[Ord. 10-1241B, § 5]
A. 
When a city or county proposes to amend its comprehensive plan or its components, it shall consider the strategies in § 3.08.220A as part of the analysis required by OAR 660-012-0060.
B. 
If a city or county adopts the actions set forth in § 3.08.230E and Title 6 of the UGMFP, it shall be eligible for the automatic reduction provided in Title 6 below the vehicular trip generation rates reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers when analyzing the traffic impacts, pursuant to OAR 660-012-0060, of a plan amendment in a Center, Main Street, Corridor or Station Community.
C. 
If a city or county proposes a transportation project that is not included in the RTP and will result in a significant increase in SOV capacity or exceeds the planned function or capacity of a facility designated in the RTP, it shall demonstrate consistency with the following in its project analysis:
1. 
The strategies set forth in § 3.08.220A(1) through (5);
2. 
Complete street designs adopted pursuant to § 3.08.110A and as set forth in Creating Livable Streets: Street Design Guidelines for 2040 (2nd Edition, 2002) or similar resources consistent with regional street design policies; and
3. 
Green street designs adopted pursuant to § 3.08.110A and as set forth in Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Street Crossings (2002) and Trees for Green Streets: An Illustrated Guide (2002) or similar resources consistent with federal regulations for stream protection.
D. 
If the city or county decides not to build a project identified in the RTP, it shall identify alternative projects or strategies to address the identified transportation need and inform Metro so that Metro can amend the RTP.
E. 
This section does not apply to city or county transportation projects that are financed locally and would be undertaken on local facilities.