Ordinance No. 20234 Exhibit C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

acknowledged. As such, they comply with the statewide planning goals and do not now need a new or revised exception or further analysis under the Transportation Planning Rule. Their description here to demonstrate compliance with this section of the Trans- portation Planning Rule is not intended to suggest that an additional exception would otherwise be required. OAR 660-012-0065(5) For transportation uses or improvements listed in sub- section (3)( d) to (g) and (0) of this rule within an exclusive farm use (EFU) or forest zone, a jurisdiction shall, in addition to demonstrating compliance with the requirements of ORS 215.296: (a) Identify reasonable build design alternatives, such as alternative alignments, that are safe and can be constructed at a reasonable cost, not considering raw land costs, with available technology. Until adoption of a lo- cal TSP pursuant to the requirements of OAR 660-012-0035, the jurisdiction shall consider design and operations alternatives within the project area that would not result in a substantial reduction in peak hour travel time for proj- ects in the urban fringe that would significantly reduce peak hour trav.el time. A determination that a project will significantly reduce peak hour travel time is based on OAR 660-012-0035(10). The jurisdiction need not con- sider alternatives that are inconsistent with applicable standards or not ap- proved by a registered professional engineer; (b) Assess the effects of the identified alternatives on farm and forest practices, considering impacts to farm and forest lands, structures and facili- ties, considering the effects of traffic on the movement of farm and forest ve- hicles and equipment and considering the effects of access to parcels created on farm and forest lands; and (c) Select from the identified alternatives, the one, or combination of identified alternatives that has the least impact on lands in the immediate vi- cinity devoted to farm or forest use. , :: - ..~:. . '. It" The realignment of Greenhill Road near the Eugene Airport (Project 486), the realign- ment of the McVay Highway (project 297) and the realignment of a short section of Jas- per Road (as part of Project 66, Jasper Road Extension) constitute realignments of high- ways allowed under OAR 660-0 12-0065(3)(d). The proposal to relocate McVay Highway from the area of Bloomberg to 30th Avenue (Project 297) is a realignment of a road authorized by OAR 660-012-0065(3)(d). The agricultural land to the west of the present location of McVay Highway over which the highway will be relocated is not currently in active agricultural use. The proposed relo- cation is necessary to allow other modifications to McVay Highway and the I-5/30th Ave- nue interchange (project 257) and to allow traffic approaching Lane Community College (LCC) from McVay Highway to have direct access to the college from the traffic signal at 30th Avenue and Eldon Schafer Drive. It improves the spacing of the intersection from 1- 5 as suggested by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. The present location of the intersec- Exhibit C 42 Findings in Support of the Adoption of TransPlan