Shaff v. City of Medford

(1) Under OAR 660-012-0020(3), just because a local government’s inventory of bicycle facilities includes a variety of facilities, some of which may be viewed as substandard, does not mean that the inventory fails to include all existing and committed bicycle facilities. (2) Under Goal 2, the requirement that decision be supported by an adequate factual base is met by evidence a reasonable person would rely upon to reach a decision.

Petitioner appeals a city decision adopting a revised Transportation System Plan (TSP).

OAR 660-012-0020(2), which implements Goal 12 (Transportation), requires that local TSPs identify the network of bicycle routes throughout the planning area. OAR 660-012-0020(3) requires that TSP elements include “[a]n inventory and general assessment of . . . transportation facilities and services by . . . capacity[] and condition.” In addition, Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) requires “an adequate factual base for . . . decisions . . .” In the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that, because the adopted inventory of bicycle facilities includes areas that petitioner believes are inadequate for safe bicycle travel and does not include an assessment of the capacity or condition of multi-use paths, it fails to comply with OAR 660-012-0020(3) and Goal 2. Because petitioner fails to explain how the inclusion of substandard bike lanes in the inventory violates OAR 660-012-0020(3) or why the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis which the city uses to assess bicycle facilities does not reflect capacity and condition, the first assignment of error is denied.

OAR 660-012-0035(4) requires that Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and local TSPs “be designed to achieve adopted standards for . . . reducing reliance on the automobile.” OAR 660-012-0035(7) requires that RTPs and TSPs adopt benchmarks to assure progress towards meeting these standards “at regular intervals over the planning period.” Local governments must evaluate their progress in meeting these benchmarks at each update of the RTP, and thereafter amend their TSPs to be consistent with the RTP. Furthermore, if these benchmarks are not met, the TSP must be amended to include new or additional efforts to meet the underlying standards. In the second assignment of error, petitioner argues that, because the adopted benchmarks in the revised TSP do not cover the entirety of the 2018-2038 planning period, and because the city is applying benchmarks that it failed to meet over the prior planning period, the city failed to comply with OAR 660-012-0035(4) and (7). However, because the RTP’s benchmarks also do not cover the entirety of the 2018-2038 planning period, and because the city is taking a variety of other steps to reduce reliance on the automobile concerning minimum density, street network design, transit-oriented districts, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements, LUBA concludes that the city has complied with these rules. The second assignment of error is therefore denied.

LUBA addresses ten additional assignments of error, many of which are dismissed because of evidence contrary to petitioner’s assertions, because petitioner fails to challenge responsive city findings or cite any authority supporting its assertions, or because petitioner merely disputes the city’s choices of priorities and strategies. Because all twelve assignments of error are denied, the city’s decision is AFFIRMED.