Item 1: Ordinance on Oregon West Management

Home Browse Search

The applicant states on pages 17-20 of the written statement that the mitigation is proposed under OAR 660-0l2-0060(2)(e), and also under OAR 660-012-0060(3) if the City chooses to invoke subsection (3). Based on the applicant's '1'IA and supplemental materials, statT finds that the proposed mitigation measures will not bring the signitkantly affected facility (River Road at Husaker/Irving) up to the identified function, capacity and perfonnance standards of the facility by the end of the planning period. Specifically, in order to demonstrate compliance vvith OAR 660- 012-0060(1) (as required by subsection (2)(e)), the applicant mllst provide enough mitigation to increase the performance of the intersection up to the minimum standard identified by Lane County, 0.85 vie. The proposed mitigation, as shown in Table 8 of the TIA (page 33), only improves the performance of the intersection to 1.19 vie. Accordingly, the applicant's proposed mitigation measures do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1) and OAR 660-012-0060(2)(e). However, as previously noted, the City may still approve the proposed amendment if the applicant demonstrates compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(3). This provision states that a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and perfonnance standards if the applicant can demonstrate compliance v,rith the five requirements of subsection (3)(a) through (e) below. Findings addressing compliance with these requirements are provided belm\'. OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a) Thejacility is already performing below the minimum acceptable performance standard ident{fied in the TSP or comprehensive plan on the date the amendment application is submitted; Consistent with this subsection, River Road at HunsakerlIrving is currently performing at 0.91 vlc, which is below the acceptable performance standard of 0.85 vie, as demonstrated in the applicant's TIA in Table 7 (page 29). OAR 660-012-0060(3)(b) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency 'with the identifiedfunction, capacity or pel:!'ormance standard/or thatfcleilify by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted r:)p: As shown in the applicant's analysis in the TIA, in the absence of these amendments, the planned facilities, etc., would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the perfonnance standard of the facility by the end of the planning period, consistent with this subsection. OAR 660-012-0060(3)(c) Development resultingfrom the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts o.fthe amendment in a manner that a1'oidsjurther degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or mea.'>Ures; Under this subsection, development resulting from the proposed amendment must mitigate the impacts of the amendments in a manner that avoids further degradation of the transportation facility by the time of development, which is anticipated by the applicant to be 2008. To address this Staff Findings ~ October 8, 2007 Page II