ORDINANCE No. 177028 AS AMENDED

 

Adopt the Portland Transportation System Plan, amend Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and objectives, and amend Titles 16, 17 and 33. (Ordinance; amend Titles 16, 17 and 33)

 

 

The City of Portland ordains:

 

Section 1. The Council finds that:

 

General Findings

 

1.  The City of Portland adopted its Comprehensive Plan on October 16, 1980 (effective date January 1, 1981). The Plan was acknowledged as being in conformance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Upon its adoption, the Plan complied with State Goal 12: Transportation.

 

2.  In April 1991, the LCDC adopted an Administrative Rule for Goal 12 (660-012), the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which imposed additional requirements on local jurisdictions to achieve compliance with Goal 12.

 

3.  The TPR requires local jurisdictions to develop transportation system plans (TSP) to ensure that the transportation system will support travel and land use patterns that will avoid air pollution, traffic, and livability problems faced by other areas of the country. The TSP also incorporates the requirements of State Land Use Goal 11: Public Facilities and becomes the public facilities plan for transportation for the City.

 

4.  The Public Facilities Plan for the City was adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 161770 on April 5, 1989. The Public Facilities Plan for Transportation includes a list of major transportation projects intended to serve the needs of the City for the following 20 years. The TSP updates the list of transportation projects in the Public Facilities Plan.

 

5.  The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (TE) was adopted by City Council by Ordinance 165851 (effective date October 23, 1992) to update the Transportation Goal and Policies to comply, in part, with the TPR. The TE also updated and incorporated the Arterial Streets Classification Policy (ASCP), including district policies and street classification descriptions and maps into the Comprehensive Plan.

 

6.  The Central City Transportation Management Plan (CCTMP) was adopted by City Council in 1995 (effective date January 1, 1996). Its Goal, policies, and objectives and classification maps are adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The CCTMP is part of the TE and is the transportation system plan for the Central City.

 

7.  The TE was updated in 1996 and adopted by City Ordinance No. 170136 (effective date June 21, 1996). This update was Phase 1 of the City’s effort to develop a transportation system plan for the City and includes amendments to Goal 6 and its policies, street classifications, and Goals 1, 2, 7, and 11.

 

8.  On November 6, 1996, City Council adopted (Ordinance No. 170704, effective date January 1, 1997) regulations for “Interim Implementation of the Transportation Planning Rule.” This set of regulations amended Title 33 and incorporated the majority of the requirements of the TSP.

 

9.  On November 21, 1996, the Metro Council adopted the region’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). Title 2 of the UGMFP is entitled, “Regional Parking Policy.” Title 2 contains a requirement for cities and counties to establish minimum and maximum parking regulations. Title 6 of the UGMFP is entitled, “Regional Accessibility.” Title 6 imposed requirements on local jurisdictions to adopt regional street design guidelines, design standards for connectivity, and transportation performance standards.

 

10.  On October 11, 2000, City Council adopted (Ordinance No. 174980), effective date November 20, 2000) amendments to Title 33 to implement the requirements of Title 2 of the UGMFP. The adopted amendments revised minimum parking requirements and added maximum parking requirements consistent with the standards established in Title 2.

 

11.  On April 26, 2002, notice of proposed action was mailed to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in compliance with the post-acknowledgment review process required by OAR-660-020.

 

12.  The TSP supports Portland’s long term commitment to efficient land use and its commitment to encourage alternative modes of transportation and reduce auto trips.

 

13.  Citizen involvement and public outreach for the project is outlined in the findings for Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, below.

 

Statewide Planning Goals Findings

 

14.  Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires provision of opportunities for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The preparation of the TSP has provided numerous opportunities for public involvement. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 9, Citizen Involvement, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal. The amendments are supportive of this goal in the following ways:

a.)  On October 19, 1994, to initiate public involvement, a Transportation System Plan Forum was held to provide information about the TSP process and its relationship to regional planning efforts and to solicit public participation in the planning effort.

b.)  Phase 1 of the TSP process included an extensive public involvement process that commenced in 1994 with five briefings to District Neighborhood Coalition boards on October 11 (two held), 16, 18, and 26 in 1995.

c.)  A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed in early 1995 with recommendations from District Coalition boards and other groups for potential members. CAC members were selected based on: interest group representation, geographic area representation, interest in transportation issues, and familiarity with specific transportation modes. The size of the CAC varied between 10 and 16 members over the length of the TSP process, with 30 people serving on the TSP during its two phases. Over the life of the TSP process, 60 CAC meetings were held between 1995 and 2002. These meetings were open to the public and minutes were taken and made available to anyone requesting them.

d.)  Public workshops on policy and street classification changes were held on November 6, 13, 14, and 16 in 1995.

e.)  Three Planning Commission hearings were held on January 23, 1996 and March 12, 1996 to consider the staff recommendation. The notices for the public hearings were mailed to approximately 8,000 people. Notices for all the public hearings were mailed to the local neighborhood associations and other interested persons who requested such notice. The Planning Commission public hearings were also advertised in the Oregonian. The staff recommendation was available 10 days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing.

f.)  Notice of the City Council public hearing was mailed 45 days in advance of the hearing to approximately 800 people, including those who presented oral and/or written testimony at previous hearings, or were previously notified of public hearing dates.

g.)  On May 15, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Commission recommended draft.

h.)  Phase II of the TSP began immediately following adoption of Phase I on May 22, 1996. The first major event was a series of eight district workshops to discuss transportation needs on September 30, and October 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 17 in 1998.

i.)  Three TSP newsletters, mailed to the TSP mailing list and distributed at public events, were published in 1995, 1998 and 1999. The third newsletter summarized the outcome of the district workshops held the previous autumn.

j.)  In 1999, six focus groups were held on June 21 and July 13, 15, 21, 22, and 26, and on January 4, 2000, a seventh meeting was held. The purpose of the focus groups was to discuss citywide and district transportation policy changes.

k.)  In 2001, 10 Neighborhood District Coalition briefings were held on June 7, 13, 18, 19, 26, and 28, on July 11, 16, 19, and 28 and on September 18 to report progress on the TSP, including key elements that would be available for review at upcoming workshops.

l.)  During the two phases of the TSP, two brochures were printed and distributed at numerous events or mailed out upon request. The second brochure, printed in 2001 in preparation of the release of the draft TSP was mailed to citizens on the TSP mailing list, placed in district coalition offices, and distributed at public events.

m.)  Three citywide TSP Preview workshops were held on December 8, 12, and 13 in 2001 to guide participants through a series of stations that described the various elements of the TSP. Preliminary drafts of the elements were available for review and comment. Notice was mailed to approximately 2000 persons, groups, associations, and businesses.

n.)  In addition to TSP-sponsored events, information, brochures, and newsletters were available at approximately 21 events targeted at varying audiences.

o.)  Eight TSP presentations were made to groups throughout the City during Phase I and II of the TSP, including to the Oregon Trucking Association on March 14, 2002, and the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Working Group on March 25, 2002.

p.)  The draft TSP was placed on the Portland Office of Transportation web site on May 15, 2002. Previous to that date, general information on the TSP was available on the web site.

q.)  Notice of the Planning Commission hearings on June 11 and June 25, 2002, was mailed to approximately 2,600 persons and groups on May 9, 2002. The mailing included notification to the TSP mailing list, neighborhood and business associations, and the mailing list used by the Bureau of Planning for legislative projects.

15.  Goal 2, Land Use Planning, requires the development of a process and policy framework which acts as a basis for all land use decisions and assures that decisions and actions are based on an understanding of the facts relevant to the decision. The amendments are supportive of this goal because the TSP project followed the process established in the Comprehensive Plan and Title 33, including notice and the availability of documents in advance of public hearings. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 1, Metropolitan Coordination, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

16.  The TSP does not affect Goal 3, Agricultural Lands and Goal 4, Forest Lands, because these lands are not located within the City of Portland.

17.  Goal 5, Open Space, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources, requires the conservation of open space and the protection of natural and scenic resources. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the only impact on open space that TSP projects would have is to support the development of links in the Willamette Greenway Trail, the Springwater Corridor, and trails along the Columbia Slough.

The TSP is consistent with this goal because scenic and historic areas are not intended to be impacted by transportation projects listed in the TSP. Where there is a potential for impacts on these resources, further analysis will be completed as part of project design. If impacts are identified, the project will modified to avoid the impact or mitigation will be included as part of the project design.

The TSP is consistent with this goal because natural areas are not intended to be impacted by transportation projects listed in the TSP. Where there is a potential for impacts on these resources, further analysis will be completed as part of project design. The project development process, as described in Chapter 6 of the TSP, includes the evaluation of environmental impacts and the completion of necessary reviews to evaluate the impacts on environmentally-sensitive areas. If impacts are identified, the project will modified to avoid the impact or mitigation will be included as part of the project design. The projects with potential impacts on natural resources are identified in Chapter 16 in Table 16.1. These projects may be subject to further review through environmental review or greenway review.

18.  Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality, requires the maintenance and improvement of the quality of air, water and land resources. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it contains many projects that support a more compact land use pattern and encourages the use of alternatives to the automobile. Less reliance on the automobile results in lower levels of air and water pollution. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 8, Environment, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

19.  Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, requires the protection of life and property from natural disasters and hazards. The TSP is consistent with this goal because soil stability is addressed by a combination of existing and acknowledged Goal 5 regulations and building codes. TSP transportation projects must be consistent with these existing regulations. As part of the project development process, evaluation of existing conditions and application for relevant permits is made prior to construction.

20.  Goal 8, Recreational Needs, requires satisfaction of the recreational needs of both citizens and visitors to the state. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it identifies and includes projects for recreational facilities, such as the Willamette Greenway Trail, that are also recreational facilities. The TSP also identifies pedestrian and bicycle projects that connect residential areas to recreational destinations including Tryon Creek State Park, Powell Butte, and Mt. Tabor.

21.  Goal 9, Economic Development, requires provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to public health, welfare, and prosperity. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it reinforces the City’s freight network with transportation projects that will provide access to freight facilities and employment sites, including Columbia South Shore and Guild’s Lake Industrial District. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 5, Economic Development, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

22.  Goal 10, Housing, requires provision for the housing needs of citizens of the state. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it reinforces the livability of Portland’s neighborhoods by including bicycle and sidewalk projects such as the 70s Greenstreet and Bikeway, the Mill Park Pedestrian Improvements, and SW 30th Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 4, Housing, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

23.  Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, requires planning and development of timely, orderly and efficient public service facilities that serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it updates the Public Facilities Plan for Transportation by updating relevant Comprehensive Plan policy 11B: Public Rights-of-Way and completely updating the project list of significant transportation improvements. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goals 11 A through I, Public Facilities, and related policies and objectives also support this goal.

24.  Goal 12, Transportation, requires provision of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it completely updates the City’s transportation policies and meets all the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule, including balancing the needs of all users of the transportation system and strengthening each modal network through the identification of projects. Findings for the TPR follow the Statewide Planning Goal findings. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 6, Transportation, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

25.  Goal 13, Energy Conservation, requires development of a land use pattern that maximizes the conservation of energy based on sound economic principles. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it supports a balanced transportation system that encourages additional walking, bicycling, and transit trips and reduces reliance on the single-occupant vehicle. New connectivity standards will result in a street system with less out-of-direction travel. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 7, Energy, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

26.  Goal 14, Urbanization, requires provision of an orderly and efficient transition of rural lands to urban use. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it supports the itensification of development in Portland, by providing a multimodal transportation system. The TSP supports the regional urban growth boundary by improving mobility and accessibility inside the urbanized areas, and consequently reducing the potential need for conversion of rural lands to urban uses. New connectivity standards will increase the efficiency of the street system and support infill development. Portland Comprehensive Plan findings on Goal 2, Urban Development, and its related policies and objectives also support this goal.

27.  Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway, requires the protection, conservation, enhancement, and maintenance of the natural, scenic, historic, agricultural, economic, and recreational qualities of land along the Willamette River. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it includes transportation projects that enhance the recreational quality of the Greenway such as an extension of the Greenway Trail from the Sellwood Bridge south to the City boundary and the Greenway Trail through the North Macadam district.

28.  Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 deal with Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelines, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources, respectively, and are not applicable to Portland as none of these resources are present within the city limits.

Transportation Planning Rule Findings

 

29.  Section 660-012-0000, the Purpose, of the TPR is to promote the development of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems. The purpose of the rule is to reduce reliance on the automobile so that the air pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced by urban areas in other parts of the country might be avoided. The TSP is supportive of the purpose (660-012-0000) because it contains policies, projects, and strategies to reduce reliance on automobiles including improving the pedestrian and bicycle networks, managing the system to manage congestion and improving transit speeds and reliability.

 

30.  Section 660-012-0020(1), Coordinated Network of Transportation Facilities, of the TPR requires TSPs to establish a coordinated network of transportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional and local transportation needs. The TSP complies with this requirement because it incorporates transportation improvements on the state, regional and local networks for all modes.

 

31.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(a), Determination of Transportation Needs, of the TPR requires TSPs to include a determination of transportation needs as provided in 660-012-0030. The TSP fulfills this requirement as demonstrated in the findings below for 660-012-0030 of the TPR.

 

32.  Section 660-012-0030(1)(a), Determination of Transportation Needs, of the TPR requires TSPs to identify state, regional and local transportation needs relevant to the planning area and the scale of the transportation network being planned. Transportation needs are based on projections of future travel demand as modified by policy objectives, including those in Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the TPR, especially those for avoiding principal reliance on any one mode of transportation. The TSP meets this requirement because it incorporates the state and regional needs identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Local needs are identified in Chapter 10 of the TSP and summarized in the modal and management plans in Chapter 5. Needs were identified in adopted land use and transportation plans, through a series of district workshops, and by examining relevant transportation data such as the 1996 TSP Inventory, summarized in Chapter 9 of the TSP.

 

33.  Section 660-012-0030, Determination of Transportation Needs (1)(b), of the TPR requires TSPs to identify the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. The TSP meets this requirement because it identifies areas in the City not well-served by transit in its 1996 Inventory, and the findings of recent transit studies and plans including the Tri-County Elderly and Disabled Transportation Plan.

 

34.  Section 660-012-0030, Determination of Transportation Needs (1)(c), of the TPR requires TSPs to identify the needs for movement of goods and services to support industrial and commercial development. The TSP meets this requirement because the Freight and the Air, Rail, Water, and Pipeline modal plans in Chapter 5 summarize the needs for these modes. Chapter 10 of the TSP identifies, citywide and by transportation district, the needs for goods movement including the outcomes of recent transportation studies such as the Columbia Transportation Corridor Study, the Central Eastside Development Opportunity Study, and the St Johns Truck Strategy which are also detailed in Chapter 12. Chapter 9 summarizes the 1996 TSP Inventory including elements of the freight movement system that need upgrading.

 

35.  Section 660-012-0030, Determination of Transportation Needs (3)(a), of the TPR requires TSPs to use 20-year population and employment forecasts in determining state, regional, and local needs. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it relied on the 20-year forecasts contained in the regional transportation model.

 

36.  Section 660-012-0030, Determination of Transportation Needs (3)(b), of the TPR requires TSPs to include, as part of their determination of needs, measures to reduce reliance on the automobile. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the regional transportation scenario upon which the TSP is based includes measures such as parking costs, transit availability, and transportation management associations in large centers to reduce reliance on the automobile.

 

37.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(b), Road Plan, of the TPR requires an inventory, assessment of capacity, and conditions for the street system. The TSP meets this requirement because it includes the 1996 TSP Inventory. The inventory includes the status and condition of streets, structures such as bridges, signs and signals, lighting, parking meters, traffic calming devices, pavement condition, and number of lanes and lane widths. The TSP relied on the regional transportation model for an assessment of street capacity and on other data such as traffic counts and accident information.

 

38.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(b-c), Road Plan, of the TPR requires a map and description of planned facilities/services/improvements and a description of the responsible provider. The TSP meets this requirement because Chapter 3 includes maps and project descriptions for major transportation improvements. Included in the chapter are state, regional, and local street improvements in Portland as identified in the RTP and based on local needs not identified in the RTP.

 

39.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(b), Road Plan, of the TPR requires a plan that includes a system of arterials and collectors and standards for the layout of local streets and other important non-collector street connections. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Chapter 2, Maps 6.34.1 through 6.40.1 and Map 2.1 are the Motor Vehicle classification maps for the City. The maps include Regional Trafficways, Major City Traffic Streets, District Collectors, Neighborhood Collectors, Traffic Access Streets and Local Service Traffic Streets. The TSP includes Policy 6.20, Connectivity, and Policy 11.11, Street Plans, that establish the spacing standards for new streets. Connectivity standards for lands that are being divided have been incorporated into Title 33, Planning and Zoning, through the Land Division Update Project (Ordinance 175965, effective July 1, 2002). The TSP includes amendments to Title 17 that give the City Engineer authority to implement the street spacing standards in all residential, commercial, and employment zones within the City. Policy 11.11, Objectives F. through N. and their associated maps 11.11.1 through 11.11.16 are street plans showing where street connectivity is met and where new street and pedestrian/bicycle connections are needed.

 

40.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(a), Public Transportation Plan, of the TPR requires an inventory and assessment of public transportation services including services for the transportation disadvantaged. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it includes the 1996 TSP Inventory which includes (and is summarized in Chapter 9), the existing transit network; transit centers, stops, and park-and-rides; the fleet; frequency, ridership, and loading; special transit services; location of unserved or underserved populations; and intercity bus and rail services.

 

41.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(c), Public Transportation Plan, of the TPR requires a plan for public transportation that includes existing and planned transit streets, terminals, major transit stops, and park-and-ride stations. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Chapter 2, Maps 6.34.2 through 6.40.2 and Map 2.2 are the Public Transportation Maps for the City. The maps include Regional Transitways, Major Transit Priority Streets, Transit Access Streets, Community Transit Streets, Local Service Transit Streets, Transit Stations, Passenger Intermodal Facilities, and Intercity Passenger Rail lines. Policy 6.6, Transit Street Classification Descriptions, contain stop spacing guidance rather than specific major transit stop locations. For purposes of orienting development to major transit stops, Portland requires orientation along the entire length of transit streets rather than only at major transit stops. The Portland approach exceeds the TPR requirements consistent with Section 660-012-0005(4) of the TPR.

 

42.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(b-c), Public Transportation Plan, of the TPR requires a map and description of planned facilities/services/improvements and a description of the responsible provider. The TSP meets this requirement because Chapter 3 includes maps and project descriptions for major transportation improvements. Listed in the chapter are state, regional, and local public transportation improvements in Portland as identified in the RTP and based on local needs not included in the RTP. The Public Transportation and Transportation Disadvantaged Plan in Chapter 5 identifies other land use and transportation strategies to improve public transportation in Portland. Some of these strategies, such as encouraging compact development that supports and improves access to public transportation are implemented through land use regulations rather than the TSP. Recent studies that have implemented these land use strategies are summarized in Chapter 12, Area Studies.

 

43.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(a), Bicycle Plan, of the TPR requires an inventory and assessment of bicycle facilities. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it includes the 1996 TSP Inventory which describes (and is summarized in Chapter 9) the miles of existing and planned bikeways, the width of the facilities, their condition and surface, and the responsible jurisdiction. The Bicycle Master Plan (adopted in 1996) identified all of the projects needed to address the parts of the bicycle system not completed. The TSP project list in Chapter 3 and the Neighborhood Livability and Safety reference list in Appendix E.2 include all of the bicycle projects not yet completed.

 

44.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(d), Bicycle Plan, of the TPR requires a plan for a network of bicycle routes throughout the planning area. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it incorporates and updates the policy and project sections of the Bicycle Master Plan that was completed and adopted in May 1996. The City classifies bicycle streets as City Bikeways, Off-Street Paths, or Local Service Bikeways as described in Chapter 2, Policy 6.7. In Chapter 2, Map 6.34.3 through Map 6.40.3 and Map 2.3 show the bicycle network for the City.

 

45.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(b-c), Pedestrian Plan, of the TPR requires a map and description of planned facilities/services/improvements and a description of the responsible provider. The TSP meets this requirement because Chapter 3 includes maps and project descriptions for major pedestrian improvements. Listed in the chapter are state, regional, and local pedestrian improvements in Portland as identified in the RTP and based on local needs not included in the RTP.

 

46.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(a), Pedestrian Plan, of the TPR requires an inventory and assessment of pedestrian facilities. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it includes the 1996 TSP Inventory (summarized in Chapter 9), which describes the location and condition of sidewalks and curb ramps and parties responsible for maintenance of the facilities. The sidewalk inventory is broken out by miles of sidewalk per transportation district and percentage of streets with and without sidewalks. The Pedestrian Master Plan (adopted in 1998) identified the projects needed to complete the pedestrian system as identified by the community during the development of the plan. The TSP project list in Chapter 3 and the Neighborhood Livability and Safety reference list in Appendix E.2 include all of the pedestrian projects not yet completed. Sidewalks are also completed in conjunction with adjacent development or through the local improvement district process.

 

47.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(d), Pedestrian Plan, of the TPR requires a plan for a network of pedestrian routes throughout the planning area. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it incorporates and updates the policy and project sections of the Pedestrian Master Plan that was completed and adopted in April 1998. The City classifies Pedestrian Districts and pedestrian streets as City Walkways, Off-Street Paths, or Local Service Walkways as described in Chapter 2, Policy 6.7. In Chapter 2, Map 6.34.4 through Map 6.40.4 and Map 2.4 show the pedestrian network for the City.

 

48.  Section 660-012-0020(3)(b-c), Bicycle Plan, of the TPR requires a map and description of planned facilities/services/improvements and a description of the responsible provider. The TSP meets this requirement because Chapter 3 includes maps and project descriptions for major pedestrian improvements. Listed in the chapter are state, regional, and local pedestrian improvements in Portland as identified in the RTP and based on local needs not included in the RTP.

 

49.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(e); Air, Rail, Water, and Pipeline Transportation Plan, of the TPR requires TSPs to identify where major facilities are located or planned within the planning area. The TSP meets this requirement because the TSP Inventory includes maps and text describing these facilities including airports, mainline facilities, major freight facilities (marine terminals, rail facilities, airports, reload facilities, truck terminals, distribution facilities, carriers, and freight forwarder and custom brokers), and pipelines. The air and rail facilities are shown on the Transit Maps 6.34.2 through 6.40.2 and on the Freight Maps 6.34.5 through 6.40.5.

 

50.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(f), Transportation System Management, of the TPR requires TSPs to address travel demand with measures which may include traffic signal improvements, traffic control devices, channelization, access management, ramp metering, and restriping for HOV lanes. The TSP is supportive of this policy because it includes Policy 6.15, Transportation System Management which calls for giving preference to transportation improvements that use existing roadway capacity efficiently and improve the safety of the system. Objective B supports using measures including synchronizing signals. Policy 6.16, Access Management, supports using access management in situations where needed to ensure the safe and efficient operation of higher-speed, heavily traveled streets. Chapter 5 includes the Transportation System Management plan that includes projects, programs, and strategies to make the system more efficient and safer without capacity increases. As detailed in Chapter 3 the projects include citywide transit signal priority improvements and Map 3.10 and the accompanying text describe intelligent transportation system (ITS) projects along major corridors and at congested locations.

 

51.  Section 660-012-0020(2)(f), Demand Management, and Section 660-012-0020(2)(g), Parking Plan, requires a plan that includes measures such as those that encourage the use of alternative modes, ridesharing and vanpool programs, and trip-reduction ordinances, reduce parking spaces per capita, and minimum and maximum parking ratios. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 6.29, Travel Management supports demand management programs and measures, including developing neighborhood-based programs, customizing alterntaive transportation programs for businesses in employment areas and regional centers, supporting car sharing programs. Policy 6.27, Off-Street Parking, supports regulating parking to promote good urban form by eliminating off-street parking requirements in areas with high-quality transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities; redeveloping parking lots into transit-supportive uses; and limiting new parking. The Transportation Demand Management Plan in Chapter 5 summarizes the programs and strategies, including support for transportation management associations. In 1996, the City adopted minimum and maximum parking ratios consistent with Metro standards in Title 2 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP). Chapter 6 includes additional Title 33 amendments that eliminate off-street parking in areas well-served by transit.

 

52.  Section 660-012-0025(2), Complying with Statewide Goals, of the TPR requires findings of compliance with applicable statewide planning goals. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because statewide planning goal findings are included in earlier sections in these findings that demonstrate compliance.

 

53.  Section 660-012-0025(2), Complying with Comprehensive Plan, of the TPR requires findings of compliance with applicable acknowledged comprehensive plan policies. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the findings of compliance with Portland’s Comprehensive Plan are contained in later sections of these findings that demonstrate compliance.

 

54.  Section 660-012-0035(1), Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives, of the TPR requires that TSPs evaluate the following as components of system alternatives: improvements to existing facilities, new facilities, TSM measures, TDM measures, and a no-build system. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it relied on the 2000 RTP evaluation of alternatives – the no-build system, the priority system, and the preferred system. Each alternative had a combination of projects that included these components. Chapter 13 summarizes the regional approach to developing system alternatives that the City’s TSP relied on.

 

55.  Section 660-012-0035(2), Evaluation and Selection of Transportation System Alternatives, of the TPR requires local governments in large MPO areas to evaluate alternative land use designations, densities, and design standards to meet local and regional transportation needs and consider increasing residential densities and establishing minimum densities, increasing commercial densities in designated community centers, designating land for shopping development near residential areas, and balancing land uses for housing and jobs. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it relied on the adopted 2040 Growth Concept for the land use alternatives called for in this section. In developing the 2040 Growth Concept, Metro, in coordination with local jurisdictions, directed growth to compact centers and along main streets. The City has refined the Growth Concept through more recent land use studies including the Outer Southeast Community Plan, the Southwest Community Plan, and the Hollywood/Sandy Plan, resulting in increased residential and commercial densities in the Gateway regional center, Lents town center, Hillsdale town center, Hollywood town center and the Sandy main street. The results are areas zoned and developing as mixed use neighborhoods with neighborhood shopping and in close proximity to employment areas in the City. Sites within the City have been rezoned and developed for affordable housing projects near employment areas of the City, including the Johns Wood project in north Portland. Chapter 13 summarizes the regional approach to developing land use alternatives that resulted in the 2040 Growth Concept and the local plans that have refined the Growth Concept since its adoption.

56.  Section 660-012-035(3)(a), Appropriate Transportation Facilities and Services, of the TPR requires that TSPs include types and levels of transportation facilities and services appropriate to serve the land uses identified in the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the projects listed in Chapter 3 are based on needs that respond to the Comprehensive Plan Map. Analysis in the RTP and TSP are based on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map.

 

57.  Section 660-012-035(3)(b), Air and Water Quality, of the TPR requires that the transportation system is consistent with state and federal standards for protecting air, land, and water quality. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it conforms to the 2000 RTP and both the Financially Constrained System and the 2020 Priority System have been found to conform to federal air quality requirements. The TSP is consistent with the Portland Comprehensive Plan, which is acknowledged as complying with water resource requirements. In the TSP Ecomonic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis, potential impacts on Goal 5, 7, and 15 resources have been identified. Projects that will potentially impact these resources will need to be further evaluated before proceeding with project development.

 

58.  Section 660-012-035(3)(c), Economic, Social, Energy, and Environment Impacts, of the TPR requires TSPs to minimize adverse economic, social, environmental and energy consequences. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because several policies and objectives and its 20-year list of projects carry out the goals of the City to support economic development through improving access and mobility for employees and the movement of goods. A well-designed and maintained transportation system as defined by the TSP, supports commercial development in centers and along main streets, employment and industrial areas of the City, and the movement of goods in, out, and through the region.

 

The TSP is consistent with this requirement because its 20-year list of projects carry out the goals of the City to support the social well-being of the community by providing increased accessibility to destinations such as jobs, shopping, schools, and recreation by a variety of means. TSP projects such as boulevard treatments and Greenstreets enhance the pedestrian realm and increase opportunities for personal interaction. Other TSP projects such as intelligent transportation system (ITS) improvements, intersection improvements, and upgrading of facilities improve the social environment of the community by reducing or eliminating safety hazards.

 

The TSP is consistent with this requirement because new policies and objectives support the City’s goals for environmental protection. New policies and objectives address the environmental consequences of transportation choices (Policy 6.3, Objective F), the protection of natural vegetation and topography on certain streets (Policy 6.11, Objective G), meeting the City’s sustainability goals in environmentally-responsible ways (Policy 11.8), using environmentally-safe products in transportation activities (Policy 11.8, Objective D), minimizing runoff and erosion in ground-disturbing transportation projects (Policy 6.11, Objective E), reusing and recycling materials and composting leaves (Policy 6.11, Objective B), maintaining equipment to minimize air, water, and noise pollution (Policy 6.11, Objective C), using best management practices to address environmental impacts of maintenance activities (Policy 11.12, Objective C). In project selection criteria, the TSP emphasizes environmental protection (Policy 11.9, Objective G) and in designing and developing projects, it requires incorporating sustainable design solutions (Policy 11.8, Objective G) and minimizing impacts on the natural environment (Policy 11.10, Objective O). Projects on the 20-year list that have potential impacts on the environment must be reviewed for ESEE impacts as a part of project development and have appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into their design. The list of the projects that will need ESEE review is included in Chapter 16 in Table 16.1. Many TSP projects support the environmental goals of the City by encouraging walking, bicycling, and using transit and thereby reducing the growth in automobile trips and the air and water pollution associated with the automobile. Projects with potential impacts on protected environmental resources are subject to further evaluation through the environmental or greenway land use reviews.

 

The TSP is consistent with this requirement because new policies and objectives support energy conservation by encouraging walking, bicycling, and using transit as alternatives to the automobile. These policies and objectives are: Policy 6.3, Transportation Education and Objectives C, D, and E; Policy 6.22, Pedestrian Transportation, and its objectives; Policy 6.23, Bicycle Transportation, and its objectives; Policy 6.24, Public Transportation, and Objectives A, D, E, F, and H; Policy 6.28, Travel Management, its objectives; Policy 6.33, Congestion Pricing, and Objective B, and Policy 11.8 Environmental Sustainability in Transportation, Objective F. The 20-year list of TSP projects implements these policies and objectives by including numerous projects that support walking, bicycling, and taking transit such as new bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, and transit-preferential treatments along transit corridors.

 

59.  Section 660-012-035(3)(d), Minimization of Conflicts, of the TPR requires TSPs to minimize conflicts and facilitate connections between modes of transportation. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because, in its development the needs for each mode was examined and connections among modes were inventoried and included on the appropriate classification map in Chapter 2. Where needed, transportation improvements were identified in Chapter 3 to support multimodal travel and the improved functioning of multimodal transfer points.

 

60.  Section 660-012-0035(3)(e), Reduce Reliance on the Automobile, of the TPR requires TSPs to avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation and reduce principal reliance on the automobile. This is to be accomplished by selecting a transportation alternative that achieves the required reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because transportation improvements were selected that support alternatives to the automobile and limit improvements to support the automobile except where needed to support freight movement.

 

61.  Section 660-012-0035(4), Reduce VMT per Capita, of the TPR requires TSPs to achieve a 10 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita within 20 years of adoption of the TSP. The RTP shows a reduction in VMT per capita of 9 percent for residential production trips, 8 percent for employment attraction trips, and an increase in 1 percent for employment production trips. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because, in addition to the transportation improvements included in the RTP, the TSP includes many additional improvements for alternative modes and is undertaking initiatives in the St Johns, Lents, and Hollywood town centers, the Gateway regional center and the Central City that will encourage additional walking, bicycling, and transit trips. Chapter 15 includes benchmarks for reducing VMT per capita that show a 10 percent reduction over the next 20 years is achievable for Portland.

 

62.  Section 660-012-0045(5), Alternative Standards, of the TPR, allows LCDC to authorize an alternative standard in place of the VMT reduction. The RTP uses an alternative to the VMT reduction that identifies parking management measures, transportation demand management (TDM) programs, and additional transit service as the types of actions that are most effective in increasing the non-single occupant vehicle (SOV) mode share. Their primary alternative is the modal targets for 2040 Growth Concept design types. The TSP incorporates these modal targets in Chapter 16, System Performance, Table 15.6. The TSP also incorporates, through its project list and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Modal Plan, the regional projects to reduce automobile trips including transportation management associations for the Lloyd and North Macadam districts in the Central City, the Gateway regional center, the Swan Island industrial area, and the Columbia Corridor industrial/employment area and frequent bus improvements in major transit corridors. Other transportation demand management measures that are implemented through programs identified in the TDM and Parking Modal Plan include, expanded fareless square areas or free shuttles for centers, neighborhood-based programs, and parking meter districts outside of the Central City. Parking management is accomplished by having maximum parking ratios throughout the City for all non-residential uses. In large areas of the City – Central City and Gateway – there are no parking minimums further reducing the demand for parking. While providing additional transit service is a Tri-Met and regional funding responsibility, the TSP supports increased transit service through including projects on the 20-year list such as frequent bus service on major transit corridors, extending light rail to Vancouver and street car to North Macadam, TMAs, access to transit, and transit stop improvements.

 

63.  Section 660-012-0045(6), Measurable Objectives, of the TPR, requires regional TSPs to include measurable objectives for mode share for non-automobile trips, average automobile occupancy, and a trip lengths. The non-SOV mode share by 2040 design type from the RTP is incorporated into the TSP in Chapter 16, System Performance. The RTP proposes that the average vehicle occupancy and trip measures be optional because travel data indicate that they are not the most appropriate measures for evaluating TSP performance. The TSP includes auto occupancy as a performance measure but does not set benchmarks for the same reasons cited in the RTP. The projected auto-occupancy for 2020 remains nearly constant from the 1994 data. Trip length is best calculated on a regional basis rather than a smaller subregional level. Data for Portland would be skewed because of the large number of trips that come to the Central City from throughout the region and beyond. Performance measures that the TSP does include relating to reducing vehicle miles traveled are: 1) percentage of City bikeway network competed; 2) percentage of City blocks meeting connectivity standards; 3) number of employees participating in TMAs; and 4) percentage of City Walkway and Pedestrian District streets with completed sidewalks.

 

64.  Section 660-012-0035(7), Interim Benchmarks, of the TPR requires TSPs to include interim benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress towards meeting the requirements of 660-0012-035 at five-year intervals over the 20-year life of the plan. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Chapter 15 supplies baseline data and benchmarks for increasing non- SOV mode split and reducing VMT per capita. In addition, the TSP will track performance in a number of other areas, but does not create benchmarks for them. These other performance measures are: average auto occupancy, miles of bikeway network completed, unmet pavement need in miles, percentage of funding from general funds versus non-general fund monies, truck delay in hours, travel time in ITS corridors, percentage of streets with completed sidewalks, culvert replacement, blocks meeting street connectivity, traffic safety, and TMA enrollment.

 

65.  Section 660-012-0040(1) and (2)(a-c), Transportation Financing Program, of the TPR requires TSPs to include a financing program that lists planned transportation facilities and major improvements, an estimate of timing, and rough cost estimates. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Chapter 3 includes descriptions of the major transportation system improvements for the next 20 years by district, including a general estimate of timing and rough cost estimates.

 

66.  Section 660-012-0040(2)(d), Transportation Financing Program, of the TPR requires TSPs to include policies to guide selection of transportation facility and improvement projects for funding in the short-term to meet the standards and benchmarks of 660-012-0035(4-6). The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 11.9, Project Selection, and its nine objectives in Chapter 2 require giving priority to transportation projects that contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled per capita; promote a compact urban form through mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly development; and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use.

 

67.  Section 660-012-0040(3), Transportation Financing Program, of the TPR requires TSPs to include in the transportation financing program a discussion of the facility provider’s existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of the identified transportation improvements. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Chapter 14 describes state, regional and local funding for transportation mechanisms and the ability of identified and new resources to fund the system. The financial program identifies three scenarios and the levels of funding necessary for each.

 

68.  Section 660-012-0045(1)(c), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires regulations that provide for consolidated review of land use decisions required to permit a transportation project. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Section 720.040, Concurrent Reviews, provides for a consolidated land use review process for all land use applications. This includes transportation projects that require a land use review including public rights-of-way in the greenway, environmental, and scenic resource overlay zones, whether the project involves creating new rights-of-way or expanding or vacating rights-of-way.

 

69.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(a), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include measures that control access, such as driveway and road spacing, median control, and signal spacing standards consistent with the functional classification of streets. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 6.16, Access Management, provides the policy basis for access management and amends Title 17, Chapter 28, which controls the location and width of driveways. The TSP incorporates and amends Title 17, Chapter 88, Street Access, which controls the location and spacing of streets.

 

70.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(b), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include standards to protect operation of roads, transitways and major transit corridors. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the City Engineer has authority through Title 17 to permit or not permit changes to City rights-of-way. The TSP policies in Chapter 2 provide guidance in determining which streets must be protected as traffic and transitways.

 

71.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(c), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to protect public use airports by controlling land uses within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces, and by limiting physical hazards to air navigation. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it includes in the Air, Rail, Water and Pipeline Modal Plan a discussion of the Title 33 regulations that protect Portland International Airport. These regulations are Chapter 33.470, the Portland International Airport Noise Impact zone, which limits uses within the 65 and 68 Ldn noise contours. The City’s Comprehensive Plan Map limits or prohibits residential uses within these noise contours by zoning the areas with zones that do not allow residential development. Limited residential development consistent with the regulations in 33.470 must include recorded noise disclosure statements and noise easements granted to the Port of Portland (Section 33.470.050). Title 33, Chapter 33.400, Aircraft Landing zone limits the height of structures within the imaginary surfaces. Adjustments to the Aircraft Landing zone limits can only be granted with the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Port of Portland.

 

72.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(d), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include a process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting transportation facilities, corridors or sites. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Section 720.040, Concurrent Reviews, provides for a consolidated land use review process for all land use applications.

 

73.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(e), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include a process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize impacts and protect transportation facilities, corridors or sites. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Section 800.070, Conditions of Approval, allow the City to attach conditions to the approval of all discretionary reviews.

 

74.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(f), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to provide notice to public agencies providing transportation facilities and services, to Metro, and to ODOT. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the Office of Planning and Development Review provides notice to affected transportation agencies of land use and land division applications including those within airport noise corridors and imaginary surfaces which affect airport operations. Tri-Met and ODOT are notified of all land use reviews and are provided an opportunity to respond.

 

75.  Section 660-012-0045(2)(g), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include measures to insure that amendments to land use designations, densities, and design standards are consistent with the functions, capacities, and levels-of-service of facilities identified in the TSP. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Chapters 33.810, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments; 33.815, Conditional Uses; 33.820, Conditional Use Master Plans; 33.835, Goal, Policy, and Regulation Amendments; 33.850, State Planning Goal Exceptions; and 33.855, Zoning Map Amendments, require land use applications that could impact streets to be consistent with their function, capacity, level of service or other performance measures.

 

76.  Section 660-012-0045(3)(a), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to require bicycle parking facilities as part of new multifamily residential development of four units or more, new retail, office and institutional developments, and all transit transfer stations and park-and-ride lots. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because in 1996 amendments to Title 33, Chapter 266, Parking and Loading, to require short- and long-term bicycle parking as a part of all new multifamily, commercial, industrial and institutional development. The regulations also apply to these uses when expanding or making major improvements.

 

77.  Section 660-012-0045(3)(b), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to require on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities within new subdivisions, multifamily development, planned developments, shopping centers, commercial districts adjacent to residential areas and transit stops, and neighborhood activity centers within one-half mile of the development. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Chapters 33.120, Multifamily Zones, 33.130, Commercial Zones, and 33.140, Industrial and Employment Zones, require pedestrian connections to adjacent streets for all development, and for large retail development set back from the street, to adjacent sites. Chapter 33. 654, (effective date July 1, 2002) regulates land divisions and requires street and pedestrian connections within the site and connecting to streets and pedestrianways adjacent to the site

 

78.  Section 660-012-0045(3)(b)(B), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to provide bikeways along arterials and major collectors and sidewalks along arterials, collectors, and most local streets. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 6.7, Bikeway Classification Descriptions, and the district maps showing where the bikeway classifications are applied, which includes major streets, including most Major City Traffic Streets, District Collectors, Neighborhood Collectors, and some local streets. Policy 11.10, Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective G, requires sidewalks on both sides of all new street improvement projects, except where physical constraints preclude them. Policy 11.10 also requires street improvements to comply with the Pedestrian Design Guide and the Bicycle Master Plan design guidelines for locating and building appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

 

79.  Section 660-012-0045(3)(b)(D), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to establish their own standards or criteria for providing streets and accessways consistent with the TPR. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Chapter 33.654 includes the spacing standards for streets and accessways in sites dividing for development effective date July 1, 2002. The TSP includes amendments to Chapter 33.251, Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home Parks, and Chapter 33.293, Superblocks, to improve connectivity. The TSP also includes amendments to Title 17, Chapter 17.88, Street Access, by adding street and pedestrian/bicycle connection spacing standards consistent with those in Title 33 and giving the City Engineer authority to require this level of connectivity.

 

80.  Section 660-012-0045(3)(e), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to require internal pedestrian circulation within new office parks and commercial developments be provided through clustering of buildings, construction of accessways, walkways and similar techniques. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Chapters 33.130 and 33.140 allows office and commercial development to cluster buildings and requires all buildings on site to be connected with pedestrian walkways and connected to adjacent streets.

 

81.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(a), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to provide measures to ensure that transit routes and transit facilities are designed to support transit use through provisions for bus stops, pullouts and shelters, optimum road geometrics, on-street parking restriction and similar facilities. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 6.6, Transit Street Classification Descriptions, includes guidelines for transit-preferential treatments on Regional Transitways, Major Transit Priority Streets, and Transit Access Streets. Policy 6.24, Public Transportation, and its objectives support the design and construction of transit facilities including transit preferential treatments. Policy 11.10 Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective H. calls for including improvements that enhance transit operations, safety, and travel times in projects on existing and planned transit routes. Title 17 gives the City Engineer authority to establish street standards and to require frontage improvements for new and redeveloping sites. The TSP includes an amendment expanding the City Engineer authority to require frontage improvements for sites that are making major improvements, but not increasing occupancy (Section 17.88.020).

 

82.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(b)(A), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to require new retail, office and institutional buildings at or near major transit stops to provide convenient pedestrian access to transit through walkways connecting building entrances and streets adjoining the site. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the 1996 TPR amendments added this requirement to Title 33 for all multifamily, commercial (all C zones) and employment development (EGI and EX zones) adjacent to any transit street other than Regional Transitways that are also Regional Trafficways (Sections 130.240 and 140.240).

 

83.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(b)(B), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to require new retail, office and institutional buildings at or near major transit stops to provide pedestrian connections to adjoining properties except where impractical. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33 requires pedestrian connections to adjacent streets (Sections 33.120.255, 33.130.240, and 33.140.240. The TSP amends Section 33.815.105 (approval criteria for institutions in residential zones) to include consideration of connectivity and impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation. Since most Portland blocks are small, and buildings are required to be built near the sidewalk, sidewalks provide the most direct connections to adjacent properties without directing pedestrians through parking lots. Title 33 also requires connections to adjacent properties for large retail development sites where buildings are allowed to be set back from the street with smaller buildings adjacent to the transit street (Sections 33.130.215.C and 33.140.215.C).

 

84.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(b)(B), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to require new retail, office and institutional buildings at or near major transit stops to locate buildings within 20 feet of a transit stop, transit street or intersecting plaza. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it amends Title 33 to require buildings to be no more than 10 feet from transit streets (Sections 33.120.220.B, 33.130.215.B, and 33.140.215.B).

 

85.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(d), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include regulations for designating preferential parking areas in new development for employee parking. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the 1996 Title 33 TPR amendments included requirements for preferential carpool parking in new commercial development (Section 33.266.110.C).

 

86.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(e), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include regulations for allowing existing development to redevelop a portion of existing parking areas for transit-oriented uses. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the 1996 Title 33 TPR amendments included a provision to convert up to 10 percent of required parking to a transit-oriented plaza that includes a shelter and seating area (Section 33.266.110.B.5).

 

87.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(f), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to include road systems for new development that can be served by transit, including pedestrian access. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because designated transit streets are located to provide citywide transit coverage and these streets are built based on Policy 6. 5, Transit Street Classification Descriptions, include direction for pedestrian access. The TSP classifies streets adjacent to transit streets (other than Regional Transitways on freeways) as City Walkways or Pedestrian-Transit Streets to ensure that adequate pedestrian facilities are built over time. The Pedestrian Design Guide, which is incorporated into the TSP through the Pedestrian Modal Plan in Chapter 5, establishes the appropriate level of pedestrian improvements for City Walkways.

 

88.  Section 660-012-0045(4)(g), Implementation of the TSP, of the TPR requires TSPs to ensure that, along existing or planned transit routes, the types and densities of land uses are adequate to support transit. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because, as planning studies are done, the Comprehensive Plan is updated to increase residential densities along transit streets and to place mixed-use zoning along main streets and in centers. Since the 2040 Growth Concept was adopted for the region in 1995, Portland has adopted a number of plans to be consistent with Policy 2.12, Transit Corridors, 2.17, Transit Stations and Transit Centers, and 2.18, Transit-Supportive Density. These studies include: Goose Hollow Station Community Plan, Albina Community Plan, Hollywood and Sandy Plan, Bridgeton Neighborhood Plan, Outer Southeast Community Plan (including plans for the Gateway regional center and Lents town center), Hillsdale Town Center Plan, and the Southwest Community Plan.

 

89.  Section 660-012-0045(5)(a) Reduce Reliance on the Automobile, of the TPR requires TSPs to allow transit-oriented development along transit routes. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because all commercial zones in Portland allow a mix of uses, including residential uses by right, as does the EX, Central Employment zone. The RH zone allows up to 20 percent of new development to contain retail and office uses if within 1000 feet of a light rail station and through conditional use approval (Section 33.120.100.B.2). The RX zone allows varying percentages of retail and office uses by right or through a conditional use approval (Section 33.120.100B.3). These zones are typically placed near transit lines or clustered in areas with significant transit service such as the Central City, Gateway regional center, town centers and light rail stations, and along main streets consistent with the characteristics of the zones as defined in Sections 33.120.030, 33.130.030, and 33.140.040 and as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map.

 

90.  Section 660-012-0045(5)(b) Reduce Reliance on the Automobile, of the TPR requires TSPs to implement a demand management program to meet the benchmarks in the TSP. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it includes a Demand Management and Parking Plan in Chapter 5 with projects, programs and strategies to help meet the benchmarks established in Chapter 15. Features of the TDM Plan include sponsoring and assisting with transportation management associations, sponsoring alternative transportation promotion events, facilitating carpool programs, expanding Fareless Square, and school education programs. The funding for these programs are through TSP projects, including TMAs, and through on-going transportation programs in coordination with Tri-Met.

 

91.  Section 660-012-0045(5)(c) Reduce Reliance on the Automobile, of the TPR requires TSPs to implement a parking plan that achieves Portland’s share of the region’s reduction of 10 percent parking spaces per capita. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it includes a Demand Management and Parking Plan in Chapter 5 with programs and strategies to help reduce parking spaces per capita over the planning period. Features of the Parking Plan include instituting parking minimums and maximums citywide that conform to Metro’s requirements, expanding the area covered by parking meter districts, and allowing required parking areas to be redeveloped with transit plazas and bicycle parking. In addition, the TSP includes amendments to Title 33 to require parking lots over three acres in size to provide street-like features along driveways. (Section 33.266.110.F). Title 33 currently does not require any off-street parking in a number of zones – EX, CX, CS, CM, CO1 and CO2, and RX. The TSP includes an amendment exempting development from minimum parking requirements within500 feet of transit streets with high-quality transit service (Section 33.266.110.B.3). The TSP also references in the TDM and Parking Plan the City’s program for residential parking districts, which are being expanded to include commercial areas as well as residential, to reduce commuter and event parking from impacting residential and mixed-use neighborhoods.

 

92.  Section 660-012-0045(5)(c), Reduce Reliance on the Automobile, of the TPR requires TSPs to require major industrial, institutional, retail and office developments to provide a transit stop on site or a connection to transit when the transit operator requires the improvement. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because development in the C and E zones must provide a direct connection between its main entrance and adjacent streets, including transit streets (Sections 33.130.240 and 33.140.240). The TSP amends Section 33.815.105, Institutional and Other Uses in the R Zones, and 33.848, Impact Mitigation Plans, to include connectivity and impacts on transit circulation to ensure that institutions that are conditional uses or in Institutional Residential zones meet the intent of this requirement.

 

93.  Section 660-012-0045(6), Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Developed Areas, of the TPR requires TSPs to identify improvements for bicycles and pedestrians to meet local travel needs in developed areas. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans have been incorporated in the TSP in Chapter 3, Transportation System Improvements, and in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Modal Plans in Chapter 5. The master plans were adopted in 1996 and 1998 and include a description of needs and projects to address these needs. The list of transportation system improvements in Chapter 3 identify a number of bicycle and pedestrian projects to fill in gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks, including pedestrian bridges, retrofitting bike lanes to existing streets, extending the Willamette Greenway Trail, making pedestrian connections to light rail stations, and improving pedestrian facilities in pedestrian districts. Title 33 land division regulations and Title 17 impose the street and pedestrian/bicycle connections in already developed areas that are redeveloping as well as in large vacant areas (Chapter 33.654: Rights-of-Way).

 

94.  Section 660-012-0045(7), Local Street Standards, of the TPR requires TSPs to establish standards for local streets and accessways that minimize pavement width and total right-of-way consistent with the operational needs of the facility. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because it incorporates street standards into Chapter 6 that minimize street and pavement widths in single-family residential zones. Street widths are as narrow as 40 feet and pavement widths as narrow as 20 feet in the RF through R7 zones. As zoning becomes more intense, street widths are proportionately wider to accommodate higher levels of traffic. Street widths are greater in Pedestrian Districts and along City Walkways to accommodate wider sidewalks and higher levels of pedestrian activity. Streets designated as City Bikeways are sized to accommodate appropriate bicycle facilities. The street standards minimize overall width and pavement width to only what is needed to accommodate applicable street designations and included required elements.

 

95.  Section 660-012-050(3), Project Development, of the TPR requires project development to include findings of compliance with applicable requirements where those findings have not been made as part of the transportation system plan or refinement plan. The TSP is consistent with this section of the TPR because it states that findings, necessary for project development, will be completed before projects are approved. The TSP includes adequate findings to exempt transportation projects within existing rights-of-way except those impacting significant Goal 5, 7, or 15 resource sites. Title 33 requires new rights-of-ways and the expansion or vacation of existing rights-of-way in environmental or greenway zones to go through a land use review (Section 33.10.030.B, When the Zoning Code Applies). Chapter 16 includes a list of projects (Table 16.1) that are subject to further review for Goal 5 resource impacts.

 

96.  Section 660-012-0060, Plan Amendments, of the TPR requires local governments to ensure that plan amendments, which significantly affect the transportation system, be consistent with adopted land use and transportation plans. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Title 33, Chapter 810, Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, requires that all Comprehensive Plan policies, including the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (consisting of the Goal 6, Transportation; Goal 11B, Public Rights-of-Way; and the Central City Transportation Management Plan) be considered. The Transportation Element is the policy portion of the Transportation System Plan. Adopted land use plans are also part of the Comprehensive Plan and are referenced and incorporated in Goal 3, Neighborhoods. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, Transportation System Improvements) constitutes the transportation plan for Portland. The performance standards for the transportation system as adopted in the 2000 RTP are incorporated in Policy 11.13, Performance Measures. In Chapter 5, the Motor Vehicle Modal Plan identifies the strategies for the Gateway regional center, designated as an ‘Area of Special Concern’ by the 2000 RTP to meet established levels-of-service. The procedures for evaluating Comprehensive Plan Map amendments are contained in Chapter 33.810, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments; 33.730, Quasi-Judicial Procedures; and 33.740, Legislative Procedures. The TSP has been evaluated against the Comprehensive Plan policies and adopted plans that are part of the Comprehensive Plan as demonstrated in these findings.

 

Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Findings

 

97.  Title 1, Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation, requires that each jurisdiction contribute its fair share to increasing the development capacity of land within the Urban Growth Boundary. This requirement is to be generally implemented through city-wide analysis based on calculated capacities from land use designations. The TSP is consistent with this title because it incorporates transportation policies in Chapter 2 to support the transition to a more compact and dense urban form by building a multi-modal transportation system. Many of the transportation projects identified in Chapter 3 provide the necessary transportation improvements to accommodate increased development capacity planned in Portland’s 2040 centers and main streets. Chapter 6 includes Title 33 amendments to development standards, including building setbacks, transit street orientation, pedestrian circulation, and bicycle parking, that coordinate land use with supportive transportation infrastructure including transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

98.  Title 2, Regional Parking Policy, regulates the amount of parking permitted by use for jurisdictions in the region. The TSP is consistent with this title because it includes a Demand Management and Parking Plan in Chapter 5 with programs and strategies to help reduce parking spaces per capita over the planning period. Features of the Parking Plan include the parking minimums and maximums (adopted in 2000) that conform to Metro’s requirements, expanding the area covered by parking meter districts, and allowing required parking areas to be redeveloped with transit plazas and bicycle parking. In addition, the TSP includes amendments to Title 33 to require parking lots over three acres in size to provide street-like features along driveways. (Section 33.266.110.F). Title 33 currently does not require any off-street parking in a number of zones – EX, CX, CS, CM, CO1 and CO2, and RX. The TSP includes an amendment exempting development from minimum parking requirements within 500 feet of transit streets with high-quality transit service (Section 33.266.110.B.3). The TSP also references in the TDM and Parking Plan the City’s program for residential parking districts, which are being expanded to include commercial areas as well as residential, to reduce commuter and event parking from impacting residential and mixed-use neighborhoods.

 

99.  Title 3, Water Quality and Flood Management Conservation, calls for the protection of the beneficial uses and functional values of resources within Metro-defined Water Quality and Flood Management Areas by limiting or mitigating the impact of development in these areas. The TSP is consistent with this title because Goal 6 Transportation policies and objectives require the development of a balanced transportation system that reduces the reliance on automobiles in an effort to provide for a healthy and livable environment that includes clean water. In particular, Policy 11.8, Environmental Sustainability in Transportation, directs PDOT to manage the transportation system in an environmentally responsible way. The City’s ‘green building policy’ directed PDOT to audit its practices to identify areas where environmentally sustainable practices could be employed. Significant changes were made toward sustainable practices as a result of this audit. Chapter 6 describes the various implementation actions and changes in practice by PDOT. Chapter 15 includes a Stream Habitat Restoration performance measure to track the removal and/or replacement of culverts that impede fish passage. Chapter 16, Table 16-1 identifies the TSP projects that could have impacts on environmentally-sensitive areas of the City, including wetlands and waterbodies. These projects will be subject to additional review if they impact protected natural resources through either an environmental review or a greenway review.

100.  Title 4, Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas, calls for retail development in Employment and Industrial areas that supports these areas and does not serve a larger market area. The TSP is consistent with this title because it identifies a balanced transportation system that coordinates and supports the desired land use pattern with the appropriate level and mix of transportation improvements.

101.  Title 5, Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves, defines Metro’s policy regarding areas outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. This title does not apply because the TSP plan area is within the urban growth boundary.

102.  Title 6, Regional Accessibility, recommends street design and connectivity standards that better serve pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel and that support the 2040 Growth Concept. With adoption of the 2000 RTP in August 2000, Title 6 was deleted from the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and its requirements incorporated into the 2000 RTP.

103.  Title 7, Affordable Housing, recommends that local jurisdictions implement tools to facilitate development of affordable housing. The TSP is consistent with this title because the plan makes no changes to the City’s policies, regulations, or programs related to affordable housing.

104.  Title 8, Compliance Procedures, outlines compliance procedures for amendments to comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. The TSP is consistent with this title because the required notices and findings have been provided to Metro in a timely manner.

105.  Title 9, Performance Measures, ensures the measure of progress toward implementing the UGMFP and 2040 Growth Concept. The TSP is consistent with this title because it includes a set of performance indicators in Chapter 15 to track the extent to which Portland is meeting both the regional transportation goals and its own local goals over the 20-year life of the plan.

2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Findings

 

106.  Policy 1.0, Public Involvement, establishes a process for involving the public through provision of complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions and supporting broad-based, early and continuing involvement of the public in all aspects of the transportation planning process that is consistent with Metro’s adopted local public involvement policy for transportation planning. This includes involving those traditionally under-served by the existing system, those traditionally under-represented in the transportation process, the general public, and local, regional and state jurisdictions that own and operate the region’s transportation system. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.2, Public Involvement, and the objectives of the TSP establish a similar public involvement process for making transportation decisions including consideration of Metro’s Local Public Involvement Policy for Transportation Planning. The TSP included numerous citywide and district workshops and open houses, focus groups and public events to solicit input. A Citizen’s Advisory Committee met 60 times over the course of the TSP development. Public notice requirements have been met.

 

107.  Policy 2.0, Intergovernmental Coordination, requires coordination among the local, regional and state jurisdictions that own and operate the region’s transportation system to better provide for state and regional transportation needs. The TSP is consistent with this policy because it includes Policy 6.1, Coordination, which requires that the City coordinate with affected state and federal agencies, local governments, special districts, and providers of transportation services when planning for transportation. The TSP process involved a technical advisory committee that included representatives from Metro; the Oregon Department of Transportation; the Port of Portland; Tri-Met; Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas Counties; and the City of Gresham.

 

108.  Policy 3.0, Urban Form, facilitates implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept with specific strategies that address mobility and accessibility needs and use transportation investments to leverage the 2040 Growth Concept. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.17, Coordinate Land Use and Transportation, calls for implementing the 2040 Growth Concept through long-range transportation and land use planning and the development of efficient and effective transportation projects and programs. The projects identified in the TSP are intended to focus transportation investment in 2040 priority areas by supporting alternatives to the automobile to and within centers and main streets. Projects to support 2040 industrial areas are included in each phase of the TSP.

 

109.  Policy 4.0, Consistency Between Land-use and Transportation Planning, ensures that the identified function, design, capacity and level of service of transportation facilities are consistent with applicable regional land use and transportation policies as well as the adjacent land-use patterns. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.18, Adequacy of Transportation Facilities, ensures that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, zone changes, conditional uses, master plans, impact mitigation plans, and land use regulations that change allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function and capacity of , and adopted performance measures for, affected transportation facilities.

 

110.  Policy 5.0, Barrier-Free Transportation provides access to more and better transportation choices for travel throughout the region and serves special access needs for all people, including youth, elderly and disabled. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.10, Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective K, ensures that transportation facilities are accessible to all people and that all improvements to the right-of-way comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

 

111.  Policy 5.1, Interim Special Needs Transportation Policy, supports serving the transit and transportation needs of elderly and disabled in the region. The TSP acknowledges in its Public Transportation and Transportation Disadvantaged Modal Plan the recommendations of the Tri-County Elderly and Disabled Transportation Plan. The TSP supports the development of elderly and disabled transit-supportive development with transportation projects in compact centers, includes the standards of the City’s Pedestrian Design Guide for accessible and safe pedestrian facilities, and includes street and pedestrian spacing standards that create good street connectivity and walkable blocks.

 

112.  Policy 5.2 Interim Job Access and Reverse Commute Policy, supports servingthe transit and transportation needs of the economically disadvantaged in the region by connecting low-income populations with employment areas and related social services.

 

113.  Policy 6.0, Transportation Safety and Education, calls for improving the safety of the transportation system and encouraging bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians to share the road safely. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.3, Transportation Education, and its objectives support education programs that focus on transportation safety and travel choices.

 

114.  Policy 7.0, The Natural Environment, calls for protecting the region’s natural environment. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.8, Environmental Sustainability in Transportation, calls for meeting the City’s sustainability goals by designing, constructing, installing, using, and maintaining the transportation system in efficient, innovative, and environmentally responsible ways. Policy 11.10, Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective O, supports minimizing impacts on the natural environment, consistent with the City and regional response to the Endangered Species Act, in the planning, design, and development of transportation projects. Policy 11.12, Maintenance, Objective C, supports the use of best management practices to address environmental impacts of maintenance activities.

 

115.  Policy 8.0, Water Quality, calls for protecting the region’s water quality. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.8, Environmental Sustainability in Transportation, Objective A, calls for integrating best management practices into all aspects of the Portland Office of Transportation activities. Objective C, calls for maintaining equipment and facilities to minimize air, water, and noise pollution. Objective E calls for minimizing runoff and erosion in all ground-disturbing activities, including construction, excavation, landscaping, and trench work.

 

116.  Policy 9.0, Clean Air, supports protecting and enhancing air quality so that as growth occurs, human health and visibility of the Cascades and the Coast Range from within the region is maintained. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.8, Environmental Sustainability in Transportation, Objective C, calls for maintaining equipment and facilities to minimize air, water, and noise pollution, and Objective D calls for using environmentally safe products. Policy 11.9, Project Selection, Objective C calls for using good resource management and minimizing or reducing negative impacts to the natural environment.

 

117.  Policy 10.0, Energy Efficiency, supports designing transportation systems that promote efficient use of energy. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.8, Environmental Sustainability in Transportation, supports designing, constructing, installing, using, and maintaining the transportation system in efficient, innovative, and environmentally responsible ways. Objective F supports using alternative energy sources to power equipment whenever feasible.

 

118.  Policy 11.0, Regional Street Design, calls for designing regional streets with a modal orientation that reflects the function and character of surrounding land uses, consistent with regional street design concepts. The TSP is consistent with this policy because it incorporates a new policy, 6.11, Street Design, which incorporates the regional street design descriptions and classifications.

 

119.  Policy 12.0, Local Street Design, supports designing local street systems to complement planned land uses and to reduce dependence on major streets for local circulation. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.10, Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, calls for designing improvements to existing and new transportation facilities to implement transportation and land use goals and objectives. Objective J of this policy requires designing and building residential streets to minimize pavement width and total right-of-way width, consistent with the operational needs of the facility and taking into account the needs of both pedestrians and vehicles.

 

120.  Policy 13.0, Regional Motor Vehicle System, provides for a regional motor vehicle system of arterials and collectors that connect the central city, regional centers, industrial areas and intermodal facilities, and other regional destinations, and provide mobility within and through the region. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.5, Traffic Street Classification Descriptions, describes the hierarchy of traffic streets to support the regional and local motor vehicle system. The classification maps for each district identify the network of traffic-classified streets consistent with RTP classifications. The Motor Vehicle modal plan includes a matrix that shows the consistency between Portland’s and Metro’s motor vehicle classifications.

 

121.  Policy 14.0, Regional Public Transportation System, supports providing an appropriate level, quality and range of public transportation options to serve this region and support implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.6, Transit Street Classification Descriptions, describes the hierarchy of transit streets and facilities to support the regional and local transit system. The classification maps for each district identify the network of transit-classified streets consistent with the RTP classifications. The Public Transportation and Transportation Disadvantaged modal plan includes a matrix that shows the consistency between Portland’s and Metro’s transit classifications.

 

122.  Policy 14.1, Public Transportation System Awareness and Education, supports expanding the amount of information available about public transportation to allow more people to use the system. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.3, Transportation Education, supports programs that support a range of transportation choices. Objective A calls for publicizing activities and the availability of resources and facilities that promote a multimodal transportation system.

 

123.  Policy 14.2, Public Transportation Safety and Environmental Impacts, supports continuing efforts to make public transportation an environmentally-friendly and safe form of motorized transportation. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy Public Transportation, Objective D, supports transit-preferential measures to ensure public transit is efficient and safe. Objective A and H support light rail and the street car as more environmentally-friendly forms of public transportation.

 

124.  Policy 14.3, Regional Public Transportation Performance, supports providing transit service that is fast, reliable and has competitive travel times compared to the automobile. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.24, Public Transportation, supports a convenient public transit system. Objective D supports transit-preferential measures on Major Transit Priority Streets to achieve travel times competitive with the automobile and to improve service reliability.

 

125.  Policy 15.0, Regional Freight System, provides for efficient, cost-effective and safe movement of freight in and through the region. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.9, Freight Classification Descriptions, supports a hierarchy of truck streets to support the regional and local freight system. The classification maps for each district identify the network of truck-classified streets consistent with RTP classifications. The Freight modal plan includes a matrix that shows the consistency between Portland’s and Metro’s freight classifications.

 

126.  Policy 15.1, Regional Freight System Investments, supports protecting and enhancing public and private investments in the freight network. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.29, Freight Intermodal Facilities and Freight Activity Areas, supports developing and maintaining an intermodal transportation system for the safe, efficient, and cost-effective movement of freight, goods, and commercial vehicles in Portland. The TSP project list includes freight-related improvements throughout the City to support more efficient freight movement.

 

127.  Policy 16.0, Regional Bicycle System Connectivity, provides for a continuous regional network of safe and convenient bikeways connected to other transportation modes and local bikeway systems, consistent with regional street design guidelines. The TSP is consistent with this policy because 6.7, Bikeway Classification Descriptions, includes a hierarchy of bikeways to support the regional and local bikeway system. The classification maps for each district identify the network of bicycle-classified streets and off-street paths consistent with RTP classifications. The Bicycle modal plan includes a matrix that shows the consistency between Portland’s and Metro’s bicycle classifications.

 

128.  Policy 16.1, Regional Bicycle System Mode Share and Accessibility, supports increasing the bicycle mode share throughout the region and improve bicycle access to the region’s public transportation system. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.23, Bicycle Transportation, and its objectives support making the bicycle an integral part of daily life in Portland, completing a network of bikeways and increasing bicyclist safety and convenience. The TSP project list includes a large number of bicycle projects to support this policy and implement the bicycle network.

 

129.  Policy 17.0, Regional Pedestrian System, supports designing the pedestrian environment to be safe, direct, convenient, attractive and accessible for all users. The TSP is consistent with this policy because 6.8, Pedestrian Classification Descriptions, includes a hierarchy of pedestrianways to support the regional and local pedestrianway system. The classification maps for each district identify the network of pedestrian-classified streets and off-street paths consistent with RTP classifications. The Pedestrian modal plan includes a matrix that shows the consistency between Portland’s and Metro’s pedestrian classifications.

 

130.  Policy 17.1, Pedestrian Mode Share, supports increasing walking for short trips and improve pedestrian access to the region’s public transportation system through pedestrian improvements and changes in land-use patterns, designs and densities. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.22, Pedestrian Transportation, and its objectives promote walking as the mode of choice for short trips, such as walking to transit, parks, schools, and neighborhood shopping, and completing the pedestrian network to provide a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians. The TSP project list includes a large number of pedestrian projects to support this policy and implement the pedestrian network.

 

131.  Policy 17.2, Regional Pedestrian Access and Connectivity, provides for direct pedestrian access, appropriate to existing and planned land uses, street design classification and public transportation, as a part of all transportation projects. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.11, Street Design, includes the appropriate pedestrian improvements for each street design classification consistent with Metro’s Creating Livable Streets Handbook. Policy 11.10, Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective G, requires including sidewalks on both sides of all new street improvement projects, except where there are severe topographic or natural resource constraints.

 

132.  Policy 18.0, Transportation System Management, supports transportation system management techniques to optimize performance of the region’s transportation systems. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.15, Transportation System Management, gives preference to transportation improvements that use existing roadway capacity efficiently and improve the safety of the system by promoting transportation choices, employing transportation system management measures, and designing and building a system that can be safely navigated by all users. The TSP project list includes a number of projects to improve the efficiency of the transportation system.

 

133.  Policy 19.0, Regional Transportation Demand Management, calls for enhancing mobility and supporting the use of alternative transportation modes by improving regional accessibility to public transportation, carpooling, telecommuting, bicycling and walking options. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.28, Travel Management, supports reducing congestion, improving air quality, and mitigating the impact of development-generated traffic by supporting transportation choices through demand management programs. The TSP project list includes support for transportation management associations in the Central City, centers, and employment areas.

 

134.  Policy 19.1, Regional Parking Management, supports managing and optimizing the efficient use of public and commercial parking in the central city, regional centers, town centers, main streets and employment centers to support the 2040 Growth Concept and related RTP policies and objectives. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.25, Parking Management, and its objectives call for managing the parking supply to support neighborhood and business district vitality, auto trip reduction, and improved air quality. Specifically, Objective A calls for implementing measures to achieve Portland’s share of the mandated 10 percent reduction in parking spaces per capita over the next 20 years. Objective C calls for development parking management programs and strategies that improve air quality, reduce congestion, promoting alternatives to driving alone, and educating and involving neighborhoods and businesses.

 

135.  Policy 19.2, Peak Period Pricing, supports managing and optimizing the use of highways in the region to reduce congestion, improve mobility and maintain accessibility within limited financial resources. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.33, Congestion Pricing and its objectives advocate for a regional, market-based system to price or charge for auto trips during peak hours and supporting pricing strategies that are based on the environmental and social costs of motor vehicles. Objective C supports experiments in equitable and efficient pricing of new motor vehicle transportation facilities.

 

136.  Policy 20.0, Transportation Funding, ensures that the allocation of fiscal resources is driven by both land use and transportation benefits. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.1, Coordination, Objective A, calls for coordinating the funding and development of transportation facilities with regional transportation and land use plans and with public and private investments. Objective B supports Portland’s participation in Metro’s processes for allocating and managing transportation funds and resources to achieve maximum benefit with limited available funds.

 

137.  Policy 20.1, 2040 Growth Concept Implementation, calls for implementing a regional transportation system that supports the 2040 Growth Concept through the selection of complementary transportation projects and programs. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.17, Coordinate Land Use and Transportation, supports implementing the Comprehensive Plan Map and the 2040 Growth Concept through long-range transportation and land use planning and the development of efficient and effective transportation projects and programs.

 

138.  Policy 20.2, Transportation System Maintenance and Preservation, emphasizes the maintenance, preservation and effective use of transportation infrastructure in the selection of the RTP projects and programs. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 11.12 supports activities and programs that preserve, maintain, and prevent deterioration of the transportation system. Objective E calls for coordinating capital improvement programs development with ongoing maintenance needs in addition to preservation and rehabilitation projects.

 

139.  Policy 20.3, Transportation Safety, calls for anticipating and addressing system deficiencies that threaten the safety of the traveling public in the implementation of the RTP. The TSP is consistent with this policy because Policy 6.15, Transportation System Management gives preferences to transportation improvements that use existing roadway capacity efficiently and improve the safety of the system. Policy 11.9, Project Selection, Objective B, requires addressing existing deficiencies and hazards by improving pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety in project selection.

 

140.  Forecast Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.9), requires consistency with the 2020 population and employment forecasts. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because as noted in Chapter 3, Transportation System Improvements, and Chapter Chapter 10, Needs Assessment, the TSP relied on the needs analysis and findings of the 2000 RTP and its transportation modeling assumptions.

 

141.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires the development of a future street plan map of key street connections for all contiguous parcel(s) of vacant or redevelopable land of 5 acres or more planned or zoned for residential or mixed-use development. The TSP complies with this requirement because Policy 6.20 Connectivity, and its objectives and Policy 11.11, Street Plans, and its objectives provide the policy basis for Portland’s approach to meeting connectivity standards through the development of master street plans. Policy 11.11, Objectives F through N and their associated maps, show the areas of the City with completed master street plans and areas of the City that currently meet connectivity standards or are exempt from the connectivity standards. Chapter 4, Refinement Plans and Studies, identify the areas of the City that do not currently have master street plans. Portland will complete refinement plans for these areas consistent with Section 660-012-0025 (3) of the TPR. Connectivity standards will continue to be met in these areas until the refinement plans are completed because Title 33, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 33.654 (effective July 1, 2002) requires land division actions to meet the connectivity standards in Section 6.4.5 of the RTP. The TSP includes amendments to Title 17, Public Improvements, Chapter 17.88, to authorize the City Engineer to require street and pedestrian/bicycle connections that meet the connectivity standards in Section 6.4.5. These two regulatory mechanisms provide the City with authority to implement key street connections and local street connectivity on all sites developing or redeveloping within Portland.

 

142.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires that new residential or mixed-use development that proposes or is required to construct or extend street(s) to provide a site plan that:

•  provides full street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections except where prevented by barriers

•  provides bike and pedestrian accessways in lieu of streets with spacing of no more than 330 feet except where prevented by barriers

•  limits use of cul-de-sacs and other closed-end street systems to situations where barriers prevent full street connections

•  includes no closed-end street longer than 220 feet or having no more than 25 dwelling units

•  includes street cross-sections demonstrating dimensions of ROW improvements, with streets designed for posted or expected speed limits.

 

The TSP complies with this requirement because it includes amendments to Title 17, Public Improvements, Chapter 17.88, that authorize the City Engineer to require street and pedestrian/bicycle connections that meet the connectivity standards in Section 6.4.5. The amendments include the authority for the City Engineer to ask for the elements of this requirement noted above. The recently adopted land division code includes standards for dead-end streets (33.654.110.c.2) that limit them to no more than 200 feet in length and serving not more than 18 units. Chapter 33.654 also includes direction to ensure that most streets will be through streets except where constraints, such as steep slopes or environmental zones on or near a site may influence the location or preclude connected rights-of-way.

 

143.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires street design standards that allow for and encourage consideration of narrow street designs. The TSP complies with this requirement because the section of Chapter 6 titled, Street Standards and Guidelines, contains the street standards in use in Portland. The RTP defines ‘skinny streets’ as those that are no more than 46 feet of total right-of-way, with pavement widths of no more than 28 feet. Local streets built in Portland in the RF through R7 zones meet this requirement with right-of-way widths between 40 and 46 feet on streets and pavement widths between 20 and 26 feet. Local streets in the R5 zone meet this requirement for streets with parking no on-street parking with right-of-way widths between 40 and 44 feet and pavement widths of 20 feet. Other local streets in single-dwelling zones also meet this requirement for pavement width, but include additional right-of-way width to accommodate wider sidewalks on City Walkways and in Pedestrian Districts.

 

144.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires street design standards that allow for and encourage short, direct public ROW routes to connect residential uses with nearby commercial services, schools, parks and other neighborhood facilities. The TSP complies with this requirement because it includes amendments to Title 17.88, Through Streets, which includes City Engineer authority to limit the use of cul-de-sac and closed streets. Street connectivity standards for no more than 530-foot spacing ensures blocks will be short and provide direct, public connections. Where street connections cannot be made the street connectivity requirements provide for frequent pedestrian/bicycle connections. The TSP includes street standards in use by the City for all zones. The designs are consistent with posted or expected speed limits with pavement widths and land widths as narrow as possible consistent with the need to accommodate each mode.

 

145.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires street design standards that allow for and encourage consideration of opportunities to incrementally extend streets from nearby areas. The TSP complies with this requirement because recently adopted land division regulations in Title 33 (effective date, July 1, 2002) require new street and pedestrianway connections consistent with the RTP standards for all land divisions whether in newly developing or infill situations (Section 33.654.110). The TSP amends Title 17.88, Through Streets, to give the City Engineer authority to require the same levels of connectivity for all development in residential and commercial zones.

 

146.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires street design standards that allow for and encourage consideration of traffic calming to discourage traffic infiltration and excessive speeds on local streets. The TSP complies with this requirement because Policy 6.13, Traffic Calming, and its objectives provide the policy basis to use traffic calming measures to preserve and enhance neighborhood livability, and in high-density 2040 Growth Concept areas to calm traffic to levels that are comfortable for bicyclists and pedestrians.  

 

147.  Street Connectivity Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.5), requires a street connectivity approach for redevelopment of existing land uses. The TSP complies with this requirement because all of the street connectivity policies and standards apply to redeveloping properties as well as development on vacant land.

 

148.  Alternative Mode Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.6), requires local TSPs to adopt modal targets for non-single-occupant vehicles (SOV). The TSP complies with this requirement because Chapter 15 of the TSP contains mode share targets for 2040 Growth Concept design types consistent with the non-SOV targets contained in the RTP.

 

149.  Alternative Mode Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.6), requires local TSPs to adopt street connectivity provisions. The TSP complies with this requirement because street connectivity regulations are contained in Chapter 33.654, Rights-of-Way, of Title 33, Planning and Zoning, and apply to land division actions, and amendments to Chapter 17.88, Through Streets, applies to all new or expanding residential and commercial development.

 

150.  Alternative Mode Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.6), requires local TSPs to adopt Title 2 parking requirements. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Portland adopted parking minimums and maximums in 2000 consistent with the standards in Title 2. Chapter 6 of the TSP amends Title 33, Chapter 266, Parking and Loading, to require ‘street-like’ features for development sites that have parking lots that exceed three acres in size.

 

151.  Alternative Mode Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.6), requires local TSPs to support implementation of transit pass programs in regional centers. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 6.28, Travel Management, and its objectives support demand management programs for institutions and other large employers. The Motor Vehicle Plan in Chapter 5 of the TSP contains the action plan for Gateway that includes strategies to reduce demand through a transportation management association. The TSP project list includes development of a transportation management association in the Gateway regional center.

 

152.  Alternative Mode Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.6), requires local TSPs to support implementation of transportation management associations. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because Policy 6.28, Travel Management, and its objectives support demand management programs for institutions and other large employers. The TSP project list includes development of transportation management associations in the Central City, the Gateway regional center, as well as in other large employment areas such as Swan Island and Columbia Corridor.  

 

153.  Motor Vehicle Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.7), requires level of service (LOS) standards in the RTP to be incorporated into local TSPs. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the LOS Table 1.2 in the RTP is incorporated into Policy 11.13, Performance Measures, Objective A. The LOS table will be used in the development and adoption of, and in amendments to, the TSP and in legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map.

 

154.  Motor Vehicle Analysis Consistency (RTP Section 6.4.7), requires an action plan for areas designated as areas of special concern because they do not meet the RTP LOS standards. The TSP is consistent with this requirement because the Gateway regional center’s action plan is contained in the Motor Vehicle modal plan in Chapter 5. The action plan contains the following elements consistent with this requirement:

 

•  Adopt non-SOV modal targets – 41 percent for home-based work trips.

•  Adopt RTP street connectivity provisions – master street plan map in Policy 11.11.3.

•  Adopt parking ratios consistent with Title 2 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan – minimum parking requirements are contained in section 33.266 of the Zoning Code. The Gateway plan district requirements (33.526 of the Zoning Code) for minimum parking is zero for all uses. The maximums are the same as have been adopted for the rest of the City outside the Central City.

•  The TSP project list includes development of a TMA for Gateway that would develop strategies to improve its mode split including transit incentives.

•  Modify the adopted plan to support additional mixed-use development, consistent with the 2040 Growth Concept – development in Gateway is governed by the Gateway Plan District, which establishes zoning and development regulations and Opportunity Gateway. The policies, guidelines, and standards are summarized in the Motor Vehicle modal plan in Chapter 5.

 

155.  Transit Service Planning Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to adopt the transit system map. The TSP complies with this requirement because it includes Maps 6.34.2, 6.35.2, 6.36.2, 6.37.2, 6.38.2, 6.39.2, and 6.40.2 for the seven transportation districts outside the Central City and Map 2.2 in Chapter 2.

 

156.  Transit Service Planning Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to adopt regulations requiring retail, office and institutional building at major transit stops to:

•  locate buildings within 20 feet of or provide pedestrian plaza at the major transit stop and

•  provide direct pedestrian connections between a building and a major transit stop.

 

The TSP complies with the intent of these requirements and exceeds them because Title 33, Chapters 120, 130, and 140 requires multifamily, commercial, and some employment uses to locate their buildings and main entrances within 25 feet of property lines along the entire length of streets that have a transit classification. The same chapters of Title 33 also require direct pedestrian connections between the main entrances of buildings and adjacent transit streets. The TSP amends the setback from transit to clarify the intent of the regulations and ensure that the orientation of buildings is to higher classified transit streets. The amendments change the setback to a maximum of 10 feet measured from the property line rather than the curb.

 

157.  Transit Service Planning Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to adopt regulations requiring retail, office and institutional building at major transit stops to:

•  provide a transit passenger landing pad accessible to disabled persons,

•  provide an easement or dedication for passenger shelter and underground utility connection from the new development to the transit amenity, and

•  provide lighting at a transit stop.

 

The TSP is consistent with these requirements because the TSP relies on the Pedestrian Design Guide to ensure that, as property develops or redevelops, sidewalks are widened to ensure that adequate space will be provided in the right-of-way for transit facilities. The recommended width for sidewalks designated as City Walkways and local streets in Pedestrian Districts is 12 feet. The recommended width for arterial streets in Pedestrian Districts is 15 feet. A transit shelter can be accommodated in either width sidewalk. Transit streets are, in most cases also designated as City Walkways. Transit streets not designated as City Walkways are limited access freeways and highways. Institutions outside of commercial and employment zones are regulated through the conditional use review process and must address adequacy of transportation services, including transit facilities and sidewalks. Portland applies these sidewalk requirements throughout the City, not only at ‘major transit stops’ as defined in the RTP.

 

158.  Transit Service Planning Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to consider designation of pedestrian districts or other implementing land use regulations to address the following:

•  A connected street and pedestrian network, preferably through a local street and pedestrian network plan covering the affected area

•  Designated pedestrian districts should consider transit/bike/pedestrian interconnection, parking and access management, sidewalk and accessway location and width, street tree location and spacing, street crossing and intersection design for pedestrians, pedestrian scale street lighting and furniture, and traffic speeds.

 

The TSP complies with this requirement because Policy 6.8, Objective A, describes the Pedestrian District classification. Portland has 15 existing Pedestrian Districts outside the Central City, six pedestrian districts inside the Central City, and the TSP includes six new Pedestrian Districts. Pedestrian Districts have a mix of zoning, high-quality transit service, and a high level of street connectivity. The TSP supports Pedestrian Districts with projects to improve their pedestrian environments.

 

159.  Transit Service Planning Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to provide direct, logical pedestrian crossings at transit stops and marked crossings at major transit stops. The TSP complies with this requirement because Policy 11.10, Objective E; the Pedestrian Modal Plan in Chapter 5; and the Project Development guidelines in Chapter 6 incorporate the Pedestrian Design Guide, which provides guidance for locating and constructing pedestrian crossings.

 

160.  Transit Service Planning Compliance (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to consider street designs that anticipate planned transit stop spacing, location and facilities consistent with the regional street design guidelines. The TSP complies with this requirement because Policy 6.6, Transit Street Classification Description, objectives include transit stop spacing criteria. These criteria are used when new streets are constructed or existing streets are modified.

 

161.  Transit Service Planning Compliance, (RTP Section 6.4.10), requires local jurisdictions to consider street designs that anticipate planned transit stop spacing, location and facilities consistent with the regional street design guidelines. The TSP complies with this requirement because it includes Policy 6.6, Transit Street Classification Descriptions, and its eight objectives that include direction for transit improvements and stop spacing consistent with each designation. These transit classification descriptions are considered in conjunction with Policy 6.11, Street Design Classification Descriptions, are derived from and are consistent with the RTP Street Design classifications. The classifications and their associated design elements are considered when making changes to a street.

 

162.  Project Development Compliance (RTP Section 6.7.3), requires local jurisdictions to consider system management to address or preserve existing street capacity during transportation project analysis. The TSP complies with this requirement because Policy 6.15, Transportation System Management, gives preference to transportation improvements that use existing roadway capacity efficiently. The project development process (as described in Chapter 6) includes, as its first step, policy review, which reviews all relevant policies including street design policies and guidelines.

 

163.  Project Development Compliance (RTP Section 6.7.3), requires local jurisdictions to consider regional street design policies and guidelines during transportation project analysis. The TSP complies with this requirement because the project development process (as described in Chapter 6) includes, as its first step, policy review, which reviews all relevant policies including street design policies and guidelines.

 

Portland Comprehensive Plan Goals Findings

 

164.  Goal 1, Metropolitan Coordination, calls for the Comprehensive Plan to be coordinated with federal and state law and to support regional goals, objectives and plans. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it responds to and complies with the Statewide Planning Goals, including the Transportation Planning Rule and with the 2000 RTP, the regional transportation plan.

a.)  Policy 1.1, Urban Growth Boundary, calls for support of the concept of an Urban Growth Boundary for the Portland metropolitan area. The TSP supports this policy because it provides for a multimodal transportation system that will support the compact growth called for in the 2040 Growth Concept.

b.)  Policy 1.3, Urban Services Boundary, calls for the establishment and maintenance of an Urban Services Boundary for the City of Portland. The TSP supports this policy because it addresses and classifies streets with Portland’s urban services boundary consistent with 2000 RTP classifications.

c.)  Policy 1.4, Intergovernmental Coordination, calls for continuous participation in intergovernmental affairs with public agencies to coordinate metropolitan planning and project development and maximize the efficient use of public funds. The TSP supports this policy because it was prepared in compliance with the RTP and with the participation of representatives from Metro, the Port of Portland, ODOT, Tri-Met, and adjacent cities and counties. The City participated in the development of the RTP to ensure that it and the TSP would be consistent and compatible.

165.  Goal 2, Urban Development, calls for maintenance of Portland's role as the major regional employment and population center by expanding opportunities for housing and jobs, while retaining the character of established residential neighborhoods and business centers. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it supports a multimodal transportation network that will accommodate planned growth at an urban scale as called for on the Comprehensive Plan Map.

a.)  Policy 2.1, Population Growth, calls for accommodating the projected increase in city households. The TSP supports this policy because its list of projects to address transportation needs is based on the projected changes in households over the planning period.

b.)  Policy 2.2, Urban Diversity, calls for promotion of a range of living environments and employment opportunities for Portland residents. The TSP supports this policy because it encourages and includes regulations to ensure that an efficient, affordable transportation system will be implemented, which, in turn, helps to keep housing affordable and easily accessed by alternatives to the automobile.

c.)  Policy 2.6, Open Space, calls for provision of opportunities for recreation and visual relief by preserving existing open space, establishing a loop trail that encircles the city and promoting recreational use of the city’s rivers, creek, lakes and sloughs. The TSP supports this policy because it classifies and identifies projects to enhance recreational trails, including the Willamette Greenway Trail, that also serve as recreational facilites..

d.)  Policy 2.7, Willamette River Greenway Plan, calls for implementation of the Willamette River Greenway Plan, which preserves a strong working river while promoting recreation, commercial and residential waterfront development along the Willamette south of the Broadway Bridge. The TSP supports this policy because it acknowledges the dual purpose of the Willamette Greenway Trail as both a recreational and transportation facility and supports the completion of the trail by including Greenway Trail projects in its list of significant transportation improvements..

e.)  Policy 2.9, Residential Neighborhoods, calls for allowance of a range of housing types to accommodate increased population growth while improving and protecting the city’s residential neighborhoods. The TSP supports this policy because it includes district policies that address neighborhood livability and because it includes numerous transportation projects that are intended to reduce traffic infiltration and improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within neighborhoods and to nearby shopping, education, and activity centers.

f.)  Policy 2.10, Downtown Portland, calls for maintenance and reinforcement of downtown Portland as the principal retail, commercial, service, cultural and high density housing center in the city and region; and calls for implementation of the Downtown Plan. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates the policies and street classifications of the Central City Transportation Management Plan that was adopted in 1995 to carry out the Central City Plan and the Downtown Plan.

g.)  Policy 2.11, Commercial Centers, calls for expanding the role of major established commercial centers that are well served by transit in a manner compatible with the surrounding area. The TSPsupports this policy because it includes projects that are intended to support commercial centers, including the Hollywood, Lents, and Hillsdale town centers and the Gateway regional center.

h.)  Policy 2.12, Transit Corridors, calls for providing a mixture of activities along major transit routes and Main Streets that supports the use of transit and is compatible with the surrounding area. The TSP supports this policy because it reinforces the attractiveness of transit corridors and main streets by including numerous projects along them such as pedestrian improvements.

i.)  Policy 2.13, Auto-Oriented Commercial Development, calls for allowing auto-oriented commercial development to locate on streets designated as Major City Traffic Streets by the Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies; and calls for allowing neighborhood level auto-oriented commercial development near neighborhoods where allowed densities will not support transit- and pedestrian- oriented development. The TSP is consistent with this policy because it continues to designate specific streets as Major City Traffic Streets.

j.)  Policy 2.14, Industrial Sanctuaries, calls for encouraging the growth of industrial activities by preserving industrial land primarily for manufacturing purposes. The TSP supports this policy because it includes Freight Districts as one of its freight classifications and supports truck movement on all streets within the Freight Districts. The TSP includes numerous projects that support freight movement both within Freight Districts and on access corridors to and from them.

k.)  Policy 2.15, Living Closer to Work, calls for locating greater residential densities, including affordable housing, near major employment centers, including Metro-designated regional and town centers, to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita and maintain air quality; and calls for encouraging home-based work where the nature of the work is not disruptive to the neighborhood. The TSP supports this policy because it identifies and supports short and frequent blocks, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and transit service that will provide increased transportation options and access to nearby jobs.

l.)  Policy 2.16, Strip Development, calls for discouraging the development of new strip commercial areas and focusing future activity in such areas to create a more clustered pattern of commercial development. The TSP supports this policy because even on streets with strip commercial areas, it continue to require and refine regulations that buildings must orient to transit and pedestrians if the street.is also classified as a transit street.

m.)  Policy 2.17, Transit Stations and Transit Centers, calls for encouraging transit-oriented development patterns at light rail transit stations and at transit centers to provide for easy access to transit service. The TSP supports this policy because it identifies and includes projects that reinforce transit-oriented development at transit stations and centers, including transit preferential treatments and pedestrian enhancements.

n.)  Policy 2.18, Transit Supportive Density, calls for establishing average minimum residential densities of 15 units per acre within one-quarter mile of existing and planned transit streets, Main Streets, town centers, and transit centers, and 25 units per acre within one-half mile of light rail stations and regional centers. Where existing development patterns preclude these densities, this policy calls for encouraging infill through accessory units or allowing increased density on vacant lots. The TSP supports this policy because it identifies and includes transportation projects near existing and planned transit streets, main streets, town centers, and transit centers, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements and improvements to transit operations. Town centers and transit stations have a Pedestrian District classification and associated pedestrian-improvement projects to support the higher level of pedestrian activity are expected in these areas.

o.)  Policy 2.19, Infill and Redevelopment, calls for encouraging infill and redevelopment as a way to implement the Livable City growth principles and accommodate expected increases in population and employment. The TSP supports this policy because it includes transportation projects that support infill and redevelopment including instituting street connectivity standards for infill situations. The projects are intended to encourage walking, biking, and taking the bus as options to driving, which allow greater densities without greater congestion.

p.)  Policy 2.22, Mixed Use, calls for continuation of a mechanism that will allow for the maintenance and enhancement of areas of mixed use character where such areas act as buffers and where opportunities exist for the creation of mixed use nodes. The TSP supports this policy because specific district policies address these mixed use nodes and the need to serve them with an efficient and convenient transportation system. Some of the nodes identified and supported with projects are the NE 60th/Prescott/Cully nodes and mixed use main street such as NW 23rd.

q.)  Policy 2.25, Central City Plan, calls for encouraging continued investment within Portland’s Central City while enhancing its attractiveness for work, recreation and living through implementation of the Central City Plan. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates the CCTMP policies and classifications into the TSP and includes numerous projects in the Central City intended to enhance its attractiveness and support it as the most intensely developed part of the region.

r.)  Policy 2.26, Albina Community Plan, calls for promotion of the economic vitality, historic character and livability of inner north and inner northeast Portland by implementation of the Albina Community Plan as a part of this Comprehensive Plan. The TSP supports this policy because the North and Northeast District policies and objectives are supportive of the goals of the Albina Community Plan and the TSP includes numerous projects to enhance the livability and economic vitality of the Albina Community Plan area.

s.)  Policy 2.27, Outer Southeast Community Plan, calls for promotion of the economic vitality, diverse residential character, environmental quality, and livability of Outer Southeast Portland by implementation of the Outer Southeast Community Plan as part of this Comprehensive Plan. The TSP supports this policy because the Southeast and Far Southeast District policies and objectives are supportive of the goals of the Outer Southeast Community Plan including supporting the Gateway regional center and the Lents town center with numerous projects. TSP projects also support the residential neighborhoods with many pedestrian and bicycle projects that enhance livability and access to activity centers such as parks, schools and shopping.

166.  Goal 3, Neighborhoods, calls for preservation and reinforcement of the stability and diversity of the city's neighborhoods while allowing for increased density. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the District policies and objectives reflect the need to accommodate growth while preserving and enhancing livability, and supports these policies with projects that improve bicycle and pedestrian connections.

a.)  Policy 3.1, Physical Conditions, calls for providing and coordinating programs to prevent the deterioration of existing structures and public facilities. The TSP supports this policy because it includes numerous projects that support existing transportation facilities such as rebuilding vehicle and pedestrian connections, reconstructing deteriorating streets such as NW 23rd, and retrofitting existing substandard streets with pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

b.)  Policy 3.5, Neighborhood Involvement, provides for the active involvement of neighborhood residents and businesses in decisions affecting their neighborhood. The TSP supports this policy because the neighborhood associations and the general public were invited to participate at district workshops and citywide workshops in developing the policies and projects in the TSP. Notice was provided to neighborhood associations and over 2,500 residents, groups, and businesses of the TSP events and public hearings.

 

c.)  Policy 3.6, Neighborhood Plan, calls for the maintenance and enforcement of neighborhood plans that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that have been adopted by City Council. The TSP supports this policy because the adopted neighborhood plans action charts were used to develop transportation projects in the TSP.

 

d.)  Policy 3.8, Albina Community Plan Neighborhoods, calls for inclusion as part of the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood plans developed as part of the Albina Community Plan. The TSP supports this policy because the neighborhood plans adopted as part of the Albina Community Plan, particularly their action charts were used in developing the projects for the TSP.

 

e.)  Policy 3.9, Outer Southeast Community Plan Neighborhoods and Business Plan, calls for inclusion as part of the Comprehensive Plan neighborhood and business plans developed as part of the Outer Southeast Community Plan. The TSP supports this policy because the neighborhood plans adopted as part of the Outer Southeast Community Plan, particularly their action charts were used in developing the projects for the TSP.

167.  Goal 4, Housing, calls for enhancing Portland’s vitality as a community at the center of the region’s housing market by providing housing of different types, tenures, density, sizes, costs and locations that accommodates the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of current and future households. The TSP is consistent with this goal because implementation of the multimodal transportation network identified as transportation improvements will support new residential development in undeveloped areas and in areas that are infilling or redeveloping.

a.)  Policy 4.7, Balanced Communities, calls for striving for livable mixed-income neighborhoods throughout Portland that collectively reflect the diversity of housing types, tenures, and income levels of the region. The TSP supports this policy because it provides transportation improvements in all parts of the City, supporting existing neighborhoods and developing neighborhoods, such as the River District, that are developing with a mix of housing types and costs.

168.  Goal 5, Economic Development, calls for promotion of a strong and diverse economy, which provides a full range of employment and economic choices for individuals and families in all parts of the city. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the policies and their objectives support a transportation network that serves employment centers including Columbia South Shore, Swan Island, Guild’s Lake and provides multimodal connections to these areas to support the movement of good and access for employees.

a.)  Policy 5.1, Urban Development and Revitalization, calls for encouraging investment in the development, redevelopment, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of urban land and buildings for employment and housing opportunities and supporting Downtown Portland and the Lloyd District as the major regional employment, cultural, business, and government center. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates the Goal, policies, and objectives of the CCTMP, which provides for a transportation system to support growth in the Central City. The TSP includes transportation improvements in the Central City identified by the Portland Development Commission to support growth and economic vitality in the Central City.

b.)  Policy 5.4, Transportation System, calls for promotion of a multi-modal regional transportation system that encourages economic development. The TSP is consistent with this policy because it incorporates the regionally-significant transportation projects identified in the RTP for Portland that support pedestrian, bicycle, transit, freight, and motor vehicle movement.

c.)  Policy 5.5, Infrastructure Development, calls for promotion of public and private investments in public infrastructure to foster economic development in Council-designated target areas. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates multimodal transportation projects in the City’s urban renewal areas including Gateway, Lents, Interstate, and the Central City.

d.)  Policy 5.8, Diversity and Identity in Industrial Areas, calls for promotion of a variety of efficient, safe and attractive industrial sanctuary and mixed employment areas in Portland. The TSP supports this policy because it includes numerous projects to improve the transportation network in the City’s industrial sanctuaries and major employment areas, including Columbia South Shore, Rivergate, and Swan Island.

e.)  Policy 5.10, Columbia South Shore, calls for encouraging the development of the Columbia South Shore as an industrial employment district which attracts a diversity of employment opportunities while protecting significant environmental resources and maintaining the capacity of the area infrastructure to accommodate future development. The TSP supports this policy because it includes multimodal transportation improvements in Columbia South Shore identified through a recent study and by the Port of Portland as needed to support its growth as an industrial employment district.

169.  Goal 6, Transportation, calls for protection of the public interest and investment in the public right-of-way and transportation system by

•  encouraging development of a balanced, affordable and efficient transportation system consistent with the Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies;

•  providing adequate accessibility to all planned land uses;

•  providing safe and efficient movement of people and goods while preserving, enhancing, or reclaiming neighborhood livability; minimizing the impact of inter-regional trips on City neighborhoods, commercial areas, and the City street system;

•  reducing reliance on the automobile and per capita vehicle miles traveled;

•  building the use of the City street system to control air pollution, traffic, and livability problems; and

•  maintaining the infrastructure in good condition.

 

The TSP is consistent with this goal because it incorporates the values identified in the Goal while reformatting it for consistency with other Goals in the Comprehensive Plan.

a.)  Policy 6.1, Intergovernmental Coordination, calls for coordinating transportation facilities and improvements with development activities and with regional transportation and land use plans. The TSP supports this policy because it continues to contain this policy while expanding it to include coordination will all agencies, local governments, special districts, and providers of transportation services.

b.)  Policy 6.2, Regional and City Travel Patterns, calls for traffic to use streets in a manner consistent with the Arterial Streets Classifications of those streets. The TSP supports this policy because it continues to include this policy while reformatting it consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

c.)  Policy 6.3, No New Regional Trafficways, calls for accommodation of any future increases in regional traffic through improvements to existing traffic ways. The TSP supports this policy because it continues to include this policy while reformatting it consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

d.)  Policy 6.4, Coordinate Land Use and Transportation Planning, calls for coordinating land use planning with transportation planning and requires that the Transportation Element be a guide in land use planning and in the transportation project development process. The TSP supports this policy because it continues to include this policy while reformatting it consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies. The part of the policy requiring the Transportation Policies to be used as approval criteria in certain land use reviews has been deleted because the approval criteria for these types of land use reviews have been amended as part of the TSP to include their applicable content.

e.)  Policy 6.5, Neighborhood Collector and Local Service Street Traffic Management, calls for managing traffic on Neighborhood Collectors and Local Service streets according to the hierarchy established in the Transportation Element, and the land uses they serve. The TSP supports this policy because the policy has been included in the TSP while being reformatted to be consistent with other policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

f.)  Policy 6.6, Urban Form, calls for supporting a regional form composed of mixed-use centers served by a multi-modal transportation system. The TSP supports this policy because its intent has been incorporated into a new Policy 6.20, Connectivity. The first sentence of the policy has been deleted, but its intent – to support the regional grow concept of mixed-use centers – has been added to Policy 6.17, Coordinate land Use and Transportation.

g.)  Policy 6.7, Public Transit, calls for development of transit as the preferred form of person trips to and from the Central City, regional and town centers, and light rail stations at all times. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into Policy 6.24, Public Transportation, while reformatting the policy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

h.)  Policy 6.8, Regional Rail Corridors, calls for assigning priority to the funding and development of the regional mass transit system in order to reduce both the need for new regional traffic facilities and reliance on the automobile. The TSP supports this policy because its intent has been incorporated into Policy, 6.24, Objective A and B.

i.)  Policy 6.9, Transit-Oriented Development, calls for increasing residential densities on residentially-zoned lands and encouraging transit-oriented development along Major City Transit Streets and Regional Transitways, as well as in activity centers, at existing and planned light rail transit stations, and at transit centers, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The TSP supports this policy because it is incorporated into Policy 6.19, Transit-Oriented Development. Objectives D. and E. relating to park-and-ride facilities have been incorporated into Objective G of Policy 6.24, Public Transportation. Objective F. has been deleted because monitoring of park-and-ride activities is not done as a separate activity. The Parking Management staff respond to complaints and implement area parking permit programs Citywide.

j.)  Policy 6.10, Barrier-Free Design, calls for transportation facilities to be accessible to all people, and requires that all improvements to the transportation system in the public right-of-way comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The TSP supports this policy because its intent is included in Policy 11.10, Street Design and Right-of-Way Improvements, Objective K.

k.)  Policy 6.11, Pedestrian Transportation, calls for planning for, and completion of, a pedestrian network that increases the opportunities for walking to shopping and services, institutional and recreational destinations, employment, and transit. The TSP supports this policy because it is incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.22, Pedestrian Transportation. Objective E. relating to education has been incorporated into Policy 6.3, Transportation Education, and Objective F. has been incorporated into Policy 11.9, Project Selection.

l.)  Policy 6.12, Bicycle Transportation, calls for making the bicycle an integral part of daily life in Portland, by implementing a bikeway network, providing end-of-trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer. The TSP supports this policy because it is incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.23, Bicycle Transportation. The objectives have revised slightly to emphasize the focus of the City’s bicycle program. Objective G relating to education and encouragement has been incorporated into Policy 6.3, Transportation Education.

m.)  Policy 6.13, Transportation Demand Management, calls for requiring the use of transportation demand management techniques such as carpooling, ridesharing, flexible work hours, telecommuting, parking management, and employer-subsidized transit passes to mitigate the impact of development-generated traffic. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.28, Travel Management. The last sentence of the policy relating to preferential carpool parking has been deleted because the requirement for carpool parking was incorporated into the Zoning Code in 1996.

n.)  Policy 6.14, Parking Management, calls for managing the parking supply to take into account both transportation capacity and parking demand, and implementing measures to achieve Portland’s share of a regional per capita parking space reduction. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.25, Parking Management, while being reformatted to be consistent other Comprehensive Plan policies.

o.)  Policy 6.15, On-Street Parking Management, calls for managing the supply, operations and demand for parking and loading in the public right-of-way to encourage economic vitality, traffic safety, and livability of residential neighborhoods. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.26, On-Street Parking Management while being reformatted to be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

p.)  Policy 6.16, Off-Street Parking, calls for the provision of adequate, but not excessive, off-street parking for all land uses. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.27, Off-Street Parking Management while being reformatted to be consistent other Comprehensive Plan policies.

q.)  Policy 6.17, Institutional Parking, calls for encouraging institutions to regulate parking facilities to first provide short-term parking for users, and secondly, to use demand management to minimize the amount of employee parking required. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Objective D of Policy 6.28,Travel Management.

r.)  Policy 6.18, Clean Air and Energy Efficiency, calls for encouraging the use of all modes of travel that contribute to clean air and energy efficiency. The TSP is supportive of this policy but deletes it because the policy intent is covered by existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.6, Energy Efficient Transportation.

s.)  Policy 6.19, Multimodal, calls for coordination of the planning, development, and interconnection of all modes of passenger transportation. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.32, Multimodal Passenger Service, while being reformatted consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

t.)  Policy 6.20, Northwest Corridor Passenger Rail Service, calls for expanding Northwest Corridor passenger rail service between Eugene, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, BC. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Objective E. of Policy 6.32, Multimodal Passenger Service.

u.)  Policy 6.21, Freight Intermodal Facilities and Freight Activity Areas, calls for development and maintenance of a multimodal transportation system for the safe and efficient movement of goods within the city. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates it into the TSP as Policy 6.29, Freight Intermodal Facilities and Freight Activity Areas. Objective D. relating to a Lower Albina overcrossing has been deleted because the project is nearing completion and the facility is now on the appropriate street classification maps.

v.)  Policy 6.22, Right-of-Way Opportunities, calls for preservation of existing and abandoned rail rights-of-way and examination of their potential for future rail freight, passenger service, or recreational trail uses. The TSP supports this policy because it has been incorporated into the TSP as Policy 6.21, Right-of-Way Opportunities, while being reformatted to be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

w.)  Policy 6.23, South of Portland River Crossing, calls for locating a new Willamette River bridge crossing south of the City of Portland to serve suburban travel demand between Clackamas and Washington Counties. The TSP does not include this policy because the regional study for a new Willamette River crossing has been completed and the decision has been made not to build a new bridge within the life of the TSP. Additional studies are being completed to provide alternatives, including the possibility of light rail or other transit options.

x.)  Policy 6.24, Market-Based Congestion Management, calls for advocating a regional, market-based system to price or charge for an auto trip during peak travel hours. The TSP supports this policy because it is incorporated into Policy 6.33, Congestion Pricing.

y.)  Policy 6.25, Access Management, calls for the City to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation to develop access management agreements for state highways within the City. The TSP supports this policy because it is incorporated and updated into Policy 6.16, Access Management.

z.)  Policy 6.26, Central City Transportation Management Plan, calls for including portions of the Central City Transportation Management Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates the CCTMP Goal, policies, and objectives, classification maps, and glossary terms into the TSP.

aa.)  Policy 6.27, Adequacy of Transportation Facilities, calls for ensuring that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, or to land use regulations, that change allowed land uses and significantly affect a transportation facility are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates it as Policy 6.18, Adequacy of Transportation Facilities.

bb.)  Policy 6.28, Public Involvement, calls for carrying out a public involvement process that is consistent with Metro guidelines and provides information about transportation issues and processes to citizens, especially to those traditionally under-served by transportation services. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates it as Policy 6.2, Public Involvement, while reformatting it to be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

cc.)  Policy 6.29, Transportation Education, calls for publicizing activities and the availability of resources and facilities to encourage use of alternate modes of travel to the automobile. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates it into the TSP as Policy 6.3, Transportation Education.

dd.)  Policy 6.30, Street Vacations, calls for allowing street vacations only when there is no existing or future need for the right-of-way, the established city street pattern will not be significantly interrupted, and the functional purpose of nearby streets will be maintained. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates it into the TSP as Policy 6.21, Right-of-Way Opportunities, and reformats it to be consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies.

ee.)  Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies describe the types of automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use that should be emphasized on each street and how future street improvements and public and private development relate to those uses. The TSP supports these classifications and policies because the classifications and policies are incorporated into the TSP as Policies 6.4, Classification Descriptions; 6.5, Traffic Street Classification Descriptions; 6.6, transit Street Classification Descriptions; 6.7, Bikeway Classification Descriptions; 7.8, Pedestrianway Classification Descriptions; and 6.9, Freight Classification Descriptions. The classifications have been combined and revised to include the CCTMP classification descriptions and cover the entire City.

ff.)  North District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the North Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.34, North Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

gg.)  Northeast District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the Northeast Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.35, Northeast Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

hh.)  Far Northeast District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the Far Northeast Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.36, Far Northeast Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

ii.)  Southeast District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the Southeast Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.37, Southeast Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

jj.)  Far Southeast District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the Far Southeast Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.38, Far Southeast Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

kk.)  Northwest District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the Northwest Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.39, Northwest Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

ll.)  Southwest District Policies and Classification Maps include policies specific to the Southwest Transportation District and accompanying maps that classify the streets for automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and truck use. The TSP supports these policies and maps because it incorporates and updates them as Policy 6.40, Southwest Transportation District, and its objectives and accompanying classification maps.

170.  Goal 7, Energy, calls for promotion of a sustainable energy future by increasing energy efficiency in all sectors of the city by ten percent by the year 2000. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it includes policies, projects, and programs that will result in a more convenient multimodal transportation system that will encourage walking, bicycling, and taking transit.

a.)  Policy 7.4, Energy Efficiency Through Land Use Regulations, calls for promoting residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation energy efficiency and the use of renewable resources. The TSP supports this policy because its policies will support energy efficiency by improving the connectivity of the street grid, reducing travel distances and encouraging alternatives modes of travel to the automobile.

b.)  Policy 7.6, Energy Efficient Transportation, calls for providing opportunities for non-auto transportation and for reducing gasoline and diesel use by increasing fuel efficiency. The TSP supports this policy because its policies, projects, and programs are intended to encourage transportation choices as alternatives to the automobile, including completion of the region’s light rail system, constructing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit-preferential measures to speed bus travel.

171.  Goal 8, Environment, calls for maintenance and improvement of the quality of Portland's air, water, and land resources, as well as protection of neighborhoods and business centers from noise pollution. The TSP is consistent with this goal because its policies, projects and regulations will result in a more connected street grid, which supports more trips made by walking, bicycling, or taking transit. Reducing the percentage of trips made by single-occupant automobiles will contribute to improved air and water quality and minimize the need for projects that increase the capacity of the street system to accommodate cars.

a.)  Policy 8.2, Central City Transportation Management Plan, calls for the Central City Transportation Management Plan to be the guide for future city efforts to maintain air quality standards while allowing for expanded employment and housing opportunities throughout the Central City. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates the CCTMP into the TSP, including its policies that support air quality.

b.)  Policy 8.3, Air Quality Maintenance Strategies, calls for implementation of the action elements of the Central City Transportation Management Plan and ozone maintenance plan to provide for long-term maintenance of air quality standards. The TSP supports this policy because it incorporates the CCTMP into the TSP, including the actions of the CCTMP that support the ozone maintenance plan.

c.)  Policy 8.4, Ride Sharing, Bicycling, Walking, and Transit, calls for promoting the use of alternative modes of transportation such as ridesharing, bicycling, walking, and transit throughout the metropolitan area. The TSP supports this policy because its policies, projects and programs focus on promoting the use of alternative modes of travel, including new bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit preferential measures to speed bus movement. The TSP supports educational efforts to make people aware of transportation choices.

d.)  Policy 8.8, Groundwater Protection, calls for protection of domestic groundwater and surface water resources from potential pollution through a variety of regulatory measures relating to land use, transportation, and hazardous substances. The TSP supports this policy because its street standards minimize pavement widths to reduce stormwater runoff.

e.)  Policy 8.9, Open Space, calls for protection of Portland parks, cemeteries and golf courses through an Open Space designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The TSP supports this policy because it includes policies and projects to support off-street paths in parks, cemeteries, and golf courses where these paths serve a transportation function as shown on the classification maps.

f.)  Policy 8.14, Natural Resources, calls for conservation of significant natural and scenic resource sites and values through a combination of programs which involve zoning and other land use controls, purchase, preservation, intergovernmental coordination, conservation, and mitigation. The policy also calls for balancing the conservation of significant natural resources with the need for other urban uses and activities through the evaluation of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of such actions. The TSP supports this policy because the TSP includes an ESEE analysis that evaluates transportation projects that might impact these resources. Where an adequate analysis cannot be done because of inadequate information, the TSP calls for an ESEE analysis as part of project development.

g.)  Policy 8.21, Portland International Airport Noise Impact Area, calls for ensuring compatible land use designations and development within the noise impacted area of the Portland International Airport while providing public notice of the level of aircraft noise and mitigating the potential impact of that noise within the area. The TSP supports this policy because it includes an Air, Rail, Water, and Pipeline Modal Plan that acknowledges the needs of the airport and the need to regulate for noise impacts in the vicinity of the airport.

172.  Goal 9, Citizen Involvement, calls for improved methods and ongoing opportunities for citizen involvement in the land use decision-making process. The TSP is consistent with this goal because its development included numerous opportunities for public involvement as detailed in the State Goal 1 findings.

a.)  Policy 9.1, Citizen Involvement Coordination, calls for encouraging citizen involvement in land use planning projects through coordination with community organizations, availability of planning reports and notice of public hearings. The TSP supports this policy because it has been developed with numerous public outreach efforts throughout its development including focus groups with District Coalition boards, briefings with the same organizations, and attendance at neighborhood meetings and events. The TSP and early drafts were made available to the public in advance of hearings and notices were mailed to over 8,000 people for the district workshops in 1998, over 2,000 people for the citywide open houses in 2001, and approximately 3,000 people for the Planning Commission hearing. In addition, notices were inserted into newspapers and neighborhood newsletters prior to public events and hearings.

b.)  Policy 9.3, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, calls for allowing for the review and amendment of the adopted Comprehensive Plan which ensures citizen involvement opportunities for the city’s residents, businesses and organizations. The TSP supports this policy because the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan, as described in Title 33, was followed in its development.

173.  Goal 10, Plan Review and Administration, requires that Portland’s Comprehensive Plan undergo a periodic review to assure that it remains an up-to-date and workable framework for land use development. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the TSP updates Goals 6 and 11B of the Comprehensive Plan. The TSP is updated every five years to ensure that it remains consistent with and responds to updates of other parts of the Comprehensive Plan.

a.)  Policy 10.1, Comprehensive Plan Review, calls for implementing a process for the review of the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, objectives, and implementation provisions on a periodic basis. The TSP supports this policy because it includes revised and new policies and objectives and revised and new implementing regulations.

b.)  Policy 10.4, Comprehensive Plan Map, calls for the Comprehensive Plan Map to be the official long range planning guide for uses and development in the city. The TSP supports this policy because it updates the street classification maps for the City which are adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

c.)  Policy 10.6, Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Implementing Measures, requires that all proposed amendments to goals, policies, and implementing ordinances be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action by the City Council. The TSP supports this policy because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to amendments to Title 33 have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in two hearings on June 11 and June 25, 2002.

d.)  Policy 10.7, Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map, requires that amendments be supportive of the overall Comprehensive Plan and Map, be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals, and be consistent with any adopted applicable area plans. When the amendment is from a residential, or urban commercial, to another non-residential designation the policy requires that there be no net loss of housing units. The TSP supports this policy because the maps being adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan include street classification maps for each district of the City and street master plan maps that complement the Comprehensive Plan Map.

e.)  Policy 10.8, Zone Changes, requires that base zone changes within a Comprehensive Plan Map designation be to the corresponding zone stated in the designation. The policy also requires that such zone changes be granted when it is found that public services are sufficient. The TSP is not inconsistent with this policy because no changes are being made to the base zones.

f.)  Policy 10.10, Amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, requires amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations to be clear, concise, and applicable to the broad range of development situations faced by a growing, urban city. The TSP supports this policy because amendments to Title 33 will codify transportation policies that have been used as approval criteria used for land use reviews since 1992. The result will be consolidated approval criteria for each land use review with potential transportation impacts.

174.  Goal 11 A, Public Facilities, General, calls for provision of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services that support existing and planned land use patterns and densities. The TSP is consistent with this goal because one of the primary elements is the 20-year list of transportation projects, including relative time frames, that will address transportation needs associated with existing and planned land use.

a.)  Policy 11.1, Service Responsibility, describes the responsibilities of the City of Portland within its Urban Services Boundary (both within and outside of its jurisdictional boundary), including service provision, coordination, education, and public participation. The TSP supports this policy because it is a comprehensive approach to serving the transportation needs of the City as a whole over the next 20 years. Transportation services for unincorporated areas within Portland’s Urban Services Boundary are provided by the applicable county.

b.)  Policy 11.2, Orderly Land Development, calls for urban development to occur only where urban public facilities and services exist or can be reasonably made available. The TSP supports this policy because it does not include provision of transportation services for areas where urban development is not planned.

c.)  Policy 11.3, Orderly Service Extension, calls for improvement and expansion of urban public facilities or services to not stimulate development that significantly precedes the ability to provide all other necessary urban public facilities and services at uniform levels. The TSP supports this policy because it does not include the provision of transportation infrastructure in areas where development is not planned.

d.)  Policy 11.4, Capital Efficiency, calls for supporting maximum use of existing public facilities and services by encouraging higher density development and development of vacant land within already developed areas. The TSP supports this policy because it includes transportation improvements in areas planned for higher density development and the development of vacant land within already developed are, including centers, main streets and station areas.

e.)  Policy 11.5, Cost Equitability, calls for the costs of improvement, extension and construction of public facilities, where possible, to be borne by those whose land development and redevelopment actions made the improvement necessary. The TSP supports this policy because it includes projects that serve growth and are developed with transportation system development fees.

f.)  Policy 11.6, Public Facilities System Plan, calls for development and maintenance of a coordinated Public Facilities System Plan that provides a framework for the provision of urban public facilities and services within Portland’s Urban Services Boundary. The TSP supports this policy because it updates the Public Facilities Plan for transportation and will be incorporated into the citywide update of the Public Facilities Plan now underway.

g.)  Policy 11.7, Capital Improvement Program, identifies the capital improvement program as the annual planning process for major improvements to existing public facilities and construction of new facilities. The TSP supports this policy because it includes Policy 11.9, Project Selection, which specifies the approval criteria for moving transportation projects from the TSP 20-year list to the capital improvement program.

175.  Goal 11 B, Public Rights-of-Way, calls for preservation of the quality of Portland’s land transportation system, protection of the City’s capital investment in public rights-of-way, and implementation of street improvements in accordance with identified needs and balanced resource allocation. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the revised goal for 11B continues to incorporate these values.

a.)  Policy 11.8, Maintenance, calls for assigning first funding priority to maintenance of the existing street system. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 11.12, Maintenance, include the statement to support activities and programs that preserve, maintain, and prevent deterioration of the existing transportation system.

b.)  Policy 11.9, Transit Corridors, calls for assigning priority to improvements that promote more effective public transportation for those streets functioning as transit corridors. The TSP supports this policy because Policy 6.24, Objective D, calls for implementing transit-preferential measures on Major Transit Priority Streets. The new Policy 11.10, Objective H. calls for including improvements that enhance transit operations, safety, and travel times in projects that are located on existing or planned transit routes. The TSP list of projects include many projects intended to improve travel times for transit vehicles along priority corridors.

c.)  Policy 11.10, Street Improvements, calls for allowing improvements to public rights-of-way only if consistent with the street classifications in the Arterial Streets Classifications and Policies. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 11.10, Objective A calls for making improvements to public rights-of-way that are consistent with their street classifications.

d.)  Policy 11.11, Local Service Street Improvements, calls for constructing of local service streets in accordance with existing and planned neighborhood land use patterns and accepted engineering standards, including the provision of sidewalks on most streets. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 11.10, Objectives G, J, M, and P require sidewalks on both sides of all new street improvements, constructing local residential streets to minimize pavement width and total right-of-way width, encouraging the formation of local improvement districts to provide transportation infrastructure, and considering the desired character of the area including neighborhood livability.

e.)  Policy 11.12, Transit Improvements, calls for constructing or modifying transit streets to promote more efficient and effective public transportation and to improve pedestrian access to transit. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 11.10, Objective H supports improvements on transit streets that enhance transit operations, safety, and travel times.

f.)  Policy 11.13, Bicycle Improvements, calls for providing bikeway facilities appropriate to the street classifications, traffic volume, and speed in the design and construction of all new or reconstructed streets. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 6.7, Bicycle Classification Descriptions, and its objectives describe the appropriate design of bicycle facilities for City Bikeways, Off-Street Paths, and Local Service Bikeways. Objective A calls for considering the following factors in determining the appropriate design treatment for City Bikeways: traffic volume, speed of motor vehicles, and street width. Policy 11.10, Objective F requires that planned bicycle facilities be provided in conjunction with street improvements.

g.)  Policy 11.14, Public Bicycle Parking, calls for providing for safe short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout the Central City and in other areas of the City where needed. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 6.23, Bicycle Transportation, and its Objective E, call for providing end-of-trip facilities, specifically short-term and long-term bicycle parking in commercial districts, along main streets, in employment centers and multifamily developments, at schools and colleges, in industrial developments, at special events, in recreational areas, at transit facilities, and at intermodal passenger stations.

h.)  Policy 11.15, Pedestrian Improvements on Arterials, calls for providing for safe pedestrian movement along all new or reconstructed streets classified as Neighborhood Collectors or above and developing additional pedestrian walkways where needed. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 6.22, Pedestrian Transportation, and its objectives, and the new Policy 11.10, Objective G call for completing the pedestrian network with priority in Pedestrian Districts; routes to schools, shopping and parks; routes to transit centers, stations, and stops; and along both sides of all new street improvements.

i.)  Policy 11.16, Local Improvement Districts, calls for encouraging the formation of local improvement districts (LIDs) in currently developed areas to make street improvements. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 11.10, Objective M encourages the formation of LIDs for the construction of transportation infrastructure, which may include streets, curbs, or other structures; pedestrian or bicycle facilities; drainage; and street trees.

j.)  Policy 11.17, New Construction, calls for requiring that construction of new streets be of high quality materials in order to minimize future maintenance costs. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 11.10, Objective E, calls for using a variety of transportation resources in developing and designing projects for City Streets. These resources, including the Pedestrian Design Guide, the Bicycle Master Plan - Appendix A, the Standard Construction Specifications manual, and the Design Guide for Public Street Improvements, specify the appropriate materials for each street improvement.

176.  Goal 11 C, Sanitary and Stormwater Facilities, calls for an efficient, adequate, and self-supporting wastewater collection treatment and disposal system which will meet the needs of the public and comply with federal, state and local clean water requirements. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it incorporates Metro’s Green Streets handbook into Policy 11.10, Objective D, as a resource that will be considered when designing streets on the regional system.

a.)  Policy 11.27, Impervious surfaces, calls for limiting the increase of Portland’s impervious surfaces without unduly limiting development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, when necessary. The TSP supports this policy because Policy 11.10, Objective J, calls for constructing local residential streets to minimize pavement width and total right-of-way width, consistent with the operational needs of the facility.

177.  Goal 11 F, Parks and Recreation, calls for maximizing the quality, safety and usability of parklands and facilities through the efficient maintenance and operation of park improvements, preservation of parks and open space, and equitable allocation of active and passive recreation opportunities for the citizens of Portland. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the district pedestrian and bicycle classification maps include recreational trails where they also serve a transportation function including providing needed connectivity where street connectivity is inadequate. Projects on the TSP 20-year list include a segment of the Willamette Greenway Trail and a Kelly Point Park access trail.

178.  Goal 11 G, Fire, calls for the development and maintenance of facilities that adequately respond to the fire protection needs of Portland. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it incorporates the results of the Emergency Response Classification Study. The TSP adds an Emergency Response network of streets that must remain easily passable by emergency response vehicles. The new Policy 6.10, Emergency Response Classification Descriptions, and Policy 6.14, Emergency Response, describe the need to provide a network of emergency response streets that facilitate prompt response to emergencies.

179.  Goal 11 H, Police, calls for the development and maintenance of facilities that allow police personnel to respond to public safety needs as quickly and efficiently as possible. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it incorporates the results of the Emergency Response Classification Study. The TSP adds an Emergency Response network of streets that must remain easily passable by emergency response vehicles. The new Policy 6.10, Emergency Response Classification Descriptions, and Policy 6.14, Emergency Response, describe the need to provide a network of emergency response streets that facilitate prompt response to emergencies.

180.  Goal 11 I, Schools, calls for the enhancement of educational opportunities of Portland’s citizens through assistance in planning educational facilities. The TSP is consistent with this goal because it supports schools by identifying transportation improvements that allow students to access schools safely.

a.)  Policy 11.62, Safety, calls for providing traffic improvements, such as sidewalks and bikeways, to promote safe routes to schools where attendance area reorganization requires longer travel distances for students. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 6.22, Pedestrian Transportation, and Objective A. encourages walking to schools and Policy 11.9, Project Selection, Objective D, calls for giving priority to projects that support safe routes to school. The new Policy 6.23, Bicycle Transportation, and its Objective H, support completing a bicycle network that would promotes bicycling as safe and convenient transportation to schools. The TSP 20-year list includes numerous projects that would improve the pedestrian and bicyclist environment in the vicinity of schools.

181.  Goal 12, Urban Design, calls for the enhancement of Portland as a livable city, attractive in its setting and dynamic in its urban character by preserving its history and building a substantial legacy of quality private developments and public improvements for future generations. The TSP is consistent with this goal because the new Policy 6.11, Street Design, includes design elements and design treatments for all street designs. The design elements and treatments for Regional Main Streets and Community Main Streets are intended to respond to and further the goal of creating attractive streets.

a.)  Policy 12.4, Provide for Pedestrians, calls for providing a pleasant, rich and diverse experience for pedestrians which includes comfortable, safe and attractive pathways. The TSP supports this policy because the new Policy 6.20, Connectivity, Policy 6.21, Right-of-Way Opportunities, and Policy 6.22, Pedestrian Transportation, call for a complete pedestrian network that increases the opportunities for walking. Specifically, Policy 6.20, Objective C, calls for convenient and safe pedestrian connections to transit routes, schools, and parks as well as within and between new and existing residential developments, employment areas and other activity centers. Policy 6.21, and its Objectives A and B, require maintaining rights-of-way where needed to provide pedestrian connections. Policy 6.22 and its Objective C. calls for improving the pedestrian environment by implementing pedestrian design guidelines to ensure that all construction in the right-of-way meets a pedestrian quality standard.

182.  Portland City Code 33.835.040, Approval Criteria for Goal, Policy and Regulation Amendments, includes two applicable approval criteria. The TSP meets these as follows:

a.)  Amendments to the Zoning Code must be found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Statewide Planning Goals. The TSP code amendments are consistent with this approval criterion because the findings on the Comprehensive Plan and the Statewide Planning Goals demonstrate this consistency. The TSP code amendments are consistent with the intent or purpose statements of the base zones, overlay zones, plan districts, and use and development regulations because they are minor amendments to update terms, carry out state and regional mandates, and do not change the intent or purpose of the regulations.

b.)  Amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan must be found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Statewide Planning Goals. The TSP amendments to Goal 6 and Goal 11B are consistent with this criterion because the findings demonstrate this consistency.

 

 

NOW THEREFORE, The Council directs:

 

a.  Adopt the Transportation System Plan, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, and the Inventory, dated September 2002, which is attached as Exhibits A, B, C, and D;

 

b.  Repeal the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by Ordinances No. 165851 and No. 170136;

 

c.  Amend Portland’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Goals, Policies, Objectives, Maps, and Glossary of Terms of the Transportation System Plan as shown in Chapter 2 of Exhibit A, including amendments to the Central City Transportation Management Plan classification maps;

 

d.  Amend the Public Facilities Plan’s, as adopted by Ordinance No. 161770, by replacing the List of Significant Projects in Exhibit C with the 20-year Major Transportation Improvements List and Maps, as shown in Chapter 3 of Exhibit A, as a support document to Portland’s Comprehensive Plan;

 

e.  Adopt the list of regional and Portland refinement plans, as shown in Chapter 4 of Exhibit A, as a support document Portland’s Comprehensive Plan;

 

f.  Adopt the remainder of Volumes 1, 2, and 3, and the Inventory, as shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D as support documents for Goal 6 and 11B of the Comprehensive Plan;

 

g.  Amend Portland’s Comprehensive Plan to incorporate revisions to Goals 2, 5, and 12 as shown in Chapter 6 of Exhibit A;

 

h.  Amend Title 16, Vehicles and Traffic, as shown in Chapter 6 of Exhibit A;

 

i.  Amend Title 17, Public Improvements, as shown in Chapter 6 of Exhibit A;

 

j.  Amend Title 33, Planning and Zoning, as shown in Chapter 6 of Exhibit A;

 

k.  Adopt the explanations, as shown in Chapter 2, and the commentary for Titles 16, 17, and 33, as shown in Chapter 6, and contained in Exhibit A, as an expression of legislative intent and as further findings to support City Council’s action;

 

l.  Publish reformatted versions of Volumes 1, 2, and 3 that reflect City Council action, including revisions to the Financial Plan in Chapter 14 of Exhibit B as needed to reflect changes to Chapter 3 of Exhibit A, and to update technical data; and

 

Section 2. To allow time for adoption by the Multnomah County Commission, this ordinance shall be effective 45 days after adoption by City Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passed by the Council, OCT 30 2002

 

GARY BLACKMER

Commissioner Jim Francesconi  AUDITOR OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND

Jeanne Harrison:jeh               BY /S/ SUSAN PARSONS

September 6, 2002

 

                       DEPUTY

 

BACKING SHEET INFORMATION

 

AGENDA NO. 1174, 1260, 1322-2002

 

ACTION TAKEN:

SEPT 25 2002 CONTINUED TO OCT 17 2002 2 P.M. TIME CERTAIN

OCT 17 2002 PASSED TO SECOND READING AS AMENDED OCT 30 2002 2 P.M.

 

ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION/COUNCIL DOCUMENT NO. 177028 AS AMENDED

 

COMMISSIONERS VOTED AS FOLLOWS:

 

YEAS

NAYS

FRANCESCONI

X

 

POSITION 4 VACANT

-----

-----

SALTZMAN

X

 

STEN

X

 

KATZ

X