HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6246 10/19/2009
ORDINANCE NO. 6246
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT,
CHAPTER III, SECTION D, POLICY # 11; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 15
WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Policy #11 of Chapter III, Section D of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) requires the taking of an exception to Statewide Goal 15 if a non-water-dependent
transportation facility requires placing fill within the Willamette Greenway; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2009, the Springfield City Council adopted a resolution initiating a Metro Plan
amendment to add language to Policy #11 of Chapter III, Section D ofthe Plan establishing an exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette Greenway) for the purpose of constructing a bicycle viaduct
underneath the 1-5 bridges on the South Bank of the Willamette River; and
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth
procedures for amendment ofthe Metro Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by provisions of
Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, following an September 1, 2009 joint public hearing with the Eugene and Lane County
Planning Commissions, the Springfield Planning Commission, on September 1, 2009 recommended
Metro Plan amendments taking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway,
to the Springfield City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on September 22, 2009,
with the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now ready to take
action based on 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, Springfield Development Code and applicable state and local law as
described in the findings attached as Exhibit A, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does ordain as follows:
Section 1: The Metro Plan Policy #11, Chapter III, Section D. is hereby amended by the addition of the
following paragraph:
"An exception to Statewide Planning GoallS Willamette River Greenway was approved by the cities of
Eugene and Springfield and by Lane County authorizing construction of a bike path viaduct beneath the I-
S bridges, along the south bank of the Willamette River. The exception authorizes construction of the
bike path viaduct including the fill and removal of fill necessary to build the structure. This exception
..-
satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-004-0022 (6) Willamette Greenway and
the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part /I (c) for a 'reasons' exception. Pursuant
to OAR 660-004-001S, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy
D. 11, Chapter III, Section D. "
Section 2: The Metro Plan is hereby amended to include the findings of fact and conclusions supporting
a "reasons" exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 and demonstrating compliance with OAR 660-004-
0015, 660-004-0020 and 660-004-0022 (5) attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 4: 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 acknowledgement as provided in
ORS 197.625, whichever date is later, provided that by that date the Eugene City Council and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those
described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance.
October
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 19t1day of~~~ 2009 by
a vote of ~ in favor and ~ against.
October
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 19th day of:Ke:p:~~ 2009.
~[m~w[[} & f1pr~OVf[)
AS TO FORM
3 ~.,..<; (">\-\ ~ \... ~i'\\~
DATE: -8-/2. '-I 1 ~
OFFICE OF CiTY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
b~
City RecorderO
ORDINANCE NO. 6246
',EXHIBITA
, . , , , ,
,South Bank Viaduct Metro J:'lan Amendment and 60al15 Exception,'
Staff Report
, October 19. 2009
Applicants:
City of Springfield (initiated the amendment)
City of Eugene
Lane County
Request:. , ".," '
To amend the Fugene-SpringfieldMetropolit~n Area
~eneral Plan (Metro Plan) text to include an,' .
exception to Statewide Planning Go~1151:oallow
. construction of a "bicycle viaduct underneaththe
Willam:ette River 1-5 Bridge.
Attachments: .
Springfield File No. LRP2009-00005
Eugene File No. MA 09A
Lane County FiI~ No. PA09-5472
ProcedureType:
type I Metro Plan Amendme,nt
I. Executive Summary
Eugene-Springfield has one of the largest networks of riverfront bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the
state. The current connection between Eugene and Springfield is limited to the north side of the
Willamette River. The extensive south bank Willamette River path system in Eugene ends at Interstate 5
because of the physical barriers created by both the existing 1-5 bridges and the proximity of Franklin
Boulevard (OR 12GB) to the Willamette River. Users traveling between the two cities along the south
side of the Willamette River must cross to the north side of the river near the 1-5 bridge or divert to the
shoulders of Franklin Boulevard (OR 12GB), a high speed arterial street.
Many planning documents, including the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan, TransPlan, the
Glenwood Refinement Plan and Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan, call for
the continuation of the Willamette River South Bank Path through Glenwood to Springfield.
Construction of the South Bank Viaduct is essential to the continuation and development of the South
Bank Path. The combined viaduct and path facilities (the combined facilities referred to hereafter as the
viaduct) will provide a safer, more pleasant experience for recreational and commuter bicyclists and
pedestrians traveling between Eugene and Springfield through Glenwood.
The proposed viaduct will be about 16 feet wide and 1,100 feet in length. It will connect to the South
Bank Path at the point where it currently diverts away from the river in Eugene, just west of the 1-5
bridges. The viaduct will elevate the bike/pedestrian path and move it out away from the steep bank
near the 1-5 bridges, and return to the riverbank at a point where the path can continue to Glenwood.
The proposed structure will hug the shoreline, minimizing its impact on the river. Some supporting
columns will be placed in the river to support the viaduct as it bypasses the slope barrier.
Attachment 1-3
.-",..,,. ~I~.~
. . .'" . . .
. . , .
, . .
, .
. '. . . .
. The South B~uik Viaduct has wide support from local jurisdictions arid agencies. The following
jurisdictions, agencies and communities haveexpre~sed supportthe South Bank Viaduct:
. City of Eugene
. City of Springfield
. ME!tr~politan Policy Committee (MPO) .
. Willamalane Parks and Recreation
District
. Springfield Economic and Development
Agency , ". .. .
. Eugene Bicycle and Pede?trian Advisory .
Committee
. Lane County Board of Commissioners
An ODOT Transportation Enhancement Grant of almost $~' million, together with $250,000 in OTIA funds'
and about $140,000 in donated materials will be used to fund the South Bank Viaduct project. The
timing of the project will allow reuse of multiple concrete box beams from the Willamette River detour
bridge on the viaduct project. As the 1-5 replacementbridge~ are completed, and the detour bridge is
removed, the South Bank ViacJuct will be constructed.
Approval of the proposed Metro Plan amendment allows for the consideration of fill within the
Willamette River Greenway for the purpose of constructing the South Bank Viaduct. Approval of the
amendment does not negate the authority of agencies to oversee the design and construction of the
viaduct to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts that the construction and use of the facility might have on
the River. The South Bank Viaduct will undergo NEPA review to assess potential environmental impacts
and to secure the needed approvals for construction ofthe structure.
Goal 15 Exception
Policy D.ll of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) states in part: liThe
taking of an exception is required if a non-water-dependent transportation facility requires placing offill
within the Willamette River Greenway setback. II Eugene, Springfield and Lane County are jointly
requesting this Metro Plan text amendment with the Goal 15 exception.
The proposed text amendment adds the following language to policy #D.ll of Chapter III-D Willamette
River Greenway, River Corridors and Waterways Element:
'~n exception to Statewide Planning GoallS Willamette River Greenway was approved by the cities of
Eugene and Springfield and by Lane County authorizing construction of a bike path viaduct beneath the
1-5 bridges, along the south bank of the Willamette River in Eugene and Glenwood. The exception
authorizes construction of the bike path viaduct including the fill and removal of fill necessary to build
Attachment 1-4
" " . .l ' , ',',', " ", _ ,'_ ,l ," '
the structure. ThisexceptioiJ satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-004~0022 (6)
. Willameite Gre~i1way and the exception' require~~nts of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal i Part ~I (c)jor a' ,
'reasons' exceptio(l. PursuafJt to OAR 660-004-0015, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendment
, to the Metro Plan te)(t,Policy D. 11, Chapter III, Section 0./1
, , ,
ConClusion and Recommendation of Staff
The proposed Metro Plan amendments and exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 is required by '.',
, Policy D.p of Chapter III-D (Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors and Water Ways Element). The
Staff Report acc'ompariyin,~ this memorandum inch,jd~s findings de,monshating confoqllance with the'
. critE!riafor Metr.o Plan amendments found in Chapter 5, Section 5.14-135(C) of the Springfield. ' .
.oevelopmentC~d~. The siH~e criteria f()fapproving a MetroPI~m amendment are found in Eugene .,
Code9.7730(3} and Section 12.22,5(2)(a&b) ofthe LaneCode. The proposed amendments are also
consistent with the approval criteria fora Gbal15 exception found in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
660-004-0022(6) Willamette Greenway arid the eX:cePti~n requi~ements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2,
Part II (c) for a 'reasons'exception,andpursuantt~ OAR 660-004~oci15.' ,
, Based ~nthe findings of staff with .respect to the criteria defined in Section 5.14-i3S(C) of the
Springfield Development Code and Eugene Code 9.7730(3) and Section 12.225(2) (a&b) ofthe Lane
,Code for approving a Metro 'Plan amendment and applicable sections of OAR 660-004-0022 for
~pproving an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15; staff find the proposed text amendment to the
, Metro Plan and exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 allowing the placement of fill for the purpose
of constructing the South Bank Viaduct beneath the Willamette River 1-5 Bridges, to be consistent with
these criteria and recommend approval of the amendment.
II. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for Metro Plan amendments are described in Chapter IV. The amendment
procedures are r,eflected in each jurisdiction's local land use codes. Sections 5.2-115, 5.4-135 and 5.4-
140 of the Springfield Development Code, and sections 9.7700 through 9.7750 of the Eugene Code,
contain the amendment procedures and policies found in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan. This proposal
includes the taking of an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 (Willamette Greenway) since the
proposed bicycle viaduct may require some fill to be placed or removed during its construction. OAR
660-004-0022 provides additional direction in the processing of a Willamette Greenway Goal exception.
The following findings are made regarding procedural matters related to this proposal.
Findings:
Finding #1. Section 5.14-115 ofthe Springfield Development Code (SDC) and Eugene Code (EC)
9.7700, includes definitions of two types of amendments to the Metro Plan. Section 5.14-115
(B.) and EC 9.7700(1) describes a Type I amendment as one which includes changes to the urban
growth boundary or the jurisdictional boundary of the plan, requires a goal exception not
related to a UGB expansion. or is a non-site specific amendment of the Plan text. This proposal
is a text amendment to the Metro Plan which includes an exception to Statewide Planning Goal
15 (Willamette Greenway). By the definition found in Section 5.14-115 and EC 9.7700(1), this
proposal is a Type I amendment.
Attachment 1-5
Finding #2. This Metro Plan ame~dment was initiated jointly by t~e qty of Eug~n'e, the City of '
" , ,;. , - 0'" <', >,_, ,: . ,
Springfieid and Lane Couhty. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was fil,ed with the Oregon
Department of La'nd Conservation and Development b~ June 3,0,2009. A letter signed by the
Plarming Managers for each of the jurisdictions was include.dwith the' Notice.
Finding #3. The Springfield City Council approved a motion on J~ly 6,2009, affirming the action of
the Springfield Planning Manager to initiating the amendment.
, ,
, ,
, ,
" . .
, ,
Finding #4. SDC 5.14-135 and EC 9.7730(1)(b) states that to become. effective, " a sit~ specifiC Metro
Plan Type I amendment that involves a UGB or Pian Boundary change ... or that involves, a Goal
" exception not rel~ted to a UGBe~pansion, shall be approved by all three governing bodies." .
, " '. '. .
., . Finding #5. A public'hearingwas scheduled before theJoin~ PlanningCommissions of Eugene,
. Springfield and Lane County on Septe~ber 1~ 2009.
". "
. , . '. ' ,'. .
Finding #6. A public he~ring was scheduled b~fore the Joint Elected Offidals of Eugene! Springfield
. , and Lane County on September 22, 2009. , ..
, ,. , .
.', '.
Finding #7. Mailed notice of public hearings associated with ~ Metro Pian amendment must be sent
to property owners and residents within 300 feet ofthe subject sites (SDC Section 5.2-115 (A),
and 5.14-140, EC 9.7735(3)).
Finding #8. Mailed notice of public hearings was sent out on August 7, 2009 to property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed bicycle viaduct. The mailing allowed more than 20
days notice before the first public hearing as required by Section 5.2-115 A of the SDC and EC
9.7745 which directs compliance with the procedures at EC9.7735(3).
Finding #9. Section 5.2-115 (B) ofthe SDC and EC 9.7735(3) requires that proposed land use actions
be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation, providing information about the legislative
action and the time, place and location of the hearing.
Finding #10. Notice of the publiC hearings concerning this matter was published on August
10, 2009 in the Register Guard, advertising both the hearing before the Joint Planning
Commissions on September 1, 2009, and the Joint Elected Officials on September 22,2009. The
content of the notice followed the direction given in Section 5.2-115 B of the SDC and EC
9.7735(3).
Finding #11. While no formal notice process is required, the Notice of Proposed
Amendment packet that was sent to DLeD was also sent electronically to Jan Houck,
Water Recreation Coordinator with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department on
July 27, 2009.
Finding #12. Notice of this project was also sent to Savannah Crawford, Planner for Region 2
(Springfield) ofthe Oregon Department ofTransportation on July 27, 2009. The notice was
comprised of the materials filed with DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment mentioned in
Finding #2. ,
Attachment 1-6
, ConClusion:
Procedural~eq~iremehts described In Sections 5.2-115, 5.4-135 and 5.4-140' of the SDCan~EC9.7j45
and EC 9~7735(3) have been followed. Notice requirements established by DLCD for amending the
Development Code have also been followed.
III. Decision Criteri~ and Findings
, ,
" ,
.. , .
, ..'
Section~.14-135 t oftheSDCand EC 9.7730(3) describes the criteria tobe used in approving im ,
amendment tothe Metro Plan. It states that in reaching a decision, thePlanliing Commissions and the;
. " .. ", .... . . " I', . ..' "" . .. .'
. CityCoundlsand County Commissioners must adopt findings which demonstrate that the proposal
meets certai~ approvai criteria~ These criteria and findings are shown below.. '
, ',.', " ,.' " , ' . " "
, , ,
. . . .
, .', Criterio" #1 '7he, amendm~nt must be consistent with the relevant 'state~ide planning goals"
, ,adopted by the Land Conservation and De~elopment Commisslon.~'
Findi,ngs
. ',' . .
, '. ,
Goal1- Citizen In ilolvemen t. Goallcalls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planriing process."
Finding #13. A public hearing was held before the Joint Planning Commissions of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on September 1,2009.
Finding #14. A publiC hearing was held before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane COU!1ty on September 22,2009.
Finding #15. Mailed notice of public hearings was sent out on August 7, 2009 to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed bicycle viaduct. The mailing allowed
more than20 days notice before the first public hearing as required by Section 5.2-115 A of the
SDC and EC 9.7735(3).
Finding #16. Notice of the public hearings concerning this matter was published on August
10, 2009 in the Register Guard, advertising both the hearing before the Joint Planning
Commissions on September 1, 2009, and the Joint Elected Officials on September 22, 2009. The
content ofthe notice followed the direction given in Section 5.2-115 B ofthe SDC and EC
9.7735(3).
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning
program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and
that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect must be adopted.
Finding #17. Part I of Goal 2 requires that actions related to land use be consistent with
acknowledged comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the acknowledged comprehensive plan that guides land use
planning in Springfield, Eugene and Lane County.
Attachment 1-7
Finding #18. ,. P~,rt II of Goal 2 provi~es the conditions!3nd stand~rds for wh'ich a local
jurisdiction can adopt anexteption to a statewide &oaL Relevant to, th'isrequest is Statewide
Planning Goal 15, Willam,ette River Greenway which does not allow non water~depe'ndent, non .
watercrel,ated uses, such as th~ proposed transportation facility,witliin the greenway setback
withoutrecelving anexceptio~. The need for a goal e~ceptionis specifically triggered by Policy , ,
. D.11 of the MetroPlan, Willamette River'Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element.
The exception to Goal1S is discusse,d under section IV which is incorporated herein by ,
" ref~re~ce. Chapter III-D, of the Metro Plan speCifically addresses issues related to the Willamette
Greenway~ The following policies f()und in Chapter IU-D are cited below (emphasis added).
. ' ."
, "
P()licy D.2 ' Land Use regulation and acquisiti(m programs akmg rivercorridors and .
waterwaysshall take into account all the concerns and needs oftl1ecommuriity,including . '
recreation, resource, and wildlife protection; enhancement Of river corridor and waterway
envirOnments; Dotentialfor SUDDortinll non-automobile transportation; opportunities for
residential develOPl11ent; al'!d other tompatibleuses.. ' .
. PoliCyD3 ,. ,. Eugene, Sprin~field andLane County s~all continue tocoolieratein eXDandinll
water-related Darks and othedacilities.whei'e aDDrODriate. that allow access to. and
eniovment of the river and waterWay corridors. '
, , ,
, ,
, "
Policy 6.11 states in part that: The taking of anexceotion sh~1I be r~quir'ed if a non-water
dependent transportation facility requires placing offillwithin the Willamette River Greenway
setback.
Finding #19. TransPlan (2002) is Eugene-Springfield's local Transportation System Plan and is
a functional plan of the Metro Plan. TransPlan provides policies addressing transportation
facilities and policies for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
Finding #20. TransPlan contains project lists and maps showing needed transportation
facilities in the Metropolitan area. The Future Bikeway Project Map shows an off-street bike
facility running along the south bank of the Willamette River underneath the 1-5 Bridge. This
bikeway is identjfied as project #851 South Bank Trail (A) with an estimated cost of $1,8000,000
(Jurisdiction: Springfield). The viaduct would then connect with the existing bike path on the
Eugene side of 1-5, shown as an existing off-street bike facility on the TransPlan Financially-
Constrained Bikeway System Projects map. The proposed viaduct and path facilities would
implement a portion of project #851.
Finding #21. Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan lists the Glenwood Riverfront
Park Path (Project 851) as a financially constrained project. It is classified as a multiuse path
without road project.
Finding #22. The Glenwood Refinement Plan (1999) is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan.
It contains a map of proposed bicycle routes (pg. 53) that shows the South Bank Trail as an off-
street path following the Willamette River, connecting the Eugene path system to the
Springfield Bridges. Glenwood Refinement Plan Policy # 4.5 calls for the acquisition of
'easements for a pedestrian and bicycle access to and along the Willamette River through the
Glenwood area.
Attachment 1-8
Recreation
CO,mprehensivePlan
Map # 3-->~xis~ing,
. Planned and Proposed
, , ,
Multi-Use Paths and
, Bikeways,
,\ .
, Excerp~ f~~~ M~p #3
"J'.' '
KEY. , ,
~.. Exis!ing,andPlanned,l'On-Street Bicycle System 2
~ ~xistingand Planned Off-Street M.ultiu~e path 3
- proposed4 On-S~reet Bi~ycl~ System
--; Propose,d Off-~treet Multiuse Path , , .
11 Planned projects are from TransPlan (July 2002) and Springfield Bicycf~ Pla~ (June 199?).
They may also be included in this plan. ',. '
2 The on-sireet bicycle system indudes striped bike lanes and signed bike routes.
3 Off-street multiuse aths ma be included In or lnde en dent of linear' arks. '
. ,"
, , ,
Multiuse Path #15 on
the map is the proposed
South Bank Trail.
Finding #23. The Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is a refinement plan
of the Metro Plan. Map #3 (page 28) of the Comprehensive Plan shows existing, planned and
proposed multiuse paths and bike ways. Map #3 shows the South Bank Trail running along the
Willamette River through Glenwood as an off-street multiuse path.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land. Goal 3 defines lIagriculturallands.1I It then requires counties to inventory
such lands and to IIpreserve and maintainll them through farm zoning.
Finding #24. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth
boundaries. The City of Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. These
amendments do not apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on
commercial and industrial development without full urban services, generally do not apply
outside the city limits.
All land in the City's urban transition area carries City zoning. An exception to this goal was
taken in 1982 when the regional comprehensive plan was acknowledged. The City of Eugene
does have agricultural zoning districts, however as stated, Goal 3 excludes lands inside an
acknowledged urban growth boundary from the definition of agricultural lands and the project
is within the urban growth boundary.
Attachment 1-9
I
I'
. ,
Goal 4 - Forest ~and.' This goal defi~e~ f~rest I.a~d,s '~nd r~q~ires c,ounties to inventory th'em ati'd ,
adopt ~olicies and ordinancestha~ will"conservef~rest lands for forest uses. II ,
, ., ,"
Findin'g #25. This goal does nO,t apply withi~ adopted, acknowledged urban growth
boundaries. The Ci~y 'of Springfield does "n?t ~ave any forest zoning districts. These ,
amendments do not apply outSide the urban g~o~th boundary and, because oflirilitations on '
commercial and industrialdev~lopment without full urban service~, generally do not apply,'
, outside the city limits. A!lla,nd inthe C,ity's urban transition a'rea carries City zoning. An
, exception to this goal wastaken'if'11, 982 when the comprehensive plan was ackn,Dwledged,' .The'
CitY'of Eu~ene' alsodoe~ not hav~ forestz~ning: G6al4 does not apply wi~hin urban growth'
, " ,boundaries and, therefore, does not ap'p,ly to the sub)ec~ proper:tywhich'is within ~~e,~ug~ne-
Springfield urban growth boundary (OAR 6~0~006-0020)..
,;" '
Goal 5 .;.., Open Sp'aces, SceniC and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources., Goal 5 coversmorethan a
, dozen naturai and ~ult~ra'l resour~es such as wildlife habitats a'nd wetlands. It establishe~ ~a p~ocess '
, for'each reso~rce to'be inventoried and evah.lated~ .
'" . . .
, , ,
'. . .
; " "
Finding #26. ' The following a~~inistrative rule (qAR 660-023-0250) is applicable'to this post-
acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) ,r~q~est:
"(3) , Local governments are not required to apply GoalS in consideration of a PAPA unless'
the PAPAaffects a GoalS resou~ce: For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a GoalS
resou rce on Iy if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged
plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant GoalS resource or
to address specific requirements of GoalS;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
significant GoalS resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area."
Subsections (a) and (c) above are not applicable to this request as the proposed amendments do
not create or amend a list of GoalS resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted
in order to protect a significant GoalS resource or to address specific requirements of GoalS,
and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
Finding #27. Regarding subsection (b), the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites
(GoalS Inventory) was adopted on May 3, 2004. In adopting the GoalS Inventory, the City
Council chose to apply the "standard process" provisions of ORS 660-23-110 to the protection of
riparian corridors.
Finding #28. The Willamette River is an inventoried riparian resource site on the Springfield
Inventory of Natural Resource sites. This is Springfield's adopted GoalS Inventory. It is
identified as site "WAjWB" on the Inventory.
Finding #29. Site WAjWB is assigned the following protection under Springfield's GoalS
program for protecting riparian sites:
Attachment 1-10
, l'
"Go~1 S, Recomme~dation,: Limit ,c~n~licting us:es 'a'~d :er:np,l,?y ~~w impact cJevelop,me,n~ practices
when, developing within 150 feet of the,~ resource sit,e. ,"f~e Will,a~ette, River (W~/,!,lB) is a water
. quality limited watercourse and is protected by a 75-foot gevelop'ments~tbc::tck and ,site'plan
review standards describ~d in 31.249 of the Springfield Devel,oPl11ent Code.: No additional" .
setbacks are ne'cessary. The documented presence of a state andfeder,aUy li,sted sp~c,ie
requires coordination with the Oregon Depart~ent of Fish and Wildlife and appropriate federal
agencies to determine what (if any) additional m:~asures may be n,eeded." ,
, .
, ,
F~nding #30., Section 4.3-117 (E) of the Springfie'ld Develppment Code describes permitted
u'ses within the, setback area f9rlocaIIY,signif,i~~ntriparian resource~ites. "~ection 4.3-1~7 (E)
, (n.) lists,itpublic m'l;Jlti~use paths, access way~,~,trails, :boar,dwalk~, picrlic area,s", i':lterpre~ive al1d,
educational displays :and overlooks, incl,uding be~ches and outdoor furniture;" among the
, allowe~uses. The proposed South Bank Viaduct 'is a perrTlitted"use wit~in the protecti~e "
, " " " " ' " ' ' "'" " " ",',
., 'setback along that portion 6fthe'Willamette River within Spri!1gfield's planningjurisdiction.
, ,
, , ' , , , " " ,
Findin~ #31. , I~ E,ugene, the subject projectare~ alsoircludesEugene-adoptt7d GoalS, , '
riparian re~ource sites; the Willamette ~iveri arid a tribut~ryto the Willamette River located"
. ne,'xt to the bicycle/pedestrian path and under Franklin Boulev~i'~d. The /WR Water Resources
, " ",
; Conservation Overlay Zone are stancf~rds'in E~gerie that address GoalS. TheWillamette River
has a 100-foot setback according to these provisions. Con?truC!ion of public improvements, such
as the viaduct,which iriclude work within the setback and riparian resource site areas must with
the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zon~ beginning at EC 9.4900. The tributary to
the Willamette River does not have a setback arld is identified as not proteCted."
Finding #32. Approval of the Metro Plan amendment allows for the consideration of fill
within the Willamette River Greenway for the purpose of constructing the South Bank Viaduct.
. Approval of the amendment does not negate the authority of local, state and federal agencies
to oversee the design and construction of the viaduct to avoid, minimize or mitigate the
environmental impacts that construction and use of the facility might have on the River
consistent with OAR 660-023-0250(3)(b).
Finding #33. Other state and federal permits or actions may be required to protect water
quality, fish and wild life protection as part of the federal National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) review. These permits and actions have yet to be determined at this writing. A
consultant has been retained and is preparing the analysis required for NEPA review and
processing.
Goal 6 - Airl Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires local comprehensive plans and
implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
Finding #34. The City of Springfield has revised its Development Code to respond to National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II, the Clean Water Act, and the Drinking
Water Protection Act and is in the process of devising a response to the Endangered Species Act
for listed species in our area. The South Bank Viaduct will be subject to staff review and to the
development standards set forth in Sections 4.3-115 (Water Quality Protection and 4.3-117
(Natural Resource Protection Areas). These standards implement the protections required by
the NPDES Phase II, the Clean Water Act and the, Drinking Water Protection Act, and the City of
Attachment 1-11
Spr!ngfield'sGoal 5 progr~m ~ornatLir~i res<<;lurc'e ~rotection. Si~ilarly, 'the port'iol1 ,within
Eugene 'Will be subjeCt t,o staff review and the devel(jpm~nt standards beginning at EC, ~.4900
. (/W~ Water 'Re'~ourcesConseryation O,verlay Zone) including review for erosion,' vegetation
impaCts, replanting, and st~rmwater.,'With regard to air quality and noi~e, the viaduct should
have a positive 'effect on air quality'~nd nois~ by irl'creas~ng'the options for alt'ernath~e modes of '
transportation.
Finding #3.5. The proposed text alTlendment ;and Goalexcepti6n will not a,lter th~
'enyironmental protection standards policies cited in Find,ing #34 or amend the metropolitan ",
area's air, water quality or landresourcepolic,ies. The design ,and construction oft~~proposed
bicycl,e viaduct will, be reviewed and monitqred by, lo<::al,sta't~, and federal agel'Jcies with, ,/.,
, aut,hority'to eva!uat.e and regulate th~ environmental impacts of the proje~tori the Willame,tte ,
River..' "
Finding#36~, 'Approvalof~he M~trO'Pla.n,a,me'ndment aIl9ws'fo~'the consideratio~ offill' .
within~h~ ,Willamette River Greenway for the, purpose of constructing the Sout~Bank Via~lict:,
Approval of the amendment does not" negate theau,thority .of agenciest() ov~rsee the design ,
'and constn.ictio'n of the viaduct to avoid,mini~ize or mitigate impacts that the cons~ruction and
use of the facility rnight have on: ~ater quality in the River. "". , ," "
Finding #37~ The viaduct project will require.a Joint Application Form seeking permission
from the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State lands to conduct
construction activities that may impact wetla~d and riparian resources in the project area.
These agenCies will add conditiohs f()r approval as required to address their concerns if any
regarding wetland and riparian protection.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 deals with development in places
subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires that jurisdictions apply "appropriate
safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there.
Finding #38. All sites within Springfield and Eugene that are subject to these hazards
(floodplain, erosion, landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a
variety of sources. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment and Goal exception does not
remove or exempt compliance with Code standards that may apply to development within these
hazard areas.
Finding #39. FIRM Panel Number 41039C166F shows the project area is affected by the 100-
year floodplain (Willamette River, Glenwood Slough).
Finding #40. Within city of Springfield jurisdiction, floodplain development is regulated by
the Floodplain (FP) Overlay District. The FP Overlay District applies to all areas of special flood
hazard. Development proposals within the FP Overlay District are reviewed under Type I
procedure and approval is required before construction or development begins within any area
of special flood hazard.
Within the City of Eugene floodplain development is regulated by development standards
beginning at EC 9.6705 through 9.6709. While development within ODOT right-of-way would
need to meet these standards the City does not review nor issue permits in ODOT right-of-way.
Attachment 1-12
A floodplain development per~itis requiredf~r.~e~'e.lop, ment ~it'hinthe Sp, e, cial Flood Hazards
Area (SFHA) that is' in Eugene but outside.of the pyblic'right-of-way. Any d~yelopment within
the floodway will require a no~ri~e an~alysis ahd ~ertificatio~ me~iing'FEMA"R~giOnx standards,:'
This would ,be required aspart of ~ floodplain.'development permit for ~ny development within
the floodway that is outside ODOT right':of~way but still, in Eugene. The' floodway is a high ha'zard
area typically associated with high velocity flows t~~t is necessary to convey floodwaters out of
our community.
, ,
, "
Finding #41. In February 2009, ODOT prepared and s~bmitted a Hydraulic and Sco.~r Analysis,
Report, including IINo-:Rise" analysis, to analy~e t,he hydraulic conditions for the !-,5 Repl~cement .
"Bri9ge proj~ct to det,ermin~ the' effects of~',he required constru,ction activiti,es to the 100-year "
floodplain during and after construction. Th~ rep,ort c~ncluded that the \/yiUalTletteRiverl-5 ,
'Replaceme~t ~ridge ~roj~c~ would ha'vea ,minimal impact on flood,levels during a 100~year
event. " ,
, Finding #42. , , The proposed ,South Ban~ Viaduct will be constructed at the same locatio~ on
the'south bank of the Willamette River as the 1-5 Replacemen't Bridges. Although a new analysis '
may be r~quired, it is likely that t~e viaduct will ~ontribute Iitt'le tofloodelevation~' in the ~~eht
of a lOO-year flood event, given the small area affected by t~e 'project compared to the
Replacement Bridge project. ' .
, "
, ,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. This goal calls for.each community to evaluate its areas and fa<:ilities for
recreation and develop plans to de~1 with the projected demand for them. ,
Finding #43. Willamalane Park and Recreation District is the entity responsible for park
planning, development and maintenance in the subject park areas within Springfield. In 2004,
Willamalane completed the Willamalane Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan that was
adopted by both the City of Springfield and Lane County as a refinement 'plan to the Metro Plan.
Finding #44. Willamalane's Comprehensive Plan shows the proposed South Bank Viaduct
(South Bank Trail) on Map 3-IIExisting and Proposed Multiuse Paths and Bike Ways."
Finding #45. Several City documents anticipate a multi-use path connecting Eugene and
Springfield on the south side of the Willamette River. Additionally, as previously mentioned
under Goal 2, the TransPlan Future Bikeway Project Map shows an off-street bike facility
running along the south bank of the Willamette River underneath the 1-5 Bridge. This bikeway is
identified as project #851 South Bank Trail (A) (jurisdiction: Springfield). The viaduct would then
connect with the existing bike path on the Eugene side of 1-5, shown as an existing off-street
bike facility on the TransPlan Financially-Constrained Bikeway System Projects map.
Goal 9 - Economic Development. Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of the economy. It
asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project future needs for such lands,
and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #46. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment does not reduce the inventory of
commercial and industrial lands.
Attachment 1-13
Finding #47. The South Bank Viadu'ct will be'b6th an important tr,a~sportation facility for bike
co~ml:lters and pedestrians cO,nne~ting Eugene and Springfield. ,'It is ~,I,so' an amenity with t~e '
potential to bring r:ecreational users into'the 'Glenwood and ,downtown Springfield busi~ess
areas.
Finding#~8. , To the exte~t that,~ecreational access to the Willame~te Riv<7r and to ~uture,
GlenwoQd development in Glenwood arid Downtown Springfield !s part of a business location,
decision, the proposed SouttiBankV~aduct facility may increase the marketability of Springfield
ahd Eugene for new business and industry.
: 60a110~, Housing. This' go~1 specifies that ea~h City' must plan for and accommodate needed ho~sing
", types, such as nlultifa,mily ~nd man~factu~~d ~o~~in'g.'" " ." "
, , ,
Finding" #49~ " " T,h~,prop~sed' Me,tro'Plan 'text ameri,dment an, ,d Go~1 exce,'.' 'ption will not reduce
a~ailable housing capacity and will hot' impact needed housing. As such this goal 'is not
applicable to the 'evalu~tidn ~fthis proposal.' , '.".., " ",
. ," , ' . , " , "
" , .
. " " ' . I ' .', ," .' . ., ,,'. ; J
60a111'';'" Public Faci1iti~s and Service, s. Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public s~rvices such as
sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. ' ,
, , I,}"' . -' , .
, ,
. Finding #50. The Eugene-Spri'1gfield Metropolitan PublicServic'es and Facilit~es Plan (PFSP) is
a refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of public infrastructure; including
water, sewer, storm water manage,ment, and electricity. The proposed Metro Plan text
amendment and Goal exception does not modify any policies set forth in the PFSP, and no
future facilities listed in the PFSP shall be affected by the amendment.
60a112 - Transportation. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system. II
Finding #51. TransPlan (2002) is Eugene-Springfield's local Transportation System Plan and is
a functional plan of the Metro Plan. TransPlan provides policies addressing transportation
facilities and policies for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
Future
Bikeway Projects
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
Legend
BlcyeJe Routes (Future)
/'"w'" Ofl-slraeVwith road project/Future
/\/ on-slreetlwilhout road projecVFuture
N otf-slreellWithout road project/Future
~" off-streellWilh road project/Future
Attachment 1-14
Findin~ #52.. .Tran~PI~n ,co~tClin,~ projec~,li~ts an~ ""laps ~h6wing needed transportation'
, facilities' in the Metropolitan ar~'a: ,The.F~ture BikevvayProjed)'l1ap sho~s an, off-street bike
facility running along the sout~ bimkofthe Willarne~te River 'underneath the 1-5 Bridge. This
bik~way i~' identified as project #851 S'outh Bank Trail (A) with an estimated cost of $1,800,000
, (Jurisdidio'n: Springfield).Th~ viaduct would thenconnect'with the existing bike path on,the
Eugene side of 1~5,'shown 'as an existing off-street bike f~ciUty on the TransPlim Flnancially- '
,'Constrained Bikeway System p,rojects map: '.' ,
, \,Fir~ding #53.: ".' TransPlan's'TSIBicycle Pqlicy#3 (C~apter 2, pg. 33) requires "bikeways to ,
conne,~ new d,eveloprl1~nt wi~~ nearby n~ighb9rh6od ag:lvity cent~rsand ":lajor ~estinatiolls/~
, ,As previously' fTlf7ntioned, the SouthBa~,kV~aduct and 'South Bank PathwiU' con~ect Eugeneto '
, Glenwo'odand'to dow'ntownSp'rin'gfield through' Glenwood.
, , ,,", '. ..' '.'.' ," 1: ,; , " ,'. " ,: " ' :' )., . . .
Find,n~ #54. ' "" Jr~nsPla~'s TSI, Bik~wayPoli~y:,#4 ~ssignspri~rity tothe finding'ofUPiio;rity', , "
, Bikeway Miles.'~, Theseare~efined asst~uid.,alone bi,ke projects Iist~,d in TrimsPlan that'are n'at
, associafed with roadway' projeets'. As ,mentioned above~the proposed'South Bank Viaduct is '
, part of p'roject,#,851 South'~an'~'Trail (A) which 'is'a ~t~nd-~Ion~ project tha(is not associated'
witha roadway.' "
, "
, , ' :,
, ,
Finding #55., Centralla~~ MPORegional Transport:ation Plan lists the Glenwood Riverfront
Park Path (Project '851) as a finicallv constrained project. .It is classified as a multiuse path
without road project.
, , ,
, , ,
" ,
, ,
Finding #56. Additionally, Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR), as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule .oAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy
framework through which the TPR is implemented at the local level. The TPR (OAR 660-012-
0060) states that when land use changes, including amendments to acknowledged
comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility the local
government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed land uses are consistent with
the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service, volume to capacity
ratio, etc.) of the facility. TransPlan, which implements Goal 12, identifies an off-:-site bike path
as a future facility and the south bank bike path on the Eugene side as an existing off-street bike
path.
Finding #57. The TPR requires a determination of which existing and planned transportation
facilities will experience a significant affect as a result of the proposed plan amendment, and
defines what constitute~ a significant effect (OAR 660-012-0060(1)). The analysis for significant
effect is related to impacts to function, capacity and performance standards which are street
standards not applicable to bicycle/pedestrian paths; therefore the proposal is consistent with
TPR. Furthermore, the viaduct and path facilities provide alternative transportation modes
which would benefit, not worsen, nearby streets.
600113 - Energy Conservation. Goal 13 declares that IIland and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles. II
Attachment 1-15
. '
- . - ,
Finding #58., , Appr~v~'1 of the proposed Metro Plan text a'me,ndment and Goal e?<ception will
, , n~t ha'v~ a direct impact on efforts to conserve' energy; as such'this'goal is, Iiot ~:pp~ic~bie 'to the
: evaluatio,n of thi~ proposal.
600114 ~ Urbanization. This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and
then plan an~ zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #59. . T~e proposed Metro Plan text amendment a~d Goal exce'ption aff~ct an area,
, within the existing UGB; as such this goal is not applicable to the evaluation of this proposal.,
. ' " . , ., . .' , '," ,
. .. ' .,
60al15 ~ Willam,etteR!ver,Greenway~Goal~5 set~ f()rt~ p~oc~d~res f.or ~dminist~ri,ng th'e 300 mile~'
, o,f ~ree'n~ay that prot,ects the ~illamette'River. , ' , ,:' ' ,. , . , "
Fin~ir:'g #60..,. '~hapter III 0 oftheMetro Plan-'I/Wi'II.a~,ette ~iver Greenway, River'Co~ridors
, , anqW.aterways Element", includes findings, objectives and policies for administering the,
W,lIamette River corridor as it passes through th'e Eugene-Springtield area, ' ,
, , ,
." , .
, "
Firiding#61. Policy 0.11 of Chapter 11'1 states: The taki'ng of an exc~ption shaif be required, if a
, non~water dependent transportation facility requires placing of fillw,ithin the VYillamette River,
, Greenway setbac~." ' , , , ,.
Finding #62. The proposed So~th Bank Viaduct is located within the Willam'ette River
Greenway setback. While the viaduct design is not complete, it may require the removal or
placement of fill within the Greenway setback. 'For this reason, an exception to Statewide
Planning Goal, 15 is required as part of this proposal. Findings for the Goal 15 exception are
provided at below under section IV and are incorporated herein by reference.
'."ICIIDIII, Hi'wer'F~
Finding #63. In 2003 and 2008, exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 15 were taken and
Policy 0.11 of Chapter III of the Metro Plan was amended to allow construction and related
activities for the Willamette River 1-5 Detour and Replacement Bridges, respectively. Those
exceptions to Goal 15 were approved in advance of any construction designs.
Finding #64. The exception taken in 2003 and in 2008 (articulated in Chapter III, Policy 0.11)
did not foresee or include the proposed South Bank Viaduct.
Attachment 1-16
, , ,
, ,. I
, Finding #65. , Chapterll>17DoftheMet~a Pla~sp~t'ifi~ally addressesi~'sue~ r~,lated tothe' ,':,
Willamett~'Gree~way: The follciwing:pdli~jes fo~ndin Chapter 111':0' are ap~jicableto this,
:, praposa'l 'and a~e cited b~I~~'(emphasis ad~e,dj,andiurther addres~ed' belaw'~nder Criterian :
" #~,cansistency with the Metro Plan,. Policy'O.ll, restated belaw, IS the palicy that directs an ,
exc~ptian t'a be taken and a text amend":l,entta'theMetra 'Plan far the prapased via~uct ;md,'
path, similar ta the exceptians ,pravided for the 1-5 bridges.
" ,
Palicy 0.2, Land U~eregulatian and acq~isition' pragrams alang river corridors and' ,
waterways 'shall take inta account all thecancerns' andneeds'af the cammunity, including'
, ". I. . . '. ." _.,",".' . ~ . , , ..' ,~,. , ". .'. " .'. . ' , .:
recreatian,' resource, and w,ildlife pratectian;, enhancement ,of river corridor a~~ ,^,'aterWay
environments; DotEmtial for SUDDortine: non-automobile transDortati6n: appartunitiesfar,
, resideriti~I' develapment; and oth'er campatibleuses. ':," , ,
. .'. ",'.' , \
, . . .
Palicy().3 " EUge~'~,: ~pringfield 'and LaneiCounty' shal'l c~ntinue to' co~~er~te in eXDandine::'
water-related Darks and other facilities. where 'aDDroDriate. that allow ,access to' ~nd "
etiiovm'ent of the river a'nd waterway corridors.
PoliCy D.ll The takin~ a'f an' exc~,ptia~ s~all; be required if a I)'an-"Yaterdependent:: "
transpartatian facility requires placing ,of fill within the ,WiIIi3mette' RiverGreenway setback.
An exception'ta Statewide Planning Gaal,iS vvillahlette River Greenway was approved far',
,oregan Department ,of Transpartation (ODOT) for purpases ,of remaving and replacing the ,
decammissianed 1-5 bridge, the temparary,detaur bridge and the Canae Canal bridge with twa "
nelJVp~rallel bridges (,one sauthbaund and ,one narthbaund) within the 1-5 right-af-way c~assing ,
the Willamette River and Canae Canal and within the Willamette River Green""ay Setback Line.
The exceptian autharizes constructian and late~ remaval ,of ,one ,or mare temporary wark
bridges; demolition ,of the decammissioned 1-5 Willamette River Bridge, Canoe Canal Bridge, and
detaur bridges;canstructian ,of the twa replacement bridges; recanstructian ,of the raadway
appraaches ta the bridges (1-5 and ramps); rehabilitatian ,of the praject area; and campletian ,of
any required mitigatian ,of praject impacts. In assaciatian with these tasks, the exceptian
further autharizes within the Willamette River Greenway Setback Line the additian and remaval
,of fill within ODOT right-af-way and the remaval ,of fill within a temporary slape easement east
,of 1-5. This exceptian satisfies the criteria ,of Oregan Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-004-0022(6),
Willamette Greenway, and the exception requirements ,of OAR 660-004-0020 Gaal 2 Part lI(c)
far a "reasans" exceptian, and pursuant ta OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adapted as an
amendment ta the Metra Plan text, Palicy 0.11, Chapter III, Sectian 0
Goals 16 throL(gh 19 - Estuarine Resourcesl CoastalShorelandsl Beaches and Dunesl and Ocean
Resources. '
Finding #66. There are na caastal, ,ocean, estuarine, ,or beach and dune resources within the
Eugene-Springfield Urban Grawth Baundary. These gaals da nat apply ta this prapasal.
Conclusion
The findings shawn above demanstrate that the prapased Metra Plan text amendments and Gaal15
exceptian allawing the canstructian ,of the Sauth Bank Viaduct facility as part ,of the Sauth Bank Path' is
in substantial confarmance ta Oregan's Statewide Planning Gaals.
Attachment 1-17
, i ,..
. crltetipl1 #2. " ;~d()ptior.iof the amehdm~n,t miJst, not, n;.ake'~/;Ie''Y'etio !,i~~' ifJ~~~n~lIy"
inconsisteni:/~ ,'..' ,". ' ,. ','.' ,
, , ,
" ,
Findings
,Fin~ing #67. . " Cha.pter m~D of t~e lY1etro PI,an specificaliy addresses i~sues' relc~te,d to the .
,Willame~te Gre,enwaY.The fO!,lowing policies found,in Chapter 111-0 are Cited below{emp~asis
. added). , , , "
, Poli<:y'D.2 "" ": Land Use regulatiori,~nd a.~quisition programs alongr!'(e~corridorsand ':" .'
waterwi3Ys shall t(Jke into: account all the con<:e,rns an'd ,needs o~ the 'com'muh'ity, i1,c1~ding :
,'.. "..' . .,J.,.. , ,. . ,. .", , ',' " ,
, : recre~tion,'reS()UrCe, anClwildlifeprotectiol); enhancement of riverc()rridor and waterVil~,Y
environments; potenti~1 forsuDDortine:non-automobile transportation: o'pportunit!es fo~
'resid~'n'tialdevel,op'ment;'aridotherco'mpatibleljses:' ','" ,.,' ',' ", , ",
, ,
, '
Po.Hcy 0'.3" "Euge'n'e,'Springfleld andtaneCo~~tY~ha'Uccintinue~o,co'oD~rat~in ex~andine:'
. water-related Darks and other facilities.,where aDDroDriat'~. that allow access to and
eniovment of the river and waterway c~rridors. .
Finding #68. The proposed South Bank Viaduct is located within the Willamette River
Greenway setback. While the viaduct design is not complete, it may require the removal or
placement of fill within the Greenway setback. For this reason, an exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 15 is required as part of this proposal.
Finding #69. In 2003 and 2008, exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 15 were taken and
Policy 0.11 of Chapter III of the Metro Plan was amended to allow construction and related
Attachment 1-18
~ 1 1 .
~ctivities for'the'yJilla!!1ette R~yer f-5 De~ouran'd Replacem'e~t B~f~ges; respegiv~ly~' +h~se
, exce'p'~ions to'~~al :15 ,\i:'e,re appr~ve~in ~dvance qfany constructio,n designs.: ,~,' '
,; ')
" I .
, ,. "
, ',. ,
"Finding #70. ' 'The ,~xcept'i'ons'taken in 2003 and 2008 (articulated in Chapter.'III, Policy 0.11), ,.
, ." i 1','" ,"",
did not foresee d'r, includ~ t~e proposed Sout~, Bank Viaduct., ','
"', .
, '" '
Finding #71. , " ' TransPlan (2002)'is Eugene-:Sprlngfield's local Transpartation'System Plan and is "
'a functional 'plafl of the ~etr'~ Plan. TransPlan provides polities addressing transportation
, :' faCilities and policies for the Euge.rle-Spr'ingfield Metropolitan Area~' ,
. . , " ,
, . '; " ,', ,. .' :'" . " "
Find'i~g #72,.', , " ; TransPlant6~tains,~rOjeCt lis~sa,nd,~aps,sh.9~ing,neededtra~sPbrtatian:," ,,'
, Jac,ilities ,in thel"1E~t~opolitan area. The Future ,Bikeway Project Map,shows~n off~street bi~e', ,
, fa,cilityrunning alOllg'the south ~ankof the Willamette Riverlin~erneath the 1-5 Bridge." Thi's "
bikew'ayis identifi~d as ~roje'ct#851 South Bank Tra'il (A) with an:estimated ,cost of$1i8000,OOO '
(Jy~isdict.ion:Springfield).'Th,~ viaduct'wouldthen cqririectwith th~exl~tingbike p~th on th~, ,
, " E,uge~~ sid'eof 1-'5, '~hown as ~'n ~xisting off:-street bike facility on'the Tr~~sPlan j:i~iHidally-
" c:onstrai,~e,d~ikew,~y Systerl) Proj~,ctsmap: " " , ,
, ,
J .' "'::. . " ',: I ',",'
Fhlding #~3,.' " C~n~ral, Lane ,MPO Regional TransportationPlan li'sts the Glen~o()~ , R'iverfront
Par~ P,ath (ProjeCt '851), as ,~finically constrained project. It is classified as a multiuse path
without road pnJject. '
, ,
Finding #74. The GlenWood Refinement Plan (1999) is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan.
It contains a map of proposed bicycle routes (pg. 53) that shows the South Bank Tra'il as an 6ff-
street path followingthe Willamette River, connecting the Eugene path system to the
Springfield Bridges. ,Glenwood Refinement Plan Policy # 4.5 calls for the acqui~ition of
easements far a pedestrian a~d bicycle access to and along the Willamette River through the
Glenwood area.
Finding #75. The Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is a refinement plan
of the Metro Plan. Map #3 (page 28) of the Comprehensive Plan shows existing, planned and
proposed multiuse paths and bike ways. Map #3 shows the South Bank Trail running along the
Willamette River through Glenwood as an off-street multiuse path.
Finding #76. In Eugene, the Riverfront Park Study (RPS) is adopted as a refinement of the
Metro Plan. The RPS study boundary includes the south bank of the Willamette River up to the 1-
5 Bridge. Although the exact location of the viaduct will determined through subsequent
permitting processes, the western portion of the viaduct is generally located in this area,
Finding #77. The RPS includes several applicable policies regarding supporting a south bank
bicycle/pedestrian path, minimizing impacts to riparian vegetation and the Mill Race. Given that
the proposal will allow consideration of extension of the south bank bicycle/pedestrian path,
and with the findings for Statewide Planning Goal 5, 15 and 12 above which are incorporated
herein by reference, the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the
RPS.
Attachment 1-19
?",' ;
" . 0 ,
Con,~lusi~n :,' ,
, ..' :, ' . ' ',- , ',' " , .' ~ '. ,:, .', : 3 ':),', '_ ' : " ,'.: ':.~.' '. ',' .
The proposed Metro Plan teXt~mendment and Goal 15 exc~ption ~o'uldndt ma~e the Metro Plan
int~rnallyintonsistent., The Metro"Plan and its related'refinem'ent plans are sp~cific in the,r,planning for
" the South Bank Path and the ~lig~rTlent of that path along the Wi'lIamette River, passing berleath the',
, Willamette 1.,5 Bridge andcC?'n'necting Eugene's bike system toSpringfield through Glenwood. 1he South,
Bank Viaduct facility is a critical facility that allows passage ar'qund the existing barr'ier'beneath the '
'bri~gethat prevents such~o~nectivity. ' , ," ,
. ' ,,' , ,," ' ,
,',IV. Compliance 'wit~Applicable Administ~ativeRule~ o'f Chapter 660, Division 004-:-lnterpretation of
, .' , .,. ~ . I J. , " . " '. ' ,
, , Goal 2 'Exc~p~ion Process, , " "
, " ~(S~at~wide'Planning GoaI2-lan~ Use PI~nning, ~art II, Excepti,onst aUo,ws for~xcepti~ns'tob~ made'
',' to certain ot'herstatewide pla'nning goals. ,OAR chapter 660 di~isi~n4 explains the three types,bf' ,
,'~~ceptions setfor-th in Goal.2. Divisio~' 4 inteiprets'the e~~eption p~ocess asit'~p'plies to statewide'
.. " ", ',' , ,'," '," . '.,'. " "'. ' '. ,
,Goals 3 to 19.'
, OAR 660~004,-0010(2) states: {~the ~xcePtions pr6c~ss is 'g~nerally'n6t 'apjJjic~'~le't6 those statewide
, goals which establish planning procedures and st~i1da'rds that d~ not p'r~s~ri'be orr~strict certain uses of.
',resource land or l,imit the provision of certain publicfadlities~nd services, beca~se the~e goals contain'
general planning guidance or their oWn prbce~ures for resolving conflicts between cor,npeting uses.
, However, exceptions ,to these goa'ls, although not required, are possibl~ and exceptions taken to these
,goals 'will be reviewed when submitted by a local jurisdiction. Thes'e statewide goals are (emphasis
added):
(a) Goal 5 "Natural Resources";
(b) Goal 6 "Air, Water, and land Resource~ Quality";
(c) Goal 7 "Natural Disasters and Hazards";
(d) Goal 8 "Recreational Needs";
(e) Goal 9 "Economy of the State";
(f) Goal 10 "Housing" except as provided for in OAR 660-008-0035, "Substantive Standards for
Taking a Goal 2, Part II, Exception Pursuant to ORS 197.303(3)";
(g) Goal 12 "Transportation" except as provided for by OAR 660-012-0070, "Exceptions for
Transportation Improvements on Rural land";
(h) Goal 13 "Energy Conservation";
Ii) Goal 15 "Willamette Greenwav" except as provided for in OAR 660-004-0022(6): and
(j) Goal 19 "0cean Resources."
Attachment 1-20
, , '
, Comp,Iii:1,nc~, with 660-004-00:~S7Inclusion as Part cii the Plan
,. .
" OAR 66o,-004~()0!~ (l)s~a~e,s~th~t'''a local government appr6vingaproPbs~d'e~cePtion~hali ,adopt'a~',
part of its ~bri1prehen~,i"e plan fir;Jdings of fact a'nd a st'atement of reasons which dem'ol1strate that the,"
'standardsfor'a'n exception have, beenmet. The applicablestandards'are those in Goal 2, Part lI(c), ,OAR
660-004-0020(2)~ and660-904-0022. The reasons and, facts shall be supported by substantial evidenc~
. that the standard has be,en met.~" .
, ,
. '" " ,'", ',,' ,
, "
~indi~g #78., .' This proposal amends t~e Metro Plan text' and takes an exception to a",ow the '
, , construction of the South Ban.k Viaduct beneath the WiI!amette River ':-5 Bridg~s. Approvalof '.
,thepr:oP9sal wiU plaq~ language(see'Attach~ent 1) into the 1,,1"etro Plan p~ovidin~ for an ", "
excepti~,nt() S~~te,"Yide Go'aI15., The I~cal ,ordinan'cesadopting this pr,opo, sa,1 will requirethe."
, a'pp~o,,:in,g bO,dies 'to adopt the findings of fact and reasons for th~ text am~MdrTle,ntancfgoal
, ,~)(cepti6n.','
. ,'. ,
. " ' .
, , ,
, ,
, . ",';
Findi~g#79~' , , Findi~gs#81 t~njugh #9~addressthe "re~s()~sn~hat C3rfsp~cific to a g~al'" '.,
, :,ex:ceptionfor ~ta~,ewidePlanning Goal 15., , These sha'llbeadopted by reference"as part of the
.. staff report and exhibit to the loca~ ordin,ances adopted ~y'the 'ocal approving bodies. '
C~mpliance with OAR 660-004~0022-Reasons Necessary to J~stify and' Exception u'nde, r Goal 2 'Part
iI(c) , , ". ' , , " '. ,.,
OAR 660-004-0022 states that an exception can be taken for any use notallowed by the ap'plicable
goal(s). The types of reasons that mayor may not be used tojustify certain types of uses not allowed on
resou'rce lands are'set forth in this section. Subse~tion (6) of OAR 660-004-0022 lists the r~asons th,at
can be used to justify an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15-Willamette River Greenway.
Subsection (6) states:
"(6) Willamette Greenway: Within an urban area designated on the approved Willamette
Greenway Boundary maps, the siting of uses which are neither water':'dependent nor water-
related within the setback line required by Section C.3.k of the Goal may be approved where
reasonsdem~nstrate the following:
(a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the site under
consideration or on adjacent land or water areas;
(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
Willamette Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.322."
Attachment 1-21
1--.----. -
, "
"Reasons" Analysis for Statewide Planning Goal 15 Exception
, )' 1 " t
The following section of thisdocu'ment ~malyies ~he South Bank Viad'uct proposal against the "reasons"
that can be used to justify an exception for Statewide Planning Goal 15 as listed in OAR 660-004-
, ,
0022(6){a-d).
. .' . . .
"(a) The use wil,1 not have a significant adverse effect on ~he greenway, values 'of the site under
consideration or on adjacent land or water areas;"
, There appearsto,be ,no 'single state~ent of IIgreen,way val,uesi~ hi the state statutes o~ administrative
rules. ~he p,urposes stated for establishing the W~lIamette River Green~ay are 's~at~d in OAR 660-015-"
0005: "To'protectJ conserveJ enhance" and maintain the rlat,ura(J scef)icJ, hist(JricalJ pgriculturalJ' ~c(}nornic
:and recreational,qualities of lands alqng the ilvillm:nette R~ver a,s the INillametteRiver Greenway.N This
purpose is reflected in ,Chapter III Sectio,n 0 of the Metro,.P~an" the local comprehensive plan ~lement
, that' ~escribes how the Willamette Greel)way will be administered within Eugene-Springfield's plannin,g
ju'risdiction (emphasis added).
, '. .
Findi~g #80.,' Policy 0.2 , La~d Use regul~ti~n an,d a~quisition programs along river ,
corridorsa~d waterways shall take into account all the concerns and needs of the community,
includi~g recreation, resource, and ,~i1dlife protection; enhance~ent of river c~rridor and '
waterwaY,~nvironments; Dottmtial for SUDDortine: non-automobile transDortation:
opportunities for residential development; and other compatible uses.
Finding #81. ' Policy 0.3 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall continue to
COODerate in eXDandine: water-related Darks and other facilities. where aDDroDriate. that allow
access to andeniovment of the river and waterwav corridors.
Finding #82. The proposed South Bank Viaduct is a non-automobile transportation facility
that will serve both recreational and transportation functions." The facility will connect with the
larger Eugene-Springfield riverfront bike path system which is arguably one of the best in
Oregon.
, ,
West end of the South Bank Viaduct
Attachment 1-22
'East end of the South Bank Viaduct
The existing bike path is forced away from the river and on to Franklin Blvd. by the steep riverbank
beneath the 1-5 Bridge and eastward. The path continues on a busy Franklin Blvd. which has an on-
street bike lane and minimal pedestrian facilities.
Finding #83. The alignment of the proposed viaduct would hug the riverfront, passing
beneath the 1-5 bridges. The viaduct is located in an industrial zone, including under the 1-5
Bridge and adjacent to Franklin Blvd. As can be seen from the aerial photos above, the presence
of industrial uses; the 1-5 bridges; power transmission lines; and the austerity of Franklin
Boulevard significantly impact the scenic of this segment of the river compared to other
segments in Eugene-Springfield.
Finding #84. Existing development standards would require minimizing vegetation impacts,
replacement trees, and restoration of the vegetation that is disturbed by construction of the
proposed viaduct on the riverbank, minimizing the long-term visual impact of the facility when
viewed from the river.
Attachment 1-23
Finding#8S. :' , Required NEPA revi~w of this proje~ will ~e~ult i~,~i~lgaii~n 'm~asures :d'eS'ig,~e~' "
. ; 'to 'm,i~imlz~ t~~ ir:nP~'~~, of,theviadu'~ on riparian habitat a'nd th'r~ate~'ed and '~nd~,nger~d fish'
, spe~ies i,n 't'he river." , " . ' , , ' ,
, ", ','
Finding #86~ " ' . The South BimkVladuct and ri~erfront path that wi,1I be en~bled by the viaduct ,
wi,1 fulfiila longstan'di~g fommu'~ityneed. That need is reflect~d in long-range planning
,documents for transportation and"rE7cr~ation (Glemwood Refinement Plan, Gleriw06dRiverfront
, plan, TransPlan, and the Willamalane Park~' and Recreation Comprehensive P,I~n)."
, U(b) Theus~ win 'n'~t signific~ntly r'educe the sites av~i1able fo~water-depend~nto~ water-related uses' "
, ~ithin"th~ jurisd.iction;"'." , " ,.'" " , . ". ' "", , ,." ,', ',' ,.
" .",
Fin~ing #87'~',: ".,'~he to~og;~~phy of the riverbank,pr()hibi'ts most, water~depen~entandwat~r' ,,' .'
: related uses. All 6r the I~'nd otc~pie~ by thevlad~ctis pup,lic~lIyownedarid 'is not proposed for, :
. :, w~'ter-:reiat~dorwater:'~epen,dentdevelpp~ent,inany adopt~d,'land ~se docum~nts: ':Thi~ ..,. ,
project will not significantly reduce the'site,s~vailable f~r\lllater~~ep~~de~t, ~ater'relat~d~us~s;
, .' ,The proposed viaduct structure will enable .users to have bette~ access to the riv~r in th~ fu~~re .'
,w~en' the ,planned South,BimkPath'isbuilt. ':
, . .' .
, . " " , .
U(c) Th~~se,win provide a significant public be~~fit;and~1
" . ., ' . ,
, ,
, , , . .
, ,
, ,.' .
, ,
Finding #88. . Asdemonstrated by itJndusioh in a variety of comprehensive planning ,
d~currients, the,South Bank Path and this portion of the path in particular will have a significant
pu blie benefit.
U(d) The use is consistent with the Legi~lative fi'ndings: ~nd policy in ORS 390.314 and the Winamette
Greenway Plan approved by LCDC under ORS 390.322."
ORS 390.341 and ORS 390.322 are shown below (emphasis added).
U390.314 Legislative findings and policy. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and
preserve the natural, scenic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River, to
preserve and restore historical sites, structures, facilities and objects on lands along the
Willamette River for public education and enjoyment and to further the state policy established
under ORS 390.010, it is in the public interest to develop and maintain a natural, scenic,
histo,rical and recreational greenway upon lands along the Willamette River to be known as the
Willamette River Greenway.
(2) In providing for the development and maintenance of the Willamette River
Greenway, the Legislative Assembly:
(a) Recognizing the need for coordinated olannimz for such e:reenwav. finds it
necessary to orovide for develooment and imolementation of a clan for such e:reenwav
throue:h the coooerative efforts of the state and units of local e:overnment.
(b) Recognizing the need of the people of this state for existing residential, commercial
and agricultural use of lands along the WillametteRiver, finds it necessary to permit the
continuation of existing uses of lands that are included within such greenway; but, for the
benefit of the people of this state, also to limit the intensification and change in the use of such
lands so that such uses shall remain. to the e:reatest oossible dee:ree. comoatible with the
Attachment 1-24
, ~ , '
, ,
,Dr:eserv~tion of the natural. scenic.'histciricai and rec~,eational aualities ()~,~uch la,n~s..,,, ", ,
,':' : (c) Recognizing that the use 'of land~ '~or farm use:is ~ompatible ~i,tr 't,~~ purposes' of the'
", ~iII~mette River Greenway, finds thatthe use ofla'nds for}a~rT1 use :shouid be, cdntinued within'
,thegreenway without restriction. , ' " " , ,., , , '
(d) Recogniz!ng the need for central coordination ofs,u~h gree'n\Nayf6rt,he best'
interests of all. the people of this state, finds it necessarY to place t,h,e responsibUity for the
coordimitionofthedeveloDmerit and maintenance of such :Ilreenwav in the State Parks an~
Recreation DeDartment.' '", , , , ' " " , '
',' (e) R~c6gnizing the lack of need for the acquisition of ,fee title to all, lands along th~ ,
,: Willamette Riv~r for exclusive p,ubli~ use for recreation,al purposes in suchgreenway, find~ it
" "~ecessary to h~it the area,within suchg~eenway that m~Y"be acquired for s~'ate p'arks a~d
" rec'reatioh 'areas a'nd forpu,blic recre~tionai ~se ~jdlinthe bo'und~ries ~funits o(local ",
" governmentalong th~Willal1letteHive~. [1~73 c.558 91t ' : '
, "
" " 390.32:Z Submission~f plan to Land Co~se'~~tio:~ and 'D~vel~pme~~''C'ommiss~on; :; ,
" re~ision,a'ppr~~al ari'd distri'~uiion pf plarl'. (1) FoIIO\N'irig th~ 'pre'p~,~ation, 'of the 'plan or'a ~y ,
,s~gm~~t thereof under ORS 390~318,the State Parks and Recreation Deriartmerit shalls'ubmit "
, , such Diem brsellment to the Umd ConserVation arid Develo,Dment Commission. The ,;',
, ,,' commis~ionsh~1I imies~igate and revi,ewsu'~h:plan or segm'en~ as it considers necessary~ If the
c'ommission find~that the plan or segm~nt co~plies with O~S 390.3~0 'tej 390.368, it shall
,approve the plan or segment. If the commission finds 'revision' of any part of the submitted 'plan,
or segment t'o be necessary, it may ~'evis~ the plan or segment itselt'or require such'revision by
thedepartment and units of local government. ", '", ,
(2) Upon approval of the plan for the WillarTlE~tte River Greenwayor segment thereof, ,
the commission shall cause copies of such plan or segment to be filed with the r~ccirding officer
for each county having lands within the Willamettei River Greenwaysituated within its'
boundaries. Such plan or segment filed as required by this subsection shall be retained in the
office of the county recording officer open for public inspection during reasonable business
hours.
(3) If the plan for the Willamette River Greenway is prepared and approved in segments,
the total of all such approved segments shall constitute the plan for the Willamette River
Greenway for the purposes of ORS 390.310 to 390.368. The department and units of local
government, with the approval of the commission, may revise the plan for the Willamette River
Greenway from time to time. [1973 c.558 94]"
Finding #89. The Metro Plan Chapter III Section O-Willamette River Greenway, River
Corridors, and Waterways Element, is the acknowledged plan and policy for implementing
Statewide Planning Goal 15-Willamette River Greenway. The Metro Plan provides local
coordination and review of development that may affect the Greenway.
Finding #90. Amendment of the Metro Plan requires notice to be filed with the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation (OLCO) as well as affected local and state agencies. A Notice
of Proposed Amendment concerning this proposal was filed with OLCO on June 30, 2009.
Finding #91. While no formal notice process is required, the Notice of Proposed Amendment
packet that was sent to OLCO was sent electronically to Jan Houck, Water Recreation
Coordinator with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department on July 27, 2009.
Attachment 1-25
, F,in~ing #92. . :Not!ce qf,this project \vas also sent to Savann'ah t:r~wfo'rd,Pla!1'~e~'f9r'Reglpn 2-
, _ ' , .' '0; : > _ ' " '. _ -,: , ' "_ . _ ),: ').." _ ' .' -.' , _' I . ' . " ~ . . .
of the Oregon Department of Transportation on July 27, 2009.' The notice was comprised of the
. m'~ieri,a~'~'fil~d ~i't~ b~cb',~oti~~ '~f P;opb~ed Amend'ment m~ntioned 'in Finding '#91. ,,'" "",,';
!', .
V.. . Co~clusion and Rec~a:nmendation: of Staff
, ' '-, " " ,. ' .:
Based'on the findings of staff with respect to th~ criteria defined in Section 5.14-135 C of the Springfield
, Development Code ~nd EC 9.7730(3) for approving a Metro P,lan amendment and applicable sections of .
, OAR' 660-004-0022 forapproving an ex~eption to Statewide Planning Goal 15; staff find the proposed
't'ext am~ndment to the Metro Plan ~ndexce'p,tion to Statewide Planni'ng Goal 1'5 allowing theplace'ment
': ()f fill for' th~purpose oftons'tructi~g th.e S6'uth Bank Via~tict andpa'thfatmtle~ ~eneath the Willa~ette, " ,
River 1-5 Bridges, to be consistent with these criteria and recommend approval of the ,amendment.
,". ",'-' ,:' ," . ,'," '
'; ,. >',' "
, . VI.. .,: Attachrri~F1ts'"' '
'Att~chmentl: M,etroPlan teXt'amendmentj~nguage. , , , " ", '", .."
, Attach'ment2: Diiigram showing the approxfmate location ,of the pro,posed South BankViaduct .
>, 'I " , '" '.," 1" ' , "'. '. , ",_ " , .,' . " .'
"" " )'
, ,
Attachment 1-26 .
" > ",.,
, Attach,~ent i"
The proposed text amendment,cidds the following lang~age topblicy:#D.l~ of Chapter' III~D Willamette
River Greenway, River Corri~ors a~d Waterways Eleme~t:
, . '''Ab excePti~n, to S~atewide P/~nninf! 60011;5 .Wmamette River Greenway iNasapproved ~,y the cities, of ,
Eugene and Springfield a,nd by Lane County Cluthorizing construction of a bike path viC1duct befJeath,the 01- .
,5,br!dges~ along the$outh bank of the Wmamette Ri~~~. Th~'exceptionauthbrize$ Coi1struct;~n oftht! .
, bike path viaduct including the fmarid remOval of fm necessary ,tci build the structure. This .exception,
'. satisfies ,th~,criteria pi,qregO(l;Adrrlinistratiye 'Rules(OA'Ri 66070D4~OO?2 (6) Wmam:etieGreenlNdY and. '
the~xceptiOf1 requiremeri~s of (jAR 6g0-004~0020 Goal2~ Par:t~1 (c) for a .'reCisons' exception, purs'uqnt.
. ,. to OAR 660~004-'0015,' is hereby ,adopted asCm '(jmendmel1tiothe,Metro Plan t~xtiPolicyD.11~ Chapter
"':'III~ ,sec~ioriD:~'" '" '.' , , .' ,
Attachment 1-27
)' , ; ,
Attachment 1-28