Oregon 
Theodore R KjibngDski, Governor 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
Department of Land Conservation and Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, O R 97301-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
w w w . lcd.state.or.us 
Mis. 
7/31/2009 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: City of Coburg Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 002-08 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. 
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached. A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office. This amendment was submitted without a signed ordinance. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Thursday, August 13, 2009 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption. Pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice 
of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS 
MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED 
TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAT IT WAS MAILED TO DLCD. AS A 
RESULT, YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAY BE EARLIER THAN THE ABOVE 
DATE SPECIFIED. 
Cc: Petra Schuetz, City of Coburg 
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist 
Bill Holmstrom, DLCD Transportation Planner 
Ed Moore, DLCD Regional Representative 
<paa> YA/ 
1 2 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED TO DLCD 
WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION 
PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660 - DIVISION 18 
Q] In person • electronic. [~] mailed 
D E P T O F 
JUL 2 4 2009 
LAND CONSERVATION 
AND DEVELOPMENT 
For .DIXDUseOnlv: 
Jurisdiction: Coburg Local file number: N/A 
Date of Adoption: 4/14/2009 Date Mailed: 7/22/2009 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? Yes Date: 3/01/2009 
[X] Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ö Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
[K] Land Use Regulation Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment 
• New Land Use Regulation Other: l-AMP 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
State law requires that an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) be completed before any funding can 
be released for projects identified at the Coburg/l-5 interchange to fix the problem. In addition, Oregon 
Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0155(6) states: "Interchange Area Management Plans are required for 
new interchanges and should be developed for significant modifications to existing interchanges..." 
The Coburg/lnterstate 5 IAMP documents the planning process to develop an alternative that will improve 
and protect the function of the Coburg/i-5 interchange. The purpose of the IAMP is to ensure that public 
investments in state infrastructure are protected through an integration of transportation and land use 
planning at the city, county and state levels. The IAMP recommends: (1) operational and physical 
improvements, including access management, and (2) local policy and development code changes. The 
IAMP is a collaborative document and reflects coordination among the Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT), the City of Coburg, and Lane County. The IAMP must be adopted by the Oregon Transportation 
Commission (OTC), the City of Coburg and Lane County to be in effect. 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? No 
Plan Map Changed from: to: 
Zone Map Changed from: to: 
Location: Acres Involved: 
Specify Density: Previous: New: 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
I K D D ^ D D I K D I K D D D D D D D 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES M NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment... 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? £><] Yes O No 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? • Yes • No 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? • Yes • No 
DLCD file No. 002-08 (17261) [15635 ] 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Lane County 
Lane Council of Governments 
Oregon Department of Transportation 
City of Coburg 
Local Contact: Petra Schuetz 
Address: P.O. Box 8316 
City: Coburg Zip: 97408 
Phone: (541) 682-7858 Extension: 
Fax Number: 541-485-0655 
E-mail Address: pIanning@ci.coburg.or.us 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision 
per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18. 
1. Send this Form and TWO Complete Copies (documents and maps') of the Adopted Amendment to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
2. Electronic Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, or by emailing 
larry.french@state.or.us. 
3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days 
following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings 
and supplementary information. 
5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working 
days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within twenty-one (21) days of the date, the 
Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 
6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who participated in the 
local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. 
7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/. Please 
print on 8-1/2x11 green paper only. You may also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax 
your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to larry.french@state.or.us - Attention: Plan 
Amendment Specialist. 
Updated March 17, 2009 

Coburg/Interstate 5 
Interchange Area Management Plan 
Prepared for 
Oregon Department of Transportation 
April 2009 
Prepared by 
traffic m obi lily logistics. 
PDX/Û826BÛÛÛ5.D0 C 
Contents 
Section Page 
Acknowledgements vii 
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix 
Executive Summary - 1 
Background 1 
Existing and Future Conditions 1 
Alternatives Developed and Analyzed 2 
Interchange Area Management Plan 3 
Background 1-1 
1.1 Purpose and Intent 1-1 
1.2 Problem Statement 1-1 
1.3 Project History 1-2 
1.4 Functional Classification and Interchange Function 1-3 
1.5 Goal and Objectives 1-5 
1.6 IAMP Interchange Management Area 1-6 
1.7 Related Work Products 1-7 
1.8 Public Involvement 1-8 
Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis 2-1 
2.1 Regulatory Framework 2-1 
2.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning 2-1 
2.2.1 Northwest Quadrant 2-1 
2.2.2 Southwest Quadrant 2-2 
2.2.3 Northeast Quadrant 2-2 
2.2.4 Southeast Quadrant . 2-3 
2.2.5 Zoning and Permitted Land Uses 2-3 
2.2.6 Activity Centers 2-4 
2.3 Growth Patterns and Demographics 2-4 
2.3.1 2000 Census 2-4 
2.3.2 Coburg Population/Employment Forecasts 2-4 
2.4 Transportation Facilities and Traffic Operations 2-5 
2.4.1 Road Facilities 2-5 
2.4.2 Interchange Condition and Geometric Deficiencies 2-13 
2.4.3 Access 2-14 
2.4.4 Crash Analysis 2-15 
2.4.5 Intersection-Level Analysis 2-17 
2.4.6 Existing Operational Analysis 2-17 
2.4.7 Transit Facilities 2-22 
2.4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation 2-23 
2.4.9 Air Transportation 2-24 
PDX/0826B00O5.DOC 
CONTENTS, CONTINUED 
2.4.10 Rail Transportation 2-25 
2.4.11 Water 2-25 
2.4.12 Pipelines 2-25 
2.4.13 Summary of Deficiencies and Issues 2-26 
2.5 Natural and Cultural Resources 2-27 
2.5.1 Topography 2-27 
2.5.2 Soils 2-27 
2.5.3 Hydrology 2-27 
2.5.4 Floodplains and Floodway 2-28 
2.5.5 Wetlands 2-28 
2.5.6 Open Space and Parks 2-29 
2.5.7 Historic Resources 2-29 
2.5.8 Archaeological Resources 2-29 
Fixture Conditions Analysis 3-1 
3.1 Purpose 3-1 
3.2 Land Use Assumptions 3-1. 
3.2.1 Coburg Comprehensive Plan Forecasts 3-1 
3.2.2 Cobur g Comprehensive Plan Growth Allocations 3-2 
3.3 Forecasted Traffic Operations 3-3 
3.3.1 Traffic Forecast Methodology 3-3 
3.3.2 Future No-Build (2031) Operations - 30th Highest Hour 3-3 
3.3.3 2031 No-Build Scenario Deficiencies - 30th Highest Hour 3-5 
3.3.4 Future No-Build (2031) Operations - AM Analysis 3-5 
3.3.5 Summary 3-6 
Alternatives Development and Analysis 4-1 
4.1 Background and Purpose 4-1 
4.2 Alternatives Development 4-1 
4.3 Alternatives Analysis 4-2 
4.3.1 Alternative Comparison - 2031 Operations 4-2 
4.3.2 Alternatives Development—Previous IAMP Iterations 4-6 
4.4 Alternatives Evaluation 4-6 
4.4.1 Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness—B ackground .. 4-6 
4.4.2 Evaluation Criteria 4-7 
4.4.3 Subcriteria and Measures of Effectiveness 4-8 
4.5 Recommendation 4-13 
Recommended Alternative — Operational, Physical and Access Improvements. 5-1 
5.1 Recommended Alternative and Findings 5-1 
5.1.1 Recommended Alternative Overview 5-1 
5.1.2 Goal and Objectives Findings 5-2 
5.2 Recommended Alternative—Operational and Physical Improvements 5-4 
5.2.1 Short-Term Operational/Physical Improvements (0 to 7 years) 5-4 
5.2.2 Long-Term Operational/Physical Improvements (8+ years) 5-6 
5.3 Recommended Alternative—Access Management Plan 5-6 
5.3.1 Van Duyn Road (East of 1-5) 5-7 
5.3.2 Pearl Street (West of 1-5) 5-8 
PDX/0B26800Û5.DOC 
CONTENTS, CONTINUED 
5.3.3 Access Management Deviations 5-8 
IAMP Recommended Alternative — Policies and Implementation Measures 6-1 
6.1 Policy Framework ; 6-1 
6.1.1 IAMP Purpose 6-1 
6.1.2 IAMP Policies and Actions 6-1 
IAMP Recommended Alternative —Development Code 7-1 
7.1 Development Code Language 7-1 
7.1.1 Traffic Impact Analysis 7-1 
7.2 Plan and Zone Map Changes 7-2 
IAMP Implementation, Monitoring, and Updates 8-1 
8.1 Implementation Authority 8-1 
8.2 Monitoring and Updates 8-1 
Appendices 
A Public Involvement 
B Plan and Policy Review 
C Findings of Compliance with State and Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations 
D Permitted Land Uses 
E Traffic Methodology 
F Raw Existing Traffic Data 
G Existing 2005 Traffic Operations Worksheets 
H Future No-Build 2031 Traffic Operations Worksheets 
I Future Build 2031 Traffic Operations Worksheets 
J Transportation Demand Management 
K Alternate Land Use Scenarios 
L Goal Exception Rationale 
M IAMP Map and Legal Description 
Tables 
1-1 Coburg/1-5 IAMP Ownership and City of Coburg/Lane County Functional 
Classification 1-4 
2-1 Permitted Land Uses within Coburg/1-5 Interchange Management Area 2-3 
2-2 Comprehensive Plan, Coburg Urbanization Study and RTP Land Use Assumptions 
(Year 2025) 2-5 
2-3 Coburg/1-5 IAMP Ownership and City of Coburg/Lane County Functional 
Classification 2-10 
2-4 Coburg/1-5 IAMP Lanes, Road Width, Marked Shoulders, Speed Limit, Parking .2-11 
2-5 2005 Coburg/1-5 IAMP Pavement Condition 2-12 
2-6 Minimum Spacing Standards Applicable to Freeway Interchanges 2-14 
2-7 Historical Crash Data on 1-5 within the Coburg/I-5 Interchange Management Area 
(MP 198.00 to MP 200.50) 2-16 
2-8 Surface and Light Condition Summary 2-16 
2-9 Intersection Crash Data (2003-2007) Coburg/1-5 IAMP 2-17 
2-10 Intersection Operational Analysis - Existing (2005) 30th Highest Hour 2-20 
PDX/082680005.DOC v 
CONTENTS, CONTINUED 
2-11 2005 30th Highest Hour Queue Analysis 2-22 
2-12 Coburg/I-5 LAMP Roads-Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2-24 
3-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Assumptions — Year 2025 3-1 
3-2 Coburg Comprehensive Plan Land Use Assumptions — 2025 3-2 
3-3 30th Highest Hour Intersection Operational Analysis - 2031 No-Build 3-4 
3-4 30th Highest Hour Intersection Delay - 2031 No-Build 3-5 
3-5 AM Operational Analysis at 1-5 Ramps - 2031 No-Build 3-6 
4-1 Components of Alternatives 4-3 
4-2 2031 Intersection Operational Analysis —Alternative Comparison 4-4 
4-3 2031 Intersection Delay — Alternatives Comparison 4-5 
4-4 2031 30th Highest Hour Queue Lengths — Alternatives Comparison 4-5 
4-5 Coburg/1-5IAMP Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness 4-8 
4-6 Coburg/I-5 IAMP Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Application 4-12 
5-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Assumptions — Year 2025 5-2 
5-2 IAMP Access Deviations 5-9 
Figures (located at the end of each section) 
1-1 Coburg Interchange Management Area 
2-1 Comprehensive Plan Designations 
2-2 Zoning Designations 
2-3 Functional Classification 
2-4 Pavement Condition 
2-5 Study Area Accesses Located within 1,320' of Interchange 
2-6 Existing Conditions (2005) 30th Highest Hour Traffic Volumes 
2-7 Lane Transit District Bus Routes 
2-8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 
2-9 Coburg Interchange Refinement Plan Possible Environmental Constraints 
3-1 Coburg Area TAZs 
4-1 Alternative A 
4-2 Alternative B 
4-3 Alternative C 
5-1 Recommended Alternative 
5-2 Recommended Alternative Access Deviations 
6-1 Interchange Management Area Quadrants 
vi P DX/0Ö2680Q 05. DOC 
Acknowledgements 
Project Staff 
Oregon Department of Transportation 
Terry Cole, Project Manager 
Terri Harding, Project Manager 
Dorothy Upton, Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit 
CH2M HILL 
Kirsten Pennington, Project Manager 
Andra Henriques, Traffic Engineer 
^ PTV America ine, 
Steve Perone, Consultant Team Manager 
Jimmy Wong, Engineer 
Angelo Planning Group 
DJ Heffernan, Senior Planner 
Katelin Brewer-Colie, Planner 
Serah Overbeek, Planner 
Project Steering Team 
City of Coburg 
Judy Volta, Mayor 
Oregon Department of Transportation 
Erik Havig, Region 2 Planning and Development Manager 
Candice Stich, Project Leader 
Gerry Jus ter, Region 2 Access Development Review Coordinator 
Lane Council of Governments 
Tom Schwetz, Transportation Manager 
Petra Schuetz, Planner 
TransWatch 
Christian Watchie, Director 
Lane County 
Celia Barry, Division Manager, Lane County Public Works—Transportation Planning and 
Traffic 
Bill Morgan, County Engineer 
Stephanie Schulz, Planner 
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 
Eric Jacobson, Transportation Planner 
Marguerite Nabeta, Southern Willamette Valley Regional Representative 
PDX/Q826B00Û5.DÛC vii 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
ADT average daily traffic 
AM morning 
ATR automatic traffic recorder 
BRT bus rapid transit 
CLMPO Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization 
DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development 
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
HDM Highway Design Manual 
1-5 Interstate 5 
IAMP Interchange Area Management Plan 
LCOG Lane Council of Governments 
LOS level of service 
LTD Lane Transit District 
LWI Local Wetland Inventory 
MEV million entering vehicles 
MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
MP milepost 
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 
NHS National Highway System 
NWI National Wetlands Inventory 
OAR Oregon Administrative Rule 
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 
OHP Oregon Highway Plan 
OTC Oregon Transportation Commission 
OTIA Oregon Transportation Investment Act 
OTP Oregon Transportation Pian 
PM afternoon/evening 
PMT Project Management Team 
RTP Regional Transportation Plan 
SPIS Safety Priority Index System 
PDX/O0268OOO5.DOC ix 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS, CONTINUED 
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program 
TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone 
TDM transportation demand management 
TIA traffic impact analysis 
TMC turning movement coimt 
TPR Transportation Planning Rule 
TSP Transportation System Plan 
UGB urban growth boundary 
V/C volume-to-capacity ratio 
VMT vehicle miles traveled 
x PDX/0 B268O0O5.DOC 
Executive Summary 
The Coburg/Interstate 5 (1-5) interchange, located on 1-5 at milepost 199.15 adjacent to the 
City of Coburg, is no longer able to meet existing and forecast travel demand and is in need 
of modifications and improvements. This Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) 
documents the land use and transportation strategies developed to protect the function1 of 
the Coburg/1-5 interchange over the long-term (20-plus years) in light of these planned 
improvements, as directed by Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0155(6). The 
Coburg/I-5 interchange is of interest for protection because much of the adjacent land is 
vacant and could potentially be developed, adding more traffic to the interchange area. 
This document includes a complete description of the IAMP development process, 
including existing conditions analysis, no-build future analysis, alternative analysis, and 
description of the Recommended Alternative, including physical, access management, and 
policy and code recommendations. Recommendations for the Coburg/I-5 interchange area 
are presented as short-term, medium-term, and long-term. This IAMP was prepared 
collaboratively with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lane County, and 
the City of Coburg in coordination with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). 
Background 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange was proposed for reconstruction in the 1999 Coburg-Interstate 5 
Interchange Refinement Plan (Refinement Plan), which was adopted as part of the 1999 City of 
Coburg Transportation System Plan (Coburg TSP). This IAMP re-examines the recommended 
conceptual design outlined in the Refinement Plan, given changes in land uses and 
population and employment forecasts in the interchange area, along with changes in 
highway policy regarding interchange improvements, since 1999. 
Primary infrastructure improvements included in the Refinement Plan are the 
reconstruction of a standard diamond interchange and the realignment of Roberts Road to 
intersect with Coburg Industrial Way at a signalized intersection. This IAMP concludes that 
the original Preferred Concept included in the Refinement Plan is generally sufficient to 
address congestion problems for the planning horizon of 2031 — when the Refinement Plan 
interchange design concept is slightly modified with a four-lane bridge and when it is 
paired with policy and management tools. 
Existing and Future Conditions 
The existing Coburg interchange facility is not adequate to accommodate anticipated 
employment and population growth as outlined in Coburg's 2005 Comprehensive Plan and 
consistent with Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) employment and population forecasts. 
1 As used in the state IAMP Guidelines (David Evans and Associates, Inc., with Angelo Eaton & Associates, July 2006), the 
term "function" refers to the intended role of the interchange in the transportation system. Although functional classification of 
the intersecting roads is one element that determines the overall function of an interchange, the term "function" also relates to 
its context (e.g. urban, rural, surrounding land uses it is intended to serve). 
PDX/ÜÖ2680OO5.DOC ES-1 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Traffic operations analysis performed for this IAMP shows that by study planning horizon 
year 2031, three of five study area intersections (Pearl Street/Industrial Way, Pearl Street/ 
Roberts Road, 1-5 Southbound Ramps/Pearl Sheet) are expected to not meet accepted 
mobility standards during the peak PM travel hour if no additional transportation 
infrastructure is constructed and no policy measures are enacted. Two of the five study area 
intersections (Pearl Street/Industrial Way and Pearl Street/Roberts Road) are anticipated to 
operate under conditions where volume would exceed capacity during the peak PM travel 
hour. This would generate high levels of delay and congestion, and vehicles would be 
expected to queue onto the 1-5 mainline. Operations analysis shows that a new traffic signal 
will be required by 2031 at the 1-5 Southbound Ramps/Pearl Street intersection to meet 
mobility standards. Existing and future conditions are discussed in greater detail in 
Sections 2 and 3 of this IAMP. 
Alternatives Developed and Analyzed 
Alternatives development and analysis for this IAMP were based on traffic forecasts built 
from population and employment forecasts consistent with the land use patterns m 
Coburg's existing Comprehensive Plan. 
Alternatives developed are also consistent with the 2031 federal Regional Transportation 
Plan (RTP) for the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (CLMPO) and the 2004 
Coburg Urbanization Study. The Coburg Urbanization Study is a document that was adopted by 
Coburg City Council, but never formally incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The 
RTP and the Urbanization Study both outline greater population and employment growth 
than could be accommodated under the City's current Comprehensive Plan land use 
designations. Consistency of alternative development with these plans is important in order 
to (1) be consistent with regional planning, and (2) provide realistic solutions, given the 
likelihood of urban growth boundary (UGB) amendments. 
The existing UGB will not accommodate the City's 2025 population and employment 
forecasts extrapolated to 2031, as identified in the RTP. However, pending resolution about 
how to develop a municipal wastewater system for Coburg, UGB amendments will likely be 
proposed by the City. The extent and location of these amendments are yet to be 
determined. Currently, the Coburg Comprehensive Plan provides for growth within the City's 
existing UGB west of 1-5. If amended, an expanded UGB (regardless of whether it is 
expanded west of 1-5 or east of 1-5) is expected to provide for the full growth anticipated in 
the RTP and commensurate with the City's regionally adopted population and employment 
forecasts. 
Physical interchange improvement alternatives focused on several conceptual designs: 
• Alternative A: Diamond interchange with three-lane bridge 
• Alternative B: Diamond interchange with four-lane bridge 
• Alternative C: Loop ramp (northbound) interchange with four-lane bridge 
P DX/0 B26800Û5.DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Analysis of all of the physical alternatives considered the following common components: 
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the bridge 
• Access management that supports interchange function and operations on Pearl Street/ 
Van Duyn Road east and west of the interchange 
® Realignment of Roberts Road at a signalized intersection with Coburg Industrial Way 
• Closure of the existing Roberts Road at Pearl Street 
• A new signal at the 1-5 Southbound Ramps/Pearl Sheet intersection 
• The eventual development of a local street system west of 1-5 off Coburg Industrial Way 
to reduce demand for direct access to Pearl Street 
All physical alternatives also were assumed to be paired with policy and development code 
language intended to protect the function and operations of the interchange (e.g., an 
alternate mobility standard to protect any excess capacity provided by an improvement, 
traffic impact analysis requirements, and encouragement of transit and transportation 
demaild management (TDM)). 
Alternative B—the diamond interchange with a four-lane bridge —was ultimately 
recommended by the Project Management Team (PMT) as the Recommended Alternative 
for this IAMP. 
Analysis regarding population and employment growth scenarios different from those in 
the Comprehensive Plan (e.g., UGB expansion and population and employment growth 
patterns east of 1-5) is included as a point of reference for the City of Coburg in Appendix K. 
If a UGB expansion and subsequent Comprehensive Plan amendment were to occur, this 
IAMP would need to be updated accordingly. 
The alternatives analysis is discussed in greater detail in Section 4 of this IAMP. 
Interchange Area Management Plan 
A Recommended Alternative was agreed to by ODOT, the City, and Lane County. The 
IAMP concludes that the original Preferred Concept included in the Refinement Plan is generally 
sufficient to address congestion problems for the planning horizon of2031-if the interchange design 
concept is slightly modified and when it is paired with policy and management tools. To maximize 
the operation of the interchange and accommodate planned future growth, the IAMP 
identifies a Recommended Alternative that includes: (1) operational and physical improve-
ments, including access management, and (2) local policy and development code changes. 
Recommended Alternative—Operational and Physical Improvements 
The Recommended Alternative infrastructure improvements include physical 
improvements that accommodate the anticipated traffic growth related to the population 
and employment growth outlined in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, including a diamond 
interchange with a four-lane bridge structure (see Figure 5-1). Although a three-lane bridge 
would accommodate traffic levels anticipated for 2031, a four-lane bridge is preferred 
PDXWB2680005.DOC ES-3 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
because it will better accommodate the heavy north-to-west movement from the 1-5 
northbound off-ramp, in addition to extending the life of the bridge structure past 2031 for 
minimal additional cost. A four-lane bridge would also provide future flexibility for the 
addition of a loop ramp if determined necessary at some point after the 2031 planning 
horizon, for example, if greater levels of growth are anticipated in the area. 
The Recommended Alternative includes the following physical improvements and 
associated actions to be implemented by ODOT, the City, and Lane County:2 
• Reconstruct the Coburg/I-5 interchange bridge structure to four lanes, with full 
standard pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and an appropriate height standard. The 
bridge is to include two westbound lanes with a turn pocket leading to the 1-5 
southbound on-ramp, one eastbound through lane, and one eastbound left-turn lane 
leading to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp (ODOT). 
• 1-5 northbound ramps: Add a new 1-5 northbound on-ramp receiving lane. Add new 
exclusive eastbound left-turn lane to 1-5 northbound off-ramp (ODOT). 
• 1-5 Southbound ramps: Install a new exclusive eastbound right-turn lane on Pearl Street 
and southbound on-ramp receiving lane (ODOT). 
• Signalize the 1-5 southbound ramp terminals by 2031 or sooner if signal warrants are 
met and the signal is approved by the State Traffic Engineer (ODOT). 
• Realign Roberts Road to meet the existing signalized Coburg Industr ial Way 
intersection. The newly realigned Roberts Road would be constructed to road standards 
that accommodate freight vehicles (ODOT). 
• Add a new connection between the aligned Roberts Road and original Roberts Road 
(ODOT). 
• Purchase access control and do not allow any new private accesses west of 1-5 along 
Pearl Street from the interchange ramp to a point 1,000 feet west of Coburg Industrial 
Way. In the interim, allow the Stuart Way driveway access at Pearl Sheet. Upon 
redevelopment of the Truck and Travel site (located east and west of Stuart Way), 
realign Stuart Way west of its current location to improve spacing with Coburg 
Industrial Way. 
• Close access to the original Roberts Road at Pearl Street. This closure would only occur 
after or at the same time as the opening of the new Roberts Road/Coburg Industrial 
Way intersection to ensure continuous business access. A cul-de-sac will be constructed 
at the north termination of the original Roberts Road that is navigable for WB-67 trucks3 
(ODOT). 
• Coordinate traffic signal operations along Pearl Street and at interchange ramp terminal 
intersections (ODOT/Lane County). 
2 ODOT would purchase impacted private property or private accesses as a result of any of the physical improvemenls within 
the interchange management area identified as ODOT's responsibility in this IAMP. Access and circulation plans will be 
coordinated with affected property owners. 
3 A truck with approximately 67 feet between the front and rear wheel axle. 
ES-4 PDX/082680005.DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
• Install a new southbound left-turn lane and northbound left-turn pocket on Coburg 
Industrial Way (arid realigned Roberts Road) at Pearl Street (ODOT). 
• Purchase access control and do not allow any new private access east of 1-5 along 
Van Duyn Road from the interchange ramp terminal to Hereford Road and do not allow 
any full accesses within 1,320 feet of the interchange ramp terminal (ODOT). In the 
interim, allow the properties within the UGB to continue to access Van Duyn directly 
from within the UGB. Upon redevelopment of one or more of these properties within 
the current UGB, implement changes to this access as needed to address safety issues or 
seek development and use of the access road right-of-way purchased by ODOT during 
the initial phase of the interchange project if it has not already been developed as part of 
a subsequent phase of the interchange project (ODOT). 
• Consolidate all accesses on the southern side of Van Duyn Road to a point at least 
1,320 feet from the north-bound ramp terminal intersection. Close accesses less than 
1,320 feet from this location and construct an alternate access road. This road may be 
constructed by ODOT and maintained as a public road by Lane County or the City of 
Coburg, or it may be constructed privately in conjunction with redevelopment of 
properties within the Coburg UGB east of 1-5, depending on the timing and availability 
of funds to construct future phases of the interchange project 
• The eventual construction of this access road will require an exception to Goal 3 of the 
Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, the reasons for which are summarized in 
Appendix L. If an exception is not granted by Lane County, ODOT will need to develop 
another alternative access for urban properties east of the interstate (ODOT, other 
responsible parties). 
• Work with Lane Transit District to expand bus rapid transit to Coburg (City of Coburg). 
• Market Lane Transit District's Group Pass Program to employers, find promote carpool 
and vanpool services (City of Coburg). 
• Implement local circulation improvements consistent with the Coburg TSP that provide 
alternative circulation and access for the lane north of Pearl Street and west of 1-5 within 
the IAMP study area (City of Coburg). 
• Design and construct the northern and southern connection alignments (extending 
Coburg Industrial Way north and Roberts Road south) as depicted in Map 16 of the 
Coburg TSP (City of Coburg). 
• As Coburg develops, monitor the need for a park-and-ride (City of Coburg). 
The Recommended Alternative physical and operational recommendations are discussed in 
greater detail in Section 5 of this IAMP. 
Recommended Alternative—Access Management 
To protect these infrastructure investments, access management recommendations were 
also developed as part of the Recommended Alternative, as shown in Figure 5-1. The Access 
Management Plan reduces by 11 the number of private and public accesses onto Pearl Street 
and Van Duyn Road by the year 2031. The Access Management Plan identifies access 
P DX/082680005. DOC ES-5 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
management actions that improve safety and circulation m the interchange management 
area by moving access spacing along Pearl Street and Van Duyn Road to more closely align 
with access management standards as defined in the Oregon Highway Plan. For the 
Coburg/I-5 IAMP, the target spacing standard is 1,320 feet from the ramp terminal 
intersection for placement of the next road or driveway. 
Hie Access Management Plan identifies driveways and local road connections that will need 
to be relocated, consolidated, or closed to achieve the safety and mobility objectives of the 
state's access management standards. Relocation, consolidation, or closure of driveways will 
be paired with enhancement of the local street circulation system. 
These access recommendations are discussed in greater detail m Section 5, Recommended 
Alternative — Operational, Physical and Access Improvements. 
Recommended Alternative—Policy and Development Code 
To accompany the infrastructure and access recommendations, the Recommended 
Alternative also includes policy and implementation measures. Some of these implementing 
measures are intended to protect the interchange infrastructure investments through 
management of access within the interchange study area. Others require that future 
development mitigate traffic impacts associated with development proposals that are 
projected to create more traffic growth than planned for in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. 
The 1 AMP also includes policies that are to be adopted by the Oregon Transportation 
Commission (OTQ, City of Coburg, and Lane County. 
The IAMP policies specifically address access management and also special interchange and 
local road mobility standards intended to protect the function of the interchange until such 
time as the City of Coburg resolves its wastewater service issues and amends its Urban 
Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan. 
Hie IAMP also includes recommendations for development code changes in the City of 
Coburg related to Traffic Impact Analysis. The recommended alternative policy and 
development code recommendations are discussed in greater detail in Sections 6 and 7 of 
this IAMP. 
ES-6 PDXfl826800Q5.DOC 
SECTION 1 
Background 
1.1 Purpose and Intent 
The Coburg/Interstate 5 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) documents a plan for 
protecting the function4 of the Coburg/Interstate 5 (1-5) interchange. The purpose of this 
IAMP is to ensure that public investments in state infrastructure are protected through an 
integration of transportation and land use planning at the city, county and state levels. 
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0155(6) states: "Interchange Area Management 
Plans are required for new interchanges and should be developed for significant 
modifications to existing interchanges..." This IAMP addresses the planned reconstruction 
of the Coburg/I-5 interchange, located at milepost (MP) 199.15 along 1-5 adjacent to the City 
of Coburg (City; Coburg) in Lane County, Oregon. The reconstruction is intended to 
address existing and future safety and congestion issues. 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange initially was proposed for reconstruction in the 1999 Coburg-
Interstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan (Refinement Plan).5 This IAMP re-examines the 
recommended conceptual design outlined in the Refinement Plan, given changes in land uses 
and population and employment forecasts in the interchange area, along with highway 
policy regarding interchange improvements, since 1999, 
The IAMP recommends: (1) operational and physical improvements, including access 
management, and (2) local policy and development code changes. 
This IAMP is a collaborative document and reflects coordination among the Oregon 
Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City of Coburg, and Lane County. Preparation 
of this document was conducted in accordance with state IAMP guidelines.6 
1.2 Problem Statement 
Without improvements to the Coburg/I-5 interchange and transportation infrastructure in 
the interchange area, future PM peak hour traffic is expected to exceed available road 
capacity at many intersections in the interchange area, leading to highly congested 
conditions by 2031. Congestion is expected to affect the 1-5 mainline and nearby 
intersections along Pearl Street/Van Duyn Road, the interchange's local crossroad and 
Coburg7s primary east-west arterial road. Additional congestion is expected to contribute to 
travel delay and more potential safety conflicts. 
4 As used in the slate IAMP Guidelines (David Evans and Associates, inc., with Angelo Eaton & Associates, July 2006), the 
term "function" refers Io the intended role of the interchange in the transportation system. Although functional classification of 
the intersecting roads is one element that determines the overall function of an interchange, the term "function" also relates to 
its context (e.g., urban, rural, surrounding land uses it is intended to serve). 
5 Coburg-lnterstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan. ODOT. October 1999. 
6 Interchange Area Management Plan Guidelines (Final Draft). David Evans and Associates, Inc., with Angelo Eaton & 
Associates. July 2006. 
PDX/082680Q05.D OC 1-1 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange serves as the primary access to the city of Coburg. Significant 
numbers of regional residents residing outside of Coburg currently travel to employment in 
the City using the Coburg/I-5 interchange. Most of the existing Coburg employment centers 
are located near the Coburg/I-5 interchange. 
The existing interchange ramps and bridge are not anticipated to be able to accommodate 
anticipated future (year 2031) traffic growth. Intersections located close to the interchange 
also are expected to contribute to congestion, due to queuing and delay related to vehicles 
turning onto or from Pearl Street. During the PM peak hour, three of the five intersections in 
the study area (1-5 Southbound Ramps/Van Duyn Road, Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial 
Way, Pearl Street/Roberts Road) are anticipated to not meet operational standards by 2031 
without infrastructure or policy improvements. The addition of a traffic signal at the 1-5 
northbound ramps intersection was a recent effort to improve traffic operations in the 
interchange study area. 
Along with congestion, there are safety concerns in the interchange study area. The sight 
distance at the interchange ramp terminals and grades approaching the interchange bridge 
restrict motorist line of sight and create navigation problems for trucks. The bridge structure 
is very narrow, and allows virtually no room for pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicular 
emergencies. Particularly problematic is the queuing on the northbound interchange off-
ramp during the AM peak hour where traffic routinely backs up onto 1-5, creating a speed 
differential hazard. This problem will worsen over time. 
This IAMP describes the improvements and other strategies needed in the interchange area 
to safely accommodate anticipated planned traffic growth. State law requires that the 
Coburg IAMP is completed before any funding can be released for the interchange project. 
1.3 Project History 
In 1999, the Coburg/Interstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan was adopted as part of the Coburg 
Transportation System Plan (TSP). The Refinement Plan and the Coburg TSP recommended 
improvements to the interchange structure and the surrounding road network in order to 
accommodate future traffic growth in the Coburg/I-5 interchange area and address safety 
concerns. 
Recommended transportation improvements in the Preferred Concept of the Refinement Plan 
and in Hie Coburg TSP included the following: 
• Three-lane interchange bridge structure with pedes h'ian and bicycle facilities and 
improvement to profile grade and ramps 
• Realignment of Roberts Road to line up with Coburg Industrial Way at a signalized 
intersection7 
• Access closure of the original Roberts Road at Pearl Street 
• New connection between realigned Roberts Road and original Roberts Road 
7 The realignment of Roberts Road arid Coburg Industrial Way was to occur at the same time as access to the campground 
parcel located south of Truck and Travel shifts from Stuart Street to the realigned Roberts Road. 
1-2 PDX/082660005. DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
• New extension of McKenzie Street east to Coburg Industrial Way (one way heading 
east) 
• New extension of Shane Court south to Pearl Street 
• Signalization at 1-5 ramps when warranted 
• Stuart Way realigned or vacated 
• Enhanced local road network north of Pearl Street immediately west of the interchange 
Since the Coburg TSP and Refinement Plan were completed, land use changes have occurred 
in the Coburg/I-5 interchange area that are anticipated to affect the levels of future 
population and employment growth, and highway policy has changed regarding 
interchange improvements. This has driven the need for this I AMP. 
Improvements to date within the interchange management area include a new signal at the 
1-5 northbound ramps/Van Duyn Road intersection, modification of the northbound ramps, 
the vacation of Stuart Way and a portion of E. Delaney Street, and an upgrade of Pearl Street 
to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities; 
1.4 Functional Classification and Interchange Function 
Functional classifications generally define the intended purpose of a roadway as part of a 
hierarchy of roadways. The Coburg/I-5 interchange is an urban service interchange. The. 
interchange connects 1-5 with Pearl Street/Van Duyn Road, which serves Coburg to the 
west, and primarily unincorporated Lane County to the east. 
According to Policy 1A of the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), the primary function of inter-
state freeways is to provide connections to major cities, regions of the state, and other states. 
The secondary function is to provide connections for regional hips within a metropolitan 
area. Interstates are major freight routes, and are intended to provide mobility. 1-5 is part of 
the National Highway System (NHS). It is classified by the OHP as an Interstate Highway — 
NHS. 1-5 is a designated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) route. 1-5 
stretches from the Canadian to Mexican borders, and is the major north-south interstate and 
freight route for the west coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California). 
The local crossroad at the interchange, Pearl Street/Van Duyn Road, is the primary east-
west road connection in the area, and is the only direct connection to Coburg residences and 
commercial and industrial land uses from 1-5. Pearl Street, located west of the interchange, is 
classified as a County Arterial by the City of Coburg and as a Minor Arterial by Lane 
County. According to the Lane County TSP, Minor Arterials in urban areas provide for intra-
community traffic flow to principal arterials. Van Duyn Road, located east of the 
interchange, is classified as a Local Roadway. According to the Lane County TSP, Local 
Roads are intended solely for the purpose of providing access to adjacent properties. 
Several existing highway-oriented commercial facilities are located within the interchange 
study area, and some of the undeveloped land in the interchange area is zoned Highway 
Commercial. 
PDX/O 82G8QÛÛ5.DOC 1-3 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Functional classifications of roads in the vicinity of the Coburg/I-5 interchange are 
summarized in Table 1-1. 
TABLE 1-1 
Coburg/I-5 IAMP Ownership and City of Coburg/Lane County Functional Classification* 
Road Jurisdiction (Ownership) Functional Classification 
Interstate 5 ODOT Interstate Highway (NHS) 
Van Duyn Road Lane County Local Roadway 
Pearl Street Lane County County Arterial (Coburg) 
Minor Arterial (Lane County) 
Coburg Industrial Way Lane County and City of Coburg Minor Collector (Lane County) 
City Collector (Coburg) 
Roberts Road City of Coburg City Collector (Coburg) 
N. and S. Coleman Street City of Coburg City Collector and Local Roadway 
E. Mill Street City of Coburg City Collector and Local Roadway 
E. Dixon Street City of Coburg City Collector and Local Roadway 
N. Miller Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Stuart Way Private Road Vacated 
Daray Street Lane County Local Roadway (Lane County) 
Sarah Lane City of Coburg Local Roadway 
N. Emerald Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. McKenzie Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Lincoln Way City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Delaney Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Maple Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Thomas Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Rustic Court City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Shane Court City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Jurisdictional transfers of local roads may occur resulting in changes to the jurisdictional information in this table. The 
jurisdictional transfer process is independent of this document and does not require an amendment to this document in order to 
occur. 
In addition to the functional classification of the area roadways, the interchange itself has a 
role or function that it serves with the broader transportation system. The broad intended 
function of the Coburg/I-5 interchange is to safely and efficiently move traffic between 1-5 
and the local crossroad, accommodate planned future traffic demands in the interchange 
area, and preserve mobility along 1-5. 
More specifically, the Coburg/I-5 interchange is an important facility for the community of 
Coburg, and also serves the following functions: 
• Commercial Access: The interchange directly serves the downtown of Coburg, and 
Coburg businesses, including businesses off Coburg Industrial Way and Pearl Street. 
Several businesses off Pearl Street in the interchange study area are oriented to highway 
1-4 PDX/Û82680ÛQ 5. DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
travelers, and much of the land is zoned Highway Commercial to serve the traveling 
public. It is not the primary function of the Coburg/I-5 interchange to serve additional 
or expanded commercial land uses (beyond the existing zoned potential) or regional 
commercial development. 
• Industrial Access: The interchange provides access to industrial manufacturing and 
industrial retail sales businesses, as well as a route for industrial and business freight. As 
the industrial-zoned areas of Coburg continue to develop, the Coburg/I-5 interchange 
will continue to be a key economic development factor. 
• Freight Movement: Freight vehicles use the Coburg/I-5 interchange to access freight 
generators located off Coburg Industrial Way (e.g., Truck and Travel, Monaco Coach 
and Marathon) as well as northwest of Coburg (e.g., timber industry facilities). 
• Commuting: A significant number of regional residents utilize the interchange to access 
employment in Coburg. This number will continue to rise as employment increases in 
the interchange management area. 
• Local Access to the Region: Many Coburg residents use the interchange to travel to 
other communities, such as Eugene, Springfield, or Salem, for employment, shopping, or 
other personal trips. 
Liter change modifications and associated local improvements must be planned and 
implemented to accommodate the multi-functional nature of the interchange. 
1.5 Goal and Objectives 
The goal of this IAMP is to reflect collaborative work with ODOT, Lane County, and the 
City of Coburg and outline recommendations for transportation improvements and policy 
and implementation measures that will maximize the operation of the interchange and 
accommodate future growth (as planned for in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan) in the 
interchange management area. 
Policy 3C of the 1999 OHP states, "it is the policy of the State of Oregon to plan for and. manage 
grade-separated interchange areas to ensure safe and efficient operation between connecting 
roadways." Consistent with this policy and consideration of project-specific local 
transportation issues, the objectives of the Coburg/I-5 IAMP are to: 
• Protect long-term safety and operations of the interstate and local road network 
• Build on the work in the Refinement Plan as adopted in the Coburg TSP 
• Accommodate 2031 planned growth for the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area 
(described in Section 1.6) as outlined in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan 
• Preserve public investments in the Coburg/I-5 interchange and adjacent transportation 
network 
• Plan for future management of the interchange and adjacent land uses within the 
interchange management area (described in Section 1.6) 
PDXA)8268ÛÛ05. DOC 1-5 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
• Work with Coburg and Lane County to develop a plan for road network, right-of-way, 
and access within the interchange management area (described in Section 1.6) 
• Provide recommendations for enhancement of the pedestrian and bicycle system 
• Provide recommendations that allow for expanded use of transit and other 
transportation demand management (TDM) measures 
• Provide for Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) adoption of a plan so existing 
funds can be accessed for interchange reconstruction 
• Ensure integration of land use and transportation planning 
» Provide certainty for property and business owners and local governments 
1.6 IAMP Interchange Management Area 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange management area is centered on the Coburg/I-5 interchange, 
an urban interchange located in the eastern portion of the city of Coburg, Oregon, just north 
of Eugene along 1-5. Figure 1-1 depicts the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area. 
The interchange management area (Figure 1-1) differs from the IAMP study area, which was 
used for the traffic operational forecasting and analysis. The study area included all land 
within the City of Coburg, plus unincorporated adjacent areas, while the management area 
includes land closer to the interchange. The IAMP interchange management area 
encompasses land within Vi mile of the interchange, and is consistent with provisions in the 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). 
Management area boundaries are based on recent TPR changes related to the establishment 
of interchange management areas (defined in OAR 660-012-0060) as well as property 
boundaries, traffic patterns, and existing natural resources (creeks, etc.). The management 
area helps focus the development and evaluation of IAMP alternatives, as well as to 
delineate an area where implementation will apply. 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange management area is approximately 5 miles north of Eugene 
and 55 miles south of Salem. The management area includes a significant portion of the city 
of Coburg, and a portion of unincorporated Lane County. All road facilities in the Coburg/ 
1-5 interchange management area fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Coburg, Lane 
County, or ODOT. 1-5 is the only major highway facility located within the interchange 
management area. 
Land within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area is primarily flat, with some 
ponds located northwest and southeast of the interchange. Land to the west of 1-5 is 
primarily located within Coburg city limits, and includes residential, commercial and 
industrial land uses, including facilities for motorcoach manufacturing and distribution. 
Land to the east of 1-5 is relatively undeveloped. The area includes an RV sales lot and RV 
park, and farm land. Primary industries in the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area 
include services and manufacturing. Major employers of note are Monaco Coach and 
Marathon, located northwest of the Coburg/I-5 interchange. 
1-6 PDXAJ0268OOO5.00C 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
1.7 Related Work Products 
• As of April 2006, $12,500,000 in federal earmark and local match funding was identified 
for interchange improvements at the Coburg/I-5 interchange in the Regional 
Transportation Plan (Project #1003). 
• In October 2005, $3,000,000 was programmed into the Metropolitan Transportation 
Improvement Program for Coburg/I-5 interchange improvements. 
• ODOT's 1999 Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan was central to the 
preparation of this IAMP. Hie Refinement Plan outlines a Preferred Concept related to 
interchange configuration and access. This IAMP sought to re-examine the Preferred 
Concept, given changes since 1999 in planned employment and population growth in 
the Coburg area and in statewide highway policies related to interchanges. The 
Refinement Plan provides rationale for Coburg/I-5 interchange improvements. The 
Refinement Plan was adopted as part of the Coburg TSP. The transportation 
improvements included in the Refinement Plan were analyzed during the alternatives 
decision-making process for the IAMP: 
- Three-lane interchange bridge structure with pedestrian and bicycle facilities and 
improvement to profile grade and ramps 
- Signalization at 1-5 ramps when warranted (already completed at northbound ramps) 
- Stuart Way realigned or vacated (already completed —vacated) 
- Realignment of Roberts Road to line up with Coburg Industrial Way at a signalized 
intersection 
- Access closure of the original Roberts Road at Pearl Street 
- New connection between realigned Roberts Road and original Roberts Road 
- Pearl Street improvements to five-lane urban standard road with sidewalks and 
bicycle lanes (already completed) 
• Map 14 of the Coburg TSP depicts several transportation system improvements located 
in the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area, including projects listed in the 
Refinement Plan. The projects were factored into the operational analysis and alternatives 
decision-making process for this IAMP. 
- Three-lane interchange bridge structure with pedestrian and bicycle facilities and 
improvement to profile grade and ramps 
- Signalization at Interstate 5 ramps when warranted (already completed at northbound 
ramps) 
- Stuart Way realigned or vacated (already completed - vacated) 
- Realignment of Roberts Road to line up with Coburg Industrial Way at a signalized 
intersection 
PDX/082680005.DGC 1-7 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
- Access closure of the original Roberts Road at Pearl Street 
- New connection between realigned Roberts Road and original Roberts Road 
- Enhanced local road network north of Pearl Street immediately west of the 
interchange (connecting to Pearl Street from Coburg Industrial Way) 
• Map 16 of the Coburg TSP also includes alignments yet to be determined—a northern 
connector, located in northern Coburg near Coburg Industrial Way and a Southern 
Connector, located at the south end of Roberts Road. Neither of these alignments was 
specifically delineated on the map. 
• An update to the Coburg TSP is listed in the approved 2006-2009 State Transportation 
Improvement Program (STIP). It is listed as Project #14297 for $94,000 in local STIP-U 
funds. 
1.8 Public Involvement 
The purpose of the public involvement program for the Coburg/1-5IAMP was to build a 
planning process that incorporated the needs and issues of residences and businesses in the 
Coburg/I-5 interchange area, including those who depend on and use the interstate. A key 
goal of the public involvement program was to elicit public discussion regarding access 
changes and potential phasing of treatments. The public involvement process for the 
Coburg/I-5 IAMP project is summarized in Appendix A of this document. 
1-8 PDX/082680005.DOC 
fêÉMÉ i S a t a p s i ä 
T ] 1AMP Management Area Boundary1 
„ „ , . Rivers & Streams2 
I I Coburg City Limits2 
Urban Growth Boundary2 
500 1,000 i i l i 2,000 Feel 
2005 NAIP Aerial Photography 
LCOG 
Figure 1-1 Coburg lAMP Management Area 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Sources: 1.CH2M Hill 2. LCOG .C^I.Qii^U PJUiKhQ 
SECTION 2 
Existing Conditions Inventory and Analysis 
2.1 Regulatory Framework 
The Coburg/1-5 interchange management area encompasses land in the city of Coburg and 
Lane County. IAMP improvements are subject to applicable land use regulations for each 
jurisdiction, as well as state and federal regulations. 
State, county, and local regulations pertaining to IAMP actions are addressed in the Plan 
and Policy Review, located in Appendix B. Findings of compliance with state and local 
plans, policies, and regulations are found in Appendix C. 
2.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning 
Existing land uses and zoning help to explain traffic patterns affecting the Coburg/1-5 
interchange management area, as well as to identify potential transportation needs. Existing 
land uses/zoning can also help illuminate development potential that could affect 
interchange or mainline operations in the future. Significant existing patterns in the area 
include commute behavior relating to employees of the Monarch and Monaco factories and 
other employers to the west of 1-5, as well as 1-5 freight and other through-traffic using the 
fravel-related services near the interchange. The relatively high amount of undeveloped 
land surrounding the interchange is also of significance to planning in the area. Vacant land 
located to the west of 1-5 has the potential for development. Vacant land located to the 
northeast of 1-5 would need to be included in Coburg's UGB and annexed into the City of 
Coburg before urban-level development could occur. 
Figure 2-1 shows City of Coburg and Lane County Comprehensive Plan designations. City 
of Coburg land use designations in the interchange management area include Traditional 
Residential, Highway Commercial, Light Industrial, and Public Facility. Lane County land 
use designations include Agricultural, Residential, and Non-Resource. 
Figure 2-2 shows City of Coburg and Lane County zoning districts. City of Coburg zoning 
districts within the interchange management area include Highway Commercial, Light 
Industrial, Traditional Residential, and Public Water Service. Lane County zoning 
designations within the interchange management area include Exclusive Farm Use, 40-acre 
minimum (E-40), Rural Residential, 2-acre minimum and 10-acre minimum (RR-2, RR-10), 
and Neighborhood Commercial (C2). 
The interchange management area has been divided into northwest, southwest, northeast, 
and southeast quadrants for ease of description. 
2.2.1 Northwest Quadrant 
All of the land northwest of the interchange within the interchange management area is 
located within the Coburg city limits. The western-most portion of the northwest quadrant 
PDX/O8268Ü005.DOC 2-1 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Coburg/1'5 interchange, looking west 
is designated on the land use map as primarily Traditional Residential, and includes 
traditional grid street patterns and some of the older housing stock m the city. Heading 
eastward toward 1-5, land uses rapidly become industrial. Accessed off Coburg Industrial 
Way, the Light Industrial designated land is used by Monaco Coach Corporation and other 
employers for the development of high-end and luxury motor coaches. 
Immediately northwest of the interchange, the 
land is currently vacant. This vacant land is 
designated Traditional Residential and Highway 
Commercial (the land adjacent to 1-5) by the City 
of Coburg, and has significant development 
potential. Some of the land along E. Pearl Street is 
developed, including a service station and a 
restaurant accessed from Daray Sheet. 
The northwest quadrant of the interchange 
management area currently has the most influence 
on interchange and 1-5/Pearl Street/Van Duyn 
Road traffic operations—Monaco Coach has a large number of employees working on shift 
schedules, which means that they often arrive at and leave from work at the same times. 
Many of the workers travel south on 1-5 during the PM peak hour. 
2.2.2 Southwest Quadrant 
Much of the land within the management area southwest of the interchange is located 
within Coburg city limits and the Coburg UGB. Southwest of the interchange, the western-
most area is residential land. Moving east, the land uses quickly become more intensive and 
are designated Highway Commercial and Light Industrial. This land is characterized by 
commercial and industrial developments, including an RV park (KampingWorld), RV 
factory outlets and a manufactured home outlet. Commercial uses along E. Pearl Sheet 
include service stations and uses related to the trucking industry and freeway travel 
(Truck-N-Travel, Shell), as well as some eateries. 
Several driveways access these commercial locations • 
south of E. Pearl Street, and the area is also 
characterized by large parking areas for trucks and 
larger vehicles. There is some land designated 
Exclusive Farm Use located outside of city limits in 
this quadrant of land. 
2.2.3 Northeast Quadrant 
The land northeast of the interchange within the 
interchange management area is located outside the 
Coburg UGB, and within unincorporated Lane 
County. The land is largely undeveloped, and is primarily designated Exclusive Farm Use. 
The land immediately adjacent to 1-5 on the east currently has a temporary permit for 
temporary RV parking, and is used to stage RVs for pickup. 
Coburg/J-5 interchange, looking east 
2-2 PDX/082680005. DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2.2.4 Southeast Quadrant 
The land immediately southeast of the interchange within the interchange management area 
was recently annexed into the City of Coburg, and is designated by the City as Highway 
Commercial. The remainder of the land in the southeast interchange quadrant is located in 
unincorporated Lane County, and is designated ExcltTsive Farm Use and Rural Residential. 
Land uses in the area include a motel and an RV park (immediately southeast of the 
interchange) and a drainage facility, as well as some vacant land. 
2.2.5 Zoning and Permitted Land Uses 
Table 2-1 includes permitted land tTses according to zoning district within the Coburg/I-5 
IAMP management area. Appendix D includes a more detailed list of permitted uses. 
TABLE 2-1 
Permitted Land Uses within Coburg/I-5 Interchange Management Area 
Zoning District Permitted/Conditional Uses1 Minimum Lot Size/Coverage 
City of Coburg Zoning Code—Ordinance No. A-199 
Traditional Residential 
(TR)—Article VII, A 
Single family, duplexes 7,500 to 10,000 square feet 
Churches, schools, parks Maximum lot coverage1. 30-35% 
Boarding, nursing, group homes 
Highway Commercial 
(C-2)—Article VII, D 
Retail, auto-related uses 10,000 square feet if no public sewer 
Institutional, educational, office uses No minimum if public sewer 
Commercial recreation, restaurants Maximum lot coverage: 60% 
For all permitted uses and structures the total 
ground floor space must not exceed 50,000 
square feet of gross floor area per building 
Light Industrial (LI)— Commercial service, office, retail 10,000 square feet if no public sewer 
Article VII, E Manufacturing, assembly, processing No minimum if public sewer 
Warehousing Maximum lot coverage: 60% 
Lane County Code, Chapter 10—Zoning (inside UGB) 
Neighborhood 
Commercial2 (C2) 
Bakeries, banks, small retail stores, 
laundries, restaurants 
Full coverage allowed (with setbacks) 
Section 10.160 
Lane County Code, Chapter 16—Zoning (outside UGB)3 
Exclusive Farm Use Farm uses, forest related uses 40-acre minimum lot size 
(E-40) 
Section 16.212 
Limited single family residential 
Rural Residential (RR) 
Section 16.290 
Single family, general farming, animal 
husbandry 
Churches, schools, parks, golf courses 
Minimum lot size 1 to 10 acres 
1 These are general categories of uses and are not meant to be a complete list. 
2 There is only one parcel zoned C2 in the interchange management area (parcel is approximately 1.45 acres). 
3 All lands outside Lhe UGB are subject to the provisions in Chapter 16 of the Lane Code and state land use provisions in OAR 
660, in particular 660-025 and 660-033. Only rural land uses are permitted outside the UGB. 
PDW082680005.DOC 2-3 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2.2.6 Activity Centers 
Activity centers within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area include the 
interchange area itself, which generates traffic —including truck traffic—with its services for 
truckers and travelers. The Monaco Coach Corporation development is another critical 
activity/employment center. 
Major activity centers near the Coburg/I-5 interchange include historic downtown Coburg, 
located approximately 1 mile west of 1-5, which features antique stores and other retail 
shops and restaurants. Other activity centers include the city park (east of the downtown 
central business district) and the school located on North Coburg Road. 
2.3 Growth Patterns and Demographics 
Growth patterns and demographics in the Coburg area are important to understanding the 
future demands and needs for the transportation system in the area, including safety and 
operations related to the Coburg/I-5 interchange, 1-5 mainline/ and connecting local road 
network. 
2.3.1 2000 Census 
According to the U.S. 2000 Census, population in Coburg was 969, there were 367 total 
households, and there were 481 residents aged 16 years and over employed in the civilian 
labor force. 
Average household size was 2.64 and average family size was 3.07. 80.4 percent of housing 
units were owner-occupied and 19.6 percent of housing units were renter-occupied. 
86.7 percent of the population 25 years and older were high school graduates or higher, and 
30.5 percent had bachelor's degree or higher. 
The greatest percentages of employed civilian population 16 years and over were employed 
in management, professional and related occupations (29.5 percent) and sales and office 
occupations (28.7 percent). The percentage of families in poverty status in 1999 was 
7.7 percent. Median household income was $47,500, and per capita income was $21,696. 
Mean travel time to work was 19.9 minutes. With regard to commuting for workers 16 years 
and over, 79.7 percent drove to work alone, 10.1 percent carp o oled, less than 1 percent are 
recorded using public transportation, 3.9 percent walked, 0.6 percent used other means, and 
5.8 percent worked at home. 5.8 percent of occupied housing units had no vehicles available. 
2.3.2 Coburg Population/Employment Forecasts 
The Recommended Alternative for this LAMP is consistent with land use assumptions in the 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan, because all IAMPs must be consistent with local Comprehensive 
Plans. The Recommended Alternative is also consistent with the federally required Regional 
Transportation Plan (RTP) for Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (CLMPO) 
and the 2004 Coburg Urbanization Study. The Coburg Urbanization Study is a document that 
was adopted by Coburg City Council, but never formally adopted into the Comprehensive 
Plan. 
2-4 PDX/082680005.DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
The Recommended Alternative for this IAMP recognizes that the City is likely to expand its 
UGB. As of this writing, because of wastewater system constraints (i.e., the lack of a waste-
water system) the City has not been able to expand its UGB and land base to accommodate 
population and employment forecasts consistent with the 2004 Coburg Urbanization Study 
and the RTF. 
The Recommended Alternative includes policy measures intended to protect the function 
and capacity of the interchange as the City moves toward expanding its UGB to provide for 
a greater level of growth, such as that identified in the RTP and the Coburg Urbanization 
Study. Table 2-2 shows differences in population and employment forecasts for the 
Comprehensive Plan, Coburg Urbanization Study, and RTP. 
TABLE 2-2 
Comprehensive Plan, Coburg Urbanization Study and RTP Land Use Assumptions (Year 2025) 
Population New Dwell ing Units Employment 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan 1,819 322 4,672 
Regional Transportation Plan 2,950 843 4,197 
Coburg Urbanization Study 3,327 893 5,157 
This IAMP is based on the lower Comprehensive Plan population and employment 
numbers, because this is required by the state. However, the IAMP process also 
acknowledge the existence of the regionally adopted RTP forecasts and the locally adopted 
Urbanization Study forecasts to ensure the IAMP does not become obsolete the moment the 
City of Coburg resolves its wastewater issues, expands its UGB, and amends its 
Comprehensive Plan. 
Based on land use designations included the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, 896 total (574 
existing and 322 new) dwelling units and 4,672 employees are forecast for 2025 for the 
purpose of this IAMP. Because the analysis year for this IAMP is 2031, the 2025 population 
and employment forecasts were used to generate 2025 traffic forecasts, which were in turn 
grown to 2031 traffic forecasts using annual average growth rates. 
As demonstrated in Table 2-2, Coburg is expected to undergo a large growth increase over 
the next 20 years. The method used to develop the forecasts upon which the IAMP analysis 
is based is described in greater detail in Section 3.2. 
2.4 Transportation Facilities and Traffic Operations 
This section summarizes the existing transportation conditions within the interchange 
management area, provides assumptions and methods used for the traffic operational 
analyses, and catalogues existing transportation system facilities and services. To the extent 
possible, physical as well as operational characteristics of the roads, intersections and 
transportation services are described. 
2.4.1 Road Facilities 
A summary of road facilities and characteristics is important to understanding the 
transportation system in relation to the Coburg/1-5 interchange management area in order 
PDX/0826B00O5.DOC 2-5 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
to set a baseline of information for IAMP alternatives and recommendation development. 
Tbis section describes the public roads within the interchange management area. 
Road Descriptions 
Interstate 5 is the primary road serving the Coburg/I-5 interchange area. East Pearl Street/ 
Van Duyn Road is the primary east-west arterial connection serving the interchange area. 
Other public roads within the interchange management area include: 
• West of 1-5 
- Daray Street 
- Coburg Industrial Way 
- Roberts Road 
- Sarah Lane 
- N. Miller Street 
- N. and S. Coleman Street 
- N. Emerald Street 
- E. Mill Street 
- E. McKenzie Street 
- E. Lincoln Way 
- E. Delaney Street 
- E. Dixon Street 
- E. Maple Street 
- E. Thomas Street 
- Rustic Court 
- Shane Court 
• East of 1-5 
- Hereford Road (first public road located east of 1-5) 
There are also private driveways located both east and west of the interchange within the 
management area. The City of Coburg recently vacated Stuart Way and the easternmost 
portion of Delaney Street, located west of the interchange, and that right-of-way is now 
considered part of the Truck-N-Travel property (with access and utility easement 
conditions). 
The following descriptions briefly characterize all the roads within the interchange 
management area. 
Interstate 5.1-5 is a limited access Interstate Highway, classified as part of the National 
Highway System (NHS). 1-5 is also a designated freight route and is a federal North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) route. 1-5 is the primary north-south interstate 
road facility for the Pacific Coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California). 
1-5 within the study area runs along the eastern edge of the city of Coburg, and also borders 
unincorporated Lane County. Within the interchange management area, 1-5 is a four-lane 
facility (two lanes in each direction, separated by a grassy median). According to O DOT's 
2-6 PDX/0826BOOÛ5.DOC 
C O BU RGflNTERSTAT E 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2007 Transportation Volume Tables, average daily traffic just south of the Coburg/I-5 
interchange (milepost 198.85) is approximately 45,100 vehicles. 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange is a classic diamond 
interchange, located at milepost 199.15. According 
to ODOT's 2007 Interchange Ramp Volume 
Diagrams, at the Coburg/I-5 (Van Duyn Road) 
interchange, the northbound average daily 
volume on 1-5 immediately south of the 
interchange is 22,250; while immediately north of 
the interchange northbound average daily volume 
is 18,930. According to the data, southbound 
average daily volume is 18,930 immediately north 
of the interchange and 22,890 immediately south 
of the interchange. Average 2007 daily volume on 
the northbound off-ramp is 5,090 while the northbound on-ramp is 1,770. Average 2007 
daily volume on the southbound off-ramp is 1,880, while on the southbound on-ramp, it is 
5,480. The differences between the off-ramps and on-ramps for each direction likely point to 
the influence of major employment areas located northwest of the interchange on 
interchange volumes and operations. 
E. Pearl Street. E. Pearl Street is a two-lane 
County Minor Arterial that travels east-west 
and turns into Van Duyn Road at the east of the 
Coburg/I-5 interchange. The intersection of E. 
Pearl and Coburg Industrial Way is signalized. 
E. Pearl Street provides direct access to 
commercial and industrial businesses, and leads 
west to the historic central business district in 
Coburg. Within the interchange management 
area, E. Pearl Street is classified locally as a 
truck route. Looking east toward the interchange on E. Pearl 
Van Duyn Road. Van Duyn Road is a two-lane local County road that travels east-west and 
turns into E. Pearl Street at the Coburg/I-5 interchange. There is a traffic signal at the 
intersection of Van Duyn Road and the northbound 1-5 ramp terminal. Van Duyn Road 
accesses property to the east of the interchange. Within the interchange management area, 
Van Duyn Road is classified by Coburg as a truck route and by Lane County as a local road. 
Daray Street. Daray Street is a county two-lane local road that accesses some businesses 
immediately north of E. Pearl Street and then dead-ends. Daray Street does not meet ODOT 
spacing standards for interchanges; it is less than 1,320 feet from the 1-5 ramp intersection 
with E. Pearl Street. 
Coburg Industrial Way. Coburg Industrial Way is a two-lane County Minor Collector 
(between E. Pearl and city limits) and City collector (north of the County road section) that 
travels north-south and provides access to the Monaco Coach and industrial property 
northwest of the interchange. Coburg Industrial Way does not meet ODOT spacing 
Coburg/I-5 interchange, southbound on-ramp 
PDX/0826fiÛÛÛ5.DÛC 2-7 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
standards for interchanges; it is less than 1,320 feet 
from the 1-5 southbound ramp intersection with E. 
Pearl Street. 
Roberts Road. Roberts Road is a two-lane City 
collector that travels north-south and provides 
access to Shell, Truck-N-Travel and other 
commercial and light industrial uses southwest of 
the interchange. Roberts Road does not meet ODOT 
spacing standards for interchanges; it is less than 
1,320 feet from the 1-5 ramp intersection with E. 
Pearl Street. 
E, Mill Street. E. Mill Street is a two-lane City road that travels east-west and is classified as a 
City collector between Diamond Street and Miller Street. E. Mill Street provides access to 
residential properties west of the interchange as well as to the city park. E. Mill Street is 
narrow in areas. 
E, Dixon Street. E. Dixon Street is a two-lane City 
road that travels east-west and is classified as a 
collector between Willamette Street and Coleman 
Street and as a local road everywhere else. E. 
Dixon Street primarily provides access to 
residential properties west of the interchange. 
N. and S. Coleman Street. Coleman Street is a two-
lane City road that travels north-south and is 
classified as a City collector between Mill Street 
and Pearl Street, but a local road everywhere else. 
Coleman Street provides access to residential 
properties northwest of the interchange, and provides a major north-south link through 
town. It is characterized by a series of four-way stops at intersections. 
Sarah Lane. Sarah Lane is a two-lane City local road that travels east-west and provides 
access to residential properties northwest of the interchange. 
N. Miller street. N. Miller Street is a two-lane City local road that travels north-south and 
provides access to residential properties west of the interchange. 
N. Emerald Street. N. Emerald Street is a two-lane City local road that travels north-south 
and provides access to residential properties northwest of the interchange. 
E. McKenzie Street. E. McKenzie Street is a two-lane City local road that travels east-west 
and provides access to residential properties west of the interchange and to the city park. 
E. Lincoln Way. E. Lincoln Way is a two-lane City local road that travels east-west and 
provides access to residential properties west of the interchange. 
E. Delaney Street. E. Delaney Street is a two- and one-lane local City road that travels east-
west and provides access to residential and commercial land west of the interchange. Imme-
diately west of Stuart Way, E. Delaney Street has been vacated and is poorly maintained. 
Industrial Way, looking north toward Monaco Coach 
facility 
Looking east from Coleman Street 
2-8 PDX/0826B0005. DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
E. Maple Street. E. Maple Street is a two-lane City local road that travels east-west and 
provides access to residential properties west of the interchange. 
E. Thomas Street. E. Thomas Street is a two-lane City local road that travels east-west and 
provides access to residential properties northwest of the interchange. 
Rustic Court. Rustic Court is a two-lane City local road that travels north-south and provides 
access to residential properties northwest of the interchange. 
Shane Court. Shane Court is a two-lane local City road that travels north-south and provides 
access to residential properties northwest of the interchange. 
Stuart Way. Stuart Way is a two-lane private road that was recently vacated by the City of 
Coburg. It provides access to the Truck-N-Travel site as well as the Eugene Kamping RV 
Park and Featherland. Stuart Way does not meet ODOT spacing standards for interchanges; 
it is less than 1,320 feet from the 1-5 ramp intersection with E. Pearl Street. 
Jurisdiction and Functional Classification 
Most of the roads within the Coburg/1-5 interchange management area fall under the 
jurisdiction of Coburg, though other roads are owned by Lane County or ODOT, as shown 
in Table 2-3. Most of the roads within the interchange management area are classified by the 
City of Coburg as local roads, though a few are classified as arterials (Willamette Street and 
E. Pearl Street) or collectors. Descriptions of relevant City of Coburg functional 
classifications for the management area include the following: 
• Interstate Highways—Interstate Highways are the highest classification of road, and 
serve larger volumes of interstate and regional traffic at higher speeds with limited 
access. Interstate Highways favor mobility over access. 
• County Arterials — County Arterials also generally favor mobility over access, and 
provide important regional and local connections. 
• County/City Collectors — County/City Collectors are intermediate roads that typically 
serve as the direct link between local streets and the arterial street system. Mobility and 
access functions are important for Collectors. 
• Local Roadways—The remainder of roads are classified as local roads. Access is the 
most important function for local roads. 
Figure 2-3 depicts both City and County functional classification, based on roadway 
ownership. Information is relevant for segments within the management area only. 
Number of Lanes, Road Width, Marked Shoulders, Speed Limits, Parking 
Physical road characteristics help to define potential road issues or problem areas. Table 2-4 
lists number of lanes, road width, marked shoulder width (if any), speed limits and 
presence of on-street parking for roads within the interchange management area. Many of 
the collectors within the interchange management area are relatively narrow for the 
expected function of the road. 
P0)ü0826ß0005.00C 2-9 
C 08U RG/IN TÊRS TA TE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 2-3 
Coburg/l-5 IAMP Ownership and City of Coburg/Lane County Functional Classification 
Road Jurisdiction (Ownership) Functional Classification 
Interstate 5 ODOT Interstate Highway (NHS) 
Van Duyn Road Lane County Local Roadway 
Pearl Street Lane County County Arterial (Coburg) 
Minor Arterial (Lane County) 
Coburg Industrial Way Lane County and City of Coburg Minor Collector (Lane County) 
City Collector (Coburg) 
Roberts Road City of Coburg City Collector 
N. and S. Coleman Street City of Coburg C/ty Collector and Local Roadway 
E. Mill Street City of Coburg City Collector and Local Roadway 
E. Dixon Street City of Coburg City Collector and Local Roadway 
N. Miller Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Stuart Way Private Road Vacated 
Daray Street City of Coburg and Lane County Local Roadway 
Sarah Lane City of Coburg Local Roadway 
N. Emerald Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. McKenzie Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Lincoln Way City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Delaney Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Maple Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
E. Thomas Street City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Rustic Court City of Coburg Local Roadway 
Shane Court City of Coburg Local Roadway 
2-10 PDW08268Q005.DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 2-4 
Coburg/l-5 IAMP Lanes, Road Width, Marked Shoulders, Speed Limit, Parking 
Road 
# 
Lanes 
Road 
Width 
Marked Shoulders 
(feet) 
Speed 
(MPH) Signed Parking 
Interstate 5 4 80' 4+ 65 N/A 
Van Duyn Road 2 24' 4+ 35 N/A 
E. Pearl Street 2 26' None 35 N/A 
Coburg Industrial Way 2 42' None Basic Rule No Parking 
Roberts Road 2 221 None 40 1 hour on the east; no 
parking on west 
N. and S. Coleman Street 1 17' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. Mill Street 2 16' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. Dixon Street 2 20' Curbless 25 N/A 
N. Miller Street 2 20' Curbless 25 N/A 
Daray Street 2 361 None 25 N/A 
Sarah Lane 2 24' None 25 No Parking 
N. Emerald Street 2 20' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. McKenzie Street 2 20' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. Lincoln Way 2 20' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. Delaney Street 2 20' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. Maple Street 1 16' Curbless 25 N/A 
E. Thomas Street 1 17' Curbless 25 N/A 
Rustic Court 2 24' None 25 N/A 
Shane Court 2 24' None 25 N/A 
Note: In cases where street segments vary in terms of physical characteristics, the primary characteristic is listed in this 
summary table (e.g.. if a road segment is primarily two lanes and is one lane for a short segment, it will be listed in the 
table as two lanes). 
Road Condition 
Road pavement condition within the interchange management area affects the coordination 
of projects and identifies potential improvement needs. For example, often time 
improvements can be coordinated with pavement overlay programs to maintain efficient 
and streamlined funding by completing both at once. Table 2-5 lists pavement condition 
ratings within the interchange management area. Figure 2-4 shows pavement condition 
ratings for the interchange management area. 
Road condition ratings are based on ODOT standards. Conditions are not identified below 
the road segmentlevel. No pavement condition ratings are available for interstate ramps. 
The following codes are used for roads in the interchange management area: 
PDX/0826800Û5. DOC 2-11 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Poor—Paved road. Areas of instability, marked evidence of structural deficiency, large 
crack patterns (alligatoring), heavy and numerous patches, and/or deformation very 
noticeable. Riding quality ranges from acceptable to poor. 
Fair—Paved road. Generally stable, with minor areas of structural weakness evident. 
Cracking easy to detect; patched but not excessively. Deformation is more pronounced 
and easily noticed. Good riding quality. 
Good—Paved road. Stable, may have minor cracking, generally hairline and hard to 
detect. Minor patching and some minor deformation may be evident. Veiy good riding 
surface. 
TABLE 2-5 
2005 Coburg/1-5 IAMP Pavement Condition 
Road Pavement Condition 
Interstate 5 
Van Duyn Road 
E. Pearl Street 
Coburg Industrial Way 
Roberts Road 
N. and S. Coleman Street 
E. Mill Street 
E. Dixon Street 
N. Miller Street 
Daray Street 
Sarah Lane 
N. Emerald Street 
E. McKenzie Street 
E. Lincoln Way 
E. Delaney Street 
E. Maple Street 
E. Thomas Street 
Rustic Court 
Shane Court 
Good (Southbound); Very Good (Northbound) 
Fair 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Fair 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Fair 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Good 
Note: In cases where street segments vary in terms of pavement condition, the primary condition 
is listed in this summary table (e.g., if a road segment is primarily gooci, and is fair for a short 
segment, it will be listed in the table as good). 
Signed Truck Routes 
Truck route locations are important for understanding the flow of freight movement 
through an area. 1-5 is a significant freight route, and carries interstate and international 
2-12 POX/082680005.DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
freight. Other signed designated truck routes in the interchange study area include E. Pearl 
Street and Van Duyn Road. West of the interchange management area, Willamette Street is a 
freight route that connects with freight generators (e.g., the mill) to the northwest of Coburg. 
Traffic Control 
Traffic control is critical for traffic flow and safety in many locations. Within the interchange 
management area, there are two signalized intersections: 
• Northbound 1-5 Ramps/Van Duyn Road; and 
• E. Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way. 
There are several stop-controlled intersections, including the following: 
• E. Delaney Street/N. Miller Street (two-way stop control) 
• Coleman Street/E. Maple Street (two-way stop control) 
• Coleman Street/E. Dixon Street (four-way stop control) 
• Coleman Street/E. Delaney Street (four-way stop control) 
• Coleman Street/E. Lincoln Way (four-way stop control) 
• Coleman Street/E. McKenzie Street (four-way stop control) 
• Coleman Street/E. Mill Street (four-way stop control) 
• N. Miller Street/E. Mill Street (three-way stop control) 
• All approaches to arterials are stop controlled 
2.4,2 Interchange Condition and Geometric Deficiencies 
The Coburg/1-5 interchange bridge was originally built in 1960 and was raised in 1998. The 
bridge was rated with a Sufficiency Rating of 77.1 in 2008, which is considered Not Deficient 
(not considered Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete). The bridge is eligible for 
federal funds for rehabilitation, but not for replacement.8 The bridge is 239 feet in length, 
and the bridge type is reinforced concrete deck girder. Horizontal clearance is 40 feet 
6 inches and vertical clearance is 16 feet 2 inches. 
Primary deficiencies noted with regard to the interchange include the following: 
• Sight distance. Sight distances are substandard; the view that motorists have from the 
ramp terminal of oncoming vehicles is not comprehensive. Guardrail locations restrict 
motorist line of sight. 
• Grades/Deceleration Length. E. Pearl Street/Van Duyn Road approaches 1-5 on the 
west side at 5.5 percent and Van Duyn Road approaches 1-5 from the east at 5.3 percent, 
which is steep for trucks. The deceleration length is substandard. 
• Bridge width. The bridge structure is narrow, and does not have room to accommodate 
bicyclists, pedestrians, or vehicular emergencies. The width is substandard. 
• Vertical clearance. The bridge structure is less than the 17.5-foot ODOT standard. 
8 A sufficiency rating o f< 80 percent is eligible for Federal Rehabilitation funds, and a sufficiency rating of < 5 0 percent is 
eligible for Federal Replacement funds. 
PDX/082680005.DOC 2-13 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2.4.3 Access 
Access spacing and the location of access points is critical to this IAMP planning process. 
The location of local streets and County roads near the interchange is a concern for the 
existing and future safety and operation of the Coburg/I-5 interchange. Public and private 
access locations along E. Pearl Sheet in the interchange study area are shown on Figure 2-5. 
Both ODOT and Lane County maintain access spacing recommendations or standards. 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange is considered an urban interchange. There are no other 
interchanges along 1-5 within these spacing limits; it is approximately 10 miles north to the 
Diamond Hill interchange, and approximately 3.5 miles south to the Beltline interchange. 
The larger issue for the Coburg/I-5 interchange area is the spacing along the crossroad, Van 
Duyn Road/E. Pearl Street. According to the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) Policy 3C: 
Interchange Access Management Areas, "When possible, access control shall be purchased 
on crossroads for a minimum distance of 1,320 feet (400 meters) from a ramp intersection or 
the end of a free flow ramp terminal merge lane taper." 
ODOT standards are outlined in the OAR (OAR 734-051). The applicable standards are 
summarized in Table 2-6. The A, X, Y, and Z values are illustrated in Table 2-6. 
TABLE 2-6 
Minimum Spacing Standards Appl icable to Freeway Interchanges 
S p a c i n g D i m e n s i o n 
C r o s s r o a d A X Y Z 
T w o - l a n e 1 mi le 1 , 3 2 0 feet 1 ,320 fee t 9 9 0 fee t 
Mu l t i - l ane 1 mi le 1 ,320 f ee t 1 ,320 f ee t 1 ,320 fee t 
A = The distance between the start and end of tapers of adjacent interchanges. 
X = The distance to the first approach on the right; right in/right out only. 
Y = The distance to the first intersections where left-turns are allowed. 
Z = The distance between the last right in/right out approach road and the start of the taper for the entrance 
ramp. 
Source: Tables 5 and 6 in OAR 734-051-0125. 
Lane County standards, included in the Lane County Transportation System Plan (June 2004), 
reference ODOT standards for state facilities, and also reference Lane Code sections 15.130-
15.139. Lane County classifies E. Pearl Street as an Urban Minor Arterial, 30 and 35 mph, 
and therefore, per Lane County Code Section 15.138 —Table 2, County spacing standards are 
275 feet for roads and driveways (measured centerline to centerline) along E. Pearl Street. 
Lane County classifies Van Duyn Road as an Urban Local Road within the UGB, and as a 
Rural Local Road outside the UGB. According to Lane County Code Section 15.138(2), 
2-14 PDX/082680Û05. DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
within a UGB the spacing standard for County Local Roads is 20 feet for use of property for 
a single family or manufactured dwelling, duplex, or triplex, and 100 feet for other uses. 
According to Lane County Code Section 15.138(3), outside the UGB the spacing standard for 
County Local Roads is 100 feet. 
According to Lane County Code Section 15.137(6)(b), minimum offsets for roads along 
County roads designed for +25 mph speeds should be 150 feet. The County Code also 
recommends joint access where possible. 
Lane County has a facility permits process to manage access to County Roads through the 
review of land divisions and other proposed development. 
The following public roads do not meet the OHP's recommended distance from an 
interchange: 
• Daray Street 
• Coburg Industrial Way 
• Roberts Road 
In addition, Stuart Way (vacated road), driveways at the Texaco station, the entrance to 
Hillside Café and the RV park access on the east side of the interchange do not meet the 
OHP recommended distance of 1,320 feet from the interchange. 
The intersections of Daray Sheet, Roberts Road, and Coburg Industrial Way are not aligned 
with each other, and in general do not meet County spacing or road offset standards. 
2.4.4 Crash Analysis 
The crash analysis includes a summary of safety conditions along 1-5 within the city of 
Coburg, and study area intersections within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area. 
The ODOT Crash Analysis Unit provided crash history statistics9 for the years 2003-2007. 
These data were analyzed to identify crash patterns that could be a result of existing 
geometric or operational deficiencies. 
Interstate 5 
ODOT has developed a Safety Priority Index System (SPIS), generated annually and based 
on the most recently available 3 years of crash data, to identify hazardous locations along 
state highways. The highway locations within the highest 10 percent SPIS score are 
evaluated for potential safety improvements. No locations along 1-5 near the interchange 
management area (MP 198.00 to MP 200.50) were included in the most recent highest 
10 percent SPIS score. 
For the 5-year period, a total of 73 crashes were reported along 1-5 within the interchange 
management area, including 13 injury crashes, 59 property damage crashes, and one fatal 
crash (with three fatalities). Table 2-7 provides an overview of all traffic crashes over the 
5-year period. 
9 Legally reportable motor vehicle traffic crashes are those that involve death, bodily injury, or damage to personal property in 
excess of $1000. 
PDXffl8268Ci0O5.DOC 2-15 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 2-7 
Historical Crash Data on 1-5 within Ihe Coburg/l-5 Interchange Management Area (MP 198.00 to MP 200,50) 
Severity of Crash Type of Crash 
Year Injury 
Property 
Damage Fatal 
Total 
Crashes Angle 
Rear-
End 
Fixed 
Object 
Sideswipe-
Overtaking Turning Other 
2003 3 17 1 21 0 7 9 3 0 2 
2004 5 25 0 30 0 10 12 8 0 0 
2005 2 13 0 15 0 4 6 4 0 1 
2006 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 . 1 0 
2007 3 2 0 5 0 2 1 0 2 0 
Total 13 59 1 73 0 23 29 15 3 3 
The rate of traffic incidents occurring along 1-5 ranged between 2 and 30 crashes per year. 
Although there were thirty crashes in 2004, there are no trends in the data to explain the 
high number of crashes. Hie most common type of crash was fixed object crashes, which 
comprised roughly 39 percent (29 crashes) of all crashes over the 5-year period. This was 
followed by rear-end crashes, which comprised roughly 31 percent (23 crashes) of all 
crashes over the 5-year period. In 2003, seven of the 21 crashes occurred on the same day 
and were during icy conditions. The fatal crash (three fatalities) occurred in July 2003 at 
dawn during clear and dry conditions at MP 199.0. 
Road conditions and time of day are two elements often analyzed with crash statistics. The 
majority (57 percent, 42 crashes) of crashes occurred on dry surface. Most of the crashes also 
occurred during the day— 69 percent, or 51 crashes total. Table 2-8 summarizes these data. 
Crash incidents were comparatively higher during the work week than on weekends, and 
the PM peak period recorded the most number of crashes (10 crashes). 
TABLE 2-8 
Surface and Light Condition Summary 
Surface Conditions Crashes 
Dry 42 
Wet 20 
Icy 11 
Total 73 
Light Conditions Crashes 
Day 51 
tiark (Road Lighted) 14 
Dawn 6 
Dusk 2 
Total 73 
2-16 PDXfl82680005.DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2,4.5 Intersection-Level Analysis 
In addition to the 1-5 corridor, interchange management area study intersections, including 
1-5 ramp termini, have been analyzed with regard to crashes from 2003-2007. Table 2-9 
provides an overview of the crashes recorded by study intersection location. The most 
common type of crashes at the study intersections were turning, followed by rear-end 
crashes. Most of the crashes involved property damage only with no injury. No head-on or 
parking collisions were recorded. No collisions involved pedestrians or bicyclists. Twelve of 
the 16 intersection crashes took place during the day. Six of the intersection crashes occurred 
on wet pavement. 
Intersection crash rates are typically reported in crashes per million entering vehicles 
(MEV). Most crash rates are substantially lower than 1.00, which indicates that crashes are 
not a significant concern at all five study intersections. The Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial 
Way intersection experienced the greatest number of crashes, warranting further review of 
geometric and operational issues. 
TABLE 2-9 
Intersection Crash Data (2003-2007) Coburg/i-5 IAMP 
Severity of Crash Type of Crash 
Study Intersection Injury 
Property 
Damage 
Only 
Total 
Crashes 
Crash Rate 
(Crashes/ 
MEV) 
Sideswipe-
Overtaking Rear-End Turning 
Pearl Street/Coburg 
Industrial Way 
3 6 9 0.34 2 2 5 
Pearl Street/ 
Coleman Road 
0 1 ' 1 0.08 0 1 0 
Pearl Street/ 
Roberts Road 
0 3 3 0.12 0 1 2 
Van Duyn Road/l-5 
. Northbound Ramps 
1 0 1 0.07 0 1 0 
Pearl Street/1-5 
Southbound Ramps 
1 1 2 0.08 0 1 1 
TOTALS 5 11 16 - 2 6 8 
Note: MEV = million entering vehicles. 
To reduce speeds in Coburg, traffic calming measures may be beneficial. Research has 
shown that narrower lanes, reduced overall road width, street trees, and speed humps along 
with other strategies have been successfully used to reduce travel speeds. These measures 
may in turn reduce the number of crashes in Coburg. Also, the incidence of crashes 
involving drivers not yielding indicates that some locations may benefit from better stop 
controls or improved sight distances. 
2.4.6 Existing Operational Analysis 
Existing operational analysis was conducted for intersections within the Coburg/1-5 IAMP 
interchange management area to identify operational issues. Figure 2-6 shows the turning 
movement volumes for study intersections within the interchange management area. 
PDX/082680005. DOC 2-17 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Traffic Operations 
Manual turning movement counts were collected for five intersections within the Coburg 
UGB on typical weekdays in November 2002, May 2004, January 2005, and February 2007: 
Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way, Van Duyn Road/1-5 Northbound Ramps, Pearl Street/ 
1-5 Southbound Ramps, Pearl Street/Roberts Road, and Pearl Street/ Coleman Street. 
The counts completed during November 2002, May 2004, and February 2007 were 14-hour 
counts and the count completed during January 2005 included 3 hours in the morning and 
3 hours in the evening, hi February 2007, new 14-hour counts were conducted for the Van 
Duyn Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps and Pearl Street/1-5 Southbound Ramps intersections. 
This new set of counts replaced the previous counts for these two intersections. All counts 
included the peak period, 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. These counts were collected to evaluate the 
existing road and intersection operations near and at the Coburg/I-5 interchange. 
Appendixes E and F provide summaries of the methodologies and the raw traffic data used 
for this analysis, respectively. 
Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Heavy Vehicle F 
The average daily traffic (ADT) for facilities 
within Coburg varies between 7,000 and 14,000 
vehicles per day. On E. Pearl Street west of 
Coburg Industrial Way, there are approximately 
7,000 vehicles per day. East of Coburg Industrial 
Way on E. Pearl Street, the ADT increases to 
approximately 14,000 vehicles per day. 
The percent of heavy vehicles for facilities 
within Coburg ranges from 5 percent to 
30 percent. On E. Pearl Street west of Coburg 
Industrial Way the percent of heavy vehicles is 
between 5 percent and 15 percent. East of 
Coburg Industrial Way on Pearl Street, the percent of heavy vehicles increases from 
15 percent to 30 percent. There is also a high percent heavy vehicle rate of 25 percent on the 
north approach of E. Pearl Street and Roberts Road. 
Study Intersections and Raw Traffic Counts 
Traffic data were collected for signalized and unsignalized study intersections. Since the 
counts were taken in various years (2002,2004,2005, 2007), a growth factor was applied to 
the 2002 and 2004 counts to come up to the existing conditions year of 2005 for intersections 
not at 1-5 ramps. 2007 counts were used for the 1-5 ramp intersections. Appendix E provides 
an overview of the traffic analysis methodology and explains how the growth rate was 
calculated. Appendix F contains raw traffic volumes for each intersection that was counted. 
• Signalized 
- Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way 
- Van Duyn Road and 1-5 Northbound Ramps 
B. Peart Street/Cob urg Industrial Way Intersection 
PDX/08268Û0Û5. DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
• Unsignalized 
- Pearl Street and Coleman Street 
- Pearl Street and Roberts Road 
- Van Duyn Road and 1-5 Southbound Ramps 
Analysis of the Automated Traffic Recorder Sites 
ODOT traffic analysis procedures require the 30th highest hour traffic volumes be used to 
calculate volume to capacity (V/C)10 ratios for intersections and street segments. The 30th 
highest hour represents the highest volume of traffic that would be expected to occur on the 
road, ignoring extraordinary circumstances — literally the 30th highest recorded traffic 
volumes. The 30th highest hour examined was a PM hour. Data from a representative 
automated traffic recorder (ATR) site was used to determine seasonal factors and to 
calculate 30th highest hour traffic volumes from traffic counts collected in November 2002, 
May 2004, January 2005, and February 2007. Methodologies used in this analysis are 
summarized in Appendix E. 
Analysis Method 
Operational analysis of existing conditions for the five study intersections, using 30th 
highest hour traffic volumes, was performed using Synchro analysis software. Appendix G 
provides the complete report output for each intersection. 
State Highway Mobility Standards 
State Highway Mobility Standards were developed for the OHP as a method to gauge 
reasonable and consistent standards for traffic flow along state highways. These mobility 
standards consider the classification (e.g., freeway, district) and location (rural, urban) of 
each state highway. Mobility standards are based on V/C ratios. 
Two of the study intersections are governed by OHP standards with regard to existing 
operations.11 These are the intersections at the 1-5 northbound and southbound ramps. The 
two study intersections under ODOT's jurisdiction are within the UGB and inside the 
boundaries of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). These intersections are not 
within a Special Transportation Area (STA) and the intersections operate at a speed limit of 
less than 45 m p h The 1-5 ramps therefore have a standard V/C ratio of 0.80 under the OHP. 
Table 2-10 lists the intersections within ODOT's jurisdiction. 
The future no-build analysis will maintain the same OHP standards as the existing condi-
tions analysis. The future build analysis will use the 20-year design standard as designated 
in the 2003 Highway Design Manual (HDM). The build analysis standard V / C ratio will be 
0.75 for the ODOT governed study intersections because they are inside the urban growth 
boundary and in an MPO. 
v /C ratios are defined as the number of vehicles passing through a road segment during a given period of time, divided by 
the capacity of that road segment 
1 1 OHP standards are used to evaluate operations for existing or future no-build conditions. HDM standards are used to 
evaluate any future build scenario options on state facilities. 
POX/0B2680005. DOC 2-19 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Lane County Mobility Standards 
Lane County standards were used to analyze the remaining three study intersections in the 
interchange management area because they are located along a County road (E. Pearl 
Street). The Lane County TSP (2004) and Lane Code outline the performance standards. The 
three study intersections are located inside the UGB and within the MPO area. The 
minimum standard V / C ratio is 0.85 and the minimum acceptable level of service (LOS) is 
LOS D. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the approaches that are required to stop 
have a standard V/C ratio of 0.95 and LOS D. Table 2-10 lists the study intersections within 
the County's jurisdiction. 
The future no-build and future build analyses will maintain the same V/C ratio standard 
for the study intersections within the County's jurisdiction. 
TABLE 2-10 
Intersection Operational Analysis—Existing (2005' ) 30th Highest Hour 
Study Intersection Road Jurisdiction 
LOS and V/C Ratio 
Standard 
Observed Maximum 
LOS and V/C Ratio 
Signalized 
Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way Lane County (D) 0.85 (E) 0.61 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 Northbound Ramps ODOT 0.80 0.40 
Unsignalized 
Pearl Street and 1-5 Southbound Ramps ODOT , 1 0.80 0.66 
Major Minor Major Minor 
Pearl Street and Coleman Street 
Pearl Street and Roberts Road 
Lane County 
Lane County 
(D) 0.85 (D) 0.95 
(D) 0.85 (D) 0.95 
(A) 0.01 (C)0.10 
(A) 0.14 r<a»mn 
Source: Synchro HCM Unsignalized and Signalized Reports 
Notes: V/C standards for existing conditions on ODOT facilities are evaluated per the OHP. 
For unsignalized intersections, the V/C ratio is presented for the worst movement for each street. 
Numbers in I r f rH' j indicate V/C ratios and levels of service not meeting OHP mobility standards. 
For the intersections within ODOT's jurisdiction, no LOS will be reported. 
LOS = level of service 
Operational Analysis of Existing Conditions (30th Highest Hour) 
Table 2-9 presents the mobility standards found in the OHP as well as the Lane County TSP 
and Lane Code. The table also presents the observed intersection V / C ratios for all of the 
study intersections and observed LOS for the intersections under City jurisdiction. These 
observations were made under the existing (2005) 30th highest hour traffic volumes. For 
signalized intersections, the overall intersection results are reported. For unsignalized 
intersections, the movement with the worst operating performance on both the major and 
minor approaches is reported. 
Intersection V/C ratios greater than the mobility standards indicate areas of congestion and 
Ionger-than-acceptable vehicle delay. Intersection V/C ratios lower than the mobility 
standards indicate intersections operating at acceptable levels of mobility. As shown in 
Table 2-10, all of the study intersections except one (Pearl Sheet and Roberts Road) currently 
operate better than the OHP or County V / C thresholds. 
2-20 PDX/0B2680005.DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Most of the intersections have V/C ratios well below the standard with exceptions at Pearl 
Street and Roberts Road and Van Duyn Road and 1-5 Southbound Ramps. At Pearl Street 
and Roberts Road, the minor approaches are failing. The primary street volumes at this 
intersection are high due to the traffic traveling between 1-5 and Coburg Industrial Way. The 
side street volumes are not large on Roberts Road, but since the intersection is a two-way 
stop, the vehicles have a difficult time turning onto, or getting across Pearl Street, thus 
making those movements fail. 
Turn-Lane Queuing Analysis of Existing Conditions (30th Highest Hour) 
The V/ C ratio provides only one measure-of-effectiveness for intersection operation. 
Vehicle queuing in the turn-lanes shows where there is deficient vehicle storage at inter-
sections. The 95th percentile queue length exceeds available storage capacity at the 
southbound left turn lane at E. Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way. However, this 
intersection meets Lane County mobility standards. All of the queues are shown in 
Table 2-11; assumptions used for the queue analysis are provided in Appendix E. 
Queue lengths can impact overall intersection corridor operations by delaying and restricting 
upstream vehicle movements. This is true for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. 
Hie southbound left turn at E. Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way shares the same phase 
as the southbound through and right. This is beneficial, because it means that the long queues 
will not result in hindering through traffic from proceeding during the green signal. The long 
queue at Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way could, however, be an indication that 
vehicles are waiting at the signal for more than one cycle during peak periods. 
PDX/082680Û05. DOC 2-21 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 2-11 
2005 30th Highest Hour Queue Analysis 
Intersection Approach Lane Group 
Existing 
Storage (feet) 
Queue 
Length (feet) 
Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way Eastbound Left 
Thru/Right 
200 40 
200 
Westbound Left 
Thru/Right 
100 80 
150 
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 60 
Southbound Left 
Left/Thru/Right 
300 rem 
630 
Van Duyn Road and I-5 Northbound Ramps Eastbound Left/Thru 80 
Westbound Thru/Right 40 
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 200 
Pearl Street and Coleman Street Eastbound 
Westbound 
Left/Thru/Right 
Left/Thru/Right 
— 
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 20 
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 30 
Pearl Street and Roberts Road Eastbound 
Westbound 
Left/Thru/Right 
Left/Thru/Right 
— 
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 190 
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 70 
Van Duyn Road and I-5 Southbound Ramps Eastbound 
Westbound 
Thru/Right 
Left/Thru 
— 
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 90 
Note: 
Numbers in indicate the existing queue length exceeds ttie existing storage length. 
Synchro and SimTraffic were used to calculate queue lengths; see Appendix E for more information. 
Queue lengths not reported for free-flowing and uncontrolled movements. 
Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 10 feet. 
Storage for through-lanes displayed only when queue is expected to surpass distance to next intersection. 
2.4.7 Transit Facilities 
The Coburg/I-5 interchange is located within the Lane Transit 
District (LTD). LTD Route 96 and Route 96 Express serve areas 
within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area. Figure 2-7 
shows transit routes in the management area. 
Route 96 heads north from Eugene to Coburg along Coburg 
Road and Willamette Street. Route 96 serves the interchange 
study area via E. Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way. There 
are bus stops along E. Pearl Street, as well as at Monaco and the 
Country Squire Inn stop, and then heads back to Eugene along 
Coburg Road. Service is generally every 2 hours during the 
weekdays. 
LTD Transit Stop 
2-22 P DX/Û8268Û005.00C 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Route 96 Express travels along 1-5 between Eugene and Coburg, and services the Monaco 
property. The Coburg Express leaves Eugene during the weekdays one time during the 
morning (7:00 AM) and leaves Coburg one time during the evening (4:10 PM), intending to 
offer alternatives to Monaco and other industrial employers in Coburg. 
From Juné 1,2004, to May 31,2005, total 
ridership on Route 96 was 19,934. Chart 1 shows 
the monthly ridership on Route 96 during 2004-
2005. Ridership was highest during June 2004 
(2,147 transit hips) and was the lowest during 
March 2005 (1,309 transit hips). Average 
monthly ridership for the timeframe was 1,661 
transit trips. Monthly transit ridership was 
generally consistent. 
There is no weekend or evening transit service 
to Coburg. 
Other demand-response and transportation demand management (TDM) options are 
available through LTD's Commuter Solutions group. This service offers carpool and 
vanpool registration, SchoolPool, walking and bicycling groups, bicycling information, 
ideas for alternative work week schedules and a variety of employer programs. These 
transit and TDM strategies, if utilized, have some potential to affect operations in the 
interchange management area. 
There is no passenger rail service within the study area. The closest Amtrak station is 
located in Eugene at 433 Willamette Street 
2.4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation 
Currently there is minimal pedestrian and bicycle activity in 
the vicinity of the Coburg/1-5 interchange'. Figure 2-8 shows 
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including existing crosswalks 
and off-street facilities in the interchange management area. 
No observed bicycle parking locations exist in the interchange 
management area. Hiere are two signalized crosswalks in the 
interchange management area, at 1-5 Northbound Ramps/Van 
Duyn Road and E. Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way. 
Table 2-12 lists existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the 
Coburg/I-5 interchange management area. The table also 
notes the existing sidewalks in the interchange management 
area that are less than 5 feet wide, which is the desired 
minimum width for sidewalk functionality (6 feet is preferred 
per the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 1995). Hiere is a 
noticeable lack of walking and bicycling facilities in the area, given the amount of 
employment in the area, and especially if the area is expected to grow. 
Chart 1. LTD flaute 9S Mo nifi ty Ridership 
Montas, 
Coburg Ped/Bike Facilities 
PDXffl826800O5.DOC 2-23 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
The Coburg Zoning Code requires new sidewalks in the Highway Commercial and Light 
Industrial districts upon redevelopment. The local streets in the residential areas 
consciously do not require sidewalks in order to p r e s e r v e the rural character of the local 
streets. It is a shared sheet design. 
TABLE 2-12 
Coburg/l-5 IAMP Roads—Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 
Road Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities 
Interstate 5 None(N/A) None(N/A) 
Van Duyn Road None None 
E. Pearl Street Both sides South side; 5+ feet (both sides west of Stuart Way) 
Coburg Industrial Way None None 
Roberts Road None None 
N. and S. Coleman Street None None 
E. Mill Street None None 
E. Dixon Street None North side; Less than 5 feet 
M. Miller Street None None 
Daray Street None None 
Sarah Lane None Both sides; Less than 5 feet 
N. Emerald Street None None 
E. McKenzie.Street None None 
E. Lincoln Way None None 
E. Delaney Street None None 
E. Maple Street None None 
E. Thomas Street None None 
Rustic Court None Both sides; Less than 5 feet 
Shane Court None Both sides; Less than 5 feet 
2.4.9 Air Transportation 
There are no air facilities located within the Coburg/1-5 interchange management area, or 
within the city of Coburg. 
Nearby Public Air Facilities 
The closest public air service is at the Mahlon Sweet Field Airport, located approximately 
7 miles east of the study area in Eugene. Road access to the Mahlon Sweet Field Airport 
from Coburg is via Coburg Road or 1-5 to Beltline Highway and OR 99W. The airport is not 
serviced by fixed-route transit. 
Mahlon Sweet Field is owned and operated by the City of Eugene, and is open to the public. 
It is the fifth-largest airport in the northwest, providing commercial air service, air cargo 
service, and one fixed base operator to handle general aviation needs. The airport provides 
service to Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and other cities. 
2-24 PDXrtl826eoO05.DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
The airport averages 223 operations per day, or over 81,000 annually, with 206 aircraft based 
at the field. Approximately 38 percent of the operations are transient general aviation, 
30 percent are local general aviation, 20 percent are commuters, 10 percent are air carriers, 
and 2 percent are military. Of the 206 aircraft based on the field, 171 are single-engine 
airplanes, 15 are jet airplanes, 13 are multi-engine airplanes, and 7 are helicopters. 
The airport has two asphalt runways, both in good condition. Runway 16/34 is 8,009 feet 
long by 150 feet wide and has the following weight limits: 155,000 lb for single-wheel, 
190,000 lb for double-wheel, and 300,000 lb for double-tandem aircraft. Runway 3/21 is 
5,228 feet long by 150 feet wide and has the following weight limits: 50,000 lb for single-
wheel, 65,000 lb for double-wheel, and 100,000 lb for double-tandem aircraft. 
Nearby Private Air Facilities 
There are four private air facilities within 5 miles of the Coburg/I-5 interchange 
management area: 
• Briggs Airport (located 1 mile north of Coburg, west of 1-5; one aircraft based on the 
field) 
• Pape Bros. Inc. Heliport (located 1 mile north of Coburg, just west of 1-5) 
• West Point Airport (located 3 miles north of Coburg, just east of 1-5; two aircraft based 
on the field) 
• Greer Airport (located 4 miles north of Coburg; west of 1-5; four aircraft based on the 
field) 
2.4.10 Rail Transportation 
There are no commuter or freight rail facilities located within the Coburg/I-5 interchange 
management area, or within the city of Coburg, The Southern Pacific Railroad formerly 
owned a right-of-way within the city of Coburg, which has been since partially vacated. 
The closest passenger rail service is located in Eugene (Amtrak). This service travels north-
south with stops along the west coast, including Seattle; Portland; Salem; Albany; 
Vancouver, B.C.; and locations in California, with connections to other locations, such as 
Klamath Falls and Chemult. 
2.4.11 Water 
There are no navigable waterways located within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management 
area, or within the city of Coburg. The confluence of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers is 
located approximately 2 miles southwest of Coburg. 
2.4.12 Pipelines 
There are no significant pipelines located within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management 
area. The closest significant pipeline is the Williams Gas Pipeline West, which is a natural 
gas pipeline that runs north-south through the western portion of the city of Coburg. There 
are no noted deficiencies. 
PDX/082680005.DOC 2-25 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2.4.13 Summary of Deficiencies and Issues 
The following transportation and land use deficiencies or issues are relevant for the 
Coburg/I-5 IAMP planning process (inno particular order): 
• Land Use Changes and Expansions. There is a lot of undeveloped and underdeveloped 
land within the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area. If land is to develop—or be 
annexed into Coburg—it would impact the transportation system. Planning for this 
interchange was partially initiated due to the rapid development of commercial and 
industrial lands near the interchange. 
• Access Spacing along E. Pearl Street. Four public roads and multiple private driveways 
are closer to the interchange than ODOT standards recommend. Roads are not aligned 
within the interchange management area. Some access points along E. Pearl Street are 
located close to each other. 
• Operations at nonsignalized intersections. Operations at the Pearl Street/Roberts Road 
intersection do not meet acceptable performance standards (the minor movement does 
not meet the standards). 
• Queuing at Pearl Streel/Coburg Industrial Way. At the Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial 
Way intersection, the 95th percentile queue length exceeds available storage capacity. 
The long queue at Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way could, however, be an 
indication that vehicles are waiting at the signal for more than one cycle during peak 
periods. However, the E. Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way intersection does not 
report V /C ratios higher than Lane County mobility standards. 
• Lack of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. The interchange management area is 
noticeably lacking in coordinated and connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 
• Transit Service and TDM. Transit service (particularly Express transit service) is 
somewhat limited — though it may first require education for commuters using the 
interchange and surrounding street network. TDM strategies for large employers should 
be in the mix of concepts put forward. 
• Truck traffic. Truck traffic includes freight vehicles with three or more axles, and must 
be accommodated, yet neighborhoods must 
also be shielded to the greatest extent 
possible from the impacts of this traffic. 
• Van Duyn Bridge and 1-5 ramp geometry. 
The Van Duyn Bridge is narrow, and does 
not offer much room for emergency 
management or clear visibility; widths are 
substandard. Some of the grades are difficult 
for trucks; deceleration length is substandard. 
The bridge does not have adequate width for 
pedestrians or bicyclists. Vertical clearance is 
substandard. Coburg City Hall 
2-26 PDX/OB2680005. DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2.5 Natural and Cultural Resources 
The Coburg/1-5 interchange management area includes land in Lane County and the City of 
Coburg. Project improvements could potentially trigger environmental protection 
regulations of any of these jurisdictions, as well as state and/or federal regulations. This 
section provides a broad overview of natural and cultural resources in the study area and 
related potential project constraints presented. Future project steps will require additional 
environmental work. 
The 1999 Refinement Plan included a general environmental assessment conducted by 
ODOT, intended to provide a rough overview of the area around the interchange. The 
assessment included review of the natural and built environment for any fatal flaws for an 
interchange project. According to the Refinement Plan, "There were no environmental issues 
at this time that constitutes a significant problem for future interchange designs." Figure 2-9 
includes the Possible Environmental Constraints map from the Refinement Plan. 
The most relevant concerns for the interchange management area appear to be related to 
hydrology, floodplain, and wetlands related to Muddy Creek to the west of 1-5 and Urr 
Stream to the east of 1-5. 
Runoff collection in the southwest corner of the west interchange ramp has been noted by 
City of Coburg staff. No sites were found that contain historic structures, parks, or 
environmental overlays. 
The area contains a number of potential hazardous material sites due to previous gas 
stations or existing gas stations. The ODOT assessment determined that the sites could be 
mitigated if they were impacted by any future interchange project. 
The Coburg TSP contains information regarding other natural and cultural resources, which 
has been adapted for this IAMP. 
2.5.1 Topography 
The topography within Coburg is relatively flat and there are no designated steep slopes in 
the study area. 
2.5.2 Soils 
The Coburg Comprehensive Plan identifies significant portions within the UGB as having 
soil restrictions for development. Most of the Highway Commercial plan designation area 
shows soil limitations. Coburg is largely surrounded by Class II soils. To the north of the 
residential portion of Coburg lies a mix of Class I and II soils. The soil to the west of Coburg 
and down the bluff from the present residential areas is Class II soil, as is the area south of 
Coburg, west of Coburg Road. South off Roberts Road, the soil between the railroad right-
of-way and Interstate 5 is Class IV soil. This Class IV soil extends west of the railroad right-
of-way until it nears Muddy Creek, where it is replaced by Class II soil. 
2.5.3 Hydrology 
The interchange management area ties within the Willamette River Subbasin. Muddy Creek 
and Urr Stream are the main drainageways that flow through the study area, generally in a 
PDX/G82680005.DOC 2-27 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
north-south direction. Muddy Creek is located to the west of 1-5. According to the Coburg 
TSP, it is unlikely that development will be restricted by Miiddy Creek because it has 
already been altered and channelized to accommodate existing and projected development. 
Urr Stream is located to the east of 1-5 within the interchange management area. 
2.5.4 Floodplains and Floodway 
Coburg is located on the northeastern periphery of a 5 percent flood hazard area and the 
southern portion of the city is subject to a 1 to 2 percent flood hazard. Intensive land uses, 
such as residential developments, are subject to Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) regulations and City ordinances. Proposals undergo a more extensive review and 
additional measures must be taken to reduce the risk of flood damage to property in these 
areas. 
According to the FEMA map, the majority of the flood hazard area in Coburg is located 
along the western edge of Coburg, outside the interchange management area. Other 
identified flood plain areas are located in a narrow band adjacent to Muddy Creek, which 
extends through the interchange management area. Because this area is not extensive, it is 
unlikely that this will influence full development potential. However, it may influence the 
design of roads and need for specific engineering practices within these areas. 
2.5.5 Wetlands 
The presence of wetlands may influence the extent of development and/or where it occurs 
on both an area-wide and a site-specific basis. Development proposals that may impact wet-
lands are regulated and permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division 
of State Lands. If wetlands are located on property, before development can occur, the 
boundaries of the wetlands must be clearly delineated; wetland impacts should be avoided 
if possible; and if impacts do occur, mitigation must replace the values lost by development. 
Wetland features for this report are based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The 
NWI provides basic data about the general characteristics and extent of wetlands in the 
nation. The NWI identifies the general boundaries of wetlands; however, in many instances, 
actual wetland boundaries and features are more extensive than what is identified through 
this national classification system. Coburg also has a Local Wetland Inventory (LWI). The 
LWI will be examined with any design-level or environmental study of the interchange 
management area. 
Wetland features in Coburg are primarily of a linear type. The NWI also indicates the 
presence of three polygon-shaped wetlands in the northern portion of the interchange 
management area, and a small area also shown in the southern portion of the interchange 
management area. Potential development constraints in the interchange management area 
include: 
• Urr Stream 
• 80 to 85 percent soil limitation for three sites related to Muddy Creek 
• Floodplain adjacent to Muddy Creek (one polygon site) 
2-28 PDX/08268ÛÛ05.DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2.5.6 Open Space and Parks 
There are no existing open spaces, as defined by OAR 660-023-0220(1), in the interchange 
management area. There are no existing or planned parks in the interchange management 
area. However, the Coburg Parks and Open Space Master Han identifies a conceptual linear 
corridor to be used as a hard-surface trail that runs north-south along the west side of 
Coburg Industrial Way and any realignment of Roberts Road. An Implementation Strategy 
for this facility is targeted for completion Spring 2009. 
Coburg has one community park and an elementary school playground area (totaling about 
10 acres) for recreational uses. Neither is located within the interchange management area. 
2.5.7 Historic Resources 
Coburg was the second city in Oregon to be designated a national historic district. The City 
requires a conditional use or site plan review permit for any alteration or demolition of 
historical structures. None of the noted historic resources are located in the interchange 
management area. 
2.5.8 Archaeological Resources 
In 2007, archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey for the 1-5 @ Coburg Interchange 
Project, Key Number 14649, and recorded three precontact and historic period isolates. 
Additional fieldwork will be conducted after all rights-of-entry have been obtained. 
ODOT is currently consulting with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 
Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and the Confederated 
Tribes of Warm Springs, regarding the proposed project. No concerns have been noted at 
this time. 
PDW08268O0O5.DOC 2-29 
I: •• 
l l l l l l 
¡ S l f t P 
- • — » • — 
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feel 
1 I I I I I I I I A 
I ' J I AMP Management Area Boundary i Coburg Comprehensive Plan Designations 2 
• I ] Coburg City Limits ^ Traditional Residential M M Central Business District M Public Facility 
E 3 Urban Growth Boundary g g g Park/Recreation Highway Commercial I ^ p Light Industrial 
Lane County Plan Designations (outside UGB)2 
Figure 2-1 
s f e A-Agricultural R - Residential V Y NRES - Non Resource Comprehensive Plan Designations 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. USGS 
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feel A 
1 I 1 i t f I I I " 
I * ] I AMP Management Area Boundary 1 Coburg Zoning Districts 
Coburg City Limits2 
Urban Growth Boundary ' 
H ü Central Business 
H Ü Highway Commercial 
-, . : Light Industrial 
2 Lane County Zoning Districts (outside City Limits) 
S i H E40 - Exclusive Farm Use L 3 RR2 - Rural Residential 
: PR - Public Reserve C ~ l RR10-NRES - Non Resource 
Traditional Medium Density Residential Public Water Service 
Parks, Recreation, & Open Space 
P-C Traditional Residential 
Figure 2-2 
™ k, • uu ^ , Zoning Districts 
" Ne'9hborhood Commercial Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Pian 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. USGS 
IAMP Management 
J T Area Boundary 
Urban Growth 
IETTI Boundary2 
Map produced bp 
LCOGÌ 
Coburg Functional 
Classifications3 
City Collector 
• Local 
s^5«1 Vacated 
uobmsj County Arterial 
ssssrssj County Collector 
Lane County 
Functional Classifications4 
---- - Major Collector 
Minor Collector 
Local Roadway 
mm$m Minor Arterial 
m^sm Local Roadway 
other 
State Functional 
Classification3 
Interstate 
Figure 2-3 
Functional Classification 
Coburg/I-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. Coburg TSP 1999; 4. Lane Counly TSP 2004. 
IdipDour«« tn^ ifi^ 'bCCN'fV-M? M «TgT_K»IliMÄSa M¡r«0?to_<¡fl 1 CLTLIQI<| 
aI AMP Management Coburg Roadway Condition 3 ODOT Roadway Condition 4 A ° Area Boundary 1 n 
2 essasssa Good emmmstm Very Good 
J Coburg City Limits 
-"fi -, Fair Good 
500 1,000 2,000 Feel 
t I I I I I I 
Urban Growth Boundary 
Poor 
Map produced by: 
L C O G Ì 
Figure 2-4 
Pavement Condition 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. City of Coburg; 4. ODOT PMS 2001. Uap Etaiñ (it(Q ifia^ CB t^Mïtui pjKf^iJ»« ateadäin í) 
p * I AMP Management 
t i Area Boundary 
P I Coburg City Limils 
fi^^jH] Urban Growth Boundary 
Rivers & Streams 3 
LCOG 200B Aerial Photograph}? 
Mappmdusdtr. 
LCOG : 
Access within 1320' of Interchange Ramp Terminal 
_ Private Driveway within 1320' 
• of Interchange Ramp 
2 Public Roadway within 1320' 
^ of Interchange Ramp 
Other Access Locations (within IAMP boundary)4 
J- Private Driveway 
Public Roadway 
AO 500 1,000 2,000 Feel I I 1 I I I—I—I—I 
Figure 2-5 
Study Area Accesses 
Located within 1320' of Interchange 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. USGS; 4. CH2M Hill/LCOG 
j f Van Duyn Rd. & 
/ (-5 NB Ramps 
1(16%)—2*95 j | 55«4—<27%) A s 
" I "" 
I 
I J 1AMP Management Area Boundary 1 
A Study Area Intersections 1 
0 500 l .oao 2,000 Feet 
1 I 1 I i I I I I 
Map pro diced by: 
LCOGÌ 
Figure 2-6 
Existing Conditions (2005) 
30th Highest Hour Traffic Volumes 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
. Mi J Oco^« rx [OV1*^^ tu 8« KM I JTUJ) SourceB: 1. CH2M Hill 
f J IAMP Management Area Boundary 1 
I I Coburg City Limits 2 
f _ l Urban Growth Boundary 2 
Map produced by: 
LCOGL 
LTD Bus Routes (2008) 
_ g6 
96x 
A 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feel 1 I—I L _ I I I i I 
Figure 2-7 
Lane Transit District Bus Routes 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. USGS Uap DamiTi [ C l j i i y g S l u y w P_CQf^ 7_LTpf iirHJfHCTO 
! J lAMP Management Area Boundary 
I I Coburg City Limits 2 
O Urban Growth Boundary 
Map produced by: 
L C O G ! 
Pedestrian Signal 1 
I f H Signal with four crosswalks 
H I Signal with south 
i H and east crosswalks 
Bike Lanes1 
«sss^ss Both Sides 
illinium South Side 
Sidewalks 1 
BOTH SIDES 
EAST SIDE 
aas-asa SOUTH SIDE 
WEST SIDE 
NORTH SIDE 
2,000 Feet 
i I 
Figure 2-8 
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities 
Coburg/l-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
Ujpfr™™« a, TtíiTÜu ralB y 
Sources: 1. CH2M Hill; 2. LCOG; 3. USGS 
v\ 
\ \ 
\ \ 
w 
\ \ 
Cokurg/lnterstaie S Interchange Refinement Pían 
S E C T I O N 3 
Future Conditions Analysis 
3.1 Purpose 
The Coburg IAMP focuses on planning for the Coburg/I-5 interchange and surrounding 
area. It is important to understand the impact of anticipated future employment and 
population growth on the transportation system. Transportation analysis was conducted to 
identify transportation system deficiencies in year 2031 (a 20+ year planning horizon). This 
provided a basis for developing alternatives for future transportation infrastructure and 
strategies. 
3.2 Land Use Assumptions 
3.2.1 Coburg Comprehensive Plan Forecasts 
Population and employment allocations are important because they directly relate to how 
development patterns/ which are used to determine transportation system deficiencies, are 
reflected in the transportation model. 
Analysis of the Recommended Alternative for the Coburg IAMP was based on population 
and employment forecasts derived from the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. By year 2025, 
Comprehensive Plan forecasts anticipate population to be 1,819, the number of new 
dwelling units to be 322, and employment to be 4,672. All of this growth is anticipated to 
occur west of 1-5. Table 3-1 shows 2025 Comprehensive Plan land use assumptions. 
TABLE 3-1 
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Assumptions—Year 2025 
New and Total 
Populat ion Dwell ing Units Employment 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan 1,819 New: 322 4,672 
Total: 896 
Hie year 2025 population and employment forecasts from the Comprehensive Plan were 
used to develop 2025 traffic forecasts, which were in turn grown to year 2031 forecasts based 
on average annual growth rates. 
As described in Section 2, the Coburg Comprehensive Plan does not reflect the likelihood that 
the City of Coburg will expand its UGB. As of this writing, the City had not yet expanded its 
UGB because of wastewater system constraints (i.e., the lack of a wastewater system). 
The RTP predicts 1,131 more people (521 more new dwelling units) and 475 less jobs in year 
2025 than does the current adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Preferred Scenario from the 
Coburg Urbanization Study predicts 1,508 more people (571 more new dwelling units) and 
PDX/0826B0G05. DOC 3-1 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
485 more jobs in year 2025 than does the current adopted Comprehensive Plan. Both plans 
assume growth will occur west of 1-5. Although the specific population and employment 
numbers differ for the RTP and Urbanization Study, the traffic forecasts are consistent. 
Alternatives were developed for consistency with the RTP and Urbanization Study because it 
is important that this 1AMP provide recommendations that are flexible to accommodate 
higher levels of growth that would accompany an UGB expansion. 
3.2.2 Coburg Comprehensive Plan Growth Allocations 
The Coburg buildable lands inventory identifies 59.1 acres of vacant/partially vacant land 
available for residential purposes under current comprehensive plan designations. The 
analysis also identifies approximately 23 acres (54 lots) with infill potential. For the 
purposes of estimating the number of households, five dwelling units per acre was assumed 
for vacant/partially vacant land and a factor of 0.5 was assumed as the rate for infill 
development per lot. These assumptions resulted in a total of 322 new households (59 * 5 + 
54 * 0.5) anticipated to be constructed in the Coburg UGB by the year 2025. 
The buildable lands inventory indicates 51 acres of vacant and 50 acres of underdeveloped 
land available to support commercial and industrial employment expansion. The analysis 
for the 1AMP assumed a rate of 20 employees per acre for commercial land and 15 
employees per acre for industrial land. Underdeveloped land was assigned a rate of 7.5 
employees per acre. This assumption was translated to a redevelopment rate of 50 percent at 
15 jobs per acre. In addition, a carrying capacity of 500 jobs requiring no additional land 
(i.e., expansion of current development) was assumed. Therefore, 1,795 new jobs are 
anticipated to be located in the Coburg UGB in the year 2025. Table 3-2 shows the detailed 
land use assumptions by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ). The TAZs are illustrated in 
Figure 3-1. 
TABLE 3-2 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan Land Use Assumptions—2025 
TAZ 
Dwelling Units Employment 
(Figure D.U. % of Growth RET+SRV+ % of Growth % of Growth Total 
3-1) Total Allocation EDU Allocation Other Allocation Employment 
300 42 5% 2 0% 89 2% 91 
301 617 69% 130 13% 189 5% 319 
302 118 13% 787 79% 3,351 91% 4,138 
303 52 6% 0 0% 9 0% 9 
304 64 7% 2 0% 21 1% 23 
305 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 
306 2 0% 80 8% 12 0% 92 
Total 896 1,001 3,671 4,672 
4-10 PDX/082680005. DOC 
COBURG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
3.3 Forecasted Traffic Operations 
The intent of this section is to present the no-build analysis for year 2031, discuss the results, 
and identify deficiencies and needs. The no-build alternative represents how the transporta-
tion system is anticipated to perforin in 2031 if no new transportation infrastructure is 
constructed. 
The no-build analysis for this 1AMP is based on Comprehensive Plan growth assumptions 
because UGB expansion—although desired by Coburg—has not yet been adopted into the 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan due to lack of an adequate wastewater facility to serve the 
additional population. Previous iterations of this IAMP were based on land use scenarios 
that assumed expansion of the Coburg UGB to accommodate future population forecasts 
(consistent with the RTP and Coburg Urbanization Stud]/). The preferred scenario from 
previous IAMP iterations assumed all growth would occur west of 1-5, and anticipated 485 
more jobs and 520 more dwelling units than what can be accommodated with the existing 
Comprehensive Han. Future no-build analysis showed that the same intersections that fail 
under Comprehensive Plan growth assumptions also fail under RTF/Coburg Urbanization 
Study assumptions. 
3.3.1 Traffic Forecast Methodology 
The forecasted traffic volumes were generated by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) 
regional travel demand model. LCOG provided PM peak-hour turning movement and 
directional link volumes at each study intersection for existing (2005) volumes and future 
(2031) no-build alternative volumes. 
The forecasted traffic volumes from the model were subsequently post-processed using the 
iterative directional volume processing method outlined in the National Cooperative Highway 
Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255. An Excel workbook was created to distribute the 
forecasted entering and exiting link volumes from the model iteratively to arrive at turning 
movement volumes. The balancing procedure used ten iterations to balance the future 
entering and exiting trip estimates for each approach leg based on the current turning 
movement volumes. The balanced 2005 30th highest hour traffic volumes served as the basis 
for the turning movement distribution. After this process was completed, the future 2031 
30th highest hour traffic volumes were analyzed for the no-build future alternative. 
3.3.2 Future No-Build (2031) Operations—30th Highest Hour 
The No-Build operations scenario assumes that no additional transportation infrastructure 
would be built during the planning period (through year 2031). The No-Build scenario 
examines future traffic levels and how well they would be served by the existing road 
system. Table 3-3 presents the no-build forecasted 2031 intersection V/C ratios for the study 
area intersections under state jurisdiction and 2031 LOS for the intersections under Lane 
County jurisdiction. 
Three of the five study area intersections (Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way, Pearl Street/ 
Roberts Road, Van Duyn Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps) are expected to be congested 
beyond accepted standards by 2031. At two of the study area intersections (Pearl Street/ 
P DX/082660005.00C 3-3 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Coburg Industrial Way and Pearl Street/Roberts Road), volumes will exceed capacity (V/C 
> 1.0). The Coleman Street/Pearl Street intersection is expected to meet V/ C standards, but 
not LOS standards. 
Table 3-3 shows the mobility standards found in the OHP as well as the Lane County 
Transportation System Plan/Lane Municipal Code. For V / C for signalized intersections, the 
overall intersection results are reported. For unsignalized intersections, the movement with 
the worst operating performance on both the major and minor approaches is reported. 
Intersection V/C ratios higher than the mobility standards indicate areas of congestion and 
longer-than-acceptable vehicle delay. Intersection V/C ratios lower than the mobility 
standards indicate intersections operating at better levels of mobility. 
TABLE 3-3 
30th Highest Hour Intersection Operational Analysis—2031 No-Build 
Intersection 
Road 
Jurisdict ion 
LOS and V/C Ratio 
Standard 
Forecasted Maximum LOS 
and V/C Ratio 
Signalized 
Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way Lane County (D) 0.85 HIKE 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 NB Ramps ODOT 0.80 (OHP) 
0.75 (HDM) 
0.70 
Unsignalized Major Minor Major Minor 
Coleman Street and Pearl Street Lane County (D) 0.85 (D) 0.95 (A) 0.01 n a m t t H 
Pearl Street and Roberts Road Lane County (D) 0.85 (D) 0.95 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 SB Ramps ODOT 0.80 (OHP) 
0.75 (HDM) 
GEE GED 
*Meets V/C standard, but not LOS standard. 
OHP = Oregon Highway Plan; HDM = Oregon Highway Design Manual 
Source: Synchro HCM Unsignalized and Signalized Reports 
Notes: For unsignalized intersections, the V/C ratio is presented for the worst movement for each street. 
Numbers in l - W M l indicate V/C ratios and levels of service not meeting mobility standards. 
Table 3-4 shows intersection delay in seconds anticipated at study area intersections under 
the No-Build scenario. Most of the intersections experience significant delay. The delay at 
Pearl Street/Roberts Road for the minor movement is expected to be too large for the 
software to calculate. Appendix H includes the full summary of the Synchro traffic analysis 
report on the 2031 no-build network. 
3-4 PDX/082680Q05.DOC 
COBUFONTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 3-4 
30th Highest Hour Intersection Delay—2031 No-Build 
Study Intersection Road Jurisdiction Average Control Delay (seconds) 
Signalized 
Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way Lane County 198.3 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 Northbound Ramps ODOT 24.4 
Unsignalized Major Minor 
Coleman Street and Pearl Street Lane County 0.5 174.2 
Pearl Street and Roberts Road Lane County 4.4 Err* 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 Southbound Ramps ODOT 8.3 82.2 
*The major approach traffic is too large for the stop-controlled minor approach to work effectively. Delay is too large to 
calculate. 
Source: Synchro HCM Unsignalized and Signalized Report. 
3.3.3 2031 No-Build Scenario Deficiencies—30th Highest Hour 
Intersection operational deficiencies were identified based on the 2031 No-Build scenario 
traffic analysis. 
Without infrastructure improvements by 2031, three of the five study area intersections are 
expected to fail to meet mobility standards. Another intersection is anticipated to not meet 
LOS standards, even though it is expected to meet V/C standards. 
At the Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way intersection, the traffic volume is anticipated to 
exceed full road capacity with a V/C of 1.19. An average vehicle would need to wait for 
198.3 seconds to travel through the intersection. 
The high V/C ratios for the minor approaches at the unsignalized Pearl Street/Roberts 
Road and 1-5 Southbound Ramps/Van Duyn Road intersections indicate the inadequacy of 
the stop-controlled operation for those intersections under the no-build scenario. The minor 
movement on Roberts Road currently fails (V/Ol .Ol for year 2005) and further deteriorates 
to inoperable conditions in 2031 (V/08 .38) . 
At the stop-controlled intersections, the major movements (east-west movements on Pearl 
Street and Van Duyn Road) are too heavy for drivers making minor movements to find gaps 
to turn into or cross the major streets, resulting in significant delays for the minor 
approaches. The minor approaches at the unsignalized intersections essentially would not 
function. 
3.3.4 Future No-Build (2031) Operations—AM Analysis 
Per ODOT request, the project team also analyzed intersection operations for the AM peak 
hour at the 1-5 ramp intersections, because the AM peak hour is characterized by heavy 
traffic movements related to employment trips to the northwest quadrant. Results showed 
that the system fails during the AM peak hour at the ramp intersections. Table 3-5 shows the 
analysis results. 
P DX/0926800Q5. DOC 3-5 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 3-5 
AM Operational Analysis at 1-5 Ramps—2031 No-Build 
Study Intersection Road Jurisdiction Average Control Delay (seconds) 
Signalized 
Van Duyn Road and I-5 Northbound Ramps ODOT 206.5 
Unsignalized Major Minor 
Van Duyn Road and I-5 Southbound Ramps ODOT 0.3 842.5 
S o u r c e : S y n c h r o H C M Unsigna l ized a n d Signal ized Repor t 
3.3.5 Summary 
This analysis shows that the existing transportation network is inadequate to support 
anticipated 2031 traffic levels, based on Coburg's Comprehensive Plan and the RTP model. 
Multiple study intersections are expected to reach or exceed intersection capacity by 2031, 
causing queuing and delays. Some stop-controlled intersections cannot function with stop-
control devices alone, as the conflicts between major and minor movements are too great. 
The operational analysis assumed interconnection of signals. Future signalization of stop-
controlled study intersections would enable them to function properly. Additional 
improvements such as turn lanes and receiving lanes would increase intersection capacity 
and further reduce intersection delays. Focus on transportation demand management could 
also alleviate some of the pressure on the road system. 
4-10 PDX/082680005. DOC 
Figure 3-1 
Coburg Area TAZs (from Regional Transportation Plan) 
SECTION 4 
Alternatives Development and Analysis 
4.1 Background and Purpose 
Without improvements to the transportation infrastructure in the interchange management 
area, future traffic in the Coburg/I-5 interchange area is expected to lead to highly 
congested conditions by 2031. Congestion would be expected to affect intersections along 
Pearl Street/Van Duyn Road and at the 1-5 ramp terminals. This section examines 
alternatives for improvements or strategies to accommodate anticipated traffic growth in the 
interchange management area. 
4.2 Alternatives Development 
After analysis of the no-build traffic operations scenario, it was determined that 
improvements must be made to accommodate anticipated traffic growth. Infrastructure 
improvements are needed to meet relevant operational standards (ODOT and Lane County 
volume-to-capacity ratios). It was determined that transit and transportation demand 
management strategies alone would not be enough to accommodate anticipated traffic 
growth. 
Alternatives development and analysis for this IAMP was based on traffic forecasts built 
from population and employment forecasts consistent with Coburg's Comprehensive Plan, 
and consistent with the RTP and Coburg Urbanization Study. These plans assume that all 
future growth will occur west of 1-5. Physical improvements included as part of the 
alternatives analysis were based on realistic traffic forecasts consistent with land use 
development west of 1-5. Therefore, the physical improvements are designed to be flexible 
enough to accommodate traffic forecasts based on the Comprehensive Plan land use 
designations and the adopted regional forecasts in the RTP, consistent with the Coburg 
Urbanization Study. Policy recommendations included in the alternative analysis are 
intended to protect the capacity of the interchange given the likelihood of UGB expansion. 
A set of alternatives were developed to mitigate future operational and safety issues. All 
alternatives were developed to meet ODOT and Lane County operational standards in 2031. 
It was assumed that all alternatives would be designed to meet current ODOT HDM and 
interchange design guide standards. Physical alternatives examined focused on conceptual 
interchange design: 
• Alternative A: Diamond interchange with three-lane bridge 
• Alternative B: Diamond interchange with four-lane bridge 
• Alternative C: Loop ramp (northbound) interchange with four-lane bridge 
Figures 4-1,4-2, and 4-3 include conceptual drawings of these three alternatives. 
PDX/O0268ÛOO5.DOC 4-1 
COS U RG/IN TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
All of the physical alternatives included the following consistent components: 
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the bridge 
• Encouragement of transit and transportation demand management (TDM) 
• Access management that supports interchange function and operations on Pearl 
Street/Van Duyn Road 
• Realignment of Roberts Road at a signalized intersection with Coburg Industrial Way 
• Closure of the existing Roberts Road at Pearl Street 
• A new signal at the 1-5 Southbound Ramps/Pearl Street intersection 
• The eventual development of a gridded local street system west of 1-5 off Coburg 
Industrial Way 
All physical alternatives also were assumed to be paired with policy and development code 
language intended to protect the function of the interchange (e.g., an alternate mobility 
standard; traffic impact analysis requirements). Appendix J includes LTD transportation 
demand management strategies. Table 4-1 compares the assumptions for the three 
alternatives. 
4.3 Alternatives Analysis 
Infrastructure alternatives were developed to improve the intersection operation perform-
ance for anticipated traffic in 2031 in order to meet the V / C standard set by ODOT (HDM) 
as well as Lane County LOS standards in the Lane County TSP. The following sections 
include future traffic operations analysis for the different alternatives. Figures 4-1 to 4-3 
illustrate the road configuration for each alternative. 
4.3.1 Alternative Comparison—2031 Operations 
Several alternatives were developed to evaluate how different interchange configurations 
would accommodate anticipated future traffic levels. Hie alternatives are based on the land 
uses included in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, but are also intended to accommodate 
future traffic consistent with the RTP/Coburg Urbanization Study. 
Alternative A (Diamond Interchange with Three-lane Bridge) was developed to 
accommodate expected traffic growth by 2031 with the least amount of infrastructure 
necessary. This alternative is generally consistent with improvement concepts identified in 
the 1999 Refinement Plan. This alternative is technically able to accommodate anticipated 
traffic growth by 2031; however, it has some operational limitations. 
Alternative B (Diamond Interchange with Four-lane Bridge) was developed to improve 
upon operational challenges faced with Alternative A. Alternative B includes a four-lane 
bridge, which allows northbound-westbound traffic an exclusive receiving lane in addition 
to a westbound through lane. It is anticipated that the four-lane bridge would allow for 
quicker through-put, and more flexibility than a three-lane bridge. A four-lane bridge 
structure allows for future capacity and modification for a minimal cost above the cost of a 
4-2 PDX/082660005. DOC 
COB URGI INTERS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
three-lane bridge. It also would allow for addition of a loop ramp if deemed necessary 
beyond year 2031. Operational results showed that this alternative performed better than 
Alternative A. 
TABLE 4-1 
Components of Alternatives 
Alternatives 
Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C: Loop 
Diamond Interchange/ Diamond Interchange/ Ramp Interchange/ 
Improvement Three-lane Bridge Four-lane Bridge Four-lane Bridge 
Coburg TSP Recommendations: X X X 
• Realignment of Roberts Road to Coburg Industrial 
Way (signalized intersection) 
• Access closure of the original Roberts Road at 
Pearl Street 
• New connection between realigned Roberts Road 
and original Roberts Road 
• New extension of McKenzie Street east to Coburg 
Industrial Way (one way heading east) 
• New extension of Shane Court south to Pearl Street 
• Northern and southern connection alignments 
(extensions of Roberts Road and Coburg 
Industrial Way) 
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities on Bridge X x X 
Three-lane interchange bridge structure X 
Four-lane interchange bridge structure X x 
Diamond interchange structure x x 
Loop Ramp (northbound) x 
Signalization at I-5 Southbound RampsA/an Duyn 
Road intersection 
x x x 
I-5 Southbound ramps: new exclusive eastbound 
right-turn lane on Pearl Street and southbound on-
ramp receiving lane 
x X x 
I-5 Northbound ramps: new exclusive easlbound left-
turn lane and northbound on-ramp receiving lane 
x x X 
Coburg Industrial Way. new exclusive southbound left 
turn lane and northbound left-turn pocket 
X X x 
Coordinate traffic signal operations along Pearl Street x X X 
Access management that supports interchange func-
tion and operations on Pearl StreetA/an Duyn Road 
x X x 
Encouragement of transit/TDM x X X 
Eventual development of local gridded street system 
west of I-5 
x X X 
Design consistent with ODOT HDM and Interchange 
Design Guide standards, and Lane County or Coburg 
standards where applicable 
x x X 
X = Improvement needed for mitigation to reach ODOT or Lane County V/C standards 
PDX/082680005.DOC 4-3 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
Alternative C (Loop Ramp Interchange with Four-lane Bridge) was developed to examine 
the effectiveness of isolating the northbound to westbound heavy movement (allowing this 
movement to bypass the Van Duyn Road/1-5 Northbound ramps intersection). The four-
lane bridge is necessary to allow the northbound-to-westbound movement an exclusive 
receiving lane in addition to a westbound through lane. The operational results for this 
alternative shows that V / C and LOS results are similar to the results for Alternative B. This 
alternative would be more costly to implement than Alternative B. 
Table 4-2 shows operational analysis results for all of the alternatives. Appendix I includes 
the full summary of the Synchro traffic analysis report on the 2031 no-build network. 
TABLE 4-Z 
2031 Intersection Operational Analysis—Alternative Comparison 
Alt A: Diamond Alt B: Diamond Alt C: Loop 
Road V/C Ratio With Three-fane With Four-lane Ramp With Four-
Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Bridge Bridge lane Bridge 
Signalized 
Pearl Street and 
Coburg industrial Way 
Lane County 0.85 0.77 0.77 0.77 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 
Southbound Ramps 
ODOT 0.75 (HDM) 0.66 0.64 0.64 
Van Duyn Road and 1-5 
Northbound Ramps 
ODOT 0.75 (HDM) 0.70 0.50 0.40 
Unsignalized Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor 
Coleman Street and 
Pearl Street 
Lane County 0.85 0.95 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.25 
Source: Synchro HCM Unsignalized and Signalized Reports. 
Table 4-2 shows that all alternatives are able to support the anticipated levels of traffic by 
year 2031. Alternatives B and C perform generally perform better than Alternative A. 
Alternatives B and C perform similarly, with small differences at the Van Duyn Road/I-5 
Northbound Ramps intersection. The loop ramp is not necessary to meet the mobility 
standard. A four-lane bridge offers more flexibility for a minimal additional cost, and better 
accommodates the operational flow and channelization. 
Table 4-3 presents average intersection delay for each alternative. The Coleman Street and 
Pearl Street intersection is expected to perform acceptably based on the County V/C 
standard however, there will be some delay on the minor street approaches. This may 
warrant consideration for signalization depending on local circulation needs and objectives. 
Table 4-4 contains review of queue length for each alternative. 
ODOT developed preliminary cost estimates for the alternatives. Construction cost 
estimates range from 25 to 35 million for the alternatives. 
4-4 PDXfl8268O005.DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 4-3 
2031 Intersection Delay—Alternatives Comparison 
Intersection 
Alt A: Diamond and 
Three-lane Bridge 
Average Control Delay 
A l t B : Diamond and 
Four-lane Bridge 
Average Control Delay 
Al t C: Loop Ramp and 
Four-lane Bridge 
Average Control Delay 
Signalized 
Pearl Street and Coburg 
Industrial Way 
34.7 34.7 34.7 
Van Duyn Road and I-5 
Southbound Ramps 
13.3 13.0 13.0 
Van Duyn Road and i-5 
Northbound Ramps 
30.7 22.2 16.5 
Unsignalized Major Minor Minor Minor Major Minor 
Coleman Street and Pearl Street 0.3 45.3 0.3 45.3 0.3 46.5 
Source: Synchro HCM Unsignalized and Signalized Reports. 
TABLE 4-4 
2031 30th Highest Hour Queue Lengths—Alternatives Comparison 
Storage (feet) Queue Length (feet) 
Intersection Approach Lane Group 
Existing 
2005 
No Build 
2031 Alt A A l t B A l t C 
Existing 
2005 
No Build 
2031 Alt A Alt B Alt C 
Pearl Street and Eastbound Left 200 200 200 200 200 40 SE 140 140 140 
Coburg Industrial 
Way Thru/Right 200 210 180 180 180 
Westbound Left 100 100 100 100 100 80 60 PETIL PETIL EE3 
Thru/Right 150 290 220 220 220 
Northbound Left 150 150 150 70 70 70 
Left/Thru/Right 60 40 
Thru/Right 70 70 70 
Southbound Left 300 300 425 425 425 502 EEE3 360 360 360 
Thru/Right 400 630 1070 70 70 70 
Van Duyn Road and Eastbound Left 350 350 350 190 190 160 
I-5 Northbound 
Ramps Left/Thru 80 160 
Thru 60 60 50 
Westbound Thru/Right 40 90 40 40 40 
Northbound Left 140 140 
Left/Thru/Right 200 300 130 130 
Thru/Right -
Pearl Street and Eastbound Left/Thru/Right - 10 10 10 10 
Coleman Street 
Westbound Left/Thru/Right - 10 10 10 10 
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 20 20 10 10 10 
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 30 70 30 30 30 
Pearl Street and Eastbound Left/Thru/Right 10 
Roberts Road 
Westbound Left/Thru/Right 10 
Northbound Left/Thru/Right 190 error 
PDX/082680OO5.DOC 4-5 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 4-4 
2031 30th Highest Hour Queue Lengths—Alternatives Comparison 
Intersection Approach Lane Group 
Storage (feet) Queue Length (feet) 
Existing No Build Existing No Build 
2005 2031 Alt A Alt B Alt C 2005 2031 Alt A Alt B Alt C 
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 70 error 
Van Duyn Road and 
I-5 Southbound 
Ramps 
Eastbound Thru/Right 370 370 370 
Right 40 40 40 
Westbound Left 150 150 150 20 20 20 
Left/Thru -
Thru 130 60 60 
Southbound Left/Thru/Right 90 280 70 70 70 
Note: 
Numbers in I-{»]*»] indicate the queue length exceeds the storage length. 
Synchro and SlmTraffic were used to calculate queue lengths; see Appendix E for more information. 
Queue lengths not reported for free-flowing and uncontrolled movements. 
Queue lengths rounded up to the nearest 10 feet. 
Storage for through-lanes displayed only when queue is expected to surpass distance lo next intersection. 
4.3.2 Alternatives Development—Previous IAMP Iterations 
As discussed earlier, the interchange configuration alternatives discussed above were 
developed to be consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, RTP, and Coburg 
Urbanization Study in order to ensure the recommended physical infrastructure does not 
become obsolete once Coburg expands its UGB and amends its Comprehensive Plan. 
In previous iterations of this IAMP, instead of interchange configurations, the alternatives 
were based on differing land use scenarios. One scenario was consistent with the RTP/ 
Coburg Urbanization Study (UGB expansion west of 1-5), and two were based on UGB 
expansions east of 1-5. In previous IAMP iterations, the preferred scenario was UGB 
expansion west of 1-5. Through operational analysis related to this preferred scenario, it was 
determined that a diamond/four-lane bridge or loop ramp/four-lane bridge would be 
adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic levels. 
4.4 Alternatives Evaluation 
4.4,1 Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness—Background 
Tire purpose of evaluation criteria is to ensure that the future alternatives for the 
interchange management area are evaluated for consistency with the overall intent of the 
project and state and local goals. Alternatives were examined against the criteria to ensure 
consistency with ODOT and local community goals. This will ensure that the Recommended 
Alternative in the IAMP best addresses future transportation and land use changes in the 
interchange management area. The evaluation criteria analysis is used as a tool to help 
inform decision-making. 
In the context of the Coburg/I-5 IAMP, evaluation criteria are defined as state and local goals 
that help to determine the adequacy of an alternative to solve the problems tire project is 
4-6 PDX/0B2680005. DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
intended to solve, in the context of the local community. Measures of effectiveness are ways to 
measure whether or not—or to what extent—an alternative meets a specific criterion. 
The basis for the evaluation criteria include issues identified during the existing conditions 
analysis and future no-build traffic operations analysis, as well as input from the project 
open house held on September 27, 2005. Criteria and measures of effectiveness are 
consistent with the goals of the OHP with regard to planning and management of grade-
separated interchanges. 
4.4.2 Evaluation Criteria 
The following evaluation criteria were identified as relevant to planning for the Coburg/I-5 
interchange management area. The evaluation criteria are listed in no particular order. 
• Traffic Operations. Does the alternative mitigate existing and anticipated (2031) traffic 
congestion ? This criterion measures the extent to which alternatives alleviate existing and 
anticipated future traffic congestion. 
• Safety. Does the alternative mitigate existing or anticipated safety issues ? This criterion 
measures the extent to which alternatives ensure safety for all users (drivers, transit, 
pedestrians, and bicyclists). 
• Mobility. Does the alternative enhance mobility for all users? This criterion measures the 
extent to which alternatives enhance mobility for transportation users (freight, 
nonmotorized, transit, transportation disadvantaged, etc.). 
• Land Use. Does the alternative minimize land use impacts? Is the alternative consistent with 
state and local land use planning goals? This criterion measures the extent to which 
alternatives minimize property impacts and impacts on existing residential and business 
access. This criterion relates to economic development because it also evaluates the 
extent to which alternatives impact future business development through property 
takes. It also relates to consistency with local, regional, and statewide land use plans. 
• Environmental and Social Impacts. Does the alternative minimize environmental and social 
impacts, including impacts on existing and future development and low-income/minority 
populations? Most alternatives will have some built and natural environmental impacts. 
This criterion measures the extent to which alternatives minimize impacts on the social 
and environmental considerations for the interchange management area. This criterion 
includes environmental justice considerations. 
• Support for Implementation. Can the alternative be supported by both the state and local 
community? This criterion measures the extent to which alternatives can be agreed upon 
that meet the needs and interests of stakeholders within acceptable timelines. 
• Cost-Effectiveness. Is the scale of the alternative consistent, with the benefits it provides? Is it a 
practical, affordable solution? All alternatives will have costs associated with development 
and implementation. This criterion evaluates how effective the alternative is at relieving 
congestion compared to the cost. 
PDX/0626600O5.DOC 4-7 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
4.4.3 Subcriteria and Measures of Effectiveness 
Subcriteria and measures of effectiveness were identified for each evaluation criterion listed 
in the section above. The subcriteria further define the evaluation criteria. The evaluation 
measures describe the extent to which an alternative concept fulfills a specific subcriterion. 
The evaluation measures are summarized descriptively (qualitatively and quantitatively) to 
show how the alternative concepts rate in comparison to each other. Table 4-5 describes the 
subcriteria and evaluation measures. These are listed in no particular order. 
TABLE 4-5 
Coburg/l-5 IAMP Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness 
Subcriteria Description Evaluation Measures 
Criterion: Traffic Op srations | i .;. .-..•:.' ' . . ;; • •••;.. • >' ... V • : 
V/C ratio Does the alternative bring existing 
and future congestion to acceptable 
levels (state and county V/C ratios)? 
High—the alternative meets relevant state and local 
V/C standards for all study area intersections 
Medium—the alternative meets relevant state and 
local V/C standards for some study area intersections 
Low—the alternative does not meet relevant state 
and local V/C standards for any study area 
intersections 
Delay Does the alternative decrease delay 
in comparison to the no-build 
scenario? To what extent? 
High—the alternative decreases delay as compared 
to the no-build scenario 
Medium—the alternative maintains delay as 
compared to the no-build scenario 
Low—the alternative increases delay as compared to 
the no-build scenario 
Other solutions Does the alternative offer other 
solutions to mitigate capacity issues 
(e.g., policy, TDM, ITS, transit, or 
multimodal options)? 
High—the alternative provides for other solutions to 
mitigate capacity issues 
Low—the alternative does not provide for other 
solutions to mitigate capacity issues 
| Grité rio rt : èa jfety : • J : W ? i ;-- ; : ; i f >i;V:; -: • . . . . " - • : " " . . . ; . . ; ' ^ -: " : ' . 
Safety 
performance— 
geometry 
Does the alternative mitigate safety 
issues and concerns related to out-
dated geometry at the interchange? 
High—the alternative updates interchange geometry 
Low—the alternative does not update interchange 
geometry 
Access management Does the alternative decrease the 
number of conflict points related to 
public and private accesses? Does 
the alternative move toward ODOT's 
preferred spacing (1,320') from 
interchange ramp terminals on Pearl 
Street/Van Duyn? 
High—the alternative reduces the number of 
accesses located within 1,320' of the interchange, in 
comparison to the no-build scenario 
Medium—the alternative maintains the number of 
accesses located within 1,320' of.the interchange, in 
comparison to the no-build scenario 
Low—the alternative increases the number of 
accesses located within 1,320' of the interchange, in 
comparison to the no-build scenario 
Design Standards Can the alternative be designed to 
optimal design standards (design 
speed, acceleration/deceleration 
lanes, access spacing, horizontal/ 
vertical curves, and vertical 
clearance)? 
High—alternative meets design standards as 
proposed, with minimal or no additional mitigation 
Medium—alternative requires moderate mitigation to 
meet design standards; requires a design exception 
Low—alternative requires significant mitigation; 
4-8 PDXffl8268O0O5.DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
T A B L E 4-5 
Cobiirg/1-5 lAMP Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness 
Su be rite ria Description Evaluation Measures 
requires more than one design exception 
C r i t e r i o n : M o b i l i t y : 
Freight Movement Does the alternative facilitate freight 
movement? 
High—the alternative enhances freight movement, in 
comparison to the no-build scenario 
Medium—the alternative provides for maintenance of 
the same level of freight movement, in comparison to 
the no-build scenario 
Low—the alternative impedes freight movement, in 
comparison to the no-build scenario 
Mobility for the 
Transportation 
Disadvantaged 
Does the alternative facilitate 
mobility for the transportation 
disadvantaged? 
High—the alternative improves mobility for the 
transportation disadvantaged, in comparison to the 
no-build scenario 
Medium—the alternative maintains the same level of 
mobility for the transportation disadvantaged, in 
comparison to the no-build scenario 
Low—the alternative impedes the level of mobility for 
the transportation disadvantaged, in comparison to 
the no-build scenario 
Impact on How well does the alternative 
nonmotorized advance pedestrian and bicycle 
facilities system plans? 
High—the alternative advances pedestrian and 
bicycle system plans 
Medium—the alternative does not address 
pedestrian and bicycle system plans 
Low—the alternative impedes pedestrian and bicycle 
system plans 
Criterion; Land Use Impacts 
Disruptions and How many properties will be 
Displacements impacted? To what level does the 
alternative impact businesses and 
properties? Is right-of-way available? 
High—the alternative does not require takes of 
commercial or industrial zoned land 
Medium—the alternative requires minimal takes of 
commercial or industrial zoned land 
Low—the alternative requires significant takes of 
commercial or industrial zoned land 
Business and 
Residential Accesses 
To what extent willprivate accesses 
will be impacted? 
High—the alternative does not impact private 
accesses 
Medium—the alternative requires minimal impact to 
private accesses 
Low—the alternative requires significant impact to 
private accesses 
Compatibility with 
Local Comprehensive 
Plans 
Is the alternative consistent with the 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan? 
High—the alternative is consistent with the 
Comprehensive Plan 
Low—the alternative is not consistent with the 
Comprehensive Plan 
PDX/08268ÛÛ05. DOC 4-9 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 4-5 
Coburg/1-5 IAMP Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness 
Subcriteria Description Evaluation Measures 
Impact to resource-
zoned land 
To what extent does the alternative 
impact resource-zoned land, 
including OAR-defined high value 
agricultural land? 
High—the alternative does not require takes of 
resource-zoned land 
Medium—the alternative requires minimal takes of 
resource-zoned land 
Low—the alternative requires significant takes of 
resource-zoned land 
Criterion: Envlronhientai and Social Impacts ; • ; • • ' . • -
Impact on sensitive 
areas and 
endangered species 
How will implementation of an 
alternative impact known natural and 
cultural resources or endangered 
species? 
High—the alternative does not impact known natural 
and cultural resources or endangered species 
Low—the alternative impacts known natural and 
cultural resources or endangered species 
Impact to critical 
community resources 
Would the alternative require any 
direct impacts to parks, schools, 
historic buildings, or other similar 
resources? 
High—the alternative does not require removal of 
critical community resources 
Low—the alternative requires removal of critical 
community resources 
Noise What noise impacts to residential 
development will result from 
implementation of the alternative? 
High—the alternative is located more than 400' from 
residential development 
Medium—the alternative is located 200'-400' from 
residential development 
Low—the alternative is located less than 200' from 
residential development 
Required permits and 
approvals 
Is the alternative likely to meet 
requirements for permits and 
High—the alternative is likely to meet permit and 
approval requirements 
approvals? Low—the alternative is not likely to meet permit and 
approval requirements 
Impact to low-income 
and minority popula-
tions (related to envi-
ronmental justice) 
Does the alternative negatively 
impact minority or low-income 
populations? 
High—the alternative does not displace or negatively 
impact minority or low-income populations 
Low—the alternative displaces or negatively impacts 
minority or low-income populations 
Economic 
Development 
To what extent does the alternative 
advance City economic development 
plans? Does it restrict future 
development opportunities? 
High—the alternative advances economic 
development plans and requires no takes of 
undeveloped land 
Medium—the alternative does nothing to advance 
economic development or requires minimal takes of 
undeveloped land 
Low—the alternative impedes economic 
development or requires significant takes of 
undeveloped land 
Criterion: Support foi - implementation • ^ ^ Iv^t Wk ; - - " ® } ' .:.- .'= •' • . . 
Political Feasibility How easy would it be to implement 
the alternative? 
High—the alternative has political support 
Medium—the alternative has some political support 
Low—the alternative has little or no political support 
Multijurisdictional 
Coordination 
Can all affected agencies (ODOT, 
City of Coburg, Lane County) 
support the alternative? 
High—all affected agencies can support the 
alternative 
Low—one or more of the affected agencies do not 
support the alternative 
4-10 PDX/082680005. DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 4-5 
Coburg/l-5 IAMP Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness 
Subcriteria Description Evaluation Measures 
Constructability How disruptive will the alternative be 
to construct? 
High—the alternative will require little disruption 
Medium—the alternative will require some disruption 
Low—the alternative will require significant disruption 
; Criterían: Cast . • . 
Regional 
Coordination 
Does the alternative involve more 
than one jurisdiction? Can 
interjurisdictional cooperation be 
leveraged for funding opportunities 
(match, etc.)? 
High—the alternative allows for interjurisdictional 
cooperation 
Low—the alternative does not allow for interjurisdic-
tional cooperation 
Cost Effectiveness Does the alternative provide benefit 
consistent with the level of 
investment? 
High—the alternative requires a relatively low level of 
investment 
Medium—the alternative requires a moderate level of 
investment 
Low—the alternative requires a relatively high level of 
investment 
Criteria Application 
The following review of evaluation criteria displays the advantages and disadvantages of 
the project alternatives. This allows decision-makers to compare alternatives to ensure that 
those forwarded for consideration meet the goals of the community. 
Because future congestion in the interchange management area is the motivation behind the 
IAMP, the traffic operations criteria weighs heavily in any decision. 
Application of the criteria to the three alternatives shows that for most of the criteria 
categories, the alternatives have similar ratings. This is because the alternatives have similar 
characteristics. 
Primary differences among the mitigation strategies include traffic operations, land use 
impacts, cost, and support for implementation. 
Alternatives B and C provide for greater capacity than Alternative A. The four-lane bridge 
(part of Alternatives B and C) offers more flexibility for growth than the three-lane bridge 
(part of Alternative A), and maximizes value to the state by investing in infrastructure that 
will last more than 20 years. These options also provide better accommodation for 
operations and channelization, which will do a better job of allowing additional growth if 
Coburg expands its UGB and amends its Comprehensive Plan. Alternative A would not 
adequately accommodate future traffic conditions if a UGB expansion were to occur 
consistent with the RTP. For these reasons, ODOT, LCOG, and other entities may not 
support this option. 
Alternatives B and C are expected to have more property and access impacts than 
Alternative A, due to the need for more land to accommodate the northbound off-ramp 
configuration (either two lanes or a loop ramp) and to ensure the approaching 
channelization lines up with the bridge travel lanes. Alternative C is anticipated to cost 
more than Alternative A or B. 
PDX/D826800Û5.DOC 4-11 
C OBU RG//N TE RS TATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
All things considered. Alternative B provides the most benefit. Table 4-6 shows the ratings 
for each of the alternatives according to the criteria. 
TABLE 4-6 
Coburg/l-51AMP Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Application 
Mit igation Alternatives 
Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C: 
Diamond and Diamond and Loop Ramp and 
Criteria Three-lane Bridge Four-lane Bridge Four-lane Bridge 
traffic Operátións: Alternatives B and Cprovide for slightly gfeatercapaCity than Alternative"^. All alternatives. 
. áre anticipated to res'uJt in improved traffic operations as compared to the future no-build scenario. Al l ; " 
àltèrhativès aré abíe to:accommodate anticipated;.2p31 traffic levéis consistent Plani : 
• Alternative A' hovyever, would not accohmodatetraffic based on the RTP< : = / ' . " • ' . . . .'• • 
V/C ratio Medium High High 
Delay Medium High High 
Other solutions High High High 
Safety: AlLàìtérriatiyés are expected to update interchange geometry and be designed to optirihaJ design . 
standards where possible. All alternatives include similar accéss management strategies,:including the ; . 
realignment of Roberts Road/Coburg Industrial Way and thè implementation of access management spacing 
along PeaiWan Düyip-consistent with the interchange area and appropriate ròad functional classification.' 
Safety performance—geometry High High High 
Access management High8 High8 High8 
Design Standards Medium Medium Medium 
Mobility:. Alternative? B and C are anticipated to best improve freight movement through enhancing operations 
on the Í-5 mainline and at the interchange. All alternatives are anticipatéd to incorporate pedestrian.and bicycle. 
facilities into the final'design. Improved traffic operation and nonmotorized facilities enhance mobility for transit 
vehicles and the transportation disadvantaged population. ; 
Freight Movement Medium High High 
Mobility for the Transportation Disadvantaged Medium High High 
Impact on nonmotorized facilities High High High 
Land Use. Impacts: Alternative C is expected to have slightly more impact on existing business and residential 
land and accesses.than Alternatives A or B, due to the need for more interchange footprint. Alternative Í3 has 
slightly more impact on existing business and residential land and accesses than Alternative A. All alternatives 
are consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. • " . ' 
Disruptions and Displacements Medium Medium Low 
Business and Residential Accesses Medium Medium Low 
Compatibility with Local Comprehensive Plans High High High 
Impact to resource-zoned land High High High 
Environmental and Social impacts: All alternatives are expected to have similar environmental and social 
impacts.- ; • '• - . . ' v;: ' : L' • 
Impact on sensitive areas and endangered species High High High 
Impact to critical community resources High High High 
Noise High High High 
Required permits and approvals High High High 
Impact to low-income and minority populations High High High 
Economic Development Medium Medium Low 
4-12 POX/D82680Û05.DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
T A B L E 4-6 
Coburg/1-51AMP Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria Application 
Mitigation Alternatives 
Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C: 
Diamond and Diamond and Loop Ramp and 
Criteria Three-lane Bridge Four-lane Bridge Four-lane Bridge 
Support for Implementation: Alternatives A or B are the lowest cost and lowest impact options. However, 
Alternative A would not adequately accommodate future traffic conditions if a UGB.expansion were to occur ; 
consistent with the.RTP. For these reasons, 0DÓT, LCÒG, and other entities may not support this option. : -
Political Feasibility Low High Medium 
Mu^¡jurisdictional Coordination Low High High 
Constructability High High High 
Cost-Effectiveness: All alternatives would require the reconstruction of.the Pearl Street/Van Duyn bridge over 
1-5. Alternative C would be slightly more costly because of the need for the loop ramp. Alternative B is more, cost-
effective than Alternative A, because it provides more flexibility and better operational performance for minimal . 
additional cost. : ;--.; • ; - • ' . . ; ; • • : '• : ; • : :-! ' -;.-' ' ! ; - : " . ' 
Regional Coordination High High High 
Cost-Effectiveness Medium High Medium 
Summary: Alternative B scores better than Alternatives A and C, with 20 Highs and 4 Mediums. Alternative A ' 
received 13 Highs, 9 Médiums and 2.Lows. Alternative C received 18 Highs, 3 Mediums, and 3 Lows. Alternative 
B has the optimal operational performance for the cost required for construction, and the greatest level of 
support for implementation. 
"Through policy strategies. 
4.5 Recommendation 
Based on analysis of alternatives, the Recommended Alternative is Alternative B: Diamond 
Interchange ivith Four-lane Bridge. Alternative B meets operational standards by year 2031, 
and includes access management measures and policy and implementation measures that 
will be adopted into local plans and codes. 
Alternative B is preferable to Alternative A because it provides better operational 
performance and better operational channelization for the heavy northbound to westbound 
movement, for minimal additional cost. It also is more likely to have more multi-
jurisdictional support for implementation, since it would offer the ability to accommodate 
growth related to future UGB expansion. It also offers flexibility to convert the interchange 
to a loop ramp design if deemed appropriate beyond year 2031. Alternative B is preferable 
to Alternative C because it provides a very similar level of operational performance for less 
cost than a loop ramp. This basic design concept will still be subject to operational and 
geometric modifications during the preliminary and final design process. 
PDX/O82680Û05.DOC 4-13 



SECTION 5 
Recommended Alternative—Operational, 
Physical and Access Improvements 
This section of the IAMP outlines the operational, physical,, and access management recom-
mendations included as part of the Recommended Alternative. Based on an analysis of 
alternatives, the Recommended Alternative includes a diamond interchange with a four-
lane bridge. The Recommended Alternative includes operational and physical improve-
ments, access management plans, and policy and code implementation recommendations. 
5.1 Recommended Alternative and Findings 
5.1.1 Recommended Alternative Overview 
The recommended alternative package consists of: 
• Operational and physical improvements 
• Access management plans 
• Policy and code implementation recommendations 
Section 5 of this IAMP focuses on the operational, physical, and access recommendations. 
The Recommended Alternative includes reconstruction of a diamond interchange with a 
four-lane bridge. Figure 5-1 depicts the Recommended Alternative physical and access 
improvements.12 
A four-lane bridge is preferred because it will better accommodate the heavy north to west 
movement from the 1-5 Northbound off-ramp, in addition to extending the life of the bridge 
structure past 2031 for minimal additional cost. A four-lane bridge would also provide 
future flexibility for the addition of a loop ramp if determined necessary at some point after 
the 2031 planning horizon. 
The Recommended Alternative package is generally consistent with the Preferred Concept 
outlined in the Refinement Plan, except for increases in bridge and ramp capacity to address 
growth assumptions m the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, increases in capacity at the new 
Coburg Industrial Way/Roberts Road/Pearl Street intersection, and the inclusion of 
comprehensive access and policy measures. The access and policy and implementation 
measures are intended to meet or exceed the OHP access spacing standards for interchanges 
(or, at a minimum move closer to meeting these standards if existing constraints prevent 
fully achieving them) and outline requirements for mitigation when developments are 
projected to create more traffic than is planned for in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. 
^ The design (earn refined the southbound approach of Coburg Industrial Way al Pearl Street (three lanes under Alternative B 
and two lanes under the Recommended Alternative) to maximize [he trade-off between project cost and operational 
performance. This revision is not expected to significantly change future operational performance of Pearl Street. 
P DX/0 B2660005.DOC 5-1 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
The Recommended Alternative will be designed consistent with applicable ODOT HDM 
and interchange design guide standards, as well as applicable Lane County or City of 
Coburg geometric design standards. 
The Recommended Alternative is based on the employment and population assumptions 
included in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. Table 5-1 outlines the employment and 
population assumptions used to create 2031 traffic forecasts. 
TABLE 5-1 
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Assumptions—Year 2025 
New and Total 
Population Dwelling Units Employment 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan 1,819 New 322 4,672 
Total: 896 
5.1.2 Goal and Objectives Findings 
This subsection describes how the Recommended Alternative is consistent with the goal and 
objectives set forth in this IAMP (see Section 1.5). 
Goal 
Reflect collaborative work with. ODOT, Lane County, and the City of Coburg and outline recom-
mendations for transportation improvements and policy and implementation measures that will 
maximize the operation of the interchange and accommodate future planned growth in the 
interchange management area. 
Response: This IAMP was a collaborative effort, including ODOT, Lane County, and the 
City of Coburg. The Project Management Team (PMT) included members from all three 
jurisdictions/agencies. The Recommended Alternative includes recommendations for both 
transportation improvements and policy measures intended to accommodate growth as 
provided for in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. 
Objectives 
• Protect long-term safety and operations of the interstate and local road netioork 
Response: Recommendations included as part of the Recommended Alternative are 
intended to protect long-term safety and operations. Recommendations include 
interchange and local intersection modifications, which will increase available capacity. 
Pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and TDM components of the Recommended Alternative also 
address improvement of operations. Operational analysis shows that the Recommended 
Alternative will meet ODOT and Lane County operational standards in year 2031. 
Recommendations also include access management actions and policies, which work to 
improve operations and safety due to a reduction in potential conflict points. 
• Build on the work in the Refinement Plan as adopted in the Coburg TSP 
Response: This IAMP looked to the Preferred Concept outlined in the Refinement Plan 
as a starting point for interchange area improvement alternatives. The Recommended 
Alternative is generally consistent with the Preferred Concept outlined in the 
5-2 PDX/O B26800Q5.DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PIAN 
Refinement Plan (a diamond interchange), but also includes increases in interchange and 
local intersection capacity and the inclusion of comprehensive access and policy 
measures. 
• Accommodate 2031 planned growth for the Coburg/I-5 interchange management area as outlined 
in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan 
Response: The Recommended Alternative accommodates 2031 planned growth through 
interchange modifications, modifications to the local street system, enhanced pedestrian 
and bicycle facilities, access management plans, and policy and implementation 
measures. Operational analysis shows that the Recommended Alternative will accom-
modate traffic levels at appropriate ODOT and Lane County standards by year 2031. 
• Preserve public investments in the Coburg/I-5 interchange and adjacent transportation network 
Response: The Recommended Alternative will meet ODOT design standards, will 
achieve appropriate ODOT and Lane County operational standards for year 2031 traffic 
levels, and will move toward compliance with ODOT access management standards. 
The alternative includes policy and implementation measures that consider future land 
development to protect the operations of a newly reconstructed interchange. It also 
includes a four-lane bridge, which will offer better management/channelization of 
anticipated traffic, as well as allowing for future interchange modifications (e.g., 
addition of a loop ramp) if deemed necessary beyond year 2031. 
• Plan for future management of the interchange and adjacent land uses 
Response: The Recommended Alternative includes recommendations that relate to 
future development of adjacent land uses. When land develops or redevelops within the 
interchange management area, development applications will trigger access and traffic 
analysis requirements. 
• Work with Coburg and Lane County to develop a plan for road netiuork, right-of-way, access, and 
land within the interchange management area 
Response: The Recommended Alternative represents a collaborative effort among 
ODOT, Lane County, and the City of Coburg to provide road, access, and land plans 
within the interchange management area. The Recommended Alternative includes an 
access management plan, and also includes policies related to the development of a local 
grid street system west of 1-5 as land develops. 
• Provide recommendations for enhancement of the pedestrian and bicycle system 
Response: The Recommended Alternative includes an interchange bridge with 
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that extend multimodal system connectivity. 
• Provide recommendations that do not preclude expanded use of transit and other transportation 
measures such as transportation demand management (TDM) 
Response: The Recommended Alternative does not preclude transit or TDM, in that it 
provides improved nonmotorized access to transit stops and includes recommendations 
for enhanced TDM and signal optimization. 
PDXW82680OO5.DOC 5-3 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
• Provide for OTC adoption of a plan so existing funds can be accessed for interchange 
reconstruction 
Response: The Recommended Alternative is the culmination of the IAMP and project 
planning process, and sets the stage for next steps for interchange design and 
reconstruction. Adoption of the IAMP by the OTC, City, and County fulfills this 
requirement. 
• Ensure integration of land use and transportation planning 
Response: The Recommended Alternative includes both operational and physical 
transportation improvements and recommendations related to policies and code 
affecting land uses. The Recommended Alternative requires managed population and 
employment growth within the study area, and requires mitigation for trip generation 
higher than planned growth. 
• Provide certainty for property and business owners and local governments 
Response: The Recommended Alternative defines physical improvements over the 
short-, medium-, and long-term planning horizons. The Recommended Alternative also 
identifies conditions and/or associated actions/opportunities that cause such 
improvements to occur. Adoption of the IAMP will provide a foundation for public and 
private interests and certainty for the development application process in the IAMP 
management area. 
5.2 Recommended Alternative—Operational and Physical 
Improvements 
In its current configuration, the Coburg/I-5 interchange would not support traffic 
anticipated by 2031 due to growth in employment and population. Without improvement, 
intersections would be congested, and vehicles would be anticipated to back up onto the 1-5 
mainline. 
The implementation of the Recommended Alternative would result in acceptable 
operations, safety conditions, and design conditions by year 2031 within the Coburg /I-5 
interchange management area. 
The Recommended Alternative infrastructure improvement includes the following 
operational and physical improvements and associated actions to be managed by ODOT, 
the City of Coburg, and Lane County.13 Jurisdictions in parentheses indicate the lead 
responsibility for each action. 
5.2.1 Short-Term Operational/Physical Improvements (0 to 7 years) 
• 1-5 Southbound ramps: Install a new exclusive eastbound right-turn lane on Pearl Street 
and southbound on-ramp receiving lane (ODOT). 
ODOT would purchase any impacted private property or private accesses as a result of any of the physical improvements. 
Access and circulation plans will be coordinated with affected property owners. 
5-4 PDX/0Ô2680005. DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
• Realign Roberts Road to meet the existing signalized Coburg Industrial Way 
intersection. The newly realigned Roberts Road would be constructed to road standards 
that accommodate freight vehicles (ODOT). 
• Add a new connection between the aligned Roberts Road and original Roberts Road 
(ODOT). 
• Purchase access control and do not allow any new private accesses west of 1-5 along 
Pearl Street from the interchange ramp to a point 1,000 feet west of Coburg Industrial 
Way. In the interim, allow the Stuart Way driveway access at Pearl Street. Upon 
redevelopment of the Truck and Travel site (located east and west of Stuart Way), 
realign Stuart Way west of its current location to improve spacing with Coburg 
Industrial Way. 
• Close access to the original Roberts Road at Pearl Street. This closure would only occur 
after or at the same time as the opening of the new Roberts Road/Coburg Industrial 
Way intersection to ensure continuous business access. A cul-de-sac will be constructed 
at the north termination of the original Roberts road that is navigable for WB-67 trucks 
(ODOT). 
• Install a northbound left-turn pocket on Coburg Industrial Way at Pearl Street (ODOT). 
• Coordinate traffic signal operations along Pearl Street; ensure signal optimization 
(ODOT/Lane County). 
• Purchase access control and do not allow any new private access east of 1-5 along Van 
Duyn Road from the interchange ramp terminal to Hereford Road and do not allow any 
full accesses within 1,320 feet of the interchange ramp terminal (ODOT). In the interim, 
allow the properties within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to continue to access 
Van Duyn directly from within the UGB. Upon redevelopment of one or more of these 
properties within the current UGB, implement changes to this access as needed to 
address safety issues or seek development and use of the access road right-of-way 
purchased by ODOT during the initial phase of the interchange project if it has not 
already been developed as part of a subsequent phase of the interchange project 
(ODOT). 
• Purchase right-of-way needed to construct an access road from the areas with the 
Coburg UGB east of 1-5 to a point approximately 1320' east of the northbound ramp 
terminals (eventual construction of this access road will require an exception to Goal 3 of 
the statewide planning goals—if an exception is not granted by Lane County, ODOT 
will need to develop an alternative access approach to address this issue) (ODOT). See 
Appendix L for the justification for a goal exception. 
• Work with Lane Transit District to expand Bus. Rapid Transit to Coburg (City of 
Coburg). 
• Market Lane Transit Districts Group Pass Program to employers, and promote carpool 
and vanpool services (City of Coburg). 
• As Coburg develops, monitor the need for a park-and-ride (City of Coburg). 
PDXWa2680Q05.DOC 5-5 
C08URG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
5.2.2 Long-Term Operational/Physical Improvements (8+ years) 
• Signalize the 1-5 southbound ramp terminals by 2031 or sooner if signal warrants are 
met and the signal is approved by the State Traffic Engineer (ODOT). 
• Reconstruct the Coburg/I-5 interchange bridge structure to four lanes, with full 
standard pedestrian and bicycle facilities and adequate height to meet the appropriate 
standard. The bridge is to include two westbound lanes with a turn pocket leading to 
the 1-5 southbound on-ramp, one eastbound through lane, and one eastbound left-tum 
lane leading to the 1-5 northbound on-ramp..ODOT will work with property owners to 
purchase property impacted due to the interchange reconstruction. The bridge structure 
will need to be lengthened to reduce the approach slope to meet current design 
standards. The bridge length will also need to factor in future potential widening of 1-5. 
This improvement could take place earlier if adequate funding is secured for 
construction (ODOT). 
• Consolidate all accesses on the southern side of Van Duyn Road to a point at least 
1,320 feet from the north-bound ramp terminal intersection. Close accesses less than 
1,320 feet from this location and construct an alternate access road. This road may be 
constructed by ODOT and maintained as a public road by Lane County or the City of 
Coburg, or it may be constructed privately in conjunction with redevelopment of 
properties within the Coburg UGB east of 1-5, depending on the timing and availability 
of funds to construct future phases of the interchange project (eventual construction of 
this access road will require an exception to Goal 3 of the statewide planning goals — if 
an exception is not granted by Lane County, ODOT will need to develop an alternative 
access approach to provide access to the urban properties east of 1-5) (ODOT, other 
responsible parties). See Appendix L for the justification for a goal exception. 
• Implement local circulation improvements consistent with the Coburg TSP that provide 
alternative circulation and access for the land north of Pearl Street and west of 1-5 within 
the IAMP study area (City of Coburg). 
• Design and construct the northern and southern connection alignments (extending 
Coburg Industrial Way north and Roberts Road south) as depicted in Map 16 of the 
Coburg TSP (City of Coburg).14 
5.3 Recommended Alternative—Access Management Plan 
Access management and access spacing are important for traffic operations and safety. 
Access management is intended to reduce conflict points in order to improve mobility and 
minimize potential for collisions. As part of the Coburg/I-5 IAMP, access locations and 
public street connections were examined in order to meet the goals and objectives of the 
IAMP. 
The Access Management Plan identifies access management actions that move access 
spacing along Pearl Sheet and Van Duyn Road toward access management standards as 
1 4 This improvement is conceptually identified in the City of Coburg TSP. Because it would be located within the Coburg/I-5 
interchange management area, it is included as a physical/operational improvement. 
5-6 PDX/0B26fl0005.DOC 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
defined in the OHP. For the Coburg/I-5 IAMP, the minimum spacing standard is 1,320 feet 
from the 1-5 ramp terminal intersection for placement of the next full access road or 
driveway.15 This standard is based on research regarding optimal safety and operations 
near interchanges. As discussed in Section 2, several public and private accesses are 
currently located within 1,320 feet of the ramp intersections on both sides of the interchange. 
The Access Management Plan identifies driveways that will ultimately need to be relocated, 
consolidated, or closed to achieve the safety and mobility objectives of the state's access 
management standards. Relocation, consolidation, or closure of driveways will be paired 
with enhancement of the local street circulation system (e.g., frontage roads). 
Figure 5-1 depicts access recommendations in the interchange management area. 
• Descriptions of the recommendations follow. 
5.3.1 Van Duyn Road (East of I-5) 
• Purchase access control and do not allow any new private access east of 1-5 along Van 
Duyn Road from the interchange ramp terminal to Hereford Road and do not allow any 
full accesses within 1,320 feet of the interchange ramp terminal. In the interim, allow the 
properties within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to continue to access Van Duyn 
directly from within the UGB. Upon redevelopment of one or more of these properties 
within the current UGB, implement changes to this access as needed to address safety 
issues or seek development and use of the access road right-of-way purchased by ODOT 
during the initial phase of the interchange project if it has not already been developed as 
part of a subsequent phase of the interchange project. 
• Consolidate all accesses on the southern side of Van Duyn Road to a point at least 
1,320 feet from the north-bound ramp terminal intersection. Close accesses less than 
1,320 feet from this location and construct an alternate access road. This road may be 
constructed by ODOT and maintained as a public road by Lane County or the City of 
Coburg, or it may constructed privately in conjunction with redevelopment of properties 
within the Coburg UGB east of 1-5, depending on the timing and availability of funds to 
construct future phases of the interchange project, (eventual construction of this access 
road will require an exception to Goal 3 of the statewide planning goals—if an exception 
is not granted by Lane County, ODOT will need to develop an alternative access 
approach to provide access to the urban properties east of 1-5). 
• If land uses change in the northeast quadrant of the interchange management area, 
consolidate all accesses on the northern side of the road to a public road approach that 
aligns opposite the consolidated approach south of Van Duyn Road. 
1 5 Per the Oregon Highway Plan, right-in/rr'ght-out accesses are permissible 750 feet from an interchange ramp terminal. 
PDX/082680005.DQC 5-7 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
5.3.2 Pearl Street (West of 1-5) 
• Purchase access control and do not allow m y new private accesses west of 1-5 along 
Pearl Street from the interchange ramp to a point 1000 feet west of Coburg Industrial 
Way. In the interim, allow the Stuart Way driveway access at Pearl Street. Upon 
redevelopment of the Truck and Travel site (located east and west of Stuart Way), 
realign Stuart Way west of its current location to improve spacing with Coburg 
Industrial Way. 
• Realign Roberts Road with the signalized Coburg Industrial Way. 
• Construct an east-west connection between the realigned Roberts Road and original 
Roberts Road. 
• Close access to Pearl Sheet from the original Roberts Road. 
• Develop local circulation options that provide private properties north and south of 
Pearl Street the opportunity to access the signalized intersection of Pearl Sheet and the 
realigned Roberts Road/Coburg Industrial Way. Specific internal access circulation will 
be developed by the City of Coburg and individual property owners. 
• Close access to Pearl Street from Dar ay Street. Properties will be accessed via frontage or 
backage roads (from Coburg Industrial Way/realigned Roberts Road). 
• Develop a local road system consistent with the current Coburg TSP. The local grid 
system developed will connect directly onto Pearl Street within the study area. 
5.3.3 Access Management Deviations 
When implemented, the IAMP Access Management Plan reduces the number of approaches 
to Pearl Street/Van Duyn Road by a total of 11 (including private drives; four of the 
accesses are public streets that are either realigned or redirected). 
Under OAR 734-051-0135(5) the ODOT Region Access Management Engineer "shall require 
any deviation for an approach located in an inter change access management area as defined in the 
Oregon Highway Plan, to be evaluated over a 20-year horizon from the date of application and may 
approve a deviation for an approach located in an interchange access management area if:... (b) The 
approach is consistent with an access management plan for an interclmnge that includes plans to 
combine or remove approaches residting in a net reduction of approaches to the highway 
Deviations identified in this IAMP are consistent with this statute. 
Table 5-2 addresses all approach locations where access deviations will be required and 
provides a rationale for why the deviations should be granted. Figure 5-2 shows the 
locations of these accesses and the approach number that corresponds to Table 5-2. 
4-10 PDX/082680005. DOC 
C08URG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 5-2 
lAMP Access Deviations 
Approach Tax Lots Served or 
Road Name Deviation Request Rationale 
Stuart Way/Pearl The intersection of Stuart Way and Pearl Street lies within 1,320 feet from 
Street the interchange ramp. The City of Coburg has permitted Stuart Way to be 
vacated, in the interim, this access shall be allowed to stay open for 
access to the Truck 'n Travel site (the portion of the Anderson property 
east of Stuart Way). Upon redevelopment of the portion of the Anderson 
property west of Stuart Way (tax lot 2800), the Stuart Way access 
reservation shall be required by ODOT permit to be relocated to a point 
somewhere between the existing Stuart Way intersection and the far west 
side of tax lot 2800. The purpose of this relocation is to provide improved 
access spacing between the relocated (formally Stuart Way) access point 
and the intersection of Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way/Roberts 
Road. The precise location of the relocated access point will be 
determined through the City's site plan review process and the traffic 
analysis required by ODOT's permit process. Upon redevelopment of tax 
lot 2800 or the Truck 'n Travel Site, the present location of Stuart Way will 
be closed and Truck 'n Travel will begin using the relocated Stuart Way 
across tax lot 2800. 
160332402900 As part of the Recommended Alternative recommended in this IAMP, 
Roberts Road will be closed at Pearl Street and realigned with Coburg 
Industrial Way. Once the Roberts Road realignment is complete, this 
private access will be closed, and access to this property will occur via the 
realigned Roberts Road. In the interim, this access should be allowed to 
stay open for property access. Internal local circulation will be discussed 
directly between ODOT and property owners. 
Coburg Industrial Way/ 
Realigned Roberts 
Road at Pearl Street 
The intersection of Coburg Industrial Way and Pearl Street lies within 
1,320 feet from the interchange ramp. This location will be where the 
realignment of Roberts Road ties in to Pearl Street, in order to be able to 
close Roberts Road and private driveways to the south of Pearl Street. 
This location was identified in the Refinement Plan after a review of 
alternatives and extensive public process. As part of this IAMP, Roberts 
Road will be closed at Pearl Street and realigned to this location south of 
Coburg Industrial Way, thereby moving toward ODOT access manage-
ment standards. Coburg Industrial Way is identified in the Coburg TSP 
and Lane County TSP as an integral piece of Coburg's circulation system. 
1603330000501 As part of the Recommended Alternative recommended in this IAMP, 
Roberts Road will be closed at Pearl Street and realigned with Coburg 
Industrial Way. Once the Roberts Road realignment is complete, this 
private access will be closed, and access to this property will occur via the 
realigned Roberts Road. In the interim, this access should be allowed to 
stay open for property access. Internal local circulation will be discussed 
directly between ODOT and property owners. 
1603330000501 As part of the Recommended Alternative recommended in this IAMP, 
Roberts Road will be closed at Pearl Street and realigned with Coburg 
Industrial Way. Once the Roberts Road realignment is complete, this 
private access will be closed, and access to this property will occur via the 
realigned Roberts Road. In the interim, this aeeess should be allowed to 
stay open for property access. Internal local circulation will be discussed 
directly between ODOT and property owners. 
PDX/Ü82680005. DOC 6-9 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 5-2 
IAMP Access Deviations 
Approach Tax Lots Served or 
# Road Name Deviation Request Rationale 
6 1603330000502 As part of the Recommended Alternative recommended in this IAMP, 
1603330000500 Roberts Road will be closed at Pearl Street and realigned with Coburg 
Industrial Way. Once the Roberts Road realignment is complete, this 
private access will be closed, and access to this property will occur via the 
realigned Roberts Road. In the interim, this access should be allowed to 
stay open for property access. Internal local circulation will be discussed 
directly between ODOT and property owners. 
7 1603330000102 As part of this IAMP, once land in the northwest quadrant of the IAMP 
study area develops or redevelops, the land use application will trigger the 
development and implementation of a local circulation plan that connects 
to Pearl Street via Coburg Industrial Way. Direct access to Pearl Street 
will not be permitted within the IAMP interchange management area. 
Because this access serves an existing business, and because currently 
there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this property, a deviation 
should be allowed to allow access only until development or 
redevelopment occurs on adjacent property. Internal local circulation will 
be discussed directly between ODOT and property owners. 
8 1603330000102 As part of this IAMP, once land in the northwest quadrant of the IAMP 
study area develops or redevelops, the land use application will trigger the 
development and implementation of a local circulation plan that connects 
to Pearl Street via Coburg Industrial Way. Direct access to Pearl Street 
will not be permitted within the IAMP interchange management area. 
Because this access serves an existing business, and because currently 
there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this property, a deviation 
should be allowed to allow access only until development or 
redevelopment occurs on adjacent property. Internal local circulation will 
be discussed directly between ODOT and property owners. 
9 Daray Street As part of this IAMP, once land in the northwest quadrant of the IAMP 
study area develops or redevelops, the land use application will trigger the 
development and implementation of a local circulation plan that connects 
to Pearl Street via Coburg Industrial Way. Direct access to Pearl Street 
will not be permitted within the IAMP interchange management area. 
Because this access serves an existing business, and because currently 
there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this property, a deviation 
should be allowed to allow access only until development or 
redevelopment occurs on adjacent property. Internal local circulation will 
be discussed directly between ODOT and property owners. 
10 1603330000200 All accesses east of I-5 along Van Duyn Road will be rerouted to a new 
intersection 1,320' east of the interchange ramp terminal that will connect 
with a frontage road. Because this access serves an existing purpose, and 
because currently there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this 
property, a deviation should be allowed to allow access in the meantime. 
11 1603330000207 All accesses east of I-5 along Van Duyn Road will be rerouted to a new 
intersection 1,320' east of the interchange ramp terminal that will connect 
with a frontage road. Because this access serves an existing purpose, and 
because currently there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this 
property, a deviation should be allowed to allow access in the meantime. 
12 1603330000206 All accesses east of 1-5 along Van Duyn Road will be rerouted to a new 
intersection 1,320' east of the interchange ramp terminal that will connect 
with a frontage road. Because this access serves an existing purpose, and 
because currently there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this 
property, a deviation should be allowed to allow access in the meantime. 
5-10 POX/D8268Û005. DO C 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
TABLE 5-2 
1AMP Access Deviations . 
Approach Tax Lots Served or 
# Road Name Deviation Request Rationale 
13 1603330000101 Alf accesses east of 1-5 along Van Duyn Road will be rerouted to a new 
intersection 1,320' east of the interchange ramp terminal that will connect 
with a frontage road. Because this access serves an existing purpose, and 
because currently there are no reasonable alternative accesses to this 
property, a deviation should be allowed to allow access in the meantime. 
PDX/08268Û005.DOC 5-11 

SECTION 6 
IAMP Recommended Alternative—Policies and 
Implementation Measures 
Adopting policies and other implementation measures are critical to protecting the 
Recommended Alternative infrastructure investments. IAMP Section 6 summarizes policies 
to he adopted by the City of Coburg, Lane County, and the OTC. IAMP Section 7 
summarizes development code language to be adopted by the City of Coburg, Lane County, 
and the OTC. Section 8 summarizes the adoption process and the processes for monitoring 
and updating the IAMP. 
6.1 Policy Framework 
The following policy framework is to be adopted by the City of Coburg, Lane County, and 
the OTC. 
6.1.1 IAMP Definition and Purpose 
The City of Coburg (City), Lane County (County), and Oregon Department of 
Transportation (ODOT) recognize the importance of Interstate 5 in the movement of people 
and goods, and are committed to protecting the function of the Coburg/I-5 interchange 
(Milepost 199.15). The Coburg/I-5 Interchange Area Management Plan and Boundary is 
defined as the following: 
A City of Coburg Special District in the City of Coburg Comprehensive Plan map and a Lane 
County Combining (Overlay) zone in the Lane County Comprehensive Plan map within 
which ODOT will monitor and review development proposals and proposed land use changes 
and coordinate with the City and County to meet ODOT access safety spacing standards, 
mobility standards, and address other possible traffic impacts on the subject interchange, as 
appropriate. 
The Coburg/I-5 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) is intended to (1) describe 
plans for operational, physical, and access improvements; and (2) anticipate and provide 
direction for the development of land inside the interchange management area in a manner 
that does not compromise the function or operation of the interchange. 
6.1.2 IAMP Policies and Actions 
The following policies and actions shall be adopted and implemented by ODOT (through 
this IAMP and development of the interchange improvement project), and Lane County and 
the City of Coburg (through amendments to their respective Transportation System Plans 
and Comprehensive Plans). 
1. ODOT and the City of Coburg and Lane County establish the Coburg/I-5 Interchange 
Management Area overlay as depicted in Figure 6-1. 
PDX/082680005. DOC 6-1 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
2. If full construction of the improvements described herein as the Recommended 
Alternative (Alternative B), and depicted in Figures 4-2 and 5-1, occur in advance of the 
City of Cohurg expanding its urban growth boundary and updating its comprehensive 
plan and zoning to fully accommodate its regional population and employment 
forecasts16, in order to preserve capacity for future City of Coburg comprehensive plan 
updates, ODOT shall establish alternative mobility standards to protect any excess 
capacity provided by an improvement at the Coburg/1-5 interchange ramps as follows. 
Intersection Van Duyn Road/1-5 Pearl Street/1-5 Southbound 
Northbound Ramps Ramps 
Alternative Mobility Standard 0.55 V/C Ratio 0.65 V/C Ratio 
3. If full construction of the improvements described herein as the Recommended 
Alternative (Alternative.B) occur in advance of the City of Coburg expanding its urban 
growth boundary and updating its comprehensive plan and zoning to fully 
accommodate its adopted population and employment forecasts, in order to preserve 
capacity for future City of Coburg comprehensive plan updates, the City of Coburg shall 
establish an alternative mobility standard to protect any excess capacity provided by an 
improvement at the Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way intersection as follows. 
Intersection Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way 
Alternative Mobility Standard 0.80 V/C Ratio 
4. The City and County will coordinate with ODOT prior to amending their transportation 
system plans, proposing transportation improvements that could affect the function of 
the Coburg/I-5 Interchange Area, or proposing changes that are inconsistent with the 
LAMP. 
5. If the City expands its urban growth boundary and updates its comprehensive plan and 
zoning to fully accommodate its adopted population and employment forecasts after 
construction of the interchange and local access and circulation improvements described 
herein as the Recommended Alternative (Alternative B), ODOT will work with the City 
and Lane County to amend the IAMP, as necessary, to recognize and support those 
updates. This amendment shall include adjustment of the Alternative Mobility 
Standards at the interchange ramps to accommodate the additional growth, but not to 
exceed the mobility standards in the OHP that apply to the Coburg/I-5 interchange 
(ramp terminal V/C <_0.8). ODOT will also work with the County to modify the 
alternative mobility standards set for the Pearl Street/Coburg Industrial Way 
intersection. 
6. If the City expands its urban growth boundary to fully accommodate the population and 
employment forecasts in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) before construction of 
the interchange and local access and circulation improvements described herein as the 
Recommended Alternative (Alternative B), the mobility standards in the OHP that apply 
to the Coburg/I-5 interchange (ramp terminal V/C <_0.8) shall be applied to any 
^ As adopted for the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization planning area, by the Metropolitan Policy 
Committee (MPC). 
4-10 PDX/082680005. DOC 
C08URG/INTERSTATE 5INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
subsequent comprehensive plan and zoning updates initiated by the City for the 
purposes of complying with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0060. 
7. The City and County shall coordinate with ODOT in the review of land use applications 
for areas within the interchange area management boundary. Land use actions within 
the interchange management area that may affect the performance of an interchange, 
such as zone changes, land development applications, and requests for new local access, 
will be consistent with the adopted IAMP. The City Planner shall include ODOT as an 
agency referral partner. Actions not consistent with the IAMP may only be approved by 
also amending the IAMP and related transportation system plans consistent with OAR 
660-012-0050 and 0055. 
8. The City of Coburg shall adopt traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements as outlined in 
Section 7 for the interchange management area. Lane County developments are subject 
to Lane County TIA requirements, specified in Lane County7s TSP, adopted in 2004. 
9. In the event that Coburg seeks to expand its urban growth boundary east of 1-5, the City 
of Coburg, Lane County, and ODOT shall reassess the viability of the IAMP local 
circulation recommendations and shall identify and ensure any new facilities needed to 
serve the resulting growth pattern are properly planned for, including an 
implementation strategy—this reassessment may include consideration of a new or 
enhanced 1-5 bridge crossing to reduce potential travel demand on Pearl Street at the 
interchange ramp intersections, 
10. Access spacing requirements shall be implemented consistent with and to meet or 
exceed the minimum standards in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Policy 3C, as follows: 
(a) When new approach roads are planned or constructed near the interchange, unless 
no alternative access exists, the nearest intersection on a crossroad shall be no closer 
than 1,320 feet from the interchange. Measurement is taken from the ramp 
intersection or the end of a free flow ramp terminal merge lane taper; 
(b) Existing private accesses shall be closed along Pearl Sheet and Van Duyn Road 
where access control has been purchased by ODOT and when alternative access to 
public roads is provided. 
(c) Deviations 
i. Deviations shall be permitted as identified in Section 5.3.3 of this IAMP. 
ii. Deviations not identified in Section 5.3.3 may be permitted for new access for 
farm and forestry equipment and associated farm uses, as defined in ORS 
215.203, on lands zoned for exclusive farm use, and accepted forest practices on 
those lands that are within the interchange management area, but only when 
access meeting the standards in 10(a) above is unfeasible. 
(d) Until such time as ODOT purchases access rights on any County Road or City Street 
that is designated for restricted access by this IAMP, any redevelopment of property 
within the IAMP area that would result in a greater number of average daily trips or 
an increase in large truck trips will require written approval from the Oregon 
Department of Transportation pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement to be 
PDX/082680005.00C 6-3 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 51 NT ERC HANGE A REA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
established between the City of Coburg, Lane County, and ODOT, and subject to the 
limits of applicable county or city codes. When ODOT has purchased access rights, 
any redevelopment of property within the IAMP area that would result in a greater 
number of average daily trips or an increase in large truck trips will be subject to the 
provision of ODOT's Access Management Administrative Rule (OAR 734-051). 
(e) ODOT shall purchase access control east of 1-5 along both sides of Van Duyn Road 
from the interchange ramp terminal to Hereford Road and west of 1-5 along both 
sides of Pearl Street from the interchange ramp terminal to a point 1,000 feet west of 
Coburg Industrial Way. New approaches shall be deed restricted to specific uses. 
11. The City and County shall work with ODOT to implement the operational, physical, and 
access recommendations included in Section 5 of this IAMP. 
12. Work with Lane Transit District to expand bus rapid transit to Coburg (City of Coburg, 
Lane County). 
13. Market Lane Transit District's Group Pass Program to employers, and promote carpool 
and vanpool services (City of Coburg). 
14. As Coburg develops, monitor the need for a park-and-ride (City of Coburg, ODOT). 
PDX/082680005. DOC 
City of Coburg Comprehensive Plan Designations f ~ " J Coburg City Limits 
Traditional Residential 
Park/Recreation 
Central Business District 
Highway Commercial 
Public Facility 
Light Industrial 
Urban Growth Boundary 
1AMP Management Area 
Boundary 
A 0 500 1,000 Feet I—i i I I 
Figure 6-1 IAMP Management 
Area Quadrants 
Coburg/I-5 Interchange Area 
Management Plan 
SECTION 7 
lAMP Recommended Alternative—Development 
Code 
Implementation measures are critical to protecting Recommended Alternative infrastructure 
investments. LAMP Section 7 summarizes development code language to be adopted by the 
City of Coburg and Lane County. Section 8 discusses the adoption process and the processes 
for monitoring and updating the LAMP. 
7.1 Development Code Language 
The following development code language applies to any land use proposal for lands within 
the Coburg/1-5 Interchange Management Area. Any development on unincorporated Lane 
County land within the interchange management area is subject to Lane County traffic 
impact analysis standards. 
7.1.1 Traffic Impact Analysis 
Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements for Land within the Interchange Management Area: 
1. For purposes of this section, the IAMP Special District (City of Coburg) or Combining 
Zone (Lane County) area shall be as defined in Figure 6-1 of this IAMP and represented 
in the map and legal description of the Coburg Special District area and County 
Combining Zone area that are shown in Appendix M and included in each jurisdiction's 
development code. 
2. Within the IAMP Special District for lands within the City of Coburg, for city streets, a 
traffic impact analysis (TIA) shall be required for all proposed development that will 
generate more than 100 AM or PM peak hour trips per day or 600 Average Daily Trips. 
Trip calculation shall be based upon Trip Generation, 8th Edition (2008) published by the 
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 
3. For County Roads within the IAMP Combining Zone area, a TIA shall be required in 
accordance with Lane Code Chapter 15.697. 
4. Within the IAMP Special District or Combining Zone Area, HAs shall be prepared in 
accordance with ODOT's 2005 Development Review Guidelines. TIA adequacy shall be 
determined jointly by ODOT, the City of Coburg, and Lane County. If a conflict exists 
between ODOT Development Review Guidelines and applicable County or City 
requirements, ODOT Development Review Guidelines shall be applied by ODÓT. Any 
required mitigation associated with the ODOT permitting process shall be determined 
by ODOT with participation by the City of Coburg and Lane County with regard to their 
respective requirements, and shall be consistent with the requirements in OAR 734-051 
and OAR 660-012-0050. Any required mitigation associated with the local land use 
authority shall be by the City of Coburg and/or Lane County, as appropriate, with 
PDXZOa2680OO5.DOC 7 -1 
COBURG/INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN 
regard to their respective requirements and with participation of ODOT, and shall be 
consistent with the requirements in OAR 734-051 and OAR 660-012-0050. 
5. ODOT shall be responsible for any enforcement necessary to implement ODOT 
requirements through the ODOT permitting process that are not specified in Lane 
County or City of Coburg respective requirements. 
7.2 Plan and Zone Map Changes 
Coburg and Lane County shall amend their development codes as follows: 
1. Coburg shall create a Plan Designation and corresponding new "special district" called 
the IAMP Overlay District to implement the provisions of this IAMP. 
2. Lane County shall create a Plan Designation and corresponding "Combining Zone" 
called the Interchange Area Combining Zone to implement the provisions of this IAMP. 
3. The Coburg and Lane County Plan Designation and Zoning Maps shall be amended to 
show the respective IAMP plan and zoning areas. 
7-2 PDX/082680005. OOC 
SECTION 8 
IAMP Implementation, Monitoring, and Updates 
Section 8 discusses implementation authority and the processes for monitoring and 
updating the IAMP. 
8.1 Implementation Authority 
Development, adoption, and implementation of this IAMP are determined by regulatory 
authority. Local agency authority comes through state statutes, and city and county 
comprehensive plans and development codes. State of Oregon authority comes in the form 
of policy and administrative rules governing authority over federal and state systems, as 
granted through the following: 
• State Agency Coordination Rule and Agreement (SAC 1990 - OAR 731-015): The 
purpose of this rule is to define what ODOT actions are land use actions and how ODOT 
will meet its responsibilities for coordinating these activities with the statewide land use 
planning program, other state agencies, and local government. 
• Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012): The TPR implements statewide planning 
goal 12 and is one of several statewide planning rules that promotes protection of the 
long-term livability of Oregon's communities for future generations. The rule requires 
multi-modal transportation plans to be coordinated with land use plans. In satisfying 
the goal, state and local governments must satisfy requirements that are intended to 
promote development of a transportation system that is consistent with and supportive 
of planned land uses (and vice versa). 
• Access Management Rule (OAR 734-051): The Access Management Rule, commonly 
referred to as Division 51, regulates the location, construction, maintenance, and use of 
approaches to state highway rights-of-way and properties under the jurisdiction of 
ODOT. These rules also govern the closure of existing approaches, spacing standards for 
approaches and driveways, medians, deviations from standards, appeal process, grants 
of access, and indentures of access. 
8.2 Monitoring and Updates 
It is the responsibility of ODOT to monitor this IAMP. An update to this IAMP should be 
completed within the next 5 to 10 years, given the amount of vacant land in the Coburg/I-5 
interchange area. 
This IAMP should be updated i f /when any of the following occur: 
• It is 5 to 10 years after the adoption of this IAMP. 
• The Coburg Comprehensive Plan is amended, and such update affects the interchange. 
PDX/08268O0O5.DOC 
• The Lane County Comprehensive Plan is amended, and such update affects the 
interchange. 
• Development occurs in Coburg that is significantly different from the development 
assumptions in the Coburg or Lane County Comprehensive Plans. 
A T T A C H M E N T E 
O R D I N A N C E N O . A - 1 9 9 C 
A N O R D I N A N C E A D O P T I N G T H E C O B U R G / L - 5 I N T E R C H A N G E A R E A 
M A N A G E M E N T P L A N ( I A M P ) A S A R E F I N E M E N T P L A N T O T H E 
C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N 
WHEREAS, the State of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has enacted 
their authority to require the adoption and implementation of an IAMP prior to 
reconstruction of the Coburg/l-5 interchange; 
WHEREAS, the City of Coburg adopted a Transportation System Plan (TSP) on 
November 1999 (Ord. A-133L) that identified the need to develop and adopt an IAMP 
for the Coburg/l-5 Interchange; 
WHEREAS, notice of a Joint public hearing before the Coburg and Lane County 
Planning Commissions was sent via mail to all property owners within the IAMP Study 
Area and 300 feet beyond the Study Area, published in the Register Guard January 11, 
2009 and sent to all parties on ODOT's interested parties distribution list; 
WHEREAS, a second notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the 
Register Guard March 2, 2009 and was sent via mail to all property owners within the 
IAMP Study Area and 300 feet beyond the Study Area, and sent to all parties on 
ODOT's interested parties distribution list; 
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing before the Coburg and Lane County 
Planning Commissions on January 21, 2009 and before the City Council March 10, 
2009, took testimony on this matter, taking said testimony into consideration in making 
its decision; 
WHEREAS, the Coburg Planning Commission unanimously recommended to City 
Council at the March 3, 2009 meeting to adopt the IAMP; 
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2009 Coburg City Council conducted a public hearing and 
first reading of the IAMP; and 
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009 Coburg City Council conducted a second reading of 
the IAMP; 
THE CITY OF COBURG ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 
Section 1. The City of Coburg Zoning Ordinance No. A-200C shall be amended to 
adopt the IAMP as set forth as Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference, 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 1 of 19 
so as to comply with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan; sub-policies to Goal 12 -
Transportation, Policy #13. 
Section 2. The City of Coburg acknowledges compliance with the appropriate State 
Planning Goals, and regional, county and local implementing regulations with the 
Findings of Fact shown as Exhibit B. 
Section 3. The City of Coburg Transportation System Plan (TSP) shall be amended 
to included the adopted IAMP at the time the TSP is next updated, so as to comply with 
the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and requirements of the IAMP. 
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any 
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is judged by any court to of 
competent jurisdiction or by the land Conservation and Development Commission to be 
invalid, the declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the 
Ordinance. 
This Ordinance, after public notices, hearings, Planning Commission and City 
Council deliberations, was upon motion and second, put to a final vote. The vote of the 
Council was: 
YES: 
NO: 
ABSTENTIONS: 
PASSED: 
REJECTED: 
Signed and Approved by the Mayor this 14th day of April, 2009. 
ATTEST: Judy Volta, Mayor 
Sammy Egbert, City Recorder 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 2 of 19 
EXHIBIT A 
Add the following sub-policies to the City of Coburg Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 
Goal 12 - Transportation, Policy # 13: 
13.2 The City shall adopt an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) and 
boundary for the Coburg Interstate 5 interchange. The IAMP boundary will be shown 
on city zoning maps. 
13.3 The City supports the enactment of special land use regulations and 
development standards for the Coburg IAMP boundary for the purpose of protecting 
interchange function and capacity consistent with adopted city and county land use 
plans. Special regulations may include but are not limited to requirements for traffic 
impact studies, access standards that differ from standards in other areas of the 
county, trip generation limits, and requirements for mitigation concurrent with 
development 
13.4 The City will coordinate the review of land use applications for properties within 
the IAMP boundary with ODOT and Lane County. Land use actions that may affect 
the performance of the interchange, such as amending the city's transportation 
system plan, approving land development applications, and approving requests for 
local access, will be consistent with the regulations in the adopted IAMP. Actions not 
consistent with the IAMP may only be approved by also amending the IAMP and the 
transportation system plan consistent with OAR 660-012-050 and 055. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 3 of 19 
EXHIBIT B 
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 
Requirement: Goal 1 requires the development of a citizen involvement program that is 
widespread, allows two-way communication, provides for citizen involvement through all 
planning phases, and is understandable, responsive, and funded. 
Findings 
Task 2 of the IAMP included the development of a citizen involvement plan that allowed 
for involvement of citizens, stakeholders and public agencies throughout the duration of 
the project. The plan was a coordinated effort between the Contractor, ODOT, and the 
City of Coburg and included the Technical Advisory Committee, the general public, the 
Coburg Crossroads Stakeholder group, the Periodic Review Core Team, affected public 
agencies, transportation providers, and transportation interest groups. Two meetings 
were held with the Periodic Review Core Team, both of which were open to the public. 
Two joint meetings were held with the City Council and the Planning Commission, which 
were also open to the public. Two open houses were held to inform the public and 
gather their input; written notices were sent out prior to the meetings to invite 
participation. Written public comment was accepted throughout the project. Several 
individual meetings were conducted with property owners in the project vicinity. 
In addition, public notice for the hearings on this application will be provided through the 
City of Coburg and Lane County notification procedures. The public will have 
opportunity to review the application and staff report in advance of the public hearings, 
and to provide testimony at the hearings. A copy of the citizen involvement plan and 
actions taken to engage citizens in the planning process are included in IAMP Appendix 
A. 
Conclusions 
Based on the above findings, the requirements set forth in Goal 1 have been met. 
GOAL 2 : LAND USE PLANNING 
Requirement: This goal requires that a land use planning process and policy 
framework be established as a basis for all decisions and actions relating to the use of 
land. All local governments and state agencies involved in the land use action must 
coordinate with each other. With regard to this IAMP, ODOT is required coordinate with 
Lane County and the City of Coburg, both of which have planning authority over the 
impacted area. 
Findings 
Task 3 of this project involved a thorough review and analysis of all relevant state, 
regional and local planning documents in order to establish a planning process and 
policy framework for the IAMP. This information can be found in Memo #1, Plans and 
Policy Review (Appendix B). Throughout the project, the Contractor met with ODOT, 
Lane County and City of Coburg to discuss objectives, issues and concerns regarding 
the IAMP. In addition, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to guide 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 4 of 19 
the IAMP process. The TAC consisted of representatives from the City, County, DLCD, 
ODOT, and other local and regional agencies. The alternatives analysis was based on 
land use assumptions included in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, and was consistent 
with forecasts included in the Regional Transportation Plan. 
Requirement: Land use decisions and actions must be supported by an "adequate 
factual base." It is required that there is evidence that a reasonable person would find to 
be adequate to support findings of fact that a land use action complies with the 
applicable review standards. 
Findings 
The IAMP adoption application has prepared a thorough factual base that demonstrates 
that this proposed action is consistent with the applicable adopted local plans, including 
the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. 
Requirement: City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and 
actions related to land use must be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities 
and counties and regional plans adopted under Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) Chapter 
268. 
Findings 
Task 3 of this project included a thorough review and analysis of all relevant state, 
regional and local planning documents, including the Lane County and Coburg 
comprehensive plans. The IAMP is consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, as 
it is based on land use assumptions included in that Plan. The recommended alternative 
is consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and traffic forecasts included in the 
Regional Transportation Plan. 
Conclusion 
Based on the above findings, the requirements set forth in Goal 2 have been met. 
GOAL 11 : PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 
Requirement: Cities and counties shall plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient 
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural 
development. The goal requires that urban and rural development be "guided and 
supported by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services 
appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbanizable 
and rural areas to be served." 
Findings 
The IAMP will amend the City of Coburg Transportation System Plan and adds a 
number of planned improvements at the interchange to the list of TSP projects needed 
to meet planned urban growth (IAMP, Section 5.2). The IAMP establishes special 
access management requirements for the interchange area to improve safety and help 
ensure traffic mobility is maintained (IAMP, Section 5.3). The IAMP also establishes a 
mobility standard for the interchange that limits growth in traffic to a level commensurate 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 5 of 19 
with the adopted population and employment for the city (IAMP, Section 6). These 
measures provide a basis for ensuring investment in public facility infrastructure is made 
in a manner that will accommodate the city's planned population and employment. 
Requirement: Goal 11 prohibits the establishment of sewer systems outside urban 
growth boundaries and the extension of sewer lines from within UGBs to serve lands 
outside UGBs, except where a new or extended system is the only practicable 
alternative to mitigate a public health hazard and will not adversely affect farm or forest 
land. 
Findings 
This IAMP does not propose the establishment of new sewer systems outside the urban 
growth boundary. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with Goal 11. 
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION 
Requirement: This goal requires cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, 
and ODOT to provide and encourage a "safe, convenient and economic transportation 
system." This is accomplished through development of Transportation System Plans 
based on inventories of local, regional and state transportation needs. 
Goal 12 is implemented through OAR 660, Division 12, also known as the 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR contains numerous requirements 
governing transportation planning and project development. (See the "OAR 660, 
Division 12 section of this document for findings of compliance with the TPR). 
Findings 
The adoption of the Coburg IAMP will ensure that the interchange operates safely and 
efficiently. Task 7.1 of the IAMP involved a transportation analysis that was conducted 
in order to determine safety issues, future demand, capacity, deficiencies, and needs for 
this interchange area. The analysis demonstrates that the recommended alternative in 
the IAMP will be adequate to serve trips generated by future land uses. An alternative 
mobility standard is included in the IAMP to protect the interchange capacity in the case 
that interchange development occurs prior to the anticipated expansion of the Coburg 
UGB and simultaneous amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the 
lAMP's adoption by the city will amend the City of Coburg Transportation System Plan 
as required by city policy and the TPR for plans that implement local transportation 
system plans. Coburg development regulations recommended in the IAMP impose new 
limitations on access to major roads in the IAMP boundary and also require traffic 
impact studies for development projects that cause a significant impact to the function of 
the interchange (IAMP, Sections 7.1 and 7.2). Lane County will also adopt the 
IAMP as part of its Transportation System Plan through policy that recognizes the 
special regulatory and access limitations on land within the IAMP boundary (IAMP, 
Section 6). This alters the underlying regulatory framework that applies to new 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C P a g e 6 o f 1 9 
development in the interchange area regarding access and mobility standards that 
apply to new development proposals. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with Goal 12. 
GOAL 14 : URBANIZATION, AND O A R 6 6 0 , DIVISIONS 1 4 AND 2 2 
Requirement: Goal 14 regulates urban growth boundaries. The goal provides that 
establishment and change of a UGB shall be based upon considerations of the following 
seven factors: 
• Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth 
requirements consistent with LCDC goals; 
• Need for housing, economic opportunities, and livability; 
• Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; 
• Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban 
area; 
• Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; 
• Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for 
retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and 
• Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. 
Additionally, O R S 1 9 7 , 2 9 8 establishes priorities for including land inside urban 
growth boundaries. The first (highest) priority for inclusion is land that is 
designated "urban reserve" land. The second priority is land adjacent to a UGB 
that is identified as "an exception area or nonresource land." The third priority is 
land that is designated as "marginal land" pursuant to ORS 197.247. The final 
(lowest) priority is land that is designated for agriculture, forestry, or both. 
Findings 
This IAMP does not involve any amendments to the Coburg UGB boundary. 
The EFU land in Lane County, within the Coburg Interchange management area, is 
lowest priority for inclusion into the UGB. While the proximity of this land to the 
interchange makes it susceptible over time to inclusion inside a UGB, such an action 
would need to be based on a demonstration of need and the application of the 
standards in ORS 197.298. The IAMP does include measures (alternate mobility 
standards) designed to protect the function of the interchange if it is constructed prior to 
a Coburg UGB expansion and Comprehensive Plan amendment. 
Conclusions 
The IAMP complies with Goal 14. 
Oregon Transportation Plan (1992) 
An IAMP must be consistent with the goals and policies of the OTP. OTP policies that 
are applicable to an IAMP are: 
• Policy 1B (Efficiency) 
• Policy 1C (Accessibility) 
• Policy 1G (Safety) 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 7 of 19 
• Policy 2B (Urban Accessibility) 
• Policy 4G (Management Practices) 
An IAMP must include an access management component that identifies approaches 
on the state highways within the management area and recommends any necessary 
access changes in order to protect the function of the interchange. 
Findings 
A plan and policy review was conducted as part of the IAMP planning process that 
identified relevant OTP policies (Appendix B). The IAMP addresses relevant OTP 
policies. 
Conclusions 
The IAMP complies with the OTP. 
Oregon Highway Plan 
The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) establishes policies and investment strategies 
for Oregon's state highway system over a 20-year period and refines the goals and 
policies found in the OTP. Policies in the OHP emphasize the efficient management of 
the highway system to increase safety and to extend highway capacity, partnerships 
with other agencies and local governments, and the use of new techniques to improve 
road safety and capacity. These policies also link land use and transportation, set 
standards for highway performance and access management, and emphasize the 
relationship between state highways and local road, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, rail, and 
air systems. The policies applicable to planning for the Coburg interchange 
improvements are described below, with impacts to interchange planning shown in 
italic. Under Goal 1: System Definition, the following policies are applicable: 
• Policy 1A (Highway Classification) defines the function of state highways to serve 
different types of traffic that should be incorporated into and specified through 
lAMPs. 
• Policy 1B (Land Use and Transportation) recognizes the need for coordination 
between state and local jurisdictions; Coordination with local jurisdictions 
occurred throughout the preparation of the IAMP. A Technical Advisory 
Committee (TAC) was formed to inform the IAMP. Members included 
representatives from the City of Coburg, LCOG, ODOT and Lane County. 
• Policy 1C (State Highway Freight System) states the need to balance the 
movement of goods and services with other uses; 1-5 is a designated freight 
route. Policy 1F (Highway Mobility Standards) sets mobility standards for 
ensuring a reliable and acceptable level of mobility on the highway system by 
identifying necessary improvements that would allow the interchange to function 
in a manner consistent with OHP mobility standards; and The purpose of the 
IAMP is to evaluate the operation of the Coburg Interchange, assess needs and 
problems, identify future long-range needs, and identify recommended 
improvements in order to ensure consistency with mobility standards. 
• Policy 1G (Major Improvements) requires maintaining performance and 
improving safety by improving efficiency and management before adding 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 8 of 19 
capacity. ODOT works with regional and local governments to address highway 
performance and safety. The current Coburg 1-5 Interchange Refinement Plan is 
adopted into the City TSP, and addresses the major investment criteria. The 
IAMP will continue to implement Policy 1G. 
• Policy 1H (Bypasses) establishes criteria for determining the need and impact 
considerations for a new bypass; directs the preparation of plans, management 
of access, and provision of local facilities for existing bypasses; and provides a 
checklist of considerations. 
Findings 
Under Goal 2: System Management, the following policies are applicable: 
• Policy 2B (Off-System Improvements) helps local jurisdictions adopt land use 
and access management policies; and The IAMP includes sections describing 
existing and future land use patterns, an access management plan, and 
implementation measures. 
• Policy 2F (Traffic Safety) improves the safety of the highway system. One 
component of the IAMP is identification of existing crash patterns and rates and 
to develop strategies to address safety issues, including access management 
and improvement of operational conditions to avoid backup onto the 1-5 mainline. 
Findings 
Under Goal 3: Access Management, the following policies are applicable: 
• Policy 3A: (Classification and Spacing Standards) sets access spacing standards 
for driveways and approaches to the state highway system; 
• Policy 3C (Interchange Access Management Areas) sets policy for managing 
interchange areas by developing an IAMP that identifies and addresses current 
interchange deficiencies and short, medium and long term solutions; The access 
spacing standard designated in the OHP for state highways within a UGB is 
1,320 feet from the ramp terminal. 
• Policy 3D (Deviations) establishes general policies and procedures for deviations 
from adopted access management standards and policies. The Access 
Management Plan component of the ¡AMP is consistent with adopted access 
standards. Intersections that do not meet access spacing standards - either in 
the interim before the interchange improvements are constructed or after 
construction of interchange improvements - are included in Section 5 of the 
IAMP. 
Findings 
The IAMP includes policies that establish desired access conditions consistent with the 
OHP and regulations that require new development to alter existing access that is not in 
compliance with the desired condition (1,320'). A frontage road improvement east of the 
freeway interchange is planned to enable private development to comply with this 
requirement (IAMP, Section 5.3). Deviations - for intersections not meeting the 
standard in the interim before interchange improvement construction, and for some not 
meeting the standard after construction - are included in Section 6 of the IAMP. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 9 of 19 
Conclusion 
The Coburg IAMP complies with the OHP. 
OAR 660 Division 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 
The TPR requires local governments to adopt land use regulations consistent with state 
and federal requirements "to protect transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their 
identified functions OAR 660-012-0045(2)." This policy is achieved through a variety of 
measures, including: 
• Access control measures which are consistent with the functional classification of 
• roads and consistent with limiting development on rural lands to rural uses and 
densities; 
• Standards to protect future operations of roads; 
• A process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting 
transportation facilities, corridors or sites; 
• A process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize 
impacts and protect transportation facilities, corridors or sites; 
• Regulations to provide notice to ODOT of land use applications that require 
public hearings, involve land divisions, or affect private access to roads; and 
• Regulations assuring that amendments to land use designations, densities and 
design standards are consistent with the functions, capacities and performance 
standards of facilities identified in the TSP. See also OAR 660-012-0060. 
• In addition to the requirements noted above, the TPR defines the interstate 
interchange area as containing property within one-half mile of an existing or 
planned interchange on an Interstate Highway as measured from the center point 
of the interchange; or as defined an Interchange Area Management Plan adopted 
as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. This is the area in which 
planning and analysis for the IAMP takes place locally and in which local 
governments must comply with interchange-related state access management 
rules. 
Findings 
The IAMP planning process included a review of all relevant sections of the TPR 
(Appendix B, Table 1). Applicable sections of the TPR are addressed throughout the 
IAMP, including identifying the purpose and function of the interchange (Section 1), an 
assessment of existing and future conditions (Sections 2 and 3), an analysis of 
alternative solutions for meeting functional objectives (Section 4), and measures to 
ensure the plan addresses planned conditions including physical improvements, 
policies, and development regulations (Sections 5, 6, and 7). 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the Oregon TPR. 
OAR 734, Division 51. Highway Approaches, Access Control, Spacing 
Standards and Medians 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 10 of 19 
OAR 734-051 governs the permitting, management, and standards of approaches to 
state highways to ensure safe and efficient operation of the state highways. OAR 734-
051 policies address the following: 
• How to bring existing and future approaches into compliance with access spacing 
standards, and ensure the safe and efficient operation of the highway; 
• The purpose and components of an access management plan; and 
• Requirements regarding mitigation, modification and closure of existing 
approaches as part of project development. 
Section 734-051-0125, Access Management Spacing Standards for Approaches in an 
Interchange Area, establishes interchange management area access spacing 
standards. It also specifies elements that are to be included in lAMPs, such as short-
and long-range actions to improve and maintain safe and efficient roadway operations 
within the interchange area. The Access Management Plan component of the IAMP 
(Section 5.3) includes plans for access closures and a frontage road to be constructed 
east of I-5. This section also includes deviations for intersections on Pearl Street and 
Van Duyn Road that will not meet adopted state access standards in the interim (before 
construction) as well as those that will not meet standards after construction, per OAR 
734-051-0135. 
Findings 
Section 5.3 of the IAMP outlines a detailed access management plan of the interchange 
area. Access spacing standards are designed around OPH and Division 51 spacing 
standards and are intended over time to shift access spacing in the direction of the 
applicable state standards. The plan also includes policies specifically aimed at 
improving access spacing and citing conditions in which access alterations must be 
made to bring conditions in line with state standards (IAMP, Section 6.1.2, Policy #10). 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with OAR 734, Division 51. 
Regional Transportation Plan 
The Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan 
(RTP) guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Central 
Lane MPO metropolitan area. Coburg was recently added to the MPO. The RTP 
includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of residents over a 20-year 
planning horizon while addressing transportation issues and making changes that can 
contribute to improvements in the region's quality of life and economic vitality. The City 
of Coburg and Lane County are two of the six jurisdictions participating in regional 
transportation planning related to the RTP. The following project related to the Coburg/I-
5 Interchange is on the RTP Capital Improvements List: The following project is on the 
"illustrative" list in the RTP, that is, it is considered a "needed" project but it does not fit 
with anticipated revenue over the life of the plan. The City is working at the MPO level to 
get the project on the Financial Constraint list in the near term. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 11 of 19 
R T P Project # 
and Category Name loca t ion 
t 
Description 
Responsible 
Agency Anticipateti Cost 
1003 - New Arterial 
Link or Interchange 
Interstate 5 
at Coburg Interchange 
Interchange 
Improvements ODOT $12,500,000 
According to the RTP, new arterial links or interchanges add new links or interchanges 
to the arterial or freeway systems in the region. Projects typically consist of any required 
right-of-way acquisition, general roadway construction, and addition of pedestrian and 
bicycle facilities either adjacent or parallel to the roadway. 
Findings 
The 1AMP included an evaluation of RTP policies and planned improvements (IAMP, 
Appendix B). The IAMP provides Coburg the means necessary for elevating the 
interchange project on the RTP list of needed projects, especially the list of financially 
constrained projects, by addressing necessary planning requirements associated with 
securing state and federal funding for the improvements that implement the IAMP. In 
addition, the development of IAMP alternatives and selection of the recommended 
alternative were consistent with RTP traffic forecasts and policies. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the RTP; the Coburg TSP will need to be revised for RTP 
consistency. 
Lane County Transportation System Plan 
Lane County's TSP was adopted in 2004. The Plan contains an introduction to the 
concept of access management in the section of Chapter 4 entitled /Access 
Management: Spacing of intersections and Driveways on County Roads, stating that 
"Implementation of access management techniques produces a more consistent traffic 
flow, helping to improve safety, while reducing congestion, fuel consumption and air 
pollution." (p. 27).In addition, the Goals and Policies section contains access 
management policies under Goal 3: Promote a safe and efficient road network through 
access management Policy 3b specifically addresses state facilities, noting that "for 
state facilities, the Oregon Department of Transportation controls access pursuant to 
Oregon Administrative Rules 734, Division 51." The TSP references Lane Code 15.130 
as containing the access management guidelines and spacing standards. The table 
below outlines the access spacing requirements for County Roads. The spacing 
standard for local roads outside of urban growth boundaries is 100 feet. The Lane 
County section of the IAMP study area only contains one road, Van Duyn Road, 
which is classified by the County as an urban local road inside the UGB and a rural local 
road once it leaves the UGB. The City of Coburg classifies it as a County Arterial. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 12 of 19 
Road and Driveway Spacing Standards 
for Lime Comity Collector and Arterial Roadways (Feet) in the Lane County TSP (JLC 15.138) 
Posted Speed or 
Travel Speed* 
Principal 
Arterial 
Minor 
Arterial 
Major 
Collector 
Minor 
Collector 
>55 700 475 475 325 
50 550 475 475 325 
40 & 45 500 400 400 325 
30 & 35 400 275 275 220 
< 2 5 400 200 200 150 
Chapter 6 of the TSP, entitled Recommended Improvements lists the improvements on 
Lane County Roads. The following table shows the project within the Coburg IAMP 
boundary: 
Tab le 2: Projects on L a n e County Roads 
within the C o b m g IAMP mmiagement aieii in t h e L a n e Comity Transpor ta t ion System Plan 
Project 
# 
Road 
N a m e 
.Limits Begi 
il M P 
E n d 
M P 
Leng 
th 
Some e Descript ion Cost Status 
#28 
Pearl 
Street* * 
Miller Street 
to 1-5 
0.244 0.64 .396 Coburg 
Urban Standards — Four 
lane Facility with median 
treatments, curb, gutter, 
sidewalks, bike lanes, #B1 
$750,000 Complete 
Findings 
The IAMP includes requirements for traffic impact studies that are consistent with those 
required by Lane County (IAMP, Section 7). 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the Lane County TSP. 
Lane County Code 
Much of the land adjacent to and east of the Coburg/l-5 interchange is currently under 
the jurisdiction of Lane County. Land directly southeast of the interchange was recently 
annexed into the Coburg city limits, and is now designated as Highway Commercial. 
The land in Lane County jurisdiction is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - Rural 
Comprehensive Plan (E-RCP) zone, which allows corresponding appropriate farm-
related uses. The Lane County Code implements OAR 660-033. It allows four levels of 
minimum parcel size, E-60, E-40, E-30, and E-25. Land within the Coburg/l-5 IAMP 
boundary is zoned E-40, with a minimum lot size of 40 acres. 
Findings 
The IAMP includes a review of relevant sections of the Lane County Code and TSP 
(IAMP, Appendix B). The IAMP includes requirements for traffic impact studies that are 
consistent with those required by Lane County (IAMP, Section 7). The IAMP does not 
alter planned land uses or zoning for any properties within the IAMP management 
boundary. 
Conclusion 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 13 of 19 
The IAMP is consistent with the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan 
Coburg's Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1978 and is currently 
undergoing periodic review, which is anticipated to result in Draft plan amendments. Per 
agreement with LCOG and ODOT, this review includes Draft amendments as of 2005. 
Therefore, the 2005 PROPOSED policy amendments to the Coburg Comprehensive 
Plan are incorporated into the following review. Goal 9, Economy of the City includes 
the following policy relevant to the Coburg/l-5 IAMP. 
• Policy 4: A "Highway Commercial" district will be located adjacent to the 1-5 
interchange. The purpose of the Highway Commercial Plan designation is to 
provide goods and services that primarily serve the traveling public. Uses in this 
area will preserve the small town and historic character of Coburg, by having 
compatibility in architectural design and scale with the Central Business District 
and/or Residential designations. Development of the Highway Commercial 
District shall be considered secondary to the development of the downtown area, 
however. 
Findings 
The policy advances a city preference that the Highway Commercial district applies to 
land the general vicinity of the interchange. The policy is not specific with regard to 
access distances or uses that would compromise interchange operation. 
Goal 12, Transportation includes the following policies relevant to the Coburg/l-5 IAMP: 
• Policy 3: Improve the aesthetics of streets and streetscapes, especially at City 
entrance ways such as Interstate 5 interchange area. Aesthetic improvements 
may address: street design, trees, lighting, utility lines, sidewalks, park strips, 
noise abatement, etc. 
3.1 Improve major through-fares with beautification and scenic amenities, 
coordinating with other agencies and jurisdictions as necessary. 
3.2 Identify and improve city gateways and entranceways with beautification and 
scenic amenities, coordinating with other agencies and jurisdictions as 
necessary. 
This policy identifies the importance of the I-5 interchange as a gateway to Coburg that 
needs aesthetic improvements. No specific location has been identified to date as the 
"gateway". No projects are designated on the CIP related to this policy. 
Findings 
The policies do not conflict with the proposed access limitations or design features 
planning in the IAMP. 
• Policy 13: Improve the Coburg-lnterstate 5 Interchange safety and 
transportation operations. 
13.1 The City shall adopt and coordinate with ODOT and Lane County to 
implement the ODOT Coburg-lnterstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan, which 
includes but is not limited to: 
o A preferred interchange alternative, 
o An interchange access management plan, 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 14 of 19 
o A recommended TDM program that shall be fully implemented before 
interchange reconstruction, and 
o An assumption that current City and County comprehensive land use 
designations at and near the interchange are constant for the next 20 
years. 
This policy supports coordination with Lane County and ODOT to adopt the Coburg/l-5 
Interchange Refinement Plan, which is discussed in more detail below. 
Findings 
The policy is supportive of IAMP objectives and operational objectives. 
• Policy 36: The City shall not expand the UGB east of Interstate 5 until the City 
has sufficient clarity on the configuration, timing, and cost of the interchange 
upgrade to.conclude that adequate transportation facilities will be in place to 
sen/e future development 
The area immediately southeast of the Coburg/l-5 interchange was annexed into the 
UGB in 2004, but maintained the County zoning designation. City zoning designation to 
Highway Commercial occurred November 2007. 
Findings 
The policy is consistent with the IAMP. Traffic analysis did not assume UGB expansion 
to the east. The policy also is consistent with IAMP policies that enact an alternative 
mobility standard for the interchange that would support levels of traffic consistent with 
the city's adopted land use plan, and protect the capacity of the interchange in case the 
interchange is constructed prior to any UGB expansion and Comprehensive Plan 
amendment by Coburg. 
• Policy 41: The exception area immediately east of the Interstate 5 interchange 
shall have an established trip generation baseline upon annexation of the 
property. The trip generation baseline shall be for average daily trips (ADT), 
weekday AM peak and weekday PM peak trips, based on ITE Trip Generation 
Manual and inventory of uses is as shown in Exhibit 2 and is incorporated as 
policy by reference. 
• Policy 42: All new development proposals and/or redevelopment proposals in 
the exception area immediately east of Interstate 5 that exceed the baseline trip 
generation established upon annexation shall be required to apply for a city plan 
amendment application and meet Statewide Goal 12, Transportation Planning 
Rule, in particular Section 0060, and develop a transportation analysis to 
determine the impact on the interchange and on County Roads. The County may 
require a traffic impact analysis and road improvements consistent with the Lane 
County Transportation System Plan goals and policies and with County 
requirements for roads in Lane Code 15. The new site development or 
redevelopment shall be required to measure the following trip impacts for all 
three of the following: 
o Weekday PM peak hour trips between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 15 of 19 
o Weekday AM peak hour trips between 6:00 am and 9:00 am 
o Average Daily grips for the entire area in question. 
• Policy 43: in the event that interchange Refinement Pian is completed and 
adopted in the Coburg TSP or Interchange Area Management Plan is developed 
and adopted, the exception areas immediately east of Interstate 5 shall be 
included in the plans and shall be governed by the results of that plan. 
Notwithstanding this provision, a traffic impact analysis, road dedications and 
road improvements may be required for new development affecting County roads 
in this area. 
Related to Policy 43, above, the Interchange Refinement Plan was completed and 
adopted in 1999 as part of the planning and adoption process for the 1999 Coburg TSP. 
The IAMP management area includes the areas of Lane County directly east of the 
interchange, which has been designated by the County for exclusive farm use (E-40). 
For a specific description of the uses within the IAMP boundary, see Section III, Existing 
Land Use. 
Findings 
IAMP alternatives were based on land use assumptions contained in the current 
adopted Coburg Comprehensive Plan. The policies listed above are generally 
consistent with the alternative mobility standard and other policies that are enacted 
through the IAMP, and with land use assumptions used in the IAMP traffic analysis. 
Future land use applications in the IAMP management area would trigger policies in the 
IAMP that require the development either to mitigate traffic impacts to perform within the 
adopted mobility standard/alternative mobility standard for the interchange or proceed 
with local amendments to the city and county land use plans and the IAMP. The IAMP 
will be adopted by Coburg - establishing an IAMP Overlay area - which will address 
concerns expressed in the policies above regarding traffic impact analysis, access and 
other requirements for development. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP is consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. 
City of Coburg Transportation System Plan 
The City adopted a Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 1999. In order to implement 
the TSP, the City made amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development 
Code. Chapter 4, Recommended Transportation System Plan, includes Goal 13, which 
reiterates the intention to adopt the Coburg/l-5 Interchange Refinement Plan. 
In addition, Chapter 5, Plan Implementation outlines a Capital Improvement Project List 
for Coburg Transportation Improvements. Under "Medium Range Projects," the 
Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange is listed as a project. According to the TSP, the project 
includes rebuilding the interchange to modern standards. These include widening the 
structure to three lanes of traffic with shoulders for bicycles and sidewalks for 
pedestrians, and the profile grade will also be improved. Related access improvements 
and improvements to Pearl Street are also included. The total estimated project cost is 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 16 of 19 
$7,773,500. According to the project schedule, all improvements will be completed by 
2015. 
Findings 
The recommended alternative that is advanced by the IAMP is generally consistent with 
the project description outlined in the Coburg TSP, with additional interchange bridge 
lanes and accompanying policy and code measures. Cost estimates for the preferred 
alternative differs from the cost in the TSP; that difference, however, relates to time-
sensitive estimates that were prepared when the TSP was adopted and which are no 
longer relevant. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP is consistent with the Coburg Transportation System Plan Capital Project 
List. 
Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan 
As noted above, this Refinement Plan was adopted in order to provide a deeper 
analysis of the Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange than was possible during the general 
TSP process. The Refinement Plan was adopted in 1999 as part of the Coburg TSP. 
According to the executive summary, the intent of the Refinement Plan is to create a 
long range plan for the interchange and surrounding transportation system and land 
uses with public participation and to improve the function and safety of the interchange. 
The plan did not anticipate expansion of the Coburg UGB east of the interchange. The 
plan guides investment and program decisions for the City of Coburg, Lane County, and 
ODOT. The Plan includes multiple design concepts showing detailed preliminary 
analyses of traffic patterns, land use projections, and geometric designs. Major issues 
that were raised during the Refinement Plan process were: 
• The interchange is an obsolete structure, built in 1959; 
• The percentage of land uses in the surrounding area dominated by heavy 
vehicles 
• (trucks); 
• The undeveloped nature of the surrounding area, including large tracts of 
industrial and commercial land, that, if developed would severely degrade the 
operations, safety, mobility and access of the interchange; 
• A desire to improve safety and operations; and 
• A desire to lessen impacts of transportation improvements to local residents. 
• The adopted preferred concept, an enhanced diamond interchange, includes the 
following improvements: 
• The interchange structure is rebuilt and local street improvements enhance the 
safety and operations of the interchange terminals; 
• The bridge is rebuilt to modern standards that include a wider structure with 
shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, and traffic signals; 
• The ramp terminals are significantly improved; 
• Exit lanes from I-5 to and from the interchange are longer, wider, and will 
increase capacity for vehicles. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 17 of 19 
• Policy implementation includes Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and 
access management policies and guidelines. 
Findings 
The recommended alternative chosen in the IAMP is generally consistent with the 
Refinement Plan recommendations for the interchange. However, IAMP 
recommendations are based on updated population and employment forecasts and 
changes in state requirements, so the new interchange is recommended to be a 4-lane 
bridge diamond structure accompanied by an access management plan and policy and 
development code provisions to be adopted by the City of Coburg, Lane County, and 
the OTC. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the Refinement Plan. 
Coburg Zoning Code and Land Division Regulations 
Land in Coburg immediately adjacent to the Coburg/l-5 interchange is zoned Light 
Industrial and Highway Commercial. Further west within the IAMP area boundary and 
closer to downtown Coburg, land is zoned Mixed Use Master Plan, Public Facilities, and 
Traditional Residential. The list below briefly describes each of these land use 
designations. 
• Light Industrial - The Light Industrial designation is intended to provide areas 
for manufacturing, assembly, packaging, wholesaling, related activities, and 
limited commercial uses that support local industry and are compatible with the 
surrounding commercial and residential districts. The LI designation is intended 
to promote a high quality of life through a diverse economy and strong tax base, 
transition between higher and lower intensity uses, and appropriately scaled non-
polluting industrial uses that fit the small town, historic character of the 
community. 
• Highway Commercial - The Highway Commercial designation is intended to 
provide goods and services that primarily serve the traveling public. The C-2 
designation is intended to promote a high quality of life through a diverse 
economy and strong tax base, transition between higher and lower intensity 
uses, and appropriately scaled commercial uses that fit the small town, historic 
character of the community. 
• Public Facility - This designation is intended to provide lands for public facilities 
and uses such as water reservoirs, sewage treatment plants, pump stations, 
major electric utilities and similar uses. 
• Traditional Residential - The Traditional Residential designation is intended to 
guide development within historic and traditional neighborhoods of the 
community. The Traditional Residential designation is intended to provide a 
livable neighborhood environment, preserve the small town and historic character 
of Coburg, ensure architectural compatibility, and provide for a variety of 
residential housing choices (including medium density housing in designated 
areas). 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 18 of 19 
Findings 
The IAMP does not modify the purpose or uses allowed by the zoning districts that are 
found within the IAMP management boundary. Special policies and the alternative 
mobility standard may result in limiting development in the IAMP management boundary 
differently from areas outside the management boundary. This is an intended outcome 
of the IAMP to ensure the interchange functions over time. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP is consistent with the City of Coburg's development code and zoning districts. 
LCOG: L:\Small City Planning\COBURG\Jake Temp\Ord 199C & Findings Attach E.doc 
Last Saved: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 19 of 19 
A T T A C H M E N T F 
O R D I N A N C E N O . A - 2 0 0 D 
A N O R D I N A N C E A M E N D I N G T H E C O B U R G Z O N I N G C O D E T O I M P L E M E N T T H E 
C O B U R G / L - 5 I N T E R C H A N G E A R E A M A N A G E M E N T P L A N ( I A M P ) W I T H I N 
A R T I C L E VI I I S U P P L E M E N T A R Y D I S T R I C T R E G U L A T I O N S A N D IX S P E C I A L 
D I S T R I C T S 
WHEREAS, the State of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has enacted 
their authority to require the adoption and implementation of an IAMP prior to 
reconstruction of the Coburg/l-5 interchange; 
WHEREAS, the City of Coburg adopted a Transportation System Plan (TSP) on 
November 1999 (Ord. A-133L) that identified the need to develop and adopt an IAMP 
for the Coburg/l-5 Interchange; 
WHEREAS, notice of a Joint public hearing before the Coburg and Lane County 
Planning Commissions was sent via mail to all property owners within the IAMP Study 
Area and 300 feet beyond the Study Area, published in the Register Guard January 11, 
2009 and sent to all parties on ODOT's interested parties distribution list; 
WHEREAS, a second notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the 
Register Guard March 2, 2009 and was sent via mail to all property owners within the 
IAMP Study Area and 300 feet beyond the Study Area, and sent to all parties on 
ODOT's interested parties distribution list; 
WHEREAS, the City held a public hearing before the Coburg and Lane County 
Planning Commissions on January 21, 2009 and before the City Council March 10, 
2009, took testimony on this matter, taking said testimony into consideration in making 
its decision; 
WHEREAS, the Coburg Planning Commission unanimously recommended to City 
Council at the March 3, 2009 meeting to adopt the IAMP; 
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2009 Coburg City Council conducted a public hearing and 
first reading of the IAMP; and 
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009 Coburg City Council conducted a second reading of 
the IAMP; 
THE CITY OF COBURG ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 
Section 1. The City of Coburg Zoning Ordinance No. A-200C shall be amended to 
adopt the Interchange Area Management Plan as set forth in Exhibit A, which is 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 1 of 19 
incorporated herein by this reference, so as to comply with the Coburg Comprehensive 
Plan; Article IX Special Districts and Article VIII Supplementary District Regulations. 
Section 2. The City of Coburg acknowledges compliance with the appropriate State 
Planning Goals, and regional, county and local implementing regulations with the 
Findings of Fact shown as Exhibit B. 
Section 3. The City of Coburg Transportation System Plan (TSP) shall be amended 
to included the adopted IAMP at the time the TSP is next updated, so as to comply with 
the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and requirements of the IAMP. 
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any 
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is judged by any court to of 
competent jurisdiction or by the land Conservation and Development Commission to be 
invalid, the declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the 
Ordinance. 
This Ordinance, after public notices, hearings, Planning Commission and City 
Council deliberations, was upon motion and second, put to a final vote. The vote of the 
Council was: 
YES: 
NO: 
ABSTENTIONS: 
PASSED: 
REJECTED: 
Signed and Approved by the Mayor this 14th day of April, 2009. 
ATTEST: Judy Volta, Mayor 
Sammy Egbert, City Recorder 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 2 of 19 
EXHIBIT A 
Article IX: Special Districts 
Add the following new text: 
C. IAMP Area 
The purpose of the Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) Special District is to 
protect the function of the Coburg Interstate 5 (1-5) interchange area. The function of the 
interchange is to safely and efficiently accommodate future traffic demands associated 
with planned land uses within the IAMP boundary. In addition, the interchange will 
safely and efficiently accommodate future traffic demands associated with planned land 
uses outside the IAMP boundary. The IAMP boundary is defined in the 
Coburg/Interstate 5 Interchange Area Management Plan. 
In order to accomplish this, special regulations apply to all new development within the 
IAMP boundary. In addition to the access management and vision control regulations 
found in Article VIII(A), the following special regulations apply within the IAMP 
boundary. Where the IAMP regulations are more stringent, they supersede the 
regulations listed in Article VIII(A). 
1. Access Spacing Requirements (as required by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Policy 3C) 
a. When new approach roads are planned or constructed near the interchange, 
i. the first full intersection on a crossroad shall be no closer than 1,320feet 
from the interchange. Measurement is taken from the ramp intersection or the 
end of a freeflow ramp terminal merge lane taper 
it approach roads on the crossroad shall be no closer than 750feet from the 
interchange and will be limited to right-in, right-out only. 
b. Existing access that does not meet the standard must be abandoned at such time as an 
alternative point of access that complies with the standard becomes available. 
c. An exception to the above requirement will be made for the planned Roberts Road 
realignment. The realignment will result in a full intersection located in accordance 
with the adopted Coburg Interchange Area Management Plan. 
2. Traffic Impact Analysis Requirement 
a. For areas within the IAMP boundary, a traffic impact analysis will be required as 
pari of a complete land use application for any of the following: 
i. any development proposal that will result in an increase of 100 AM or PM 
peak hour traffic flow trips, or an increase of more than 600 average daily 
automobile trips. Trip calculation shall be based upon Trip Generation, 7th 
Edition (2003) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 
and associated handbook and user's guide, or a subsequent update to the ITE 
Manual if more than one year in print; 
ii. any plan amendment proposal, unless waived by the City Engineer as 
specified below; or 
iii. proposed development that will generate or receive traffic by single or 
combination vehicles with gross weights greater than 26,000 pounds as part 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 3 of 19 
of their daily operations. "Daily operations " includes delivery to or from the 
site of materials or products manufactured, processed, or sold by the business 
of the site. "Daily operations " does not include routine services provided to 
the site by others, such as mail delivery, solid waste pickup, or bus service. 
b. The City Engineer or designee may waive the traffic impact analysis requirements 
specified in Article JX(C) (2) (a) above, when: 
i. previous analysis has determined that the development proposal will not 
result in congestion, safety, or pavement structure impacts that exceed the 
standards of the agency that operates the interchange area; or 
ii. in the case of a plan amendment or zone change, the scale and size of the 
proposal is insignificant, eliminating the need for detailed traffic analysis of 
the performance of roadway facilities for the 20-year planning horizon. 
Whether the scale and size of a proposal may be considered insignificant may 
depend on the existing level of service on affected roadways. 
c. Traffic impact analyses shall be prepared by an Oregon-certified engineer with 
expertise in traffic and road construction engineering, and shall document 
compliance with the following requirements and guidelines: 
i. the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) for peak hour operating conditions shall not 
exceed 0.80 (from the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Policy IF: Highway 
Mobility Standards); and 
ii. the road design standards in Article VIII(F); and 
iii. the access requirements specified in Article VIII(A) and Article IX(C)(1) 
above; and 
iv. The goals and policies of the applicable transportation system plan. 
d. The traffic impact analysis shall demonstrate the following: 
i. for plan amendments and zone changes, that the performance standard 
specified in Article IX(C)(2)(c)(i) above for the affected road(s) will not be 
exceeded as a result of the plan amendment or zone change, within 20 years 
from the date the analysis was completed; 
ii. for other development, that the performance standard specified in Article 
IX(C)(2)(c)(i) above for the affected road(s) will be achieved immediately and 
for the next five years. 
e. If the performance standard in Article IX(C)(2)(c)(i) cannot be achieved or 
maintained as specified in Article IX(C)(2)(d) above, the analysis shall propose one 
or more of the following: 
i. road dedications and improvements for capacity increases; 
ii. implementation of demand management strategies; 
iii. other mitigation measures. 
f . Proposed dedications, improvements, demand management strategies and other 
measures proposed pursuant to Article IX(C)(2)(e) above may include but are not 
limited to the following: 
i. reconfigure roadway and side-street accesses to minimize traffic conflicts at 
intersections; 
ii. limit parking near signalized intersections to increase intersection capacity; 
iii. coordinate and operate traffic signals to improve traffic progression; 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 4 of 19 
iv. relocate driveways and improve local road connections to direct traffic away 
from intersections in order to optimize traffic progression on the state 
highway; 
v. improve turning radii at intersections that are heavily used by trucks to avoid 
lane blockages; 
vi install raised medians to reduce traffic conflicts; 
vii. improve accesses so that traffic can enter or exit the roadway with minimal 
disruptions of flow; 
viii. implement other transportation demand management or transportation system 
management measures to use existing capacity of the roadway more 
efficiently. 
g. Proposed dedications, improvements, demand management strategies and other 
measure pursuant to Article IX(C)(2)(e) shall: 
i consider the safe operation of affected driveways and public street 
intersections; 
ii. propose access locations as appropriate, consistent with the access 
requirements in Article VIII(A) and Article IX(C)(1); 
iii. demonstrate that the proposed measures will be completed in a manner 
consistent with applicable state and local policies and standards; and 
iv. include a description of how and when the dedications, improvements and 
other measures will be performed. 
h. Traffic impact analyses shall be developed in coordination with agencies such as the 
Oregon Department of Transportation or a city when the proposal requiring the 
analysis affects facilities in their jurisdiction. Dedications, improvements, and other 
measures proposed pursuant to Article IX(C)(2)(e) shall comply with adopted plans 
and requirements of the agency with jurisdiction for the affectedfacility. 
i. In addition to the requirements in this subsection, the Highway Capacity Manual 
published by the Transportation Research Board shall be used as the guiding 
standard for completion of the traffic impact analysis. The McTrans Highway 
Capacity Software package, or other approved software packages, may be used to 
complete the analysis. The Oregon Department of Transportation's SIGCAP 
software, or other ODOT-approved software is acceptable where the study scope 
includes analysis of both state and county facilities. 
j. Upon approval of the traffic impact analysis and proposed dedications, 
improvements, and other measures; requirements shall be completed at private 
expense, unless otherwise approved by the Director. Conditions may be assigned to 
ensure all requirements are completed. 
3. Future Street Plan Requirement 
a. A future street plan shall not be required for any portion of an area for which a 
proposed street layout has been established by either the Coburg Comprehensive 
Plan, or its implementing ordinances, or a future street plan previously approved by 
a hearing body. 
b. A future street plan is a conceptual plan in that its adoption does not establish a 
precise alignment. The plan shall demonstrate how access can be provided to 
adjoining parcels. The Director may require that a traffic study be submitted where 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 5 of 19 
access to the land division includes streets that are classified as a collector or greater 
functional classification status. 
c. Except as provided in Article IX(C)(3)(a) above, a future street plan shall be filed and 
reviewed as part of an application for a partition or subdivision. 
4. Type III Future Street Plan 
a. The City Council or Planning Commission may initiate a future street plan for any 
area which impacts traffic conditions inside the urban growth boundary, providing 
the street plan is given consideration through a Type II procedure. 
5. Recording and Filing a Future Street Plan 
a. Upon final approval, a future street plan shall be recorded with the County 
Recorder's Office as follows: 
i. Evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Director by the applicant; or 
if there is no applicant, the Director shall record the future street plan/ 
ii. Filed by the Director in the future street plan index, 
6. Revision of a Future Street Plan 
a. An approvedfuture street plan may be revised as follows: 
i. by the Director under a Type IIprocedure in conjunction with a land division 
application or by the Planning Commission under a Type III procedure; 
ii. by the City Council in conjunction with a revision of the Coburg 
Comprehensive Plan or implementing ordinances or resolutions. 
7. Criteria for Approval of a Future Street Plan 
a. Approval does not impede the future best use of the remainder of the property under 
the same ownership of adversely affect the safe and healthful development of such 
remainder or any adjoining land or access thereto. 
b. The future street plan complies with this code and its implementing ordinances and 
resolutions, and standards and policies of the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and the 
Coburg Transportation System Plan. 
c. Except as provided by the provisions of this code, approval as stipulated herein does 
not relieve the applicant from other applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised 
Statutes or contained elsewhere in this code. 
d. The future street plan shall adequately serve traffic with an origin in, and destination 
to, the area of the plan. 
e. The future street plan shall provide for the logical extension of streets, to serve 
circulation, and access needs within a district or neighborhood. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 6 of 19 
EXHIBIT B 
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 
Requirement: Goal 1 requires the development of a citizen involvement program that is 
widespread, allows two-way communication, provides for citizen involvement through all 
planning phases, and is understandable, responsive, and funded. 
Findings 
Task 2 of the IAMP included the development of a citizen involvement plan that allowed 
for involvement of citizens, stakeholders and public agencies throughout the duration of 
the project. The plan was a coordinated effort between the Contractor, ODOT, and the 
City of Coburg and included the Technical Advisory Committee, the general public, the 
Coburg Crossroads Stakeholder group, the Periodic Review Core Team, affected public 
agencies, transportation providers, and transportation interest groups. Two meetings 
were held with the Periodic Review Core Team, both of which were open to the public. 
Two joint meetings were held with the City Council and the Planning Commission, which 
were also open to the public. Two open houses were held to inform the public and 
gather their input; written notices were sent out prior to the meetings to invite 
participation. Written public comment was accepted throughout the project. Several 
individual meetings were conducted with property owners in the project vicinity. 
In addition, public notice for the hearings on this application will be provided through the 
City of Coburg and Lane County notification procedures. The public will have 
opportunity to review the application and staff report in advance of the public hearings, 
and to provide testimony at the hearings. A copy of the citizen involvement plan and 
actions taken to engage citizens in the planning process are included in IAMP Appendix 
A. 
Conclusions 
Based on the above findings, the requirements set forth in Goal 1 have been met. 
GOAL 2 : LAND USE PLANNING 
Requirement: This goal requires that a land use planning process and policy 
framework be established as a basis for all decisions and actions relating to the use of 
land. All local governments and state agencies involved in the land use action must 
coordinate with each other. With regard to this IAMP, ODOT is required coordinate with 
Lane County and the City of Coburg, both of which have planning authority over the 
impacted area. 
Findings 
Task 3 of this project involved a thorough review and analysis of all relevant state, 
regional and local planning documents in order to establish a planning process and 
policy framework for the IAMP. This information can be found in Memo #1, Plans and 
Policy Review (Appendix B). Throughout the project, the Contractor met with ODOT, 
Lane County and City of Coburg to discuss objectives, issues and concerns regarding 
the IAMP. In addition, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to guide 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 7 of 19 
the IAMP process. The TAC consisted of representatives from the City, County, DLCD, 
ODOT, and other local and regional agencies. The alternatives analysis was based on 
land use assumptions included in the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, and was consistent 
with forecasts included in the Regional Transportation Plan. 
Requirement: Land use decisions and actions must be supported by an "adequate 
factual base." It is required that there is evidence that a reasonable person would find to 
be adequate to support findings of fact that a land use action complies with the 
applicable review standards. 
Findings 
The IAMP adoption application has prepared a thorough factual base that demonstrates 
that this proposed action is consistent with the applicable adopted local plans, including 
the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. 
Requirement: City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and 
actions related to land use must be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities 
and counties and regional plans adopted under Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) Chapter 
268. 
Findings 
Task 3 of this project included a thorough review and analysis of all relevant state, 
regional and local planning documents, including the Lane County and Coburg 
comprehensive plans. The IAMP is consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan, as 
it is based on land use assumptions included in that Plan. The recommended alternative 
is consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan and traffic forecasts included in the 
Regional Transportation Plan. 
Conclusion 
Based on the above findings, the requirements set forth in Goal 2 have been met. 
GOAL 11 : PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 
Requirement: Cities and counties shall plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient 
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural 
development. The goal requires that urban and rural development be "guided and 
supported by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services 
appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbanizable 
and rural areas to be served." 
Findings 
The IAMP will amend the City of Coburg Transportation System Plan and adds a 
number of planned improvements at the interchange to the list of TSP projects needed 
to meet planned urban growth (IAMP, Section 5.2). The IAMP establishes special 
access management requirements for the interchange area to improve safety and help 
ensure traffic mobility is maintained (IAMP, Section 5.3). The IAMP also establishes a 
mobility standard for the interchange that limits growth in traffic to a level commensurate 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 8 of 19 
with the adopted population and employment for the city (IAMP, Section 6). These 
measures provide a basis for ensuring investment in public facility infrastructure is made 
in a manner that will accommodate the city's planned population and employment. 
Requirement: Goal 11 prohibits the establishment of sewer systems outside urban 
growth boundaries and the extension of sewer lines from within UGBs to serve lands 
outside UGBs, except where a new or extended system is the only practicable 
alternative to mitigate a public health hazard and will not adversely affect farm or forest 
land. 
Findings 
This IAMP does not propose the establishment of new sewer systems outside the urban 
growth boundary. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with Goal 11. 
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION 
Requirement: This goal requires cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, 
and ODOT to provide and encourage a "safe, convenient and economic transportation 
system." This is accomplished through development of Transportation System Plans 
based on inventories of local, regional and state transportation needs. 
Goal 12 is implemented through OAR 660, Division 12, also known as the 
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR contains numerous requirements 
governing transportation planning and project development. (See the "OAR 660, 
Division 12 section of this document for findings of compliance with the TPR). 
Findings 
The adoption of the Coburg IAMP will ensure that the interchange operates safely and 
efficiently. Task 7.1 of the IAMP involved a transportation analysis that was conducted 
in order to determine safety issues, future demand, capacity, deficiencies, and needs for 
this interchange area. The analysis demonstrates that the recommended alternative in 
the IAMP will be adequate to serve trips generated by future land uses. An alternative 
mobility standard is included in the IAMP to protect the interchange capacity in the case 
that interchange development occurs prior to the anticipated expansion of the Coburg 
UGB and simultaneous amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the 
IAMP's adoption by the city will amend the City of Coburg Transportation System Plan 
as required by city policy and the TPR for plans that implement local transportation 
system plans. Coburg development regulations recommended in the IAMP impose new 
limitations on access to major roads in the IAMP boundary and also require traffic 
impact studies for development projects that cause a significant impact to the function of 
the interchange (IAMP, Sections 7.1 and 7.2). Lane County will also adopt the 
IAMP as part of its Transportation System Plan through policy that recognizes the 
special regulatory and access limitations on land within the IAMP boundary (IAMP, 
Section 6). This alters the underlying regulatory framework that applies to new 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 9 of 19 
development in the interchange area regarding access and mobility standards that 
apply to new development proposals. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with Goal 12. 
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION, AND O A R 6 6 0 , DIVISIONS 14 AND 2 2 
Requirement: Goal 14 regulates urban growth boundaries. The goal provides that 
establishment and change of a UGB shall be based upon considerations of the following 
seven factors: 
• Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth 
requirements consistent with LCDC goals; 
• Need for housing, economic opportunities, and livability; 
• Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; 
• Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban 
area; 
• Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; 
• Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for 
retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and 
• Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. 
Additionally, O R S 1 9 7 . 2 9 8 establishes priorities for including land inside urban 
growth boundaries. The first (highest) priority for inclusion is land that is 
designated "urban reserve" land. The second priority is land adjacent to a UGB 
that is identified as "an exception area or nonresource land." The third priority is 
land that is designated as "marginal land" pursuant to ORS 197.247. The final 
(lowest) priority is land that is designated for agriculture, forestry, or both. 
Findings 
This IAMP does not involve any amendments to the Coburg UGB boundary. 
The EFU land in Lane County, within the Coburg Interchange management area, is 
lowest priority for inclusion into the UGB. While the proximity of this land to the 
interchange makes it susceptible over time to inclusion inside a UGB, such an action 
would need to be based on a demonstration of need and the application of the 
standards in ORS 197.298. The IAMP does include measures (alternate mobility 
standards) designed to protect the function of the interchange if it is constructed prior to 
a Coburg UGB expansion and Comprehensive Plan amendment. 
Conclusions 
The IAMP complies with Goal 14. 
Oregon Transportation Plan (1992) 
An IAMP must be consistent with the goals and policies of the OTP. OTP policies that 
are applicable to an IAMP are: 
• Policy 1B (Efficiency) 
• Policy 1C (Accessibility) 
• Policy 1G (Safety) 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 10 of 19 
• Policy 2B (Urban Accessibility) 
• Policy 4G (Management Practices) 
An IAMP must include an access management component that identifies approaches 
on the state highways within the management area and recommends any necessary 
access changes in order to protect the function of the interchange. 
Findings 
A plan and policy review was conducted as part of the IAMP planning process that 
identified relevant OTP policies (Appendix B). The IAMP addresses relevant OTP 
policies. 
Conclusions 
The IAMP complies with the OTP. 
Oregon Highway Plan 
The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) establishes policies and investment strategies 
for Oregon's state highway system over a 20-year period and refines the goals and 
policies found in the OTP. Policies in the OHP emphasize the efficient management of 
the highway system to increase safety and to extend highway capacity, partnerships 
with other agencies and local governments, and the use of new techniques to improve 
road safety and capacity. These policies also link land use and transportation, set 
standards for highway performance and access management, and emphasize the 
relationship between state highways and local road, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, rail, and 
air systems. The policies applicable to planning for the Coburg interchange 
improvements are described below, with impacts to interchange planning shown in 
italic. Under Goal 1: System Definition, the following policies are applicable: 
• Policy 1A (Highway Classification) defines the function of state highways to serve 
different types of traffic that should be incorporated into and specified through 
lAMPs. 
• Policy 1B (Land Use and Transportation) recognizes the need for coordination 
between state and local jurisdictions; Coordination with local jurisdictions 
occurred throughout the preparation of the IAMP. A Technical Advisory 
Committee (TAC) was formed to inform the IAMP. Members included 
representatives from the City of Coburg, LCOG, ODOT and Lane County. 
• Policy 1C (State Highway Freight System) states the need to balance the 
movement of goods and services with other uses; 1-5 is a designated freight 
route. Policy 1F (Highway Mobility Standards) sets mobility standards for 
ensuring a reliable and acceptable level of mobility on the highway system by 
identifying necessary improvements that would allow the interchange to function 
in a manner consistent with OHP mobility standards; and The purpose of the 
IAMP is to evaluate the operation of the Coburg Interchange, assess needs and 
problems, identify future long-range needs, and identify recommended 
improvements in order to ensure consistency with mobility standards. 
• Policy 1G (Major Improvements) requires maintaining performance and 
improving safety by improving efficiency and management before adding 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 11 of 19 
capacity. ODOT works with regional and local governments to address highway 
performance and safety. The current Coburg 1-5 Interchange Refinement Plan is 
adopted into the City TSP, and addresses the major investment críteria. The 
IAMP will continue to implement Policy 1G. 
• Policy 1H (Bypasses) establishes criteria for determining the need and impact 
considerations for a new bypass; directs the preparation of plans, management 
of access, and provision of local facilities for existing bypasses; and provides a 
checklist of considerations. 
Findings 
Under Goal 2; System Management, the following policies are applicable: 
• Policy 2B (Off-System Improvements) helps local jurisdictions adopt land use 
and access management policies; and The IAMP includes sections describing 
existing and future land use patterns, an access management plan, and 
implementation measures. 
• Policy 2F (Traffic Safety) improves the safety of the highway system. One 
component of the IAMP is identification of existing crash patterns and rates and 
to develop strategies to address safety issues, including access management 
and improvement of operational conditions to avoid backup onto the 1-5 mainline. 
Findings 
Under Goal 3: Access Management, the following policies are applicable: 
• Policy 3A: (Classification and Spacing Standards) sets access spacing standards 
for driveways and approaches to the state highway system; 
• Policy 3C (Interchange Access Management Areas) sets policy for managing 
interchange areas by developing an IAMP that identifies and addresses current 
interchange deficiencies and short, medium and long term solutions; The access 
spacing standard designated in the OHP for state highways within a UGB is 
1,320 feet from the ramp terminal. 
• Policy 3D (Deviations) establishes general policies and procedures for deviations 
from adopted access management standards and policies. The Access 
Management Plan component of the IAMP is consistent with adopted access 
standards. Intersections that do not meet access spacing standards - either in 
the intenm before the interchange improvements are constructed or after 
construction of interchange improvements - are included in Section 5 of the 
IAMP. 
Findings 
The IAMP includes policies that establish desired access conditions consistent with the 
OHP and regulations that require new development to alter existing access that is not in 
compliance with the desired condition (1,320'). A frontage road improvement east of the 
freeway interchange is planned to enable private development to comply with this 
requirement (IAMP, Section 5.3). Deviations - for intersections not meeting the 
standard in the interim before interchange improvement construction, and for some not 
meeting the standard after construction - are included in Section 6 of the IAMP. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 12 of 19 
Conclusion 
The Coburg IAMP complies with the OHP. 
OAR 660 Division 12 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 
The TPR requires local governments to adopt land use regulations consistent with state 
and federal requirements "to protect transportation facilities, corridors and sites for their 
identified functions OAR 660-012-0045(2)." This policy is achieved through a variety of 
measures, including: 
• Access control measures which are consistent with the functional classification of 
• roads and consistent with limiting development on rural lands to rural uses and 
densities; 
• Standards to protect future operations of roads; 
• A process for coordinated review of future land use decisions affecting 
transportation facilities, corridors or sites; 
• A process to apply conditions to development proposals in order to minimize 
impacts and protect transportation facilities, corridors or sites; 
• Regulations to provide notice to ODOT of land use applications that require 
public hearings, involve land divisions, or affect private access to roads; and 
• Regulations assuring that amendments to land use designations, densities and 
design standards are consistent with the functions, capacities and performance 
standards of facilities identified in the TSP. See also OAR 660-012-0060. 
• In addition to the requirements noted above, the TPR defines the interstate 
interchange area as containing property within one-half mile of an existing or 
planned interchange on an Interstate Highway as measured from the center point 
of the interchange; or as defined an Interchange Area Management Plan adopted 
as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan. This is the area in which 
planning and analysis for the IAMP takes place locally and in which local 
governments must comply with interchange-related state access management 
rules. 
Findings 
The IAMP planning process included a review of all relevant sections of the TPR 
(Appendix B, Table 1). Applicable sections of the TPR are addressed throughout the 
IAMP, including identifying the purpose and function of the interchange (Section 1), an 
assessment of existing and future conditions (Sections 2 and 3), an analysis of 
alternative solutions for meeting functional objectives (Section 4), and measures to 
ensure the plan addresses planned conditions including physical improvements, 
policies, and development regulations (Sections 5, 6, and 7). 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the Oregon TPR. 
OAR 734, Division 51. Highway Approaches, Access Control, Spacing 
Standards and Medians 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 13 of 19 
OAR 734-051 governs the permitting, management, and standards of approaches to 
state highways to ensure safe and efficient operation of the state highways. OAR 734-
051 policies address the following: 
• How to bring existing and future approaches into compliance with access spacing 
standards, and ensure the safe and efficient operation of the highway; 
• The purpose and components of an access management plan; and 
o Requirements regarding mitigation, modification and closure of existing 
approaches as part of project development. 
Section 734-051-0125, Access Management Spacing Standards for Approaches in an 
Interchange Area, establishes interchange management area access spacing 
standards. It also specifies elements that are to be included in lAMPs, such as short-
and long-range actions to improve and maintain safe and efficient roadway operations 
within the interchange area. The Access.Management Plan component of the IAMP 
(Section 5.3) includes plans for access closures and a frontage road to be constructed 
east of I-5. This section also includes deviations for intersections on Pearl Street and 
Van Duyn Road that will not meet adopted state access standards in the interim (before 
construction) as well as those that will not meet standards after construction, per OAR 
734-051-0135. 
Findings 
Section 5.3 of the IAMP outlines a detailed access management plan of the interchange 
area. Access spacing standards are designed around OPH and Division 51 spacing 
standards and are intended over time to shift access spacing in the direction of the 
applicable state standards. The plan also includes policies specifically aimed at 
improving access spacing and citing conditions in which access alterations must be 
made to bring conditions in line with state standards (IAMP, Section 6.1.2, Policy #10). 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with OAR 734, Division 51. 
Regional Transportation Plan 
The Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan 
(RTP) guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Central 
Lane MPO metropolitan area. Coburg was recently added to the MPO. The RTP 
includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of residents over a 20-year 
planning horizon while addressing transportation issues and making changes that can 
contribute to improvements in the region's quality of life and economic vitality. The City 
of Coburg and Lane County are two of the six jurisdictions participating in regional 
transportation planning related to the RTP. The following project related to the Coburg/I-
5 Interchange is on the RTP Capital Improvements List: The following project is on the 
"illustrative" list in the RTP, that is, it is considered a "needed" project but it does not fit 
with anticipated revenue over the life of the plan. The City is working at the MPO level to 
get the project on the Financial Constraint list in the near term. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 14 of 19 
RTP Project # 
and Category Name Location Description 
Responsible 
Agency Anticipated Cost 
1003-New Arterial 
Link or Interchange 
Interstate 5 
at Coburg Interchange 
Interchange 
Improvements ODOT $12,500,000 
According to the RTP, new arterial links or interchanges add new links or interchanges 
to the arterial or freeway systems in the region. Projects typically consist of any required 
right-of-way acquisition, general roadway construction, and addition of pedestrian and 
bicycle facilities either adjacent or parallel to the roadway. 
Findings 
The IAMP included an evaluation of RTP policies and planned improvements (IAMP, 
Appendix B). The IAMP provides Coburg the means necessary for elevating the 
interchange project on the RTP list of needed projects, especially the list of financially 
constrained projects, by addressing necessary planning requirements associated with 
securing state and federal funding for the improvements that implement the IAMP. In 
addition, the development of IAMP alternatives and selection of the recommended 
alternative were consistent with RTP traffic forecasts and policies. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the RTP; the Coburg TSP will need to be revised for RTP 
consistency. 
Lane County Transportation System Plan 
Lane County's TSP was adopted in 2004. The Plan contains an introduction to the 
concept of access management in the section of Chapter 4 entitled Access 
Management: Spacing of intersections and Driveways on County Roads, stating that 
"Implementation of access management techniques produces a more consistent traffic 
flow, helping to improve safety, while reducing congestion, fuel consumption and air 
pollution." (p. 27).In addition, the Goals and Policies section contains access 
management policies under Goal 3: Promote a safe and efficient road network through 
access management Policy 3b specifically addresses state facilities, noting that "for 
state facilities, the Oregon Department of Transportation controls access pursuant to 
Oregon Administrative Rules 734, Division 51." The TSP references Lane Code 15.130 
as containing the access management guidelines and spacing standards. The table 
below outlines the access spacing requirements for County Roads. The spacing 
standard for local roads outside of urban growth boundaries is 100 feet. The Lane 
County section of the IAMP study area only contains one road, Van Duyn Road, 
which is classified by the County as an urban local road inside the UGB and a rural local 
road once it leaves the UGB. The City of Coburg classifies it as a County Arterial. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 15 of 19 
Road and Driveways Spacing Standards 
for Lime Coimty Collector and Arterial Roadways (Feet) in the Lane Comity TSP (LC 15.138) 
Pasted Speed or 
Travel Speed* 
Principal 
Arterial 
Minor 
Arterial 
Major 
Collector 
Minor 
Collector 
>_55 700 475 475 325 
50 550 475 475 325 
40 & 45 500 400 400 325 
30 & 35 400 275 275 220 
< 2 5 400 200 200 150 
Chapter 6 of the TSP, entitled Recommended Improvements lists the improvements on 
Lane County Roads. The following table shows the project within the Coburg IAMP 
boundary; 
Table 2: Projects oil Lane Comity Roads 
within the C a b n r g I A M P managemen t a rea in the L a n e Coimty Transpor ta t ion System Plan 
Project 
# 
Road 
N a m e 
Limits Begi 
n M P 
E n d 
M P 
Lei ig 
th 
Source Descript ion Cost Status 
#28 
Peiirl 
Street* * 
Miller Street 
to 1-5 
0.244 0.64 .396 Coburg 
Urban Standards — Four 
lane faciliti1 with median 
treatments, curb, gutter, 
sidewalks, bike Iaties4 #B1 
$750,000 Complete 
Findings 
The IAMP includes requirements for traffic impact studies that are consistent with those 
required by Lane County (IAMP, Section 7). 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the Lane County TSP. 
Lane County Code 
Much of the land adjacent to and east of the Coburg/l-5 interchange is currently under 
the jurisdiction of Lane County. Land directly southeast of the interchange was recently 
annexed into the Coburg city limits, and is now designated as Highway Commercial. 
The land in Lane County jurisdiction is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - Rural 
Comprehensive Plan (E-RCP) zone, which allows corresponding appropriate farm-
related uses. The Lane County Code implements OAR 660-033. It allows four levels of 
minimum parcel size, E-60, E-40, E-30, and E-25. Land within the Coburg/l-5 IAMP 
boundary is zoned E-40, with a minimum lot size of 40 acres. 
Findings 
The IAMP includes a review of relevant sections of the Lane County Code and TSP 
(IAMP, Appendix B). The IAMP includes requirements for traffic impact studies that are 
consistent with those required by Lane County (IAMP, Section 7). The IAMP does not 
alter planned land uses or zoning for any properties within the IAMP management 
boundary. 
Conclusion 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 16 of 19 
The IAMP is consistent with the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. 
Coburg Comprehensive Plan 
Coburg's Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1978 and is currently 
undergoing periodic review, which is anticipated to result in Draft plan amendments. Per 
agreement with LCOG and ODOT, this review includes Draft amendments as of 2005. 
Therefore, the 2005 PROPOSED policy amendments to the Coburg Comprehensive 
Plan are incorporated into the following review. Goal 9, Economy of the City includes 
the following policy relevant to the Coburg/l-5 IAMP. 
• Policy 4: A "Highway Commercial" district will be located adjacent to the 1-5 
interchange. The purpose of the Highway Commercial Plan designation is to 
provide goods and services that primarily serve the traveling public. Uses in this 
area will preserve the small town and historic character of Coburg, by having 
compatibility in architectural design and scale with the Centra! Business District 
and/or Residential designations. Development of the Highway Commercial 
District shall be considered secondary to the development of the downtown area, 
however. 
Findings 
The policy advances a city preference that the Highway Commercial district applies to 
land the general vicinity of the interchange. The policy is not specific with regard to 
access distances or uses that would compromise interchange operation. 
Goal 12, Transportation includes the following policies relevant to the Coburg/l-5 IAMP: 
• Policy 3: Improve the aesthetics of streets and streetscapes, especially at City 
entrance ways such as Interstate 5 interchange area. Aesthetic improvements 
may address: street design, trees, lighting, utility lines, sidewalks, park strips, 
noise abatement, etc. 
3.1 Improve major through-fares with beautification and scenic amenities, 
coordinating with other agencies and jurisdictions as necessary. 
3.2 Identify and improve city gateways and entranceways with beautification and 
scenic amenities, coordinating with other agencies and jurisdictions as 
necessary. 
This policy identifies the importance of the 1-5 interchange as a gateway to Coburg that 
needs aesthetic improvements. No specific location has been identified to date as the 
"gateway". No projects are designated on the CIP related to this policy. 
Findings 
The policies do not conflict with the proposed access limitations or design features 
planning in the IAMP. 
• Policy 13: Improve the Coburg-lnterstate 5 Interchange safety and 
transportation operations. 
13.1 The City shall adopt and coordinate with ODOT and Lane County to 
implement the ODOT Coburg-lnterstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan, which 
includes but is not limited to: 
o A preferred interchange alternative, 
o An interchange access management plan, 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 17 of 19 
o A recommended TDM program that shall be fully implemented before 
interchange reconstruction, and 
o An assumption that current City and County comprehensive land use 
designations at and near the interchange are constant for the next 20 
years. 
This policy supports coordination with Lane County and ODOT to adopt the Coburg/l-5 
Interchange Refinement Plan, which is discussed in more detail below. 
Findings 
The policy is supportive of IAMP objectives and operational objectives. 
• Policy 36: The City shall not expand the UGB east of Interstate 5 until the City 
has sufficient clarity on the configuration, timing, and cost of the interchange 
upgrade to conclude that adequate transportation facilities will be in place to 
serve future development 
The area immediately southeast of the Coburg/l-5 interchange was annexed into the 
UGB in 2004, but maintained the County zoning designation. City zoning designation to 
Highway Commercial occurred November 2007. 
Findings 
The policy is consistent with the IAMP. Traffic analysis did not assume UGB expansion 
to the east. The policy also is consistent with IAMP policies that enact an alternative 
mobility standard for the interchange that would support levels of traffic consistent with 
the city's adopted land use plan, and protect the capacity of the interchange in case the 
interchange is constructed prior to any UGB expansion and Comprehensive Plan 
amendment by Coburg. 
• Policy 41: The exception area immediately east of the Interstate 5 interchange 
shall have an established trip generation baseline upon annexation of the 
property. The trip generation baseline shall be for average daily trips (ADT), 
weekday AM peak and weekday PM peak trips, based on ITE Trip Generation 
Manual and inventory of uses is as shown in Exhibit 2 and is incorporated as 
policy by reference. 
• Policy 42: All new development proposals and/or redevelopment proposals in 
the exception area immediately east of Interstate 5 that exceed the baseline trip 
generation established upon annexation shall be required to apply for a city plan 
amendment application and meet Statewide Goal 12, Transportation Planning 
Rule, in particular Section 0060, and develop a transportation analysis to 
determine the impact on the interchange and on County Roads. The County may 
require a traffic impact analysis and road improvements consistent with the Lane 
County Transportation System Plan goals and policies and with County 
requirements for roads in Lane Code 15. The new site development or 
redevelopment shall be required to measure the following trip impacts for all 
three of the following: 
o Weekday PM peak hour trips between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 18 of 19 
o Weekday AM peak hour trips between 6:00 am and 9:00 am 
o Average Daily grips for the entire area in question. 
• Policy 43: In the event that Interchange Refinement Plan is completed and 
adopted in the Coburg TSP or Interchange Area Management Plan is developed 
and adopted, the exception areas immediately east of Interstate 5 shall be 
included in the plans and shall be governed by the results of that plan. 
Notwithstanding this provision, a traffic impact analysis, road dedications and 
road improvements may be required for new development affecting County roads 
in this area. 
Related to Policy 43, above, the Interchange Refinement Plan was completed and 
adopted in 1999 as part of the planning and adoption process for the 1999 Coburg TSP. 
The IAMP management area includes the areas of Lane County directly east of the 
interchange, which has been designated by the County for exclusive farm use (E-40). 
For a specific description of the uses within the IAMP boundary, see Section 111, Existing 
Land Use. 
Findings 
IAMP alternatives were based on land use assumptions contained in the current 
adopted Coburg Comprehensive Plan. The policies listed above are generally 
consistent with the alternative mobility standard and other policies that are enacted 
through the IAMP, and with land use assumptions used in the IAMP traffic analysis. 
Future land use applications in the IAMP management area would trigger policies in the 
IAMP that require the development either to mitigate traffic impacts to perform within the 
adopted mobility standard/alternative mobility standard for the interchange or proceed 
with local amendments to the city and county land use plans and the IAMP. The IAMP 
will be adopted by Coburg - establishing an IAMP Overlay area - which will address 
concerns expressed in the policies above regarding traffic impact analysis, access and 
other requirements for development. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP is consistent with the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. 
City of Coburg Transportation System Plan 
The City adopted a Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 1999. In order to implement 
the TSP, the City made amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development 
Code. Chapter 4, Recommended Transportation System Plan, includes Goal 13, which 
reiterates the intention to adopt the Coburg/l-5 Interchange Refinement Plan. 
In addition, Chapter 5, Plan Implementation outlines a Capital Improvement Project List 
for Coburg Transportation Improvements. Under "Medium Range Projects," the 
Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange is listed as a project. According to the TSP, the project 
includes rebuilding the interchange to modern standards. These include widening the 
structure to three lanes of traffic with shoulders for bicycles and sidewalks for 
pedestrians, and the profile grade will also be improved. Related access improvements 
and improvements to Pearl Street are also included. The total estimated project cost is 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 19 of 19 
$7,773,500. According to the project schedule, all improvements will be completed by 
2015. 
Findings 
The recommended alternative that is advanced by the IAMP is generally consistent with 
the project description outlined in the Coburg TSP, with additional interchange bridge 
lanes and accompanying policy and code measures. Cost estimates for the preferred 
alternative differs from the cost in the TSP; that difference, however, relates to time-
sensitive estimates that were prepared when the TSP was adopted and which are no 
longer relevant. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP is consistent with the Coburg Transportation System Plan Capital Project 
List. 
Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange Refinement Plan 
As noted above, this Refinement Plan was adopted in order to provide a deeper 
analysis of the Coburg/lnterstate 5 Interchange th'an was possible during the general 
TSP process. The Refinement Plan was adopted in 1999 as part of the Coburg TSP. 
According to the executive summary, the intent of the Refinement Plan is to create a 
long range plan for the interchange and surrounding transportation system and land 
uses with public participation and to improve the function and safety of the interchange. 
The plan did not anticipate expansion of the Coburg UGB east of the interchange. The 
plan guides investment and program decisions for the City of Coburg, Lane County, and 
ODOT. The Plan includes multiple design concepts showing detailed preliminary 
analyses of traffic patterns, land use projections, and geometric designs. Major issues 
that were raised during the Refinement Plan process were: 
• The interchange is an obsolete structure, built in 1959; 
• The percentage of land uses in the surrounding area dominated by heavy 
vehicles 
• (trucks); 
• The undeveloped nature of the surrounding area, including large tracts of 
industrial and commercial land, that, if developed would severely degrade the 
operations, safety, mobility and access of the interchange; 
• A desire to improve safety and operations; and 
• A desire to lessen impacts of transportation improvements to local residents. 
• The adopted preferred concept, an enhanced diamond interchange, includes the 
following improvements: 
• The interchange structure is rebuilt and local street improvements enhance the 
safety and operations of the interchange terminals; 
• The bridge is rebuilt to modern standards that include a wider structure with 
shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, and traffic signals; 
• The ramp terminals are significantly improved; 
• Exit lanes from I-5 to and from the interchange are longer, wider, and will 
increase capacity for vehicles. 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 20 of 19 
• Policy implementation includes Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and 
access management policies and guidelines. 
Findings 
The recommended alternative chosen in the IAMP is generally consistent with the 
Refinement Plan recommendations for the interchange. However, IAMP 
recommendations are based on updated population and employment forecasts and 
changes in state requirements, so the new interchange is recommended to be a 4-lane 
bridge diamond structure accompanied by an access management plan and policy and 
development code provisions to be adopted by the City of Coburg, Lane County, and 
the OTC. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP complies with the Refinement Plan. 
Coburg Zoning Code and Land Division Regulations 
Land in Coburg immediately adjacent to the Coburg/l-5 interchange is zoned Light 
Industrial and Highway Commercial. Further west within the IAMP area boundary and 
closer to downtown Coburg, land is zoned Mixed Use Master Plan, Public Facilities, and 
Traditional Residential. The list below briefly describes each of these land use 
designations. 
• Light Industrial - The Light Industrial designation is intended to provide areas 
for manufacturing, assembly, packaging, wholesaling, related activities, and 
limited commercial uses that support local industry and are compatible with the 
surrounding commercial and residential districts. The LI designation is intended 
to promote a high quality of life through a diverse economy and strong tax base, 
transition between higher and lower intensity uses, and appropriately scaled non-
polluting industrial uses that fit the small town, historic character of the 
community. 
• Highway Commercial - The Highway Commercial designation is intended to 
provide goods and services that primarily serve the traveling public. The C-2 
designation is intended to promote a high quality of life through a diverse 
economy and strong tax base, transition between higher and lower intensity 
uses, and appropriately scaled commercial uses that fit the small town, historic 
character of the community. 
• Public Facility - This designation is intended to provide lands for public facilities 
and uses such as water reservoirs, sewage treatment plants, pump stations, 
major electric utilities and similar uses. 
• Traditional Residential - The Traditional Residential designation is intended to 
guide development within historic and traditional neighborhoods of the 
community. The Traditional Residential designation is intended to provide a 
livable neighborhood environment, preserve the small town and historic character 
of Coburg, ensure architectural compatibility, and provide for a variety of 
residential housing choices (including medium density housing in designated 
areas). 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 21 of 19 
Findings 
The IAMP does not modify the purpose or uses allowed by the zoning districts that are 
found within the IAMP management boundary. Special policies and the alternative 
mobility standard may result in limiting development in the IAMP management boundary 
differently from areas outside the management boundary. This is an intended outcome 
of the IAMP to ensure the interchange functions overtime. 
Conclusion 
The IAMP is consistent with the City of Coburg's development code and zoning districts. 
LCOG: L:\Sm_aJ} City Planning\COBURGVIake Temp\Ord 200D & Findings - Attach F.doc 
Last Saved: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 
PA-01 -09 Ordinance A-199C Page 22 of 19 
^ 1 J 
i.vy I vi 
WäiBm 
^ '• > o \)H\yçh 
u . ' \ 
:-0 < •> 
o 
Î ! 
-S 
% 
•il 
u 
.IK, '> 
O f - . . ;; Jl1 
O i • 1 
[ J ¿ i l ¡ 
rs 1 ' fi