HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence DLCD 7/28/2008
I
"l.!
I
'"
Oregon
,":;'
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540
(503) 373-0050
Fax (503) 378-5518
www.lcd.state.oLus
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
July 28, 2008
~
I
TO:'
Subscribers to Notice of Adopted P~an
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM:
Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Program Specialist
SUBJECT: Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan Amendment
OLCO File Number 001-08
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (OLCO) received the attached notice of
adoption. A copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the OLCO office in
Salem and the local government office.
Appeal Procedures'
ii
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: August 13, 2008
This amendment was submitted to OLCO for review 45 days prior to adoption. Pursuant to
ORS 197.830 (2)(b) only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to
adoption of the amendment are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA).
If you wish to ap'peal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government
If you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of
the notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government.and others who received
written notice of the final decision from the local government The notice of intent to appeal must be
served and filed in the form and manner prescribed byLUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).
Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
.NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS
MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN
MAILED TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAN IT WAS MAILED TO
DLCD. AS A RESULT YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAYBE EARLIER THAN
THE ABOVE DATE SPECIFIED.
Cc: Gloria Gardiner, OLCO Urban Planning Specialist
Ed Moore, DLCO Regional Representative
Bob Cortright, OLCO Transportation Planning Coordinator
Amanda Punton, OLCO Natural Resource Specialist
Greg Mott, City of Springfield
Date Received
JUL 28 2008
Planner: 8J
<paa> ya
.
---
52
DLCD
-.
"---0 . I'tct... 0
In perron .~ mal
DOEin'" OF '
I ~ r~I.: ~k';-~'
I E AlL.' a..,"; - (. t
s .. .~!~ _.~t
I~ ~QW[.;'_
M ... .", ..
.,1:1 _ ForDLC01!~_.d....J
nn~~~~~8E~~~~ption
".. ,",u' S W1J1JQNG ql vu RTtR THE m\.,ut 'llfCISION
PERd~ ~'.610, OARCH.Af>TER660-rlM'!l oN 18
~G~~(
Jurisdiction: City of Springfield Local file number: LRP2007.{)0010
Date of Adoption: 7121/2008 Date Mailed: 7123/2008
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Fonm 1) mailed to DLCD? Select oneDate: 2/2712008
[8J Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment D Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
D Land Use Regulation Amendment D Zoning Map Amendment
D New Land Use Regulation D Other.
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical tenms. 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
aIlow a non-water related, non-water dependent use in the Greenway Setback area of 1-5 permanent
replacement bridge
Specify Density: Previous: New:
Applicable statewide planning goals: Planner: BJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
~~DDDDDDDDD~DD~DDDD
Was an Exception Adopted? [8J YES D NO
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment..
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing?
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply?
ID~U;me;e;~ c~c~m0n:~r~ire immediate adoption?
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Please select one
No
Plan Map Changed from:
Zone Map Changed from:
Location:
to:
to:
Date Received
Acres In~vr1l 2008
[8J Ves
DYes
DVes
DNo
DNo
DNo
I
J
DLeD file No.
Please list all affected Slate or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts:
Local Contact: Greg Mott
Address: 225 Fiftb Street
City: Springfield
Zip:
Phone: (541) 726-3774 Extension:
Fax Number.
E-mail Address:gmott@c:i.springfield.or.us
ADOPTION SUBl\'UIIAL REQUIREMENTS
This form mud he mailed to OLCO within S workin.. dvs after the final decision
per ORS 197.610, OAR Cbapter 660 . DivisIOn 18.
1. Send this Form and TWO Comnlete Coni"" (documentS and maDS) of the AdoDted Amendment to:
ATIENTION: PLAN Alh<!.H....MENT SPECIALIST
DEPARTl'r.u!.H I OF LAND CONSERV A nON AND DEVELOPMENT
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540
2. El...~;'v"";c Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, but you may also submit
an electronic copy, by either email or FfP. You may connect to this address to FfP proposals and
adoptions: webserver.lcd.state.or.us. To obtain our Username and password for FfP, call Mara Ulloa at
503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailingmara.ulloa@State.or.us.
3. ~ Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCO not later than F1VE (5) working days
following the date of the final decision on the amendment.
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings
and supplementary information.
5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working
days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within T\\-<!.iH i-ONE (21) days of the date,
the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCO.
6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to OLCO, you must notify persons who I I
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision.
7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at bttp:/Iwww.Icd.state.or.usJ. Please
print on 1l-1nd I l!J'een Daner on Iv. You may also call the OleO Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax
your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.uUoa@State.or~ - ~~ON; l
PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. Uale HeCelVed
JUL 28 2008
-
2!aAner.;...BJ-
.r
,
"
ORDINANCE NO.~ 6227
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 IS WILLAMEITERIVER GREENW AYj ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
. . .. - .
WHEREAS, ChaptC!,dV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) ~ets forth p~ocedures for amendment of the Metro PlaIl, 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 C~de 12.225(2)(a & b), and for
Eugeneby Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3); and . .
. I'..
~RE~, on February 1,2008 the Oregon Dep~ent of Transportation
(ODOT) submitted anapplication to the City of Eugene fora Metro Plan text
amendment, an.Exception to Goal 15 WiIlamette River Greenway for the 1-5 WiIlamette
Bridge Project;' and .
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing of the planning commissions of the City of
Springfield, the City of Eugene .and Lane County WllS held .on .b.pri129, 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 Springfielci 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 0, Policy
0.11 of the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council conducted a joint public. hearing on
this amendment on June 24, 2008 with the Eugene City CoUncil and Lane County Board
of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action bllSed uPon the above
recommimdations and evidence and testimony already in the record lIS well lIS the
evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected offici8Is public hearing; and
. ,
.' WHEREAS,substantial evidence exists within thei~ecord demonstrating that the
proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, the Springfield Development Code,
and applicable state and local law lIS described in f!ridings attached lIS Exhibit A, and
which are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
".
Date Received
JUL 28 2008
Planner: ~
"
Ji
-.,
\ ,
I
i
I
. i
;i
:1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF,THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
- ,
.
Section I: The Metro Plan Policy D.1I, Chapter III, Section D. is hereby
amended to read and provide as follows: '
- D.ll The taking of an exception shall be required if anon-water-dependent
transportation facility requires placing offill within, the Willamette River
Greenway setback.
"
"
"An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 WilIamette 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 Canal.and within the Willamette
RiverGree~way Setback Line. The exception a~tho.ues construction and
later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition ofthe
decommissioned 1-5 WilIamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and
.detour bridges; construction ofthe two replacement bridges; reconstruction
ofthe roadway approaches to the bridges (1-5 ahd 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 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 ofl-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6) Willamette Greenway
and the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal2, PartlI(c) for a
'reasons' ex~eption, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted
as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy D.ll, Chapter III, Section
D." .
,
'I
I
I
I
i
Section 2; The Metro Plan is hereby amended to iPclude the findings offact and
conclusions of law supporting a "reasons" exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and
demonstrating compliance with OAR 660-004-0015, 660-q04-0020 and 660~004-0022(6)
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporilted herein by this reference.
"
,\
of
Section 3: The findings set forth in attached Exhib!t A are adopted as findings in .
support of this Ordinance. :
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clafu.e, phrase or portion of the
. Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision
and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. D t R .
. . a e ecelved
JUL 2 8 2008
Planner: BJ
&~~g 6227 .
" ORDINANCE NO.
!/
I,
'I)
. ,
Section 5: NotwithstaD.ciing the effective date of ordinances as 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 provid~d 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 containing identical provisions to
those described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Sprngfield this 21st day of July,
2008 by a vote of 5 infavorahd 0 against. '(I Apsent) .
Appro"" by""M"", of..., ~~:~~' day oflmy, 2008.
~7 U.;
ATIEST:
f2ru.a~
City ReeO~d~
RE\/IEWED g. APPROVED
AS TO FORM
IUd p~,
DATE: . Iii/I ,/"';.
OFFICE OF c.:ITY ATTORNEY
l
Date Received
JUL 28 2008
Planner: BJ
ORDINANCE NO. -6-m 6227
,
~~
II
I
:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
225 FIFTH STREET . SPRINGAELD, OR 97471 . PH: (541)n6-3610 . FAX: (541)726,3689
.
Date: July 17, 2008
. "
To: Interested Parties for 1-5 WillametteRiver Bridge Project
From: Gregqry Molt, Plani1ing Manager, City ofSpringfi<::ld
I
'1
I
I
i
.,
You are receiving this information because you are included on the interested parties list for
consideration of the Oregon Department ofTransportation's (ODOT's) land use applications for
the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project(City of Springfield !;'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 scheduletl 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: httn:/Iwww.lanecountV.oTlz/WebCastLCOGlDefault.asnx.
'i
:I
If
I.
,I
"
I
'I
'I
"
I
I
i
I
. .
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 apPi:ar at the July 21, 2008 City
Council meeting to do so orally. '
. "
Written rebuttals may be submitted to the attention of GregoryMolt, Planning Manager, at 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477. All written submittals mnst be received by 5:00 p,m. on
July 21, 2008.
.'
. Exhibit A
Findings
1,5 wmam~tte Bridge Project
(Eugene filesMA 07-3, RAOS-li
Springfield file LRP2007;.()OO10i .'
LaDe County file PA08-5230)
"
..
'"
.~
.....
'/..'
,.
.
;,'
'.
Metro Plan 'fat Amend~f:Ilt ~ Goall!j:w:, .: OJ , .. fM..\ 8"-3. LRnOO7.:.ooo10. P AOll-SZ3O\
The proposed 'l"'....dm...t inc1udts an exception to Stab:wide Pl...",..... 00a115'11Dd a Metro P18n
rext Am...dm_to allow fili within the WJ1lsmctte River .,...,.. ,:ay for tile 1-5 Willamette Briilge
ProjectThi: project iDCludes replacel'''.nt of tile 1..._....... 5 bridges over thew1llmi1ctte River and
Canoe Cana1 (patterson Slough), includiDg construction and Iaterremoval ofmie of more -'l'.'~;
bridges. demolition of tile original and detour WilllUnette Riyer imd Canoe Cana1 bridges, .
. COIlSlrUCtiOI) of~Jscementbridges, .~._;..JCtion oftheroadway....l'..:.....hes to the bridges,
rehabilitation of project area, and completion of any required IiiitigatiDil. .
. .
Eugene, Springfield' and Lane Q,1IIIly each adopted .identical Mem. PI." amendment criteria into
t!1eir respective implementing ~..;;......= and codes. Eugene Coile 9.7730(3), Springfield
Development Code S.ectil1D Chapter 5, Section 5.14-100 through 5.14-155, and Lane Code
12.225(2)(11 & b), set forth the c:..:.....l'.umng Metro pl.ap.iD:nend:nlent criteria. SinCe Eugene is the
'lead jurisdiction ori this application, those criteria' are BdclICssedbelow under tbeEugene Code as
follows: . .
. . .
Eugene Code. (EC) Sectiou 9.1730(3) requires that the foRowlng c:riteria (In bold aud it4lics) be
applied to a Metro Plan, text amendment: . ~ . .
(II.) The tUIJDIdme1It nUat be CDNIistBtt with the relevtuzt Sttdeivide Plmurlng Goal.r adopkd by the
LuulCouervatiDn ant! ImelDpment Co1ltllllmonl IlIltl .. .' .
GOal I Cili2r:q, InvqJv"",~ To develop" cUizen i1rvolvement program rh<lt lnnUu rM .Yr"' ..miry
. for dtluns to be lriVolved in tzl/ phtuu ofrM plannlng procu.s.':' ,
\ . :'.
The'City bas a.:1....., f.edgedprovisionsfor citizen involvement that ensure the ~t',.......ity for
citizens to be Involved in all ~ of the p~ process and set out rcquimnents for such
hivolvement The action dOes not amend the citizen involvcmept y._.,._ The process for
reyiewing-these amendmen1s Complies'with Goal I since it complies. with, and surpasses the .
.....,.:.__w. of; the citizen involvement provisions. . .
. .
The City oiEugeDC land use code implementS StateWide phmnl"g Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
the ..:...,...J .m,....dments be given and public :.~:.:..... be he1d'prior to adoption. As a Type I, site
.,._":':e Metro Phm _mn..nt. consideration of tile Am.....!~ begins with i1joint City of .
Date Received
StafTF'mdinp - June 2008
P"i"J:' .
ATTACHMENT A,- PAG\!; 4
- ..-.. ~...... . -
JUL 2 8 2ilOB
Pla'nner: :SJ
"
I
II
I
"
'.
"
\
,
I
I
1
I
,
Eugene, City ~fSpringficldand Lane Couuty P1anniDg Cn")mi..;i;;n public hearing on April 29,
2008. .
. ..
I
11
. '
Subscqueiit to deemlng theapplitalions comp1~ 'on February 27, ~08, lhe city mBiIed DD~ce of
the ..._......d planllIli...dm"llls to the L....~....::o1 of Land CoDst:ryationand Development, as
. required by the Eugene Code and in accordllncc wilh Stale statutes.. Reftrrals concerning lhe
pe:nding applications were sent to the Oregon t _...~;....art ofTranspilrtation (OD01), City of
Springfield, Lane Couuty, the affected Nci6h: ,,n,.J Associations (Lauiel Hill Valley Citizens and
the Harlow Neighborhood Association), and to City depllrtmenls', On March 14,2008, notice of the
. joint Plmming Cnmmi..non public hearing was mailed to the applicant, and OwnCIS and occupants
.of ........ ""'i within 300 feet of the subject..... r _:;, the affected neighbor!lOod groups in all ~
jurisdictions and other int.eleStCd parties such as the Whilamut N81UrBl Area of Alton Baker Park.
, On March 26, 2008, notice was also posted in acc:ord!mce withEe 9.7415(5) and 9.7735(1). On
March 14, 2008, notice of the join! P1anniDg c..--=".:on public hearing was also published in the
Register-Gtmrd, in IICCll$nce with the Eugene Code. An additional joint public hearing before ~
elected officials of the Ci~ of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane Couuty will be scheduled
following Planning Cominissjon action. Notice to :"_~:.d ,and Bffected parties will a1sli ~
provided for that hearing. '
'.
..
'.
. .
In .~......se to the public notice, letters ofwrittcn testimmiy have been received, including .
comments from two of the affected Eugene neighborhood groups; the Lamel Hill Valley Citizel)s
. (LHVC)and the Harlow Neighborhood Associalion (HNA). ResPonses to theseco!IllllClltS are
provided under the a..........:....;.aiteIfu below where applicable. ,
Additionally, the fedl;ral en\ :'__":"::aI process applicable to this projecl provides additional
_rr_.:.mi1ies forpuJ:Jlic in~lvement includini public meetings, open houses, newsl~ public
COJ!l1Ilent period on the Enviro!nnental A".,_mt, and establisbineut of a COinmumty Advi"sory
Group. These. efforts will continue public involvement outside of the land use application process,
-, consistent with this Goal.
,.
"
'I
'I
I
I
'1
I
!
11
I
I
,
The ~ used by Eugene, Springfield and Lane Couuty inclhding mailed; posted and
, published notice (as well as posting on the City of Eugene web page) for reviewing these
amendments complies withSt8tewide P1anniDg Goal I, since it complies with and surpasses the
~ents of the SIBle's Citizen inv~lvementprovisions. .
9nsl2 - Ll!nd IJ!ie Planni,!,,; To uUlbllsh a lmuillSepJ,~.":',"';proce# andpolicyfrqmeworkas a
basis for all thcls/oIU and actioIU re!i1ted to use of land and to as:rure an adeqIID1e factuQJ base for
such theislolU and actions.' .
,
. .
'.
Partl-P~' .
. Part I of Goal 2 requires that actions related to land uSe beconsiS1l:Dt with acknowledged '
_......"::"":veplans ofclties and counties. The;B~e.{l'l!lil!g!ield 1.:..~,.._1i~ tUea General
fl!!g. (Metro P\!m) is the policy tool that provides a basis for clecision-JmIkiDg in t1iis area. Tbe
Metro Plan was ~w1edged by the S1ate in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning .
goals. These lrod"'ll-" and record show that there is an adequate fiIctua1 base for decisions to be
made c..-:...~ the ....wl' .~"J amendments. Goal 2 reqnires thm, plans be ~ With the .
, .
". ..'.
."
__ ..- R" __~ _....;....... _____
ATTACHMENT A - PAGEr'
~ ,.- ~ ..
> .
Date Received
'. JuL 28 2008
. P;anrier~' BJ
.
Sl8fr:r:"L... -l1me 2lKis
Pogo 2
.'
, .
.~
,
"
plans of LI...;..:' gm ___.:.J units and tbirt." ., ..:mities be ~ded for nMew.and co~ by
IIff=ted 0" __...ml8l UDits. To comply with the 00a12 coordiDalionre.;..:........Ent, the City
coordinsled the reView of these Bm"",dm""ls with ell affmed go\,~_--IB1 units. Specifically,
.' - . 'I.... .
notice waS JIiaiJed to the Stale D.....~_.:nt orLand c..~~_ ,,"':on and Devel~ OIegon
Dep8rtmmt ofT'~r".;..:.:on'(bDOn Lane Co1ll1ty, and the City of Springfic1d.' Lane Co1ll1ty and
the city of SptiDgfiCld are jliliUcip8liiIg in this 1IIIl""dmP.nt. u .. .
. .,
:;.
~'
'~;
.
,
-.
;":'
..... .
"
Part II- Exceptlo1U .
Part n of Goill2 proVides the conditiODll and standards for wldch 11 local jurisdiction can adapt an
-'~r':Dn to a ..:...:...,,:de goal. Relevant to tbis request is S1atewideplAnning 00a115, W'illametle
River C'__."'-' which doeS'not iillow DOn water~tI""t. DOD:~.re1ated uses, such as the
r"r.~"J fnmsportaticin filcility, within the ~"""""~l setback Widwut receiving an exception.
BecaUse a goal 15 eXception is required by D.l1 of the Metro PJs!l. it is ~_..-ry to detcmJine if
Goilll5 itseIf.would require such lID exception. The ncc:d for a goBl exception is specifically
lriggei'cd by Policy D.l1 ofthe-Metm Plan, W'illamettll River ~~~_..lIY, River Conidors, and
Watc:lwayS Element, which states: , . ' .'
. -.., 1> ,
. ~ t . :1 ~
D. llTIuJ taldng of an aception s/rall be required if /Z ,io~wQter*pendent lrl1llSpOrtation
facility reqvins placing offill within the Willamelfe JIilIerGreeTlWay setback.
'. .
.\
,
An ezi:ejJtion to Statewide Plann/1.lg Goall J WiIlamette River Gree~ was
opprovedfor Oregon De.. ~ .......:>it ofTransportotiOn (ODOT) I.J right of way
crosstng the Willamette lUver and :within ~heW'dlainette RIver Greenway Setback
Line, for JRlTP()se of C01Utructing a temporary detOllr bridge,' implementing the
conditio"sfinPo.red on the Discretionary Use AppT-uwU (Springfield J0U17l/l1 SHR
2003;.QOllJ)and. ,.,... .,;,.,g the t...........;delOllr bridge after completion of the
permarient replacement bridge. This ez&eptitm satisfies the criteria of Oregon
AdmIniStrative Rule (OAR) 660-0,04-0022(5) Willameite Greenway; the.exaptlon
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(e) for a 'reos01U' ez&eption; and
pur81lJ11lt to OAR 66()..()()4.0015, Is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro
Plan tm, Policy #D.ll. Chapter III. Section D. . .
. . ..
. . . .
nie taking of lID _,_..,.::00 is CODSisteriiwith Policy D.Il as the proposal includes the P\a.._M; of
fill within the Wi11ametli:'River Gteenway sdback for a DOn-watiir~ ~"':"'r..;";:Dn .
facility'lI1!d isconsisleDt with the Goal I 5 exception previously 1111= for the tcmponay bridge, lIS
described UIIdcr PolicY D.II above. To aclcm!wledge the 1-5 wmAm- Bridge Project, Metro Plan
. Policy D.lI is propoSed to be IIII1CIIded as follows in bold: .
.'
. -. All exceptiOD to Statewide plAllnb'g Goal IS W~ette ~er Greeaway was approved
for OregOD Department ofTl'1ID8portatiOD (ODOT) for PlUpOSelI of removlDg aDd .
replacing the decommilsioDed 1-5 bridge, the temponiry detour bridge ODd the CaDoe
CUlll bridge.~ two Dew Pll1"B11d bridgell (one loUthbOUDd 8Dd ODe a:ol1hboUDd)
wi!hID the I-S right-o'.way .. ""t..g the WWamette River BDd CaDoe C8DllIODd within .-
the W111aIDeUe River ~. .~ "...S~ack LlDr; The ~~~r;Waallth~~ collStnu:t1on
. ODd later removal ofoae or more> _.... ,'" ..' work, bridges; demoUtioa of the
~mmlssioaed 1.5 Willamette River Bridge, f::IJ!lDe CIlIUI1 Bridge, ud detour
'.
StalfFiDdings - J""',2008
Pap 3 .
Date Received.
J~L 28 2008 .
Planner: .BJ
~ -.'. -.-0:---'.'- - ---
ATTACHMENT A - PAGEir
...-. ..... . . :..-.--';".-
.'
.
.'
'.
. ,,'
bridgeS; ciJJlItrilction of tile two replaCClllellt bridges; _nstrDction of tile roadway
approaches to the bridges '(1-5 aDd nmps); rebabllitidion of the r' .;..l area; and
completion of any reqDlnd mitigation cif project ImPIlcta. In _ation .nth these
tasks, the exception fDrther authorizes "ithiu the w.uaiuette River G~ Setback .
L1ue the addition and removal of fill within ODOT .:":; Jf."ay and .the remmJ of fill
. withiu a tempon." slope easemel1t east of 1-5. This excepti" _. ~,:.!l.iea the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 6~On(6), WiIIlIInette G. ,--"",j, ana the
. D.,.", ;,.. reQulremel1t11ofOARli6O-OO4-OO20GoaU Part n(c) fora "reUOJUI"
. w:eptioD,and pUri~t to OAR 666-004-0015, Ia hereby adopted 88 an amendment to
tile Metro Piau ten, PolleY D.ll, Chapter 111, Section ~.
In comPliaDcc with Metro Plan Policy D.11, the following provides IIIIlIIysis fora Goal I S
. . " .
....._t'....on. . .
.'
.'
"
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) ..imini!l1rlltivco tule govl:lJliIig goal
exceptions, OAR 660-004-0022(6), states that within urban meas,the proposed siting ofuses that
are~Water-dependenl DOr\lo_ ...lated within the WilIamet1eRiver ,,"__,.,..y ~ckarea
requires exceptions. The tule s!Iltes the following: .
,
.'
"
(6) WiUamelte Greerrway: Within an IITban area deSlgNJIed on 1M "'-1" '. ,,~d Willamette
Greel/WQ)I BoundaryltWpS, IIle siting of uses which are neither Water;dependent nor water-
related wilhilllM setback line required by &ctiOn CH of t1uJ Goal may be ...-", - ,Jd where
reasons tkmonstraJe" ihe following:' ...., :
(0) The we wiU nol have a s1gnifi.caiJl ~rse effect on 1M greellWay ~Iles of 1M
site Il1Ilier COIIStrIlCtion or on odjticentlDnd or waJ'!r areiJs,'
. (b) The .use will nol significantln'educe IM;IIU available for waL. A" .!Ident or
water-related wu 'Il!lthin lhe jurisdiction; ..
'.'
(c) The .;.., Will provide a sigmftcant public beieJ;t;' and
(d) The use Is col'lSlstent with the Legtslatjve find!rip and poUey /n ORS 390.314 and
1M W'diamelte Greel/Way Pltm "'.1'.... ..zd by LCDCunder'ORS 390.322
."
,
. The reqc.:.. __..,. for Goal exceptions are outlined in OAR 660, Division 4 and are as follows:
. - .. .' . . -
. .
OAR 66()"()04-OOJ8 Planlling and Zoningfor Except/on Areas
. h
. (4) "Reason.r~ E%ceptions:
. ,
(a) W1rena local o""~ .~,~lIllahsan exception ~ me '"ReasonS" section of
ORS 197:732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 tIvoulh 660-004-0022, pltm and rene
desipDtions must l/mlt the uses, density, publicfapllliu and services. and
aaivIIiu to only lhose that arejustified in t1uJ excEption;
.
. .
.S1a1fF'1IIdinp - JuIIl: 2008
Pose 4
.
Date. Received
I
I
,
I
I J
. . .._~-- '. ". :~~._~'---
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 7
...,--_._.".__ 0-.---
'.
JUL' 2 8 2008
. .
.
Planner: BJ
...---"
.'
(b) Whm Q locoJ govemment .chongu the types or;trztensltiu of II!~ or publk:
, fticilitiu and servicuwlthiia Q1I area opproYed os ~ "Redso1l.f" e:n;eptio1l, Q new.
"RBason.,"fi1'~;'r'"~h Lr required;.
.~
..l
i
.
. The'taking of goal aceptiollS',~..":--' and n:su118 in lIID~m....t>t to lhe Metro Plan (ORS
-" , .. "'197.732{~.1":""" an "aception" as II ~._.....heusivl:planproviSillIl, including>anpm"",rl",!entto
an acknowledged ~._.....hensive plan). The exception provides forlhe.COI11inuation oflhe existing
usc ofI-S bymotoivcbiclcs for ~.;';"mobilitylllld c_____~_ pmposcs. 1bcncWI-S
Willamcttc River bridgeS IIlC ilcCdcd to acc<nmnodatcthat use. : .
The new bridges will be reP~ brldgcstli the ~~~_......lssion,.cd I-S bri~ an4 Canoe CanaI
bridge, which arc part ciftheI-S:".~.;';" bighWll)' iiu;ility whose cxistcDce is identified in lhe
TraDsplan. AS such, the iicw bridges will not be providing IIUSC tIIIl1 docs not. ~~ exist.
;"...
~~
.~ ...
. .
.
"
..'
. ,
,
"
9AR '660.()04-()()22 ReasonS NeceSsary to Jv8tlfy Q1I EXception Under Goo12. Port II(c)
.' . . . -~~ i'I ~ _~
An ezeeptlon ~':Gool2. Part II(c) cimbe tokenfor mij,u.se irat o1lowed by the oppllcoble
goaI(s). The typBf of reos01l.f that moy or moy not be wed 10 justify certtzilt types of UfBS not
. olluwed on reiourCe'lands ore set forth in the foUowing seat01l.f of this rule: ;..
, .
. .
'(6) WiliOmette Grienwoy:'Withln Q1IlD'btin oreo deslgnotluI on the ......';.,.:4. Wil/omnte
Greenway Bowidar,l i!top.r,. the siting of uses which ore MiJher water-dependenl nor watl!l'-
related within the setback Une retpdted by Section C.3.k of the Goal moy.be ......: ~.,.d where
'reosom dem01I.ftrate. tN! following: "
(a) '!he u.se wU/ not /rave a IIgnljicanti:i4verse effect on the greenwoy:vo1l1U of the
site under consideration or on adjacenJ land or Water areas;... .
;,
. ..
The new bridges wOuld be 10CBled in lhe same location lIS lhe ,L::"'.......:ss;oncd and detour bridges,
although theY would JeqDire minor shifts of aJi;"""."; IIIId ........:......:on of portions of lhe Franklin
Boul~ niJrthbol!Dd IIIId southbound on lIIId.oft'ramps lIS dictaicQ by bridge design. The
WhilamUl NaturI1l Area of Alton Baker Park lies west oflhe }.s light-of-way in Eugene IIIId lhe
Eastgatc Wnndl....rl. portion of the Whilamut Natural Area lies east.ofthe };S right-of-way in .
Springfield.Sincclhe project area inc1udca portions ofbothparkS wbm they IIIC adjBCCDt to I.S and
north of the Willamettc River, UDIcss otherwiSe dilf... .' ot"" this area will be .J":,,,.: to as lhe
Whilaniilt NstumI. Area. mui Eastgate Woodlands for the remainder oftbcse findings. The area
adjBCCDt to ODors right-of-way is used asopcn space. This area contributes to the protection of
natunll, scenic. and .",......;:onaI ...._" ~; values, incIudingfish~wilcllife habitat; waleI' quality,
_ ....~_...:on from flooding, and public .._.....;:011. .
"
'. '
~ the ~1B-~.... bridges and ~ssociated fill will be located within existing vuy I right-of:.
way. Which is outside oftbe WhiJamUl Natural Area and E...,~ Wood1ands, then: will be no
reduction in the amount of pe:rIDlIJIeIIt open space awilablc iit the pam. Becansc lhe bridges replacc
an existing. structurally defective bridge and existing I-S fi1cility, th= will be no clUmgc in USC of
this arca.Existing parltand rivm\lBmS IIIC accustomed to' experiencing interstate travcl at this
location. 'fb bicycle~ path linking Eugene and springfield will c..:'::'- to :..~,_.>-
. . .
. .
,
-"iir4cHimiT A ''::piGE'8'''~
_._.:_....'._. . .__..~. .. c-,_-; .,',~- .,0;
I..
"
.
pate Received
JUL..28 2008.
Planner: BJ
S1affFiDdiDgs - Juae 2008
Page 5
.'
,?',
~
,
Ii
.
'.
. -. .... -,.
,
. OD01"s right-of-way below die new bridges.Mlic access to the.river willllCt be affCctcd in any
si8l'ifi"-"1't long~terri111111DDCr 8IId ..._;..~::on to riparian areas 8IId fish and wildlife habitat will be
maintained to the 6-~; possible eXtent. Additionally. specific development detlIiIs will be .
reviewed for mlnim;..:i"g impacts through compliance With applicable "rr'. .J criteria, related
standanls 8IId any n""""";"J cOnditions of .......... J, as further reviewed under local pemritting
r..........such as the Willamette G.._.,,~y and watt:i Resources 'Conservation Overlay Zone. . ., ..
. .
" .
The applicant acknowledges that the project will cre&!e some short tcUn i...".;.. to Willamette .
C_"~J values during construction. Stagingforbridgec:onstruction~ likely to occupy up to five .
Beres of pmk open splWe for up to four~. The bicycJe/pedcSlriail path crossing ODOT's rlgbt-of.
way. will be closed for periods ofup to a few days aU time; however, ~thel path under die Canoe
Canal Bridge, located .........:mately 600 feet to the north of this path, would remain open during
any c\<isures to accommoc1atc bic>:cle 8IId pedestrian llaftic. '
,
p.
,
'.
.
.
. .
.' .
The neW replar-> bridges will span the wmlllllCltC River and <;:moo Canal. Piers will be p\al;ed
in the W1l\amettli River to .......... the bridge structures. The new bridges will each have one pier
near the cen1erofthe river 8IId one on or near the south bank, but 00 piers \Vill be located in the
Canoe CaIial. By cotnparison, the decommissicmed bridge bas' five piers in the: water,and the detour
bridge has six, So the new bridges will proyide.a subsm.mw net. _;..,::on in piers ...,,...._J to the
existing num~. At a _____....w level, any ieduction in.the Illmber of piers will have a positive .
rather than adverse effect on .._ ""':'oIllll use of the ri_, consisb:iiJt with this standard.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to implmu:Ut a plan'to pm'elIl collSlnlclion debris from
9mpping into the Wi11amettll River. At a ccmceptwd 1eyeJ, with the reduction in the number of piers.
the new bridges spanning the Canoe Canal, and the construction measures proposed, the
replat..."""t bridges will not have an adverse a1fect but will have a positive a1fect on recrealionaI
use ofthe'river, consistent with this SIlIIldard.
.'
-. ,. ,
Regarding environmental resOl1l'CCS, at the coDclusion of bridge construl:lion, jiJJ placed for the
detour bridge IIDd for ;.........~; work bridges will be removed and those areas wiD be restored.
Bridge construl:lion and demolition, including construclion and n::moval of asSociaIed t.........~;
work p1atfOlIllS, will impact riparian ....:..;:on within ibe ......~,.ay (see Figure 6, Approxima1e
Vegetation Distur~ Areas). However. ODOT's ;"':"-'~i eaSemelJ1 for use ofEastgate
WoodJandsrequires ODOTto restore the ;'.1'-.,. within S years ofcompletionoftbe permanelJ1
replBCenlelJ1 bri~ges. The applicant also ........"" sevcr&l COlISlluction, sile ...~....on, post
deveLr~~~ and coordinslion IIll:llSUreS to .,.:.,:.M'~ in,po.... to natural.""._-~ disrom,d under
Merro Plsn Policy E.2, which is in<.-'l"'-~ beiein by re:_:...._~.A!idilionally. Fli';';nmy data
.indicales that there will be a net deCTeaBe of31.oo0 cubic)'ards offill in the Wi\1amette River
(30,000 cubic yards offill added 8IId 61,000 cubic yards offill raDoved; application,p&ge S). With
the exception ofa few of the t..-..._._, storage areas, the replacclDent bridg~ are ..........J within
existing ODOT right-of-way which redw:es impacts to _. .~..~.-';on utilized areas. Based OD
these measures, effects em envL.__:..l.~.:"_~ will be m' . . '. .d BDdmitigated. F....d._Dre,
additional review of ~ed sile p1aDS during the federal, state azUlloc8I .;.w.......... will requiIe
mitigation as "" .......:.ate. SIlbject to applicable standards. " . . .' .
.
. .
~ scenic ~ues of the Willmn""l> River .,.__,'.j. the reduction in the total :'-'l_ of
piers 8IId in the DDlDber of piers within the Willametlc RiVer will bnprove views of tbe river and, as
StaffFindiDp - hme 2008
Page6. .
- .'. . - -..- '
. .~T!A<<:HYENT A - PAGE-g' .
..... -._. ~ n _.._ ~ _ ____. __
Date Received
.' '.' JU~ '28 200B'
P'anner~ 8J
. .
c
. .
- ..
such, conIrlbute to a positive visual impact. Also, ~""" a)cey cOnsideration of the project is
providing.IID aeSthetic:aIly pleasing solution that recognizes the scenic bcrmty of the project area,
ODOTbas considCrcd a range ofbridgetypell and pier .~li.~., tsIdng carefully into consideration
comm1lDityinpUl obtained '-...J.. a public process. At thispbase, ODOT bas developed two
conceptual. ' ." "" ill,-,,~...:..g thB new I-S bridgeS, but ODOThas not developed detailed
..-.. ..,;,gin"'!fugdeSignp_ Olti!Dately, se1ectillDoftbebridge typeforeadlSegmCDtwill be .'
. d... _.1~; priniarily on aestheti.c considerations and budget. The applicant has indicated the public
inputOD the design will also be provided thIOugh other pu~lic oulreaCh efforts.
While cOnstruction adivities wiJI-.- .....Jy iInpaci tr......, .o.J. values,.with the teduction in pien
and fill, the location of the bridges iIitheexistingright-of-way, andthemitigalionmWures
proposed by the applicant, the new I-S Willamettc River bridges Will have IW significant advem:
effect oD the tr-~"ay VIil1ies ofODOT's right-of-way (U'imy)orlhe Bdjacc:ntpark 1ands and wab:r
areas, CO"oi<lCDt With this standard. Additionally, specific constniction and ~onaldelaiIs
.,...."'.::ng mitigationofnparian impacts will be ..........dtcly addressed during local.._"':~
.........!eS, subject to applicable ~ Criteria and rdaIcd ~
(b) The ~ ~ll not liFl!ifict>>Jl/y ~ the sites iivrdlable for wale. .t_.. ....ienl or
water-refizred useSwilhin t/rejurisdicti(m;~, J. ' . . .
The ~ DCYo: ri!place:nleDtbridges Will not reduce any sitl:S avaiIllble for wateI'.:clepcndeDt or wail:!-
Jelated uses in &pm- Springfield because the bridges' will be'construcIl:d entirely within the
same existing ODOr 1-5 right-of-way where the cL.........;ssioned I-S bridge and ......;...."'J detour
bridge are located. The new bridges will have one pier each near"the cenlel.of the river and one pier
on or near the south bank (the cimoe Canal on the north side Woilid be SJlI!DDed completely and
these bridges will be perched on fill associated withtlie roadway). In contiasl, the cIecominissioned
bridge has five pien in the watet, and the detour bridge has six. At B c.~_....:...J level. B net
reduction in pim in the. w8ter will be belIefjCiaJ. for watet~ent uses. TheIefore, in the context
ofa plan Rm"'")JJlCDt, this standard is met I';
,
" Il
(c) The lISe wI11 provide a signijicanl public bem.fit; mul...
. ' . . ~ . l' .
;
..
I-S is the prirmlry north-south hit. "...,. corridorser'l'ing California, Qrcgon, and waShingtoD. The
facility proVides for the significant __ ,......!:at of peOple" freigbt.;and other -services; and serves as
the bai:kbone for intcma1i0na1, :.._.:...:_, and in1rasIatc c"~~"" The applicant notes that on
Bvmlge, approximately 49,000 v,ebieles cross the Willamette River through the EugcnelSpringfic1d
mea on I-S each clay, with numbers ~."},mg greater than 63.000. Approximately 16to 18 ..__~;of
cIailY trips are madC by tractor trailer rigs hauling ~ By the; year 2030. 1-5 is _...__.l to
a-.~~Jate appro..:......:..Jy 13,000 daily vehicle trips. The oonnectivity and mobility that I-S
provides to both the local.c.;......:.....:;". and to intrastate and m_....;.. ttavelers ._....;:~ B
significant public' beooiL This facility is recognized in thC 1999 Oregon llighway P!en and in'
TnmsP1an:n""dwC this standard is IDCl '; ..
(d) The IISe is consfstentWtth the Legis/ottve~andpo1icyln OM 390.314 and
the Willameae ,Grwrway Plan approved by LCDC rmder ORS 390.322.
S1DffFmdings - JuDe 2008
Page?
Date Received'
jUL 2.8 2008 .'
Planner: 8,J
....---_. ...-. ~,-"-~. ',"""--
~TTACHMEin ~ ....PAGE 1'0
-~- -. .. .. -.-.-. -.--,
I
'.
l
,
.The legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.314l1TC:
ORS390.314. LegislativejinilingJandpolicy
(I) TIre Legislative Assembly finds tlrat, to protect and preserve the lIfllW'ol, sconk,
and recreational qualities of lands along the W'dlamette River, tel presen>e and
restore historiCDI sites, sfrl!ctlll'eS, far:ilities, and objects on lands mong the .
W'Ulamette Riller for public education and e1!foymenJ.and to further the state policy
established wuier ORS 390. 010. it is in the public interest to develop and ml2f!ltain a
1lOtIIrm, scenic, historiCDI, and recreational greellWay "Ponlantis mong the
Willamette 1/.00 to be known as the Willamette /liVer GreenWay.
, .
t
. .
. ,
As pmriously s1ated; the I-S WiIIamettcRiver bridge ..._L~ the,adoption ofGoalIS~ As an
element ofI"S, the bridge is provided for iIlTransPJan, which bas.been acknowledged to be in
compliance with 8ll,stmwide planning goals: Conslnlction of the replacement bridges and removal .
of the decomniissioned Canoe Canal and detour bridges will temporarily affect ",~"..i values
during conslnlction. However, as discussed under Goal 6 (air, water quality, hind), GoalS .
(recreation) and Metro Plan Policy E-2 (environment), and thereniainder of these findings, the
applicant proposes several measures to reduce or mitigate....":.._ental and ..........;;onal impacts,
and the reduction of piers and fill will bave a positive affect on scCmc resaUIceS alling the
Willamet1e River G....." ..y, c:cinsistcnt with this standard AdditiOnally, specific construction and
operational details will be _.....vy.:ately addressed during local....:...:..:ng processes, subject to
applicable app~val criteria Bnd related standards. ' .
.(2) /nproVidingfor the deve10pmenl and minnJenance 'afthe WiIla1llette River..
Gre~lIWay, the Legislattve Assembly: . . ' '.
~ l
~ . ~
(a) Recognizing the need for coordinated plizrmingJor such greenway, finds it
necessQ1')l to provide for developmenJ and impleme~tation of a plan for such .
greellWay through the cooperative efforts of the state and units ofloCDI gOvcr1l11ll!1lt.
.
. The State of Oregon and units of local govemment,including Lane County. and the clues of
Springfield and Eugene, have cooperated in the implementation of greenway planniJig as recJlIired'
. by legislative intent.'The I.S Willamet1e River Bridge: Replacement Project, subject to this .
application, is and ~ bejlennitted thrOugh this established local'and.sI8lewide ",_U!,ay planning
1"~V""~
"
(b) Recognizing the need afthe people of this stateJor existingreside.,;nd,
commerCia~ qnd agricuIturaluse of londs mong tM W'dlamelte River, finds it
'necesSQ1')l to permit the co1llintJatjon of ez:isting u.r~s of landstlrat pre included' .
within su#l. gT:eellWay; but. for the berrejir of the people of this state, mso to li1.1lit the
inJensijicafion and change in the use of such lands so tlrat such uses shall remain, to
the greatest possible degree, compatible with the Preservation of the 1lOtIIrm, scenic,
. historical and reereotional qualities of such lands. , . . .
As previously stated, I-S and the I-S'W'illamette River bridge ~ Goal IS. Like the: original
.'
, ,
S1affFiDding:; -111DC 2008
Page 8
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE n , .
-,... .- ..... '~-'.""'."'- -_.': .'-,,-
'.
. Date Received
~UL. 2,8..2008. .
. . ..
Planner: BJ
. .
". ..
, ~
. .
..~. ......
.'
bridge. the rep1a...__. bridges end their approacl1e8 will be located within OooTs ~lisbed l-S
. rigbt-of-way,thus avoiding significant adverse effects on the greenway and grec:nway values, .
conllislllllf~tbispOlicy';. ru.::'-_ore, as discussed under G\lal ~ (air, walIlr quality), GoalS
R=eation andMctro Plan PoIicyE.2 (environment), and the 1"""0...11... ofthcse nnrl~ the
applicant t"w"."';' sCveral measures to reduce Or mitigate environmental and ~onaI impacls,'
iiiIlhlie.mluction ofpiers and fi)l will ba'JtlI pOsitive affeclOIl scenic reso\ll'CeS along the '.. . ..' .
Willom_ River :,j,~_,.'By, _w"':";...lwith this sllmdard. .
M Recognizing that 1M use of Iand3 for faT!'l use tS~""-r.~.lbiewlth the J1Il1'POSes of
rhe WiUamstteRiPer Greenway,jinds that the use ofland3for farm use shDidd
Continue wtthin 1M greenway without restrlctIOll. ..' '.
The I-S wa1iamettc River rep1ac=~ bridges will be located _":'iJ within the mbamzed sre8 of
Springfield and Eugene, and IIOt upon or near fimn land within the greCDway boundary. For this.
rewioD.'.theprojecl will in 110 way impede the continuation offami ~ within the "".-'''h
consistent with this policy, . '
"
"
,
(d) Rt-6..;..:ngIM Medfor cefflral coordintJticmof mch greenWay for the but
interests of all the people of this state,.finds it mcissary to place the responsibility
for the ct;lOrdirratlon of the developmelll andmatnienance ofnu:h greenway In.the
State Parla and Recreation D..- " '" ,nit, . ,
Constructing the 1-5 repla=nent bridges in no waylimils or cIuu1gcs Oregon StBte ?arks'
~nsibilities for the cocmIination of the development and main~ of the ~--,.,,,y. .
. .
(e) Recognizing the lack of need for the QCI[UI.sition offel! ti!1e tp aU lands along lhe
W'Ulamette RIver for exclusive public use for recreational purposes In nu:h
greenway..finds it necessary 10 limit the area wilhin SJlCh greenway that may be
: acquiredfor staU poria and recreational areas and for pUblic recreat/onalll1e
within 1M boundaries of.1UIi/s oflocal6," .,~ ....nI1 along 1M Willamette RiPer.
The repla--- bridges and ",,:r- .<..Ches will be located within c:xistirig public risl!t-of-way 1hat bas
been used for :.........;...., hi,?., ,,,.J purposes sin<:e before the CDIlClpIl:nt of the Willmnettc River
greenway ~ and Goal 15. 1beland is in the public domain and wil1remain in the public
domain after completion of coDStruclion of the .new replacement bridges end demolition 8Dd
removal of the d...--..:ssioned bridge, CanocCunal bridge, and dctourbridgc. Thcrcforc, the
r-_.._...4 project will not i!tc:reasc or decrease the amount of land available for ~on for slate.
pmks and .__.....:onaI areas or for public: recreational use Within'tIui boundaries o~ \mils of local
govermDCDt 8iong the Wil1amctteRivcr. T -Y.'-J' staging areas outside of public rights-of-way
will be rchabiIitaled to their previous state.. " . . .
.. ' . .
. . .
lL..J..,": an _...;....~ to {loall 5 is warranteci for the reasons ~lIld above, ~ifical1y OAR 660-
0040-0022 (6)(c) and consislency .with the,.,."mn;ngreasona, forthepl=.,.toffill within the
....._..'By setback for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge RcplaccmentJllOjei:L Goalexccption rcquimnents
are 1!5 follows:' ."
. .
"
Date Received
. '.JUL 28 2008
Planner: BJ
StlffFilidiDgs -1unc 2008
"","9
-....----.- .-.-.- ...-.-...-
. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 12 ;
"
- --- ---- -- -----_.'~-
,)
"
if
I'
~
t,
:1
:1
Ii
II
,
I
I
I
I
I
'"'.............
II
"
"
:1
!I
II
I
I.
i,
11
I
.
\
I
I
i
I
:1
II
'I
\:
,:
I
il
...-..
.
.'
;.",
,
OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part O(c),lfttePtfon Requiremenls
l"
:~
. .
. .' - -.. .~.
.'
T\1e reasonS consistent with OAR ~6) an: set forth above to allow the conslrUCtion of
the 1-5 W'dlamette River aDd Canoe Cana1 rcpJap.mP.nt bridges and the i'emoval of the .
,L.......-issioned bridge, existing Canoe Cana1 bridge, and .-......-.~J detour bridge, including the
placement of fill m:cded for the new bridges or for -'-r -'~J' wm:k bridges required to constIuct the
new bridges or .__' . the decommissioned or detour bridges. The justificatiODll are set forth in the
~__y,":'eosiVl: plan as an exception consiJl!cnt with this rule.
.'
. .
(2) The fOUl' factors in Goal 2 Part O(c) ~equtred to. be addressed ",hen taldngan exception
to a Goal are: .'
. ~ t
"
(a) "Reasons jIlstifJ why the state poliCy embodied/n the appltcable goms should not
apply"; The exception shall set forth the facts and (jSsUmptions used as the basis for
determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should notappJy to Specific
properties or slruat/ons, including the ammml oflqndfor the lISe being p~d and
why the vse requires a location on resource land; "
f;
, I
The. reasons j1IstifYing why the replacement bridges should be permitted within the 6'--"~1
setback area. and why associated fill should be y_"':;;..':' an: those I!dm....,"': above in the analysis
demonstrating compliance with the criteria in OAR 660..Q04..OO22(6). An _.....,.:':on to the Statewide
Pl8lIDing Goal 15 isneccssary to.aIIowadditional fill to be pJaccdin the 6'-_~"~/perMetro Plan
Policy D.II. Here, IIJ!PItlximately 30,000 cubic yards offill willl!e pJaccd within ODOTs existing
1-5 right-of-way, while approximately 61,000 cubic yards offill will be nmwved, IeSUiting iI! a /let
tkcrease of 31,000 cubic yards of fill in the W'illamette River.
,
Except for a'few acres ofparlc land needed tGWpotllIny for smgmg construction, all developml2lt
will occur within ODOTs existing 1-5 right-of,W!lY, which is not resoureeland. The bridges zequiIe
a location Clver the Willamette River gn:enWIIY because 1-5 already e:x:isl5 both north and south of .
the WiIIan1cuc River and the highway cannot practicably be relocirted to avoid croSsing the river.
.
(b) "Areas whICh do not require a new aceptio" Ctm7t0t reasonably'
a...._..~..Ddate the lISe"; ,;'
(A) The aception shall indicate on a mtZp or otherwise describe the locatio"
of possible aIterlltltlve areas co'!Stikredfor, the lISe, which do not require a
new exceptioll.The area for which the exctiption Is taken shall be Itkntlfi~;
,.
(B) To s/ruw why the particular site Is justified, It Is _sary to disCIISS why
other areas which do llDt require a new exCeption Cl11I1IOt reasoMbly ,
~~i the proposed 1ISe. Econom/c factors can be co.~"j;~ ,,,d q10ng .
. .
SIaIf FiDdiDgo - ~ 2008
PopJO
Date Rer.Ai\led'
.
. ATTACioaiT A.... PAGE1'3"'"
... . ". -~..
'.
..,. .
:JUL 211 2008
Planr'~r" ~.~!
,."
'. -
, with other relewmt factors In detenninlng rhDt the rise cannot nDSo1tDbly be
~..".;_.."dated In other areas. Under the altmuzttve faCtor the following
questions shmI be addressed; , '
(i) Cim the proposed IIH be reasoNJ,ly QCCOmmodJlted 011
/I01I1'UOIlT'<< landtJlllt WOrIld not;.~ an exception. /7u:luding -. .
lIIcreQSlng the density of uses' OIl/lOrrresOlD'C8, land? If not. why /IOt2
(d) Cim the r"".. ""oj use be reQSoMbly Ot;cof!l1Mdated on Tesour~
land rhDt is already Irrevocably committed to IIOnTesOllT~ uses. not
izllowed by the appli&oble GolIl, inl:1~ing i-uource land In existing
11I1Yll CB1Ik!8, or by tncnasfng thi density of IISU on committed
lands? 1f1lO4 'rhy not?
(i/i) Can the prOposed Use be reQSo1tDbly CU:C'!lfI1IIOdtlted fnslde an
IU'bim growth bOll1ldmy? If fII!l, why not? .
,.
'-..
, .
"
:
(iv) Cim the proposed IIH be ref.!SOnably :.:..,.:._..o$!~d wilhout the
provision ofoproposedpublkfocilityorsem~? If""t, why not?
. .
(1::) ThIs alterttative fJTefJS standmdCll1l be met byo broad review ofslmil(Zl' types
of (Zl'eQS rather than a review of ffJHU:ifk o/femative sites. Initially. a ~oCll/
govUiunent Ddopting an exCeption need assess only whether those sfmil(Zl'.typa of
(Zl'eQS iii the vic/nlly COIlld not reasonably ciccomtllOdate the proposed use. Site
specific comparisons are 1I0t required of a local ~nt taking an exceptloll,
rmless another party to rhe local Proceeding CQ1I tlescribe lI'hy there (Zl'e specijlc sites
t1ul1 CQ1I tIIOre reasonably QCCOTfimodate the propOsed US,e. A dettii/ed evalUfllion of
specific altenttZtive sites is thus not required rmlus. such sites ari specifiCll/ly
desCribed with facts to SIIJ1]NJ7r the QSsemon t1ul1 the sites are tIIOTe reasonable by
. another party during the local exceptions proceeding.
" .
The applicimt slBleS that 1"5 repL...........: bridges IUe needed ~""" the d,,".--issioned bri!lge is
.' . . ." l'
sfruc!urally unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to 8cenmmI)llR"'llIIticipated tnlffic
volumes o"vr:t thelong term, nor eWes it meet CJll1'CIll seismic staDdmds. The rqi:""__..l bridges
and their.~..,,,.chcs will be localed_:'L. witbi!lOI>OT's exiStmg I-S right-of-way, Because the
Will"",_ Ri"vr:t is quite wide in the vicinity on-s, piers wiIlll/iainbe needed Within the ~_;t...:I..
~ to support the prOposed rcpl.........._'bridges; L.. ..,~ ,,_.fewer piers will be ~ _.............J to
existing conditions. ~ addition, fill is required to support the......._~..:h~ to.the DCWbridges,
. including ~ Dew bridges over the Canoe Canal. .
(I .'
Given, the non-water dependent ~d non-water-re1atcd nature oftbe use, BDd given that fill would be
required tOr pier.">'..... and bridge .......~..:J1es Iegmd\ess ofwIierc in thevicinitythc bridgeslUe
loc:attd, there IUe no a1~ve sites crossing the WlL~..;.;_ RiYer that would not also ."~..:.. a
new .,........:JD..h is noted f!utt the "..i'""';'J Use will be JoWed ~de an urban growth boundary on
land that is neither agricultural Dor fORSt land. By rem.ining wijImi'the existing ODOT right-of-
~y. the prpj~ ~ds significant L........ to patk ~~ B_ . .~; ~on ~''''''''P.D''
S1afl:FIIllIiIIp - JuDo 2008 .
, Page 11
-ATTACHMENT i:"'- iAGET4'~
,_._ . . ..,1
-----...;..'
.
Date Received~.
JU.L 2 8 20.08 "
Planner: BJ
Jf.
, .
,
"
Ii
I.
,.
~
;!
.~.~. --. ..
I
I
l t
,
I
,
I '.
~ I .
I
,
1
1
I
I
,I
I
,
i
I
I'
.l
i
I
i
;
I
I
L
I
. .
.............
j
~ I
'I
" ,- .
. . ( I .
'includiDg brid8es, are CODSid=d publit1 fi.cmues, the use =t be rcasonab1y;~odated
.without the provision of the ...... ._.j public facility, Analysis regarding possible L_"':':' .Jrites is
discussed ~ under ~ (c) dircct1y below, which is in-....~..d.:d herein by.":__.:e.
~
~'.
~..;
. (e).71ze 101lg4erm elfVironmenta1, economic, social, and enerirr. Co1l.$el[lJe1J&U
, .. 'ruulJing from the.use at the .. ,..... .Jl site with measuru Iksfg1l~ to redu;e adverse
intpa!:t8 are not significimlly /IIOre adverse lhan WOlIld t>>Jically ruuIt from the S01M
proposal being localed in other areas requlring'a Goal exceptiOll. 71ze aceptfon
s1uJ1llkscribe the chDraderislics of each allernative areas considered by lhe
}ur1s4iclionfor whkh Q1'I exception mighlbe Iakin,the t}picaI advantages and
. dlsadvantoges of using the areafor a use not allowed by the GoD~ and lhe t>>J'cal
posimre and negative consequences resultlngfromlhe lISt at the'proposed sile with
melJSll1'es Iksigned to reduce adverse Impacts. A .dti,lailed evalwilion of specific
alternative sUes Is not required wrless such sites are specifically described with fa&ts
, 10 Sllpporllhe assertion thtzIthe siles have slgnificaf!lly fewer a4verse Impacts
during lhe.local ezeeptions pr~eding, The ......:;o;:Dn shDIl im:lude lhe reaso11S why
lhe consequences of the use at the chosen sUe are riot signifiCQ1l/ly /IIOre adverse
than wowd t>>JlcaI/y result from the same proposal being locaze(J in areas reljuiring
a goal ex&eption other than the proposed site. Such ruJSons s1uJ1l include but are not
limited to, IheflJCts used to Iktermine which re60l11'CC lond is l.a.n productive; lhe .
ablIiIy 10 SlISIain T'U0IlI'Ce uses near the propose4 use; and I. long-term economic
Impact on the general area caused by irreversible fe/llOVal oflhe londfrom the .
resource baie. orher possible impacts .include 't. 'ejfecu of4he Proposed use on lhe
water table. on I. costs of i.,.." ; /~.g rotJJb aiuJ on the costs 10 f1'CC'al service
dJstricls; , ! ,
,
-:'
. ":'
'{',
1:.
.~.
"
..
,
.'
i; .
No other sites requiring exceptions arc being consid=d for this us\:. This is because the US\: is not a
new.use. but rather the repI-.._:""; of an existing, structurally deficient bri!lgewithin an existing
right-of-way, LocaIing thercpla.__ bridges within, the existing right~f-way is botlI necessary
and pnu:ticable becaUse that right-of-way 1ines Up with the existing 1-5 app~ to the north and
south. Relocating li!e bridge replacement project outside the existing 1~5 right"'1f-Wliy would require
ODOT to reloc:ate the approilchcs at considerable additiatW cost and impact to !lot only the
........,.,..y. but also to ...v~;"j park and .~_....~nal.:"""_.....including the Wbilamnt Natural .
Area and Eastgatc Woodlands. Further, relocatillg the bridge could ......;.~ the closure ofonaor
more existing interchanges or ramps. resu1t in demoliti.m of.emdmces and b>1~i..-ses. and result in
a hazardous &..:"_->, due to the presence ofL.-. ,,~ble gOOloilic'f~_~. ~vc bridge . ,
alignment locations to the north or south oftm.: existing 5. . ;,..:..: 8nd right-of-Way were <li.."i--' .
from further analysis dlle to the following inipacts: . ,
. Right-of-way would need to be acquired from AltonBakei- Park, which is prohibited' under
Section 4(t) of the fedcraI I::...__~. ofTrL.~r __"":':00 Act of 1966 mlJess there are no
other prudent !BId feasible al._.....: YeS. ..' :
-Right-of-way would need to be acquired from homes andI~ businesseion the south side of
the river that would not be required if the highWay remains on fts w_~; alig71m...t .
_ ~ shiftcd highway would be closer to existing homes, resUiting in hi~ noise and visual
. . ,.. I
..........I""'~ ~. I
. · ' Major high-falsion power U"" ....:osion Jines arc located on bathides cjf~ bridge and one
. I. .
StIlfrFiudiDp -.IuDe 2008
Page 12
. ~i
"
. .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 15 "
i.. : Date HeGeived .
JUL 2 8 Z008
.
,.;---'--'-- -.'---;r- .
-'.
P..., w ij
Rnner: o,j
.--
..
.,
.'
Would need to be ICI~ifthe alignment ~ shifted. .~ .
'" ,t
. -
.:.
Given the teP\accmeu1 ~ of this r'-~~.;' the facttbat c:rossiDg the ~ River at SOIll\l
loCation is unavoidable, and ODO'rs inBbility to tealign 1-5 on adjoining lands based on federal
restrictiollSY'.........:..g parle lands, there are no feas1"ble and pr1IlIf:rit al~ .. tore-using the
... cidstirigl~5 iigbt..o.f.W!lY' ~..;.&1Y. i1i1er1tisofeConomic, socilI1;.....,:..~enmI,and energy .
...--..-ccs, !hac arc:no areas .........:...:.:ng ."-r~ 1-5 is an :....,...;.,J highway in the State of
Oregon and fIeight cOrridor on the west coast The Cll_.;': Aty and mobility it provides .;..;....:de,
interState, andregiona11IaVe1ers"provides tremendous benefits both economiC!llly IIIlCI soCially. The
ability to rebuild witbin the existing ODOnS right-of-way ., " . energy COlIS\IIIIption and .
_, :'.-':'mta1.impacts, as the .....~ right-of-way use for intl:rslate ~vcl purposes is m~int1l;nM .
A3 suclI, coDSistllnt with this standard, the right-of-way is the least r-' l",.::ve land in the immediate.
mea in tenDll of S\ISlIlining rcsOurceusCs. It's continued use for this purpose also means that no
other ICsourcC orteCreationaUal!~ need be removed froIn ll!e ...".,..:..~base therefore this ~ .
is met.
'.
.'
,
, ..
. .
. .
(d) The proposed I/SU t11'e compatible with other adjacentusu or will M so
rendered tIVoug/l1JlNJ$ll1'U rkslgntd to reduce adIIem'impacts. The exceprlon shall
rkscribe how rhe proposed ILft will M rendered co'inpatible with adjaceilr kwlllSU..
The. exception shall ~monstrate that the proposed lise Is situated In such a 11IIZ1I1lU
as to.be 'compatible with SII1TIJIlItiltn natUral ruOlD'CU and TeSOlITCunanagement
or produCtion prlu:tlcu. Compatible Is nor Intended as an absolute term meaning no
ir;ter:[erena or advers, impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
l}ses~jacent to the a..T...:..': portiOn ofl-S include parle laiid and the Willamette Riv~. and
rcsidentilii and industrial uses. The (..:....... ''-, staging areas are adjacent to park land and the
W1IJamctlc River, ooor and Lane Collllty ,......;. :J' and between 1..5 and 1-5 ramps. With the
_......;.:on of the temporary staging areas, the replpl'PmP.nt bridges and asso,ciated L.... . _$ are
being ..........u~.;within -..zO' ....:mately the sameloc8tion as !loth tIjc original and t...........-dY bridges
and will be located within exjsting rightS-of-way and right-of-way e8-"''''''''. Considering that this
mea bas been utilized as the I.S bridge location since prior to the 'CSIIlbli.hmeJlt of Goal IS,
n:plp........",t of the facility in the same loCation is mote compatible' than reloc:ating the facility and
converting non-tiail:.i-;;';:oi1areas to this use. The proposal aIsoinc1udes B reduction in the '
__c_ o.f piers from the existing. I I pim to 8, B net reciuclion in' fiI1. and soUnd Walls. At B .
conceptual Jevel, these elements will reduce adYenc J...;,...,.,... to -,-,;:..-mrta!, re=ational and
scenic resoUICCS and will increase compatibilitY of.the project Wit!! adjm:ent ._"';ona1, n:sidcntial
end industrial uses of the area. R>..,..:.::...g the temporary stilging locations. the i...,.-;" will be
tempomly and the applicant bas proposed several measures to reduce adverse impacts .of the
constructiOn activities includiDg: a plan to prevent debris from Wling into the WillafueUe River. .
maintaining s continuous bi.cycleIpedestrian. path, limiting work. hourS, and ;...;...~ the :........._,
. staging areas upon projectcompIction; Additional measuies ".........J by the applii:an1 to reduce
em :'_~~..J, .__ .....::.~ and scenic ;....r"-~:.., are f'urthef cIi.ScuSsed under Metro Plan Policy E.2,
Goal 8 below, and OAR 6~~022(6)(B) above, which are :.:......~...:..J hercinby ---..._.~.
'These m_~ will further reduce ~d, _~. ~;.,to the adjBCePt park land and- Willamette River,
~ Il!Ili industrial uses consistent with this standariL' ...
. '
'.
. ,
.
,
-Am~i::' p'AGE~6;'
--'~-' ._-~_. -. .-" . - - '" ---
Date -Received
JUL 28 2008
StBffF'lIIlIiDp -JUDe 200ll
!'"&" 13
."
, '.
,
. .
PI'anner: BJ
,
--."'. ""'-'-
1'''' .
/
.'
!
I
1
,/
In addition, _~""":bility with ... _~, ../ ahd Goal 5 resource va1~es associated ~th the W'illamctlc
. River, riparian arcasboth north and south ofth. river, the Whilamut N!ItUIal Area and Ea.stgale .
Woodlands will be further ensured through complisnce with acknpwledged Eugene and Springfield
permitting requirements adopted to implement Goals]S and 5; ""illameite River C.;........, and
greenway setback review, and the Watq Rcsoun:es Conservationpverlay Zone, subject to
applicable standards and conditions. As'noteci'earlier; the bridges IlIe 8lI existing use within the .
. ODOT right-of-way. This pioposlll repl.accs the original bridge with two new bridges: one for
northbOund traffic, the other for southbouDdtraffic, and repl.accs the CanC!C CanaI..bridge. It also
removes the detour bridge. Given that a bridge bas been lI.~odating highWllytrafliC in this area
for decadeS, most new impacts will be-associated with bridge cOnstruction or demolition. By
rP.lY\Rining within the existing ODOT right-of-way, and emploYing Best Management Practices and
other impact avoidance or mitigation techniques identified or rcquired during the local permitting
processes, imPacts to surrounding natural resource lands can be minitl)i7.ed to protect natural
. resource qualities in and the use and enj-i--l of the Willamette'River, the Willamctlc River
. ",__"'''Y. and the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands.
Based on the above findings, an exception to Goal ] 5 is wammted and meets the requirements of
OAR 660-0040-0020 for the plai:ement of fill within.the gree:nway setback for the 1-5 ~illamctlc
Bridge Repl~ent project , .
Therefore, the amendments and goal exceptio~ 1lIe' consistent with Statewide pJimning Goal 2.
, I
.~tf
.
..,
.(
~~
'.-
'.
'.-
II
I
,Goal 3 - A<rricuitura1 Land: To preserve and maintain agriculturallOllds.
II
:!
1\
I
I
.,
I:
,
. Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments.as the subject >,"v"...;J and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands insiliean IlCknowledged urban growth
boundary from the definition ofagricuIturallands. Since the subj~ ",vr.';, is entirely within the
admowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not releVant and the amendments do not affect the
area's compliance with StlItewide Planning Goal 3.
Goo1.4 - ForestLand:. To crmse",eforest lands.
. Goal 4 is not appiicable to theSe amendments as the subject ",vie-;;) and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth bolDldaries and,
therefore, does .not apply to the subject JlI'Clper1y, which is wi.thin the Eugene-Springfi~ld urban
growth boundary (OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not iclevant and the amendmentS do
not affect the ares,'s compliance with Statewide PIOftft;MGoal4. : . . .
-........ . .
Goal 5 - Dnen S~ ~c and HiStoric Area!l_ and Natural Resources: fa conserve open space
and protect PlQlural and scenic rescn.trcu. .
.,
The following IIlIniliustratlve rule (OAR 660..023-0250) is applirAble \0 ibis post-acknowledgement
. plan amt;ndment (pAPA) request '. I . .
(3) Local gcwenumints are not reqUired to apply Goal S in ca~ation of a P Ai'.A unIess rlre
P.AP.A qffects a Goal S resolll'ce. For purposes of this secdoll, a P.AP..A would qffect a. Goal S
I
S1DffF'mdings -June 2008
. Page 1'1
;
_. _A'1?'~C~NT i -'-PAGE 1 'i.
.. .-. ..- -.. .----;--17~-.-
Date Received
. . J U L 2 8 2008
.' .. ..
. . .
Planner: BJ
-. ~
"
.,',
,.
... ....
~OlI1'C8'imly if: .
(a) The PAPA CreDtu or amends a ruoura list or apOl1Um ofan acknowledgedplan
. or land use reguJiltlon culoptell /rI order to protect ~ significant GoalS resource or to
address &peCific require'menls .afGoalS;' .
(b) .11re PAPA allows new IISU that cuuId be conflicting uses wtl1t aparticulat
iignif/Caill GO(I1'" 'tdO~ site-on an acknowledged nsoll1'Cfl'Ust; or-
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB andfacivtilinfonnationls suhmilted
demonstrating that a re.soura site, or the impact i:rTeas of such a slle, Is included In
the ammdidUGBQWL' .~ ,.
The subjm project area includes Goal S ~un:e sites; the W'illameUcRiver, a ri~resoun:e
. between I-S and E. IS.... AVCIIIlC, ancl riparian =5 in Alton Baker Parlt (the Canoe Canal).
. Subsections (a) and (c) lIbove pre n9t applicable to this request as ihe....i"~'.1 am._L...:' do IIOt
. !#B1.e or IlII1CI1d a list of Goal S ,......__ do not IIIIlCIId a plan oicode provision adopted in order
to protect a significant Goal S .....,.... or to address specmc reqlIiremcnts of Goal S, and do not
amend the,acknowledgl:d Urban ~ BilllIldsry. Rcganllilgsubsection (b), the I-S,Wi11amette
Bridge Project is f!lP1aceI:nentofan existing use in ....",_;,;.matc1ythc same locatioli, even
consideriig the Bdditioiull widening of the roadway. Therefore, (b) is not ilpplicable be<:Ll""" the
project includes rep1acen:i.ent of an existing use, not.1l new. use.. "
'.
"
, .
.
'.
, .
Based on the fini!ingl' above, Statewide Planning Goal 5 is either not applicable or is metthrough
. _. ..- _.- . '.. '.r'. ..._,
comp1iance with the acknowledged local penniUjnB pI'lX:CSS." .
Goal 6 . Air. WatEr and Land jWources Qusli1y: To malnt~ and L.'j'" .'. the quality of the air.
water, and land resources of the state. . ,
,
Goal 6 addresses \Wsteand process discharges from devel_~~_~ and is aimed at protecting air,
watl;r and land from impacts from those discharges. The proPOsm does not IlII1CI1d the metropolitan
an;a's air, water qualfty or land resource policies. Theapplicarit's findings show that the City can .
reasonably expect that futuredeve1~~_~", of the site will comply' with applicable environmental
~as~~ .'
a . .
Additiona11y, rcPrdinli air quality, the reptBcemen1 bridges tb'cmselves shoWd have no adverse
impact on-air qualitybel:iwsethey merely replace an~mcinty ~ m.; been ~.._..,.......Jssiooed
as being stiUcturally Unsafe: Regardless of the POtential fumre additlOD of 6 lanes, the Dew bridges
do not 1I.............:1y result in mOle people driving on 1-5, IDste8d, existing traffic volumes will be
shifted from the detour brid&e to the oew bridges. If the L..--1ssioned 1-5 bridge'is DOt replaced,
those vehicles win!ld be forced each day ODto city stteets Bod Couoti roadS Dot deSigned for'Such
trips. ThC eosuing degradatiODto the air qUality along' tIiese altemative roUtes caused by
nnm....geable CODgestion would' be' in direct ",,__.JU:tiOD to, the pII!POSC of G<W 6; Even the
potential ipcrease in the numbez of 1anes does not D.......... it;' increase thenumbez of people .ll:,:""
on 1"5, but ratbe:r increases __':"_M.lS traffic movanent R.egardingair quality, this goal is met by
the ,.....:..,..,...:.....1 plan mnl!ft~ments. ' , -
Regarding water quality. c:onstrUCiion of the rePlacPJn-bridges and the removal of. the
d..........:ssioned and detour bridges will impaci water qualitY by affecting soilS mid vegetation
, .
.'
- --. - ... . -~.~-.
ATT~~ A.:: f~G~ ~~
Date Received
. JU~"2 8 2008
Planner: BJ
SlaffF"1DIIiDp -"""'2008
Page IS .
".
'-::
"'--.0
.....A/
I
,
II
. within the wi11amdte River and along the greenway setback. Water qU:Wty may also be affected
where impervious surlaces are added along the bridge. .....".v~..:.es:Where anias arc: pave4, 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 construction of the
n:pJaceinent bridges will result in some new impervious slirfaces,ovr::rall the Project will result in a
:.. .net decrease in impcrvioussilrface because ODOr will remove the approach roadway for the detour...
bridge.
.. . ~ .-' -
. I.
The applicant also proposes that water quality impacts will be mitigated through the)ISC of effective
land-based stormwatcr treatment systems that include mCllSlllis to preserve and restore_mature
vegetation and ma,nmi,." infiltration. The use of construction tecljriiques that include te'~"-'~l and
permanent BeSt Management Practices for erosion and sediment control and spill cont;rol and
preverition also can achieve compliance with clean water stanc\ards. Oregon Highway Plan SA.!
directs ODOr to implement BCstMana,,-_: Practices. Based dn these findings, water quality will
be maintained Il!1d JDitigated, consistet1t with this goal. In addition; through the local permitting
process; Eugene and Springfield can impose ....."._....:ate cOnditiollS to CDSUIe that Best Management
Practices are employed and that water quality is niain~ed, subject to applicable approval criteria
and related standards. By doing so, Goal 6 is satisfied" .
. Reg~ noise, a project noise technical report was prepared as pari of the Environmental
Assessment (as required by NEPA) to analyze poten1:ial 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 residences as a result of the project Noise walls were
determined to meet the ODOr effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two locations and are
recommended as mitigation (see supplemental information, Figuri:s 7-9). The final wall locations
. will be detennined after public input is completed as part of the NEP A process. AdditioIlllllI. as
, stated on page 13 of the written statement, the applicant ~,u1"'"es the following general measures:
, o' Continue public involvement through design and construction
o limit Work hours
\ ,. .-
o limit noise
;:
Therefore, in the __..;:.; of a plan amendment, the proposed am~dments are consistent with
Stalewide Planning Goal 6. Additionally, specific construction and operational details will be
. ~,,>,,_>,.;ately ad':'v......Jdurin&JocaI permitting processes, subject 10 appliCllhle ""'r....J I;riteria
and related standards. '"
(I
~
Goal 'I - Areas Subiect to NatumI Disasters and H~ To protect life tmd pr~p/!T'tyfrom natural
disasters tmd Iwzards. .:' . .' ,
Goal 7 requires that local govemmentpIanning progrSms include provisions to protect peepleand
2 Cumni1y, there Is DO ...._, __ _ell! far ~ d~mmissioned and ~ bridges. Providing ~ quality
_I for the new.bridges, which would be nquired through the: appliC8lll'. proposed Best Ma1lagcDlmt Pratli.... ,
would have. bcneIicialeflect on _ quality. The witerquality n:porl forthc:plOjOClnotod 1IIatthc: amOUDl DflUDDII'
from thc: bridges would be so minor raJati.elO the volume of flow in the WilIamette River that the: elfa<l would be
.llCgIigJ'bIe.' .
.
SIlIffFindings - June 2008
Page 16
Date -Received
.'
'.
---' -..-
A'l"rACHMENT 4 - PAGE 19
--...,....- . ..~
.
. ,
J.UL. 2 8 20pS
Planner: BJ :
,-
1'--
. property from DBturBl haZIIIds such as floods. hmd slides, __hs..Jces lIIllln:1ated ~ tsunamis
lIIlll Wildfucs. It is nOt subject to hazards JIllIIIIlIlly BS!.':-d wiIh wi1dfires, or fsommn;.
. , -. .' '.<~. , ,
Consistent With this goal. the City .o(Eugene bas adopted provisidps regulatiDg devel~!,-"",; in
floodplains lIIlll f100dways. and building codes regulations that addn:ssslopes IIIId seismic concerns.
...... .--"''7''':.' ....~ .~...-... .,. ....~ ..... .--- ~ . ...~... 4 ... e. ........... ..
To the eX1entthat this is relevant to the r...~'.;' plau';"'';''ilm...~ the'eXisting cktourbridge does
nO~ri1eet~...... scismil:staDdards. ('nn,.;otP.ntwilh this goal, the ........,..1 bridgerepla,. -" I
project will provide bridges that meet cutient seismic, llllfety ami design staDdards..
. , .
,
;."
-., .. ..
.'
Additionally, ....-.:.... slOpes, portiODS of the project area me identified on the map for Rclstive
. Slope Instability Hazards. The portions of the projectsi1e in the WhilamutNatural Arealllld
Eastglite Woodlands, and the area southeast on.s and the W"Jllametle River me identified IS
modc:rate hazard arcas,H. " .. ._. both of these areas are propOsed for rioly temPorary staging
locations. The appliCant bas completed 10 t...:...,.. on either side l!fthe river IS part ora
"...;.....L.:ca1 hlvestigatiOlJ. ~ to the........."'-. detour bridge (three north of the river, seven
south of the river), A geological report (which was not ~Jor this application) indicatel! that
geological resources in the project area conSist offill materisl,a1fuvium, and bedrock, The .
processes affec.ting these .......:.....:.Js me ~ ...ade. such as excava;ion llIIli ~ and natuml.
Since there is an existing bric1gC,impaCts to geological nisoun:e5 would co,DSist of relatively minor .
changes in topography, ininor settlement of...... ~ rilptenAlR, possible increase. in CI'llsion,
minor changes to the river flow regime imd ie1ated sediment and TclaIed sediment transport, and.
potential changes in slope stability (from vcgetBtion removal).nfuse impacts would occur as a .
result ofexCllVlllion, pl8cementofstructure and fills, andc1earing lIIlll grading. Impacts related to
construcli.on would be ........ ."~J> localized changes to river f\owrep; stability of partially
constructed slopes; eTosion; and resullllnt ....!;m...tAtion. The highest rIsk!D landslide would be
. slope failure into the W"illamctlc River;bDwever. considerinil the Jaw height of the riVerbank, such a
failure Would be limited to a small area relative to the wiIIth oftlJ.!l river. The applicant.states that
geotechnical investigations will also be completed during design to determine the best method to
seat foundations and piers and to reduce effects reIated to hazudi Additionally, slopes will be
constructed in a __ that reduces PotentW for erosion or small \8Ddslides.
.' . ..
. .
Therefote, the' project Would have no pennaneIll effects on g~logical resources. In the context ofa
plan an..,~i1m...t, landslide and earthquake hazards lire addressed consistent with this. goal.
FurtbeImoIC, spcciIic ""Dstruction details will be .further reviewcid dmmg the local..~-:;4
processes, subject 10 applicable standards, such as, based on the earthquake hazard. ..~"...."':"':cal
. investigatiODS should be completed. prior to CXlIIStruclion 10 d.....;;';,l"" the best JDC:tb.od to seat
foundations,piCIS, IlIId br:nls to reduce effects!e1ated 10 _':"'A_ (e.g., lalera1 spread. ,
liCJUefaction). In addition, slopes should be construl:ted in a mamier thaLL.J the ... __.:.u for
erosion or smalllanil.I;~. :i
. jl
Regarding f1ociding, portions of the project area me 10Cll1ed witbhJ. the f100dway andfloodp\ain of
the W"illllmette River; As previoUsly ~ .bolh Eugeue aDd Springfield have adopted orninan....
regulating constnIdion withinfloodWli}>s and floodplains. F~ in R'SpOIlS" to Metro PIan
policies C:30 and c.31be1ow. wbichis in..._..~_......l herCin by rderence, 1:>-0""" the 1-5 .
W'illamette Bridge project is located withiD. a. FEMA d"';l"ah>iliegu!auny fioodway and
Date Received
, ,JUL 28 2008'
Planner: BJ
,
\
f
S1IffF'mdiDga-l1111C 2008
Page 11 . .
"
'.
---~ .. --... --..,.-.-.-
A~ACHMENr A- PAGE 20
_*. i r-
. ,
I
,
;
I
I
i
>!
\
I
I.
I
I'
I
I
I
,
'I
:1
.
,
I
I
'.
j
I
"
,
"
I;
II
II
,I
'I
,
+- ......-.--
, .
'-"
...,~-"
floodplain, the design of the repla..__. bridges must .satisrr the ~ations set forth in the .
Natiorial Flood Insunmce Program (NFIP). The NFIP requires that any modifications that cause a
rise in the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs, which Com:spands to water surface elevations associaled
.with the lOO-yi:ar flood event) must be approved by FEMA. .
Two pier location scenarios are cum:nt1y under conslderation{PrOposed Option A and Propc:sm .
Option B, see wntlf:D. statcmeDt page 9). Based on preliminary modeling, Option A would reSult m
an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the 100-ycar flood event For the Environmental
Asse..m""l, 'the hydraulic conditions of the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project were analyzed using the
U.S. Army Cotp ofEn&.u"",.' HEC-RAS model. NatumI, existing and !'.v!'w....; conditions (with
pier locations OptiODll A and B) were modeled. CODllervative ~ptions regarding pier size were
us~ for this modeling. Refin~ design of the ~""">'.J and further hydraulic analysiS will allow
confinnation that the !"v!,w~.J project willresul! in no rise ofthe.base flood elevation.
, Option B w~uld result in a decrease of 0.54 feet for the I DO-year flood event, which is consiStent
with the no-rise standard and consistent with this goal. While Option A shows an in~ase of 0.02,
which does not meet the no-rise requirement, this ~s not a detailed analysis and modeling will be nm
again when the design is refined for the pcnnitting !,.vw_~ in oide,r to meet the no-ri,sc n;quirelnent,
A FEMA "no-rise"Ccr1i1ication will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any construction or.
. strUCtures wittiiD floodways/special flood bazard llJellS that are oUtside of:rlghts.,of-way. witliin
Eugene.1n additiOD, 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 storms can be mitigated at the time of.
development based on accepted building codes and building techniques. As. previously stated, .
specific constniction and v!'..";':onal details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting
processes, sUbject to applicable f.rr' _ . .J criteria and reIatcd standards.
. .
. .
Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, the preliminary no-rise dala, the landslide
information, and findings aJiove, the !'.v!'vo<<l plan amendments are consistent with Statewi<je
Planning Goal 7.
.
.
. GoalS - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recrearlollDl needs of the Citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate,' to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
Including desti1lation resorts." :,'
Goal 8 ensures the provision of .~_.-':onaJ facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision.ofthosc 1iIcilities in non-urban areas of the state. East Alton Baker Pm!$'
located to the cast and west ofI-S right-of-way, which includes .v:....,.:on, bicycle'and pedestrian
paths and the canoe canal (utilized by kayakcrs). The portion of the park that is west of I-S in
Eugene is now called the Whilamut Natural Ami and the portion of the pm cast ofI-S in .
Springfield is called the Eastgate Woodlands' of the Wamut NatUral Area (ali.~,:..ted hei-e as
Eastgate Woodlands) and these areas will be .....l.~.:; to as such for the r=a;MP.T oftheselindings
unless otherwise indicaled. The demolition and construction of the bridges will take pl8cc within the
1.5 right-of-way. which is not partofthc park; th_.~'.." the rep1acementbridgeswill not remove or
:..-....... recreBlional -r...-.;.milies at the pllIk. H;", " ...... removal 'oftbe detour' bridge will include
,. .
StaffFmdings -ll1l1e 200B
PageIB
Da!e ReC~ive1
' . . JUL.2,8 2D08 _ ,
. .
Planner:BJ
..
- ... ...
ATTACHMEHi A -PAGE'21
. .
"
~~-
._~
-,
. .
. ,
. ..1
. :i:
:1,
~.~
. .
n:mcml offillllUlterial from and rebabiliiation of a poriionofE8stgale Woodlands. The -.- .....,
eas"'"'~ obtained by ODOT to dO this woIk. _....:..... rehabilitation of the mea within 5ycars of .
completion of the peI1IllIIllMt bridges. This Cl'->";"_. will c:nsure tii&t .__....;:ollBl ~ cifthis mea
will return to ~re,.project cOndiPons.
'Additionally, diIiii1geonStriictionthcp'lirkwill be lcmJlO!8rilY afii:Ctcd. 1broughthe ofhcr.local .
pcmiliting processes (WtllamcUc Ch=iWaypcrmit, WBlI:r R.csom,I:cs c......_. ..LO!l Overlay review,
Wdl8mclie C,__" -J set""r.l<. eicetr:ra) construction :.....-:.. will'be required to be ",;";m;71'4
through conditions of ........,,J that would preserve bicy~ ~ and boater safety, ~ to
mainWn consisteiIcy with opemtiona1 provisiODll in the East Alton Baker Parlt Plan (whichinc1udes
the Wbllamlit Natural Area and Eastgate- Woodlands), Public access to the WiI1.",-River will
continue to be provi~ through ODOT'srigh; .::'"",,,.underthe brld&e1l ih_..ft.... public acccssto
the river will not be affected (,;,.:;':"ll!litetnP.nt page 49,Mc1ro Plan Policy D.9), Althl1ugh the
, bicycl~m pathYiays may be impacted during cOl1structiono the application will provide a
continuous roule across ODOT right-of-way for the Jlicyc1Clpedcstrian JlI1lhv4y's that will be .
main1llincd on both the north ami the south. sides of the riVc:r during constructiOn t ...:;;.... ptot,;",ent,
page 61, WillAk...me ArcaPlan,Neigbborhood DcsignElem~- WiUal:netIc drecnway,Usc
~cnt Standard 2). ~Additionally, specific ConsIrUCtion and; _.._"::onai dclails rcganIing
public access. and ..........;:0IlIll irnp"<;ts will be ....,.. ....:.atc.Iy ad.il."..,..J during local j'.,.......:;.:ng
processes, subject to applicable ........' J criteria and reIatcd ~, .
, Comments were ~vedstating that (to ~) the bridge provides a crossi!ig ofFnm1diD
Boulevard and the ~. and that this provides an opportun!ty for those crossing to be made
available to.pedestrians and bicyclislll. Additionally, the._ - . . note that since the replaoement
is not accommodating sUch 1\ crossing; the applicant his insufIici~ analysis regarding the
provision of adequate aCccssto Altoh BakerPaIk.'~ discussed ill aiore detailllDdi:r the Mc1ro Plan
Transportation Element; Policy F.14 below which is i1m.........::.J herein byrcf\ll.'C1lce, the applicant
proposes a continuous route across ODOT right-of-way for the bicyclclpedcstrlan r"a ,,_/s to be
. mA;ntA;""t! onlioth the north and the South sides of'the riVj:l' durlng cODstruction. ThiS mitigates for
the t....,....:../ impacts to the'eidsting bicyclei.....:....,;.:an r-J. "", ~ andensurcs that connections
between exiSting paths and.to ncar-by Knic:kcrbocker,Brldge are ~A;ntAinM In the.___~_.;ofthc
t':-....:d plan amemtmC:nts, thislll:!cquat.cly addresses access for bicyclists and pedeStrians as these
. are the cxlEling bicycle and pedestrian facilities affected by the proposed amcndmCllts.
{'
;~~
. .
.
. "
Based on the fi'''!!"&,, ~~in ihe "__.:. oia plan ---.!...-:m, the proposal will not Impact the
provision of public ._~~ona1 facilities, nor will they affect acccss.tocxisting or future public
._.~Dna1 facilitic8. The RTlleJ1 -'. ....;., are thc:refo1c'consistalt ~ih Slllt.cWide Planning GoalS.
.
"
Goal.9 __ ~omic Developnlenti To ~ adeqtJDle oppqrJunitiu t/r1'oughoIIt the state for a
varlny of ~~nomu: cicttVttiuvltal to lhe health, wc1fOre. and prospuity of oregon's cltlzsns.
The AdmiDL;.;;';" w Rule ~or Slllt.cWide PIAnnh1g Goal 9' (OAR 660 Division 9) requires that the City
"[p lrovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable Sizis. types, location, and service
levels for a varictyofindustria1 and .._.:aI uses CODSist(m with plan policics[.)" Among ofhcr
thinp, the rule __~..:..~ that citic8 complete an "Economic Opp~~;~:;:~ Analysis." OAR 660-009- .'
0015. Based on the :.....,..~c C...._.~-" Analysis, cities mto ......-. Indusiria1 and .
.
. Staft'FmdiDgs -.hme 2008
,Pop 19
'.
Date Received'
..Juq 82008 . .
Planner: RJ
-T -_._-- - ,-.:
-...-.-.-. -.--
ATTACHMENT A ,.. PAGE 22
:--.', ,. .-
-;,,:~
,!
.,
,
;
,[
t .."
I
,.
;1
,I
i.
,
I
I
I
I
'"
, .
- ,
. .
Commen:ial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0Q20. Finally OAR660-009-(102S ..'1..:..... that
cities d..ngJ1Rte induslrial8llll commen:ial Jands sufficient to meet short 8IIlI1(lDg tenD nee:ds- OAR
660-009..oo10(2) provides that the deIailed p1amUng ~ :...,.....J by OAR 660 Div.ision 9 .
apply "aI the time ofeach periodic review of the plan (QRS 197.712(3))..n III additiOJl, OAR 660- .
009-0010(4) provides thai, when a city changes its plandesiglllllions ofJands in excess of two acreS
to or from commcrcial or industrial use, pursuant to a pt?st aCknowIedgment.plan BDlendn!CI1t,. it
must address all aPPlicable p1amUng requirements 8IIlI (a) demollStrllte that the proposed
AmP.Tltlm<:nt is COIISistaIt with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan w!Jjch address the.
l'cqui._.....s of OAR 660 Division 9; or (b) amend its comprehensive plan ~ explain the ....;.....d
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) 8IIlI (b) consistent .
with the ..'l..:.....ents of Division 9. '
III the coD.tcxtofOAR 660-009..0010(4), the EUl!eIlc Comm=ial~ Study (ECLS) is
acknowledged for COIiIpliance with the requirements of Goal 9 aJI!i its Admini.:..:": ,.,Rule. The
m.s. constitutes the City's obligation UDder OAR 660 Division~, H. ,_ _, since the I-S .
Willamcttc Bridge Projcet is oc:i:urrU!g in ..........:-atcly the sBDleJocalion of the existing bridges,
within c;xisting right-of-way, existing right-of-way casements, or temPOmry staging areas (within
existing right-of-way or park ..........:J), OAR 66O-009..QOI 0(4) dOes not apply !le<-P"5l' the proposed
amendment will not remove any land from the collllllCl'cialland supply. Thl:ieforc, the lllliendm__
. an: ~ ytith Statewide Planning Goal 9. . .
9oaIIO - H~: To provlrkfor tM IJousf1!g needs of the citizens oftM state.
Goal I 0 . .'1..:..... that communities plan for 8IIlIm.intsom an inVl:n1OrY of buildable residcntialland
for needed housing units. 'Ibe Admini.:....;.. J;twe for B:..:.." :de ~1anning Goal I 0 (OAR 660
Division g) $Iates that "the mix 8IIlI density ofncededhousing is~mnninM in the housing needs.
projection. Sufficient buildable land sha1l be designated on the c...:.....4-msive plan map to satisfY
housing needs by type 8IIlI density range as detcnnincd in the ho~ IlCeds projection. The local
buildable 1ands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation. n The co~cnsive plan. map for the city is the ld.,n;, Plan land use diagram. The
1999 EUl";ne.;Sprinqfi,,lrI MelroIlolitan Area Residenlipl 1. ."tl._ and }tnusiIJl1 SlJIdv oo.ID is .
aclamwledged for comp1iance with the n:Quin:ments of Goal I 0 8IIlI its Adminisirative Rule.
,
As previOusly sIaled. the ..........4 plan amcndmem will accommoClate II bridge rcpllK'.....- projcet
that will occur in ..,.,.......:...mJy the same location as.the cxi.sling bridges, within ~ rigbt-of-
wat, existing right-of-way Ml~ or :_"~J Staging areas (that are withiJi right-of-way or
park..._.._,,). Therefore. the inVClllory ofrcsidcntialland wili nOt be :....;....:...4 8IIlI thus StateWide
Planning Gnall 0 is not applicable. . . ...
Goal!l . PublipFF.ilities and Services; To plDn and deve'op a tb,nely, orrkrly and efficient
~ , '~'6-...mt of public facililiu and service.r to serve as aftameworlcfor urban and TllTal
devel.".....~
'.
-
~ area -=....J by the lIIIientl";enb., the bridge right-of-way, is lc?cated entirely within the City
limits ofboth the City ofEugeoe 8IIlI the City of Springfield. The proposedamCl'dll"".q would
aIlow demolition 8IIlI IepI........"'Jt of the --...__; I-S bridge 8IIlI ;..~_....:....ction of the roadway
SlaffFmdiup - J1IIIC 2008
Pogc 20 .
Date Received
_. .._- .. -... --. .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 23 ',T
"
" " JUL'2 8 '2008
.~ __Planner:- BJ
, '
"
.'
.'
approaches to .Ille bridges. which axe all public facilities that are acknowledged in the Oregon .
Highway Plan mid the local regional tran.1"'....;:OD pl8n (fl'lltlSl'lan)as necessary pub~c facilities
and serviceS. Replacement ofllle --ro.-I bridge with. __...entbridgcs that meets~
seismic stAndmds CIISUIi:s that this public' facility continues to safely sc:rvc: the area. The provision
of these amendments 40es DOt significantly affect the plll!llling or development of future public
--.. . facilities or services, : ~~:thi: Am-.nilliiel1'lsare1:Onsistent with'Statewide P1snni!Ig-Goa11l. ..
-.-' - -,' ...
.k
'./
"
.'
. ~. ....-
..
Goal 12 - T .~~_.;"::on: To proviJk and encdlJraie a safe, co~nien/ and ecollOmlc
transportation system., ' .
Goal 12 is implemented through the Tran...~.;..::On p\amIing Rule (fPR), as defined in Otegon
AcImL.:.,;..:.;: "_ Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugc:ne-Springficld ,Melrop01itanArea .
Tran...r_.:'::':.on Plan (TransPlanl provides the regiolllli pOlicy ~ through whichtbe TPR is
implemented at the local leveL The TPR (OAR 660-0l2..Q0(0) states.that whc:Ii land use cbIInges.
including amei:lllments to acknowledged ~--r'.::.ensive plans, Sig;,;f;r~jy affect.an existing or
pl8nned transportation facility the local gO\ :..._...; sba1l put in place m~"" to assure t1:iat the .
allowed land \I!lCS are 'consistent with "the identified fUnction, capaCity and performance standards
(level of service, volinne to capacity nitio,c:Ic.) of the facility. Tl'lItlSl'llIIl, whicli implements Goal
12, id~es 1'5 [mcluding the 1-5 bridgC) as an existing tran.r_.,..;on facility. -
Detet7mntp/on ofSignifican.l F,ffect ,
The TPR 1..,..:.... a detP.rini,n.mon of which existing and planned transportation facilities will
experience a significant eff~ as a ~t of the proposed plan "",,,,,ilinent, and defines what
COJ;1Stitules a signifiCant effect. . .' . .
OAR 660-012-0060(1) Plan and Land Use Reruumon Amendments .
... !, .
.'
.'
As ~ in the foll9Win& findings, the plan amendments propose no sigiuficant effe<:! on any .
planned or existing facilities UDder OAR 66O-Ol2-OO6O(1)(a),(b)or (c). OAR 660-012-0060(1)
Plan and Land U~ Regulation Amendments states the folloWing:' ,
. .
. '.. ,.,. ..
.... ."
(1) Where an amendment to a funclio1U1l plan, an acknowledged __...;; ..hen.slve pIon, or a
lmulllSe regulation wovld s/gnijlcantly affect an existing i1r planned tratrsportation facility,
the local 6~ ,,~..~,.mt shall put/n place mea,ritrei as provtiJed in section (2) of this rule to .
QS~ that allowed Umd usu arecon.ri.rte,,! with the Identijiedfimctioll, capacity, and
peiformance standmtb (e.g, level a/service, volume tp ctipacltyratio, etc.) ofthefaci1/ty. A
plan orland lISe'regulation amendment Signifii:mit1yqffeeu a transporlationfacility if U
"-"d:'. . ..' .
WUUlI , . .. . .. .
(a) Change thefunctio1U1l c1a.uificationofan e%/.stbig or planned transportationfaclliIy
(ac1urive of co.rrection of map erron in an adopted plan);
. . I~
(b). Chongestandards implementing afunctlo1U1l cl~o"sysiem; or
The proposed amendment will no~ change the functional classification of an ~ or planned
tmnSportation facility or change the standards implementipg a functional classification system.
. . .
StaffFiDdiDp - JuDe 2001
Page 21
.
,
. ,
. .
...--_. -. ..-.--
ATTACHMENT ~ - PAGE 24
. .-- . .. . - ~.
Date Received
JllL 2 8 2008
, .
. .
It'1,3I1fl@r:: EU
.
(c) As ~asured ~ 'the end of the plC11l1ling period ide~ed in the adopted ..~~y-' ..mon .
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or 1~1s of develop;"en1that.,i,ou1~ result in types .or levels of
. . .' . traVel or llCcesS' that are inconsistent with the jimct!onaI classification of an existing
or plC11I1Iedtransportation fadlity; "
.
. .
(lJ) /reduce the performance of an existing or plmWd transportation facility below
the minimum acceptable perfor7llll1lCl! Standard id_,~:fi_.! in the TSP or
~ . ."
comprehensive plan; or
(C). Worsen' the performance of an existing or planiJed transportation facility that
Is otherwise'[lTojected to perform below the minimum acCeptable perforrnarrce
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. .
'I
"
The proposed amendment will allow for the construction of bridges to replace existing bridge
facilities that have been decommissioDCd as being strocturally unsafe. The replacement bridges will .
be coll51ructed in approximately the same location as the 'dPM~~i,goned bridge. Since 2004
(when the primary bridges were decommissioned as unsafe), a (tempOIWY) detour bridge has
provided 1-5 traffic.access over the; Willamette RiVer. Once the proposed bridges 8rI' constructed,
existing traffic volumes m...-Jl using the detour bridge will be shifted from the detour bridge to
the new bridges. eoDstriu:tion of the t'out'wo..i bridges will simply reroute traffic from ille CII1'n:Ilt
detour bridge to the (permanent) replacement bridges allowed by the propOsed amendment
Wbile the replacement bridges will be designed and coll51ructed to 1lCCOlI1IIl0date six lanes of travel,
. because 1-5 is only foudanes, the bridges will be striped for four lanes, Until 1-5 is widened to six
lanes, the bridges .wilI remain striped for four lanes. Designing aOO constructing the bridges to
allow for six lanes of travel is intended to a-,~odate fut:ure traffic needs traveling along 1-5; the
additional 1-5 traffic will be generated by future development thrOughout the State ofOregon and,
because 1-5 is a nuYor interstate, throughout the .United States. TIle construction of the replacement
bridges, whether striped for four lane or six lanes, does not generate any additional vehicular mps, it
simply provides passage aver the Willamette River.. When the bridges 8rI' eventual1y striped for six
lanes (to be made consistent with 1-5), the additional bridge capacity will increase the performance
and t\metion ofI-5, not worsen it' .'
Accor?ingly, the propos,ed nm....dment will not allow land uses or:levels of dev~lwr_-' that will
result m types or levels of travel or access that are inl:onsi.stCnt with the functional classification of
an existing or planned tninsponation facility under OAR 660-012~060(I)(c)(A). .
, ".
Further, the proposed arnpt>tlVlents will not reduce the t':'f_~.anci, of aD ~ or planned
lran..r_.;"':on filcility below the minimum acceptable perl'ormance standard identified in the TSP or
~-..........11cnsive plan under (l)(c)(B), or worsen the k'''''1i.....ance ofan existing or plaDned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perfonn below the minimum acceptable
. performance standard identified in the TSP or __.........:.msive plan under (1)(c)(C).
. .
I.'
,
,
,
,
,
I
1
,.
'1
I
.'
,
i\
I
:i
.'
,
II
II
Ii
Ii
II
,
Ii
,
"
i:
S1affF'mdings -JIliu:2DOB
Page 22
. ATT~CHMENiA ::'PAGE '25-
.'
.
Date Received
. . JUL '2 8 '200ff
Planner.: BJ
. . . I
'. " I .
For the I'ellSOIIS c!isI:ussed above, the ....,...~l Rm""rImcnt will Dot significantly affect,an existing or
.___.... __ ..' "'-_'1:- ,.
pJJW.lKlU Uc;w..:,l""":a",,,,"-Dn .a.AW.A&.~'. ' . I
.. .'~' . -. .
.. .' ::. i
, . bAR 660-01 UJ015F..i' ~ ,..;311 cuul Coordination OfTransportaitOll SyStem Plails i
. . . , . I
. .
OAR 66lMI12~1S(n dim:tS ODOTw r- -r '". and adopt a state,/rllllSpOrta1ion system pIan that
identifies.~ system. oftnmsportation facilities ~ servicc:s ~equaV: to meet ~ed:~ .
.................00 needs. The 0Ieg0n Tra..._"';'.D. CoIDll11llS1OD has done that through B!ioption of the
Oregon Transporta!iOD PIan (OTP) and modal plans, including the Oregun Iflghway PIan. The 011'
includes policies to ina:easc the efficient movement of people and goods for comm~ and .
productiOD of goods and services that is coordinaied With regional and loc8l plans. It e,Inpbasizes
m.n.g;"g the i:xL.,;YlStran..... ......:.on system cffectigely and imprOving that.J .:- before adding
~~1~' I
~~~ . '.: I
. The OTP ~ promotes a safe, effic!ent, midrenable freight systeinto support _..~..~c vitali~,
The OHP identifieS 1:5. as an interstate highWay within the state'SfuadwaYDet'9ll.lIk. n.w highway
necessarily includes a bridge oVer the Willamette River in EugenC/Springfielq. OAR ~69~12-
,0015(2) and (3)requirethatregional and local TSPs be cousisteDt.with the state TSP.:Transplan
c:ummtly recognizes theL...;..~.':"".:e ofl-S to the region. Because !he rep!al-.....""t.bridges are
necessary to ~ 1-5, by "U'" ~ thejiroposed plan RmPinrlmP.TJts, all plans ~ ranain
. coDSistent and the requiremeIrts of Goal 12 will be satisfied. r I
I
.
Based on the above findjDgs, the proposal is consistent withStatc'wide P1anning Goal ,12.
. i .
I:, ,",
I
. ~.
Statewide P1mming Goall3 Ca1Is for land uScis to be mimaged and CODtroUed Uso as to maximize the
coDSelVlllion of all fmms ofi:nergy, based upon sowuI economic principles.". Goalq is directed at
the development oflocaJ energy'policies and i1;1plem.~ng pro~ons imd does not state
. requUcments with ~ to other types of land use'decisions. It is not clear that the goal bas any
bearing 011 Ii site,sjlecific decisioD such as the one at issue. Then: is no implcinentin8 rule that
. clarifieS the requirements of Goal 13. To the eKtent that Goal 13 could be applied to the proposed
plan Bn'f!ftrlments,the ..........J is c:OnsisteDt with God 13; the I.S WU1amette Bri~ project is .
located in the same loc&tion as the existing and previous bridges imd will c.~. to make efficicnl
use of -6.1 with silfe, clirecllUld~flicicnt accCss thoUgh the ~ i
p ." I .
c...:-_~ were received that, in summary, the aipplicant fails to conSider the collSCriratioD of
energy bY any me811S other Ih!m thIit of...... ;~ the efficiencY of car and truck de.
Specifically, failure to c;olisiderany provision for incotporating bicycle traffic into the aossing does
notlll8Ximize the conservation of all fonns of energy, particu1al1y petrolelimenergy.iHowever,
given that Goal 13 is .u._",.l at developing local energy ._;->-.,;';::'" policies, it is determined that
;Goal 13 is not a means to require a specific project to add a biCyllle atid pedestriaDc.;":I'_...:nl.
r . , ' .
..' . . ,'" . . :
)3ascd on the fin.m,gJ above, the ..... ...,.1 is consistent with StatCwide P1amJirigGoal13.
. ::. . ~ I
Gnall4 ~ Urllanization:. To pt'OlIIde for /llI orderly cuul ejjim1l1 t1'anSttio1lfrom ~l to IO'ban /imd
,
I
I"
i Date Received
1 :..
.1 JU~ 28 2008' "
i .
iPlanner: BJ
Go.8l13 - Enernv ConserYBfion; To conserve energy..,.
.
,-
SlaIfF'mdiIlp -11mc 2tlO8
Page23' .
"
-_._-~., ...
ATTACHMENT A':' PAGE 28
. ..-..
. :
I
I
I
i
i
.'
,I
.,
,
I
I
'1
,
.1
I;
II
!
i
,I
I
I
I
I
,
i
.1
,
,
1
.
'.
I
t
.1
"
~ I
.1
,;
I
il
'I
.:1
'i
L
,. ~
,
!'
I
.. ~ -
.-
, I
The amendments do not affi:ct the lIIIDsiiion fro~'ruraI to.urban land use, as the projeki an:a is
ccnirany located to the Metro Plan and is entirely within the Eugme-SpringfieldU~, Th.....:..";
Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply. .' I
,- .......... ".. .... .~ ~.. .... ."~' '.- ..... ... ..... ~...,.... .'1 . - ~."
, Goal 15 " Willamette River Greenwav: To proiect, co:Uerve, eM,imce and maintain the natural,
scenic, historiclll, agriculMal, economic and recreational qualities of lands along th~ W'ulamette
River as the WUlamette River Gree1rWay. , . '" I"
'.. .1
Portions of1he projeCt an:a are within the boundaries of the willlimette Rivet C......:. ~). As foUIid
under Goal 2 above, which is incotporated heniin by reference, a 'goal 15 exception ii'......:.-j by,
Policy D.lI of the Metro Plan and the applicant meets the requirements for an exceptjon to Goal IS,
Based.on these findings, the y..,......! Complies with Statewide Pl!UJDing Goal 15 as ~cepted.
."
."
use,
'.
'c I
Goal 16 tbr'".1,,1i I. ~ . Estuarine Reso\l.,m" Coa~.1 ~ho",lp.ntl.'l.Il"""bes and Dunes. arid Ocean
Resou.rces" . ~ .. - ,,;,. :
. .' .,. I
. ". ..
. . " I
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune teSo~ related to the .,,"~.w'l affected
by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant an~ the amendments will not lIffect .
compliance With Statewide Planning Goa!~ 16 through 19." I
. '.' I
(b) Adoption oftlu IIJffDUinwrt must not m4ke the Metro Plan inienudIy Uu:oIlSistDu.
. '.' it I
The applicant JlI'OPoses to amCnd the Metro PIaq text ofPollcy DJ I to allow the plaCbent ~ffill .
within the Willamette River greenWaY for the construction of the 1-5 Willametle Bridge Project. As
found below, this text amendment will not create an intemal conflict/with the n:mainderofthe
Metro Plan. The applicant provided detailed findings intending to:show how !be Metro Plan text ,
amendment is consistent with !be policY direction contained in thC Metm Plan. To the extent that.
they may be applicable, the applicant's findings lire also incotpOrated herein by. ._f,-~. '
. , .
l . ~
! .
,
The following Metro Plan poli~ are applicable to this request:
B.18
I
I
I "
Encourage the developmelll oftransportationfat:i/ities which would improve bs fo
i1Idusrrial and commercial areas and imprOW! freigh/ mow",.elll capabilities 1iy
implementing t~ policies and projectr in t~ Eugene-Springfield Metropolltair Area
Tratriportation Plan (!'ramPlan) and t~ Eugene Airport Master Plan. ,
.. '. ,
B. Econol"licElement
While the ~o.y.-::d language of this policy may not be mandator;., the applicant's jind;ngll are '
provided as further support for !be y,v!,v..."j amendments. Replacing the d"""mmi<sic\ned 1-5
Willamelle River bridge with two new bridges, and associatedimProvem'ents, will nurlntain the
access, ~obility, and freight movement capabilities that thC decommissioned bridge.ahd ;';"';'~""J .
detour bridge have provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained along the interstBte highway
system through Eugene and Springfield, the replar......P.Jrt bridges will help provide w~,,"":ent
.' . ; . .
. ,
SlaifFindings - June 2008
Page 24
'. I"
I
bate Received
I .
J. . J ~ L, ~.8 ZOOa "
:PI~nner: 'BJ
I
, -
, .
. .
. . -. _ ...... .-- .. ---.
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 27
... -:--_.
'.
~
I
I
I
I
I
. . . I
. . access to industrial and commcrciaI areas On connecting roads consistent with this po~cy.
.. i
. C. RnvimmnentallU..~_~ Element
"
. .
,
I'
. I
C8 LoCDl... ,,,..JiIenIs s1uzJ1 develop plans and program.r whtch cm-ejUl1y.1tIt11lDge diveloprmnt
. . I', ' f ~
011 hUlsldu and in Wtzter'bodies, and restrict deVelopment ill wetlands in order to prevent
erosioll and r' ~'"'...; the scelllc quality. wrface waJ~ and irouruJwarer quality~ forest valUes,
vegetatloll, and Wildlife values of those (ll'UU. ,. I
C.9 Each city s1uzJ1 com,pleie a separate study to meet its requiTemellts UllIkr the qoaJ 5 JUde for
wellanib. rlpizriai. corridors, and wHdlife hobltat within th;e UGB..l..mIe COUllty and the
respective city jointly wm adopt the inventory and protectffll me~es for ~ area outside
the city l/11tlts and i1I8/de the UGB. . . :. '. . I .
CIO LoCDl ~ shDJI ellCOurage/urther;1Ji'dy (by spedtlluts) of endailgJd and
threateriedpltmt and wHdlife specie, in the metropOlitan area. . r .
. , '. .' . . ...... '. l
C.II LocQ1 ~rll1lle'!f8 shil1l prokct eruilmgered and threatuIUI pla!rt and w~dItft, species: as
recoglll%~d 011 a /~ga/ly adoptedstateJVide list, after IlOtI~,and oppor;wuty for;, public IIlput.
. " l<' '. :
.TheSe policies arc cIi=zd to the local govemmCnts.li~Eugenc, Springfi.~ and Lane ,County snd
not necessarily the applicant H. . "'.-. they are applicable to ~.~ 1I!at the citi.~!!fEugenc
and Springfield and Lane County have Bdopted regulations to protect these .....v_~ snd tha1 the
applicant will be ~uired to apply for applicable ........;,,;., ~ to those local requjrem~
(Eugene's W'illamcuc O._.....y permit and Wm.R......_.o.J CoilserVatiOD Overlay Zone, snd
Springfiel~'s 7S-riparian ~~ review). .' ... . ", . . . l
C23 Deslg1I and COllStTllctlOIl ofllEW llOue-sellSitlve development in the v1cillity of aliting
and fulvre lIreels and highways with potenJial to exceed geMral highway rioue levels
shall include COIIS/derritIOII of mitltaJbti meQ8UT'f18. such as acoustical bulldblg
modijicatlOllS, npue barriers. and acouitICDl 8/le pltwrirrg. 17te appliC4f/o'} oft~se
mItigat/llg JfWflSIlrU must be balanced with other des/gll ColISideratiollS and hoilitng
com. ..... .' I
C._'-~ ..:ere w:o. received regarding ~ DOise ~bat.......... ~ and Iimi~ noJ froin'the .
project Sim:e the project is'Dot a "Dew Doise-s-":;:, . cIevcl..._,_~ in the vicinity of existing snd
futures streets and highWays..," but is I8lhcrtbe ~ahighvi!.yin the vicinity of existing
.. ,residential development, this policy is ootapplicable..FUrtheImorc, the: highway is rP.p1acil18llD
existing highwayin..... '::'o,.B1eIy the same location. In the event that this policy is found
applicable, the applicant's finrtn,gsare in..--r~-..:..j to demonstrate COD8istency, As previously
discussed under Goal 6 above, a project noise ttclmical report ~ ..........:.J as part of lIie
r....,,:..,,---laIA -, -, ~(BS ......:._J byNEPA) to analyze ...:.._;:sJ DOise impactS reSulting from
the project.l'ertbeODOr~Noise Manual (JUlIe 1996) llDII1ySis ....../_..... noise mitigation .
IDC8S\II'eS were.evaIuated 10 rCducc noise levelS to ncaiby resi':~... as. a resultd thC project.: Noise
walls were'd-,....:..;,J to meet the ODOr cffcctivcncss and cOst-effeclivcness criteria in two .
locations BJ!d ~ __.~~_.~ lIS mitigation (see suppleme:alal mfOIIDBtion, Fi~ 7-9). The final
p ~ . . . j
,
I
,
.
.>
'.
"
SIa1f::~'::'...-1_2008
. Page 25
.,
..,.!.. -.... ..... ",_.,.... ..
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 28
, D.ate ReceivGd
I
.. I
I
\ I
. I
JU~ 28 2008
. ,
. T-'. ,.. ----.--------:;:'--'.
.. II
Planner: . BJ
:1
!
,
,
,
:i
I,
i
I
:1
,I
I
I
t
.,
i
,
i
I
I , ,
i
I'
,
I
I
.1
l
,
,
I
01
I
II
:1
,.' .",
I
I
i'
i
,
. .
'.
. I .
walllocatiOllll ~ be determined aftc< public input is completed as part oftbe NEPA~procesi
AdditionalIy, as stated on page 13 of the wriUCl\ statement, the applicant proposes th~ following
general m"",,_~: .' I.'
. Continue public involvement through design and c.......;. ...;:00 I
. limit werle houtll . . . I
.... ~ . . I
b hlimit.noise ' . u ", . '. ... . . . "I'"
:
'.
Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied. . I
, I
C.26 Local Goverl!inents sholl contbiue tomani/or, to planfor,and toe'lforce applicable air and
water quality standards and sholl cooperate in meeting applicable federal, sulte and local
, ' air and.. wO}er qua:1ty standards. . . . I . i
As previously stated under ~al 6, which is incmporated herein by referen~, it is not anticipated
that the "'Placement bridges will have apcnnanentadvcrse impaCt on air quality as tIle bridges are
replacing an existing bridge. The applicant is proposing several measures including Site preppration,
site construction, coordination and post development measures diScussed Under Metr6 Plan Policy
E.2, which is in...'yv...;.:dherein by reference, to redUce and mitiilme Lr".:' to ~ quality,
consistent with this policy. In addition, water quality impacts will.be further reviewe4 for
compliance with local standards under the local permitting process forWillamette ~way
permit, Water ResoIlI'CeS Conservation Overlay Zone and the 75-foot riparian ~,and under the
NEPA E...:'w_entaI Assessment, subject to applicable requirements. I'
"
,
.. I
c.ao Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulations, development sholl be prohibited injloodwayslif it could result in ~ increased
jlood level. The jloo{iway is the channd of a river or other water colD'se and Ill-C-I 6 the .
a4jacent land area that must be reserved to dischmge a oile-percent-chanceftood in any
given year. '
. I
, ; . I .
C.31. When development ~ allowed to occur in thejloodway or jlootfway fringe, local regulationi
sholl control such development in order to minimize the pOtential dDnger to life and . .
propeT1y. Within the UGB. development should result in in-fiUlng of partially developed
land. Outside the UGB, areas afficted by the jloodway and j100dway fringe s1iaII be
protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel reSOlD'ce values, their open space and
recreational potential, and t!wir value, to water resOllT'ces.,,' :
- !
C32 Local gilvernntelllS shallrequfre site-ipecific soil SllT\le)'s and geologic studieS where
. polenJiaJ problems aist. When problems are identified. local governments shiz/l require
special design considerations 'and constri<ction 1M.asuresbe taken to offset t~ roil and
geologic constraints present, to'protect life and propeT1y, Mlic InvestmelllS, iDid . .
e1f1lironmentally-sensitive areas. ; ,
,I ~ '
R~..~.:i..g Policy C.30 and C.31, as discussed und~ Statewide Plmming Goa17, Natural Hazards,
which is in..",,,",..;x:d herein by reference; the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project is partially located '
withina FEMA designated regulatory floodway and floodplain. Th~~~,.... the design:ofthe
rep1acement bridge must satisfY the regulations set forth in the National Flood Insunuice Program
. . I
I
I
lDate Rec~ive~
'I,. 'JUl28.20Q8, .
I .
i Planner: BJ
I
, .
. SlaffF'mdiDgs -JIDIC 2008
Pogo 26 '
.- ~~ . .
. ... ~.- ...
.. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 29 .
_...___.. _,.__u_... ..'___ ~_.__._
,
,
I
[. Qate l1~ceivec .
. [. JUL ~ 8.200a .
i Planner: BJ
I
, .
"
~
I
,
u. _ '
(NFIP). TheNFIP '~'l":'~ that any modi1ications thatc:ause a~ in the Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs, which _........;.:...4s !II "'Ilter smface elevations aissoclated 'w,ith the I OO-year f1~ CVCIIt)
must be approved by FEMA..The DO-rise condition is a1so a ~ent ofODOT f~ any bridge
replaC<:"lP.l1t projec:L .... _ i. .
- . '. I.
. '. CoilSiStimt Wi1h cn~ botb:Eu'aeD.e'imd Springfield have adopted orr*nonl'Hn:gulatiDg constructi.on
within f1oedp1ains llIId 110,1 ". ~, City ilfEugCllll FEMA ono-OsC" certification for my
tw.>.._':on or ~ wi1hin floodwayslspecialflood hazard areas; llIId City of .SP,ringfield Type
I pennitto allow any collSl1'UCtion iD. the floodplaiDs or floodwayswithin Springfield.: Commenl3 .
from the Eugene F!.oodplain Manager note that a FEMA DO-~ certificate would only be .n:quitt4
through the 9ityofEugcnC for consuuction (fill)cjrst1'\lCtUR:S ~ the floodwayorifloodplain
that an: q$ideoftberight-of-way, The I'.~ ..oJ in,cludest....,...:..J' sta8ing are.as olfSide ofthc
,ODPT right-of-way; portions of the Whilomul Nstur!ll Area llIIdJ?astgateW~ llIId ODOT
llIId Lane COlIIll)' property both located southeast ofI-SBJid the W'J!lamette River. Fll\' these areas,
prior to any flllor otI!er development within the regulatory fl~Y. ODOT will be ,.......:....:to
obtain a "rio-risc~ccrtificatioD statiJi& that the deveL..........t will not impact the ..._.r"~.;ect (before
the f...._""....J bridge) base flood elevation Clevations,floodway elevations llIId fl~y data .
widths. 'J.:his certification must be signed by a professional engin~llIId .....;...:ed bY technical data
consistentwith_..~:'FEMAs~':':"'~.' ' . Ii i .
. . -. -~. - . - a " . -I
. .' I
Based on the ~l;m;n';*y mode!iDg. the proposed pier location options would result iJl the
following; Option A woUld tesu1t in an increase of 0.02 feet o~ existing conditions for the 100-
year floOd-emit and, Option B woWd n:sult in a deCrease of0.54ifeet for the 100:- ytisr flood event.
Option B; includiDg a de=e. in base flood elevation, is cansislCnt with .the no-rise '8nd Policies
C.3Q llIId CJl. Option A's JlI"'Hmin"'Y analysis shows an incre8k Of 0.02 base f1~ elevation,
which d~ IIDt meet the no-riserequin:ment. H. ".. ~,a detailed n~rise aiJillysis bBs I\Ot been
. submittCd llIId the modeling will be run again to meet the no-~requirement when the design is
refined for the permitting process, FurtheImore, ODOT _ "'I..:.... itsbri(\p to meet the no-rise
requirement. Th... ..1:.;... in the ~"..;_.; of a plan amendment, these policies an: meL ~pecific
~ llIId _..,...Lonal details will be ....~~...:m1y addIes#ed during !OCIiIllIId.staIe
permitting processes, suliject to applicable .~... ~.] criteria: llIId ~standards. .
R......:;,.sPolicy C32, UDoted undlir Goal 7, portiOml oiihcJj'ectarea proposedrQr w_".'''-''
staging areas an: idP.ftrified as moderate hazard risk ~ on the !nap identifYing Relative Slope
Instability Hazards iD. Eugeoe. H. .,_ ,_, wbi1e this infotmation may guide the City in adopting
code revisi~'it does not apply direct1yto land use applicatiOnSllS it is not 8doptedillll...:.-.....:
plan or as.codified.1ll11d useciiteria. Additiona1iy, based on the ~ hazard,geoti:clmica1 .
investigationS can be completed prior to cOnstiUction to determine the best method to seat
.'_, _' '. " -') . _ . J
foundations, piers, ilIIl! bents to reduce effects reIateQ to carthqumccs (e.g,,1atr;al spi'ead,
liquefaction). In additillll, slopes can be constructed in a manner'that reduces the poiemiat for
erosion or small1andslldes. . '; . . ." . 'I .
. ~ ': I
. . '... 'I' ..
Based on the findinlll' aboVe, in the context ofa plan ~ent,' the proposed plan' om""''"'':nl3
. an: coDsistent .with these policies. ,I . . . , .
:1
D. Willamette River Greenwav. River Corrid";'. and Wat.... ~.~.~ E1emrm
I :
.
.
. StalfF'UIlIiDjp - JIIDe 200S
Page 21 . .
, i~
. - .. - - ," ..~' . .
. ATTACHMENT A.-:- PAGi: 3.0
.-...._~---.----..- .:--_...- ..
,-
, .
I',.
.'
. ": ~.
,i
"
,\
II
'I
,I
.,
.,
(
:1
,
I
I
Ii
I;
I:
I'
r
Ii
"
.
'.
,
,
,
I
,
. I
,D.9 Local and state 6" ,,., ..,,,mts shall co1lli1'lW to pruvide adeguIlle public ~e.ri to tlrs .
Wi11amme Ri1Ier.Greel'lWay. ',' I
#, . I
The aj,plicalllproposes ~ tm: public access ".--.::n& to tm: Willamette River o.L"""'J will
continue to be provided tbroughODOT'll right-of-way under tm: 1-5 bridges, ~ public acceSs
to the W1lJamette River c.._ '_,' will not be pe:im.-.......:J aH:ccted. As noted under <;loal8
Recreational Need above; which isinc.........L:d heteiD. by n:fen:n~ a continuous roritr: across
ODOr right-of-way for the bicycle/.....:~_;an plIIhways will be ~ on both d,Je north and
the south sides of the river during construction (wrillen statement; page 61, WillakenZie ftJea Plan,
Neighborhood Design Element- W:illamette Gt'eenway, U~ ManBganent Standard 2),. TherefOIe, in
the context of a plan .-.-.;....ent; this policy is met. Additionally,~ specific cons1nu:lion and
_ ....":':onal details will be ...;.... ..._:.ately addressed during local pCrtiiitIing processes; Subject'tO
applicable approval criteria and related o;.....~~.:s. '. !
D.ll The taking of an exceptiOrt shall ~requirefl if anon-waJer.Jependbrt ~aJion
fat:ility requires placing offill withirt ~ Willamene ~iver,; Greerrway setback 1
An f!%~eption to Statewitk ~1anning Goal}S Willtz1!llltte Rf'er GrUl'lWay was I......" -4 for .
. Gregort DepartmenJ ofTransportaJiort (ODOT) I.Srigh! ()fway crossIng tlrs Willcimette
AAer and within tlrs W'u1amette River Greenway Setback Line, for )1ID'piJse of COllStr!2etirtg 0
. temport11')' tktour brlfJge, Imp1eIMnting tlrs coilditionsimpos.ed 011 the Discretionary Use ,
Approval (Springfiidd JoitnralSHR 2oo3..(J()} 1 S} and remtJ1Iihg the temporaridetOl/1' bridge
after camp1monofllrs permane1II rep1ace1M1I1 bridge. Th!s exception satisfies tlrscriterla of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 66().,()()4-0022(5}Wi1~elt~ Greerrway; t~ exception
ffiJulrements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part lI(e} fora 'reosons' exceptiqrt; and
purSUll1ll to OAR 660-004-001 S, is hereby' adcpted as Oil amendmenJ to the Metro Plan text,
Policy#D.ll. ChapterlIl, Se~onD. .. " . : ", .
. . . ~ ,. I
As discusSed UDder Oqa/7 above, in _,.....:-ce with.PoliCY D.ll, t1ie applicalllis ....,....::..g an
exception to Goal 15 forteasons out1iI!ed under oAR 660-004-0P,22. An. cxceptionisi".~~.d per
the standards set forth in OAR 660-004-0020. TheId'ore, the .oove Metro Ptan text for Policy D.ll
must be amended to acknowledge this Goal I 5 exception. Accordingly, the fouowinS text
amendm~tis",v~.oed,with.o~dtext~ekelltand~textin~~: . I '. . '.
.J__~, -;.....:r'.~eB 1s E1Ide\Jl8e PLl,~ "98&11' "~Lo.;.;:~'.:',:. rl:-.' ,er-e.,"~ ~;;:' ,~~ 7JB.:S.appW.:ed fer
.0J:egeu~';.-":;'~';'_;;~~.l R..,;;';'..lr .;.;_-~9B (OI>~ ~ f .igktef'. ,,:: ,. ~1::~-1iDithe"qn_-... ..
RPJ~BR4V\yl..:_-1he ~r.h__~ RiverG;'..~;:'1;~ EM\a~k~:-~.ft.6,y.:upgJ~ efB~'
~;.\;;T ::~;~.;.J d~ ~dge. L;it,~,.;;,;:~;iBg the eeBditi~~p88ed e~ the D~TL:9,sarytIS8
..:(1o--..d E8P;~wIiJe_~ S!~.:1903 OOIU),~tL..,.,..,.>... 9l~ ~ f~~det,,,.::,,~.:,,,,
after sempleu8B af1h..... ,o.;,:,::.;t.:;...Bt fejJ.I:&:e---t hBSga, T'u;..:. ....I~~':i ':":':... olI"w:.:.:.mes the .;l.:l........-,.... .1
Qfegei1 ,It .I.;....:_:~/e Rale EO^R) 'fig 001 gimeS) '\l,G'l_-Me CFea1~ h <: I.-'f.:..;....
~ ."","1 erg/A lili9 gg~ 0029 GllIII3, Pm ~ fer a 'Rlas9llS' elieepli9B; IIIlII
1"-'--"19 OAR lili9 001 0013, is _by llllepted as IIIl am-.--'al'!Jie MBlla PiIIIllelft
PeliS)" lID.!', ca..-':, ~. ~eeli9B 9. . I' .. ..
I
:-~
.' .
~.
*~.
:-:
'..... . .I~. _'_
.'
.
"
SlaffF'1IIlfiD&s - J1me 2008
,~2B. ~ ,
. Date Rece'ived
. 1, JLJL' 2'8 2008" '.
I
Rlanner: . BJ
" .
.
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 3~
n______._.. ._..____ _ __:
..
",
AJi .~ '. ..~', ". to Statewide plnnnhlg Goal 15 W~etteRiver: Gl...." ~i "rill approved
fo! OregOJI DqlartmCllt ofT1'aDlJp" ". ,.." (0001') for. ". .. =s ofremcn1Dg llJId.
rephidng the d .: ,. ",.. Issloned 1005 bridge, the tempoJ'llJj- detou.r bridge an~ the Canoe
Canal bridge with two'Jlew'paraDel bridges (olUl80uthh:olJDd and oneDorthbowul)
within the 1005 right-of-way croUiDg the WiDamette River and Canoe Cannland withlD
'dieWUJametteRIVei"GI'e'eJlW'lly S~ck Line. The exception authorizes ~Jistrudlon
and later removal.olone or mlire~'" ". ",. .' work b~ges; demoUtioit of ~
. decollUllisBioned 1-5 WiDamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, an'" d~ur
bridges; coDBtrDctlon of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction of.the roadway
" apJIT08chiS to the bridges (1005 alld ramps); rehabUitati!,ln .of the project ,a.:ea; llJId
completion of any requlrecl mitigation of. _ . j ..I Impacts. ID lIB8OCiatlon with these
. tllIks,theexception furtberauthoriza .,li.\,. the wmametteRiver G. :...."~~ Setback
Line the adc!ition 8lld removal of liB within ODOTrigJ1t-of~~ and the ~oval of fill
within a temporary &lope easement east of 1-5. Thia ex .... :.:,_ satisfies the,eriteria of
Oregon AdmiDlstrutive Rule (OAR) 66O-GO+OO22(6), WiDamette Greenw~y, and the
eueptlon requirelDenu.ofOAR 66O:Oll;4-00:Z0,Go~:Z P,lll1U(c)fl!r a "rea~ns"
exception, andp1l1'S1llllll.to OAR 66O-G04-0015, Is herelly adopted as I!lI amendment to
.~, Metn!.Platt text, Polity D.n, ChapteJ: !!l,~!1:P. . i '
~ ,'; .1
The propOsed text 8DIc:ndtDent replaces the stand-alone paragraph un~ PolicyD.I l~~ the
:_"~J bridge. The applicant's ......,....1 Metro Plan text .m""dmcnt to PolicyD,l,l is jUiei[uate
and with this text Rm""tlmentand Goal 15 exception gnmtedunder Goal 2 above, Policy DJ! will
bcsatisfied. ".' '.'" ,. .
.
.
.
E. Environmental Desim Element I
. . , . '.' . !.
E.2 NatUral vegetation, natural water feQl/Jru. imd drainage~:Wll)lS s~ be protected imd
retai1U!d to the maxilllUlll alent practical. LandScapi1lg sM,1J be utiliied to enhance those
/Itl1uraI features. ThIs polley does not preclude inCi-etiii;,g their conveyance cirpacity in an
~mto~ntally resJK!nsible manner. . i' .
Bridge __;. _;:on and demolition, including eonstruction and removal of associated temporary
worlc platfl!rms. will impact riparian vegetation within the greenway. I
. ". I
. " . .
ConstrUctiOn is ... -r _~~J within exiodlng OooT rigbts-of-Wajos' Bnd Cll.>_--:" ~th the exception
of ;~.._.~, staging sreas. As discussed above under Goal 8 Re=ationill Need; mDovBI of the
dctom; bridges Will include removal of fill material fiom and rehabilitation of a portiOn of the
WhiImi1ut Natural Area. OooT has obtained a t-..r'~" easelDfin' to do this ~ ~cb requires
rehabilitation of the area within S yem1l of completion of the perIIl,imcnt bridges. ConStruction best
mana..__; practices will.be impl.,.........:.J to ..,:,::...:ze'the ~ofConslrW:lion ..:..;:, ;;:es.
DL.._ :'.d areas will be restored and OooT will worit with the cOmniunity throughmrt the design
and COIISb:ul:Iion process ,to get input and advice on ways to avoid and minim;'.. _.:.~. ...-1
\..,!,,,~ .' . ',' I
. , :,
A..__.::..g to the appfu:ant. a species list provi~ by ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage
Information Center) indicates that tb= are no fedml or slIIle-listt:d Endangered ~eS Act (ESA)
.' I '
I ..
pate Received
!JUL 2 8 2008
-I ...
~ '
Plan' .,-'!
, nero H.j1
.'
"
",
SIa1fF'1IIlliDp -JuDe 2008
Pogc29
'"
" .
. ~ . . .. .' -. - .,
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 32
........1;.-._--,.___. __ . ~. ".
.
, .
.'
...... ,". .."
II
i
I
I
'1
I
I
,-
.1
:j.
,
I
,
. t=trial wildlife species known to reside within lhe project amL .There are no knoWn fedetal or
state ESA -listed plant species or plant habitais have been identified within lhe projebt area. Two
salmonid popu1atiODlllisted under the ESA IIIe docnment...! as occurring within the reach of the
Willamette River that flows through the project area; I,
o Upper Willamette River spring Chinook (Oocomynchus tshaWytscha) and cri1ical habitat-
fcdera1ly'i.._......J.:.;.FT. ." .' '-. --. ..' ........ . .1" ,., .......
o . Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Distinct Population Segm~ (DPS) and
critical habitat - FT, i
I
ODOr will coordinate with Oregon Dep~:-';"; ofFish and Wildlife through the design process to
identify """....mities to min;m;"" habitat.disturbance. To avoid and m;n;mi7" Potential impacts to
fish and wildlife species habitat during and after construction activities, all applicable OTIA ill
State Bridge Delivery Program EPS will be implemented to reduce the extent of direct and indirect
impacts to ha?itat. These ~lude: I
. ." ... II 1
o ,Mi~;mi;p. e.irects to natural stream imd floodplain by keeping the work area ~ the smallest
footprint needed. . " I .
, I
o Prepare and implement a plan to prevent construction debris.fromdropping into the
Willamette River and to remove materi.aIs that may drop with a minimum distUrbance to
aquatic habitat. _' ' . I
· r"_,,~_ site restoration plans for up'!and, wetlBrid,and streambank lIleIlS to'inc,lude native
plant specieS and noxious weed abatement techniques, and use large wood and rock as
components of streambed protection treatments. I ' :
o . Bag boundaries of clearing limits and sensitive'areas to b~ avoided d~g coristructi~n.'
o . Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Patks and Open
Space Division regarding sensitive areas in the Whilamul Natural Area and E8stgate
Woodlands thatshouJd be avoided during coDstruction. . I
0' Restore and =-egetate diSturbed areas. .
. - I
. " . I
OooT also proposes (written statement, page 13) to avoid, m;n;m;7-C and/or mitigate impacts of'this .
project, consistent with this policy, by utiliz!nB the following geni:ral measures amongst others:
. Continue public in;volvementthrough design ~d'construciion !.
. Plan lrBfl'ic management to keep all travel modes open and safe d\lring construction
o Limitworkhours , ' , ' ',' ,.' I '
. Restore/enhance affected areas I
· Limit project noise' !
" . ,I I'
. PU~lic commelit was received ...".~.:...g ....."u.. for these measutes, especially limiting project .
noISe and work hOllIS, especially for pile driving activities. ,., i
, "
. . "." I j".
In addition, specific design details will be reviewed and conditioned to zni;';m;7~ cnvfroDDleniaJ
impacts during federal and local permitting procesSes, subj~to appliCable approyal ~riteria and
related standards. The applicant proposes that the project will meet the OTIA ill 3." :'._-.;.a!
Performance Standards (EPS) in order to satisfy the requimnents of the programmatic
". '. I
"" . i
.,
;:.;
~
..
..
n..
~'. ~.
..
.'
.
"'
Slaff FiDdings - June 2008
. Page 30
I
I
.1,
Date Received
:JUL '2'8 200'S
PI~ nner::-BJ-
,
_.n __. . ..... .;'-
ATTAClDlENT A - PAGE 33. .
r . . .-~. - -- .--"t~h
"
"
. .
, .
!
,
"
"
. ,
envirmlmental r ......::. that apply to the statewide briclgc program;Thcsc p_;;.........jstandards .
dcl!ne the Icvc1 of cffeci'that a project may haYC ~ the cnviIoIDncnt. thereby r,..::'~.. or avoiding
impacts to the cnviromnent through the use of proper pl.mri"g, deSigu, aDd CODSlI'\IdiOD activities,'
To avoid.fish and wildlife species and mmimi7P.1cmpOrary impacts from construction' activities, ell
appliCable.OTIA ni State Bridge ~ F .v......... EPS will be iipp1"",,,,,le.d to rcdui:e the l:XleDt
. cifd1rcCt and::"'::"":'" impacts to:fish and wildlife species. Bfiecls ~'WlIb:r rcsourcesdprin& "
........;._jon and Ope:mOD of the project will be m;;,;mi7P.d thiougb the impl_:"::OD of
applicable mitigation IDCIISlIrClI in the OTIA m State Briclgc Deli~ I,. .....__ BPS. It is DOted that
, with regard ~ pier loc8tions shown OD pagc9 oftheapp!U:ation, 0pu0Ji B indica1cs a~pier closer to
. the Mill Race,wbi1e Option A shows Ii pier closer to the Wi11amette River. however. DO specific
design is bcingreviewcd at this time in the CODtl:xt of a plan amendment LoeaI r--;;;;..g
r........:& include WiIJametlI: O=way permit end WatI:r ResouieCs Conservation ~erlay for
Eugene, si1da 7S-foOt riparisia setllsck review for SpriJ!glield. N8lura1 \_.._;;";';OD, natUIa1 water
features; ~ ~e-Waysshal1 be :_~;....;.:d and~ .:..:"',./..to the'm....:...,~ cxteDt ~cal, .
consistent with thesC :itting ....~....,.,..J, , I
This sdequati:Iy sddrcsscs ...v....~::O.D ofnaturs1 vegetation, natural Watd.:__...... sn4 ~
ways in. the_..,.;..'; of the propci8ed plan llIP""rlmentsAdditions11y. these specific CO~etiOD and
_.....",;;.:..d dCtaiIs will lie &';r..,...:itely addreSsed during local peimitting pIO!:CSSCs, ~bject to
applicable approva1t;ri~a end. ie1ated standards. . '" .' . '1'
. .. \ . : '
E.4 . Public and J11jWJte facilities shall be dulgned and locizted In a /IlQ1I1/U.tha1 p~eserves and
enJumces deSIrable features ofloeal and neIghborhood QTeQS and promotes tM,ir sense of
idenl/tu 'I ' .
_" ~ I
,
I
'I'IlIi replacement bridgesw.ill be located within the same ODOT right-of-way \iYb= the .
~oDed briclgcislocated, an area already utilized by ~rtation~ The
....r-,;,J alSo im:1udcs a~tioD in the total Dumber ofpic:s, a i'eductiOD in the number ofpicn in
thC Wllhllllette'River. end nMeW of bridge dcSigDOpnODS (based OD sesthetic and budgetary
COII5illeriitioiis) thnfugh a ._,.__ public...._........ all of which should CODln'bute to a'positiYC visua1
impact,COII5istent with this policy, . .' ::.' .' .1 .'
. ,! . I
Additionally, . . ~ " .1 ri~sreas end other llII1ds within the greei1way setback:willbe protected
. during the 1ati:r ..;.....:.::ng process through the im~tiQn of app!OvaI conditiODS as Jlet~to
comply with app1ieable approval c:riteria end related standsrds. SPecmcs of the bri~ design can be
COII5idered during the Jl!I\n amend:inent....~ or. for Springfic1d,throggb. the DiScIWOIlIII)' Use
. A,~,. ,lr____as ,::. :.J.: in SDC 33-325 25;050 aind 5.9-120, Ciil:ICeptualdesiBnsate being
IIlIcIreSsed as part oftbe federal draft enviroDlllClltal...._~,.,;. that ~._..j~ locaJ1arid Use decision-
mo1ri"g' Additionally, as noted above in the dis~"";OD ofStBlewicle PIllDIIing Goall, the public is
involved in this ...W",.....' Among olf1er things, ODOr cstablisheda eommlIDitY .Advisory Group
(CAG) composed of ...._ ..._,;,,;, ~ ofloc:a1 neigbbodwod asSOC;j,tions, parks departments (City of
Eugcne end Will.molAIIC Park anp Recreation District). #Ie Citiii;n PiamIing ComInjttec for the
Wbilamut Natura,! Area. 'duunbeis of ~.nmmerce, and theu..: ,_;;.;/ of Otegoil that has been
involved in thelievel':r'"'.'~ of the project end will ~ to be ~Ived duriDg scleclion of the
bridge tYPe. its design. end construction. . , I
, :
'.
.
\
..
.,'
.
..
. SlaffFiDdiDp-JIllle200B
Pap 31
,
I
I
I
Date Received,
JUL 28 200a
, ,
i
P!aF1Aer-;-Bd
.
. ___u. ..:._ :.
. ATTACHi.iENT A-':';'lGE M
-- --.-'------..- -- - -
. .'"
,
I
i.
,
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
i
II
II
I
i
,
I -.
I'
I.
I
I
J
,
I
,.
I
, ".' .' i
(c) As measured at thuM of the plt11J1ling period ide1Itlfi~f1 in the adopted ~ "':~iM .3lion
system plan: ' I
. I
_ . , W I
(A) Allow' land uses or le-.els of de-.elopmint that would result In tYpes or le\II!/s of
travel or access that are inconsistent with thefimctionai classification:of an existing
or planned transportationfaI:ility; ". I
(B) Reduce the performana of an existing or planned transportation f~cility below
the minimum acceptable perfamumce standard idelllified in the TSP ?'
comprehensille plan; or ' f
I
(C) Worsen the perfo/7rl/lllCeof an existing or pl~ed ti-ansportatlon~aI:iIity that
is otherwise projected to perform belt1W the minimum Qcaptable perfoT1l101fC~
standard Idelllified In the TSP or co,:,preh~ns~ plrm- . . I
. " . i
The proposed amendment will allow .for the constiuctionofbridges to replace existing bridge .
fucilities !hat haVe been dccolIlIlliSsioned as being structurally unsafe. The replacement bridges will
be constructed in .......v..:mately the same location as the decommissioned bridge. Suke 2004 .
(When the primary bridges were &~.......JsSioned as unsafe), a (leJIWorary) detour bri~~e has
provided 1-5 traffic access over the WiUamette River. Once the proposed bridges are constructed,
existing traflic volumes ~ntIy using the detour bridge will be shifted from the ~ur bridge to
the new bridges. Construction of the proposed bridges will simply reroute traffic froll:1 the clUrellt
detour bridge ki the (pCllDllllent) repla..w~~u; bridges allowed by the ...v..u....J amendp1ent.
I .
While the repIacement bridges will be designed' and COnstnlCted ll,I a.-~odate six l~cs oftraVef,
because 1-5 is only four lanes, the bridges will be striped for four lanes. Until 1-5 is widcne4 to six
lanes, the bridges will remain stripcid for four lanes. Designing and constrocting the bridges to
allow for six lanes oftravcl is intended to accommodate future traffic needs tmvc1ing luong 1-5; the
additional 1-5 traffic will be generated by future development throiJghoirt the State of Oregon and,
because 1-5 is alIll\ior interstate, throughout the United StJlleS. ~ construction ofth~ repl8.l:elIlent
bridges, Whether striped for four lane or six lanes, does not generilte 8I1Y additional vejUcular trips, it
. simply.provides passage over the W'illamette River.. When the bridges an: eventually ~ped for six
lanes (to be made consistent with I-S), theadditiona! bridge -"_:') will increase the'pcrformancc
and function ofl-S, not ~ it. " ' l .
. .' . .. I'
Accordingly, the'proposed amendment will not Bllow land uses w-levcls of development ~ will
result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the fimctional cl~siiication of
an existing or planned tran....u.....:on facility under OAR 660-0 12~0060(1 XC )(A). I
, ,
.. I
. Further, the proposed amendments ~ not reduce the jlerft)Ill18llcc of an existing or p)anned
tran.."u. _':on facility below the minimum acceptable pcrfu.~~i standard identified in the :r5P or
-......' ...l;msiveplan under (I Xc )(B), or worsen the perfunDanCc of an existing or planhed
u......~,....;on 1iICiIity that is otherwise projected to pe.fo.wbeloW::the Ji:1inimum .acciPtable
performanCc standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan under (l)(c)(C), I
ii I
I
I
,
I' .
qate Received
! 'JUL 2 8 2008
"1 . ,....
Alanner.:' 'BJ
I
'.
.
.
~
, ,
StalfFIIIIIinp - j~2008
Page 22
-:AT1'"A~~NT A'- PAGE-35
, ,
.
" ..'
. (,.
, ,
.
. .'
:
. .
~ I
, I
For the reasons discussed above, tbC r' _.....d amendment will DOt'significant1y affect an existing or
p!llrincd tnmsportationfaciJity, ..' I
O~660-012-fJOlj Pre~~~ CoordinattDncfTtansporro:w" System fl(UlJ' !
, ., I
OAR 66Q..012-ooi5(1) dim::lS ODOT to.........~ and adopt a state,tnmsportaiion oJoL plan that
identifies ~,sySterii oftIallSjJOrtalion facilities and services ~to mcet identified'~
tran.....:~Dn: needs. The 0reg0D T............;..::tm Commission bas:donc that :...,,~ aaoptionofthe
Oregon TransportaIion Plan (OTP) and moclal plans, including the. Oregon Highway ~~ The OTP
includes policies to increase the eflicien1 movement of people and goods for c:ommcrcc and
,...d"";:on of goods and services that is coordinatcdwith regiODili,and1ocaI p1ans,1t .:...,.t;......J.cs .
rn.n.gil1gthe c:xi.stingtniD..,.~."';;DD system cffeetlvely and :......,',,:ng that system before adding .
new facilities. . ' " I .
, . . , I
The OTP ~ proniotes a safe, efficient, and Idiable freight system. tosupporl cconorinc vitality.
The OHP identifies 1-5 as an i...,-:-;" highway within the slate's i,oadwaynetwork. J'!lat hi~
ncccssarily includes 8 biidgc over the W~ River in Eugcnci{Springfield. OAR 6~12-
0015(2) and (3) .w,,":'. thatligionaI and local TSPs beconsistalfwith the state TSP, iTnmsplan
cwrcntly. iccognizCS the L..,..; -cc ofl-5 to the region. BecauSe ibe ".'PbiCCD>~lbridges are
nCCCSSliry to Uuiin.!Iiining 1-5, by approVing the proposed plan arii.in':":"",:::','alI plails ~11 remain
consistent and the ~uircmcnts of Goal 12 will be Slitisfied." . I
. ,~ I
Based. on the above fin"!,,gs, the proposal is conSistent with S~de Planning GoaIp,
+. ,- " - , j
C::":,,,11 ~ . Bnemv COnservation;. To COf/J'erve energy. I
. . ". . ~ . .. . I
I
StatewicJc PIamilng GOIil' i3 calls for land uses to be m.8naged an.4' controlled "so as tc! inaximiZe the
conscrvalion of all fonns of energy. based upllD 80UIIIi econom!c principles." GoaI1~ is directed at
the development oflocal energy policies imd impl!'iJ'"",",g Y'.' ~Dns aDd docs DOt srate
~ with respect to other types of land use decisionS. It ~ not clear that the goal. bas any
bearing OIJ 8 site-specific decision such as the one at issue. Thee is no implClllentin8 rule that
clarifies the requin:ments of Goal 13. To the cx1cnt that Goal 13 Could be applied to the proposed
plan amendmei1ts, the ,......_.aI is consistent with Goal 13; the 1-5 Wij).m"llp. Bridge;projcct is
located in the S8lIIe location as the existing and PrlMoUs bridges and will ~.~ to aim cflicicnt
use of cocrgy wilh safe, direCt and efficient acccsSlhoughthe ~ I
Comm~ were reCeiVed that. in SUD1JIIIIl:)'. the ~licaht fails to~nsider the ConscrJ.mo~ of '
energy by any means other than that ofm~,,;mi,,;11ithe cfliciency' of.ear and truck tnimc.
. Specifically, fa,iJurc to ~ any provision for ;..-...-....:..i bicycle traffic into till: t:roSSing does
D?t ~~..izc the conservation !,fall forms of energy, p8rticularl)'pctrolcum energy. However,
. gIVen that Goal 13 is ~. _ _~. J at developing local enetgy conserviiiion policies. it isdctcnnined that
Goal 13 is not.. means to require a specificprojcct to ad!l8 bicYcle and pedestrian ~~~...__.l
* "
. Based on the find;11g." above, the iUoposa! is consistcnt with ~ P!anlDng ooai 13.
. 'I
Goal 14 .. Ut':':"";:~ To prw/defor an ~1y and efficient ircmsuw/lfrom I1I1'dt to ID'ban /and
. ~ !
'.
SlalrF"mdlDgs - JIIIIC 2008
PageD
,
,
I
Date Received
I .
I" ~
JUL 2' 8 2008
.. ". ,..
ATTACHMENT A - PAGIi: 38
.-.. c --a
.
.
. -
f8Janner,:
I
IQ ~I
/,;",/
I
Ir
1\
I
I
"
.1
I.
I
I
The amendments do not affect the tnmsition from rum! ~ Urban ~ use, as the proj~ m:ea is
centrally located to the Metro PIl!D and is ~Iy ~tbin the Eugepe-:SpringfieJd VGBI, Therefore,
StJlteWide P1mming Goal 14 d~ not apply, : "
, . '" .. r - .'" \
Goal 15 - Wmamette'River O. __..' ~.: To protec~ consene, enJiimce and maintain ~he natural, .
sce7l1c, historical. agricultural, ecoMmie and recreolional qualities oflaJ'lds along the W'zllamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway. . .' I "
. I
.. .. ~ 'I I
. .11 - "I
Portions of the project area are. within the bolUldaries of the Willainetie River Greenwily. As found
undet Goal 2 above, wbiehis in-.',M..;..,l herein by reference, a goal 1 5 exception is ~ by.
PoliCy 0.11 of the ~etro PIs1! and the applicant meets the requirements for an exceptipn to Goal 1 S.
B8sed on these findings, the proposal romplies with Statewide Planning Goal IS as eXcepted.
, . . ' .' I,
Goal 16 tbmul!h 19 - Estuarine R""",= Coa~re!ands. BJaches lUld ~es..Ilnd Ocean
.n_""n . . " I
Reso~: ~ I
. . I '
. .
There are no. coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune reso~ related to the ",v,,:",,'J affected
by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments wi)! not llffect
compliance with Suitewide P'.M;"" Goals 16 through 19. I
'~,~'6 I
(b) Adoptfu" aftAe IUII/!"~ 1flJISt not mab tAe Mdm Pbm inIun;,g, inamsisJm.
, . I
'. ,I ..'
The itppliC8Dt proposes to amend the Metro Plan text of PoliCY n:1.l to allow.the placement offill
within the WillametteRiver "'~-"~J for the construction of the I~S Willainette Bridge Projccl'As
found below, this text amendment will not create an.internal conflict with the remainder of the
Metro Plan. The applicant provided de1lIiled.findings interiding tosbow how the MetrO Plan text
amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in th~'MetroPIan. To thC. extent that
they may be applicable, the applicant's findings are also inc..."v......J herein by r~f"...:.w.
'. - I
. . '
- use.
. ,.
. ~:.
..
.
'.
,
I
The following Metro Plan polices are applicable to this ~est:
,
B. Economic Elenn;m
B.18 EncolD'age the development oftransportationfaciIltluwhich would :u,,"'"" dccess to
industJ:lal and commercial areas and Imprqve j. ..;.;. ~ movi17U!1lt capabilities bY '
Impleme1lllng the policies and projects in the tugene-Sprlngfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene A!Tport Mast~r E;lan. . I
~e the ~ language of this policy may not be m.:notnr;; the 'applicant's finbgs are
provuled as further support for the ",vl'v.:d Bmendmcnts~ Rep1acihg the decommissioned 1-5
Willamette River bridge with two new bridges, and associated improvements, will maintain the
access, mobility, and freight movement capabilities that thC deconimissioncd bridge mid temporary
detour bridge have provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained aiong th~ intemate highway
system through Eugene and Springfield, th~ IP.pla""""...t bridges Will help ~de corivenient .
.
SlafffindiDgs - June 2008
1'28e24
o ate Received
.., .. ,
" jU'C is '2008 " "
. .
. ,
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE'37
-- ... __ _:. _ 4... ~ ,~
~ . . )
. ,
Rlanner: .BJ
I
~
.. i I
access to induslriiI1 BDd ~_"":':_~:.al areas on r.nim...m,g roads coDsistcn1 with this policy,
\ 1 ~ I
. . . . I
C.' B:...:'u_~.ta1 R.....,~~ Ellmlf'llt' I
. . ' , I
, ; . I .
, C 8 LocliJ gavunmenis shDll develop plans and,,, '-6' ,~,..r which carefully/1lll1lQp'. dePe10pmenJ
011 hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict developmenJ,inwetlmrds ill order to pr~nJ
erosiollandprotect the scenic 1JIlDIIty, swface water and groWulwa1er qulllit}.forest ~ues,
vegetatioll, andwildlife Wiles of those areas.. I
,
. '
EAch city sholl complete a I_I' ~_" study to meet 118 requ!reme1ll8 under the qom oS Rille for
. wetlands, riparian iorridor,. and wUdJife'habllat within tire UGB. Lane CowifY and the
re.speclfve city jointly will adopt the illvenJory and protec1joll /1IeasuresJor the area outsitk
the cIIy limits and inside the UGB. . I .
. . I
Local6. '.'" "",,,l\' shDll ent:O/lTagefu1'~ study (by spe#aJ~,!) of endangered and
threDtened plant and wUdJife species in the metropolitan qrea. .' 1 .
.... .
C.9
C.IO
, .
. ! .. .
C.il Local govemmenU slJall prored endmrgeredimd thretzl~ pkmtand wUdl~ species., Q,f
, recognized on o legally adopted Sllltewide list, a[terlloti#, and opportunity forpublit; input.
These policies are ~".:..J to the localS_ . ~~ents ofEugeuc, S~e1d lID!I Lane' County and
not n~arily the appliCllllt; However, they are appli~le to thC.exteiIttbat the citi~ of EUgene
BDd Springfield and Lane County have adopted regu1aIions to protect these resources. and that the
appli~ will be .u....:..J to apply for applicable .._...:.... pursuarit to those. local telj,.;.-,....,.:.,.
(Eugene's .Willmnette Greenway permit.and Water Resources Co~on Overlay Zone, aDd
Springfield's 75-ripmjan setback review).' !
.. "I
C.23 Design aNI constructiOll ~f1lEW nolse-se~ve developmBnJ ill the Vicillltyojalstlng
and future streets and highways with potenJlal to exceed gell~ral higlrwaj noise levels
sholl Include co~ideratiOll of mitigating measures, such~. QCOI/S/IcallnJld~ '
modijicatioru. noise ~ ~ , ;~ _, and acoustical site plll1l1Img. The appllct;,tionof these
miIigati1Jg ~es _ be ba1tmcedl!'ith othertleslgn ~lderation.s and h,oilsing
. costs. . "~I .. i .
.Comments were also reccived re~ the noise .L~-= walts.8nd limiting ~iJ from the
.. .;._ SiDl:e the prOjea is not a "Dew noise-sensitive devel..._:"~ in.the vicinity of existing and
futures Sll'eels and highWays". .. but is rather the _ _ , _~.. a highway in the vicinity of existing
.residential development..this policy is not applicable. Furthermore, the highwliyis niplaCing an .
existing highway in .........JmateIythe same location. In the evait that this policy is found
applicable, the applicant'sfin<lil'Og.o are :"_...u_...;..J to 4.......-;- consimney. As Prrn01lSly
discussed under Goal 6 above, aprojec:tDOise tetbnical report 'M!ll...,....:.....J as part lifdie .
~.,:.~....,.....;aIA.,. ,-" , " (as.u....:.~.:: byNEPA) to BDalyze pote:zitiaI DOise 4-<'-~ resulting from
the project. Per the,ODOTNoiSe Manual (June 1996) lIIIlIiysis ...,~__dJres, noise~on
m",-,,__ were .evaIuated to reduce noise levels to nearbyresi~ asa Rsultofthe project. Noise
walls were .::..: 'M to meet the v"'v i .....~.; ,'CIICSS BDdcostdec:tiveness crite.ria in two
'.' . --. ., '. , . -.. . . ..' '" . ~ - -', 1 .
,locati9JIS and are _,,~...,.,........ded as mitigation (see suppl--:.J jpfor:mation, F'~ 7-9). The final
. . . I" I
. . Staft'F'mdiDp":.I1me2008 I . "
Pagc2S . .,... .., Date Received
..~T!~~~,A::- P~G~~,-,.
"
.
JUL 2.8 2U08
Planner: BJ
I
r
, , ., "
~
.......... .
"'.. ,
,
I
I
I
I
I.
. I .
walllocatiODS will be d_inNl after public: input is completed a.s part of the NEP A ;... -~:.
Addititmally, as Slated on page 13 of the .".:-'slateInenl, the applicant proposes the:following
general-"";-~: . I
. Continue public: involvement through design'~ collStruCtion
. limit work hOUlS ' I
.~'limitnoisc 4, ~*t.'
I .
'.
': .
Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied,.
C.26 Local GOh, ~,o.."J shDIl continue to monitor, to planfor,and to eriforce applicable air and
water quality Jtandmds and s~l cooperDte in meeiing aPplicable federal, sttife and llJClll
air and wtJler quality standards. " .'!
As previously Slated under Goal 6, which is iIII:oIporatlld herein by reference, it is not1lUltic:ipated
that the repla____~ bridges will have a p_.........._. adve!scimpalit on air quality as ~ bridges me
rep1sclng an existing bridge. The applicant is ...~.._.:ng several measures including si~ prepjIl:l11i.on,
site constmc:tion, coordinBtion and post' development measures diScussed under Metro Plan Policy
B.2, which is i....u...u.~"J herein by ..J__~l:e, to redw:c and mitigate imp8cIs to watCr quality,
consistent with this policy, In addition, water quality impacts will: be further __, :.,.Jfor
compliance with local staDdmds under the local petmitting process for Willamette .J.~_",,~/
permit, Waler Resources Conservation Overlay Zone ani! the 75.foot riparian setback'and under the
NEPA:.... :'~..mcmal Ass-..m. subject to applicable requirements. I ,
. II I
CJO &cepe QJ otherwise allowed aCcording t~ Fedoal ~1I&JI Managnnm; Agency (FEMA)
regUlation.s. development shall be prohibited in floodways:if iJ rould. ruult in i!n btcreased .
jloodlevel. The jloodway Is the channel of a river or othe/' wtJler WIlTse and m-C-16 the
adjacenJ ItlNi area that mu.rt be reserved to discharge a one... ~ _~u' ..iance jlood in any
.;0;, , . _I
~n~~ I' I
, I
C31 When developmenJ.1s allowed to occur in tlie jloodway or jloodway fringe, lociJlreguIations
shall control lIlCh development In order to minimize the pOtential danger to life and
..,...u '.1. Within theUGB, deveL.....u... ,hould resu/J in tn:.fiUing of partially develOpEd'
1muJ. Outside the UGB. areas affu;ted by the jIoodway and jlOodway fringes/loll be
protected for their agricultural and siwi and gravel resOllTce values, their o~n space and
rec1'UltkJna1 poltmrfiU. and their ,value to water resOllTCU. .. I .
. . '" . I 'I~
C.32 Local..,. ",u ,..,mts shDIl requIre slte.specific soil surveys ~ geologic lllldiu, where
pottmrfiU problems aIJt.. When problem.s 'are identified, local.. ,.., '" ".,,~, sluill require
speci/l/ design COnsidei-arlOM and construction measures be la/am to ojful ~ soU and
geologic con..u"':'_ prUe1u, to protect life and... .I'... .,,\ jiubllc Investments, Jnd .
e1fWonmenlally-se~iItve anOs. . . '. I
I' .. .
. Regarding Polic:y C.30 andC;31, as discussed UIIl:ICr Stalewide PlaIming' GOat 7, NamtaI Hazards,
~ is inw....~.""_J herein by .&__w;., the 1-5 W'1lIamette Bridge Project is partially located
WllhinaFBMA clesignatedJegulatmy fl.. ~"~J and floodplain. Therefore, the designoftlui
IeJllar~...tJ.t bridge must satisfy the Jegulations set forth in the National Flood Insurunke Program
. . !
,
I' -
bate Received'
I ...' ~tJL' 2S 2008' .
I ' ,
[Planner: BJ
.'
StaffF'1IllIiDp -J_ 2008
Pa;e26
. .
.. ,
.. .. ~ .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 39
"
-. ,. -...
,
..,-.. -;"'.
. .. It ..
.'
(NFIP). The NFIP requires that'any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs,which~...,.....,:,.ds to water surface elevations. assocl""'" with thel00-year fl<\od CYCDt)
must be approved by FEMA. The no-rise c:ondition is also a ~ent ofOD<?Tfoi'lI1lY bridge
replacement project. . . '. . " . I.
Consistent With c.31, both Eugene and Springfield baveadopted Of'll~.n...... re~ construction '
within floedplains and floodways; City ofEugenc FEMA 'oo-rise" #fication fo.r Briy .
construction or slnIl:t1Im within flow d..~, .Jspecial flood hazard areas; and cnyof Sp;ingfield Type
I pennii to al10w any ~on in the floodplains or~oodways',within Springfi.~d.1 Cninm""""
from the Eugene Floodplain Managl:r note that a FEMA niHise.~WlJuld only be required
thIougb. the City ofEugcnefor ~~...~...::tion (fill) or ~~ ~ ~f!oodwayor:,floodp1ain
that arc qu!sj,~ of the right-of-way. The... .~_..J m.cIudes tcDIpOI!IrYstaging areas ou,tside of the
OOOTrlght:Of-way; portions'ofthe Wbilamut Natural Area and EasIgate WoodlaDds, and ooor
and Lane County ..'.r""'-; both located Il!lutbcast ofl.S and the WiJl8lnettcRiVer, For these areas,
prior tD any fill or other development witlUnthe regulatory floodWay, OOOT will be fcquired to
, obtain a "no-riSe" certification.....;.... that th~ development will ~t ~the pre:prpleci (before
the te,mporaiy bridge) base flood elevation elevations,floodv.:ay e!CVl!1illIJ!l and floOd~ data .
widths. This certification must be signed by aprof'casionalengincer and S\........:.d by;teclmica1 data
oonsisten1 with cutreIlt FEMA stBndards. '. ";,' , . . [
Based on the pl'I'lim;nory modeling, the .."......1. pier location. options would ~t ill the
following; Option A Would result in an increase orO.02 feet CJYC!: ~ conditions for the ] 00-
year flood-lMnt and, OptionB would result in a d.~""""" ofO.S4.feet for the ]00- yt'f. flood cvenL
. OptionB, including a decrease in base flood elevation, is consistCnt with the no-rise and Policies
C.30 and C,3L Option A's preHm;noty lIIIB.Iysisshows an increase ofo.o:2 base flood elevation,
which does not meet the no-rise req~ .,...~~ H. ". _, a det&iled IlO-rise anaIysis'~ not been
submitted and the inodelingwill be run again tD meet the no-rise !equL ......_~ when tl,>.e design is
refined for the ~tting proCess. Furthermore,' ODOTrequires its lnidgcs to. meet fl1e no-rise
requiIement. Therefore, in the ...~.: of a plan amendmerit, thCse policies are met. Specific
. coDstruction and ... _;o:.:onal details will be ....;:.:...:ate1y Bddressed during 1()ca1 and state
permitting processes. subject to applicab]e,.;" ",1 criteiia and rh1atcd standan:\a. I
. ". '. ~... . . I
, .~.,,'
Regarding Policy q2,as noted under GoiII7, portions ~fthe prOjllC! area ..-.r-".! for ;......._.-J .
staging areas are identified as II1OCIt:ratc hazanI risk areas on *.~ idenlifyjng RcI1rtive Slope
Instability Hazards in Eugene, H.., ._, while this infonnation ~ guide the City in. ,!....~:_.,;
code revisions, it does not apply cIirectIy.to land use appIi....:.....as it is not IUiopte4 ~ ....:i_~....:
plan ~8S,cOcli1ied hmdusecritcm: Additionally;.~on the~ ~ g7"~ca1
mvcstiglltionsC8D be completed pnor tD ~_;'..mion tD delelIDine the best method to scat
fOUDdations,picrs, and berits toreduce...ff~ re18ted to ~.:I......JcesJe.g."IateiaI~
Ii~on). In ilddi1i~ slopes can be constructed in a _~..,:... jh!Il ~ the potbntiaJ. for
~n orSlilalllandslides. . .. . . !I . . . I
. ' . I'
Based on the. findings above, in the ~._:....: of a plan smiendment, the proposcdplan RinP.ndm~'"
are r.nn,"~ with these policies. ' '. I
D. WinamcttcRiVeTO._~,,~,. River Conimn:" and v:__,,~.'s Elem~ I.
I
. i . .
Qat~ Rec'eived '
I '
iP . J Y L 2 8 2008' . .
Planner: BJ
I
"
. ,
,SlBffF'mdiDp - J_ 2008
Page 27
. .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 40
-- --...-
"
;1.
-;.
- " .
,
I
'I
I,
I
II
\
I
"
. ,
.', .
"
. .
Q,}
,"!.
::'_.
:i'<
f~
<
D.9
LoCtn and stIlte guverrrmenti slrDll co1lli1llUl to prtmde adeqUme pllbllc IICCUS to the .
WIllamette River Greenwll)'. "
'. '
.'
The .....:-m proposes that the Public access ..............:ng'to the Willamclte River ~.,;,_.. "J will
colllinue to bC provided through ODOT'night-ot:-way IIIlder th~ I-S ~dges, therc{~ public acCess..
to the Willaruette River Greel!way Will not be r--'oo-mtIy a1fecte4. As IID1ed lIIlder'qoa18 . .
Recreational Need above, which is iD...,.....Jed herein by reJ___... acci,.:..,..., 1S.~acroSS.
ODO! rigbt~f-WllY for the bicyclelpedestrian pathways will be .rimfl1llinP1l on both the nDI!h and
the south sides of the iiwr during construction (written statemcnt)page 61. Willak~e Area Plan,
Neighborhood Desigli Element- Willamette Greenway. Use Mana..-"': Standard 2): ~fore, in
the ccinti:xt of a plan amendmim, this policy is met. Additionally. these specific consthu:tion and
operational details will be ..........:alcly addressed during local pCrmiuing ..._.......,,~. Subjec:t'to
applicable epproval criteria and relatr,d sl1mdards. . . " I
D.II The tllking of an ~eplion slrDll berequtnd If II non-..,:.zJ.,dependen/ tr~rtotion
facility requlrts placlng of fill within the Willamette River ,Greenway setbrlck. '
. . ,
'. ,
An exception to S1lltewlde Planning Goal I 5 Willametu Rfver Greenway was:..,..' . .,.dfor
Oregon Department ofTransportlltion (ODOT) [-5 right of way cro.utng the W'rlldmette
,. River and w!/hin the W'rllamette River Greenway SetbllCk LIne, for purpose of~o;"tracting II .
......1' e' my detDll!' o/il:lce. impleme1lling the conditions imposed on !he Discre~oNITY Use
A.-.I',",.1 (SpringfieldJDIImIlI SHR200J-00115) and,",,,":'fgthe temporary,de/oW' bridge.
after coinpletionof the perma1Ient replllament bridge. This erupt/on satisfieS. the crlterill of
. OregonAdJJilnlilrDtive Rule (OAR) 66fUJ04-0022(5} WI1ltlmette Greenway;t'lt' except/on
rUjllirements of OAR 660-004-'0020 Gool 2, Part ll(e} for II Teasolll' ezeepti~n,' and
purlllll1lt to OAR 66O-OO4-()015. Is hereby adopted III an amendment to the Metro I'Um tat,
Policy #D.ll. C#lpter lI1. Section D, I
.1
As discussed IIIlder Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.1I, the applicant is requesting an
exception to Goal I S for reasoll!l outlined undl:r OAR 660-004-0022. An i:xception is ~ per
the standards set forth in OAR 6~20. ni.......l..... the above,Metrn PI!,,! text fOr Policy D.11.
,must be amended to acknowledge' this.Go8l1S exception. Accordingly, the followini text
amendment is proposed, with old text &trllek elll and ~ text in bOld:' I '
. ,. ,I. . 'I
'\Ilel . Ii 'Ie ll" ."' PI ., n oI1~ nr.lI n".... . -~ ~
., EKr ~B ;;u;." ..:..1\ . -----8 _8_ ..--..._~~~~:"'~ver 1.....r,;....,;,.I"~~_';'.'DSr8J3'JI!V~.t8I'
9regSB llep&nB :~,: ...;..r~':'..:-~o~_ _, I.~ ~~~'I ,;,~ .;:...~"'kc the Wlltiell\te
Jtb.. BRd -'-CL:- l8e "liIlam~ JL=-Jel Gh:ees:.Jl8Y geibaek LiBel fer" Pt."r ,~.. Bf e9B91ru-:- 8
..- ~:.ll)" ;~~;l.-~ .tf';'~~':J:.i.1 ~:~":.ige;-~;~;rl ~:;., .\;:~'.;..:;~';, .. ::"_,:':::.",; :;.J :.:.~,e8ed 88 1he DiJ';'cc~'~" :::.::.-,.use
,/ .~;;,,,. <cd EllptiRgfeld JemBalllHR 200a 00] 1$).aBd~,~.;.,,;",o .:Jle,..,",,, ''';;.il~ ~i1....
aftefsem" '.r' 'L......... ...... . ....:... ~ . ',.r
f!a_~c,;...I.4, ..n-~,;. 'i .;...;;."".;.;:t~~.--emBBt _B-g__ .BIS en... .'j\;;,:::,':tCItIl::tJ:!"'-,,)'4::I:l... "Io...~~
9fegBB .. ~_:.-: ~A._ RBIs (9:..R) (;'9 991 ~fij Vr:lI'-eue 'r:.",. .:;;rI-"~ .. the .ex....!.rb8S
,~,=.,~,.) ofOAR 669 901 9000 Gea1l, PaR ~ f:: :. '_4eB!l'l!lI~.""':.~.M .
Il'~'-' te OAR 66ll oo1l'r~~.:.s 3lmelIy adopted !lll1IB's.:"mLmt tI3 ~ MeIRl PIlIII telft,
Peliey m.ll...... . L m. ll_on D.' i'
,I
, .
Date Received'
. LUL. 28, 2008-,. "
\ . ~ t
P'lanner: 8J
. .
"
,.'
.
.....
"
, ,
SloffF'mdiDgs - JUDe 20llB
1'0&128
. .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 41
. .
-.. ...
. .
, .
, .
.
------
-..' .
.'
I
I
.j
I
I
I
..' . . . i
An exception to Statewide PIaDDiDg Goal IS Wlllamette River G. --,,, ~J was approved
for Oregon Department. of Tnm.,. ,~,:.Dn (ODOT) for,. ..... ", _ ofnm~g and .
6 ., . I
replacing the decommissioned I-S bridge, the temporary det01ll' bridge IIII~ the Canoe
Canol bridge with two'new plll1l1lel bridges (one southbolllld and.one no~bowid)'
within the 1-5 rlght-of.way Cl'OSliDg the WilIamette River aDd Cooe Cllllallllld within
the WiI1amette River'G. ___" "./ Setback LIne. The'exception authon7.a eOustruetion
IIIId later retDDYoI of Due or more tempormy work bridges; demolition of Clae
decommissioned 1-5 Wlllamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and d~tour
bridgell; eouStructioD of the two replaeeIDeut bridges;I'eeoIL.:.. .. J.... of tile roadway.
approaches to the bridgetl (I-S IIIId ramps); rehabilitation of the projed area; IIIId
completion of any required mitigation of project impacts. In lIIIOCiation With these
. tasks, the ......rlon further authoriul witbiu the wllhime<<e RiverG~way Setback
Line the additioD ud removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way aDd the r:emoval of fill
witJdu a temporary Ilope euemeuteast oU-S:. Thb:exeep~on satisfies the:eriterill of
OregoD Adm:l..L:,..,.tive Rule (OAR) 660-004-8022(6), Willamette G. --~,,~y, and the
exceptiou.. 'v:"'" eub ofOARIi6O-OO4-OO10GiIo11 part ll(e) fora "reasou" .
exception, IIIId pursuant to OAR 660-004-001S, ilherel1y adopted 85.l1li a.hendment to
th, Metro Plan teXt, poliey D,U,'Chlipter Ul, Section D. I
The proposed text amendm~ replaces the stand-alone paragraphundcr PolicY DJ I ~garmng the
temporary bridge. The.applicant's proposed Metro Plan text amendment to Policy D.l1 is adequate
and with this text amendment and Goal 15 exception gnmted under 00012 above, Policy D.l1 will
be satisfied..' 1
~
P ''! .1\ ~
'.
'.
.
E. Environmental Dcsim Element
E.2 N;iural vegetation, natlD'al ~ater featlD'es, and drai.:age.~ays s~11 be prote~ied ~
.. retained to the IfIIl%imum extellt practical. Landscaping slwlI be utilized to en1Jance those
nDhtI'alfeatures.. This policy does '"?t preclude inereasingtheir coll1lCJltlllCl1 ci:rpacity in an
. environme~ly responsible manner. I.
Bridge cOnstruction and demolition, including construction and removal of associated temporary
work platfonns, will impact riparian v~gctBlion Within the ..._..,~,ay. I
.. j, . I
Construction is proposed within existing ODor rights-of-waY" aM .....___:... with the exception
oft.........._j staging areas. As discussed above under GOa18.Recrealional Need, recioval of the .
detour bridges wiiI include teIIlovo1 of fill rnaterialiiom and rellabilitation of a porti~n of the
Whilamut Natural Area. ODOr has obtained a.......r.w.;.,,, easement to do this work ~ch requires
rehabilitation of the area within 5 years of completion of the .. . "em bridges. Co~ction best
1D8Dllgc:men1 practices will be implemented to m;nim;7P. the effects of _....;. JCtiOD al:tivities.
DL._~ areasWil\ be .~",...: and ODOr will Work with the community ~ughoirt the desi~
andconsttuction ...w__ to get input and advice on waY" to avoid and lIl;n;m;7P. ..,., :'_~CIIlaI
, . I
~', . I
, . I
According to the applicant, a specieS list provided by ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage
Information Center) indicates that there are no fcdml or state-liSted PnilAlIgl:red Species Act (ESA)
. =~~-June2008 ' . . . Dlte Received
, 'AiT~c'HMENT A'- PA~E_~~._ I
I JUl 2 8 ZGGS
'1
I
Planner: BJ
i
- ~r~
!
,
.
. .
, .
--
....,..
"..
o
:. SPRINGFIELD
.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(541) 726.3753
FAX (541) 726.3689
~.c~springfieldo~us'
July 22, 2008
. Notice of Decision - Springfield City Council
To Whom It May Concern:
'i _ I
On July 21, 2008 the Springfield City Council adopted an,ordjI!ance amendjnll the
Metropolitan Area General Plan text, Chapter ill, Sectionp. Policy D.lI, and lI!l'
exception to statewide pl~nning Goal 15 Willamelte River G...........ay to allow fill to be
placed in the Greenway Setback Area for purposes of conmucting a perma.rient
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 pu.blic hearing process !In<i1or the
joint public hearing that was conducted by the City Councils of Springfield 'and Eugene
and by the Lane COunty Board of Commissioners on June 24, 2008. i
Because you partiCipated in this hearing you are entitled to this notice and Jave the right
tl? appeal this Ordinance to the State Land Use Bom:d of Appeals (LUBA). !Anyappeals
to LUBA must be filed within 21 days of the effective date specified in Secpon 5 of this .
Ordinance (see attachment), City staff cami.ot advise you of your legal rights other than
the deadline for filing and the mailing address ofLUBA. You should const'ut a land use
attorney for assistance in this matter. .. I
The Development Services Department ayy,...v:ates your participation ill thL:
y.v.......Wngs, ThecommciJ.ts, opinions and ideas of property owners, resideUts and
tenants and other int.... .....;"J parties affected by land use decisions inform th~ y. vw....s and
are fundamental to the success of these endeavors. We hope that these actions as
intended by the City Council prove beneficial to you.: 1
For additional information or assistance, please contact Greg Mott, Planning Manager at
726-3774 or mnott(a)ci.snrinl!field.or.us . i'
I
Date Received
I
i JUL 2 8 2008
I
P,lanner: BJ'
T
I
. .
'~~flft.l". .
,-- ........ ,!"
":3f
\
"
r"....!.. ....... l"'ft..........~
.......I''T__tl-.I"I..
,
't\iR::."It:'kR.,"",rc;.ro:I"lIrloI;." ~ .
(. :JIJ ..., ~u 1'." Q i I
=
!J.', ..,
-
C....!'!'!J~.
=' -"'-'~-
('11111 Amrn~ncm ltt~llt'lt'=JI
:tt'Ol!1~'~8
.
Date Received
I
J'.jL 28 2008
Planner: BJ
.ner: This service area Is provided for your internal use
venience. Service must be marked on alrblll.
I FedEx Service:
lnse
,i''b
['he,
, ~
,----
'-
C
r-
.to:>
oc
....,
.. =
=
00
,.-
,
'--
22'r -~-
/
/
100
~
~
~
i
~
8
oi
Q)-
-+
CD
:0
CD
C')
:D
~.
a.
FecEx. US Airbill
Express
frwn Dk..... CM. ........~I.....
I'Mtll 7, 3-0A Fed&T~NUll'lbM
..
ffi Grc Hot~
% ~~'Cicv of SDrin~ficld
..
..
..
..
.....
=
863107578965
.. T
"",,-,..
..
SPP: MD~I_D
DE'
PfloneS/d
7/,4-3387
'SVCl3
3 To
ReeioC(I At. eN' Plan A'C"lcndm~n t Spl!cill.lia t
N.m.V(~nt 01 !.:lnc1 CC'1~!'";.,~"'vn't1or, i. f).IIhcIne ~,{j1 lr{-n(:~o
'"
Z :1"-,0 .,
w Addteu ~c:.. ~ t-
i:
U
..
to
'T
r
"...5PHTNGF E'"
~')f
z '...._SUllog""'"-
eo.- l)en:t!'tm(~nr
nu.c.lft (:("\'\'\Y....Vflt.; rlll
",,\lOn!" 635' i ' S ,,~
~ L.:ilp t.o.... tr(!et ur..
Vllo__.r.o......rll.liP._
Suite 150
-
'"---.~..-"...-~..._...~_......
Citv Aalem
,..", OR
L
m~1 ~ '1:~I~mUI~ I
8631 U1'J7 8~
r;,. Op"." 1 r"~'.,pnt.
.
--
np 97301-2540
Q36S'''j,qOq
~
I ~ 8631 0757 8965
86 SLEA
I
[Il.,lI 39934] UJULl8 ElSA
..-0-......&
THU - 24 JUL AA
PRIORITY OVERNIGHT
97301 .
OR-US
POX
I
~:~I~r--
-
:::1 """,P,.' 0""'"
=-~,:::~,.,.".,. Box
~."J5D'"
0"""'""'''''''"''''
-----
.....,.--.
__.....IMll_
..-.......
""""'D*'flilk
o ~~'1.,~~
s--.l'/ooItoofto..ur_
...--
D~~
0""'"
8631 D757 8965 J ::-:. _...0215
4a &pross P1clulgo Service
Q !:~!'JiOrtt'(~ Of:l~~~~~1n
W :-.t"'M..."':'-. s--.o.o-,Ptllf_
-~--,.-
o ~~.___ 0 ~~Saver
...........=:.:.. __ $oII..sey-",I'IOT_
L- -..::;.~~~_____ ~
4b ElqIrOO.rftill'llS.rvIco
[j ~~~:.tt~ 0 ~~~~
............_..~ ........._..loIoooMw
........1UlOAY~._ _SA~-.._
Z1P97477_~ ~~ng
p-'
.----..,
6 $pKial Hlindling I .................... -I
o ~~.!--. 0 ~g,,:.,:.a. 0 ~~
=:=-lMmIII.~~ ~-=-o.:.... =~~~........
s-.",_:II..~ .__
0.............__............,
~- 0.__"_ .
'. No Dle:.._ D~,~ D~c:UII__._"
.......lJottoo_, -........, 0 ClrvoAi'crallQny
rc-:~....a1_-"-"..,......., .
~,...r.Ib.......tNoltcn........ --, ~,.; "'0
KI ~""''' 0 "",;'" :::1 Th~_ 0 ~Co,d cr~.
:':.J.....s-
~
T...._
-
T*WIIigIII
,.."..-
''''I'''1'.'lt'..~-II'~,....-l''''-''''-'''''-
I Aesldential Delivery Signature Options r__......._........_
No Sign.ture
DR,......,
,..-....
=-~
lndireaSiDn.lan
0...-........
---
.I~_-
.Iw-.,.......
Direct Sigf1llltln
D=":'~
-~-
...o-........"llII'/Io'Cl""".___.lTfII...VS...05l1S
15191
Q-
)
~Q~
m
.L
,
$
'I,
.