HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice Miscellaneous 4/29/2008 (5)
r Greg Mott
',' C_""~ ".....,,", "'-"'" ~ f
Planning Manager
{Full Packet} AGENDA '
EUGENE, SPRINGFiEI~D-ANFLANETOUNTY1)LANNING COMMISSIO
.-
J
."
,
Bascom-Tykeson Room, Eugene Public Library, 100 East 10th Avenue, Eugen'e, OR 97401
Phone: (541) 682-5481 ' Web site: www.eugelle-or.gov
The Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Planning Commission welcome your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to
come and go as you please at any of the meetings, This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, FM assistive-listeni~g devices are available or an interpreter can.be provided with 48 hours notice prior to
the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these
services, contact the receptionist at 682_5481, Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are available at 682-
,5119,
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF
EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD, AND LANE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSIONS
DATE: TUESDAY, April 29, 200S .
LOCATION: Bascom-Tykeson Room, Eugene Public Library, 100 East 10th Avenue
TIME:, 6:00 p,m, . .
1-5 WillametteBrid!!e Proiect (MA 07-3, RA OS-I)
Staff: Heather O'Donnell, 682-5488
Metro Plan.Amendment (City file MA 07-3) to amend the text of the Metro Plan, Policy D.II, to
allow for the placement of fill in the Willamette River greenway for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge
'Replacement Project and to allow for a goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette
River Greenway) to authorize a nonwater dependent, nonwater-related use within the Willamette
River Greenway setback.
Refinement Plan Amendment (City File RA 08-1) to amend the text of the Willakenzie Area Plan to
allow for the placement of fill within 35 feet from the top of bank of the Willamette River for the 1-5
Willamette Bridge Replacement Project.
Conduct of Public Hearin!',: The order of procedure for quasi-judicial hearings is:
I.
2,
3,
Planning Commission chair will commence public hearing:
, .
Planning Commission chair will ask commissioners to disclose any conflicts of interest, ex'parte contacts,
and biases, abstentions or challenges to impartiality submitted pursuant to Eugene Code Sections 9.7065,
Planning Commission will receive a City staff report and Commissioners will share any information
learned from site visits,
Public testimony from the applicant and others in support of the application.
Comments or questions from interested people who are neither proponents nor opponents of the
application, .
Public testiinony from those in opposition to the application.
Staff response to testimony.
Questions from the Planning Commissioners. D
Rebuttal by the applicant. ate RACE ived
Planning,Commission Chair will announce whether the record is closed; record will be held open; or the
public hearing will be continued.' ~ ..JlJN 2 9 ZOC B
~ .
Planner: BJ
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10,
'~1?,
.
City of Eu!!ene Plannin!! Commission Memt\rs: Heidi Beierle, Phillip Carroll, Vice President, Rick Duncan,
Randy Hledik, President, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown'
Lane Countv Planninl! Commission Members: Lisa Arkin; Vice Chair, Ed Becker, Steve Dignam, Todd
Johnston;Nancy Nichols, Howard Shapiro, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, John Sullivan, Chair
Snrin!!field Planninl! Commission Members: Lee Beyer, Bill Carpenter, frank Cross, Chair, Johnny'
Kirschenmann, Vice Chair, Terri Leezer, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith '
:~, '
,
,
;.'~: <;,r~~. .~.
, ,
"
..
<'
.-
o
"
..,
-'
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
. , n
April 29, 2008
TO:
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
FROM:
. Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, Eugelle Planning Division
Public Hearing forl-5 WiIlamette Bridge Project Metro P]anAllendment and
, Refinement Plan Amendment (Eugene files MA 07-3, RA 08-]; S'pringfie]d file
LRP2007-0bO]0;Lane County file PA08-5230) ,
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION REQUESTED: Ho]d a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan amendment, including a
Statewide Planning Goal]5 exception, and refinement plan amendment.
.. , .
BRIEFING STATEMENT: On Apri] 29; 2008, the Euge~e, Springfield and Lane County Planning
CommissionswilI hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend theMetroP]an for the 1-5 Willamette
Bridge Project. The Eugene Planning Commission will also. hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend'
the WiIlakenzie Area Plan (W AP). The project is proposed in the Oregon Department of Transportation
right-of-way, as well as on property owned by the City of Eugene, Willamalane Park and Recreation,
District, and Lime County. The project area includes the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge and encompasses an
area to the north between the WiIlarllette River and Centennial Boulevard, also extending south of the
Willamette River between Frafiklin Boulevard and the, Glenwood Interchange (Exit 187): The project area
is within the Eugene-Springfield UGB, and is more specifically shown on the Project Area map (see
Attachment C).
The applicant requests approval of the following:
-'
Metro Plan Amendment (MA07-3, LRP2007-00010, PA08,-5230) to amend the text of the \
, Metro Plan, Policy D.I], to allow for the placement offill in the Willamette River Greenway for
') the 1-5 WilIamette Bridge Rep]acement Project and to allow for a goal exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 15 (WiIlamette River Greenway) to authorize a nonwater dependent, nonwater-.
related use within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
Refin,ementPlan Amendment'(RA 08_1, City of Eugene onJy) to amend the text of the '
WiIlakenzie Area Plan to allow for the placement offill withjn 35 feet from the top ofbafik of the
, WilIamette River for the ]-5 Willamette Bridge Replacement Project.
BACKGROUND: \ '
Purpose of Staff Report '
The Eugene Code requires City staff to prepare a written report, prior to the public hearing, for,the
Planp.j.ng ,Cq!ll1llission~ ~ consideration concerning any Metro Plan amendment and refinement plan
amendmerit requ~st. The staff report provides only preliminary information and reco~endations (see
AttachmeIft.~:{\,alld BY The Eugene, Springfield and. Lane County Planning CommistillatellReceived
!;, ,,\..,,:.,_,:~':, '~292008
., ~ :' .. .,~.... ,j ,. ;
Planner:BJ
.
.'
consider public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making' a decision,
Following the-close of the public hearing record, the Planning Commissions ~ill make a
recommendation, based on the required approval criteria, to,the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and
the Lane County Board of Commissioners to approve, approve with modifications or deny the .
applications. The requests will be heard before the Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council and
the Lane County Board of Commissioners ina separate public hearing, following Planning Commission
action, The quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described in the Eugene Code
(EC) at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.?095.
Application, Referrals and Public Hearing Notice
On December 14, 2007, the subject applications were submitted to the City of Eugene for an amendment
to the text of the Metro Plan.and a refinement plan amendment to the text of the W AP. Followillg the
receipt of the City's completeness review comments, the applicant provided supplemental application
materials. The application was subsequently deemed complete on' February 8, 2008. A public hearing
before the, Planning Commissions is scheduled for April 29, 2008. Referrals were provided to the
appropriate agencies on February ]5 and 19,2008, and notice of the public hearing was mailed and posted
consistent with Eugene Code requirements.
. , The Planning Division has received letters.ofpubiic testimony, including from the affected neighborhood
groups of the Harlow Neighborhood Association and Laure] Hill Valley Citizens. Public testim~ny is
.' attached (see Attachment D). Any additional written comments received after the preparation of this staff
report will be provided to the Planning Coirimissions at the public hearing for inclusion into the public
record.
Applicable Ofiteria-
The Eugene; Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions shall address the relevant appro va]
criteria in making a recommendation to the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Board of
Commissioners on the requests. Eugene, Spririgfiel~ and Lane County all adopted identical MefroPlan
amendment criteria, as listed below from the Eugene Code (EC). Preliminary findings addressing the
required approval criteria have been prepared by staff and are attached (see Attachments A and B),
EC 9,7730(3) Criteria for ADDroval of Plan Amendment.
The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a)Vletro Plan
amendment application: , .' , '
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant StatewideP]anning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and . -
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
EC 9,8424 Refinement Plan Amendment ADDroval Criteria.
The planning commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the
,criteria set forth below, aDd forward a recommendation to the City council, The city cou!lcil shall
decide whether to act on the application. If the city council decides to act, itshall approve, approve
with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or3;pprova] with
modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: -
(1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
(a) Statewide planning goals,
(b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan, Date Received
. ,(c) Ref!!.aining portions of the refinement plan. . - UI}),J'
':){(2rTherefininte~4i plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: '.J1::m' 2 9 2008
(a) An ,er~or in the publication of the refinement plan, .
., 1" ,J;; ,", ,
. '~J. ~ "'"'. ,,~J.
Planner: BJ
1-2 . "
: ,(,'
1. ,,'" ~ ~-(:
i
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(c) New or amended community policies,
(d) Ntlw or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation,
statewidep]anning go'al, or, state agency land use plan,' .
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time
the refinement plan was adopted,' .
,
. - , . .
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the available information and materials in the record, and the
attached preliminary findings, staff recommends approval of the applicant's proposed Metro ,Plan text
amendment, including the Goal 15 exception, and refinement plan text amendment.
r
A TT ACHMENTS:It was not feasible to reprint all of the writt~n materials, attachments, and other
items included in the file record for this application as, part ofthe attilchrrients to the staff report, The
other materials listed below are only available for review,at the Planning Division. Copies of the
'materia]s found in the file record for this application can be provided upon request for a fee. The
Planning Commissions Will be provided a full set of the applicant's materials and all public testimony for
review, and a full set ofthe materials will also be made available at the public hearirig,
Attachment A" Metro Plan Amendment Preliminary Staff Findings
Attachment B. Refinement Plan Amendment Preliminary Staff Findings
Attachment C. Vicinity Maps (including Project Area boundary map)
AttacIllnent D. Letters ofPub]ic Testimony received through Aprill7, 2008
The following additional items are inchided in the file .record for. this application, and are available'
for review at the P]annil!g Division (The Planning Commission will he provided a copy of these
, , '.
materials with the agenda' packet): '
\ ...' ' .
Applicant's,supplemental materials including:
- . Supplemental findings feceiyed March 28,2008'
Errata Sheet received February 26, 2008
Map showing property oyvuership received March 20, 2008
Applicarit's Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendment application materials including:
Written statements with reduced maps received February 1 and 25, 20.08
Application forms ,received February], 2008._
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
PleaSe contact Heather O'Donnell, Associate Planner: City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W, 'IO'h
Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541.682-5488 or via emai] at '
heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.~r.us,' . ',.
"
i' - ..,.~
':1jf~~" .:
. ~;
Date 'Received
~ 29 2008
Planner: BJ
- ,
'~I .:.' .
-'
,} ~t :~;
1-3
r
'~~ r' ,~,-;
.-,',
J
f
. ,:]; -~. {'-"
;:1. ", ~ i .r,''l. '\
. : <., - '<~ ~
\
"1 ,,'..,['
; ~f, \ .., . . 1 "
Date R~jr"t:
~;i.;,;:,::J
. . ~.
,,f~. r .~,
.' .il;;
,PlanT'
"','f-!:"
.:~~::'~ c.t
.
:i
!. ',: j.
~. "
L....;!~
.
Attachment A
Preliminary Staff Findings
1-5 W1Uamette Bridge Project,
(Eugene files MA 07-3, RA 08~1;
Springfield file LRP2007-000l0;
Lane County file P A08-5230)
~,
Metro Plan Text Amendment & Goal Excention (MA 07-3. LRP2007-000IO, P A08-S230)
The propo,!>ed amendment includes an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and a Metro Plan
text amendment to allow fill within the Willamette River greenway for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge
c Project. The project includes replacement of the Interstate 5 bridges over the Willamette River and
Canoe Canal (Patterson Slough), including construction and later removal of one or more temporary
bridges, demolition of the original and detour Willamette River and,Canoe Canalbridges,
construction of replacement bridges, reconstruction ofthe roadway approaches to the bridges,
rehabilitation of project area, and completion of any required mitigation.
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into
their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Eugene Code 9,7730(3), Springfield Code
Section 7:070(3)(a & b), and Lane Code 12,225(2)(a & b), set forth the corresponding Metro Plan
amendment criteria.' Since Eugene is the lead jurisdiction on this application, those criteria are
addressed below under the Eugene Code asfollows: '
"
Eugene Code (EC) Section 9,7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) be
applied to a Metro Plim text amendment: '
, , ,
(a) The amendment must 'be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning ,Goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and De,velopment Commission; and
Goal I Citizen Involvement: To develop a'citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in alf phases 'of the plc:nning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The action does not amend the citizen involvement program, The process for
reviewing these amendments complies with Goal] since it complies with, and surpasses the
requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions.
"-
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal I by requiring that notice of
the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption, As a Type I, site
specific Metro PIaI'! amendment, consideration of the amendments begins with a joint City of
E~?ene,;Cjty of,~pripgfie~d and Lane County Planning Commission public hearing on AOi129, .
. i"",:;,> 'I; ",,'" ". ',J , . '. , ate Received
'. '~,' ~1 11 'i-~ 0" ".,;. . .' .
. '. . .
Staff Findings -, March 17, 2008 4-
Page 1 H'I)"," . , . . I \ -dBN 2 9 2008
.. / ' ..
. '
.' . "~'"
~ ...-'
Planner:-SJ
/
.
2008,
Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, on February 27,2008, the city mailed notice of
the proposed plan amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, 'as
required by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. Referrals concerning the.
pending applications were sentto the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City'of
Springfield, Lane County, the affected Neighborhood Associations (Laure] Hill Valley Citizens and
the Harlow Neighborhood Association), and to City departments. On March 14,2008, notice of the
joint Planning Commission Pllblic'hearing was mailed to the applicant, and owners and occupants
of property, within 300 feet ofthe subject property, the affected neighborhood groups in all three
jurisdictions' and other interested parties such as the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park,
On March 26, 2008, notice was also posted in accordance with EC 9:74]5(5) and 9.7735(1). On
March] 4, 2008, notice of the joint Planning Commission public hearing was also published in the
Register-Guard, in accord~ncewith the Eugene Code, An additional joint public hearing before the
elected officials of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane County will be scheduled
following Planning Commi~sion action. .Notice to interested and, affected parties will also be
provided for that hearing. '
In response to the public notice, letters of written testimony have been received, including
comments from two of the affected Eugene neighborhood groups; the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
(LHVC) and the Harlow Neighborhood Association (HNA) (see Attachment D). Responses to these
comments are provided under the appropriate criteria below where applicable.
The applicant also notes that the federal environmental process applicable to this project provides
--'
additional. opportunities for public involvement including public meetings, open houses,
newsletters, public comment period on the Environmental Assessment, and establishment of a
Community Advisory Group. These efforts will continue public involvement outside of the land use
application process, consistent with this Goal. .
The processes used by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County including mailed, posted and .
published notice (as well as posting on the City of Eugene web page) for reviewing these
amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal ], since it complies with and surpasses the
requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for
such decisions and actions.
Part J - Planning
Part I of Goal 2 requires that actions related to land use be consistent with acknowledged
comprehensive pl;;ms of cities and counties. The Eugene~Snringfield Metrollolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The
Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning,
goals. These findings and record sh~w that there is an adequate factual base for decis'ions to be
made concerning the proposed amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the
plans oJ aj'fected;govemmental units and that opportunities be provided for review ana comment ,by d
"\',";1';'\ ,;', . '. , . Date Receive
St~ff.F~dfrigs - March 17, 2008 ~ n 9 Z008
Page 2 7" 'f,
1..,5., .
,~':\:':; ,,' r',' nn. A~" QJ
~ a..,.," U
.
,
\ ,
affected governmental Units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City
coordinated the review of these amendments with all affected goyernmental units. Specifically,
, notice was mailed to the State Department of Land Conservation and Deve]opment, Oregon
Department of Tran,sportation (ODOT), Lane County, and the City of Springfield, Lane County and
the City of Springfield are participating in this amendment.
Part II - Exceptions
Part II of Goa] 2 provides the conditions and 'standards for which a local jurisdiction can adopt an
exception to a statewide goal. 'Relevant to this request is ,Statewide Planning Goal ]5, Willamette
River Greenway which does not allow non water-dependent, non water"related uses, such as the
proposed transportation facility, within the greenway setback wit~out receiving an exception.
Because a goal 15 exception is required by D.]] of the Metro Plan. it is unnecessary to determine if
Goal 15 itself would require such an exception, The need for a goal exception is specifically J
. triggered by Policy D.l1 of the Metro Plan, Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and
Waterways Element, which states:
f';;;j~ The takin, g of ~n exception shall be/equired if a no, n-water-dependent transportation
Q facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback
An exception to Statewide planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was
approvedfor Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 1-5 right of way
crossing the Willamette River,and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback
Line, for purpose of constructing a temporary detour bridge, implementing the
conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Approval (Springfield Journal SHR
2003-001 I 5) and removing the temporary detour bridgeajier completion of the
permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660"004-0022(5) Willamf!tte Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c) for a 'reasons' exceptiqn; and
pursuant to OAR 660-004,0015, is hereby 'adopted as an amendment to the Metro
Plan text, Policy #D.II, Chapter III, Section D,.
,.
The taking of an exception is consistent with Policy D,I] as the proposal includes the placement of
fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback for a non-water-dependent transportation
facility, and is consistent with the Goal 15 exception previously taken for the temporary bridge, as
described ~nder Policy D,]I above. To acknowledge the 1-5 Williunette Bridge Project, Metro Plan
Policy D,II is proposed, to be amended as follows in bold: .
(
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal IS Willamette River Greenway was approved
for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for, purposes of removing and
replacing the decommissioned 1-5 bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe
Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one southbound and one northbound)
within the 1-5 right-of-way crossing the Willamette River and Canoe Canal and within
.. - . \.
the Willa~ette River Greenway Setback Line, The exception authorizes construction
and later removal of one or more temporary wo~k bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour , .
': "Jjhdge~;'.conhruction of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction of tBate"Received
. ' i}i,:i~ ";~, A:'I'," Jr '
StaffFindin~s~March 1'7,2'008 ' '2 9 2008
Page 3 ...~ ,~_..~ ..'~ .~_-'
,l .' " ,,'," ~
... .:",./';j
')
:.,i:-. -
Planner: '&1
.
".
approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area; and
completion of any required mitigation of project impacts, In association with these
tasks, the exception further authorizes within the Willamette River Greenway Setback
Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removalpf fill
within a temporary slope easement east ofI-5, This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (O"AR) 660-004-0022(6), Willamette Greenway, and the
exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 PartII(c) for a "reasons"
exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to
the Metro Plan text, Policy #11, Chapter 111, Section D,
"\
In'comp]iance with Metro Plan Policy D.] I, the following provides analysis for a G!Jal ]5
exception.
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) administrative rule governing goal ,
eXteptions, OAR 660-004-0022(6), states that within urban areas, the proposed\siting of uses that
are neither water-dependent nor water-related within the Willamette River greenway setback area
requires exceptions. The rule states the following:
(6) Willamelte Greenway: Within an urban area designated on the approved Willamelte
Greenway Boundary maps, the siting of uses which are neither water-dependent nor water-
related within the setback line required by Section C. 3.k of the Goal may be approved where
reasons demonstrate the following:
(a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the '
site under construction or on adjacent land or water areas;
(b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites available for water-dependent or
water-related uses within the jurisdiction;"
(c) The use'will provide a significant Plfblic benefit; and
. (d) The use is consistent with the Legislativefindings and policy in ORS 390.314 and
the Willamelte Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.322"
The requirements for Goal exceptions are outlined in OAR 660, Division 4 and are as follows:
OAR 660-004-0018 Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
(4) "Reasons" Exceptions:
(a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons" section-of
ORS in 732(l)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone
designations must limit.the u~es, density, public facilities and services,: and
activities to only those that are justified in the exception;
, '.' ," '" '" i' '4,/1""," " lowl g""'="~ d,:,og" ,J. 'W'.' "' ;m,",;n" p.iW!J,l.@,;;eived
, ,. ~29mM
'h': . ,
Staff Findings - March 17, 2008
Page 4
I~,:Z"<
Planner: BJ
.
facilities and services within an area approved as a "iReiisons"exception, a new
"Reasons" exception is required;' "
As stated by the applicant, the taking of goal exceptions requires and results in amendments to the
Metro Plan (ORS 197.732(8) defines an "exception" as a comprehensive p]anprovision, including
an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan), The exception provides for the
continuation of the existing use of 1-5 by motor vehicles for interstate mobility and commerce
purposes. The new 1-5 Willamette River bridges are needed to accommodate that use,
The new bridges will be replacement bridges to the decommissioned 1-5 bridge and Canoe Canal
bridge, which are part of the 1"5 interstate highway facility whose existence is identified in the
Transp]an. As such, the new bridges will not be providing a use that does not already exist.
OAR 660-004-0022 Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part II(c)
An exception under Goal 2, Part II(c) can be taken for a~y use not allowed by the applicable
goal(s). The 'types of reasons that mayor may not be used to justify certain types of uses not
allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule,....
, (6) 'Willamette Greenway: Within an urban area designated on the approved Willamette
Greenway Boundary maps, the siting of uses which are neither water-dependent nor water-
, related within the setback line required by Section C. J,k of the Goal may be approved where
reasons demonstrate the following:
..
(a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the
site under consideration or on adjacent land or water areas;,..
The new bridges would be located in the same location as the decommissioned and detour bridges,
although they would require minor shifts of alignment and reconnection,of portions of the Franklin
Boulevard'northbound and southbound on and off ramps as dictated by bridge design. The
Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park lies west of the 1-5 right-of-way in Eugene and the
Eastgate Woodlands portion of the Whi]amut Natura] Area lies east of the 1-5 right-of-way in
Springfield. Since the project area includes portions of both parks,where they are, adjacent to 1-5 and
north of the Willamette River, unless otherwise differentiated, this area will be referred to as the.
Whi]amut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands for the remainder ofthese findings. The area
adjacent to ODOT's right-of-way is used as open space, As noted by the applicant, this area
contributes to the protection of natural,. scenic, and recreational greenway values, including fish and
wildlife habitat, water quality, protection from flooding, and public recreation.
I ,
The applicant states, and staff concurs, that because the replacement bridges and associated fill will
be located within existing ODOT right-of-way, which is outside of the Whilamut Natural Area and
Eastgate Woodlands, there will be no reduction in the amount of permanent open space available at
the parks" Because the bridges replace an existing, structurally defective bridge and existing 1-5
facility, there will be no change'in'use of this area, Existing park and river users are accustomed to
experiencing interstate trave,l at this location. The bicycle-pedestrian p~th linking Eugene and .
SpringfieH:L:vi]]"con,tinue,'to'traverse ODOT's right-of-way. below the new bridges. pubeate4~,eCelVed
t Ar-i\i,.J' ~--~ . i;- _ .11,' . .
h. . '''.r. II "., - 1f.1:-:
J\::fIt 2 9 2008
- ,l"';
Stafflf,indjn'gs c:March 17,2008
P .1 1.. \:. ,,' ~\. 11,_
ageS"", ,
': '~':1
:;""
':";')fl;.-'~'.~.iJ<~~': .
Plannen~BJ
.
the river will not be affected in any significant long"term manner and protection to riparian areas '"
and fish and wildlife habitat will be maintained to the greatest possible extent. Additionally, specific
development details will be reviewed for minimizing impacts through compliance with applicable
approval criteria, related standards and any necessary conditions of approval, as further reviewed
under local permitting processes such as the WilIamette Greenway and Water Resources
Conservation Overlay Zone.
The applicant acknowledges that the project will create some short'term impacts toWillamette
Greenway values during construction, Staging for bridge construction is likely to occupy tip to five
acres of park open space for up 'to four years. The bicycle/pedestrian path crossing ODOT's right-of-
way will be closed for periods of up to a few days at a time; however, another path under the Canoe
Canal Bridge, located approximately 600 feet to the north of this path, would remain open: during
any closures to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic,
/
The new replacement bridges will span the Willam~tte River and Canoe Canal. Piers will be placed
in the Willamette River to support the bridge structures. The new bridges will each have one pier
near- the center of the river and one on or near the south bank, but no piers will be located in the
Canoe Canal. By comparison, the decommissioned bridge has five piers in the water, and the detour
bridge has six, so the new bridges will provide a substantial net reduction in piers compared to the
, existing number. At a conceptualleve], any reduction in the number of piers will have a positive
rather than adverse effect on recreational use of the river, consistent with this standard.
Additionally, the applicant proposes to implement a plan to prevent construction debris from '\
dropping into the Willamette River. At a conceptual level, with the reduction in the number of piers, c
the new bridgeS spanning the Canoe Canal, and the construction measures proposed, the
replacement bridges will not have an adverse affect but will have a positive affect on recreational,
use of the river, consistent with this standard, '
Regarding environmental resources, at the conclusion of bridge construction, fill placed for the
detour bridge and for temporary work bridges will be removed and those areas will be restored.
Bridge construction and demolition, including construction and'removaI of associated temporary
work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the greenway (see FigUre 6, Approximate
Vegetation Disturbance Areas). However, ODOT'stemporary easement for use of Eastgate
Woodlands requires ODOT to restore the property within 5 years of completion ofthepermanent
replacement bridges. The applicant also proposes several construction, site preparation, post
development, and coordination measures to minimize impacts to natural resources discus~ed under
Metro Plan Policy E.2, which is incorporated herein by,reference. Additionally, preliminary data
indicates that there will be a net decrease of3] ,000 cubic yards of fill in the Willamette River '-
(30,000 cubic yards of fill added and 61 ,000 cubic yards offill removed;applicatiori, page 5). With
the exception of a few of the temporary storage areas, the replacement bridges ar~ proposed within
existing ODOT right-of-way which reduces impacts to non"transportation utilized areas. Based on
these measures, affects on environmental resources will be minimized and mitigated, Furthermore,
additional review of detailed site plans during the federal, state and local processes wUI require
mitigation as appropriate, subject to applicable standards.
~ Regarding scenic ya]ues of the Willamette River greenway, staff concurs with the applicant that the
l;','. reductio!i,inthe:iofal number of piers and in the number of piers within the willameO~t'Er R~ceived
~;~ii Fin~i;~; ~ March 17, 2008 ~ 2 9 2008
- Page 6
I)~9 :.
J-";".
,
Planner: <la~
'.
improve views of the river mId, as such, contribute to a positive visual impact. Also, because a key
c consideration of the project is providing an aesthetically pleasing solution that recognizes the.scenic
beauty of the project area, ODOT has considered a range of bridge types and pier options, taking
carefully into consideration community input obtained through a public process. At this phase,
ODOT has developed two conceptual schematics illustrating the new 1-5 bridges, but ODOT has not
developed detailed engineering design plans. Ultimately, selection of the bridge type for each
segment will be dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations and budget. The applicant has
indicated the public input on the design will also be provided through other public outreach efforts.
While construction activiti~s will temporarily impact green way values, with the reduction in piers
and fill, the location cifthe bridges in the existing right-of-way, and the mitigation measures .
. .
proposed by the applicant, the new 1-5 WiIlmnette River bridges will have no significant adverse
effect on the greenway values of ODOT's right-of-way (if any) or the adjacent park lands and water
areas, consistent with this standard. Additionally, specific constnlction and operational details
regarding mitigation of riparian impacts will be appropriately addressed during local permitting
processes,.subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards.
(b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites available for water-dependent or
water-related uses within the jurisdiction; ...
The applicant finds, and staff concurs, that the two new replacement bridges will not reduce any'
sites available for water-dependent or water-related uses in 'Eugene or Springfield because the
bridges will be constructed entirely within the same existing' ODOT lc5, right-of-way where the
decommissioned 1-5 bridge and temporary detour bridge are located. The new bridges will have one
pier each near the center of the river and one pier on or near the south bank (the Canoe Canal on the
north side would be spanried completely and these bridges will be perched on fill associated with
the roadway). In contrast, the decommissioned bridge has five piers in the water, and the detour
bridge has six. At a conceptual level, a net reduction in piers in the water will be beneficial for
water-dependent uses. Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, this standard is met.
(c) The use will provide a significant public benefit; and...
,
The applicant states that 1-5 is the primary north-south highway corridqr serving California, Oregon,
and Washington. The facility provides for the significant movement of people, freight, and other
services, and serves as the backbone for international, interstate, and intrastate commerce. The
applicant notes that on average, approximately 49,000 vehicles cross the Willmnette River through
the Eugene/Springfield area on 1-5 each day, with numbers reaching greater than 63,000.
Approximately 16 to 18 perc'ent of daily trips are made by tractor trailer rigs hauling freight. By the
year 2030, 1-5 is expected to accommodate approximately 73,000 daily vehicle trips. The
connectivity and mobility that 1-5 provides to both the local community and to intrastate and
interstate travelers constitutes a significant public benefit. This facility is recognized in the 1999
Oregon Highway Plan and in TransPlan. Therefqre.this standard is met.
'-
'''' -". /:'"
, . {"',.J "'! , ',.' II '. ~ ,.'.-~-" '" 11
. t. ~>.i:, "1" _ ;. J
'. ~. - '.!' "
Staff Findings - March 1 i, 2008
rl.,_.. t. I'
Paget71:i.j t.}~' ,'1;:1 .
(d) The use is consistent with the Legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.314 and
the :llamette Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.32b .
" ,! . c. . ;. ate RecPlved
A--
Jl:1N 2 9 2008
,
.,~ !:~:i
,-
PlannerI-BJ
: "--~~<~(')i"t. "';';"~~
The legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.3 14 are:
ORS 390,3 14. Legislative findings and policy
(I) The Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and preserve the natural, scenic,
and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River, to preserve ani{
restore historical sites, structures, facilities, and objects on lands along the
Willamette River for public education and enjoyme'nt and to further the 'state policy
established under oils 390.010, it is in the public interest to develop and maintain a
natural, scenic, historical, and recreational greenway upon lands along the
Willamette River to be known as the Willamette River Greenway.
As previously stated, the 1-5 Willmnette River bridge predates the adoption of Goal 15. As an
element ofI-5, the bridge is provided for in TransPlan, which has been acknowledged to be in
compliance with all statewide planning goals. Construction of the replacement bridges and removal
of the decommissioned Canoe Canal and detourbridges will temporarily affect greenway values
during construction. However, as discussed under Goal 6 (air, 'water quality, land), Goal 8
(recreation) and Metro Plan Policy E.2 (environment), and the remainder of these findings, the
applicant proposes several measures to reduce or mitigate environmental and recreational impacts,
and the reduction of piers and fill will have a positive affect on scenic resources along the
Willmnette River Greenway, consistent with this standard. Additionally, specific construction imd
operational details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting processes, subject to
applicable approval criteria and related standards.
(2) In providingfor the development and maintenance of the Willamette River
Greenway, the Legislative Assembly: .
(a) Recognizing the need for coordinated planningfor such greenway, finds it
necessary to provide for development and implementation of a plan for such
greenway through the cooperative efforts of the state and units of local government.
The applicant states that the State of Oregon and units of local government, including Lane County
and the cities of Springfield and Eugene, have cooperated in the implementation of greenway
planning as required by legislative intent. The 1-5 Willmnette River Bridge Replacement PrOject,
subject to this application, is and will be permitted through this established local and statewide
greenway planning process.
(b) Recognizing the need of the people of this state for existing residential,
commercial, and agricultural use of lands along the Willamette River, finds it
necessary to permit the continuation oJ existing uses of lands that are included
within such greenway; but, for the benefit of the people of this state, also to limit the
intensification and change in the use of such lands so that such uses shall remain, to
the greatest possible degree, compatible with the preservation of the natural, scenic;
historical and recreation"al qualities of such lands. .
.' ~sptevi~JsIYlstatecl, 1-5 and the 1-5 Willmnette River bridge predate Goal 15. The applicant states. d
;.' , . .;' "Date Receive
Staff Findings''''' March 17,2008 rYMi-l . 2 9 Z008
, j'age 8 - Y:fUN
:i:"':.ll-
Planner: .BJ
that like the original bridge, the replacement bridges and their approaches will be located within
OOOT's established 1-5 right-of-way, thus avoiding significant adverse effects on the greenway'and \,
green way _values, consistent with this policy. F~hermore, as discussed under Goal 6 (air, water
quality), GoalS Recreation and Metro Plan Policy E:2 (environment), and the remainder of these
. findings, the applicant proposes several measures to reduce ormiiigate environmental and
recreational impacts, and the reduction of piers and fill will have a positive affect on scenic
resources along the Willmnette River Greenway, consistent with this stanaard.
(c) Recognizing that. the use of lands for farm use. is compatible with the purposes of
the Willaniette River Greenway, finds that the use of lands for farm use should
continue. within the greenway without restriction.
The 1-5 Willamette River replacement bridges will be located entirely within the urbanized area of
SjJringfield and Eugene, and not upon or near farm land within the greenway boundary. For this
reason, the project will in.no way impede the continuation offarrJ? uses within the greenway,
consistent with this policy.
(d) Recognizing the need for central coordination of such greenway for the best
interests oj all the people of this state, finds it necessary to place the responsibility
for the coordination of the development and maintenance of such greenway in the
.State Parks and Recreation Department.
Constructing the 1-5 replacement bridges in no way limits or changes Oregon State Parks'
responsibilities for the coordination of the development and maintenance of the greenway.
(e) Recognizing the lack of need for the acquisition of fee title to all lands along the
. .
Willamette River for exclusive public use Jor recreational purposes in such
greenway, finds it necessary to limit the area within such greenwrty that may be
acquiredfor state parks and recreational areas andforpublic recreational use
within the boundaries of units of local governmentalong the Willamette River.
The applicant states that the replaceII1ent bridges and approaches will be located within existing
public right-of-way that has been used for interstate highway purposes since before the enactment
of the Willamette, River greenway statutes and Goal 15. Theland is in the public domain and will
remain.in the public domain after completion of construction oftlie new replacement bridges and
demolition arid removal of the decommissioned bridge, Canoe Canal bridge, and detour bridge.
Therefore, the proposed project will not increase or decrease the amount of land available for
, ,
acquisition for state parks and recreational areas or for public recreational use within the boundaries
of units of local government along the Willamette River. Temporary staging areas outside of public
rights-of-way will be rehabilitated to their previous state.
Therefore, stai'f finds that an exception to Goal 15 is warranted for the reasons stated above,
specifically OAR 660-0040-0022 (6)(c) and consistency with tlie remaining reasons, for the
placement offill within the greenway setback for the 1-5 WiIlmnette Bridge Replacement project.
Goal exception requirements are as follows: .'
~)~1)1~_t):'}~;~~~;. ~~~.(~(c:!
r'i;J : . _,. 'tnt>.. .
Date Received
A-
n 2 9 2008
Staff Findings '"' March i7, 2008
Page 9 :(!'!U~ ' ,~ Pill'
j
Planner:rBd
," P'"
~;;;,
\. ~""
:_~fj}~/:~ r;:.~l~ ":::'
. OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c). Exception Requirements'
(1) Ijajurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022 to use
resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public facilities or
services not,allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the
comprehensive plan as an exception
The reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022(6) are set forth above to allow the construction of
the 1-5 Willamette River and Cange Canal replacement bridges and the removal of the
decommissioned bridge, existing Canoe Canal bridge, and temporary detour bridge, including the
placement of fill needed for the new bridges or for temporary work bridges required to construct the
new bridges or remove the decommissioned or detour bridges. The justifications are set forth in the
comprehensive plan as an exception consistent with this rule. '
-
(2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part U(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception'
to a Goal are: '-
(a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not
apply": The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis.for
determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific
properties or situations, including the amount of land for the use being planned and
why the use requires a location on resource land; .
.J
The reasons justifying why the replacement bridges should be permitted within the greenway
. setback area, and why associated fill should be permitted, are those addressed above in the analysis
demonstrating compliance with the criteria in OAR 660~004-0022(6). An exception to the Statewide
Planning Goal 15 is necessary to allow additional fill to be placed in the greenway per Metro Plan
Policy D.ll. Here, approximately 30,000 cubic yards offill will be placed within ODOT's existing,
1-5 right-of-way, while approximately 61,000 cubic yards of fill will be removed, resulting in a net
decrease of 3 I ,000 cubic yards of fill in the,Willmnette River.
Except for a few acres of park land needed temporarily for staging construction, all development
will occur within ODOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way, which is not resource land. The bridges require
a location over the Willmnette River green way because 1-5 already exists both north and south of
the Willmnette River and the highway cannot practicably be relocated to avoid crossing the river. ,
, -
(b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the use ":
(A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location
of possible alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a
new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified;
.~ .\ . " - . ~. I
, ~, I ro"' .
,
- ,:::~.;,.).~<~~-'"
(B) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why
other areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the proposed use, Economic factors can beOaterFfeceived
~29 Z008
i:li'~!~ .1 I
Staff Findings - March 17,2008
, Page 10
1,,,,,13, '
,
, ,
PI.anner:- BJ
r
\
with other relevant factors in determining that the' use cannot reasonably be
accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following
questions.shall be addressed: '
(i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on
nonresource land that would not require an exception, including
increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? If not, why not?
(ii)-Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource
land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not
allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing
rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed
lands? Ifnot, why not?
, ,
(iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an
urban growth boundary? Ifnot, why not?
(iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the
provision of a proposed public facility or service? If not, why not?
(C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types
of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. .Initially, a local
government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of
areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site
specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception,
unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites
that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed 'use. A detailed evaluation of
specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically
described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by
another party during the local exceptions proceeding. ,
The applicant states thatI-5 replacement bridges are needed because the decommissioned bridge is
structurally unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to accommodate anticipated traffic
volumes over the long term, nor does it meet current seismic standards. The replacement bridges
and their approaches will be located entirely within ODOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way. Because the
Willmnette River is quite wide in the vicinity of 1-5, piers will again be needed within the setback
area to su'pport the proposed replacement bridges; however, fewer piers wili be used compared to
existing conditions. In addition, fill is required to support the approaches to the new bridges,
including th~ new bridges overthe Canoe Canal.
Given the non-water dependent and non-water-related nature of the use, and given that fill would be
required for pier support and bridge approaches regardless of ,-"here in the vicinity the bridges are
located, there are no alternative sites crossing the Willmnette River that would not also require a
new exception. It is noted that the proposed use will be located inside an urban growth boundary on
land that is neither agricultural nor forest land. By remaining within the existing ODOT.4~1-.l2fl:) .'
'way, the project avoids significant impacts to park lands. Because transportation impro~, necelved
, ' It-
~ .' " ,1-" " " #J
;.~,\~j',;;:. "."~ i"(',.r i IUlrl 29 2008
~_P'>" . ~~ _'...- '_' ~ I' ' 1) ,.", .. '"\fUl'l
Staff Findings'':' March 17,2008
Page IlrOI'" (, c. "At' .:, I
u IJ ~.:l ,,_ '.-
Plannerr:.SJ
.., if'it '" "_' _ ". .' ,:
, I"''''' " iif'. "\'1~" ,.. i -... .
. ,nt JI II !", ;' " ~ '_ 11 - .
including bridges, are considered public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accommodated
without the .provisionofthe proposed public facility. Analysis regarding possible alternative sites is
discussed further under subsection (c) directly below, which is incorporated hereih byreferencec
(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences'
resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse
impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same
proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception
shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the
jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and
disadvantages of using the dreafor a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical
. positive and negative conskquences resulting from the use -at the proposed site with
measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific
alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts
. to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts
during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why
the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse
.than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring
a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not
limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the
ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term.economic
impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the landfrom the
resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of-the pr~posed use on the
water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service.
districts;
Staff Findings - March 17~ 2008
, Page12
;-_., .J.
I~15 :.
No other sites requiring exceptions are being considered for this use. The applicant states that this is
because the use is not a new use, but rather the replacement of an existing, structurally deficient
bridge within an existing right-of"way. Locating the replacement bridges within the existing right-
of-way is both necessary and practicable because that right-of-way Jines up with the existing 1-5
approaches to the north and south. Relocating the bridge replacement project outside the existing 1-5
right-of-way would require ODOT to relocate the approaches at considerable additional cost and
impact to not only the greenway, but also to protected park and recreational resources; including the
Whilmnut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands. Further, relocating the bridge could require the
closure' of one or more existing interchanges or rmnps, result in demolition of residences'and
businesses, and result in a hazardous geometry due to the presence of immovable geologic features.
Alternative bridge alignment locations to the north or south of the existing footprint and right-of-
way were dismissed from further analysis due to the following impacts:
. Right-of-way would need to be acquired from Alton Baker Park, which is prohibited under
Section 4(1) of the federal Department of Transportation Act of 1966 unless there are no
other prudent and feasible alternatives.
. Right-of-way would need to be acquired from homes and/or businesses on the south side of
the river that would not.be required if the highway remains on its current alignment.
. A shifted highway would be closer to existing homes, resulting in higher noise and visual
., . ,impacts." , ' .
.',- '(' ~~~ \':Maj6rhi!ih:tension power transmission lines are located on both sides of the bridge and one
. Date Received
,~ 2 9 2008
. ,~'. ~.,; >, . ~, .
',', \ ,,-, \.<..Jt
CI~nnor"R_1
\
would need to be relocated if the alignment was shifted. ,
... , It
Given the replacement nature of this project, the fact that crossing the Willmnette River at some
location is unavoidable, and ODOT's inability to realign 1-5 on adjoining lands based on federal
restrictions protecting park lands, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to re-using the
existing 1-5 right-of-way. Accordingly,.in terms of economic, social, environmental, and energy
consequences, there are no'areas warranting comparison. 1-5 is an important highway in the State of
Oregon and freight corridor on the west coast. The connectivity abd mobility it provides statewide,
interstate,.and regionaUravelers provides tremendous benefits both economically ~d socially. The
ability to rebuild within the existing ODOT 1-5 right-of-way minimizes energy consumption and
environmental impacts, as the current right~of-way use for interstate travel purposes is maintained. '
As such, consistent with this standard, the right-of-way is the least productive land in the immediate
area in terms of sustaining resouice uses. It's continued use.Jor this purpose also means that no
other resource or recreational lands need be removed from the resource base therefore this standard
is met.
(d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so
rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shall
describe how theproposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses.
The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed'use is situated in such a manner
,as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management
or production practices. Compatible is not intende4 as an absolute term meaning no
. interference or adverse impacts of any type with adJacent uses. -,
Uses adjacent to the affected portion ofI-5 include park land and the Willmnette River, and
residential and industrial uses. The temporary staging areas are adjacent to park land and the
Willmnette River, ODOT and 'Lane County property, and between 1-5 and 1-5 rmnps. With the.
exception of the temporary staging areas, the replacement bridges and associated improvements are
being proposed within approximately the same location as both the original and temporary bridges
and will be located within existing rights-of-way and right-of-way easements. Considering that this
area has been utilized as the 1-5 bridge location since prior.to the estal>lishment of Goal 15,
replacement of the facility in the same location is more compatible than relocating the facility and
converting non-transportation areas to this use, The proposal also includes a reduction in the
number of piers from the existing II piers to 8, a net reduction in flll, and sound walls. Ata
conceptual level, these elements will reduce adverse impacts to edvironmental, recreational and '
scenic resources and will increase compatibility of the project wit~ adjacent recreational, residential
. and industrial uses of the area. Regarding. the temporary staging locations; (he impacts will be
temporary and the applicant has proposed several measures to reduce adverse impacts of the
construction activities including: a plan to prevent debris from falling into the Willmnette River,
maintaining a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path, limiting work h'burs, and restoring the temporary
staging areas upon project completion. Additional measures proposed by the applicant to reduce
environmental, recreational and scenic impacts, are further discussed under Metro Plan Policy E.2,
Goal 8 below, and OAR 660-004-0022(6)(a) above, which are incorporated herein by reference.
These measures will further reduce adverse impacts to the adjacent park land and Willmnette River,
residential, and industrial uses consistent with this standard,
'.
.~} ~ .,,' ..-:., ~
~ t}<"",
, " ~., ,~
). t.\1
Date Received
4-
dt1fJ 2 9 2008
PlannerI:-13J
".' ,
Staff Findings - March 17, 2008
Page 13 -
'.
J' ~
, .
^
J
In addition, compatibility with greenway and Goal 5 resource values associated with the Willmnette
River, riparian areas both north and south of the river, the Whilamut Natural Area.and Eastg~te
Woodlands will be further ensured through compliance with acknowledged Eugene and Springfield
permitting requirements adopted to implement Goals 15 and 5; Willamette River Greenway and
greenway setback review, and the Water Resoprces Conservation Overlay ZOIie, subject to
applicable standards and conditions. As noted earlier, the bridges are an existing use within the
ODOT right-of-way. This.proposal replaces the original bridge with two new bridges: one for
northbound traffic, the other for southbound traffic, and replaces the Canoe Canal bridge. It also
removes the detour bridge. Given that a bridge has been accommodating highway traffic in this area
. for decades, most new impacts will be associated with bridge construction or demolition. By.
remaining within the existing ODOT right-of-way, and employing Best ManagementPractices and
~ other impact avoidance or mitigation techniques identified or required during the local permitting
processes, impacts to surrounding natural resource lands can be minimized to protect na,tural
resource qualities in and the use and enjoyment oftheWillmnette River, the Willamette River
greenway, and the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands.
Based on the above findings, staff finds that an exception to Goal 15 is warr,anted and meets the
requirements of OAR 660-0040-0020 for the placement of fill within the greenway setback (or the
1-5 Willmnerte Bridge Replacement project.
Therefore, the mnendments and goal exception are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these mnendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside aD. acknowledged urban gwwth
boundary from the definition of agnculturallands, Since the subject property is entirely within the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the mnendments'do.not affect the
area:s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to these mnendments as the subject property and actions do not affect-any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does riot apply within urban growth boundaries and, .
therefore, does not apply to the subject property, which is within the Eugene-Springfield urban.
growth boundary (OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is' not relevant and the mnendments do
not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Ooen Soaces. Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Resources: To conserve open space
and protect natural and scenic resources.
The following administrative. rule (OAR 660~023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement
plan mnendment(P AP A) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the
PAPA affe,.cts a Goal 5 resource For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Grr>J,/ 5 e\ved
, : "'ii;;.)"}::; ..: * t~. I Date nee
St,~ffFirding~.T,March 17,2008' ~ 'l, '3 l\l\l8
, ,~~};age ;1,:' Planner: ~J
"'
"-
resource 'only if
(a) The PAP A creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan
or land use regulation adopted in order to protf;ct:a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b)_ The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
, significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or -
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and fac;tual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in
the amended UGB area. ';-
The subject project area includes Goal 5 resource sites; the Willainette River, a riparian resource
between 1-5 and E. 18th Avenue;,and riparian resourcesin Alton Baker Park (the Canoe Canal). .
Subsections (a) and (~) above are not applicable to this request as'the proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list.of Goal 5 resources, do not ameitd a plan or code provision adopted in ord~r
to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific reqJirements of Goal 5, and do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Regarding subsection (b), the 1:5 Willmnette
, , .. II
Bridge Project is replacement of an existing use in approximately. the same location, even.,
considering the additional, widening of the roadway. Therefore, (~) is not applicable because the
project includes replacement of an existing use, not a new use.
Based on the findings above, Statewide Planning Goal 5 is either not applicable or is met through
complianc"e with the acknowledged local permitting process.
)
Goal 6 - Air. Water and Land Resources Oualitv: To maintain anc! improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of th~ state. '
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. The proposal does not mnend the metropolitan
area's air, water quality or land resource policies. The app!icanq findings show that the City can
reasonably expect that .future development of the site will comply.:with applicable environmental
laws as follows: "
Additionally, regarding air quality, the replacement bridges 'th~mselvesshould have no adverse
impact on air quality because they merely replace an existing facility that has been decommissioned
as being structurally unsafe. Regardless of the potWltialfuture addition 'of 6 lanes, the new bridges
do not necessarily result in more people driving on 1-5. Instead, existing traffic volumes will be
shifted from the detour. bridge to the new, bridges. If thedecomm,issione,d 1-5 bridge is not replaced,
those vehicles would be forced each day onto city streets and county roads not designed for such
!I
trips. The ensuing degradation to the air quality along these alternative routes caused by
unmanageable congestion would be in direct contradiction to the purpose of Goal 6. Even the
. .
potential increase in the number of lanes does not necessarily increase the number of people driving
on I-5",but rather increases continuous traffic movement. Regarding air quality, this goal is met by
the proposed plan mnendments.
Regarding water quality, construction of the replacement bridges and the removal of the
" ,decommissioned and detour bridges will impact water quality by affecting soils and vegetation
. ,"~ ,.,'<~ >c'.' '.i,::"'" . Date Received
4-
:rt:JN 2 9 2008
Planner: B~ '
Staff Findings ~ March.'l7, 2008
Page 15 ,.
(
: '. .~, "
,._,.', _,_,c',
"'\
'.
.'
within the Willmnette River and along the greenway setback. Water quality may also be affected
where impervious surfaces are added along the bridge approaches. Where areas ar~ paved, 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
replacement bridges will result in some new impervious surfaces, overall the project will result in a
net decrease in impervious surface because ODOT will remove the approach roadway for th~ detour
bridge.
The applicant also proposes that water quality impacts will be mitigated through the use of effective
land~based stormwater treatment systems that include measures to preserve and restore mature
vegetation and maximize infiltration. The use 'of construction techniques that include' temporary and
permanent Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control and spill control arid
prevention also can achieve compliance with clean water standards. Oregon Highway Plan 5A.l
directs ODOT to implement Best Management Practices. Based on these findings, water quality will
be maintained and mitigated, consistent with this goal. In addition, through the local permitting
process, Eugene and Springfield can impose appropriate conditions to ensure that Best Management
Practices are employed and that water quality is maintained, subject to applicable approval criteria
and related standards. By doing so, Goal 6 is satisfied.2 '
J
Regarding noise, a project noise technical report was prepared as part of the Environmental
Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from the project
Per the ODOT 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 ~ere
-..
determined to'meet the ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria intwo locations and are
recommend6d as mitigation (see supplemental information, Figures 7-9). The final wall locations
will be determined after public input is completed as part of the NEP A process. Additionally, as
stated on page 13 of the written statement, the applicant proposes the following general measures:
. Continue public involvement through design and construction
. limit work hours
. limit noise
Therefore, in the context of a plan mnendment, the proposed mnendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 6: Additionally, specific construction and operational details willbe
appropriately addressed during local permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria
and related standards. ' . (
Goal 7 - Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life andpropertyfrom natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning progrmns inClude provisions to protect people and
,
2 Currently, there is no stormwater treatment for the decommissioned and detour bridges. Providing water' quality
treatment for the new bridges, which would be required through the applicant's proposed Best Management Practices,
would have a beneficial effect on water quality. The water quality report for the project noted that the amount of runoff
from the bridges would be so minor relative to the volume of flow in the Willamette River that the effect, would be
negligible. " , Date Rer.Ahfeo
I.j::~~;~l~~l~:s ~ ~~:h 117,2008 . }W 2 ~ 70081
Page'16\ { " ;, :; I
1-19 Planner: bJ
:~,~ _ > ." . ~ I
"
"
--'
"
property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthqu;1kes and related hazards, tsunamis
and wildfires. It is not subject to hazards normally associated with wildfires, or tsunamis.
Consistent with this goal, the City of Eugene has adopted provisions regulating development in'
floodplains and floodways, and building codes regulations that address slopes and seismic concerns.
, ,
To the extent that this is relevant to the proposed plan amendmeni,the existing detour bridge does
not meet current seismic .standards. Consistent with this goal, the proposed bridge replacement
project will provide bridges that meet current seismic, safety and ,design standards.'
Additionally, regarding slopes, portions of the project area are id~ntified on the map for Relative
Slope Instability Hazards. The portions of the project site in the Whilmnut Natural Area and
Eastgate Woodlands, and the area southeast ofl-5'andJhe Willan;ette River are identified as
moderate hazard areas. However, both of these areas are proposeq for only temporary staging
locations. The applicant has completed 10 borings on either side ?,fthe river as part ofa
geotechnical investigation related to the temporary detour bridge (three north of the river, seven
south of the river). A geological report (which was notsubmitted;for this application) indicates that
geologicafresources in the project area' consist of fill material, all1.Jvium, and bedrock. The
processes affecting these materials are man-made, such asexcava~ion and grading, and natural.
Since there is an existing bridge, impacts to geological resources y,.ould consist of relatively minor
changes in topography, minor settlement of near-surface materials, possible increase in erosion,
minor changes to the river flow regime and related sediment and ~elated sediment transport, and
potential changes in slope stability (from vegetation removal). These impacts would occur as a
result of excavation, placement of structure imdfills, and clearing::and grading. Impacts related to
,
construction would be temporary, localized changes to river flow regime; stability of partially
- "
constructed slopes; erosion; and resultant sedimentation. The highest risk to lal).dslide would be
slope failure into the Willmnette River; however, considering the low height of the riverbank, such a
failure would be limited to a small area relative to the width ofthe river. The applicant states that
f geotechnical investigations will also be completed during design to determine the best method to
seat foundations and piers' and to reduce effects related to hazards: Additionally, slopes will be
constructed in a manner that reduces potential for erosion or small landslides.
,
)
Therefore, the project would have no permanent effects on geological resources. In the context of a
plan amen"dment, landslide and earthquake hazards are addressed consistent with this goal.
Furthermore, specific construction details will be further reviewed during the local permitting
processes, subject to applicable standards, such as, based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical
investigations should be completed prior to construction to determine the best method to. seat
, foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related to earthqu~es (e.g., lateral spread,
liquefaction). In addition, slopes should be constructed in a mann~r that reduces the potential for
erosion or small landslides. !
-
,
Regarding flooding, portions of the project area are located within the flood way and floodplain of
the Willamette River. As previously stated, both Eugene and Sjlrin,gfield have adopted ordinances
regulating construction within floodways and floodplains. Furtheimore, in response to Metro Plan
. po~icies C.30.~d <;:.31 below, which i~ i~corporated her~in byre\erence, because the l-snate Received
":'.';fWll.larnette.Brglg.ejProJect IS located wlthm a FEMA deSignated regulatory floodway anJ-' 4-- '
Jl:IN2 9 2008
".<, ..,j-.':
SiaffFihctings '," March 17, 2008
Page 17
.,,,':
:~?f':J~'~f~,~,;\ ;,.
PlanneDJ3J
floodplain, the design of the replacement bridges must satisfy the regulations set forth in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP requires that any modifications.that cause,a
rise in the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs, which corresponds to water surface elevations associated
with the 100-year flood event) must be approved by FEMA.
-.
Two pier location scenarios are currently under consideration (Proposed Option A and Proposed.
Option B, see written statement page 9). Based on preliminary modeling, Option A would result in
an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the 100-year flood event. For the .Environmental
Assessment, 'the hydraulic conditions of the 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project were analyzed using the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' HEC-RAS model. Natural, existing and proposed conditions (with
pier locations Options A and B) were modeled. Conservative assumptions regarding pier size were'
used for this modeling. Refined design of the concepts and further hydraulic analysis will allow
confirmation that the proposed project will result in no rise of the' base flood elevation.
Option B would result in a decrease of 0.54 feet for the 1 OO-year flood event, which is consistent
with the no-rise standard and consistent with this goal. While Option 'A shows an increase of 0:02,
which stafffmds does not meet the no-rise requirement, this is not a detailed analysis and modeling
will be run again when the design is refined for the permitting process in order to meet the no-rise
requirement. A FEMA "no'rise" certification will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any
construction or structures within floodways/special flood hazard areas that are outside of rights-of-
way, within Eugene. In addition, the applicant states that the no-rise condition is also a requirement
of ODOT 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 construction. and operational details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting
processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards. - (
Therefore, in the context of a plan mnendment, the preliminary no-rise data, the landslide
information, and findings above, the proposed plan ameridments are consistent with Statewide
. Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision ofthos~ facilities in non-urban areas of the state. East Alton Baker Park is
located to the east and west ofT-5 right-of-way, which includes recreation, bicycle and pedestrian
paths and the canoe canal (utilized by kayakers). The portion of the park that is'west ofI-5 in
Eugene is now called the Whilmnut Natural Area and the portion of the park east ofI-5 in
Springfield is called the Eastgate Woodlands of the Whilmnut Natural Area (abbreviated here as"
Eastgate Woodlands) and these areas will be referred to as such for the remainder ofthesefihdings
unless otherwise indicated. The applicant notes that the demolition and construction of the bridges
. ';wil\;tak.~place;,w,ithjn the 1-5 right-of-way, which is not part ofthepark; therefore the.rfl\l~.lfP~ :
., bridges'willnot're'move or increase recreational opportunities at the park. However,re~fD:lteCel\fad
., ' {Uflil' I' "
;,:,1,;, 'I' , ' '~ 292008 .
Staff Findings - March 17,2008
..; ,.'.
Pag"e 18 ' ," .
, .
I-'2,i
. fl'
'.
Planner:
~J
detour bridge will include removal of fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of Eastgate
Woodlands. The temporary easement obtained by ODOT to do this work requires rehabilitation of
the area within 5 years of completion ofllie permanent bridges. Staff finds that this easement will
ensure that recreational use of this area will return to pre-project conditions. '
Additionally, during construction the park will be temporarily affected. Through the other local
permitting processes (Willmnette Greenway permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay review,'
Willamette Greenway setback, etcetera) construction impacts will be required to be minimized
through conditions of approval that would preserve bicycle, pede,strian and boater safety, and to
maintain consistency with. operational provisions in the East Alton Baker Park Plan (which includes
the Whilmnut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands). The,applicant further states that public \
access to the Willamette River will continue to be provided through ODOT's right-of-way under the.
bridges therefore public access to the river will not be affected (Written statemeni page 49, Metro
Plan Policy D.9). The applicant also states that although the bicyc.le/pedestrian pathways may be
impacted during construction, the application will provide a continuous route across ODOT right-
of-way for the' bicycle/pedestrian pathways that will be maintained on both the north and the south
sides of the river during construction (written statement, page. 61;Willakenzie Area Plan,
Neighborhood Design Element- Willmnette Greenway, Use Management Standard 2). Additionally,
specific construction and operationar'details regarding public acc~ss and recreational impacts will .
be appropriately addressed during local permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria
and related standards. '
Comments were received stating that (to summarize) the bridge provides a crossing a crossing of
Franklin Boulevard and the railroad and provides an opportunity for those crossing to be made
available to pedestrians and bicyclists, and since the replacement lis not accommodating such a
crossing,"the applicant has insufficient analysis regarding the provision of adequate access to Alton
Baker Park (see Attachment D). As discussed in more detailunde'r the Metro Plan Transportation
Element;Policy F.14 below which is incorporated herein by reference, the applicant proposes a
continuous route across OD0T right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways to be maintained
on'both.the north and the south sides of the river during construction. This mitigates for the
temporary impacts to the existing bicycle/pedestrian pathways and ensures that connections
between existing paths and to near-by Knickerbocker.Bridge are maintaineq. In ~e context of the
proposed plan mnendments, this adequately addresses access for bicyclists and pedestrians as these
are the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities affected by the proposed amendments.
. "
Based on the findings above, in the context of a plan.mnendment,~'the proposal will not impact the
provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect acce,ss to existing or future public
recreational facilities. The mnendments are therefore consistent ~ith Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Develoomenl: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
, variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 66P DivisiOl19) requires that the City
"[p ]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and service
" :u: leyelsf?r",a"V,a;!,'e,~,ty ~f in.dustri~l; and comrriercial uses consistent with plan polici~s[.]" Among ~her .
" .thmg~,thf !u)~:rf9Ulres that CItIes complete an "EconomIc OppoI1unltJes AnalYSIS."IDate<ttteceIVed
'01' , 4-
t, 'I, I :: IT;;,. , Jl:IN- 2 9 2008
Staff Findings - March 17,2008
t " ..Page):?
'. ~ .~
"'l<~_ (.'
'~'l !
Planneri-SJ
0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and
Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR 660-009-0025 requires that
cities designate industrial and commercial 'lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR
660-009-00 I 0(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9
apply "at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660-
009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations oflands in excess of two. acres
to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan mnendment, it
must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstrate that the proposed
mnendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660 Division 9; or (b) mnend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed
mnendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9; or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent
with the requirements of Divi~ion9.
In the context of OAR 660-009-0010(4), the EUllene Commercial Lands Studv rECLS) is
,acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. '[he
EeLS constitutes the City's obligation under OAR 660 Division 9. However, since the 1-5
Willamette Bridge Project is occurring in approximately the smne location of the existing bridges,
within existing right-of-way, existing right-of-way easements, or temporary staging areas (withi.n
existing right-of-way or park property), OAR 660-009-0010(4).does not apply because the proposed
mnendment will not remove any land from the' commercial land supply. Therefore, the mnendments
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housinll: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land
for needed housing Units. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 10 (OAR 660
Division 8) states that "the mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs
projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy
housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local
buildable lands inventory must document the mnount of buildable land in each residential plan '
designation." The comprehensive plan map for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagrmn. The
1999 EUllene-Soringfield Metrooolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Studv (RLS) is
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 10 and its Administrative Rule.
As previously stated,-the proposed plan'mnendment will accommodate a bridge replacement project
that will occur in approximately the same location as the existing bridges, within existing right-of-
way, existing. right-of-way easements, or temporary staging areas (that are within right-of-way or
park property): Therefore, the inventory of residential land will not be impacted and thus Statewide
Planning Goal I 0 is not applicable. ' .
Goal II - Public Facilities and Services:' To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
.. . The~e~, ~ffe~ted b! the amendments is located inside the City limits of bot? .the City o~~~ C ocei' red
. and'the'Clty ofSpnngfield. The proposed mnendments would allowdemohtlOn and rep~~tlQl'O ,
, ' ';.1',..: ','. ~ 292008
Staff Findings - March 17, 2008 J
.'. ;-". Page,20 P\anne. r: B
1'-23
the temporary 1-5 bridge and reconstruction of the roadway apprmiches to the bridges, which are all
public facilities that-are acknowledged in the Oregon Highway Plan and the local regional
transportation plan (TransPlan) as nec,<ssary public facilities and services. Replacemeni of the
temporary bridge with permanent bridges that meets current seisn'\ic standards ensures. that this
public facility continues to safely serve the area. The provision ofthese amendments does not
significantly affect the planning or development of future public facilities or services. Therefore,
the mnendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal I I.
"
Goal 12 - Transoortation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
I .
transportation system.
, .
\
,
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule::(TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012"0000, etseq. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy fram~work through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660-012-0060) states that when land use changes,
including mnendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent-with the identified function, capaCity and performance standards
(level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility: TransPlan, which implements Goal
12, identifies 1-5 (includingthe 1-5 bridge) as an existing. transportation facility.
Determination ofSignificmit Effect
The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned transportation facilities will
experience a significant effect as a result of the proposed pIan'mnendment, and defines what
constitutes a significant effect.
r
OAR 660-012-0060(1) Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
"'
As stated in the following findings, the plan amendments propose no significant effect on any
planned or existing facilities under OAR 660-012-0060(l)(a), (b) or (c). OAR 660-012"0060(1)
Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments states the following: '
I,
. r ,
(iJ Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowle,dged comprehensive plan,- or a
land use regulation would significantly affect an existing o~planned transportation facility,
the local governmentshall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to caP9city ratio, etc.) of the facility. A
plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects aJransportationfacility ifit
would:
\
(af\Change the functional classification of an existing or plbnned transportation facility
(exclusive of correCtion of map errors in an adopted plan); .
(b) Change standards implementing afunctional classification system; or
t,.(-I ":. ".r.it.:j ,~,'(,~I"I d' '11 h h Ii . I I 'fi . . f .. nate Received
: ":"1; :'Fhe,propos."d':5!l!.lt":n ment WI not c ange t e unchona c assl !CatIOn 0 an eXlstmg or pranne~
',' . .' ' M 29 2008
~'-i;'ri : ..: ".:'l .'.
'Staff Findings - March 17,2008
Pa/?:.21 "
",'
Planner:'BJ
1-24
'. "
j
transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system.
'.
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
, system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of deve'lopment that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with thefunctional classification of an existing
or planned transportation facility; ~
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or. planned transportation facility below
the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
'. comprehensive plan; or '
(C) Worsen the performance of an ex/sting or planned transportation facility that
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
The proposed mnendment will allo",,: for the construction of bridges to replaceexistingbridge
facilities that have been decommissioned as being structurally unsafe. The replacement bridges will
be constructed in appr!=,ximately the smne location as the decommissioned bridge. Since 2004
(when the primary bridges were decommissioned as unsafe), a (temporary) detour bridge has
provided 1-5 traffic access over the Willmnette River. Once the proposed bridges are constructed,
existing traffic volumes currently using the detour bridge will be .shifted from the detour bridge to
the new bridges. Construction of the proposed bridges will simply reroute traffic from the current
detour bridge to the (permanent) replacement bridges allowed by the proposed amendment.
, While the replacement bridges will be designed and construCted to accommodate six lailes of travel,
because 1-5 is only four lanes, the bridges will be striped for four lanes. Until 1-5 is widened to six
lanes, the bridges will remain striped for four lanes. Designing and constructing the bridges to
allow for six lanes of travel is intended to accommodate futUre traffic needs traveling along 1-5; the
additional 1-5 traffic will be generated by future development throughout the State of Oregon and,
because 1-5 is a major interstate, throughout the United States. The construction of the replacement
bridges, whether striped for four lane or six lanes, does not generate any additional vehicular trips, it
simply provides passage over the Willamette River. When the bridges are eventually'striped for six
lanes (to be made consistent with 1-5), the additional bridge capacity will increase the performance
and function ofI-5, not worsen it.
~
Accordingly, the proposed amendment will not allow land uses, or levels of development that.will
result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of
an existing or planned transportation facility-under OAR 660-012-0060(l)(c)(A).
Further, the proposed amendments will not reduce the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the"TSP or
comprehensive plan under (1)( c )(B), or worsen the performance of an existing or planned
'. ,\!ransp~rtationfacility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum accepta~ t R' " d'
performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan under (1)(c)(C). ua e eCSl/e
~ 292008
.~ .~.: '" '
"\"
Staff Findings - Mar,ch 17,2008
Page'22 .' . -'.
,. .
I~25 i.
Planner: BJ
"
'\
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed amendment will not significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility.
OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination ofTransportafion System Plans
OAR 660-012-0015(1) directs ODOT to prepare.and adopt a state transportation system plan that
identifies a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified state
transportation needs. The Oregon Transportation Commission has done that through adoption of the
Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and modal plans, including the Oregon Highway Plan. The OTP
includes policies to increase the efficient movement of people and goods for commerce and
production of goods and services that is coordinated with regional and local plans. It emphasizes
managing the existing transportation system effectiyely and impr()ving that system before adding
new filcilities. II
) " .
The applicant notes'that the OTP also promotes a safe, efficient; and reliable freight system to
support economic vitality. The OHP identifies r--5 as an interstate highway within the state's
roadway network. That highway necessarily includes a bridge over the Willmnette River in
Eugene/Springfield. OAR660-012-00I,5(2) and (3) require that regional and.local TSPs be
consistent with the state TSP. Transplan currently recognizes the importance ofI-5 to the region.
B~cause the replacement bridges are necessary to maintaining 1-5; by approving the proposed plan
mnendments, all plans will remain consistent and the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied.
I
Based on the above findings, the proposal is consistent with Statdvide Planning Goa112.
,
,
/
(.
Goal 13 - Enen,v Conservation: To conserve energy.
, ,
Statewide Planning Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed and controlled "so as to maximize the
conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic jJTinciples." Goal 13 is directed at
the development of local energy policies,and implementing provisions and does not 'state
requirements with respect to other types of land use decisions. It is not clear that the goal has any
bearing on a site-specific decision such as the one at issue. There is no implementing rule that
clarifies the requirements of Goal 13. To the extent that 'Goall3 c.ould be applied to the proposed
plan amendmentS, the proposal is consistent with Goal 13; the 1-5: Willamette Bridge project is
located in the same location as the existing and previous bridges abd will continue to make efficient'
use of energy with safe, direct and efficient access though the area;. .
.,
Comments were received that, in summary, the applicant fails to c(,msider the conservation of
energy by any l11eans other than that of maximizing the efficiency '9f car and truck. traffic.
Specifically, failure to consider any provision for incorporating bicycle traffic into the crossing does
not maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, particularly,petroleum energy. However,
given that Goal 13 is directed at developing local energy conservation policies, it is determined that
Goal 13 is not a means to require a specific project to add a bicycl~ and pedestrian component.
~
,).
" '.:
(
Planner~2BJ
Qoal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
,
The mnendments do not affect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the project area is
centrally located to the Metro Plan and is entirely within the Eugene-Springfield UGB. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willmnette River Greenwav: To protect: conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
'. River as the Willamette River Greenway. '.
Portions of the project area are within the boundaries of the Willmnette River Greenway. As found
under Goal 2 above, which is incorporated herein by referehce, a goal 15 exception is required by
Policy D.ll of the Metro Plan and the applicant meets the requirements for an exception to Goal 15.
Based on these findings, the proposal complies with Statewide Planning Goal 15 as excepted.
Goal 16 throul!h 19 - Estuarine Resources. Coastal Shorelands. Beaches and Dunes. and Ocean
Resources: .
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property affected
by these aniendments. Therefore, staff concurs with the applicant that these goals are'not relevant
and the mnendments will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro pian internally inconsistent. .
'-'
The applicant proposes to mnend the Metro Plan text of Policy D.ll, to allow the placement of fill
within the Willmnette River greenway for the construction of the 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project. As
found below, this text mnendment will not create an internal conflict with the remainder of the
Metro Plan. The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro Plan text
mnendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. To the extent that
they'may be applicable, the applicant's findings are also incorporated herein by reference.
The following Metro Plan polices are applicable to this request:
B. Economic Element
)
H18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to
industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
'implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan.
'.
While the expressed language of this policy may not be mandatory, the applicant's findings are
provided as further support for the proposed amendments. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5
Willmnette River bridge with two new bridges, and associated improvements, will maintain the
access, mobility, and freight movement capabilities that the decommissioned bridge and temporary
:' qetollrbri.dg~.,h~~e~provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained along the interstate hig~te R ...'
. 'r.~, . "j," .", fl.-IrlAl S~~Wed
StaffFindings'-March 17,2008 --!ft!r;.::. ~~.....
Page 24 " , I"..,
1'-2'7 ~, :,..r' PI
B.r";11'.:',,,," .
.. ','" ,,,, ~
-,
, .
system through Eugene and SpringfIeld, the repla~ement bridges 'will help provide convenient
access to industrial and commercial areas on connectingJoads ,consistent with this policy.
C. Environmental Resources Element
C8 Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development
on hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict developmen{ in wetlands in order to prevent
erosion and protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values,
vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas.'
C 9 Ecu:h city shall complete a separate study to meet its requIrements under the Goal 5 Rule for
wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat within the UGB. Lane County and the
respective city jointly will adopt the inventory and protection measures for the area outside
the city limits and inside the UGB.
Cl0 Local governments shall encourage further study (by speqialists) of endangered and
Jhreatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area.
Cll Loca,l governments shall p;'Otect endangered and threate~f1d plant and wildlife species, as
recognized on a. legally adopted statewide list, after notic~ and opportunity for public input.
. . r
'\
These policies are directed to the local governments of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and
not necessarily the applicant. However, they are applicable to the extent that the cities of Eugene
and Springfield and Lane County have adopted regulations to protect these resources, and that the
applicant will be required to apply for applicable permits pursuant to those local requirements
(Eugene's Willamette Greenway permit and Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone, and
Springfield;s 75-riparian setback review). ' I ,,'
C 23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing
and future streets and highways with potential to exceed general highway noise levels
, )
shall include consideration of mitigating measures, such as acoustical building
modificatio~s, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning. The application of these
mitigating measures must be balanced with other design qonsiderations and housing
costs.
"
~
Comments were also received regarding the noise abatement walls and limiting noise from the
project. Since the project is not a "new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing and
futures streets and highways..." but is rather the reverse, a highway in the vicinity of existing
residential development, this policy is not applicable.Furtherm~re, the highway is replacing an
existing highway in approximately the smne location. In the event that this policy is found
applicable, the applicant's findings are incorporated to demonstrate consistency. As previously
discussed under.Goal 6 above, a project noise technical report was prepared as part of the ,"
Environmental Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts resuiting from
the project. Per the ODOT Noise Manual (June 1996) analysis procedures, noise mitigation
i, ')If1ea:s.ure{were.evaluated to reduce noise levels to nearby residen~es as a result of the project. Noise
w~~!.s, ~e~e d,~~~l}TIined to meet the ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criterif)Me Received
>l..t'" I, , ",\'1 . .
:j ~,'Staff F\~~(l)g;:- ~~~1117, 2008
" 'Page2S.; " . ".
~, ,~. i._ '
JUN 29 2008
Planner:;8U
'~\:',: '!"-
" ;
,.
"
locations and are recommended as mitigation (see supplemental information, Figures 7-9). The final
wall locations will be determined after public input is completed as part of the NEPAprocess.
Additionally, as stated on page 13 ofthe written statement, the applicant proposes the following
general measures: ' ) ,
o Continue public involvement through design and construction
o limit work hours
o limit noise
Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied.
C.26 Local Governments shall continue to monitor, to plan fOr, and to enforce applicable air and
water quality standards and shall cooperate in meeting applicable federal, state and local
air and water quality standards.
c
. J
As previously stated under Goal 6, which is incorporated herein by reference, it is not anticipated
that the replacement bridges will have a permanent adverse impact on air quality as the bridges are
replacing an existing bridge. The applicant is proposing several measures including site preparation,
site construction, coordination and post development measures discussed under Metro Plan Policy
E.2, which is incorporated herein by reference, to dduce and mitigate impacts to water quality,
consistent with this policy. In addition, water quality impacts will be further reviewed for
compliance with local standards under the local permitting process for Willmnette Greenway
permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone and the 75-foot riparian setback ,and under the
NEP A Environmental Assessment, subject to applicable requirements.
C.30 Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulations, developmimt shall be prohibited infloodways ifit could result in an increased
flood level. The floodway is the channel of a river or other water course and III-C-16 the
adjacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-chance flood in any
given year. .
C. 31 When'development is allowed to occur in the floodway or floodway fringe, local regulations
shall control such development in order to minimize the potential danger to life and ,~
property. Within the UGB, development should result in in-filling of partially developed
land. Outside the UGB, areas affected by the floodway andfloodway fringe shall be
protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open space and
recreational potential, and their value to water resources.
C.32 Local governments shall require site-specific soil surveys and geologic studies where
potimtial problems exist. When problems are identified, local governments shall require
special design considerations aY{d construction measures be taken to ojJset the soil and
geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments, and
environmentally-sensitive areas.
"\
Regarding Policy C.30 and C.31, as discussed under Statewide Planning Goal 7, Natu~H~ar~ eivej
which is incorporated herein by reference, the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project is partiall\JihQdt\eC .
c':&ithin'a,FEMt:designated regulatory floodway and floodplain. Therefore, the design ofth~ 29 2008
. ~ -,
Planner: BJ
Staff Fihdi~is.J March 17, 2008
Page 26
1.':;29 '
replacement bridge must satisfy the regulations ~et forth in the National Flood Insurance Program
-', (NFIP). The NFIP requires that any modifications that cause a ris~ in the Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs, which corresponds to water surface elevations associated with the 100-year flood event)
must be approved by FEMA. The no-rise condition is also a requi'rement of ODOT for any bridge
replacement project.
,
Consistent with C.31, both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction
within floodplains and floodways; City of Eugene FEMA "no-rise" certification for any
construction or structures within floodways/special flood hazard ~eas; and City of Springfield Type
I permit to allow any construction in the floodplains or floodways:within Springfield. Comments
from the Eugene Floodplain Manager note that a FEMA no-rise certificate would only be required
through the City of Eugene for construction (fill) or structures within the floodway or floodplain
that are outside of the right-of-way. The proposal includes tempoiary staging areas outside of the '
ODOT right-of-way; portions of the Whilamut Natural Area and ~astgate Woodlands, and ODOT
and Lane County property both located southeast of 1-5 and the Willamette RiveL For these areas,
prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory flood~ay, ODOT wilI.be required to
obtain a "no-rise" certification stating that the development will not impact the pre-project (before
the temporary bridge) base flood elevation elevations, floodway elevations and floodway data
widths. This certification must be signed by a professional engineh and supported by technical data
consistent with current FEMA standards.
I.,
Based on th,e preliminary modeling, the proposed pier location options would result in the
following~ Option A would result in an,increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the 100-
year flood event and, Option B would result in a decrease of 0.54 feet for the 100, year flood event.
Option B, including a decrease in base flood elevation, is consistent with the no-rise and Policies
C.30 and C.31. Option A's preliminary analysis shows an'increase of 0.02 base flood elevation,
which does not meet the no-rise requirement. Ho'wever, a detailed'nocrise analysis has not been
submitted_and the modeling will be run again to meet the no-rise requirement when the design is
refined for the permitting process. Furthermore, ODOT requires it~ bridges to meet the no-rise
requirement. Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, these.policies are met. Specific
construction and operational details will be appropriately addressed during local and state'
'\, '. I
permitting processes; subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards.
Regarding Policy C.32, as noted under Goal 7, portions of the project area proposed for temporary
staging areas are identified as moderate hazard risk areas on the p1ap identifying Relative Slope
Instability_Hazards in Eugene. However, while this information m~y guide the City in adopting
code revisions, it'does not apply directly to land use applications as it is not adopted as .refinement
plan or as codified land use criteria. Additionally, the applicant' notes that based on the earthquake
hazard, geotechnical investigations can be completed prior to con~truction to determine the best
method to seat foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related to earthquakes (e.g., lateral
spread, liquefaction). In addition, slopes can be constructed in a mlumer that.reduces the potential
for erosion or small landslides.
Based on the findings above; in the context of a plan mnendment, the proposed plan.mnendments
are consisii:n! \'(it.\,\these policies.
""~ ,; <1-" ""', ..J,~):~ {::,...j ,
. ~ !~ f ..... ftt-s,!" , to....,'. '
, , '
..,. ,
~rlr:.. 'j~ .\ . lfj "
Staff Findings ... March 17,2008
,Page. ~7 . .
~.,!
Date Received
4-
JtJtt 2 9 2008
~'" '
'. .
Planneri-SJ.
n. WilIamette River Greenwav. River Corridors. and Waterwavs Element
D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the
Willamette River Greenway.
The applicant proposes that the public access connecting to the Willamelte River Greenw,{ly will
continue to be provided through ODOT'Sright-of-way under the 1-5 bridges, therefore public access
to the Willamette River Greenway will not be permanently affected. As noted under Goal 8
Recreational Need above, which is incorporated'herein by reference, the applicant states that"a
continuous route across ODOT right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways will be maintained
on both the north and the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61,
Willakenzie Area Plan, Neighborhood Design Element- WilImnette Greenway, Use Management
Standard 2). Therefore, in the context.of a plan amendment, this policy is met. Additionally, these
specific construction and operational details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting'
processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards.
)
D.ll The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water-dependent transportation-
facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback. '
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway wasapprovedfor
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) I-5 right of way crossing the Willamette
River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line, for purpose of constructing a
temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use
Approval (Springfield Journal SHR 2003-00115) andremoving the temporary detour bridge
after completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the crlteria.of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2; Part Il(c) for a 'reasons' exception; and
pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text,
Policy #D.ll. Chapter IlL Section D.
As discussed under Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.ll, the applicant is requesting an
exception to Goal 15 for reasons outlined unde~ OAR 660-004-0022. An exception is warranted per
the standards set forth in OAR 660-004-0020. Therefore, the above Metro Plan text for Polic-y D.ll
must be amended to acknowledge this Goal 15 exception. Accordingly, the following text
mnendment is proposed, with old text strode sut and new text in bold:
:'.n exception to Statev,ojde Pler,w.n~ll? \\']iE:rr:~tte River Greenway v:ai:2.F;;~;)Yed for
n n ~ 'fT- --~ Ftatisfl EGgnT) I <: I'-h' -f\-'-y "I---'-- '1:" nTillamette
~regon vepm.men, 0 ,aHOY;) ~ j '''' tor ,_ c V"O",'" . ," ..
RW:I a..-1<I Y.it.hHHR: '}!]Iamett: rci.\':~ Greenway Setbac.:, ~;n~, for pnrp;)se of cOflstrocting
a temperc:r:,' .4etiiaI h;:lge, implemellting the cOflditi"n, ;mp;)sed on the Discretienm{ ~5e
A:i3t:r3\'a1 (Springfield Journcl ~Im 2~rl E) :;;;:1 remo,..ing tile temperzr:; .4et"~ :-.:.ige
~omp;Jtion of tfl" p<<u...dlellt replacement bridge. Tlli: exception satis5es :l:j criteria' of
, . Oregon ,^.iminis:rati...e Rule (~^R) 560 004 0022(5) Willamette Greenway; tnee)[ception
requirements of O,^.R 660 004 0020 Gsal 2, Pm: II(et4'er :: 'r:aJons' exceptie~; u.j
'.' . , ' par~uaflt to..()..\P. 560 004 001~, i3 kd:J' .dopted a: 2.<' z.ri.~lldment to the Metro PI~-eKt,.. ',ve1"
,,-. \w'~.'>Pohc5: tD.I;I;~:r III, ~~ctIon D. ' Date l1eve u
';jr" :;:; ~\:I,' . ~29 Z008
Staff Findings - March 17,2008
];~3~ag~':'~'I' ,,',. P\anner: 46 J
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamett~ 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 CailOe Canal and within
the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line. The exception authorizes construction
aru:Jlater removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour
bridges; construction of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction ofthe roadway
approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the projeCt area; and
completion of any required mitigation of project impacts. In association with these
tasks, the exception further authorizes..within the Willamette River Greenway Setback
Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill
within a temporary slope easement east of 1-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), Willamette Greenway, and the
exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part II(c) for a "reasons"
exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to
the Metro Plan text, Policy #11, Chapter 111, Section D.
'\ .
The proposed text mnendment replaces the stand-alone paragraph under Policy D.ll regarding the
temporary bridge. Staff concurs with the applicant's proposed Metro Plan text amendment to Policy
D .11 and finds that with this text amendment and Goal 15 exception granted under Goal 2 above,
, Policy D.1-1 will be satisfied. ~.
,
E. Environniental Design Element
J
E.2 Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage-ways shall be 'protected and
retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those
natural features, This policy does not preclude increasing their conveyance capacity in an
environmentally responsible manner.
Bridge construction and demolitio'n, including construction and removal of associated temporary
work platfomls, will impact riparian vegetation within the greenway. '
Construction is proposed within existing ODQT rights-of-ways and easements, with. the exception
of temporary staging areas. As discussed above'under Goal 8 Recreational Need, removal of the
detour bridges will include removal of fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of the'
Whilmnut Natural Area. OD.OT has obtained a temporary easement to do this' work which requires
,
rehabilitation of the area within 5 years of completion of the permanent bridges. Construction best
management practices will be implemented to miniinize the effects of construction activities.
Disturbed areils will be restored and ODOT will work with the community throughout the design
and construction process "to get input and advice on ways to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts.
" .., )
<;' .
~.~. ,
· ,{>;~co~~in~t6' t.he applicant, a species list provided by ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heri\~i R .
.,." " ,.' . UtUe ecelved
" ,,,l. 4-- '
!.:'~ Sta,ffFindin~:~N~~ch 17,2008 Jt:I1\f 2 92008
,":' ,page,29., . _'J '
'~;-'--.'..; 1, Planner: BJ2
Information Center) indicates that there are no federal or state-listed Endangered Species Act (ESA)
terrestrial wildlife species known to reside within the project area. There are no known federal or
state ESA -listed plant species or plant habitats have been identified within the project area. Two
salmonid populations listed under the ESA are documented as occurring within the reach of file
Willmnette River that flows through the project area:
o Upper Willmnette River spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and critical habitat-
federally threatened - FT. . ,
o Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus canfluentus) D(stinct Population Segment (DPS) and
critical habitat - FT.
ODOT will coordinate with Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife through the design pro~ess to '
identifY opportunities to minimize habitat disturbance. To avoid and minimize potential impacts to
fish and wildlife species habitat during and after construction activities, all applicable OTIA III
" .
State Bridge Delivery PrograriJ EPS will be implemented to reduce the extent of direct and indirect
impacts to habitat. These include:
o Minimize effects to natural stremn and floodplain by keeping the work area to'the smallest
footprint needed.
o ' Prepare 'and implement a plan to prevent construction debris from dropping into the_
Willmnette River and to remove materials that may drop with a minimum disturbance'to
'aquatic habitat. .
0' Prepare site restoration plans for upland, wetland, and streambank areas to include native
plant species and noxious weed abatement techniques, and use large wood and' rock as
components of stremnbed protection treatments.
o Flag boundaries of clearing limits and sensitive areas to be avoided during construction.
o Coordinate with Willmnalane Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Parks and Open
Space Division regarding sensitive areas in the Whilmnut Natural Area arid Eastgate -
Woodlands that should be a~oided during construction.
o . Restore and revegetate disturbed areas.
ODOT also proposes (written statement, page 13) to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts of this
project, consistent with this policy, by utilizing, the following general.measures mnongst others:
o Continue public involvement through design and construction
o Plan traffic management to keep all travel ':lodes open and safe during construction -
o Limit work hours
o Restore/enhance affec~ed areas
o Limit project noise
Public comment was received expressing support for these measures, especially limiting project
noise and work hours, especially for pile driving activities.
In addition, specific design details will be reviewed and conditioned to minimize enviro~~la.!. R ;', d
impacts dliringfederal and local permitting processes, subject to applicable approval crittJA~ eCRI. Ie
related standards. The applicant proposes that the project will meet the OTIA III Environment~ .
, ~~ " " ~. . ' '<:ouN 2';j 2008
. , 'I'" ''''Ii' . 'r, fl-,tD '
..;~', ..~..' - ~'~"
Planner: BJ,
,
Staff Eindings.,'-- March 17,2008
Page 3'0
1-33
to-.I'
. {'-"
. ,
~ ~ ;.:'
I
Performance Standards (EPS) in order to satisfY the requirements of the programmatic
, environmental permits that apply to the statewide bridge progrmn. These performance standards
define the level of effect that a project may have upon the environment, thereby limiting or avoiding
impacts to. the environment through the use of proper planning, design, and construction activities.
To avoid fish and wildlife species and minimize temporary impacts from construction activities, all
applicable OTIA III State Bridge-Delivery'Progrmn EPS will be implemented to reduce the extent
of direct and indirect impacts to fish and wildlife species. Effects to water resources during ,
construction and operation of the project will be minimized through the implementation of
applicable mitigation measures in the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Progtmn EPS. It is noted that
,
with regard to pier locations shown on page 9 of the application, Option-B indicates a pier closer to
the Mill Race, while Option A shows a pier closer to the Willmnette River, however, no specific
, design is being reviewed at this time in the context of a plari mnendment. Local permitting
processes include Willmnette Greenway permit and Water Resources Conservation Overlay for
Eugene, and a 75-foot ripanan setback review for Springfield. Natural vegetation, natural water
features, and drainage-ways shall be protected and retained to the fllaximum extent practical,
consistent with these permitting processes:
Staff finds that this adequately addresses protection of natural vegetation, natural water features,
and drainage-ways in the context of thc proposed plan 'mnendments. Additionally, these specific
construction and operational details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting,
processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and,related standwds.
E. 4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located:in a manner that preserves and
enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of
identity.
, The replacement bridges will be located within thesmne ODOT right-of-way where the
. decornmissioned bridge is lqcated, an area already utilized by transportation infrastructure. The
proposal also includes a red~ction in the total number of piers, a reduction in the number of piers in
the Willmnette River, and review of bridge design options (based on aesthetic and budgetary
considerations) through a separate,public process; all of'Yhich should contribute to a positive visual
impact, consistent with this policy.
Additionally, impacted riparian areas and other lands within the greenway setback will be protected
during the later permitting process through the imposition of approval conditions as necessary to
comply with applicable approval criteria and related standards. Specifics of the bridge design can be '
considered during the plan mnendment process or, for Springfield, through the Discretionary Use
Approval process as provided in SDC 3.3-325 25.050 and 5.9-120. Conceptual designs are being
addressed as part of the federal draft environmental process that precedes local land use decision-
making. Additionally, as notedabove in the discussion of Statewide Planning Goal I, the public is
involved in this process. Among other things, ODOT established a Community Advisory Group
((::AG) composed of representatives of local neighborhood associations, parks departments (City of
Eugene and Willamalane Park and Recreation District), the Citizen Planning Committee for the
Whilmnut-Natural Area, chmnbers of commerce, and the University of Oregon that 'h1J'i\~in . '
involved il1;the,ci~velopment of the project and will continue to be,involved during seWi:ll:had1tecelved
:Jjridgetype,- its design, and construction. A- .
. . .JW 2 ~ 2008
""J\ j' .",'
Staff Findings ~ March 17,2008
.' Page3!
.-~ ~~
". "
Planner.: BJ
'1,34
Comments were received regarding concerns with traffic during the construction period along
Martin Luther King Blvd, in the Alton Baker Park/Autzen Stadium area, and North Walnut Path
where there will be large construction vehicles entering and exiting for several years. As noted
above, the applicant has proposed limiting work hours and project noise as well as sound walls.
Conceptually, this is consistent with this policy. Furthermore, these concerns are more appropriately'
, ,
addressed during the local'permitting processes where a construction management plan and detailed
site plan will be reviewed in detail for minimizing these types of impacts.
F. Transoortation Element.
As previously mentioned, corriments were received stating that the applicant's responses to Goals I
and 2 of the Metro Plan, Transportation Element, do not demonstrate that these goals have been
met. To summarize, Goals I and 2 support a transportation system that supports choices in modes of
travel that will reduce reliance on the automobile and that enhances quality of life and economic
opportunity by being balanced, accessible, efficient, safe, interconnected, environmentally . '
responsible, etcetera (see Metro Plan pages III-F-l and 2). According to the Metro Plan (page 1:4), a
goal is "a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of the people of the community for
the future of the community. A goal may never be completely attainable, but is used as a pointto
strive for." A goal is not something for which an application is measured against. Whereas a policy,
which is a "statement adopted as part of the Metro Plan to provide a consistent course of action,
moving the communitY toward attainment of its goal," can be used for determining consistency with
the Metro Plan. As such, compliance with the goals, as measured through application of the
policies, is determined as follows:
F 10 Protect and manage existing andfuture transportation infrastructure.
Consistent with this policy, the 1-5 WillmnetteBridge Project replaces a structurally deficient bridge
with two new permanent bridges built to current seismic standards using construction methods
meeting environmental requirements for permanent (rather than temporary) structures, and
associated improvements, to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes and weight loads. This
project reflects an effort to manage and protect 1-5, which is an essential part of the region's ll.nd
state's existing. transportation infrastructure, consistent with this policy.
The applicant further notes, in response to the smne. policy in TransPlan (TSI System-Wide Policy
I), that this policy calls for the protection and management of existing transportation facilities in a
way that sustains their long-term capacity and function. 1-5 is an existing transportation facility
whose function is that of an interstate highway providing connections to major cities, regions of the
state and other states. As an interstate highway, 1-5 also serves as a major freig~t route. TransPlan
recognizes 1-5 as a single facility that includes a connection over the Willamette River. Faihfre to
replace the decommissioned 1-5 bridge and temporary detour bridge with new permanent bridges
capable of sustaining 1-5's long-term capacity and functions would be inconsistent with TransPlan
and this policy.
,. '.
", F'14" A'dd~fs~ th'e n:~bility and safety needs o(motorists, transit user:s, bicyclists, P~e;Jftr.!nR~teived
I' ty:~ n~ei1s'ofemergency vehIcles when plannmg and constructmg roadway sylUiil t:.
.'" ,\ ". " ", ," " ~ 29 2008
Staff Findings T MarCh 17, 2008
Page 32 . PI B J
I-35 anner~~,
;-
I'
.
improvements.
, . -
'As described in TmnsPlan. the intent of this policy is to support the design and' construction of
systems and facilities that accommodate multiple modes. However, it also supports consideration of
the needs of emergency vehicles in the design and construction of system improvements. The
applicant states that 1-5 across the Willarnette River is an existing transportation facility identified
in Transplan and the OHP. Because the original 1-5 bridge is structurally deficient and had to be
decommissioned, new permanent bridges are needed to address the safety and mobility needs of
motorists and facilitate efficient movement of emergency vehicles between the north and south'
sections of Eugene and Springfield. The new permanent replacement bridges will be designed to
meet applicable state and federal safety and mobility standards. The temporary detour bridge cannot
accommodate the safety needs of motorists because it does not meet current seismic standards and
the construction methods used to build it only met environmental requirements as they applied to
temporary, not permanent, structures.
,
--'
Comments were received stating that (to summarize) the bridge provides a crossing of Franklin
Boulevard and the railroad and provides an opportunity for those crossing to be made available to
pedestrians and bicyclists, and since the replacement is not accommodating such a crossing, the
applicant has insufficient analysis addrcssing the mobility and sa~ety needs of bicyclists and
pedestrians (see Attachment D for more 'detail). As previously discussed under Goal 8, Recreation,
, which is incorporated herein by reference, the applicant proposes a continuous route across ODOT
right-of-way for,the bicycle/pedestrian pathways to be maintained on both the north and the south
sides of the river during construction. In the context ,of the proposed plan mnendments, this
adequately addresses mobility and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians as these are the existing.
bicycle and pedestrian facilities affected by the proposed mnendments. ,.
,
Existing bicycle/pedestrian connections between the Laurel Hill Valley area and Alton Baker Park
(and other areas north bfthe Willmnette River) exist via Riverview, then westerly along the"
widened sidewalk on the south side of Franklin Boulevard to Walnut Street (where there is a
signalized crossing of Franklin/ORE99/BusinessOREI26), northeasterly to anunderpass beneath
the railroad, then east to the Knickerbocker Bridge which connects to the southbank path and Day
Island area that have connections to the canoe canal bridge and bike path north along the west side
of 1-5 to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The applicant proposes to maintain a continuous
bicycle/pedestrian pathway alorlg the south (and north) side of the river through construction.
Additionally, TransPlan has identified some improvements (unfunded projects) to the local system
between the Walnut/Garden Avenue path connections to the Knickerbocker Bridge and path ,J
connections within Alton Baker Park. Furthermore, while the policies do not require a new
pedestrian and bicycle connection in conjunction with this plan amendment, the applicant.is not
prohibited from incorporating a new pedestrian/bicycle element into their facility.
r
Additionally, the findings under Statewide Planning Goal 12 regm;ding transportation are
incorporated herein by reference as demonstration of consistency with this policy. Based on these
findings, this policy is met.
F.15 Motor vehicle level of service policy:" [) 1'\ 'ed
. d.~.' Of~iifotor vehicle level of service standards to maintain acceptabi[)QtBllatJUCelV
;"yt3r.,,; -A ,.~l _~ -ft'- J ;:
.'~'}i.'~'.';.,h"I'.:- ).~~",-.-':,.,
Staff Findin'gs -March 17,2008
Page 33 .
, .
JUN 2 9 Z008
Planner: fl~~
\
\
(
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be usedfor:
(1) IdentifYing capacity deficiencies on the roadway system,
(2) Evaluatingthe impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, ~
pursuant to theTPR (OAR 660-012-0060).
(3) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction. ~
b, Acceptable and reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service
, under peakhour traffic conditions: LOS E within Eugene's Central Area
Transportation Study (CATS) area, and LOS D elsewhere.
c. Performance standards from the OHP shall be applied on state facilities in the
Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
In some cases, the 'level of service on a facility may be substandard. The local government
jurisdiction may find that transportation system improvements to bring performance up to
standard within the planning horizon may not be feasible, and safety will not be
compromised, and broader community goals would be better served by allowing a
substandard level of service. The limitation on the feasibility of a transportation system
improvement may arise from severe constraints, including but not limited to environmental
conditions, lack of public agency financial resources, or land use constraint factors. It is not
the intent ofTSI Roadway Policy #2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service to require deferral of
development in.such cases. The intent is to defer motor vehicle capacity increasing
transportation system improvements until existing constraints can be overcome or develop
an alternative mix of strategies (such as: land use measures, TDM, short-term safety
improvements) to address the problem. '
The 1-5 Willmnette River replacement bridges will be striped to provide two travel lanes in each
direction, consistent with current striping patterns. As noted under Goal 12 above, incorporated by
reference, the construction of the replacement bridges, whether striped for four lane or six lanes,
does not generate any additional vehicular trips, it simply provides passage over the Willamette
River and greenway. When the bridges are eventually striped for six lanes (to be made consistent
with 1-5), the additional bridge capacity will increase the perfoTInance and function ofl-5, not
worsen it. Additionally, it is noted that TransPlan projects 150 and 260 provide for the future
widening ofI-5 from four to six travel lanes north and south of the Willmnette River.
(Because the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge and roadway is already recognized in TransPlan, there is
no need to mnend .the plan. The requited exceptions are not taken to meet requirements of Statewide
Planning Goal ]2 or the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), but to comply with Willamette River
Greenway requirements in Goal 15 and the Metro Plan. These findings address the consistency of
the needed plan amendments with applicable Metro Plan requirements and land use regulations.
Other applicable land use regulations will be addressed during the local permitting processes.)
. Staff Findings ~ March 17, 2008
i '.'
p.age 34
....' ,
1-'3':7 "
F 16 Promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets the combined needs for travel
through, within and outside the region.
: ,
. .
. . .~.~ k,' ,_ ,_ I., I>.~ . . .
Althou'gn'this'[lOlicy'language is not mandatory, the applicant's findings are incorporated herein as
Date Receiverl
~ y,;) ?;CR
"I
'.
, 'i. ' ,I{' ,.. .
. I. J',. ,:t.11
" ~
r " "' "" ",",t'. if" 'IJ.:I
:; j, i -, - -"",~ ."- t'__'J
/
further demonstration of compliance with the Transportation Element: 1-5 is a state facility that
serves both statewide and regional transportation needs as defined in the TPR, i.e., needs,for
movement of people and goods (1) between and through regions of the state and between states
(state need), and (2) between and through communities and accessibility to regional destinations
within a metropolitan area (regional need). As such, it iS,an integral element of the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area',s regional roadway system. Indeed, it is likely the principal arterial
syrving the combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region. Replacing a
structurally deficient bridge with two new bridges and associated improvements promotes the
maintenance and continuation of the regional roadway system serving the combined needs for travel
through, within, and outside the region, consistent with this policy.
F. 29 Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods movement in the Eugene-
Springfield region.
Although this policy language is. not mandatory, the applicant's findings are incorporated herein as
further demonstration of compliance with the Transportation Element: consistent with this policy,
connecting 1-5 north and south of the Willamette River via new, structurally safe bridge crossings is
essential to ensuring that reasonable and reliable travel times for llloving freight and goods in the
" region are,maintained. Without the connection, tens of thousands of vehicles daily would be
required to seek alternative means for crossing the river, cloggingcapacityand causing congestion
and delay throughout Eugene and, Springfield. Existing roadways lack sutlicient capacity to
accommodate the existing 49,000 daily vehicle trips or the 73,000 daily vehicle trips anticipated on
the 1-5 Willmnette River Bridge by 2030.
F.34 Operat~ and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need/or more
expensive future repair., .
Permane~t replacement for the decommissioned bridge is necessary to improve safety and ensure
mobility of all users of 1-5 in the Eugene/Springfield area. Replacing the unsafe decommissioned
bridge and substandard detour bridge with permanent bridges and associated improvements that
meets current safety and design standards and that handles increasing traffic volumes will result in
the continued operation of 1-5 and will eliminate the potential for a more costly, expedited future
repair to ensure continued mobility, consistent with this policy.
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
G.18 The cities and Lane' County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of the UGB
to: reduce the negative effects of filling in jloodplains and prevent the filling of natural
drainage channels except as necessary to ensure public op~rations and maintenance of
these channels in a manner that preserves and/or enhancesjloodwater conveyance capacity
and biological function. ,
,
G. (9 . Maintainjlood storage capacity within the jloodplain, to the.'maximum extent practical,
t' through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the jloodplain and
adjacent areas,
~~1~:;' ,r ~,,< l~~.~i ,: -"': . ~,' ;'1/'}_::
.'-,
JJ. .. ~ ,
. Staff'F.in1ings:tMarch 17, 2008 l
. Page 35
Date Received
,?f"
.JtIN 2 9 2008
"
\,
.~J: _.::{~'
';' ',<0.
~ '.' .:
.
"
"
Planner: EtJ8
'.
. , ~".
I
As discussed under Goal 7 Natural Hazards and Metro Plan Policies,C.30 and C.3I, which are
incorporated herein by reference, in the context of the plan mnendments the proposal is consistent
with these policies. Specifically, the applicant's preliminary no-rise analysis indicates Option B
would decrease the base flood elevation and Option A would increase the base flood 'elevation by
0.02 feet, which does not meet the no-rise r~quirement. H()wever, the applicant has not submitted a
detailed analysis and the ,modeling will be run again when the design is refined for the permitting
process to meet the no-rise requirement. ODOT also requires its bridges to meet the no-rise
requirement. Therefore, staff finds that in the context of a plan amendment, these policies are
satisfied. Additionally, the specific details of the development will be appropriately addressed
during local and state requirements, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards.
,
Additionally, both the cities of Springfield and Eugene have adopted ordinances to regulate the
construction within floodplains and floodways outside of rights-of-way. The applicant will be
required to apply for the necessary permits which can be conditioned to ensure appropriate
floodplain and floodway construction and mitigation. Furthermore, ODOT's own project rules
, require that the proposal result in a no-rise of flood elevation.
r
The following findings are regarding consistency with other applicable refinement plans
(TransPlan, Riverfront Park Study, Laurel Hill Plan) that are not proposed to be mnerided:
TransPlan
. TransPlan was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The 1-5 bridge and roadway is identified
within TransPlan, therefore;-determination of consistency with TransPlan is necessary. However, it
is noted that the applicable TransPlan policies have been incorporated into the Metro Plan under the'
. Transportation Element policies above. The applicable TransPlan policies are as follows: TSl
System-Wide Policies; Policy I; TSl Roadway Policies, Policies 1-3; and TSl Goods Movement
Policies, Policy I. Therefore, the findings for Metro Plan'policies F.I0, F.14,F.l5, F.l6, and F.29
are incorporated herein by reference to demonstrate compliance with these applicable policies of
TransPlan. . '
J
As previously mentioned;comments were received stating that the applicant's response' to
TransPlan Goals I and 2 (Metro Plan. Transportation Element, Goal 1 and 2), Objective #3,and TSl
Roadway Policy #1 do not demonstrate that these goals and objectives have been met. To
summarize, Goals 1 and 2 support a transportation system that supports choices in modes of travel
that will reduce reliance on the automobile and that enhances quality oflife and economic
opportunity by being balanced, accessible, efficient, safe, interconnected, environmentally
responsible, etcetera (see TransPlan Chapter 2, page 3 and Metro Plan pages III-F-l and 2).
According to the TransPlan (Chapter 2, page 3), a goal is "a broad statement of philosophy that
describes the hopes ofthe people of the community for the future of the community. A goal may
never be completely attainable, but is used as a point to strive for." A goal is not something fur
which an application is measured against. Similarly, an objective is "an attainable target that the
community attempts to reach in striving to meet a goal. An objective may also be considered as an
intermediate point that will help fulfill the overall goaL" Whereas a policy, which is a "statement
adopted as part of TransPlan to provide a consistent course of action, moving the community
toward attainment of its goal," can be used for determining consistency with the TransPlan. As
such"compliarice with the goals and objectives, as measured through application ofthn8llbl::Ol..ce' d
I. '1'.' :'"';: ::., ': .~.;, .' Ualt~ nt: #/\le
Staff Firidlng; i. March 17, 2008' ~ 2 9 2008 I
~~ " I
1-3~"~"; ";,.'j +' P~anner: ,B!J
I
'~
determined under the Metro Plan. Transportation Element policies above. Regarding TSl Roadway
Policy #1, see findings under Metro Plan Poljcy F.]4.
Riverfront Park Study
Riverfront Park Study (RPS) is adopted as a refinement of the ,Metro Plan. Review of the RPS
indicates that the study boundary includes the south bank of the Willamette River up to the ]-5
bridge. Figure 5 of the applicant's February 22,2008 submittal materials identify a broad area for
the temporary construction bridge location, which includes the south bank ofthe Willmnette where
it abuts the 1-5 bridge. Although the exact temporary construction bridge locations will determined
through subsequent permitting processes, the RPS is applicable to .the extent the area is potentially
impacted as shown on Figure 5, and the applicable polices are as follows:
TransDortation
5. Required transportation projects will be phased and the phasing schedule will depend upon
the level of participation of non_public funds (i. e" participation by a developer) and the
level of actual development. . '.
Thc applicant indicates that it is not expected that the project will be phased. \
Environment
2, Th~ existing Millrace which passes through a portion of thy study area is an important
environmental and historic city feature. Development occurring in the Riverfront Park shall
maintain or improve the visual and bicycle/pedestria~ access to and along the Mill Race,
expanding its' use for public recreation while at the same time recognizing its role as a storm
runoff channel.
(
3. Development occurring in the Riverfront Park area shall be designed to preserve a
significant duster of black loc~st, English oak, and redleaf plum. trees located just east of
the current location of the bicycle path. '
4. Development in the Riverfront Park area shall, when possible, maintain and enhance the '
public's physical access to the river and the riparian strip along its banks,
'.
The new bridges will be constructed in approximately the smne location as the decommissioned and
detour' bridges. Though there would be a slight shift in the alignment of 1-5, all improvements
would remain within the existing ODOT right-of-way. The new bridges therefore will not be
located within the Riverfront Park Study area. However, as previously stated, portions ofthe
temporary work bridges may be located within a small portion of the Riverfront Park Study area.
ODOT would acquire temporary easements for useofnon-ODOT property during construction. The
Riverfront Park Study area in which a portion of the temporary work bridges may be located is just
east of the 1-5 replacement bridge's shown in Figure 3, south of the Willmnette River, and north of
Franklin Boulevard. The section of the Riverfront Park Study area that may be affected by the
temporary work bridges does not include the Millrace and cluster of trees mentioned in the
RiveifrontPark,. Stuay Environmental Policies 2 and 3; therefore, these elements would not lil!Ia. te R .' I
'. . ,:.:-:".' ' ; ,U ecelvec
- 'J~' 1 ~_
Staff Findi~gs - Mar~h 17,2008 Jl:JN 2 9 ZOOB
Page 37 . , , \ I .
, ." '.,J. 1.
.. '''''..,' , \.,.~: ._t
, '
.~ { ,
Plannef-fBJ
Il..r
'-
".
affected. Public access to the river'and along the Millrace will not be directly affected. See
responses to Goal 5 and Metro Plan Policy E.2.
Laurel Hill Plan
The Laurel Hill Plan (LHP) is adopted as a refinement of the Metro Plan. Review of the LHP
indicates that a portion of the 1-5 project is within the study boundary (see applicant's February 22,
2008 submittal materials, Figures 6 and 8).Therefore, the applicable policies are as follows:
Land Use and Future Urban Desil!n
c. Policies
6. The Laurel Hill Plan supports the South Hill Study standards. In general, alteration of thllaizd
contours shall be minimized to retain views of natural features and retain as much of the forested
atmosphere as possible. Aside from purely aesthetic considerations, these hillsides demand care in
development because the topsoil is thin. and the water runoff is rapid Proposed developments shall
,
respect the above considerations. The Valley hillside policy applies to all land with ,an average
slope, from toe to crest, of 15 percent or greater. (A 15-percent slope is one in which the land rises
15 feet per 100 horizontal feet.) ,
a. Ij,' in the opinion of the responsible City official, an adverse conservation or geological condition
exists upon a parcel of land proposed for a subdivision, or before any major hillside clearing,
excavation, filling or construction is contemplated, the requirements of the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, Excavation and Grading, and those sections of the code relative to foundation design
may b~ invoked ". .
b. Considerable latitude shall be allowed the developer in the shaping, depth, and required street
frontages of lots where it is necessary to preserve the terrain. '
Regarding the standards of the South Hills Study which the LHP supports, the land within the
southern portion of the project area (within the South Hills Study area) is below 500 feet in
elevation (written statement, page 65). Project work within this area consists of roadway alignment.
Therefore, since the project is' below 500 feet in elevation, the project is not subject to the South
Hills Study policies referred to above.' ,
In addition, the applicant further notes that geological resources in the project area consist of fill
material, alluvium, and bedrock. The processe~ affecting these materials are man-made, such as
excavation and grading, and are naturally created. The project would have no permanent effects on ,
geological resources. Based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical investigations should be
completed prior to construction to determine the best method to seat foUndations, piers, and bents to
reduce effects rel'ated to earthquakes (e.g., lateral spread, liquefaction). In addition, slopes should be
constructed in a manner that reduces the potentialfor erosion or small landslides.
The applicant further notes that project improvements would occur within the existing ODOT right-
, 'of-way. The vegetation removed will be limited to the minimum area necessary f<n:~~d . d
. '. staging,actjyities. Following construction, cleared areas will be revegetated and rtM~~~IVe
-,," ", ',11 ~'.'.f ' . l, ~ . t9~' ~
. ""1\" '" . ~,u.;.r.
.,' " , " . -tttrlii 2 \I 2008
, . .i' StaffFinaings - March 17,2008
r_4iage38 Planner: BJ
conditions to the extent practicable. Grading would be limited to minimum area necessary.' Areas
affected by constnlction activities would be restored following construction.
Conclusion
Based on the findings above and the Goal 15 exception provided under Goal 2, the proposed
amendments are consistent with the Statewide planning goals and the remainder of the Metro Plan.
Recommendation
Metro Pllln Amendment Recommendation: Based on the available information and materials in
the record, and the above preliminary findings, staff finds that the proposal complies with the
applicable approval criteria regarding the Statewide Planning Goals and the remaining portions of
the Metro PlaQ. Therefore, staff recommends that the Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commissions should recommend approval of the applicant's proposal to the City Councils
and Board of County Commissioners and amend the Metro Plan to include an exception to Goal 15
and to revise the text of Policy D.ll as proposed by the applicant.
r
'-
,
"
\. t".,.
.....<\ .
.StaffFindings - March 17,2008
~,~"~ag.e ~9~:" .~~,..,,. ',_' ,~,(;:,
. ,
Dat~eceived
Mf 2 9 2008
PlannertJ?J '
:,t,~!"';,: ~ t:''": A ti~ :::., :,:
,.:t '.
:~:~J~l\ ,'" {:;;:
'.
,
~ .. !
) "
Date Rece\ved
~ 29 Z008
Planner: BJ
I
I
i
, .
'j .~... t
. :'~;.~
, ,
'1"1' ,.'" i
. . ,
~ " .
f' . .: ,~..,~ ", '
~ :,
"
,
.~
,
,
Attachment B
Preliminary Staff Findings
(
· 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project
(Eugene file RA 08-1)
(
"
'~
, Refinement Plan Teit Amendment ffiA 08-1 ) (City of Eugene decision only)
The proposal includes a text mnendment the Willakenzie Area Plan, a City. of Eugene refinement
plan, to allow the placement offill within 35 feet from the top of bank of the Willmnette River for
the 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project. The project includes replacement ofthel-5 bridges over the
, ,
Willainette River and Canoe Canal (Patterson Slough), .indudingconstruction and later removal of'
one or more temporary bridges, demolition of the original and detour Wilhup.ette River and Canoe
, Canal bridges, construction of replacement bridges, reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the
bridges, r~habilitation of project area, and'completion of any required mitigation. ~
. "
EC 9.8424 requires that the following criteria (in boid and italic) be applied to a Refinement Plan
mnendment. .
(l)(a) , 'The refinement plan amendm,ent is consistent with the Statewide planning goals.
, ,
,
With respect to the proposed refinement plan and Metro Plan mnendments, the applicable Statewide
planning goals are evaluated under EC 9. 7730(3)(a) of the Metro Plan Amendment findings (see
Attachment A). As incorporated herein by reference, these aniendmentsare found consistent with
the Statewide planning goals. ' .
, ,
, ,
(l)(b) The r.efinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan..
With respect to the proposed refinement plan and Metro'Planmnendments, the applicable
provisions. of the Metro Plan are evaluated under EC 9.7730(3)(b) of the Metro Plan Amendment
findings (see Attachment A). As'incorporated herein by reference, these mnendments are found
consistent with the Metro Plan. ' I '
"
"
(l)(c)
The refinement plan amendment is consistent with tlie re';laining portions ~f the
, ,
refinement plan. . :
The Willakenzie Area Plan'(W AP) encompasses an area north of the Willmnette River and west of
1-5, which. would be affected by the 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project. The W AP text mnendment to
allow the placement of fill withiri35 feet of the top of bank of the Willmnette River is determined to
be consistent with remaining portions of the refinement plan as discussed below.
'.' 'T~eapp.J~c'!~?,rf~idedd~tailed findings regarding how the WAf text ~~~dment is consistent with
,:-',"!J. ,;. .;,;,,1. _ -
Staff Findings - March 17,2008
Page 1 ,.
.oj,"
1-43 '
<;
'-", ~
....
.J
the policy direction contained in the W AP. ,Those policies found to be applicable to this request are
addressed below.
,Land Use Element
Land Use Policies and Proposed Actions
1. The City snail use the Land Use Diagram and accompanying text and policies of the
Willakenzie Refinement Plan, as well as other applicable City goals, policies, and plans, to
provide policy direction for public decisions affecting the plan area.
The applicant is proposing a refinement plan text mnendment which, as found below, wouldensiire
that the proposed project is consistent with the WAP policies. Diagrmns in the W AP identify 1-5 as
a major 8.rterial.and part of the overall transportation system in the W AP, see the transportation
t'uiJ.ctional classification rriap on page 84 which shows 1-5 over the Willmnette River and Canoe
Canal. As proposed, this application is consistent with this policy.
3. Retain existing significant vegetation whenever possible to provide buffering between
residential and nonresidential uses, as well as between low-density and higher density
residential uses. '.
The applicant states that the project will result in the temporary removal of some existing vegetation
buffering residential areas from 1-5. The vegetation removed will be limited to the minimum area
necessary for construction and staging activities (see Figure 6 for approximate locations). As
'discussed in more detail under Metro Plan policy E.2 (see Attachment A) which is incorporated
herein by reference, following construction, cleared areas will be revegetated and returned to-
existing conditions to the extent practicable. Therefore, in the context of a plan mnendment, this
'policycis satisfied. It is noted that with regard to pier locations shown on page 9 of the application,
Option B indicates a pier closer to the Mill Race on the south side, while Option A shows a pier
closer to the Wiliamette River on the north side, however, no specific design is being reviewed at
this time in the context of a plan mnendment. . Furthermore, specific details of the development will
be' further addressed during local and state requirements, subject to applicable approval criteria and
related standards.
4. Recognize Coburg Road, theFerry Street Bridge, BeltlineRoad, Delta Highway, I-5, and
the Eugene-Springfield Highway (I-l05) as d.esignated entrance corridors to the city as
identified in the adopted City of Eugene Entrance Beautification Study. .
) .
The applicant notes the following applicable policies from the Entrance Beautification Study as
follows:
c
Entrance Beautification Study
'\
1. IdentifY the most direct and attractive routes into the city, encourage their use, and .'
maintain and improve the character and quality of the entrance experience along these' R 'ce\ved
routes.' ,,' o ate , e -'
'~2i}2Q(l1l
Staff Findings - March 17,2008 _. Q, J
~2 e~ U
1-4'4': p\ann I:", .
"
"
2. Design and implement improvements to Eugene's entrances which'recognize the diversity
and identity of the areas in which the entrances are located.
3: Cooperate w.ith other jurisdictions to make the most efficient use of available funds in
achieving beautification of Eugene's entrances. .
4. When evaluaiing designs for entrance beautification p~6jects, give prefer~nce to designs
~ '
which reduce, longcterm maintenance costs.
W AP Land Use Element Policy 4 recognizes 1-5 as 'all entrance c~rridor. The applicant has provided
conceptual illustrations of possible bridge designs (written statement, pages 9-10) although no
specific design is proposed at this tirrie, nor is a specific design typically necessary in the context'of
plan amendments. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5 WillmnetteRiver Bridge and associated
improvements is consistent with that categorization as an entrance. corridor and, for all practical'
purposes, necessary for 1~5 to retain this designation. Additionally, as discussed under the Goal 15.'
exception criteria OAR 660-004-0022(6)(a) (see Attachment A) and under Transportation Element
Policy 4 below, which are incorporated'herein by reference, bridge design aesthetics is the subject.
of other on-going public participation processes. In the context of the planmnendment, and
including the additional public outreach processes on design and local permitting processes, the
, proposal is consistent with this study.
TransDortation Element
,
, 1. The transportation network within the Willakenzie area shall be planned and designed to
ensure: a) preservation of existing neighborhoods; b) an qdequate system of arterials and.,
collectors for the efficient movement of through traffic; and c) the preservation of the use of
local streets for local traffic. '~
The functional classification map identifies 1-5 (including bridges,over the Willamette River and
Canoe Canal) as a major arteriaL With regard to (b) and (c) above, the applicant states that 1-5
cannot.adequately provide for the efficient movement of traffic through the Willakenzie area
~ithout replacing the uDs'afe,structural!y deficient decommissioned bridge with a new river'
crossing. The amendment to Neighborhood Design Element, Use Management Standard I
(Willmnette River Greenway), addressed below, is necessary to en,.sure continued compliance and to
. ,
,maintain plan consistency with this Transportation Element Policy 1. With regard to (a) above, as
previously stated, the project will occur'within existing right-of-w~y and right-of-way easements.
Some temporary staging locations are located outside of the right-of-way, however those are'
temporary in nature and the applicant proposes to re-store those areas upon project completion.
Since no non-infrastructure areas will be 'permanently convelied to ODOT use for this project, as
proposed, this project will contribute to preservation of existing neighborhoods consistent with this
policy. ' .
I.-il
The City shall provide for improvements to designated ent~ance corridors, including those
iri'Counfji and State jurisdictions, in conjunction with construction or recoflitruftiOln 'd
projects affecting those streets. . Uale 'necPI\/e
4--, '
-JtIN 2 ~ 2008
'. ... .,~.," .
~ ., " ;
4.
:- '<"
,
.' .
.SIaffFindings - March 1,7,2008
.', ,;~age 3. . >'/ . .,' ~ '"
.: 'I. :'.
~; : '. ".:' "" .-.: .
Planner: -8Js
'i".J;~
4.1.' As part of the design process, provide for the development of corridor design plan/
that recognize the unique characteristics and individual identities of each of the
designated entrance corridors.
While the City is not proposing any iinprovements at this time, the bridge crosses the Will~ette
River and is a defining feature of Eugene-Springfield. The project area also includes an important
and highly used park with a designated natural area (the Whilamut Natural Area) and unique
cultural features. Further, the bridge is an important symbolic gateway between Eugene arid
Springfield as well as for the Willmnette River vailey. The applicant stat~s that a key consideration
of the project is providing an aesthetically pleasing solution that recognizes the scenic beauty of the
project area and therefore, a range of bridge types and' pier options were considered. Selection of the
bridge type for each segment is dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations and budget._
Additionally,' the reduction in the total number of piers and in the number of piers within'the
Willmnette River will improve views of the river and, as such, contribute to a significant positive
'visual impact. " .. .
. Regarding 4.1, the applicant states that ODOT is developing the project to retain design flexibility
related to bridge form, materials, and aesthetic treatments as well as to allow flexibility to the .
engineers to design an economical bridge that also meets community requirements. Selection of the
bridge type for each 'segment is dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations and budget. :me
bridge design is being reviewed during a separate public process. , .
7, To the greatest extent possible, the City shall encourage regional and intercity traffic to 'use
. \. ..
major rather than minor arterials. , . ' ' .
'The Transportation Element functional classification map designates 1-5 as a major arteriaI:The'
proposed mnendmen!to the Neighborhood Design Element, Willmnette Greenway Use
Management Standard I (discussed below) is consistent with this policy because it provides for the
. continued use ofI-5 through the area to servethroughandregional traffic; Because the' '
.decommissioned bridge must be replaced for safety reasons, this policy can only be satisfied by
approving the requested goal exceptions and WiIlakenzie Area Planmnendment. Therefore. the
proposal is consistent with this policy.' .
8. The City shall work with developers and the State of Oregon to ensure that i'lOise attenuation
is providedfor existing and proposed residential developments along State highways when
imjJrovementsare made to those roads. '
8.1. At the requestof residents, the City should work with residents and the State to
determine cost-effectiveness and cost distribution for sounds barriers along existing
freeways in the established neighborhoods where sound barriers are not currently
installed (
'11\
82. Th.e Ci,ty should work with the State to ensure local, State, and Federalreliula~ns ' , eA
," pef-taini~g to noise attenuation are met whenever afreeway is improt)ale-t\eCe\\l \J,!
., " , ~ 29 2008
Planner,: B.J
,l!....
..
l' .0
Staff Findings - March 17,2008
Page 4 '.',': ..,'
1-46' ..
~
~ (
A project rlOise technical report :was prepared as part of the Environmental Assessment (as required
by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from thePfoject. Per the. ODOT 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
I '
ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two locations and, are recommended as
mitigation (see supplemental. information, Figures 7-9). The final \valllocations will be determined
after public input is completed as part of the NEP A process. '
Additionally, as stated on page 13 of the written statement, the applicant proposes the foll()wing
general measures:
. Continue public involvement through design and construction
\'
. limit work hours
. limit noise '
Comments were recei~ed from the affected neighborhood associaJion, the H~low Neighborhood
Association, regarding the noise level in the residential area to the east of the bridge (the area ofthe
, , ,
WillakenzieArea Plan) and that the Environmental Assessment does not fully address this issue
specifically about the noise level and the possibility of mitigation: by the use of sound walls (see
. Attachment D for details). As discussed above, the applicant has identified potential sound wall ,
locations, although it is notable that according to Figures 7 and 8,!no sound walls are identified in
the formal Willakenzie Area Plan or in the Harlow Neighborhood Association area (the ~losest is
p~oposed o'ri the east side ofI~5). The s6und walls, although not technically in the W AP at this time,
in addition to the measures outlined above demon.strate consistency wiih this policy, Therefore, in
the context of a plan amendment; these policies are satisfied with 'the findings above. Furthenllore,
the specific details of the development regarding,sound walls and:,other noise mitigation measures
,. will be more aptly addressed during the NEPA Environmental Assessment process and in the
context of a more specific site plan required as part of a subseque~t permit process, rather than at
the plan amendment level. "
Based on the infolmationprovided; and as reviewed,in detail for compliance with federal noise
requirements under other federal processes, the proposal is consistent with these policies.
Neighborhood Design Elemeilt
Willamette Greenway
Use Management Standard .
1. Provision that all new structures, expansion of existing structures, drives, parking areas, or
storage areas shall not be permitted within the first 35 feet back from the top of the
riverbank, unless the location of the jloodway boundary requires a greater separation.
1'here are [three] four exceptions to this standard: " .
A. Structures' designed solely for recreational use (i. g., a deck or steps leading to the
river) and driveways for boat landings and water-related or water-dependent uses
are permitted within the 35-foot setback. '
B. Public improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle trails, public plazas, and
_ '" " .,;;.,;" h ' .;/f-imf./ar amenities, but excluding roads and parking areas, are exempt from the
_:~ :',:~~ '~: d:', d. seibackrequirements specified above . 'Datej:\eceived
. StaffFindings - March 17, 2008 Jtt1(? ';i Z008
'\~-E~:,p,ag~~:,..'.-~\,~~". .:;1;.~:{':,
Planner:? BJ
c
C. Structures existing as of the date of adoption of this plan shall be allowed to rebuilt
at the same distance from the river that they were before destr'uction by fire, flood, or
other disaster, '
In the context of this use management standard, because the 1-5 replacement bridges (1) are not
designed solely for recreational use; (2) would be elements of an interstate highway; and (3) are not
being rebuilt due to a disaster, this use management standard requires an mnendment. Accordingly,
the applicant proposes that the standard be mnended toread as follows on page 155 of the
Willamette Greenway Section in the Willakenzie Area Plan Neighborhood Design Element, with
bold text indicating new text:
"
,
D. Replacement or expansion of. the 1-5 WilIamette River Bridge and its
approaches.
The proposed textarneridment would allow the portions of the 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Replacement
'project within the setback to occur. Furthermore, as found previously under Goa~ 2 above, an
, exception to Goal 15 is warranted in this case to allow the 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project to place fill
. ,
within in the Willmnette River. Staff concurs with the applicant's findings that as mnended, the
proposal is consistent with this policy. .
Use Management Standard'
2. Provision for public pedestrian and bicycle access along the river. '
As previously discussed under Statewide Planning Goal 8 (see Attachment A) which is incorporated
herein by reference, the bicycle and pedestrian trails will, to the maximum extent practicable, be '
kept open, safe, and useaWe during project construction. Although it is possible that.the existing
bicycle/pedestrian pathways will be interrupted during construction, ,the applicant proposes tI:tat a ,
, continuous routeac'ross ODOT right-of-way for,the bicycle/pedestrian pathways will be maintained
on both the north side and the south side of river during construction. The project will not have a
long-term effect on existing bicycle/pedestrian access along the river, consistent with this policy.
Furthermore, through the other local permitting processes (Willmnette Greenway permit, Water
Resources Conservation Overlay review, Willmnette,Greenway setback,.etcetera) construction I
impacts will be minimized through compliance with applicable approval criteria, related standards
and any necessary conditions df approval to preserve bicycle, pedestrian and boater safety.
Use Management Standard ,
5. Activities or uses such as open storage of materials shall be discouraged within the greenway.
The applicant indicates that two staging areas 'for material storage and stockpiling, equipment
storage, job trailers, employee parking, and other construction-related uses would be occupied
during construction; one on the north side of the river and one on the south. The currently-proposed
staging areas would be located on ODOT right-of-way, but would also require the temporary
occupancy of three parcels not currently owned by ODOT (including portions ofthe Whilarriut
Natural Area amI Eastgate Woodlands) within the greenway and adjacent to 1-5. ODOT will acquire
temporary easements for use of non-ODOT property during construction and proposet-\~fve!F\ate '. d
., . all disturbed are.as. 'Staff finds that although both of these storage areas are within the~9tf'\eCeIVE
"~\:-~:;""" ~'._ r .....~~~,~" . ~.
I . ' ,J;.~ . .'" ,i ' 'f "I
' .. ,.' : 0' " :,. ' j, . ' 2 9 2008
; - Staff Findirygs - March 17, 2008
j'; .
. 'Page 6 . "
1-48
';
Planner: ,B,J
, : I 'I'
'.
_ .,,)
\.~...;.
~. .{
'-
boundary and given th~ tempor"arynature of the storage for construction of the bridges, the proposal'
is consistent with this policy as iLwill not include long-term or permanent storage. IIi addition,
through the other local permitting processes (Willmnette Greenway penriit, Water Resources
. Conservation Overlay review, Willmnette Greenway setback, etc~tej-a)\constructibn impacts will be
, reviewed in detail and minimized through compliance with applicable approval criteria, related
standards and any ne<?essary conditiOlls of approval. .
,
Use Management Standard
7. Significant fish andw,ildlife habitats, as identified in the adoptqdNatural Resources Special
Study, or Metropolitan Plan Natural Assets and Constraints WorKirig Paper shall be protected.
Sites subsequently determined by the Oregon Department of Fish ;f1nd Wildlife shall also be
protected. '
Staff notes that portions of the project area are included within 'areas identified as natural assets and
natural constraints, as identified in the' following Metropolita.nPlan Natural Assets and Constraints'
Working Papers: Development Prohibitions, Development Limitations, Flood Hazards, Wildlife,
Scenic Areas; and Willmnette River Greenway. No threatened or endangered terre,strial wildlife or
plant species or habitat are known to reside within'the project area. However, federally threatened
salnionid populations are documented' as occurring within the reach of the Willmnette River that,
~ . . , .
flows through the project area. Therefore, this,policy is applicable: As previously discussed, there
are several other policies.that address' impacts to these assets and constraints. Specifically, the
findings regarding Goal 6 and Metro Plan Policy E.2(see Attachment A) are incorporated herein by .
reference 'as demonstration of how the proposed amendment is covsistentwith this standard. ' '
The applicant states that ODOT will coordinate with ODFW through the design process to identify_
opportunities to minimize habitat disturbance. To avoid arid minifuize potential impacts to fish and
wildlife species habitat during and afterconstruction actiyities, an applicable OTlA III State Bridge
Delivery Program EPS. will be implemented to reduce the extentof direct and indirect impacts to
habitat. These include:
, '
'0 Minimize effects to natural stream and floodplain by keepirg the work'area to the smallest
footprint needed. I:
. Prepare and implement a plan to prevent construction debris from dropping into' the
Willmnette River and to remove materials that may drop with a minimum di~turbance to
aqilatic habitat. '.
· Prepare site restoration plans for upiand, wetland, mld stre!unbank ar~as to include native,
plant species and noxious'weed abatement techniques, imduse large wood. and rock as
components of stremnbed protection treatments. ,
o Flag bOlmdaries of clearing limits' and sensitive areas to be 'avoided during construction.
· ,Coordinate with Willaillalane Park and Recreation District.and the Eugene Parks and Open
Space Division regarding sensitive areas in Alton Baker Park and the Whilamut Natural
Area that should be avoided during construction. /
. Re'store and revegetate disturbed areas. .
"
, ,
~! :~t,: Ad(fiHorially:t~ugh other permitting processes, a detailed development plan will be-reviewed and
impacts to'asiiets~minimized, through compliance with applicable approval criteria, related,' ,', d
,:':'\\'\; I,., Date ReCf!lVe
. Staff Findings' - March 17, 2008
<.,i'fagq .;::. ': .:- ,JUN 29 2008.
I~49
Planner: B,J
"
standards, and ~y necessary conditions of approval. As previously discussed under Metro Plan
policy E.2 (see Attachment A), significant fish and wildlife habitats can and will be protected
.through compliance with the perinitting requirements contained in the Eugene and Springfield
development codes for developments in the greenway and in areas subject to Statewide Goal 5 (i.e.
Willmnette Greenway permit, 75-foot riparian setback, Water Re'sources Conservation Overlay).
The cities of Eugene and Springfield can impose approval conditions as they deem necessary to
protect fish and wildlife habitats to the extent practicable, consistent with the need to provide a new
1-5 WillmnetteRiver crossing relevant to the Transportation Element policies identified abo,;:e.
The applicant is also proceeding with an Environmental Assessment as required by NEP A, which
will assess the proposals environmental impacts. The applicant will also need floodway/floodplain
development permits from the City of Eugene and Springfield. Additionally, as previously stated,
the applicant will be conducting additional public outreach efforts regarding the aesthetics of the
bridge design.
Based on the findings above, staff confirms that the proposal complies with this standard in the
context of a plan mnendment. Additionally, further review during the local and other,permitting ,
processes ,will address the details of the proposal for the impacts to the resources Metropolitan Plan
Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper through compliance with applicable 'approval
criteria, related standards; and any necessary conditions of approval.,
<Use Management Standard
, 8. The natural vegetative riparian fringe along the Willamette River, as identified on the
Willakenzie Area Plan' Natural Resource Area Map, shall be protected and enhanced to the _
maximum extent practicable.
The Willakenzie Area Plan Natural Resource Area Map identifies portionsofthe project area,
including the temporary storage area proposed in the Whilmnut Natural Area, as a natural resource
area. The applicant states that the riparian vegetation removed,will be limited to the minimum area
necessary for construction and staging activities, and as' required by the cities of Eugene and,
, ,
Springfield regulations, as previously discussed. Following construction, cleared areas will be
revegetated and returned to existing conditions to the extent practicable. As discussed under Metro
Plan Policy E.2 (see Attachment A), which is incorporated herein by reference, the applicant
proposes several other measures regarding site construction, site preparation and coordination with
stake holders to minimize Impacts to the riparian area. Therefore, in the context of a plan
. .
amendment, this standard is met.
In addition, the natural vegetation riparian fringe along the Willmnette River will be further
protected as the specific details of the development will be further addressed during local arid state
requirements, subject to applicablcapproval criteria and related standards.
Use Management Standard
9. Scenic qualitifs and viewpoints, as identified in the Metro Plan Natural Assets and Constraints
Working Paper shall be preserved.
Date Received
,~~rtions of the ~wje~rarea~are identified as scenic areas'rspecifically the Willmnette RiV~ ' '
," ,.__ '.".... , .' " 2 9 2008
.". ,.:. -. . ' . -", ~
"
Staff Findings - March 17, 2008
PlIh'- .-,
Page 8 - ' "
I-50
Planner: BJ
. ~ :
..
. "
.
- i
r'
portions of Alton Baker Park adjacent toI-5:.As the applicant notes, the new replacement bridges
will be located withinODOT's 1-5 right-of-way in essentially the, same location as the
decommissioned bridge. Furthermore, the reduction in the nwnbdr of piers and fill would have a
positive effect on scenic qualities. Therefore, in the context of a p,lanmnendment, the proposal will
have no substantial negative effect on.the scenic qualities ofthese scenic areas or on any ,
, ,
vi.ewpoints.
Neighborhood Desi'!ll Element - Natural Resource Area Protection
, ,
, i. Significant wetlalld, riparian, water and upland sites in the Willakenzie area shall be
protected from encroachment anddegradation in order to retain their important functions
related to fish and wildlife habitat. flood control, sedimentation and erosion control, water-
quality control, and groundwater pollution control. . ,
As discussed under Metro Plan Policy E.2 (see Attachment A), which is incorporated herein by
reference, the applicant proposes several measures regarding site and vegetation restoration, site
construction, site preparation and coordination with stake holders, to minimize impacts to.the
riparian area. Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, this 'standard'is met. '
Furthermore, as previously discussed, affected riparian m.eas and fish and wildlife habitat in the .
Willakenzie,area will be further protected, and flood control managed, as the specific details ofthe
development will be further addressed during local and state requirements, subject to applicable
approval criteria and related standards (including Willmnette Greenway permit, Water Resources
Conservation Overlay, 75-foot riparian setback, FEMAno-rise certification, NEPA).
. .... -I" .
Conclusion , .
Based on the findings above, the applicant's proposed WAP text amendment is consistent with the
remaining portion's of the refinement plan. .
(2)
Th'e refinemimtplan amendment addresses one or more ofthefol/owing:
(a) An error in.tlle publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory;material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(i:) New or ainendedcommunity policies., ,. .
(d)' New or amended provisions in afederallaw or regulation, state statute, ,state
, regulation, statewide planning goal, or stateagen'cy land use plan.
(e) , A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the
time the refinement plan was'adopted.
-...
\
The proposed amendments are riot based on an error in the public1).tion of the W AP, new inventory
material relating to a statewide planning goal or'new or amended state or federal laws, regulations, ,
or policies; therefore EC 9.8424(2)(a), (b) and (d), above,ar.e not applicable to this request.
& , .
Regarding EC 9.8424(2)(1), staff concurs with the applicant's conClusion that the 1-5 WilImnette
Bridge Project constitutes a change in circumstances in a substantial manner that was not.
, anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted, specifically with regard to the structural
ii ';pr().bJ~ms of the orjginall-5 bridge and the. need to bring the bridges (and thus the associated 'ed
. ", :'.. ", . ' ReceN
. /'.. .' '. , , ' Date
St~fnindings~ March 17,2008 . ' 4-:29 Z008
_9 _ .'
0'" i,':l1ifl.
pq~nr,,~. D,
portions ofthe 1-5 facility) tip to current state and federal safety and mobility requirements.
I
The W AP encompasses an area north ofthe Willmnette River and east ofI-5 that would be affected
by the 1-5 Willmnette BridgeProject. As relevant to the bridge project, the W AP sets out "use,
management standards" that it deems consistent with Goal 15 and that "shall apply to de"e1oJlment
within the greenway in the Willakenzie area." The use standards within the W AP are explicitly
incorporated in the Eugene Code's approval criteria for Willainette greenway permits. '
The following use management standard is relevant to this application. The applicant indicates that
it is of particular concern to ODOT because, in its current form, it does not appear to permit the
project to go forward: ." .
"I.' Provision that all new structures, expansion of existing structures, drives, parking areas, or
storage areas shall not be permitted within thejirst 35 feet back from the top of the .
riverbank, unless the location of the 'jIoodway boundary rNuires a greater separation. ,
There are three exceptions to this standard: ' '
A. Structures designed solely for recreational use ".
B. Public improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle trails, public plazas, and
similar amenities, but excluding roads and parking areas, are exempt from the
setback require.ments' specified above. '
C. . Structures existing as of the date of adoption of this plan shall be allowed to r.ebuilt
at the same distance from the river that they were before destruction by fire, flood, or
other disaster. " '
'As previously discussed in detail under thiS W AP use management standard above, which is
incorporated herein by reference, the 1-5 Willmnette River Bridge was an existing'structure at the
time this standard was adopted arid it is likely that the structural deficiencies in the bridge were
unknown and the need to replace the 1-5 bridge was unanticipated.
Because the 1-5 replacement bridges (A) are not designed solely for recreational use; (B) would be
elements of an interstate highway; and (C) are not being rebuilt due to a fire, flood or other disaster,
this use management standard requires mnending. Accordingly, ODOT proposesthat the standard
be mnended to read as follows on page 155 of the Willmnette Greenway Section in the Willakenzie
Area Plan NeighborhoodDesign Element, with bold indicating new text:
D. Replacement or expansion of the 1-5. Willamette River Bridge and its
approaches. '
As found under Statewide Planning Goal 2 (see Attachment A), which is incorporated herein by
reference, 'an exccption to Goal 15 is warranted in accordance with Metro Plan. Policy D.l1 for the
1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project in order to address the structural deficiencies of the temporary bridge.
The proposed mnendment to the W AP allows the Goal 15 exception warranted under Goal 2 to be
implemented. Given this change in circumstance, the proposed refinement plan text mnendmerit is
warranted.
r
~~, ,~r~ _
, ':~'~II~ ,..U
... ','- ~ ~r
OateR~ceivej
&f.'1O '
, .:.Jl1N2 \) 2008
. r-~anner:~9J
Staff Findings -:: Mar~h 17,2008
Page 10 '....
I-52
,
~/ -
,-
c
Recommendation ('
Refinement Plan Amendment Recommendation: Based on the .flvailable information and
materials in the record, and the above preliminary findings, staff finds that the proposal complies
with the applicable approval criteria regarding the Statewide Plallj1ing Goals, the Metro Plan, and
the remaining-portions of the refinement plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission should recommend approval of the applicant's proposal to City Council and mnend the
text of the WilIakenzie Area Plan, Neighborhood Design Element, Willmnette Greenway Use
Management Standard I as proposed by the applicant.
~.
,
j
. /
\
~.....'
.. ''\ ~ "".' ,'" \
'~,t " "',~\
')"Ii"
'. I.,
'/
Date Received
4--- . ,
J.l:It( 2 92008
""',
'.
..
,
"
'.'.....
StaffFindings~March 17, 2008
,~ wfage~ 1 i.'" ";, -.', . ....~~: :
: ~~'J>_-:"',':',j-' ,~ "; ,eo ;,. . ,.,
- ., "
. ".'l- \' . ~
/
Planner: BJ.
I-53'
\, '
_'. ., . r.
'..., ".;< "1
"'.11';, .1
("
,
,. ,-"V,
. .:!" ..:: .'
\
,.,-"',
-"
...
'/
Date Received
~ 29 2008
Planner: Bvj
.'
Project area
City limits
Parks'
Right-of-Way
/'V" Right-of-Way easement. j-.
~ Highways .
/'v' Major roads
, ..
0" 270 "AO" 810
~~"",,,,..j,'f\,
_~d... ;YVt?r
?i-' ora
,,'-"'----
.< ..~: ~ '.
;"',t"'LC'.....'''''~ h"'no'nF'''''.
\.'i~, '
"
'jl;
e
,d;- , 'roled Area
[-5 w.mlkllfc;.tlllR\ll~ Brid-ge Project ~
I-51!
Planner: tt!
,
\
,
'-
I
\
j'J" \'. ":\1:.
Date Received
~ 29 2008 .
Planner: BJ
J
, .- i-,
,~.t.. '.~...:',:~';~~"' ~.~,
",t ., --: ., '.
,~
. . 'I}... ~.t . ~}: ;'
'~p1VIWr;. ;z..i'tr
~ .
~:;..'~' "
.1' '
-.;.;/~, .:,,...~,
@ Rebujlt roadways
o Replacement bridges
/'N-~ Potential wall locations
/'V Toes to slope
IfIrS VVillamette River Greenway.,
..
o 130 400 690 WQ C ~.
-, _e~l W l
::n\~. ,..' 11'
[-;; 'YiII.tlm.fte RivH Bridge Projed
Date Received
~2 92008
7
Plan Amendment R~q uest
2/0112008 . . .
",
Plannen-BJ
1.3 . Temporary Construction Facilities
As with any significant bridge construction, the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project will.
require temporary construction facilities, including staging areas and temporary work
bridges. The specific operations in regard to temporary construction facilities will be
determined by the contractor selected by ODOT to construct the project. Requirements
and restrictions will be placed on their operations to minimize environmental impacts,
meet regulatory requirements,. and meet commitments made during the public
involvement process. These measures will be defined during the NEPA process and may
include keeping bicycle/pedestrian paths open and safe, noise restrictions, or work hour
limits. Staging areas 'and haul roads would be designated by ODOT for the contractor.
For the purpose of this application, ODOT assumes that two areas would be required for
construction and demolition, one on each side of the river, and haul routes to these
staging areas will be available (Figure 5). The currently"proposed staging areas would be
located on ODOT right-of-way (Figure 5), but would also require the temporary
occupancy of three parcels not currently owned by ODOT, including portions of Alton
Baker Park, .within the. greenway, adjacent to 1-5. ODOT would acquire temporary
easements for use of non-ODOT property during construction. Figure 5 shows very
conservative estimates of the maximum areas that may potentially be needed for staging.
Actual areas are likely to be less than shown in Figure 5.
/
The northern staging area would likely be located partially within Alton Baker Park. This
site would be accessed via Walnut Street, now a bicycle/pedestrian path. This is the smne
route that was used for access during construction of the detour bridge. The southern
. staging area would be located in a clearing. adjacent to the trail east of the detour bridge.
Franklin Boulevard will be used for access to the southern staging area. The proposed
staging areas would occupy approximately five acres within the Willmnette River
Greenway.
Temporary work bridges would be constructed to facilitate the construction of the new
bridges and the demolition of the old bridges. The work bridges would likely use driven
piles to create a stable and temporary work platform 'across the river. The use of this
, technique will not require any sighificant fill to construct the work bridges. The two work
bridges, including' all 'pilings, would be removed after the project is complete, and the
, staging areas would be restored to original conditions prior to /construction. The use of
temporary construction facilities is a necessary part of the proposed project and ODOT
will implement mitigation and conservation measures developed during the
environmental permitting process to limit these temporary impacts.
,
~, .
....
0'
"I'
Plan Amendment Request
2/01/2008
I-56'
Date Received
~ 292008
Planner: BJ
rage 1 or I
, O'DONNELL Heather M
From: Bob Kline [kline7796@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1,1:28 AM
To: O'DONNELL Heather M
Subject: Re: 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project-Land Use Application Referral-Metro Plan Amendment 2/15/08
--
Heather,
I have an error in my e-mail in the second sentence of the first paragraph',where I have East it should be West as
corrected below.
Thanks
Bob Kline
---- Original Message ----
From: Bob KlioR
To: tleather.m ndnnnp.Il(Q)r.i p.!JOFmp..or II~
Sent: Tuesday, FebruarY 26, 200811:12 AM I,
Subject: 1~5 Willamette Bridge Project-Land Use Application Referral:Metro Plan Amendment 2/15/08
Heather,
I'
The Harlow Neighborhood has two concerns about ttie Bridge Project. The first is traffic during the construction
period along Martin Luther King Blvd, in the Alton Baker Park/Autzen Stadium area, and North Walnut
Path where there will be a large construction vehicles entering and exiting for several years. -The Second is the
noise level in the resident area to the West of the bridge, which the Environmental Assessment does not, in my
our opinion, fully address specifically about the noise level and the possibility of mitigation by the use of sound
walls, ,
How these concerns are addressed by the City I am not sure. I am on th~ bridge Citizens Advisory Committee
and will be' discussing these two issues as the project develops. ." ,
Thanks for sending me the document. I have only.those comments and have no idea how they may be
addressed in the City's response to Amendment request. '
Bob Kline
Chairman
Harlow Neighborhood Association.
(
~--" .-
:)~~~ ;,' -~ ~;
, '
::'i:.1
..... '~<r ,l
>.
,-
Date Received
6-
J.l:m 2 9 2008
.,1~:1~' j ,1!jf
I \~ ..'
::i-.'
3/11/2008
.' it-
("; .
'.. i
Planner:Ia~
1',,( ..
i ~ , ~.' ,...../,i.:A~~~'t: y,:):!.~.~..;;"~~
.
'~: :.'\~'-1
, ! ;;: ~I" '. "
""
(
~
. ,
Date Rece\veG
~29'l(l(l8 '
p\anner:BJ
. ~ i
"
i;' ,"_
fr ;:
u "!o.
, MAR 7 2008
The following is submitted in response to the Land Use ApplicationReferral Iv A 07-3 made to the Laurel Hill
Valley Citizens. . ,
(
The mitigation measures proposed to be carried OIit during construction'and described on page 13 generally are
supported. Limiting project noise and work hours, especially for pile driving activities, is specifically supported.
It appears that a representation of compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 8 and 13, Metro Plan Goal I and
Policy F.14, and TransPlan Goal I and Object #3 is not supported with'adequate reasoning in the Application:
,
Statewide Planning Goals ~
Goal 8 is stated to be satisfied, based on the reasoning that "the replacement bridges will not remove or increase.
recreational opportuni!ies at (Alton Baker Park and East Alton Baker Park)". Additional discussion in the
Application concerns mitigation of impacts occurring solely during the yonstruction process. Goal 13 is stated
to be met using reasoning that is based solely on either the availability or lack of a crossing for car and truck
~~. ' ,
An adequate discussion of compliance with these Goals should recogni:;::e that the bridge not only crosses the
Willmnette River, it also crosses the Canoe Canal, Franklin Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
The Application would not serio~sly consider the effectiveness of a river crossing ifI-5 traffic was forced to
halt for passing trains and to share traffic signal cycles with Franklin. Ail of these crossings are part of the
bridge, are necessary components ofI-5, and must be considered as portjons of the use of the bridge and the
need for its construction. . "
To adequately address both Goai 8 and Goal 13 the Application should address potential pedestrian and bicycle
use. The ability of bicycles and pedestrians to cross only the Willamette'!River is currently served by the
Knickerbocker bridge, located immediately west of the 1~5 bridge. Another bridge exists to the north to provide
a pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Canoe Canal. However, the 1-5 bridge crossing of Franklin Boulevard
and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks does not have similar matching p~.destrian and bicycle crossings. The
crossing opportunity for pedestrians and bicycles over Franklin in the ar~a of the bridge is limited and is
hazardous. The crossing opportunity for pedestrians and bicyCles over the railroad tracks is very poor and is
extremely hazardous.
,
The recreational activities available in Alton Baker Park and East Alton Baker Park require access. Access to
these areas from the Laurel Hill Valley is stymied by the current design bf the bridge. The intent of Goal 8 is
best met when"the'recreational needs of the citizens of Oregon" are fully considered. Recreational needs are
not met when the recreation area cannot be accessed. Because motor vehicle use is not allowed ill the core areas
of Alton Baker Park and East Alton Baker Park, including the WhilamutNatural Area, it follows that access to
these areas must be on foot or bicycle. To "meet the recreational needs ~'f the citizens", access must be
provided. Absent a discussion of this project providing this access, compliance with GoaL8 cannot be
determined.
The reasoning used to address compliance with Goal 13 fails to consider,the conservation of energy by any
means other than that of maximizing the efficiency of car and truck traffic. It is true that failure to construct a
, bridge as proposed would likely result in a degradation of "safe and convenient travel through the area" by
autos and trucks. However, failure to consider any provision for incorporating bicycle traffic into the crossing
does not "maximize the conservation of all forms of energy", particularly of petroleum energy. The .
Appli,cati(m,;~comn1en!c"Go\lI"13 does not prohibit improvements to existing highways" further tends to support
the irllPrOVem,e, iit;-6ftJ:tis crossing to allow conservation of energy by allowing and encoura~n~lhe use of
, pedestrian a::,9"19iSl~le,itr~vei. Absent a discussion of this project providing pedestrian and liiJmeaReceived
compliance witl-i Goal 13" cannot be determined. '4---' '
g ~_,~ . " ,'" , ': . \.dtm 2 9 2008
! P/anner:l*W
,
I
Metro Plan
The Application draws support for compliance with Goal I solely by the reasoning that "The Willamette River
Bridge is an existing facility in TriinsPlan and the OHP." The bridge provides a cro}sing of Franklin and the
railroad and provides an opportunity for these crossings to be made available to pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
Absent an analysis of methods that could accomplish this, it cannot be stated that the project "supports choices
in modes of travel;.. that will reduce reliance on the automobile". The Goal cannot be considered to be met by
this Application.
Similarly, Policy F.14 cannot be determined to have been met by the project because no analysis is offered as to
whether it will "address the mobflity and safety needs of... bicyclists (and) pedestrians...." .
TransPlan
The Application is correct in its statement that "TransPlan Goals I and 2 are virtually identical to the Metro
Plan Transportation Elements Goals 1 and 2." Because of this similarity, the satisfaction of TransPlan Goal 1
cannot be detel'!l1ined, due to the same omission of analysis as to whether the project "supports choices in
modes oftravel....",
The satisfaction of Objective #3 to "Provide transportation systems that are environmentally responsible"
cannot be determined from the Application. Environmental responsibility goes beyond the aspect of
construction. The Application considers impacts to the Willamette River Greenway but does not consider the
efficiency of the transportation system. Bicycle and pedestrian transportation have a lower environmental
impact than car and truck transport. These 'alternative transportation methods should be considered in the
Application so as to determine if Objective #3 is met.
TSI Roadway Policy #1
The Application states that the policy is satisfied based on the reasoning applied to Metro Plan Transportation
Element Policy F.l4. Like the analysis applied in the Application to Policy F.14, there is no analysis here of if
the project will "address the mobility and safety needs of... bicyclists (and) pedestrians." Absent this analysis,
compliance with TSI Roadway Policy #1 cannot be determined to have been met.
Addendum
The provision for pedestrian and bicycle traffic on freeway bridges is not unknown or rare. ODOT provided a
separate travel path on the 1-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge ov~r the Columbia River. Additionally, ODOT's
involvement and contributions have recently improved bicycle access on the Hawthorne, Burnside, Steel, and
Broadway bridges in Portland. Several practical methods of providing for pedestrian and bicycle traffic on this
bridge are available. ,
)
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan points out that O~S 366.514 requires "ODOT and.the cities and
counties of Oregon to expend reasonable mnounts of the highway fund to provide bikeways and walkways",
and generally requires the inclusion of bikeways and walkways whenever highways, roads and streets are
constructed, reconstructed or relocated. "Construction, reconstruction and relocation" refers to all projects
where a roadway is built or upgraded.
The Plan further states "the burden is on the governing jurisdiction to show the lack of need to provide
facilities; the need is legislatively presumed but can be rebutted." A full review of need and practicality of .
providing pedestrian and bicycle access is warranted. .
RichHazel...\';' "'!:',
.j . ',;.0' -. : ,. ~ ~' ~ '.
Laurel Hill Valley <?itizens Executive Committee Member
1-' '.,1,
"~h ~
Date Received
, ~ 29 2008
Planner: BJ
1-'59 '-'
..;:"""
.
,
1.
O'DONNELL Heather M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Drew Johnson [rwood@callatg.com]
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1110 AM
. O'DONNELL Heather M '
Willamette Bridge
Dear Ms. O'Donnell:
You suggested. that "if I wanted to send a
appr~aches to the Willarnette Bridge, you
you and 'here is my comment:
comment about reconstruction of the roadway
would forward it ,to the appropriate place.
Thank
~
I live in the Laurel Hill Valley, which is situated beside' 1-5 where you are cons'idering
reconstruction of roadway approaches to the Willamette Bridge".
My understanding is that a"noise-abatement wall will be erected alongside the on-ramp from
the Riverview tunnel (under the'onrarnp) to about where 18th Street reaches the Glenwood
Exi t.
Thank you for this! A noise-aba.tement wall is not a cure-'all, but it would help.
When big 'trucks down-shift around that c.urve to put on the,ir' compression brakes, the noise
"echoes up and down the yalley. I live a distance 'from the'l freeway I but it's still quite
noisy.
My one request is that the noise-abatement wall run as far'south along 1-5 as possible.
Ms. 0' Donnell indicated that the wall will run almost the entire leng,th of the
reconstruction.
My request is that the wall run the entire length of the r~construction.
Every little bit helps!
Positively,
Sherwood Reese
rwood@callatg.com
1927 Riverview
Eugene, OR 97403
,
,
'." ~ I.
'l, \oPt \::-r
:.>, ~.~ .f'
"
,
,Cr., .,-
. ~ii~:.~"
Date Received
4-
,1.J.J1'f 2 9 2008
Planner: rEtJ'.;.",
\
r ~,',
"01'>'..'
.','
'.
"
(
. ,
)
)
,". . ~,~ '.:
;' ": ..... .y I,
Date Received
~ 292008
~;r.,l(, ill,
..' l.~'u
'\ "
. "
i' ','...
,
Planner: 8J '
/
f
,
f
/
e
"-_.,,
,
oregon bridge delivery partners~
March 28, 2008
Ms. Heather O'Donnell
Planning and Development Department
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 9740L
Re: 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project
,Dear Ms. O'Donnell, '.
, €,C€.\\J€.O
?\ 1\)\)~ '
t>.~\\ \
\lG~~~
c~ or € oN\S\O~
t'\).l'\~\l<G
--
The supplemental items you requested on March 25,2008 for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge
Project Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendment applications (MA 07-3 and RA 08-1
respectively) are attached. The itel"t1s.you requested and a summary of the information
provided is included in Table I. . ,
'Please contact me at (503) 423-3785 or corrinne.humohrev@hdrinc.comor James
Gregory at(503) 423-3706 or iames.QreQorv@hdrinc.com ifadditional information is
needed or if you have any questions. '
Sincerely,
'~
i '
j
Corrinne Humphrey, AICP
Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
1001 SW 5th Avenue I Suite 1800 I Portland, OR 97204
ph: 50),423,3785 I fax 503:423.3737
. emaiJ: corrinne.humohrevlaJ.hdrinc.com
Attachment:
. Metro Plan Policy C.32 Narrative
. Willakenzie Area Plan Neighborhood Design Element Policy 1 Narrative
. Laurel Hill Pl~n Land Use and Future Urban Design Policy 6 Narrative'
. ,
, .
, ". ,
'\
\. \:" \.
,
'.:." . "':-':.
,.
oregon bridge delivery partners1165 Union StreetNE Salem, OR 97301
"
I
,
Date Received
A--
..J.8N 2 9 2008
PPI~nner: J3J
.L Vi
,.
".
Table I: Supplemental Reque~ts and Responses
Comment
Landslides, slopes, erosion, etc are discussed further
under metro plan policy C.32, Laurel Hill Valley Policy
C.6, W AP neighborh'ood design element policy 1.
~.);. :
..
'.
Response r
Metro Plan Policy C.32 is addressed in the attachment
to this letter. ,. .
Willakenzie.Area Plan Neighborhood Design Element
Policy I was addressed in the revised Metro Plan
Amendment Application written statement submitted
on February I, 2008 and is addressed in thc attachment
to this letter.
Laurel Hill Plan Land Use and Future Urban Design
'Policy 6 was addressed in the revised Metro Plan
Amendment Application w'ritten statement submitted
on February 1,2008, The policy is also addressed in
the attachment to this letter with supplemental text
added,
, Date Received
~ 292008
Planner: BJ.
I':~~:: ;J .', ,\!\ .
oregon bridge delivery partners1165 Union Street NE Salem, OR 97301
I-62... "
"
Page 2 012
.
Metro Plan "
C. Environmental Resources Element
Natural Hazards (Goal 7)
Policy C. 32 Local govcmments shall require site-!.pecific soil surveys and geologic
studies where potential problelils exist. When problems are identified, local govemments
shall require special design considerations and construction measures be taken to offset
the soil and geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments,
and environmentally-sensitive areas.
ODOT understands that under Natural Hazards Policy <":.32, local governments ,will
require site-specific soil surveys 'and geologic studies where. potential problems exist, and
'that where problems are identified, they will require that special design considerations
and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and geologic constraints present in
order to protect life and property, public investments, and environmentally sensitive
areas.
/ ,
In' 2Q03,.ODOT drilled ten borings Oil either side of the river as a part of a geotechnical
investigation related to the tempor~ry detour bridge over tile Willamette River. Three of
the borings were drilled north of the river, including one for the Canoe Canal Bridge and
the remaining seven were drilled to the sOllth. Additionally,'a Geological Resource repOli
was developed for the project, which contains the following,information.
. r
Geological resources in the project area consist of till material, alluvium, and bedrock.
The processes affecting these materials are anthropogenic, such 'as excavation and
grading,. and natural, such as landslides, erosion, and earthquakes. Since there is an
existing bridge, impacts to geological resources, would' consist of relatively minor
. . I'
changes in topography, minor settlement of near-surface materials, possible increased
erosion; minor changes to the river flow regime and related sediment transport, and
potential changes in slope stability (e.g., slopes :maybecome unstable as a'result 'of
vegetation removal). These impacts would occur as a result of excavation, placement of
structures and fill~, and clearing and grading,
, \
, ,
Impacts related to construction would be limited to tempo~~y, localized changes to the
river flow regime; stability, of partially constructed, slopes; erosion; and resultant.
sedimentation. Landslides could be caused by construction .activities that create unstable
slopes or as a result of improper slope stabilization followi,ng construction. The highest
risk due to landslide would be slope failure into theWillamette River. Considering the
low height of the riverbank, such a failure would be lif!Lited ,to a small area relative to the,
width of the river. It could result in temporary dampling of a portion of the river and the
release of silt, which could temporarily adversely affect aqJatic life and water quality in
the Willamette River. '
, All earthwork ,<<ould require temporary erosion protection and sediment control until
permanent 'protection is established. Earthwork' along th~ riverbanks should include
" ,. '1'
.oregon 'bridge delivery partners
: ."',;....
,r-
Datefleeeived
4-
~ ~ ~ ~.sQ~3
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301
P'~nnAro R.t
engineering controls to prevent movement of loose soil into the river. Finished slopes
should be constructed under the guidance of an engineer to prevent over-steepening of
~ the slopes and to anchor loose material. In-water work should include construction of
cofferdams or similar Best Management Practices (BMP) to control releases of sediment
into the river. In-water work in shallow areas should be completed during summer
months when little or no water is flowing in these areas.
The project would have no pennanent effects on geological resources. Based on the
carthquake hazard, geotechnical investiga!ions will be completed during' design to
determine the best method to seat foundations, piers, and' bents to reduce effects related.to
carthquakes (e.g., lateralspread, liquefaction). In addition, slopcs will be constructed in a
manner that reduces the potential for erosion or small landslides. For instance, to fit the
bridges and roadway approaches within the existing, permanent ODOT right-of-way,
relatively steep side slopes and retaining walls would be required for the portion of fill
that supports 1-5 between the Canoe Canal and WillamelteRiver bridges.
Additionally, the new bridges would mcet current safety and design standards, resulting
in bridges that are constructed using techniques that meet current seismic standards,
Willakenzie Area Plan
Neig~borhood Design Element - Waterways
Policy I Significant wetland, riparian, water and upland sites in the Willakenzie area
shall be protected from encroachment and degradation in order to retain their important
. functions related to fish and wildlife habitat. flood control. sedimentation and erosion
control, water-quality control, and groundwater pollution control.
Affected riparian arcas and fish and wildlife habitat in the Willakenzie area can and will
be protected through, compliance with the permitting requirements contained. in the
Eugene development code' for proposed' development in the greenway and in areas
subject to Statewide Goal 5. The City of Eugene can impose approval conditions as it
deems necessary to protect these resouryes to the extent practicable, consistent with the
need to provide a ,new 1-5 Willamette River crossing relevant to the Transportation
Element policies identified above. Flood control, sedimentation and erosion control, and
water-quality and groundwater pollution control can be achieved through these smne
permitting processes, through the issuance of permits to allow development in the
floodway or floodplain, and by requiring ODOT to construct the new bridges and
demolish the decommissioned and detour bridges using Best Management Practices.
Laurel HilI Plan
I. Land Use and Future Urban Design
, ~ ,,;,
oregon bridge delivery partners
t~t," :~-}'" ~... .
Policy 6 The Laurel Hill Plan supports the South Hill Study standards. In general,
. alteration of the land contours 'shall be minimized to retain views of naturalfNWi,es ~ " d
. . . , 'UcUe NeCelVe
,116~ Union StreefNE Salem, OR 97301' ~ ~!letlJfflll
PlannGr: D"J
'! I
,
,
1-64
~q'~: ~- \
j "{..
,r~--'
"
retain as much of the forested atmosplJere . as possible Aside from purely aesthetic
considerations, these .hillsides demand care in development because the topsoil is thin
and the water runoff is rapid Proposed developments. shall respect the above
\ considerations, The Valley hillside policy applies to all land with an average slope, from
toe to crest. of 15 percent 0;' greater, (/1 15-percent slope is one in which the land rises
15 feet per 100 horizontal feet.)
a, If in the opinion of the responsible City official, an adverse conservation or geological
. condition exists upon a parcel of land proposed for a subdivision. or before any major
hillside clearing, excavation, filling or construction is contemplated,. the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. Excavation and Grading.., and those sections of
'the code relative to foundation design may be invoked
b. Considerable latitude shall be allowed'the developer in the shaping, depth, and
required street frontage~' of lots where it is necessmy to prderve the'terrain.
ODOT understands that under Laurel Hill Land Use and: Urban Design Policy 6, on
average slopes of 15 percent or greater, alterations to the' landscape generally shall be
minimized <IS much as possible to retain views and the forested atmosphere. 011 all
affected lands, whether or not 15 percent slope or greater!! ODOr intends to minimize'
alterations and restore vegetation to the extent possible. ODOT also understanQs that if in
the opinion of the responsible City of Eugene engineer," an' adverse conservation or '
geological condition exists before any major clearing, excavation,. filling or construction
is contemphted, the City may invoke provisions 'of the Uniform Bililding Code Chapter
70 and those sections of the code relative to foundation design.
. ,
Project improvements woul~. occur within the existing; ODOT right-of-way. The
vegetation removed will be limited to the minimum area necessary for construction and
staging activities. Following construction, cleared areas will be revegetated and returned
to existing conditions to the extent practicable. Grading would be limited' to minimum
area necessary. Areas affected by construction activities would be restored following'
construction. '
See response to Metro Plan Policy C.32.
I
,
. - -. ,
'-.or:.egoi1~pri.dg~ de!ivery partners
", L -, /, ,t.l _
1165 Union Street NE Sal,em. OR 97301
Date Reo~ived
-4-
..J.l:Jt'T' 2 9 2008
PI' Page 30f3SJ
anner:
.o;!"1~
"
'.
,;jil.!..
.. ~. ~
,,'.;
~. - '
. ,
. ,I ; ~ "\' -~
I:'
"
1.-0,:)
Rebuilt road'."'Jays
Replacement bridges
: /"-._. Poten1iai 'y"1811loc8tions
/V Toes to slope
taxlots
e
275
5::'0
;J~5
1.100
01
~ - . . ..
~[/,~,,!~/!~\'
I,~~ - "I/[r
ri-' OfIA -
......J..:;;....L...-:.,
'"
I,:'
Taxlots
Wi!!'!1'l'!k O~t~rB~~~t\~y
i.ljflJff 2 9 2008 .
.f,'
-'-J,.. ...
<"
!
, ~ t.> I
I-66
Planner: BJ
;;.J"",>:>:
.
.
'n/
_,' ,--=J~_~_->~":,~:''''''.:''__'''''__.
-. .- ,-. .
,'.' '"
oregon bridge delivery partners~
"",; -,,- ,.!
i! ) l ~-::~~~~_.~I-
i '~-< I
\ r. -,!
U U: FEB 2 6 2008
-'l
I~
"
Er'rata Sheet
;"
,
-~,'----"~"-""-'---
..... -..,
-,_._--~'.------
Please,note tile following corrections to the Plan Amendment Request datcd February 1,-
2008 '
I. On page '16, TransPlan and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), replacc the
second paragraph addressing the RTP to read as follows:
1
"The 1-5, Willamette Rivcr Bridge replacement project is in the
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) and consistent
with RTP TSI Roadway Project #1. While not specifically identified on
the financially constrained RTP project list, the bridge' replacemcnt project
will not detract from other projects on that list because its funding is
specially earmarked. The project is part of the OTIA III Statewide Bridge
Replacement Progralri and is identified as "Bundle 220." 'The project has
funding in the amount of $180 million, which covers 'not only the costs of
rcmoving the decommissioned, Canoe Canal' and 'detour bridges and
constructing the replacement bridges, but also all associated costs,
including the costs for preparing federal.environmt!,ntal documents and
obtaining land use plan amendments and permits. FHW A has determined
that the inclusion of the project in the MTIP and its c(,lllsistency with RTP
policy satisfies the federal requirement that the project be included in the
MPO's fiscally constrained transpOliation plan.
2.' On page 48, Economic Element, delete final sentence addressing compliance with
PolicyB.18.
r
3. On page 57, TransPlan, TSl System-Wide Policies; replace existing paragraph
addre'ssing compliance with Policy #1 with the following:
"Policy #1,' Protect and manage existing and future transportation
inJi'astructure,
"This policy calls for the protection and management of eXlstmg
transpOliation facilities in a way that sustains their long-ternl capacity and
function. [-5 is an existing transportation facility who'se function is that of
an interstate highwayptoviding connections to major .cities, regions of the
state and 'other states. As an interstate highway, 1-5 also serves as a major
freight route. TransPlan recognizes 1-5 as a single fa~ility that inCludes a
cOlmection over the Willamette River. Failure to replace the
decommissioned 1-5 bridge and temporary detour bridge with a new
permaQent bridge' capable of sustaining l-5's long-term capacity and
.' ~.- functions would be inconsistent with TransPlan and this policy."
:"!t:.~tJ;+,-,::<~_~.,::~,"~~~.~._;,.,' ;
"
, . ,,' . I. ,,'. . ',., '.~
'j" ~oregon,qridge delivc~y partners
. '-.' ",I .,
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301
Date FWfefj~(ed.
J8N- 2 9 2008 t ,
Planner: fij7
t ~;.~~ .
!:,;,'
"".
,
,
,:'.~ " \ .,!: 1
Date. Received
~ 29>2008 i
.1
Planner: BJ
, -..
. I Ii _. ...,. . - -' ,
" ,'" ,- "
_ . t-, ~,._-,'.' ...'
j ., " : , ": .' ~:..,- ' . ,.".' '.""
. ,.~.. ~
.
i' il.i,
~
"
,
ir..
fi
,I
U
oregon bridge delivery partnersw
FEB' 2 5 2008
February 22, 2008
Ms. l-leatherO'Donnell
Planning and Development Department
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR ,9740 1
Re: 1-5 Willmnette Bridge Project
Dear Ms. O'Donnell,
, - ,
Thank you tor.informing Oregon Bridge Deliver Partners that the [-5 Willamette Bridge
Project Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendment applic~tions (MA 07-3 and RA 08~1
respectively) have bcen dctcrnlined to be complctc as of February 8, 2008.
(
The supplemental items you have requestcd for staff and public review are attached. Thc
items you requested and a summary of the information provided is included in Table 1. '\
Please contact me at (503) 423-3785 or corrinne.humphrcy@hdrin~.com if additional
inlomlation' is ncedcd orif you havc any.questions,
Si7JY' ,
~mphrey, ...{ICP
Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
1001 SW 5th Avenue I Suite 1800 I Portland, OR 97204
'.ph: 503.423.37851 fax 503.423.3737
.' emrol: corrinnc,humnhrevrlilhdrinc.com
.'
. ~ '",
i";, ~.' _i." '..-" " '. "::;:.' ~,
. .....: .
oregon bridge delivery partners
''I: ..1 'I.' ".;1.:,' .
1165 Union Slreel NE Salem. OR 97301
Date Receiwed
A--
JHN 2 9 2008
Planner: BJ
J
......;1, .
:,.' ~.; . . -;- -:."~
/
Attachments (in hard copy and CD): '
. Revised' Figure 2: Project Area (wi1h right-of-way-added; in color and black and
white)
. Revised Figure 5: Proposed Areas of Temporary Impacts and Right-ot:Way for
Bridgc Construction (with temporary work bridge envelopes added; in color and'
black and white)
. Supplemental Figure 6: Approximate Vegetation Disturbance Areas (in color and
black and white)
. ,Supplemental Figure 7: Proposed Northern (Anderson Lane) Noise Wall Location
and Configuration
\. Supplemental Figure 8: Proposed Southern (Laurel Hill) Noise Wall Location and
Configuration .
. Supplemental Figure 9: Noise Barrjer Effectiveness
. Metro Plan Policies C 30 and C 31 Narrative
Table I: Supplemental Requests and Responses
Comment
Figure 5 is very helpful in identityingright-of-way and
right-of-way easement boundaries. Please provide a
figure of the entire project area that depicts the right-of-
way and right-of-way easement boundaries clearly for
black and white reproduction.
Please provide a figure showing the general areas for'
vegetation removal, specifically regarding riparian .
vegetation and vegetation butTering residences from 105
as discussed on page 59 (WAP, P.3).
"\
. Please provide a figure showing the general locations of
the sound walls as discussed on page 60 (WAP, P.8).
Including figures showing sound wall examples (such as
those from the 1 f31 f08 open house) would also be
helpful.
Please provide a figure showing the general locations of
the temporary bridges.
'. . ~..or.e92ni~ridgc d~liv.ery partners
!., . , . \ ~"
,-
Response
Figure 2: Project Area has been revised to include. '
right-of-way and right-of-way easemerit boundaries,
This figure shows the entire project area. Both color
and black and white versions of Figure 2 are provided,
General areas for vegetation remov~J are providea in a
supplemental figure_ Figure 6: Approximate Vegetation
Disturbance Areas d~picts the informatio~ we have
regarding potential vegetation impacts, which is subject
to design changes. The vegetation removed will be
limited to the minimum area necessary for construction
imd staging activities. Following con~ction~ cleared
areas will be revegetated and returned to existing
conditions to the extent practicable. Existing trees
within the right-of-way, in the Willakenzie Area, on
the northwest side of the project area will be removed
as needed. The area would be revegetated to the extent
practicable. Both color and black and white versions of
Figure 6 are orovided.
,General locations of the proposed sounds walls are.
provided in supplemental Figures 7 and'8: Proposed
Noise Wall Locations. These locations may change as
the design progresses and additional public input is
gathered. Sound wall examples are provided in the
attached supplemental Figure 9: Noise Barrier
Effectiveness.
Figure 5: Proposed Areas of Temporary Impacts and
Right-of-Way for Bridge Construction has been revised
to include a general construction envelope where the
temporary bridges would be located. These locations
may change as the design progresses, but the area is not
expected to expand outside the footprint. Both color.
and black and white versions of Figure 5 are provided.
Date Received
~g; ~of2608 :
" ,
. . I
Planner: Bil
, I '
1165 Unloll'Slreet NE Salem, OR 97301
j tp
I-69
"
"
\,
I
.i'-
Table I: Supplemental Requests and Responses
. Comment
Mctro Plan policies C 30 and 'c 31 relate to flooding and
appear to be applicable, Staff will be having the City's
Floodplain Manager review the proposal for general
comments.
Although this is a funding issue and not necessarily a
completeness revie'w issue, staff understood that the
bridge replacement project was in thc S1'I P and the
MTlP but not in the R TP' as stated on page 16,
Additionally, although. this is not stated in the written
statemeni, staff previously understood fTom 'ODOrs
attorney that their opinion is that bridge replacemcnt
projects do not need to be included in TransPlan.
.'
f', ~ (
'. ,'/,' .
.'r .", -""". * .
l~.orcgorl"bndge delivery partners
1165 Umon"Street NE~Sa!em. OR 97301
j.....
Response
Metro Plan policies C 30 and C 31 are addressed in an
attachment to this letter.
Ip response-to this comment, 0001' will be providing
the City with an errata sheet that does two things.
First, it will amend-the section cOllCeming consistency
with the RTP, explaining the source ofthc funding for
the project and clarifying that the funds are specially
earmarked for the purpose of this bridge replacement
project (i.e.; the funds can only be used for this bridge
replacement purpose). With the pToject in the MTlP.
this"is suffi<:;ient to meet FHW A requirements. Second,
it will remove references to projects 150 and 260 to
show consistency with TransPlan (because those
projects are, placeholder capacity increasing projecls)
and insteadJely upon 1'ransPlan itself for consistency,
since TransPlan shows an 1-5 connection over the
Willamette ,!l.iver and failure to repair the bridge would
be inconsistent with TransPlan. The errata sheet will
address con'sistency with TransPlan pqlicies that
address the importance of 1-5 and a connection over Lhe
Willamette River.
\
I
,
r
Date Received
P~0239 2008
, Plannerci BJ
"i.'.lUlit'tq~--'--l_' l-..c' 1. .' :.!!...~~~~
"."...-,--, ' '"'''-'1
M'ij' _. ~+"- >, '''he" ,,~
'-;.. \ 1, . -. .~. -,~. ,~i
')ll'~~~:~ ""ijbrl,~::',"
..,. . "":\' ..?'~q~~.
, . ~ I ""'-l" _."
r r """i( .---i
-'it ~ ,,'.. ~"'" ':,." ,.:).- J'
"."...~,.","_ r-'
,S;;' ,:'.3i:'i
Project area
City limits
Parks
Right-Df-Way
Right-Df-Wayeasement
~ Highways
/'V Major roads
no
'"
""
',""
.,
Q
I1id.,z;",d/ev_
'If/!/fP 'VUer
..idG" ~. '. _
u_. _
;"""_,ii"'" ,
,..r, '-'lIIIlI$.
':/ ,
V....7 1 '
Aarj\~" ' , """~
~j ....., l, Il<.{,.,
u ~~,
r
Project area
City limits
[[J Parks
Right-of,Way t
.' f Way easell1en
Rlght-o -
~ Highways
/\/ Major roads
,,0 ,":0 810
,',.;.,', {
:'''''fj[;/!lt(/l''R,il'cr'
} 'lV"'d"'",'. ~ '. I
"i'OilLl\- '
\.;';/~--~-;:,p""n ,,"PI
,,,...-~ ,en (
,.
~ -'. ,
I'"
':
.,;. ~ .
"
,{I
~~:
,in
,;..... ~!::.
Imp''''s alld Riglil,of,Wm forOate"tlec :eive j
1-:': WillamcUe Rjwr B1~~jf{I~~t 11008
~ ,
Planner: BJ
Q Staging areas
Potential temporary
rEZ;J work bridge location
Right-of-Way .
Right-of-Way Easements
i',::; Willamette River Greenw_a~
[:@ Parks ' 400 "'fU
I 0 ~ - 100 200 JOO -eet
"
1-73
~;~~,~\,i,~_~IJ;.~'i .~:!I.; k
- "
EB ~~'"
"""'",LC"""'~."< "",.,.(,;~,I., I, .
Proposed Areas ofTcmporcll-:-
~:'.
.. ':;".
-(
(I
"1;'
/~, .: ''TI,'' ~/'4 ~....:-, "~ JIJ. :~' M,',' :;'t
. l'::f[;i'~-,= ,'::f~
l~, ," . '"". ,. ''->ill '
".' '. ~~~.,~, C'
--: " ,..' """~" ',:.':,,' C::"'"
~Ir: i,
, ,I' 'i',
I . ! ;~~':.:'2 ..... 'I
' , '.r,t
,
\
,.:..
Q Staging areas
Potential temporary
l2Z1 V'lork bridge location
Rightcof-Way
Right-ofcWay Easements
~t.:7i. Willamette River Greenwah
1 Lillll Par!1 }()(J' 400VD
'10..;.100. 200,.,~ ~Feel
., -
'-~~
~[},f,!"tI;!.'d ~i;,', \ __. '~ '+,,~!.
, ....~ y.:" i,,;\ "'.
",,,, '-..,
ttj,~~~~.: .,
"';"'lCOOc,,s'A,e,;,,.nRl
.";:~~~"'\'.'-:~:'~~H'" -;;;:}~~-
. i~?' :~~\!~,~!u._.".)
'l".\'("\,',~' ','~~. ' ...,"'..l
~~. 'f ..' ',;:-. .., '" "-<(16 .
'. ~;~\\' '~~.J' i '
~~ .;~.;~ ':. ~ c::
it,.
~'~"P. '"
I'~ ;"ftc.... ::.(
I, .,j "('C'_,' ',,(
-"I....
..,,~ ".1'.:;.
. "i,~{
" ~ ,Date"
J 'CIS 'Iml RI' ._
rlOposed A",,; ofT""I""""', "'p.', " , ?"t';,...., rl1RrttJ.thBrojcct
1-5 WIUallltJM"' ",'''-:...u.u..o...... 1-74
..'
.J' ,,_
~.)
PI::tnnp.r: BJ
,
/
--.....
t~~ .' ,_
, . , '/'~n. . r , " , '-'R- riehl ad
ApprO\llllillC vegelillIollQat~111ce~reas .
1-5 Willamctlc Ri,~ ~-ll.i2008
.Jar_'Nv:r"~ ,,,PM" F~PI
1-75
:1, .l~ j:
.,-
~,
"
Planner: ~J
E::l Project area
Approximate vegetation
disturbance areas
~ Highways
/'V Major roads Q
~50 soo
'1v!,z;;iJf/ic !ii:;;; :
Bnd~9
(~, OplA,~'
"..f_-::-._~ I
',"w,..,,,n-;,,,,,.,,Pnn'nf<Q,
I "
,.:i~l,
750 \.000
Fffi
." ....--:1
"1"
.,'",
"r"
c .
',', !{
.., .....
.J
'~'h'.):
~. ,
. b-
..~...-,;.o;~<~
}\I.,;'
, ,
AI'I)fi,y\illl;lk Ve!1da~il))i:-;lly'ballce ......1\- re~lS
, " " t' .
. ,. ~ f,H~
' _ /' -,. ~ . lJLJ . .
: I-~ \\ I1lamelte IYer Bru ~e ru.lect
Planner: BU76
\
V\I i I I 01 III E' t t e
.,~&~'
I[ f~'m'''.' ""~~" ~
:~1
'..)'1.
R i'l t: I
(; ref.: 11 '...1"'21 '.'
Eugene
-..
/V Proposed noise wall location
[] Pa,rks
Right-of-Way
y,
9
, ,I
"~~l~i;~jt~;{~l1.
I-sd~!1II'l~' v~ I." I'C::-"."
'lU~,~ . ''.1:/:": . .'
/:-:;. """'...'
mT '-'~~..
~/--_---., ,\
. .
-,"..,
a e 'I~U..e7
Proposed Nonll('i"IlIAndcrson Lane) Noise Wall" ocalJpJl '1I1(tC9)~~uration
r-:; Willal1lette~fB'ri'irge Project
Planner: BJ
"
,
, .
1-77 'I'
t, -.
~h\,~t~="
,__,_,~ 'x __ _ _ ...-' t'.
Ell g.e II e ' Proposed nOise wall rll
,I
"J...,f;'
~{
~~
li\'~
-'it
lftj!
~~
1ri
Iff
~r
~::!:}
, ,_. ~.' '~",.'"
"i'!T!~
-
\:V i'l 1.1 III '0: t l ;-"
I'.'
':,1 ",,,,11'::;,'1
--'
~
S . / f'
c (Jl'lug Ield
l
, .
Proposed noise wall location
Parks
Right-of-V\lay
",
':'1
'.'l
1,':-'
Q
I
. ~,.
Prop";;"cl N"rll,,'ri1 1.'\lllkrs"Jl LaJlel',Nuise Wall LlOat~lReG~~xe(i
1-5 Willamette Ri\,-~,id;:'1nl\Ii'*cl
1-78
Planner: BJ
'10;(;!!i,t/".;~.- ,
;~;!.r -'- ,,, _~, J/'f~l'><~,,"!; ~,~ f:.'l ;i' _~_...
(r' OlU\. ' ". ",
\:;/ -"'_.-._~":
. -I';, ~
"
r i~. :. i
;'t"
"" "
r
d, ',,: ,'<,
~,:"'-"
~',
-~~~.i;~:~~~~:~.~~ V' \
~ ::... """,.Ji,'" ..
, \!:; ~JL~, "'.','
'. ~
~" .'~ .~ ,"
'.,
" --';' Figure 8
ProlloseclSou\liClIl (I~;llll"el Hill) Noise Wall Loc~~,...:~,af~ '
, 1-5 Willamette Ri\'el'Bl'idge Pl'o.iect
~:tlJ 2008
Pla.nner: 8,j
,~,~,. ,r""r.',
'1-79
:ow)) ~:;, :l! "I
r
:: 'i.'
.~'!
..(;.
.
".-~r.".
Eugene
Wiilamette
,
I. v' erG ( e 2 n 'N a )'
...k~~
~
-
" Proposed noise wall
/'../ Proposed noise wall location
Right-of,Way
r'j
1,',,-
i":
a
';.>\. ~j~"-"
,""I.I(,"'t//1' '7~.
'ft/!(!f'" '\.'I'{,r
(f)~~~['.''''~..~:-~''' !"'.
:7f':'1~
\.
PlOposecl SOIlI hem (LlIlrel Hill) Noise Wall Locati.9ibJjfl c;nf!Jj"u7atiol\
- j ~ IJ n .
. . 1-5 Willamctic Rivcr Bl'ilfc:e , mject
Planner: BJ-8~
......'N"'-''-'"
'.~ 1.1: j,
;~. ,!~"/;
~"'"fi'
"~~' ~L-,.;: .". t:;-
.-
~
1l>. ~~
1::>0:. "7-
~
~.
ELEVATED
LEVEL
", .. .-,
"'." ",
DEPRESSED
, '
~{/f;t1l!1dl(! ~ver .
,~ . . ~,'
r.~ c:7ra" ' '
\!Y ---
1-81
.. ... --_.~-.
- f .'
NONE
May be some noise reduction
by renain
Noise travels directly
to the receiver
"," .
. - " ~,,~'. :',,:.~
"'," .'
" ,
. , ,
.- -,' .,", -.
" ,
. .. ".>:.:
....'........
'"
..
May be some noise reduction
by terroin
.'" i""
, ' .,.'..,
-, ;'
"'", ,"
NEAR SOURCE
Barrier is very effective
NEAR RECEIVER
Barrier has no effect
'>..'
Barrier is effective
I '
I .... "
.'l\a;""",,;l:,;:
Barrier has no effect
. .
,','
Barrieris effective
:;,<"
1\
r ..,
.""'.'..U; ,
" ~
Barrier iselfective
.:t,' .
r
Figure 9
Noise Barrier Effectiveness
. , 1-5 Willi\mette ~er ~~~A>ject
U~TA HeD ,IVt:=U
~ 29 2008
, Inl,......noll'. R.'
. .' - . -' . .
.
. .
. .....
..;
- ","
"
"'....,
,
)
Metro Plan Policies C 30 and C 31
C. Environmental Resources Element
Natural Hazards (Goal 7)
I
Policy C:30 Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) regulations. development shall be prohibited in floodways if it could
result in ,an increased jlood level. The jloodway is the chmmel of a river or other water
course and the adjacent land area that must be i'eserved to discharge a one-perce nt-
chance flood in any g~~en year, "
The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge is located within a FEMA designated regulatory
flood way and floodplain. Therefore, the design of the replacement bridge must satisfy the
regulations set forth in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP requires
that any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood E1eyations (BFEs, which
corresponds to water surface elevations, associated with the 100-year flood event) must be
approved by FEMA. The proposed structure satisfies the requirements of the NFIP. The
no-rise condition is also a requirement of ODOT for any bridge replacement project.
Two pier location scenarios are cUlTently under consideration (Proposed Option A and
Proposed Option B). Based on the modeling, Option A would result in an increase of 0.02
feet over existing conditions for the 100-year flood event. Option B would result in a
decrease of 0,54 feet for the 1 OO-year flood event.
For the Environmental Assessment, the hydraulic conditions of the 1-5 Willamette River
Bridge Project were analyzed using the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' HEC-RAS model.
Natural, existing and proposed conditions (with pier locations Options A and B) were
modeled. Conservative assumptions regarding pier size were' used for this modeling:
R~fined design of the concepts and further hydraulic analysis will allow confirnlation that
the proposed project will result in no rise of the base flood elevation.
A FEMA "nQ-rise" certification will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any
construction or structures within f1oodways/special flood hazard areas within Eugene.
Policy' C. 31 When development is allowed to occur in the jloodway or floodway fringe,
local regulations shall control such development in order to minimize the potential
danger to life and property. Within the UGB, development should result in in-jilling of
partially developed land. Outside the UGB, areas affected I{y thefloodway andJloodway
fringe shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their
open space and recreational potential, mid their value to water resources. '
The proposed replacement bridges are located within the Eugene-Springfield UGB.
Portions of the project area consist of developed urban lands and portions of the project
area consist of non-urban areas. Both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances
- '.
. ~~,..,~ 1. ",. :,1.: ,:" _ J ' " :;
. .: ...; 1 oregon bri,dge:'.del.1very partners
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301
rs :J8UUBld
Page 1 of 2
800l ~ Nnr
pa^!aOaH alEae z
\~~-;"'-';'"'
'::; 1.:: ~ ,~", .,~."
,. ,?",
" -.".,
;.....
'.j",
',<','
,,'
.:('
'>-
regulating construction within floodplains and floodways. The following permits will be
obtained under these 'ordinances to allow development in the flood way or floodplain.
· A Site Development Permit (or similar building permit), and a FEMA "no-rise"
certification will be obtained from the City of Eugene for any construction or
structures within floodways/special flood hazard areas within Eugene,
· A Type I permit will be obtained from the City of,Sprlngfield to allow any
construction in the floodplains or tloodways within Springfield.
Development in relation to the project" is in the nature of a replacement"l-5 bridge over
the,Willamette River. The project will comply with approval conditions imposed during
the permitting process,
',', !,.-,,);,
"'1' '.' I: ~'~l"
. ." .... ~ - .
, . ~',6~
....."0;" .
oregon bridge delivery partners
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301
"'", ""\1'
0; if .. ,I ."J:J: .
.L-/j.J
\~.r
;........'...
. ~1 "j" .. ~.....
":. ~.:. ,.r 'I. ,-'\ .
J -
Date Received
~N 29 ?nnR
I
Planner: B~
rs :J8UUeld
, BOO~a~e~~
paA!aoaH alBa
1-84
f'
,,""
oregon bridge delivery partners~
February 1,2008
Heather O'Donnell
Planning and Development Department
Cityof Eugene
99 West 10th A venue
Eugene;OR 97401
ri-~:',-'i :~;~ [T~.
)f ) LY:-J \L') '.."
, ;~;~ i . .,.
J Ii FEB' -1 2008
b'L
C' : ~..' - _' ;
r.-.
Re: 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project
."' ",'. . .
-~_.. ~_.__._~'.__..__.._-_.,.
The Orego~ Department of Transportation (ODOT) would like to request the City of
Eugene Council to initiate review of Type I Metro Plan Amendments as the lead body for
this proposal, which requires approval by the City of Eugene, City of Springfield, and
Lane County.
ODOT is requesting amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan for the proposed
, replacement ofthe Interstate 5 (1-5) Bridges over the Willmnette River and Canoe Canal
(also known as Patterson Slough). The projectjJfoposes to construct replacement of the 1-'
5 bridges and remove the original and detour 1-5 crossings over the Willamette River and
Canoe Canal, ODOT is requesting the following plan amendment approval,s:
/'
. An amendment to the Metro Plan, in the form Of an exception as required by
Metro.Plan, Chapter III, Section D,'Policy II, to authorize the placement offill
within the Willmnette River Greenway setback requirements associated with the
new bridge. In addition, Policy II exceptions may be needed to place fill in the
Willamette River Greenway associated with (I) removal ofthe decommissioned
1-5 Willanlette River and Canoe Canal bridges, and (2) construction of temporary
work bridges to remove the decommissioned bridge 'and detour bridge currently in
use, and (3) construct new bridges.
· An amendment to the Metro Plan, in the form of a goal exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway), to authorize a nonwater-
dependent and non water-related use within the established Willamette River
'Greenway setback. Although the project is exempt from Goal 15 because 1-5 is an
) ,existing urban use, ODOT requests this exception asa precautionary measure.
· An amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan to allow structures and fill
\. ' associated with the replacement 1-5 bridges to be constructed within the first 35
feet back from the top of the Willamette River streambank within the Willmnette
/ River Greenway in the Willakenzie area. This mnendment only requires approval
of the Eugene City Council.
.. J
- ':'-d"" t(-, - . ~ , ." . '.'"
._~, I J,' -,,_'.' ."'(" ';1 ,11.
., ,11'''~ '. ~b' 'd d I' rt
Ul..;{;.:{,oregon" n ge e Ivery pa ners
1165 Union StreetNE Salem, OR 97301
Yj
.:". :i.l t ~
. ~"
,l ')0, ~ ,. .
'-'.,.'!
'., -!;.'
.~ \ ,.
)
The enclosed Metro Plan Amendment Application is broadly divided into two chapters,
Chapter One covering Project Description and Chapter Two covering Legal Findings.
Chapter One provides a detailed description of the proposed project and includes the
follOWing topics:
II
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Background Information
Project Description
Temporary Coqstruction Facilities
Duration and Sequence of Construction
Budget and Funding Sources ,_
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Public Involvement Efforts
-'
Chapter Two presents the legal findings pertaining to the requested plan amendments and
addresses the following topics:
2.1 Requested Plan Amendments
2.2 Application Review Procedures and Standards
2.3 Requirements for Exceptions under Statewide Plall{1ing Goal 15 (Willarrietle
River Greenway) and Metro plan Chapter III, Section 0, Policy II
2.4 Compliance with OAR 660, Division 4 Exception Requirements
2.5 Amendment to WiliakenZie Area Plan
2.6 Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TransPlan, Willakenzie Area Plan, Riverfront
Park Study, Laurel Hill Plan, South l'Iills Study, and Entrance Beautification
Study
2.8 Compliance with Eugene Code (EC) 9.7730(3)(a) and (b), EC 9.8424(1)(b)
and.(c), and EC 9.8424(2)
2.9 Other Information
This mnendmentapplication has been revised to address Completeness Review'
comments received from the City of Eugene. The comments received and a summary of
the responses and location of responses are included in Table I.
Please contact me at (503) 423-3785 or corrinne.humphrey@hdrinc.com if additional.,
information is needed to consider this request.
Sincerely,
~
1
Corrinne Humphrey, AICP
Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
1001 SW 5th Avenue I Suite 1800 I Portlarid, OR 97204
ph: 5g3}2~.3(851 fax 503.423.3737
. .. ''''l'" .." h hr =h"
.":~'~':. emal ,rcorrmne. umo eVIW, armC.com
.' ,'oregon'biidge delivery partners
1165 Union Street NE Salem. OR 97301
Date Received
~g2 ~02608
P~ar 11 1t:::1, 91J
i
.:.'
. _,' .._.' ~ .. ..._ .~. __. . _ u
'~,""IfJ",,~'~., J rqr'\;t~i^'~,rl
...), _ ~ '" ~'rJ, 1-" ._.
1-85 .
The application forms have been completed and are
included in this-resubmittal package.
. The City limits have been added to Figure 2.
Figure 4 was replaced with a figure that better
illustrates pier locations ,and conceptual bridge designs.
All figures are within the UGB:
Figure 4 was replaced with a figure that better
illustrates pie~ locations,and conceptual bridge designs.
Text regarding conceptual designs and the public
process has been added under subsection OAR 660-
004-0022 Reasons Necessary to J.ustify an Exception
Under Goal 2, Part I1( c) of Section 2.4 Compliance
with OAR 660, Division 4 Exception Requirements
and under Policy 4 in the Transportation Element of
subsection c. Willakenzie Area Plan of Section 2,7
Compliance with Metro'Plan, TransPlan, Willakenzie
Area Plan, Riverfront P~rk Study, Laurel Hill Plan,
South Hills Study . and Entrance Beautification Study.
Code citations ofEC 97730(3)(a) and (3)(b), Criteria
for Approval of Plan Amendment, have been added
under Section 2.2 Applicable Review Procedures and
Standards and Section 2,8 Compliance with Eugene
Code (EC) 9,7730(3)(a) and (b), Ee 9~24~l)(blMpd . _ I
, . UaIl~ n~~t:lIV~U
1165 Union Street NE Sal~m. OR 97301 4-- . " Page 3 of 5
, J8i(2 9 2008 ~
,'--
....
Table I: Completeness Review Requests and,Responses
Comment
Overall, the applicatiollmaterials are high quality and
appear to be fairly complete, although we were .
somewhat surprised at the lack of specific details such as
Milepoints and Bridge numbers/structural details, We
were also surprised to see the ClUTent ADT of 49,000
since ODOT's 2005 traffic volume tables listed ADT at
milepost 193.44 (0,5) miles south ofl-I05 at 59,000
ADT, There is also no mention of the railroad that must
be spanned by the bridges which will involve several
additional penn its
The proposed text amendments to the Metro Plan on
page 32 of the \vritten statement"Indicates that a new
subsection D is being inserted, but there is no reference
to the page number or the sectioll being modified.
Also, as an informational item, f00t110tC 21 notes "which
includes. a bridge over U, when it should state an 1-5
bridge over the Willamette River, 1-5 is also incorrectly
shown as 1-5. The text reads one dash five instead of
eve dash fivc - it is a tvpo.
Please complete the application forms for the Metro
Plan and Refmement Plan Amendments.
For clarification, please add the City limits and urban
growth boundary to Figures 2, 4, and 5.
It is noted that no bridge designs are included. It is
understood that ODOT is involved in an on-going public
effort regarding the bridge design so there is not final
design at this time. However, given the nature of the
project, staff recommends that the applicant provide
some conceptu~1 schematics of the site plan and
elevations (even if there are a couple of alternative
designs). The written statement could include several
qualifications regarding the conceptual nature of the,
design and the on-going public review process, as stated
on page 3 of the written statement.
Please revise the written statement to include the code
citations ofEC 97730(3)(a) and (3)(b), Metro Plan
approval criteria, at the beginning of each appropriate
section.
i .... ":
:....
,'J": "". .
;'.oregon bridge deHvery partners
_.~ __. ..._ "4 "" ;'
, . '. f'
".
Response
Design,details are not y~t available as the design is a
preliminaty stage. ODOT is in the process ofhiring a
contractor for engineerihg design. Available stmctural
details have been added to Scction 1.2 Project
Description, The 49,000 ADT is consistent with the
project Environmental Assessment .and has been
confimled.
Addi~ional infonuation regarding the replacement
bridges spanning the UPRRtracks has also been added_
to Section 1.2 Project Description and to subsection d.
Relationship with Other Projects of Section 2,9 Other
Information. .
Reference to the page number and section for the
Willakenzie Area Plan amendment has been added to
the text in Section 2.5 Amendments to WillakellZie
Area Plan.
Amendmentlanguage ahd location for Metro Plail
Policy D,II has also been added under Policy D,II m
. the 'WillametteRiver Greenway, River Corridors, and
Waterways Element of subsection a. Metro Pla'n of
Section 2,7 Compliance with Metro Plan, Tran;Plan,
WillakenzieArea PI~n, Riverfront Park Study, Laurel
HiU Plan, South Hills Study, and Entrance .
Beantification Study.
Text has been revised per suggestion in what is now
Footnote 23 in Section 2.5 Amendments (0 WiUakenzic
Area Plan. "1'-5" has been revised to "'1-5" as necessary'
throughout the document.
. I
. Current Page
Number
Pages 3 to 5
Pagcs 4 and 68
Page 36
Pages 49 and
50
Page37
.J
N/A
,Page 6
Pages 9 and 10
Pages 9 and 10
Page 26 and
60
Pages 17 and
66 '
. Planner:' BJ-S6
Table I: Completeness Review Requests and Responses
(c), and EC 9,8424(2).
Code citations ofEC 9.8424(1) through (2),
Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria,'have
been added under Section 2,5 Amendments to'
Willakenzic Area Plan and Section2.8 Compliance
with Eugene Code (Ee) 9,7730(3)(a) and (b), EC
9.8424(1)(b) and (c). and EC 9,8424(2),
Criterion EC 9,8424(2) has been addressed in Section
2.8 Compliance with Eugene Code (Ee) 9.7730(3)(a)
and (b), EC 98424(1)(b) and (c), and EC 9.8424(2).
PleaseTevise the written statement to include the code
citations ofEC 9,8424(1) through (2), refinement plan
approval criteria.
Please address criterion EC 9,8424(2),
Please conflTm that the" permanent piers and temporary
pilings for the pennanent and tenip6rary bridges are not
included in the fill calculations provided on page 4, and,
it appears that the number of piers will be 8?
I don't see any mention of any project #15 in TransPlan
or the R TP that correspond to this work. If such a
cOlmection is not required (are bridge bundles exempt?)
then a simple sentence in response would probabIy" do.
lt's my understanding that if federal $$ are spent or will
be spent on the project it must be in the RTP; the EA
public hearings are set for January 31, 2008 in Eugene
and Springfield, so federal money has already been
\
spent.
On page 53 in the subsection Relationship to Other
Projects there is no mention of the railroad; theyrve
unofficially stated plans to add a parallel track so
vertical clearance for this future facility should be
mentioned.
Please address all the Statewide Planning Goals, not as
footnotes, and if they are not applicable please indicate
why.
Regarding Goal 15 exception (page 27-29). OAR 660-
004-0020(2)(b)(A) states that "the exception shall
indicate on a map or otherwise describe the1locati<2..n of
possible alternative areas... II The \\'ritten stat~ment
(page 29, last paragraph) wouldn't 'require an exception.
Please provide a map showing those locations or further
describe where those alternative locations are.
Regarding Goal 12 (page 40), please list and clearly
provide a fmding for each subsection (a) through (c) or
OAR 660-012-0060(1) to clarifY that there is no
significant effect under any of these, '
Regarding the Metro' Plan, please address the following
Specific Element Policies: D.9, E:2, and F.34! Some of
the policies you may be able to refer to other areas in the
written statement where the issue was already addressed,
Regarding Metro Plan policy D.11, please provide
. language to amend D,ll to reflect the proposed project.
- -1 .:- :: );.:~"'. '-..:0 .~.,' _ ,,,,;),: .
r~:....o,\\,l~j\:p:' ......iff> >:., ,-.f;
oregon"ondge delivery -partners
"r'l~ I
'I' !
1-787,
...-..---..
~..",>'.'t~
~ <;"", . .~~ ('.;:
" :,:.--..:./ "',
.11.'
Text has been added to'section 1.2 Project Description
clarifYing the fill quantity estimates presented in Table
2. These calculations are for the fill placement and
removal associated with the roadway section in the
Willamette River Greenway between the Canoe Canal
and the Willamette River, and do not include
excavation or fill placement associated with the bridge
eiers, The number of piers (8) has also been confinned.
The TransPlan and RTP projects that correspond to this
project have been added under subsection TransPlan
and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) of Section 2,1
Requested Plan Amendments.
Text regarding the railroad has been added to Section
1.2 Project Description and the Relationship with Other
Projects subsection of Section 2.9 Other Infonnation,
All Statewide Planning Goals previously unaddressed
in the text have been added to Section 2.6 Compliance'
with Statewide Plmming Goals,
. The altemative bridge alignment locations have'been
described in subsection OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2,
Part II( c). Exception Requirements of Section 2.4
Compliance \vith OAR 660, Division 4 Exception
Requirements. .
1165 Union'Street NE Salem. OR 97301,
,
I'
Pages 35, 66,
and 67
Pages 66 and
67 .
Pages 4 and 5
Page 16
Pages 4 and 68
Pages 38, 39,
43, and47
Page 33
Pages 45 and
46
Pages 49, 50,
51, and 55
~-'
,
Table I: Completeness Review Requests and Responses
I Policv D.ll has also been added in this section,
The Willakenzie Area Plan Policies: P,3 (page 15), P.4
(page 98), P8 (page 100), and P,2 (page 155) have
been added to subsection c. Willakenzic Area Plan of
Section 2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TransPlan,
Willakcnzie Area Plan;-l~iverfront Par,k Study, Laurel
Hill Plan, South Hills Study, and Entrance
Beautification Study.
Additional text regarding aesthetics has been added to
Policy 4 in this subsection.
Relevant EBS policies have been addressed in
subsection g. Entrance ,Beautification Study of Section
2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TransPlan,
WiJlakenzie Area Plan, Riverfront Park Study, Laurel
Hill Plan, South H,ills Study, and Entrance
Beautification Study.
HDRverified that the permanentproject improvements
are not located in the RPS area; however, portions of
temporary work bridges may be, Relevant RPS polices
have therefore been addressed in subsection d.
'Riverli'ont Park Study of Section,2,7 Compliance with
Metro Plan, TransPlan;Willakenzie Area Plan, ~,
Riverfront Park Study, Laurel Hill Plan, South Hills
Study, and Entrance Beautification Study
Regarding the Willakenzie Area Plan, please address the
following policies: P.3 (page 15), P.4 (page 98), P,8
(page 100), and P,2 (page 155). Some of the policies you
may be able to refer to other areas in the wri~en
statement where the. issue was already addressed.
Regarding Policy 4 (page 98) and Policy 4 (page 15
which you already addressed), I have attached portions
of the City of Eugene Entrance Beautification Study
(EBS), The EBS also includes general policies
(attached) that may be applicable, Please address, I've
attached the two EBS routes (B, I and 13-2) that may not
be applicable but please confirm.
Attached is a partial copy of the Riverfront Park Study
(refinement plan) study area boundary, showing the
eastem portion of the study area which abuts 1-5. The
figure on page 5 of the written statement shows the
proposed project boundary as being within the RPS
boundalY. However, it appears per the' figures on pages
6, 8 and 9, that no work is proposed within the RPS
boundaI)'. Please confiml (assuming it's IHk then the
RPS policies don't need to be addressed).
The project area south ofthe Willamette River appears
to be in both the Laurel Hill Plan and South Hills Study
(refinement plans), Regarding the Laurel Hill Plan,
plcase address Policy 6 (page 3, attached) if applicable,
Regarding the South Hills Study, please confiml if any
portion south of 18th A venue is at or above 500 feet in
elevation, and if so, please confirm the highest elevation
and address the policy regarding on-site and off-site
impacts if conditiQns I through 5 exist as stated in the
SHS (pagc 5 of Exhibit A attached here) if applicable,
Regarding the Melro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan
policies addressing protection of natural resources,
please provide a more detailed discussion about hm\! the
proposal will reduce impacts rather than only citing that
future permitting processes will address natural resource
impacts through conditions"
As an informational item, regarding the Goal 15
exception (page 21), the findings for OAR 660-004-
0022(6)(a) do not discuss how the proposed project will
affect or reduce impacts than the existing on the scenic
qualities and views as a green way value.
I _::'1 ~ _ :~" ; < -.-.<"'j I l
"!(}~1, :;" J;;"~:.}~::.J .:..~t
I c.' ~p,_,
~ =;.~, lk~ ~'. ..
'().r~gb~' ~ri~ge'delivery partners
.j,j!" ,.\/",1 ,
The appropriate Laurel Hill Plan polices have beel}
included under subsection e. Laurel Hill Plan of
Section 2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TransPlan,
WilIakenzie Area Plan, Riverfront Park Study. Laurel
Hill Plan, South Hills Study, and Entrance
Beautification Study.
Although it has been determined that none of the
project area south of 18th Avenue is at or above 500
feet, South Hills Study conditi?ns 1 through 5 have
been included under subsection f. SOUtll Hills Study of
Section 2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TransPlan,
Willakenzie Area Plan, Riverfront Park Study, Laurel
Hill Plan, South Hills Study, and Entrance
, Beautification Study.
A more detailed discuss,ion regarding natural resource
impact minimization has been included under relevant
Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan policies in the
subsections a. Metro Plan and c. Willakenzie Area Plan
of Section 2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TnlllsPlan,
Willakenzie Area Plan"Riverfront Park Study, Laurel
Hill Plan, South Hills Study, and Entrance
Beautification Study,
Additional language, inCluding a discussion about how Page'26
the project will affect or reduce impacts on existing
scenic qualities and views, has been added to
subsection OAR 660-004-0022 Reasons Necessary to
Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part lI(c) of
Section 2.4 Compliance with OAR 660, Division 4
Exception Requirements. ' Date--Reeet led
tj--
. 1)Im5tf!}' 2008
1165 Union StreetNE Salem. OR 97301
.. ......
. 1i.:,I( ~ " oj.
';71,,11.:,1
50
Pages 59. 60,
and 61
Page 60
Page 65 and
66
Pages 63 and
64
Pages 64 and
65
Page 65
Pages 50. 51.
and 62
.?tdrH't1t~dBJ
j
,r'~~~': : ,'i ~,,>~... .;;} p:" --: ;(~. ~~.~.:r.
l~IP_'" l; ..: :1"
" I ~ '..r ..
. I
. .:Ch!
, ;;..~-.<~-~ ;:,,;,:~\~,,:
,'.
, : \- :~
'--
J
)
(
. ,
I
,
Date Received
'~29 2008
, , ,
Planner: BJ
,.....-~. ,
"
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT ApPLICATION
Chapter 1: Project Description
,
/
1.1 Background Information
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge in the
Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area (Figure '1). The existing bridge was
decommissioned in 2004 after the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) found
substantial structural problems, I including cracks in the supporting structures. Built in
1962, the existing bridge was designed using bridge ~tandards that are no longer
sufficient for the slze.of modem ,freight trucks. Replacement of the I-5 Willamette River
, Bridge is needed to meet state and federal safety and mobility policies.
This bridge replacement qualifies for funding from the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Funding Program and is a key project of the Oregon
Transportation Investment Act. A temporary detour bridge was built adjacent to the
. decommissioned bridge in 2004 and now handles all traffic.2 The detour structure does
not meet CUl-rent seismic standards and the construction methods used to build the
structure only met environmental requirements as they applied to teinporary, not
permanent, structures. A pennanent replacement for the ,decommissioned bridge is
necessary' to improve safety and ensure mobility of all users of 1-5 in the
, r
Eugene/Springfield area.
1-5 is a major transportation artery and the only freeway that traverses the entire length of
'the west coast from Mexico to Canada. Regional economies depend on the reliable use of
it in the Eugene/Springfield area. The current average daily traffic (ADT) for the 1-5
WiIlmnette River bridge is approximately 49,000 vehicles; ODOT predicts the use of this
interstate f'!cility to increase to approximately 73,000 ABT by 2030 (20-year design).
The ultimate goal of this project is to replace the decommissioned bridge and substandard'
detour bridge with a permanent bridge to provide capacity to accommodate current and
future traffic volumes. '
If the decommissioned bridge is not replaced with a permanent bridge that meets current
safety and design standards, the temporary detour bridge would likely have to be
upgraded to handle increasing traffic volumes and address safety concerns.
The inspection resulted in a sufficiency rating of 20 on a 100 point scale. A bridge qualifies for
replacement funding from the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funding Program
if it has a sufficiency rating under 50. '
2 The detour bridge is located entirely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Springfield. In
2003,' Lane COlmty and the cities of Springfield and Eugene approved a Metro Plan amendment and an
exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway) authorizing construction of the
temporary detonr bridge and its removal following completion of the penn anent replace~l.l,I'jQg'll11J.l).,.' d
}l\: ~I';; . :e~>c..ep!i,~~ was .~diipted to Metro Plan text, Policy No. l3"Chapter lll, Section D, See File ~-6M1::l.ieIVe
, Plan Amen~dm~nt Request ' ffi 2 9 2008
, :i'2/01/2008' I
'Planner: 8~
-'
'~...,..:; ,\-':. ; <''-:':.
,
,;.',..
.<~ _I.
~lWE'
~/
~f
\j""
~''-\
.'.~
i
I
/
"
-=~---::;.""'" ;".&7:
1
\
\, .
",-
',,--
,
~1
Unn Co,
;;~
;,).!
'!/~I
~j
Lr
:t';:;
V'.~
:'~:,
.~,~
-~9~~,
----,-'"~..
!i2~;:::::c '. ','.J:';','-:.:T:::'~;i
,f, >', -. ,-' ';:;""" d,;#..
i"j;fIP:::;.:'~:.:.~{F.::?!:: "'."'~~; ,
!_.;..-...#~;......,~;...&~.
' J." .,.-~- 5~~,...!j "-.~ :'> ."., .
~
,J
i
/
"./ ~ ..*-...,
......~~ .!'
r ~--
'">~; ~~~
'--~, >,
)~ ; l '~r-;,..;p
.". rJ-J J...i
.. r,1...;:."." .'" ',.,;t..<'
" ./. ril
,r:~-;.;ir
,~ ...r -- <'~"f
/ 1;'~ "A .;: ';>~',:',,!J
jf .' "'-6-
'.;'!:~"~'~ .._{;t:-"' ~..
..P.
y-' .~
...-,t,;,-
,.~ Highways
/'../ Major r~ads
a County boundary
~ Cities
.- ";~
"
Streams
6)
-- . "J.":'_ ,,' '--~'/-<1J:1
''''';~'Pf,/j) .,
~::~.:.'::'-;~ii~j;~;/j!:':
.f,-:":-'!. ,,~; _,.", .
';;;,;yj;,..~"',
Water body
\ 0 0.5
,
3 ,
-"~
%>pIffl>d'~""
,~.
1':::'_
\,~(~
Figure!
Vicinity ~Inp
1-5 'Yillamette Riyer Bddee PI'o.iect
.' !.' ~
"r.. Id~~~~ ~~""~.r'
1 It-
':"':~':'..;\'. '
,Plan Amendment Request
" , - , ~'\ ~ I- i
)/01/2008
"'
Date Receivecl
~~9 2008 .
tj~.'
~ ,..~-'.
',I!
l't....
Planner: B~i
1-90
.r--
1.2 Project Description
The 1-5 Willamctte River Bridgc Project proposes to remove and replace both the
de~ommissioned bridge and the temporary detour bridge::across the Willamette River,
Franklin Boulevard, and thc Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks with two new parallel
bridgcs (one southbound and one northbound) (Figurc 2). In addition, the existing bridges
across the Canoe' Canal would be removed and replaced with ncw bridges. Proposed
,
construction would include: construction and later removal of one or morc .temporary
work bridges; demolition of the deconm1issioncd Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal
Bridge, and dctour bridges; construction of replacement bridges; reconstl1lction of the
roadway approaches to thc bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area, and'
co'mpletion of any required mitigation of project impacts. .
/-
At this phase, ODOT has developed conceptual schematics illustrating the new 1-5
bridges, but has not developed, detailed engineering design plans. These planning-level
bridge design plans are included as part of Figure 4, which also shows two options for
pier location. This information is being :used by ODOT- and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) during envirolllnental analysis and public involvement; the
documentation that is required by the National' Environmental Policy Act (NEP A).
ODOT seeks to maintain flexibility of dcsign related to bridge form, materials, and
aesthetic treatments throughout the planning process, which will. provide the engineers
with flexibility to balance economic constraints and community requirements into the
bridge design. Design elements described in this application are based on conceptual plan
development to address current site constraints, environmental conditions, and the
rcquirements of NEP A; therefore, information on bridge design presented in' this
application should be considered'preliminary and is subject to change during the final
bridge design process. Although there are several possible bridge designs, all would be
within essentially the same footprint and will require Metro Plan amendments for
placement of bridge piers and fill within the greenway area.
The new crossing will be composed of two bridges over the Willmnette River: one
dedicated to carrying northbound traffic and the other carrying southbound traffic (Figure
3). The new bridges would be constl1lcted in abouL the same location as the
decommissioned and detour bridges, but would require minor shifts of-;;lignment, as well
as adjustment of the c01ll1ections to 1-5 of the Franklin Boulevard ramps to meet the
necessary raising of 1-5 by about ten feet (compared to the decommissioned bridge)
where the bridge crosses Franklin Boulevard. The new bridges would be designed with
enough width to eventually carry up to six lanes of traffic to meet the 20-year design for
future traffic needs; however, additional travel lanes are -not proposed as part of this
project and the new bridge would be striped to match the existing travel lanes at b~th the
north and south ends (i.e., two lanes in each direction). The width of the proposed new
Willamette River Bridges would be 64 feet "curb-to-curb" for each direction (northbound
and southbound) with the total width of each bridge being about 68 feet. These bridges
would be about 1800 feet long. Likewise, 'existing 1-5 crossing of the Canoe Canal north
of the Willamette River will also be replaced by a pair of new bridges, which would each
. '.
! ,"" To'
. ,: -' ; (
'r.
(:'/.~f' ~
,,,
Date Received
A--
'.Jtffl' 2 9 2008
3 -
Planner: e~
'" ..' /\,j.l.
. 'Plan Amendment Request
2/0 i /2008 '
1 r'"
'~~; 1 : " "
be about 200 feet long. Though there would be a slight shift in the alignment of 1-5, all
impr?vements would remain within the existing ODOT right-of-way.
For the purpose of this application, the new bridges over the Willamette River and the
Canoe Canal will be considered the same facility. These bridges would meet current
safety and design standards for all travel needs typical on this section of 1-5. Traffic
volumes would not change,as a result of the proposed bridge replacement. No additional
lanes, channelization changes, or speed zone changes are planned, although the new'
bridges would be designed to accommodate future traffic needs.
"
The ncw bridges would be constructed in the same, general location as ~ the eXlstmg
bridges and, based on the current concepts, would not require any permanent right-of-
.way acquisition from Alton Baker Park. The new bridge location would require some
minor shifts of alignment, as well as reconnection of portions of the Franklin Boulevard
northbound and southbound on/offrmnps to Franklin Boulevard. The new bridges would
be higher than' the decommissioned bridge to provide more clearance over Franklin
Boulevard, which would provide flexibility to local jurisdictions for future improvements
to the Franklin Boulevard corridor, as well as meet current vertical clearance
requirements for state highways. Although there are no specific plans for future
improvements to Franklin Boulevard, the proposed clearances would allow the addition
, of turning or through lanes, sidewalks or bicyc:le/pedestrian paths, transit lanes, aesthetic
treatments, or other improvements. The bridges over the UPRR would be long enough to
allow the addition of a third track.
There would be placement of new fill mld removal of existing fill within the greenway
associated with the new 1-5 Willamette River bridges. Placement and removal of fill
would be associated with the roadway section between the Canoe Canal bridges and the
bridges that cross the Willamette River. When the detour bridges were constructed, a
temporary easement from the Willmnalane Park and Recreation District was acquired. by
ODOT for placement of fill associated with the roadway section between the 'Canoe
Canai and the WillametteRiver. A condition of that easement is that fill placed within it
for the detour bridge be removed when the permanent replacement bridge is constructed.
All fill would be placed within ODOT right-of-way. Some existing fill, both within the
ODOT right-of-way and within a temporary slope easement east of 1-5, would be
removed, resulting in a net reduction of fill. Table 2 provides an estimate of the fill
placement and removal based on the conceptual designs presented in Figure 4. Fill
quantity estimates presented in Table I are for the fill placement and removal associated
with the roadway section in the Willamette River Greenway between the Canoe Canal
and the Willamette River, and do not include excavation or fill placement associated with
the bridge piers (piers are discussed in the following paragraphs).
PI~n Amendment Request
:':2/01/2908\ ,j:
J
Date Recpive j
~ h. 2008
4
. ~ ~~...'\'; \,;l~ji
.( ',. ."f~,{b,_ ';:}'j: "
,-'
"''1'''''1'' .1
~ '.';;
.!. ':~. .
I
,I-92,~~ 1 ,'1I\1("':-'~'t,._.';
>.l~',"1 .~~~.~.,~~,'il,r, ]
'-.J - .
Planner: B.j
r"'-'
.-
Table 2. Estimates of fill placement and removal ill cubic yards in the Willamettc River Greenway hased
on conceptual desh!Os
CitY
Location
Eugene
North of Canoe Canal
Between Canoe Cmlal and Willamette River
Springfield
North of Canoe Canal
Between Canoe Canal and Willamette River
Total
5,000
21,000
,Removed
\ Fill (yd3)
I
I
I
, Net (yd3)
Added
Fill.(yd3)
o
o
5,000
21,000
1,000
3,000
30,000
15,000
46,000'
61.000
-14,000
, -43,000
-31,000
Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill would be placed on the north side of the
Willamette, River to modify the roadbed approach to the new bridges, There would be
approximately 61,000 cubic yards of fill removed from the approach to the detour bridge,
resulting in a net decrease of 31,000 cubic yards of ,fill in the Willamette River
Greenway. Fill on the south side of the Willamette River would be minimal as this bridge
section would be supported entirely on piers. Fill amounts associated with temporary
work bridges would be negligible because the temporary structures will likely be built on
driven piles and connected to designated staging areas.
Both'pier configuration options (Figure 4) propose 4 piers each for the north bound and
south bound bridges, for a total of 8 piers within the Willamette River Greenway. Each of
the northbound mld southbound piers would be side by side. The estimated sizc of each
pier foundation is 63 feet by 30 feet; the piers for the through arch bridge would be
approximately 12 feet wider (i.e., 75 feet by 30 feet) because the structural components
of the bridges would be on the outside of the travel lanes. Both pier configuration options
would have one set of piers located in the middle of the Willmnette River, one set of piers
on the north bank, one set of piers on or near the south bank, and one set of piers south of .
Franklin Boulevard outside the Willamette River Greenway" The project would resultin a
reduction of piers from the existing five piers for the decommissioned bridge and six
piers for the detour bridge currently in the Willarriette River. The Canoe Canal would be
spanned completely and these.bridges will be perched on fill associated with the roadway
previously described, .
,i1:.~ .~. - ? .':'..".' ~ ~
"
Date Received
+
JW;r 2 9 2008
5
Planner: BJr-93'
~,>-. , j
. , < . '1
'./ '
,f':.. _. ,
Phih' Arn'enament Request
2/01/2008
)
,
:-,- .1~
~i Parks
.-,
t~_: Willamette.River Greenway
dP Eugene City Limits
V Springfield City Limits
CJ Project area
~ Highways
/'../ Major roads
o 280 ~ ~~~OBl Q
'~"";'il'Cd,'.l<:'ii~'?''t'ih'} .:( ~;"4' )4<1_ "! _.~-
~,i""((,,,,,,
- "
ri< ..>>
'-..~ -lr
5<W<<.lCOOOtS."'''h:l._'SR'
1-94
\- '.
.~"'-
'~.~
r~
Figure 2
Project Area
I-S Willamelte River B\'id~e PI'o,ject'
Date Received
~ 29 2g08
Planner: BJ
:)'.L:-,~;~r',: ~...~)~I
t II ~~~: l-') . ,Ir
'1>:'I...,d;
::.,: p).'i.
Plan" Amei1dmcnt Request
2/0 1/2908 i " 'i.'
~,
\
-.
Replacementbrid ges
//. Potential wall locations
/'J Toes to slope.
a.~ti~ Willamette Rive: Greely/,-ay i' -',..'-.
o no 400 690 9?Q. Q t;.-
- _e<.'l'fD l'
~r!iIn.Yt,.:\:..;\,_
/'~~: --"-'
.T,1'"mA
"-.:.,.~.
Fi(llll'(.j
[,\lc:ltitlll \lr Prl lj1(lS.:d R<.:pJaL:<.::mcl1t B'~dgcs
1-.:' \\"iILlIlll'ttl' ({in'I' Bridlll' PrujHt
, .,
.- <'f\ .
..~ 'i~;a 1, _ ~ -~. l.''''oI
'. . :.- ".' '.~~'" 1;l
,
'l..
"".' ,.
Date Received
A-- 7
~2 9 2008
1-95
, , ,
Plan ,0m~llqlllC!lt. r~eqlJcst
2/01/2'6681. . ',11.
( ~
~>~
." "'''' .~;
/
'~.' ',.' ," ..... .
~ ,~. ::>" . ~ ~.
',", ~
PI;:innAr'R.1
....
,.
"
1.3 Temporary Constn,lction Facilities
As with any significant bridge construction, the 1-5 Willmnette River Bridge Project will
require temporary construction facilities, including staging areas and temporary work
bridges. The specific operations in regard to temporary construction facilities will be
determined by the contractor selected by ODOT to construct the project. Requirelilents
and restrictions will be placed on their operations to minimize environmental impacts,
meet regulatory requirements, and meet commitments made during the public
involvement process. T~ese measures will be defined during the NEP A process and may
include keeping bicycle/pedestrian paths open and safe, noise restrictions, or work hour
limits.. Staging areas and hilUl roads would be"designated by ODOT for the contractor.
For the purpose of this application, ODOT assumes that two areas would be required for
construction and demolition, one on each side of the river, and haul routes to these
staging areas will be available (Figure 5). The currently-proposed staging areas would be
located on ODOT right-of-way (Figure 5), but would also require the temporary
occupancy of three parcels not currently owned by ODOT, including portions of Alton
Baker Park, within the greenway, adjacent to 1-5. ODOT would acquire temporary
'easements for use of non-ODOT property during construction. Figure 5 shows very
conservative estimates'ofthe maximum areas that may potentially be needed,for staging.
Actual areas'are likely to be less than shown in Figure 5.
The northern staging area would likely be located partially within Alton Baker Park. This
site would be accessed via Walnut Street, now a bicycle/pedestrian path. This is the smne
route that was used for access during construction of'the detour bridge. The 'southern
staging area would be located ina clearing adjacent'to the trail east of the detour bridge.
Franklin Boulevard will be used for access to the southern staging area. The proposed
staging areas would occupy approximately five acres within the Willamette River
Greemvay.
Temporary work bridges would be constructed to facilitate the construction of the new
bridges and the demolition of the old bridges. The work bridges would likely use driven
piles to create a stable and temporary work platform across the river. The,. use of this
technique will not require any significant fill to construct the work bridges. The .two work
bridges, including all pilings, would be removed after the .project is complete, and the
staging areas would be' restored to original conditions prior to construction. The use of
temporary construction facilities is a necessary part of the proposed project mid 'ODOT
will implement mitigation and conservation. measures developed dufing the
, environmental permitting process to limit these temporary impacts.
1 . '.",
.:t+:
" . (;~~., . ...-",',
'[ '" 'i ','''.1
Date Received
~ 29 20fis
Planner: 'BJ '
Plan A,m.' endment Renuest :,.--\J~,:
2/0 11200S1''',;,.'''"' :~': ',1' ,~.
1-96
\-";j' :1]\' /1 !
')
"'-''''
_,J
J
""'/;n1'ffe CD.
'jV~ . 'VYvr
.!~:-. '
Pier ConfiQuralion Options!
B
__,J<- "
?f:
,
--
---'-
'i;''';;':,,':)(;'
-" ~ ." :.r::. '
't~:...:'" ';' -Y .".l... \I.,' d",,',lI l}
", .,::.J,j I' .' ~~. 'e ~.;;...!
, ,.
\_":;'
}r~\ lJ,~I'!j1~"~. . <. ,
, 'Plan i),mendment Requesl
2/01ii008 ". ("
.. . ~.,~:;~,"\;(' ',)~ :',
.'.:"
. ",~" ..
),\>
"
Datf:1. Received
~ 2'9 2008' 9
Planner: BJ
\
,
(
1-97
.....--.
DECK ARCH BRIDGE
. THROUGH ARCH BRIDGE TYPE
Figure 4: Pier Location Options and Conceptual Bridge Designs
-,
'\
~
!'
. I. <\J\'\..
':1-1
Date Received
~
Jt:tt<J I~ 9 2008
Planner: BJ
~~ ~. '\~"~"""'~,''t' :,t~_: ,,r:; ~:i'.~-":-< -:
~. ." . J ~ -.'t 'Il".,. .. ..
Plan-Amendment'Request
2/0 l/2008
:'1 ~G'~ .' \ .1.
1-98
.r._
~~
-'
~~
'''~".. ..,.."'"'~..
'i"~".''''". "," '...'.
!-.-.,!." '~t-
i' -...v_
, OJ " iI~" ,
! !,~- -' \'"
"j ~~ - t,,~. "
~,' !'" 't'.'r'f~~"';;.l:;'~~~ '''~~
v' , ,;.\. '11" ,
" ;i ~.i" ~~}"L \(
" \}~\'~:~}it'~/~~
.~"t,. ,..,.,1..
: "~1,;:~~~~
-
o Stag(ngareas
i41 Wlllamette River Greenway
~ Parks e
Right-<lf.way.
I /'J Right-of-Way lEasemen~
o 15 150 ~lS YJO
.,' r.....:~ .":1; t-.
1fit0;<<, ~'U
~~ Off/L .
_ ~ --::o>;;",-::=,~l' '2~ f,
Fi~u,,< .'
I'r<'I"'scU Slaging _\r~a :lJ1d f{ighl-,'l~\\-~~' fOf JJfidg~ (""LI'II",-li"ll _
idl.r'n'j"dl'Jed
'f. " ~ .
:~PI~liAine'J1ijJl1ent Request
2/0112008
4- ' ,
.JI:Ht 2 9 2008' II
f"'
... t.
.''It'l
"
. ~, .
,~- .
i
. Planner: BJ
1-99
1.4 Duration and Sequence of Construction
Construction of the project would take up to four years. As planned, construction would
begin as early as 2009 and continue through 2012. Demolition of the existing bridges and
construction of the new facilities would'require three summers of in-water work which is
only allowed from June' i to September 30. The actual sequence of construction has not.
been determined, but a likely sequence would be:
o Remove decommissioned bridges and construct temporary work bridge
o Construct new southbound bridges and connecting roadway
o Temporarily put both directions ofI~5 traffic on the new southbound bridges
o Remove the detour bridges and construct temporary work bridge
o Construct the new northbound bridges and connecting roadway
o Remove work bridge and restore the project area
o Inspection and monitoring done throughout construction.
Traffic would be maintained on l-5, Franklin Boulevard, the railroad, and the
bicycle/pedestrian paths throughout construction. Some short term road closures may be
required, but these' would be limited to a few hours. It may be necessary to close portions
of the bicycle/pedestrian paths for longer periods (i.e., up to several days). A continuous
route across ODOT right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways would' be
maintained on both the north side and the south side of river during construction.
1.5 Budget and Funding Sources
,
The'I-5 Willmuette River Bridge Project is part of the Oregon Transportation Investment.
Act (OTIA) III State Bridge Delivery Program, which involves the repair and
replacement of more than 300 bridges statewide over a 10 year period. The l-5
WiUametteRiver Bridge project is the largest in the $1.3 biUion OTIA III program.
r r
r,
The project is funded at $180 million, which includes preliminary engineering and
design, right-of-way acquisition (if needed), demolition, road work, . structures, ties to the
existing transportation system, and aU construction and inspection. Of the ovenlU budget,
approximately $70 million is designated just for the bridge structures crossing the river,
railroad, and Franklin Boulevard, and Canoe Canal. This includes approximately $10
million earmarked for additional bridge aesthetics. The Safe,' Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, a federal transportation
funding package, will provide $30 million for this project supplementing the $150 .
million from state sources.
The OTIA III program emphasizes ,using local subcontractors and materia! supplier;
therefore, a substantial portion Of the proj ect cost is expected to be spent in the
Eugene/Springfield area over a four year period.
l.r;
~. i . l' . .. l "
. c-.
,. '
'Date Received
'~21~.2008
. Planner: ;BJ
c
" '.L~' 1
'" I'"' _ ", /....,. J I ~= ~'i
J V',~~l.~:...P~;i-I' -:-!., \
Plan Amendment Request
2(Oll2008ql~ .' ,.~\:",
'- '
I-lOa
1.6 Proposed Mitigation Measrires
ODOT seeks to preserve scenic, aesthetic, historic, and . environmental resources
throughout the propos cd project. Thc NEPA environmental document will identify
proposed measures that avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate ,~nvironmental impacts; thesc
measures will be finalized based. on public and agency comments as patt of the
environmental process. The final bridge design will incorporate' input from the local
community and comply with all pertinent envirOlill1ental regulations. Constmction
activities will follow the best management practices desigued to minimize impacts to
resources. Such practic,;es include, but are not limited to, du'st, noise, and etosion control.
To avoid, minimize" and/or mitigate the impacts of thisprojecl, aDaT proposes the
following general measures, among others:
---j'
.
Meet OTIA III Environmental Perfonnance Standards in order to meet the
requirements of the programmatic environmental permits that apply to the'
statewi~,e bridge program. These performance standards define the level of effect
that"'-a project may have upon the environment, thereby limiting or avoiding
impacts to the environment through the use of proper planning, design, and
constmction activitics.
Continue public involvement through design and construction
Plan traffic management to keep all travel modes open and safe during
construction
Limit work hours
Restore/enhance affected areas
Limit project noise
/
, ~
. ,
.
.
.
.
.
"-
Specific mitigation measures in addition to those listed above will be determined during
the final design and NEP A processes.
1.7 Public Involvement Efforts
ODOT recognizes the need for citizen participation in all phases of this project; therefore, '--
. OD0T initiated a public outreach and involvement program that includes a variety of
outreach methods including public meetings; open houses, newsletters, project website,
and local agency consultation. In addition, an Il-tpember Community Advisory Group
(CAG), composed, of representatives of key community organizations and neighborhood
groups, has provided input on the purpose and need, goals and objectives, environmental )
issues, bridge type, design features, and other project planning issues. Organizations
represented on the CAG are:
/
· Citizen Planning Committee for the Whihimut Natural Area
· Willmnalane Park and Recreation District
· Eugene Parks and Open Space Division
· Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Association
h., .: ,,}'!..,'.FaiJ'!Ilou, nt Neighbors
. ~}-:. ~ ~ ~ . ,"", ....,. "'\ r I
.;,... :,'';Y',. 'O:'~:Harlow'Neighbors
. . ".", t" .
'j'.'
'-
. ,JO'; _,,~~: '.~';::'c.
Plan Amendment Request
" ;"), 2/01/2008'
:/(r., _ ~;t:' '"":(::~...i '
Date Received
4-- "
-dt:J1It 2 9 2008
./
13
Planner: tj,J
1-101
'"
. Glenwood Neighborhood Group
. Springfield Neighborhood (northeast of project area)
. Springfield Chamber of Commerce
. Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
. University of Oregon
The CAG functions in an advisory role 'and provides recommendations to the Project
Development Team (PDT), The PDT consists of ten members that include representatives
from ODOT, FI-IW A, the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, and the CAG.
The PDT will use recommendations from the CAG, information from technical analyses,
and input from agencies and the public to make decisions conceming the proje~t.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by ODOT to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act requirements for environmental review. The EA will
be released for public comment in January 2007,
c
" ~.
Date Received
~ 29 2008
14
Planner: BJ
€. ._ /~ ~~ "';')' .j" f"'\.;.n( t~
~ . 1_,',,' ~-:. I 1 ,-; . ;i
Plan Amendment Request ;
2/0I/2008 - .' ".
I ~ 1 0 2,
- ~. .11. . -.
. '<.,,);
......'''-
J.
, Chapter 2: Legal Findings
2.1 Requested Plan Ainendments
Metro Plan Amendment
Authorization to construct the 1-5 Willamette River replacement bridges within the
Willamette River green way setback area, including- work associated with the' approaches
to the bridges and removal of the" decommissioned, existing Canoe Canal and temporary'
detour bridges, requires the Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County to approvc
the following Metro Plan amendment:
,
. An amendment in the fonn of an exception as required by Metro Plat!, Chapter
lU, Section 0, Policy 11, authorizing the placement of fill within the green way
setback area associated with'
I
o Construction of the ncw bridges (including fill associated with' any
temporary bridges needed to remove ,the decommissioned bridge or'
construct the new permanent bridges). .
o Removal of the detour bridge (including fill associated with any temporary
bridges needed to remove the detour bridge)3
.'
\
~
Statewide Planning Goal 15 Amendment
Although the project is exempt from Statewide Planning Goal IS (Willamette River
Greenway) because 1-5 is an existing urban use, ODOT also requests approval of a Goal
IS Metro Plan amendment as a precautionary measure:~' .
. An amendment in the form of a goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15
(Willamette River Greenway), authorizing a nonwater-dependent and nonwater-
related use within the established greenway setback. Under Goal IS, the
approaches associated with the new I~5 bridges are not considered to be water-
dependent or for water-related use.
Willakenzie Area Plan Amendment '
r _,'
Additionally, authorization to construct a replacement 1"5
Eugene to approve:
.
bridge requires the City of
I
3 The 2003 Metro Plan amendment approving an exception for the detour bridge provides for the removal
" o.fthatbr.idgeb. ut does not. expressly authorize fill associated with the c'onstruction temporary demo~on . d
'bridges.t~a! .a~~reed~d t?}emove the detour bridge. '. . ' Date Hecelve -
. ... ~
Plan Al'len~I~~nt ,Request 1Uk!' 2 9 17n08
2/0I/2008 I ., . 11_ ---' """" ."
Planner: 8JJ3
"
.
. ~..' ,; '.' t
".' ~ '
· An amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan to permit structures and fill'
associated with the new 1-5 bridges to be constructed within the first 35 feet from
the top of the riverbank within the greenway in the Willakenzie area.
..
TransPlan and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
The new bridges will be replacement bridges to the decommissioned 1-5 bridge and
Canoe Canal bridge, which are part of the 1-5 interstate highway facility whose existencc
is identified in the TransPlan.. As such, tile new bridges will not be providing a use that
does not already exist4 The new bridges will initially be striped to accommodate two
.travel lanes in each direction. This was the striping pattem on the decommissioned
bridge, and is the current striping pattem on the detour bridge. The new bridges will be
designed to expand to three travel lanes in each direction at such time as three travel lanes
are warranted. This is consistent with TransPlan Projects 150 and 260, both of which
provide for the future expansion ofI-5 to six lanes in this area5
-..
The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge replacement project is in both the Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) and the RTP. The project is part ofthe OTIA
III Statewide Bridge Replacement Program. and is identified .as "Bundle 220." The
project has funding in the amount of $180 million, which covers not only the,costs of
removing the decommissioned Canoe Canal and detour bridges and constructing the
replacement bridg~s, but also all associated costs; including the costs for preparing
federal environmental documents and obtaining land use plan amendments and permits.
Other Permits
Following approval of these plan amendments, land use permits will be needed for bridge
construction to proceed, These permits are not be ing requested as part of this .
application, Instead, separate applications for these permits will be .filed at a future time.
Needed permits will include:
/
City of Eugene.'
· A Type III Willamette River Greenway permit under Eugene Code (EC) 9.8800
through 9.8825 because the replacement bridges constitute "development" within
the greenway boundary.
· A Type II "WR Standards Review" approval pursuanUo EC 9.4930(3)(b), 9.4980
and 9.8460 through 9.8474, for any fill, grading, vegetation removal, or new
structures within the WR conservation area,
4 Because the original 1-5 bridge is located inside an urban growth boundary, and because the bridge
'predated Goal 15, no Goal 15 exceptions were required to include the bridge in the Metro Plan and
TransPlan. Consequently, OAR 660-004-00l8(4)(b) does not apply.
5 Project 150 (1-5 at Willamette RiverlFranklin Boulevard 'Interchange) provides: "Interchange
reconstruction to create one full interchange to improve operations and safety; reconstruct ramps and
bridges to modem standards, and provide for 6 lanes on 1-5." Project 260 (1-5 between 1-105 and Highway
. 58' Goshen) provides:.':,Widen remaining sections to 6 lanes."
'0"1"" ..~, ..",,,, ...~. r ..'r~"
..i,~7'~~t-.~.. . ;ht i ;,"',Irj;t_
Plan Amendlm,nt Request
2/0 1!J00,8.~ ,I t ,
'h.
lL.
,
. "', - ~.....\ >'2.
,-i'l,'
Date Received
~ 29 20dt \
Planner: BJ
'1-104
q ~~'j'i'
~.
. ...-',,~
. A Site Development Permit (or similar building permit);' and a FEMA "no-rise"
certification' for any construction or structures within the floodway/spetial flood
hazard area.
,--.
City of Springfield:
. A Type III Discretionary Use Approval under Springfield' Development Code
.(SDC) 25.050 and 10.030(1) because ~the replacement bridges will have a
significant visual impact.
. An administrative "determination" fron) the Springfield PlalUli~lg Director
pursuant to SDC 31.240(2) that the replacement bridges and possibly the removal.
of the original 1-5 bridge, Canoe Canal bridge and detour bridge, and construction
of a temporary work platform for the detour bridge, wi!Lnot "diminish riparian
function" of affected riparian areas.
. A Type I permit to allow construction in the floodplain or floodway.
2.2 Applicable Review Procedures and Standards
Under Eugene Code (EC) 9.9700(1);6 a Metro Plan amendment reqlliring an eJf.ception
not related to an urban growth boundary cxpansion ,is a 'Type I" Metro Plan
Amendment.7 Under EC 9.7730(1)(b), this kind of amendment must be approved by all .
three of the governing' bodies that adopted the Metro Plan ~ the City of Eugene, the City
of Springfield, arid Lane County. EC 9.7745 sets the procedural requirements where the
three jurisdiction approval process is used. That process includes' a joint public hearing
before the platming commissions of Eugene, Springfield atldLane County, followed by a
joint public hearing before the goveming bodies of these local govennnents, then
individual decision-making by each goveming body. The' proposed amendment to the
Willakenzie Area Plan can be processed and considered by the City of Eugene.
concurrently with the Metro Plan amendments.
The criteria for amending the Metro Plan are outlined in EC 9,7730(3) as follows:
(3) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment.
The followirig criteria shall be applied by the qity council in approving'or denying a
Metro Plan amendment application:
,
(a) The amendm'ent must be consistent with the relevant statewide. planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
,...::.;..-,
.... ~~'
6 The Springfield and Lane County d~velopment codes contain similar provisions. Because Eugene is the
lead jurisdiction on this application, references provided herein are to the Eugene c~de.
7 Site-specific plan text amendments generally are processed as Type Ii Metro Plan amendments. However,
they become Type I amendments when they include goal exceptions. Pursuant to EC 9.7715(I)(a), ODOr
./...,,is,~~)>!?..itt!P.g to Eugene a written request for the City Council to initiate the proposed !YPf{Jl.l~ R . d
. amendmen~e..~ , . '. . . . . UC1l~ ecelve
,;r:1Pl&h:i\nl'endment Request .-ji:1fJ 29 2008
2/0l/2008 /' . 17
..
". ~
. ..~.:, -....
, J' _ .~. I;" ,
Planner: BJs
. '.
To demonstrate compliance with these criteria, this application considers and makes
findings addressing:
. .
.
Statewide Planning Goal 15
ORS 390.310 to 390.368 (Willamettc Greenway Statutes)
OAR 660, Division 4 (Goal Exceptions)
Other relevant statewide goals
Metro Plan Chapter III, Section 0, Policy 'I I
Other relevant Metro Plan and TransPlan policies (Unamended Portions)
.
.
.
.
.
This document has been constructed to serve as the findings of fact and statement of
reasons for Lane County and the Citie~ of Eugene ~nd Springfield, so that it can be
adopted in support of a decision to approve the requested plan amendments.
2.3 . Requirements for Exceptions under Statewide Planning
Goal 15 (WiIlamette River Greenway) and Metro Plan Chapter
III, Section D, Policy II
a.
Overview of Applicable Greenway Requirements
(
.
This application requests and justifies exceptions both to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and
to Metro Plan, Chapter III, Section 0, Policy 11. As described in more detail below,
ODOT concludes that this project does not require a Goal 15 exception because (1)
replacing bridges and their approaches' upon the same roadway alignment is a
continuation of an existing urban use, and (2) Goal 15 Section C(3)(J) allows lands
committed to urban uses within the greenway to continue as urban uses. Still, as a
precautionary measure, ODOT requests approval of a Goal 15 exception "in the
alternative" because 1-5 is an essential statewide transportation facility, it structurally safe
bridge over the Willamette River is a critical component of this facility, time is of the
essence in completing this bridge replacement project, and ODOT seeks to avoid delays
that could occur through an appeal challenging the absence of a Goal 15 exception.
Accordingly, with regard to Goal 15, ODOT asks that the cities and county:
. Expressly find that this bridge replacement project is exempt from a Goal 15
exception, but ".
. Adopt a Goal 15 exception "in the altemative" nonetheless, to take effect if and
only if, on appeal, the Land Use Board of Appeals or an appellate court body
should hold that the bridge replacement project requires a Goal 15 exception,
, ,
The Metro Plan requires an. exception if a transportation facility requires placing fill
within the greenway setback. Here, the demolition of the decommissioned Canoe Canal
and detour bridges, and construction of the replacement bridges will require placement of
fill within the green way setback, This includes construction/demolition of temporary
'.:.~t:~ ;i~:~~~:}~?'",~
. -'1
.....i.R~ "
.' \'" ..., \.'
Date Received
~~9 2008 '
Planner: B4
I
Plan Amendment Request
2i6T1200s' ,"i
1-106;~,-' '!..... '.:~l,.""
'j,},' "...;.'. [".. . ....,
,,---....
'--
work bridges 'to remove the decommissioned or detour bridges and construct the
replacement bridges. i\ccqrdingly, a Metro Plan exception is required.
'J
c
. b. Goal 15 Allows Existing Uses to Continue Without an Exception'
As discussed in the alternative findings set out below, 1-5 is not corisidered to be water-
dependent or tor water-related use. As such, to be located within the greenway setback,. it
typically would require an exception to Goal 15. However, Goal .15, Section C(3)(J)
exempts certain lands within the. green way from the requirements. Specifically, "lands
committed to urban uses" are permitted to continue as urban uses:
"Development shall be directed away from the river to the
greatest degree possible; provided, however, land~
committed to urban uses within the greenway shall be
permitted to continue as urban uses..." (Emphasis added.)
c
Goal 15,SectionK(2), defines "lands committed to urban use" in paJ1 as "those lands on
which the economic, developmental,. and locational faCtors have, when considered
together, made the use ofthe property for otherthan urban purposes inappropriate." '
ODOT's 1-5 right-of-way, including 1-5 and the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, constitutes
':Iand ... committed to urbatl use" within the greenway as so defined. Since the 1960s,
'before'the Willamette River greenway was established, 1-5 has served the mobility and
interstate commerce needs of Oregonians 'and other interstate travelers at this location.
The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) classifies 1-5 as ~n "interstate highway" - its
highest"category of state highway - and identifies it as .it major freight route. As an
interstate highway, 1-5 provides connections to major cities, regions of the state, and
other states. Within the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area, it also provides
connections for regional trips. Today, approximately 49,000 vehicles, including large
numbers of trucks hauling freight, cross the Willamette Ri~er on 1-5 on a daily basis. By
2030, daily trips are expected to increase to 73,000. ODOT's man'agement objective for
interstate highways is to provide safe and efficient high-speed continuous-flow operation
in urban and rural areas.
1-5 is critical to the efficient and reliable movement of freight within and through the
metropolitan region and the state. As the OHP notes, in 2002 nearly 76 percent of the
total freight tonnage and 82 percent of the total freight v~lue was carried by trucks.
TransPlan recognizes the importance of 1-5 to move people' and goods within and through
the region and state, '
In summary, ODOT's 1-5 right-of-way is physically developed with an urban use
(interstate highway), and the economic, developmental, and locational factors as
described in Goal 15 Section K(2) make use of that right-of-way for other purposes
inappropriate, Accordingly, the 1-5 right-of-way is committed to urban uses and may
continue to be so used under Goal!5 Section C(3)G) without need for an exception.
I. '0> _.. '. . ,f: _.:. ....,'
.:;fr" 4H~;'J. l'~"!'~: :Y:.!. .', !-
.,. . '. "'-
,Jt'I':' ;G~: '~~ n .
Plan Amendnient Request
2/01/2008
Date Received
4-
.-dtif(2 9 2008
. 19
:~:~~
<;' .\~
'~: .~;.~....!';; ~ ''''1;~''
Planner: B.)17
c. Goal 15 Alternative Findings:, Need for a Goal 15 Exception
Notwithstanding the analysis immediately above, ODOT asks that Eugene, Springfield,
and Lane County approve a Goal 15 Metro Plan exception "in the altemative" because
this project is time sensitive, the analysis above may be challenged, and approval of an
exception in the altemative may well avoid undue delay. Because thc Goal 15 exception
would be adopted in thealtemative, ODOT asks that the adopting ordinance or resolution
provide for the exception to take effect only in the event'that a reviewing body; on appeal
of the decision, should conclude that a Goal 15 exception is necessary.
If a Goal 15 exception is required, it would be for the following reasons.
1. Application of GoaJ.15
Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway, provides that:
"The qualities of tl3e Willamette River shall be protected, conserved,
enhanced, and maintained consistent with the lawful uses present on
December 6, 1974. Intensification of uses,' changes in use, or
developments may be permitted after this date only when they are
consistent with the Willamette Greenway Statute, this goal and [the
. statewide planning goalS].,,8
An initial question is whether the bridge replacement is an "intensification" or "change of'
use,"or "development" as those terms are defined in Goal 15. If so, then the replacement
must be consistent with tl3e greenway statute, Goal 15, and the other applicable standards.
Goal 15 defines "intensification of use " to mean "any additions that increase or expand
the area or amount of an existing use, or the level of activ.1y." [Goal IS, Section X(3)
(emphasis added)]. Because the proposed replaeement bridges would be striped for four
travel lanes (two in each direction) consistent with existing conditions, they would not
increase or expand the.amount of traffic currently using the bridge, Existing vehicle trips
would merely shift o\!~r from tl3e detour bridge to the replacement bridges. However,
because the replacement bridges would have a wider footprint than the decommissioned
bridge to accommodate future restriping from four to six travel. lanes, the projectarguably
increases or expands the area of the existing use. As such, it can be argued that the
project constitutes an "intensification of use."
Goal IS defines "change in use" as "making a different use of the land or water than that
whieh existed on December 6, 1975." [Goal 15, Section K(I)l, This includes "a change
which requires construction, alterations of the land, water, or other areas 'outside of
existing' buildings or structures and that substantially alters or affects the. land or water."
Because the replacement bridges would serve the same function as the decommissioned
1-5 bridge and Canoe Canal bridge, namely to maintain connectivity and mobility for all
Plan.Amendment Request
2/0112,008 '
Date Received
'~29 2008
20
, . . 'The Willamette Greenway statutes are in ORS chapter 390.310 to 390.368.
.. t~.; I ;..',. ~'. t- .~",,' ,,' '4'
-'. . ~ . ~. 'J.,' . :-'f.' .~. .
1- 1 0 8) ':'"
'.....(it
!~. :/1, ',~"" .- " -, \l..
Planner: BJ
v
-.
users of 1-5 over the Willamette River in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area, this
project does not involve a "change in use."
,~
"
The statewide planning goals dcfine "development" as "[t]he' act, proccss', or rcsult of
developing." In turn, "dcvelop" is dcfincd as "[t]o bring abciui growth or availability; to
construct or alter a structure; ... /0 make a physical change in the use or appearance of
land, ...." [Statewide Planning Goals, Definitions (emphasis added)], Given the breadth
. ' .
of this detinition, repair or construction of a new bridge of any sizc. could be interpreted
as involving "development," even if the use is not changed or intensified. It follows that
the bridge constitutes a "development" and that Goal 15.applies. .
2. Goal 15 and OAR 660-004j0022(6) Require Exeeptions for'
Uses that are Neither Water-Dependent nor.Water"Related .
.-
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) administrative rule
. .
goveming goal exceptions, OAR 660-004-0022(6), states that within urban areas, the
proposed siting of' uses that are neither water-dependent nor water~related within the
WilIamette River greenway setback area rcquires exceptions.. The rule provides:
"(6) Willamette Greenway: Within ,m urban area, designated on the
approved Willamette Greenway Boundary maps, the siting of uses which
are neither water-dependent no; water-related ~ithin the setback lirie
required by-Section C3.k of the Goal may be approved where reasons
demonstrate the following: '
(a) The use will not have a significant adverse cffect on the grcenway
values of the site under construction or on adjacent land or water areas;
(b) -;The use will not signiticantly reduce the sites available for water;
dependent or water-related uses within the jurisdiction;
(c) The use will provide a signiticant pubtic benefit; and
(d) The use is consistent with the Legislative findings and policy in ORS
390,314 and the Willamette Grcenway Plan approved by LCDC under
ORS 390.322." (Emphasis added.) ,
Because ODOT is not siting a new use, but rather replacing an existing bridge with a new
bridge, it is not clear whethcr this section applies9 For purposes of this analysis, ODOT
assumes, without conceding, that 'it does apply. The proposed replacement bridges are
located within both the Eugene-Springtield urban growth boundary and the WilIamette
River greenway setback lines. If the proposed replacement bridges are neither water-,
9 Although this rule does not expressly distinguish between new and existing uses, LUBA ~r an appellate
.' court,quld,find that the rule was intended to apply OI)ly to the siting,ofnew, uses rather than the
:'\?i6Vep;~~elhe~rif9fa'n'existing use. ' Date Received
4-
.--jtJf[ 2 92 ?008
Planner: BiJ9
drP1an Amendment Request
,,1\'" '.' ....If"....'
2/01/2008
-;"'.
," ':.'.
r ,\.r'~
- ,'-
P l' ;1{:>d'
'.'
dependent nor water~related, they will require an exception demonstrating compliance
with these standards unless otherWise exempted by Goal 15 Section C(3)(j).
3. The 1-5 Replacement. Bridgc Approaches are not Water-
Dependent or for Water"Relatcd Use
Under Goal 15, structures that are "water-dependent" or "water-related" are permitted
within the greenway setback area. As defined in the statewide planning goals, "water-
dependent" means: .
"A use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to
water areas because the use requires access to the water body for water-
borne transportation, recreation, energy production, or source of water."
,
"Water-related" means:
"Uses which are not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but
which provide goods or services that are directly associated with water-
dependent land or waterway use, and which, if not located adjacent to
water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services
offered, Except as necessary for water-dependent or water-related uses or
facilities, ... roads and highways '" are not generally considered
dependent on or related to water location needs." (Emphasis added.)
Given the highlighted language and the fact that (I) the 1-5 approaches to the replacement
bridges will require fill within the greenway setback,lo and (2) LCDC, 'in the context of
the statewide coastal goals (Goals 16-19), has ordered that bridge approaches requiring
fill are not water-dependent or water-related uses, the project should not be considered a
water-dependent or water-related use. I I Accordingly, the replacement bridge project
requires a Goal 15 exception unless otherwise exempted by Goal 15, Section C(3)(j).
d. Metro Plan, Chapter III, Section D, Policy 11 Requires an Exception
. to Place Fill in'the Greenway Setback
Independent of Statewide Planning Goal 15, the Metro Plan's acknowledged greenway
policies require a goal exception to locate a non-water-dependent transpottation facility
within the greenway setback if the proposed use involves placement of fill in the setback.
See Metro Plan, Chapter III, Section 0, Policy II [formerly policy 13], which provides:
10 In the vicinity of the 1-5 bridge, Springfield has adopted setback lines for the Willamette River on both
the north and south sides. The north side setback parallels the north edge of the tree line adjacent to the
Canoe Canal, extending from the 1-5 centerline to the intake structure for the Canoe Canal at the Aspen
StreetlWest D Street boat ramp. The south side setback is five feet from the top of the bank from the 1-5
centerline to a point approximately 1000 feet east. Eugene has established a setback line only for the north
side of the river, which extends 35 feet from the river.
II In ~onversations with ihe Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff, the
Department was unable tojdentity precedence one way or the other with respect to Goall5. Their
{.. ,.,s,:.~~~s~t!?;t:as:~j,,;'j~.u~n,e that Goal 15 would be interpreted in a manner similar to the coasta'EJ~te
Plan Amendment Request
2/~Jd008:,1' !
'!
Receivea
I
I
I
Planner:' BJI
I
JUN ~ 9 2008
1-110
'The taking of an exception shall be required if a non water-dependent
transportation facility requires placing of fill within. the Willamette River
Greenway setback." .
, .
As both Springfield and Eugene interpret their plans, the replacement bridges arc not
water-dependent transportation facilities. Consequently, because the project will involve
placing fill within the greenway setback, it will require a Goal15 cxception pursuant to
this Mctro Plan policy. Likewise, temporary work bridges needed to construct the
replacement bridges or demolish the decommissioned bridge or detour bridge would not
be considered water-dependent transportation facilities and will -tequire goal exceptions
to the cxtent thcy require fill. The exceptions taken herein are intended to include all such
bridges.
2.4 Compliance with OAR 660, Division 4 Exception
Requirements
The req!1irements for Goal exceptions are outlined III OAR 660, Division 4. These
requirements are met for' the following reasons.
I
OAR 660-004-0018 Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
(4) "Reasons" bxceptions:
~
(a) When a local government takes an exception under /he "Reasons" section of
ORS 197. 732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone
designations must limit the uses, density, public facilities and services, cmd
activities to only those that are justified in the exception;
(b)' When a local government changes the types or intensities of uses or public
facilities and services within an area approved as a "Reasons" exception, a new
"Reasons" exception is required; '.
The taking of goal exceptions requires and results in amendments to the Metro Plan.12
. .
The exception provides for the continuation of the existing use of 1-5 by motor vehicles
for interstate mobility and commerce purposes. The'new I~5 Willamette River bridges are
8 '
needed to 'accommodate that use.
...
The new bridges will be replacement bridges to the decommissioned I-5 bridge and
Canoe Canal bridg~, which are part of the 1-5 interstate highway facility whose existence
is identified in the TransPlan. As such, the new bridges will not be providing a use that
,
12 See ORS 197.732(8), defming "exception" as a comprehensive plan provision, including an amendment
to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. .
, " "'-' ~~,k.'!.,~~egj}l ;~bes~, ~mdings, reference to the new 1-5 Willamette River Brihges includes th::Rt;.;.o"fJl.es to .
;1,\~"those bndges .andJurther mcludes the new bndges crossrng the Canoe Canal and thm a€lwe. HecelVed
" /r
Pla'rl.Ailleird,rlent Request Jl}N 2 927008
. 2/01/2008 '3
Planner: 8~Jll
, ..;.'~";',:-:':':. 'I':~"~'"'' ~-'
.( ,
"'. -. .
."..
.~I' - ,
does not already exist.14 The new bridges will initially be striped to accommodate two
travel lanes in each direction, This was the striping pattem on the decommissioned
bridge, and is the current striping pattem on the detour bridge. The 'new bridges will be
designed to expand to three travel lanes in each direction at such time as three travel lanes
are warranted. This is consistent with TransPlan Projects 150 and 260, both of which
p;ovide for the future expansion ofI-5 to six lanes in this area. IS ,
OAR 660~004~0022 Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under _Goal 2, Part
~I(c) .
An exception under Goal 2,Part ll(c) can be taken for any use not aI/owed by the
applicable goal(s). The types of reaSO/1S thai mayor may /1ot be lIsed to justify certain
types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this
rule: ...
"(6) Willamette Greenway: Within an urban area designated on the approved Willamette
Greenway Boundary maps, the siting of uses whiCh are neither water-dependent nor
water-related within tlie setback line required by Sectio/1 C. 3. k of the Goal may be
approved where reason.~ demonstrate the following:
(a) The'use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of
the site under construction or on adjacent land or water areas;... "
ODOT is proposing to construct a new replacement bridge, in thc fonn of two new
parallel bridges over the Willamette River and Canoe Canal, to replace the original 1-5
Willamette River Bridge and Canoe Canal Bridge and the temporary detour bridge across
the Willamette River. Thc new bridges would constitute a portion of 1-5, an interstate
highway and major freight route providing connections to major cities and regions of the
state and to other states. The new brid~es would be located in the same location as the
decommissioned and detour bridges, I although they would require minor _shifts of
alignment and reconnection of portions of the Franklin Boulevard northbound and
southbound on/off ramps as dictated by bridge design. Although initially striped for four
lanes, the new bridges would be designed to accommodate six' lanes of traffic. They
would also be designed to allow future. widening of Franklin Boulevard and to not
prohibit possible .future improvements to the Franklin Boulevard Interchange. These
design features are consistent with TransPlan Projects 150 and 260,
~,
14 Becausethe original 1-5 bridge is located inside an urban growth boundary, and because the bridge
predated Goa115, no Goal 15 exceptions were required to mclude the bridge in the Metro Plan and
TransPlan. Consequently, OAR 660-004-00l8(4)(b) does not apply.
15 Project 150 (1-5 at Willamette RiverIFranklinBoulevard Interchange) provides: "Interchange
reconstruction to create one full interchange to improve operations and safety, reconstruct ramps and
bridges to modem standards, and provide for 6 lanes on 1-5." Project 260 (1-5 between I.IOS and Highway
- 58 Goshen) provides: "Widen remaining sections to 6 lanes."
16 The new Canoe Canal bridges are extensions of the new 1.5 Willamette River replacement bridges and
. .
would be located in essentially the same location as the existing Canoe Canal bridge.
, '.'
'. ~ t
','
.~.:~.'..
Date Received
4-
-.tt:1N 2 942008
Plan Amendment Requ~st
2/01/2008
,',
I7;11~'
"
Planner: . BJ
''t
~
"
The replacement bridges and all associated fill will be located entirely within ODOT
right~of~way. Hence, the "site under construction" is the ODOT right"of-way extending
from approximately the Glenwood Interchange northward across the Willamette River to
CentelUliallMLK Blvd. North of the Willamette River, Alt9n Baker Park lies west and
East Alton Baker Park lies east of the 1"5 right-of~way. The area adjacent to ODOT's
right -ot~way is used as open space. Access connecting both side's of the park is provided
through ODOT's right-of'way under the original 1-5 bridge. The park is part of a larger
rcgional riverfront park and open space system serving multiplc recreational needs of the.
Eug"ne-Springtield community. Along the greenway, the open space contributes to the
protection of natural, scenic, and recrcational greenway values, including fish and
wildlife habitat, water quality, protection from flooding, and public recreation. A bicycle-
pedestrian path traverses the length of this riverfront park,systel11, linking Eugene with
Springtield. This path traverses the ODOT right-of-way undemeath the original bridge.
Because the replacement bridges and associated fill will be located within existing ODOT
right-of-way, which is outside Alton Baker Park and East Alton Baker Park, there will be
no reduction in the amount of permanent open space available at the parks. Because the
bridges replace an existing;, structurally defective bridge, there will be no change in use.
Existing park and river users are accllstomed to experiencing interstate travel at this
location. The bicycle:pedestrian path' linking Eugene and Springtield will continue to
traverse ODOT's right-of"way below the new bridges. Public access to the river will not
be affected, and protection to riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat will be
maintained to the greatest possible extent.l7 For all of these reasons, there will be no
significant adverse effect on the greenway values of either the site under construction or
the adjacent land and water areas,
Prior to construction of the replacement bridges, the decommissioned bridge and Canoc
Canal bridge will be demolished. Following construction of the replacement bridges, the
temporary detour bridge will be demolished. The new bridges will occupy no greater area
than the combined area occupied by the decommissioned Canoe Canal and detour
bridges, ~nd thus will have no significant adverse effect on views of the Willamette
. - ~
River.
The project will create some short term construction .impacts, but thcse impacts will be
temporary in nature and have no lasting adverse effccts. Staging for bridge construction is
likely to occupy up to five acres of park open space for up to' four years. ODOT is
working with the City of Eugene and Willamalane Park and Recreation District to
develop aplan to handle staging. It is likely the bicycle/pedestrian path crossing ODOT's'
right-of-way will be closed,for periods of up to a few days at a time; howcver, another
path under the Canoe Canal Bridge, located approximately 600 feet to the north of this
path, would remain open during any closures to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian
traffic. Bridge construction and demolition, including construction and removal of
17 Because the ODOT right-of-waY"~nder construction" is outsige East Alton Baker Park and committed
to urban use through development that preceded establishment of the Willamette River Greenway, i~at R .
~ ",questl9~~bl" whether idias "greenway values." If it does, those values would be in the fonn of scenlel e ecelved
'. .' <: views'oftne park 'and river, both ofwhi~h the project retains. ' A-
.' ~ 2 9
'....., _ ;< J.1 1-
Plan:'''"1endment Request'
2/01/2008
I ~~
;'~
'. 1;; ',:~l' li .:": ' ,: ~~ r ..
2008
Planner: BJ
I-lf3 .
associated temporary work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the
greenway. Through the permitting process, these impacts can and will be minimized to
the extent practicable and mitigated, with all areas disturbed by the project retumed to
conditions at least as good as they were before the project. L
At the ,conclusion of bridge construction, fill placed for. the detour bridge and for
temporary work bridges will be removed and those areas will be restored. The new
,
replacement bridges will span the Willamette River and Canoe' Canal and not interfere
with current boat use on the river or the canal. Piers will bc placed in the Willamette
River to support the bridge structures. The new bridges will have one pier near the center
of the river 'and one on or near the south bank. By comparison, the decommissioned
bridge has five piers in the water, and the detour bridge has six, so the new bridges will
provide a substantial net reduction in piers. All in-river work and pilings will comply
with all state, federal, and local regulations. Access to the river bank will remain
unchanged. .
The reduction in the total number of piers and in the number of piers wifuin fue
Willamette River will greatIy improve views of the river and, as such, contribute to a
significant positive visual impact. Also, because a key consideration of the project is
providing an aesthetically pleasing solution that recognizes the scenic beauty of the'
project area, ODOT has considered a range of bridge types and pier options; taking
carefully into consideration community input obtaim:d through a public process, At this
phase, ODOT has developed tJo conceptual schematics illustrating the new 1-5 bridges,
but ODOT has not developed detailed engineering design plans. Ultimately, selection of
the bridge type for each segment will be dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations .
and budget.
In summary, while construction. activities will temporarily impact greenway values, the
new 1-5 Willamette River bridies will have no significant adverse effect on the greenway
. values of ODOT's right-of-way (if any) or'the adjacent park lands and water areas. With
a net reduction' of piers in the water, and a design process that encourages and considers
, community input, the overall visual effect will be positive. Through mitigation, including
the removal of fill and restoration of native vegetation, affected riparian and recreational
values will be fully restored.
"(b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites available for water-dependent
or water-related uses within the jurisdiction;... "
The two new replacement bridges over 1-5 will not reduce any sites available for water-
dependent or water-related uses in Eugene or Springfield because ~the bridges will be
eonstructed entirely within the same existing ODOT I~5 right-of-way where the
decommissioned 1-5 bridge and\ temporary detour bridge are located, The new bridge.s
will have one pier each near the center of the river and one pier on or nea(the'south banK.
In contrast, the decommissioned bridge has five piers in the water, and the detour bridge
-~ . ~
. (....,.(;,
: ~l':"I':;.:?~(1i~r"~ I,J",,-'
'.. ....... - ~"'. ..
.,.
1-.1'14
." ,~.',' .:'~. '" 'f,.
,I ~ . ' t;
Date Received
4-
~ ,2 9lJ)08
Planner: BJ
:.0".';, "rlari'i\:mendment Request
2/0 I/2008 .
'~
'''''''''."
'..
has six. This net reduction in piers iri the, water will be beneficial for Water-dependent
18 . .
uses.
U(c) The I/se will provide a signijicantpI/bl(c benefit; and "
. I
Traversing the entire length of the west coast ti-om the US/Mexico border to British
Columbia, Canada, 1-5 is the primary north-south highway corridor serving Califomia,
Oregon, and Washington. The facility providcs for the significant movement of people,
freight, aild other services, and serves as the backbone for intemational, interstate, and
intrastate commerce. On average, approximately 49,000 vehicles cross the Willamette
River through the Eugene/Springfield area on 1-5 each. day, with numbers reaching
greater than 63,000. Approximately 16 to 18 percent of dilily trips are made by tractor
trailer rigs hauling freight. By the year 2030, 1-5 is expected to accommodate
approximately 73,000 daily vehicle trips.
Arguably, 1-5 is the most important road in the State of Otegonand the most important
'- freight con-idor on the west coast. Clearly, the connectivity and mobility that 1-5 provides
to both the l~cal community and to intrastate and interstate travelers constitutes a
significant public benefit. This benefit is recognized in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan
and in TrahsPlan. ' ,
"(d) The use is consistent with the Legislativefindings and policy in.ORS 390.314
. and the Willamelte Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.322. "
The legislative tindings and policy in ORS 390.314 are:
ORS 390.314. Legislative findings and policy
~
(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and preserve the natural,
scenic, and recreational qualities of lands along the' Willamelte River, to preserve
and restore historical sites, structures, facilities, and objects on lands along the
Willamelte River for public education and enjoyment and to further the state
policy established. under ORS 390.010; it is in the public interest to develop and
maintain a natI/ral, scenic, historical, and recreational greenway upon lands
along the Willm~etle River to be known as the Willamelte River Greenway
The I~5 WiIlamette River bridge predates the adoption of Goal 15. As im element of 1-5,
the bridge is provided, for in TransPlan, whi~h has been ackno;ledged to be in
compliance with all statewide planning goals, Constructioll of th~ replacement bridges
and removal of the decommissioned Canoe Canal and detour bridges will temporarily
affect green way values during construction, but these impacts can and will be avoided or
minimized to the extent practicable and mitigated. Areas disturbed by the project can and
will be returned to a condition at least as good as they were before the project.
----..
:, ~,:, ,':,-' {,I,8 :'rh~'~jdst;~g Canoe Canal bridge completely spans the Canoe Canal and adjacent bike path. The
replacement bridges will do likewise.
('j''''
I'IJ\ ; .', t.}.:
Plan Amendment Request
~ ".r
.' "': ,. --It 2/01/2008.
"1 : '.1;7'l/.\~n - :,
Date Received
,4-
-d-\:tI't 2 !J72008
I-115
Planner: BJ
.,
1-116
,
(2) In providing for the development and maintenance of the Willamette River
Greenway, the Legislative Assembly:
(a) Recognizing the need for coordinated planning jilr such greenway, finds it
necessary to provide for development and implementation of a plan for such
greenway through the cooperatil'e efforts of the state and units of local
government.
>
The State of Oregon and ,units of local government, including Lane County and the cities
of Springfield and Eugene, have cooperated in the implementation of green way planning
as required by legislative. intent. The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Replacement Project,
subject to this application, is being permitted through this established local and statewide
greenway planning process. In preparing this application, ODOT has worked closely with
staff from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, and it has coordinated with the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD} as well.
(b) Recognizing the need of the people of this state for' existing residential,
commercial, and agricultural use of lands along the Willamette River, finds it
necessary to permit the continuation of existing uses of lands that are included
within such greenway; but, for -the benefit of the people of this state, also to limit
the intensification and change in the use of such lands so that such uses shall
remain, to the greatest possible degree, compatible with the preservation of the
natural, scenic, historical and recreational qualities of such lands.
l
1-5 and the 1-5 Willamette River bridge predate Goal 15. Like the original bridge, thc
replacement bridges and tIleir approaches will be located within ODOT's established 1-5
right-of-way,' thus avoiding significant advcrse 'effects on the greenway and greenway
values. Because the new bridges will be striped for four travel lanes (two in each
direction), they will not intensify the existing use. Still, the new bridges will be sized to
accommodate future restriping to six travel lanes. Because that restriping, anticipated by
TransPlan projects 150 and 260, will not require additional' bridge construction within the
greenway, the use, when it becomes intensified, will remain compatible with the
preservation of the natural, scenic, historical, and recreational qualities of greenway
lands. '
r
(c) Recognizing that the use of lands for farm use is compatible with the purposes
of the Willamette River Greenway, finds that the use of lands for farm use should
. cl}ntinue within the greenway without restriction. -.
The 1-5 Willamette River replacement bridges will be located entirely within the
urbanized area of Springfield and Eugene, and not upon or near farm land within the
greenway boundary. For this reason, the project will in no way impede the continuation
of farm uses within the greenway. '
(d) Recogniz'ing the need for central coordination of such greenway for the best
interests of all the people of this state, finds it necessary to place the
Date Rece~ved.
.~ 29 2Q08
28
Planner: 'aJ
",," -.....;~....>,.' J_ ~... "''''1a/o' !
r ;'.- 'R1an"~.me.I)d~ne.ntR~quest
2/0 1/~R08
il',!:"; "IJI
c
. l.~
. ,
. ,.- ~
.........
'.
responsibility for the coordination of the development and maintenance of such
greenway in the State Parks and Recreation Department.
Constructing the 1~5 replacement bridges in no way limits or changes Oregon St~te Parks'
responsibilities for the coordination of the developrricnt mid maintenancc of thc
greenway.
"
(e) Recognizing the lack of need for the acquisition offee title to all landI' along
the Willamette River for exclusive public use for recreational purposes in such
greenway, finds it necessOlY to limit the area within such greenway that may be
I
acquired for ,state parks and recreational areas and for public recreational use
within the boundaries of units of local government a'iong the Willamette River.
The replacement bridges mld approaches will be located within existing public right-of-
way that has been used for interstate highway,purposes sincc bcfore the cnactment of thc
Willamette River greenway statutes and Goal 15'. The land is in the public domain and
will remain in thc public domain after completion of construction of the new replacement
bridges and demolition and removal of thc decommissioned bridge, Canoe Cmlal bridge,
and detour bridge.
OAR 660-004-0022(6)(d) also requires a finding that the use be consistent with the
WiUamette River JGreenway Plan as acknowledged by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission. This plan is implemented and embodied in each relevant
jurisdiction's plan policy and codes. For Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, the
Metro Plan Willamette River greenway element serves as the greenway plan for the
segment of the river running through the metropolitan area. Eugene and Springfield also
have established green way setback lines and adopted land development ordinances,
which proposed developments within the greenway must be in compliance.
Nearly all of the policies in the WillametteRiver greenway, river corridors, and
waterway element of the Metro Plan are a directory to the jurisdictions and aimed at
matters that have no bearing on or direct relevance to this application.19 One policy that is
arguably relevant directs that land use regulations take i}lto account such concems as
recreation, resource, and wildlife protection. Following plan amendment approval,
ODOT will apply to the cities of Eugenc and Springfield for permits issued pursuant to
land use regulations adopted to implement Statewide Planning Goals 15 and 5 (Natural
Resources). Those regulations take recreation, resource, and wildlife protection and other'
concems into account. Through approval conditions imposed during the permitting
process, this policy can and will be achieved20 ' .
19 For instance, there are policies addressing industrial development along the Willamette River, expansion
of water related parks, or public access in agricultural areas.
,~o ,~, Eugen~" th~sepei1llits.include a Willamette River Greenway pefIllits and a WR Standards Review .
. -l;peniiits'in:Sphhgfiel.d,'i~h include a Discretional Use pennits and a Planning Director detennination that
the 7~~t ~i,~ ~.~: ~iminiSh riparian functions Date Received
Plan Amendment Re'quest A-----
;.2/.9)12008.\ . " "c' J-l:tt{ 2 9 2flQ8
j._;~ ;. ,'., r'{;::; :1 ,.::. 'l";_"
PI B,,',~..I1l117
anner: " ...,
--
A second policy provides that specific use management considerations and requirements
of Goal 15 be applied where they are not specifically addressed in policy or land use
designations elsewhere' in the Plan or in local refinement plans. In this regard, ODOT
notes that TransPlan expressly provides for 1-5 and its bridges within the greenway and
the park, as does the East Alton Baker Park Plan, although it is not a refinement plan. In
addition, Goal 15 and. the Greenway Plan provide for the continuation of cxisting urban
uses within the grcenway. As noted earlier, 1-5 within the ODOT right-of-way is an
existing, committed urban use.
Finally, Policy II, identified earlier, requires a goal exception to place fill within the
. . greenway setback area, An exception to authorize fill in the greenway is part of this
application,
OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part lI(c), Exception Requirements
(1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR. 660-004-0022 to
use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal or to allow public'
facilities or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set
,forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception.
Reasons consistent with OAR 660-004~0022(6) are set forth above to allow the
construction of two 1-5 Willamette River replacement bridges and the removal of the
decoriunissioned bridge, existing Canoe Canal bridge, and temporary detour bridge,
including the placement of fill needed for the new bridges or for temporary work bridges
required to construct the new bridges or remove the decommissioned or detour bridges,
The justifications are set forth in the comprchensive plan as an exception.
(2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part II(c) required to be addressed when taking an
exception to a Goal are:
(a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should
not apply": The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the
basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to
.\pecific properties or situations, including the amount of land for the use being
planned and why the use requires a location on resource land;
The reasons justifying why the replacement bridges should be permitted within the
greenway setback area, and why assoeiated fill should be permitted, are those addressed
above in the analysis demonstrating compliance with the criteria in OAR 660-004-
0022(6), Again; because Goal 15 exempts existing urban uses, a Goal 15 exception is not
required to locate a nonwater-dependent and nonwater-re!ated use within the greenway;
however, an exception to the Metro Plan is needed to allow additional fill to be placed in
the' greenway. Here, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed within
ODOrs existing 1-5 right-of-way, while approximately 61,000 cubic yards offill will be
removed.
't_
Date Received
4-
--J1:J-It 29 2008
30
Planner: BJ
',. ," .,.... ,...,,.). ,c, .
r 'i!~!'-',f,.~....;'t ij:......~;i-, ~) r _:;.,.",
Plan Amendment Request
2/01/2008 .
;}n::s "," "
1-118
('j
", ~ 1" :
'-
Except for a few acres of park land needed temporarily for staging construction, all
development will occur within ODOT's existing I~5 right-of-way, which is not resource
land. The bridge requires a location over the WillametteRiver greenway because 1.5
already exists' both north and south of the Willamette River and the highway 'cannot
practicably be relocated to avoid crossing the river.
. ,
(b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the use ":
~ ,
. (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or othe/;,wise describe the location of
possible. alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a new
exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified;
(B) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessmy to discuss why
other areas which do not require .a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the proposed use Economic factors ,:,an be considered along wiih
other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be
accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following
questions shall De addressed:
,
(i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that
would not require an exception, including increasing ihe, density of uses on
nonresource land? If not, why not?
.,
(ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is
already irrevocably committed to nonresqurce uses, not allowed by the applicable
Goal, including resource land in existing rurdl c'enters, or by increasjng the
density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not?
(hi) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth
boundary? Ifnot, why not?
(iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provi,~ion of
a proposed publicfacility or service? If not, why not?
-
(C) .This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types
of areas rather than a review of specific alternative .sites. Initially, a local
government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of
areds in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the' proposed use. Site-
specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception,
unless another party to the local proceeding can di.?scribe why there are specific
sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed um A detailed
evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are
, specifically described with facts to support the ass~rtion that the sites are more
reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding.
.\ .
"
~. ,~
"~'.: "',J" '-I'"
. I' 1i.~
"
~- ,,:. ~
'.
. "t-
_ r.
"':( ""
,
R;...<.]
~
Date Received
4-
JI:IN 2 91 2008
Planner: gj9
"Tl'" . " ,',
Plan 'Amendment Request
2/0 1/2008
-0,1,. .
".. ,;~ . '. ~
An 1-5 replacement bridge is needed because the decommissioned bridge is structurally
unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to accommodate anticipated traffic
volumes over the long term, nor does it meet current seismic standards. The replacement
bridges and their approaches will be located entirely within ODOT's existing 1-5right-of-
way. Because the Willamette River is quite wide in the vicinity of 1-5, piers will again be
needed withir the setback area to support the proposed replacement bridges; however,
fewer piers will be used compared to existing conditions. In addition, fill is required to
support the approaches to the new' bridges, including the new bridges over the Canoe
Canal.
Given the non water dependent and nonwater-re.lated nature of the use, and given that fill
would be required for pier support and bridge approaches regardless of where in the
vicinity the bridge is located, there are no alternative sites crossing the Willamette River
that would not also require a new exception. It is noted that the proposed use will be
located inside an urban grow,th boundary on land that is neither agricultural nor forest
land. By remaining within the existing ODOT right-of-way, the project avoids significant
impacts to park Jands, Because. transportation improvements, including bridges, are
considered public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accommodated without the
provision of the proposed public facility.
(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences
resulting from the use at the proposed site with measuresdesig"i-zed to reduce
adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result
ji-om the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception.
The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative' areas
considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might, be taken, the typical'
advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the
Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resultingji-om the use at
the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed
evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are
specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have
significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding The
exception sh~ll include the reasons why ihe consequences of the use at the chosen
site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same
proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the
proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to
determine which resource land is least productive; the abilitY to sustain resource
uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general
area caused by irreversible removal of the land ji-om the resource base. Other
possible impacts'include the effects of the proposed use on'the water table, onthe
costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts;
No other sites requiring exceptions are being considered for fuis use. This is because fue
use is not a new use, but rather the replacement of an existing, structurally deficient
bridge within an ekisting right-of-way. Locating the replacement bridg~s within the
i:~ .~;",~. :;:'. ,(t,~.~,i. '"ri'~}J::r;~~,
. Plan Amendment Request
2/0112008
:' t~lri l"-" .
Date Received
.1-
---jtjN 2 ~22008
"
" .(
l."(',.
~ b' '. 'J '~~:',;
"
Planner: BJ
1-120
\
existing right-of-way is both necessary and practicable because that right-of-way lines up
with the existing 1-5 approaches to the north and south.
Relocating the bridge replacemeilt project outside the existing 1-5 right-of-way would
require ODOT to relocate, thc approaches at considerable additional cost and impact to~
not only the greenway, but also to protected park and recreational resources, including
.East Alton Baker Park imd the Whilamut Natural Area?] Further, relocating the bridge
could require the' closure of one or more existing in'tcrchanges or ramps, result in'
demolition of residences and busincsses, and result in a hazardous geometry due to tile
presence of immovable geologic fcatures. Altemativc bridgc alignment locations to the
north or south of the existing footprint and right-of-way ,werc dismissed from furthcr
analysis due to the followirig impacts: /
~
. Right-of-way would need to be acquired Ii-om Alton Baker Park, which is
prohibited under Section 4(1) of the federal Department of Transportation Act of
1966 unless there are no other prudent and feasible alternatives.,
. Right-of-way w,?uld need to be acquired from homes and/or ,businesses on the
south side of the river that' would not be required if the highway remains on its
current alignment.
. A shifted highway would be closcr to existing honies, resulting in higher noise
and visual impacts.
. Major high-tension power transmission lines are located on both sides of the
bridge and one would need to be r~located if the alignment was shifted.
Given the replacement nature of this project,' the fact that crossing the Willamette River
at some location is unavoidable, and ODOT's inability to realign 1~5 on adjoining lands
based on federal restrictions protecting park lands, there simply are no feasible and
prudent altematives to re-using the existing 1-5 right-of-way. Accordingly, in terms of
economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences; there are no areas warranting
comparison. Again, ODOT notes that 1-5 is arguably the II)-ost important highwayin the
State of Oregon and the most important freight corridor on the' west coast. The
connectivity. and mobility it provides statewide, interstate, and regional travelers provides
tremendous benefits both economically and socially. The ability to rebuild within the
existing ODOT 1-5 right~of~way minimizes energy consumption and environmental
impacts, as the current riglit~of-way use for interstate travel purposes is maintained. As
such, the tight-of-way is the least productive land in the, immediate area in terms of
sustaining resource uses. Its continued use for this purpose also means that no other
resource or recreational lands need be removed from the resource base.
(d) The proposed uses we compatible with oth'er adjacent uses or will be so
rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception
shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible' with adjacent
land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in
21 Because building the.new bridges within the existing ODOT right-of.\~ay is a feasible and prudent
. alternative, Section 4(1) ofthe federal Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prevents ODOr from
~""j'''Ip,'p'roving.an,alie,mativ. e that would require right-of,way,acquisition from East Alton Baker P,!,,\. t R . d
"-";'/' "'r,",;-;~.::': . ,. Ua e ecelve
Pl,an,l),men~m~q\ Request . . 4-
210112008' I., I], . Jl::IN32 9 2008
,
~,
,
,~ -, , .."
--'1-;, I
j ':'~::. "~:j~i..",j . --: .;
. i: , ~,.,.
',' ..
Planner:t{J
such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natur.al resources and
resource management or production practices. Compatible is not intended as an
absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with
adjacent uses.
Compatibility with green way and GoalS resource values associated with the Willamette
, .
River, riparian areas both north and south of the river, East Alton Baker Park, and the
Whilamut Natural Area can and will be ensured through compliance with acknowledged
Eugene and Springfield permitting requirements adopted to implement Goals 15 and 5.
Required pennits are identified in Section 2.1 of these findings. As noted earlier, the
Willamette River Bridge is ail existing use within the ODOT right-of-way, This proposal
replaces the original bridge with two new bridges: one for northbound traffic, the other
for southbound traffic. It also removes the detour bridge, Given that a bridge has been
accommodating highway traffic in this area for decades, most new impacts will be
associated with bridge construction or demolition. By remaining within the existing
.ODOT right-of-way, and employing Best Management Practices and other impact
avoidance or mitigation. teclmiques identitied or required during the local permitting
processes, impacts to surrounding natural resource lands can be minimized to protect
naturiil resource qualities in and the use and enjoyment of the Willamette River, the
Willamette River greenway, and East Alton Baker Park.'
)
2.5 Amendments to Willakenzie Area Plan
The Willakenzie Area Plan is a refinement plan adopted by the City of Eugel]e in 1992.
Under EC 9.842 I through 9.8424, amendments to existing refinement plans are permitted
in order to address, among other things, changes made to the Metro Plan, such as the goal
exceptions identified above. The procedures of this code section apply where, as here, the
requested changes are specific rather than comprehensive to an entire refinement plan.
Under EC 9.8424, proposed refinement plan amendments are reviewed for consistency
withthe statewide planning goals, applicable provisions of the Metro Plan, and remaining
portions of the refinement plan. Compliance with the statewide goals is addressed in
Section 2.6 below. Compliance with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan, TransPlan,
and unamended portions of the Willakenzie Area Pl~1I1 is addressed in Section 2.7, below.
The proposed Willakenzie Area Plan amendment that ODOT is requesting is needed to
allow the continued use of 1-5 within the Willakenzic area, As explained below, it also is
needed to maintain internal consistency between the Willakenzie Area Plan; Metro Plan,
and TransPlan. In all likelihood, when the Willakenzie Area Plan was written and
approved, no one foresaw or anticipated a need to decommission that bridge for safety
reasons and replace it with a new bridge, In this regard, the project reflects a substantial
change in circumstance that was nor anticipated at the time the refinement plan was
adopted. Under EC 9.84?4(2)(e), the city can approve a refinement plan amendment on
this basis.22
'22 The amendment can also be approved under Ee 9.8424(2)(b).. new inventory material that relates to a
statewide plann~.g,goal. In particular, Goal 12, ~hrough the Transportation Planning Rule, directs R . d
-':,~y..,";_7.. ..n>... ,>-i-,-, Date ecelVe
.~ ,";- 0..,1_.. '..... ~ l' ,..... '.
' ;, " Plan"AmendnieiltRequesl . . . . t\- ..
",n~~OY~O~~ . --;Jtrn 2 9 tfl08
1-122,
. ~ Y'~' _.....
~ ~.~j~;:' ..~i;:;'~:'. f-.
.\
, Planner: BJ
The criteria for amending a Refinement Plan are outlined in EC 9.8424 as follows:
The planning commission shall evaluate prc;posed refinement plan amendments based on
the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation 10 Ihe cily council. The city
council shall decide whelher to act on the application Iflhe city council decides 10 act,
it shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny a proposed refinement plan
amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications shall be based on compliance wilh
Ihe following crIteria.
(I) The refinement plan amendmenl is consistenl with all ofthefollowing:
(a) Stalewide planning goals.
(b) ApplicabLe provisions oflhe Metro Plan
(c) Remainingportions oflhe refinement plan
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan
(b)
(c)
(d)
New invenlory malerial which relates to a stqtewide planning goal.
New or amended communily policies.
New ~r amended provisions in a federal law or regulalion, slate slatule,
state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency and use plan
(e) A change of circlllnslances in a subslantiallllanner thal'was not
, anticipated at the lime the refinement plan was adopled.
The Willakenzie Area Plan encompasses an area not1h of the Willamette River that
would be affected by the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project. As relevant to the bridge
project, the Plan sets out "use management standards" that it deems consistent with Goal
15 and that "shall apply to development within the greenway in the Willakenzie area."
These standards are explicitly incorporated in the Eugene Code's criteria for Willamette
greenway permits.
The following use management standard is relevant to this application,ltis of particular
concern to ODOT because, in its current fonn, it does not appear to pennit the project to
go forward: .
"l. Provision that all new structures, expansion of existing structures,
drives, parking areas, or storage areas shall not .be permitted within the
first 35 feet back from the top of the riverbank, unless the location of the
,.
:, \0;
>~;~!
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and local governments to prepare and amend transportation system
plans that include "an' inventory and general assessment of existing __. transportation facilities and services
by function, type, capacity; and'condition." [OAR 660-0 12-0020(3)(a)].The inventory material on the
condition of the now-decommissioned 1-5 bridge relates to this requirement of Goal 12 and to its directive
in OAR 660-0 12-0020( I) that transportation system plans "establish a coordinated network of
.~~n~Bort~t,io:n .t,.aJ.,~!~t~esade~uate to se~e stat,e, regional and loc~l ~al~s~ortatio~ needs." A,safe~ t R .
properlyfunctIO~I!Jg-I,5 WIlIamette RIver brrdge clearly falls wlthm thIS standard. . Ua ~ ecel\/ed
Plarj'~I1jeridmerit Request. ' :fI::Jt-f 2 9 2008
2/01/2008 35
Planne'~ 1Sd
"-<.... 1,4_,-
"IY=;~-':'~ '.I'1~!
.
" .l;~~,
)
jloodway boundary requires a greater separation' There are three'
. exceptions to this standard.- !
A. Structures designed solgly for recreational use..
,
B. Public improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle trails, public
plazas, and similar amenities, but excluding roads and parking areas, are
exempt from the setback requirements specified above. .
C. Structures existing as of the date of adoption of this plan shall be
allowed to rebuilt at the same distance from the river that they were .
before destruction by fire, jlood, or other disaster. ..
As noted, the 1-5 Willamette Rivei' Bridge was an existing structure at the time this
standard was adopted. At that time, it is likely that the structural deficiencies in the bridge
were unknown and the need to replace the 1-5 bridge was unanticipated. Had it been
otherwise, ODOT believes this standard would have included a fourth exception to
authorize the bridge replacement, particularly given the critical importance of an 1-5
Willamette River bridge to a properly functioning interstate highway system and
provisions for that highway in the Metro Plan and TransPlan,
Because the 1-5 replacement bridges (1) are not designed solely for recreational use; (2)
wou[(l be elements of an interstate highway; and (3) are not being rebuilt due to a
disaster, this use management standard requires amending. Accordingly, ODOT requests
that the standard be amended to read as follows on page 155 of the Willamette Greenway
Section in the Willakenzie Area Plan Neighborhood Design Element, with [bracketed]
language indicating words being'removed and underlining ipdicating new text: '
1. Provision that all 'new .structures, expansion of existing structures,
drives, parking areas, or storage areas shall not be permitted within the
first 35 feet back from the top of the riverbank, unless the location of the
floodway boundary requires a greater separation, There are [three] four
exceptions to this standard:
A. Structures designed solely for recreational use,..
B. Public improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle trails, public
plazas, and similar amenities, but excluding roads and parking areas, are
exempt from the setback requirements specified above. .
I
C. Structurcs existing as. of the date of adoption of this plan shall be
allowed to rebuilt at the same distance from the river that they were before.
destruction hy fire, flood, or other disaster.
D. Reolacement or exoansion of the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge and its
aooroaches.
(
..
1-124
~ . .
"
Date Received
. jjN 2 %J008
Planner:dBJ'
'.It',.>..o
..4/11:1
1", '
, . ':'~ .
.,,','
Plan Arnep.c!ment Request
2/01/2008 ' ~
\
This proposed amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan allows the exceptions taken in
Section 2.4 of these findings to be implemented. In support of this amendment, ODOT
incorporates by reference herein the exceptions taken'in Section 2.4, above.23
"
2.6 Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals"
Bcsides demonstrating compliance with the goal exception criteria, ODOT also must
demonstrate compliance with statewide planning goal requirements for which exceptions
are,Jlot being taken. The statewide plarming goals relevant to the proposed Metro Plan
and Willakenzie Area Plan amendments ate Goals 1,2,5,6,7,8,9, II, 12, 13, and 15.
.,
Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement)
Goal I requires opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning
process. Generally, Goal 1 is satisfied when a local' government follows the public
involvement procedures outlined in its, acknowledged comp~ehensive plan and
de.velopment code. Here the applicable procedures are those in EC 9.9700.25 They.
include public hearings before both the planning commissions and governing bodies of
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Compliance with these procedures re~ults in
compliance with Goal I, '
. It should be noted that the federal environmental process applicable to this project
provides additional opportunity for citizen involvement. Citizen participation in that
process is fostered through public meetings, open houses, 'and newsletters, and through
opportunity to review and comment on the Eiwirorunental Assessment. That opportunity
will occur this winter, prior to or concurrent with the public hearings held on the plan
amendments requcsted herein26 .' ~
1 .
23 Without this amendment, the polity leads to a conflict with Statewide Planning Goal 12. This is because
(I) Goal 12 directs ODOT to prepare and adopt a state transportation system plan (TSP) that identifies a
system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified state transportation'needs (OAR
660-012,0015(1)>; (2) the state TSP includes the 1.5 ti-eeway, which inciudes an 1-5 bridge over the
Willamette River; and (3) OAR 660-012-0015(2) and (3) require regional and local TSPs to be consistent
with the state TSP, .
25 The City of Eugene can co~sider the proposed amendments to the Willakenzie Area Plan conc~ITently
with the proposed Goal 15 exceptions.
26 As part of the federal environmental process, ODOT established a Community Advisory Group (CAG)
composed of representatives of local neighborhood associations, parks departments (Eugene and
Willamalane), the Whilamut Natural Area, chambers of commerce, and'the University of Oregon that has
been involved in the development of the project and will continue to be involved during selection of the
bridge type, its design, and construction. A CAG member is a voting member of the Project Development
Team (PDT), whiCh is the primary decision body for the project. The lO:person PDT includes
representatives ofEuge'le, Springfield, Lane CountY, and.the CAG. .
,~!. ,,;., '.. r ' '. "." I
II .', ~.' ['- i.. II.. ~<~: , ". 'r.~. .;'., t
"
-'
,
Date Received
"t
JI::Jt{ 2 ~7 2008
PI ' 4.~lJ5
anner. Ikk
,
:. ',." w ~- I,'"'t-; l:
t.... . \: 1 I,. l.o.
Plan"..i.illendment Request
~O iiioQ~ " ' ,":-
.. I': 4 ..~."..-.\: ", ~ ;>
'.1
Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Part 1
Goal 2, Part I requires that actions rcla!ed to land use be consistent with acknowledged
comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The proposed amendments' consistency with
applicable unamended provisions in the Metro Plan, TransPlan, and Willakenzic Area
Plan is demonstrated in Section 2.7, below.
. Goal 2 requires an adequate factual base for' land use decision-making, The documents,
evidence, and testimony submitted in support of the requested plan amendments provide
an adequate factual base to support the proposed amendments. .
, 1
Goal 2 further requires that plans be adopted and revised with opportunity for citizen'
review and comment. As noted in the findings addressing Statewide Planning Goal I,
citizen participation is provided both, as part of the federal environmental process and the
Oregon land use process. .
Finally, Goal 2 requires that each plan and related irriplementation measures be
coordinated with the plans of affected govemmental units. In no small measure, this
includes coordination with the Oregon TranspOliation Commission's Oregon
Transportation Plan and Oregon Highway Plan, both of which identify and recognize the
importance of 1-5 as a major transportation route and major freight route through the
Eugene/Springfield region. .
In developing the Environmental Assessment and preparing this application for plan
amendments, ODOT engaged in significant coordination efforts with local govemment
officials representing the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County,
represcntatives of the Oregon Department.of Land Conservation and Development and
the Federal Highway Administration, theWillamalane Parks and Recreation District, and
other agency and local officials. Provided the Willakenzie Area Plan is amended as set
out above to accommodate OD01"s need to replace the 1-5 Willamette River bridge, the
Metro Plan, TransPlan, and Willilkenzie Area Plan will be coordinated with OD01"s
Oregon Highway Plan and the requirements of Goal 2, Part I will be met. 27
Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Part I1
Goal 2, Part II outlines the standards for goal exceptions, This goal requirement IS
satisfied for the reasons outlined in Section 2.4 of these findings and reasons.
Goal 3 (Agricultural'Lands)
Goal 3 addresses Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 does not apply because the affected property
is inside an urban growth boundary, .
L
/
27 As defined in OR~. 197.015(6) in relevant part, a plan is "coordinated" when the needf\\~\,t;"v~!I{ceived
. g~yemments hav~ be~ll.consldered and accommodated as much as pOSSible. Ui:lLt: nt:
~ tt"',~ /!;,$-:-~1tt.l\... .;n'~.r-.: ( . 4-
,e' tian'A;;~ndment R;~uest . . ". -d-t1f'J 2 9 2008
2/01/2008' . 1 I' 38
1-126.' ,. , Planner: BJ
. ,
,.,
Goal 4 (Forest Lands)
Goal 4 addresses Forest Lands, Goal 4 does not apply because the affected property is
inside an urban growth boundary.
GoalS (Open Spaces, Scenic arId Historic Areas, and Natural Resources)
,
\
Goal 5 requires local govcmments to adopt programs to protect natural resources and "
conserve scenic, historic, and opcn space resources~or prcsent and future generations as
provided in LCDC's Goal 5 adminis~rative rule, OAR 660, Division 23. Both Eugene and
Springfield have adopted land use regulations to protect significant natural resources
consistent with Goal 5.
OAR 660-023~0090 regulates riparian corridors, As relevant to roadway projects, OAR
660-023-0090(8) authorizes local govemments to adopt ordinances that protect
significant riparian cimidors by preventing permanent alteration of the riparian area by
grading or' by the placement of structures; or impervious surfaces, except for certain
identified uses that are pennitted "provided they arc designed and. constructed to
minimize intrusion into the riparian area." Those excepted uscs include streets, roads, and
,
paths.
"
(
Construction Of the replacementjJridges and removal of the decommissioned and detour
bridges will impact riparian resources along the Willamette River. To protect these
resources, Springfieid.has establishcd 75-foot riparian setbacks and Eugene has adopted a
Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone. In Springfield, development within the
riparian setback must satisfy Springfield Developmcnt Code (SDC) 31.240(2), which
authorizes public street crossings and bridges where they do not diminish riparian
functions. In Eugene, the proposed development must comply with the Overlay Zone
standards and the city's Standards Review process, See EC 9.4930(3)(b) and. 9.8460
through 9.8474.
L
ODOT will apply tor pennits pursuant to these local regulations followi!1g' approval of
the proposed plan amendments. As part of those permitting processes, the cities can and
will impose approval conditions aimed at avoiding;. miqim!zing, or mitigating impacts to
riparian areas to the extent practicable. These can include, but, are not limited to,
conditions addressing construction management (e.g., sitc access, hours of operation,
noise, dust, vibration, lighting, hydrology, and bicycle/pedestrian.safety in work areas);
habitat protection (to mitigate unavoidable impacts to_affected natural resource areas
during and after bridge construction); and restoration of areas affected by bridge removal
(e.g" restoring vegetated areas to their original conditions, eliminating invasives,
monitoring, etc.).
~
\d
Through compliance with such conditions, GoalS compliance is achieved. Further, the
cOl11lection between the purpose of GoalS and the purpose of Goal 15 greenway values
are mutually sUPPQrtive and in many instances overlap. As such, through imposition of
and co~pliilncewith such conditions, the purposes of Goall5 are met as wEliJ.. t R . '
, ", ..,.., . ua e ecelved
" , A--
Plan Amendment Request JtJN 2 9 2008
2/0 [/2008 39
Planner: 6$
I . ~~
.';~ ,
." -It
'; t' j' .: \ r ....:..~
The Mill Race diversion dam is located approximately 300 feet upstream of the detour
bridge, outside the project area.. The dam will not be affected by the project; however,
portions of structures associated with the dam are located within the project area and,
together with the dam, are eligible for listing on the National Register. Those portions
include concrete walls and revetments that directed water from the dam into the Mill
Race. These structure~ are in mins, and it is no longer possible to undcrstand how they fit
together. Under OAR 660-023-0200(7), local govenuncnts are not required to apply the
"ecOllOmic, social, envirOlunental, and energy consequences" analysis process to
determinc a program to protect historic resources. Rather, they are encouraged to adopt
historic preservation regulations goveming the demolition, removal, or major exterior
alteration of all designated historic resources, If the Mill Race is a designated historic
resource, Goal 5 compliance would be achieved through compliance with any such
regulations that Eugene and Springfield may have adopted.
"
Finally, ODOT established the Collaborative Environmental and Transportation
Agreement for Streanllining (CETAS) team in 2001 as a forum for review of major
transportation projects with state and federal resources agencies28 CET AS reviewed this
project in February, 2006 and voted not to take it through the formal review process, The
individual agencies will still conduct all required environmental reviews and approvals
(e,g., wetIands permits fill and removal pennits). In addition, the project team made at
least two presentations to the Programmatic Agreements Reporting and Implementation
Team (P ARIT), which was established for. the Oregon Transportation. Investment Act
(OTIA) III Bridge Program, P ARrT includes most of the same agencies that are'members .
of CET AS. ODOT met with' P ARIT early in' the federal environmental process to get its
input on issucs and resources and feedback on some preliminary design concepts.
,
Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality)
Goal 6 addresses the quality of air, water, and land resources. In the context of
'comprehensive plan amendments, a local govemment complies with Goal 6 by
explaining why it is reasonable to expect that the proposed uses authorized by the plan
amendment will be able to satisfy applicable federal and state environmental standards,
including air and,water quality standards 29 .
~
The replacement bridges should have no adverse impact on air quality because they
merely replace an existing facility that has been decommissioned as being structurally
unsafe. The new bridges do not, in themselves, increase the highway capacity of 1-5, and
their construction will not, in itself, result in more people driving'on 1-5. Instead, existing
traffic' volumes will be shifted from the detour bridge to the new bridges. If the
. '.
'\
28 CET AS members include Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, US
Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US National Marine Fisheries Service,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, US Anny Corps of Engineers, FHW A, and ODOT
29 Appficable standards include those in the federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and their
implementing regulations. Applicable state standards include those in the Oregon Wetland Removal/Fill
Act and in Department of Environmental Quality administrative rules governing air, water, and noise ~
quality. ,,' .. ,'J';. 0 t Rer."" '1\-" ed
. . - ,;1;,. ~'. '.": ~", . .... '
",,-~,:'-:i.!I t~...,;-~-~ 'J."'J(;'.~, a e r " ,
"I~' j '. :.. .' -. .~ .
A ~,~2008
,
Plan Amendment Request
2/QI/2008
1- 1 i8
/.<:;[
" ."" .....
, I"
Planner: 6J
. I
,--
.'
decommissioned 1-5 bridge is not replaced, teps of thousands of vehicles would be forced
each day onto .city streets and county roads not designed for such trips. The ensuing
degradation to' the air quality along these altemative routes caused by. unmanageable
congestion would be in direct contradiction, to the purpose of Goal 6. The goal is met by
the proposed plan amendinents.
Construction of the replacement bridges and the removal of the decommissioned and
detour bridges 'will impact water quality by affecting soils and vegetation within the
Willamet,te River and along the greenway setback. Water quality may also be affected
where impervious surfaces are added along the bridge approaches. Where areas are
paved, 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 replacement bridges will result in some ncw impervious
surfaces, overall the project will result in a net decrease iti impervious surface because
ODOT will remove the approach roadway for the detour briage.
Water quality impacts can adequately be mitigated through the use of effective land-
based stormwater treatment systems that include measures to preserve and restore mature
vegetation and maximize infiltration. The use of construction ted1l1iques that include
temporary and pennanent' Best Managemeut Practiccs for crosion and sediment control
and spill control and prevention also can achieve compliance with clean water standards,
Oregon Highway Plan 5A.l directs ODOT to implement Best Management Practices.
Through the local permitting process, Eugene and Springfield can' impose appropriate'
. ,.
conditions to ensure that Best Management Practices are cmployed and that water quality
is maintained consistent with federal and state standards. By doing so, Goal 6 is
satisfied.3D )
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Because the pennanent replacement bridges would
create no new traffic on 1-5, but merely allow existing traffic to shift from the detour
bridge onto the new bridges, any difference in noise levels to adjacent residences would
be minor. However" noise impacts will exist, and noise walls' are recommended as
mitigation.
. Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards)
I
Goal 7; Areas Subject to Naiural Disasters and Hazards, which LCDC amended on June
1, 2002, addresses hazards to development. As amended, the goal requires DLCD to
review new hazard inventory information provided by :federal' or state agencies in
consultation with affected state and local govemment representatives. Thereafter, DLCD
will notify the local governIDents if the new hazard information requires a local response.
If it does, local govemments must'(l) evaluate the risk to people and property based on
the new ipformation and other factors (including the frequency, severity, and lo'cation of
;\0.:.;..
30 There is no storm water treatment for the decommissioned and detour bridges. Providing treatment would
have a beneficial effect on water quality. The water quality report for the project noted that the amount of
runoff from, the bridges would be so minor relative to the volume of flow in the Willamette RMr ti&'t thR . d
~ff.ect would be neglrglble. . . Uale eCelVe,
, '- -' '" .:~ I"" I '\.; - I /L--
'i .. "1
...J1:m 2 9 2008
41 -
Plan Amendment Request
'2/01/2008 \,
.,.,,'
'4 .
: 1- ", . "': -~~:-:. '
. ,J ~ . .t.'''.-!
Plan 111'erhBd
the hazard, its future effects on existing and future development, and the potential for
development in the hazard area to increase the frequency and severity of the hazard); (2)
allow opportunity for citizen revie",: and comment on the inventory information and
results of the evaluation; and (3) adopt or amend, as necessary, plan policies and
implementation measures consistent with the principles of (a) avoiding development in
hazard areas where the risk to people and property cannot be mitigated; and (b)
. prohibiting the siting of essential facilities in identified hazard areas "where the risk to
public safety cannot bc mitigated unless an cssential facility is needed withiil a hazard
area in ordcr to provide essential emergency response services in a timely manner."
Since the amendments to Goal 7 took effect, DLCD has taken no action that, in tum,
would require Eugene, Springfield, or Lane County to set in motion the procedures in
Goal 73t Accordingly, the proposed amendments complywith Goal 7. It is noted that the
project will occur within the floodway and 'floodplain of the Willamette River, and that.
both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction within
floodplains and floodways. By obtaining permits imder these ordinances, the project will
comply with Goal 7. r
GoalS (Recreational Needs)
. Goal 8 ;provides for local govemments to meet the recreational needs of the citizens of
Oregon. East Alton Baker Park is located both to the east and Alton Baker Park to the
west of ODOT's 1-5 right-of-way. That right-of-way is not part of the park.
Consequently, demolition of the decommissioned and detour bridges and construction of
the replacement bridges will not remove or increase recreational opportunities at the park.
Removal of the detour bridges, however, will include renloval of fill material from and
rehabilitation of an.area of East Alton Baker Park that borders 1-5, Use of the park
property was granted to ODOT through a temporary easement from Willanialane Parks
and Recreation District. The easement requires ODOT to remove the detour bridges and
restore the property within 5 years of the completion of the permanent replacement
bridge. The bridges serve through-movement on 1-5 and have never provided 'access to
the park.
As noted earlier, the decommissioned bridge predates the adoption of the statewide
planning goals. As replacement bridges to the decommissioned bridge, the ,two new
bridges will not alter the nature of impacts to the park's recreational use. The park may
be temporarily affected during construction of the new bridges and demolition of the
decommissioned and detour bridges, but through the permitting process; mitigation
measures can be imposed to minimize adverse impacts. Sueh measures may include a
construction management plan tha,t preserves and protects bicycle and .pedestrian safety
during construction of the new bridges and demolition ofilie decommissioned bridge and
detour bridge. They might arso include conditions to protect boater safety while bridge
construction/demolition is underway, and conditions to maintain consistency with
operational provisions in the East Alton Baker Park Plan. Through compliance with such
(
31 October 3, 2007 telephone conversation with Chris Shirley, DLCD Natural Hazards and Floodplains
.. Specialist. ~
\...~'~{::,~'~~;C\ --~ '11'-<- .,
Plan Amendment Request
"12101/2008
. .
Date, Rel"pived
, 4- 42 .
-JijN 'j,:;j 2008
1-1.30
. . -~1
Planner: BJ
c-'
~
conditions, Goal 8 .can be satisfied. Because the Park Plan incorporates lands with the
Willamette River greenway and helps to"implement greenway values, Goal 8 compliance
. also furthers consistency with Goal 15. .
Goal 9 (Economic Development)
.'
Goal_ 9 requires local govenm1ents to adopt comprehen~ive plans and policies that
"contributc to a stable and healthy economy in all rcgions of,the state." The comprehensive
plans of Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield have each been
acknowledged to comply with .Goal 9. Those plans all acknowledge the importance of
efficient freight movement, and they recognize 1~5 as an interstate freeway serving traffic
moving through the region. \
..,
The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project will have very. positive long-term economic
impacts to areas that are subjeet to Goal 9.because it will enable the continued use of the 1-5
corridor for the efficient movement of people and goods up and down the west coa~t and
through the region. In so doing, the project will contribute substantially to a stable and
healthy economy. It is noted as well that the project will not affect commercial or'industrial
land inventories.or limit access or other services 'to such'siies. For these reasons, the
proposed amendments are consisJcnt with Goal 932
poal 10 (Housing)
Goal 1 0 ~ddresses \-lousing. Goal 10 does not apply because the project will not affect hinds
designated and zoned for residential development. '
Goalll (Public Facilities and Serviees)
Goal 11 requires local governments to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services. The goal provides that urban and, rural
development "be guided and supported by types and levels of services appropriate for, but
limited to, the needs imd requirements of the urban, urbanizable and rural aryas to 'be
served," The Public Facilities Planning Rule, OAR 660, Divi~ion 11, implements Goal 11.,
Transportation facilities. are identified as public. facilities and services in Goal' 11. .
Because 1-5 provides a n~vel of highway service identified in the Oregon Highway Plan
as necessary to meet state' and regional. travel needs, and 'because the decommissioned
bridge must be replaced to allow 1-5 to continue meeting future travel needs, the project
complies with Goal 11. The replacement bridges will provide a level of service
appropriate to nieet the needs and requirements of interstate, through and regional
travelers,
.:,.".,
'/" \
32 The project has an estimated construction cost of$150 million. Because the DrIA III p~ogram places an
emphasis on using local subcontractors and material suppliers, a substantialportion of the cost will be spent
in 4 year period. Date Received
~2 92008
PI. . I-13h
anner:,)oJ
':'1-'-
..: ~1' i:
, . '. .
. '~.. -r,,";". .,~-~Ia~'Aniendn,l~i~t Request
. 2/0 l/2008' -..,
" ;",
>
-"','. ~,...
,",
~ ;.
,"
~
Goal 12 (Transportation)
Goal 12 requires local governments to "provide and encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system." Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), in OAR 660, Division 12.
Traversing the entire length of the west coast from the US/Mcxico border to British
Columbia, Canada,'l-S is the primary north-south highway corridor serving Califomia,
Oregon, and Washington. Arguably, 1-5 is the most important highway iuthe State of
Oregon and the most important fi-eight corridor on the west coast. The facility provides
for the significant movement of people, freight, and other services, and serves as the
backbone for intemational, interstate, alld intrastate conunerce. On average,
approximately 49,000 vchicles cross the Willamette River through the
Eugene/Springfield area on 1-5 each day, with numbers sometimes greater than 63,000.
Approximately 16-18 percent, of daily trips are made by tractor trailer rigs hauling freight.
By the year 2030, 1-5 is expected to accommodate approximately 73,000 daily vehicle
trips.
,.
A structurally sufficient 1-5 bridge over the Willamette River is essential to, the safe,
efficient, and convenient movement of people, goods, and services along the interstate
freeway. It is also essential ,to the economic and social welfare ofresidents of the Eugene-
Springfield area, as local roads not designed to handle interstate traffic (including heavy
freight traffic) could not reasonably or safely accommodate this traffic if it was rerouted
onto local city streets and county roads.
i
TransPlan, which implements Goal 12, identifies 1-5 (including the 1-5 bridge) as an
existing transportation facility. Still, as part of the plan amendment process, the. TPR
must be addressed.' The relevant TPR provisions are OAR 660-012-0060 and
660-012-0015.
OAR 660-012-0060(1) provides that where a comprehensive plan or land use regulation
amendment would significantly.affeet an existing or planned transportation facility, the
local govemment shall put into place measures to ensure allowed land uses are consistent
with the identified function, capacity and performance standards of the facility33 Here,
,
the replacement bridges will not significantIy affect an existing or planned transportation
facility because they merely replace a structurally damagcd bridge with two new bridges,
The new bridges will serve the same function as the decommissioned bridge arid provide
the same capacity, While the bridge, as designed, will be able to accommodate six travel
lanes at some future time, any future increase in capacity would result not from restriping
,
the bridge to six lanes, but from widening I ~ 5 to six travel lanes both north and south of
the bridge to accommodate additionaltraffic.
33 OAR 660-0 12.0060( 1) defmes "significantly affect" to illclude, among other things, amendments that
change the functional classification of a transportation facility or reduce the performance of a facility below
, ,the.minimum'ac~eptable performance standard identified in a transportation system plan.
'.... ~ \. ' . '. \ I ' p:..., ,. .
, t,l, ~',"i Pi~n Aci~rid~~nt Request
. ..
2/01/2008
:1 t' , . : .; ~
, " \. ,,;
. '.
.......
.. .
~;i.
"4!: -
Date4Receive d
4-
--jjj1<:l 2 9 2008
PI~nn~r" 14_1
1-132'
r-
, .
OAR 660-012"0060(1) Plan and Land Use Regulation.Amendments
(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land .use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, the local government shall pur in place measures as
provided in section (2) o! this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent
with the identified function, capacity, and performance standard~ (eg. level of
service, volume to capacity ratio, etc) of the facility. A plan or land use
regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facilityi! it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned tran.\jJortation
facility (exclusive of clJ/Tection of map errors in an ddopted plan);
The replacement bridges would merely rcplace an existing facility that has been
decommissioned as being structt\rally unsafe. The new bridges do not, in themselves,
incrcase the highway capacity of 1-5, and their construction will not, in itself, result in
more people driving on 1-5. Instead, existing traffic volumes will be shifted fi'om the
detour bridge to thc new bridges. 1-5, including the replacement bridges, would retain its
current functional Classification. The project would therefore not' alter the functional
classification ofI-5.
r
tJ?) Change standards implementing afwlctional cla~.sification system; or
The project would not change standards implementing a functional classification system.
(c) -As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted
transportation ,1J'stem plan:
(A) Allow land uses or l~vels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification op an
existing or planned transportation facility;
\
As the project only includes .replacing structurally unsafe bridges, ,land use or
development patterns would not be affect~d..
(B) Reduce .the pelformance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
The replaceme~t bridges would merely replace an existing" facility that has been
decOlmnissioned as being structurally unsafe, The new bridges do not, in themselves,
increase the highway capacity of 1-5, and their construction will not, in itself, result in
more people driving on. I~5. Instead, cxisting traffic volumes will be shifted from the
detour bridge to the new bridges. 1-5, including the replacelllent bridges, would retain its
current functional classification. The project would therefore not alter the performance of
1-5,
~~:.i:
. .' .~'
. 1.1 If' r". '~
If ~'~I L ~ ,: F ,:". ;.: .c:-;
Date Received
4-
.J1:tN' 2 ~ 2008
Planner: taJ
1-133
..... ~:...'. ,/"", '., ~~. .r.. ~"t;:... ;;";,
I"l "it""l'~ fl"'~J:'I~"';. -'I" .
'"J;, ,...., '.
';Uall~niAw.~Pldrnent Request_
'2/0112008 '
--'
c
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that.
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptpble performance .
standard ldentifie'd in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
j
The replacement bridges would merely replace an existing facility that has been
dcconunissioned as being structurally unsafe. Thc new bridgcs do not, in themselves,
increase the highway capacity'of 1-5, and their construction will not, in itself, result in
more people driving on 1-5. Instead, existing traffic volumes will be shifted from the
detour bridge to the new' bridges. 1-5, including the replacement bridges, would retain its
current limctional classification. The project would therefore not alter the perfonnance of
1-5.
,
OAR 660-012~0015 (Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans)
OAR 660-012-0015(1) directs ODOT to prepare and adopt a state transpOltation system
plan that identifies a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet
identified state transportation needs. The Oregon Transportation Commission has done
that through adoption of the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and modal plans,
including' the Oregon Highway Plan. The OTP includes polIcies to increase the' efficient
movement of people and goods for commerce and production of goods and services that
is coordinated with regional' and local plans. It emphasizes managing the existing
. transportation system effectively and improving that system before adding new facilities.
The OTP also promotes a safe, efficient, and reliable freight system to support economic
vitality. The OHP identifies 1-5 as an interstate highway within the state's roadway
network. That highway necessarily includes a bridge over' the Willaillette River in
Eugene/Springfield. OAR 660-012-0015(2) and (3) require that regional and local TSPs
be consistent with the state TSP. TransPlan currently recognizes the importance ofI-5 to
the region. Because tl}e replacement bridges are necessary to maintaining I-5~ by
approving the proposed Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan amendments, all plans
will remain consistent and the requirements 0(Goa112 will be satisfied.34
Goal 13 (Energy Con.servation)
Goal 13 directs cities and counties to manage and control land and uses developed on the
land to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based on sound economic
principles, While highway improvemcnts are not generally synonymous with the notion
of energy conservation, Goal 13 does not prohibit improvements to existing highways.
. Indeed, such an interpretation would conflict with provisions in Goal 12 and:the TPR
authorizing highway faeilities and improvements as part of an overall multimodal
transportation plan.
The replacement bridges are required because the decommissioned bridg~ is structurally
unsafe and the temporary detour bridge was not constructed using techniques that meet
34 The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Replacement Project is in both the 2006-2009 and 2008-20 I 1 MTIP _ .
and, as such, is includedaljtomatically in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP.)'update, It is identified in
. .., 1,' . ,... ',1-' '1'-r.,
the2006MTIPas';BlI~dle 220." ,Date Received
Plan Aniendi,\ent'RequeSr 4-
-2/0 l/2008 ' .Jtltf 29 2008
: -;:," '". ,'. f" ;,.....-..it,,'\.-=:,
..":1":<,_1 .
1-134
,
Planner: Br
r
currep.t seismi~ standards or accommodate heary traffic loads over the long term. The
replacement bridges will permit statewide and regional. traffic to continue to move
through the region in an efficient manner. Without thescbridges, tens of thousands of
vehicles would be forced onto local streets and bridges :each day to negotiate crossing the
Willamette River. ,This would greatly increase traffic and congestion within the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area. Incrcased tratIic congestion and out-of-direction travel
would waste rather than conserve fuel. By providing sate and convenient travel through
thc area' and facilitating the efficient movement of peoplc, goods, and scrvices, this
project cOllserves fuel, consistent with Goal 13.
Goal14 (Urbanization)
/
Goal 14 addresses Urbanization. Goal 14 does not apply because the project does not
amend an urban growth boundary or convert urbanizable lapd to urban land.
Goal 15 (Willamett~ River Grecnway)
Compliance with Goal 15 is addressed above in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of these findings
. and in the tindings addressing Goals 5 and 8. As noted,it is uncertain that a Goal 15
exception is required because the I~5 Willamette River Bridgc is an existing urban use. If
an exception is required, it is justified for the reasons outIined in Section 2.4.
Goal 16 (Estuarine Resources)
Goal 16 addresses Estuarine Resources. Because this application does not affect
estuarine resources, Goal 16 is not applicable.
Goal 17 (Coastal Shorelands)
'\
Goal 17 addresses Coastal Shorelands.' Because this application does not affect coastal
shorelands, Goal 17 is not applicable.
Goal 18 (Be~chcs and. Dunes)
Goal 18 addresses Beaches and Dunes in coastal areas. Be,cause this application does not
affect beaches and dunes in coastal areas, Goal 18 is not applicable.
Goal 19 (Ocean Resources)
Goal 19 .addresses Ocean Resources. Because this application does not affect ocean
resources, Goal 19 is not applicable.
'i .I._:! "r:;,'::''''
- ... .' ~ ,I
:,
. ~: ~
}.,
Date Received
~ 2 9 2008
47
Planner: .BJ 1-135
"
',:;
,
, .. ;, ... . fl-' ':'~ ':- ~''''J.; r
",.,:"";.':.,,i:._4~. !,~, '
.... ,J, .
, "
~~'. "f." ..
':":I:!'lari,Ame.ridment Request
2/0 I 12008
2.7 Compliance with Metro Plan, TransPlan, Willakenzie
Area Plan, Riverfront Park. Study, Laurel Hill Plan, ',South
Hills Study, and Entrance Beautification Study
For purposes of this requirement, this application addresses compliance not only with the
MelroPlan, but also with TransPlan, the Willakenzie Area Plan, the Riverfront Park
Study, Laurel Hill Plan, South Hills Study, and Entrance Beautification Study. Because
the applicable plan policies idelltified below often tend to repeat requirements contained
in the statewide planning goals, the reasoning in Section 2,6, above is incorporated by
reference herein as further support for the analysis of plan compliance.
a.
Mctro Plan
\
The Metro Plan goals and policies identified below are the goals and policies relevant and
applicable to the plan amendments requested in this application. No other goals or
policies apply35 Some of the applicable policies contain mandatory ("shall") language,
For these, the application must demonstrate compliance to gain approval. The remaining j
goals and policies are more aspirational, directive, or general in nature, typically
encouraging, enhancing, or providing support for an action or result rather than requiring
that action or result. .While these goals and policies are addressed due to their relevance to
this proposal, these goals and policies do .not in themselves constitute mandatory review
criteria upon which approval or denial is based.
Economic Element
Policy HIS, Encourage the development of transportation facilities, which would
improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement
capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (FransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master
Plan.
Replacing the decommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge' with two new bridges will
maintain the access, mobility, and freight movement capabilities that the decommissioned
bridge and temporary detour bridge have provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained
along the' interstate highway system through Eugene and Springfield, the replacement
bridges will help provide' convenient access to industrial and commercial areas on
connecting roads, Reconstructing bridges to modem standards is identified as Project 150
. (
in TransPlan. '
Willamctte River Greenway, Rivcr Corridors, and Watcrways Element
Goal: To protect, conserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, and
economic qualities of river and waterway corridors.
. 35 Policies that touch this project only tangentially or indirectly, if at all, are deemed not to apply and are
not addressed herein. ,.:.
,.J'".' -.-", '".:i - .,.. 'j',')
Plan Ame~dment Req\lest
2/0 l/2Qoii' , ' ,
,Date Receiver
4- .
~2 92008
1-136, .,~
, ~~ '; ~ 'I .
',ll'\1
.
Planner: BJ
I
r
-
This Willamette River greenway language is similar in wording to Statewide Planning
Goal 15 and very likely was intended to implement that goal. As explained in Sections
2.3 and 2'.4 of these findings, the bridge replacement project appears to be consistent with
Goal 15. The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge is an existing usc serving urban populations
that predated Goal 15 and the Willamette River greenway statute. The greenway goal
pennits such uses to continue; however, to the extent the new bridges may .not be
consistent with Goal 15, a goal exception has been taken to allow that use. ' ,
Because 1-5 is recognized in regional planning documents, including the Metro Plan and
TransPlan (as well as in .oDOT's approved Oregon Highway Plan), it, is deemed
consistent with tIllS Goal. Replacing an unsafe bridge with two new, structurally. sound
bridges should not change this result. Other than construction impacts, which can be
mitigated through mcasures imposed as conditions of approval during local permitting;
there should bc no new adverse impacts to the natural, scenic, envirol1lncntal, or
economic qualities ot~the river and its watelway corridor resulting from this project.
\ .
Policy D.9,' Local. and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public
access to the Willamette Rive;' Greenway.
'.
Public access cormecting to the Willamette Rivcr Greenway will continue to be provided
through ODOT's right-of-way under the 1-5 bridge. Public_access to the Willamette River
Greenway will not be affe(;ted. ,~
Policy 0.11., The taking of an exception shaJl, be required if a nonwater-dependent
transportation facility requires placing offill within the Willamette Ri~er greenway
, .
setback.
As 'indicatedin Section 2,3 of these findings, ar exception is required because the bridge
and its approaches, whieh are a nonwater~dependent facility, require the placing of tm
within the greenway setback, The exception is justified in Section 2.4 of these findings.
Accordingly, ODOT requests that Policy 0, H be amendcd to read as follows on page IIl-
0-5 of the Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element in the
Metro Plan:
-..,
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was
approved for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for purposes of
removing and replacing the decommissionelI-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 River Greenway SetbaCK Line, The
exception authorizes constructi,on and later removal of one or more temporary
work bridges; demolition of the decommissioned I~5 Willamette River Bridge,'
Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour. bridges; construction of the two replacement
~ bridges; reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the bridges (I-5 and ramps);
rehabilitation of the proposed area; imd completion of any required mitigation of
:,'..;., _' project,impacts. In association with these tasks, the exception f}J.(ther auSll.orizes /'
'- '.':; ",'. ':' ~. :.". . uate Heceived
Pli'~iin~~dm~At Request ~ 29 2008
,2/01/2008 49
_f" ..'}~:~":':'!!l ((,l.~_ :.~-
~', ,. . \' l'> <' t' ~ f~ ~
Planner: f3.Jt}7
:: ',,~", '",
within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line the addition and removal of
fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill within a temporary slope
easement east of 1-5, This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), WillametteGreenway, and the
exception requirements of.OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part I!(c) for a "reasons"
exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby. adopted as an
amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy #11, Chapter 111, Section D.
Environmental Design Element
Policy E.2: Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage-ways shall be
protected and retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to
enhance those natural features. This policy does not preclude' increasing their
conveyance capacity in an environmentally responsible manner.
Bridge construction and, demolition, including construction and removal of associated
temporary work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the greenway. Through
the permitting process, these impacts can and will be minimized, to the extent practicable,
and mitigated, with all areas disturbed by the project returned to conditions at least as
, .
good as they were before the project. Protection to natural riparian areas will be
maintained to the greatest extent practicable,
The project also must obtain local permits from Eugene and Springfield pursuant to land
use regulations that were adopted to protect the WilIamette River Greenway and
,significant natural resources pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals 15 and 5 and protect
water quality consistent with Goal 6. The natural vegetation riparian fringe. along the
, .
WilIamette River can and will be protected through compliance with the permitting
requirements contained in the Eugene Code for proposed development in thegreenway
and in areas subject to Statewide Goal 5. The City of Eugene can impose approval
conditions as it deems necessary to protect riparian vegetation to the extent practicable.
Protection to fish and wildlife habitat will be maintained to the greatest extent
practicable, Significant fish and wildlife habitats can and will be protected through
compliance with the permitting requirements contained in the Eugene and Springfield
development codes for developments in the greenway and in areas subject to Statewide
Goal 5. The cities of Eugene and Springfield can impose approval conditions as they
deem necessary to protect fish and wildlife habitats to the extent practicable.
I
Construction best management practices will be implemented to minimize the effects of
construction activities. Disturbed areas will be restored and ODOT will work with the
community throughout the design and construction process to get input and advice on
ways to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.
The project ~ould meet the OTIA III Environmental Performance Standards' (EPS) in
order to meet the requirements of the programmatic environmental permits that apply to
the statewide bridge program. These performanee standards define the level of effect that. d
';it,' ,.,';' ,.." ~:, -.tj-:i ;' . Date Receive
.. f ~ I'l.. - . ',~. i A--
-jijN 2 9 ~~08 .
Planner: BJ'
PlanAI11endment Request .
2/0 m008'
1-138
lJ" ~
.' j1 ~ .,;
,
~
.'
a project may have upon the environment, thereby limiting or avoiding impacts to the
environment thrOiigh the use of proper planning, design, and construction activities.
To avoid' fish and wildlife species and minimize temporary impacts from construction
activities, all applicable OTIA III Statc Bridge Delivery Program EPS will be
implemcnted to reducc the extent of direct and indircct impacts to fish and wildlife
species~ Effects to water rcsources during construction and operation of the projcct will
be minimized through the implcmentation of applicable mitigation measures in the OTIA
. III State Bridge Delivery Program EPS.
..,
ODOT will coordinate with ODFW through the design process (0 identify opportunities
to minimize habitat disturbance. To avoid and minimize potential impacts to fish and
wildlife species habitat during and after construction actiVities, all applicable OTIA III
State Bridge Delivery Program EPS will be 'ihlplemen~ed to reduce the extent of direct
and indirect impacts, to habitat. These include: .
. Minimize effects to natural stream and floodplain by keeping the work area to the
smallest footprint needed.
. Prepare and implement a plan to prcvent construction debris from dropping into
the Willamette River and to remove materials that may drop with a minimum
disturbance to aquatic habitat. .
. Prepare site restoration plans for upland, wetland, and stream bank areas to include
native plant species and noxious weed abatement techniques, and use large wood
and rock as components of streambed protection treatments.
. Flag boundaries of clearing limits and sensitive areas to' be avoided during
construction.
. Coordinate with Willamalane.Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Parks
and Open Space Division regarding sensitive areas .in Alton Baker Park and the
Whilamut Natural Area that should be avoided during construction,
. . Restore and revegetate disturbed areas,
Policy E. 4. Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that'
preserve:~ and enhances desirable features of (ocal an,d neighborhood areas and
promotes their sense of identity.. ~
The replacement bridges will be located within the same ODOT right-of-way where the
decommissioned bridge is\ located. Impacted riparian areas and other lands within the
greenway setback can be protected during the permitting process through the imposition
of approval conditions.' ,
,
"
Bridge design can be considere.ci during the plan amendment process or, for Springfield,
through the Discretionary Use Approval process as provided in SDC 25.050 and 10.030.
Cqnceptual designs will be addressed as part of the federal draft environmental process
that precedes local land use decision-making. As noted above in the discussion of
Statewide J:'lanning Goal I, the public is involved in this process. Among other things,
. "., ~.4 . .
(1;;~PR9!.\~srabli~M4~aCommunity Advisory Group (CAG) composed of representatives of
.J;'\....".;. 'i: :'.~; ~ ,
PlafriAmendment Request
. 2/01/2008
~~..<t(~~J.";. ....}.}~~I~~;.. '"
, . 4 f'
Date Received
'd- ,51
-dtrn 2 9 2008
I-139
Plan net: BJ
"
'.
local neighborhood associations, parks departments (Eugene and Willamalane), the
Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area, chambers of commerce, and
the University of Oregon that has been involved in the development of the project and
will continue to be involved during selection of the bridge type, its design, and
construction,
Transportation Element
Goal]: Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices
in modes of travel and development pal/ems that will reduce reliance on the automobile
and enhance livability, economic~opportlmily, and the quality of life.
(
Goal 2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
.
Balanced
Accessible
Efficient
Safe
Interconnected
Environmentally responsible
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts
Economically viable andfinancially stable
'-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The I~5 Willamette River Bridge is an existing facility in TransPlan and the OHP. As
such, through TransPlan's acknowledgment, it has already been deemed consistent with
Transportation Goals 1 and 2. While 1-5 is a freeway and, as such, is automobile oriented,
the mobility and accessibility it provides do help to enhance regional livability, economic
opportunity, and the quality of life in the region.
, , .
The bridge replacement project 'maintains consistency with Goals 1 and 2. Due to
structural damage that rendered it unsafe and which cannot be repaired, the original 1-5
bridge was decommissioned and must be replace'd. The project replaces the original
bridge with two new permanent bridges, Replacing a structurally deficient and unsafe
bridge, rather than directing 1-5 traffic onto local streets, maintains regional mobility and
livability and enhances economiC opportunity and quality of life. It ensures the
continuation of an accessible, efficient, and interconnected transportation network 'by
allowing continued use of 1-5 over the Willamette River, thus maintaining the princ,ipal
roadway connection between the north and south portions of Eugene and Springfield.
Through the. permitting process, measures can and will be provided to ensure
) construction of the replacement bridges ()ccurs in an environmentally responsible
manner..
1-140
.~ ~. }". ;,
Date Received
4-
-dt:m 2 9 ?g08
Planner: BJ
PI~~,An),,,ndI,~nt Request;
2/01/2008 .
.,~
; i'
,,,
~.
'.
-
Transportation System Improvements: System,Wide Policies
F 10.' Protect and manage existinganclfuture transportatio~ inji-astructure.
The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project replaces a structurally deficient bridge with two
ncw permanent bridges built to accommodatc anticipated traffic volumes and weight
loads. This bridge replacement reflects an,effort to manage and protect 1-5, which is an
essential part of the region's and state's exi~ting t~al1sportation infrastrilcture.' .
Transportation System Improvements: Roadways
Policy F 14: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transportation users,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and
constructing roadway system imjJrovements.
~
I~5 across the Willamette River is an eXlstmg transportatlOn facility identified in
TransPlan and the OHP. Because the original 1-5 bridge is structurally deficient and had
to be decommissioned, a nc\v permanent bridge is needed to address the safety and
mobility needs of motorists and facilitate efficient movement of cmergency vehicles
between the north and south sections of Eugene and Springfield. The new permanent
replacement bridges can and wiIJ be designed to meet applicable state and federal safety
and mobility standards. The temporary detour bridge cannot accommodate the safety
needs of motorists because it does not meet current' seismic standards and the
constnlction methods used to build it only met envirorllilental. reqnireme'nts as' they
applied to temporary, not. permanent, structures.
Policy F-15: Motor vehicle level of service policy:
a) Use motor vehicle level of service standardr to maintain acceptable and reliable
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be usedfor: ,
r
(I) Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
_ (2) Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation
plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations,
pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-012-0060).
(3) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
. regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
b) Acceptable arid. reliable performance is defined by the following levels of service
under peak hour traffic conditions: LOS E within Eugene '.I' Central Area
Transportation Study (CATS) area and LOS D elsewhere,
c) Performance standards from the OHP shall be applied on state facilities in the
Eugene-Spri~gfield metropolitan area,
~ , ( ,.
~.o;~;;:?" < ("'. ~--. )~S,:" ,:' ", '\~ I
:m~ ..; >1 I
Plan Aineildme~tReqlIesr
,2/01/2008 ...-
....,.: "Of" ;"'\". ,.
,,,'/", . -~ t: ,~:: ;'t '''{~
Date Received
A' 2 9 2008
Planner: B~
1-141
The 1-5 Willamette River replacement bridges will be striped to provide two travel lanes
in each direction, consistent with current striping pattems. The bridge will be built to
accommodate future restriping to three travel lanes in each direction when the adjacent
sections of 1-5 are widened to threc lanes in each direction. TransPlan projects 150 and
260 provide for the future widening of 1-5 from four to six travel lanes north and south of
the Willamette River.
.'
Because the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge is already recognized in TransPlan, there is no
need to amend the plan. The required exceptions are not taken to meet requirements of
Statewide Planning Goal 12 or the Transportation Plarming Rule (TPR), but to comply
with' Willamette River green way requirements in Goal 15 and the Metro Plan, These
findings address the consistency of the needed plan amendments with applicable Metro
Plan requirements and land use regulations, Other applicable land use regulations will be
addressed during the local permitting processes,
F.16: Promote or develop a regional roadway system that meets the combi~ed needs for
travel through, within and outside t~e region.
'. 1-5 is a state facility that serves both statewide and regional transportation needs as
defined in the TPR, i.e., needs for movement of people and goods (I) between and
through regions of the state and between states (state need), and (2) between and through
commwlities and accessibility to regional destinations within a metropolitan area
(regional need), As such, it is an integral element of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan
area's regional roadway system. Indeed, it is likely the principal arterial serving the
combined needs for travel . through, within, and outside the region,' Replacing a
structurally deficient bridge with two new bridges promotes the maintenance and
continuation of the regional roadway system serving the combined needs for travel
through, within, and outside the region.
'\ Transportation System Improvements: Goods Movement
F.29: Support reasonable and reliable travel times for freight/goods movement in the
Eugene-Springfield region.
Connecting 1-5 north and south of the Willamette River via' a new, structurally safe
bridge crossing is essential to ensuring that ~easonable and reliable travel times for
moving freight and goods in the region are maintained. Without the connection, tens of.
thousands of vehicles daily would be required to seek alternative means for crossing the
river, clogging capacity and causing congestion and delay throughout Eugene and
Springfield. Existing roadways lack sufficient capacity to accommodate the, existing
49,000 daily vehicle trips or .the 73,000 daily vehicle trips anticipated on the I~5
Willamette River Bridge by 2030. .
. ,.
):''"J
~ " i
Date Received
4-
JttN 2 9 2008
54
Planner: BJ
~. ... 1 ~'
Plan Amendment Request
2/0 1/2008
. L~142
. ','
~
,
Finance
F.34' Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the needfor
more expensivejiilure repair.
A permanent rcplacement for the decommissioned bridge is necessary to improve safety
, i'
and ensure mobility of all users of 1-5 in the Eugene/Springtield area. Replacing the
unsafe decommissioned bridge and substandard detour bridge with a permanent bridge
that meets cun'ent safety and design standards and that handles increasing traffic volumes
will result in the continued operation of 1-5 and will elimihate the potential for a more
costly, expedited future repair to ensure continued mobility. I
Citizen Involvement Element
,Goal: Continue to develop, maintain, and refine programs and procedures that maximize
the opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community's planning
and planning implementation processes consistent with m1andatory statewide planning
standards.
Citizens have the opportunity to be involved in the I~'5 Willamette River Bridge
Replacement Project through participation in the federal. environmental process and
through the local land use decision-making process, including opportunity to comment at
public hearings on the applications for the current plan amendments. Citizen involvedlent
will continue through the design and construction of the replacement bridges. Citizen
involvement that has occurred to date is discussed in great~r detail above in the findings
addressing Statewide Planning Goal I. I .
\
b. TransPlan
Many of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies in TransPlan are repetitive of those in
the Transportation Element ofthe Metro Plan. Where this is:so, reference is made back to
the analysis of the corresponding provision in the Metro Pl~n. Like many of the 'policies
in TransPlan, many of these goals, objectives, and policies are directive to the city or
encourage or support a specified outcome, While these are not mand~tory review
standards for this reason, thcy are addressed herein nonethel~ss.
As with the Metro Plan, a number of the TransPlan goals, objectives, or policies touch
this project only tangentially, if at all. Because they do not directly apply, these goals,
objectives, and policies are not addressed herein, .
Goal #1.' Provide an integrated transportation and land us~, system that supports choices
in modes of travel and development patterns that will redu~e reliance on the automobile
and enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
r~.,,'- ...:, .
.'~'~4.,tJ"""'~"~;;,,,.~~' " , ,<'", " t"
. Plan Ameiidment Request'
2/0 1!200~" .,.;..,
Date Received
4-
JJJ.N 2 9 2008 .
55
Plannec,BJI3
~ ," : I ~+~., .
.
.i .
.
.
.
.
.
Goal #2. Enhci~ce the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and
economic opportunity by providing a transportation system Ihat is'
Balimced,
Accessible,
, Efficient,
Safe,
Interconnected,
. Environmentally re;,ponsible,
Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts, and
Economically viable and financially stable' .
TransPlan Goals I and 2 are virtually identical to the Metro Plan Transportation Elements
Goals I and 2. The project satisfies these goals for the same reasons these Metro Plan
goals are satisfied,!
Objective # J: Provide adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient
movement of people, goods and services within the region.
The OHP identifies 1-5 as a facility needed to serve statewide transportation needs,
including the movement of freight tIrrough the region and the state. A safe 1-5 bridge
crossing over the WiIlamette River is integral to moving people, goods, and services
efficiently within and through the region.
Objective #2: Improve transportation system safety through design, operations and
maintenance, system improvements, support facilities, public information, and law
enforcement efforts.
The original 1-5 Willamette River Bridge was structurally damaged and had to be
decommissioned for safety reasons. The new bridges will be designed to meet all
required safety standards and thus .will improve transportation system safety.
,
Objective #3.' Provide transportation systems that are environmentally responsible.
Through application of the NEP A and its implementing regulations, the bridge
replacement project must meet federal environment standards. This will involve
strategies to avoid or minimize impacts where practicable and. mitigate unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts.36 The project also must obtain local permits from.
Eugene and Springfield pursuant to land use regulations that were adopted to protect the
WiIlamette River greenway and significant natural resources pursuant to Statewide .
Planning Goals 15 and 5; regulate construction in hazard areas pursuant to Goal 7; and
protect air and water quality consistent with. Goal 6,
36 Mitigation is generally a condition of state and federal environmental permits when nnavoidable impacts
-0.. \ will occur-.. -": ~. ~ . .
~.. ".:- ., :.,~ 1-, '":. ,.' r':' -\
1-,144 :.
> ~,_.
Plan Amendment Request
2/0ii2008' ,
Date Received
IN 2 9 2~~8
.:"'1
r.-.'
, ~ '
i
Planfll3r: BJ
~-
,-
Objective #4: Support transportation strategies that impro~e the economic vitality of the
region and enhance economic opportunity.
This objective is met for the reasons noted under Goal 9 'compliance. A safe, properly
functiol~ing bridge serving interstate traffic over the WilIamette River is essential to
etlicientIymoving goods and services, which in (urn enhan:ces economic opportunity and
improves regional economic vitality. .
Objective #5: Provide citizens with information to Increase their awareness of
transportation issues, encourage their involvement in reSolving the issues, and assist
"
them in making infonned transportation choices. .i
The 1-5 Willamelte River Bridge Replacement Project involves citizens through both the
federal environmental process and the local limd use decision-making process. In each,
citizens.have the opportunity to review background materials and be heard in the public
hearing process. Citizen involvement opportunities are discussed above in more detail in
the analysis of compliance with Statewide Planning Goal I.;
I.
i:
Objective #6: Coordinate among agencies to facilitate efficient planning, design,
operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities and,programs.
)
, I
Amongothers, this appli~ation has involved coordination ~mOrig the ()regon Department
of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, Lane County, the cities of
Eugene and Springfield, and affe~ted state and fed~ral environmental agencies.
Coordination efforts are described above in more detail in the analysis of compliance
with Statewide Plmming Goal 2, Part I.
TSI System~Wide Policies
. \
Policy #1: Protect and manage existing andfuture transportation infrastructure.
The original 1-5 Willamette River Bridge was decommissioned upon the opening of the
detour bridge following detenuination that it was structurally unsafe, Replacing that
bridge with new bridges that meet applicable safety staildards protects and properly'
manages the 1-5 system.
TSI Roadway Polieies
r-
Policy #1: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles wheh planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
This policy is satisfied for the same reasons that the .application complies with Metro Plan
. . Transportation Element Policy F.14. '
r
: ;j.
;' t.,..'tHj'~ ~ l ~ ' ,;"" ,;.,
(. ',,': .:,:,' q~,' .,:"',:.="., ;' ...
" ~':1.~ ',\ l
f ; i".~ .' ( ,.,
Plan Amendnient'R:equest
2/0112008
.
11
Date Received
4-
)Wf 2 9 2008
, 57 -
Planner:IW
."'.'l
, t "
~.,. '", ,.., ,
'l ~:. ....
,
"
<-
Policy #2: Use motor vehicle . level o( service standards to maintain acceptable and
reliable performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be usedfor:
(1) Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.'
(2) Evaluating the impacts on roadways o( amendments to transporlation plans,
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, pursuant to Ihe
TPR (OAR 660-012-0060).
(3) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulalions of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
Performance standards from thc Or~gon Highway Plan shall bc applied on state facilities
in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
This policy is satistied for the same reasons' that the application complies with Metro Plan
Transportation Element Policy F.15.
Policy #3: In conjunction 'with the overall transportation system, recognizing the 'needs
o( other trc/nsportation modes, promote or de\ielop a regional roadway system th-at meets
combined needs for travel through, withiri, and outside the region.
This policy is satisfied for the same reasons that the application complies with Mctro Plan
Transportation'Element Policy F.IG.
TSI Goods Movement Policies
Policy #1.' Support reasonable and reliable travel times(or freight/goods movement in
. the Eugene-Springfield repion. (
I .
This policy is satisfied for the same reasons that the application complies with Metro Plan
Transportation Element Policy F.29.
,
c. . Willakerizie Area Plan
. I
Several provisions in the' Willakenzie Area Plan 'are relevant to this application. These
criteria are found in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, .and Neighborhood
Design Element. The application is consistent with these criteria for the reasons outlined
below,
As discussed in Section 2.5, above, the application is not consistent with Use
Management Standard I of the Neighborhood Design Element, Willamette Greenway.
Development Criteria, because as written, this provision does not allow the bridge
replacement to go forward. Accordingly, ODOT has requested that Use Management
Standard I be amended. Besides ensuring that the Willakenzie Area Plan maintains
consistency with the Metro Plan and TransPlan, the requested amendment would be
co"nsist~rt w. ithppth the Land Use and Transportation elements of the Willakenzie Ar~a d
," " ,'P.lan[oma,sQn,s ~tated below, Date Receive
. ~ 292008
- 58
Planner:BJ
, .
. Plan Amendment Request
'.'. -....
2/01/2008
I~146" .
~, ".':,? .1' "'~" r
-t.. "~ t'--') -.
/
"'"
"
Land Use Elcment: Land Usc Policics and Proposcd Actions
Policy 1: The City shall use the Land Use Diagram and aC,companying text and policies
of the Willakenzie Refinement Plan, as well as other applicable City goals, policies, ane(
plans, to provide poiicy direction for public decisions affecting the plan area. . ~~
The City is reviewing this application for compliance with relevant provisions of the
Metro Plan, TransPlal~, and Willakenzie Area Plan. Diagrams in the Willakenzie Plan
'identify 1-5 as a major arterial. See the transportation fl1l1ctional classification map on
page 84, which shows an 1-5 bridge over the Willamet!e River. This' application is.
consistent with that provision. ~
Policy 3: Retain existing significant vegetation whenever 'possible to provide buffering
between residential and nonresidential uses, as well as between low-density and higher
density residential uses.
,
)
The project will result in the temporary removal of some existing vegetation buffering,
residential areas from 1-5. The vegetation removed will be limited to the minimum area
necessary for construction and staging activities. Following construction, cleared areas
will be revegetated and retumed to existing conditions to th~ extent practicable.
Policy 4: Recognize Coburg Road, the Ferry Street Bridge, Beltline Road, Delta
Highway, 1-5, and the Eugene-Springfield \Highway (1-105) as designated entrance
corridors to the city as identified in the adopted City of Eugene Entrance Beautification
Study.
This policy recognizes 1"5 as an entrance corridor. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5
Willamette River Bridge is consistent with that categorization and, for all practical
purposes, necessary for I~5 to retain this designation.
Transportation Elcment
)
Policy i: The transportation network within the Willaken7;le area shall be planned and
designed to ensure. a) preservation of existing neighborhoo.ds; b) an adequate system of
arterials and collectors for the efficient movement or through traffic; and c) the
preservation of the use of local streets for local traffic.
The functional classification map identifies 1"5 (including.a bridge over the Willamette
River) as a major arterial. 1-5 cannot adequately provide for the efficient movement of
traffic through the WiIlahnzie area without replacing the unsafe, structurally deficient
decommissioned bridge with a new river crossing. The amendment to Neighborhood
Design Element Use Management Standard I (Willamette River Greenway), addressed in
Section 2.5 of these findings, is necessary to ensure contin,ued compliance and maintain
plan consistency with'Transportation Element Policy 1.
_ r-~
Date Received
4
J1JN' 2 9 Z008
Planner: B~
1'--147
\"
. ...:,;it!
Plan Amendment Request
2/01/2008 ~iJ;
,.,,"
Policy 4: The City shall provide for improvements to designated enirance corridors,
including those in County and State jurisdictions, in conjunction. with construction or
reconstruciion projects affecting those streets.
The bridge crosses the Willamette River, a definirig feature of Eugene-Springfield. The
project area also includes an important and highly used park with a designated natural
area (the Whilamut Natural Area) and unique cultural features. Further, the bridge is an
important symbolic gateway between Eugene and Springfield as well as for the
Willamette River valley. A key consideration of the project is providing an aesthetically
pleasing solution that recognizes the scenic beauty of the project area. Therefore, a range
of bridge types and pier options were considered. Selection of the bridge type for each
segment is dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations and budget. Additionally, the
reduction in the total number of piers and in the number of piers within the Willamette
River will greatly improve views of the river and, as such, contribute to a significant
positive visual impact.
Policy 4.1: As part of the design process, provide for the development of corridor design
plans that recognize the unique characteristics and individual identities of each of the
designated entrance 'corridors. .
ODOT is developing the project' to retain design flexibility related to bridge fonll,
materials, and aesthetic treatments as wcll as to allow flexibility to the engineers to
design an economical bridge that also meets community requirements. Selection of the
bridge type for each segment is dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations and
budget.
Policy 7.' To the greatest extent possible, the City shall encourage regional and intercity
traffic to use mqjor rather than minor arterials.
The Transportation Element functional classification map designates 1-5 as a major
arterial. The application to amend Use Management Standard I is fully consistent with
this policy because it provides for the continued use' of 1-5' through the area to serVe
through and regional traffic. Because the decommissioned bridge must be replaced for
safety reasons, this policy can only be satisfied by approving the requested goal
exceptions and Willakenzie Area Plan amendment. .
Policy 8: The City shall work with developers and the State of Oregon to ensure that
. noise attenuation is provided for existing G/id proposed residential developments along
State highways when improvements are made to those roads.
A project noise technical report was prepared as part of the EA to analyze potential noise
impacts resulting from the project. Per ,the ODOT Noise Manual (June 1,996) 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 ODOT
effectiveness and cQst-effeeliveness criteria in two locations and were recommended as
..,;, r ,J,' ~.~':'ft~\'~;.~- 1!, f"f!t:Ji_If'~' .'-ol; ;-'i~ ,,~,~
,
. ,
Date Re~C!W.\l
.::+-- 60
-1tJ1'f ~ 0 ?OQR
'r.,)'~' ~ ~. .
Plan'Amendment Request
.. 2)01/2008
I. .,i~ ",:. t~
;"t I
1-148
Planner:
"L..J
I~~, .
'.f
\
/
r'
mitigation. The final w~lllocations will be determined after public input is completed as ~
,part of the NEPA process. '--
Policy 8.1: At the reqziest of residents, the City should work with residents and the State
to determine cost-effectiveness and cost distribution for sounds bem'iers along existing
fi-eeways in the established neighborhoods where sound barrie/;s are not currently
installed
'.
See response to Policy 8.
Policy 8.2: The City should work with the State to ensure local, State, and Federal
regulations pertaining to noise attenuation are met when.evei- afreeway is improved
. )
See response to Policy 8.
Neighborhood Design Elerr;ent - Willamette Greenway
I .
, "
Use Management Standard 1: See Section 2.5 above.
Use Management Standard 2. Provision for public pedestrian and bicyc!e access along
the river.
Trails will, to the maximum extent practicable, be kept open, safe, and useable ~uring
project construction. A continuous route across 000'1' right-of-way for the
bicycle/pedestrian pathways would be maintained on both iithe north side and the south
side of river during construction. The projeCt will not have a long-t,erm effect on existing
bicycl,e/pedestrian access along the river.
Use Management Standard 5: Activities or uses such as open storage of materials shall
be discouraged within the greenway. .'
,
Two staging areas for material storage and stockpiling, equipment storage, job trailers,
employee parking, and" other construction-related uses . would be occupied during
construction; one on the rlorth side of the river and one pn the south. The currently-
proposed staging 'areas would be located on 000'1' right-of-way, but would also require
the temporary occupancy of three parcels not currently owned by ODOT, including
portions of Alton Baker Park, within the greenway, adjacent to 1-5. ODOT would acquire
temporary easements for use of non-ODOT property during ~onstruction.
j,
'Use Management Standard 7' Significant fish and wildlife habitats, as identified in the
adopted Natural Resources Special Study, or Metropolitan Plan Natural Assets and
Constraints Working Paper shall be protected: Sites subsequently determined by the
Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife shall also be protected
, ,
,.' _ ~ > ,'. . .7-.'
:)C.~,\"::t-_)~',,-:..,,,,:' ~ "':_",'
. Plan' Amendment'-Recjuest
2/0 1/2008
.(:5\ ~.: x >i "-
, ,
Signifieant fish and wildlife habitats can and will be prote2te,d tP.r,P~Ii~ c~pliancs: with
the permitting requirements contained in the Eugene and Si)fingW1e',"~'WGf
for developments in the green way and in areas subject to Statewide GoalS, The cities of
~ 2 'd 2008
Planner; 8~
r-'i49
,,,'
\ J"~~" a
. .
. . .
\~-.:r':';~;>~~~~:' .
Eugene and Springfield can impose approval conditions as they deem necessary to
protect fish and wildlife habitats to the extent practicable, consistent with the need to
provide a new'I-5 Willamette River crossing relevant to the Transportation Element
policies identified above.
ODor will coordinate with ODFW through the design process to identify opportunities -
to minimize habitat disturbance. To avoid and minimize potential i.mpacts to fish and
wildlife species habitat during and after constmction activities, 'all applicable OTIA III
State Bridge Delivery Program EPS \yill be implemented to reduce the extent of.direct
and indirect impacts to habitat. These include:
· Minimize effects to natural stream and tloodplain by keeping the work area to the
smallest footprint needed,
· Prepare and implement a plan to prevent construction debris from dropping into
the Willamette River and to remove materials that may drop with a minimum
disturbance to aquatic habitat.
· Prepare site restoration plans for' upland, wetland, and streambank areas to include
native plant, species and noxious weed abatement techniques, and use large wood
and rock as components of streambed protection treatments.
. Flag boundaries' of clearing limits and sensitive areas to be avoided during
construction.
· Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Parks
and Open Space Division regarding sensitive areas. in Alton Baker Park ,and the
Whilamui Natural Area that should be avoided dilring construction.
. Restore and'revegetate,disturbed areas.
)
Use Management Standard 8: The natural vegetative "riparian fringe along the
.Willamette River, as identified on the WillakenzieArea Plan Natural Resource Area Map,
shall be protected and enhanced to the maximum extent practicable,
(
The riparian vegetation removed will be limited to the minimum area necessary for
construction and staging activities. FolloS'ing construction; cleared areas will be
revegetated and returned to existing conditions to the extent practicable.
The natural vegetation riparian fringe along the Willamette River can and will be
protected through compliance with the permitting requirements contained in the Eugene
Code for proposed development in the greenway and in areas subject to Statewide. Goal
5. The City of Eugene can impose approval conditions as it deems necessary to protect
riparian vegetation to the extent practicable, consistent with the need to provide a new 1-5
Willamette River crossing relevant to the Transportation Element policies 'identified
above,
"
(
~'.","' .j.
~f
..
, ~.:. c' ~;'l~'
"
"
'-fl'i'.
Plan Amendnlenl Request'
, 2/0 1/2008
,JJ'.
-,~ .
"
Date4 R~ceived
Jl:/N 2 9 2008
1-150
Planner: BJ
-I)
'if.
~
/-~
Use Management Standard 9: Scenic qualities and viewpoints, as identified in the Metro
. . ~ , . ."
Plan Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper shall bp preserved
The new replacement bridges will be located within ODOT's 1-5 right-of-way in
essentially the same location' as the decommissioned bridge. As sllch, this project should
have no effect on scenic qualities and viewpoints,
N cighborhood Dcsign Elemcnt - Waterways
Policy 1. Significant wetland, riparian, water and upland sites in the Willakenzie area
shall be protected from encroachment and degradalion in order to retain their important
functions related (o.fish and wildlife habitat, flood contrql, sedimentation and erosion
control, water-quality control, and groundwater pollution control:
Affected riparian areas and fish and wildlife habitat in the Willakenzie area can and will
be . protected through compliance with the permitting requirements contained in the
Eugene development code for proposed development in' the green way and in areas
subject to Statewide Goai 5. The City of Eugene can impose approval conditions as it
deems necessary to prot~ci these [(;sources to the extent practicable, consistent with the
necd to provide 'a new 1-5 Willamette River crossing relevant to the Transportation
Element policies identified above, Flood control, sedimentation and erosion control, and
water-quality and grOlmdwater pollution control can be acIiieved through these same
permittillK processes, through the issuance of permits t? allow development in the
floodway or floodplain, and by requiring ODOT to constmct the new bridges and
demolish the deconunissioned and detour bridgcs using Bcst Management Practices.
d. Riverfront Pa~k Study
I
Transportation
~.
(
5. Required transportation projects will be phased and the phasing schedule will depend
upon the level of participation of non-public funds (i.e., par(icipation by a developer) and
the level of actual development. '
It is not e({pected that the project will be phased,
Environmcnt
2. The existing'Millrace which passes through a portion ofthe study area is an important
environmental and historic city feature. Development occurring in the Riverfront Park
shall maintain or improve the visual and bicycle/pedestrian access to and along the Mill
Race, expanding its use for public recreation while at the fame time recognizing its role
as a stormfunoff channel. ---,
': :---" '!; $, .,;,
,:" ,: - ~" :/
Ii"";.
_'1' ,
Date ReceivedDate RA~oi\fqd
4292008 . JJ% ;- 'J ?nnR .
Planner:. BJ Plann
63
~...
..
){:.;: ~~-1j:.
.'-~' ~~ I' .
~. :,i~" ,....~.'
,..PlanA!l'~9drnent Request
'2/0 l!20081 ' . ,
1-151
3. Development occurring in the Rive/froni Park area shall be designed to preserve a
significant cluster of black locust, English oak, and redleaf plum trees locatedjust east of
the current location of the bicycle path.
4. Development in the Riverfront Park area shall, when possible, maintain and enhance
the public's physical access to the river and the riparian strip along its banks
The new bridges would be constructed in about the same location as the decommissioned
and detour bridges. Though there would be a slight shif,t in the alignment of 1-5, all
improvements would remain within the existing 000'1' right-of-way. The new bridges
therefore will not be located within the Riverfront Park Study area. However, portions of
the temporary work bridges may be located within a small portion of the Riverfront ParK
Study area. ODOT would acquire temporary easements for use of non-ODOT property
during construction. The Riverfront Park Study area in which a, portion of the temporary
. work bridges may be located is just east of the 1-5 replacement bridges shown in Figure
3, south of the Willamette River, and north of Franklin Boulevard. This section of the
Riverfront Park Study area does not include the Millrace and cluster oftrees mentioned in
the Riverfront Park Study Environmental Policies 2 and 3; therefore, these elements
would not be affecte'd. Public access .to the river and along the Millrace will not be
'-affected, See responses to GoalS and Metro Plan Policy E.2.
e. Laurel Hill Plan
6. The Laurel Hill Plan supports the South Hill Study standards In general, alteration. of
the land contours shall be minimized to retain views of natural features . and retain as
much of the forested atmosphere as possibie. Aside ji-om purely aesthetic considerations,
these hillsides demand care in development because the topsoil is thin and the water
runoff is rapid. .Proposed developments shall respect the above considerations. The
Valley hillside policy applies to all land with an average slope, from toe to crest, of 15
percent or greater. (A I5-percent slope is one in which the land rises 15 feet per 100
horizontal feet.)
a. If, in the opinion of the responsible City official, an adverse conservation or geological
condition exists upon a parcel of land proposed for a subdivision, or before any major
hillside clearing, excavation, filling or construction is contemplated, the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, Excavation and Grading, and those sections of
the code relative to foundation design may be invoked.
/
b. Considerable latitude shall be allowed the developer in the shaping,
required street frontages of lots where it is necessary to preserve the terrain.
depth, and
,
I
Projeet improvements would occur within the existing ODOT right-of-way, The
vegetation removed will be limited to the minimum area necessary for construction and
staging activities. Following construction, cleared areas will be revegelated and retumed
to existing conditions to the extent practicable. Grading would be limited to minimum
<l " i
l':/~.k.~:/ ,\",~~ I.., 0::.:; ~';,_~ -..'
,.
, ,...\ >-,~.'. i' "i'
,. ."," _~:. it lP'
, l' ." " ~ .
1-152.
'';"l\-
, ,
"
,
.'.
~ "t ~ v;'
" .
Date Received
k '
-j[]fJ <2' 9 2008 (,
Planner: 13J
Plan Arneildm-elit Request
2/0 l/2008
(
',,".~r,' .:, ltiJt,_
'. ,I
~
>"-~
"
area necessary. Areas affected by construction activities would be restored following
construction.
f. South Hills Study
That adequate review of both (In-site and offsite impact of any development by a
qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the ]olldwing conditions'
1. All formations
Soil depth of 40 inches and above
Slopes of 30 percent and above
2 Basalt flows
S'oil depth of40 inches and above
Slopes of20 percent to 30 percent
3. Eugene Formation
Soil depth of 40 inches and above
Slopes of20 percent to 30 percent
4. Basalt flows
Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches
Slopes of 30 percent and above
5. Eugene Formation
Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches
Slopes of 30percent and above
Land within 'the southem portion of the projeet area, within the South Hills Study area, is
below 500 feet in elevation. Project work within this area consists of roadway alignment.
Geological resources in the project area consist of fill material, alluvium;: and bedrock, .
The processes affecting these materials are anthropogeilic, such as excavation and
,
grading, and natural, such as landslides, erosion, and earthquakes, The project would
have no permanent effects on geological resources, Based on the earthquake hazard,
geotechnical investigations should be completed prior to construction to detenninc the
best method to seat foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related to earthquakes
(e.g., lateral spread, liquefaction), In addition, slopes should be constructed in a manner
that reduces the potential for erosion or small landslides,
g. Entranee Beautification Stndy
1. IdentifY the most direct and attractive routes into the city, encourage their use, and
,maintain and improve the character and quality of the entrance experien.ff along these
'routes. .
''''.;~~:.))': '.!:-..~, '.' ",.,~..-,' t-
; -, . r '.'"/!}J:..,":'l
Date Received
4--- .
.Jl:Hf2 9 2008
65- ,
Planner:; BJI-153
. rf~1 . ~I
.,' '(' ,\ r:, ~: J If
Plan A,meni:linent Request
2/01/2008
I ~.I'
'!,.~~. -.. 'I':-",tl'~~'\-~~:':'~~-
.~
2. Design and implement improvements to Eugene's entrances which recognize the
diversity and identity of the areas in which the entrances are located
3. Cooperate with other jurisdictions to make the most efficient use olavailable funds in
achieving beautification 01 Eugene's entrances.
4. When evaluating designs for entrance beautification projects, give preference to
designs which reduce long-IeI'm maintenance costs.
. ,
See responses to Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Element Policy 4 arid Transportation
. Element Policy 4.
2.8 Compliance with Eugene Code (EC) 9.7730(3)(a) and (b),
EC 9.8424(1)(b) and (c), and EC 9.8424(2)
EC 9. 7730 Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment
(3) The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a
Mell'O Plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and
(b) Adoption of the amendment muslnot make the Metro Plan inlernally
inconsistent.
Section 2.6 provides a discussion of consistency with the Statewide Plmming Goals.
Section 2.7(a) provides a discussion of consistency with the Metro Plan and a discussion
of why the amendment does not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria
The planning commi~sion shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on
the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the city council. The city
council shall decide whether to act on the application If the city council decides to act, it
shall approve, approve with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan
amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications shall be based on compliance with
the following criteria:
(I) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
(b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan
Section 2.7(a) provides a discussion ofthe applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.
'f ~,."";...~;' :
..
._~. ~~ ..
., '.~
~ ": ;,:e-.~'
, Date Received
4- .
-:n:JN 2 9 2008
~ 66
Planner: BJ
. Plan Amendment Request
2/0 l/2008
/
.' ~; .
..,!. ,; ~\. )-.:. '1--'
1-154
r "-,
.
:
(1) The rejinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
(c) Remaining portions of the rejinemenlplan.
Section 2.7(c) provides a discussion of the applicable. provisions of the applicable
refinements plans including the Willakenzie Area Plan, Riverfront Park Study, Laurcl
Hill Plan, South Hill Study, and Entrance Beautification Study.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more ,.of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide plaiming goal.
(c) New or amended community policies.
(d) New or amen.ded provisions in' a federal law or regulatipn, state statute,
state r~gulation, statewide planning goa/, or state agencylqnd use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a sub,~tantial manner that was not anticipated at the
time the refinement plan was adopted.
An amendment is required purs,uant to (e). At .the time the Willakenzie Area Plan was
adopted, 1-5 was a given element of the system, and replacement of the 1-5 bridge for
safety reasons was not envisioned. Consequently, the Willakenzie Ar~a Plan did not
provide for replacement of the bridge.
2.9 Other InfOl'mation
At tl;e request of city staft~ ODOT is or will be providing thc following additional
infonnation, although not directly relevant to any applicabl~ review criterion.
a. Project Design
Detailed maps and drawings of the propo'sed replacement bridges will be provided prior
to the initial public hearing, following public testimony on the draft Environmental
Assessn'lent.
b. Status of Other. Permit Applieations
As noted in Section 2.1 above, ODOT will need to apply for and obtain additional
permits from Springfield and Eugene before it can begin project. construction. The plan
amendments requested herein are prerequisites to the permitting process. They are
required to allow the'project to move forward. Once approved, the project can move into
the"project development" stage, obtaining permits ~ nece~sary to construct in areas that
are floodways or floodplains or affect greenway and GoalS resources. This approach is
consistent with the TPR. See OAR 660-012~005Q(3)..
'~\t {~l7~~Y.~~!:~~i.
, ,;. ~("
1~,~1:.": ."' ....
Date Received
4-
J8-N 2 9 2008
,. -j ^} ,"
,J' ,'. .'1.: '; '4,_1
Pla~ Amendme~t'Request
2/01/2008
.~- ~];;:. :'~~;.:' .,-~., -'f.
. 67
Plann::::nc" ~;~ ~
' , ~. li ~.l..5l1 ,'; \~':'" "../
1-155
.,
c.
Relation'ship with NEP A Process
This project involves transportation improvcments that will be funded, in part, with
fedcral funds. As such, the project must follow the process established under NEP A.
(
ODors coordination mles under OAR 731-015-0075, providc as follows for projects
involving fedcral environmental review:
.'
"(3) Except as otherwise set forth inscction (4) of this rule, [ODOT] shall rcly on
aflected cities and counties to make all plan amendments and zo'ne changes
necessary to achieve compliancc with the statewide planning. goals and
compatibility with local comprehensive plans after completion of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental. Assessment and 'bcfore
completion of the Final' Environmcntal Impact Statement or Revised
Environmental Assessment. These shall include the adoption of general and
specific plan provisions necessary to address applicable statewide planning
goals." ,
'This application will come before Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County following
completion of the Environmental Assessmcnt and following or conCUlTent with public
hearing~ on that document. Consistcnt with this rule, final action on the federal
environmental doeument will not occur until after the necessary comprehensive plan
d dTI .
. amen ments are approve .
d.
Relationship with Other Projects
,
Project planning, has considered other reasonably foresecable future projects. Other
projects in thc area include ongoing studies of the Franklin Boulevard corridor and thc
Franklin - Glenwood interchanges. In additi~n, a third railroaq track on the south side of
the river near Franklin Boulcvard may be added. No specific plans for these areas have
been developed at this time. To account for potential improvements to the Franklin
Boulevard corridor and the railroad ' (as yet unplanned), proposed replacement bridges
would have greater vertical and horizontal clearances than thc decommissioned and
detour bridges in order to provide more clearance ovcr Franklin Boulevard. The
additional clearance at Franklin Boulevard is to provide flexibility to local. jurisdictions
for future improvements to the Franklin Boulevard cOlTidor. Additional clearance is also
required to meet currcnt vertical clearance requirements for state highways, Although
thcre are no specific plans for future improvements to Franklin Boulevard, the proposed
clearances would allow the addition of tuming or through ianes, sidewalks or
bicycle/pedestrian paths, transit lanes, aesthetic treatments, or other improvements,
37 According to an attorney in the Oregon Department of Justice, notwithstanding OAR 731-015-0075, the
local public hearing process for the land use applications need not await completion of the Environmental
Assessment in the current circumstance because (I) the bridge is already part of both the approved Oregon
Highway Plan and TransPlan; (2) replacing the bridge is consistent with these transportation system plans,
prov.i.q7.~,,~~~,\e,":',(bli9!,e i~,i~~qe'iame general location and serves the same functi~ttf Received
alternative be chosen, the,applrcatron will be wlth~rawn, ua 4-- '
(3t1J{ 2 9 2008
,
Plan Amendlne'hrRequest
2/01/2008 .
_ 68
Planner: BJ
1-156
,,'
~ --""
.
c. ' Project Funding
.The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge replaccment project is in both the MTIP and the RTP.
The project is part of the OTIA III Statewide Bridge Replacement Program and is
identified as "Bundle 220." The' project has funding in the amount of $180 million,
which covers not only the costs of removing the decommissioned Canoe Canal and
detour bridges and constructing' the replacemcnt bridges, ~ut also all associated costs,
including thc costs for preparing fcderal environmental dOCliments and obtaining land use
plan amendments and permits.
(, Consistency with East Alton Baker Park Plan
While the East Alton Baker Park Plan (Marcl/1996) is l}ot directly applicable to the
bridge replacement project, the project is consistent with the plan. The East Alton Bakcr
Park Plan contains j'ust one policy that would be releva~t to the bridge replacement
project. That is Policy 14,0, which provides in part: .
"With the exception of the 1-5 overpass, establish an environment fnie of
. '
motorized vehicles that will enhance the use of pedestrian and bicycle corridors
and servc the needs of all park users..." (Emphasis ddded.) .
(
Because this policy clearly recognizcs the 1-5 overpass, which .the bridge project will be
replacing, as well as its usage by motorized vehicles, the bridge project is consistent with
the East Alton Baker Park Plan.
\,
. , ; ~'f, --. ,.,;f.' ',.
(' . ,- ",( " ;;,. <,\~ ,. " "'j' , ,~.,
. ,..., ,~ i'~ _.. '. - "::!',. t,
r
Date Rece\ved
.Jt 2 9 2008
Planner: BJ
69
'l..l"l,"'j.r.-j' ,-.;-J-,.".
. " ' _,. .~, +-t
, '\ Plan )\IneIldment Request
2/0 l/2008 '
;.. " .!~ .:; I
;: ~:; " t l.,"j' "
1-157
, .~~<
..
-J
r
, . J" 1 ..-I
r"~'l.j'i~'~'f',_~~-, Z"/K~tr 1
' " .. .. '.- ....1. . I ~:1 .'__
,
JI'f)" l! f1l')I
ill..~ ~'\ , "
Date Receivel j
4.
.JtJ1iI 2 9 2008
" f..': '>,f ',- . ~ ",' if::''' ';;
! ( ;~' 1; J. S':'.;"' 1
Planner; 131
~-
1';;:1 tr'
j lb J.i7
!}~-~'-'".
.
:
FEB -
'G
Planning & Development
Planninq
City of Eugene
99 West 10'h Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
,
METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICA TION
./
, ,
Please complete thc following application checklist. Note that additional jnformation may be rcquired upon.
further review in ordcr to adequately address the applicablecritcria.for approval. If you have any questions
about filling out this application, please contact PJanningstatf at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541)
682-5377, 99 West I Olh A venue, Eugene. ..'.. .
Check the appropriate box(es): The amendment is requested to authorize placement offill, and to'
authorize a non-water dependent and non-water related use within the establishedgreenway.
~ Plan Text Change
D Plan Diagram Change
"'-
,
List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request. I'lease indicate if
only a portion of a lot is included in thc rcquest and include any.additional map and tax lot numbers for
subject property. Also, include existing and proposed Metro Plan DeJignations. '
I'Assessor's,Map". Tax'Lot
17033311
17033314
17033341
17033344
17033344
17033344
[8030411
18030411
I.'roposedDesil!oationl
Parks ana Open Space I
Parks and Open Spac~1
Parks and Open Space ,.
Parks and Open Space
,
2500 1 Light Medium Industrial Light Medium Industrial
890 Low Density Residential I Low Density Residential
3301 Low Density Residential Low De'n~ity Resid~ntial
20 I 1 Low Density Residential tow Density Residential
77
Existing Designation: I.'
Parks and Open Space
Parks and Open Space I
Parks and Opcn Space
77
100
771
Parks and Open Space
I'
Street Address (if available): N/A
Existing Use(s) of the Property: Temporary Interstate 5 bridge over WiIlamette River,
Proposed Use(s) of the Property: Permanent Interstate 5 bridge over Willamette River.
\
Existing Zoning: Public Land
o ate-Received
Is this Metro Plan Amendment being reviewed concurrently with another land use application? ~ 29 2008
~ Yes, application file number: MA 07-3 DNo " '
Filin,l' Fee. Planner: BJ
f' ~,~ ..~.!' .",; ~~\_. ~ '1~
~. This fee wa~ su'bmiited previously. A filing fee mnst accompany all applications. The fee varies depending
upon !he;type, of application and is adjusted periodically by the City Manager, Check with Plan~ing staff at
.the Perniit and InfomJation Center to determine the required fee or check websi!e www.eugeneD1anning.on'
Metropolitan,Plan Amendment Last Updated: 7/2004
. ; :.:, . ": '.J: I.'" ,. 1-158
Written Statement
,
[8J A written statement listing relevant Statewide Planning Goals and demonstrating that the reqtiested change
satisfies the. approval criteria in the Eugene Codc, Section 9.7730(3). Describe any unchanged pOI1ion of the
plan your amendment may effect.
.Information Reouired for Pronosed Plan Text Chanl!es
[8J Map indicating the property included in the request and adjacent streets and alleys.
[8J Vicinity map indicating the general area and allowing easy identification of the property.
I Note: This is not a complete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further
review in order to adequately address the required criteria of approval. .
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understands the submittal requirements
outlined herein, and that helshe understand~ that omission of any listed item may cause delay in
processing this application. I (We) the undersigned acknowledge that the information supplied in this
application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
OWNER (Also the Applicant? [8J Yes /0 No):
Name (print): Jim Cox, ODOT Major Projects Branch
Phone: (503) 986-6612
Address: 680 Cottage St. NE
City/State/Zip: Salem, OR 9730 I
Signature: See Applicant's Representative Signature Below.
APPLICANT 0 / APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE [8J (Check one):
\. Name (print): Corrinne Humphrey
,
. Company/Organization: Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
Address: HDR, 1001 SW 5th Avenue Suite 1800 .
City/State/Zip: Portland, OR 97204
E-mail (ifapplicable):corrinnc.humphrey@hdrinc.com
Phone: (503) 423-3700
Fax: (503)423-3737
.{b
dSig~_at!cl~e:~ ~. ; ;t: 1
I
Note:'iI"This is. not- a eomplete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further
. . re'view in order to adequately address the ap~licable approval criteria. J
"
c
/. .'
" ,
;.,
Date Received
4 " .
-dtm 2 9 2008
Metropolitan Plan Amendment
1-159 .
Last Updated: 7/2004
Plann-er: BJ
.
I!i:~''',. Lfr
I) _n_
J" I
Ui FES
! r
;i~
.'
'~:,
,
.
REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
I
.~
r
,
Planning & Development
PlanninQ
City of Eugene
99 West 1 O'h Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional infonnation may be required upon
further review in order to adequately, address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions
about filling outthis application, please eon taCt Planning staff at the Permit and Infonl1ation Center, phone (541)
682-5377,99 West 1.0'" Avenue, Eugene.
Name of Refinement Pial;:' WiIlakenzie Area Plan
Check the appropriate box(es):
[8] Plan Text Change
D Plan Diagram Change
\
List all Assessor'sMap and Tax Lot nnmbers of the property include,J in the reqnest. Please indicate if
only a portion of a lot is inclnded in the reqnest and illclnde any additional inap and tax lot numbers for
subject property. Also, incl;;de existing and proposed Refinemeilt Plan Designations.
Assessor's Map
17033311
17.033314
17.033341
17.033341
17.033341.
Existing Designation
Parks and Open 'Space
Parks and Open! Space
Parks and OpenSpace
Parks and OpenSpace
Parks and Open:Space
Tax Lot
77
77
77
1.0.0
101
. Street Address (if available):
\
Existing Use(s) of the Property:
NIA
Proposed Designation
Parks and Open Space
I Parks and Open Space
I'Parks and Open Space
I Parks and Open Space
I Parks and Open Space
!"
Temporary Interstate 5 bridge ovenWiIlamette River.
Proposed Use(s) of the Property: Permanent Interstate 5 bridge over WiIlamctte River
. Existing Zoning: Public land
Is this Refinement Plan Amendment being reviewed concurrelitly with another land use application?
)
[8] Yes, application file number:
RA ,o7-xx
DNo
Filinl! Fee
[8]. Afilin'g fee must accol11pa~y all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is
:~~j.~J~~.~'p~r:(l~ic,a!.Ir."b~ tpe Q:ity Maliager. Check with Planning staff at the Pennit and Informa~on C~ter to
i1etermmeltlineqUlred fee or check webslte www.cugenenlannmQ.orQ Date Recelveu .
. /IJ; ;; ,t~ Vl,;'j . At 2 9 Z008
Refin'ei]lentP'!an Amend,j](lfi't
. ,-}lJ.'. ...11 ".,1 ',,:<: ~ j.: .., 't-.../ ~. "j
Last Updated: 7/2004
Planner: BJ I-16,o
./
,
-/
.-'
~...
Written Statement - Submit 3 copies
'.
.
ISJ A written statement demonstrating that the requested amendment satisfies the criteria found in the Eugene
Code SeCtion 9.8424. Describe any unchanged portions of the refinement plan which your amendment may
affect. "
~ For text changes: a written example of the proposed text change. This should be specific and site the page(s)
the change applies to.
.Information Reouired for a Pro nosed Plan Diauam Chan!>:e - Submit 3 copies
~ A map indicating the property included in the request and adjacent streets .and alleys.
[8J A vicinity t)lap indicating the general area of the amendment and allowing easy identification of the
property.
I
J
[8J A m~p indicating the existing plan diagram boundaries and tl!C proposed plan diagram boundaries.
.., Note: This is n~t a cnmplete list of requirements. Additional information may be requircd after further
review in ordcr to adequately address the required criteria of approval.
By signing, the undersigned certifies that helshe has rcad and understands the submittal requirements
outlined herein; and that helshe understands that omission of any listed item may cause delay in
processing this application. I (We) the undersigned acknowledge that the information supplied in this
application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
. OWNER (Also the Applicant?_~ Yes'/ 0 No):
Name (print): Jim Cox, ODOT Major Projects Branch
Phone: (503) 986-6612
Address: 680 Cottage St. NE
City/State/Zip: Salem, OR 97301
" Signature:
APPLICANTD / APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE [8J (Check one):
Name (print): Corrinne Humphrey
Company/Organizatioil: Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
Address: HDR, 1001 SW 5"1 Ave Suite 1800
City/State/Zip: Portland, OR 97204
E-mail (ifapplicable):corrinne.humphrey@hdrinc.com
Phone: (503) 423-3700
Signan:re: ~
I'I,E "~"!"-' "
.lo....' -('I', ;~. '. _. o' ,.- ,"-
.......~, r ;',.. .,.~.,.t""', . . l~ .
, '" t ... .~~t ' .
Fax: (503) 423-3737
1-1 %<finemen( P,~a~ An~I~~dm:nt .
v . _J.' I'
..,
Last Updated: 7/2004
,
, Date Received
.;ft'29 2008
Planner: BJ
; ',:r. {~. -1'"