of the 2008 TSP or other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. No changes to land use regulations are proposed. Therefore, the proposed TSP amendment is in compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Conclusion: Consistent. 7. SUMMARY CONCLUSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment updating the TSP has been reviewed against and found to comply with all applicable criteria and associated state policies as set forth in these Findings and Conclusions of Law. 185 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 897 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN File No. CPA-22001 WHEREAS, the has completed an Amendment to the Transportation System Plan for the City’s urban area to maintain its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Statewide Planning Goals and to complete long range planning requirements required by the City and County’s approval of the 2021 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to OAR 660-012, the amendment has been prepared in compliance with Oregon state adopted rules governing preparation and coordination of transportation system plans which are collectively referred to as the Transportation Planning Rule and with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal #12 – Transportation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060, the City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State to assure compliance with goals and compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans and with OAR 660-12-0015 to assure consistency with the State and Regional TSP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to OAR 660-12-006(1)(a-c) and (2)(a-d), the amendment to the City’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations is consistent with the identified function, capacity and levels of service of local and regional transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2022 to consider the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission does hereby accept and forward to the City Council the Transportation System Plan as set forth in Exhibit “A” for final consideration and adoption. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ______ day of December, 2022. ________________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ City Representative 186 TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAN 187 Staff Report Project Murphy Tentative Partition File No. PAR-22001 November 29, 2022 Item Summary Consideration of a Tentative Partition application to consolidate three lots and divide them into two (2) parcels. The 17.57 acre site is located at 3791 Table Rock Road and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 800, 900 and 902. The project site is within the M-1, Industrial zone. Applicant/Agent: BH DevCo (Steve Backman); File No: PAR - 22001. Staff Source Stephanie Holtey, Planning Director Background The applicant proposes to consolidate three (3) existing lots into one and partition the consolidated lot into two (2) parcels (Attachment “A-3”). The land division includes extension of Federal Way, a Standard Local Street to the intersection with Table Rock and Airport Road (Attachment “A-5”). The proposal includes completing the intersection improvements. It’s the applicant’s intent to develop Proposed Parcel 1 with an 87,750 square foot warehouse and ground distribution facility (File No. SPAR-22006). Proposed Parcel 2 will be used for stormwater conveyance and will remain vacant at this time. The proposed use and parcel dimensions are consistent with the M-1 zone. Issues There are two (2) issues relative to this project: 1. Intersection Configuration. The Federal Way extension to Table Rock/Airport Road requires configuration that addresses current and future traffic volumes. The east side of the Airport Road intersection provides a 3 lane configuration that includes a dedicated left turn lane. The tentative plan shows a two lane configuration. Comment: Per the Public Works Staff Report (Attachment “C”), the intersection will be required and the applicant has agreed to construct a 3 lane intersection configuration that matches improvements to the east. This accounts for increased traffic volumes due to the Costco development, as well as future volume associated with the proposed warehouse and ground distribution facility (SPAR-22006). Staff recommends the Planning Commission impose the Public Works conditions of approval set forth in the Public Works Staff Report dated November 21, 2022. 188 2. Adjacent Property Access. There are three (3) properties south of the project site that are developed with residential structures. At this time, all three properties take access from a private drive off Table Rock Road adjacent to the Table Rock/Airport Road intersection. Proximity of the private drive to the intersection is not consistent with access spacing standards on Arterial roadways in the County and City. Comment: The proposed Federal Way/Airport Road extension provides the opportunity relocate access for each of the properties. It will be necessary for the applicant to coordinate with the property owners and Public Works during the Civil Improvement plan review process for street construction to identify and construct new access driveways for each of the affected lots. 3. Improvement Construction Timing. The applicant’s Findings (Attachment “B”) state that they may request building permits prior to final plat approval due to use specific needs on Proposed Parcel 1. Comment: CPMC 16.12.070 allows for building permit issuance prior to final plat approval when the applicant enters into a development agreement with the City and bonds for the improvements. The objective of this standard is to provide flexibility to developers while providing assurance to the City and future property owners that all required services and utilities will be available to the site as required under state law. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose Public Works conditions of approval set forth in the Public Works Staff Report dated November 21, 2022. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law The Tentative Partition at 3791 Table Rock Road has been evaluated against the applicable Partition Criteria set forth in CPMC16.10 and CPMC 16.36 and found to comply as conditioned and as evidenced in the Applicant’s Findings of Fact (Attachment “B”). Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval set forth in the following agency documents: a. Public Works Staff Report dated November 21, 2022 (Attachment “C”). b. Jackson County Roads Department letter dated November 15, 2022 (Attachment “D”) c. Rogue Valley Sewer Services letter dated November 14, 2022 (Attachment “E”). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department: a. A revised Tentative Plan showing the location of Public Utility Easements as required by Public Works; 189 b. A copy of the recorded final plat or a fully executed development agreement and surety bond per CPMC 16.12.070. Timing of infrastructure improvements set forth in Condition 1 shall be addressed in the development agreement as necessary to receive final plat approval. 3. Prior to Public Works Final Inspection and Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of the development agreement and submit a copy of the recorded plat as required in CPMC 16.12. 4. The Tentative Plan shall expire after one (1) year in accordance with CPMC 16.10.080(A) unless a timely written request is received and an extension is granted pursuant to CPMC 16.100. Attachments Attachment “A-1” – Tentative Partition Plat Cover Sheet Attachment “A-2” – Existing Property Layout Attachment “A-3” – Tentative Partition Plan Attachment “A-4” – Proposed Property Layout Attachment “A-5” – Proposed Street Cross-section (Federal Way/Airport Road Extension) Attachment “B” – Applicant’s Findings Attachment “C” – Public Works Department Staff Report, dated 11/21/2022 Attachment “D” – Jackson County Roads Letter dated 11/15/2022 Attachment “E” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Letter dated 11/14/2022 Attachment “F” – City of Medford Email dated 11/28/2022 Attachment “G” - Resolution No. 898 (Draft to be provided at the 12/6/2022 meeting) Action Consider the proposed Tentative Partition Plan application and 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application. Recommendation Approve the Tentative Partition Plan application for the Project Murphy at 3791 Table Rock Road per the Staff Report dated November 29, 2022 including all attachments thereto herein incorporated by reference. Recommended Motion I move to approve Resolution No 898 approving a lot consolidation and two (2) parcel Tentative Partition located at 3791 Table Rock Road (37S2W12B Tax Lots 800, 900 and 902). 190 JOSHUA M. ENOT, P.E. OR. P.E. NO. 100652PE PREPARED BY LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 2,000' SITE NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT TEAM APPLICANT KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES 920 SW 6TH AVE SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OR 97204 CONTACT: JOSHUA ENOT, P.E. PHONE: (321) 754-0413 EMAIL: joshua.enot@kimley-horn.com SURVEYORS S&F LAND SERVICES 4858 SW SCHOOLS FERRY RD. STE A PORTLAND, OR 97225 CONTACT: JERED MCGRATH PHONE: (503) 345-0328 3791 TABLE ROCK RD. CENTRAL POINT, OR PARCEL #: 49-49 1-046233-9 JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON PER FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 2ND REVISED PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT ORDER NO.: 7161-3998828, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 5, 2022. REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, STATE OF OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 56 IN TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON; THENCE NORTH 89º 53' WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM, 757.4 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 200.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43º 30' EAST, 470.0 FEET; EAST, 470.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49º 30' EAST, 264.4 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATE TITLE NO. 1040; EAST, 264.4 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATE TITLE NO. 1040; THENCE SOUTH 89º 47' EAST, 598.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 356.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89º 47' EAST, 252.2 FEET TO EAST, 598.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 356.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89º 47' EAST, 252.2 FEET TO EAST, 252.2 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF TABLE ROCK MARKET ROAD; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, 356.85 FEET TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 58; THENCE NORTH 89º 53' WEST ALONG SAID NORTH WEST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 58, A DISTANCE OF 618.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 56, TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON; THENCE SOUTH 89º 50' 10" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE 10" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 58, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, 578.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0º 03' WEST, WEST, PARALLEL TO AND 10 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF TABLE ROCK ROAD, 356.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89º 47' WEST, 212.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0º 03' WEST, 102.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE WEST, 102.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 0º 03' WEST (RECORD SOUTH) 76.0 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. WEST (RECORD SOUTH) 76.0 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 71-03949, OFFICIAL RECORDS, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON; THENCE SOUTH 89º 47' EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT, 212.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0º 03' EAST (RECORD NORTH) 76.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89º 47' WEST, EAST (RECORD NORTH) 76.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89º 47' WEST, WEST, 212.50 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 56 IN TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON; THENCE SOUTH 89º 50' 10" EAST ALONG THE NORTH 10" EAST ALONG THE NORTH EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 58, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, 578.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0º 03' WEST, WEST, PARALLEL TO AND 10 FEET WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF TABLE ROCK ROAD, 356.81 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89º 47' WEST, 212.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0º 03' WEST 102.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH WEST, 212.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0º 03' WEST 102.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH WEST 102.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89º 47' EAST 212.50 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF TABLE ROCK ROAD; THENCE NORTH 0º 03' EAST ALONG SAID WEST EAST 212.50 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF TABLE ROCK ROAD; THENCE NORTH 0º 03' EAST ALONG SAID WEST EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 102.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL 3 PARCELS ALL THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONVEYED TO JACKSON COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF OREGON, RECORDED APRIL 06, 2017 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2017-011467. NOTE:THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS CREATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2008. SITE NORTH ARCHITECT SGA DESIGN GROUP, P.C. 1437 S. BOULDER AVENUE, SUITE 560 TULSA, OK 74119 CONTACT: VIRGINIA GAYLE HART PHONE: (918) 587-8600 CIVIL ENGINEER KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES 920 SW 6TH AVE SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OR 97204 CONTACT: JOSHUA M. ENOT, P.E. PHONE: (321) 754-0413 EMAIL: joshua.enot@kimley-horn.com OWNER BH DEVCO, LLC 2425 E CAMELBACK RD, SUITE 200 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 CONTACT: DEREK RUTERMAN PHONE: (602)-689-6190 EMAIL: DRUTERMAN@BHDEVCO.COM ZONING: M-1, INDUSTRIAL TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAT FOR PROJECT MURPHY SITE NORTH LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 2,000' SITE SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 37S, RANGE 2W NORTH NOVEMBER 1, 2022 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT TEAM ARCHITECT SGA DESIGN GROUP, P.C. 1437 S. BOULDER AVENUE, SUITE 560 TULSA, OK 74119 CONTACT: OLIVIA GOOD PHONE: (918) 587-8602, 341 (EXT.) CENTRAL POINT ZONING MAP SCALE: 1" = 1000' 191 LEGEND GENERAL NOTES © 37 9 1 T A B L E R O C K R D . CE N T R A L P O I N T , O R NORT+ T100 EX I S T I N G P R O P E R T Y LA Y O U T 192 LEGEND GENERAL NOTES © 37 9 1 T A B L E R O C K R D . CE N T R A L P O I N T , O R NORT+ T200 PR O P O S E D P L A T LA Y O U T 193 LEGEND GENERAL NOTES © 37 9 1 T A B L E R O C K R D . CE N T R A L P O I N T , O R NORT+ T300 PR O P O S E D PR O P E R T Y L A Y O U T 194 © 37 9 1 T A B L E R O C K R D . CE N T R A L P O I N T , O R T400 PR O P O S E D R O A D CR O S S S E C T I O N 195 Page 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAN AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3791 TABLE ROCK ROAD, WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF TABLE ROCK ROAD ACROSS FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH AIRPORT ROAD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND IS MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS TAX LOTS 800, 900, AND 902 IN TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST (WM), SECTION 12B. Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Owner: Table Rock Business Park, LLC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Applicants’ Exhibit 2 I NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Applicant, BH DevCo, LLC (hereinafter Applicant), seeks approval of a Tentative Partition Plan that will consolidate three existing lots into one and partition the consolidated lots into two parcels, and Site Plan and Architectural Review for a new industrial warehouse and distribution facility of approximately 87,750 square feet. The proposed Tentative Plan will also include dedication of land for right-of-way to extend Airport Road to Federal Way, and the construction of the roadway therein as a Standard Local Street. The subject property is approximately 17.87 acres and is identified as Tax Lots 800, 900, and 902 on Jackson County Assessor’s Map 37-2W-12B. 196 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 2 II EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATIONS Applicant herewith submits the following evidence with its land use application: Exhibit 1. Completed Tentative Partition Plan and Site Plan & Architectural Review application forms Exhibit 2. Applicant’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this document) Exhibit 3. Applicant’s Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Exhibit 4. Jackson County Assessor Plat Map 37-2W-12B Exhibit 5. Vicinity Map on Aerial Exhibit 6. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Exhibit 7. Zoning Map Exhibit 8. Hydrology Map Exhibit 9. Proposed Tentative Partition Plan Exhibit 10. Proposed Site Plan and Landscape Plan C1.0 Site Plan L1.00-2.51 Landscape Plans E1.00-1.06 Photometrics Plans Exhibit 11. Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12. Parking Demand Analysis Memo Exhibit 13. Title Report Exhibit 14. Traffic Generation Analysis 197 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 3 III RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA The following are the relevant substantive criteria prerequisite to approving Tentative Plan and Site Plan and Architectural Review applications: CITY OF CENTRAL POINT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Tentative Plan Criteria 16.36 Major and Minor Land Partitions 16.36.030 Requirements. A. All major and minor land partitions may, as a condition of approval, provide for improvements including curbs, gutters, asphalt streets, sidewalks, underground utilities and such other improvements as shall be deemed appropriate and necessary by the city council as a condition of approval, with all such improvements to meet the standards required for subdivisions under this title. B. In the case of major partitions, all streets or roads shall be improved to meet the standards required for subdivisions under this title, and shall be dedicated to the city in the same manner as subdivision roads and streets. C. Partition improvements shall be constructed prior to approval of the final partition plat unless, in the city’s sole discretion, deferral is allowed. In all cases of deferral, the applicant shall either execute an agreement for improvements and comply with the bond requirements of Section 16.12.070 and 16.12.080 of this title, or shall execute a deferred improvement agreement, which shall be in a form and contain such terms as are specified by city and shall be recorded and be binding upon and run with the land and bind the applicant and all successors in interest. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ZONING ORDINANCE Site Plan and Architectural Review Criteria 17.72 Site Plan and Architectural Review 17.72.020 Applicability. B. Major Projects. The following are “major projects” for the purposes of the site plan and architectural review process and are subject to Type 2 procedural requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures: 1. New construction, including private and public projects, that: a. Includes a new building or building addition of five thousand square feet or more; b. Includes the construction of a parking lot of ten or more parking spaces; 17.72.040 Site plan and architectural standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying any site plan and architectural review application, the approving authority shall base its decision on compliance with the following standards: A. Applicable site plan, landscaping, and architectural design standards as set forth in Chapter 17.75, Design and Development Standards; B. City of Central Point Department of Public Works Department Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction; C. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus. 198 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 4 IV FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts are established and found to be true with respect to this matter: 1. Property Description and Location: The subject property contains approximately 17.87 acres (per survey) and consists of three tax lots within the corporate limits of the City of Central Point described in the Jackson County Assessment records as Township 37 South, Range 2 West, Section 12B, Tax Lots 800, 900, and 902. The subject property is vacant land located on the west side of Table Rock Road and northwest of its intersection with Airport Road. See, Applicant’s Exhibits 4 and 5. 2. Ownership: The subject property is owned in fee simple by Table Rock Business Park, LLC. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation: The subject property is classified as Light Industrial (LI) on the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. See, Applicant’s Exhibit 6. 4. Zoning: The subject property is zoned M-1 Industrial. See, Applicant’s Exhibit 7. 5. Lot Legality: The parcel that is Tax Lot 800 was created March 19, 1946, by the Warranty Deed recorded at Vol. 284, Pg. 91. Tax Lots 900 and 902 were created in their current configuration on June 13, 1974, when Tax Lot 902 was divided from Tax Lot 900 by the Warranty Deed recorded at O.R. 74-07980. At the time of this conveyance in 1974 the subject property was zoned County F-5 which required a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. While Jackson County had not adopted procedural requirements for partitions at that time, the conveyance did not meet the zoning standards for the F-5 district and therefore the conveyance can be considered an illegal partition. That noted, and while records indicate that no permits have been issued for Tax Lot 902, it can also be argued that the 1974 split of Tax Lots 900 and 902 was authorized when the properties were annexed to the corporate limits of the City of Central Point and allowed to remain as two separate parcels. 6. Existing Development: Over the past few years the subject property has been used for the staging of construction materials and gravel processing, but prior to this the site was vacant for 30+ years. 7. Existing Frontage and Access: Federal Way currently terminates near the northwest corner of the site and is where the subject property has existing access. The subject property is also bounded on the east by Table Rock Road; however, there are no points of access along Table Rock Road which is classified in the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a Principal Arterial street. Additionally, the City of Central Point owns a parcel adjacent to the subject property and Table Rock Road, where the Applicant proposes to construct a new City street. 8. Project Summary: The proposed project includes an application for a tentative partition plan to consolidate the existing parcels that comprise the site and partition the property into two new parcels, with resulting Parcel 1 being approximately 13.5 acres and developed 199 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 5 with the proposed warehouse use, while the westernmost resulting 2.78 acre Parcel 2 will be used for stormwater outfall and otherwise remain vacant land at this time. The partition also includes the dedication of land for the Federal Way/Airport Road right-of-way extension, and the construction of said street to Standard Local Street specifications.1 The project also includes an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review of a new ~87,750 square foot industrial warehouse and distribution facility. The proposed warehouse is a concrete tilt-up design that measures approximately 33 feet in height at the highest point of the parapet. The warehouse will have its main entrance facing east towards Table Rock Road, while the north elevation will have five steel roll-up doors that will provide for the loading of freight onto delivery vehicles. A future canopy will extend the full length of the north elevation to provide shelter from weather elements. The west elevation will contain 13 insulated sectional overhead doors with dock shelters to accommodate the delivery and unloading of goods into the warehouse. See, Applicant’s exterior elevations and site plan at Exhibits 10 and 11. Parking for warehouse employees will be provided to the south and east of the building, while an area for company vehicle storage will contain 215 spaces on the northern half of the site. The company vehicles will travel in a clockwise direction from this vehicle storage area to the north side of the warehouse where they will be loaded before leaving the site via Federal Way. Landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the site and within both the employee parking lots and the company vehicle storage area as shown on the landscape plans attached at Exhibit 10, and as further described in Applicant’s Exhibit 3: Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards. Development of the warehouse property will require the extension of Federal Way to the south and east to connect with Airport Road and Table Rock Road near the southeast corner of the subject property. The necessary land for this street will be dedicated to the City and the new Federal Way/Airport Road segments will be constructed to the City’s Standard Local Street specifications. 9. Land Uses on Abutting Properties and Surrounding Area: North: Federal Way is an improved Standard Local Street that currently terminates near the northwest corner of the subject property and the lands to the east and west of Federal Way up to Hamrick Road are zoned M-1. Directly abutting the subject property between Federal Way and Table Rock Road there is a FedEx Ground distribution facility and a Costco warehouse store and gas station. On the west side of Federal Way are several small vacant parcels, an XPO Logistics facility, and Umpqua Dairy Products. To the west of these uses and northwest of the subject property is an M-2 zoning district primarily occupied by Knife River Materials. East: The subject property is bounded on the east by Table Rock Road which is classified as a Principal Arterial street that is under the jurisdiction of Jackson County Roads. The property directly across Table Rock Road is located within the City of Medford corporate limits and is zoned Light Industrial and developed with a Columbia Distributing facility (beverage distributor). 1 The same resulting parcel configuration and right-of-way dedication could also be achieved through a property line adjustment and dedication by deed for the right-of-way land. 200 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 6 West: The Bear Creek Greenway, a multi-use trail that stretches from Ashland through Central Point is located to the west/southwest of the subject property. South: Lands south of the subject property are zoned M-1 and developed with single-family residences. At the southeast corner of the subject property and abutting Table Rock Road is a 0.55 acre parcel zoned M-1 and occupied by AA Electric auto parts store. The City of Central Point owns a 0.28 acre parcel on the south side of the AA Electric property that will be used for the extension of Airport Road across Table Rock Road where it will connect to the Federal Way extension that will be part of the subject development project. 10. Topography: The subject property is relatively flat/level. 11. Water Facilities and Services: According to information provided by the City in a pre- application conference, there is a 12-inch waterline located in Federal Way that can and will be extended to the proposed warehouse development. 12. Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Services: According to comments received from Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) in a pre-application conference, there is an existing 8-inch sewer line north of the property in Federal Way from which service can be extended to the site. 13. Storm Drainage Facilities and Services: Stormwater detention facilities will be constructed as two dry ponds as shown on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10. Stormwater outfall from these ponds will be directed to the vacant parcel that will be located on the west of Federal Way. Said detention facilities will be designed to accommodate all stormwater runoff from the warehouse development. 14. Wetlands, Streams and Floodplain: There are no wetlands identified on local or national wetland inventories. As shown on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10 and the Hydrology Map at Exhibit 8, the FEMA floodway from Bear Creek extends slightly into the west and southwest portions of the subject property. No structures will be located within the floodway or floodplain. 15. Transportation and Access: A. Access and Circulation: Access to the site will be from Federal Way and Airport Road, and there will be a total of five driveways along the property frontage as shown on the site plan at Applicant’s Exhibit 10. B. Transportation Impacts from Proposed Development: Pursuant to pre-application conference comments and follow-up communications between the Applicant, the City, and Jackson County Roads, a trip generation analysis was required to evaluate and determine the intersection configuration for Table Rock Road/Airport Road. The analysis is attached at Applicant’s Exhibit 14. The Applicant’s traffic engineer calculated trip generation for the project. The Applicant’s traffic engineer also analyzed level of service (LOS) and lane configurations at the intersection of Airport Road and Table Rock Road. The analysis shows acceptable levels of service at the studied intersection and recommends the proposed lane configuration of one receiving lane, and one left-through-right eastbound approach. 201 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 7 16. Fire and Police Protection: The subject property is located within and served by Fire District No. 3. Police service is provided by the City of Central Point Police Department. V CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are reached under each of the relevant substantive criteria which are recited verbatim and addressed below. The conclusions of law are supported by the Applicant’s evidentiary exhibits at Section II – including Applicant’s review of applicable development standards (Exhibit 3) and the findings of fact as set forth in Section IV herein above. TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA Chapter 16.36 MAJOR AND MINOR LAND PARTITIONS 16.36.030 Requirements. A. All major and minor land partitions may, as a condition of approval, provide for improvements including curbs, gutters, asphalt streets, sidewalks, underground utilities and such other improvements as shall be deemed appropriate and necessary by the city council as a condition of approval, with all such improvements to meet the standards required for subdivisions under this title. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts the Demonstration of Compliance with applicable Development Standards in Applicant’s Exhibit 3 and concludes thereupon that the proposed extension of Federal Way/Airport Road will create the needed improvements to serve the project. Time is of the essence for this project and Applicant proposes the following condition structure with respect to public improvement timing: • Prior to building permit for vertical construction, Applicant shall provide and the City shall review and approve the Public Improvement Plans for the partition (the City will coordinate review and approval by external agencies like Medford Water Commission and RVSS). • Prior to building permit for vertical construction, Applicant may post a bond for the public improvements acceptable to the City based upon the approved Public Improvement Plans. • Prior to occupancy of the building, the Applicant shall complete the Public Improvements in accordance with the approved Public Improvement Plans, have the improvements accepted by the applicable agencies, and dedicate the new-right-of-way per the tentative plat and record the final plat. B. In the case of major partitions, all streets or roads shall be improved to meet the standards required for subdivisions under this title, and shall be dedicated to the city in the same manner as subdivision roads and streets. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed major partition includes dedication of the necessary land for, and the construction of the extension of Federal 202 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 8 Way/Airport Road to serve the project, and that these requirements will be met through the imposition of conditions of approval. C. Partition improvements shall be constructed prior to approval of the final partition plat unless, in the city’s sole discretion, deferral is allowed. In all cases of deferral, the applicant shall either execute an agreement for improvements and comply with the bond requirements of Section 16.12.070 and 16.12.080 of this title, or shall execute a deferred improvement agreement, which shall be in a form and contain such terms as are specified by city and shall be recorded and be binding upon and run with the land and bind the applicant and all successors in interest. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes that all required improvements will either be constructed prior to approval of the final plat or bonded for in accordance with these provisions and subject to a development agreement with the City. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CRITERIA Chapter 17.72 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17.72.020 Applicability. B. Major Projects. The following are “major projects” for the purposes of the site plan and architectural review process and are subject to Type 2 procedural requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures: 1. New construction, including private and public projects, that: a. Includes a new building or building addition of five thousand square feet or more; b. Includes the construction of a parking lot of ten or more parking spaces; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission concludes the proposed building is new and at approximately 87,750 square feet it therefore requires site plan and architectural review. 17.72 Site Plan and Architectural Review ***** 17.72.040 Site plan and architectural standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying any site plan and architectural review application, the approving authority shall base its decision on compliance with the following standards: A. Applicable site plan, landscaping, and architectural design standards as set forth in Chapter 17.75, Design and Development Standards; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Commission herewith incorporates and adopts Applicant’s Exhibit 3: Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards, and based thereupon, concludes the application is in compliance with all applicable site plan, landscaping, and architectural design standards in Chapter 17.75. B. City of Central Point Department of Public Works Department Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction; Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the proposed project will be located on a discrete parcel that is newly created with most public improvements necessary for the development already in place but that any additional new public improvements, such as 203 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 9 additional storm drainage facilities, can feasibly and will be constructed in accordance with the Central Point Department of Public Works Standard and Specifications and the Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction. C. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus. Conclusions of Law: The City concludes that the design of the project provides for adequate fire access. The proposed warehouse building has vehicle parking and maneuvering areas on all four sides from which fire apparatus can conduction firefighting operations, and at 33 feet in height, aerial apparatus access is not required per comments received by the Applicant at a pre-application conference with City staff. Finally, all driveways and vehicular drive aisles exceed 20 feet in width and can provide for fire apparatus access. 204 Page 1 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TITLE 16 SUBDIVISIONS CHAPTER 16.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS 16.04.010 Scope of regulations. The provisions of this title shall apply to all subdivisions, partitions and planned unit developments, and all streets or other ways created thereby, unless otherwise specifically provided. ***** CHAPTER 16.20 STREETS AND OTHER WAYS – DESIGN STANDARDS 16.20.010 Creation of Streets. A. Streets created by subdivisions and partitions shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the requirements of the city’s comprehensive plan, this code, the city’s public works standards, and all conditions established by the city. B. The construction of streets shall include subgrade, base, asphaltic concrete surfacing, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage, street signs, street lighting, and underground utilities. C. All streets, including the entire right-of-way necessary for the installation of the items mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall be dedicated to the city. Compliance with Standards: The proposed project will result in the construction of the connecting segment of Federal Way/Airport Road. See, Applicant’s proposed tentative plan and site plan at Exhibits 9 and 10. The necessary right-of-way will be dedicated to the City by final plat recording. The street and all appurtenant public facilities will be built to City local street specifications. Project complies. 16.20.020 Streets – Generally. The location, width, and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions as they relate to drainage and the operation of the water, sewer systems, to public convenience and safety and their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets. Where location is not shown in a development plan, the arrangement of streets in a subdivision shall either: A. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in surrounding areas; or B. Conform to the plan for the neighborhood approved or adopted by the city to meet a particular situation where topographical or other conditions make continuance or conformance to existing streets impractical. Compliance with Standards: The proposed road extension will connect Federal Way and Airport Road at Table Rock Road and will ensure appropriate circulation and connectivity for the area. Project complies. 16.20.130 Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with such standards as are adopted by the city. Sidewalk construction shall be completed on each individual lot prior to the city building inspector granting a certificate of occupancy for any construction upon said individual lot. No application for a building permit shall be granted without a requirement in the building permit for construction of sidewalks to city’s standards. Compliance with Standards: As shown on Applicant’s proposed site plan at Exhibit 10, sidewalks are proposed to be constructed along both sides of the Federal Way/Airport Road extension and will be consistent with the City standards. Project complies. 205 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 2 CHAPTER 16.24 BLOCKS AND LOTS – DESIGN STANDARDS 16.24.010 Blocks – Length, width and shape. The lengths, widths and shapes of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites suitable to the special needs of the type and use contemplated, needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and limitations and opportunities of topography. Compliance with Standards: As demonstrated on Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, the proposed parcels are of an adequate size and will provide convenient access and circulation for an industrial warehouse use and the associated stormwater facilities. Project complies. 16.24.020 Blocks – Sizes. Blocks shall not exceed twelve hundred feet in length except blocks adjacent to arterial streets or unless the previous adjacent layout or topographical conditions justify a variation. The recommended minimum distance between intersections on arterial streets is three hundred feet. Compliance with Standards: The starting points of the Federal Way/Airport Road extension are set by the existing streets that are being connected. The resulting block length between Federal Way and Table Rock Road (a Principal Arterial street) will be approximately 1,000 feet. No new intersections are proposed or required along Table Rock Road. Project complies. 16.24.030 Blocks – Easements. A. Utility Lines. Easements for electric lines or other non-city-owned public utilities may be required, and shall be a minimum of ten feet in width located on the exterior portion of a single property. Easements for city utilities (i.e., water, storm drain and sanitary sewer mains) shall be a minimum of fifteen feet in width located on the exterior portion of a single property. Tie-back easements six feet wide by twenty feet long shall be provided for utility poles along lot lines at change of direction points of easements. 1. Structures Located within a City Utility Easement. a. Except for public utilities and for signs when developed in accordance with Chapter 15.24 (Sign Code), no person shall locate, construct, or continue to locate a structure (as defined in Chapter 16.08) within a city utility easement (as defined in Chapter 16.08), except as provided in subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2) of this section. b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city may approve fencing, concrete block walls/fencing, retaining walls, and similar fencing/wall structures that are otherwise in compliance with the building code, and with the clearance provisions noted herein, over an easement subject to the following requirements: i. Said fencing or wall structures that interfere with the installation, maintenance, access, or operation of a public utility or city utility may be removed by the utility provider or the city at the sole cost of owner. ii. Any replacement or relocation of the fencing or wall structures shall be at the sole cost of the property owner or occupant. iii. Owners and occupants of property shall not be entitled to compensation for damages related to removal of the fencing or wall structures. Compliance with Standards: The necessary 10-foot public utility easements can and will be provided along the north turning to east right-of-way line of the Federal Way extension and along the west right- of-way adjacent to Parcel 2. PUEs along the south right-of-way boundary will be provided by future development of parcels to the south. No structures are proposed within any existing City utility easement areas. Project complies. 2. Grass, Asphalt, and Concrete Installed within a City Utility Easement. a. Subject to the limitations of the building code, lawful owners and occupants of property may install grass, asphalt and concrete within a city utility easement. 206 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 3 b. In the course of installing, accessing, maintaining, or operating its facilities in a city utility easement, a public utility or the city, as the case may be, may move or remove any asphalt, concrete, or vegetation located within said easement. After the same are moved or removed and after completion of the necessary work, the grass, asphalt or concrete shall be repaired and replaced in a reasonable manner at the sole cost of the public utility or city. c. Owners and occupants of property shall not be entitled to compensation related to damages to grass, asphalt, or concrete so long as the repairs and replacement are done in a reasonable manner and in a reasonable time frame. Compliance with Standards: The proposed project is likely to result in some grass, concrete and/or asphalt being installed within City utility easements, and Applicant acknowledges the City’s ability to install, access, maintain, and operate its utilities in accordance with the provisions and limitations of this subsection. B. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream, there may be required a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the purpose. Streets, parkways or access roads parallel to major watercourses may be required. Compliance with Standards: The subject property is proposed to be consolidated and partitioned into two parcels. There are no watercourses that traverse either of the proposed parcels. C. Pedestrian Ways. In any block over seven hundred fifty feet in length a pedestrian way may be required. The minimum width of the pedestrian right-of-way must be at least six feet in width which shall be hard surfaced through the block and curb to curb in order to provide easy access to schools, parks, shopping centers, mass transportation stops or other community services. If conditions require blocks longer than twelve hundred feet, two pedestrian ways may be required for combination pedestrian way and utility easement. When essential for public convenience, such ways may be required to connect to cul-de-sacs. Long blocks parallel to arterial streets may be approved without pedestrian ways if desirable in the interests of traffic safety. Compliance with Standards: The subject property is located within an industrial zone in which a pedestrian way through the subject property to the existing development to the north (Costco and FedEx) and south (zoned M-1, currently developed with residential) is unnecessary and impractical given the types of uses in the area. Sidewalks exist along Table Rock Road, Hamrick Way, and Federal Way, and will be constructed along the subject property’s frontage as part of the Federal Way/Airport Road extension. These sidewalks will provide adequate means of pedestrian travel. 16.24.040 Lots – Uses. A. The city may, in its discretion, deny approval for the creation of any lot by any manner if the effect of such creation of lot would be to facilitate perpetuation of a nonconforming use. B. No lot shall be created unless it is in compliance with all applicable provisions of this code. Compliance with Standards: The subject property is proposed to be partitioned into two parcels, one of which will be developed as industrial warehouse and distribution center, a use which is permitted within the underlying M-1 zoning district. The two proposed parcels are in compliance with all applicable provisions of this code as outlined hereinunder, with said findings adopted as demonstrating compliance with this standard. 16.24.050 Lots – Size and determination. Lot sizes shall conform with the zoning ordinance and shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. In the case of irregular lots, the width shall be measured along the front building line. In no case shall the average depth be more than two and one-half times the width. Corner lots for residential use shall have sufficient width to permit appropriate building setback from and orientation to both streets. 207 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 4 A. In areas that cannot be connected to sewer lines, minimum lot sizes shall be sufficient to permit sewage disposal by an engineered system in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality, Jackson County environmental quality section, and public works standards. Such lot sizes shall conform to the requirements of the Jackson County environmental quality section. B. Where property is zoned and planned for business or industrial use, other widths and areas may be required, at the discretion of the city. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated. Compliance with Standards: The subject property is located within the M-1 zoning district in which there are no site area requirements except as necessary to provide for required parking, loading, and yard spaces. As demonstrated on the Applicant’s proposed tentative plan and site plan at Exhibits 9 and 10, the parcels are appropriate for the proposed industrial warehouse use and development, and their depths are less than two and one-half times the widths. Project complies. 16.24.060 Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to reduce access to primary or secondary arterial streets or streets of equivalent traffic volume, reduce access to adjacent nonresidential activities, or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least ten feet may be required along the line of lots abutting such adjacent street. There shall be no right of access across such planting screen easements. Compliance with Standards: No through lots are proposed. Access to both parcels will be from Federal Way/Airport Road. In the alternative, if the proposed Parcel 1 were to be considered a through lot, no vehicular access to Table Rock Road from the subject property is being proposed. 16.24.070 Lot side lines. The side lines of lots shall run at right angles to the street upon which the lots face, as far as practicable, or on curbed streets they shall be radial to the curve. Compliance with Standards: As demonstrated on the Applicant’s tentative plan at Exhibit 9, the proposed lot side lines for each of the proposed parcels run at right angles to the streets that each lot faces, those being Federal Way and Airport Road. Project complies. * * * * * * * * * * * * TITLE 17 ZONING CHAPTER 17.05 APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES 17.05.900 Traffic Impact Analysis. The purpose of this section of the code is to assist in determining which road authorities participate in land use decisions, and to implement Section 660-012-0045(2)(e) of the State Transportation Planning Rule that requires the city to adopt a process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities. This chapter establishes the standards for when a development proposal must be reviewed for potential traffic impacts; when a traffic impact analysis must be submitted with a development application in order to determine whether conditions are needed to minimize impacts to and protect transportation facilities; what must be in a traffic impact analysis; and who is qualified to prepare the study. A. When a Traffic Impact Analysis Is Required. The city shall require a traffic impact analysis (TIA) as part of an application for development, a change in use, or a change in access in the following situations: ***** 208 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 5 2. If the application does not include residential development, a TIA shall be required when a land use application involves one or more of the following actions: a. A change in zoning or a plan amendment designation; b. Any proposed development or land use action that a road authority, including the city, Jackson County or ODOT, states may have operational or safety concerns along its facility(ies); c. An increase in site traffic volume generation by two hundred fifty average daily trips (ADT) or more; d. An increase in peak hour volume of a particular movement to and from the state highway by twenty percent or more; e. An increase in use of adjacent streets by vehicles exceeding twenty thousand pounds gross vehicle weight by ten vehicles or more per day; f. The location of the access driveway does not meet minimum sight distance requirements, as determined by the city engineer, or is located where vehicles entering or leaving the property are restricted, or such vehicles queue or hesitate on the state highway, creating a safety hazard in the discretion of the community development director; or g. A change in internal traffic patterns that, in the discretion of the community development director, may cause safety problems, such as backup onto a street or greater potential for traffic accidents. B. Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation. A traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a traffic engineer or civil engineer licensed to practice in the state of Oregon with special training and experience in traffic engineering. The TIA shall be prepared in accordance with the public works department’s document entitled “Traffic Impact Analysis.” If the road authority is the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), consult ODOT’s regional development review planner and OAR 734-051-180. Compliance with Standards: Applicant’s traffic engineer has provided a traffic impact analysis consistent with City requirements and guidance from Jackson County Roads and City of Central Point Public Works. See, Applicant’s Exhibit 14. CHAPTER 17.48 M-1, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 17.48.020 Permitted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted in an M-1 district, subject to the limitations imposed in Section 17.48.030: A. Warehousing; B. Storage and wholesaling of prepared or packaged merchandise; ***** 17.48.030 Standards for permitted uses. All uses within the M-1 district shall be subject to the following conditions and standards: A. All raw materials, finished products, machinery and equipment, with the exception of automobiles and trucks normally used in the business, shall be stored within an entirely enclosed building or sight-obscuring, nonpierced fence not less than six feet in height; B. The facility shall be in compliance with all applicable state and federal environmental, health and safety regulations; C. In any M-1 district directly across a street from any residential (R) district, all outdoor parking, loading or display areas shall be set back at least ten feet from the public right-of-way and this setback area shall be planted with trees appropriate for the neighborhood, ground cover or other landscaping materials that are consistent with the general existing character of the area, or that will establish a landscape theme for other developments to follow. This setback and landscaping requirement shall also apply to M-1 lots fronting on any street designated in the comprehensive plan as a major arterial. Compliance with Standards: The proposed use for the subject property is a warehouse and distribution facility, which is a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district. All materials and products, 209 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 6 with the exception of automobiles and trucks associated with the use, will be stored indoors. The facility will be operated in accordance with all applicable state and federal environmental, health and safety regulations, and there are no residential districts located adjacent to the subject property. Project can and will comply. 17.48.050 Height regulations. Maximum height of any building or structure in an M-1 district shall be sixty feet. Compliance with Standards: The proposed warehouse building will be approximately 33 feet in height at the highest point of the building parapet. Project complies. 17.48.060 Site area requirements. There are no minimum site area requirements in the M-1 district, except as necessary to provide for required parking, loading and yard spaces. Compliance with Standards: As demonstrated on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, the subject property has adequate space to provide for the required parking, loading and yard spaces. Project complies. 17.48.070 Yard requirements. The following measurements indicate minimum yard requirements in an M-1 district: A. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty feet. (Also see Section 17.48.030(C)). B. Side Yard. The side yard shall be a minimum of ten feet except when the side lot line is abutting a lot in any residential (R) district and then the side yard shall be a minimum of twenty feet and shall be increased by one-half foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds twenty feet. C. Rear Yard. The rear yard shall be a minimum of ten feet except when the rear lot line is abutting a lot in any residential (R) district and then the rear yard shall be a minimum of twenty feet and shall be increased by one-half foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds twenty feet. D. Lot Coverage. No requirements. Compliance with Standards: As shown on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, the “front” of the proposed warehouse building will be setback approximately 290 feet from the Table Rock Road right-of-way line, and approximately the same distance from the west property boundary, and therefore exceeds both the minimum front and rear yard requirements. From the interior side yard property line (north), the building will be setback approximately 350 feet, and from the street side yard property line (south) the building will be setback approximately 90 feet and thus the project complies with all minimum yard requirements for the M-1 district. 17.48.080 Signs. Signs within the M-1 district shall be limited to the following: A. 1. Permitted signs shall contain not more than one hundred square feet of surface area on any one side, or an aggregate of two hundred square feet of surface on all sides which can be utilized for display purposes; 2. Lighted signs shall be indirectly illuminated and nonflashing; 3. Identification signs shall be permitted within any required setback areas provided it does not extend into or overhang any parking area, sidewalk or other public right-of-way; 4. Signs located within vision clearance areas at intersections of streets shall conform to Section 17.60.110. 210 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 7 B. Signs advertising the property “for rent” or “for sale” shall not exceed four square feet of area on any one side and one such sign shall be permitted for each street frontage. C. Signs in the M-1 district shall be permitted and designed according to provisions of Chapter 15.24. Compliance with Standards: No signage is proposed as part of the subject applications. Applicant acknowledges these sign standards and any necessary permits for signage will be obtained from the City when new signs are proposed. 17.48.090 Off-street parking. All uses in an M-1 district shall provide off-street parking and loading facilities as required by Chapter 17.64, except when located within a special district organized to provide common public parking areas. Compliance with Standards: The proposed use meets the required off-street parking and loading facility requirements as outlined herein below. CHAPTER 17.64 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING 17.64.030 Off-street loading. A. In all districts for each use for which a building is to be erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal the minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, there shall be provided off-street loading space in accordance with the standards set forth in Table 17.64.01, Off-Street Loading Requirements. B. A loading berth shall not be less than ten feet wide, thirty-five feet long and have a height clearance of twelve feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading and unloading exceed these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be increased. C. If loading space has been provided in connection with an existing use or is added to an existing use, the loading space shall not be eliminated if elimination would result in less space than is required to adequately meet the needs of the use. D. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of this title shall not be counted as required loading spaces and shall not be used for loading and unloading operations, except during periods of the day when not required to meet parking needs. E. In no case shall any portion of a street or alley be counted as a part of the required parking or loading space, and such spaces shall be designed and located as to avoid undue interference with the public use of streets or alleys. Compliance with Standards: The proposed industrial warehouse use will be located within a new building of approximately 87,750 square feet that requires a minimum of 6 loading berths per Table 17.64.01. As depicted on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, there are 26 loading berths located at the west end of the warehouse, which exceeds the minimum requirement. Project complies. 211 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 8 17.64.040 Off-street parking requirements. All uses shall comply with the number of off-street parking requirements identified in Table 17.64.02A, Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements, and Table 17.64.02B, Non-Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements. For residential uses, the off-street parking requirements are stated in terms of the minimum off-street parking required. For non-residential uses, the off-street parking requirements are presented in terms of both minimum and maximum off-street parking required. The number of off-street parking spaces in Table 17.64.02B, Non-Residential Off-Street Parking, may be reduced in accordance with subsection B of this section, Adjustments to Non-Residential Off-Street Vehicle Parking. The requirement for any use not specifically listed shall be determined by the community development director on the basis of requirements for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created by similar uses in the city and elsewhere, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate to the establishment of a minimum requirement. ***** B. Adjustments to Non-Residential Off-Street Vehicle Parking. The off-street parking requirements in Table 17.64.02B, Non-Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements, may be reduced, or increased in any commercial (C) or industrial (M) district as follows: 1. Reductions. The maximum off-street parking requirements may be reduced by no more than twenty percent. 2. Increases. The off-street parking requirements may be increased based on a parking demand analysis prepared by the applicant as part of the site plan and architectural review process. The parking demand analysis shall demonstrate and documents justification for the proposed increase. Compliance with Standards: The proposed warehouse use will occupy a new building of approximately 87,750 square feet, which would require 88 parking spaces under the gross floor area alternative in Table 17.64.02B for the warehouse use. The proposed use also includes distribution, and therefore, requires additional parking for the distribution aspect of the use which is not accounted for in the City’s off-street parking ratio tables. The proposed site plan provides 170 parking spaces for employee use to the south and east of the of the warehouse, and as outlined in the parking demand memo at Applicant’s Exhibit 12, the 170 proposed spaces is a reasonable number given the fact that the warehouse use also includes the distribution of products once they are received at the warehouse and to allow for seasonal fluctuations in needed employees. C. Accessible Parking Requirements. Where parking is provided accessory to a building, accessible parking shall be provided, constructed, striped, signed and maintained as required by ORS 447.233, and Section 1106 of the latest Oregon Structural Specialty Code as set forth in this section. 1. The minimum number of accessible parking spaces shall be provided for all uses in accordance with the standards in Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Minimum Number of Accessible Parking Spaces. Accessible parking spaces shall be counted toward meeting off-street parking requirements in Tables 17.64.02A and 17.64.02B, Residential and Non- 212 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 9 Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements. The accessible parking requirements are minimum requirements and are not subject to reductions per subsection (B)(1) of this section. Compliance with Standards: As shown on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, there are six accessible parking spaces provided at the east end of the new warehouse building, which meets the minimum number of spaces required under ORS 447.233 for parking lots with 151 to 200 parking spaces. All accessible parking spaces can and will be constructed, striped, signed and maintained as required herein. Project complies. ***** I. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 17.64.04, Bicycle Parking Requirements. Compliance with Standards: The proposed warehouse building is approximately 87,750 square feet and thus requires 9 bicycle parking spaces under Table 17.64.04. As shown on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, the required bicycle parking is proposed to be provided near the main entrance on the east elevation. Project complies. CHAPTER 17.72 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17.72.040 Site plan and architectural standards. In approving, conditionally approving, or denying any site plan and architectural review application, the approving authority shall base its decision on compliance with the following standards: A. Applicable site plan, landscaping, and architectural design standards as set forth in Chapter 17.75, Design and Development Standards; B. City of Central Point Department of Public Works Department Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction; C. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus. Compliance with Standards: As outlined below, the proposed warehouse development project meets the applicable design and development standards in Chapter 17.75, and both can and will meet the Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, as well as being accessible for firefighting apparatus and operations. Project complies. CHAPTER 17.75 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 17.75.031 General connectivity, circulation and access standards. The purpose of this section is to assure that the connectivity and transportation policies of the city’s Transportation System Plan are implemented. In achieving the objective of maintaining and enhancing the city’s small town environment it is the city’s goal to base its development pattern on a general circulation grid using a walkable block system. Blocks may be comprised of public/private street right-of-way, or accessways. 213 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 10 A. Streets and Utilities. The public street and utility standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction shall apply to all development within the city. B. Block Standards. The following block standards apply to all development: 1. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-of-way, or outside edges of accessways, or other acknowledged block boundary as described in subsection (B)(4) of this section. 2. Block lengths shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets or pedestrian accessways, measured along street right-of-way, or the pedestrian accessway. Block dimensions are measured from right-of-way to right-of-way along street frontages. A block’s perimeter is the sum of all sides. 3. Accessways or private/retail streets may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section, provided they are designed in accordance with this section and are open to the public at all times. 4. The standards for block perimeters and lengths may be modified to the minimum extent necessary based on written findings that compliance with the standards are not reasonably practicable or appropriate due to: a. Topographic constraints; b. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or accessways; c. Major public facilities abutting the property such as railroads and freeways; d. Traffic safety concerns; e. Functional and operational needs to create large commercial building(s); or f. Protection of significant natural resources. Compliance with Standards: The subject property is located at the south end of a partially developed block that contains a Costco Warehouse and gas station, and a FedEx Ground distribution facility. The proposed warehouse development will complete the development of this block by connecting Federal Way to Airport Road at its intersection with Table Rock Road. The width (east-west) of the existing and the future completed block is approximately 1,000 feet, and the existing length (north-south) of approximately 1,200 feet will be extended by approximately 675 feet with the construction of the proposed project and Federal Way/Airport Road street connection. This will result in block lengths and a perimeter that exceeds the maximums in Section 17.75.031. There are no existing through streets or accessways between the Costco Warehouse and FedEx properties, and there are none included in the proposed warehouse development for the following reasons: • With respect to 17.75.031(B)(4)(b), the existing development patterns on the abutting properties (i.e., the FedEx warehouse building and the Costco gas station facilities) preclude the creation of any additional through north-south streets and/or accessways that would shorten the block lengths this direction. The proposed use will be located within this block (two warehouse/distribution facilities and a large warehouse retailer with gas station) are such that direct street connections between and through the properties are not necessary as the uses do not create a synergy that would generate a need for general vehicular travel between the sites. • With respect to 17.75.031(B)(4)(c and d), the proposed warehouse development will construct the extension of Federal Way to connect with Airport Road at Table Rock Road, which will provide the logical and safest means of vehicular circulation for the area. Moreover, Table 214 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 11 Rock Road is a principal arterial that is one of the largest and most heavily travelled north-south routes in Jackson County; accordingly Jackson County does not want additional access and connections to Table Rock Road where they are not necessary. Additionally, the proposed project will result in a complete sidewalk system around the entire perimeter of the subject block, which will provide for safe pedestrian travel between the sites. • With respect to 17.75.031(B)(4)(e), the proposed warehouse and distribution facility is occupying the entire site from north to south. This large 87ksf commercial building’s functional and operational needs preclude construction of an additional street east-west that would shorten the block lengths. Given these observations, modifications to the standards for block perimeters and lengths can thus be found to be appropriate. C. Driveway and Property Access Standards. Vehicular access to properties shall be located and constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 320.10.30, Driveway and Property Access. Compliance with Standards: As shown on the Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10, vehicular access to the proposed warehouse development will be directly from the new segment of Federal Way/Airport Road that will be constructed as part of the project. All driveways/access points can and will be constructed to the specified City standards. Project complies. D. Pedestrian Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel shall be provided through the public sidewalk system, and where necessary supplemented through the use of pedestrian accessways as required to accomplish the following: 1. Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and building entrances; 2. Bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets, heavy vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design; 3. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians; 4. Connecting parking areas and destinations with retail streets or pedestrian accessways identified through use of distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separation, or landscaping. Compliance with Standards: The proposed warehouse development will include construction of the final segments of Federal Way and Airport Road. When built, pedestrian travel will be available via sidewalks around the entirety of the completed block that will be formed by the subject project and the Costco Warehouse and FedEx properties to the north. There are no existing pedestrian connections between the Costco and FedEx properties and none are proposed as part of the subject warehouse development as it can be found that the uses are not anticipated to have interrelated pedestrian activity areas. E. Accessways, Pedestrian. Pedestrian accessways may be used to meet the block requirements of subsection B of this section. When used pedestrian accessways shall be developed as illustrated in Figure 17.75.01. All landscaped areas next to pedestrian accessways shall be maintained, or plant materials chosen, to maintain a clear sight zone between three and eight feet from the ground level. 215 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 12 Compliance with Standards: As noted above under the discussion related to block lengths and perimeters, pedestrian accessways between the subject and abutting properties are impractical and unnecessary given the nature of the uses and the sizes of the properties within the subject block. ***** 17.75.039 Off-street parking design and development standards. All off-street vehicular parking spaces shall be improved to the following standards: A. Connectivity. Parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites unless as a result of any of the following such connections are not possible: 1. Topographic constraints; 2. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude a logical connection; 3. Traffic safety concerns; or 4. Protection of significant natural resources. Compliance with Standards: The lands to the north of the subject property are developed with a Costco Warehouse and gas station, and FedEx distribution facility. These properties do not have connected parking lots and the proposed new warehouse development also does not include parking lot connectivity with these adjacent sites. The FedEx parcel has perimeter fencing that prohibits pedestrian cross-access. The proposed warehouse use features a significant number of delivery vehicles that will be parked on the northern half of the subject property and the circulation pattern and volume of these vehicles makes connected parking lots a safety concern for both vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, and as noted previously above, there are no obvious practical reasons for traveling between the adjacent properties given the uses on each. Should someone want to travel between any of the three sites, there will be convenient and safe routes for both vehicular and pedestrian travel via Federal Way. B. Parking Stall Minimum Dimensions. Standard parking spaces shall conform to the following standards and the dimensions in Figure 17.75.03 and Table 17.75.02; provided, that compact parking spaces permitted in accordance with Section 17.64.040(G) shall have the following minimum dimensions: 1. Width--Shall be as provided in column B in Table 17.75.02; 2. Length--Shall reduce column C in Table 17.75.02 by no more than three feet. Compliance with Standards: The proposed parking spaces are 9 feet in width by 19 feet in length (18 feet where curbing serves as the wheel stop). Project complies. See, Applicant’s site plan at Exhibit 10. C. Access. There shall be adequate provision for ingress and egress to all parking spaces. Compliance with Standards: The employee parking areas have two-way, 24 foot wide drive aisles where there are back-to-back parking rows, and there are two points of ingress/egress to Federal Way/Airport Road. Project complies. D. Driveways. Driveway width shall be measured at the driveway’s narrowest point, including the curb cut. The design and construction of driveways shall be as set forth in the Standard Specifications and Public Works Department Standards and Specifications. 216 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 13 Compliance with Standards: As shown on the Applicant’s proposed site plan at Exhibit 10, there are five proposed driveways along the subject property’s street frontage. The two driveways serving the delivery vehicle parking/storage area are 27 feet wide while the two driveways serving the employee parking lots are 21 feet in width. The fifth driveway located at the southwest corner of the warehouse site is 47 feet in width to accommodate larger freight delivery vehicles that will be unloaded at the west end of the warehouse. The proposed driveway widths are in conformance with the Public Works Department’s uniform standards for driveways and alley approaches for commercial development (Drawing A-6A). E. Improvement of Parking Spaces. 1. When a concrete curb is used as a wheel stop, it may be placed within the parking space up to two feet from the front of a space. In such cases, the area between the wheel stop and landscaping need not be paved, provided it is maintained with appropriate ground cover, or walkway. In no event shall the placement of wheel stops reduce the minimum landscape or walkway width requirements. 2. All areas utilized for off-street parking, access and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved and striped to the standards of the city of Central Point for all-weather use and shall be adequately drained, including prevention of the flow of runoff water across sidewalks or other pedestrian areas. Required parking areas shall be designed with painted striping or other approved method of delineating the individual spaces, with the exception of lots containing single-family or two-family dwellings. 3. Parking spaces shall be designed so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way shall be necessary, except for one- and two-family dwellings with frontage on a local street per the city of Central Point street classification map. 4. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking or loading areas shall be so arranged as to direct the light away from adjacent streets or properties. 5. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right-of-way line, and a straight line joining the lines through points twenty feet from their intersection. 6. Parking spaces located along the outer boundaries of a parking lot shall be contained by a curb or a bumper rail so placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line, a public street, public sidewalk, or a required landscaping area. 7. Parking, loading, or vehicle maneuvering areas shall not be located within the front yard area or side yard area of a corner lot abutting a street in any residential (R) district, nor within any portion of a street setback area that is required to be landscaped in any commercial (C) or industrial (M) district. 8. Except as provided in subsection (E)(3) of this section, all uses, including one- and two-family dwellings on arterial and collector streets, shall provide adequate vehicle turnaround and maneuvering area through the use of aisle extensions and/or turnaround spaces as illustrated in Figure 17.75.04 and 17.75.05. Functionally equivalent turnaround and maneuvering designs may be permitted by the approving authority through the site plan and architectural review process. Compliance with Standards: As evidenced on the site plan at Applicant’s Exhibit 10, wheel stops are not proposed to be used within the parking spaces, and all other parking space improvement standards can and will be met. F. Limitation on Use of Parking Areas. Required parking areas shall be used exclusively for vehicle parking in conjunction with a permitted use and shall not be reduced or encroached upon in any manner. The parking facilities shall be so designed and maintained as not to constitute a nuisance at any time, and shall be used in such a manner that no hazard to persons or property, or unreasonable impediment to traffic, will result. 217 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 14 Compliance with Standards: The proposed use is for an industrial warehouse and distribution facility which is permitted in the M-1 district, and these limitations on the use of parking areas are acknowledged and will be complied with. G. Parking/Loading Facility Landscaping and Screening. Parking lot landscaping shall be used to reinforce pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including parking lot entries, pedestrian accessways, and parking aisles. To achieve this objective the following minimum standards shall apply; however, additional landscaping may be recommended during the site plan and architectural review process (Chapter 17.72). All parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the following standards: 1. Perimeter and Street Frontage Landscaping Requirements. The perimeter and street frontage for all parking facilities shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in Table 17.75.03. Compliance with Standards: The subject property will have approximately 1,200 feet of frontage on Federal Way/Airport Road (Standard Local Street), and approximately 540 feet of frontage on Table Rock Road (Principal Arterial). Pursuant to Table 17.75.03, this equates to street frontage landscaping requirements of 36 trees and 180 shrubs along the Federal Way/Airport Road frontage, and 22 trees and 108 shrubs along the Table Rock Road frontage. As shown on the landscape plans at Applicant’s Exhibits 10, a 10 to 15 foot wide planter area will be installed behind the sidewalk on the Federal Way/Airport Road street frontage, and a 15 foot wide planter will be installed behind the sidewalk along the Table Rock Road frontage. The subject property also has approximately 970 feet of shared property line with the two light industrial properties to the north (FedEx Ground and Costco), and a 10 foot wide planter is proposed along this shared property boundary. Pursuant to Table 17.75.03, this shared boundary planter will require a minimum of nineteen trees and 97 shrubs. The preliminary landscape plans demonstrate that the shared property boundary and both street frontage landscape planter areas can accommodate and will have the required numbers of trees and shrubs. Final landscape plan can be conditioned to comply with all applicable requirements. 2. Terminal and Interior Islands. For parking lots in excess of ten spaces all rows of parking spaces must provide terminal a minimum of six feet in width to protect parked vehicles, provide visibility, confine traffic to aisles and driveways, and provide a minimum of five feet of space for landscaping. In addition, when ten or more vehicles would be parked side-by-side in an abutting configuration, interior landscaped islands a minimum of eight feet wide must be located within the parking row. For parking lots greater than fifty parking spaces, the location of interior landscape island shall be allowed to be consolidated for planting of large stands of trees to break up the scale of the parking lot. The number of trees required in the interior landscape area shall be dependent upon the location of the parking lot in relation to the building and public right-of-way: a. Where the parking lot is located between the building and the public right-of-way, one tree for every four spaces; 218 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 15 b. Where the parking lot is located to the side of the building and partially abuts the public right-of-way, one tree for every six spaces; c. Where the parking lot is located behind the building and is not visible from the public right-of-way, one tree for every eight spaces. Compliance with Standards: The proposed employee parking lots contain a total of 170 spaces which require a minimum of 43 trees within the employee parking lot landscape areas. The Applicant’s preliminary landscape plans at Exhibit 10 demonstrate that the minimum number of required trees within the parking lot landscape areas can and will be met. There are no parking rows containing 10 or more vehicle spaces side-by-side, and with terminal landscape planters having 8 feet or more of space for landscaping, the proposed plan exceeds the minimum standard. In addition, there are numerous additional landscape planters throughout the parking lot that will further break up the scale of the parking lots. The proposed site plan also includes a large vehicle storage lot on the north half of the warehouse site, which is also proposed to be landscaped although it is not required within vehicle storage areas. This area has wide planters spread throughout that will contain numerous trees and shrubs. Project complies. 3. Bioswales. The use of bioswales within parking lots is encouraged and may be located within landscape areas subject to site plan and architectural review. The tree planting standards may be reduced in areas dedicated to bioswales subject to site plan and architectural review. Compliance with Standards: All stormwater from the proposed warehouse development will be detained in two dry ponds on both sides of the driveway near the southwest corner of the site. Bioswales are not proposed within the parking lots. If final engineering determines additional storm drainage detention is required, there is additional room for storm drainage detention on the proposed Parcel 2. H. Bicycle Parking. The amount of bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 17.64.040 and constructed in accordance with the following standards: 1. Location of Bicycle Parking. Required bicycle parking facilities shall be located on-site in well lighted, secure locations Bicycle parking may also be provided inside a building in suitable, secure and accessible locations. Bicycle parking for multiple uses (such as in a commercial center) may be clustered in one or several locations. 2. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. All bicycle parking and maneuvering areas shall be constructed to the following minimum design standards: a. Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as a motor vehicle parking area or with a minimum of a three-inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers or similar material). This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable and well-drained condition. b. Parking Space Dimension Standard. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least six feet long and two feet wide with minimum overhead clearance of seven feet. c. Lighting. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. d. Aisles. A five-foot aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking. e. Signs. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible from the public rights-of-way, entry and directional signs shall be provided to direct bicycles from the public rights-of-way to the bicycle parking facility. 219 APPLICANT’S EXHIBIT 3 Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Development Standards Tentative Plan & Site Plan and Architectural Review Applicant: BH DevCo, LLC Page 16 Compliance with Standards: The proposed warehouse use requires 9 bicycle parking spaces as previously outlined under the standards for Section 17.64.040. These spaces will be provided near the northwest corner of the warehouse building as shown on the site plan at Exhibit 10. 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT November 21, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Project Murphy Partition (PAR-22001) 2 Parcel Partition at 3791 Table Rock Road (37S 2W 12 B, Tax Lot 800, 900 & 902) Agent: Steve Backman Traffic: A Traffic Impact Analysis is not required for a partition. There is a separate application for Site Plan & Architectural Review (SPAR-22006) to construct an 87,750 square foot warehouse and ground distribution facility on Proposed Parcel 1 (“Land Development Application”). A specific traffic-related analysis has been completed for the Land Development Application. The results influence the required lane configuration at the intersection of Airport and Table Rock Road. Existing Infrastructure: Water: There is an 8-inch water line in Federal way. Streets: Federal Way is a standard industrial street. Stormwater: There are existing storm facilities in Federal Way. Background: The land division application is a tentative partition to consolidate existing lots comprising the site and to partition the consolidated lot into two parcels. Issues: The main issue with the partition is the development and extension of Federal Way/Airport Drive. The applicant shall complete the extension to Table Rock Road, including a revised three-lane configuration to match the existing movements to the East of that intersection. The applicant will also be required to extend public infrastructure to service both parcels, including water and stormwater. Conditions of Approval: Prior to permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1. Federal Way/Airport Drive Extension. a. Civil Improvement Plan Review - The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans to Public Works for the extension of Federal Way to the existing intersection of Airport/Table Rock Road. The plans shall provide utilize the Industrial Street Standard (ST-40) and provide a three lane configuration at the Airport/Table Rocks intersection including a dedicated left turn lane to match existing improvements to the east. Public Works Department Matt Samitore, Director 284 b. Jackson County Roads Permits. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from Jackson County Roads before construction of any road improvements. 2. Water Utility Extension – The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans to the Public Works Department to extend the existing 8-inch waterline in Federal Way to serve the proposed parcels. The water system will need to be looped as part of the Land Development Plan for Proposed Parcel 1. 3. Stormwater Management. a. NPDES Stormwater Management Plan - The applicant shall submit to Public Works for review and approval a stormwater management plan in accordance with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which requires stormwater quantity and quality treatment of all proposed impervious surfaces proposed as part of the partition. b. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans for stormwater infrastructure construction, including but not limited to storm drain lines, detention facilities and the proposed outfall on Proposed Parcel 2. c. Erosion and Sediment Control – Construction of required improvements will disturb more than one acre. The applicant shall obtain an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C) from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and provide a copy to the Public Works Department. Prior to the Public Works Final Inspection and Final Plat, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval: 1. Improvement Completion - The applicant shall fully build all improvements associated with extending the street, waterlines and public stormwater facilities and private utilities before the final plat is approved or must enter into a Development Agreement and Bond for the improvements in accordance with CPMC 16.12.070(A). 2. PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure construction is in compliance with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction. 3. Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance– The Applicant shall record an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for all new stormwater quality features and provide a copy of the Public Works Department's recorded document. 4. Public Utility Easements – The proposed partition plat shall include public utility easements paralleling the proposed Federal Way Airport Road extension. 285 286 287 November 14, 2022 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: SPAR 22006 & PAR‐22001, 3791 Table Rock Road, Map 37 2w 12B, Tax Lot 800, 900 & 902 There is an existing 8 inch sewer north of the property on Federal Way and an existing 8 inch to the east along Table Rock Road. Sewer service for the proposed development can be had via a sewer main extension as generally shown on the submitted site plan. Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit sewer construction plans to RVSS for review and approval. 2. The applicant must submit architectural plumbing plans to RVSS for the calculation of SDC fees associated with sewer connection permits. 3. The applicant must obtain sewer connection permits from RVSS and pay all related fees. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas R Bakke, PE District Engineer 288 289 SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 290 Staff Report Project Murphy Site Plan & Architectural Review File No. SPAR-22006 November 29, 2022 Item Summary Consideration of a Site Plan & Architectural Review application to develop an 87,750 square foot warehouse and ground distribution facility. The 13.5 acre site is located on Proposed Parcel 1 in a Tentative Partition (PAR-22001), which is located at 3791 Table Rock Road and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 12B, Tax Lots 800, 900 and 902. The project site is within the M-1, Industrial zone. Applicant/Agent: BH DevCo (Steve Backman); File No: SPAR -22006. Staff Source Stephanie Holtey, Planning Director Background The applicant is requesting Site Plan & Architectural Review approval to develop a warehouse and ground distribution facility. The 13.5 acre project site is located on Parcel 1 in a tentative plan to be considered by the Planning Commission concurrent with this application on December 6, 2022 (File No. PAR-22001). Project Description: The proposed development includes construction of an 87,750 square foot industrial warehouse, box truck parking and loading area, as well as the ground distribution fleet storage, queuing and loading areas (Attachment A-1”). The proposed use is permitted in the M-1 zoning district. The parking, loading and fleet storage areas are separated uses that have individual access from Federal Way and Airport Road, both local industrial streets. No access is proposed on Table Rock Road, a County arterial. In total, there are five (5) access driveways to the site. These have been reviewed by Public Works and found to comply with the access spacing standards on local streets. The landscape plan provides street frontage, parking lot perimeter and interior landscaping throughout the development. There are two dry detention basins proposed on the project site and another one off-site on Parcel 2 west of Federal Way proposed to treat stormwater run-off in accordance with the City’s stormwater management requirements. Architecturally, the warehouse is a single-story concrete tilt-up structure with parapet walls to conceal rooftop equipment (Attachment “A-6”). The primary façade and main building entrance face Table Rock Road to the east. This façade provides 560 square feet of window and door 291 area and an elongated fabric awning to identify the building entrance. The other wall faces are designed for functional uses, including loading and emergency egress points. The proposed building is consistent with all applicable development standards for the M-1 zone. Issues There are three (3) issues relative to this project: 1. Parking Plan. There are three components to the Applicant’s parking plan: employee/visitor parking, box truck parking and loading, and fleet parking. The box truck parking and loading exceeds the minimum loading spaces required. Fleet storage parking is commensurate with the number of fleet vehicles associated with the use. However, the employee and visitor parking plan provides 170 spaces, which exceeds the maximum number of parking spaces allowed (1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse area or 87 spaces). Comment: The Applicant provided a Parking Demand Analysis dated November 10, 2022 that supplements the Parking Demand Analysis in the Applicant’s Findings. The analysis utilizes data from other facilities operated by the same company at three locations. The analysis shows that the parking demand ratio for this use ranges from approximately 1 space per 450 to 700 square feet. 2. Landscape Materials. The proposed landscaping plan includes installation of eleven (11) arborvitae trees adjacent to the proposed structure in three (3) locations. Arborvitae are highly flammable plants (Attachment “A-3”). Comment: Given the local wildfires that have occurred in the City’s urban area within the past few years, the City and Fire District #3 discourage use of these plants to minimize risk of structural damage and life/safety concerns. Staff recommends condition No. 2(c) requiring submittal of revised Landscape Plan utilizing a more fire resistant landscape material. 3. Construction Timing. According to the Applicant’s Findings (Attachment “B”), it’s their intent to expedite the proposed site development by entering into a development agreement and bonding for infrastructure improvements associated with the tentative plan. This provides flexibility to obtain building permits and start building construction prior to completion of public improvements typically required before final plat approval. Comment: The Municipal Code in Section 16.12.070 allows applicants to enter into a development agreement and post a surety bond for all required improvements. This provides flexibility in construction timing in exchange for legal and financial assurance the public facilities and services will be coordinated with growth in the project area. Staff recommends Condition No. 1 requiring compliance with all conditions of approval set forth in the Public Works Staff Report dated November 21, 2022 (Attachment “C”), the Jackson County Roads letter dated November 15, 2022 (Attachment “D”) and the Rogue Valley Sewer Services letter dated November 14, 2022 (“E”). Recommended 292 condition No. 2 requires the Applicant to provide all documentation for to Planning prior to issuance of any building permits to assure that conditions are being met throughout the development process. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law The Project Murphy Site Plan and Architectural Review at 3791 Table Rock Road has been evaluated against the applicable Criteria set forth CPMC 17.48, 17.64, and 17.72 and found to comply as conditioned and as evidenced in the Applicant’s Findings of Fact (Attachment “B”). Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval set forth in the Public Works Staff Report dated November 21, 2022 (Attachment “C”). 2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department: a. A revised Tentative Plan showing the location of Public Utility Easements as required by Public Works; b. A copy of the recorded final plat or a fully executed development agreement and surety bond per CPMC 16.12.070. The development agreement shall set forth the timing of all infrastructure and stormwater quality improvements. c. A revised landscape plan replacing the eleven (11) Arborvitae plants with a more fire resistant tree or shrub. 3. Prior to Public Works Final Inspection and Certificate of Occupancy for the warehouse, the Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of the development agreement and submit a copy of the recorded plat as required in CPMC 16.12. 4. The Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall expire after one (1) year in accordance with CPMC 17.72.070 unless a timely written request is received and an extension is granted. Attachments Attachment “A-1” – Site Plan & Architectural Review Cover Sheet Attachment “A-2” – Site Plan Attachment “A-3” – Landscape Plan (Includes Sheets L.00 through L.51) Attachment “A-4” – Irrigation Plan (Includes Sheets L2.00 through L2.51) Attachment “A-5” – Photometrics Plan (Includes Sheets E1.00 through E1.70) Attachment “A-6) – Building Elevations Attachment “B” – Applicant’s Findings Attachment “C” – Public Works Department Staff Report, dated 11/21/2022 Attachment “D” – Jackson County Roads Letter dated 11/15/2022 293 Attachment “E” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Letter dated 11/14/2022 Attachment “F” – Resolution No. 899 (Draft to be provided at the 12/6/2022 meeting) Action Consider the proposed Project Murphy Site Plan and Architectural Review application and 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application. Recommendation Approve the Project Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the Project Murphy at 3791 Table Rock Road per the Staff Report dated November 29, 2022 including all attachments thereto herein incorporated by reference. Recommended Motion I move to approve Resolution No. 899 authorizing development of an 87,750 square foot warehouse and ground distribution facility at 3791 Table Rock Road per the Staff Report dated November 29, 2022. 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT November 21, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: Project Murphy Partition (PAR-22001) 2 Parcel Partition at 3791 Table Rock Road (37S 2W 12 B, Tax Lot 800, 900 & 902) Agent: Steve Backman Traffic: A Traffic Impact Analysis is not required for a partition. There is a separate application for Site Plan & Architectural Review (SPAR-22006) to construct an 87,750 square foot warehouse and ground distribution facility on Proposed Parcel 1 (“Land Development Application”). A specific traffic-related analysis has been completed for the Land Development Application. The results influence the required lane configuration at the intersection of Airport and Table Rock Road. Existing Infrastructure: Water: There is an 8-inch water line in Federal way. Streets: Federal Way is a standard industrial street. Stormwater: There are existing storm facilities in Federal Way. Background: The land division application is a tentative partition to consolidate existing lots comprising the site and to partition the consolidated lot into two parcels. Issues: The main issue with the partition is the development and extension of Federal Way/Airport Drive. The applicant shall complete the extension to Table Rock Road, including a revised three-lane configuration to match the existing movements to the East of that intersection. The applicant will also be required to extend public infrastructure to service both parcels, including water and stormwater. Conditions of Approval: Prior to permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1. Federal Way/Airport Drive Extension. a. Civil Improvement Plan Review - The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans to Public Works for the extension of Federal Way to the existing intersection of Airport/Table Rock Road. The plans shall provide utilize the Industrial Street Standard (ST-40) and provide a three lane configuration at the Airport/Table Rocks intersection including a dedicated left turn lane to match existing improvements to the east. Public Works Department Matt Samitore, Director 325 b. Jackson County Roads Permits. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from Jackson County Roads before construction of any road improvements. 2. Water Utility Extension – The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans to the Public Works Department to extend the existing 8-inch waterline in Federal Way to serve the proposed parcels. The water system will need to be looped as part of the Land Development Plan for Proposed Parcel 1. 3. Stormwater Management. a. NPDES Stormwater Management Plan - The applicant shall submit to Public Works for review and approval a stormwater management plan in accordance with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which requires stormwater quantity and quality treatment of all proposed impervious surfaces proposed as part of the partition. b. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans for stormwater infrastructure construction, including but not limited to storm drain lines, detention facilities and the proposed outfall on Proposed Parcel 2. c. Erosion and Sediment Control – Construction of required improvements will disturb more than one acre. The applicant shall obtain an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C) from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and provide a copy to the Public Works Department. Prior to the Public Works Final Inspection and Final Plat, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval: 1. Improvement Completion - The applicant shall fully build all improvements associated with extending the street, waterlines and public stormwater facilities and private utilities before the final plat is approved or must enter into a Development Agreement and Bond for the improvements in accordance with CPMC 16.12.070(A). 2. PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure construction is in compliance with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction. 3. Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance– The Applicant shall record an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for all new stormwater quality features and provide a copy of the Public Works Department's recorded document. 4. Public Utility Easements – The proposed partition plat shall include public utility easements paralleling the proposed Federal Way Airport Road extension. 326 327 328 November 14, 2022 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: SPAR 22006 & PAR‐22001, 3791 Table Rock Road, Map 37 2w 12B, Tax Lot 800, 900 & 902 There is an existing 8 inch sewer north of the property on Federal Way and an existing 8 inch to the east along Table Rock Road. Sewer service for the proposed development can be had via a sewer main extension as generally shown on the submitted site plan. Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit sewer construction plans to RVSS for review and approval. 2. The applicant must submit architectural plumbing plans to RVSS for the calculation of SDC fees associated with sewer connection permits. 3. The applicant must obtain sewer connection permits from RVSS and pay all related fees. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nicholas R Bakke, PE District Engineer 329 HORN CREEK FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 330 Staff Report Horn Creek Culvert Removal & No-Rise Certification File No. FP-22001 December 6, 2022 Item Summary Consideration of a floodplain development application to complete improvements in Horn Creek to establish a natural channel and improve flows in the creek by eliminating a culvert at risk of failure. The improvements are within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and regulatory floodway for Horn Creek. Applicant: City of Central Point; Agent: RH2 Engineering Staff Source Justin Gindlesperger, CFM, Community Planner II Background There are seven (7) streams that flow through the City of Central Point. Horn Creek is a small tributary to Jackson Creek located in the southwestern portion of the City. There is a 100-ft section of Horn Creek that flows through a private culvert (Attachment “A”). The City recently learned that the culvert is at risk of failure and will increase flood risk to surrounding property owners. At this time, the City is helping explore options to address this recently identified flood risk. One potential solution is to plug the culvert and establish a channel connection via an existing bypass channel immediately west of the culvert. To accomplish this, work will need to be done within a regulatory floodway and floodplain for Horn Creek. As a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the City requires that floodplain development activities be evaluated and permitted to minimize flood damages, promote safety and protect environmental resources. In accordance with CPMC 8.24.090, the Floodplain Development permit is subject to Type III (quasi-judicial) procedures set forth in CPMC 17.05.400. In rendering a decision on the application, the Planning Commission must consider the criteria in CPMC 8.24.200 relative to floodway development. At the June 7, 2022 meeting, staff will provide a presentation on the application and its conformance with the applicable criteria needed to restore the stream channel conditions. Project Description: The project is within the SFHA and regulatory floodway of Horn Creek and proposes to establish a natural creek channel in an existing bypass channel within the banks of the creek and abandon the existing culvert. The culvert will remain in place, but will be plugged on both ends to prevent flows from entering. Work within the channel includes widening the areas at the north and south ends of the culvert to establish a riparian bench, preventing standing water in low flow conditions and sizing the channel to provide capacity in high flow scenarios. 331 In accordance with CPMC 8.24.200(A), a No-Rise certification is required to evaluate the existing flood conditions before a project and the proposed flood conditions following the completion of the project. According to the No-Rise documentation, the elimination of the culvert and establishing a natural channel within Horn Creek improves flows within the channel resulting in a decrease in flood elevations and provides fish passage through the project area, where the culvert and a diversion weir currently prevent passage (Attachment “B”). Since construction of the project does not result in an increase to flood elevations, the documentation is consistent with the City’s no-rise standard. Issues There are no issues related to this application. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law The proposed floodplain development within Horn Creek has been evaluated against the applicable Flood Damage Prevention Criteria set forth in CPMC 8.24 and found to comply as evidenced in the Applicant’s No-Rise documentation (Attachment “B”) and the Planning Department’s Supplemental Findings (Attachment “C”). Conditions of Approval No conditions of approval are recommended. Attachments Attachment “A” – Floodplain Development Project Location Map Attachment “B” – No-Rise Analysis (Note: Appendices are included in the record and available for review upon request) Attachment “C” – Planning Division Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Attachment “D” – Floodplain Development Application, dated 04/07/2022 Attachment “E” – Resolution No. 900 Action Open a public hearing and consider the proposed Floodplain Development application and 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application. Recommendation Approve Resolution No. 900, approving the floodplain development application to construct improvements within the regulatory floodway for Horn Creek. 332 Attachment “A” 333 334 335 336 337 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No.: FP-22001 Consideration of a Floodplain Development Permit to re-establish the natural channel of Horn Creek Applicant: ) Findings of Fact City of Central Point ) and Parks & Public Works Department ) Conclusion of Law 140 S. 3rd Street ) Central Point, OR 97502 ) PART 1 INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes improvements within Horn Creek in order to establish a natural channel that improves flows in the creek and creates fish passage in low flow conditions by diverting flows into an existing bypass chanel and abandoning an existing culvert that is exhibiting signs of potential failure. The floodplain development permit is processed using Type III application procedures. Type III procedures set forth in Section 17.05.400 provides the basis for decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate. The project site is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and floodway of Horn Creek. The standards and criteria for the proposal are set forth in CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention. The following findings address each of the standards and criteria as applies to the proposed application for improvements within the regulatory floodway of Horn Creek. PART 2 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Section 8.24.200 Development in Regulatory Floodways. Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 8.24.070 are areas designated as regulatory floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters, which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, development will not normally be allowed within the floodway except when it can be demonstrated the following provisions are satisfied: A. Except as provided in subsections E and F of this section, encroachments including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by an Oregon registered professional civil engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that such encroachment shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; Finding 8.24.200(A): The applicant submitted a No Rise Certification as part of the application, certified by an Oregon registered professional civil engineer. Analysis of the proposed improvements examined the existing condtions in the project area compared to potential changes in flows and flood heights following the 338 completion of the proposed improvements. The analysis is consistent with FEMA guidance1 and demonstrates the project does not result in any increase to flood levels. Conclusion 8.24.200(A): Consistent. B. Provided that the conditions in subsection A of this section are met, the following additional provisions shall apply: 1. Floodplain development construction standards provided in Sections 8.24.250 and 8.24.260 are met; 2. Any fill allowed to be placed in the floodway shall be designed to be stable under conditions of flooding, including rapid rise and rapid drawdown of floodwaters, prolonged inundation, and flood-related erosion and scour; 3. No manufactured dwelling shall be placed in a floodway except in an existing mobile home park or an existing mobile home subdivision, as conditionally approved by the local administrator or designee in consideration of the conditions of Section 8.24.250(H); Finding 8.24.200(B): The project proposes to establish a natural creek channel in an existing bypass within the banks of Horn Creek and abandon an existing culvert. The culvert will remain in place, but will be plugged on both ends to prevent flows from entering. Work within the channel includes widening the areas at the north and south ends of the culvert to establish a riparian bench, preventing standing water in low flow conditions and sizing the channel to provide capacity in high flow scenarios. The project does not include structures, manufactured dwellings, utilities, tanks, fences or other development as defined in Sections 8.24.250 and 8.24.260. Conclusion 8.24.200(B): Not applicable. C. The following activities are prohibited in the regulatory floodway: 1. Fences and walls as provided in Sections 8.24.260(A)(1) and 17.57.030; and 2. Accessory structures as provided in Section 8.24.250(J); Finding 8.24.200(C): As noted above the project proposes to establish a natural channel in an existing bypass and to abandon an existing culvert. The project does not include fences, walls or accessory structures within the floodway. Conclustion 8.24.200(C): Not applicable. D. In limited circumstances encroachments associated with functionally dependent uses (i.e., bridges, roads, culverts); historic structure reconstruction, restoration and rehabilitation; and stream restoration projects as provided in subsection F of this section and Section 8.24.270(B)(2)(f), that cause an increase to the BFE are allowed; provided, that the applicant demonstrate that no other alternative is available. In such circumstances, applicants shall obtain a CLOMR from FEMA before an encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and other development in the floodway, is permitted that will cause any increase in the BFE, unless the development causes a temporary encroachment and conditions 1 FEMA, 2013. Procedures for “No-Rise” Certification for Proposed Developments in the Regulatory Floodway. Letter Report Prepared by FEMA Region X, Bothell, WA. October. 339 in subsection E of this section and the floodplain development construction standards provided in Sections 8.24.250 and 8.24.260 are satisfied; Finding 8.24.200(D): The elimination of the culvert and establishing a natural channel within Horn Creek improves flows within the channel and provides fish passage through the project area, including low flow conditions that were obstructed by the culvert and a diversion weir. As noted above, the applicantion includes a No Rise Certification comparing existing conditions to potential changes in flows and flood heights following the proposed changes. The analysis demonstrates the proposed project does not aggravate flood conditions, resulting in a measurable decrease to the base flood elevations along Horn Creek. Conclusion 8.24.200(D): Consistent. E. Temporary encroachments in the regulatory floodway for the purposes of capital improvement projects, including bridges and culverts, may be permitted if the encroachment results in an increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; provided, that a conditional letter of map revisions (CLOMR) is applied for and approved by the Federal Insurance Administrator, and the requirements for such revision as established under Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.12 are fulfilled. Temporary encroachments shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this chapter and may be permitted when: 1. The project is limited as to duration with the days and dates that the structure or other development will be in the regulatory floodway, as specified in the floodplain development permit; 2. Accessory structures (i.e., construction trailers) are restricted from the regulatory floodway; 3. The project limits placement of equipment and material in the regulatory floodway to that which is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the project. Justification that demonstrates compliance with this requirement will be documented by the applicant in the required floodplain development permit application submittal documentation; 4. The applicant identifies any insurable structures affected by temporary changes to the area of special flood hazard or BFE and notifies owners of any increased risk of flooding. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this provision shall be provided to the city as part of the floodplain development application; and 5. The project applicant is provided with written notification that they may be liable for any flood damages resulting from the temporary encroachment; Finding 8.24.200(E): The proposed project is not a temporary encroachment into the floodway for a capital improvement project. Furthermore, the No Rise Certification demonstrates the project does not result in an increase to the base flood elevation or aggravate flood conditions. Conclusion 8.24.200(E): Not applicable. F. Projects for stream habitat restoration may be permitted in the floodway, provided: 1. The project qualifies for a Department of the Army, Portland District Regional General Permit for Stream Habitat Restoration (NWP-2007-1023); 2. The project does not result in a potential rise in the flood elevation; 340 3. A conditional letter of map revisions (CLOMR) is applied for and approved by the Federal Insurance Administrator for any rise in the base flood levels, and the requirements for such revision as established under Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.12 are fulfilled; and 4. An agreement to monitor the project, correct problems and ensure that flood carrying capacity remains unchanged is included as part of the local floodplain development approval. Finding 8.24.200(F): By establishing a natural channel, bypassing the existing culvert and eliminating small structural barriers, the project will enhance fish passage along this reach of Horn Creek. As part of documentation and permitting, the applicant submitted a General Permit for stream habitat restoration from the Department of the Army. As noted above, the project does not result in an increase to base flood elevations nor aggravate flood conditions. Therefore, a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) is not required. Through the drainage channel maintenance program, in accordance with CPMC 8.28, the City ensures the maximum conveyance of water and protects and enhances the natural and beneficial uses of waterways within the City. The program includes annual inspections to ensure the channels are free from obstructions, identifies areas with excessive nonnative vegetation, erosion, and bank failures, and maintains records of overall drainage and channel conditions. Conclusion 8.24.200(F): Consistent. PART 3 SUMMARY CONCLUSION As evidenced in findings and conclusions, the floodplain development permit for the proposed Horn Creek No Rise Certification is consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code as conditioned. 341 Mendolia Way City of Central Point 140 S 3rd St. Central Point, OR 97502 (541) 664-3321 matt.samitore@centralpointoregon.com RH2 Engineering 3553 Arrowhead Dr. Suite 200 Medford, OR 97504 (425) 471-8625 tduncan@rh2.com Culvert removal/channel restoration 285 CY 35 CY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tyler Duncan 04/07/2022 342 Planning Commission Resolution No. 900 (12/06/2022) RESOLUTION NO. 900 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/NO-RISE CERTIFICATE FOR CULVERT REMOVAL AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE HORN CREEK FLOODWAY (File No: FP 22001) WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Floodplain Development application and No-Rise Certification to complete improvements in the channel of Horn Creek to establish a natural channel and improve flows in the creek by eliminating an existing culvert. WHEREAS, the No-Rise Certification was prepared in accordance with FEMA’s Guidance for “No-Rise/No-Impact” Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways; and WHEREAS, the No-Rise Certification confirms that the proposed improvements will not increase the base flood elevation or floodway profiles relative to the effective FEMA mapping; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for floodplain development approval for the Horn Creek Floodplain Development Permit/No Rise Certification (the “Project”); and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by Resolution No. 900 hereby approves the Horn Creek Floodplain Development Permit/No-Rise Certification based on the Staff Report dated December 6, 2022, including attachments incorporated by reference (Exhibit “A”); and PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6th day of December, 2022 __________________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ City Representative ATTACHMENT “E” 343