HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice Miscellaneous 6/24/2008
. \ \~71';--1'~
...t
,
~
/""'~'-""
SPRINGFI~D., c"'..~""""~
H.. tI~..,...A;~~
l~-:L~i.~~~--~,--; 73l-~ ~^ .~.;;,
!,....'" '.F"".' ",.' ....
I. _ ~._
t ' . . . .~ "'4
(W
"
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS PUBLIC HEARING
City of Eugene
City of. Springfield
Lane County
June 24, 2008
r
I .
7:30 p:m, JOINT ELJi:CTEDOFFlCIALS PUBL/CHEARING
Eugene City Council, Springfield City Comicil.
and Lane Connty Board of Commissioner
I
J
Bascom/Tykeson Room, Eugene Public Library
100 West 10th Avenue
I. .\.
Eugene, Oregon 97401
\'
I -
\
A, i PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Amending the Engene-Springfield Metro Plan Text;
Amending the Willakenzie Area Plilll Text; Adopting an Exception to
Statewid,e Phinniilg Goal 15 Willamette River G,'eenway; Adopting
Severability and Savings Clauses; and Providing an EfTective Oate.(1-5
Willfl/J/ette Bridge Pn!;ect, Eugene files MA 07,3, RA 08-1; Springfield file
LRP2007-00010;' Lane County file 1'1\08-5230) "
I
~
"
,
\
, .>;;.~.
~...... ".' ,,' ,~~4;~'" (,4" _~',:,:: -... :' ~ 'I' .
".~b,t~ ~r....;;~' ';:~;.7ir'i!.. F~~!~t ~.- \
, . :.' ~: ." , "!Io.J, }
,'1:'-;,',
,'. . ,"
"":. \~if:'f'I/-: '\ t' !.
,~}'j I',.'). '/': ',' " .
Date Received
JUN 2 4 Z008
Joint Ekct~d Officials r-,'!e.::ting
" -
,. ~:; I .-,,.,,. "_ \\ I,!' I
:::-Y':;:_~'._: ""~I ~ 'k t. ~..';...I\ ~:~"
'. ~!l l' ~', '
,
Planner:--BJ
~
...._r
TIle Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these (lg~nda it~llls. This Illce(ing location is whcclchair-
accessible._ F\}r \i\c'hearing:impaired, FM:a~$istive-listening devices are available or an interpreter,can be provided
with 48 hourst notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation \vill also be provided with 48 'hours'
notice. Toarrdnge for these,scrvices, contact the receptionist aL682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast Ii~'e
on Metro TelcYisioll,.Comqlst channel 21, anet rebroadcast later in the week.
City Council.mcctingsand \vork,sessions arc brmldcast live on thc City's Web site. In addition to,thc live
broadcasts. anindexed archive o[pasl City Council webcasts is also available. To access past and present meeting
webcasts, locate the links at tile bottom of\he City's maip.' Web page (wwv.'.eugenc-or.gov).
EIConsejo,de la Ciudad dc,Eugcneawecia 511 in_lcrcs~n eslos asuntosdc laagcnda. Elsitia de la reunion ilene'
. - . 'acc~;o'p~~;i-sillas" de rued~s. ','Hayacc~sori~s disponiblcs,pard pcrsonas con -arcc~ionesdcl ~ido;o sc~.lcs'p~edc .-'
proyeel"lU1 inlcrpreteavisando con 48,llOras deallticipaci6n. Tambien,se provee elservicio de:int~rpretes enidioma
espaZol avisando con 48 hams- dc'anticipaci6n. Para reservar cstos sc-rviciosIlame,a la recepcionista'ai 682-50lO.
Todaslas',rclIIiionesdcl co~nscjo estan gravadoscnvivo en Metro Television., calk11 21 de COlllcast y. despuesen la
semana;se pasan de 'nuevo.
/
L
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at(541) 682'5010,
or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gol'. '
II
r
/
I
0'
I.
!JeviS;)9f1 ':'J1BO
RODS j:, g it1Ui..
Date Re'ceived
, '
.JUN 24 Z008
,
OJ~nnOifO B,j
~l ~d~j'n1l:~,Meetillg-""':;' '--
~ ~ ."rd \r.'~f"'f~1l~O
",'f_r, .~~?~~r...;:J;~--t
'-
"
'I
(
v
. '
"
.
,
~pp\;CO-h+
.'oint Elected Officials
Request to Speak Form
Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing
,
", , Speaking in Support of Ordinance
Speaking in a Neutral Position
,Speaking in Opposition to Ordinance
~
o
o
. '.
Please complete this form before the agenda item is being discussed. Requests to speakduring a Public
Hearing must be submitted by the time the hearing is called by~the.:.con"ening,officials._Deliver_this,forrri_to
the staff person at the, information table. You will have three minutes to speak imless informed otherwise. when
, your name is called, please step up to the podium arid provide yoUr name and address:Speak directly into the
microphone. Lights on the timer let you kno~ when you have 15 seconds remaining (yellow'light) and when
, your time is up (red light), Forms will not be accepted after the deadline. Please refer to the reverse side for
additional information on the Public Hearing.
Please Print
Name ---r/;n .Do ds 011
(Also spell your name as it sounds, if it is difficult to pronounce.)
,
'-
, Address .3.7. 7"15) ;(jfA) CCJI.a117 fflC/ t4
City A /bc!1111
. Date ',-TCt/1f?' 2:.1'
.,
0nk
Phone
State, Zip
r1;'( 9Z37/--:7'r:/t:
,
zoo !!l
/
)
.
~'BVit'}~l:';'jH' "'1';'B.FJ1
. ',1.,. .dl1fi1~'
J ,.
.: UO~ ,jo:: vi[!L
,Date Received
JUN 24 2008
if, ..~.:'--;"," 'j ";.,... .Jf'
. '~~~I:..~.rl,:~/~,f;.:~t ,.
I
..~:~
(~:''h
Planner': BJ
L\CMO\Forms. TemplatesVEOQuasiJudiciaIRTSFstandard0710 t 5.doc
Appl;cant
Joint Elected Officials
Requestto Speak Form
Quasi-JudicialPublic Hearing
Speaking in Support of Ordinance
Speaking in a Neutral Position
Speaking in Opposition to Ordinance
~'
o
o
V" (V.
W~=~
Please complete this form before the agenda item is being discussed, Requests to speak during a Public
, Hearing must be submitted by the time the hearing is called by the convening officials. De]iver this form to
, the staff person at the information table, You will have three minutes to speak unless ,informed otherwise. When
your name is called, please step up to the podium arid provide your name and address. Speak directly into the
microphone. Lights on the t~mer let you know when you have] 5.secondsremaining (yellow light) and when ..
your time is up (red light). Forms will not be accepted after the deadline, Please refer to the reverse side for
additional inforrriation on the Public Hearing.
~::e Print riA ~ t\ .' G[l e.~{\J-f'r ~ Cd
(Also spell your name as it sounds, if it is difficult to pronounce.)
Address Lt cr 5' AJ VJ G~~ {~f i\J
City, Foft-..( (~"'~
G, { 'J'1( ok
o
,Date
,.
'. ,..- .:,' "" ,:. ~..... r. ....-:-"i'._~.II-
';...,'I'i M \""j" ,..,'1,'
'. . ''! . - 1\IT T,"" ',)jl,' ':
f"'!"t~\.~ .;.., (' /11' I,
!JU', ...., ,;
";.,,.",f<,:; '~':"":\r';.~~~."jc:~
\-. ,'.. 'l~.':, ~~; t~~..",;. ..
/
....
Phone OOJ-&T7- dcr7?-
State, Zip G^, CC7W9
{
"'. .'
"
'~
Date Received
JUN 2. 4 'l01l8
Planner: BJ
L:\CMO\Forrns-Templates\JEOQuasiJudicialRTSFstamiardQ7 to 15 .doc
.'. ~.
-Joint Elected Officials
Request to Spedk Form
'---'
Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing
Speaking in Support of Ordinance 0
Speaking in a Neutral Position i'P
\ Speaking in Opposition to Ordinance 0
,Please complete this form befote the agenda item is being discussed, Requests to speak during a Public
Hearing inust be submitted by the time the hearing is called by the convening officials. Deliver this form to
,the staff person at the information table. You will have three minutes to speak unless informed otherwise, When
, ' .
your name is called; please step up t? the podium and provide your naIVe '!lid address. Speak directly into the
microphone. Lights on the'timeflelyou know when'ybil'have 15 secOllds'remaining (yellow light) and when
, your time is up'(red light). Forms will not be accepted after the deadline, Please refer to the reverse side for
additional information on the Public Hearing.
(
Please Print ~ ~. ~)
Name J 0111'1 ,( ~bJ..sof'-/
(Also spellyour name as it sounds, if it is difficult to pronounce.)
. ~ .
\
City'
C./1.e~..A-
1
State, Zip
b /52. (7t/9
770Jcr
Address
'Z t!<i7 Om kJ/'6c",...-,;
I
Phone
. Date
&17<1/0 Y
"
Ilm~ L
, ,
"
Date Received
JUN 24 Z008
Plan'ner: BJ
,
{t,; I, "r'<\
'~li,,'\l~~;:l~f.~ [~'f~~.. !l
...~ 'l- ;, ~ - ,
i .<
. , ,.r)"> ,"If:,
"l . ..'~ '" p ,
-.
,
L:\CMO\forms- TemplatesVEOQuasiJudiciaIRTSFstandard07IO I5.doc
C~f~'::.
Joint Elected Officials
Request to Speak F~rin
Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing
Speaking in Snpport of Ordinance 0
. Speaking in a Neutral Position 0
Speaking in Opposition to Ordinance iIa-'
,
~.-
Please complete this form before the agenda item is being discussed, Requests to speak during a Public
Hearing must be submitted by the time the hearing is called by the convening officials, De]iver this form to
the staff person at the information table, You will have three minutes to speak unless informed otherwise. When
your name is called, please step up to the podium ahd provide your name and address. Speak directly into the
microphp~le: r.,i~t$. on, tjIe,!!.mer le,t you know ,wh"n you have,lS.seconds remaining, ~yellow light} and when' ,'.,
your time is up (red light). Forms will not be accepted after the deadline, Please refer to the reverse side for
additional information on the Public Hearing.
I ~~~ePrint Mtdk k06("1o wJ-z.-
I (Also spell your name as it sounds, ifit is difficult to pronounce.)
I
Address
1?,o)C
5'" I L. '2 'Z..
City
PUj'
Date
I
.
, , .
".,'~I~I"t";;'I~~"".~". j ~;:<,' I '.'~. ,("
~. lI'" . ~ ,n,_ . '.', "''''., ,:
C'nD;, - ,\ {t' .
~..,l~i
'II. ,,""'~'" ~_. ';l- .,
. ~ :; f f .~-..I .
,..~~,,:.
~
r
Phone
State, Zip
97L(o~ '
,)
Date Received
::U:': ~ 4 2008
Plann'.;/" ,) ij
,t.")" lWi....
L:\CMO\Fonns-Templates\JEOQuasiJudiciaIRTSFstandard071015.doc
. .. ':' ,,) I
Iniht Elected OfficirIls
Request to Speak Form
, ,
Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing
Speaking in Support of Ordinance
Speaking in a Neutral Position
Speaking in Opposition to Ordinance
.l..
v
o
Please complete this form before the agenda item is being discussed, Requeststo speak during il Public
Hearing must be submitted by the time the hearing is called by the convening officials, Deliver this form to
the staff person at the information table. You will have three minutes to speak unlessinformed otherwise, When
your name is called, please step up to the podium ahd provide your name and address. Speak directly into the
microphone. I"ights',Qn'thejtim~r let you know wilen you h!lve ] 5 seconds remaining (yellow light) and when
your time is up (red light): Forms will not ,be accepted after the deadline. Please refer to the ieverseside for
additional information on the Public Hearing,
:Please Print...;' , , :;., I
'Name A 0-.. U '{ \ eq-01
(Also spell your name as it sounds, if it Ys difficult to pronounce.)
Add~ess k/f'2- ~[4,( i/'(J) ~y~ /
City
Date
,
.
}"'I~\'i.\..V 18~~ \,:rfE;(]
.....J'sJ ~~ T'"""H_ " 1 ~. 0 .
~nn" ,:,;; 'v' nu'
lIJU'~ '~'. , l.
'\ ~:-
'I C;j """;"'111~.ji...:,"'dt;\'
':,)c:~ ,-.~, 'II. ,:" ,
Phone ,
State, Zip
q 7-+&/
.,
(
, ,
"
, Date Received
JUN 24 2008
'Planner: BJ
~(;:~
, '
L:\CMO\Forms- TemplatesVEOQuasiJudicialRTSFstandard071 0 IS.doc
,tho
Joint Elected Officials
Request to Speak Form
Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing
Speaking in Support of Ordinance
Speaking in a Neutral Position
Speaking in Opposition to Ordinance
~
o
- '
Please comp]etethis form before the agenda item is being discussed. Requests to speak duting.a Public
Hearing must be submitted by the time the hearing is called by the cOlivening officials. Deliver this form to
the staff person at the information table. You will have three minu!es to speak unless informed otherwise, 'When
your name is cal]ed, please step up to the' podium and provide yOur name and address. Speak directly into the
microphone. Lights on the timer let you know when you have] 5 seconds remaining (yellow light) and when
your time is up (red light), Forms will not be accepted after 'the deadline, Please refer to the reverse side for
additional information on the Public Hearing.
Please, Prin,h I I ()'
Name ~,<iV -fS /....) r q c; (
(Also spell your name as it sounds, if it is fijrf/.rJu(i to pronounce.)
Ad<kess ~ V7J4"" f~/~-f-t'
City . ~/A\..~ l VI "f", .
Date (, /2'1 / 0 c;/
"
.
. _ ,* 1 ~)~i-.j'
)-'Ht...::,~i~~:.r^~,\),At t.'.~t"'~.'
h~"J'k..~ ,.'~ ~
..
:lG8~" \ i,
"
iA-"
",
'll'\l.r
l,,.,o-I
". -
; ,~t., , ~,.;.
,,'
h/~...,
/
Phone
State, Zip
./
OK'" 7 7CfClj
, .
"
Date Received
JUN 24 2008 .
Planner: BJ
L:\CMO\Forms. Templates\JEOQuasiJudicialRTSFstandard071O IS.doc
..
. '. ' . , . :APp U COvlItt' }5
REQ?EST FOR RECOGNITION AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
,
..,.....
The purpOSt?J~s form is to make sure that persons wishing to address the Planning Commission
have an opportunIty to do so and that the names and mailing addresses of persons testifying are
correct and become part of the record. The Chair can better estimate the time to allow individual
speakers or group spokespersons if forms are filled out at the beginning of the meeting and handed
to the staff. Forms may also be handed to the staff at any time during the me~ting. OiIlyafter
wrItten requests,have been honored,and as time permits, will speakers be recognized from the floor.
PLEASE PRINT )
/ '/7>1 J/Od1'f?71
Address: ?2-rffl A/tlJ f'-U:h.)7#t</-, 6';',-/.-0. - 1 A/la47' GJ):' . . .
A~enda item on which you wish tospeak: M '/1 a/I'M 1ft: "i/L}.#" ,8ndf,c t tJ,jd
Meeting Date: '1L 2 7' - Z.a::J &
Name'
. " (P]ease give item number and topic from the printed agenda)
Speaking for: ~Against: D Comments neither in favor nor in opposition: [J.
~\,croJ- .'
P~ease hand completed form to staff.' . ~
\
ApP(ic~i-ft
REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
\ . . 1
The purpose of this form is to make sure that persons wishing to address the Planning Commission
have an opportunity to do so and that the names and mailing addresses of persons testifying are
correct and become part ofthe record. The Chair can better es~imate the time to allow individual
speakers or group spokespersons if forms are filled out at the beginning of the meeting and handed
to the sta~f. Forms may also be handed to the staff at any time,during the meeting. Orilyafter
written requests have been honored, and as timeperrnits, will speakers be recognized from the floor.
, PLEASE PRINT . 'M~eting Date: Y { l'tbJ'
Name: HAf\k (;k <~ ~G \ l .. - .
Address: L-j 15 f0YJ Ck<~1 \CA-t ~l, fOl--'2\erJl O~ crlJd ~
) '
Agenda item on which you wish to speak: W, 1I Mnu..- ~IUQ.l..
~,~~
U
f'ro~-
. , ~Ple e give item number and topic from the printed agenf'ate R . d
S . ". A' r-l C 'h . f: ' eCellla
peakmg Lor: _ gamst: bJ omments nelt er III avor nor III opposItIOn: bJ'
t11P10v--r, . JUN 2 4~
. Pl~h""'oompl~edform'o_ Plann~_ /~
"
.)
"....--
.,'." "~
(Ii
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS PUBLIC HEARING
City of Eugene
City of Springfield
Lane County
June 24. 2008
7:30 p,m, JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS PUBLIC HEARING
Eugene City Council, Springfield City Conncil "
and Lane County Board of Commissioner
'.
B~scomffykeson Room, Eugene Public Library
100 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
A, PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Text;
Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text; 1\dopting an Exception to
Statewide Planning Goal 15 WilIamette River Greenway; Adopting
Severability and Savings Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date (1-5
Willamette Bridge Project, Eugene files MA 07-3, RA 08-1; Springfield fIle
LRP2007-0001O; Lane County file P 1\08-5230)
"
Call to Order - Three Governing Bodies
, Mayor Kitty Piercy, Eugene
Mayor Sid Leiken, Springfield
Commissioner Faye Stewart, Lane County
Introduce the topic, present background information,
Open the public hearing: Those wishing to speak during the Public Hearing
must submit 'a compleied "Request to Speak" jorm to the information desk, prior
to the beginning of the Public Hearing. When you come to the podium, please
"/ """"" \.' " ,g!v,e,your name and city of residence; you will have three minutes to comment. "
,1f:~',f ," (, )h"~1 :';;; THere are lights on the podium; the yellow light indicates you have 15 seconds to
complete your comments. The red light indicates the end of three minutes,
,"n '" "l,' j'll" '" "
:~1I ",
Close the public hearing.
~ ,
~.}~;:
.. ,(,-,."" 1,. -I,i.
U .,...... '; l;' 'i ~ ", I
", " J
I
~
\
\
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
~~",
"l;~"
"<l:::':}
Planner: BJ
Adjourn,
Mayor Kitty Piercy, Eugene
Mayor Sid Leiken, Springfield
Commission€?r Faye Stewart, Lane County
The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting, location is wheelchair.
accessible.. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening ~.evices ,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 682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live
on Metro Television, Comcast channelZl, and rebroadcast later in the week.
. City Council meetings and work sessions are broadcast live on the City's Web site. In addition to the live
broadcasts, an indexed archive of past City Council webcasts is,also available. To access past and present meeting
web.:asts, locate the links at the bottom of the City's main Web page (Www,eugene-or.gov).
.;;
EI Consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene aprecia su interes en estos asuntos de.la agenda. El sitio de la reunion tiene
acceso para sillas de ruedas. Hay accesorios disponibles para personas con afecciones del oido; 0 se lespuede
proveer un interPrete avisando con 48 hOTas de anticipaci6n. Tambi61 se provee el servicio de interpretes en idioma
espanol avisandocon 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Para reservar estos servicios Harne a la recepcionist~1'a1682-5010.
Todas las reuniones del consejo estan gravados en.vivo en Metro Television, carial 21 de Comcast y d~spues en 1a
semana se pasan de nuevo. '.
1-
For more information, co~tact the Council Coordinator at (541) 682-5010,
or visit us online at www,eugene-or,gov,
,t',
, '''':';'Clr.1
J1...>ll~;~':},; 1k~r~-:' . .. l~.\t.,
..... ~ < '. .. ':0- -' .
Date Received
JUN 24 2008
',;,
:! 1:):'. ;.'~: "~!".
Planner: BJ
~ 1.)'
~.'" ~
b ....-~.'
. \ i "'" :~ ~::;-
'"
,,,-..
Joint Elected Officials Meeting
\
\
j
(
i',
'q
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting D'ate: June 24, 2008
Meeting Type: Joint Elected Officials
Department: Development Services
Staff Contact: Gregory Molt.."9i1l'i
S I' R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726-3774 tfcP"
C I T Y C 0 U N elL E~timated Time: 60 Minutes '
ITEM TITLE: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF THE FOLLOWING
ORDINANCE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
",
Date Received,
~ .~ -: '-I -,,;' ... T.", ".. ~, -, _
JUN 24 2008
\;Ul!; .
e'~'@J:
'l~~~~.:'~' \.:" ,"/)~~.'::'" '
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TEXT, CHAPTER
Ill, SECTION D, POLICY D,II; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL IS WILLAMETTERIVERGREENWAY;
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. " ,
Conduct a first reading and joint public hearing with the Eugene City Council and
Lane County Board of Commissioners on the proposed Metro Plan amendment and
Goal exception to allow the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to
remove the decommissioned 1-5 Bridge and 'temporary detour bridges, construct the
permanent replacement bridge and place fill within the Willamette River Greenway
Setback area.. The second reading and decision on this ordinance is scheduled
(tentatively) for July 21,2008. '
ODOT must construct a permanent replacement bridge over the Willamette River at
1-5 because the temporary detour bridge erected in 2005 waS not intended, designed
or constructed as a permanent facility, Most oftbe activity associated with this
project will require placement of fill in the Greenway Setback area; such an action
requires an exception to Goal 15 and a Metro Plan amendment.
A. Springfield Ordinance with Modified Metro Plan Text
B, Vicinity Maps ,
.c, Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary (AlS) *'
The 1-5 Willamette River Bridge project is located entirely within the boundaries of
, the Metro Plan. The project includes permanent replacement bridges over the
WillaOJette River and Canoe Canal (Patterson Slough), construction and later
removal of one 'or more other temporarY bridges, demolition of the original
temporary detour Willamette River and Canoe Canal bridges, construction of
replacement bridges, reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the bridges,
rehabilitation of the project area, and completion of any required mitigation. The
permanent replacement bridge will be supported by poured-in-place concrete
columns and compacted fill that will be located within the Willamette River
Greenway Setback Area. By Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR), only water-
dependent and water-related uses are permitted within the Greenway setback area;
since this bridge does not meet the definition of water dependent or water related
uses found in the Statewide Goals, an exception is required before the project can
be' authorized. The Rule also requires the goal exception to be included within the
cO!llprehensive plan, hence a Metro Plan mpendment is also required to. allow
placement of the fill within the Willamette River Greenway for the project.
The three planning commission~ conducted a public hearing on this application and
forwarded recommendations of approval to'~their respective elected officials on June
3, 2008. The findings fortbose recommen<jations appear as Attachment 2 of this
memo.
('I
'I...
(* Please note: The attachments listed on the Eugene City Council :AlS: are not
included with this packet. These atta~hmenti; (659 pages) are available to view in," ."
their,entirety on a disc at the City of Springfield.) ...,'c.
, '
I , ;
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TEXT, CHAPTER
III, SECTION D, POLICY 0,11; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE
PLANNING GOAL 15 WILLA METTE RIVER GREENWAY; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
"
. '
The City Council of the Cityof Springfield finds that:
WHEREAS, Chapter]V of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the, Metro Plan, which are
implemented for Springfield by Chapter 5, Section 5, ]4-100 through 5.]4-]55 of the
Springfield Development Code, for Lane County by Lane Code 12,225(2)(a & b), and for
Eugene by Eugene Code Section 9,7730(3); ahd '
WHEREAS, on February ]; 2008 the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) submitted an app]ica~ion to the City of Eugene for a Metro Plan text
amendment, an Exception to Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway for the 1-5 Willamette
Bridge ProjeCt; and .
WHEREA.S, it joint public hearing of the planning' commissions of the City of
Springfield, the City of Eugene and Lane County was held on Apri] 29, 2008 to accept
testimony on this matter; and on June 3, 2008 the three Planning Commissions held a
joint public meeting to consider the testimony and evidence entered into the record of this
matter: Following the June 3, 2008 meeting the Springfield Planning Commission
forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council on the request
for an excepiion to statewide Goal 15 and aniendment of Chapter III, Section D, Policy
D,lI of the Metro Ph;n; and
WHEREAS, theSpi-ingfield City Council conducted ajoint public hearing on
this amendment on June 24, 2008 with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board
of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based upon the above
recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the
evidence and testimony p~esented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
,WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the
proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, the Springfield Development Code,
and applicable state and local law as described in finding's attached as Exhibit A, and
which are adopted in support of this Ordinance. '
. ,..
l'
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 1
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
.. '\' "f ~..... .t.'-.
'11'::\" ~ . 1 I ....: " .~ :,,~ ". ..t,. _'
II of . .:. ~ " ..
. r, t.~ " ". ;
~ , 'v
, ,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section I: The Metro Plan Policy D,] ], Chapter III, Section D. is hereby
amended to read and provide as follows:
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
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 ~iver and Canoe Canal and within the Willamette '
River Greenway Setback Line; The exception authorizes construction and
later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned 1-5 Willamette RiverBridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and
detour bridges; construction of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction
of the roadway approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of
the project area; and completion or 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 ofI-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 D.lI, Chapter III, Section
D."
Section 2: The Metro Plan is hereby amended to include the findingS of fact and
conclusions of law supporting a "reasons" exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and
demonstrating compliance with OAR 660-004-0015, 660-004-0020 and, 660-004-0022(6)
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3: The findings set forth in attached Exhibit A are adopted as findings in
support ofthis Ordinance.
Section 4: ]fany section, subsection, sentence; clause, phrase or portion of the
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision
and ~uch holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
, '.._ J,~.
,..,..v~~' '~r\".t~, .;..; .:t{F;~. ;t
-: -1"""I~'I...."'J",~" ..,:, -~'. . ~
: ',",. .. -
'I"~
'f\n" ' ': Ii 1\
'it "I ~ .~ \0\ I
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008-'" ;,
Ii 1;~~-:1
I' '11,- ,1
~..-.. -'
..' -~~'l! ..,1~. ,'J) ~.-, -,;.','
",1 (~...r" '\ ill' " :. .
1,,\-." ' ~', '
"
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 2
Planner: 8,"'
; ,
(
, Section 5: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by
Section 2,110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the
Mayor, or upon the date of its acknowledgement as provided by ORS 197,625, whichever
date is later, provided that by that date the Eugene City Council and the Lane County
Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to
those described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance,
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _ day of July,
2008 by a vote of in favor and against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this
day of July, 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Recorder'
""IIIP;;lq, ",:,.,.,'~""IIIJ. 'K[)
~lI!':'~ii.,,~,L..t:J (.-J, i'd r a\ \L.
AS TO FORM
IUd V'~
DATE: _ti)J ~/<?I"
OFFICE OF Clrl ATTORNEY
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 3
Date Received
JUN 242008
Planner: BJ _ 'f
,,~.-.~ i~~,:~,:){,,);~~' " __','
tr;f.'.,,' ",
, ~,.
, .1, ~ "
, .
- -'f;" . ~. i:\ ~ . I
:'!I.' . ,. "".
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
: '., . '... ,", .~",~i-" J,':;I
,,' 1.1'';"\; '1'(.)' ,,-~.\ f ~- ..- - '
: "~', t t:JI, -~,~ . '.... "
','
", "
, ~
^>! '
4' '
, 'I f ....1.1. -.J .:....; ~ S.
\; '/.' I :t,'
Planner: ~J '"
i'
OJ.
, 'Exhibit A
::~
Findings
1-5 Willamette Bridge Project
(Eugene files MA 07-3, RA 08-1;
Springfield me LRP2007-00010;
. Lane County me PA08-5230)
Metro Plan Text Amendment & Goal ~xceotion IMA 07-3. LRP2007-00010. PA08-5230l
, '
The proposed amendment includes an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and a Metro Plan
text amendment-to allow fill within the WilIamette River greenway for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge
Project. The project includes replacement ofthe .Interstate 5 bridges over the WilIamette 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 Canal bridges,
construction of replacement bridges, reconstruction of the roadwayapproa~hes to the bridges,
rehabilitation of project area, and ~ompletion 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
Development Code Section Chapter 5, Section 5.14-100 through 5.14-155, and Lane Code
12:225(2)(a & b), set forth the corresponding Metro Plan. amendInent criteria. Since Eugene is the
lead jurisdiction on this application, those criteria are addressed below under the Eugene Code as
follows: .
Eugene Code (EC) Section 9,7730(3) requires that the following criteria (in bold and italics) be
applied to a Metro Plan text amendment:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Goal] Citizen Involvement; To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity
for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planningp~oce.ss.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved ill 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\vith Uoall ;since it complies with, and surpasses the
requirements of, the citizen involyement 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
'>.c,;;'., .,~p'e,cipc Metro P]ail amendment, consideration' of the amendments begins with'ajoint City of. .
.. ",- . '., ". " ' Date Received
StilfrFindirills - June 2008 .
Page 1 JUN 2 4 2008
}~
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 4
Planner: BJ
'..1
Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission public hearing on April 29,
2008.
Subsequent to deeming the applications complete, on February 27,2008, the City mailed notlce 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 t.~e
pending applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of
Springfield, Lane County, the affected Neighborhood Associations (Laurel Hill Valley Citizens and
the Harlow Neighborhood Association), and to City departments. On March 14,2008, notice of the
joint Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to the applicant, and owners and occupants
of property within 300 feet of the subject property, the affected neighborhood groups in all three
. jurisdictions and other interested parties such as'the Whilamut Natural AIea of Alton Baker Park.
On March 26,2008, notice was also posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5) and 9.7735(1); On
March 14, 2008, notice of the joint Planning Commission public hearing was also published in the
Register-GUard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. Ahadditionaljoint public hearing before the
elected officials of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield, and Lane County will be scheduled
following Planning Commission action. Notice to interested and affected parties willalso 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). Responses to these comments are
provided under the appropriate criteria below where applicable,
Additionally, the federal environmental pioce~s applicable to this project provides additional
opportunities for public mvolvement including public meetings, open houses, newsletters, public
comment period on the Environmental Assessment, and establishment of a Community Advi_sory
Group. These efforts will continue public involvement outside of the land use application process,
consistent with this Goal. '
The processes used by Eugene, Springfield andLane County including mailed, posted and
published notice (as well as posting on' the City of Eugene web page) for reviewing these
amendments cOlnplies,with Statewide Planning Goal 1, since it complies with and surpasses the
requirements of the, State's citiien involvement provisions. '
Goal 2 - Land Use PlanninlZ: 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 I - Planning
, Part I ofGoa12'requires that actions related to land use be consistent with acknowledged
comprehensivepians of'c1ties and counties. The Eu!!en,,-Snrinmeld Metronolitan 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 show that there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be
made concerning the proposed amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the
,bfY!iF):t.:c(;: ,,,'i'r:,; :' 'Date Received
Staff Findings -lune 2008
"''') rage flit
JUN ,2 4 2008
i! =;'.' I ,. _.[.
. ;.-L..,.. . 'It' ,;-":: .~.
, ,. . " ~;.' l '
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 5
Planner: BJ
"
plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by
affected governmental uiJ.its. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City
coordinated the review ofthes'e amendments with all affected governmental uiJ.its. Specifically, .
notice waS mailed to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT);Lane County, and the City of Springfield. Lane County and
the City of Sprmgfield are participating in this amendment. '
Part II - ExceptionS
Part II of Goal 2 provides the conditions and standards for which a local jurisdiction can adopt an
exception to a statewide goal. Relevant to this request is Statewide Planning Goal IS, Willainette
River Greenway which does not allow non water-dependent, non water-related uses, such as the
proposed transportation facility, within the greenway setback withoutreceiving an exception.
Because a goal IS exception is required by D,ll of the Metro Plan. it is unnecessary to detemune if
Goal 15 itself would require such an exception, The need for a goal exception is specifically,
triggered by Policy D.ll of the Metro Plan, Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and
Waterways Element, which states:
",
D.11 The taking of an exception shall be required ifa non-water-dependent transportation
facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was
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 consrructing a temporary detour bridge, implementing the
conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Approval (Springfield Journal SHR
2003-00115) and removing the temporary detour bridge after completion of the
permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c) for a 'reasons' exception; and
pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro
Plan text, Policy #D.11, Chapter III, Section D,
The taking of an exception is consistent with Policy D.ll as the proposal includes the placement of
fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback fora non-water-dependent transportation
facility, and is consistent with the'Goal15 exception previously taken for the temporary bridge, as
described ooder Policy D.n above, To acknowledge the 1-5 Willamette'Bridge Project, Metro Plan
Policy D,ll is proposed to be amended as follows in bold:
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved
. ',for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for purposes of removing and
.' ,replafing ,the decom~issio!led1~5 bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe..
Canal bridge witb two new parallel bridges (one soutbbound.and one northbound)
wi~hin the 1-5 right-of-way crossing the WiIlamette River and Canoe Canal and within
the WiIlamette River Greenway Setback Line. The exeeption autborizes construction
,.. ~""1,)~ '.j and later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition o'fthe
',~ '~,'::".' ',ilecommissioned 1-5 WiIlamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detl)ate Received
e
Staff Findings - June 2008
Page 3
ATT~CHMENT A - PAGE 6,
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
" -
bridges; constriIction of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction of the roadway
approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area; and
completion of any required mitigation of project impacts. In association with these
tasks, the exception'further authorizes within the WilIamette River Greenway Setback
Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill
within a temporary slope easement east ofI-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), WiIlamette Greenway, and the
exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part lI(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.11, Chapter 111, SectionD,
In compliance with Metro Plan Policy 0.11, the following provides analysis for a Goal 15
exception. -
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) administrative rule governitig 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 Willarnette River greenway setback area
requires exceptions. The rule states the following:
(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.3.k of the Goal may be approveq 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 public benefit; and
(d) Theuse i~ consistent with the Legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.314 and
the Ifi/lametie Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390,322,
The requirements for Goal exceptions, are outlined in OAR 660, Division4 ~d are as follows:
OAR 660-004-0018 Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
(4) "Reasons" Exceptions:
(a) Whim a local government takes an exception under the "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, and
activities to only those that are justified in the exception;
Date ReceiVE d
" ;,~,,;. i' ),t1'" j,
~. ;. i,.' : ,,-.. ,- \,' ,
~-);....(~t i
JUN 2 4 2008
Staff Findings - June 2008
'"-{''' - \ "JlI
~\: I'~ Page 4 . '
,I'" "....'.
1-.-.. .
. .:~":'
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 7
, '
(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 (ORS
" 197.732(8.) defines an "exception" as a comprehensive plan provision, including. an amendment to
an acknowledged comprehensive plan). The exception provides for the continuation of the existing
use ofI"5 by motor vehicles for interstate mobility and commerce purposes. The new 1-5
Willamette River bridges' are needed to accommodate that use.
The ne)>\' bridges wi]1'be'replacement bridges to the decommissiorled 1-5 bridge and Canoe Canal
bridge, which are part 6fthe I~5 interstate highway facility whose existence is identified in the
Transplan. As such, the new bridges will not be providing a use that does not already exist. '
OAR 660-004-0022 R'ecisons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part II(c)
. . ';1
An exception under Goal 2, Part II(c) can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable
gocil(s), The types of reasons that mayor may not beusedJojustify certain types of uses not
allowed on resource lands are 'set forth in the following se'ctions of this rule: ...
(6) Willamette Greenway: Within an urban area designated on the approved WilIamette
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 maybe 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 recorniection of portions of the Franklin
Boulevard northbound and southbound on and off ramps as dictated by bridge design. The
Whilamut Naturai Area of Alton Baker Park lies west of the 1-5 right-of-way in Eugene and the
Eastgate Woodlands portion of the Whilamut Natural 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
Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands for the remainder of these findings. The area
adjacent to ODOT's right-of-way is used as open space, 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.
1 ".' , ,""
. ," "'.,.'"
'" .,.1. _
Because !he replacement Qri.dges 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 travel at this
location. The bicycle-pedestrian path linking Eugene andSpringfle]d will continue to traverse
Date Received'
"JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: ,;BJ
Staff Findings - June 2008
~!l?~ 5) ~! t.
,I.,
;'- .
,
. :f
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 8'
\.~-
",<
ODOT's right-of-way below the new bridges. Public access to 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 Willamette Greenway and Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone.
The applicant acknowledges that the project will create some short term impacts to Willamette
Greenway values during construction. Staging for bridge construction is likely to occupy up to five
acres of park open space for up to four years. The bicycle/pedestrian path crossing 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 Willarnette River and Canoe Canal. Pier~ will be placed
in the Willarnette 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, andthe detour
bridge has six, so the new bridges will provide a substantial net reduction in piers compared,to the
existing number. At a conceptual level, 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 Willarnette River, At a conceptualleve], with the reduction in the number of piers,
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 fortemt'v'=i work bridges will be removed and those areas will be restored.
Bridge construction and demolition, including construction and removal of associated temporary
work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the greenway (see Figure 6, Approximate
Vegetation Disturbance Areas). However, ODOT's temporary eaSement for use ofEastgate
Woodlands requires ODOT to restore the property within 5 years of completion o(the permanent
replacement bridges, The"applicantalso'proposes several construction, site preparation;post
development, and coordination meaSures to minimize impacts to naturilI resources discussed under
Metro Plan Policy E.2, whi9h is incorporated herein by, reference. Additionally, preliminary data
indicates that there will be a net decrease of 31 ,000 cubic yards of fill in the Willarnette River
(30,000 cubic yards offililadded and 61,000 cubic, yards offill reIl)oved; application, page 5). With
the exception of a few of,the temporary storage areas, the,replacement bridges are proposed within
existing ODOT right-of-way which reduces impacts to non-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 will require
mitigation as appropriate, subject to applicab]e standards.
Regarding scenic values of the Willarnette River greenway, the red~ction in the total number of
. piers and in ~e number of piers within the Willamette River will improve views of the river and, as
I . . ,,: . .... .",' ." ,."'..l'~-'; j
':fl'f\~.t~~;~i~;in~\~;une2oo8 Date Received
lno;Pag; 6.1'1'
JUN 2 4 2008
1 .l~ ,. 'I' ..- '>, :" ~<' . 10 -.;
" : ~.""':t1. .; ';". ~ ,'j
. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 9 '
Planner:' BJ
, '
such, contribute to a positive visual impact. A]so, 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 obtained through a public process. At this phase; ODOT has developed two
conceptual schematics illustrating fue 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 ouqeach efforts.
Whi]e construction activities will temporarily impact greenway values, with the reduction in piers
and fill, the location of the bridges in the existing right-of-way, and the mitigation measures
proposed by the applicant, the new 1-5 Willamette 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. Additional]y, specific construction and operational details
regarding mitigation of riparian impacts will be appropriately addfessed during local permitting
processes, subject to applicable approval criteria 'and related standards.
(b) The use will not significantly reduce the sites ayailable for water-dependent or
water-related uses within the jurisdiction; ..'
The two new replacement bridges will not reduce any sites available for water-dependent or water-
related uses in Eugene or Springfield because the bridges will beconstnicted entirely within the
same existing ODOT 1-5 right-of-way where the decommissioned 1-5 bridge and temporary detour
bridge are located, The new bridges will have one pier each near the center of tlie river and one pier
on or near the south bank (the Canoe Canal on the north side woUld besparined 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-depen4ent uses, Therefore, in the context
of a plan amendment, this standard is met. .
-,
;--;.f>.:; ',:;:'11,~>:.'
(c) Th~ us~ will provide a significant, public benefit; and..,,'
1-5 is the primary nortl)-soutb highway corridor serving C;Uifornia, Oregon, and Washington. Th~
facility provides for the significant movement of people, freight, and other services, and serves as
the backbone for iriternational, interstate, and intrastate commerce, The applicant notes that 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
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 tlie 1999.0i'egon'Highway Plan and in
TransPlan: Therefore this standard is met. ': ," .
(d) The use is consistent with the Legislativefindings and policy in ORS 390.314 and
the Willamette Greenway Plan approved by {CDC under ORS 390.322.
"<,.' , 'Date Received
;~ r r,' :." :
SufI' Findi~gs ~ June 2008
Page 7
JUN 2 4 Z008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 10
Planner: BJ
~
/'"
The legislative [mdings and policy in ORS 390.3 14 are:
ORS 390.314. Legislativefindingsandpolicy
(I).The' Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and preserve the natural, scenic,
and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River, to preserve and
restore historical sites, structures, facilities, and objects on lands along the
Willamette 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
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 WiIlarnette.River bridge predates the adoption of Goal 15. As an
element ofT-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 detour bridges will temporarily affect greenway values'
during construction. However, as discussed under Goal 6 (iilr, water quality, land), GoalS
(recreation) and Metro Plan Policy E,2 (environment), and the remainder of these findings, the .
applicant proposes several measures to reduce or mitigate environmental and recreational impacts,
and the reduction of piers and fill will have a positive affect on scenic resources along the
Willamette River Greenway, consistent with this standard. Additionally, specific construction and
operational details will be appropriately addressed durin'g local pehnitting processes, subject to
applicable approval criteria and related standards:
(2) In providing for the development and maintenance of the Willamette'River..
. Greenway, the Legislative Assembly:
(a) Recognizing the need for coordinated planning for 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 State of Oregon and units of local government; including Lane COWlty and the cities of
Springfield and Eugene, have cooperated in the implementation of greenway planning as re<i..uired
'by legis]ative intent",The.J-5.WiIlarnette River Bridge Rep]acement Project, subject to this. '
application, is and will be permitted through tIlls established local andstatewide greenway planning
process,
(b) Recognizing the need of the people of this statejor 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 includ~d'
within.such greenway; but, for the benefit of the people of this'state, also to lilJlit the
intensification and change ih 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.
t~W~~~}:~~fJn~r~y;,sfated, I-Sand the 1-5 Willarnette River bridge predate Goal 15. ~ate1tebeived
;~0t.siliffFiridings- June 2008
Page 8
j.~' JV"
..~,,' ::~"'~:II:f';,.~:I\o:
ATTACHMENT A,- PAGE 11.
JUN 2.4 2008
Planner: . BJ
bridge, the replacement bridges and their approaches will be located within ODOT's established 1-5
right-of-way, thus avoiding significant adverse effects on the greenway and greenway values,
consistent with this policy, Furthermore, as discussed under Goal 6 (air, water quality), 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
Willarnette River Greenway, consistent with this standard.
(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
continue 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 iA no way impede the continuation offarm uses within the greenway,
consistent with this policy.
(d) Recognizing the needfor central coordination of such greenway for the best
interests of 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 ~hanges Oregon State Parks'
responsibilities for the coordination of the development and maintenance of the greenway,
(e) Recognizingthe lack of need for the acquisition offee title to all lands along the
Willamette River for exclusive public use for recreational purposes in such
greenWay, finds it necessary to limit the area within such greenway that may be
acquired for state parks and recreational areas and for public recreational use
within the boundaries of units of local government along the Willamette River.
The replacement 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. The limd is in the public domain imd will remain in the public
domain after completion of construction of the new replacement bridges and demolition and
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 tecreational 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, an exception to G~al IS is 'warranted for the reasons stated above, specifically OAR 660- .
0040-0022 (6)(c) and consistency with the remaining reasons, for the placement offill within the
greenway setback for the 1-5 WilIamette Bridge Replacement project. Goal exception requirements
are as follo,\iVs:
..~4'
.'
..
".../ >~.. t'"
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
- StatfFindings - June 2008
l"""
, Page 9
. ~;
: f<
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 12
Planner: BJ
, .
OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2. Part Il(c). Exception Requirements
(1) If ajurisdiction 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
ser:vices not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the
comprehensive plan as un 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 Canoe 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 foW' factors in Goal 2 Part Il(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception
to a Goal are: '
(a) "Reasonsjustify 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 ft:!r
determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific
properties or situations, including the amount of landfor the use being plann~d 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 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 PIll!!
Policy 0.11. Here, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed within ODOT's existing
1-5 right-of-way, while approximately 61,000 cubic yards offill will be removed, resulting iJ! a net
decrease of 31 ,000 cubic yards of fill in the Willamette River.
Except for a few acres of park land needed temporarily for staging construction, all development
will occur within ODOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way, which is not resource land. The bridges require'
a location over the Willamette River greenway because 1-5 already exists both north and south of
the Willamette River and the highway cannot practicably be relocated to avoid crossing the river.
(b) "Areas 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 cOl'!Sidered 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 necessary to discuss why
other areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be cOn.yjate.IR~ce;ve( t
JUN 2 4 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 13 Planner: 8J'
I
. \; :~\.' t' _' ~ 't~.4'rJ.,
, .. ~. \:;. .
, \ . ,1>~:.
Staff Findings - June 2008
: :P~ge 10 ,jI'
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? If not, why not?
(iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an
urban growth boundary? If not, why not?
(iv) Can' the proposed use be reaso/'wbly accommodated without the
provision ofa proposed public facility or service? Ifnot, 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
anot~er party, during ihe local exceptions proceeding. .
The applicant states that 1"5 replacement bridges are needed because the decommissioned bridge is
. structurally unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to accommodate anticipated traffic
volumes o'ver 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
Willarnette River is quite wide in the vicinity ofI-5, piers will again be needed within the setback
area to support the proposed replacement" bridges; however, fewer piers wiil 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, ~on-wate~ dep'endent and non-water-related llliture of the use, and given that fiil would be
required for pier support and bridge approaches regardless of where in the vicinity the bridges,are
located, there are no alternative sites crossing the Willarnette 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 right-of-
way, the projecfavoids significant impacts to park lands, Because transportation improvements,
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 14
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
~'"', '.:
....
Staff Findings - June 2008
.' Page 11 .
",':1
including bridges, are considered public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accommodated
without the provision of the proposed public facility. Analysis regarding possible a1ternative.sites is
discussed further under subsection (c) directly below, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences
tesultingfrom 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 takin, the typical advantages and
disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical
positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with
measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific
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 proposed use on the
water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service
districts; .
",
.-,~- .
,.
No other sites requiring exceptions are being considered for this use, 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 lines up with the existing 1-5 approaches to the north and
south. Relocating the bridge replacement project outside the existing 1-5 right-of-way would require'
ODOT to relocate the approaches at considerable additional cost and impact to not only the
greenway, but also to protected park and recreational resources, including the Whilarnut Natural
Area and Eastgate Woodlands, Further, relocating the bridge could require the closure of on6 or
more existing interchanges or ramps, result in demolition of residences and businesses, and result in
a hazardous geometry due to the presence of immovable geologic features, 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(f) 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 bomes'arid/or biIsme'sses onthi: 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.
. Major high-tension power transmission lines are located on both sides of the bridge and one
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 15
Date Received'
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner:. ~j
"
.' " "... ,...~ .~~~ 0:' '"
Staff Flndings - June 2008
'-'.i~~ge)~\ l
t
would n~ed to be relocated if the alignment was shifted.
Given the replacement nature of this project, the fact that crossing the Willamette River at some
location is unavoidable, and ODOT's inability to realign 1-5 on adjoining lands based on federal
restrictions protecting park lands, there are no feasible arid 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 arid mobility it provides statewide,
interstate, and regional travelers provides tremendous benefits both economically and socially. The
ability to rebuild within the existing bDOT 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 resource uses. It's continued use for -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 afijacent 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 such a manner
as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management
or production practices. Compatible is not intended as t;ln absolute term meaning no
interferef!ce or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
Uses adjacent to the affected portion ofl-5 include park land and the Willamette River, and
residential and industrial uses, The temporary staging areas are adjacent to park land and the
Willamette River, ODOT and Lane County property, and between 1-5 and 1-5 ramps. With the
exception of the temporary staging areas, the replacement bridges and associated improvements are
being proposed within approximately the same location as both the original and temporary bridg~s
and will be located within existing rights-of-way and right-of~way easements, Considering that this
area has been utilized as the ]-5 bridge_location since prior to the. establishment of Goal 15,
replacement of the 'facility in the same location is more compatible than relocating the facility and
converting non-transportation are~ 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 fill, and sound waIls, At a -
conceptual level, these elements will reduce adverse impacts to environmental, recreational and
scenic resources and will increase compatibility of the project with adjacent recreational; residential
and industrial uses of the area. Regarding the temporary staging locations, the 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 faIling into the Willamette River,
maintaining a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path, limiting work hours, and restoring the temporary
, staging areas upon project c~mpletion: Additional measUres proposed by the applicant to reduce
environmental, recreational and scenic impacts, are further discussed under Metro Plan Policy E.2,
GoalS 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 Willamette River,
resideptial, and industrial uses consistent with this standard.
('';'::-',';, ~.;.,. F~~"'" r
. " j~. , '. "
'\1 .
"
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 16
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
. il"- .' ,. ,
- Staff Findings - June 2008
Page 13
,
, ,
In addition, compatibility with gi'eenway and Goal 5 resource values associated with the WilIamette
River, riparian areas both north and south of the river, the Whilamut Natural Area arid Eastgate.
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 Resources Conservation Overlay Zone, subject to
applicable standards and conditions. As noted 'earlier; the bridges are an existing use within the
ODOT righi-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 Management Practices and
other impact avoidance or mitigation techniques identified or required during the localperrnitting
, processes, impacts to surrounding natural resource lands can be minimized to protect natural
resource qualities in and the use and enjoyment of the WilIamette River, the Willamette River
greenway, and the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands.
"
.>
Based on the above findings, an exception to Goal IS is warranted and meets the requirements of
OAR 660-0040-0020 for the placement of fil1 within the greenway setback for the 1-5 Wil1amette
Bridge Replacement project.
Therefore, the amendments and goal exception are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Al!ficultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments.as the subject property and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth
boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject property is entirely within the
acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the ,
area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3 .
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect any
forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not' apply within urban growth boundaries and,
therefore, does not apply to the subject property, which is within the Eugene-Springfie]d urban
growth boundary (OAR 660-006-0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do
not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4. ,
GoalS - Ooen Soaces,Scen_;~ 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 ~o'tliis post-acknowledgement
plan amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the
. P~PA a~ects a GoalS resource, For purposes of this section, a PAPA w~uld;1!ect a.Goal5 . d
~".,r,;:,/ ,~.'//:.,-: uate Receive ,
~~ . . -.,
. staff Findings - June 2008 J U N 2 4 2008
, Page 14,
'\ 1-1,- '" 1 I'
c
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 11
Planner: BJ .
, I .
. .
......
re.s;ource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or aportion of an acknowledged plan
or land use ~egulation adopted in order to protect q significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements,ofGoal5;
(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 factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a reso'urce 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 Willamette River, a riparian resource
between 1-5 and E, 18th Avenue, and riparian resources in Alton Baker P~k (the Canoe Canal),
Subsections (a) and (c) above are not applicable to this request as ,the proposed amendments do not
create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a,plan or; code provision adopted in order
to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, and do not
amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Regarding subsection (b), the 1-5 Wiliamette
Bridge Project is replacement of an existing use in appr9ximatelythe same location, even
considering the additional widening of the roadway.:Therefore, (b) is not applicable because the
, project includes replacement of an existing use, not a new use.
Based on the findings above, Statewide Planning GoalS is either not applicable or is met through
compliance with the aCknow]edged'local permitting process. .
Addition~!lY, regarding air quality, the replacement bridges tl],emselves should 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 potential future addition of 6 lanes, the new bridges
do not necessarily result in more people driving on 1-5. Insteid, existing traffic volumes will be
shifted from the detour bridge to the new bridges. If the decornn:lssioned 1-5 bridge is not replaced,
those vehicles would be forced each day onto city streets and county roads not designed for such
trips, The ensuing degradation to the air quality along these alternative routes caused by
unmanageable congestion would" be in direct contradiction' to".the purpose of Goal 6. Even the
potential i!lcrease'in the number of lanes does not necessarily increase the number ofpeop!edriving
on Ts': but rather increases continuous' traffic' movement. Regarding air "quality, this goal is met by
the proposed plan amendments: ,,; .
Regarding water quality; constru~tiori of the replacement ':bridges and the removal of the
decolIlI11cissio,ned and detour bridges will impact water quality by affecting soils and vegetation
~-Il~,y.'r..-""'~~ ;~, ~. ;.., . . ,
'~@Findin~s'::Jime2008 Date Receivecl
Page 15 ,'" ,:,~_' JUN 242008
,
,
. . . l
AT:rACHMENT A - PAGE 18
Planner: BJ
, ,
within the Willamette River and along the greenway setback, Water quality may also. be affected
where impervious surfaces are. added along the bridge approaches. Where areas are paveq, water
cannot penetrate the soils so. it rushes over the surface. This. can increase erosion and the movement
of fme sediments and increase pollutant loads in watercourses. While construction of the
replacement bridges will result in some new impervious surfaces, overall t)le project will result in a
net decrease in impervious surface because ODOT will remove the approach roadway for the 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 and
prevention also can achieve compliance With clean water standards. Oregon Highway Plan SA. 1
directs ODOT to implement Best Management Practices. Based on these findings, water qualitx '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 maintaiped, subject to applicable app~oval criteria
and related standards. By doing so, Goal 6 is satisfied.'
Regarding noise, a proj ect 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 ODOr Noise Manual (June 1996) analysis procedures, noise mitigation measures were
evaluated to reduce noise levels to nearby residences as a result of the project. Noise walls were
determined to meet the ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two locations and are
recommended as mitigation (see supplemental information, Figu'res 7-9). The final wall locations
will be determined after public input is completed,as part oftheNEPA process. Additionallx, as
stated on page 13 of the written statement, the applicant proposes the following general measures:
. Continue public involvement through design and construction '
. li~t work hours
. limit noise
Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, the proposed amendments are consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 6., Additionally; specific construction and operational details will be,
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 and property from natural
disasters and hazards. . .
Goal 7 requires tliat local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
t' ~i
"' ,
2 Currently, there is no stormwater treatment for the deco~issiohed and deto~ bridg~s. Providing water q~aIity
treatment for the new bridges, which would be required throughthe 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 offlow in the Wi1lamette River that the effect would be
negligible, '
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner:' BJ
<
,
,.
,"i,.
ATTACHMENT, A - PAGE 19
. .' ,.' ,. I
,.;....,"t..,. '/I""'~ J' ~~,' .:... t ...; ',' .
. , - .....,...-' .
. . Staff Findings - June 2008
!.\.~, ..P~g~..~l.~l
" ,
''''/'
. property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes arid 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 flood ways, and building codes regulations that address slopes and seismic concerns.
... .
To the extent that this is relevant to the proposed plan amendment; 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 idehtified on the map for Relative
Slope Instability Hazards. The portions of the project site in the Whilamut Natural Area and
Eastgate Woodlands, and the area southeast ofI-5 and the WilIamette River are identified as
moderate hazard areas. However, both of these areas are proposed for only temporary staging
locations. The applicant has completed 10 borings on either side of the river as part of a
geotechnical investigation related to the temporary detour bridge (three north of the river, seven
south of the river). A geological report (which was not submitted for this application) indicates that
geological resources in the project area consist of fill material, alluvium, and bedrock. The
processes affecting these materials are man-made, such as excavation and grading, and natural.
Since there is an existing bridge, impacts to geological resources would consist of relatively minor
changes in topography, minor settlement of near-surface materials, possible increase in erosion,
minor changes to the river flow regime and related sediment and related sediment transport, and
potential changes in slope stability (from vegetation removal). These impacts would occur as a
result of excavation, phicement of structure and fills, 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 landslide would be
slope failure into the WilIamette River; however, considering the low height of the riverbank, such a
failure would be limited to a small area relative to the width of the river, The applicant states that
geotechnical investigations will also be 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 ina 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 amendment, 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 ~, based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical
investigations should be completed prior to construction to deterinine the best method to seat
foundations, piers, and.bents to reduce effects related to earthqmikes (e.g., lateral spread,
liquefaction). In addition, slopes should be constructed in a manrier that reduces the potential for
erosion or small landslides.
" .
. '
Regarding flooding, portions of the project area are located within the floodway and floodplain of
the WilIamette River. As previously stated, both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances
regulating construction within floodways and floodplains. Furthermore, in response to Metro Plan
policies C:30 and C.31 below, which is incorporated herein by reference, because the 1-5
Willamette Bridge project is loCated within a FEMA designated regulatory floodway and
'_'~':,"/~'"",,: }:...Ir~ ." '.
\ ",.
Staff Findings - June 2008
P'I.I. )'7' 'I' 'I
age ' ~.
Date Received
};,
.
'. ,
I'.....
, .'
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 20
JUN 24 2008
Planner: BJ '
I'
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 ale cWTently 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.f100d event. For the Environmental
Assessment, 'the hydraulic conditions of the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project were analyzed using the
V,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 I DO-year flood event, which is consistent
with the no-rise standard and consistent with this goal. While Option A shows an increase of.o,02,
which 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 f100dways/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 rel~ted standards:
Therefore,. in the context of a plan amendment, the preliminary no-rise data, the landslide
, information, and findings above, the proposed plan amendments are consistent withStatewiqe,
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.of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state, East Alton Baker Park i~.
located to the east and west of 1-5 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-S in
Eugene is now called the Whilamut Natural Area and the portion of the park east ofI-5 in
Springfield is called the Eastgate Woodlands of the \V1iilamut Natural Area (abbreviated here as
Eastgate Woodlands) and these areas will be referred to as such for the remainder ofthese,fmdings
unless otherwise indicated. The demolition and construction of the bridges will take phice within the,
1-5 right-of-way, which is not part of the park; therefore the replacement bridges will not remove or
increase recreational opportunities at the park. However, removal of the detour bridge will include
Date Received
JUN 2 4 Z008
. ,;, '.~ - ,', . -. .' , .
, , , ," Staff Findings. ~ June 2008
Page 18
"
ATTACHMENT A ~ PAGE 21
. Plann-er: BJ
"
.-'
/-
'. '
';'\t,_
removal of fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of Eastgate Woodlands. The temporary
easement obtainedby ODOT to 'do this work requires rehabilitation of the area within 5 years of
completion of the permanent bridges. This easement will ensure that recreational use of this area
will return to pre-project conditions.
.~...
;J:
Additionally, during constniction.the park will be temporarily affected. Through the other local
permitting processes (WilIamette Greenway permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay review,
Willamette Greenway setback, etcetera) construction impacts will be required to be minimized
through c<mditions of approval that would preserve bicycle, pedestrian and boater safety, and to
maintain consistency with operational provisions in the East Alton Baker Park Plan (which includes
the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands). Public access to the WilIamette 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 statement page 49;Metro Plan. Policy D.9). Although the
bicycle/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, WilIakenzie Area Plan, Neighborhood Design Element- WilIamette Greenway, Use
Management Standard 2), Additionally, specific construction and operational details regarding
public access and recreational impacts will be appropriately addressed during local permitting
processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards,
':~l
Comments were received stating that (to summarize) the bridge provides a crossing of Franklin
Boulevard and the railroad .and that this provides an opportunity for those crossing to be made
available to pedestrians and bicyclists. Additionally, the comments note that since the replacement
is not accommodating such a crossing; the applicant has insufficient analysis regarding the
provision of adequate access to Alton Baker Park, As discussed in more detail under the Metro Plan
Transportation Element, Policy F.l4 below which is incorporated herein by reference, the applicant .
proposes a continuous rout~ 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, 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 maintained. In the context of the
proposed plan amendments, this adequately 'addresses access for bicyclists and pedestrians as these
are the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities liffected by the proposed amendments.
Based on the findings above, in the context of a plan amendment, the proposal Will not impact the
provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect access to existing or future public
recreational facilities, The amendments are therefore consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 _ Economic Develooment: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon 's citizens,
'ri~"'~'~"~:"h"'~"":' ...._.~: ....~.. ...-;. ,.. ~.'." '" ......... .' .'" ','
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660 Divisi'on 9) r~quires that the City"
"[p ]rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and service
]eve1s for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies[.]" Among other
things, the rule requires that cities complete an "Economic Opportunities Analysis." OAR 660-009- .
( 0015. Based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and '
"...f;.. ::,:.'i';X',., I,.:t';'. ,;; . , Date Rece,'ved
....,. ':1' "-,'. ,,'
Staff Findings - June 2008
,~.~r,~age,19,.,v 'i ' JUN 24 2008
,', . -f ~
. _('-: ';1 ~ '~r.> '.'.,
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 22
Planner: BJ
. "
. ,.-
Commercial Developme'nt 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
660-009-0010(2) provides that the detailed planning requirements imposed by OAR 660 Division 9
apply "at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660- .
009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations of lands in excess of two acres
to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it
. must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstrate that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the
requirements of OAR 660'Division 9; or (b) amend its comprehensive plan to explain the proposed
amendment pursuant to OAR 660 Division 9;.or (c) adopt a combination of (a) and (b) consistent'
, with the requirements of Division 9. .
In the context of OAR 660-009-0010(4), the EUQene Commercial Lands Studv ffiCLS) is
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule, The
ECLS constitutes the City's obligation under OAR 660 Division 9. However, since the 1-5
Willamette Bridge Project is occurring in approximately the same location of the existing bridges,
within existing right-of-way, existing right-of-way easements, or temporary staging areas (within
existing right-of-way or park property), OAR 660-009-0010(4) does not apply because the proposed
amendment will not remove any land from the commercial land supply, Therefore, the amendments
are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9,. , ,
Goal 10 - Housin!!: 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 Goa] 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 docuInent the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation," The comprehensive plan map for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagram. The
1999 EUQene-Sorinwld M<:1!0politan Area Residenti".l T_,~.n,~~ an~ Bousin~ Study ffiJd) is -:
acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of Goal 10 and its Administrative Rule.
As previously stated, the proposed plan amendment 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'State'wide
Planning Goal 10 is not applicable.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a frameworkfor urban and rural
development. - ,. ,.'
The area affected by the amendments, the bridge right-of-way, is located entirely within the City
limits of both the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield. The proposed amendments would
allow demolition and replacement of the temporary 1-5 bridge and reconstruction of the roadway
~:'-.\~ ..,~~"~~...:
,-.....
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 23
Date Received
JU_N 2 4 2008
Plann'er: a~
,Staff Findings - June 2008
, Page 20- ,)
.....
"
approaches to the bridges, which are all public facilities that are acknowledged in the Oregon
Highway Plan arid the local regional transportation plan (TransPlan) as necessary public facilities
and services, Rep]acement of the temporary bridge with permanent bridges that meets current
seismic standards ensures that this public facility continues to safely serve the area, The provision
of these amendments does not significantly affect the planning or development of future public
facilities or services. Therefore, the amendments are'consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transoortation: To provide anri encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system,
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq, The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan rrransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR is
implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660-012-0060) states that when land use changes,
inclu'ding amendments 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 (including the 1-5 bridge) as an existing transportation facility.
Determination of Significant Effect
The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned transportation facilities will
experience a significant effect as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and defines what
constitutes a significant effect.' .
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(1)(a), (b) or (c). OAR 660-012-0060(1)
Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments states the following:
(1) Where an amendment to afunctional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation' would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility,
the local government shall 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 capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility, A
plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it
would:
(a) Change the functional classification afan existi';g or planned transportationfacility
(exclusive of correction of map errors iI'J an adoptedplan); .,
(b). Change standards implementing afunctional classification system; or
The proposed amendment will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
',>[ \' ,~~P!?rtation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system,
...,\.;....f,~.,.~lj..l I"J .
Siafi'Findings..., June 2008
Page 21
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
, ,-
I' "
l' ,)..
i:-.
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 24
Planner: BJ
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional 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 existing 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 amendment will allow for the construction of bridges to replace existing bridge
. facilities that have been decommissioned as being structurally unsafe, The replacement bridges will
be constructed in approximately the same 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 Willamette 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 lanes 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 I -5), the additional bridge capacity will increase the performance
and function of 1-5, 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 ffiinimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan under (l)(c)(B), or worsen the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable
performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan under (l)(c)(C).
I
(. i .-', ~ t. ( i' t:' ~ ". - ,^
,:' ",'StilffFiridings,June2008
Page 22
:!jrr'. :..' -;:
Date Received
J U N 2 4 2008 '
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 25
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 of Transportation System Plans
OAR 660-012-0015(1) directs ODOT to prepare and ado'pt a stateiransportation system plan that
identifies ~ 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
include~ 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 ~Iso promotes a safe, efficient, and reliable freight system to support eCOliomic vitality.
The OHP identifies 1-5 as an interstate highway within the state's roadway network. That highway
necessarily includes a bridge over the Willamette 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 the replacement bridges are
necessary to maintaining 1-5, by approving the proposed plan amendments, all plans\vill remain
consistent aI).d the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied.
Based on !he above findings, the proposal is consistent with StateWide Planning Goal 12,
yoal13,-,Enemv 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 principles," Goal 13 is directed at.
the development oflocal energy'policies and implementing provisions and does.not state
requirements with respect to other types of land,use decisions. It is not clear that'the goal has any
bearing 01} 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 Goal 13 could be applied to the proposed
plan amendments, the proposal is consistent with Goal 13; the 1_5 WiIlamette Bridge project is
located in the same location as the existing and previous bridges and will continue to mBkeefficient
use of energy with safe, direct and efficient access though the area
, ,
Comments were received that, in summary, the applicant fails tO,consider the conservation of
energy by any means other than that of maximizing the efficiency of car and truck traffic, . '
Specifically, failure to consider any provision for incorporating bicycle traffic into the crossing does
not maxi~zethe conservation of all foims of energy, particularly petroleum energy, However,
given that Goal 13 is directed at deveioping local energy conservationpolicies;it is determined that
Goal 13 is not a means to require a specific project to add a bicyCle and pedestrian component.
Based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent. with Statewidi: Planning Goal 13.
Goal 14 _ Urbaniiation: To provide for an orderly and efficient.transitionfrom rural to urban laiuJ
, '
,....::- I. ""', ~ '.' ..-'~ . .
.1. >>~"'H~:"""I" ;;'~:,""-;;. -~ ,r ,I,'..
'!.' . ,,_'Yo t '.. ,.'
Staff Findings':' June 2008 '
FP,e~e 23.~ ,,', '
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 26
Date Received
JUN 24 2008
..,....
;' ,"-
'." '
"
'L: .
,
Planner: BJ
use.
The amendments 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-Springfie]d UGB. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
........
Goal 15 - Will~ette 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 WiIlamette River Greenway. As found
under Goal 2 above, which is incorporated herein by reference, a goal IS exception is required by,
Policy D.II ofthe Metro Plan and the applicant meets the requirements for an exception to Goal 15.
Based on these findings, the proposal complies with Statewide Plarming Goal 15 as excepted.
Goal 16 throuqh 19 - 13<tuarinPc R.Pc<ources. Coastal Shorelands. Beaches ".nd Dunes. and Ocean
,Resources:
There are no .coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property affected
by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not <tffect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. '
(b) Adoption afthe amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The applicant proposes to amend the Metro Plan text ofPo]icy 0.11 to allow the placement offill
within the WiIlarnette River greenway for the construction of the 1-5 WiIlarnette Bridge Project. As
found below, this text amendment will not create an internal conflict with the remainder of the
Metro Plan, The applicant provided detailed findings intendin:g to show how the Metro Plan. text
amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan, To the extent that'
they may be applicable, the applicant's findings are also incorporated herein by reference,
The following Metro Plan polices are applicable to this request',
.
B. Economic Element
B.18 Encourage the development oftransportationfacilitie,s which would improve access 10
industrial and commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation PlanfI'ransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan.
While theexpressed.language of this policy may not be mandatory, the applicant's findings are
provided as fuiilier suppor(for the proposed amendments, Replacing the decommissioned -1-5
Willarnette River bridge with two new bridges, and associ~ted improvements, 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
, ::~-, ;ie0'; ~}iff:fiDdirigi.,)une 2008
Page 24
r:'.~/;~ .
'"
Date' Received
JUN 2 4 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 21
Planner: BJ
:... J ".:~
, "
, ~ j
"Iii,..
.,
access to industrial and cDmmercial areas 'On cDnnecting roads cDnsistent with this pDlicy.
~. Environmental Resources E]ement
C 8 Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage df!Velopment
on hillsides and in water'bodies, and restrict development 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 ' Each city shall complete a separate study to meet its requirements under the Goal 5 Rule for
we/lands, 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,
ClO Local governments shall encourage further study (by specialists) of endangered and
threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area. . .
Cll Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species, as
recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input,
These pDlicies are directed tD the'lDcal gDvernments 'Of Eugene, Springfield and Lane CDunty and
not necessarily the applicant. HDwever, they are applicable tD the extent that the cities of Eugene
and Springfield and Lane CDunty have adDpted regulations to protect these resources, and that the
applicant will be required tD apply fqr applicable permits pursuant tD thDse local requirements
(Eugene's Willamette Greenway permit and Water ResDurces CDnservatiDn Overlay ZDne, and
Springfield's 75-riparian setback review).
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 ..
modifications, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning, The application of these
mitigating measures must be balanced with other design considerations and hoUsing
costs.
CDmments were a1SD received regarding the nDise,abatement .walls.and limiting noise from the
project. Since the prDject is not a "new nDise-sensitive development in the vicini!)' of existing and
futures streets and highways..." but is rather the reverse, a highway in the vicinity of existing
,residential development, this policy is nDt applicable. FurthermDre, the highway is replacing an
existing highway in approximately the same 10catiDn. In the event that this policy. is found.
," applicable, the applicant's findings are incorporated to demDnstrate cDnsistency. As previDusly
" discussed,under, Goa1,6,aoove"a project noise technical report was 'prepared aspartofthc.. " '
Environmental Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impactS'resultmg from:-
the prDject. Per the ODOT Noise Manual (June 1996) analysis procedures, noise mitigation
measures were evaluated to reduce nDise levels to nearby residences as a result 'Of the project. Noise
walls were determined to meet the ODOT effectiveness and cost-effectiveness 'criteria in two
,\"c.:"IDcati6~s'andare~recDmmended as mitigation (see supplemental information, Figures 7-9), The final
,.
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 28
Date Received
Ju'N 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
,,.. ,'" ,
"'ll': - , ,,-,'
StilffFiridings - June 1008 .
Page 25
I
, ~.
,,'
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:
o Continue public involvement through design and construction
o limit work hours
o limit noise
Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied.
C26 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. ' .
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 prep!l1'ation,
site construction, coordination and post development meaSures discussed under Metro Plan PoliCy'
E.2, which is incorporated herein by reference, to reduce and mitigate impacts to water,quality,
consistent with this pOlicy. In addition, water quality impacts will be further reviewed for
compliance with local standards under the local permitting process for Willamette Greenway
permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone and the 75-foot riparian setback and under the
NEPA Environmental Assessment, subject to applicable requirements.
C30 Except as otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency'(FEMA)
regulations, development shall be prohibited in jloodways if it could result in an increased
jlood level. The jloodway is the channel of a river or other water course and IIl-C-16 the
acijacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-chance jlood in any
given year.
, C. 31 When development is allowed to occur in the jloodway or jloodwoY 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 in1illing of partially developed
land Outside the UGB, areas affected by the jloodwayand jloodway 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.
C32 Local governments s.hall require site-specific soil surveys and geologic studies where
potential problems exist. When problems are identified, local governments shall require
, special design considerations and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and
geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments, and
enviroronerztallY~s.ensitive "reas. . .
Regarding Policy C.30 and C.3I, as discussed under Statewide Planning Goal 7, Natural Hazards,
which is incorporated herein by reference, the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project is partial]y located
within a FEMA designated regulatory floodway and floodplain. Therefore, the design of the
replacement bridge must satisfy the regulations set forth in the National Flood InSmt€~eived
; '. -.'''' .
,": . Staff Findings ~ June 2008
Page 26
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 29
JUN- 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
, "
b
'0:-'
(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. The no_rise condition is also a requirement of ODOT for any bridge
replacement project.
Consistent with C.31, both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction
within floedp]ains and floodways; City of Eugene FEMA "llO-rise" certification for any
construction or structures within floodways/special flood hazard areas; 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 temporary staging areas outside of the
ODOT right~of-way; portions of the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands, and ODOT
and Lane County property both located southeast ofI-S and the Willamette River. For these areas,
prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory floodway, ODOT will 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 engineer and supported by technical data
consistent with current FEMA standards. ' . '
Based on the preliminary modeling, the proposed pier location options would result in the
following; Option A 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. However, a detailed no-rise analysis has not been "
submitted and the modeling will be run again to meet the no-rise requirement when the desjgn is
refined for the permitting process. Furthermore, ODOT requires its bridges to meet the no-rise
requirement. Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, these policies are met. Specific
construction and operational details will' be appropriately addressed during local andstate
permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and ~dated 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 map identifying Relative Slope
Instability Hazards in.Eugene. However, while this information may guide the City in adopting
code revisions, it does not apply directly to' land use application~ as it is not adopted as refinement
plan or as codified land use criteria, Additionally, based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical
investigations can be completed prior to construction to determine the best method to seat
foundations, piers,arid bents to reduce effects related to earthquakes (e,g., lateral spread,
liquefaction), In'addition, slopes can be constructed in a manner ,that reduces the potential for
erosion or smalllands]ides. . - " '. ',... ....,.
Based o.n the findings above, in the context of a plan amemlment, the proposed plan amendments
are consistent wjth these policies.. '
~ . .' ':'r>. .... _j "'.' .
(l~i~/\'I?,::Vjil~~tie.Rive-r Greenwav. River Corridors. and Waterwa'is Element
21; s{.ft' Findings - June 2008
Page 27
Date Received
, JUN 2 4 2008
r: ..""\1
l~/'.t:~l
! _ --::~ ~.:'-~"r I: 'i'
:'
"" .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 30
Planner: BJ
D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to th~
Willamette River Greenway.
The applicant proposes that the public access connecting to the Willamette River Greenway will
continue to be provided through ODOT's right-of-way undcr the 1-5 bridges, therefore public access
to the Willamette River Gr~enway will not be permanently affected. As noted under Goal 8 '
Recreational Need above, which is incorporated herein by reference, a continuous route'across
ODOT right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways ~1I be maintained on both the north and '
the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, Willakenzie Area Plan,
Neighborhood Design Element- Willamette Greenway, Use Management Standard 2). Therefore, in
the context of a plan amendment, this policy, is met, Additionally, these specific construction and
operational details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting processes, subject-to
applicable approval criteria and related standards. '
.,.\
D.11 The taking of an exception shall be required if a non, water-dependent transportation
facility requires placing'offill 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 Willdmette.
River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line, for purpose of constrl2cting a
temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use
Approval (Springfield JournalSHR 2003-00115) and removing the temporary detour bridge
qfter completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfie~ the criteria of '
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-002'2(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c) for a 'reasons' exception; and '.'
pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text,
Policy #D.ll, Chapter IIl, Section D. '
As discussed under Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.lI, the applicant is requesting an
exception to Goal 15 for reasons outlined under OAR 660'004,0022, An exception is warranted per
the standards set forth in OAR 660-004-0020. Therefore, the above Metro Plan'text for Policy D.Il
must bearnended to acknowledge this qoal15 exception. Accordingly, the folloWing text
amendment is proposed, with old text 6truck elit and new te~t in bold:
J.AJi e}(0_pl;;on ~o gUl.~c...id.e Pl~n5 3ea-l15 V/illam~tte Riv~r Gre:':T.?j" ""'-as- ~f'pro',~
Oregon DeJlarJAFc.t. :fT:ansportatie!'l (O~'::'T) If ribht afway crossill!;:1-.: 'Villame"tie
River and ;,vithin fue W:E;:::1:::te River Greenway 8elt::zlo 1.i..e, f~r JlllFJlese ef cOllslruetrng
a temJlerary detour bridge, illlfllemeBtillg the eellditiells iffiJlos.': ;,{, the DiserctivniJ/ :; ~3
'~';;;';:'0-,i2 (:Jp,-ffigflekl JiL..'7.al SIm ~:JCllf) c:....J.d remeving the temj'lerary deta1il' briege
", after 6ampletiell ef th: ;;:,-c.:iJ.eBt rCflla6em~n~ ;''';.jge. 'This exceJltiell satisfies ,the 6riteria sf .
Orege'RAaffiinistraih;li Rule (OLT?.) €leD 004 0022(5)Wiilamette Greellway; the elweption
reEj:WremeBts ofOf..R €leg 0040020 G.',w 2, rarHl~~} ::'0:;:" '::;:.,,]OIlS' el[eeJltien; and
pW'Sliallt to O,\R eeO 004 O~g,is h;::~by adeflted a;: 1!.1 ~:JlclldmeBt te the Metr: :PI:::: ~<!lH;
POll6y 1:'[\.11, GhaflleF IE, ~Z6tiOIl I{. ' ' , .
"..', '. )'_/..'." . .,-.1 " , _,>'
'- \r. .... 1, _,"t.,.., ': ~ ". '
, ' St'aff Findings ~ June 200&
. J?age 2&
'-,;';:<... 't'-
Date Receivec I
JUN24 2008
ATTACHMENT A -PAGE 31
- Planner:BJ.
I
. ,-.-,.-,
"/ '
;
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 WiIlamette River Greenway was approved
fo~ Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for purposes ofremoving and
replacing the decommissioned 1-5 bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe
Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one soutbbound and one northbound)
within the 1-5 right-of-way crossing the WilIamette River and Canoe Canal and within
the'WiIlamette River Greenway Setback Line. The exception authorizes construction
and later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned 1-5 WilIamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour
bridges; construction 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 WilIamette 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 ofI-5, This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), WiIlamette Greenway, and the
exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 part lI(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,Il, Chapter Ill, Section D,
The proposed text amendment replaces the stand-alone paragraph under'Policy 0.11 regarding the
temporary bridge. The applicant's proposed Metro Plan.text amendment toPolicy D.11 is adequate
and with this text amendment and Goal IS exception granted under Goal 2 above, Policy D ,II will
be satisfied.
E. Environmental Desien EleInent
,
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.
Construction is proposed within existing ODOr rights-of-ways ahd 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 reh~bilitation of a portion of the
Whilamut Natural Area, ODOT 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 minimize the effects of construction activities,
Disturbed,.areas:WiIJob_eorestored ahd ODOT will work With the community fr.roughout the design
and construction process 't~ g~t input and advice o~ ~ays to avoid and minimize environmentU
impacts.
. ,. 0 According to the applicant, a species list provided by ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage
OC:,?(~rvfq~ati?n ce~ter) indicates that there are no federal or state-ii&ed Endang~red Species Act (ESA)
JU'iS~fr"~iri~i~gs - June 2008
Page 29
~ 1:'- .
,1Jd'j ,. "~ :.,~' '( ~::, ~ .::,' r
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 32
Planner: aJ
. 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 are!\, Two
salmonid populations listed under the ESA are documented as occurring within the reach of the
Willamette River that flows through the project area:
o Upper Willamette River spring Chinook (OncorhynchUs tshawytscha) and critical habitat-
federally 'threatened' -' FT.
o 'Columbia.River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and
critical habitat - FT,
':~~
..;<:>
.". ~
'."...
.'
ODOT will coordinate with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife through the design process to
id~ntify 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 implemented to reduce the; extent of direct and indirect
impacts to habitat. These include: '
o Minimize effects to .natural stream 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
WiIlamette River and t() remove materials that may drop with a minimum disturbance to
aquatic habitat. .
o 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; ._
o Flag boundaries of clearing limits and sensitive areas to be avoided during constructi9n.
o Coordinate with Willarnalane Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Parks and Open,
Space Division regarding sensitive areas in the Whilarnut Natural Area and Eastgate
Woodlands that should be avoided during construction.
'0 Restore 'and revegetate disturbed areas.
ODOT also proposes (Written statement, page 13) to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts.ofthis
project, consistent with this policy, by utilizing the following general measures amongst others:
o Continue public involvement through design!lld construction
o Plan tra.ffic management to keep all travel modes open and safe during construction
o Limit work hours
o Restore/enhance affected areas
o ,Limit project noise
....
Public comment was received expressing'supporl for these measures, especially limiting project
noise apd workhour~"especially for pile driving activities.
In addition, specific design details will'be reviewed and conditioIled to minimize environmental
impacts during federal and local permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and
related standards. The applicant proposes that the project will meet the OTIA III Environmental
Performance Standards (EPS) in order to satisfy the requirements of the programmati<n t R . d
. . 'Ua e eCelVE<
. ,;"'" - . ~ ' '. . . .
, I,; :dStaf{FindingS - June 2008
Page 30
j{JN 24 2008
".r,"\'.
"1 " '.\
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 33
Planner: BJ
. ' , . r '
'.r'o
{'
"
, environmental permits that apply to the statewide 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 construction activities.
To avoid ,fish and wi]dlife species and minimize temporary impacts from construction activities, all
applicable aTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program 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
app]icable mitigation measures in the OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program 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 WilIamette River, however, no specific
design is being reviewed at this time in the context of a plan amendment. Local permitting
processes include WilIamette Greenway permit and Water Resources Conservation Overlay for
Eugene, B!.ld a 75,foot riparian setback review for Springfield. Natural vegetation, natural water'
features, and drainage-ways shall be protected and retained to. the'. maximum extent practical,
consistent with these permitting processes.
This adequately addresses protection of natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainage- .
ways in the context of the proposed plan amendments: Additionally, these specific construction and
operational details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting processes, subject to
applicable approval criteria and related standards.
E,4 Public and private facilities shall be de;igned 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 the same ODOTright-of-way where the
decommissioned bridge is located, an area already utilized by trahsportation infrastructure. The
proposal also includes a reduction in the total number of piers, a reduction in the number of piers in
the WilIarpette River, and review of bridge design options (based on aesthetic and budgetary
considerations) through a separate public process; all of which should contribute to a positive visual
impact, consistent with this policy.
Additionally, impacted 'riparian areas and.other lands within the greenway s'etback 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 amendment 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 noted above in the discussion of Statewide' Planning Goal 1, the public is
,involved in this' process. Among other things, ODOTestablished a Community Advisory Group
(CAG) composed of representatives oflocaJ. neighborhii6dassbciaiions,'parksd.epartrnents (City of
Eugene and Willamal,ane Park and Recreation District), the Citizen Planning Clmllnittee 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
t ,bridg~ tY~!l, ~tsidesign, and construction, . ,
'O\'fILV10},~ (~, t~, "
..J:~::f. ,,;;h,.J';;':J~ l'i ...1...:,,:g'd
~no\ ~,g Vi\ \',
. Staff Findings - June 200&
t r~ "-~~~!~~r\,:-~~q
~.J'''':; ,,::.:~'~, Ii') 1:',:~'1~ ~
Date Received
JUN 24 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 34
Planner; 8y!
;
, "
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation'
system plan:
(A) Ailow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of
travel or access that are inconsistent with the jUnctional 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 ~xisting or planned transportationfacUity that
is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
-.
The proposed amendment will allow for the construction of bridges to replace existing bridge
facilities that have been decommissioned as being structurally unsafe. The replacement bridges will
be constructed in approximately the same 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 Willamette 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 a1]owed by the proposed amendment. .
While the replacement bridges will be designed and constructed to accommodate six lanes of travel,
, because 1-5 is only four lanes, the bridges will be striped for fo~r 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'ofthe 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 aTe 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(1)( c )(A),
Further, the proposed amendments ,will not reduce the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility .below the rilihimlim acceptable PerfOlmarlce standard identified in the TSP or,
comprehensive plan under (I)( c )(B), or worsen the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable
performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan under (I)(c)(C).
. , . .
. ,
., .~.i~~/ ..~~ -~ ,'J: .... "'1'..... ,:
'.. Staff Findings ~June 2008
.~, age22
I
"'1'
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 35
Date Received
JUN 24 2008
, .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 of Transportation System Plans
OAR 660-012-0015(1) directs ODOT'to prepare and adopt a state transportation system plan that
identifies !l system of transllOrtation 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 ~so 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 Willamette River in Eugene/Springfield. OAR 660-012-
,0015(2) and (3) require that regional and local TSPs be consistent with the state TSP,. Transp]an
currently recognizes the importance ofI-5 to the region. Because the replacement bridges are
f)ecessary to maintaining 1-5, by approving the proposed plan amendments, all plans will remain
consistent and the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied.
Based on the above findings, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12.
Goal 13 - Ener!!v Conservation: To co'nserve 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 principles, " 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 OIl a sitecspecific decision such as the one at issue. There is no implementing rule that
'clarifies the requirements of Goal 13. To the extent that Goal 13 could be applied to the proposed
plan amendments, the proposal is consistent with Goal 13; the 1'5 Willamette Bridge project is
located in the same location as the existing and previous bridges and will continue to make efficient
, use of energy with safe, direct and efficient access though the area
Comments were received that,. in summary, the applicantfails to consider the conservation of
energy by any means other than that of maximizing the efficiency of car and truck traffic.
Specifically, failure to consider any provision for incorporating bicycle traffic into the crossing does
not maximize the conservation of a1] forms of energy, particularly petroleum energy, However,
.given,thatGoal13 is directe.d:at de";!el.opiD:!i 10cal'en~rgyconservatioi1 policies, it is determined that
'Goal 13 is, not a means to require a specific project to add a bicyCle and pedestrian component.' "
Based on the ,findings above, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13.
" j:,C; ; ii t",GoalT4 "Urbanization:
~,' . ., ~, ,. ,"".
. To provide for an orderly and efficient transitionfrom rurDat~aRec;eived
,-.,r' . ~r'
; ol/J;Sta'ffFinding. - June 2008
Page 23
JUN 2 4 2008
. .'
"'--"
, ..{('
0, .
.~
"
" ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 36
Planner: B.J
use,
The amendments 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 IS - WiIlamette River.Greenwav: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Wi/lameffe
River as the Willamette River Gree1TWay. ' .
Portions of the project area are within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. NJ found
under Goal 2 above, which is incorporated herein by reference, a goal 15 exception is required by.
Policy D .11 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 IS as excepted.
9:oall6 thr(\u,?~, 1,9 - B~tl.l~.ri.n~ Res~'.l!''C~5. G"astal Shorelands, Beaches ard 12l1_n~s.and Ocean
Resources:
. J -
There are no coastal, o~ean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property affected
by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not <Iffect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsisteni.
The applicant proposes to amend the Metro Plan text of Policy D.l1 to a1]ow the placement offill
within the Willamette River greenway for the construction of the 1,5 WiIlamette Bridge'Project. As
found below, this text amendment will not create an internal conflict with the remainder of the
Metro Plan. The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro PlaQ text
amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan" To the extent that,
they may be applicable, the applicant's findings are also incorporated herein by reference,
;
The followin~ Metro Plan polices are applicable to this request:
B, Economic Element
B.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access fo
industrial and, commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by
implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (fransPlan) 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 decommissio'ned 1.5
Willamette River bridge with two new bridges, and associated improvements, 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
, ',_ \ ,s;:stem throug~ Eugene and_~prin~field, the replacement bridges will help provide co~enient R . j
;. , .I'~':'i \__,~ ..' uate ecelve .
,. Staff Findings -June 2008
'Page'24 . I
JUN 2 4 2008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 31
. Planner:. BJ
~-. "
I' ~:. .
-, '
~
access to industrial an~ commercial areas on connecting roads .consistent with this policy.
C. Environmental Resources Element
C 8 Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development
on hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict development 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. ' '
, C9 Each 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,
ClO Local governments shall encourage further study (by specialists) of endangered and
threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area.
Cll Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species, as
recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after notice and opportunity for public input,
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).
C23 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
modifications, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning. The application of these
mitigating measures must be balanced with other d~sign considerations 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 exi~ting and
futures streets and highways..." but is rather the reverse, a highway in the vicinity of existing
,residential development, this policy is not applicable. Furthermore, the highway is replacing an
existing highway in approximately the same location. In the 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 prepar,ed as part of the .
Environmental Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from
the project. Per the Or;>OT Noise Manual (June 1996) analysis procedures, noise mitigation
measures'were evaluated to reduce noise levels to nearby residences as a result of the project. Noise
walls were determined to meet the ODOr effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two
c, ;"', lo~ation~ an," d aIe recommended as mitigation (see supplement'l4nf~rm~n, Fi~~rl)' The final . '
>7'." ',~',~ , . ",I " Uale neC~IV~ate Received
" ' . Stan; Findings - June 2008 : J U N 2 4 Z008
. Page 25 , ' J:JN 242008
.~..' ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 38 Planner: BJ.' ''';l,''''''~ ",\;,." :;,;', '1'
" ',;1.1 f; ;1t.::.~ ~ kp.,.!J
~;.>.I
,',. It
q
waJllocations will be determined after public input is completed as part of the NEP A process.
'Additional]y, 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
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.
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 preplU"ation,
site construction, coordination and post development measures discussed under Metro Plan Policy
E.2, which is incorporated herein by reference, to reduce and mitigate impacts to water quality,
consistent with this policy, In addition, water quality impacts will be further reviewed for
compliance with local standards under the local permitting process for Willamette 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, development shall be prohibited in floodways if it could result in an increased
flood level. The floodway is ihe channel of a river or other water course and III-C- I 6 the'
acijacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-perce nt-chance flood in any'
given year,
C. 3 I 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 and floodway fringe shall be
protectedfor 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
potential problems exist. ' When problemS are identified, local governments shall require
special design considerations and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and
geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments, and "
environmentally-sensitive areas.
Regarding Policy C.30 and C.3I, as discussed under Statewide Planning Goal 7, Natural Hazards,
which is inc':'.pv."ted herein by reference, the 1-5 WiIlamette Bridge Project is partially located
within a FEMA designated regulatory floodway and floodplain. Therefore, the design of the
replacement bridge must satisfy the regulations set forth in the National Flood Insurance Program
. . j...' ,,.., ".: .
Date Received
~:., \ . - .::;. ~:.
Staff Findings - June 2008
-, , '
. Page 26' " .
~: '!;';
" ;.:.~'
.', .
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 39
. ..,"
-
JUN24 2008
Planner: BJ
,
(NFIP). The NFIP requires that any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood E]evations
(BFEs, which corresponds to:water surface elevations associated With the I DO-year flood event)
must be approved by FEMA.1 The no-rise condition is also a requirement of ODOr for any bridge
replacement project. .I .
Consistent with C.31, both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction
Within floadplains and floodways; City of Eugene FEMA "no-rise~I certification for any
construction or structures Within floodways/special flood hazard areas; and City of Springfield Type,
I permit to allow any construbion in the floodplains or floodwaysl,Within Springfield, Comments
from the Eugene Floodplain Manager note that a FEMA no-rise certificate would only be required
through the City 9fJ;\ugene for Construction (fill) or structures within the floodwayor floodplain
that are outside of the right-of-way. The proposal includes temporary staging areas outside of the
ODOT right-of~way; portionS of the Whilamut Natural Area and EastgateWoodlands, and ODOT
and Lane County property both located southeast ofI-S and thev,rillamette River, For these areas,
prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory floodway, ODOT Will be required to
obtain a "no-rise" certific~tion 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 engineer and supported by technical data
consistent With current FEMA standards.
Based on the preliminary modeling, the proposed pier location options would result in the
following; Option A would result in an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the J 00-
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. However, a detailed no-rise analysis has not been
, submitted and the modeling,Will be run again to meetthe,no-rise requirement when the design is
refined for the permittirig process. Furthermore; ODOT requires its bridges to meet the no-rise
requirement. Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, these policies are met. Specific
construction and operational details will be appropriately addressed during local and .state
permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and telated standards.
Regarding Policy C.32, as rioted under Goal 7,portions of the project area proposed for temporary
staging areas are identified as moderate hazard risk areas on the fnap identifying Relative Slope
Instability Hazards in Eugene. However, while this information may guide the City in adopting
code revisions, itdoes not apply directly to land USe applications as it is not adopted as refinement
plan or as codified land use criteria. Additionally, based, on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical
investigations can be completed prior to construction 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 manner that reduces the potential for
erosion or smal] liinClslides'I" ~ . . ....' ". ," . ,.. '.' ~". - !'.... ',' ..., ... .
Based on the findings above, in the 'context of a plan arnendmeni, the proposed plan amendments
are consistent with these policies.
, . - -. '. .
;',l~VitiPwill'k.m~iie;klver Greenwav. River Corridors. and Waterwavs Elemen~
Date Received
gl.~H~ } g .:litIL
Staff Findings - June 2008
'II Page 27
,...."'.. '!f. ~"'t, +~ ..." ". .',"
':J,"'_" "';:~'\'f~"i.' ,. .. ~ .
J~N ~,4 Z008
ATTACHMENT A - PAGE' 40
..1
'-
Planner: 8J
,-
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 WilIamette River Greenway will
continue to be provided through ODOT'sright-of-way under the 1-5 bridges, therefore public access.
to the WilIamette River Greenway will not be permanently affected. As noted under Goal 8
Recreational Need above, which is incorporated herein by reference, a continuous route across
ODOTright-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways wiH be maintained on both the north and
the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, WilIakenzie, Area Plan,
Neighborhood Design Element- WilIamette 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, subject10
applicable approval criteria and related standards.
','
D.11 The taking of an exceptionshall be required ifa non-water-dependent transportation
facility requires placing offill 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 GreenwaySetback Line, for purpose of constr12cting a
temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use
Approval (Springfield Journal SHR 2003-00115) and removing the temporary detour bridge
afier completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception, satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception
requirements of OAR 660-004-0.020 Goal 2, Part lI(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.11, Chapter. III, Section D,
As discussed under Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.l I, the applicant is requesting an
exception to Goal 15 for reasons outlined under OAR 660-004-0022. An exception is warranted per
the standards set forth in OAR 660-004-0020. Therefore, the above Metro Plan text for Policy D.ll
must be amended to acknowledge this Goal 15 exception. Accordingly, the following text
amendment is proposed, with old text strode slit and new textin bold:
.^di cJ{ee}ltim>, t6 Etatewide Planning S=:.Ilf UTillamt*te River GreeR"';!.} 7.';': allllr6ved for
Oregan Depa(.mcnt ~fT::':::;pc","';Jn COpC'T) I ,f ::;;t:: :L'F.'j "rossing the WilIamelte
River ana '.\'ithiB theWilIam:n:)'"i',;er GfecBway Set.e~~l: E:::;-f:: ;::;O::3e sf SSllSffilsting
a temllSFafY dete'!]' !1:o:+.'ge, iffijl]ementiBg th~ ccnJ;Joo;, ;'-;";~3ea.en the Dissrei~::;:rj.~
A-------1fS,,-'-~iielaJ-n-~' COlIn 2'"'' 1\1\11;) 'lfldfems--iHgthet- .....,..-. ~-h'--"':-i"=
.. Ar.t'~..... .tl:t"'", 1"1:.--0 . .;::,........uu.>. e. 1.;:: ~:.- _ , . ...:cAp............J-t:l..~~'-& -- ~
,after e6ffijlletisn sf the Ilemllffilla.t rejllaeemeffi 'v';~6~' 7";'" SllCeptien saust:ies the eriteriaeJ..
Oregsn SWriiBistreti'..e'Rtile (O,'\.R)eeO 0010022\f) ".'ilbmeUe Greenway; the 'exeejition
reEjwreHleRts sf O,'\.R eeO 004 0020 Goal 2, Part II(:) ::r :;: 'reassBs' exeep~;=::; :.::d
J*lbuc.n;;" 8f.R eeG 004 0015, i!l heresy adellte": "" =_n.k,~nt ts the Metre'Plan telet,
Psliey fI\I!, ~.r rrr, ~:elisB D.
Date Received
, ,
. '.;'" 1 F' .,~,""'~ ~ r-el
I' I.....!I' ~,....~~ ;c.~';"" ",', ""'~'~":'" .
"':""'.'" ,J";, ." .'
Staff Findings - June 2008
,,:,n,,' Page 28
JUN 2 4 2008
ATTACHMENT, A - PAGE 41
Planner: BJ'
, ,>te:
, ,{;,'
-.,
". "'. :\
". . ,~
, '
,
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 WilIamette.River Greenway was. approved
fol.: 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 WilIamette River and Canoe Canal and within
the WiIlamette River Greenway Setback Line, The exception authorizes construction
and later removal of one ormore temporary work bridges; demolition of the
decommissioned 1-5 WiIlamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour
bridges; construction ofthe two replacement bridges; reconstructionofthe roadway
approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the project area; and
completion of any required mitigation of project impacts, In association with these
tasks, the exception further authorizes within the WilIamette River Greenway Setback
Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill
within a temporary slope easement east ofl-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), WiIlamette Greenway, and the
exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goa] 2 Part II(c) for a "reasons"
exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-00~-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to
th~ Metro Plan text, Policy D,l1, Chapter 111, Section D.
The proposed text amendment replaces the stand-alone paragraph.under Policy D.ll regarding the
temporary bridge. The applicant's proposed Metro Plan text amendment to Policy D.lI is adequate
and with this text amendment and Goal 15 exception granted under Goal 2 above, Policy D.l1 will
be satisfied,
E. Environmental Desilln Element
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 co~truction and demo'lition, jncludiiIg construction and removal of associated temporary
work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the green~ay.
Construction is proposed within existing ODOT rights-of-ways aIld easements, with the exception
oftemporary staging areas. As discussed above under Goal 8 Recreational Need, removal of the
detour bridges will include removal of fill material from and rehabilitation of a portion of the
Whilamut Natural Area. ODOT has obtained a temporary easem~nt 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 minimize the effects of construction activities.
Disturbedafeas .will be'restored and ODOT will work with the community throughout the design
and -consiru'ciio~ 'pr~cess to get input and advice on ways to avoid and miniriiize environmental
impacts.
According to the applicant, a species list provided by ORNHIC (Oregon Natural Heritage
Information Center) indicates that there are no federal or state-listed Endangered Species Act (ESA)
'. Date Received
Staff Findings - June 2008
Page 29
ATTACHMENT A,- PAGE 42
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
Project area
(f CitY limits
&II Pa rks
/,/ "Right';'i:Way
/'V Right-of-Way easement
~ Highways
-"/ Major roads
. a ~ 270
...
1'0 HIIll
,.
..-'.,"
, '
'.-"-~~~".~~.." ."
'~~
-
;,,~,~
1'0""--"--
I.";:>
e
Figure 2
III ~I 'l A ?MO Project Area
, , '
1-5 WilIamette Rh'er Brid'!e Proiect
ATTACHMENT B - PAGE 1 Planner: aJ
I
"
@ Rebuilt roadways
~ Replacement bridges
/'../ Potential wall locations
/"V Toes to slope
.. Willamette River Greenway i.:
:230"'; lllIO 100 n:or-
_:_~ ...
~~
@~
FIJ''" J
Loc:ltion of Pmpllsed Replacement Brid!l~
,-~ "lllll';'.tt. Rh'~r Blitle. Project
_LttIl>......_....
'., .' ".
Date Received
Plan ~endl1)en\,Request
2/0112008
JUN 24 Z008
...,"';
"-1
........
. .' \: .~
ATTACHMENT B - PAGE 2
Planner: BJ,
..,
..
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
G
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene;Springfield Metro. Plan Text;
Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning
Goal ] 5 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting Severability and Savings Clauses; and '
Providing an Effective Date (1-5 Willamette Bridge Project, Eugene files MA 07-3, RA
08-]; Springfield file LRP2007-0001O; Lane County file PA08-5230),
Meeting Date: June 24, 2008
Department: Planning and Development
www.eugene-or,gov
Agenda Item Number: A
Staff Contact: Heather O'Donnell
Cont~ct Telephone Number: 541/682-5488
ISSUE STATEMENT
This joint public hearing with the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners is on a private proposal to amend the Metro Plan, including an exception to Statewide
Planning Goal IS, and amend the Willakenzie Area Plan (W AP) (Eugene decision only). The
amendments would allow replacement of the 1-5 Willamette River and canoe canal bridges and.
associated construction to occur within the Willamette Greenway, subsequent to future land use
application approval.
BACKGROUND
The 1-5 Willamette Bridge Replacement Project is proposed within 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 Lane County, The project area includes the 1-5 WiIIamette, River Bridge and
encompasses an area, to the north between the Willamette River and Centennial Boulevard, also
extending south of the Willainette River between Franklin 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 (Attachment G), .
The applicant requests approval of the following for the 1-5 Willarnette Bridge Replacement Project: to
amend the text of Policy D. i I of the Metro Plan to allow for the placement of fill in the Willamette
River Greenway and to allow for a goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal IS (Willamette River
Greenway) to authorize a nonwater-dependent, nonwater-related Use within the Willamette River
Greenway setback; and to amend the text of the W AP to allow for the placement of fill within 35 feet
frotp, tli~_ top of tlt~ b,aI)k of.the W.illamett~ Ri"er (Eugene deci~iol! onlY). This request do~snot include a,
specific development proposal. On the federal level, ODOT is required to process the necessary
applications in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). On the local level,
separate land use applications will be required for the actual bridge design, including a Willarnette
GreenwaY Permit and Standards Review (regarding GoalS setback) for Eugene and a 75-foot riparian
, setbackreYie~Jo~:,SpriIJgfield;(see last pages of Attachment E for project timeline and process). .
"\ "":,,/ i':}i<,::,l,\'i't;,~,\I.'";,,,;,;~,~.',.~<,J . Date Rece,'ved
1,;,~ 'r~>". '~r;,: ........ <,fr\;~' ::'1.:~'.- '.t" ,. ,'.' . .
. .. . i~~'~~. ..c.... f.:. "'." .~ ...). ':
',n.,- "~~":idl/ ",{....,
L,ICM0\2008 Council A8",das\M080624\~42.4c 2008
','"
. . .;q--,I
" . 'f~ ,,-=-
ATTACHMENT C - PAGE 1
Planner: BJ
- -'
The Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing on April
29, 2008, to consider the requested Metro Plan amendment and refmement plan amendment. Aside from
the applicant's party, there were two other people who spoke; one spoke as neutral to the proposal and
one spoke against it. Written testimony was received (Attachment E) from the applicant. Per the request
of those testifying, the Planning Commissions also left the public record open. Evidence submitted
during the open record "eriod is also attached for reference (Attachment E). On June 3, 2008, the
Planning Commissions met for joint deliberations on the Metro Plan amendment request. All three
Planning Commissions voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Metro Plan amendment,
including the exception to Statewide Planning GoaI" (5. On the same night, the Eugene Planning
Commission deliberated on the refinement plan amendment request and unanimously voted to
recommend approval. The Planning Commission's fmdings and recommendations are attached to this
AIS as Exhibit A of Attachment A for the Metro Plan amendment, and Exhibits A and B of Attachment
B for the refinement plan amendment. '
The proposed Metro Plan and refmement plan amendments are being reviewed concurrently. Regarding
process, the Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments requests must follow tl:ie quasi-judicial
procedures. New evidence will be allowed at the public hearing. Since the close of the joint Planning
Commission record, only one item of testimony has been received. This item was submitted to staff at
the Plamg'Commission deliberations but was not considered by the Planning Commissions
(Attachment C),
Approval of a plan amendment requires the City to adopt an ordinance. Approval of a three-
jurisdictional Metro Plan amendment requires the jurisdictions to adopt identical decisions. To comply
with the Charter requirements for ordinances, a draft ordinance approving the requested Metro Plan
amendments has been prepared and is attached for your reference (Attachment A). Because the
refmement plan amendment is a Eugene decision only, a separate draft ordinance approving the
requested refmement plan amendments has also been prepared and is attached for reference (Attachment
B). The Planning Commission's fmdings of approval, which provide a detailed analysis of the
proposal's compliance with applicable approval criteria, are attached to each draft ordinance as Exhibit
A (Metro Plan fmdings) and Exhibit B (refmement plan fmdings). These are identified as general
findings so that the council can amend or adopt as it determines necessary. This ordinance, with any
directed changes, will be utilized in the event that the City Council makes pos'itive fmdings that the
proposed amendments comply with the applicable approval criteria.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene Code requires that a Metro Plan'amendment and refmement plan amendment be consistent with
the Metro Plan, the applicable refmement plans, as well as the Statewide Planning Goals. The Metro
Plan, Willakenzie Area Plan, Laurel Hill Plan, River Front Park Study, and TransPlan policies '
applicable to!his request are addressed in the Planning Commission's fmdings and recommendation
(Exhibit A of Attachment A and Exhibits A and B of Attachment B),
COUNCIL OPTIONS
This is scheduled for a public hearing only.
., ..milY\ consider the following options:
(. , ,," I"
t. - .... ..' .
At the time of deliberations and action, the City CoUncil
Date Received.
~,r;;.I..
L:\CM0\2008 Couocil AgendasIM080624'3~Ni2f'4'''l008
.....'
ATTACHMENT C - PAGE 2
Planner:BJ
I
~~ ~ .. ..
',,; ..,..
I' I
, - ,
.
I. Adopt the proposed ordinance
2. Adopt the proposed ordinance with specific modifications as determined by the City Council .
3. Deny the proposed ordinance
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
... This is scheduled fora public hearing only, Following the CitY's receipi of all evidence, prior to council
deliberations, the City Manager will make a recommendaiion to be included in the council packet for
action on this item. Separate Eugene City Council deliberation and action on this item is currently
scheduled for July 28, 2008.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is suggested as deliberation and action is currently scheduled for July 28, 2008.
A IT ACHMENTS *
A: Draft Metro Plan Amendment Ordinance with Exhibits A:
Exhibit A: Metro ptan Findings, dated June 2008
B. Draft Refmement,Plan Amendment Ordinance with Exhibits A and B:
Exhibit A: Metro Plan Findings, dated June 2008
Exhibit B: Refinement Plan Amendment Findings, dated June 2008
C. Vicinity Maps
D. "Peak Traffic" article received prior to June 3, 2008 meeting
E. Eugene Planning Commission Agenda, Agenda Item Summary, and Draft Eugene Plarming
Commissi~n Meeting Minutes for June 3, 2008 deliberations
1. Public testimony received after the April 29, 2008 public hearing through close of record for new
evidence on May 13, 2008
2. Exhibits submitted at April 29, 200S joint Public Hearing: .
Exhibit I: Applicant's agenda and graphics ,
Exhibit 2: Applicant's memorandum regarding noise dated April 28, 2008
3, Draft Eugene Plarming Commission Meeting Minutes for ~une 3, 200S deliberations
F. Draft Eugene Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated April 29; 2008
G. Eugene Planning Commission Agenda and Agenda Item Summary for April 29, 200S deliberations,
with attachments: '
I. Metro Plan Amendment Preliminary Staff Findings
2. Refinement Plan Amendment Preliminary Staff Findings Date Received
3, Vicinity Maps (including Project Area boundary map)
4, Letters of Public Testimony received through April 17, 2008 JUN 2 4 2008
H. Applicant's supplemental materials including:
Supplemental fmdings dated March 28,2008 Plann'sf", BJ
. Errata Sheet received Fehruary 26, 20'08
",' Map showing property ownership received March 20, 2008
L Applicant's Metro Plan and Refinement Plan Amendment application materials including:
.. .. Written statements with reduced maps received February I and2S, 2008
Application forms received February I, 2008
'(* These attachments are not included in the Springfield Council packet, The
attachment~ can be viewed in their entirety (659 pages) in the City Manager's Office,)
j", ! '. ,i ..~,;: l:.
L:\CM0\2008 coun.ci1.Agendas\M~80624\S080624A.doc
ATTACHMENT C - PAGE 3
.;,; . -....'
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Heather O'Donnell
Te]ephone: 541/682-5488
Staff E-Mail: .heather.m.odonnelI@ci.eugene.or.us
.1;' ...-._
.-;!I-'
:~.. 0,?X..:f:....
Date Recei'!ed
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: BJ
L:\CM0\2008 Council AgendasIM080624\S080624A.doc
'~.J"
.\:i,;~.~;~,~
ATTACHMENT C - PAGE 4
I
-----.,
_.._,:r
~....
~
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: SPRINGFIELD AND EUGENE
CITY COUNCILS AND THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Tuesday, June 24, 2ooS'at 7:30 p.m.
BascomfTykeson Room - Eugene Public library
100 East 10th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
, . ,
The Joint Elected Officials will consider the following applications at the joint public hearing:
. Amendment in the form of an exception to Chapter III, Section D, Policy]] of the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to allow placement offill in the
Willamette River Greenway setba<;k area forthe purpose of removing and replacing the existing
temporary detour bridge with 'a permanent bridge; remove the decommissioned bridge; and
construct and remove temporary work bridges. .
. Amendment to the Metro Plan to adopt findings allowing an exception to Statewide Planning Goal
]5 Willamette River Greenway to authorize a non-water-dependent, non-water-related use
(permanent ]-5 replaceme~t bridge) within the established Willamette River Greenway setback.
. Amendment to the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan to allow for the placement offill within 35
feet from the top of bank of the Willamette River for the ]-5 WiIlamette Bridge Replacement
Project (Eugene approval only).
;~~7'
File Name (#):
1-5 Willamette Bridge Project (Springfield file: LRP 2007-000] 0; Eugene file MA
07-3, RA OS-]; Lane County file PAOS-5230) ,if;'
;W:'f.'
"'
Subject Property:
Assessor's Map: ] 7-03-33-4] Tax Lot: 100
Assessor's Map: ] 7-03-33-44 Tax Lot: S90
Assessor's Map: IS-03-04-11 Tax Lots: 20],330]
,.<
.....,;;0(. ,.
Location; 1-5.Willamette River Bridge; from an area between the:Willamette River and Centennial
Boulevard extending to an area south of the Willamette Riverbetween Franklin Boulevard and the
Glenwood interchange (See attached air ,photo)..
Applicant/Owner: ,_
C', Repr~senta:iive:"'; '. ~
Jim Cox, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Corrinne Humphrey, Oregon Bridge Delivery Partners
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Nature of,the Reouests
Planner: BJ
ODOT is proposing'~o construct a permanent bridge over the Willamette River in the existing ]-5 right of
way; dismantle the decommissioned bridge and temporary detour bridge; and construct and dismantle
temporary work bridges for all elements of this project. Because these activities will require 'the
-,
placement of fill within the established Wil1amette River Greenway setback area, ant:xception to Policy
] 1, Chapter] II Section D of the Metro Plan is required.. An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15
WilIamette River Greenway also is required by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-004-0022(6) to allow
non-water related or non-water dependent uses within the Greenway setback. All three governing bodies.
must approve these requests.
The applicant also is requesting amendmentto the WilIakenzie Area Plan to enable fill to be placed within
35 feet from the top of bank of the Willamette River. Only the City of Eugene must approve this request.
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County Planning Commissions conducted a joint public hearing on these
applications on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. The Planning Commissions considered the evidence, testimony
and submittals during the hearing on this matter and based on the entirety of the record and materials
submitted during an extension of the written record, forwarded recommendations to the Eugene and
Springfield City Councils and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. 'The elected officials will
consider these recommendations and this record, and any additional testimony offered during the June
24th hearing prior to reaching any final decisions on the applications.,
Annlic'ahle Criteria.
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County use identical approval criteria for Metro Plan amendments,
However, because these criteria are found within the development regulations ofthe respective
jurisdictions the 'citation references reflect. those individual documents. The Springfield City Council will
rely on the criteria of Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135 (C) which read as
follows:
The following criteria will be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan
amendment application:
1. The amendment shall be consistent with- the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conse~ation and Development Commission; and
2. Adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Testimony and evidence of those testifYing should be directed toward the app]icable criteria of the code as
described above or ,other criteria in the plans or land use regulations that the person testifying believes to
apply to the decision. Contact the Springfield Development Services Department for information
regarding other criteria.
Additional Information and Staff ReDort
\
The applications, including all documents and evidence, and the applicable criteria are available for free
inspection at the Springfield Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield Oregon
, 97477 between 8:00a..m. and 5:00 p.m. Copies may be obtained at cost. The Planning Division staff
;'}repoftito{th'eJCit)i,'GJuncil will be available by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17, at the same location. The
report will be available free of charge. For additional information, you may contact ~g_o~y Mott, -
Plani1ing,.M~ager, City of Springfield, at the above address, by telephone at 54] -726waterRe-t,~f\Je '"
gmott@c1.spnngfie]d.or.us. , .. .;J
',f "
t!. '.: . < !'~\ . ~,:;.~;, JUN 242008
How to Submit Testimonv
], Send a written statement to the City Council, c/o Gregory Mott, 255 Fifth Strf,'~ijfAfid;': ,~;" I
Oregon 97477 or bye-mail gmott@ci.springfield.or.us. To be included in the City Council's
packet, your statement must be received by the Planning Division by 5:00 pm on Monday, June
] 6, 2008.
I
2.
. . ~ "
. ~,' _t..
~
~-:
....
2. Submit a written statement after June 16,2008, or at the'jmplic hearing. .
3. Attend the public hearing on June 24, 2008 and submit oral and/or written testimony. YoUr ora{
/
testimony will be recorded in the minutes of the hearing; all written material, including e-mails.is
placed in the written record of the E]ected Officials. The Elected Officials may limit the time for
each speaker to a few minutes. You are encouraged to submit written testimony if you have
detailed comments you wish to make. . '
All testimony submitted to any City of Springfield office will be provided to all the Elected Officials
participating in this hearing. ' . ,
Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals must be
raised in writing by the person testifying not later than the close ofthe record at or following the final
evidentiary hearing on the proposal by the local gOVe~ent. Sucll issues shall be raised and
accompanied by statements or evidence of sufficient specificity to afford the elected officials and parties
involved an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue.
Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision-maker and the parties involved an
opportunity to respond precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of ,<\ppeals on that issue, All decisions of
the elected officials are final. A party may appeal 'the decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
within 2] days.ofthe decision of the elected officials. Appeals to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appea]s
are governed by ORS 197.830 to ]97.845.
Conduct of Public Hearin~: The order of procedure for this hearihg is:
I.
The Mayors ap.d Board Chair will open the p~b]ic hearing and request that the ordin~ce title be read
into the record (when applicable to a jurisdiction). ,
The Mayors and Board Chair will ask their respective elected officials to disclose any conflicts of
interest, ex parte contacts, and biases, abstentions or challenges to impartiality.
The.elected officials will receive a City staff report and the elected officials 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 testimony from those in opposition to theapplication:
Staff response to testimony. ' " '
Questions from the elected officials.
Rebuttal by the applicant.
The Mayors and Board Chair will announce whether the record is closed; record will be held open;
or the public hearing will'be continued.' '
3.
4.
5,
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
. , ,-' ~ :., ":'.
The City of Eugene complies with state and federal laws and regulations relating to discrimination,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act of ] 990 (ADA). ]ndividuals with disabilities requiring
," aceommodations should contact He'ather O'Donnell, Associate Planner, City of Eugene at 54] -682-5488,
"
at least 48 hoyrs prior to the hearing. .
~ '
~~'l~'\'\.'t )-lj:::; i.-t-t, '~~:.:,'"
'.. j. r",/ . C . ~.'" '." :;:~ .. ,.,,-' - ','
~-
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
Planner: t:3,J
,C""
!!I!i~
,
,'f
. ,
,.,-,
,-.:
.
J~
'fZ3 t',:~~Cr.lO~t ~I~=e::'
~~:;tl'j-;:~,:"f' . .
c:J VIliJbi;:.,; R;""-=. Gm:D.v.l-:" _~~.i
c~_~~': _~~~~_~.- ~
.J:~..f~.~:~-.;
'}M~'~.,_;"
_..'N3~"''''''lt'l
1
, .
.'
~~I~;~i!J~d'~1ci1!..I~q~t":3!
''1101.'2('38'. .<. ,..,
~"~'~~', ~f~,~~...~.-'t:t,t:r" ;~;;'t.;; ','
.f - . fi ",' .....~..
~T.
:-;n\i\ ') ,~
"
",,!
Date Received
JUN 2 4 2008
PlanneL ~.