HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication PLANNER 7/23/2008
,
, '
,
S 2 DLCD
Notice of Adoption
THIS FORM MUST'BE MAILED TO DLCD
WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFfER THE FINAL DECISION
PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660 - DIVISION 18
Jurisdiction: City of Springfield Local file number: LRP2007-00010
Date of Adoption: 7/21/2008 Date Mailed: 7/23/2008
Wa'!> a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? Select oneDate: 2/27/2008
~ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 0 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
o Land Use Regulation Amendment 0 Zoning Map Amendment
o New Land Use Regulation 0 Other:
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached",
The comprehensive plan was amended to allow fill in the'Greenway Setback in support of a non-water related,
non-water dependent use (1-5 permanent replacement bridge). In addition, an exception to Goal 15 was taken to
allow a non-water related, non-water dependent use in the Greenway Setback area of 1-5 permanent
replacement bridge
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Please select one
No
Date Received
Plan Map Changed from:
Zone Map Changed from:
Location:
Specify Density: Previous:
Applicable statewide planning goals:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
~~DDDDDDDDD~DD~DDDD
to:
to:
, J U L 2 3 2008
Planner: BJ
Acres Involved:
New:
Was an Exception Adopted? ~ YES 0 NO
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment..
45.days prior to first evidentiary hearing?
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply?
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption?
~Yes
DYes
DYes
DNo
DNo
DNa
)
OLeo file No.
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts:
. .' \
Local Contact: Greg Mott
Address: 225 Fifth Street
. City: Springfield
Zip:
Phone:. (541) 726-3774 Extension:
Fax Number:
E-mail Address:gmott@ci.springfield.or.us
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
This form must be mailed to OLCO within 5 workinl! davs after the final decision
per ORS 197,610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18.
1. Send this Form and TWO Comnlete Conies (documents and maDs) of the AdoDted 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, but you may also subr tit
an electronic copy, by either email or FTP. You may connect to this address to FTP proposals and
adoptions: webserver.Icd.state.or.us, To obtain our Usemame and password for FTP, call Mara Ulloa at
503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailingmara.ulloa@state.or.us.
,Xi, 1~!Ple~e'Note: Adopted materials must be sent to OLCO not late~ than FIVE (5) working days
following the date of the [mal decision on the amendment.
~ Di., ,..'... ','
4.
Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the.text of the amendment plus adopted findings
, and supplefuentary 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 daje,
the Notice of Adoption is sent to OLCO.
6:
In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to OLCO, 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.usl. Plea::e .d
print on ~-1/2xll f!reen Dauer onlv. You may also call the OLCO Office at(50W.zi;Q0~Dr,~,e
your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa@state.or.UCAA.'Prt:Nt'ibN:
PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. JUl 'l. \\ Z008
P\anner: BJ
:.:"
ORDINANCE NO.~ ?227
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TEXT, CHAPTER
III, SECTION D, POLICY D.ll; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE
PLANNING GOAL 15 WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
WHEREAS, ChaPter IV of the _Eugene-Springfielg Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) sets,f6rth procedures for amendment of:the Metro Plan, which are
implemented for Springfield' by Chapter 5, Section 5.14~100 through 5.14-155 of the
Springfield Development Code, for Lane County by Lane Code 12.225(2)(a & b), and for
Eugene by Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3); and
WHEREAS, on February 1,2008 the Oregon Dep'artment of Transportation
(ODOT) submitted an application to the City of Eugene fora Metro Plan text
amendment, an,Exception to Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway for the 1-5 Willamette
Bridge Project;' and '
WHEREAS, ajoint public hearing of the planning commissions of the City of '
Springfield, the City of Eugene and Lane County was held,on April 29, 2008 to accept
testimony on this matter; and on June 3, 2008 the three Planning Commissions held a
joint public meeting to consider the testimony and evidence entered into the record of this
matter. Following the June 3, 2008 meeting the Springfiel9 Planning Commission
forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council on the request
for an exception to statewide Goal 15 and amendment of Chapter III, Section D, Policy
D.ll of the Metro Plan; and '
'i'
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council conductbd ajoint public hearing on
this amendment on June 24, 2008 with the Eugene City Coimcil and Lane County Board
of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based' upon the above
recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the
evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the:record demonstrating that the
proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, the Springfield Development Code,
, and applicable state and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit A, and
, whi~h are;adopted in support of this Ordinance.
,.:, ',,;~.; ;,,:: "'" v..' b \
~ ....,\1i'1..... \.....'I".~. ."'1' ~(~1
.. ~ "1.;0.,' I; " '1' " ..": ~
"
, ,'"
~{( "
(" - I ~ ."
I,
~ ~ .
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
,','.:ft,.;~;;:}(;:.~, ',,.i! 1,:. .';'.
Planner: B~
,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Metro Plan Policy 0.11, Chapter III, Section D. is hereby
amended to read and provide as follows:
'0,11 The taking of an exception shall be required ifa non-water-dependent
transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River
Greenway setback.
"An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway
was approved for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for
purposes of removing and replacing the decommissioned 1-5 Bridge, the
temporary detour bridge and the Canoe Canal bridge with two new parallel
bridges (one southbound and one northbound) within the 1-5 right-of-way
crossing the Willamette River and Canoe C~nal and within the Willamette
River Greenway Setback Line. The exception authorizes construction and
'later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and
detour bridges; construction ofthe two replacement bridges; reconstruction
of the roadway approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of
the project area; and completion of any required mitigation of project
impacts. In association with these tasks, the exception further authorizes
within the WilIamette River Greenway Setback Line the addition and
removal offill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal offill within a
temporary slope easement east ofl-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6)'WilIamette Greenway
and the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part ll(c) for a
'reasons' exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted
as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy D.ll, Chilpter lll, Section
D." ,
, Section 2: The Metro Plan is hereby amended to include the fmdings of fact and
conclusions ofJaw supporting a "reasons" exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and
demonstrating compliance with OAR 660-004-0015,660-004-0020 and 660-004-0022(6)
attached hereto as ExhibitA, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3: The findings set forth in attached Exhibit A are adopted as findings in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
, jurisdiction, s~ch pO,rtion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independellolproviS\Ot1, . ' A
and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereuate neCelVe'l
",~\ ,,~..,.. .~\~~ ....'. ,;; -l
,....,\J"'~,' l~"'Jl'il ,.qq,; '1
:;l..' .f\1H,_If--:f, . '_''1 -.r. .~. .
JUL 2 3 2008
'r.n '" I"
. 0' ilJ1 r, ~. ll.'l
Planner:B,)
't c:,
:: ..;-:
"'1'-.. {p,... ,-,. .. ..6- .
. '-,j'" lit,' ,1'-'," ,
I..",.. -;' .,_'>" ;
ORDINANCE NO. &~~S 6227
. ,
Section 5: Notwithstallding the effective date of otdinances ~ provided by
Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the
Mayor, or upon the date of its acknowledgement as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever
date is later, provided that by that date the Eugene City Council and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances contaiJ1ing identical provisioris to
those described in Sections I and 2 of this Ordinance,
Adopted by the Common Co.uncil of the City of Springfield thi~ 21st day of July,
2008 by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. (1 A;bsent)
Appro""by the May" Of""r);:l~'-:' ""y of July, 2008.
'Mayo~ U
.,
ATTEST:
~~
City Record@ , "
RE~IEWED & APPROIIED .
AS TO fORM
...f).a/ t!/~
DATE: _!~/J ,/"'~
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
" .
:: 11i:;l,1>,~q, .1"\;';, f.:'<;'\' .-
..r.. Y' ~ .... Ii;, .. '! ~, . ~' .' ,> .
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
~1nf'" }~ \ lj il
. t . .1., .' \, .> ~ _
Planner: BJ '
, ,.J:".~: .'-l l:~ ~ ': ( ~~. <:;, c~
ORDINANCE NO. -6-2-2116227
CITY OF SPRJNGFLEt,D, OREGON
225 FIFTH STREET. 'SPRINGFIELD, OR 974n . PH: (541)726-3610 . FAX: (541)726-3689
Date:
July 17, 2008
To:
Interested Parties for 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project
From;
GregoryMott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield
You are receiving this information because you are included on the interested parties list for
consideration of the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT's)"land use applications for
the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project (City of Springfield J:ile LRP 2007-00010). The
application before the City includes Metro Plan text amendments and adoption of an exception to
Statewide Planning Goal 15. City Council action on these items is scheduled for July 21, 2008 at
7:00 p.m. at Springfield City Hall, Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, oR. 97477. ,
This letter provides you with notice that on July 10, 2008, Eugene City Councilor Anne Ballew
and Mayor Sid Leiken received information at a meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee
. related to ODOT's applications. The information went beyond the scope of the information
included.in the public record established for ODOT's land use applications pending with the City
and therefore, may be considered an ex parte communication. The information the Mayor and
Councilor received can be reviewed at; htto://www.lanecountv.om/WebCastLCOGlDefault.asox.
The general content of the communication will be disclosed at the Springfield City Council's
, July 21, 2008 meeting. Persons wishing to rebut the substance of the communication may
provide written testimony limited to such rebuttal, or may appear at the July 21, 2008 City
Council meeting to do so orally.
Written rebuttals may be submitted to the attention of Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, at 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477. All written submittals mUst be received by 5:00 p.m. on
July 21, 2008.
. ,- ..... . . \:: __--'.~.',...tv.
" ...,,' " It.J\.lrl :..' :.l: "
HJ,.... " .'- ;,l
.....' -'
. ,,:~--<-;
"",1.:'-.
" .
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
r;Ct~; 1,~' I, I
, Planner: 8,,1
F'1"
Exhibit A
~
. ~;~.
~~1'
Findings
r ~ : '
1-5 Willam~tte Bridge Project
(Eugene rdesMA 07-3, RA"08-1j
Springfield file LRP2007-00010j
Lane County file PA08-5~30)
Metro Pllm Te'Jt A.mendment 8r. Gl'al1l:.;.e~ntiun IMA 07-3. LRP2007-00010. PAOll-5230\
. ",..", .... ~ ,-_.... ~.. .."
, ' .
. The proposed amendment inchides an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 'lIIld a Metro Plan
text f""."tl~':.llt to allow fill within the WilllllDetteRiver b>~~-"~Y for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge
Project The project includes replacement of the Interstate 5 bridges over the Willamette River and
Canoe Canal (p.."~..v- Slough), including construction and later removal of one or more tempormy
bridges, demolition of the original and detour Willametle River, and Canoe Canal bridges,
. construction of replacement bridges, reconstruction of the roadWay. approaches to the bridges,
" rehabilitation of project !II'lia. and completion of any required mitigation:
Eugene, Springfield' and Lane County each adoptedldentical Metro Plaq amendment criteria into
their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Eugene COde 9.7730(3), Springfield
Development Code Section Chapter 5, Section 5.14-100 through 5.14-155, and Lane Code
, 12:225(2)(11 & b), set forth the corresponding Metro Plan llIDendment criteria. sinCe Eugene is the
lead j~sdiction on this application, those criteria are ,addressed' below under the Eugene Code as
follows:
Engene Cude (EC) Sectiun 9.7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) be
applied tu a Metro Plan text amendment: . .'
. i1' ,
(a) The amendmeflt must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adoptedhy the
Land Conservation and Developmeflt Commission; and 1, .
, . I
,Goal I Citizen Invulvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
. for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process."
The' City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvcri1ent that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
ii1volvement The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for
reyiewing-these amcndmentscomplies'with Goal I since it complies. with, and surpasses the
requirements of; the citizen involvement provisions. . '
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal I by requiring that notice of
the proposed amendments be given and puhlic hearings be held prior to adoption. As a Type I, site
specific Metro Plan amendment, consideration of the amendments begins with a joint City of
I .~'., i ~~Findinp-lune2008.
'~'I'"I."'!I,t""iP8"1.~' ~
. ,,' ".. 0..,...\ I
'110(
- ATTACiiMENT A ~ PAGE- 4:' '
....-.. - . -. -,-
Date Received
JUL 23 znns
\'..
Planner: BJ
DateReceiV'3~
, : JUL,??, 70,08, .
Eugene, City ~f Springfield and Lane County Planning ColJ;llllission public hearing on April 29, '
2008. '
Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, on February 27, 2008, the City mailed notice of
the proposed plan amendments to the Dep,artment of Land Conservation and Development, as
, required by the Eugene Coae and in acconlance with Stale statutes.. Referrals concerning the
pending appliCations were sent to the Oregon Department ofTransportation(OD01), City of
Springfield, Lane County, the affected Neighborhood Associations (Lamel Hill Valley Citizens and
the Harlow Neighborllood Association), and to City departments. On March 14, 2008, notice of the
joint Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant, and ownen; and occupants
, of ...v..".;y within 300 feet of the subject p~perty, the affected neighborhood groups in all ~
juIisdictions and other interested parties such as the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park.
, On March 26, 2008, notice was also posted in accordlll1ce with EC 9.7415(5) and 9.7735(1). On'
March 14, 2008, notice of the joint Planning Commission public hearing was also published in the
Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. An additional joint public hearing before f!1e
elected officials of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane Comity will be scheduled
following Planning,Cor;nmission action. Notice to interested and affected parties will ~ be
provided for thatheariJ1g.
In '''.l'v..5e to the public notice, letters of written testimony have been received, including
comments from two of the affected Eugene neighborhood groups; the Laurel Hill Valley CitizeJ)s
, (LHVC) 'and the Harlow Neighborhood Association (HNA). Responses to these comments are
provided under the ............:are.criteria below when: applicable. . -
Additionally, the federal em :...____LJ process applicable to ibis project provides additional
opportunities for public involvement incl~p1iblic meetings, open houses, newsletters, public,
comment period on thC Environmental Assessment, and establishment of a Community A~
Group. These, efforts will _u':".1e public, involvement outside of the land use application process,
consistent with this Goal.
The processes used by Eugene, Springfield and Lane CountY including mailed, posred aild '
published notice (as well as posting on the City of Eugene web page) for reviewing these
amendments complies with 1;:"';. ,,,;de Planning Goal I, since it complies with and surpasses the
requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions. '
Goal 2 - Land Use Planninl!,; To e:s/ahlull,a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisiollS and ac/iollS related /0 use of land and to asSIITe an adequate fat:tual base for ,
:such deci:siollS arui actiollS.'
Parr] - P1Q1l1li1lg , ,
, ,Part lofGoal2 requires that actions re1atedto land uSe beco;mstent with acknowledged '
comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The Ewrene-SnriIllmeld Metronolitlln Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-m.l<il1gin this area. Tbe
'Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning
goals. These findings and record show that then: is an adequate factuilI base for decisions to be
made concerning the proposed amendments. Goal 2 requires that pi8ns be coordinated With the '.
" , " ~Finding1- June 2008
~;',. ;H:'..\'\~2~-~/."~::'
I-I"" I
'.e ~l". }o....' I."
-----. . --- - - ..'-..,...-.
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 5
, .
, '>J,
"~~ I
""\,'
"
. Plan\,"
"
\
"
'I.....,..:..
"
, U:,j
. .
"I
,
plans of affected governmental units and thiit opp........:;;cs be ~vided for review and comment by
affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City
coordinated the review of these amendments with all affected governmental units. Specifically,
notice waS niailed to the State Department ofLand Consei'Vlllion and DcvelopIDent, Oregon
D""...~,ent ofTransportation (ODOT), Lane County, and the City of Springfield, Lane County and
the City iif Sjirfugficld are participating in this amendment." " I." ,
~.::
/
.....
.~:.
Part II - Exceptions '
Piut U of Goal 2 provides the conditions and standards for which a local jurisdiction can adopt an
exception to a statewide goal. Relevant to this request is Statewide Planning Goal IS, WIllamette
River Greenway which does .not iillow non water-dependent, non water-related uses, such as the
proposed fransportation facility, within the greenway setback without receiving an exception.
Because a goal IS exception is required by D.11 of the Metro Plan., it is unnecessary to determine if
Goal IS itself would require such an exception. The need for a goal exception is specifically
triggered by PolicyD.lI of the Metro Plan. Willami:tte River Greenway, River CoIridots, and
" - I"'
W llterways Element, which states: ' ...',' ,: '
,'i,
'.
, -
"
D.ll The taking of an exception shall be reqUired ifa non-wtiter-dependent transportation
facility requires placing offill within the Willame~e, River Greenway setback.
An =:eption to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was
tipprovedfor Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 1-5 right of way
crossing the Willamette River and .within the Willamette RilIer Greenway Setback
L!iJe. for purpose of constructing a temporary det(?ur bridge.' implementing the
conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Apprcwal (Springfield JOlJ17l/l1 SHR
2003~001l5) and removing the temporary detour bridge after completion of the
permanent replacement bridge. This =:eption satisfies the criteria of Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willameire Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part lI(c) for a 'reasons' =:eption; and
, pursuont to OAR 660-004-0015. is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro
Plan tat, Policy #D.ll. Chapter III. Section D, .
The taking of an ....~"r;;on is consiStent with Policy D.II as the r.vrv..a1 includes the placement of
fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback for a non-watel-dependeD.t transpOrtation ,
facility, m;!d is consistent with the Goal IS exception previously laken for the temporary bridge. as
described under Plilicy D.ll above. To acknoy.'ledge the I-S.Willamette Bridge Project, Metro Plan
Policy D.ll is proposed to be amended as follows in bold: ' :! ,
An exception to StateWide Planning Goat IS Willamerte River Greenway was approved
for Oregon Department of Transportation (OD()l}f~r purposes of removing and
replacing the decommissioned I-S bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe
Canal bridge with two new parallel bridgeS (one southbound and one northbound)
wi~in the 1-5 right-of-way crossing the Willamette River and Canoe Canal aDd within
the Willamette River G. ---"''''J' Sethack Line.,The ex~eptioD authorizes construction
'and later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned I-S Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour
. ,;.\ \,,1. f., ' ~'.' :(, : " " '.. ,. Date Received
'StaffFindiilgs-June"2001 '
1'~;: ~3,., JUL23 Z008
.'
u < l~
, .
J!I"t <
"
- .'., -.-----..: - ._-~_.
~:rr^.~~NT A - PA.~~~~~S
Planner: BJ
,!
!' .
'.
bridges; constrill:tion.ofthe two repI8cement bridges; reconstruction of the roadway
approaches to the bridges{I-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area; and
,completion of any required mitigation of project impacll. in association .with these
tasks, the exception further authorizes within the W.nBmette River Greenway Setback .
Line the addition and removal of fill within OOOT right-of"way and the removal of rill
within a temporary slope eBIIement eBIIt of 1-5. This exception'satisfies the t. ::..1.... of
Oregon AdminL~ ., ~~ ,: Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), Willam.ette Greenway, ana the
" exception requiremenll of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part II(c) for a "reasons"
exception, and pursnant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to
the Metro, Plan text, Policy D.ll, Chapter 111, Semon D.
ID complialice with Metro Plan Policy 0.11, the following provides analysis fora 00al15
exception.
'.
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) administrative rule govemUig goal
exceptions, OAR 660-004-0022(6), states that within urban areas, the proposed siting of us.es that
are neither WaIer-dependent nor water-related within the Willamette River greenWaY sethaclc area
requires exceptions. The rule states the following:
(6) Willamelte Greenway: Within ,an urban QTeD duignated on lhe approved Willamette
Greenway Boundary maps, tliB .riting of rau which are neither, water-dependent nor water-
related within the setbacli: line required by Section C3.k of the Goal may be "YY' ~ ,Jq where
reasons demonstrate the following: '
(a) The rae will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway Wuues of the
site IIlUkr construction or on adjacent land or water areas;
(b) The .rae will nOt significantly reduce the sites available for waier-dependent or
waJer-'related raes within the jurisdiction;
(c) The rae will provide a siJinificant public benefit; and , .
(d) The rae is consistent with the Legislative findings and policy in OM 390.314 and
lhe Willamelte Greenway Plan ..yy' ~ ~ed by LCDC IIlUkr ORS 390,322. .
,;
. The leCjuirements for Goal exceptions are outlined in OAR 660. Division 4 and are as follows:
OAR 660-004-fJ018 PlaMtng and Zoningfor Exception Areos
, (4) "Reasons',' Exceptions: .
(a) When a local government takes an exception IIlUkr the ,"Reosons" section of
OM 197, 732(l)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone
designations mrat limit the raes. density, public facililiuand services. and
activities to only those that are jratiJkd.in the exception;
, . - ". "
. "::..If, .,l;- "{-;! "
, ;-1'
;'\.. -.,
',: _i",';';;"1'~" . ~ ,> ~_".
. J, 1-.~r~! .! ~ c ,:- ': \, -
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 7
Date Received'
JULZ 3 2008
Pla'rinet':a~~~.;"
,Staff Findings - June 2008
r\;'.:\~4:,'
. .
,
(b)When a local gov., .~.._,~ changes the types or'in/ensities of uses or public
facilities and seM1ices .withiil an area approved as ~ "Reas07lli" exception, a new,
. "Reas07lli" exception is required;, '
.s.
. -:t.
i
The' taking of goal exceptions requires and'results in amendments to,the Metro Plan (ORS
'197.732(19 defines an "exception" as a comprehensive plan proviSion, including.anamendment to
an acknowledged comprehensive.plan). The exception provides for the continuation of the existing
use ofI-5 by motor vehicles for interstate mobility and commerce pwposes. The new 1-5
Willamette River bridges are needed to accommodate that use.
The new bridges will be replacement bridges to.the deco~oned 1-5 bridge and Canoe Canal
bridge, which are part Of the 1-5 interstate highway facility whose existence is identified in the
TranspIan. As such, the new bridges will not be providing a use that does not already exist.
OAR 660-004-0022 Reasons Necessary to JuStifY an Exception Under Goal 2, Part lI(c)
Anaceptirm under Goal 2, Part lI(c) can be ttZJrenfor any use lIDt allowed by the applicable
goiJl(s). The types of reas07lli that may or may lIDt be used.to justifY certain types of uses not
allowed on reso//Tce lands are set forth in the following s~ctions of this rule: 'n
..~
/
'.
. .
, (6) Willamette GreefIWay: Within an //Tban area designated on the approved Willamette
G!'eefIWay Boundary maps, the siting of uses which are niilhlil' water-dependent lIDr water-
related within the setbac/dine requited bySecfion C.3.kofthe Goal may,be approved where
'reas07lli demonstrate the following:
~I
(a) The use wi/lnot have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the
site under C07llilderation or on adjacent land or w'!ter areas:... '
The new bridges WOuld be located in the same I~cation as the d~""......issioned and detour bridges,
although they would require minor shifts of alignment and reconnection of portions of the Franklin
Boulevard northbound and southbound on and off ramps as dictated by bridge design. The
Whilamut Natural Area. of Alton Baker Park lies west of the 1-5 right-of-way in Eugene and the
Eastgate Woodlands portion of the WhilamutNatural Area lies east of the 1-5 right-of-way in
Springfield. Since the project area includes portions of both parks where they are adjaCent to 1-5 and
north of the Willamette River, lIDless otherwise dL...~:':ated, this area will be referred to as the
Whilamut Natural Area. and Eastgate Woodlands for the remainder. of these findings. The axea
adjacent to ODOT's right-of-way is used as open space. This ami contributes to ,the .."";.."':on or"
natural, scenic, and recreational.,.......,;ay values, including fish l!nd wildlife habitat, WIl1er quality,
, .."u~';onfrom flooding, and Public recreation.' . " '
Because the replBcementbridges and ~iated fill will be locatl:d within existing ODOT right-of-
way, which is outside oftheWhiJsmut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands, there will be no
reduction in the amount of permanent open space available at the parks. Because the bridges replace
an existing, structuraIIy defective bridge and existing 1-5 facility,there will be no change in use of .'
this lIfe!L Existing park and river users are accustomed to experiencing interstate travel at this
location. The bicYcle-pedestrian path linking Eugene and Springfield will coDtinue to traverse
~.t ' .
" .
.' ____.___.. __ JI
_ .-',~.~c:~~,~A~PAG,E,ii..
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
. Planner:BJ
~ '.' ".~r. \ ,.J ,', .: - .: .
; ~, : I ' " '.,'" SIIifl"Findings _ June 2008
Page 5
'.
OD01's right-of-way below the new bridges. Public access to the river will not be affected in any
significant long-term manner and ".w;.....;,;on to riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat will be
maintained to the greatest possible eXtl:Dt. Additionally, specific development details will be ,
reviewed for m;;,;m;Ung impacts through compliance with applicable ...".w.J. criteria, related
standards and lIIIY neCessary cOnditions of approval, as further reviewed under local permittin,g
, ...w~essuch as the Willamette Greenway and Water Resources Conservation Overlay. Zone. .
The applicant acknowledges that the project will create some short tenD impacts to Wlllamette . ,
C......~"..I values during cons1ru.ction. Staging for bridge construction is likely to occupy up to five
acres of park open space for up to four years. The bicycle/pedestrian path crossing OD01's right-of-
way will be closed for periods ofup to a few days at a time; however, another path under the Canoe
. CanB.1 Bridge, located ...."..:...:mately600feet to the north of this path, would remain open during
any closures to accommodatC bicycle and,pedestriantraffic.
, The ne\>" rePl~ent bridges will span the Wlllamette River and Canoe Canal. Piers will be plll!led
in the Willamettli River to support the bridge structures. The new bridges will each have one pier
near the centCrofthe river and one on or near the south bank, but no piers will be Jocatedin the
Canoe Canal. By comparison, the dL--....issioned bridge has five piers in the water. and the detour
bridge has six, so the new bridges will provide a substantial net reduction in piers ___.........1 to the
existing number. At a Cw_w_..;.JlI! level, any %eduction in the number of piers ,will have a positive
rather than adverse effect on n:creationaJ use of the river, consistent with this standard.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to implement a plan to prevent construction debris from
dropping into the Willamette River. At a conceptual level, with the reduction in the number of piers,
the new bridges spanning the Canoe Canal, and the cons1ru.ction measures proposed, the
replacement bridges will not have an adverse affect but will hRve a positive affect on recreational
use of the river, consistent with this standard. '
Regarding environmental ~sources, at the conClUsion of bridge construction, jill placed for'the .
detour bridge and for temponuy work bridges will be n:moved and those areas willbe .....;~....i. .
Bridge constrtJction and demolition, including construction and n:moval of asSociated temponuy
work platforms, will impact riparian, _...:"':'on within the greenway (see Figure 6. Approximate
Vegetation Disturbance Areas). However, ODOT's temponuyeaSement for use ofEastgate
Woodlands requires ODOT to restore the property within 5 years of completion of the permanent
replacement bridges. The applicant also proposes seveia1 construction, site piep8ration, post ,
development, and coordination measures to m;n;m;?" impacts to natural resOurces discussed under
, Metro Plan Policy E.2, which is inCw...w.~ herein by reference. MditionaJ1y, preliminary data
. indicates that there will be a net decrease of31.000 cubic yards offill in the Willamette River
(30,000 cubic yards offill added and 61,000 cubic yards offill n:moved; application, page 5). With
the exception of a few of the temporary storage areas, the replacement bridges are proposed within
existing ODOT right-of-way which reduces impacts to non~.......w."";on utilized areas. Based on
these measures. affects on environmental ....'u.:..~, will be m;n;mi:>P.<! and mitigated. Furthermore,
additional review of detailed site plans during the federal, state and local processes will require
IiJitigation as .."".~".;ate, subject to applicable standards. '
Regar4ing scenic values of thi: Willamette River ... u........ay, the reduction in the tollll number of
piers and in the number of piers within the Willamette River will improve views of the river and, as
l _,..,..~
.. ~
,:, !
--.-----.-
" ,~1]~~~~~A:'-~~~E-~_
Date Receivt1!d
JUL 23 200~
Planner: :f:1;j
,.
, :; ,),,<;~;';ft}h\~;"'J;";'200B
. Pagc6 .
.Ftl~i': '". , .\: i
such, contribute to a positive visual impact Also; because a key cOnsideration of the project is
providing.an aesthetically pleasing solution that recognizes the scenic beauty of the project an:a,
ooor has considered a range of bridge types and pier options, taking clirefully into consideration
community input obtained through a public process. At this phase, ODOr has developed two
conceptual Schematics illustrating thi: new 1-5 bridges, but ODoThas not developed detailed
". ~ ei1gii1.eCriD.g dCSigifplails. U1t:QDately, selection ofthi: bridge type'for each segment will be . - ,
dependent priniarily on aesthetic considerations and budget The applicant has indicated the public
input on the. design.wilI also be provided through other public outreach efforts.
While construction activities will temporarily impact greenway values, with the reduction in piers
and fil1, the location of the bridges in the existing right-of-way, Br1li the mitigation measures
proposed by the applicant, the new 1-5 Willamette River bridges Will. have no significant adverse
effect on the &....... ,,'By values of ODOT'sright-of-way Cd' any) or the adjacent park lands and water
areas, consistent With this standard. Additionally, specific construction and ~i'...~;';onal details
regarding mitigation ofripariim impacts will be "t'i'.~".;ately addressed during local permitting
processes, subject to applicable "i'...u,.J criteria and related standards.
(b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites tivailable for water-dependent or
water-related uses within the juriSdiction;. ,..
The two new replacement bridges Will. not reduce any sites available for water-dependent or water-
related uses in Eugene or Springfield because the bridges will be constructed entirely within the
same existing ODOr 1-5 right-of-way where the decommissioned 1-5 bridge and temporary detour
bridge are located. The new bridges will have one pier each near thecentcr of the river and one pier
on or near the south bank (the Canoe Canal on the north side wouid be spanned completely and ,
these bridges will be perched on fill associated with the roadway). In contrast, the decommissioned
bridge bas five piers in the water, and the detour bridge has six. At a conceptual level, a net
reduction in piers in the water will be beneficial for water-dependent uses. Therefore, in the context
of a plan amendment, this standard is met '
(c) The use will provide a significant public benej;r; and u.
1-5 is the primary north-south highway corridor serving Califomi~ Oregon, and Wasbingro'n. The
facility. provides for the significant movement of people, freight, imd other services; and serves as
the backbone for iriternati.onal, inteJstate, and intrastate coDlIIleTl!e. The applicant notes that on
average, approximately 49,000 vehicles cross the Willamette River through the Eugene/Springfield
area on 1-5 eacbday, with numbers reaching greater than 63,000. Approximately 16 to 18 percent of
daily trips are made b>: tractor trailer rigs hauling freight By the year 2030, 1.5 is expected to
,accommodate ....."...Jmately 13,000 daily vehicle trips. The connectivity and mobility that 1-5
provides to both the local community and to intrastate and interstate travelers constitutes a
significant public beriefit This facility is recognized in the 1999 oregon Highway Plan and iD
rransPIare Therefore this standard is met.' I' ' .
(d) The use is consistent with the Legislativefindiilgs and policy in ORS 390.314 cznti
the Willamette Greerrway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.322.
. i~
.~' ,;\.~ \ '.,
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 10
.--.-.-. ... -,..
Date Receivec I
JUL 2 3 2008
, Planner: BJ .
" ";..)' 'F'/SnlIfl:"iDdiDgs-lunc2oo8
Page 7
';, .1'
'.
The legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.3 l4.are:
OIlS 390,314. Legislativefinilingsandpolicy
"
(I) The Legislative Assemblyfinds that, to protect andpreserve the naturat scenic,
and recreational qualities of larids along the Willamette River, to, preserve and
restore historical sites, s~Jacilitie3, and objects on lands along the
Willamette River for public eduJ:ation and e,goymenJ and to further the state policy
established under ORS 390.010, it is in the public interest to develop andm~ain a
natural, scenic, historical, and recreational greenway upon lands along the
Willamette River to be known as the Willamette River GreenWay.
As previously stated, the 1-5 Willamette River bridge predates the adoption ofGOaIl5: As an
element on-5. the bridge is provided for in TransPlan, which has been acknowledged to be in ,
, compliance with all statewide planning goals. Construction of the replaCement bridges and removal '
of the deconmiissioned Canoe Cana1 and detour bridges will tCmpormily affect tr~.... ".ay values
during construction. H", '~I.._, as discussed under Goal 6 (air, water quality, land), GoalS . '
. (recreation) and Metro Plan Policy E.2 (environment), and the remainder of these findings. the
applicant proposes several measures to reduce or mitigate environmental and .~."";;'ona1 irilpacts,
and the reduction of piers and fill will have a positive affect on scenic resources along the
Willamette River Greenway, cOnsistent with this standard. Additiona1ly, specific construction tmd
operational details will be ........vt'.:ately addressed during local pem1itting processes, subject to
applicable "'t'>'~'" ,...1 criteria and related standards.
. . (2) In proViding for the development and maintel1/1llce of the Willamette River..
Greenway, the Legislative Assembly: .
(a) Recognizi~g the needfor Coordinated pliurningfo~ such greenway, finds it
necessary to proVide for developmenJ and implementation of aplimfor=h .
greenway through the cooperative efforts of the state and units of local gtWenvnenJ.
. The State of Oregon and units of local government" including Lane Cowity. and the cities of
Springfield and Eugene, have' coopemted in the implementation of tr~~'''''',,' planning as req,uired
. by legislative,intcnt. The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge ReplacementProject, subject to this
application, is and will be jlermitted through this established local and statewide greenway planning
pro~ '
~ 1
(b) Recognizing the need of the people of this state for existing reSidential,
commerCia~ and agricultural use of lands along the Willamette River, finds it
'7Iecessary to permil the continuation of existing uses of lands that are im:luded'
within such greenway: but, for the benefit of the people of this state, also to lir,nit the
,inJensification and c1umge in the use of =h lands so that such wes shall remain. to
the greD:test possible degree, compatible with the preservation of the natural, scenic,
historical and reereatioila1 qualities of such lands. .
,-As previously stated, 1-5 811(\ the 1-5 Wlllamette River bridge predate Goal 15. Like the original
.. . ,.. ,.- h .
'" C'~ :t-~''"1r{< (~."r:.' t .
. - - '. ,'_.' ~ . '.. I .... "
Staff Findings -1U11e 2008
",,-, ,Page 8
L.,. . ~. . .
Date Receivel j
,.,-..
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 11 .
. JUL,2 3 2008
'. .
./'.-
-.'",,": 'j'"
. . I . f.
......-.- .-.... .-,,-
Planner: B~J.!
I
bridge, the replacement bridges and their approaches will be located within OD01"s established 1-5
right"Of-way, thus avoiding significant adverse effects on the greenway and ...~-" ~y values, , '
consistent with this policy. Furthermore, as discussed under Goal 6 (air. water quality), Goal 8
Recreation and Me1ro Plan Policy E.2 (environment), and the remainder of these findings, the
applicant proposes severaI measures to reduce or mitigate environmental and recreational impacts,
and 'tlieri:duction of piers and fill will ha'\lea: positive affect on scenic resources along the
Wi1Jamette River Greenway, consistent with this standard.
(cl. Recognizing that the use of lands for farm use is compatible with the purposes of
the Willamette ,River Greenway,jinds that the use oflantisfor farm use should,
continue within the greenway without restriction. : "
"
The 1-5 Wiliamette River repJacement bridges will be located entirely within the urbanized area: of
Springfield and Eugene, and not upon or near farm land within the greenway boundary. For this,
reason, the project will in no way ilT'J""ie the continuation offlllJD uses within the greenway,
consistent with this policy. '
(d) Recognizing the 'need for central coordination 'oj such greenWay for the best
interests of all the people of this state, finds it necessary to place the responsibility
for the c(Jordination of the development and maintenance of such grunway in the
State Parks and Recreation Department,
Constructing the 1-5 replacement bridges in no way limits or changes Oregon State Parks'
n:sponsibilitiesfor the coordination of the development and main~ of the greenway.
(e) Recognizing the lack of need for the acquisition offee title to all lands alo,!g the
Willamette River for exclusive public use for recreational purposes in such
greenway, finds it necessary to limit the area within sUch greenway thDJ may be
, acquiredfor state paTh and recreationalaTeas andfor pUblic recreational use
within the boundaries of units oflocolgovernment along the Willamette River.
The replacement bridges and .......u..ches will be located within exisilitg public right"Of-way that has,
been used for interstate highway purposes since before the enacttilent of the Willamette River
greenway statutes and Goal 15. The land is in the public domain imd will remain in the public
domain after completion of co,nsttuction of the new replacement bridges and demolition and
removal of the decomunssioned bridge, CanoeCanaJ bridge, and detour bridge. Therefore, the
...u}'u.ed project will not increase or decrease the amount ofland available for acquisition for slate'
parks and ;..........;;onaJ areas or for public recreational use within :the boundarieS of units of local
government aiong the Willamette River. Temporary staging area,s outside of public rights"Of-way
will be rehabilitated to their previous state. ' " " , ,
'-
Th~~L~,an ~..';"..;:Oll ti:lGoal15 is warranted for the reasons stated above, specifically OAR 660-
0040-0022 (6)( c) and consistency ,with the remaining reasons, for the placement of fill within the
...~~....'Ry setback for the 1-5 WllIamette Bridge Replacementl'roject. Goal exception requirements
are as follows: " " , ' ~: , "
. . . i'
'~" ':':- ': ,.1'>StaffFmclings~lunc2008
Page 9 '
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 12
.. -..--. -_.~- -.-. ----'-~-~--'-_..-:--"
'.
.... ,,'
,
..' "
.
, r ~
OAR 66O-Q04-0020 Goal 2, Part n(c), Exception Requirements
. (1) If ajurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 66.0-004..()022. to use
resource lands for uses not aIlawed by the applicable, Goal or to allaw public facilities. or
services not allawed by the applicable Goal; the justification shall be set forth in the .
, comprehensive plan as an exception. '
The reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022(6) an: set forth above to allow the construction of
the 1-5 Willamette River aild Canoe Canal rcplllCCIl\ent bridges and thei:emoval of the .
d,-~.issioned bridg~ existing Canoe CaruiI bridge, and tempormy detour bridge, including the
phicement of fill needed for the new bridges or for tempormy work bridges required to construct the
new bridges or remove the decommissioned or detour bridges. The justifications an: set forth in the
c.._>,.~::'ensive plan as an exception consistent with this rule,
(2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part lIre) ~equired tobe addressed when taking an exception
to a Goal are:
(a) "Reasonsjustify w1g1 the state policyemhodied in the applicable goals should not
apply"; The exception shall set forth the facts and assUmptions used as the basis for
determining that a stale policy embodied i7l.a goal should not apply to specific
properties or situDtions, including the amount of landfor the use being pla~d and
w1g1 the use requires a location on resource land:
The reasons j1lStifying why the replacement bridges should be pcnnittcd within t1ie greenway
setback area, and wby associated fill should be permitted, are those addressed above in the analysis
dem~....~.~ compliance with the criteria. in OAR 660-004-0022(6). An exception to the Statewide
Planning Goal 15 is necessary to allow additional fill to be placed in the &.........ay per Metro Plan
Policy 0.11. Here, ........~..:matCly 30,000 cubic yards offill will bep1aced within ODOT's existing
1-5 right-of-way, while approximately 61,000 cubic yards offill will be removed, resulting ~ a net
decrease of 31,000 cubic yards offill in the Willamette River.
Except for a few acres of park land needed temporarily for staging construction, all development
will occur within ODOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way. which is not resource land The bridges require
a lOcation over the Willamette River greenway becauSe 1-5 already exists both north and south of
. the Willamette River and the highway cannot practicably be relocated to avoid crossing the river.
, (b) "Areas whkh do not require a new eXception cannot reasonably
accommodate the,use";
"
(A) The exceptio" shall i1ulicate on a maP Dr ~therwise describe the location
of possible alternative areas cO'lSideredfor the use, which do not require a
new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified;
(B) To show w1g1 the particular site is justified, It is necessary to discuss why
other areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably ,
accOmmodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE13--
Date Received
JUL 23 2008
Staff Findings- June 2008
Page 10 .. '
.----.--- .
P'an'ner:.9~~'
. .
with other relevant factors 'in determilling that the Use =t reasollDbly be
accommodated ill other areas. Ullder the alter/IQtive faJ:tor, the follow~/lg ,
qUestions shall be addressed: '
(i) ~ the proposed use be reaso/IQb1y accommodated Oil
/IOlIreSOl/f'ce land that would nol require Q/I aception. includillg.,.
increasing the density of uses' Oil 1I0nresOl/f'ce land? If /lOt, why /lOt?
(ii) CQ/I the proposed use be reasollDbly accommodated Oil resol/f'ce
,land that is already irrevocably committed to /IOnTesol/f'ce uses, 1I0t
allowed by the applicable Goal, including resol/f'ce land ill existillg
rural ce/lters, or by increasillg the density of uses Oil committed
lands?If/lOt, why /lOt?
(iil) Can the proposed use be reaso/IQbly accommodated inside Q/I
I/f'bQ/l growth bouru:lmy? If /lOt, whY,lIot? '
(iv) CQ/I the proposed use be reasonably aa:ommodated without the
provisioll' of a proposed public facility or service? If not, why /lOt?
(C) This alternative areas standard Cllfl be met by a broad review of similar types
of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local
governme/lt adopting Q/I exception need assess ollly whether those similar types of
areas in the vicinity could not reaso/IQbly accommodate the proposed use. Site
specific comparisons are /lot required of a local government taking an aceptioll,
ll1lless another party to the local proceedIllg can describe why there are specific sites ,
that can more reasollDbly accommodate the proposed use, A dettiiled evaluatiOIl of
specific alternative sites is thus /lOt required unless such sites ari specifically
described withfacts to support the assertion thattfre sites are more reasonable by
another party during the local aceptions proceeding.
The applicant states that 1"5 replacement bridges IIl'll needed because the decommissioned bridge is
structurally unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to accommodate anticipated traffic
volumes over the long term. nor does it meet current seismic stalidards, The replacement bridges
, and their approaches will be located' entirely within ODOT's.existing 1-5 right-of-way. Because the
Willamette River is quite wide in the vicinity ofI-5, piers will again be needed within the sethack
area to support the proposed replacement bridges; howeverifewer piers will be used compared to
existing conditions. In addition, fill is required ,to support the '"t'". w..cl1es to ,the new bridgeS;
including the new bridges over the Canoe Canal.
Given, the non-water dependent and non-water-relatednature of the use, and given that fill would be
required fOr pier support and bridge .......w..chesregardless ofwliere in the vicinity the bridges ,are
located, there are no alternative sites crossing the Willamette River that would not also ri:quire a
, new exception. It is noted that the proposed rise will be located inside an urban growth boundary on
land that is neither agricultural nor forest land. By remaining within the existing ODOr right-of- "
way, the project avoids significant impacts to park lands. Because transportation ;"'y,u{emcnts,
"'.",
ATTACHMENT A-:"- PAGE-i40-:
--------
----
Date Received,
JUL 23 2008
J;' ~ . " .'
, " staffFinlliD8s"'-June 2008 '
"P \'\',Ir< \t. I'
,age .."
I , _~~ ~ :
"... .
.'
"
,....;...
, .
'Planner: BJ
!'
. .
, including bridges, are consid~ public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accommodated
without the provision of the proposed public facility. Analysis regarding possiblealtemativeJlites is
discussed further under subsection (c) directly below, which isinc."""...tW herein by reference.
i~
,~-'
".-;
(c) The long-term environmental, economiC, social and energy consequenCes
. .. 'resulting from the .use at the proposed site with T1UUlSures designed to reduce adverse
impacts are not significantly more tidverse than would typically result from Ihe same
proposal being locaJed in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception
shall describe the cluzra&teristics of each alternative areas considered by the
jurisqictionfor which an exception might be takin, the typical advantages and
, disadvantages of using the area for a lISe not allowed by the Goal, and the typical
positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with
measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific
alte1'fllllive sites is not required rmless such sites are specifically described withfa&ts
to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts "
during the. local exCeptions proceeding. The exception shall indude the reasons why
the consequences of the lISe at the chasen site are not significontly more adverse
than would typically result from the same.proposal being located in areas requiring
a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are. not
limited to, the facis used to determine which resOllTct land is least productive; the
ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed lISe; and the long-ierm economic
impact on the general area CQIISed by i"~rsible remoVal of the landfrom the
resource baSe. Other possible impacts include the effects of-t1le prlJposed use on the
water table, on the costs of improving roads aird on the costs to special service
districts;
~>
'.;
I:.
.~.
".
,
No other sites requiring exceptions are~g considered for this use. This is because the use is not a
new.use, but rather the replacem.ent of an elcisting, structurally deficientbridge within an existing
right-of-way. Locating the replacement bridges witliin the existing right.:of-way is both neCessary
and practicable because that right-of-way lines up with the existing 1-5 approaches to the north and
south., Relocating the bridge replacement project outside the existing 1-5 right-of-way would require
ODOT to relocate the "t'1"~..hes at considerable additio~ cost and iinpact to !lot only the
greenway, but also to protected park and ,,,,,,,,,,;:onal resources, including the Whilamut Natural
Area and Eastgste Woodlands. Further, relocating the bridge could require the cl!l= of ono or
, more existing interchanges or ramps, result in demolition of residences and businesses, and result in
a hazardous geometry due to the presence of immovable geologic features, A1temati~ bridge, '.
alignment,locations to the north or south of the existing footprint and right-of-way were dismissed .
from further analysis due to thefollowmg impacts: . , ' "
· Right-of-way would need to be acquiroo from Alton Baker,Park, which is prohibited under
Section 4(f) of the federal Department of Tran..l'u, ;";:on Act of 1966 ~ess there are no
other prudent and feasible alternatives.
· "Right-of-way would need to be acquired from homes ~d1or businesSes on the south side of ,
the river that would not be required if the highway remains on its current alignment.
· A shifted highway would be closer to existing homes, resulting in higher noise and visua1
~~.' ,
· ' Major high-tension power transmission Jines are~located on both sides of the bridge and one
";:;5,i ,/"".-S1iIlfj:iJjdiilgs 4ii.., 2008.
i.' ".\. -r,"." ". . -.., "
, " Page 12 ",
("nr;.~ ;: it
0.
- ___.. ~_ __0_-
Date Rel"oiUed
Jl~L. }!~': 2008,
.'
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 15 .
I -'.~
--...:.------.---..- - -..-----
,'; :: . ..:~::lt;_<,
, I, ~, ,of I ~ .
''"-', .
Plan-1?))'" "~" ~
.!1 ':"~:i~l 'J -~;..)!
, would need to be relocated if the alignment was shifted.
. -
Given the replacement nature of this project, the fact that crossing the Willamette River at some
location is unavoidable, and ODOT's inability to realign 1-5 on adjoining lands based on federal
restrictiollS protecting park lands, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to .re-using the
eXistirig 1~5 right-of-way. ACcOrdingly, inti:rlrisofeeonomic, social; environmental, and energy.
consequences, there' are no areas warranting c.u~J'''':SOn. 1-5 is an importllnt highway in the State of
Oregon and freight corridor on the west coast The connectivity and mobility it provides statewide,
intt:rState, and regional travelers provides tremendous benefits both economically and socially. The
ability to rebuild within the existing ODOr 1~5 right-of-way m;n;m;7es energy coIlSUlllptionand '
environmenta1'impacts, as the curreiJt right-of-way use'for interstate travel pwposes is maintained. '
As such, consistent with this standard, the right-of-way is the least productive land in the immediate
area in terms ofsuslaining resource' uses. It's contiilUed use for this puxpose also means that no
other resource or reereationallands need be removed from the resource base therefore this standard'
, ismel
<
. (d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or wi/I be so
rendered through meaSures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shall .
describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjace1it land uses,
The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is si/Uated in such a T1I(Ul1lU
as to,be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management
or production practices. Compatible is not intended as an absolute term meaning no
inte1ference or adverse impacts of arry type with adjacent uses.
Uses adjacent to the affected portion ofI-5 include park land andtheWlllamette River, and '
residential and industrial uses. The temporary staging areas are adjacent to park land and the
Willamette River, ODOr and Lane County Ih~J'~';/' and between 1-5 and 1-5 ramps. With the
exception of the temporary staging areas, the replacement bridges and associated improvements are
being proposed within .......~...imately the same location as both the original and temporary bridges
and will be located within existing rights-of-way and right-of-way eilsements. Considering that this
area bas been utilized as the 1-5 bridge location since prior to the establishment of Goal 15,
replacement of the facility in the same loeation is more compatible than relocating the facility and
c.._, ~.:ng non-tran.,J'v...,;';on areas to this uSe. The proposal also includes a reduction in the .
number of piers from the existing 11 piers to 8, 8 net reduction in fill, and sound walls. At a '
conceptual level, these elements will reduce adverse impacts.to environmental, .~_~";';onal and
scenic resources and will increase compatibilityoftbe project with adjacent recreational, residential
and industrial uses of the area. Regarding the temporary staging locations, the impacts will be
temporary, and the applicant bas proposed several measures to reduce adverse impacts of the
construction activities including; a ,plan to prevent debris from falling into the Willamette River,
maintaining 8 continuous bicycle/pedestrian path, limiting work hOllIS, and restoring the temporary
~g areas upon project completiolL Additional measures propOsed by the appliCant to reduce '
enV1fOnmental, recreational and scenic impaCts, are further discussed under Metro Plan Policy E.2,
Goal 8 below, and OAR 660-004-0022(6)(8) above, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Th~se measures will further reduce adverse impacts to the adjacent park land and Willamette River,
residential, and industrial uses consistcntwith this standard.
~. -.'
~'. I
'. ...."
Staff Findings - June 2008
;;. :,:; .Pasc 13
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 16: .
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
Planner: BJ
, .
. ....
- \, .
__h_~. ___.._. _' ._u
"
.'
In addition, c:..~""':bility willi .... ~~u.' :ay aild Goal 5 resource values associated with the Willamette
, River, riparian a:eas both north and south of the river, the WInlamut N!ltW'al Area and Eastgate '
Woodlands will be further ensured through <;ompli~ with acknowledged Eugene and Springfield
permitting requirements adopted to implement Goals 15 and 5; willainette River Gt'eenway and
greenway setback review, and the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone, subject Ii>
applicable standards anq conditions. As'noted'earlier; the bridges are an existing use within the '
ODOT right-of-way. This proposal replaces the original bridge with two new bridges: one for
. northbOund traffic, the other for southbouDd traffic, and replaces the canoe Canal..tJridge. It also
removes the detour bridge. Given that a bridge has been accommodating bighwaytraffic in this area
for decadiis, most new impacts will be'associated with bridgC construction or demolition. By ,
remAining within the existing ODOT right-of-way, and emploYing Best Management Practices and
, other impact avoidance or mitigation techniques identified or required during the local permitting
processes, impacts to surrounding natural resource lands can be minimized to protect natural
, resource qualities in and the use and enjoyment of the WilIamette River, the Willamette River
..........h'ay, and the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands.
Based on theabovc findings, an exception to Goal 15 is warranted and meets the requirements of
OAR660-0040-0020 for the placement offill within the ..........,.,ay setback for the 1-5 Willamette
Bridge Replacement project. '
~j:
.,
."
.f",
;.....
;~
t....
'.
Therefore, the amendments and goal exception are' consistent with S;.....,,',:de plAnning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Mricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricuItw'allands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments.as the subject >"-VI',,;.! and aCtions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands insiqe an acknowledged urban growth
boundaIy from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject .........;; is entirely within the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the
area's compliance with Statewide Plarining Goal 3.
GI'lll.14 - Fnre!rt l:and: To consen,eforest lands,
Goal 4 is not applicable to thei;eamendments as the subject .........;)and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and, .
then:fore, does not apply to the subject ...u.._;/, which is within the Eugene-Springlield urban
growth boundary (OAR 660-006-0020). Th......:'...., Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments db
not affect thellICl\'s compliance with Statewide Plimning.Goal4. . '
Goal 5 - Ooen Simces, ~cand .Historic ,Areas, and Natural Resources: 1:0 conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
The following administrative role (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable 1O this post-acknowledgement
plan amendment (pAPA) request: ,
(3) Local governments are not reqUired to apply GoalS in consideration 'of a PAPA unless tlie
.PAPA q1Jects Q GoalS resolD'ce. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 ,
. '
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 17
Date Re,~~i\/e d
JUL 2 " 7008
Planw,'er:' fj,J
:." 'StaffF"~,.:lulI"2008
,- l "/- '-, "1" . -. -, ,'". ~ .
, '. Pugc l~ . , ',"
" ..~, .-
: ..'.1 ~.
..'
t"-'
.' .'"
,.'_ t
r~ource omy if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resoUrce list or a portiOn of an ru:knowledged plan
, or land we regulation adopted in order to protect a significll1l/ Goal S resource or to ,
address specific requirements.ofGoalS; ,
(b) ',The PAPA allows new wes that could be conflicting wes,with aparticular
significant GoatS resource site 'on an ru:knowledged resource Hst; or,
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB andfactutil information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource'site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included tn
the amended UGB area.
, The subject project area includes Goal 5 resource sites; the Willamette River, a riparian resource
between 1"5 and E. 18th A venue, and riparian resources in Alton Baker Park: (the Canoe Canal).
Subsections (a) and (c) aPove!lI'e not applicable to this request as the proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order
to protect a significant GoalS resource or to address spCcific requirements of Goal 5, and do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Regarding'subsection (b), the 1-5 WiJiamette ,
Bridge Project is replacement of an existing use in ,......,.;,Jnatel)' the'same location, even
considering the additional widening of the roadway. Therefore, (b) is not appliCable because the
project includes replacement of an existing use, not l\ new,use., ' '
Based on the findings above, Statewide Planning Goal 5 is either not applicable or is metthrougb ,
compliance with the acknowledged local permitting process.
'.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land ResolD'Ces ~uality: To maintain and improve the quality of the atr,
water, ~ land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses w8steand process discharges from development; and is aimed at protecting air,
walc:r and land from impacts from those discharges. The proposal does not amend the metropolitan
area's air, water quality or land resource policies, The applicant's findings show that the City can
reasonably ........~;,that future development of the site will comply with appliCable environmental
laws as follows:
, '
. '.', ..... "
Additiona!ly, regarding air quality, the replacement bridges themselves should have no adverse
impact on air quality because they merely replace an existing facility that has been decommissil?ned
as being strilcturally unsafe. Regardless of the potential future addition of 6 lanes, tile neW bridges
do not ~-~..'lrily result in more people driving on 1-5. Instead, existing traffic volumes will be
shifted from the detour bridge to'the new bridges. If the decommissioned 1-5 bridge is not replaced,
, those vehiCles would be forced each day onto city streets and cOunty roads not designed for such
trips, The ensuing degradation to, the air quality along these alternative routes caused by
nnmAnageable congestion would' be' in direct contradiction to ,the purpose of Goal 6: Even the
potential ~crease in the Dumber of lanes does not necessarily increase the Dumber of people driving
on I~5. but rather increases continuous traffic movement Regarding air quality, this goal is met by
the proposed plan amendments. '
"
Regarding water quality, construction of the, replacement ~ridges and the, removal of the
decommissioned and detour bridges will impact water quality by ~ecting soils and vegetation
. ,,;.
~\i "..,.).;ji.,., ,.:.... _ . .
, , " StaffFuuIinp-June 2008
Page IS
\ ~ I' ;.
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
, ,
"" .'
____ _. . _._ ...__ . ___. . u . _., _
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 18
'Planner: BS
within the Willamette River andalting the green~y setback. Water quality may also be affected
where, impervious suifaces are added along the bridge, approaches.' Where areas are paveg, water
cannot penetrate the soils so' it rushes over the surface. This can increase erosion and the movement
of fine, sediments and increase pollutant loads in watercourses. While constroction of the
replacement bridges will result in some new imperviouS sUrfaces,overall the project will result in a
, ,net decrease in impervious'siIrface because ODOr will remove the approach roadway for the detour"
brid~. '
The applicant also proposes that water quality impacts will be mitigated through the use of effective
land-based stormwater u....~ent .,.;.....s that include measures to preserve'and ....;"....mature
vegetation and maximize infiltration. The use of constroction techniques that include temporary and
permanent Best Management Practices for ero~on and sediment control and spill con~ol and
prevention also can achieVe compliance with clean water stanQards. Oregon Highway Plan SA.1
directs ODOr to implement Best ManB.t,........~; Practices. Based on these findings, water quality will
be maintained and mitigatCd, consistent with this goal. In addition, through the local permitting,
process; Eugene and Springfield can impose appropriate conditions to ensure tIiat Best Management
Practices are employed and that water quality is maintained, subject to applicable approval criteria
and related standards. By doing so, 00al6 is' satisfied:'
Regarding noise, a project noise technical report was prepared as jlart of the Environmental,
Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from the project
Per the ODOr Noise Manual (June 1996) analysis procedures. noise mitigation measures were '
evaluated. to reduce 'noise levels to nearby resi~ences as a result of the project Noise walls were
detennined to meet the ODOr effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two locations and are
recommended as mitigation (see supplemental infonnation, Figures 7-9). The fina1 wall locations ,
will be determined after public input is completed ,as part of the NEP A process. Additionally, as
" stated' on page 13 of the written .;..;....~ent, the applicant ;"_Y".esthe following general measures:
. Continue public involvement through design and construction
· linlif work hours
. limit noise
..
Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, the proposed amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 6. Mditionally. specific construction and operational details will be
'"......u".;ately ad':'.........': during local permitting processes; subject 10 applica,ble approval ~teria
and related standards. " ". ,
Goal 7 - Areas Sub;ect to Natural Disasters and Hazards; To protect life and property from Mtll1'al
disasters and hazards. "
Goal 7 requires that local government planning progriuns include proVisions to protect people and
2 CurreniIy, then: is no _WBler 1Ralmenl for the J...,-iBsioned and detour bridges. Providing wa~ quality ,
. ~.__. for the new bridges, which would be ~ through the appliClllll's proposed Best Management PlllCli.... ,
would bave a beneficial effect on water qualily. The water quality report for the project noted that the amount ofnmoff
from the bridges would be so minor relative to the volume of flow in the Wil1ainettcRiver that the effect would be
,negligible. ",
_ !_TTACHMENT A - PAGE 19
'Date Received
- JUL 23 2008
Pfanrler:' ,:3J
,.; '. , . -j; . . ,_.-."
',t.,l': ~ Stafrj:iJ!diDgS'~'J~ 2008
, Page 16
~ll''''\ ;. n. r
-' - ::r' ..:~r~ ~.
r'
.'
,t'.~t'",,;y from natural hazards such as floods,land slides, earthqwikes and related hazards. tsunamis
and wildfires. It is not subject to hazards normally associated with wildfires, or tsunamis.
Consistent with this goal, the City of. Eugene has adopted provisions regulating deve~opment in
floodplains and floodways, and building codes regulations that address slopes and selSlllic concerns.,
To the extent that this is relevant to the proposed plan lIIIlendment, the eJcisting dCtour bridge does
not meet current seismic standards. Consistent with this golil, thet'._t'~...:dbridge replacement
project will provide bridges that meet curient seismic, safety and design standards.
Additionally, regarding slopes, portions of the project area are idCntified on the map for Relative
, Slope Instability Hazards. The portions of the project site in the Wbilamut Natural Area and
Eastgate Woodlands, and the area southeast ofI-5 and the Willainette River are identified as
moderate hazard areas. However, both of these areas are proposed for only temporary staging
locationS. The appliCant has completed 10 borings on either side of the river as part of a "
geOtechnical il:lvestigation related to the temporary detour bridge (three north of the river, seven
south of the river). A geological report (which waS not SubmiUed'for this application) indicates that
geological resources in the project area consist of fill material, alluvium, and bedrock. The
processes affecting these materials are man-made, such as excavation and grading, and natural.
Since there is an exiSting bridge, impacts to geological resources would consist of relatively minor
changes in topography, minor settlement Of near-SIlIface materials, possible increase, in erosion,
minor changes to the river flow regime imd related sediment and related sediment transport, and
potential changes in slope stability (from vegetation removal). These impacts would occur as a
result of excavation, pl8cement of structure and fills, and clearing and grading.'Irnpacts related to
construction would be temporary, localized changes to river flow regime; stability of partially .
constructed slopes; erosion; and resu1t8nt sedimentation. The highest riSk to landslide would be
slope failure into the Willamette River; however, considering the'low height of the riverbank, such a
failure Would be limited to a small area relative to the width of the river. The applicant states that
geotechnical investigations will also be completi:d during design ,to detennine the best method to
seat foundations and piers and to reduce effects related to hazards. Additionally, slopes will be
constructed in a manner that reduces Potential for erosion or small landslides.
Therefore, the project would have no permanent effects on geololPcal resources. In the context of a .
plan limendment; landslide and earthquake hazards are addressed consistent with this goal.
Furthermore, specific construction details will be further reviewed during the local permitting
processes. subject to applicable standards, such as. based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical
investigations should be completed prior to constructiOIl. to deten:l1ine the best method to seat
. foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related to earthquakes (e.g., lateral spread,
liquefaction). In addition, slopes should be constructed in a manner that reduces the potential for
erosion or small landslides. . '
, ""..':'. .\ " .. ~: 1'. ; ~ .
."...", -,:,,;., S1liffF~-1U11f:2008
Page 17 ' ,
r .'.... ~ I"'
: l ; ,~ I, e .':
Regarding flooding, portions of the project area' are located withih the floodway and floodplain of
the Willamette River. As previously stated, both Eugene and Sprjngfield have adopted ordinances.
regulating construction withinfloodways and floodplains. Furthermore, in .""t'~..se to Metro Plan
, policiesC:30 and C.31 below, which is incorporated hexi:in by reference, because the 1-5
Wil1amette Bridge project is located within a FEMA designated i:egula1ory floodway and
Date Received
JUL 2::1 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 20
PlanA' elf'" '(', ~,
.I,OJ!
k'
I
,)\.; ,
'I,
floodplain, the design of the replacement bridges must satisfY the regulations set forth in the '
,National Flood Insurance Program(NFll'). The NFIP requires that any modifications that ca~ a
rise in the Base Flood EleVations (BFEs, which Cu"""l'u..ds to water surface elevations associated
with the,lOO-yCar flood event) must be approved by FEMA.,
Two pier location scenarios IIIe cum:ntly under consideration (Proposed Option A and Prop~sed. ,.
Option B. see written. statement page 9). Based on preliminary modeling, Option A would result m
an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the 1000year flood event For the Enviromnental
Assessment, 'the hydraulic Conditions of the 1-5 Wtllamette Bridge Project were analyzed using the
U.S. Ariny Corp of Engineers' HEC-RAS model. Natural, existing and proposed conditions (with
pier locations Options A B,Dd B) were modeled. Conservative assumptions regarding pier size were
used for this modeling. Refine,d design of the concepts and further hydraulic analysis will allow
COQfinnation that the proposed projeCt will result in no rise of the base flood elevation.
Opti~n B W~uld result in a decrease of 0.54 feetfor the 100-year flood event, which is consi~t
with the no-rise standard and consistent with this goal. While Option A shows an increase of 0.02,
which does not meet the no-rise requirement, this is not a detailed analysis and modeling will be nm
again when the desilin is refined for the.pennitting ..o~_~ in oider to meet the no-ri:se requirement.
A FEMA "no-rise" Certtlication will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any construction or
, structures within f1c.':""J'.Jspecial flood hazard areas that are oUtside of'rlghts"of-way, witliin
Eugene. In addition, the applicant states that the no-rise condition is also a requirement of ODor
for any bridge replacement project .
Other hazards, such as earthquakes and severe winter .;.,...... can be mitigilted at the time of
development based on accepted building codes and bUilding techniques. As. "0_' ; _ .!Sly stated, ,
specific construction and operational details will be "*'1',ul'.;ately addressed during local pennitting
processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related $1andards. I
, .
Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, the preliminary no-rise data, the landslide
infonnation, and findings shove, the proposed plan amendments are consistent with Stat~qe
Planning Goal 7.
; Goal 8 - R__.-'-';:onalNeeds: To satisfY the recrearionalneeds of the Citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate,' to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
Including deslirJOtion resorts. '
, ,. -.
':~~.F~!f~.:':~~. ~~~..~~:"J ~':,': ,: . !.
SlBffrmdings - JlIIle 2008
" ' ~age 18. ;
Goal 8 ensures the provision of .__':onal facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state, East Alton Baker PaIkll
located to the east and west ofl-S right-of-way, which includes ......-.-.;:on, bicycle and pedestrian
paths and the canoe canal (uti1i7P4 by kayakers). The portion of the parkthat is west ofI-S in
Eugene is now called the Wbilamut Natural Area and the portion of the park east ofl-Sin
Springfield is called the Eastgate WoodlandS of the Wamut Natural Area (abbreviated here as
Eastgate Woodlands) and these areas will be referred to as such for the remainder of these findings ,
unless otherwise indicated. The demolition and cOnstruction of the bridges will take place within the
1-5 right-of-way, which is not part of the park; th_.";.... the replacementbridges wi1lnot remove or
increase recreational w....u....mities at the park. However, removal of the detour bridge will include
. I. .
.,.
. ..~L' I "'>~ ",
" .,
...
ATT.A,CHMENT A - PAGE 21
Date Race IVI ~d
JUL 2 a 200~
.Planner~ BJ
.....
removal cif fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of Eastgate Woodlands. The temporary
easement obtained by o-qor to do this wolk requires rehabilitllli6n of the area within 5 year.; of
completion of the permanent bridges. This easement will ensure that recreational use of this area
will return to pre-project cOnditionS. '
,i
Addiiionally, dUriilgeonstriictionthe park will be temporarily affected;' Tht'Oughthe other local
permitting processes (Willamette G............y permit, water Resources €ollServation Overlay review,
Willamette Greenway setback, etcetera) construction impacts will be required to be m;n;m;7P-:<!
through C<lnditiollS of "'k'k'.U "..1 that wOuld preserve bicycle, pedestrian and boater safety, and to
maintain consistency with operational provisiollS in the East Alton Baker Parle Plan (which includes
the Whilamlit Natural Area and Eastgate- Woodlands). Public aa:ess to the Willamette ~ver will
, continue to be provided through ODOT's right-of-way under the brid~ thereforepublic access to
the river will not be affected (written statement page 49, Metro Plan Policy 0.9). Although the
bicycle/pedestrian pathWays may be impacted during cOnstruction, the application will provide a
continuous route across DOOr riJ,.. uf ....y for'the bicycle/pedestrian pathwayS that will be ,
maintained on bOth the north' and the south sides of the river durlr1g construction (written statement,-
page 61, Willakenzie Area Plan, Neighborhood Design Element- ,:Wi11amette Greenway, Use
Management Standard 2). Additionally, specific. construction and. operational details regardiIig
public access and ._....;.:onal impacts will be a......uk'.:ately addressed during local permitting
processes, subject to applicable ....k'.. , al criteria and related standards.
. Comments were received 'stating that (to SUIllIIlIIrize) the bridge provides a crossiIig of Franklin
Boulevard and the railroad and that this provides an uk'k'u.~.mity for those crossing to be made ,
available to pedestrians and bicyclists. Additionally, the comments note that since the replacement
is not accolnmodating such B crossing; the applicant has insufficient analysis regarding the
provision of adequate access to Alton Baker Parle. As discussed in more detail under the Metro Plan
Tran.k'u.;..Jon Element, Policy F.14 below which is inc.,.k'u...;ed herein' by reference, the applicant
p,uk'u.~s a continuous route across ODor right-of-way for the-bicycle/pedestrian pathways to be
'_ ma;nt"in~.a on both the north and the south sides of the river during COlIStructiOn. This mitigates for
the temporary impacts to the existing bicycle/pedestrian pathwayS and ensures that connectiollS
between existirig paths and,to near-by Knic:.....L.wker Bridge are inaintained. In the context of the
,...u,..u.ed plan amendments, this adequately addresses access for bicyclists and pedestrians as these
are the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities affected by the p~posed amendments.
Based on the findings above, in the context ofa plan amendment; the proposalwUl not impact the
provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access. to existing or future public
recreational facilities. The amendments are thetefore consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
;~
~
.,.
,?
'"
",
i' \:ii '"-_.t~>'ll~; ;" :' ....
-, staff Findings - JuDe 2008
',,',,' . Page 19
Goal 9 - F.conomic Develonment: To provide adequate opportunines throughout the state for a
variety of ~conomic acttvirie.r vital to the health, welfare, and p~sperity of Oregon's citizens.
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 Division 9) requires that the City
"[p Jrovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizi:S, types, location, and service -
levels. for a variety ofindus.trial and commercial uses colISistent with plan policies[,J" Among other
things, the rule requires that cities complete an "Economic Opportunities Analysis." OAR 660-009- .'
0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and ,
, Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 22
.. - .
Planner:' BJ, '
. .
Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR,660-009-0025 req~ that
cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long ter:m nee.:is. OAR
, 660-009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9 '
apply "at the time of each periodic review of the plan(QRS 197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660- '
009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations oflancls in excess of two acres
to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post aCknowledgment- plan amendment" it
must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstrate tha! the proposed
amendment is consistent with the partsofitsacknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660 Division 9; or (b) amend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed ,
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent'
with the requirements of Division 9. '
In the context of OAR 660-009-0010(4), the EUllene Commercial Lands Stud" (ECLS) is
acknowledged for COJ:i:1pliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule., The
EeLS constitutes the City's obligation under OAR 660 Division 9. However, since the 1-5
Willamette Bridge Project is oci:urring in "i'y.u..dnately the same location of the existing bridges,
within c;xisting right-of-way, existing right-of-way easements, or temporary staging areas (within
existing right-of-way orpark...u......;y), OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply because the proposed
amendment will not remove any land from the commercial land supply. Therefore, the 8Iliendments
, are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housinll: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities Plan for and maintain an inventor, of buildable residentiaHand
for needed housing units. The Administrative RUle for Statewide Planning Goal I 0 (OAR 660
, Division 8) states that "the mix and density of needed,housing is determined in the housing needs
projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the ~~y:..hensive plan map to satisfy ,
, housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local
buildable lands inventory muSt document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation." The ~u~y...hensivc plan,map for the City is the Metro PIli!! land use diagnun. The'
1999 EUlreI1e-Sl'rUumeld Metronolitan Area Residential Lands and Housinll Studv (B,LID is '
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal I 0 and its Adminimative Rule;
As previously stated, the proposed plan amendment will accommodate Ii bridge replacement project
that will occur in ..,.,....Jmately the same location as the existing bridges, within existing rigbt-of-
way, existing right-of-way easements, or --YU'~J staging areas (that are withiIi right-of-way or
park ...u......J). Therefore, the inventory of residentia11and will not be impacted and thus Statewide
Planning Goal 10 is not applicable. , '
,Goal II - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficielll
arrangemelll of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
developme1ll., " '
The area affected by the amend!IientS, the bridge right-of-way, is located entirely within the City"
limits of both the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield. The ...v"v~wJ am~dments would
allow demolition and repIacement of the temporary 1-5 bridge and reconstruction of the roadway
..~..d.~~~;'.~\}:~~:'-; ;.';'~;-i~ !
, Staff Findings-JUDe 2008
u," -Page;lO ,
.'ll\t..;:.r. ,\ .1_"
Date Receired
JUL 2 3 2008
'--.. .
, ^
. \' " ':1 '~.. '_"~.'
> t 1;1, 1<, ,1:1 .
-. .._- . _. . .
ATTACHMENT A '- PAGE 23
Pla'n'ner:' BJ
':}tt'l
"
....".~..cl1es to .the bridges. which are all public facilities that are acknowledged in the Oregon
Highway Plan wid the local regional transportation pbin (TransPlan) , as necessary public facilities
,and serviceS. Replacement of the t....."v..../ bridge with permanent bridges that m.eets current
seismic siAndards ensures that this public facility continues to safely serve the area. The provision
of these amendments does not significantly affect the planning ordevelopm.ent of future public
faCilities or services.' Thcref6i:ii;'the ameii.di:hei1tsare.i:onsistent with Statewide P1anning-Goal1l. ..
'.f
-:~ .
Gosll2 . TransOOrtation~ To provide and encoUrage a safe, convenient curd economic
transportation system. ,
Goal 12 is .implemented through the Tran.,,,~.;":':on planning Rule (fPR), as defined in Oregon
AdministIlitive Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan rTransPlan' provides the regional policy fraI!Jework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660-012-:0060) states that wheli.land use changes,
including amendments to acknowledged eomprehensive plans, significantly affect an existingor
planned transportation facility the local government shal1 put in place measures to assure t!iat the
allowed land Uses are consiStent with the identified function, capacity and pv.fv....ance standards
(level of service, volimle to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. TransPlan, which implements Goal
12, iden~es 1-5 (mcluding the 1-5 bridge) as an existing transPOltation facility. .
Determinatiim of Significant Effict
The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned .transportation facilities will
experience a significanteffect as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what
cOnstitutes a significant effect. ' . '
OAR 660-OI2-0060(I) Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendmellts '
As stated In the following findings, the plan amendments propos~ no sigiuficant effect on any
planned or existing facilities under OAR 660-012-0060(1)(8), (b) or (c). OAR 660-012-0060(1)
Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendmentsstate5 the following: '
(I) Where an amendment to afimcti01ll11 plt1fl, an acknowledged comprehellSive plan, or a
land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or plQf/f/Cd tra1lSportationfacility,
the local government shall pur In place mea,sures as provided in section (2) of this rule to '
ass.we that allowed land uses are eOllStste,,! with the iden,tified function, capacity, and
performtUll:e standards (e.g. level of service, volume ~o captU:ity ratio, etc.) of the ftU:Uity. A
plan or land use regulation amendment significantlyoffec.ts a transportation facility /fit
, would:' . ...
,
(a) Change thefimctional classification ofan exisnng or planned tra1lSportationftU:ility
(exclusive of correction ofnuzp errors in an adopted plan);, . . ,
.,'
'. (0). Changesttmdards implementing afimctional classific~onsystem; or
The proposed amendment will not change the functional ciassification of an exJst1ng or planned
tJ:an:."v. ""';on facility or change the standards implementing 8 functional classification system.
- ~'.
~. I 't 1"" ,~,. . ,:.1: i:
, , ",. "~":-StaffFU;dings-JUDe20D8
Page 21
..: :~r: ;.' . ,: ~ J I.
':
',' .. ., "l~.
'~~ :.'~ '.~~~"";il'--'
ATTACHMENT A ~ PAGE 24
Date Received
JUL 23 2008
Planner: BJ.
, '" ,
(c) As measured at the end of the planningperlod idenJified in ihe adopted transportation '
system plan:
. (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of ,
. travel or access that ore inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing
or planned transportation ftu:ility;
, '
(R) Reduce the perfonnmu:e of an existing or planned transpo;taiionfacility below
the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the' TSP or
comprehensive plan; or ' '
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned.transportationfacility that
is otherwise projected to perform bell1W the minimum acceptable performance "
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. . '. ..
, The proposed amendment will !illow fonhe construction of bridges to replace existing bridge
facilities that have been decommissioned as being structtirally unsafe, The replacement bridges will '
be constructed in "'n.w..:mately the same location as the decommissioned bridge. Since 2004
(when the primary bridges were decommissioned as unsafe), a (tempo~) detour bridge has
provided 1-5 traffic access over the Willamette River. Once the ,..v,..:....l bridges are constructed,
existing traffic volumes currently using the detour bridge will be shifted from the detour bridge to
the neW bridges. Construction of the proposed bridges will simply reroute traflic from the current
detour bridge to the (permanent) replacement bridges allowed by the proposed amendment
While the rep1acement bridges will be designed and constructed to accommodate six lanes of travel,
, because 1-5 is only four lanes, the bridges will be sniped for foUr lanes. Until 1-5 is widened to six
lanes, the. bridges will remain sniped for four lanes. Designing and constructing the bridges to
. !illow for six lanes of travel is intended to accommodate future traffic needs traveling along 1-5; the '
additional 1.5 traffic will be generated by future development throughout the State of Oregon and,
because 1-5 is a mejor interstate, throughout the United States. The construction of the replacement
bridges, whether sniped for four lane or six lanes, does not g__.... any additional vehicular trips, it
,simply provides passage over theWillamette River. When the bridges are eventually striped for six
lanes (to be made consistent with 1-5), the additional bridge capacity will increase the ....fw.....ance
and function of 1-5, not worsen it. '
Accordingly, the propos,ed amendment wiUnot allow land uses or levels of development that will
result in types or levels of travel or access that are inConsistent with the functional classification of
an existing or planned transportation facility under OAR 660-012-0060(IXc)(A). '
Further, the proposed amendments will not reduce the p....:"....ance of an existing or planned
transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
Cv~y...;u:nsive plan under (1)( c )(B), or worsen the ...L'~.....ance of an existing or planned .
1ran..yv. ;';':on facility that is otherwise projected to perfonn below the minimum acceptable
performance standard identified in the TSP or ~.....,.kensive plan under (l)(cXC).
~ilrr >;? Ii:
~. . . ..,
. ATTACHMENT A.-PAGE25
,Date Recei1(ed
JUL 2 3 2006
" "Planner: BJ
~ri.~' dr. v .StaflJinclings;;Juiu: 2008
.. ~ .,\.) 'ts..lJ)D:;:"22l--1r ;...., '
_ -'6U6e ~...<",'.,-
': ......
.,.......if
i.~:\
"' 'I'>.,-..h':.. ,iC:
. ~_""ff' ;"If t. "I~ . r
, .
For the reasons discussed aibove. the I'.:"yu.:..i amendment will not significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility. ,
"
I;'
, OAR 660-012-0015 Prep"aration and Coordination o/Transportation System Plans
'OAR 660:.o12~OOIS(1)diiCctS (lDOTto y'~i''''~ and adopt a state transportation system plan that
identifies a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified state ,
transportation needs. The Oregon Tl"IIIISportation ColDUlisSion has done that through adoption of the
Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and modal plans, mcluding the Oregon Highway Plan. The OTP
includes policies to increase the efficient movement of people' and goods for COlIlDlerce arid,
production of goods arid services that is coordinated with regionai and local plans: It emphasizes
managing the existing trBn.,yu.",';on system effecti\lely and imprOving that system before adding
new faCilities,
I
The OTP ~ promotes a safi:, efficient, and reliable freight sysub to support economic vitality.
The OHP identifies 1-5 as an interstate highway within the state's roadway network. That highway
necessarily includes a bridge over the Willametle River in EugenetSpringfield. OAR 660-012-
0015(2) and (3) require that regional and local TSPs be consistent with the state TSP. Transplan
currently recognizes the importance of 1-5 to the regioIl. Because:the replacement bridges are
necessary to Ii1Ilintaining 1-5. by approving the proposed plan amCndments, all plans will remain
, consistent and the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied.
Based on !he aibove findings, the proposal is consistent with Statey.'ide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Enerev ConServation: To conserve energy.
Statewide Planning Goal 13 calls for Iimd uses to be managed and controlled "so as to maximize the
conservation of all forms of energy. based upon sound economic principles." Goal 13 is directed at
the development oflocal energy'policies and implementing provisions and does not state
'requirements with r:espect to other types of land use decisions. It is not clear that the goal has any
bearing 011 a site-specific decision such as the one at issue. There is no implementing rule that
,clarifies the requirements of Goal 13. To the extent that Goal13~u1d be appliedto the proposed
plan amendmen!s"the proposal is consistent with Goal 13; 'the 1-5 Willametle Bridge project is
located in the same location as the existing and previous bridges and will continue to lIlllke efficient
use of energy with safe, direct and efficient access though the ~
CoDlIl1ents were received that; in swnmary, the aipplicant fai1s to consider the conservation of
energy by any means other than tbat of m"y;m;,nT1g the efficiency of car and truck 1rafIic.
Specifically, failure to consider any provision for incorporating bicyele traffic into the t:I"Ossing does
not maximize the conservation ofall forms of energy. particularly petroleUm energy. However,
given that Goal 13 is diiected at deveioping local energy conserVation policies, it is determined that
, Goal) 3 is not a means to require a specific project to add a bicycle and pedestrian component.
, .
Based on the findin&;5 above, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal'13.
Goal ) 4 . Urbanization: To provide for an orderly rind efficient transition from rural to urban land
.
r, '..",. ~'... " _.. ;"'. fir ,. _', ~ ~;; ,
, 1....' "", StaffF'mdillgsfJlllle2D08
Page 23 '
'd'llr ", " '
'---.-ii"'-
Date Received
JUt 2 3 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 26
.' ,
1,: .~ ,I
PI "
,,~a n t;".
an~ ".-:..L i.:.;J
, '. ' .'
lISe.
The amendments do not affect the transition from roral to urban land use, as the project area is
centrally located to the Metro,Plan and is entirely within the Eugene-Springfield UGB. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply. '
.. . ...... ..~. .. .
..... -. ~r"" .',
Goal 15 '- Willamette River Greenwav: To protect. conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, .
. scenic, historicat agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway.
." .
Portions of the projeCt area are within the boUndaries of the Willamette RiVer GreenWay. As fomid
under Goal 2 above, which is incorporated herein by ref=nce, a goal I 5 exception is tequired by.
Policy P.ll of the Metro PI~ and the applicant meets the requirements for an exception to Goal IS.
Based on these findings~ the !"~!,~,,a} Complies with Statewide Planning Goal 15 as excepted.
. '
Goal 16 tbrOul!h 1 ~ -~~,lBrine ResourCes. Coastal Shorelands. Beaches and Dunes, and Dceari
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the "'~!'~';i affected
by these amendments, Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not lIffect .
compliance With Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. '
(6) Adoption' o/the IlfIfeIIdment must not _Ice the Metro Plflfl inumtllly incoll6istenL
The applicant proposes to amimd the Metro Plan text of Policy D.ll to allow the plaCement of fill
within the Willamette River greenv..ay for the construction of the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project As
found below. this text amendment will not crea1ean internal conflict with the remainder of the
Metro Plan, The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro Plan text ,
amendment is consistent with the policY direction contained in the Metro Plan. To the extent that.
they may be applicable; the applicant's findings are also incorporated herein by .~;__,:e..
The followipg Metro Plan polices are appliCable to this request:
<
B. Economic Elemeq!
B,/B Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would imprtwe access fo
, industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
TranSportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Mastel' Plan. , '
While the ....!'......o...dlanguage of this policy may not be mandatoI)', the applicant's findings are
provided as further support for the !,,~!,~..M amendments. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5 ,
. Willamette River bridge with two new bridges, and associated improvements, will maintain the
access, mobility, and freight mOVClllent capabilities that the decommissioned bridge and temporary
. detour bridge have provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained' along the interstate highway
0, o;"~ through~ugene and Springfield, the replacement bridges will help p1'9vide convenient
StafrFindings - JlIDe 2008
j . _ ~24" ,r.;'--r
''-'''-'Vl.:J,,,r,f.l',H 0'<r:;:" I
,..,~'l.r.:.,ft.. .,;r-J' ' . ._': '. .
Date Receive( i
J U L 2 3 2008 '
, .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 27
Planner: BJ
./m'{ .,' 1;1:
"
, ~, '. ,
:1.."''''
I '"
,
, access to industrial and commercial areas on connecting roads consistent with this policy.
C, Environmental Resources Elemen!
.' C.B Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefUlly manage divelopment
on hillsides and In wtzterbodies. and restrict deveiopment in wellands in order 10 prevent
erosion and protect the scenic qUDlity, surface water and groll1lliwtzter quality, forest values,
Vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas. "
C.9 Each city shall complete a separate study to meet its requirements under the Goal S Rulefor
We/lands, riparian corndors, and wildlife habitat within ~he UGB, Lane County and lhe
, respective city jointly will adopt the Inventory and protec!ion measures for the area outside
the city limits and inside the UGB.
C,] 0 Local gove~ents shoJI ~ncourage jUrt';;; study (by spedalists) of endangered and ,
thretztenedplant and wildlife species in the metropolitl1l'l izrea
, "
. .,
C. n Local governments shall protect endangered and threate~ed plant and wildlife species, as
recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after Illitice and opportunity for public input.
theSe policies are cIim:tl:d to the local governments of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and
not necessarily the applicant However, they are applicable to the extent that the cities of Eugene
and Springfield and Lane County have Bdopted regulations to "."~; these resources. and that the
applicant will be required to apply for applicable permits pursuant to those local requirements
(Eugene's WLllamette Greenway permit and Water ResOurces Conservation Overlay Zone, and
Springfield's 75-riparian setback review). '
'.
C.23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive developmem in the vicinity of existing
and future streets and highways with potential 10 exceed general highway noise levels
shalIinclude consideration of mitigating measures, such as acoustical building
modifications, noise barriers. and acoustical site planning, The application of these
mitigating measures must be balanced wilh other cle,sign considerations and housing
costs. ,I
. ','
. . II . .
Comments were also received regarding the noise abatement walls and limiting noise from the ,
project Since the project is not a "new noise.sensitive developn:lent in the vicinity of existfug and
futures streets and highways..." but is mther the reverse, a highWay in the vicinity of existing
,residential development, this policy is not applicable. FurtheIII1ore, the highway is replacing an
existing highway in approximately the same location. In the event that this policy is found
applicable, the appliCant's findings are incOIpOrated to demonStrate consistency.. As previously
discussed under Goal 6 above, a project noise technical report ~ prep;lICd as part of the
Environmental Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts reSulting from
the project. Per the ODOTNoise Manual (June 1996) analysisp~cedures, noise mitigation ,
measures were .evaluated 'to reduce noise levels to nearby residences as a result :of the project Noise
walls were determined to meet the ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two
locations and are reColllllleb.ded as mitigation (see supplemental information, Figures 7-9). The final
~t1' 1"_;~ ". ~ .
. ... ..
_~~A~J:lMENT A - PAGE 2!l
,- T ___.__0_.____._._
Date Receive j
JUL 2 3 2008
, ,
',., . r..:."F' d'~" l' 2008
"". >fv,,:: '\ ";'~ULU l~..~~ une
. " Pagc2S', .
..,.
;",
I . I <\.,.~}:
Planner: 'BJ
, , ,
wall locations will be determined after public input is completed as part of the NEPA process.
Additionally, as stated on page 13 of the written statement, the applicant ...~""...... thefoUowing
general measures: '
. Continue public involvement through design and construction
. limit work hours' '
. 'limit-noise '.... ,",
Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied.
C.26 Local Governinents shall continue to monitor, toplanfor, and to enforce applicable air and
water quality standards andshall cooperate in' meeting applicable federal. state and local
, air and water quality standards.
A3 previously stated under Goal 6, which is inc...r__.:"': hercln by reference, it is not anticipated
that the replacement bridges will have a permanent adverse impact on air quality as the bridges are
replacing an existing bridge. The applicant is proposing severalme.ssures including Site ............:00,
Site construction, coordination and post development measures discussed imder Metro Plan Policy
E.2, which is incorporated herein by reference, to reduce and mitigate impacts to water quality,
consistent with this policy. In addition, water quality impacts will be further reviewed for
compliance with local standards under the local permitting I"~""".s forWillametteGreenway
permit, Water Resoun:es Conservation Overlay Zone and the 75-foot riparian setback and under the
NEP A Environmental Assp.~p"t, subject to applicable requir'Cments.
c.ao Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulations, development shall be prohibited in floodways if it could result in an increased
flood level. The floodway is the channel of a river or other water course and IlI-C-J 6 the '
adjacent land area that mllSt be reserved to disc1uzrge a one-percent-chance flood in any
given year.
, ,
'C.31 When development is allowed to occur in thefloodway or floodwayfringe, local regulationS
shall control'SUeh development in order to minimize the potential danger to lift and '
property. Within the UGB, development shordd result in in:filling of partially developed
land OUtside the UGB, areas affected by the floodway andfloodway fringe shall be
protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values. their open space and
recrflQtionaI potential, and their value to water resources.
C.32 ,Local govemmenis shall require site-Specific soU,surveys and geologic studies where
, potential problems exist. When problems are identified, local governments shall require '
special design considerations and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and
geologic constraints present, to protect lift and property. ]J1.!blic investments; mid
environmentally-sensitive areai.
Regarding Policy C30and C31, as discussed under Statewide P1annjng Goal 7, NahuatHazards,.
which is in~~..._.....J herein by "~f.......oe, the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project is partially located
within a FEMA designated regulatory floodway and floodplain. Therefore, the design of the
replacement bridge must satisfy the regu1ations set (orth in the National Flood Insurance Program
. r _c. J. " ~
". .,.,. i: 'Y'IL StalfFindings" ':'llD1o 2008
l ,hP.~~ _~,." .~" ."
'. PBgo26" ,
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 29
Date Receiv 3d
JUL 2 3 2008
"1~1, '- t'~, : I .j;
'. .
".' ,P: ~tr.:~l:..-t~~.>~;~j
~l.. I
Planner: BJ
(NFIP). The NFIP 'requires that any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs, which corresPonds to water surface elevations associated '~th the 100-year flood event)
must be .......w .ed by FEMA."The no-rise condition is also a requfrement of ODOT for any bridge
replacement project " '
ConsiStent With C:3T, both"Eugene'imd Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction
within floodplains and floodways;" City of Eugene FEMA "no-rise" certification for any
construction or structures within iloodwayslspecial flood hazard areas; and City of Springfield Type
I pe~ to allow any construction in the iloodpl~or floodwa~ within Springfield. Comm~ts "
from the Eugene Floodplain Manager note that a FEMA no-rise certificate would only be required
through the City of Eugene for construction (fill) or structUres within the floodway or floodplain
that are outside; of the right-of-way. The }'.v"v.:aJ includest........v:...) staging areas outside of the
"ODOr right-of-way; portions of the Whilamut Natural Area andEastgate Woodlands, and ODOr
and Lane County property both iocated ~utheast ofI-S and the Willamette River. For these areas.
prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory flood+my, ODOr will be required to
obtain a ''no-rise" certification statingtbat the development will not impact the pre-project (before
the ;..u...w....J bridge) base flood elevation elevations, floodway elevations and floodway data
widths. This certification must be signed by a professional engineer and supported by technical data
consistent with current FEMA standards.' ii'
, II
"
,
Based on the prelimiIiary modeling, the proposed pier location' options would result in the
following; Option A Would result in an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the 100-
year flood event and, Optioll B would result in a decrease of 0.54 feet for the 100- year flood event
Option B; including a decrease in base flood elevation, is consistent with the no-rise and policies
C.39 and C.31. Option A's preliminary analysis shows an inCreaSe of 0.02 base flood elevation,
which does" not meet the no-rise requirement However, a detailed no-rise analysis has not been
, submitted and tb.e modeling will be run again tcimeet the no-rise requirement when the design is
" refined for the permitting process, Furthermore, DOOr requires its bridges to meet the no-rise
requirement Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, these policies are met Specific
construction and operational details will be .......v...:ately addressed during local and state
permitting processes,. s,ubject to applicable M"".V "al criteria and related standards.
Regarding Policy C.32. as noted Under Goal 7, portions of the project area proposed for temporary
staging areas ~ identified as moderate hazard risk areas on the map identifying Relative Slope
Instability Hazards in Eugene, However, while this information inay guide the City in adopting
code revisions, it does not apply directly to land use applications as it is not adopted as refinement
plan or as cOdified land uSe criteria. Additionally, based on the eiuthquake hazard, geoti:chnica1
investigations cim be completed prior to construction to determiIie the best method to seat
foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related to earthqwlkes (e.g., lateral spread,
liquefaction). In addition, slopes can be constructed in a manner that: reduces the potential for
erosion or small landslides. " "
i~
"
BaSed on the findings above, in the context: of ~ plan amendment, the proposed plan amendments
, are coilsistent "with these policies. ~ " '
~. .
, ,
D. WiIlametteRiver GreenWav, River Corridorn, .md Waterwavs Element
, _, ~~ "_..:t-.. . ~.'.'i -.{';
>;:~~; ~t~l~ ].~j .~~ StBffF~ings _ June 2008
P,ge 27
"}::~: \. :.
Date Received'
. :~ }.;~
h_, t
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 30
JUL 2 3. 2008
, ,
.', '
Planner: S'J
. ,
D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provirle adequate public access to the
Willamette River Greenway.
The aPPlicant proposes that the public access connecting to the Willamette River Greenway will
continue to'be provided throughODOT's right-of-way under the 1.5 bridges. therefore public access
to the Willamette River Greenway will not be pei:manentlyaffected. As noted undm: Goal 8
Recreational Need above, which is incoIpOrated herem. by reference, a continuous route across
ODOr right-of.wayfor the bicycle/pedestrian pathwayS will be maintained on both the north and .
the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, WilIakenzie Area Plan,
NeighboIhood Design Element- Willamette Greenway, Use Management Stand8n:l2). Therefore, in
the context of a plan amendment, this policy is met Additionally, these specific construction and
operational details will be """.Yt'.:ately addressed during local permitting processes, subject10
applicable approval criteria and related standards.
D.II The taking of an exception shall be.required if a non"water-dependent n:anspoTtalion "
facility requires placing of fiU within the Willamette R,iver Greenway setback.
An aception to Statewitk Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approvedfor
. O1:egon Department of Transportation (ODOTJ 1-5righ! of way crossing the Willdmette
River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line, for purpose of constrl2cting a
. temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use .
Approval (Springfield Jdurno1SHR 2003-00115) and renwving the temPorary detour bridge
i:ifter completion of the permanent replacement bridge, This exception satisfies the criterlD of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) ,Willamette Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c) for. a 'reasons' exception; and
pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as!ln amendment to the Metro Plan tez/,
Policy #D,lI, Chapter Ill. Section D. '
As discussed under Oqal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.11, the applicant is requesting an
, exception to Goal 15 for reasons outIined under OAR 660-004-0022. An exception is warranted per
the standards set forth in OAR 660-004.0020. Therefore, the above Metro PIll!! text for Policy D.11
must jle amended to" acknowledge this Goal 15 exception. Accordingly, the following text
amendment is,proposed; with old text slroek. eut and DeW text in bold:
[} .
':f.
~.
'.-.
,'..
r
.'
:'~
,
. '. "
As .eusepUss is gtat~viae P':'~.;.:..:,",'...: GeaJ 1~ .~'1:l1amett~ River Oft.. ., 1.,..: ,','..3 appFe-;ed ~r .
. OregSB D~paAmec: ::~:-JBSf'ertatieB (ODO~ If light efv;ay ef9ssmg the Will~ '
Rj':er and "i1hiB die VL(itlamette lti.-:er Grees.-l'~J. g~ltaek Liae, fer )J1:Upese sf esR5tRl&tiBg .
B. _"ef8:I}" dete1:1:l bridge, ::"';;.i ~.;.:.:.:3DtiDgt:B_ "'onX.c;o~ ~po~",A eB the Di,)"'~"'~~l.:.r.W.-J ~
f.wroval Pf'';'''~oJQ Joemal Elm :wg3 gill 15) ~-~ -'=."1 ~...-the-t.=i'~'-:";'~' ietellt eadge,
aiLr.- ,:,oXXl.,t'letieii 'sEth! :p-..~:.^..:.:..:.:.: :.-;.:rlaeemeBt sridge. 'I1Hs eJ~';;~:f.'::':"''''' ,)...tIs:ee5 the eFiteria sf
Ofeg!JB ^~,'l! Rille (Of.R) fjfi9 99i 0\)2,2(5) Willamette GroeB'\"~'; the enoept!aB
f~,,":'-~'a."'..l af(MR fjfiO 90i 992!1 Geal:1; PIIl't II(-e) far a 'reaseBS' elle....:,:...._
."''''''''''': 10 0IlR fifi9 \)Oi !lrt:,:: hereby a80pted a..... .....ell.Bmeat te tho Met.a PiaB tet.~..
Paliey #D.l J, ChaJltar m, ~eeli.BB D. '
. 1-"-1
, ..;
, . '". ~) ~ ,; ~ .
I,'t'
. -.l ~ ...
u____.., _.p_' __.. .__ __ _ __,
. '
Date. Rece;, '8 d,
, J U L 2 3 2008
. . Planner: rJ.
t . '; ....t ,..-'
: "C"(j,~'rSlaff" "F' di;:,gr~J' . 2008
!,I\J' 1]'. _ _ . m - UDC
_ Poge28 ' ,
:iilih' ~.' I~."
, '
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 31
','
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved
fo! Oregon Department ofTl'aDsportation {ODOTj for,purposes of removing and,
replacing the decommissioned 1-5 bridge, the temporary detou,r hridge and the Canoe
Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one soutbboQDd and one northbound)
within tbe 1-5 right-of-way crossing the Willamette River and Canoe Canal and within
'tIiifWilla:liietteRiveiGteenwlIY Setback Lin~ The exception authorizes construction
and later removal, of one or more temponry work bridges; demolition of the '
" dec:ommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, a,nd detour '
bridges; c:onstruction oUbe two replacement bridges; rec:onstruction of the roadway
approaclles to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rebabilitati~n of the projec:tarea; and
completion of any required mitigation of projec:timpa~ts. In association with these
, tasks, the exc:eption further authorizes within the Willamette River Greenway Setback
Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill
within a temporary slope easement east of 1-5; This exc:eption satisfies the c:riteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 66~04-O022(6), Willamette Greenway, and the
exception requirements ,of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part II(c) for a "reasons"
.... 'r .:OD, and pursuant ,to OAR 660-004-0015, is here~y adopted as an amendment to
th~ Metro Plan text, Policy D.U, Chapter 111, Section p. '
The proposed text amendment replaces the stand-alone paragraph;under pollcy DJ i regarding the
temporary bridge. The applicant's proposed Metro Plan text ameridment to Policy DJl is ~equate
and with this text amendmClit and Goal 15 exception granted under Goal 2 above, Policy DJl will
be satisfied.
E. L., :'~..m.ental Desil!D Element
.
E,:J Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage-ways shall be protected and
retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those
lUltural features. This policy does no.t preclude im:reasing their conveyance capacity in an
, environmentally responsible manner. "
Bridge construc:tion and demolition, including ~nstruction' and ~oval of associated tempoiary
, work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the Ifleenway.
- ,
Construetion is proposed within existing ODOr rights-of-ways' and easements, with the exception
of temporary staging areas. As discussed above under Goal 8 ReCreational Need; removal' of the
detour bridges will include removal of fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of the
Whilamut Natural Area. ODor has obtained a temporary easemelrt to do this work which requires
rehabilitation of the area withiil5 years of completion of the permanent bridges. Construction best
managementpractices will be implemented to minimize the effecis of construction activities.
Disturbed areas will be restored and ODOr will work with the community throughout the design
and construction process to get input and advice on ways to avoid and minimi7p. environmental
impacts. .
Aceording lathe applicimt, a species list provided by ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage
Infonnation Center) indicates that there are no f~ or state-listed Endangered Species Act (ESA)
'.: ll' ,: '~\.' ~,,,,: ..; ".'\... I
", !+ .' . - I. ..'
, StatfFindings - JUDe 2008
, ,.. Page 29
1'. '..,i'~ ;J;. /: .
'.1" . '.,at,,'
:"''/ .....
~ . _.
, u,A.TTACHMENTA-PAGE32
....----:----. --- - ----
,Date RecAived '
JUL 2 3 lOOS ,
PI' ' j
. . ." rrr: '.';r', .
annEL" t,1"
"
.J,
,t'
"
'L.~;.:aJ wildlife species known to reside WitIiin the project area. .There are no known federal or
. state ESA -listed plant species or plant habitats have been identified within the project area. Two
sa1monid populations listed under the ESA arb doC\-"";.J as 0CCIIl'ring within the reach of the
Willamette River that floWll through the projt!ct area: . ' , ,
, . Upper Willamette River spring Chinohk (Oncomynchus tshaWytscha) and critical habitat-
.m"_ federally1hreatened-'-' FT. I' . '.~. -.. " '.. "., . ' ,.. . .., ,".'
'. .. Col\lIllbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) DiStinct Population Segment (DPS) and
critical habitat - FT. '
;~~
~
..
,..;.
r:,:
.'
~5
ODOr will coordinate with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife through the design process to
identify opportunities to m;n;m;"" habitat~. To avoid and minimize potential impacts to
fish and wildlife speCies habitat during and lifter cons1rUction activities, all applicable OTIA III
State Bridge Delivery Program EPS will be uhplemented to reduce the extent of direct and indirect
impacts to habitat. These include: '
. . Minimize ~fI.._;., to natural stream and floodplain by keeping the work area to the smallest
footprint needed. " I ' '. ~.
. , !'J.~.....~ and implement a plan to ~ construCtIon debris from dropping into the
. Willamette River and to remove materials that may drop with a minim\lIll disturbance to
aqUatic ~itat. . -, . I ..' . .." ' , . .
. r __.-_Slte restoration plans for upland, wetlaDd,'and streambank areas to Include native.
plant specieS and noxious weed abatc!nenttechniques, and use large wood and rock as
_~..__ents of streambed ...v;....;:on treatments. ' .
. Flag boundaries of clearing limits and! sensitive' areas to be avoided' during constructi~n.' ,
. . Coordinate with WilIamalane Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Parks and Open
Space Division regarding sensitive ~ in the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate .
Woodlands that should be avoided duiing coDstruction. ' , .
"I '
.' Restore and revegetate disturbed areas. ' , '
ODOT -alSO proposes (~tten ~tement, pagj 13) to avoid, minim;"" and/or mitigate impacts oftbis
project, consistent wi1:b this policy, by utilizirig the following general measures amongst others;
. Continue public 'involvement tbiough IdeSigll and construction '.
. Plan traffic management to keep all tivel modes open and safe during coDSlroction
. Limit work hours . ' .
· Restore/enhance affected areas
. Limit project noise '
PUblic comment was received expressing support for these measures. especially limiting project
noise and work hOIlrll, especially for pile driving activities. : '" .
.' " ,'I., :. , .
In addition, specific design ~tails will be reviewed and conditioned to lI1it,im;7e environmental
impacts during federal and local permitting i>>PcesSes, subject to appliCable approval criteria and
related standards. The applicant proposes that the project will meet the OTIAIII Environmental
Perfo~ce Standards (BPS) in order to satiSty the requirements of the pro....~.... ...tic
. ,
,~i if'.: !' "
Date Received
J\.lL 2 3 2008
t .'''~''~ .
, \":: "S~fi"F;;;d;;igs'~'iili;e20oB
Pag.30
f. '
"
, '
-.. . ..
ATTACHMENT~_:: ~~GE,.~_.
-.-- -.- f . .. ---"
. .
Planner: B J
,
environmental permits that apply to the statewide bridge program,. These performance standards
define the level of effect that a project may have upon the enviroDment, thereby limiting or avoiding
impacts to the environment through the use of "'~r" plarining, design. and construction activities. '
To avoid ,fish and wildlife species and m;nim;7e tempOrary impacts from construction activities, all
applicable OTIA ill state Bridge Delivery Program BPS will be implemented to reduce the extent
of direCt and indireCt impacts to fish and wildlifii species. EffectS to water resources during "
construction and operation of the project will be miJ>im;700 through the implementation of
applicable mitigation measures in the om ill State Bridge Delivery Program BPS. It is noted that
, with regard to pier locations shown on page 9 of the 'application, :()ption B indicates a pier closer to
the Mill Race, while Option A shows iI pier closer to the'WiJ1amette River, however, no specific
design is being reviewed at this time in the context of a plan amendment Local permitting
processes include WillBDU:tte c.".....,..y permit and Water Resomces Conservation Overlay for
Eugene, and a 7S-foot riparian setback review for Springfield. N8turaJ vegetiltion, natural water
features; aDd drainage-ways shall be Protected and re1ained to thC maximum extent practical,
consistent with these permitting proceSses. '
"
This adequately addresses ...~....~;;on of natural vegetation, natural water features. and drainage-
ways in 'the context of the proposed plan amendments. Additionally, these specific construction and
operational dc:tails will be a...........;ately addressed during local Pemritting processes, subject to
applicable approval criteria and related standards. ' '
. ' .
E. 4 ' Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and
enhances desirable feaJures of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of
identity, '
...1
,Date Rece\ved
JUL '2 3 Z008
Planner: BJ
'~
, 'p' ;:',:, StilffFinilirigs- June 2DOB ' '
Page 3\ '
~,-,,' 1: :j.
on._....":.. .',.
_ .:....A.~,TAC.~~_Nj A-':'PAGE 34
. . _____u_ _.__
, ,
'"
"
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted" _~l'''rtation .
EJlstem plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels ~ r developmenr that would result in types or levels of
travel or at;cess that are inconSistent with thefimctio1ial classification of an existing
or pltll11led transportalionfat;i!ity;. . .
. I . .,.. '
(B) Reduce the performanu 011 an existing or planned transportation facility below
the minimWII at;ceptable perfor7TlQ1lf;e staruJord identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance .ofan existing or planne4 tran..l"" .~;;on fat;iliiy that
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable perfoTT1ltl1lie
staruJord identified in the TSP 6r comprehensive plan. " .
. The l'oul'"....i amendment will allow.for the ~on of~dgesio replace existing bridge .
facilities that have been deconuniSsioned as ~ing structuially WlSafe. The replacement bridges will
be constructed in "t'l'.u..:mately th~ same loclmon as the decoaimissioned bridge, Since 2004 '
(When the primary bridges were decommisSiol1ed as unsafe), a \~,ul'...~j) detour bridge bas
provided 1-5 traffic access over the WilIamettb River. Once the proposed bridges are cOnstructed,
existing traffic volumes ~nt1y using the ~ur bridge will be shifted from the detour bridge to
the new bridges. Construction of the proposed bridges will simply reroute traffic from the current '
detOur bridge to the (permanent) replacementjbridges allowed by the ..,"..".ed limendment :
While the replacement bridges will be designed and constructed to accommodate six lanes of travel;'
because 1-5 is only four lanes, the bridges will be stripe~ for four lanes. Until 1-5 is widened to six
lanes, the bridges will remain stripCd for foilrl1anes. Designing and constructing the bridges to
allow for six lanes of travel is intended to accbmmodate fut1ire traffic needs traveling along 1-5; the
additional 1-5 traffic will be generated by Cuttire develoPment throughout the state of Oregon and, .
because Y-S is a major i...;.......;,". throughout the United States. The .construCtion of the replal:ement
bridges, whether striped for four lane or six 18nes, does not generlite lIDY additional vehicular trips, it
, simply provides passage over the WilIamette )liver. When the .bridges are eventually $lriped for six
lanes (to be made consistent with I-S), the additional bridge capacity will increase the performance
and function on-s, not worsen it.
Accordingly. the ".u..u.ed amendment will not allow land uses o~ levels of develOPment that will,
result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classifiCation of
lID existing or planned transportation facility Imder OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A).
Further, the r........d amendments ~ not Jauce the perf~ce of lID existing or planned
tran..l'u.....;on facility below the minimum acteptable pc:rf'ormance standard identified in the TSP or
w.........hensive plan under (IXc)(B), or worscln the ......:......anee of an existing or planned
~...;.,~.....;on 1iICility that is.otherwise JlIOjeded to perform below the minimum acceptable
.._f......ance standard identified in the TSP ot comprehensive plan under (l)( c )(C). '
" '
Date Received
JUL 2 3 ~008
"
;:.;<, "_'", ," StaffFUlI!inga,dune 2008
I ~. ".. ~~'P.22:.~'''~'''~'' .
.011'1', 1-" \,' ','
- ~. ' ;,', .
,-
ATTACHMENT ,.- PAGE 35
, '
. '.i~....:1
. <l, ~ '.~/, ';h:'~ r:1j '\<i,:, :.'
. .. ~'" i.. ' .
Planner: BJ
t
,I
i! .
. . . i'
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed amendment will nOtsignificllntly affect an existing or
ple.rined transportation facility. ;,
"
OAR 660-012-0015 PreparationCmd Coordination ~jTrarisportaJion System Plans
OAR 660-012-0015(1) directS ODorth ".",,"''' and adopts stBte transportation system plan that
identifies a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified state
tran.,}'~.;"::on needs. The Oregon Trau."u.."tion Commission bas done that through adoption of the
Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and modal plans, including the Oregon Highway Plan. The OTP
includes policies to increase the efficientmovement of people and goods for commerce and
production of goods and services that is coordinated with regionai and local plans. It emphasizes
managing the existing tranSportation system effectively and improving that system before adding
new facilities. ' ,
1
"
I,
. . ' , .
, '
. .' .
The OTP also promotes a safe, efficient, and reliable freight sysiem to support economic vitality.
The OHP identifies 1-5 'as an i..;...~~ highway within the state's roadway network. ThBt highway
necessariIy includes 8 bJ1dge over the WilIamette River in EugenelSpringfield. OAR 660-012-
0015(2) and (3) require that regional and local TSPs be consistent with the state TSP. 'Transplan
, currently recognizes the Importance ofI-5 to the'region. BecauSe 'thereplacemcnt bridges are
necessary to maintaining 1-5, by approving the proposed plan amendments, all plans will remain
consistent and the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied. ' "
j'
Ii
Based on !he above findings, the }'.u}'u.....I is consistent with State,Wide PJanning Goal 12.
Goal 13 . Emimv Conservation: To conserve energy.
;3.........:de Planning Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed and controlled "so as to maximiZe the
conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound ..~~_~...ic principles." Ooal,13 is directed at
the development oflocal energy policies and implementing provisions and does not state
requirements with respect to other types of land uSe decisions. It is not clear that the goal has any
bearing Oll a site-specific decision such as the one at issue. Then: is no implementing rule that ,
clarifies the requirements of Goal 13. To the extent that Goal 13 'could be applied to the proposed
plan amendments, the proposal is consistent with Goal 13; the, 1-5 Willamette Bridge project is '
located in the same location as the existing and previous bridges and will continue to m'ake efficient
use of energy with safe, direct and efficient access though the area.
" ,I
"
Comments wen: received that, in summary, the applicant fails to 'eorisider the conservation of
enerl?' by any means other than that of maximizing the effic<iency of car and truck traffic.
, Specifically, failure to cOnsider any provision for m..... ru...Jng bicycle traffic into the 'Crossing does
not maximize the conservation of all fOIJDS of energy, particularly petroleum energy. However"
,given that Goal 13 is directed, at developing local, energy conservation policies, it is determined that
008113 is not a means to require a specific project to ad!! 8 bicycle and pedestrian component
. ,
, Based on the findings above. the proposal is consistent with S~de Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 - urblinization:
I, .'
.. .' 'j .
To provIde for an orderly and efficient transiti071 from rural to urban land
i Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 36
i ... _ _' ,. 1; . ,;.;; ~ '.
I ~.:'!lp~~.,...t\-~N':' ~l..-t"'t-. .
, I,'""''' StilfrFinilingS _ JIDIC 2008
Page ~
,-:,'(" :"
'I
,Planner: BJ
lISe.
The amendments do not affect the transition from rura1 to uman land uSe, as the project u:ea is
centrally located 10 the Metro Plan and is entirclywithin the Eugene-:Springfield UGB. Therefore,'
Statewide Planning Goa114 does not apply.
Goal 15 - WillametteRiver Ci ~_.. .~".: T~ protect, conserve. enJu:mce and ~ntain the flIltllTal,
scellic, h.istoricat agricultllT.al. eco1/l)mic and reCreational qualities o/lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway. .
Portions of the project area are. within the boundaries of the WilJamette River Greenway. As found
under Goal 2 above, which is inCOlporated herein by reference, a goal 15 exception is required by.
Policy O.I I of the Metro Plan and the applicant meets the reqUirements for an exception to Goal 15.
8ased on these findings, the proposal complies with Statewide PllUlIIing Goal 15 as excepted.
Goal 16 tJm:l1)W 19 - Estu8l'Ille Resources. Coastal Shorelands. Beaches and DuDe., and Ocean.
Resources: . .
I
I
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources reJated to t1Je t"UI'...;Jaffected
by these amendments, Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not lIffect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
I
(b) Adoption of the _ndment must not IMke the Metro Plan intemally.inconsistl!nL
The appliClll!t proposes to amend the Metro Plan text ofPoliey D:l1 to aIlow the placement offill
within the WilIamette River greenway for the construction of the 1-5 WUlainetle Bridge Project As
found below, 1his text amendment will not create an intemaI conflict with the remainder of the
Metro Plan. The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro Plan text
amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro plan. To the extent that
they may be applicable, the applicant's findings are also ineu.l'u,..;ed herein by reference., '
The following Metro Plan polices are applicable to 1his request:
.;
B. Economic Elemet1!
.
B.18 Encourage the developmiml oftrtmSportationfacillties'which would improve iu:cess. fo
, industrial and commercial areas and Improve freighl movement capabilities by
implementing the pblicies.and projects in the Eugerre-Springfield Metropolitan .Area .
Tran.,j'u, .w.;vn Plan (fransPlan) and the Eugerre .Airport MIzster p'lan. ,
While the ''''l'"~sed language of1his policy may not be mAnnAtory, the applicant's findings,are
provided as further suppon for the proposed amendments. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5
WUlamette River bridge with two new bridges, and associa1ediniprovements, will maintain the
access, mobility, and freight movement capabilities that the d~~~_....issioned bridge and temporary
detour bridge have provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained along the interstate highway
./.;..... through Eugene and Springfield, the replacement bridges will help pro~de convenient,
~ . ~.L" ~. ,',
. ,- t""'/.' r- ,~~t._~ - t ,-"",' ,'.; !
. ~','h' , . "SUifr'Filllli!lgS ,..'june 2008
. 1'2&024"
'I" '.' t"
I" , .
n
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 37
Date Received
J U L 2 3 2008 .
, Plann'er:BI~J
, .
"'('.
.J "',
,~. "~;
",
. -; ., ~ '.. .'
~ -,.
.'
'"
access to i;ndustrial andcommereial areas on cormecting t:Oads consistent with this policy.
C.' Environmental Resources Element'
C. 8 Local 6'" . " ,.merits shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development
on hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict developmeliJ in wetlands in order to prevent
erosion and protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values,
vegetation, andwildlift values of those areas. , :: '
C.9 Each city shall complete a separate study to meet its requirements IDItkr the Goal 5 Rule for
wetlands, riparian co"idors, and wildlife habitat within the UGB. Lane County and the
respective city jointly will adopt the inventory and protection measures.for the area outsUk
the city limits and inside the UGB,
C. 10 Local governments shall encourage fiirther study (by specialists) of endangered and
threatened plant and wildlife species in ihe metropolitan f;Uea.
I'
C: I I Local governments shall protect endangered and threate~ed plant and wildlife species, as
recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input.
"
These policies are dirt=cted to the local, governments of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and ,
not necessarily the applicant However, they are applicable to the extent that the cities of Eugene
and Springfield and Lane COunty have adopted regulations to protect these resources, and that the
applicant willbe required to apply for applicable.permits pursuant to those local requirements
(Eugene'sWillamette Greenway permit and W8terResources Conservation Overlay Zone, and
, Springfield's 75-riparian setback review). .
C.23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existi~g
and future streets and highways with potential to exceed general highway noise levels
shall include consUkra/ion of mitigating measures, such as acoustical building .
modifications, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning. The application of these
mitigating measures must be balarn:ed with other design considerations and hoilsing
costs.
, Comments were also received regarding the noise abatement walls and limiting noise from the
project Since the project is not a "new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing and
futures streets and highways... " but is rather the reverse, a highWay in the vicinity of existing
.residential development, this policy is not applicable. Furthermore, the highway is replacing an .
existing highway in approximately the same location. In the eventthat this policy is found
applicable, the applicant's findings are incoIpOrated to demonstr8te consistency, As previously
discussed under Goal 6 above, a project noise teclmical report was prepared as part of the '
Environmental Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze yu""":':al noise impacts resulting from
the projecl Per the ODOr Noise Manual (June 1996) analysis procedures, noise mitigation
measures were evaluated to reduce noise levels to _.....1:.) ,residerices as a nisult of the projecl Noise
walls were determined to meet the ODOr effectiveness andcostLeffectiveness criteria in two .
10000000ns and are recommended as,mitigation (see supplemental information, Figures 7-9), The final
<;;"~r'.\ t:," :,. II
" '.
, . Date Receivedoate .Re~Aj"ed
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 38 ,UUL 2 3 2008 .
.. -- --... - -.- -'1
JUL ..,.
~"""q
~, , .
, \; 'jll ;!~\I"SiaffFiftdingS -lune2008
. ," Page 2S , . ,
-;.~ .
"
: ~ .~:
i.. ",I:'.d -.'
I: ~. .
Planner: E3~~ar;:
1 . , ~,j.
~.. ~=.",~
. J
, . .
wall locationS will be detemiined after public input is completed as part of the NEP A process:
Additionally, as stated on page 13 of the .".:_.....: statement, the applicant proposes the following
gener:al meaSures: .
o Continue public involvement through design and construction
o limit work hOIlIll '
o'limit noise
'.
Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied.
C.26 Local Governinents sholl continue 10 monilor, 10 plan for, and to enforce applicable air and
. water quality standmds and sholl cooperale in meeiing applicable federal, slate and local
air and water quality standards. '
As previously stated .underGoal 6, which is incorporated herein by reference, it is not !IIlticipated
that the replacement bridges will have a permanent adverse impact on air quality as the bridges' are
replacing an existing bridge. The applicant is t"'uyu.:"g several measures including site prepjIIlllion,
site construction, coordination and post development measures discussed under Metro Plan Policy
, E.2, which is inc...yu...;ed herein by ....:........ce, to reduce and mitigate impacts to water quality,
consistent with this policy. In addition, water quality impacts will be further reviewed for
compliance with local standards under the local pennitting process for Willamette Greenway
permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone mid the 75-foot riparian setback and under the
NEP A Environmental Assessment, subject to applicable requirements.
C.30 Exi::ept as otherwise allowed according 10 Federal EmergenCy Managemenl Agency (FEMA)
regUlations, development sholl be prohibited injloodways ifit couldresuJt in an increased,
jlood/evel. The jloOdway Is the channel of a river or other water course and IlI"c-16Ihe
w:fjacent land area thDt must be reserved 10 discharge a one-percent:ehance flood in any
given year.
C.31 When development is ollowed to occur in lhe floOdway or floodway fringe; loCal regUlations
shall control such development in order to minimize the polential danger to life and
property. Within Ihe UGB, development should result in in-fllling of partially develiJpui
land. Outsitk lhe UGB, areas affected by Ihe jloodway and jloodway fringe sholl be
protectedfor their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open space and
recreational potential, . and their value 10 waler resollf'ces.
C.32 Local govii:-.ents shoJI require. site-specific soii surveys and geologic studi~ 'where
potential problems exist:. When problems are Identified, local governments shall require
speciaIdesign considerations andc:onsfruction measures be taun to offset the soil and
geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments, and
environmentally-sensitive areas. .
Regarding Policy C.30 and C31, as discussed under Statewide Planning oOai 7, Natural Hazards,
which is inu...yu.~~ herein by ...E........ce. the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project is p!rtially located
within a FEMA designated regulatory floadway and flOodplain. Therefore, the design of the
replacement bridge must satisfy the regulations set forth in the National Flood 1nsunmce Program
, ,;i: '" 'ATTACHMENT A':' PAGE 39
Date ReceivE d
j U L 2 3 2008 ' .
, ,,' StalfFmdings-Junc2008 ...;,.,,~'.,,: ".'i."
'?~r~~.~'" :.: ~'P.'26:~~:")..~,':,~: - .. ~ '. '." . '.'.: ~,
" '
, . .
Planner: BJ
:1 {(,:
. (';;~_~It
.~ ., ~ .
, ;; ~. ~," ;, !~
.-
" .~
I'
(NFIP). The NFIP requires that'any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs, which corresponds to water surface elevations, associated with the ,1 OO-year flood event)
must be approved by FEMA.The no-rise condition is also a requirement of ODOr for any bridge
replacement project. '
Consistent with C.31, both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ,ordinances regulating construction '
within floodplains and floodways;City ofEugeneFEMA .no~rise. ci:rtification for any
. consttuction or structures within floodwayslspecial flood hazard areas; and City of Springfield rype
I permit to allow any construction in the floodplains or floodWaYS within Springfield. Comments
from the Eugene Floodplain Manager note that a FEMA no-rise certificate would only be required
through the City of Eugene for construction (till) or strUctures within the floodwayor floodplain
that are outside of the right-of-Way. The proposal includes temporary staging areas outside of the
ODOr right-of-waY; portions of the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands, and ODor
and LaDe County ...u......'.J' both located southeast ofI-S and theWilliunette River. For these areas,
prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory floodWaY, ODOr will be required to
obtain a "no-rise" certification stating that the development will not impact the t"~ j-'Nject (before
the temporary bridge) base flood elevation elevations, floodway elevations and floodway data
widths. This certification must be signedby a professional engineer and supported by technical data
consistent with current FEMA standards.
,
, Based on the preliminary modeling, the proposed pier location options would result in the
following; Option A woliId result in an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the 100-
year flood-event and, Option B would result in a decrease of 0.54 feet for the 100- year flood event
Option B, including a decrease in base flood elevation, is consistent with the no-me and Policies
C.30 and C.31. Option A's preliminary analysis shows an increaSe of 0.02 base flood elevation,
which does not meet the no-rise requirement However, a detailed no-rise analysis has not been
submitted and the modeling will be run again to meet the no-rise requirement when the design is
refined for the permitting process. Furthennore; ODOr requires its bridges to meet the no-rise
requirement Th........fv.... in the .context of a plan amendment, these policies are met Specific
, construction and ~.......";;onal details will be a..~;u...:ately addresSed during local and state
permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and idated standards.
Regarding Policy C.32. as noted under Goal 7, portions of the project area proposed for temporary
staging areas 8IlI identified as moderate hazard risk areas on theiDap identifying. Relative Slope
Instability Ha.zards in Eugene, However, while this infonnation may guide the City in adopting
code revisions, it does not apply directly to land use applicationS' as it is not adopted as refinement
plan or as codiDedland use criteria. Additionally, based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical
investigations can be completed prior to construction to determine the best meihodto seat
. foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related to e8rthqwikes (e.g., lateral spread,
liq~factjon). ~ addition, slopes can be constructed in a m.rinP.t1fmt reduces the potential for
. croslOn or small landslides. '
Based on the findings above,in the ~ntextof aplan mD~dmenL the proposed pIan aIilendments
are consistent with these policies. . ' , :',' , ,.' . .
0, WiIlamette River Greenwav, River Corridors, and Wate!Wti~ Elem~t
'!;'.t~'<i~"'.~~'" .,~_ .,~'--:'
'. . . . .; ,......SllIffFmdiligs"' June 2008
Page 27 . '
:1(/1; ~ :; .i~ ;i.'
'Date, Received
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 40
-. -....-
JUL 2 3 Z008
>\,,l'
....il It 'l::~;' i' -:,~:t":.
., Planner: 'BJ
... ,I .
. .
D.9 Local and state governments shall ro1llinue to prOvide adeqUate public access to tlu!
Willamettt River Greenway.
~~
l
.'
The applicant proposes that the public access connecting to the Willametle River Greenway will
continue to 'be provided through ODOT'night-of:.way under the 1-5 bridges, therefore public access"
to the Willamette River G......... "'-,, Will not he pennanently affected. As noted under Goal 8 , ,
Recreational Need above, which is incorporated herein by reference, a cOntinuous route across ,
ooor right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways will be maintained on both the north and
the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, Willakenzie Area Plan,
, Neighborhood Design Element- Willamette Greenway, Use Management Standard 2). Therefore, in
the context of a plan amendment, this policy is met Additionally, these specific consiruction arid
operational details will, he a~~,u.l'.:ately addressed dwing local permitting processes, subject-to
applicable approval criteria and relatl;d standards. '
D.11 The taking of an exception'shall be required ifa non-w~er:.dep~ndent tranSportation '
facUity requires placing of fill within tlu! Willamette River Greenway setback.
':..
,
, ..
:-.\
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approvedfor
Oregon Department of TranspOrtation (ODOT) 1-5 right of way crossing tlu! Willtimette
River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line. for purpose of constracting a
temporary detour bridge, impleme1lling the conditions imposed on tlu! Discretionmy Use
Approval (Springfield Jorirna1 SHR 2003-00115) and removing the temporary detour bridge,
after completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of
OregonAdministrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Par:! 1J(c) for a 'reasons' exception; and' .
pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015. is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro PlanJext,
Policy #D. 1 I, Chapter 1Il, Section D.
As discussed under Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.ll, the applicant is requesting an
exception to Goal 1 5 for reasons outlined under OAR 660-004-0022. An exception is warranted per
the standards set forth in OAR 660-004-0020. Therefore, the above Metro P1lIll text for Policy 0.11
,must be amended to acknowledge this Goal 1 5 exception. Accordingly, the, following text
amendment is ~ou,^,oed, with old text slfUek ellt and new text in bold:
, '
, ,
.J.~':, :.:_::~;1eB te Elate-.viae P:~'lo.6 GeellS "riR.amMte Ri~}er Greel:tll;:.~,.., ":3-':;ir~'~:"'~-
OFegea ~ ':1'~-.:.:.:..:.~HtQ'. ~: :.~":''j : :.-:.: ,.~.,.aa €ODOr) ~ . ~ ::ght sf ~;NJ m:essiBg the ''VillamtRte
&i"lel' lIBEl \~Jit:h:iB the "'~illBlBeUe River (L~;.. ;..;.;;.: 0I1'~ Eethaek ~iB.e, faA f''o:.'o:&-i'':''::'':' J~e8ftfin1_g
-. d~ " 'dg . I.........~ .... A"" nu
~\.:.:'f".>.1~-J EelH'. f1 e, ~p ,0/.;;.:..;..:.:.:.t.:.:.~:::..;..;,.'.:.:::.3-HBp9S.;. ..:.....""'...!--b:L.~n.~~~~-J'''''t::f:ft'
I,;'F" ,,1 (SpfiDgfield JelH'BJi SI~.,~I.'~ If) JDJ ".""'."'';''~=J'.''''''-J deHlllf Illidge
. after sempletieB ef1l.,;.. r .;..~-.;;.:.,.:.:.;;..;.~:.'~ :.-;..-:.aeemeRt hridCe. 'I1Hs exe.:.~~.;.:o:.. .,).msBes the eHterie. sf
OfegeB .. ..l_''''---uF.'e Rille E().\R) Illlg I)g1 1)Q22E~ Wil'-,.,ette GFe8ll".'IlIY; tIIeelleeplisa
.~,..:...:.:.:..Wlts ef~\R 'fig g91 0929 Geal2, P81~t'Jl(!) ~:~:: .~.:.~~:a:.w~ ,..,aej'BeB; Md
Ill".'''''': te o..-\R Il~g gg1 gl.'l!,:': hmeIly adeJla!d as lIB amOBdmllBt te the MdlB P1IIIllsnt,
Peliey#D.II,Chapterm,n","',,,...g, , " '
~ '~..\t'~~..~:~L..:\rr'~ ' ,::~".I;" .
, L," I 'StaffFiridingS-June200B
, ""--28
~"I" ..~ ,
: Ii ~I \ f. ;.. J ~ I ~
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 41
Date Receiv( ~(I
JUL 2 3 Z008
'pfariner: BJ.
~ .-,
, }oj
)H. ..
, :.:. ~';~':, -:':
'" :.\.
" .' ~}i
.., .",~.
"j
"
An exception to Statewide PlanDiDg Goal 15 WilIamette River G. ~.N" ~J was approved
fo~ Oregon Department of Transportation (OD01') forpulposes of removing and '
replacing the decommissioned 1-5 bridge, the temporal')' detour bridge and the Canoe
Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one5outhbonnd and one northbowid)
, within the 1-5 right-()f-way crossing the Willamette RiVer and Canoe Canal and within
the WilIamette River"G. ~~_""I Setback Line. Tbef:xception authorizes construction
and later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the
'decommissioned 1-5 WilIamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour
bridgeS; construction ofthe two replacement bridges; reconstruction of the roadway
approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area; and
completion ohny required mitigation of project impacta. In association with these
, tasks, the exception further authorizes within the WilIamette River Greenway Setback
Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-()f-way and the removal of fill
within a temporary slope easement east ofl-5. This.ex"ption satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), Willamette Greenway, and the
exception requirementa of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part lI(c) for a "reasons" "
exception, and punuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted lis. an amendment to
th~ Metro Plan teXt, Policy D.U,Chapter 111, Section'>>.
The proposed text amendment replaces the stand-alone paragraph under Policy 0.11 regarding the
temporary bridge. The applicant's proposed Metro Plan text amendment to Policy 0.11 is adequate
and with this text amendment and Goal 15 exception granted IIIlder Goal 2 above, Policy 0.11 will
be satisfied.' ' ,
, . ~. Environmental Oesim Element
. '
E.2 Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage;ways shall be protecied and
retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those
natural features, This policy does 1U!t preclude i/lC7'easing their corrveyance capacity in an
, errvironmentally responsible manner. '
Bridge cOnstruction and demolition, including construction and removal of associated temporary
work p1atfonns, will impact riparian vegetation within the /ir~~""'''Y'
!I.
.
Construction is proposed within eXisting OOOT rights-of-ways and easements, with the exception
of 4~..~...iy staging areas. As discussed above under Goal 8 Recreational Need, removal of the
detour bridges will include removal of fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of the
Whilamut Natural Area. OOOT has obtained a ~~r-._j easembit to do this work which requires
rehabilitation of the area within 5 years of completion of the permanent bridges. Constmction best
management practices will be implemented to minim;.,." the effeCts of construction activities.
Disturbed areas will be restored andOOOT will Work with the cOmmunity throughout the design
and constmction process to get input and advice on ways to avoid and min;mi.,.e environmental
impacts. '
According to the applicant, a species list provided byORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage
Information Center) indicates that there are no federal or state-listed Endangered Species Act (ESA)
StatrFinclings - June 2008
Page 29 '
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
. ATTACHMENT A - PA~E_~~..,
, "
Planner: BJ
. ,
-~'~~'~"'-:l,~~ I
;~:~.
~'-~ -- . ;":
~"''''''''~'''~l_''
:...
.
J",,~. ,,'
,.:., l'li.. ~:
0":- ',.,'
..
"
I;, f
, ,
"
.
Phlll Amrnc\l:lcm l<i~iu~;1
.:1l'Ol,')(.;8'
, ""i'I~~;'
/-, - ';'], . ; Jt.r '
~~:l," \
:1['
7
Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
Planner:, 8J
it :,'
1.. '.'
c
, ~PRINGFIELD
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD; OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
FAX (541) 726,3689
www.ci:springfield.or.us
July 22, 2008
c Notice of Decision - Springfield City Council
To Whom It May Concern:
On July 21,2008 the Springfield City'Council adopted ari ordinance amending the
Metropolitan Area General Plan text, Chapter ill, Section D. Policy Dj 1, and an
exception to statewide planning Goal 15 Willamette Rivo/ Greenway to allow fill to be
placed in the Greenway Setback Area for purposes of coristructing a permanent
replacement bridge over the Willamette River in the 1-5 right-of-way. You are receiving
this notice because of your participation in the joint public hearing process and/or the
joint public hearing that was conducted by the City Councils of Springfield and Eugene
and by the Lane County Bom-d of Commissioners on June 24, 2008.
Because you participated in this hearing you are entitled to this notice and have the right
to appeal this Ordinance to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), Any appeals
to LUBA must be filed within 21 days of the effective date specified in Section 5 of this
Ordinance (see attachment). City staff cannot advise yoU: of your legal rights other than
the deadline for filing and the mailing address of LUBA. You should consult a land use
attorney for assistance in this matter.
The Development Services Department appreciates your participation in these
proceedings. The comments, opinions and ideas of prop~ owners, residents and ,
tenants and other interested parties affected by land use decisions inform the process and
are fundamental to the success of these endeavors. We hope that these actions as
intended by the City Council prove beneficial to you.
. For additional iIrl'ormatiqn or assistance, please contact dreg Mott, Planning Manager at
726-3774 or QITlottiaJci,snrimdield,or,us'
, Date Received
JUL 2 3 2008
Planner: 8J