Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance CMO 7/28/2008 ., ORDINANCE NO,~ 6227 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TEXT, CHAPTER III, SECTION D, POLICY D.ll; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 15 WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENW A Yj ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that: . WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-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 5.14-100 through 5.14-155 of the . Springfield Development Code, for Lane County by Lane Code l2.225(2)(a & b), and for Eugene by Eugene Code SeCtion 9.7730(3); and WHEREAS, on February 1,2008 the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) submitted an application 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 ",1 WHEREAS, ajoint public hearing of the planning commissions of the City of Springfield, the City of Eugene and Lane County was held on April 29, 2008 to accept testimony on this matter; and on June 3, 2008 the three Planning Commissions held a joint public meeting to consider the testimony and evidence entered into the record of this matter. Following the June 3, 2008 meeting the Springfield Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council on the request for an exception to statewide Goal 15 and amendment of Chapter Ill, Section 0, Policy 0.11 of the Metro Plan; and WHEREAS, the Springfield 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 presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro"Plan, the Springfield Development Code, and applicable state and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit A, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance, ....~-f"f.. {,t!_l.:. ,. . Date Received JUL 28 2008 Pla~ner: BJ ~ .~~-~-~ i t ;,~:;~~.~~:~:,.:~, ,':. ,',;' .' .. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I: The Metro Plan Policy D.ll, Chapter Ill, 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 offill within the Willamette River Greenway setback, "An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for purposes of removing and replacing the decommissioned 1-5 Bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one southbound and one northbound) within the 1-5 right-of-way ,crossing the Willamette River and Canoe 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 River Bridge, 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 of any required mitigation of project impacts. In association with these tasks, the exception further authorizes ,within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill within a temporary slope easement east of 1-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6) Willamette Greenway and the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(c) for a 'reasons' exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy D.ll, 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 of this Ordinance. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and,such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. . <':';?I,'; ~.?i~,; , ,. ' ,,' Date Received ':'J'~, ..~, 1." ~:' , JUL 28 2008 ORDINANRIarlmef6~2BJ . '., i 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 I and 2 of this Ordinance, Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 21st day of July, 2008 by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. (1 Absent) Appro"" by,", M.y"' Of,"'~;~:]~~' <illy of My, 2008 ~/U ATTEST: af1U1~ City Record~ R';I.l!rW['l" " "'i':"rJ'j'\!'-'" t.:. 'i\ \ t n ~ r 1::,1. J.d ~ il ~J b t:tli AS TO FOHM /U.d t!./~ DATE: ~/lltEf OFFICE OF CITY !\TTORNEY : i (:~.~ Date Received JUL 28 2008 Planner: BJ ..,:.e:' ~ ,~~ .: ' . '1 . ,5 .. '( "" .\ ::;-t",;:;\,'i" " ORDINANCE NO. -6-2-M 6227 ".::;r:' ,.' " 225 FIFTH STREET. SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . PH: (541)726-3610 . FAX: (54'1)726-3689 Date: July 17, 2008 To: Interested Parties for 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield You are receiving this information because you are included on the interested parties list for consideration of the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT's) land use applications for the 1-5 Willamette River Bridge Project (City of Springfield File LRP 2007-00010). The application before the City includes Metro Plan text amendments and adoption of an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15. City Council action on these items is scheduled for July 21, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at Springfield City Hall, Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477. This letter provides you with notice that on July 10,2008, Eugene City Councilor Anne Ballew and Mayor Sid Leiken received information at a meeting of the Metropolitan Policy Committee related to ODOT's applications, The information went beyond the scope ofthe information included in the public record established for ODOT's land use applications pending with the City, and therefore, may be considered an ex parte communication, The information the Mayor and Councilor received can be reviewed at: httn://www.lanecountv.onuWebCastLCOG/Default.asnx. (., The general content of the communication will be disclosed at the Springfield City Council's July 21, 2008 meeting. Persons wishing to rebut the substance of the communication may provide written testimony limited to such rebuttal, or may appear at the July 21, 2008 City Council meeting to do so orally. Written rebuttals may be submitted to the attention of Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, at 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477. All written submittals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2008. ",I. fl.: J ,....~ i ~ " . . . . I'" ~ 11.11 Date Received JUL 28 2008 Planner: BJ Exhibit A ii: . ~~~ :.~\ Findings 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project (Eugene filesMA 07-3, RA 08-1; Springfield file LRP2007-00010; Lane County fIle P A08-~230) " Metro Plan Text Amendmp,nt & Goal Exeention fMA 07-3. LRP2007-00010. PA08-5230\ , . . The proposed amendment includes an exception to Statewide Planning Goall511Ild a Metro PIIU\ text amendment to allow fill within the Willamette River greeoway for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project The project includes replacement of the Interstate 5 bridges over the Willamette River and Canoe Canal (patterson Slough), including construction and later removal of one or more temporary bridges, demolition of the original and detour Willamette River and Canoe Canal bridges, , construction of replacement bridges, reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the bridges, , rehabilitation of project area, and completion of any required mitigation, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County each adopted .identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Eugene Code 9.7730(3), Springfield 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. wpendment 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 foUowing criteria (in bold and italics) be applied to a Metro Plan text amendment: ' ' (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Stti1ewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commis~ion; and Goal I Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity . for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the pI arming process and set out requirements for such mvolvement The action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for reviewing-these amendments complies'with GoBi I since it complies with, and surpasses the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. , , ' , The City ofEugendand use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption. As a Type I, site specific Metro PIll!! amendment, consideration of thi: amendments begins with a joint City of ',i.:1~Sla1rFi~di!,p -'J';"_e 2008 Page 1. .[t', : ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 4 Date Received J U L 2 8 2008' .1""', .~ . Planner: BJ \ Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Conunission public hearing on April 29, 2008. . Subsequent to deemlng the applications complete;on February 27, 2008, the City mailed nouce of the proposed plan amendments to the D~..~~ent of Land Conservation and Development, as , required by the Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes.' Referrals concerning the pending applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (0001), 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 ",vl""~f within 300 feet of the Subject property, the 8ffected neighborhood groups in all three jurisdictions and other interested parties such as the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park. , On March 26, 2008, notice was also posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5) and 9.7735(1). On March 14,2008, notice of the joint Planning Commission public hearing was also published in the Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code.. An additional joint 'public hearing before 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 will also be provided for that hearing. ' In response to the public notice, letters of written testimony have been received, including comments from two of the affected Eugene neighborhood groups; the Laurel Hill Valley Citi,zens , (LHVC) 'and the Harlow Neighborhood Association (HNA). Responses to these coniments are provided under the a,.....vl'.;ate criteria below where applicable. . ' Additionally, the federal environmental process applicable to this project provides additional opportunities for public involvement including public meetings, open houses, newsletters, public comment period on the Environmental Assessment, and establishment of a Community 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 and Lane County including mailed, posted and published notice (as well as posting on the City of Eugene web page) for reviewing these ainendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1, since it complies with and surpasses the requirements of the State's Citizen involvement provisions. Goal 2 - Land Use Plannin".; 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 of Goal 2 requires that actions related to land uSe be consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans of Cities and counties. The EUl!ene-SnrincmeJd Metrooolitah Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-making in this area, T4e 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 ' ~i1.'h~ .; . . ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 5 Date Received JUL 2 8 200~ Planner: BJ ~, .' :/' S~J:mdin&,-.,June2008 '... 'Page 2.. , .'.. : ,('",,:t , . , Jllans of aiIected governmental units and thBt _yyv,;.mities be provided for review and comment by affected goverrrrnental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of these amendments with all aiIected governmental units. Specifically, notice waS mailed to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon . Department ofTransportation (ODOn, Lane County, and theCity of Springfield. Lane County and the CitY of Springfield are participating in this amendment.' s ",' ,", '.' Part II - Exceptions Part n 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 15. WiIlamette River Greenway which does 'not illlow non w~ter-dependent, non water-related uses, such as the proposed fransportation facility, within the gre,enway setback without receiving an exception, Because a goal 15 exception is required by DJl of the Metro Plan, it is wmecessary to determine if Goal 15 itself would require such an exception. The need for a goal exception is specifically triggered by Policy DJl of the Metro Plan. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element, which states: ' " , :; , ";, " .' The taking of an exception shail be required ifa non-water-dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Wi/lamelle River Gree/fWay setback. An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Wi/lamelle River Greenway was 'approved for Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 1-5 right of way crossing the WilIamelle River and within the WilIamelle River Gree/fWay Setback Line, for purpose of constructing a temporary detour bridge,' implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Approvql(Springfield Journo.l SHR 2003-00115) and removing the temporary detour bridge after completion ofihe permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) WilIamel/e Greenway; the exception requirements of OAR 660-00470020 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,II, Chppter III. Section D, . D.ll The taking of an exception is consistent with Policy D,ll as the proposal,includes the placement of fiU within the Willamette River Greenway setback for a non-,,!ater-dependent transportation facility, lll!d is consistent with the Goal 15 exception previously taken for the temporary bridge, as described under PolicyD.11 above. To acknowledge the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project, Metro Plan Policy 0.11 is proposed to be amended as follows in bold: ' ' An exception to StateWide Planning Goal 15 WiIlamette 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 bridgewith two new parallel bridges (one southbound and one northbound) wi!hin tbe I-S right-of-way crossing the WiIlametteRiver and Canoe Canal and within tbe Willamette River Greenway Setback Line.. Tbe exception authorizes construction and later removal of one or more temporary wDrk bridges; demolition of tbe decommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour 'I)' " ,"J;' ,', '..'1 .__.____.__ .. _ .n...._. , ATTACHMENT A - PAGES--- Date Received JUL 2 8 2008 Planner: BJ , ' ., ,; ; ,;it ~ta!fF.ipdings "-,J~e' 2008 ,(t- '..., .Page-)" .:> . .. , ," . . .. .. ; ~ <; -'- . .1:', . ':""- < I" bridges; constrUction, of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitation of the prnject area; and, completionofany required mitigation of project impacts. In association with these tasks, the exception further authorizes within the WlIlamette River Greenway Setback Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOT right-of-way and the removal of fill within a temporary slope easement east of 1-5. This exception'satisfies,the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), Willamette Greenway, and tbe , exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part II(c) fora "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, Section D. In compliance with Metro Plan Policy D.II, the following provides analysis fora Goal IS exception. ' The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)administrative rule govemiIig goal exceptions, OAR 660-004-0022(6), 'states that within urban areas, the proposed siting of u,ses that are neither viater-dependent nor water-related within the Willamette River greenway setback area reqUires exceptions. The rule states the following: (6) WiIlamette 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 may be approvet! where reasons demonstrate the following: (a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the site under consiruction 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) The use is 'consistent with the Legislative findings and policy in ORS 390,314 and the Willameffe GreenwayPlan approved by LCDCunder ORS 390,322, . The requirements for Goill exceptions are outlined.in OAR 660, Division 4 and are as follows: OAR 660-004-0018 Planning and Zoningfor Exception Areas (4) "Reasons" Exceptions: (a) When a local government talces an exception under the "Reasons" section of ORS197. 732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone designations must limit the rises, density, public facilities and services, and activities to only those that arejustifiedin the exception; , '.., i'; ,StaffF'indirigs -:June 2008 Page 4 AT~ACHMENT A - PAGE 7 Date Received , ' JUL 28, 2D08 Planner: BJ i,\. J.' ..t"., .... " .'i .~.. '" I (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 t8king of goal exceptions requires and results in amendments to the Metro Plan (ORS , '197.732(ll} defmes an "exception" as a comprehensive plan provision, including,anamendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan). The exception provides for the continuation of the existing use ofI-5 by motor vehicles for interstate mobility and commerce purposes. The new 1-5 WiIlamette River bridges are needed to accommodate that use. The new bridg~ will be replacement bridges to the decommissioned 1-5 bridge and Canoe Canal bridge, which are part of the 1-5 interstate highway facility whose existence is identified in the Transplan. As such, the new bridges will not be providing a use that does not already exist OAR 660-004-0022 Reasons Ne~essary to JuStify an Exception:Under Goal 2. Part O(c) An exception under Goal 2, Part ll(c) can be iake~for anyuse not allowed by the applicable goal(s), The types of reasons that may or may not be usUl tojustify certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are setforth in thefoJ/owing:sections of this rule:.., , ,(6) WiIlamette Greenway: Within an urban area designated on the approved Wiilamette Gri'enway Boundaryinaps. the siting of uses which pre neither watercdependent nor water- related within the setback line required by Section C.3.k of the Goal may.be approved where 'reasons demonstraJe ihe following: .. (a) The use will not have a significant Odverse effect on the greenway values of the site under. consideration or on-adjacent land orwater areas; ... The new bridges would be located in the same location as the decommissioned and detour bridges, although they would require minor shifts of alignmentand.recOnnection of portions of the Fran1din Boulevard northbound and southbound on and off ramps as dictated by bridge design. The Whilamut Natural Area of Aiton Baker Park lies west of the 1-5 right-of-way in Eugene'and the EastgateWoodlandsportion of the Whilamut Natural Area lies east of the 1-5 righi-of-way in Springfield. Since the project area includes portions of both parks where they are adjacent to 1-5 and north of the WiIlamette River, unless otherwise differentiated"this area will be referred to as the , Whilamut Natura1 Area and Eastgate Woodlands for the remaihder 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 &~~..day values, including fish l!Ild wildlife habitat, water quality, p:otection from flooding, and public recreation, ' ' , ' Because the replacement bridges and associated fill will be located within existing ODOT right-of- , way, which is outside ofihe Whilamut Natural Area lind Eastgate Woodlands, there will be no reduction in the amount of penn anent 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 and Spnngfield will continue to traverse . ,. ~._}"/1..~1S~1!~F:~~gs-}une2008 . ,"' "'PageS '". Date Received , ;~~i I~' ~.' 'L. I "-.--.-- ATTACHMENT A~PAGEB -. -." -... ..,- " . -.- _:...'.. ....- JUL 2 8 2008 .,}.". '" , , " " Planner': BJ i I 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 &reatest 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 ai a time; however, another path under the Canoe , Can8.I 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'WilIamette River and Canoe Canal. Piers Will be placed in the Willamette River to support the bridge structures. The new bridges will each have one pier near the center of the river and one on or near the south bank, but no piers will be located in the Canoe Caria!. By comparison, the decommissioned bridge has five piers in the water, and the detour bridge has six, so the new bridges will provide a subStantial net reduction in piers compared to the existing number. At a 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 Willamette River. At a conceptual level, 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 thecoildusion of bridge construction, fill placed for the detour bridge and for ternPQrary work bridges will be removed and those areas wilt bMestored. Bridge construction and demolition, including construction and removal of associated temporary work platforms, will' impact ripanan vegetation within thegreenway (see Figure 6, Approximate Vegetation Disturbance Areas), However, ODOT's temporary eaSement for use of East gate Woodlallds requires ODOT to restore the ,nupu") within 5 years of completion of the permanent replacement bridges. The applicant also proposes several construction, site preparation, post development, and coordination measures to minimize impacts to natural resources discussed under Metro Plan Policy E.2, which 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 Willamette River (30,000 cubic yards offill added and 61,000 cubic yards offill removed; 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 enviionmental resoUrces will be m;n;m;"ed and mitigated, Furthermore, additional review of detailed site plans during the federal, state and local processes will require mitigation as appropriate, subject to applicable standards. " Regarding scenic ~alues of the Willamette River greenway, the reduction in the total number of piers and in the number of piers within the Willamette River will improve views of the river and, as ~: ; 1~.t~.. -t.~ ::,.\: t :' , ' ' Staff FindingS .: June 2008 " ,Pageii' ' .:,.:, _" I: ., .~ . . .:,.. A.T.TACHMENT A - PAGE 9 Date Received JUL 28 2008 . . . . Planner: BJ , , . - such, contribute to a positive visual impact Also, because a key consideration of the project is providing;m aesthetically pleasing solution that recognizes the scenic beauty of the project area, ODOT has considered a range of bridge types,and pier options, taking carefully into consideration community input obtained through a public process. At this phase, ODOT has developed two conceptual schematics illustrating the new 1-5 bridges, but,ODOT has not developed detailed "', engmeeriiig desigriplails. Ultiinately, selection oCthe bridge type for each segment will be dependent primarily on aesthetic considerations and budget. The applicant has indicated the public input on the design will also be provided through other public outreach efforts. While construction activities will temporarily impact greenwayvalues, 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 WilIamette River bridges will have no significant adverse effect on the greenway values ofODOT's right-of-way (if any) or the adjacent park lands and water areas, consistent with this standard. Additionally, specific construction and u!,wu,";ona! details regarding mitigation of ripariiln impacts will be 4!,!"u!,,;ately addressed dUnnglocal permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards. ' (b) The use will not significantly reduce lhe sites available for water-dependent or water-related uses within the jurisdiction; .... The two new replacement bridges Will not reduce any sites available for water-depenclent or water- related uses in Eugene or Springfield because the bridges will be constructed 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 nefuc the center of the river and one pier on or near the south bank (the Canoe Canal on the north side wouid be spanned completely and these bridges will be perched.on fill associated with the roadway). In contrast, the decommissioned bridge has five piers in the water, and the detour bridge has six. At a conceptual level, a net reduction in piers in the water will be beneficial for water-dependent uses. Therefore, in the context of a plan ~endment, this standard is met. ' (c) The use will provide a significant public benefit; and... ./ . 1-5 is the primary north-south highway corridor serving California, Oregon, and Washington. The facility proVides for the significant movement of people, freight, and other services; and serves as the backbone for international, interstate, and intrastate commerce. The applicant notes thRt 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 the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan and m: TransPl= Therefore this standard is met. ' c (d) The use is consistent with the Legislativefindings and policy in ORS 390,314 and , the Willamelle Greerrway Plan approved by LGDG under ORS 390.322, ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 10 Date Received' JUL 2 82008 Planner: 'BJ ,.\,.... " )~- --: .~... .. ll~;~. Staff Findings - June 2008 Page? " The legislative findings and policy in ORS 390.3 14 are: , ' ORS 390,314. Legislative findings and policy (I) The Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and preserve the natural, scenic, and recreational qualities of lands along the WiIlamette River, to preserve and restore historical sitei, strUctufes,jacilities, and objeCts on lands along the WiIlamette River for public education and enjoyment and to further the staie 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 - WiIlamette River to be known as the Willamette River GreenWay. As previously stated, the 1-5 Willamette River bridge predates the adoption of Goal 15~ As an 'element ofI-5, the bridge is provided for in TransPlan, which has been acknowledged to be in compliancewi1:1:i all'stiltewide 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 (air, water quality, land), Goal 8 (recreation) and Metro Plan Policy E.2 (environment), and the remainder of.these findings, the applicant proposes several measures to reduce or mitigate environmental and recreational impacts, and the reduction of piers and fill will have a positive affect on scenic resources along the Willamette River Greenway, cOnsistent with this standard, Additionally, specific ~onstruction and V!,~'4';Onal details will be appropriately addressed during local permitting processes, subjectto applicable approval criteria a.nd related standards. . ~ , , ." , '(2) In providing for the development and maintenance of the WiIlamette River. Greenway, the Legislative Assembly: , (a) Recognizing the needfor coordinated planning for such greenway, finds it necessary to provide for development and implementation of a planforSUf:h greenway through the cooperative efforts of the state and units of local gdvenmient, , The State of Oregon and units of local government, including Lane County, and the cities of Springfield and Eugene, have' cooperated in the implementation of greenway planning as req.uired , by legislative'intent. The 1~5 Willamette River Bridge Replacement Project; subject to this application, is and will be permitted through this established local and statewide greenway planning process. (b) Recognizing the need of the people of this state for existing residential, commercial, and agricultural use of lands along the WiIlamette River,finds it 'necessary to permit the continuation of existing uses of lands that are included' within such greenway; but, for the benefit of the people of this state, also to liTJIit the intensification and change in the use of such lands so that SUf:h uses shall remain, to the greatest possible degree, compatible with the preservation of the natural, scenic, historical and recreatiol1l11 qualities of such lands, . ',,', " All previously stated, 1-5 and the 1"5Willamette River bridge predate Goal 15. Like the original . , Date Received ~ A '. ;';'. > Staff Findings - June 2008 Page 8 ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 11 JUL '2 8 2008 . PlannEn~'~ BJ . J ' .. . " ' bridge, the replacement bridges and their approaches will be located within OnOl's established 1-5 right-of-way, thus avoiding significant adverse effects on the greenway and greenway values, ' consistent with this poliCy. FurthemlOre, 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 'tlieMuction of piers and fill willhavell positive affect on scenic resources along the Willamette River Greenway, consistent with this standard. (tJRecognizing that the 'use 'of lands for farm use is comp~tible with the purposes of the Willamette River GreenwayJinds that the use of lands for farm uie should , continue within. the greenway without restriction, The I-S Willamette River replaCement bridges will be located entirely within the urbanized area of Springfield and Eugene, and not upon or near farm land within the greenway boundary. For this, reaSon, the project will in no way impede the continuation of farm uses within the greenway, consistent with this policy, " (d) Recognizing the needfor centra/coordination of such greenwayfor the best interests of all the people of this state, finds il necessary to place the responsibility far the coordination of the development and maintenance of such greenway in'the State Parks and Recreation Deparmient, . Constructing the I-S replacement bridges in no way limits or changes Oregon State Parks' responsibilities for the coordination of the development and maintenance of the greenway. (e) Recognizing the lack of need for the acquisition offee title to a/llands along the , Wi/lamette River for exclusive public use for recreational purposes in such '.greenway, finds it'necessary to limit the area within 'such gi'eenway that may be , acquiredfor state pa;:ks and recreational areasandfor public recreational use within the boundaries of units of local government along tile 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 WiJlamette River greenway statutes and Goal IS. The land is in the publi~ domain and 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 oflmd available for acquisition for state parks and recreational areas or for public recreational use within the boundaries of units of local government aiong the Willamette River, Temporary staging areas outside of public rights-of-way will be rehabilitated to their previous state., Therefore, an exCeption ~ Goal IS is warranted for the 'reaso~ stated above, specifically OAR 660- 0040-0022 (6)( c) and consistency ,with the reinaining reasons,. for the placement of fill within the greenway setback for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Replacem~ntproject. Goal exception requirements are as follows: ' . ' :'1\1>? '. ~' .' " ,- ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 12 Date Received JUL28 2008 , Planner: sJ II ,., :"Stt.'!Tlin,dill~s;- June 2008 ,,'" ,.,;Page9' ','.' .. _..._n __'__,'_'_' ___n____.. .~, ~; OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part II(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 services not allowed by the applictible Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. I' , , Tjle reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022(6) are set forth above to allow the constrUction of the 1-5 WilJamette River and Canoe Canalreplacement 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 bndges 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) Thefour f~tors in Goal 2 Part II(c) required tobe addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are.; (a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply"; The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations, including the amount ofla,nd for 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 Plan PolicyO.l1. Here, approximately 30,000 cubic yards offill will be placed within OOOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way, while Ql"t',v,Jmately61,OOOcubic yards offill will be removed, resulting il! a net decrease on I ,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 OOOT's existing 1-5 right-of-way, which is not resource land. The bridges require a location over the Willarnette River greenway because 1-5 already exists both north and south of the Willarnetle River ahd 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 cOf!Sideredfor the use, which do notrequire Ii 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 considered along "( ;:io~"'~~'i,t)~ ;\.'.;""; . . r , Slliff Findings - 11me 2008 ',. ,Page.lO " 'i!'!' '." -----. ._,--~----".- ---. Date Received JUL 2 ~2008 Planner: BJ I ~ ;lft ~~: ,..;, . ., ~ ATTACHMENT A- PAGE13-- with other relevant factors in determining that the Use cannot reasonably be occommodated in other areas, Under the alternattve factor the following , questiONi shall be addressed: (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not. require an exception. including.. , increasing the density of uses' on nonresource land? If not, why not? (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal. including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? Ifnot, why not? (iii) Can the proposed use.be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? (iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service? Ifnot, why not? (C) This alternative areas standard can be' ;'et'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 occommodate the proposed use, A deta'iled evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not, required unless such sites ar~ specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by ,another party during the local exceptions proceeding. The applicant stiltes that 1"5 replacement bridges are needed because the decommissioned bri~ge is structurally unsafe and the detour bridge was not constructed to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes over the long term, nor does it meet current seismic standards. The replacement bridges and their approaches will be located entirely within ODOT's existing 1'5 right-of-way. Because the Willametle 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 will be used compared to existing conditions, In addition, fill is required to support the approaches to ,the new bridges, including the new bridges over the Canoe Canal, Staff Findings-June 2008 ' ..>\;i~"Pag"c'u' '.. :' ."1>." . Givell the non-water dependent an,d non-water-related nature of the use, and given that fill 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 Willamette 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 ODOr right-of- ' way, the project avoids significant impacts to park lands. Because transportation improvements, , Date Received JUl 2 8 2008 ~.f\~' l, .. ..---- _. ___~!TAC!:lMENT A -PAG'E-1-4-- Planner:, BJ !' ,I" including bridges, are considered public facilities, the use cannot be reasonably accommodated without the provision of the proposed public facility. Analysis regarding possible alternative.sites is . discussed fUrther under subsec)ion (c) directly below, which is invv'''"'~ted herein by reference. . :~~ f~ :",~: , .' (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences 'resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areaS requiring a Goal exception, The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the jW'isdictionfor which an exception mightbe taken, the typical advantages and , disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resultingfrom 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 ~ites 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 land from the resoW'cebase, Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roatb and on the costs to special service ~m~ . '. ,_. ; ."" J' '. ',",.' '~ . ~ 1>. ,'t t 1 ....;. ., ... ," ,~.) ~ I, '. . ~ : No other sites requiring exceptions are being considered for this use. TIlls is because the use is not a new use, but mther 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 pmcticable 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 Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands. Further, relocating the bridge could require the closure of on.. or more existing interchanges or ramps, resultin 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: ' o 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. ' o Right-of-way would need to be acquired from homes and/or businesses on the south side of the river that would not be required if the highway remains on its current alignment. '. A shifted highway would be closer to existing homes, resulting in higher noise and visual impacts. o ' Major high-tension power transmission lines are located on both sides of the bridge and ,one , l' '-. .~ ' Staff Findings - June 2008 _j':,~ ,,-Page12 ~.~ ~ , ' '- ' '.' !\'r, .' ATTACHMENT A=_"-A~E_l_~__ --.----,..----" - ---" Date Received JUL 28 ze08 Planner: B,'; _.!. would need to be relocated if the aligimlent was shifted. Given'the replacement nature of this project, the fact that crossing the WiIlamette River at some location is unavoidable, and ODOT's inability to realign 1-5 on.adjoining lands based on federal restrictions protecting park lands, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives tore-using the eXisting 1~5 right-of-way. AccOrdingly, intertriSof 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 and mobility it provides statewide, interstate, and regional travelers provides tremendous benefits both economically and socially. The ability to rebuild within'tJie eXisting ODOT 1~5 right-of-way minimizes energy consumption and environmentaI'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 tJiis purpose also means that no other resource or recreational lands need be removed from the resource base therefore this standard' is met. (d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with a4jaceliJ 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 an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses, Uses adjacent to the affected portion ofl-5 include park land and the WiIlamette River, an~ 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 t.-'U,M"J')' bridges and will be located within eXisting rights-of-way and right-of-way easements. Considering that this 'area has been utilized as the 1-5 bridge location since prior to the establishment of Goal 15, replacement of the facility in the same location is more compatible than relocating the facility and converting non-transportation areas to this use. The proposal also includes a reduction in the ' number of piers from the existing 11 piers to 8, a net reduction in fill,and sound walls, 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 falling into the Willamette River, maintaining a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path, limiting work hours, and restoring the temporary staging areas upon project completion: Additional measures proposed by the applicant to reduce , environmental, recreational and scenic impacts, are further discussed under Metro Plan Policy E.2, Goal 8 below, and OAR 660-004-0022(6)(a) above, which are incorporated herein by reference. These measures will further reduce adverse impacts to the adjacent park land and Willarnette River, residential, and industrial uses consistent with this standard. j '. ,.... ,r f ,'> .~.: ,,~'~'-'/ 3 " .~..., lit.... )...~...l-" ~.~.1t;' , ': StuffFindings'-June 2008 Pagc,13 'I 1',0: ;J'~ .11,)" J ,,~ :I.:.~::.''t~ ';.i.~',.~;,'~ ~. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 16 Date Received JUL 28 2008 Plan her: BJ ." In addition, compatibility wii:h greenway and Goal 5 resource values associated with the Willamette , River, riparian areas both north and south of the river, the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate' Woodlands Will be further ensured through compliance with ackno:wledged Eugene an~ Springfield pennitting requirements adopted to implement Goals 15 and 5; Willamette River Greenway and ....""..,',~y setback review, and the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone, subject to applicable standards and conditions. Asnoted'earlier, the bridges are an existing use witl1Jn the , ODOT right-of-way. This proposal replaces the original bridge with two new bridges: one for . northbOund traffic, the other for southbound traffic, and replaces the Canoe Canalbridge. 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 te~hniques identified or required during the local pennitting processes, impacts to surrounding natural resource lands can be minimized to protect natural . resourCe qualities in and the use and enjoyment of the Willamette River, the Willamette River ....""..,":~y, and the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands. :~\ -:':i- '. .< ".< Based on 'the above findings, an exception to Goal. 15 is warranted and meets the requirements of OAR 660-0040-0020 for theplaeement of fill within the greenway setback for the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Replacement project, ' , Therefore, the amendments and goal exception are consistent with Statewide Plimning Goal 2. Goal 3 - Amcultural 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 forestlands, 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-Springfield 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 Phmning Goal 4. , Goal 5 - Onen Soaces. Scenican~ Historic A_Teas_ A,n<:J Nlitu!,:,-' R_P.sources: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources, The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable ~o this post~acknowledgement . plan amendment (pAPA) request: ',' ' , ' ' , (3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration ofa PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a. Goal 5 . . . . ;"1.11: <; ,It'" .,,'J',. . " Date Received , JUL 2 8 2008 Planner:' BJ I 'O,;t'-ii..).~S~Findi~r;S-June2008 :',',,' '" 'Pagel4: " " ATTACHMENT A~ PAGE 17 ;;;,: ~ ",. ~.! .,.' " '. ~.! .. rll4:ource only if: (a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or aportion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements ,of Goal 5; (b) The PAP A allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal:5 resource site "on an acknowleiJged resource list; or, (c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demolistrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is iru:luded in the amended UGB area. - The subject project area includes Goal 5 resource sites; tl)e Wiliamette'River, a ripari~ resource between 1-5 and E, 18th Avenue, and riparian resources in A1tOll Baker Park (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 resoufce or to address specific requiremenis of Goal 5, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth BOWldary. Regarding'subsection (b), the 1-5 WiJlamette Bridge Project is replacement of an existing use in approximately the same location, even consideririg 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 Goal 5 is either not applicable or is met through compliance with the acknowledged local permitting process: l < . r . . I,'. . Goal 6 _ Air Water and Land Resources Oualitv:Xo maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of/he state. . .' ;, '.- Goal 6 addresses wasteand'process discharges from development, and is aimed at }"v~..v~g air, water and land from impacts from those discharges. The propOsal'does not amend the metropolitan area's air, water quality or land resource policies, The applicant's fmdings show that the City can reasonably expect that future development of the site will comply with applicable environmental laws as follows: I!' Additionally, regarding air quality, the replacement 'bridges':themselves should have no adverse impact on-Sir quality because they merely replace an existing facility that has been decommissioned as being structurally Wlsafe. Regardless of the potential future addition of 6 lanes, the new bridges do not necessarily result in more people driving on 1-5. Instead, existing traffic volumes will be shifted from the detour bridge to'the new bridges. If the decoriunissioned 1.5 bridge is not replaced, 'those vehiCles would be forced each day onto city streets and COWlty 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 ipcrease in the number of lanes does not necessarily increase the number of people driving on 1'5, but rather increases continuous traffic movement. Regarding,air quality, this goal is met by the proposed plan amendments. . , .;:.,,., ,S~f{ F!n~<~~ -'Jun~ 2008 , ""'1; Page IS' " ,( , Regarding water quality, construction of the replacement bridges and the removal of the decommissioned and detour bridges will impact water quality by affecting soils and vegetation Date Rece;ve~j JUL 28 2008 ,.,jlff'. .... Jt" ATTACHM,E!lT_~:;P~GE:18 , ,Planner: BJ '_~"' .' - .,.t.": !,~~. .'\' ;~ within the Willamette River and along the green~ay setback. Water quality may also be affected where impervious suifaces are added along the bridge approaches. Where areas are paveg, water cannot penetrate the soils so it rushes over the surface. This can increase erosion and the movement of fine sediments and increase pollutant loads in watercourses. While construction of the replacement bridges will result in some new impervious sUrfaces, overall the project will result in a ",' net decrease 'in impervious surface b'ecause ODOr will removc the approach roadway for the detour.. bridge, The applicant also proposes that water quality impacts will be mitigated through the ~e of effective land-based stormwater treatment systems that include measures to preserve,and .~o.v,~.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 preverition also can achieve compliance with clean water standards. Oregon Highway Plan SA.l directs ODOr to implement Best Management Practices. Based on these findings, water quality will be maintained and mitigated, consistent with this goal. In addition, through the local permitting process, Eugene and Springfield can impose appropriate conditions to ensure that Best Management Practices are employed and that water quality is mallitained, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards. By doing so; Goal 6 is satisfied,' Regarding noise, a project noise technical report was prepared as part of the Environmental Assessment (as required by NEPA) 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 residenc!:,s as a result of the project. Noise walls were determined to meet the ODor effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two locations and are recommended as mitigation (see supplemental information,'Pigures 7-9). The final wall locations will be determined after public input is completed as part of the NEP A 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 . lilljit ~ork hours . limit noise Therefore"in the context of a plan amendment, the proposed amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6. Addi,tionally, 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 that local 'government planning programs incl)l& provisions to protect people and 2 Currently, there is no storinwater treatment for the decommissioned and detour bridges. Providing wa~ quality treatment for the new bridges, which would be required through the applicant's proposed Best Management Ptaetices, ,would have a beneficial effect on water quality. The water quality reportfor the project noted that the amount of runoff from the bridges would be so minor relative to the volume of flow in the Willamette River that the effect would be ,negligible." " , . I . 1 ~. '~. ,'I ~ ,. . ..; , 'ATTACHMENT A ~ PAGE 19 Date Received , . JUL 2 ~ 2008 'Planner: BJ "v .1),,' ,Staff Findings -June 2008 \:. 'Page 16 , , ,,,,v,,~,;, from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. It is not subject to hazards normally associated ~th wil,dfires, or tsunamis. Consistent with this goal, the City of Eugene bas adopted provisions regulating development in floodplains and floodways, and building codes regulations that'address slopes and seismic concerns. To the extent that this is relevant to the proposed plan ~endm~nt, the eXisting d~our bridge does ' not meet current seismic standards. Consistent with this goBI, the proposed bridge replacement project will provide bridges that meet current seismic, safety arid design standards. ' Additionally, regarding siopes, portions of the projeet area are identified on the map for Relative Slope Instability Hazards. The portions of the project site in the Wbilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands, and the area southeast ofI.5and the Willamette River are identified as moderate hazard areas, However, both of these areas are proposed for only temporary staging locations. The applicant bas completed 10 borings on either side of the river as part of a geotechnical investigation rdated 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 excl\vation 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, pllicement of structure and fills, and clearip.g arid grading. 'Impacts related to construction would be temporary, localized changes to river fl'1w regime; stability of partially constructed slopes; erosion; and result8nt sedimentation. The highest risk to landslide would be slope failure into the Willamette River; however, considering the low height of the riverbank, such a , failure would be limited to a small area relative to the width of the river. The applicant states that geotechnical investigations will also be completed during design to determine the best method to seat foundations andpiers and to reduce effects related to hazards. Additionally, slopes will be constructed in a manner that reduces potential for erosion or ~llandslides. 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 as, based on the earthquake hazard, geotechnical investigations should be completed prior to construction to detbnnine the best method to seat , foundations, piers, and bents to reduce effects related,to earthqUakes (e,g., lateral spread, liquefaction). In addition, slopes should be constructed in a n,anner that reduces the potential for erosion or small landslides. <, .' , . , Regarding flooding,. portions of the project area are located wi1;hin the floodway and floodplain of theWillamette River. As previously stated, both Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction within flood ways and floodplains. Furthermore, in response to Metro Plan policies C,30 and C.31 below, which is incorporated hercln by,~reference, beeause the 1.5 Willamette Bridge project is located within a FEMA designate~ regulatOry floodway and 'i~-eh ~~,~."'.. ~r~:j .';".::>._.t(~: < -h," ~ ,'. Staff Fmdmgs'-'June 2008 'Pagel7' ' .; ~.. ~ '", i"~-, ;~ .., ," . (- ,,'./, . .~. ~~ '-i ~ ':-", ~ ~ ", , A!TACHMENT A -: pAGE 20 Date Received, JUL 28 2008 Planner: BJ ",' <l,.";',' i',V.! ~( ~t ..'\ li~:L ' floodplain, the design of the repla~u.~u; 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 I DO-year flood event) must be approved by FEMA. Two pier location scenarios are currently under consideration (proposed Option A and Prop~sed Option B, see written Statement page 9). Based on preliminary modeling, Option A would resultin , an increase of 0.02 feet over existing conditions for the I DO-year flood event For the Environmental Assessment, 'the hydraulic conditions of the 1-5'Willamette Bridge Project were analyzed using the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' HEC-RAS model. Natural, existing and proposed conditions (with pier locations Options A and B) were modeled. Conservative assumptions regarding pier size were used for this modeling. Refined design of the concepts and further hydraulic analysis will allow confirmation that the proposed project will result in no rise of the base flood elevation. Option Rwould 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 0.02, whicll 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 theperrnitting 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 ofrightscof-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 constniction and operational details will beap!" vp.;ately addressed during local permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards. Therefore, in the context of a plan amendment, the preliminary,no-rise data,theJapdslide information, and findings above, the proposed plan amendments are consistent with Statewicje ' Planning Goal 7. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the dtizensofthe state and ' visitors and, where appropriate, 'to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including tjestination 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 ofI-5 right-of-way, which includes recreation, bicycle and pedestrian paths and the canoe canal (utilized by kayakers). The portion of the park that is west ofI-5 in Eugene is now called the Whilamut Natural Area and the portion of the park east ofI-5 in , Springfield is called the Eastgate WoodlandS of the Whilamut Natural Area (abbreviated here as Eastgate Woodlands) and these areas will be referred to as such for the remainder of these findings unless otherwise indicated. The demolition and construction or the bridges will take place 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 ' , , .~.. .; ..,\ .. ATTACHMENT A -PAGE 21 Date Received JUL28 2008 "Planne'r: sJ " ~,;{ .:/, StaffFinding.-lune200S' ~ .L.~' .- < ' Page IS - ... " ;' .:.< " , , removal of fill material from and rehabiiitation of a portion of Eastgate. Woodlands. The temporary easement obtained by ODOr to do this work requires rehabilitation of the area within 5 years of completion of the permanent bridges. This easeII!ent will ~ that recreational use of this area will return to pre-project conditions. . ~~~ ., .,; " .... . . Additionally, during eonstriiction the parkwiil be temporarily affected;' Through the other local permitting processes (WilIamette Greenway permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay review, WilIkette Greenway setback, etcetera) construction impacts will be reqUired to be minimized through c<mditions ofal'l'>v",J 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). Publicacce~s to the Willamette River will continue to be provided through ODOT's rigbt-of-way under the bridges therefore public access to the river will not be affected (written statement page 49,'MetroPlan Policy D.9). Although the bicycle/pedestrian pathways may be impacted during cOnstructi,on, the 'application will provide a continuous route across ODOr right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways that will be maintained on both the north ami the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, Willakenzie Ati:a Plan, Neighborhood Design Element- WilIamette Greenway, Use Management Standard 2). Additionally, specific construction aild operational details regarding public access and recreational impacts will be 41'1"~I'.:ately adClressed during local permitting processes, subj ect to appli~able approval criteria and related su:ndards. . . II ';, . Comments were received stating that (to summarize) the bridge provides a crossiIig ofFrai1klin 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 route across ODOr 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 ~xisting 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 affected by t4e 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 rew:ational facilities. The amendments are therefore consisreJ;1t with Statewide Planning Goal 8. Goal 9 _ Economic Develonment: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health. welfare, .and prosperitjl of Oregon's citizens. '" The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR. 660 Division 9) requires that the City "(p )rovide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies[.]" Among other things, the !'We requires that cities complete an "Economi9 Opportunities Analysis." OAR 660-009- .' 0015. Based on the Economic OpportWlities Analysis, cities are to prepare Industrial and '''; Date Received JUL 2 8 2008 P~anner: BJ , " Staff Findings ~ June 2008 . \':'''''~p_.." '."19.....1:;. " , '-- . age ~'", I j.,r,'" t) '": I 1\1,_1'. I, (- -..;i . ATTA~HMENT A~-PAGE'22-- ',. "', .. ~ ,;.( . ^, !. Commercial Development Policies. OAR 660-009-0020. Finally OAR660-009-0025 requires that cities designate industrial and commercial lands sufficient to meet short and long term needs. OAR 660-009-0010(2) provides thlit the detailed planning requirements imposed by 'OAR 660 Division 9 . apply "at the time of each periodic review of the plan (ORS 197.712(3))." In addition, OAR 660- ' 009-0010(4) provides that, when a city changes its plan designations oflands in excess of two acres to or from commercial or industrial use, pursuant to a post acknowledgment plan amendment, it must address all applicable planning requirements and (a) demonstnite 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 Eu!!ene Commercial Lands Studv ffiCLS) is ackriowledged 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 . WiIlametteBridge Project is occurring hi 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 JOrequires that commuillties plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing Wlits. The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 10 (OAR 660 Division 8) states that "the mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection. Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy' hoUsing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan designation." The comprehensive planmap for the City is the Metro Plan land use diagram. The 1999 &Ullene-Snrin.meld Metrooolitan Area Residential Lands and Housinq Studv (RLS) is acknowledged for compliance with the ~equirements of Goal 10 and its Administrative Rule. As previously stated, the proposed plan amendment ~ll 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 tempoi-ary,staging areas (that are witbiIi right-of.way or park-property). Therefore, the inventory of residential' land will not be impacted and thus Statewide 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 ur:ban and rural dev.elopment. 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 repiacement of the temporary 1-5 bridge and reconstruction of the roadway .' , , ,-, . , '..,~ .~siaJhihdirigs:" June 2008 '. Page 20 ' .", . ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 23 Date Received . ~UL 2.8 2008.. Planner: BJ " :~' I' ,11, t, approaches to the bridges, which are all public facilities that ~ acknowledged in the Oregon Highway Plan and tl).e local regional transportation plan (TransI'lan)'as necessary public facilities and services. Replacement of the teml'v....i bridge with permaIlent 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.. Theief6i'C;thi: amendilients are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal I L . - '. . ',: Goal 12 - rransnortation: To provide and encourage a safe. cC!nvenient and economic transportation system.. Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportati~n Planning Rcle (TPR), as defined in Otegon Administrlitive Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugene.Springfield Metropolitan'Area rransportation Plan rrransPlan) provides the regional policy fi!unework through which the TPR is implemented at the local Jevel. .. The TPR (OAR 660-012-0060) states that when land use changes, including amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or pllinned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assureiliat the allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service, volume ,to capacity nitio, etc.) of the facilitY., 'rransPIan, which implements Goal 12, identi~esl-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 660-0l2-0060(1)(a), (b) or (c). OAR 660-012-0060(1) Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments states the following: ' (1) Where an amendment to afimctional pz~n, 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 /0 . as~ure that allowed land uSes are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and perfonnance 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 lfit would: . ~i' . . (a) Change the functional classification ofan existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); . . ~~. - . . (b). Change standards implementing afunctional classification system; or .. 'I The proposed amendment will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned tranSportation facility ,or change the standards implementiIig a'functional classification system. , . . I, -"~c:'~\i~t.:<';"'l:.~",'...j ':".,rr : ,. , ;' Staff Findings ";June 2008 Page 21 . !~Qii;~ .~, ATTACHMENT A 7" PAGE 24 Date Receiyed, JUL2 B 2008" Planner: BJ ''<it '"' : :~;~,~: , ,", ('.- I i [' (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; (8) Reduce the peiformance of an existing or planned transportationfaciliry 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 t1iat 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 WilIamette 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 C\lIrellt det~ur 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 forsildanes oftrave! 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 maj or' 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 WiIlamette River:. When the bridges are eventually striped for six lanes (to be made consistent with 1-5), the additional'bridge capacity will increase the perfoImance 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'iriconsistent with the functional classification of an existing.or planned transportation facility under OAR 660-0l2-0060(J)(c)(A). ' Further, the proposed amendments will not reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation mcility below the minimum acceptable I'....fvu~ance standard identified in the rsp or comprehensive plan under (1)( 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 rsp or comprehensive plan under (l)(c)(C). .:~t.:t'.,> I t; ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 25 Date Received JUL 28 2008 Planner: BJ " . . " ._ Staff Findings .,. Juile 2008 t.::','t.i',of,":". ..L-'Pag-1-"e22' "'.;" . ,... '..I.t", . -,. ," "\ ~. .:. . . ': '. For the reasons discussed above, the proposed amendment will 'not significantly affect an existing or . planned transportation facility. , . ' OAR 660-0/2-00/5 Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans OAR 660~012~0015(I)directs ODOTtoptepBre and adopt a state iranSportation system plan that identifies a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified state . transportation needs. The Oregon rransportation Commission haS done that through adoption of the Oregon rransportation 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 aild 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 sy~tem to support economic vitality. The OHP identifies 1-5 as an interstate highway within the static's roadway network. Thathighway . necessarily incll!des a bndge over the WilIamette River in Eugene/Springfield. OAR 660-012- . .0015(2) and (3) require that regional and local rsps be,consistbnt with the state rsp. rransplan currently recognizes the importance of 1-5 to the region. Because the replacement bridges are necessary to maintaining 1-5, by approving the propqsed planll!llendments, all plans will remain , consistent and the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied. Based 01) ~eabove findings, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. , ' Goal 13 - Enerl!V Conservation: To conserve energy. Statewide Planning Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed and controlled "50 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 ofland use decisions. It is not clear that the goal has any bearing OIl a site-specific decision such as the one at issue. There is no implementing !'We 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 cbntinue to make efficient use of energy with safe, direct and efficient access though the area. Co=ents'were received that, in summary, the applicant fails to conSider the conserVation of energy by any means other than tb;it 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 all forms of energy, particularly petroleum energy. However, given that Goal 13 is directed at deveioping local energy conservation 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 fmdings above, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient trarisitionfrom rural to urban land 111W; :') ..:. ill ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 26 . Date Received JUL 28 20QB Planner: BJ I' "Stalf.Fjndi!','gs -;~,,!!.,2008 'l .t.~lt'Page23:_:;! ': . ," \ '" " '. ~... \,.~',\. -' 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 15 - Willamette 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 Gree/fWay. Portions of the project area are within the boundaries of the Willamette River GreenWay. I\s found under Goal 2 above, which is incorporated herein by ."f".,,~ce, a goal 15 exception is required by, Policy D.J I of the Metro Plan and the applicant meets the requirements for an exception to Goal 15. Based on these findings, the proposal complies with Statewide Planning Goal 15 as excepted. Goal 16 throu\!h 19 - Estuarine Resol.'.T~~~. G"astal Shorelands. Bearhes and Dunes. and Ocelli! 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 lIffect compliance With Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. (b) Adoption o/the amendment must not /tUlke the Metro Plan internally inconsistent t. The applicant proposes to amend the Metro Plan text of Policy D.ll to allow the placement offill within the Willamette River greenWaY for the construction of the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project. As found below, this text amendment will not create an internal conflict with the remainderofthe . Me.tro Plan. The applicant provided detailed findings intending to show how the Metro Plan text amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro Plan.. ro 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.l8 Encourage the development ofrransportationfacilities 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 (TransPlan) and the Eugene A irport Master Plan... . While the expressed language of this policy may not be mandatory, the applicant's findings are provided as further support for the proposed amendments. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5 . Willamette River bridge with two new bridges, and associated'improvements, will maintain the access, mobility, and freight movement capabilities that the decommissioned bridge and t....~~u.~/ detour bridge have provided. By ensuring mobility is maintained along the interstate highway system tbroughEugene and Springfield, the replacement bridges will help provide convenient . '-~ " ., ...-,,~'~.;, ,.,,:,i..,:: <,StaffFindings-Juue2008 !. .. . . '. ' Page 24 " . ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 21 Date Received JUL.2. 8 2008 . . Planner: BJ' :':-, .~ "\' I, '. :'il.::! ~~./'. . ,':'-."! -. . r-" _ access to industrial and 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 wate~bodies, and restrict development in wetlands in order to prevent erosion and protect the scenic quality, surface water a~d 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 Rulefor wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat within the UGB. Lane County and the respective city jointly wil/adopt the inventory and protection measures for the area outside the city limits and inside the UGB. . , , ' '. ' ' '" . C.lO Local governments shall encourage further study (by specialists) of endongeredand threatened plant and wildlife species in the metropolitan area. ' C.ll Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species. as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after nd~ice and'opportunity for public input. ,These policies lire directed to the local governments of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and not necessarily the applicant. However, they are applicable to ~e extent that the cities ,of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County have Bdopted regulations to protect these resources, and thai 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). " C.23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of ex is ling 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 plqnning. The application of these mitigating measures must be balanced with other design 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 existing and futures streets and highways..." but is rather the reverse, a highway in the vicinity of existing . residential development, this policy is not applicable. Furthern:lOre; the highway is replacing an existing highway in approxiniately the same location. In the tifent 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 reportcwas prepared as part of the Environmental Assessment (as required by NEPA) to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from the proj~cl Per the ODOTNoise Manual (June 1996) analysi~procedures, noise mitigation measures were evaluated to reduce noise levels to nearby residences as a result of the project Noise wails,were determined to meet the ODOr effectiveness and, cost-effectiveness criteria in two , locations and are recornmendedas mitigation (see supplemeI),~ inforiniuion, Figures 7-9). The final ~H",V-'i "; ._il' '... ".,~., ~,i'f''''' f p,,-:1. ..:#}{ .. ,,:, . Staff Findings - JUne 2008 Page 2S '; I;', . '!tJr~. ".\ ".1, Date Received JUL28 2008 ,.,./";' ':i '1.....\ F\'~~; .t.i~., _ ,. . ,', ~..f:- ' ..-.,' ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 28 T-'- .". _____n._..__.._._______" Planner:BJ wall locations will be determined after public input is completed as part of the NEP A process. Additionally, as slated on page 13 of the written statement, the applicant proposes the following general measures: . Continue public involvement through design and construction . . limit work hours . " limitnoisc 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 tbebridges are replacing an existing bridge. The applicant is proposing several measures including site prep;rration, site construction, coordination and post development measures discussed imder Metro Plan Policy E.2, which is incorporated herein by reference, to reduce and mitigate impacts to water quality, consistent with this policy. In addition, water quality'impacts will be further reviewed for compliance with local standards under the local permitting process for WiJlamette Greenway permit, Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone and the 75-foot riparian setback and under the 'Nl'P A Environmental Assessment, subject to applicable requirements. . C.30 Except as o.therwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, development shall be prohibited infloodways lfit could result in an increased flood level. Thefloodway is the channel of a river or other water course and III-C-16 the acijacent land area that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-chanceflood in any given year. C. 31 When development is allowed to occur in ihe 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-fil/ing of partially developed land. Outside the UGB, areas affected by the floodway andfloodway fringe shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open space and recreational potential, and their value to water resources. C.32 Local governments shall require site-specific soil surveys and geologic studies where potential problems exist. When problems are identified, local governments shall require special design considerations and constrUction measures be taken toojJset the soil and geologic constraints present, to protect life and property, ptlblic investments, arid environmentally-sensitive areas. Regarding Policy C.30 and C.3I, as discussed under Statewide Planning Goal 7, Natural Hazards, ' which is inCv'I'~.4W herein by reference, the 1-5 WilIamette Bridge Project is partially located within aFEMA designated regulatory floodWliy and floodplain. Therefore, the design of the replacement bridge must satisfy the regulations set forth in the National Flood Insurance Program . . "rj.:;;,~(Io;~\~ ~ll.i:;>'l i~' .;; " ,~,'.. ". , Staff Findings -June 2008 . . Page 26, ,luQ\ '":' Date Received JUL 282008 ~; Ii~~ ~~:" . -, .. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 29 Planner: BJ .. :.~' f' {, (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 aJsoa requirementofODOT for any bridge replacement project. .' ' , J Consistent With C.3l; both'Eligeneand Springfield have adopted ordinimcesregwating construction within floodplains and f1oodways; City of Eugene FEMA "no-rise" certification for any construction or Structures within f1oodways/special flood hazard areas; and City of Springfield rype I permit to allow any construction in the fJoodplainsor f100dways 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 fJoodway 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 ODOr and Lane County property both located southeast ofI-5 and theWillamette River. For these areas, prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory f1oodway, ODOr will be required to obtain a "no-ris~" certification stating that the development will not impact the pre-project (before the temporary bridge) base flood elevation elevations, f100dway elevations and f100dway 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 niodeli~g, 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 ,I 00- . year flood. event and, Option B would result ib 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 design is refined for the permitting process, Furthermore, ODOr requires its bridges to meet the no-rise requirement Therefure, in the context of a plan amendment, these policies are met Specific construction and operational details will be appropriately'addr~ssed during local.and state permitting processes, s>:bject to applicable approval criteria and related standards. Regarding Policy C.32, as noted under Goal 7, portio~ of the broject area ~roposed for temporary staging areas are identified as moderate hazard risk areas on the map identifying Relative Slope Instability Hazards in Eugene. However, while this informatioll may gUide the City in adopting' code revisions, it does not apply directly to land use applications ,as it is not adopted as refinement plan or as codiiiedland use criteria. Additionally, based on the1earthquake 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 small landslides. . , Based on, the findings above, in the context'of a plan amendment, the proposed plan amendments , are consistent with these policies, ; . D. Willamette River Greenwav. River Corridors. and Waterwavs Element ,,-," . -.-' :>0., ~;'~'\.l"' +,',,', .. ~..(.~! . ; .-t...ICt"",,., ~. '.'-,.' .,' .' '. .:~:-".( ,:. " :.' ..... . . ",. ", . ' Staff Findings - June 2008 . Page'27, 'II ',LU\ 'J \" I.i :.~ ;~'(~!: . .\ (". . ~'~~:"':', ATTACHMENT A"C PAGE,30 . Date Received. JUU 8 2008 Planner: BJ ; ;, .' ,'-t. D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the Willamette River Greenway. ,.... ',"1'. i:~ The applicant proposes that the public access 'connecting to the Willamette River Greenway will continue to be provided throughODOT's right-of-way under the 1-5 bridges, therefore public access to the Willamette River Greenway will not be p~ently affected. As noted under Goal 8 Recreational Need above, which is incorporated herem by reference, a continuous route across ODOr right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways will be maintained on both the north and the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, Willakenzie Area Plan, Neighborhood Design Element- WiJlamette 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 41'1',ul'.;ately addressed during local permitting processes, subject10 applicable approval criteria and related standards. , .~.;." :"., D.ll The taking of an exception shall be required if a non~water-dependenNransportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setbac/c. I.. ',' An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved for Oregon DepartmenJ of Transportation (ODOT) 1-5 right of way crossing the Willdmette River and within the Willamette River GreenwaY Setback: Line, for purpose of constrtlcting a temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use. Approval (Springfield Jow-naISHR 2003-00115) and remqving the temporary detour bridge after completion of the permanenJ 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 adoptedas,an amendmenJ to the Metro Plan text: Policy #D. II, Chapterlll, Section D. ' As discussed under Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.ll, tJie applicant is requestfug an exception to Goal IS 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.J I must be amended to acknowledge this Goal IS exception.. Accordingly, the following text amendment is proposed, with old text stmek ellt and new text in bold: t\B eneefltien te Slatevnae Plar_-Rag ']:~ ~~ 'ViII_elte River Gl'eeaway wa" 4f'f'';''; ~ . o.egen D~f'~~'**-':=;:::""'::~::: ~.QI;l':'T) I f :ight ef wey 6f1l9smg the' Willamt!tte . &WEo =.=. ':.~.J,,;n;h~ WilllUfleUe Riv:: 20::;..01(1)" Selllllelt !Aae, :~o ;::':-;~3e ef eenstmeting ll-kmpo>=",) deleur briilge, imfllemeating:Ao oonJitiell9 ilBflesed en the Disl!~eti~::~'l.':e f<flJlfI!\<a1 (Sflriagfiela k=a1 ~HR 2003 ",,' ~~) 'ilia reme',mg the telBflElrll!)' aeteW' bridge after eelBflletienefth.. f'o"";'.meat Fllfllaeemeat briage. Thi. "'.~pJen satisfie9the 1!.;'O~4 at Orogen Admiaistmti-/o Rule (OAR) €iliO 901 0022(5) WillameUl! Gr..n'"",/; the eltl!eptiea FeEjWremeal5 efO/.R €i€i0 001 9029 Geal2, Pert R(e) for a 'FeaseBs' eneepliea; aaa Jlllfsllllflt'te O..\R liliQ OQ1 OQIS, is heree~' aa<.;:t:j ~.nL~nt te the Melfe Flaa telEt, PeliS}' f.....II, '21mJ31er m, Seetiea D. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE :n . Date Received JUL 28 2008 . Planne'r: BJ . <~.; v;':. l--l< ~:'Stlff~iridings' ';" - June 2008 . .. t. t ;'I"'~ , . -. . . . .Page 28 . ," "'.' \ ' ." I ~ .; , \.:,' ~ . ~';~. ~ ~-I ""-, '-'" An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 WiUamette River Greenway was approved . fOJ: 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 ~ith two new parallel bridges (one southbound and one northbound) within theI-5 right-of-way crossing the WiUamette RiVer and Canoe Canal and within 'theWilllimette River Greenway Setback Line. The exceptiOJi authorizes construction and later removal. of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the . decommissioned .I-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour bridges; construction of the two replacement bridges; reconstruction of the roadway approaches to the bridges (1-5 lind ramps); rehabilitation of the project 'ares; and completion of any reqnired 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 itll within a temporary slope easement east of 1-5. This e.Iception 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)Jor a "reasons" exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted 85 an amendment to th~MetroPlan text, Policy D.ll, Chapter 111, Secti~n 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.ll is adequate and with this text aIDendment and Goal 15 exception granted uhder Goal 2 above, Policy D.ll will . .. II be satisfied. . . . " E. Environmental Desi~n 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~ction and demolition, including construction and removal of associated temporary work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within, the gre~nway. Construction is proposed within existing ODOT rights-of-ways andeasenients, 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 re,habilitationof a portion of the Whilamut Natural Area. ODOT has obtained a temporary easelnent 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 will be restored and ODOr will work with the commWlity throughout the design arid construction process to get input and advice on ways to avoid and minimize environmental impafts. According to the applicant, a species list provided by ORNHIl? (Oregon Natural. Heritage Information Center) indicates that there are no federal or state,listed Endangered Species Act (ESA) 'I . . " ;. . . ~ ~,I.L. \. l.:l~-_ ..~ ",I' . '; ,.t r. ".. ~;; Date Received JUL 2 8 2008 Plan'ner:' B~J {K1\ft$r)i'fi"fi~.dings ;':jimci008 Page 29 . (. - . 1'1 nlill\; :c. \j' '\ ATT.~<?I!.!d~NT A - P~GE32 . .1 . ~~H~,;,:al wildlife species known to reside within the project area. .There are no known federal or state ESA .:tiste<i plant species or plant habitats have been identified within the project area. rwn salmonid populations listed under the,ESA are documented as occurring within the reach of the Willamette River that flows through the project area: . Upper Willamette River spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and critical habitat-. federally1hreatened'-' FT. . '." . . . . Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and critical habitat - FT. " '~ .'~ c, r~ ODor will coordinate with Oregon Department of Fisbarid Wildlife through the design process to , identify opportunities to minimize habitat disturbance. ro avoid and minimize potential impacts to fish and wildlife species habitat during and after construction activities, all applicable OrIA ill State Bridge Delivery Program EPS will be hnplemented to reduce the extent of direct and indirect impacts to habitat These include: . , . . Minimize effects to natural stream and floodplain by keeping the work area to the smallest fooiprint needed. " - ' . Prepare and implement a plan to prevent construction debris from droPPing into the WilIametle River and to remove materials that may drop with a minimum disturbance to aquatic habitat. . Prepare site restoration plans for upland, wetlahd,and ';'~w..>bank areas to'include native plant species and noxious weed abatement techniques, and use large wood and rock as components of streambed I'>v;~;:on treatments, . Flag boundaries of clearing limits and sensitive areas to be avoided during constructi~n. .' . . Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the Eugene Parks and Open Space Division regarding sensitive areas in the Whilamut Natural Area and Eastgate Woodlands that should be avoided during construction. . Restore and revegetate disturbed areas.. . i, ODor also proposes (written statement, page 13)10 avoid, minimize and/or mitigate hnpactsofthis project, consistent with this policy, by utilizing the following general measures amongst others: . Continue public involvement through desig" and construction . Plan traffic management to keep all travel modes open and safe during construction . Limit work hours . Restore/enhance affected areas . Limit project noise Public comment was received expressing support for these measures, especially limiting project noise and work hours, especially for pile driving activities. , ; , . , In addition, specific design details will be reviewed and conditioned to minimize environmental hnpacts during federal and local permitting processes, subject to applicable approval criteria and related standards. The applicant proposes that the project will meet the OrIA ill Environmental Performance Standards (EPS) in order to satisfy the requirements of the programmatic ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 33 Date Received J U L 2 8 2008 : Planner: BJ I " l.'.' 4 ,~', " : _7 t,., ~I ' . .' "',:.,:., '-Staff Findings - June 2008 Page 30 , fl". '. 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. ro avoid fish and wildlife species and minimize tempOrary impacts from construction activities, all applicable OrlA ill State Bridge Delivery Program EPS will ~e implemented to reduce the extent <if direCt andfudirecl impacts to fish and wildlife species. Effects to water resources during .' construction and operation of the project will be minimized through the implementation of applicable mitigation measures in the OTlA ill State Bridge Delivery Program EPS. It is noted that with regard to pier locations shown on page 9 of the application, Option B indicate's 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, and a 75-foot riparian setback review for Springfield. Natural vegetiltion, natural water features,. and drainage-ways shall be protected and retained to the maximum extent practical, consistent with these permitting processes. I. , , This adequately addressesl'.v'w;':on of natural vegetation, nat1Jral 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. I. ,. . .' . . E.4 . Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a mdnner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity. . . , ' The replacemenfbridges will be located within the same ODOr right-of-way where the decommissioned bridge is located, an area already utilized by transportation infrastructure. The proposal also includes a reduction in the total number of piers,la reduction in the number of piers in the WillllJl1ette 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. :1 . Additionally; impacted riparian areas and other lands within the greenway setback will be protected . . during the later permitting process through the imposition of approval conditions as necessary to comply with applicable approval criteria and related standards.. Specifics of the bridge design can be . considered during the plan 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 I, the public is involved in this process. Among other things, ODor established a CommWlity -Advisory Group (CAG) composed of representatives oflocal neighborhood associations, parks departnients (City of Eugene and Willamalane Park and Recreation District), the Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area, chambers of commerce, and.the University of Oregon that has been involved in the development of the project and will continue to.be involved during selection of the bridge tYPe, its design, and construction. . il . . . . . :.1h'st8ffFiIidi~~..:j~~2008 Page 31 ' "I tf ' .' ," ,: ;1 " ~ . ~:'J' L~ ,~. ,\ ~ ~TTACHMENT A - PAGE 34 -----.- ---_._--~-_..- Date Received JUL 28 2008 Planner: 8L~' .i <'"'il ',t:;r .,"~.. . "oJ '-1 - ,~' ;. ~ . I I i' (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation systemplan: . (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 transportationfticility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or ' ( (C) Worsen the performance oj an existing or planned transportationfacilitjl that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standord 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 pr~p()sed 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 oftiavel, 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 Uniied States. The construction of the replacement bridges, whether striped for four !aile or six lanes, does not generate any additional vehicular trips, it , simply provides passage over the Willamette River. When the bridges are eventually striped for six lanes (to be made consistent with 1-5), the additional bridge capacity will increase the performance and function ,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 660-0l2-0060(1)(c)(A). Further, the proposed amendments Will not reduce the performimce of an existing or planned transportation fiicility below the minimum acceptable p~.;v..uance standard identified in the rsp or comprehensive plan under (1)( c )(B), or worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimurnacceptable perfoimance standard identified in the TIP or comprehensive plan under (l)( c )(C). , ':.. . .' . ". > ..: : ~'~'~:j "., }"-. I"~ '".";, . . , Staff Findings :lune 2008 ,'f,? Page 22 AT.TACHMENT A - PAGE 35 Date Received JUL 282008 Planner: BJ " For the reasons discussed above, the proposed amendment will hot'significantly affect an existing or plarined transportation facility. OAR 660-012-0015 Preparation 'and CoordinalionofTransportation System Plans . .' . q OAR 660-012-0015(1) directs ODOTto I'<~I'''''~ and adopt a state transportation system plan that identifies a system oftransportatjon facilities and services adequate to meet identified state transportation needs. The Oregon Transportatio~ Commission has done that through adoption of the Oregon rransportation Plan (OTP) and modal plans, including the Oregon Highway Plan. The OTP includes policies to iD.creasethe efficient movement of people and goods for commerce and production of goods and services that is coordinated with regional and local plans, It emphasizes managing the existing transportation system effectively and imProving that system before adding . new facilities. . , The OTP also promotes a safe, efficient, and reliable freight system to' support economic vitality. Th~ OHP identifies 1-5 as an interState highway within the state's roadway network. Thathighway necessarily includes a bridge over the Willamette River in Eugene!Springfield. OAR 660-012- 0015(2) and (3) require that regional andlocal rsps be consistent with the state rsp. . rransplan currently recognizes the importance ofl-5 to the region. BecauSe the rephicement bridgCs are necessary to maintaining 1-5, by approving the proposed plan amendments, all plans will remain consistent and the requirements of Goal 12 will be satisfied. . Based on the above findings, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. Goal 13 - Enerl!V.Conservation: To conserve energy. Statewide Planning Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed ~d controlled "50 as to maximiie the conservation of all forms ofenergy, based upon sound econonll.c principles." Goal 13 is directed at the development oflocal energy policies and implementing provisions and does not state r;equirements with respect to other types of land uSe decisions. It is not clear that the goal has any bearing oq a site-specific decision such as the one at issue. There is no implementirig rule that clarifies the requirements of Goal 13. . To the extenttbat Goal 13 coUld be applied to the l'<vl'v.ed plan amendments, the proposal is consistent with Goal 13; the;I-5 Willamette Bridge project is located in the same location as the existing and previous bridges and wiUcontinue to mBke efficient 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 inw'l'vo<-ting bicycle traffic into the crossing does not maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, particularly petroleum energy. However, given that Goal 13 is directed at developing local energy conservation policies, it is detennmed that 'Goal 13 is not a means to require a specific project to add a bicycle and pedestrian component. , . . r " Based on the fmdings above, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13. . If, Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient rransitiol1jromrural to urban land hB\/jt.l~,:,fHh!dings:j-.June 2008 ...,,, . Ij 1"'Page"23, ~': ~'.;a,.. t . . .!; Date Received JUL 2 8 2008 Planner~lBJ ,~~ ""~;~ ~ i A,'...~. rJOO~ 'j.~ JU I ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 36 ::. ;J::.~~ '~:~':_,:~f {r~'- :UJLl ,'. use. The amendments do not affect the transition from rural to Urban land us~, as the project area is centrally located to the Metro Plan and is entirely within the Eugene,Springfield UGB. Therefore, StateWide Planning Goal 14 does not apply. Goal 15 - Willametle River Greenwav: To protect, conServe, enharu:e and maintain the natural,' scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette . River as the Willamette River Greerrway. Portions of the project area are within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. As found under Goal 2 above, which is mcorporated herein by reference, a goal 15 exception is required by. Policy D.Jl of the Metro Plan, and the applicant meetS the requirements for an exception to Goal 15. Based on these findings, the proposal complies with Statewide Planning Goal 15 as excepted. 00al 16 thr"ulth 19 - :r<:'..n!.R!,.lle Res(\\!!",,~. ()\~",~...I Rl:")relands. Beaches llJl,~, l}1mes. 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 lIffect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.' ".; (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent The applicant proposes to amend the Metro Plan text of Policy D'-a to allow the placement of fill within the Willamette River greenway for the construction of the 1-5 Willamette Bridge Project As found below, this,tCxt 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 Plan text amendment is consistent with the policy direction contained in the Metro.PIan. ro 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 of transportation facilities 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 Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master plan. , While the' expressed language of this policy may not be mandatory, the applicant's findings are provided as further support for the proposed amendments. Replacing the decommissioned 1-5 WilJamette 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 system through Eugene and Springfield, the replacementbridge5 will help pro'!ide convenient, :: .~ 'j i .: " 'I.,,' .~ I" ' :.; ,.:;'. -,'J" .... . ,'~. (l ::,. . Stilff Findings'S!'June 2008 Page 24 '":,"'If") ;..:.". . .J.l - ,. ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 37 Date Received JUL 28 2008 '. , " . 'l.J' . , .. .~ " Planner: BJ. access to industrial and commercial areas on connecting roads,cortsistent with this policy. " ' I C. Enviromnental Resources Element' e8 . 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 wUdllfe values of those areas. ,e9 Each city shall complete a separate study to meet its requirements under the Goal 5 Rulefor wetlands, riparian corridors, and wil&ifehabitat within the UGB. Lane County and the respective city jointly will adopt the inventory and prot~ction measure~for the area outside the city limits and inside the UGB. CI0 Local governments shall encourage further study (by specialists) of endangered and threatened plant and wildlift species in the metropolitah area., ' " el1, Local governments shall protect endangered and threatened platit and wildlife species, as' recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after no(ice and opportunity for public input. These policies are directed to the localgoverninents ofEugen~, 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). ' e23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing and future streets and highways with potential to exce~d 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. ' ' , , Comments were also received regarding the noise abatement walls and limiting noise from the project. Since the project is not a "new noise-sensitive development in ,the vicinity of existing and ,futures streets and highways..." but is rather the reverse, a highway in the vicinity of existing ,residential development, tJtis policy is not applicable. Furthermore, the highway is replacing an ' existing highway in approximately the same location. In the eyent that this policy is found applicable, the applicant's findings are incorporated to demonstrate consistency. As previously discussed ~der Goal 6 above, a project noise technical report ,,'was prepared as part of the Environmental Assessment (as required by NEP A) to analyze potential noise impacts resulting from the project. Per the ODOr Noise Manual (June 1996)analysi~;procedures, noise mitigation measures were evaluated to reduce noise levels to nearby.residences as a result of the project. Noise walls were determined to meet the ODOr effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria in two locations and are recommended as mitigation (see supplement~ information, Figures 7-9). The final , , Staff Findings - June 2008 . . ; ~~ lPage'25 7,,~'. ' :. ~;: : -.:'" I; , . ~ 1'. ' . ,_ ~;. ' ~.I:t.\ : ," ~~ ,f ,!.l ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 38' Date Received JUL 2 8 2QO.8' 'Planner: SJ ,~ . , ~: " , ", " ';'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: ' . Continue public involvement through design and construction . limit work hours ' . ' 'limit noise Based on these findings, this policy is satisfied. C.26 LocalGovernments 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 warer quality standards. As previously stated.underGoal 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 preppration, site construction, Coordination and posfdevelopment measures discussed under Metro PI8I! 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 arid the 75-foot riparian setback and under the NEPA Environmental Assessment, subject to applicable requirements. C.30 Except os otherwise allowed according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (F$MA) regulations, development shall be prohibitedinfloodways ifit could result in an increased flood/evel. The floodway is the channel of a river or other water course and III-C-16 the acijacent land are~ that must be reserved to discharge a one-percent-chance flood in any given year. . C. 31 When development is allowed to occUr in the floodway or floodway fringe, local regulations shall control such development in order to minimize the potentia! danger to life and property. Within the UGB, development should result in in-fil/ing of partially develo]1l!d land. Outside the UGB, areos afficted by the floodway andfloodway 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 lift and property, public investments, .and efTVironmentally-sensitive areos. Regarding Policy C.30 and C~31, as discussed under Statewide Planning Goal 7, Natural Hazards, which is incorporated herein by reference, the 1-5 Wiliamette 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 I'Y'~"lt ~,.. ~ ,.Stafffi~d~gs '::JWle 2008 '.J~.:.."..-" .-I~.I,:,. 'P8:ge26::p . ;./ifF ATTACHMENT A -PAGE 39 Date Received JUL ~8 2008 q. .' " ~ ):, ! '_. .~.{.' '. : I ,~. ! Planner: ,BJ (NF1P). The NFlP requires ihal'any modifications that cause a rise in the Base Flood Elevations (BFEs, .which corresponds to water surface elevations associated with the.l OO-year flood event) must be approved by FEMA. The no-rise condition is also a requirement of ODOr for any bridge replacement project . Consistent with C.3l, botIi Eugene and Springfield have adopted ordinances regulating construction . within floodplains and floodways; City of Eugene FEMA "no-rise" certification for any construction or structures within floodways/special flood hazard areas; and CitY of Springfield rype I permit to allow any construction in the floodplains or floodways within Springfield. Comments from the Eugene Floodplain Manager note that a FEMA no-rise certificate would only, be required through the City of Eugene for construction (fill) 'or structures within the floodway.or floodplain that are outside, of the right-of-way. The I"Vl'v..al includes temporary staging areas outside of the ODOTright-of-way; portions of the Wbilarnut Natural Area and Eastgate ,Woodlands, and ODOr. and Lane County property both located southeast ofI-5 and theWilIamette River. For these areas, prior to any fill or other development within the regulatory floodway, ODOr will be required to obtain a "no-rise" certification stating that the development wi\! not impact the pre~projeci (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.3I. Option A's preliminary analysis shows an increase of 0.02 base flood elevation, which does not meet the no-rise requirement. However, a detailed no-rise analysis has not been submitted and the modeling will be run again to meet the no-rise requirement when the design is refined for the permitting process. Furthermore,' ODOr 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 related standards. Regarding Policy C.32, as not~d 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 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 small landslides. Based on the findings above, in the context of a plan amendment, the proposed plan amendments are consistent with these policies. 1). Willamette River Grep.nwav, River Corridors. and Warerwavs Element "\~:,\i \-~laff.J;i~~ings ':ju,;e ~008 , . 'Page27 . . i' : ,',. ATTACHMENT A ~ PAGE 40 Date Received JUL 2 8 2008 f....:, ..'1" . ~, ~ .:. '( ,. Planntv,." ~'J '. ~. ~ !,:;~;~\ u f:....~.., " , ; ;, , ., D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the Willamette River Greenway. .,.,. 'iI', .' The applicant proposes that the public access connecting to the WiJlamette River Greenway will continue to be provided through ODOT's-right-of-way under the 1-5 bridges, therefore public access to the WiJlamette River Greenway WilJ not be permanently affected. As noted under Goal 8 Recreational Need above, which is incorporated herein by reference, a cOntinuous route across . ODor right-of-way for the bicycle/pedestrian pathways will be maititained on both the north and the south sides of the river during construction (written statement, page 61, WilIakenzie Area Plan, , Neighborhood Design Element- WiJlamette 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 RI'I',vl'.:ately addressed during local permitting processes,.subject-to applicable approval criteria and related standards. , ,- :' ~ D. 1 1 The. taking of an eiception shall be ,required lf 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 approvedfor Oregon Department of Trans porta lion (ODOT) 1-5 right of way crossing the Willdmette River and within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line,for purpose of consrracting a temporary detour bridge, implementing the conditions imposed on the Discretionary Use Approval (Springfield Journal SHR 2003-00Jl5) and removing the temporary detour bridge, after completion of the permanent replacement bridge. This exception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administratfve Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(5) Willamette Greenway; the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-'0020 Goal 2. Part ll(c)for a 'reasons' exception; and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015. is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy #D.ll, Chapter III, Section D. As discussed under Goal 2 above, in accordance with Policy D.ll, the applicant is requesting an exception to Goal 15 for reasons outlined 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 IS exception. Accordingly, thefollowing text am!"ndment is proposed, with old text struel, eat and new text in bold: AB-:.::::;f:::. ~: ~~tewide Pl~--:~B G:.=2. If 'I~.Til1amette Rbler Greew.,~' ..YB5 Bf3pF8yed fer Oregen D_p=_~' o;:-h=.>po~en (ODO-:) 1.5 i6li: 3fv;ay Bfosomg the W.jJJaml!lte n,...__..>,,~..,_.L,~"1I tl R'o. G on.S tb 'L' . < .....,.... ,r . .' 'I"L __ ~~J't. ....::I~~ .::t~... .1 ame e Ll.er 'feeB'"B.) e a",k. :r.:.-......, u.-.: r~.t'~~- __-""O~""'oYW.-w..o'~ a tempefar)' elBtelH' bRelge, iffiJll_~'_'''<:'-'6 the "eflameRS impeseel en the Dioer-etiefllllY Use .'\ppfB'.'al (SpflngRelel J8Im:-' slIn ~Zllf) Eel remeymg the t_=po=-) Jeto= L-:Jge after s_r.api~:~.:)R efthe pemla...,,:n.~ :rc.:p:",,",,~mem. hRag~. .I~.:l ,)(Qeptien satisfies the eriteria ef DregeR .'\~r..:~..:J'::'.:.:P:e R-ule (OAR) 669 991 {)922(5) WillllHlette C, '~." ~/; theexeeptieR reEJuiremeBls efO.^B 669991 9g29 Geal2, Part Il(e) fer a 're05eRS' elteepaeB; and ~==; ;3 OAR 66g g91 9915, is hereby adeptei ~- == =3flllm:2.::: :=.:M&~: ~~::n ~m; FaHey flD.~ 1, o:;'~er Ill, SeotieR D. . ':~J ;i~.:J-'\4'\'; . ''',. . , ATTACHMENT A - PAGE 41 Date Received JUL 2 8 2008 Planner: BJ 'nl':'; ,', '. Staff Findings .. June 2008 . Page 28 :--....- .,l '. ,. '" An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved fol.: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for pUl1'oses of removing and . replacing the decommissioned 1-5.bridge, the temporary detour bridge and the Canoe Canal bridge with two new parallel bridges (one southbound and,one northbound) , within the 1-5 right-of-way crossing the Willamette River and Canoe Canal and within the WilIamette River Greenway Setback Line. The'e1ception authorizes construction and later removal of one or more temporary work bridges; demolition of the decommissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and detour bridges; construction 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 Willamette River Greenway Setback Line the addition and removal of fill within ODOr nght.of-way and the removal of fJll within a temporary slope easement east ofl-5. Thise1ception satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6), Willamette Greenway, and the e1Ception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2 Part II(c) for a "reasons" e1ception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment to th~ Metro Plan text, Policy D.ll,~Chapter 111, Section D. The proposed text amendment replaces the stand-alone paragraph under Policy D.ll regarding the temporary bridge. The applici1nt' 5 proposed Metro Plan text am~ndment to Policy D.ll is adequate and with this text amendment and Goal 15 exception granted under Goal 2 above, Policy D.ll will be satisfied. , E. Environmental Desiw 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 construction and demolition, including construction andremoyal of associated temporary work platforms, will impact riparian vegetation within the greenway. . Construction is proposed within existing ODOT rights-of.ways and easements, with the exception of temporary staging areas.' As discussed above under Goal 8 Recreational Need, removal of the detour bridges will include removal of fill material from and rehabilitation ~f a portion of the Whilamut Natural Area. ODOT has obtained a temporilry easeJilent 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 will be restored and ODOr will work with the commWlity throughout the design and construction: process to get input and advice on ways to avoid and minimize environmental . ' I' unpacts.' ' I ! According to the applicant, a species list provided by ORNHIG (Oregon NatUral Heritage Information Center) indicates that there are no federal or state-listed Endangered Species Act (ESA) i Staff Findings - June 2008 Page 29 ' Date Received . JUL.2 8 2008 ATTACHMENT A- PA<3E.~2__, Planner: BJ