HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 9/22/2009
,- li. ~.....' .
.
.
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Staff ContactlDept.:
StaffPbone No:
Estimated Time:
Council Goals:
September 22, 2009
Regular Meeting
Mark Metzger
726-3775
30 Minutes
Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and
Facilities
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
SOUTH BANK VIADUCT METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
Conduct a first reading and public hearing on AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
TEXT, CHAPTER m, SECTION 0, POLICY # II; ADOPTING AN
EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 15 WILLAMETTE RIVER
GREENWAY; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
A Metro Plan text amendment and an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15-
Willamette River Greenway are necessary for the construction of a
bicycle/pedestrian viaduct structure (South Bank Viaduct) beneath the Willamette
River 1-5 Bridges. The viaduct will allow the future development of a riverfront
path on the south bank of the Willamette River, connecting Eugene and Springfield
through Glenwood.
Metro Plan policy #0.11 of Chapter moD (Willamette River Greenway, River
Corridors and Water Ways Element) requires the taking of an exception "if a non-
water dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the
Willamette River Greenway setback. " Viaduct construction may require fill to be
placed within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
Attachment I: Adopting Ordinance
Attachment 2: Staff Report (Exhibit A to the Adopting Ordinance)
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Recommendation and Draft Hearing Minutes
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 WiIlamette 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 126B) to the Willamette River. Users traveling between
the two cities along the south side of the WiIlamette River must cross to the north
side of the river near the 1-5 bridge or divert to the shoulders of Franklin Boulevard
(OR I 26B), a high speed arterial street.
An ODOT Transportation Enhancement Grant of almost $1 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
several concrete box beams from the Willamette River Detour Bridge on the
viaduct project. As the 1-5 replacement bridges are completed, and the detour
bridge is removed, the South Bank V iaduct will be constructed.
The Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan, TransPlan, the Glenwood
Refmement 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 develo ment of the South Bank Path. U Di
a e ecelve
Planner: MM f>tr. (- $?
, ,
.
.
'AN ORDINANCE AMENDi'NG'THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD ME'TROPOLlTAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT,'
CHAPTEHI,il, SEC:nON D, POLICY #11; ADOPTING AN EXl;EPTION TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 15
,WILLAMETIE RIVER GREENWAY; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUS~; ANq PROY'lDiNG AN EFFECTIVE
. ", . " .
DATE,'
WHEREAS, Policy #11 of Chapter III, Section D ofthe Eugene-SpringfieldMetropcilitan !\rea General Plan
, (Metro Plan) requires the,taking of an exception to Statewide Goal 15 if anon-water-dependent ' '
transportation facility' requires placing fill within the Willamette Greenway; and '
. . . .
, WHEREAS, on Juiy 7, i009:the Springfield City Council adopted a resolution initiating a Metro Plan
. " - . - . . , .' .' ,. " .
amendment to add language to Policy #11 of Chapter III, Section D of the Plan establishing an !,!,xception
. , . . .. . . . L .
to Statewide Planning Goal is (Willamette Greenway) for the purpose of construCting a biCyCle viaduct
" , "-', . " -, .,....,'.. ' .,' ,
,underneath the I-S bridges on the South Bank of the Will,amette River; and, '
. '.' ", . ." '.'" . . .
WHE'REAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitim Area General Plan (M~tro Plan) sets forth
, pro~edures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for springtieid are implemented by provisions of
Sectio~ 5.14-100 of the Springfield Deveiopment 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 re'commended
Metro Plan amendments taking an exception to Statewide Planning Goal is 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 111, Section D, is hereby amended by the addition of the
following paragraph:
"An exception to Statewide Planning GaaliS Wi/lamette River Greenway was appraved by the cities of
Eugene and Springfield and by Lane County autharizing construction of a bike path viaduct beneath the I-
S bridges, along the south bank of the Wi/lamette River, The exceptian authorizes construction of the
bike path viaduct including the fill and removal of fill necessary to build the structure, This exception
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
I
.
.
satisfies t.he criteria of Oregan Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-004-0022 (6) Willamette Greenway and
.' . ." . - . '
the exception requiremeilts.of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Part If (c) for a 'reasons' exception. Pursuant
to OAR 660-004-0015, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy
D. 11, Chapter 11/, 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 henito 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 porticin~ thereof. . .
. ',' .
. " . .
Section 4: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the .
Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this ordfnance shall bec~me 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 iater, provided that by that date the Eugene City Council and tlie Lane
County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those
described in Sections 1 and 2 of this Ordinance.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _ day of September, 2009 by
a vote of ~ in favor and _ against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this _ day of Septen{ber, 2009.
,.,r',".,"C -.' .....'.,",.~"
~'~C~li,~~' : ".1-' !,r ~.ti.Ij'JIC:iJ
ft::s'~)~~::~ \..V;A\~
DATE:-BTi'l I Cfl
OFFICE OF Co"! 1..nORIII['(
Mayor
A TIEST:
City Recorder
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
t--
.
.
, '
South Bank Viaduct Metro Plan Amendment and Goal 15:Exception
Staff Report' ,
September 22, 2009
Applicants:
City of Springfield (initiated the amendment)
City of Eugene
Lane Cou nty
Request:
To amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Ai~a
General Plan (l\i1etro Plan) text to inClude an
exception 'to Statewide Planning Goa.115 to allow
.construction ofa bicycle viaduct underneaththe,
Willamette River 1-5'Bridge. ' .
..
Attachments:
Local File NO.5:
Sp~ingfield File No'., LRP2009-00005
Eugene File No. MA 09-4
,Lane County File No. PA09-5472
ProcedureTyp~:
Type I Metro Plan Amendment
.'
..' '
Attachment 1: Metro Plan. textiH]1endment language. .". ,
Attachment 2: Diagram showing the approximate location of the proposed South Bank Viaduct
.
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 1G 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 2-1
-3
.
.
1.~,.Il7tWI-
The South Bank Via dud has wide support from 'local jurisdictions and agencies: The following
, jurisdictions, agencies and comm~nities have expressed support the South Bank Viaduet:'
. City ofEugene
. City of Springfield
. Metropo!itan Policy Committee (MPO)
. Willamalane Parks and Recreation
District
. Springfield Economic and Development
'Agency, " ,
. E~~ene BiCycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee .
. Lane Count\i Board of Commissioners
, '
, '
An ODOT Transportation Enhancement Grant of aimost $1 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 ofthe project will allow reuse of multiple concrete box beams from the Willamette River detour'
bridge on the viaduct project. As the 1-5 replacement bridges are completed, and the detour bridge is
removed, the South Bank Viaduct 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 of the structure.
Goal 15 Exception
Policy 0.11 of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan AreaGeneral Plan (Metro Plan) states in part: '7he
taking af an exceptian is required if a non-water-dependent transportation facility requires placing offill
within the Willamette River Greenway setback." 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 #0.11 of Chapter 111-0 Willamette
River Greenway, River Corridors and Waterways Element:
"An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 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 Willomette 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 2-2
tf
.
.
the structure. This exce~tion satiSfies the criteria of Oregan Administrative Rules (OA~) 660-004-0022'(6)
Wi/iamette Greenway and the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2, Port /I (c) for 0
. 're~sons' exception. Pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, this exception.is hereby adopted as an amendment
to the Metra Plan text, Policy D. 11,Chapter/ll" ~e~tion D."
(o'nclusion and Recommendation of Staff.
. . .
The proposed Metro Plan amendments and exception to Statewide Planning Goal1S is required by
Policy 0:11 of Chapter 111-0 (Willamette River Greenway; River Corridors and Water Ways Element). The
Staff Report accompanyjng this memorandum in'c1udes findings dem,onstrating conformance with the
criteria for Metro Plan amendments found in Chapter S, Section 5.14-135(C) ofthe Springfi~ld
Development Code. The same criteria for approving a Metro 'Plan am'endment are found in Eugene.
Co~e 9.1'730(3) and Section i2..22S(2) (a&b) of the LaneCode. The proposed amendments are also
consistent with.the approval criteria for a'Goal15 exception found in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
660-004-0022 (6) Willamette Greenway and the exception requin;ments o'f OAR 660-004-0020 Goal 2,
'. . ".. . , .
Part II (c) for a"re~sons' exception, and pursuant to oAR 660-004-0015.
Based on the findings of staff with respect to ihe criteria defin'ed in Section 5.14-135(C) ofthe
Springfield Development Code and Eugene Code 9.7730(3) and Section 12.225(2) (a&b) of the Lane
Code for approving a Metro Plan amendment and applicab'le sections of OAR 660-004-0022 for
approving 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 reflected 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 of the 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 2-3
...s
.
.
;'
Finding 112. This Metro PI~'n amenament was 'initi~ted jointly'by the City of, Eugene, the City of '
. . " . '..
'Springfield ~nd Lane County. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was filed wi.t~ the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development'on' June' 30, 2009. A letter signed by the
'" '.,,' ".,.
Pla~hing Managers for ~ach of the jurisdictions was induded with the Noiic~. ' '
Finding 113.. The Springfield City Council approved a ~otion on July 6, 2009, affirming the action
ofthe Springfield Planning Managerto initiating the amendment.
Finding 114. S[)C S.14-i3S and EC 9..7730(1)(b) states'that to become effective, "a site specific .
Metro Plan Type I amendm'endhat involves a UGB or Plan Boundary change ... or that involves a
Goal exception not relat~d to'a UGBe~pansion, ~hall ~e approved by all threegovern,ing
bodies," "
,Finding 115: ,A public hearing was scheduied befor~ the Jointplanning Com;"issions of Eugene, :
, . ,Springfield a~d LaneCountyonSepten)ber1, 2Q09. . ' ,
. ,'...., ..
Finding 116.', 'At the September 1, 2009 Joint Planning ,Commission hearing, 'each C~mmission
voted'to send their governing body a recommendation that the proposed ,text amendment be "
,.' " "', ,', . -. '. . .
': approved, '" ' ,
Finding 117. A public hearing was sched'uled before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene,
. Springfield and Lane County on September 22, 2009.
Finding 118. Mailed notice of public hearings associated with a Metro Plan amendment must be
sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject sites (SDC Section 5.2-115
(A). and 5.14-140, EC 9.7735(3)).
Finding 119. Mailed notice of public hearings was sent out on August 7, 2009 to property owners
and residents within 300 feet of the proposed bicyde viaduct. The mailing allowed more than
20 days notice before the first public hearing as required by Section 5.2-115 A of the 5DC and EC
9.7745 which directs compliance with the procedures at EC 9.7735(3),
Finding 1110. 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 1111. 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 ofthe SDC and EC 9,7735(3).
Finding 1112. While no formal notice process is required, the Notice of Proposed
Amendment packet that was sent to DLCD was also sent electronically to Jan Houck,
Water Recreation Coordinator with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department on
July 27, 2009.
Attachment 2-4
~
.
.
Finding #13. Notice of this project was also sent to Savarnah Crawford, Plarner f,?r Region)
, (Springfield) of the Oregon Departl]lent of Transportation on July 27, 2009, The'notice was
comprised of the materials filed with DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment mentioned in
. ' - .
Finding #2.
Conclusion:
Procedural require'ments describ'ed in Sections 5,2-115, 5.4-135 and 5.4-140 ofthe SDC and EC 9,7745
~nd EC 9,7735(3) have been followecf. Notice require';'ents established by DL([~for amending the
Deiteiopment Code have also been followed.
,III. Decision Criteria.and Findings
, , ,
. '. . .'
, ,
" ,
Se.ction 5.14-135 C oftheSDC and EC 9.'7730(3) describes the 'criteria to be used in approving an
amendment to 'the Metro'Plan. It states that in reaching a 'decision, the Planning Commissions a'nd the
. . - . .. . . .
City Coundls and County Com'mi~sioners must adopt findings'whi'ch demonstrate that the proposal
meets certain, approval ~riteria. 'These criteria and findings 'are shown below.
. . . " . ,.....',
Criterion #1 '7he amendment must be consistent with. the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and De,velopment Commissian."
Findings,
Gool1 - Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process."
Finding #14. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Planning Commissions of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on September 1, 2009.
Finding #15. A public hearing was scheduled before the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County on September 22,2009.
Finding #16. 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 ofthe 5DC
and EC 9.7735(3).
Finding #17. 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 5DC 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 #18. Part I of Goal 2 req'uires that actions related to land use be consistent with
acknowledged comprehensive plans of cities and counties. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Attachment 2-5
"7
.
.
Area General Pia!, (M.,!iro Plan) is th~ acknowledg,!d comprehensive plan thar guides land use'
planning in Springfield, Eugene and Lane County. .' ,
. . ..' ",. .
; "
, . .... . ',. .
. Finding #19., Part II of Goal 2 provides the cohaitions 'and standards for which ,j'lotal jurisdiction
can adopt an exception to a statewide'go~i. Relevant to'this request is Statewide Planning Goal
is, Willamette River Greenway which does not allow non water-dependent, non water-related
uses, such as the proposed transportation facility, within the greenway setback without'
re~eiving an exception: The need for a goal exception is specifically triggered by Policy 0.11 of
, the Metro 'Plan, Willamett;, River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element.The
exception to Goal 15 is discussed under section IV 'which is incorporated herein by reference.
. -' "'., .. .'. ' \.
Chapter 111-0 of the Metro Plan specifi~allyaddresses issu.es related to the Willamette.
, . Greenway. T~e following policies found in Ch~pter.III-0 are cited ,below (emphasis added).
Policy 0.2 Land Use r~gulation and acq'uisition programs along river ~orridors and waterways,
shall take into ac~ouni all the con~erns arid needs of the community,inCluding recreation, ' "
,resource, and wildlife protection; enhancement of riv'er co~ridor arid ""aterway e'n~ironments;
ootential for suooortin~ non-automobile'transoortation; opportunities for residential
development; and other compatible u~.e7' ' ,
, , Policy 0.3 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall continue to coolie rate in exoandin~
water-related Darks and other facilities. where aoorooriate. that allow access to and
e'niovment of the river and waterway corridors.' ' ,
Policy 0.11 states in part that: The taking of an exceotion shall be required if a non-water
dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway
setback.
Finding #20. 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 #21. 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 I-S Bridge. This bikeway is
identified as project #851 South Bank Trail (A) with an estimated cost of $1,800,000
(Jurisdiction: Springfield). The viaduct would then connect with the existing bike path on the
Eugene side of '-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 #8S1.
Finding #22. Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan lists the Glenwood Riverfront Park
Path (Project 8S1) as a financially constrained project. It is classified as a multiuse path without
road project.
Finding #23. 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.S calls for the acquisition of
Attachment 2-6
~
.
.
. :,.
. . ~.
", easemen,ts for a pedestrian and bicycl~ ~ccess to :and along the y,tilla,mett~ River thrci~gh t~~
Glenwood area, ' '
".'
co
Willainala';e Park and
Recreation
Comp~ehensive Plan
Map'lI 3--Existing,
Planned and PrDpDsed
Multi-Use Paths and'
Bikeways
Excerpt,frDni Map #3
,'Multiuse Path' illS on
'the map is theprop'osed
South Bank Trail.
KEY
'.~ "Existing,arid Planned1 On-Street Bicycle System':!
- Existing and Planned qff-Street Multiuse.Path3
. proposed40n-Street Bicycle,System
- Proposed Off-Street ~ultiuse Path
\ Planned projects arEI' from TransPlan (July 2002) and Springfield Bicycle Plan (June 1998).
They may also be included in'this plan.
2The on-slreet bicycle system includes striped bike lanes and signed bike routes.
, Off-street multiuse aths me be included in or inde endent of linear ams.
Finding #24. The Wi llama lane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is a refinement plan of
the Metro Plan, Map 113 (page 28) of the Comprehensive Plan shows existing, planned and
proposed multiuse paths and bike ways, Map 113 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.1l It then requires counties to inventory
such lands and tD "preserve and maintain" them thrDugh farm zDning.
Finding 1125. 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 2-7
c;
.
.
. . , - . , . .
Gocil4 -' Forest Land. 'This goo;1 defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and
ad~pt polici~s and ordi~ances that will '''conserve for~st lands ior'fore'st ~ses.": ' , , '
. . . ." .' ",'" . '.-
Finding #26. This goal does not' apply within adopted,a,c~n'o~'edged ~rban growth boundaries,
, The City of Sprini;tield does not have any forest zoning dist(icis:' These amendments' do not '
apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because 'of limitations on commercial and
industrial development withoutfull 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 comprehensive plan was acknowledged, The City of Eugene also' does
not have forest zoning, Goal 4 dDes not apply within urb'an g~owth bDundaries and, therefore,
does not apply to the s'ubject property which is within the Eugene-Springfield urban grDwth ,
boundary (OAR 660-006-0020), '. ' ,
Goal.5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Ar;cis; and Natural Resources. GoalS covers more thim a'
dozen n'atural and c~ltural resourc~s such as wildlife habitats and wet'l~nds.ltestablishes'a'process
, . - . .... . ," . .' - " . , , .
, for each resource to be inventorieCl and evaluated.
.
Finding #27. Th'e following a'dministrative rule (OAR 660-023:0250) 'is applicable to this post-
acknowledgement plan amendmenf(PAPA) request:> ' " '
, ,
, "
(3) LDcal governm~rits are not required to apply Goal'S in consideratiDn of a PAPA unless the
PAPA affects a GoalS resl;>urce, For purposes ofthis section, a PAPA would affect a GoalS
resource only if: .
(a)' The PAPA creates or amends a reSDurce list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land
use regulation adDpted in order to prDtect a significant GoalS resource or to address specific
requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a'particular significant Goal
5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknDwledged 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 GDal 5 resources, dD nDt amend a plan or code provision adDpted
in Drder to protect a significant Goal 5 reSDurce or to address specific requirements of GoalS,
and dD not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary,
Finding #28. Regarding subsection (b), the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites (Goal 5
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 #29. 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 "WA/WB" on the Inventory,
Finding #30. Site WA/WB is assigned the following protection under Springfield's GoalS program
for protecting riparian sites:
Attachment 2-8
(0
.
.
"Goal 5 Recommendation: ~il)lit conflicting uses a~d employ low impact development practices
. . . .' . . ,
when' developing within 150 fee! of the resource site: The Wilianiette River (WA/WB) is. a water
quaiity limited watercourse'and is protected by a 7S-foot development setback a'n:d site plan
." ,.' ,:. , .,
'review standards described in 31.240 ofthe Springfield Development Code. No additional
setbac'i<s are n~~essary. The documented presence of a state and federally 'Ii~ted specie
" ,
'. requires coordination with the Oregon'Department of Fish and Wildlife and appropriate federal
agencies to determin~ what (if any) additional measures may be needed."
Finding #31. Section 4.3-117 (E') of the Springfield Development Code describes perm'itted uses
.' -.
within the setback area forloc~lIy significant riparian resource sites. Section 4.3-117 (E) (n.) lists
. ~ ,-, " , .
"Public multi-use paths, acces~ ways, trails, boardwalks, picnic)meas, interpretive ,and
educational displaysapd overlooks, includin'g be,nches and o~tdoor furniture;" among the'
allowed uses. The proposed ~outh, Bank Viaduct is a per"')itted use within the. protective ,
setback along tli~t portio~ of the Willamette River wit~in Sprlngfi.eld's planning jurisdiction. ' '
, \.
Finding'#32:. In Eugene, the subject project area also includes Eugene-adopted GoalS riparian' '
'. ieso~rce sites; the Will~inette River, a:nd a tributary to th~' INillamette Hivericicated next to the
. . ' . " .,. .' "
bicycle/pedestrian path and under Franklin Boulevard. The /WR Water,Resources Conservation
, Overlay Zone are ;tandards in Eugen~ that address Go~15.,The Willamette River has''; 100-f~ot
setback according'to these provisions. Construction' of public improvements, such as the
viaduct, which include work within the setback and riparian resource site areas must comply
with the /WR Water' Resources Conservation Overlay Zone beginning at EC 9.4900. The tributary
to the Wiilamette River does not have a setback and is identified as riot protected.
Finding #33. 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
660-023-02S0(3)(b).
Finding #34. 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.
Gool 6 - Air, Woter ond 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 #35. 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 4.3-11S (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
Springfield's GoalS program for natural resource protection. Similarly, the portion within
Attachment 2-9
II
.
.
',' '. . -"', .
Eugene w'ill be subject to'st"aff review arid the development standards beginning at EC 9.4900
(/WR'Water Resources Co~~ervation 'Overlay Zone) incl~ding review for erosion, vegetation
impacts, repianting, and stormwater, 'With regard to air Quality and rioise, the viaduct sho'uld'
have ~ positive effect on air'qu~lity and 'noi~e by incre,asing the options for alternative modes of
transportation,_ " " -'
Finding 1136. The prop,osed text amendment and Goal exception wiU not alter the en~ironmenial
p;otection standards policies cited in Finding 1134 or amend ttie metropolitan area's air, water
'Quality or land resource policies, The design and construction of the proposed bicycle viaduct
, wiU be reviewed and monitored bY,local, state, and federal agencies with authority to evaluate
, and regulate the environmental impil(:ts of the project on th'e Willamette River,
. r. , . . - .... '. ' ' ". .
Finding 1137.' Approval ofthe Metro Plan,amendment all'ows forthe consideration offill with, in the
, Willamette River Greenw'ay for the purpose of constructirig the South Bank Viaduct, Approval of
. " .' -'.' -" .'. -" '.,'.
,the amendment does not negat"e 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 water Quality in the River,
o , ,", ..
". . .'. ,i . ,_
Finding 1138. 'The viaduct, project will re,Quire a iointApplication Form seeking permission from the
U,S, Army Corps,of Engineers and the Oregon Departme~t of State lands to conduct
construction activities that may impact wetland and riparian resources in the project area,
These agenCieswill add conditions for' approval as required to address their concerns if any
regarding wetland and riparian protection,
Gool 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 "appn?priate
safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there.
Finding 1139. 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 1140. FIRM Panel Number 41039Cl66F shows the project area is affected by the 100-year
floodplain (Willamette River, Glenwood Slough).
Finding 1141. Within the City of Springfield's 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,
A floodplain development permit is required for development within the Special Flood Hazards
Area (SFHA) that is in Eugene but outside of the public right-of-way. Any development within
Attachment 2-10
12--
.
.
the floodway will r~quire ~ 'rio-rise ana'lysis an~ certification m,~eting FEMA Region X standards:
. ,This 'would' be required as part of a floodplain development permit for any'development within
t~e fl~odway thati~ outside ODOT right-of-way b~t 5tiil i~ Eugene, The flood;';ay is ~ high hazard
are~ typicailyas~ociated with high velocity flows that is necessary to convey floodwaters out of
, 6ur community,
Finding #42. In February 2009, ODOT prepared and sub'mitted a Hydraulic and Scour Anaiysis
Report, including "No:Ri~e" analysis, to analyze'the hydraulic conditions for the 1-5 Replacement
'Bridge project to determine the effects of-the required construction activities to the 100,year '
. '. . . . .' .
'floodpiain during and after construction, The report concluded that the Willamette River 1-5
Repiacement Bridge project would h,we a 'minimal impact on flood levels during a iOO-year
," . ,. ". .' . .'. .- .'
, ,
. event.
. . . . . . :,. ~ - .' " '
Finding #43. " The proposed South Sank ViaductwiJI be constructed at the same location on the
Sillithbarik of the Willam~tte River, "sthe i-s Repla~ementBridges, Although anew analysis,
may'be required, it is Ii~ely that the viaduct.will contribute little to flood elevations in the event
. 'of a 100~year flood ~vent, given the 'small area affected by the project compared t() the'
Replacement Bridge project, " .
.. ,
Gool 8 -:Recreotionol Needs. This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities .for
recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them.
Finding #44. Willamalane Park and Recreation District is the entity responsible for park plarming,
development and maintenance in the subject park areas within Springfield, In 2004,
Willamalahe 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 #45. Willamalane's Comprehensive Plan shows the proposed South Bank Viaduct (South
Bank Trail) on Map 3-"Existing and Proposed Multiuse Paths and Bike Ways."
Finding #46. 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) Uurisdiction: 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.
Gool9 - 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 #47. The proposed Metro Plan text amendment does not reduce the inventory of
commercial and industrial lands.
Finding #48. The South Bank Viaduct will be both an important transportation facility for bike
commuters and pedestrians connecting Eugene and Springfield. It is also an amenity with the
Attachment 2-11
13
.
.
Finding #49. , To the extent that recreational acces~ to the Willamet~e River and 'to future
(Olen'wood deveiopment in Glenwood and Downtown Springfield is part of a business location
decision, the proposed South Bank Viaduct facility may increase the marketability of Springfield,
and Eugene for new business and industry,
. . '.
" Gool10 - Housi~g. This goal specifi~s that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing
, tYpes~ s~chas multifamily and mimufact~red housing. " , .. ,
, '
Finding #50. Th.e proposed Metro Plan t,ext amendment and Goal exception will not reduce,
availablehous,ing capacity and will 'not impact needed housing, As such this goal is not, '
applicable to the. evaluation of this 'proposaL'
. . '.' '. '.' . .,,' '. . . .",.."." .
Gool11 - PubliC Focilities imd Services. Goal 11 calls fo'r efficient planning of public'services such as
'sew~rs, ~ater~'law. enforcem~'nt, ~nd fire prot~_Cti~n.". . . '. .
',"
. " ,"
Finding #51. 'The Eugene-Springfield Metropolita'n Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP) is a
. refinement plan of th~ Metro Plan that guides" the p'rovi~ion of public infra~tructure,including
',water, ,sewer, storm watermanagement, and electricity. The proposed Metro Plan text
amendment and Goal exception does not modify any policies set forth in the PFSP, an'd no
future facilities listed in the PFSP shall be affected by the amendment,
Goo112 - Tronsportotion. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economk transportation
system. II
Q
~
;;
F
!!\
~
'"
l'
~
-~
j '\ -
-----"oS ",'.'!"'
c~,<?.t6---'" ~\;~:,I',l?
~ 839
Future
Bikeway Projects
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
~
Legend,
", Urban Growth Boundary
Bicycle Routes (Future)
/\/on-streeVwith road projecUFuture
IV on-street/without food project/Future
~ off-street/without road project/Future
,"off-street/With road project/Future
Attachment 2 -12
/1
.
.
Finding'#52. TransPlan ,(2002) is Eugene,Springfield'dcical Tra.nsiJOrtati~n System Pl,an a~d is a,
'functional plan of the Metro Plan. TransPlan p'rovides policies addressing transportation
, .' , " '- , ',' ,
faCilities and policies for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area. ,... "
, . , .' .
.,."
Finding #53. TransPlan contains project lists and maps showing needed transportation facilities in '
the Metropolitan area. The Future Bikeway Project Map shows an o'ff-street bike facility running
along the south bank ofthe Willamerte River underneath the I-SBridge. This bikeway is
identified as project #851 South Bank Trail (A) with an estimated cost of $1,800,000
(Jurisdiction; Springfield). The viaduct would then connect with the existing bike path on the
Eugene side of 1-5, shown as an existi.ng ott:street bike faciHty on the TransPlan Finan'cially-
Constrained Bikeway System Projects r:nap'., '
F\ndirig #54. TransPlan's TSI Bi'cycle Policy # 3 (Chapter 2, pg. 33) requires "bikeways to connect
'new developnie~t with'nearby'neighb~rho,od activity centersandmaj,?r destinations." .As
'previously ~entioned, the South Bank Viaduct and South'B~nk Path wi!1 connect Eugene to
. Glenwood and to downtown Springfield through Gleliwood. '
, . '. . , .
Finding #55. ' TransPlan's TS! Bikeway Policy' #4 assigns priority to the' finding of :'Priority Bikeway
Miles." These are defined as st~~'d-alone bike projects listed in TransPlan tha! are n~t '
'associated with roadway projects., 'As,mentioned ab~'ve, the proposed South Bank Viaduct is
part of project #851 South Bank Trail (A) which is a stand-alone project that is' not associated
, , with a roadway.
Finding #56. Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan lists the Glenwood Riverfront Park
Path (Project 851) ~s a financially constrained project. It is classified as a multiuse path without
road project.
Finding #57. 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 facil,ity and the south bank bike path on the Eugene side as an existing off-street bike
path.
Finding #58. 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 constitutes 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.
Attachment 2-13
/5
.
.
. ..
'. ." .
Goo/13 - Eru!rgy Conservotion. Goal 13 declaresthat' "land and uses c!eveloped o,n th""land shall be
'managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
~c~nomic priricipies." ' ' , " , ' ,
Finding #59. Approval of the proposed Metro Plan text amendment and Goal exception will not
have a direct impactor, efforts to conserve energy; as such this goal is not applicable to the'
, evaluation ofthis proposaL'
Goa/14 .., Urbanization. 'This goal requir~s dties to estimate future 'growth and needs for land and
th~n plan a'ndzone enough land to 'meet those needs. ' '
, ' ,
, ,Finding #60. The, proposed Metro Plan text 'amendment and Goal exception aff",ct an area within
, the'existing UGB; as such this goal is notappli~able to ,the evaluation of this prop'osal,' ' ,
, . ,
. . . '. . .
. . ',.,' . ,'. ' .' .' ,," . .
, Goa/15 -'- Wi/lomette Rive~'Greenwoy. :Goal is s",ts forth procedures for adl)'linistering the 300, miles,
. ; ofgreE!nwaythat protects the Willainette River. " "
, 'Finding #61. Chapter III 0 'of the Metro Plan-"Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors and
Waterways Element" includes findings, objectiv~s' and p6iicies f~r ~arninistering'the Willamette
Riv~r ~orridci.r as it passes through the Eugene:Springfield area: '
'. . . . , ' ,
Finding #62. Policy 0,11 of Chapter III states: The taking of an exc~ption shall be required if a
non-water dependent transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River
Greenway setback,"
Finding #63. 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 Findings for the Goal 15,exception' are provided at below under
section IV and are incorporated herein by reference,
.-'_1eIfholJrI-^'
Finding #64. 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 ,^!ere approved in advance of any construction designs,
Attachment 2-14
II:>
.
.
Finding #65', The exi:~ption taken in 2003 a.nd in 2008 (articulated i,n Chapter III, Policy 0:1~) did
not foresee o'r indude the proposed South Bank Viaduct ' , ,
. . .,' ,'. '; .. "r',' .' ,
"
. , .. .
Finding #66. Chapter 111-0 ofthe Metro Plan specjfi,cally ad9ies~es issues related to the Willamette
,.. '., ,
Greenway. The following policies found in ChapterlU-O are applicable to this proposal and are .
cited below (emphasis added), and further addressed below under Criterion #2, consistency .
with the Metro Plan, POlicy'O.ll, rest~t~d below, is the P9licy that directs an exception to be .
taken and a text amendment to the Metro Plan for the proposed viaduct and path, similar to the
exceptions provided for the 1-5 bridges. .
'. Priiicy'O,'2 land Use reguiation and acquisitiim programs along ri~ercorridois and waterways
. shall take int~ account all'the~oncern~ and needs~f the ,comm~nity, including recreation: . .
resource, a'nd wildlife protection; enhancement of river corridor and waterway environments;
pot~ntial for sup'porti;,~' non-automobile t"ansport~ti~n: opportunities for residential .
dev,elopment; and other compatible uses. '. .' , .
~. ',' .. .".. ,
Policy 0.3 Eugene, Springfield and lane County shall continue to cooperate in expandin~
water-related parks. and other facilities. where appropriate. that allow access to and
eniovment of theriver andwaterwav corridors.
'PolicyD.ll The taking of an exception'shall be required if a non-water dependent
transportation facility requires plaCing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved for
Oregon Department of Transportation (OOOT) 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 OOOT 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 lI(c)
for a "reasons" exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an
amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy 0.11, Chapter IU, Section 0
Goals 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources.
Finding #67, There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the
Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, These goals do not apply to this proposal.
Attachmenl2-15
17
.
.
'" "Conclusion'
. .,'
, The findings.show~ 'ab'oil~ demonstrate that the proposed Met'r~ i>1~ii text amendme~ts a~!l.GoallS' '
, exception allowing the construction of the South Bank Viaduct facility as, part of the South Bank Path is
in substantial conformance to Oregon's Statewide Planning Go'als. ,,' ':'
Criterion #2. '''Adoption of the amendment must nat make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.'; ".
.' Findings, ,
" ' '. '.' . .,
Finding #68. ,Chapter III:D of the Metro plan specifically addresses issues rel~ted 'to the Willainette
, Green.way. The following pOlides found in Chapter 111:0 are cited below (emphasis added). '
,".
'. . . ,....
'Policy 0.2 L~nd Use regulation and acquisition programs ~Iring riverc~rridois and waterways
shall take !nto accourit all the concerns and needs bf the community, iricludiri'g recreation, '
resource, and wildlife protection; enhancement of river 'corridor and waterway environments;
Dotential for 5uDDortine non-automobile transDortation; opportunities for residential
development; and other comllatible uses. ' :
Policy 0.3 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County sh~1I continue to cooDei-ate in eXDandine
water-related Darks and other facilities. where aDDroDriate: that allow access to and
eniovment of th'e 'river and waterwavcorridors.
Policy 0.11 The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water dependent
transportation facility requires placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was approved for
Dregon Department ofTransportation (DDDT) 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 ofthe 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 offill within DDDT right-of-way and the removal offill within a temporary slope
easement east of 1-5. This exception satisfies the criteria of Dregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
660-004-0022(6), Willamette Greenway, and the exception requirements of OAR 660-004-0020
Goal 2 Part lI(c) for a "reasons" exception, and pursuant to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby
adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text, Policy 0.11, Chapter III, Section D.
Finding #69. 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
Attachment 2-16
If
..
. fill \^Iithin the Gre~nway sei'back. For this reason" an ~xception to Statewide Planni~g Goal is ,is
required ~s p'art ofthis propos,",
, "'.' ", ': '
J,'-' '"
~ , . .
Finding #70. In 2003and 200S,'exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 15 were taken and Policy
, 0,11 of Chapter III ofttie Metro'PI~n 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 #71. The exceptions taken in 2003 and 2008 (articulated in Chapter III, Policy 0,11) did n~t
f9resee or. include the proposed South Bank Viaduct, .' . , , '
. ". . . . .
Finding #72. TransPlan (2002) is Eugene-Springfield'slocal Transportation System Plan imd is a
'. . ~ , ".. ." .. . " .
. functional plan of the l\i1etro Phm, Tr~n~Plan provides poJi~ies 'addressing tra~sportatior
. facilities and policies' for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area, ' . .
. '. . '-. . . .. '.' ," - ,
. . . ,. ,
, Find,ing #7'3, TransPla'nc~ritains project lists and 'haps showing needed'transportation facilities in'
the Metrop6lit~n area, The Future BikewaYProject 'Map show's an off-street bike facility running
, ,.' -'.' - .", . . .' . . " .
" along the south bank ofthe Willamette River un.derneath the 1-5 Bridge.. This bikeway is
identified as project #851SouthBank Trail (Al 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,
Finding.#74. ' Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan lists the Glenwood Riverfront Park
Path (Project 851) as a finically constrained project. It is classified as a multiuse path without
road project.
Finding #75. 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,
Finding #76. 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 #77. In Eugene, the Riverfront Park Study (RP5) 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 #78. 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 GoalS, 15 and 12 above which are incorporated
Attachment 2-17
fCi
.
.
"
, , '.
herein by reference, the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the:
RPS," ' " " "",' ,
Conclusion
The prdposed l\i1etro Plan text amendmentan~ Goal 15 exception would not make the, Metro Plan ,
, internally inconsistent, The Metro Plan and its related refinement plans are specific in their planning for
the South Bank Path and the alignment of that path along the Willamette Rive~, passing beneath the
. . '.,
Willamette 1-5 Bridge and connecting Eugene's bike system to Springfield through Glenwood" The South
Bank Viaduct facility is a critical facility that allows passage around the 'existing barrier beneath the
bridgethat prevents sU,ch c6nn~ciivity, '
, "
. .' . ."
. '," .
. '" .,
IV. C~mplia,!ce with ,Applicable Administrative Rules of Chapter 660, Division m)4-'lrterpretation of
, ',Goal 2 ExceptionProces,s
"Statewide Planning Goai 2-Land u~e Planni~g; Part II,Exi:~Ption~/' a'ilows for exceptions to be made
to certain :other st~t,,~ide 'pla~ning goals,' OAR'~hapter 660 division 4 explains th~ tlir~e types of ,
exceptions set forth in Goal 2: Division 4 interprets the exception process as it applies to statewide
. . . . . " . .' ,'. .' .' - ,
, Goals 3 to 19,' "
, .
, '
OAR 660-004-0010(2) states: "the exceptions process ;s generally not applic~ble to those statewide
goals which establish planning procedures and standards that do not prescribe or restrict certain uses of
resource land or limit the provision of certain'public facilities and seniices, because these goals contain
general plan'ning guidance or their own procedures fo'r resolving conflicts between competing uses,
However, exceptions to these goals, although not re'Quired, are possible and exceptions taken to these
goals will be reviewed when submitted by a local jurisdiction, These statewide goals'are (emphasis
, added):
(a) Goal 5 "Natural Resources";
(b) Goal 6 "Air, Water, and Land Resources 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";
lil Goal 15 "Willamette Greenway" exceDt as Drovided for in OAR 660-004-0022(61: and
Attachment 2-18
20
.
.
(j)Goal i9 "Ocean Resources."
. . . .' 1, . ,
. COmpiia~ce"Nith 660-004-001S-lndusion as "a~ ofthe Plan'
. .'
. , .
OAR 660-004-00is (i) states that ';alocal government approving a proposed ex'ception shall adopt as
part of its comprehensive plan fin'dings of fact and a statement of reasons which demonstrate 'that the
standard~ for an exception have been met. The applicable standards are those in Goai' 2, Part lI(c), OAR
660-004-0020(2), and 660-004-0022. The reasons and facts shall be siJpported by substantial evidence
- .' .
" .
that the standard has been met.'"
. , - ..
Finding #79. '. This proposal amends the MetrqPlan text and takes an exception to allow the , '
construction. ofttie South Bank Viaduct beneath the Willamette RiVer 1:5 Bridges.' Approval of
the proposal will place language (see Attachment 1) into the Metro Plan providing for an ,"
. exceptio~to State';'ide 'G6aI15. The local ordinances adopting this proposal will require th~""
.' " ' . ,.. . ' . . . . ,
. approving bodies to adopt the findings offact and reasons fOi'the text amen.d~ent and goal:
'e'xception. ,'" ", ,. .' , ',. . ' '.
Finding #80. FindingS#81 through #93 address the "reasons" that are specific to a goal exception
". - , - ". " . ',.
for Statewide Planning Goal 15. These shall be adopted by reference as part of the staff report
, and exhibit to ttie local o;dinances adopted 'by the local approving bodies. " ' '
'Compliance with OAR 660-004-00n-Reasons, Necessary to Justify and Exception under Goal 2 Part
II (c) ,
OAR 660-004-0022 states that an exception can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable
goal(s). The types of reasons that mayor may not be used to justify certain types of uses not allowed on
resource lands are set forth in this section. Subsection (6) of OAR 660-004-0022 lists the re~sons that
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
reasons demonstrate the following:
(a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the site under
consideration or on adjacent land or water areas;
(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 2-19
11'
.
.
"Reaso~s" Analysis fo~ Statewide Planning Goal ~S Exception
..." . ,',' . , . "", ."
. The following section of this dpcument analyzes the South B~hk Viaduct proposal against the :'reasons"
.' . . . . .'.
. that can be used to justify an exception for Statewide Planning 60al15 as listed in OAR 660-004-
. '002'2(6)(a-d). . .' .., , . .
, "(a) The use will not have a significant adverse effect on the greenway values of the site under
, consideration or on adjacent land or ~ater areas;"
There appears to be no single statement of "greenway values"in the state statutes or administrative
rules.. The,purpose~ stated for estabiishingthe Willamette Rive; Greenway arestatedin' OAR 660-015-
, ' . ., .
,0005: "To protect, conseive, enhpnce and mainiain the natural,. scenic, historical, ag'riculturaJ; eca,~amic
and recre(ltianal qualities af larids along the Willamette River as the WifhJmetteRiverGr~enway." This'
purpose is reflected in Chapter III Section.O of the Metro Plan,. the local comprehe';si~e plan element
that describes how the Willa~ette Green~~y ~i11 be administer~d within Eug~ne-Springfield's planning'
jurisdiction iemptiasis added).. ... ' " ,.,.. . '. ... ... ' "
.' , . ,
,-
,','
Finding, #81. Policy 0:2. . Land Use regulation and acquisition,programs along river corridors.
and waterways shall take into account'all the concerns and needs.'of thecoinmunity, including
recreation, resource, and ;"'i1dlife protection; enhancement of rive.r corridor and waterway
environments; Dotential for supportin~ non-automobile transportation; opportunities for
residential development; and other co~patible uses.
Finding #82. Policy 0.3 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County shall continue to cooperate in
expandin~ water-related parks and other facilities. where appropriate: that allow access to
and eniovment of the river and waterway corridors.
Finding #83. 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 2-20
2,..'2.-
.
.
East end of the South BankViaduct
Finding #84. 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 #85. 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 2-21
23
.
.
, Finding #86. Required NEPA review of this project will resul~ in mitigati'of, me~sures designed t()
,m'(nimize the impact ofthe viaduc(onfipariaii ~abitat and'threah'ned and eridarigere~ fish
~1?~Ci~S in, th:e river. . . , .. .
: " . . .' '. .. -'
Finding #87.: The South Bank Viaduct and riverfront path that will be enabled by the viaduct will
, fulfill a lcingstanding commun'ity nee'd,' T, hat need is reflected in long-range planning documents,
fortran'sportation and recreation (Glen'wood Refinement Plan; Glenwood Riverfront Plan, '
TransPlari, and the Willamalane ~arks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan),
.. ,
, ,
. . ..'
"(b) The, use will n~t signiflcantlyreduce the sites available for water-dependent or water-related uses
withinthe juris~iction;" , ' , ", '
. . ,'l. '_',
, Finding #88: ,The,topography of the riverbank prohibits most water:dependentand water related '
, ' uses, 'All ofthe land occupi~d by'the viaduct is publically'i>wned a~d is not pr<)pos~d for water:,'
" r~lated or water-d~pendent development in any adopted 'Iand'use documents, 'This project wiil ' '
,',,' ,'. - .",', '
, not significantly reduce the sites available for water,dependent, water related-uses, The
", , "''- ,'..."...... '. - ,
,proposed viaduct structure will enable' users'to have better access to the river in the future.
when the planned'South Bank Path isbuilt. ' '. ' , ,,'
. ' . . ' ,
"Ie) The use will pr.ovidea significant public benefit; arid"
Finding #89. As demonstrated by it inclusion in a variety of comprehensive planning documents,
the South Bank Path and this portion of the path in particular will have a significant public
benefit. '
"(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."
ORS 390,341 and ORS 390,322 are shown below (emphasis added).
"390.314 legislative findings and policy. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and
preserve the natural, scenic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River, to
preserve and restore historical sites, structures, facilities and objects on lands along the
Willamette River for public education and enjoyment and to further the state policy established
under ORS 390.010, it is in the public interest to develop and maintain a' natural, scenic,
historical and recreational greenway upon lands along the Willamette River to be known as the
Willamette River Greenway,
(2) In providing for the development and maintenance of the Willamette River Greenway, the
Legislative Assembly:
(a) Recognizing the need for coordinated olanninR for such Rreenwav. finds it necessary to
orovide for develooment and imolementation of a olan for such Rreenwav throuRh the
coooerative efforts of the state and units of local Rovernment.
(b) Recognizing the need of the people of this state for existing residential, commercial and
agricultural use of lands along the Willamette River, finds it necessary to permit the
continuation of existing uses of lands that are included within such greenway; but, for the
benefit of the people of this state, also to limit the intensification and change in the use of such
lands so that such uses shall remain. to the Rreatest oossible deRree. comoatible with the
Attachment 2-22
'Nf
, ,
.
.
':
Dreservation of the 'natural. scenic. historic~1 and recreationalllualities of s~ch lands, ..
(c) Recogniiing'that the use of lands for farm ,use is compatible 'with the purposes of the ,
. . . '. . . , '" - .,
, - Will~mette River Greenway, finds that the use of lands for farm use sh<;>uld be,cont!nued withi~
the greenway'with'out restriction, '..' , ' :
(il) Recognizing the need for central coordination of such greenway forthe,best interests of all ,
,the p,eople of this state, finds it necessary to place the responsibility for the coordination of the
develoDment and maintenance of such Rreenwav in the State Parks and Recreation
DeDartment.
(e) Recognizing the lack of need for the acquisition of fee title to all'lands along the Willamette
River for exclusive public use for r~creatio~al purposes in such gre'enway, finds it necessarY to
limit the area within such greenway that may be acquired for state parks and retreation'areas
and forpublic recreational use within ,the boundaries of units of local government along the
Willamette Ri\ier, [19'73c.sS8 91]"'" '...,'. " '",
" .', .
. . . .' .
~'390.322 Submission of plan to Land Conservation and Development Commission; revision,
. . , '.; -' ...,.,. ., '-.'.' ." .
approval and distri~ution of plan. (1) Following the .preparati~~ of ~~e 'plan or any segment
, . thereof uridei ORS 390.318, the State Parks and Recreation Deliartment shall submit such Dlan'
,or seliment to the Limd Conservation and DeveloDment Commission. The' commission shall
investigate and review such plan or segment'as it considers necessarY, If the c'omrriission finds
. that the 'pian or segment complies with ORS' 39Q.310 t0390.368; it .shall approve the plan 'or,
segment. If the' commission finds revision of any part of the submitted plan or segment to be
'necessary, it may revise the plan or segment itself or require such revision by the department
and units of local government. , ,
(2) Upon approval of the plan for the Willilmette River Greenway or segment thereof, the
, ,
commission shall cause copies of such plan or segment to be filed with the recording officer for
each county having lands within the Willamette Riv'er Greenway situated 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 fo'r 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.SS8 94]"
Finding #90. 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 Goal1S-Willamette River Greenway, The Metro Plan provides local coordination and
review of development that may affect the Greenway.
Finding #91. 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 DlCO on June 30, 2009,
Finding #92. 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 2-23
;)f
.
.
, , . .. . . . -',
Findk'g #93. Notice.of this project was also sent fo Sal(annah Crawford, Planner for Region 2.of
the Oregori Department of Trimsportation on July :27, 2009. The notice was c'omprlsed orthe
. . ,".' . - . -. " .
materials filed with OLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment mentioned in Findi~g #91,
. . ,'- . . '..". .. " '.
, ,
V. Conclusion and Recommendation' of Sta~
Based on the findings of staff with respect to the criteria defined in Section 5,14-135 C of the Springfield
Development 'Code and EC 9,7730(3) for approving a Metro Plan amendment'and applicable sections of' '
OAR 660-004-0022 for approving an exception to Statewide Planning Goal ,15; staff find the proposed
'text amendment tothe Metro Plan andexception'to Statewid~ Planning Goal 15 allowing the placement
of fill for the purpose ofconstructi~g the South Bank Viaduct and path facilities beneath the' WilJamette
River 1-5 Bridges, to be 'consistent with these c,riteria arid r~comme;'d ~pp;~vaI9fthe ,amendment,
VI. Attach;;'ents
.'. , ,'.' .
Atti3chment1: Metro Pl~ri text'amendment language", ,
- ". . . , ' , .
, Attachment2: Diagram showing the approximate location of the proposed South Bank Viaduct
.,','. ..-. . '. . "., . ", .
Attachment 2-24
~
. ,
.
.
Attachment 1 '
, .
The proposed text amendment adds the following ianguage to policy #D.11 of Chapterlll-'D Willamette
River Greenway. River Corridors and Waterways Element: .' .',"
, "An exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was appraved by the cities of '
Eugene and Springfield and by Lane Caunty authorizing canstruction of a bike path viaduct beneath the 1- ,
5 bridges, along the south bank of the Willamette River. ' Th'e exceptian authorizes con~truction af the
,qike path viaduct including the fill and removal offill necessary to build. the structure. This exceptian,
satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OIjR) 660-004-0022 (6/ Willametie G!'eenway and
the e!,ceptian requirements aj.OAR 660-004-0020 Gqal 2, Part II (c}fora 'reasans' exception. Pursuant,
,to OAR 660-004-0015, is hereby adopted as an amendment tp the Metra Plan text, POlicy D. 11; Chapter'
II(Section D," ,,' , .
Attachment 2-25
~7
.
.
" ..
'" .
>,
" Attachment 2
l!'
,~ 'I
::---.. '
" I"',
,)
-, ;p., ,.
.... . ""'r!' '..' " ... J
t,;;-"'. 'i '
t\ ....
:-.... ,
.~... 1.J
'-', . ....
c'
, '
...
==
''l''"'
~('
...
III I
...II
I'i'
Mi
IiI! I
\ III
Attachment 2-26
rJ1
.
.
.;."
BEFo.RE THE PLANNING CpMMISSlo.N
;.o.F THE ciTY o.F SPRINGFIELD
. .':-,
...
AN o.RDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METRo.Po.LlTAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
(METRilPLAN) TEXT, CHAPTER III, SECTlo.N' 0, Po.LlCY # 11; ADo.PTING AN EXCEPTio.N TO
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALis'To. Allo.W THE PLAWviENT o.F FILL WiTHIN THEWllLAMETTE
GREENWAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTlo.N o.F II BICYClE VIADUCT BENEATH THE WllLAMETTE RIVER
. 1-5 BRIDGES
lo.. NO.lRP2009-00005 ,,] ,
FINDINGS, Co.NClUSlo.N AND ],'
RECOMMENDATlo.N ]
NATURE o.F niEAPPlICATlo.N "
~~tr~ PI~n P61icy #D.~l .of ~haPter 111-0 (WiII~metti! RI~e':Green~ay, ~iver Ca':ridcirs arid Water
. " ". '.' . ,,' ,. , .' "".
'Ways Element) requires the taking ~f an exceptian "if a nan-water dependent transpartatiqn
, iacilityrequires placing .of fill within the WjJiarhettii Rive': Greeriwi'Y setback."Aviaduct is
, ".. " .'. ,.. ',' . " . ,., .
, prapased thatwill allaw the future develapment .of a riverfront path an the sauth bank .of the
Wii,lamette River, cannecti~g Eugene and Springfield thraugh GlenWood.' Canstructian .of the
viaduct will req~ire the placement .of fill within'the Willarriette Greenway setback! triggering the
need far the Metra Plan Amendment and GaallS exc.;ptian. The fallowing text propased for
addition ta Metro Plim Policy #0.11 .of Chapter III~D:
'~n exceptian' ta Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway was appraved by the
cities .of Eugene and Springfield and by Lane Caunty autharizing canstructian .of a bike path
viaduct beneath the 1-5 bridges, alang the sauth bank .of the Willamette River. The exception
autharizes canstructian .of the bike path viaduct including the fill and rem .oval .of fill necessary ta
build the structure. This exceptian satisfies the criteria .oj Oregan Administrative Rules (OAR)
660-004-0022 (6) Willamette Greenway and the exceptian requirements .of OAR 660-004-0020
Gaal2, Part II (c) for a 'reasans' exceptian. Pursuant ta OAR 660-004-0015, this exception is
hereby adapted as an amendment ta the Metro Plan text, Palicy D. 11, Chapter 11/, Sectian D."
1. The applicatian canfarms ta the pravisians afSectian 5.4-105 afthe Springfield
Develapment Cade. Timely and sufficient notice .of the public hearing, pursuant ta
Sectian 5.2-115 .of the Springfield Develapment Cade was provided.
2. o.n September 1, 2009 a public hearing an the prapased text amendments ta the Metro
Plan was held. The Develapment Services staff nates, including criteria .of appraval,
findings, and recammendatians, tagether with the testimony and submittals .of thase
persans testifying at the hearing .or in writing, have been cansidered and are part .of the
recard .of this proceeding.
Co.NCLUSlo.N
o.n the basis .of this recard, adaptian .of the propased text amendment ta Palicy #0.11 .of
Chapter III-Oaf the Metra Plan is cansistent with the criteria .of appraval .of Sectian 5.6-115 .of
the Develapment Code. This general finding is sup parted by the specific findings .of fact and
canclusion in the Staff Report and attached hereta.
t9'f
Attachment 3-1
.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
.I~ is RECOMMENDED by the Planning Com~issi6~ !If Springfield that Journal Number LRP2009-
OOpOS, Metro Plan Text amendment a'nd ~xception to'Statewide Planning Gci~f is, be "
, (approved), (be approved with revisions) (be denied)by'ihe Springfield City Council:
. . ' .', ~.. " . ' "',' . , '. ,.,' '. . .
This RECOM'MENDATioN was presented to and approved by th ning Commission on'
September 1, 2009. '
ATTEST:
AYES:
NOES:
, ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
.6
, 'fL-
,-z.- .
,~,,'
30
Attachment 3-2
.
.
MINUTES
i'"
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF
'EUGENE, SPiUNGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS
. . . '. '. .- , , . - '.. .. ." .
',. ":',' Springfield Library Meeting Room, ; ,,:'
, '225 Fifth Street-'--Spri~gfield . '
". 1 ' .-:
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Hledik, John Lawless.
September I, 2009
, 5 :30 p,ni.
, , 'IIIL'!!", "
" _1I1I~1'l/ijB~~' .'
Phillip Carroll, Chiiir;'Rick Dunc":,,, Randy
. " .
. ,
, .
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
maim, Vice Chair; Steve Moe, SeanVanGoidon, :;>heri M~ore:
. "~
LANE COUNTY PLANNiNG COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
~ . -' .', , '..",. , . . - "!iJjI,"~"I''';' .
Chair; Nancy Ni~hols, Joseph Siekiel-Zdzie.nicki, JohnSullivaji.
. .' .,. .' . ..
Mr. Cross convened the nie~tii1g 'and explained the joint publicI, earing process.
. . ". ' ,; . .', + .:~l.~l!:lP!':lllm';,' ". ..
'. " " ~~I"j;~:l, 1(f;'!lk';"~,, . .
Mr. Cross called the Springfield Planning ComriMsioii':to order.
, " " . ":"~II "'<.\1
. .' w~~
. ~,,,'"i.,.
M k. II d' h C PI' . C ""fflll". .
s. Ar m ca e t e Lane ounty anmng ommlsslOni,toor
" ' ' '"",'., ~:I"'IlI;l" .
,r ~I "[1m " " ~ ',1!,iI~'I, . ~mi ,r1.
. '"li"i~d!iN~fl!11.~~~i' . ~J:!I':J~I:;!~.! Mli~
Mr. Carroll called the Eugene:'Rlanmng,GommlsslOo:to order.
. "' '1 'I[!HJ;~I' .' . .
II.~'~!."::
~r"d
J~I'/!Ijl
./i"JIj;!d','
I. BUSINESS FROM,THE AUDIENGE
"""1""'[1' ':'''''''''1' 'iI
'''~i/','::JJI.I!ifJJ . rr., jiilll~l; 0"
. loJ.d""I'b'll"; 1'1'"
. -I),,, ~ II~),III,I, ";
There was no busmess from thelaudlence.
U. GISLTATIVE"PUBLIC HEARINGS
, 'Jljl:Jjjjj;/i11 "W
~!U~"~u
'f';lll,~Hi
A. Eugs~~Springfield M,,~tropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text Amendment and
Exception to Statewide'Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway for Construction of a
";'liflmll,!iIlr d.~II"l";;rr
BicYclelP-~~,~~tr:n~!~~iaduct Beneath the Willamette River 1-5 Bridge
ii#fl!~j;:I,I:I~~iI'
Mr. Cross opened testl;;;&ny for the Springfield Planning Commission and called for conflicts of interests
or ex parle contacts. There were none declared.
Ms. Arkin opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission and called for conflicts
of interest or ex parte contacts. There were none declared.
Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing for the Eugene Plami.ing Commission to order and called for
conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mr. Hledik had a potential conflict of interest with agenda item
11. A. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Text Amendment and Exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway for Construction ofa Bicycle/Pedestrian
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions- September 1,2009
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
Page 3
3/
Attachment 3-3
.
.
Viaduct Beneath the Willamette River 1-5 Bridge. He was employed by a constniction company that
could potentially bid <in th~ project:, ': ' . "
: , ..' '.' :,: ,', ", , -' " .', ' .
, Mark Met?ger, City .of Springfield staff, explained there had helm all error in the meeting location in the
,original public meeting announcement for tonight's meeting: The error had been ,corrected by sending
out new written notices and e,mail notices and himd deliveries to interested partie"s. Additionaliy; a,
ad~ertisement had been placed in the Register Guard with c~rreded infor~ation.' A sigh' ~as' posted at
Harris Hall, the site originally published; indicating the location time and location change: This matter
would be addresse'd by the Joint Elected Officials (JOE) on approximately September 22, 200'9, !lnd any
"member of the public could address the JOE at thattime. He noted the\e wer~'l~~)Y two occupied "
businesses or residences within the 300 foot notice area.' There was a 10ngeri'li~t''Qf contacts who received
information. ' , '
, Mr. Met~ger ex.plai~ed this was ~ qUaSi-judi~ial hearing, and ask~d ,tlia 't ose e~tiJying focus on the ' .'
,,' criteria for approval of Metrp Plan text amendments. l-\e said~ni~~~~ptionio pl~~l~g Goai 15 was, ',",
, under considenition: Goal 15 dealt with the Willamette Greenway. He referred to 'a'i;cnart on, the wall that
. . " '. . '" ' . ...~,t.jjf1IP'~" "., . ..'" >. . .
, explained the process for exceptions to Statewide Planningi,9"milI5. .,.,." '" ,'., ' '
" ' , . ,'," "~!'I~'II!' ,'" , , ",' , '
. . Mr. Meizg~rprovided the staff re~ort as outiin~d inth;;ll~'~~,?a ~ac~s~/th~ Eugene~Spri~gfi"'d area hacI
one of the largest networks of riverfront bicycle and pedeStrian facilities in the state. 'The current ' ,
. . _ . ,- '. . - - . .. ~''j!!jj'I1iii;'~'ilf;''';:ll' _ ;. - ,";, " .
connection between Eugene and Springfield was limited to tfie;north,side .of the Willamette River. The
ext~nsive south btirik Willamette River path system in Eugene ;~a~d'atlnterstate 5 (1'5)because of the
physical barriers created by both the existinli;r~~:"i5ti.~g~,wi,~pd the p~'Cl'*J1P~~ of Franklin Boulevard (OR
126B) to the Willamette River. Users traveling'lbetween',tne",two cities'along the south side of the
. ' ..... . ,,,i'r"~I'..: ""IJlllljl~jr~'!ii.~i"'~I~", "'!~'" ". ' "
WllIamette River must cross to the north SIde of~l;~,~ nV';"fri;~JW"lti~i:I~~r'?nQge or dIvert tothe shoulders of
Franklm Boulevard (OR 126B), a hIgh speed artenal street. '"'~@I,(iG ,
',I!I'IfI,I,!"ilhIFlli!I~I., , "11!I,",'lUIJli1iliiW
. , rlIRmi 'lii,~liJ;JiJ'!'~J,I~~~J:~:ha ~~,tr~~I! ~liJlI
Many planning documen;~"j,(~61~ding 'th,~"~entral LiaV'~4IMPO Regional TransportationPlan, TransPlan,
the Glenwood Refinement;Plan and WilIamalane Park;and Recreation District comprehensive Plan, calI
" -",1"'''"( "rl<lilT\J.r "WiJ'!jffil<, ' "
for the continuation oft~:rl';~illame;\~;!~i~,~,r.'~~8,~t~",B~~1,k Path:' from Eugen~ thr~ugh Glenwood to
Sprmgfield. Constructlonlo"tl~~ ,~,2,if,th 'Bank \:'li!~~~l)1s essential to the contmuatlon and development of
the South Bank Bath, Combih'ed,;tI1e viaduct and path wilI provide safer, more pleasant opportunities for
recreational.ail"d'W~~m1l\tter bicY~Ii'b and pedestrians traveling between Eugene and Springfield.
;J~,-:I~lmll/jl'''''''''~IlI/~!;,li!iili, 'II-iii,', '.'i~~"'~li ,iil,
'1,11!_~I,lli::II~> ilijl~~lwilll~I' 1~ltJ:II' ~),:",
11~II!lJH,j~,,1 ,1!Jlltl",~ I" '1l)1,1-\
The P,~g~!~s!ed South Bank'\ij,~g"uct w'04,J.,g,;be about 16 feet wide and 1,100 feet in length. It would
conhec(!g;,t/le South Bank Patb,;~t the point where it currently diverted away from the river. The viaduct
would ele"~l,~'~re bike/pedest~,~ path and move it away from the steep bank near the 1-5 bridge, and
return to theTi'y~,r,pank at a P?!,v,rwhere the South Bank Path could continue. The proposed viaduct
structure would'h,ug,the shoreline, minimizing its impact on the river. Some fill or supporting columns
may be placed inil1~jr!j,X"~,~~~'~'upport the viaduct as it bypassed the slope barrier. The final design for the
viaduct structure was"still 'being completed.
'!()i~
An ODOT Transportation Enhancement Grant of approximately $1 million, along with $250,000 in
Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) funds and approximately $140,000 in donated materials
would be used to fund the South Bank Viaduct project. The timing of the project would alIow reuse of
multiple concrete box beams from the WilIamette River detour bridge on the viaduct project. As the 1-5
replacement bridges were completed, and the detour bridge was removed, the South Bank Viaduct would
be constructed.
Approval of this proposed Metro Plan amendment did not negate environmental review of the project.
The South Bank Viaduct would undergo NEPA review to assess potential environmental impacts of the
final viaduct design and to secure the needed approval for construction of the structure.
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions- September 1, 2009 Page 4
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
3r-
Attachment 3-4
.
.
Ms. Moore commended st.aff for seeing the opportunity tOri1ove' forward with the project and take
advantage of the opportunities to reuse materials from the'Willamette River detour bridge. .
, ....' . '.' . .,
Mr. Kir.schenmann concurred "{ith Ms. Moore, seeing the reuse as recycling at 'iis best.,
, Mr. Cross called for public testlmony.: '
Jan Wostinann, 2645 Riven:iew Street, identified himself as the chair of the Laurelhill Valley Citizens
Association. He said the neighborhood supported the projects and urged the commissions make tlie
,necessary exception to the statewiqe planning goaid. However, he pointed()dtl~'~eficiency of the
proposal. The South Bank.bike trail did not connect to theadjacent Lau,r~ij;iti'valley neighborhood. The
association requested that ihe commissions take the necessary action to' connect.to' the viaduct and the ,
'South Bank biketrail to the Laurelhill Valley neighborhood. It waS'&'J6hg o~eri:lue conneCtion and would
.. <.":.' ' ..... , ' ' ". .: _.j, Vf/' ,~lli~fili:!!,,~. . . .
provIde a great opportUnity to remedy thIS deficIency. , ,!!p;i";"";~!I";ii"" .
. ',',-. ,,' " "', _ . . .. '/f.~~~:,:>"'~ .: ' "'~~(::~~ " . .
Responding to questions' from Planning Co,!,missioners, Mf)'Metiger referred to a map.p<i~ted on the wall
. " . .~~~ .'I"~'
entitled Proposed South B{Jnk Viaduct, He noted the '1),i,~*,i.on, tonight~~~to focus on, the\Metro Plan '
amendments. While the Metro Plan amendments before,tlie.,commissions neither supported nor opposed
, . n. . _ ". ",,~!_:....,~ .,11', -"f'
the coimectionproposed by Mr. Wostfnannn;the project \\Ias n()twithin the jlurview of the iss'ues before
the commissions tonight., He opined Mr. Wostmann's requeirfor,a1afe connection for the neighborhood
was i1~t unreasonable. . . . '.irllld~';;'/,'"nlll,"" "':::'~i::ii,~'h," '.,
. ':~i,"'l' !,:~,~,!4J~I'rh'l . '~I!~~':I'!'II'"
.' . " ",'fl 'r,~ ,".,:.ttF"""'~"~""" .' '\":!;,'::'~::.., . .
Ms. Jerome, City Attorney for the City of Euge~~, rais~d a 'point of oide<:" It appeared the commissions
had m'oved into deliberations from the public ~karing pro2es~.Sh'e encouraged the commissions to
-""C":" ,'1,,'1-", ..."J" ',;;'
conclude the public hearing and bring questions <to~'staff,during deliherations. '
. ..r!f~:i~iil"~mil!!~I.i.l!::~" 'r""III:~ti,' ,"rl~:.;.IJ .
, ~~dA ,I/.'~:H-~l,', '4:~:!l\~!;;~ 'i",UI:J"':_~'~'"
Mr. Cross called for additiorlal 'iestimdny.', There ,;ias'no one wishing to offer additional testimony.
',<:'5.rr' ,: \ ",'~
Mr. Cross closed the t~~ii~~ny and thilVr~~ord, for the\i:Jtingfield Planning Commission.'
'i:llij~'m~I.7~, .!#:j!,';,ll:;'I':i;fl""'~,"'. """""'I,"'I1:nII''"' .. "I.'.' - , ,
"l"l't~"'" l' "ij""jC",,'" I' ,,"u "","
", i'", "~~', , .'~' '1{ t- ...- " - " ~L::.: ,:.L Ii..
Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing and the reco:d for the Eugene Planning Commission.
~. ';;, "'~;"~,, :.,' ~:: I, ~,'~;I'\ '''~~~';' :;,..~!:::.,
Ms. Arkin' clO'S'ed the public'heari'ngland the record for the Lane County Planning Commission.
".,.'w';r;;~}v '~~;j!~i~w;rl/o" ....:;;J~"'r:~',:!I;,,'
{'I' -:' ",' ", '..
In response to a question frdm Mr. Ca';:oll, Mr. Metzger eXplained the proposed amendment language had
been reviewboby legal counsM.from the three jurisdictions.
~I~ F"~~f:';:ilmff~'
'I 1~:I~illjii~'l', ..~~H~fii/1
Ms. Arkin hop~d"slaffwould be able to assist the citizens of Laurelhill Valley to find similar special
~", ,"""'.-'" , ,'-', II'-"'-
funding to improveilliblic safety for the residents.
, ',~ ',',:;.)./"
''41,:'11''
Mr. Hledik found the findings well written and more than adequately addressed the criteria.
Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the Eugene Planning Commis-
sion recommend to the City Council a text amendment to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan that added the following language: An excep-
tion to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willarnette River Greenway was approved by .
the cities of Eugene and Springfield and by Lane County authorizing construc-
tion ofa bike path viaduct beneath the 1-5 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 excep-
tion satisfies the criteria of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-004-
MINUTES-joint Planning Commissions- September 1,2009 Page 5
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
:)3
Attachment 3-5
.
.
. .
0022(6) Willamette' Greenway and the ~xception requirements of OAR '660-004-
00 IS, this exception is hereby adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan text,
Policy D. 11. Chapter Ill, Section D. The motion: passed unanim~us.ly, 4:0. .. .
Mr. N~i?le, ~econded by Mr. Siekfel-Zdzienicki, moved that theLaiIe County
Planning Comp1issi<?n recomI]'Iend to the Lane County Board of County Com-
. missioners (BCe) a text amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plim that addect the following language: An exception to Statewide
Planning Goal IS Willarnette River Greenway was appro~ed by the cities.of Eu,
gene and Springfield and by Lane County authodzin~,\s~))struction of a bike path
viaquct beneath the 1-5 bridges, along the south ba,?~;,?fthe Willamette R!ver.
'The exception authorizes construction of the bi~e;'p~.th viaductinCluding the fill
and~e~oval of fill necessary .to build the strJi.s,!W"e~&:[h!,~ exception satisfies the.
cdteda ofOrego'n Administrative Rules (OAR) 660:004'0022(6) Willamette
. . . . ... . ' . ' -'JIIIW' . . 'r.111;~,",;11"-. .", ",
preerl\"ay and t~e exc~ption require)Tl~.!lJ~,,9f OAR, 660'09#,,2~ 15, this exception
,IS hereby adopted as a,:,~mend~e?!."lg':~i~e M~tro Plan te~t,'llohcy D. II, Chapter
Ill, SectIOn D. 'The motIOn passed,;unammously, 5:0. '. '.' .. .'
':', ."",,,,0' :..',., ";'j/IJ~r~iW?w..... "I"";"~':""< ',', ',':." "
. '.... . . . ,.!4/WfJiE' ""~r:f"~:W~' . I'.
Mr. Kirschenmann, seconded byiiMs. Moore/moved that the City Of Spdngfield
. Planning Commission re~oinine~aY~jJP,<,;,,~o/i~gfield. City Co~ncil appro~al of
File No. LRP 2009-.00005; the proposediMetro Plan text amendment adding'a
. . " . ,11-' . ."'>I:'lt~fflli'~",' , . . '"
Goal 15 exception to,policy 0.11 of Chapter, Ill, Section D. for the purpose of al-
"!iI~I!lI",';"'~~llrl"~.. .' , . JI~imll;tirifi,: .
lowing fill to be place"d within!the' Willarnette,Greenway for the construction of
. .' . - '-!~ifI-~!I" ""'lli:mi~NJiiMilr"" . ''fiiJi!~~i:ijll<,:. " "
. the South Bank Vlad'!Ft: The.mg,tron,passed un\lplmously, 5:0.
. . i/(llll,li," ,"'I"~II',IM'~"il!i'Ii!""" , 'W' . , .
"'I"'" r.~'~I.J,""I~I, "",",' I'"
. , '~, ~,j;ffl "I~illm!" I JIi,,111,,;!!i :I(,r.l!ll'~
Mr. Cross announced this concluded the public lieiiring1;ror the Williimette Greenway.
'1Ir!lf!l1fil!filiiB#!/;i",rN~,'II,""", ' ' '~I~i"!i'~~M,'I!'iIi~ffP'" ,
j~~mff~;,-j!~I'"j~I'i1W!!ii~~~f: . 1)i~fJiMr
B. Metro Plan Text X:n~;dmerit~:lt;INew Po~~lation Forecasts for Eugene and Springfield
'1)~,~hiE~iI' . .Ii~liW~r 'Iti!,i'rlr~:~~" '
,~rt''i ill!,"i'- 11!1!~1"~' . 'J~1illlllll,
Mr. Cross opened testiifi,9"DY for the ~B,pi)gfj,~I,~,~lanni;rg,Commission.
"ff~~~~I~;;';ili ,ill/!ii)!;N\'tlt:II:::JI,I!lIII'Ii/.!'~ ~~~J'LII'rm~rll~l!II!J ~
Ili~iil':,iJtillll "H,lliHI)J~IP)I1' . . , I ,-~, ~'I ,,~'iPJiili~p~
Ms. Arkin opened the public'heffiihg for the Lane County Planning Commission.
,';llI.;""~JII"" "1'1'11''' .
""l~IJ:!JfJil;TI',;m~r:'iiiU!/ilMi!lrl~~~"r, ,114jJ/}WI!P'"
j;li~i!JIll~I..-" "~i!lil;'IIHliP''I: . lJiiii';'!,:iiiIJ"l .. .
Mr. Carr()l\i,opened the pubhc heanng,for the Eugene Plannmg CommIssIon.
IJ~'1,:lr!!~,"'J~'" 'J~liifllffr!iJ!\,',','.h" ""iiiiijH!Ii!I';~ '
Jf,~'u::llln~" 'W#liiW,~~ '~~mjl~:l~ti-
GregMQ.l,!"i,rlanning Director:,{~,r the City of Springfield, offered the staff report. He introduced Jason
Deddck, 'Cify;of Eugene PlanIling Department and Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director.
Mr. Mott di~tirj;iJted and revi~'W~d the following handouts:
"~I!i'mj'mlli!, I.lIiI"i'I~JI'
. Ch:o~oIO~~iig:k:~!p,;9pulation forecast events.
. EXlstmg ProRoseo Plan Text.
"Ni!il'llIiiWflljl'
. Memorandurii~ated September I, 2009 to City of Spdngfield, Eugene, and Lane County Plan-
ning Commissions from Greg Mott, Kent Howe, and Carolyn Weiss, subject TransPlan Horizon
Year.
The City of Eugene, City of Spdngfield and Lane County were proposing amending the Metro Plan
by adding separate population forecasts for each city and their urban growth area. The forecasts were
prepared by Lane County pursuant to the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.036 and
were recently adopted into the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Metro Plan
text amendments implemented stated population forecasting and land use planning statutes by provid-
ing separate coordinated population forecasts for the Eugene and Springfield jurisdictional areas of
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
MINUTES'---Joint Planning Commissions- September 1,2009
City of Eugene, City of Spdngfield, Lane County
Page 6
3~
Attachment 3-6
. .
.
.
Mr. Mott entered into the record the Portland State Univershy (PSU) study. He noted the staff report
. w~ part of the rec.ord and included ihe findings adopted by the BeC in support of their amendment to
the rural comprehensive plan. ' ' ,
Mr. cross called for public' t~stimony.
Michael Farthing, P.6:Box 10166, Eugene, represented Gordon Webb, who owned about 600 acres
on the southeast edge ()f Springfield. Mr. Webb and Mr. Farthing were involved in the urban growth
boundary (UGB) process and the population forecast was essential to theUGE,l process. H'e asked
what would happen if the December 31 for House Bill (H.B.) 3337 compliance deadline was' not met.
. He asked for a c~py of the complete findings. He noted in the text <)r~h~!6Ian amendment, the term
"urban transition area" was used. He was not familiar wiih the teni\'':~jfd'ksked for clarification. He ·
also requested clarification or the hinguage.in the text which reaf.i"ln th{~'v~n.t that either city needs
to 'provide a forecast for a planning period 'that begins after 20] O,'that city' shim'oetermine the 20 year
, - . . " , ., . .' 1iH1!''',llj't.. , "'~i~r".''''ljI'' . . .' .
forecast by adding 20 percent of the 2030-2035 total pOP,l!lalion increment for ea~liyear beyond
2030:" He did not understand why there was a 2030 fig'l!l~"and 2035 figure, and th\itlght it was a 20'
" - . " . , - . .. ~ ''''., -' '. '.' - .\~,,,,.. . , ..
year period from 2010. He was struck by the precision 'of the population forecaSt, asserting "nothing
could be that precise." He wished thefigur~s wer~~1f~~~r>' }1<~dd";,d thattti~ numb~rs,in the 2030
, column, 2] ],783 and 81,608, did not'add up to the existing, forecast in the Metro Plan of 286,000 by
,_.' ' . '<1.'.1.,..,.,.-,. ..' . .
20]5, and questioned the consistency of the figures in the'~urrent Metro Plan and the PSU study. He
, assumed the psG study arid what the planning commission~~~'~re being asked to adopt was an .
. . . _ . ~'''1;''~1'I';';1f" .:1)'1.. . . _ "'i."IJ'~I'"ij\C . '. '
amendment to the Metro Plan and the 288,0,00',figu.~~.~as invaIiCl,~2 inaccurate an,d would go away.
Mr. Farthing generally agreed with the findings 'on'Attachment I :8, Urbanization, Goal] 4, but he
thought the population forecast wasdirectly~:,~]ated)<l,~6a!;1"1;;!!I'~'~ 'aSserted the finding language that
said "the proposed amendment,to,page 1-] is 'consistent with 'these statutes and with OAR 660.024"
~lllrH""'" .(,', . "', ,'- ,j..,....,.. ,L 'r .
was a conclusion and not.fin.dings: ,He looked fOI)Vard to following the process as it wound its way
through the various govJming bodies., \, ::
'. '411:'Q;~II~:i.!!'l' , ';I'II;~lilj;l '%r,;i'~\II\, ','
.J1;,/fffr:rl ", "",,'J I' 'I' ~,l'
Mr. Sullivan expressed ,,-oncemthai M~, fart.hingl),!d a number of questions and Mr. Sullivan did not
know whether they we~e, all germane to the;d,iic'Q~sion. He asked if staff could respond to those
questions duringdeliberat!o~;;r'" . "'/
1,,:~I'U,I;:IIIIIII'I!!Ifr"HlW~~'., 1IjIIfflrl!!II~.l!,
Noting{h~i~:~:'~;ri~:~'ther~~~bers of the public wishing to speak, Mr. Cross closed the public
testi~o~y for the CitY bfSpringfield.\
1;"',l """.'11 "''fl'U'-
Ms.'p;'rkin closed the pulJlic,hearing'for Lane County.
.\.' ,."fiI'r. V'III;~~
"l~~'f~::\.'", ) !,,'.Ij
Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing for the City of Eugene. He asked if there was a reason to keep
the record'bp~n'"" ,.'
I mlJi~~~~i!JIfuJ.: ~
"', . '" '^'~ ., /
Mr. Mott saw no"legal reason to keep the record open if commissioners needed no additional informa-
tion. .,
Mr. Mott addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Farthing.
Question: What happened if the cities of Eugene and Springfield did not complete the requirement
for H.B. 3337?
Answer: Ms. Jerome responded the statute did not specific a remedy so it would be the standard
remedy under the law, which staff believed would be for someone to file a writ in Circuit Court to
make the cities comply. She added that everyone was on track to complete the work and staff had
every reason to believe both jurisdictions would comply with H.B. 3337 within the timeframe.
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions- September], 2009 Page 7
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
~5
Attachment 3-7
. '
.
.
Question: ,What did the tenn "urban transition area" mean?
, Answer: 'Referring to the handout entitled Existing'Proposed Pl~n Text, Mr, Mott explained'
staff was "recommending the tables included in the handout with figures for each ofthe years be-
tween 2030 and 2035 to facilitate the completion qfthe~e projects without need to make addition-
al amendments to the Metro Plan text", as noted on the handout. ,He noted the tenn Metro Urban
Area was used on the handout rather than Urban Transition Area. Metro Urban Area referred to
the are~ between a land area between the city limits and the UGB. PSU had developed popula-
, tion figures forthe Metro Urban Areas. Siaffwas proposing that the .l~i,)r!Urban Transition Area
be'replaced with the tenn, Metro Urban Area. ' .,", I)'" ' , '
. '. '. .'. "~1:~!";"{'
tvlr. Howe eXplained that there was, a Trans~l~n RTP requir~l1:1~;~,!,th~ll'I~,~uld be off by five years.
Thus, the contract WIth PSU covered an addltlona] five y;ar~.~". "I~~:t'l", .
. . " .: . , . ,.-r,..',. ." :. . '~';l,;, "" .",.
Question: What did "]n the event that either city needs }O:pfovide a forecast for,:~ B,lanning period,
that begins after 20] 0, that city shall determine the 20.y~ar'forecast by adding 20 per~ent of the 2030-
, '" , '," _ '" . . _d,.,....:.."..,w. ", "'JI,',rl'p~:l));,. .
2035 total population increment for e~ch year beY~~~;~030': refe~:!~;\(",i
"" . : .' "j{.j"..-',,'~...' . .(;I,'~-j}" : . .
Answer: Mr. Mott explained the 20 percent so]ution:referred to in the text "In the event that ei-
. . , ' " .' . -iIIWVr-1ll.',," ::.,,1' ","," , .' .
ther city needs to provide a forecast for a planning pefiodthat begins after 20 10, that city shall
. ' . .. . _' ,,'P.~., .-,,"1\ .
detennine the 20 year forecast by adding 20 percent of the 2030-2035 total population increment
for each year beyond 2030" referr~dio'th~'mathematical't6rirtula 'representing five years, and al-
. , ,,~, "''- ''':,',:,i. ,'I,~"_' . '..! I' ':', , .
I~cating 20 percent to each of t~e ye~~~(" A Ithou~2,;,F',.~M,would,~h,.ave addressed the mathematics
differently, the 20 percent solution proposed by.,staff,.was'feasonable.
.' . A.-I~_"~ I',', .. .'~'Jt',~,.~~;,~,;):,"~Y ""~il:'J"":'!j;i':I!lir
Question: What caused the ,change, i[l the Metro plan population figure of 286,000?
A" I":'" ,,''C,~: "', I, ,\
"~'I;JV "\'~ 1, ' ,hll':'
ANiL'W'J.ij';: '-,"",''. '/f.,;,,,,!,
Answer: Mr. Mottsaid the 286,000 figure diilgo away. That population forecast was used dur-
ing periodic r~~l~(\, in ] 995 ror a20 year ~laJr~ The planning horizon was changing beyond 20] 5,
and new projecti6nswere.!Jeing used. I ','
'''It;I,,.' ;}','~:":""i'k~;:;i-'f" .......,..,j, .
Ir,!{,1iWii,;";i!lr;;I#"~r". '1I1iJgrgl,'ri,ll,rf..~'
Questiqll~)~elat,~,:t?:?~aI'] ~:fin,dings.
,(Ii "-, ':,"
,,',Il,nswer: Mr. Mott'said the findi,ngs were perfected through the public hearing process. Hearings
'<,M"e not static and ~!liDJect to change based upon additional infonnation. The JEOs would adopt
'~ 'i''''','' . 'I".", ~'I
the findings although it was the job of the planning commissions to make recommendations to the
JEOs.b'ased on findin~ and public testimony they receive. He added the rule was unequivocal.
The i~vbriio!y could'nM be validated for a 20 year period without a population forecast.
~~I,W!~I~il:i~:;'J~~'fi'~'~
]n response to a quesiion from Mr. Noble, Mr. Mott said the findings which Mr. Farthing thought
were incomplete w"e~e those adopted by the BCC in the PSU report and coordinated figures.
Ms. Jerome added said the findings were a matter of public record and had been adopted by Lane
County. A more complete version would be provided to the elected officials.
Ms. Brotherton eXplained the information before the commissioners was intended to be heads up and
provide an opportunity for the commissioners to add clarification if they so choose. She noted in
April 2009, the joint planning commissions held a public hearing and recommended to elected offi-
cials that they adopt some amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan as part of the work plan
approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). The work plan required
that the planning horizon of TransPlan be adjusted to get in more in line with what it actually planned
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions- September 1, 2009 Page 8
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
J~
Attachment 3-8
). ..,.
. .
for. It planned (or a population for the transportation study area. Sh~ displayed a map which illu-
strated the transportation st~~y area: ," " ' ,
, .
, Responding toa question frqm Mr, Hledik, Ms. Jerome explained on Goal 8 t,hat'the City of Eugene.
: PROS comprehensiye plan had not yet been adopted and therefore there was intentionally ilOlrefe- .
'renced in the curren,t process: The Goal I I firidings c~uld be updated based on ~o~m'issioners'
.' comments from this meeting before the issue went to the City Council. She added there would be
further discussions 'on Goal I I through the Eugene Comprehensive Lands (ECLA) process. '
, ,
. "
R'e'sp~nding to questions from Mr. VanGofdori, Mr. Mott expjai~ed that the'.:variation between the
. .', '. .' ~r~i~,"!ilWI' ':.
five year increments was irrelevant. Mr. Mott added that the term "safe, harbor", as referred to by the
~ivision of Land Conservation and Oeveiopment (OLCO) director, wg~l~til'~ :'presumed, constant
. . '. " .". -~~.
portionality": He noted OLeo staff thought the safe har~or m"t9$;!':~id:,,~gl'liadequately track the
changes thatocciJrr~d in population niovements due toagingan~,i,$itl\er .fac\9;l,~;" Mr. M?tt a~d~d ,
, relymg on portlonalJty of72 percentfor Eugene and 28 pe.r,~~ntforSprmgfiel~I'\:Y,~ a slmpIJstlc' . "
. appr~ach th~t the,st~te w~: willing to acce~t in the circu~,i~~1\:Ses where. citie~ ({;~f~ji"r. crisis ~ndh~d
to have a populatIOn forecast and the countIes were notl'llctmg as needed. Safe harbor;,~as premIsed
", ':". ., . . '", ., '. - , _ '. ,':J~j!j:"W:jj!" " ,. .._ "<tl'~rH;:~~I'!" . .'_ '
~n theexi~ting ~)E~ population forecast for Lalie, ~2Mlity in 203~"I~'i;g~ 434,000: PS8.;,md ?EA .
agfl;ed that was. no longer accurate, assertmg the Lan~igcRunty PRPljlatlOn would b, 420,000 m 2030.'
" . . '. . . '.' -.. ' ' . . "~I!"lJI"iii'''k' " . -W!"~"~I"'~' . . ",. . .
The ongmal premise of attempting to calculate the con's!.~.,)~B9'1Jo~alJty had been ~atcheted down. If
. the 420,000 figure had been used, the safe' harbor numb.rr~iwo'ITld have been even smaller: ' "
,.' .,.. . !m'~" ' . ":n,~IVj~:il " " . ,
.rill":ll!'!"'" 'l!i~ili~JlI ,'IN "
. . . , ,"'. ':,,'!lI!ii ,', 'J",,:mlli,~"".~1 " - ' .' '. . "ilfli.,t.&,:!l ;;" " . . , ' .
. ". .' ~r. Duncan, second!;~i~YttX,1.~~!i:lI~"\,~~lk, move~~g\~ecommend that the eJected offi-
ctals approve the Metr~;rlan am.~,p"~,');)~nt shoW1);,~;m page I of the staff memoran-
dum, with the amendments recomm~ni:lea..in theprovided hand-out'(specifically,
. ;~~r''', ,,"""F~'" "~",l!/ll1::ffl'''Hrn&I!I1>''. ,
the am~~~q,!JI,~~!S adding\~~,~I~~~~out for'Yei\r~ 203 1,2032,2033, and 2034; and
repl'~nWg;tlie:$;~fml "Urban,il~~rnSltI~n ~rea" Wlt~ the term "Metro Urban Area")
b~l;l~~leting th~,;~~t sentenS:~IXrom the am~ndments recommended in the provided
,,:}lani:l-out (beginning with: "l6't.he event. . ."). The motion passed unanimously,
~*~rO .... ,'l~jlllllj,
'!'~ij'~'''I'"''~'I'' rq~'il~
1,'1~[II/.f! " u
"'~I!~I!!/ffi\:, .
Mr.'NoD , econded by Ms. Nichols, moved to recommend that the elected offi-
. -'~llliUiiIiiHIi'.
clals app,~~,X~, the Metro Plan amendment shown on page I of the staff memoran- ,
. urn, witli th'c"amendments recommended in the provided hand-out (specifically,
;'!(!!fWfiJ1!I11.. ":;i!il;h':~
tlie:amendments"adding the break-out for years 203 1,2032, 2033, and 2034; and
reprn;~!:Q.~ the t'~:~; "Urban Transition Area" with the tenn "Metro Urban Area")
but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended in the provided
han..d./o.".TIt (beginning with: "In the event. c'),
,il,iI~~W~li"
.oJI'i'~,lil.J'
Ms. Arkin said she,.\'Iould"~Jpport the motion but found the term Metro Urban Area confusing, She
"'IJi"~liIi):N'IJ1f~"I"
wished to have it furtli~ti.clarified when it was brought forward to elected officials.
i
The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Ms, Moore, seconded by Mr. Kirschenmann, moved to recommend that the
elected officials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page I of the staff
memorandum, with the amendments recommended in the provided hand-out
(specifically, the amendments adding the break-out for years 203 I, 20,32, 2033,
and 2034; and replacing the term "Urban Transition Area" with the term "Metro
Urban Area") but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended
in the provided hand-out (beginning with: "In the event. . ."). The motion passed
unanimously, 5:0.
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions~ September I, 2009 Page 9
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
07
Attachment 3-9
.. of'
.
.
Mr, Noble, seconded by Ms, Nichols, moved that the'Lan!"CoGnty Planning
Commission close the 'record. The mot!on passed ,!nanimou~ly, 5:0,
.' '.'
. . , ,
Mr. Duncan, seconded' byMr. Lawless, moved that the Eugene Planning Com~
. mission' close 'the record. The motiorl passed unanimously, 4:0. '
'.' . ':. ,'." . .
Mr. Kirschenmann, seconded by Mr. VanGordon, moved that the Springfield
Planning Commission close ihe record.. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0,
,,4i'!lIr. ,. .
. . '. . ',,'I,',tll\!li'I'I~!,r, .
Mr. Carroll, moved to recommend, that based on the)p'lanning Commission's
re~omniended population forecasts, the amenil;lHi~'1~'~to TransPlananil the Metro
. .", . . ..'''mi'l''miffff~i~' . .
Plan recommended to the Eugene City CounciI(Boar(j,of County Commissioners
. . '. . 1ilij~:n~IIi#" '~r: ';iil'F~"; . -'" .
on ^.pril 7;2009, be adjusted to refleCt the'Q,~"\v populari<in numbers. There was
~os~cond to the motion.
Follo~ing a.brief discussiori,Mr:Hledik ~oncl~dea ;hat he:was co~f0l1able moving fo~"r1d ~iththe
.'motion'without holdi,!g an additional public he"ring: . , :' ila.! .., '-: ~4l$W . ,
, .,'... .... 'I~'
.. t~P
Mr. Siekiel-,Zdzienicki cohcurreqan adqitionaI public heartn,~ils'{I;.gil~eeded. ". .
Mr: Hledik ~ali~dthequestion. ",
:Mr. Lawles,s, seconde~lI:jJlw,Y' r. "'.'I,',"!ii:qJ:~~'l<<moved;'t"mirecommend, that bas~d OD the.
Planning Commission',s"'lecomineriiliiilpopulation forecasts; the amendments to
l~!m'r.", . nlJ1m'ImII'"" ~",",ml'- ""1111';1""
TransPJ.~!}'I~gthe Metrii;r.~e,~"f,~commendea to the Eugene City Council on April
7, 2009ft:be'adjiIsted to reflecHhe new population nu'mbers. The motion passed
,]llfII!";ii:fff" "'If_B!il1ill', '-.
unanlmousIY,4,g,
ffi'rJiI,!1
r. Siekiel-Z&ii'enicki secon eo by Mr. Noble moved to recommend that
''':.'1/1i1l11ili!~ ,~:JNlllllr"lr:,'I~;:~:,.I':"f"l~jl~"WIJlrnm-',,_ .-'~W', ' . '
based ,on tliej:Plannmg,C;:omrrJlsslOn's recommended populatIOn forecasts, the
"ilifijjjil~eI'll~illllli" """""i!ltl~IID!I'
amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan recommended to the Board of
"ij'l!llfP1"lfiI
,g,$lunty,Commissioners on April 7, 2009, be adjusted to reflect the new popula-
iioh"numbe The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
"lII,1/i1I"'~'1I1 '
"'~' 'II,.
~III "l'i,',,'1 .
.1',,);1'1 ..
Mr. Kirschenmann, seconded by Mr. VanGordon, moved to recommend, that
baseJ'!~~ the Planning Commission's recommended population forecasts, the
J'~r:r;!i
amep,g,wents to TransPlan and the Metro Plan recommended to the Springfield
~,jlii~!founcil on April 7, 2009,. be adjusted to reflect the new population num-
be~s.' The motIOn passed unammously, 5:0.
Mr. Cross adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:12009 minutesljoint planning commissions 090901.doc
MINUTES-Joint Planning Commissions- September 1,2009
City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County
1;f
Attachment 3-10
Page 10